legal, institutional, and economic indicators of …legal, institutional, and economic indicators of...

Legal, Institutional, and Economic Indicators of Forest Conservation and Sustainable Management:

Review of Information Available for the United States

Legal, Institutional, and Economic Indicators of Forest Conservation and Sustainable Management:

Review of Information Available for theUnited States

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

A Technical Document Supporting the USDA Forest Service 2005 Update of the RPA Assessment

A Technical Document Supporting the USDA Forest Service 2005 Update of the RPA Assessment

FOREST SERVICE

The Authors

Paul V. Ellefson, Professor, Calder M. Hibbard, Research Specialist, andMichael A. Kilgore, Assistant Professor, respectively, University ofMinnesota, Department of Forest Resourcees, St. Paul, MN 55108; andJames E. Granskog, Project Leader, USDA Forest Service, SouthernResearch Station, New Orleans, LA 70113.

Cover photo: Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Ternnessee.

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

July 2005

Southern Research StationP.O. Box 2680

Asheville, NC 28802

DISCLAIMER

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

PESTICIDE PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENT

This publication reports research involving pesticides. It does not contain recommendations for their use, nor does it imply that the uses discussed here have been registered. All uses of pesticides must be registered by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies before they can be recommended.

CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, desirable plants, and fish or other wildlife if they are not handled or applied properly. Use all herbicides selectively and carefully. Follow recommended practices for the disposal of surplus pesticides and their containers.

�

Legal, Institutional, and Economic Indicatorsof Forest Conservation and Sustainable Management:Review of Information Available for the United States

Paul V. Ellefson, Calder M. Hibbard,Michael A. Kilgore, and James E. Granskog,

Editors

��

��

ContentsPage

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

Review and Evaluation Process .......................................................................................................................................... 1Major Findings and Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 6Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................................................... 7

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

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

Rationale and Interpretation ............................................................................................................................................... 11Conceptual Background...................................................................................................................................................... 11Current Legal Capacity ....................................................................................................................................................... 13Issues and Trends ................................................................................................................................................................ 18Information Adequacy ........................................................................................................................................................ 19Indicator Appropriateness ................................................................................................................................................... 20Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................................................... 21Appendix—Federal Statutes with Implications for Usufructory Rights and Restrictions on Federal Land .................. 23

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

Rationale and Interpretation ............................................................................................................................................... 24Conceptual Background...................................................................................................................................................... 24Current Legal Capacity ....................................................................................................................................................... 26Issues and Trends ................................................................................................................................................................ 39Information Adequacy ........................................................................................................................................................ 40Indicator Appropriateness ................................................................................................................................................... 41Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................................................... 42

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

Rationale and Interpretation ............................................................................................................................................... 44Conceptual Background...................................................................................................................................................... 44Current Legal Capacity ....................................................................................................................................................... 45Issues and Trends ................................................................................................................................................................ 51Information Adequacy ........................................................................................................................................................ 53Indicator Appropriateness ................................................................................................................................................... 54Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................................................... 55Appendix—U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Requirements for Public Participation Processes

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

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

Rationale and Interpretation ............................................................................................................................................... 62Conceptual Background...................................................................................................................................................... 62Current Legal Capacity ....................................................................................................................................................... 63Issues and Trends ................................................................................................................................................................ 71Information Adequacy ........................................................................................................................................................ 72Indicator Appropriateness ................................................................................................................................................... 75Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................................................... 75

��

Page

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

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

Rationale and Interpretation ............................................................................................................................................... 79Conceptual Background...................................................................................................................................................... 79Current Institutional Capacity ............................................................................................................................................ 80Issues and Trends ................................................................................................................................................................ 90Information Adequacy ........................................................................................................................................................ 91Indicator Appropriateness ................................................................................................................................................... 94Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................................................... 94Appendix A—Private Organizations Engaged in Public Education Activities

Involving Forest Resources (2002) ................................................................................................................................ 96Appendix B—Periodicals Conveying Information About Use, Management, and

Protection of Forest Resources (2002) .......................................................................................................................... 97Appendix C—Federal Agency Programs Containing Educational Elements Relevant to

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

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

Rationale and Interpretation ............................................................................................................................................... 99Conceptual Background...................................................................................................................................................... 99Current Institutional Capacity ............................................................................................................................................ 101Issues and Trends ................................................................................................................................................................ 113Information Adequacy ........................................................................................................................................................ 114Indicator Appropriateness ................................................................................................................................................... 115Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................................................... 115

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

Rationale and Interpretation ............................................................................................................................................... 118Conceptual Background...................................................................................................................................................... 118Current Institutional Capacity ............................................................................................................................................ 119Issues and Trends ................................................................................................................................................................ 130Information Adequacy ........................................................................................................................................................ 131Indicator Appropriateness ................................................................................................................................................... 133Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................................................... 133Appendix A—Selected Colleges, Universities, and Technical Schools with Professional, Technical, or

Pre-Professional Education in Forestry or Related Natural Resources, 2001 ............................................................. 136Appendix B—Private Organizations Providing Continuing Education Opportunities Involving

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

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

Rationale and Interpretation ............................................................................................................................................... 139Conceptual Background...................................................................................................................................................... 139Current Institutional Capacity ............................................................................................................................................ 141Issues and Trends ................................................................................................................................................................ 146Information Adequacy ........................................................................................................................................................ 147Indicator Appropriateness ................................................................................................................................................... 149Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................................................... 149

�

Page

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

Rationale and Interpretation ............................................................................................................................................... 151Conceptual Background...................................................................................................................................................... 151Current Institutional Capacity ............................................................................................................................................ 152Issues and Trends ................................................................................................................................................................ 166Information Adequacy ........................................................................................................................................................ 167Indicator Appropriateness ................................................................................................................................................... 169Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................................................... 169Appendix A—Presidential Executive Orders Representing Enforcement Actions Relevant to

Forest and Related Resources, 1961-2000 .................................................................................................................... 171Appendix B: Appendix table B.1—Provisions of major enforceable State laws to control nonpoint source

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

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

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

Rationale and Interpretation ............................................................................................................................................... 189Conceptual Background...................................................................................................................................................... 189Current Economic Capacity ............................................................................................................................................... 191Issues and Trends ................................................................................................................................................................ 207Information Adequacy ........................................................................................................................................................ 208Indicator Appropriateness ................................................................................................................................................... 209Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................................................... 210Appendix—Forestry Cost-Share Programs Implemented by State Governments ........................................................... 212

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

Rationale and Interpretation ............................................................................................................................................... 213Indicator Appropriateness ................................................................................................................................................... 213Conceptual Background...................................................................................................................................................... 213Current Conditions .............................................................................................................................................................. 215Relationship to Other Indicators ........................................................................................................................................ 216Information Adequacy ........................................................................................................................................................ 217Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................................... 217Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................................................... 221

��

Abstract

This review looks at the Nation’s legal, institutional, and economic capacity topromote forest conservation and sustainable resource management. It focuses on20 indicators of Criterion Seven of the so-called Montreal Process and involves anextensive search and synthesis of information from a variety of sources.It identifies ways to fill information gaps and improve the usefulness of severalindicators. It concludes that there is substantial information about the applicationof such capacities, although that application is widely dispersed among agenciesand private interests; which in turn has led to differing interpretations of theindicators. Individual chapters identify a need to further develop the conceptualfoundation on which many of the indicators are predicated. While many uncer-tainties in the type and accuracy of information are brought to light, the reviewclearly indicates that legal, institutional, and economic capacities to promotesustainability are large and widely available in both the public and private sectors.

Keywords: Criterion and indicators, economic capacity, institutional capacity,legal capacity, Montreal Process, sustainable management

�

Introduction

The United Nations 1992 Conference on Environment andDevelopment directed worldwide attention to the impor-tance of sustainably managing forests for the needs ofpresent and future generations. The Conference’s 144participating nations acknowledged the importance of suchmanagement by adopting a nonbinding statement of forestmanagement principles (Sitarz 1994). Canada, the UnitedNations, and the Conference on Security and Cooperationin Europe subsequently sponsored an International Seminarof Experts on Sustainable Development of Boreal andTemperate Forests (in Montreal, Canada, 1993). Theseminar provided a forum for a discussion about measuringand tracking progress toward goals of forest sustainability,with special reference to temperate and boreal forests. Theseminar in Montreal and subsequent related meetings(collectively termed the Montreal Process) provided theconceptual basis for regional and international initiativesto develop criteria and indicators for guiding and trackingecological, social, and economic conditions involvingforests. The Santiago Declaration (in 1995) established thecriteria and indicators of forest sustainability recommendedby the Montreal Process. The 12 nations (Argentina,Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Japan, Mexico, NewZealand, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, UnitedStates, and Uruguay) whose representatives signed theSantiago Declaration participate in a policy-level workinggroup and a technology advisory committee. Thesenations account for 60 percent of worldwide forest areaand 35 percent of the world’s population (MontrealProcess Working Group 2003).

The United States participates actively in the MontrealProcess, and has made a political commitment to usecriteria and indicators to track progress in forest sustain-ability. In 1997, the United States issued the First Approx-imation Report for Sustainable Forest Management:Report of the United States on the Criteria and Indicatorsfor the Sustainable Management of Temperate and BorealForests (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service1997). The report set in place the foundation for futureassessments of management and monitoring capabilitiesacross the United States, a process that led to the NationalReport on Sustainable Forests—2003 (U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service 2004). The USDA ForestService had the lead role in developing the 2003 report,doing so in partnership with 11 other Federal agencies, anumber of State agencies, and a variety of nongovernmentalorganizations, including the Roundtable on SustainableForestry (a partnership of public and private organizationsand individuals promoting the national goal of sustainableforests through implementation of a set of criteria andindicators for sustainable forest management) (Roundtableon Sustainable Forestry 1998).

The framework for determining conditions of forest sustain-ability consists of 7 criteria collectively described by 67indicators. Criteria of sustainability are goals or standardsthat describe broad public values regarding forests; theyrepresent categories of conditions or processes that areconsidered essential to forest sustainability. Indicators aremeasurable conditions that can be used to determine thestatus of criteria. By quantitative or qualitative measure-ments, they describe specific circumstances attendant tocriteria and can demonstrate trends when measured periodi-cally (Montreal Process Working Group 2003, NationalResearch Council 1999). The seven criteria (and numberof related indicators) are as follows:

• Conservation of biological diversity (Criterion One—9 indicators)

• Maintenance of productive capacity of forest ecosystems(Criterion Two—5 indicators)

• Maintenance of forest ecosystem health and vitality(Criterion Three—3 indicators)

• Conservation and maintenance of soil and waterresources (Criterion Four—8 indicators)

• Maintenance of forest contribution to global carboncycles (Criterion Five—3 indicators)

• Maintenance and enhancement of long-term multiplesocioeconomic benefits to meet the needs of society(Criterion Six—19 indicators)

• Legal, institutional, and economic framework for forestconservation and sustainability (Criterion Seven—20 indicators).

Review and Evaluation Process

Focus and Scope of Review

Criterion Seven, namely “legal, institutional and economicframework for forest conservation and sustainability,” is thefocus of this review. Interest in forest sustainability is madeevident by legal, institutional, and economic frameworksthat are adopted and implemented by nations. It is via suchframeworks that nations (and the individuals that collec-tively compose them) express their interest in and expecta-tions for the use, management, and protection of forests.While ecological and related biophysical conditions mayreceive much attention, it is the legal, institutional, andeconomic conditions established by nations that are thepractical basis for identifying and addressing concernsabout forest sustainability by means of appropriatelydesigned and properly implemented policies and programs.

�

This review addresses 12 of the 20 indicators associatedwith Criterion Seven. Because the other eight indicatorsaddressed capacity to conduct and apply research, theywere not addressed by this review. Grouped within threemajor categories, the indicators of concern are as follows(Montreal Process Working Group 2003):

Legal framework—The body of laws and customary rulesthat direct actions of citizens. The extent to which the legalframework (laws, regulations, and guidelines) supports theconservation and sustainable management of forests,including the extent to which it:

• Clarifies property rights, provides for appropriate landtenure arrangements, recognizes customary and tradi-tional rights of indigenous people, and provides means ofresolving property disputes by due process (Indicator 48)

• Provides for periodic forest-related planning, assessment,and policy reviews that recognize the range of forestvalues, including coordination with relevant sectors(Indicator 49)

• Provides opportunities for public participation in publicpolicy and decisionmaking related to forests and publicaccess to information (Indicator 50)

• Encourages best-practice codes for forest management(Indicator 51)

• Provides for the management of forests to conservespecial environmental, cultural, social, and scientificvalues (Indicator 52).

Institutional framework—The public and private organi-zations that are responsible for implementing policies andprograms to promote sustainable forest management. Theextent to which the institutional framework supports theconservation and sustainable management of forests,including the capacity to:

• Provide for public-involvement activities and publiceducation, awareness, and extension programs, andmake available forest-related information (Indicator 53)

• Undertake and implement periodic forest-relatedplanning, assessment, and policy review, includingcross-sectoral planning and coordination (Indicator 54)

• Develop and maintain human skills across relevantdisciplines (Indicator 55)

• Develop and maintain efficient physical infrastructure tofacilitate the supply of forest products and services andsupport forest management (Indicator 56)

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

Economic framework—The expression of private self-interest in forest sustainability via responses to marketsystems that are tempered by society-imposed rules and

limitations. The extent to which the economic framework(economic policies and measures) supports the conserva-tion and sustainable management of forests through:

• Investment and taxation policies and a regulatoryenvironment that recognizes the long-term nature ofinvestments and permits the flow of capital in and out ofthe forest sector in response to market signals, nonmarketeconomic valuations, and public policy decisions inorder to meet long-term demands for forest productsand services (Indicator 58)

• Nondiscriminatory trade policies for forest products(Indicator 59).

Procedure and Direction of Review

Presentation of information—The review of informationavailable to describe conditions associated with eachindicator is structured as follows:

Rationale and interpretation—The importance of theindicators and the type of information that potentiallycould be gathered to describe them is presented. Eachindicator’s rationale for importance was taken with littlealteration from the reasoning suggested by the MontrealProcess Technical Advisory Committee (Montreal ProcessTechnical Advisory Committee 2000). For clarity, defini-tions of key words and phrases found in each indicatorwere developed.

Conceptual or theoretical background—The conceptualbackground and theoretical principles considered to befoundations or fundamental reasons for the substance ofeach indicator are briefly presented.

Current capacity and capability—The results of reviewsof capacity-related information for each indicator are pre-sented. In most cases, the information is structured in thefollowing way: private sector capacity, Federal Govern-ment sector capacity, State government capacity, and localgovernment capacity. The exception to this format is ourdiscussion of Indicator 48 (property rights and landtenure). For each indicator, a summary of informationabout current capacity is presented.

Issues and trends—Expected changes in major conditionsassociated with each indicator are discussed. The issues andtrends identified are the result of a review of a portion ofthe literature devoted to subjects involving the indicator.

Adequacy of information—Descriptions of major informa-tion deficiencies (both in quantity and in quality) involvingeach indicator are presented, as are recommendations foraddressing such deficiencies. Although the presentationsvary by indicator, information deficiencies are presentedfor the following subjects:

�

• Measurement information (what to measure and how tomeasure it)

• Extent of activity information (how much activity occurs)

• Responsible organization information (who is obligatedto engage in the activity)

• Coordination information (extent of cooperation involv-ing activities)

• Procedure information (what processes are followed)

• Investment and incentive information (what resourcesare devoted to the activity)

• Effectiveness information (consequences of undertakingthe activity)

• Monitoring information (condition and trends of activity).

Appropriateness of indicator—Information is presentedregarding the usefulness of each indicator as currentlydepicted and the extent to which each indicator comple-ments (or competes with) other indicators. In most cases,suggestions are made for revising the language of anindicator or merging some indicators.

Capacity and capability focus—The review concentrateson the identification of information and informationsources that are capable of depicting the current and futurecondition or status of each indicator. More particularly, thereview focuses on information that describes the capabilityor potential of legal, institutional, and economic frame-works to promote desired conditions of forest sustainability;the consequences of exercising or implementing such capa-city are of lesser concern here. For example, Indicator 49suggests in part that there must be legal means of providingfor periodic forest-related planning, which from a capacityperspective leads to information about the number, type,and currency of laws that require planning activities.Similarly, Indicator 57 suggests in part that there must beinstitutions to enforce laws, regulations, and guidelines,which from a capacity perspective suggests informationabout the organizations that are responsible for implement-ing enforcement activities (information about number ofagencies, level of financing, magnitude of professionalstaffing). The information review sought to avoid focusingon information describing the results of legal, institutional,and economic capacities being exercised or implemented(for example, number of forest plans prepared, effective-ness of enforcement activities). Similarly, a concertedeffort was made to avoid judgments about the negative orpositive value of consequences resulting from implement-ing a given capacity.

Comprehensive forest-wide concern—The review attemptsto identify measures of legal, institutional, and economiccapacity that might be applied to forests in general, regard-less of ownership or responsible party. Responsibility for

forests rests with a very large number of complex organi-zations. At the Federal Government level, responsibility forforests is embodied in authorities with many departments,agencies, and bureaus, including the U.S. Department ofInterior, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department ofInterior, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Agri-culture, Forest Service, and U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency. Similarly numerous and varied are State govern-ment organizations engaged in decisions about the use,management, and protection of forests. Also, there exist avariety of private sector organizations that are responsiblefor forests, including land trusts, interest groups, industrialforestry enterprises, and millions of owners of nonindustrialprivate forestland. To fully identify the legal, institutional,and economic capacities associated with this myriad ofpublic and private responsibilities is beyond the scope ofthis review, but we have tried to present an adequatereview of these capacities. For each indicator, the resultsare presented in four major categories, namely privatesector capacity, Federal Government capacity, Stategovernment capacity, and local government capacity.

Indicator descriptors—Indicators should be stated inlanguage that is easy to understand and descriptive of thesubject in question. They should be based on importantprinciples or concepts, measurable, relevant to stake-holders, sensitive to change, and of an appropriate scale.Furthermore, the information used to describe their statusshould be sufficient in quantity and quality, capable ofbeing aggregated and analyzed, and gathered in a cost-effective way (U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService 2002; Garcia and others 1999; Williams and others1998).

The indicators considered here are not all stated withadequate clarity. In most cases, we have suggested newlanguage in the hope that this will increase the efficiencyof future information-gathering efforts. The followingrevisions are suggested:

• Provides for appropriate land tenure arrangements, andprovides means of resolving property disputes by dueprocess (Indicator 48)

• Provides for periodic planning, assessment, and policyreviews that embrace various forest values and fostersthe coordination of forest plans and assessments withother sectors (Indicator 49)

• Provides opportunity for citizens to participate, inan informed manner, in decisions affecting forests(Indicator 50)

• Encourages the application of best forestry practicesconsidered suitable for specific forest conditions(Indicator 51)

�

• Provides for conserving and managing special valuesafforded by forests, including amenity, commodity,ecological, and spiritual values (Indicator 52)

• Provides for educational activities focused on varioussegments of the citizenry and the general public(Indicator 53)

• Provides for periodic planning, assessment, and policyreviews that embrace various forest values and fostersthe coordination of forest plans and assessments withother sectors (Indicator 54; merge with Indicator 49)

• Develop and maintain professional and related humanskills across relevant disciplines and resource orienta-tions (Indicator 55)

• Develop and maintain physical infrastructure necessaryto manage and protect forests and to make available therange of goods and services that forests are capable ofproviding (Indicator 56)

• Enforce laws and regulations and ensure implementationof guidelines (Indicator 57)

• Provides for policies and programs that promote thelong-term flow of capital into and out of public andprivate forest sectors in response to changes in marketand nonmarket forces (Indicator 58).

The usefulness of Criterion Seven indicators suggested bythe Montreal Process could be enhanced even further ifmore substantial changes were made in their number, des-criptions, and relationships. Suggestions for improvementscan come from a number of sources, including publicationsin which various organizations address legal, institutional,and economic conditions relevant to forest sustainability(Canadian Council of Forest Ministers 1997; Eeronheimo2001; Heinz Center for Science, Economics and theEnvironment 2002; International Tropical Timber Organi-zation 1992; Ministerial Conference on the Protection ofForests in Europe 1994; Oakley 1997; U.S. InteragencyWorking Group on Sustainable Development Indicators2001). We suggest that Indicator 58 (investment, tax, andregulatory environment) and Indicator 59 (forest productstrade) be moved to Criterion Six. If this is done, CriterionSeven will focus only on legal and institutional capacityfor forest sustainability. Criterion Seven will then includeonly the following:

“Specifically, is the current legal and institutionalframework capable of providing for . . .

• Dependable land tenure and land ownershiparrangements

• Comprehensive planning of forest uses, management,and protection

• Development and use of comprehensive forestmanagement guidelines

• Coordination of policies and programs among andbetween public and private organizations

• Long-term monitoring and review of policies,programs, and forest resource conditions

• Processes for anticipating and dealing with conflictand dissension

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

• Diverse kinds of public and private programs to exertinfluence over forests

• Opportunity for beginning and lifelong education ofresource professionals

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

• Research and development focused on critical issuesinvolving forest use, management, and protection.”

External review and comment—Our discussions of theindicators were reviewed as follows: First, each discussionwas reviewed by three individuals (one indicator by tworeviewers) who had the option of submitting their commentsanonymously. The reviewers were selected on the basis oftheir previous experience with and understanding of thesubjects addressed by an indicator. They were asked tofocus their comments on gaps in information, accuracy ofinformation, and fairness in presentation of information.Second, the draft reports for each indicator were reviewedat two national workshops (in Portland, OR and Washington,DC), where workshop participants were given an oppor-tunity to discuss and subsequently suggest improvementsin the report on each indicator (Roundtable on SustainableForestry 2002). Third, the draft documents were madeavailable for comment by the general public via access tovarious Web sites used by the USDA Forest Service duringthe process of preparing the National Report on Sustain-able Forests—2003 (U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service 2004). All reviewer comments were evalu-ated and, as appropriate, incorporated in revised documentsfor each indicator.

Recommendations for future reviews—There is signifi-cant uncertainty about the amount, currency, and accuracyof information available for describing the capacitiespertinent to 12 of the indicators within Criterion Seven.If legal, institutional, and economic frameworks relevantto forest sustainability and conservation are to be betterunderstood and made useful for policy and managementdecisions, this uncertainty needs to be addressed. There-fore, recommendations are made for undertaking futureexaminations of the information available for describingcapacities for each indicator, assigning such reviews tospecific units in government or the private sector, and

�

providing the financial and professional resources neces-sary to carry out such reviews.

Difficulties Encountered by Review

The review of information reporting on legal, institutional,and economic capacities was at times hindered by the widescope of the subject matter embraced by each indicator andthe often huge gaps in information available to describeindicator capacity. The following are brief descriptions ofdifficulties that surfaced during the course of the reviewand evaluation.

Definition and specification—The language of the materialreviewed was often ambiguous or problematic. This lackof clarity and specificity posed significant challenges toinformation-gathering efforts. An anonymous reviewersuggested that many of the indicators are “. . . examplesof how easy it is for a committee to prepare huge lists ofambiguous material that no one can understand or measure.”Although removing all ambiguity from an indicator is anunrealistic goal, the language of an indicator shouldconvey a common understanding of the subject matter inquestion. Specific examples of definition problemsencountered are:

Subcriteria definitions—Major criterion subcategorieswithin Criterion Seven include references to legal andinstitutional conditions. The distinction between the two ismurky, especially as “institutional” may well include legalconsiderations (an institution can be either an organizationor an established law or custom). Indicators 49 (planning. . . ) and 54 (planning . . . ), and Indicators 51 (codes . . . )and 57 (guidelines . . . ) were especially troublesome inthis respect. Where the search for information about legalconsiderations ended and the search for information aboutinstitutional considerations began was not always apparent.Furthermore, the use of the phrase “legal framework”suggests that laws resulting from it are objectively inter-preted and administered. The reality is that administrativediscretion and political influences often affect administra-tive processes.

Indicator language—Words and phrases included in manyindicators were often found to be ambiguous, ill-defined,and poorly constructed. Examples of this include “publicparticipation” (Indicator 50), “best-practice codes”(Indicator 51), “conserve special values” (Indicator 52),“public education” (Indicator 53), “cross-sectoral plan-ning” (Indicator 54), and “efficient physical infrastruc-ture” (Indicator 56). Some would find the language used todescribe individual indicators contradictory (for example,“management of forests” and “preserve special values”(Indicator 52). In other cases, confusion exists becausecertain phrases are not widely used (or accepted) in most

forestry settings in the United States (for example, “best-practice codes”).

Indicator substance—Phrases used to describe some indi-cators are presented as though their scientific and techni-cal foundations are clear and fully agreed to. This is notalways the case, and where it is not, this has implicationsfor information gathering. For example, physical infra-structure (Indicator 56) is generally thought of as underly-ing large-scale capital assets (for example, roads, bridges,communications systems). However, some authoritiessuggest that forests (in a biological sense) should beregarded as the biophysical infrastructure required tosupport various values associated with forests (for exam-ple, wildlife, timber, water). If biota is considered part ofinfrastructure, the information gathering task becomeseven more challenging.

Scope and extent—The review was also made difficult bythe often extreme breadth or narrowness of the subjectmatter suggested by some indicators. This lack of consis-tency in scale (or breadth) often posed a challenge todetermining when sufficient information had been accu-mulated and properly evaluated. Specific examples ofscoping problems encountered are:

Organizational scope—Laws and organizations affectingforests are numerous and have great influence over theuse, management, and protection of forests. Determiningwhich legal and institutional frameworks are relevant todescriptions of capacity was difficult. For example, theUSDA Forest Service has major forest resource responsi-bilities, the USDI Bureau of Land Management has lessresponsibility in this area, and the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration has still less. Should theinfluence of each of these organizations be discussed?Similarly, some laws focus directly on forests (for exam-ple, the National Forest Management Act of 1976) whileothers are less directly focused but nevertheless affectforests (for example, the Coastal Zone Management Act of1972). The extent to which information-gathering activi-ties were made to be “forest centric” determined muchabout the extent of the reach for information.

Forest benefit scope—The range of benefits (or values)provided by forests is extensive (for example, water, range,recreation, timber, aesthetics, wildlife). Words or phrasesincluded in some indicators appeared to favor the seekingof information about certain forest benefits. For example,“encouraging best practice codes (BMPs)” (Indicator 51)and “enforce regulations and guidelines” (Indicator 57) tra-ditionally have signified a major focus on water resources.Similarly, “conserving special values” (Indicator 52) appearsto exclude consideration of commodity values associatedwith forests as special values. And “infrastructure capacity”

�

(Indicator 56) suggests a focus on the infrastructure requiredfor wood-based products and their processing, leavinglittle room for consideration of infrastructure required toprovide other forest values and related management activi-ties (for example, water supplies, recreation activities,forest protection).

Indicator scope—Nearly every indicator overlappedanother indicator and often overlapped indicators in theother criteria, thus creating to a potential for duplicationin gathering and evaluating information (see individualindicator write-ups for details). Such overlapping wasespecially obvious in the case of public involvement andpublic participation in Indicators 50 and 53, forest plan-ning and assessment in Indicators 49 and 54, and invest-ment and trade policies in Indicators 58 and 59.

Indicator scale—Indicators at times differed widely inscale. This led to a narrow focus for information gatheringin some cases and to very wide-ranging information gath-ering in others. For example, “maintain human resourceskills across disciplines” (Indicator 55) is reasonablynarrow, but “investment, tax, and regulatory environment”(Indicator 58) is extremely broad.

Rationale and interpretation—The rationales for theindicators were at times difficult to interpret and in somecases may not be supported by evidence or experience (therationale for each indicator was taken with only minormodification from conclusions reached by the TechnicalAdvisory Committee of the Montreal Process). Phrasessuch as “formal legal mechanisms are needed to conservespecial forest values,” “tax policies are critical to mainten-ance of forestland,” “forests are managed more sustain-ably if citizens have opportunity to influence policies andprograms,” “forest practice codes are integral to forestsustainability,” and “a well-informed public promotes civicparticipation in forest activities” create many uncertainties(Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee 2000).

Information availability and quality—The availabilityand quality of information relevant to the indicators was inmost cases very unpredictable. In some cases, an informa-tion base simply did not exist, while in other cases informa-tion was outdated, incomplete, or unreliable (informationto describe trends was especially difficult to locate). Wheninformation was available, it was often difficult to aggre-gate across geographies, across agencies or organizations,across public and private sectors, or vertically from localto national levels. Specific suggestions for future investi-gations are presented for each indicator. This review alsosuggested that there is a need for further development ofthe conceptual bases on which many of the indicators arepredicated.

Major Findings and Conclusions

The review of capacity information for the 12 indicatorsassociated with Criterion Seven sought information frommany sources. What are the major findings of the review?The following observations regarding current capacity todescribe Criterion Seven indicators are suggested:

• Legal capacity for accomplishing forest sustainability issubstantial, although often highly dispersed, is frequentlyin conflict (within and between governments), and isoften subject to the widely differing interpretations ofan appreciable number of Federal, State, and local unitsof government. The extent to which this potential capa-city is actually exercised by implementing agencies ishighly variable in intensity and consistency. The privatesector is often responsible for responding to (implement-ing) publicly established legal capacity (for example,best-practice codes, conservation of special values).

• Institutional capacity for accomplishing forest sustain-ability is also substantial, although it is also highlydispersed, frequently in conflict (within and betweengovernments), and often subject to widely differinginterpretations by public and private organizations. Theexpression of this institutional capacity is often limitedby constraints on access to financial and human resources.The private sector represents significant institutionalcapacity, especially in terms of public education andhuman resource skills.

• Economic capacity for forest sustainability is substantial,as are the fiscal and tax incentives that promote positiveoutcomes in market behavior. In recent years, economicincentive capacity has been broadened considerably, andis now often applied to both commodity and noncom-modity goods and services provided by forests. Thelegal capacity to constrain private-sector responses tomarkets is substantial, especially with respect to theapplication of forest practices.

Is the Nation on a trajectory away from sustainability and,if so, does the cause of this flight rest with faults in ourlegal, institutional, and economic frameworks? Theanswer can only be a nebulous “yes,” in some cases, and“no,” in other cases. Interpretation of the overall legal,institutional, and economic capacity for forest sustain-ability at the national level is difficult. The informationdescribing the indicators that are used to monitor CriterionSeven is sending very mixed messages. On the one hand isa clear indication that legal, institutional, and economiccapacities to promote sustainability are large and widelyavailable in both public and private sectors. Yet on theother hand the information regarding the actual applicationof these capacities in favor of sustainability interests isoften quite mixed and frequently clouded by uncertainty.

�

Fortunately, capacity reviews focused on Criterion Sevenare likely to continue in the future. With a significantinvestment in the gathering of additional information andthe refining of existing information, these uncertaintiescould become of lesser concern. The Nation may thenhave a better basis from which to sense the direction itslegal, institutional, and economic frameworks are tending,and the extent to which they facilitate or hinder forestsustainability and conservation.

Literature Cited

Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. 1997. Criteria and indicators ofsustainable forest management in Canada: technical report. Ottawa,Canada: Canadian Forest Service. 145 p.

Eeronheimo, O. 2001. Legal frameworks in criteria and indicatorapproaches. In: Raison, R.J.; Brown, A.G.; Flinn, D.W., eds. Criteriaand indicators for sustainable forest management. IUFRO Res. Series7. New York, NY: CABI Publishing: 131-144.

Garcia, S.M.; Staples, D.J.; Chesson, J. 1999. FAO guidelines for thedevelopment and use of indicators for sustainable development ofmarine capture fisheries: an Australian example of application. Rome,Italy: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. [Not paged].

Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment. 2002. State ofthe nation’s ecosystems. Cambridge, England: Cambridge UniversityPress. 288 p.

International Tropical Timber Organization. 1992. Guidelines for thesustainable management of natural tropical forests. PS-1. http://www.itto.or.jp/live/PageDisplayHandler?pageId=201. [Date accessed: June2002].

Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe. 1994.Helsinki process. Helsinki, Finland: Ministry of Agriculture andForestry of Finland, Helsinki Liaison Unit. http://www.iisd.ca/forestry/hel.html. [Date accessed: June 2002].

Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. Criteria and indi-cators for the conservation and sustainable management of temperateand boreal forests: Criterion Seven. http://www.mpci.org/tac/mexico/tn7_e.html. [Date accessed: February 2001].

Montreal Process Working Group. 2003. The Montreal process. http://www.mpci.org/. [Date accessed: January 2003].

National Research Council. 1999. Our common journey: A transitiontoward sustainability. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.363 p.

Oakley, G. 1997. Sustainable development indicators in Australia: pro-gress on their development. Sydney, Australia: Australian Bureau ofStatistics. [Not paged].

Roundtable on Sustainable Forestry. 1998. Roundtable on sustainableforestry. http://www.sustainableforests.net/index.php. [Date accessed:January 2002].

Roundtable on Sustainable Forestry. 2002. Workshop reviews: nationalreport on sustainable forests. Portland, OR and Washington, DC.http://www.sustainableforests.net/summaries.php. [Date accessed: June2002].

Sitarz, D. 1994. Agenda 21: The earth summit strategy to save our planet.Boulder, CO: Earth Press. 321 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1997. First approximationreport for sustainable forest management: report of the United Stateson the criteria and indicators for the sustainable management oftemperate and boreal forests. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service. 220 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2002. Sourcebook oncriteria and indicators of forest sustainability in the northeastern area.NA-TP-03-02. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service, State and Private Forestry. 64 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2004. National report onsustainable forests—2003. FS-766. http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/. [Date accessed: April 2004].

U.S. Interagency Working Group on Sustainable Development Indicators.2001. Sustainable development in the United States: an experimentalset of indicators. http://www.sdi.gov/. [Date accessed: June 2002].

Williams, J.; Duinker, P.; Wedeles, C. 1998. Assessing progress in sustain-able forest management: proposed criteria and indicators for the UpperGreat Lakes Region. Hayward, WI: Great Lakes Forest Alliance. http://www.lsfa.org/pub_GLFA_rep2.html. [Date accessed: June 2002].

Information Review and Evaluation:

Legal Framework

��

The full text of Indicator 48 is as follows: Extent to whichthe legal framework (laws, regulations, guidelines) supportsthe conservation and sustainable management of forests,including the extent to which it clarifies property rights,provides for appropriate land tenure arrangements,recognizes customary and traditional rights of indigenouspeople, and provides means of resolving property disputesby due process (Montreal Process Working Group 2003).

Rationale and Interpretation

In many regions of the world, lack of clear and appropriateland tenure arrangements are the greatest cause of unsus-tainable forestry. Stable property rights and the assurancethat these rights will be protected, or disputed through dueprocess, are essential for sustainable forest management.It is suggested that those who depend on forests for dailysubsistence and livelihood, or have a connection to forestsover long periods of time, will take responsibility for betterlong-term care of the land if they can own the forest or canbe assured of access to needed forest resources (MontrealProcess Technical Advisory Committee 2000, MontrealProcess Working Group 2003).

Useful information for measuring this indicator can beobtained by compiling laws and customs that addressproperty rights, land tenure arrangements, and the rightsof indigenous peoples. Also germane are summaries andassessments of laws and customs that provide access toprocesses considered necessary for the successful resolutionof disputes over property. If they are prepared carefully,these compilations can allow for subsequent determinationof how well various interpretations of property rights arebeing implemented and the extent to which they aresuccessful in fostering long-term protection of ownershiprights in forests and forestland. They can also facilitate theidentification of deficiencies, duplications, and over-lapping responsibilities, so that corrective action can betaken (Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee2000).

Indicator 48 suggests a number of concepts and principlesthat are to be identified and assessed. Definitions of theseconcepts are as follows: property rights are claims, titles,or interests in property that are enforceable by law, custom,

or tradition; land tenure arrangements are instruments orrelationships used by people, governments, or corporatebodies to establish control over, occupy, or use property;customary and traditional rights are claims, titles, orinterests in property that are enforceable by custom, legend,inheritance, tradition, or folklore; and due process meansof resolving property dispute are means of guaranteeingprocedural fairness where actions of one party woulddeprive another of liberty or property (Gifis 1984).

Conceptual Background

Property is a social notion that expresses the political andeconomic order of society wherein governance systemslegitimize, protect, and challenge the interests of one partyover another (Hanna and others 1996). Property is gener-ally viewed as a bundle of rights, rules, and responsibilitiesthat expresses the relationships between rights holders,rights regarders, and rights protectors (Warren 1998).Rights consist of power, privilege, or demand inherent inone person and expressed over another. Any change in thestructure of rights usually involves an increase in the rightsof some and decreases in the rights of others. Currenttheories suggest that rights are exercised under at leastthree different property regimes: private property, commonproperty, and public-State property (Warren 1997) (table 1).Over time, notions of property may move from one cate-gory to another, often as a reflection of society’s changingvalues and the scarcity of certain types of property. Notionsof property can change in response to many different con-ditions, including market behavior, social and politicalsentiments, scientific knowledge, and new technologies.Property rights are most accurately regarded as a socialconstruct that survives only as long as society maintainsthe will and desire to enforce it (Marchak 1998).

Characteristics (or components) that are used to define andevaluate property rights include the concepts of complete-ness and exclusivity, transferability, and enforceability(Field 2001, Rideout and Hessein 1997). Completenessrefers to the degree to which ownership rights may beattenuated, such as through mineral rights, water rights, andutility easements. Exclusivity complements the concept ofcompleteness and refers to the degree to which all benefitsand costs accrue to the owner. Exclusivity and completenesshave little meaning if the resource is migratory, enforce-ment of property rights is too expensive to be practical, orthe property is located in a jurisdiction without a fullydeveloped legal system (Rideout and Hessein 1997).

1 Hibbard, Research Specialist, and Ellefson, Professor, Department ofForest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.

Property Rights and Land Tenure (Indicator 48)

Calder M. Hibbard and Paul V. Ellefson1

��

Where property rights and property are transferable, thiscreates an incentive to maintain maximum market values.

An efficient and well-established property rights systemprovides security that rights will be recognized in the futureby potential competitors for these rights and that the rulesare well understood. In the United States, the concept ofproperty rights is a storied and continually evolving set ofideas and constructs. Much of the present comprehensionof property rights has its origin in English Common Law,emanating from the Magna Carta, but little of what is con-sidered property rights is codified into law in the UnitedStates. Property rights in the United States are restrictedby the police powers of the State and by each level ofgovernment’s power of taxation, eminent domain, andescheat (Warren 1997). Property rights are constitutionallyaddressed under the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights,which states that “No person shall be deprived of life,liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shallprivate property be taken for public use, without just com-pensation.” It is important to note that property rights are

not given direct protection under this clause, but areafforded due process only when they are addressed.

Property rights in forests are expressed as relationshipsbetween individuals and groups with respect to forestland.In the context of the sustainability of forests, propertyrights include the ability to exclude or control access;enjoy or treasure; dispose of, alienate, or transfer; manageor manipulate; and use, withdraw, consume, or transform(Warren 1997). The existence of property rights can pro-vide for or detract from sustainable forest resource use andmanagement. Without some set of agreed-to and enforce-able property rights forest owners may fail to invest inproductive activities involving their forests. This lack ofprivate investment may have deleterious effects on eco-nomic efficiency and sustainability (Zhang 1999). On theother hand, the state may wish to weaken the propertyrights of some in order to enhance benefits that it views asimportant to many or all citizens. This problem of properbenefit allocation inevitably leads to compensation and adegree of economic inefficiency (Zhang 1999).

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

Property regime

Characteristic Private property Common property Public-State property

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

Right holder(s) Individual or corporation Identifiable, interdependent State (government on behalfgroup or community of citizens)

Responsibilities (liabilities) Refrain from socially Group: Refrain from socially Maintain social objectives;of right holder(s) unacceptable uses unacceptable uses determine rules

Member: Respect intra-grouprules

Expectation of right Expect socially acceptable Expect socially acceptable Expect socially acceptableregarder uses uses uses

Responsibilities (liabilities) Observe rules set by right Observe rules set by right Observe rules; refrain fromof right regarder holders; refrain from holders; refrain from preventing use

preventing use preventing use

Rules and regulations Determined by individual Determined by identifiable Determined by statutes,or corporation interdependent groups or rules, common law

community

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

Note: Additional property regimes are “common pool resources” and “open access resources.”Source: Bromley (1991); Warren (1997).

��

Property rights notions are a construct of Western civiliza-tions. In some instances, traditional and customary rightsinvolving property are not necessarily codified in a Westernsense but are respected and observed by the cultural groupcreating those rights. This is the case in Indian cultures inthe United States. In such cultures, rights to resources areintricately tied to historic perspectives on resource use andto social mechanisms for dealing with competition forresources. Diversity of resource control systems is high andoften correlated to a particular environmental setting andtime (Frykenberg 1977, Vecsey and Venables 1980, Warren1997). Compounding these perspectives on property rightsand land tenure concepts is the reality that government canhold property in trust for certain groups of people. In 1990,nearly 16 million acres of forestland were held in trust forAmerican Indians by the U.S. Government. The latter hasa trust responsibility to protect, conserve, utilize, manage,and enhance Indian forestland and the economic and otherbenefits from Indian forestland, in perpetuity, includingthe provision of essential primary and secondary roads(U.S. Congress 1990).

Current Legal Capacity

Information clarifying property rights, land tenure arrange-ments, the rights of Indian peoples, and means of resolvingproperty disputes is extensive and very rich. Unfortunately,the implications of this information for sustainable forestryhave not been systematically and comprehensively assessedand analyzed. The most important information sources arefound in judicial case law and its interpretation. Othersources include academic and popular presses (especiallyduring periods of uncertainty regarding property rights),periodic surveys of forestland ownership (for example,Birch 1996), and legal case books and databases availablefrom private sources. As interest in the development ofnew approaches to resolving conflicts over property andproperty rights has increased, reports describing suchmechanisms as land trusts and conservation easementshave become more common (Morrisette 2001).

Property Rights and Land Tenure

Federal legal clarifications—Property rights and landtenure arrangements have been dealt with and meaning-fully clarified and shaped by Federal courts. The courtshave dealt both with disputes between private parties andalso with disputes between private and public entities. Forexample, the ability of States and local governments tozone land as an established aspect of police power hasbeen upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Reinman v. Cityof Little Rock 237 U.S. 177 (1915), Fischer v. St. Louis194 U.S. 223 (1904), and Bacon v. Walker 204 U.S. 394(1907). These rulings were supported by and drawn from

public nuisance law. In the last 100 years, the SupremeCourt has addressed the Fifth Amendment and what consti-tutes a taking in a governmental regulatory context. Thiswas first directly addressed in Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon260 U.S. 393 (1922) in which it is held that “while propertymay be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes toofar it will be recognized as a taking.” Since this ruling,Federal courts have considered the effects of a regulationon a property’s value, usually requiring a complete loss ofprivate value before the action in question is considered ataking (Wiebe and others 1996, 1998). These clarificationsare ongoing and evolutionary, with the most recent refine-ment of partial regulatory takings in Palazolo v. RhodeIsland set forth by the Supreme Court in June 2001. In thiscase, the Court ruled that the acquisition of land with noticeof a prior regulation does not, in itself, bar the buyer fromclaiming that the regulation constitutes a taking. A studyby the Congressional Research Service found that of 135Federal takings cases tried between 1990 and 1994, only21 were found to be takings (Meltz 1995).

Much of recent effort to clarify property rights and landtenure arrangements in the United States has been inresponse to Federal environmental legislation. A numberof Federal laws relate to usufructory rights and restrictionson Federal lands (Appendix A). Especially significantexamples from a property rights perspective are the FederalWater Pollution Control Act of 1972 (as amended) (espe-cially section 404); the Clean Air Act of 1955 (as amended);the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (asamended); the Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act (“Superfund”) of 1980(as amended); the National Environmental Policy Act of1969; and the often-cited Endangered Species Act of 1973.Although the last 10 years have seen a number of congres-sional proposals to protect private property rights and toclarify land tenure arrangements, none of these has beenenacted into law.

State legal clarifications—Although the Federal Govern-ment has engaged importantly in clarifying matters ofproperty rights, property law and its interpretation has beenprimarily a State responsibility. State governments haveproceeded to establish various laws, rules, and administra-tive procedures that clarify property rights and land tenurearrangements involving forests, most of which have beenin response to perceptions of local infringement on therights of private property owners (Cheng and Ellefson1993, Malmsheimer and Floyd 1998). One of the earliestjudicial rulings on the matter (1947) involved Washington’sforest practice regulatory law, in which the State’s right toregulate privately prescribed practices was affirmed by theU.S. Supreme Court (32 Wash. 2d 551, 202 P.2d 906, 70 S.Cr. 147 [1947]) (Ellefson 2000). Property-rights protectinginitiatives important to sustainable forestry take many

��

forms, including nuisance classification laws, right topractice forestry laws, and laws restricting ordinances.In 1996, 31 States had statutory provisions that to someextent protected landowners against possible court findingsthat their forestry activities constituted nuisances underState law (table 2) (Malmsheimer and Floyd 1998). TenStates had right-to-farm laws that did not specificallyapply to forestry, but had other statutes in which forestryactivities were categorized with agricultural activities.Eight States had right-to-farm laws, but did not categorizeforestry activities as agricultural activities in other statutes.

States have also addressed concerns that local governmentsmay establish ordinances that classify forestry activities asnuisances (table 2). Ten States have State laws (for exam-ple, forest practice laws) that prohibit such ordinances;five have laws that prohibit local zoning ordinances thatlimit forestry activities; and four States have statutoryprovisions to link local ordinances with broader State forestpractice regulatory laws. These laws generally provide adefense of forestry activities, often by banning or partiallybanning local ordinances that limit forestry practices onprivate land (Ellefson and others 1995). These laws alsorestrict classification as nuisances to such things as con-ducting forestry activities in a negligent manner or causingflooding or pollution. Most State laws restricting localordinances focused on forestry activities have been enactedsince 1989. Three were enacted in the 1970s, 18 in the1980s, and 10 in the 1990s through 1996 (Malmsheimerand Floyd 1998).

Protecting private property from takings has also been afocus of State laws. In 1996, 18 States had passed suchlaws (table 3) (Zhang 1996). They were chiefly of twotypes: assessment laws, which are procedural and requirethat agencies follow certain review processes and guide-lines so that unnecessary takings are avoided; and compen-sation laws, which are more substantive and provide for therecovery of financial losses resulting from partial takingsof private property. In Mississippi, for example, compen-sation of private forest landowners is required if Stateregulations reduce the value of the landowner’s propertyby 40 percent or more. All of these State laws have beenenacted in the 1990s and generally mimic laws that havebeen proposed to the U.S. Congress.

Due Process and Dispute Resolution

The concept of due process, like the concept of propertyrights, has evolved over the years, changing mostly throughinterpretation by Federal courts. Due process is a historicalproduct tracing back to Britain. The first mention of it wasin a statutory rendition of one of the chapters of the MagnaCarta in 1354. Federal courts have seen fit to clarify themeaning of due process as it relates to property and land

tenure arrangements. The focus has been on interpretationof the Fifth Amendment (previously quoted) and the Four-teenth Amendment “…nor shall any State deprive anyperson of life, liberty, or property, without due process oflaw.” The Fifth Amendment applied only to the FederalGovernment until the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.Importantly, the fact that property rights are protected bydue process is of little value unless there is knowledge ofwhat due process entails.

Federal courts have clarified that due process is more thana mandated procedure determined by the legislative branch.Due process “ . . . is a restraint on the legislative as well ason the executive and judicial powers of the government,and cannot be construed as to leave congress free to makeany process ‘due process of law’ by its mere will,” Murray’sLessee v. Hoboken Land and Improvement Co. 59 U.S. 272(1856). This ruling is supported in other cases includingTrustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward 17 U.S. 518-82 (1819) and Jones v. Robbins 74 Mass. (8 Gray) 329(1857). In working with administrative agencies, the courthas ruled that the demands of due process do not require ahearing at any particular point in the proceeding, so longas a hearing is held prior to an order becoming effective,Opp Cotton Mills v. Administrator 312 U.S. 126. 152. 153(1941). The court has held that when the Constitution doesrequire a hearing, it must be a fair hearing, held before atribunal that meets currently prevailing standards ofimpartiality, Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath 339 U.S. 33,50(1950) and Arnett v. Kennedy 416 U.S. 134, 170 (1974).The court has also held that a party must be given anopportunity to present evidence and to know the claims ofthe opposing party and to meet them, Margan v. UnitedStates 304 U.S. 1, 18-19 (1938), Gonzales v. United States348 U.S. 407 (1955), United States v. Nugent 346 U.S. 1(1956), and Gonzales v. United States 364 U.S. 59 (1960).

Federal courts have spoken frequently on how the Fifthand Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution areto be implemented. Their rulings set forth certain funda-mental principles such as advance notice of alleged claims,hearings prior to decisions, hearing procedures, adequaterepresentation, and the nature of evidence submitted athearings. These prescriptions, and many more, are thefoundations that enable society to meet the intent andspirit of constitutional provisions involving due process. Inrecent years, however, a number of additional approachesinvolving conflict management have evolved and havebeen suggested to be of value for addressing conflict overproperty. They include various forms of consensus-drivenprocesses (negotiation, facilitation, mediation) as well asmany varieties of adversarial drive processes (arbitration,administrative hearings, judicial proceedings). Althoughjudicial proceedings involving formal procedures of dueprocess have been given considerable notoriety in recent

��

Table 2—State statutory provisions protecting forest practices from identification as nuisances and restricting localgovernment regulation of forest practices, by State (1996)

Statutory provisions protecting Statutory provisions restrictingforest practices from local government ordinances

being considered nuisances regulating forest practices

StatutoryStatutory provision exists:

Statutory Statutory provision ordinancesStatutory Potential provision provision exists: linked to

Region and provision statutory does not exists: no no zoning forestState exists provision exist ordinances ordinances practice law

NorthConnecticut X XDelaware XIllinois XIndiana X XIowa XMaine X XMaryland X XMassachusetts XMichigan XMinnesota X XMissouri X XNew Hampshire X XNew Jersey XNew York XOhio X XPennsylvania X XRhode Island XVermont XWest Virginia XWisconsin X

SouthAlabama XArkansas XFlorida XGeorgia XKentucky X XLouisiana X XMississippi X XNorth Carolina XOklahoma XSouth Carolina XTennessee X XTexas XVirginia X

WestAlaska XArizona XCalifornia X XColorado XHawaii X XIdaho X XKansas XMontana X XNebraska XNevadaNew Mexico XNorth Dakota XOregon X XSouth Dakota XUtah XWashington X XWyoming X

Note: Nevada has not enacted a right-to-practice-forestry law that provides protection against nuisance lawsuits.Source: Malmsheimer and Floyd (1998).

��

years, other less formal and more collaborative approachesto conflict over property rights have also become available.Unfortunately, a comprehensive review of their applicationto property rights issues has not been carried out (Moulton1995).

Rights of Indian Peoples

Indian peoples in the United States have experienced amuch different evolution of property rights and land tenurearrangements. Very few Indian tribes ever conceived of theidea of land ownership, and even those few who did thoughtof it in a much different way than the first arriving Euro-peans. In 1790, Congress adopted one of the first lawsaffecting property rights of Indian peoples: the first Non-intercourse Act, which reserved the right to acquire Indianlands to the United States to the exclusion of individualsand States. Some tribes have brought suit for recovery oflands acquired in violation of the 1790 statute, such asSouth Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe Inc. 476 U.S. 498(1986).

United States courts first examined the issue of Indianland ownership and title to lands in Johnson v. M’Intosh21 U.S. 543 (1823), stating that tribes held their lands by“Indian title” and that tribes had the right to occupy the

land and retain possession of it (Nash 1999). A significantstatute in the evolution of Indian property rights is theGeneral Allotment Act of 1887. This law legitimized thenotion that Indians would assimilate European culturalattitudes more quickly if they were owners of parcels ofland and were encouraged to engage in agricultural activi-ties. Each individual was to be given 80 acres of agricul-tural land or 160 acres of grazing land. The law hadlimited success, resulting in a large loss of tribal lands. Itwas subsequently addressed by the Indian ReorganizationAct of 1934, which prohibited any further appropriation ofland and restored any surplus lands to tribal ownership.

In 1946, the Indian Claims Commission was established tohear claims which had been barred by a 1863 statute thatprohibited Indian tribes from making claims against theUnited States. The Commission was allowed to hear fivetypes of claims including “claims arising from the takingby the United States, whether as a result of a treaty ofcession or otherwise, of lands owned or occupied by theclaimant without payment for such lands or compensationagreed to by the claimant” 60 Stat. 1049, 25 U.S.C. 70a(Nash 1999). Recently, there has been an increasing levelof autonomy in decisionmaking on tribal lands regardingforestland, beginning in earnest with the Alaska NativeClaims Settlement Act in 1971. This law was followed by

Table 3—State statutory provisions addressing the taking of private property,by State (1996)

Statute requiring Statute requiring Statute requiringassessment prior compensation of combination of

to regulatory landowner for assessment andState implementation regulatory taking compensation

Arizona XDelaware XFlorida XIdaho XIndiana XKansas XLouisiana XMississippi XMissouri XMontana XNorth Dakota XTennessee XTexas XUtah XVirginia XWashington XWest Virginia XWyoming X

Source: Zhang (1996).

��

the Indian Self-Determination and Educational AssistanceAct of 1975, which decreased the role of the Division ofForestry within the Bureau of Indian Affairs in forest-related decisionmaking on tribal lands. The 1983 IndianLand Consolidation Act attempted to reduce fractionaliza-tion of Indian lands. Finally, the National Indian ForestResources Management Act of 1990 strengthened theposition that Indian forestlands are to be treated as privatelands, and not as lands in the public domain (Warren 1998).

Federal statutes and case law affecting land tenure andforest resources on Indian lands are summarized in table 4.

Summary of Conditions

Property rights, land tenure arrangements, and the rightsof Indian people have evolved through processes involvinglaw making, traditions, and the operation of private mar-kets. These institutions, and the concepts and principles on

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

Year Case or statute

1874 United States v. Cook, 19. S. (Wall) 591 (Declares that Indians possess the rightto occupy land in question but do not have title to it and can cut timber forclearance only)

1877 Indian General Allotments Act 25 U.S.C. 331 (Authorizes allotment of reservedlands to individual Indians in tracts of 40, 80, or 160 acres)

1889 Dead and Down Timber Act of Feb. 16, 1889, 25 Stat. 673, 25 U.S.C. 196(Authorizes sale of dead timber on Indian allotments and reservations for thebenefit of Indians residing on reservations)

1910 Indian Allotments Act of June 26, 1910, Stat. 857, 25 U.S.C. 406, 407(Authorizes Bureau of Indian Affairs to sell timber on allotted and unallottedlands)

1934 Indian Reorganization Act, Act of June 18, 1934, ch 576, 48 Stat. 984, 25 U.S.C.466 (Authorizes Bureau of Indian Affairs to establish rules and regulations toaccomplish sustained yield management of Indian forests)

1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 85 Stat. 688 (Revokes reservations andIndian allotment authority in Alaska)

1975 Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act 88 Stat. 2203-2217(Authorizes Indian citizens’ rights to control their direction and the way fordoing so)

1980 United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535 (1887 Act did not establish Federalfiduciary responsibility for management of Indian-allotted forestlands, but 1910Act had recognized a Federal trust responsibility for the management of Indianforest resources)

1983 Indian Land Consolidation Act, 25 U.S.C. 2201 et seq. (Authorizes reduction inextensive fractionation of individual Indian ownerships)

1990 National Indian Forest Resources Management Act, 104 Stat. 4532 (Authorizespromotion of cooperative Federal and tribal management and protection ofIndian forest resources)

Source: Warren (1998).

��

which they are based, often predate the establishment ofthe United States. These property rights and tenure arrange-ments reflect a society’s particular set of fundamentalvalues and beliefs; they are evolutionary in the sense thatthey change as society’s values change; are determined bydue process of law; are essential to and must be stable forsustainable forest management; and are important to Indianpeople, who often have significant links with forests.

In light of the background and current conditions discussedabove, the following observations seem relevant to thecapacity to identify and measure activities involvingproperty rights and associated subjects:

• Property rights and land tenure arrangements areextremely diverse, have evolved through time, and arecontinuously being defined, interpreted, and revised byall levels of government. Responsibility for privateactions involving property is increasingly being asso-ciated with issues involving claims of rights to property.

• Property rights and land tenure arrangements have beendefined and interpreted mostly in State and Federal caselaw. In the last decade, especially important case lawregarding property rights and compensation has beenestablished by Federal courts.

• Property rights and land tenure arrangements of Indianpeoples have largely been the responsibility of theFederal Government. In recent years, Federal attentionhas focused on the forest resources associated withIndian peoples and the often special importance offorests to Indian culture and way of life.

• Processes for resolving disputes over property rights andland tenure are evolving, although the Constitution(Fourteenth Amendment) provides the foundation forcitizen protection against State deprivation of life, liberty,and property. Institutional structures for addressingdisputes are many (legislatures, courts, executive agen-cies), as are approaches for settling disputes (negotia-tion, arbitration, collaboration, citizen initiative).

Issues and Trends

The literature identifies a number of major issues andtrends involving the legal setting for property rights andland tenure arrangements. Examples of this literature(from which the following issues and trends are drawn)are: Binkley and others 1996, Bromley 1991, Ellefson andothers 1995, Flick 1994, Goldstein and Watson 1997,Lund 1995, Morales 1991, Moulton 1995, U.S. Congress1990, Warren 1997 and 1998, Zhang 1996.

• Property rights and land tenure arrangements are increas-ingly frequent and contentious political topics (more than100 bills addressing property rights were introduced

during the 104th Congress) (Goldstein and Watson, 1997).The reduced space available to the citizenry has fosteredinterest in protecting rights thought to accompany own-ership of property. Also, increases in Federal environ-mental law since the late 1960s provide an incentive forclarification of activities involving property rights andland tenure.

• Advocacy groups with interests in property issues areincreasing, currently numbering more than five hundredwith membership in the millions (Lund 1995). Althoughdebates between these groups are often acrimonious andsometimes violent, the discussions that do occur arelikely to result in better understanding of and tolerancefor a wider variety of property regimes.

• Property rights concepts important to sustainable forestryare often unclear. In the future, however, they maybecome more stable and consistent as a result of theincreased attention devoted to them (statutes, case law,public discussion). Conversely, continuing controversymay foster a climate in which there is growing uncer-tainty over restrictions on certain forestry activities,increased transaction costs, greater risk of civil andcriminal penalties, and confusion resulting from over-lapping government jurisdictions.

• State governments are likely to give increasing attentionto property rights and land tenure conditions consideredimportant to sustainable forestry. It is likely that newState laws will identify a right to practice forestry, pro-hibit local ordinances limiting the practice of forestry,and prevent legal rulings that identify forestry practicesas nuisances.

• Special property arrangements that support the long-term sustainability of natural resources are increasing innumber and acceptability. These arrangements includeconservation easements, private and public land trusts,comanagement of private lands, marketing of rightsassociated with property (development rights), and debt-for-nature swaps.

• Voluntary actions by landowners and incentives providedby government and certain private interests are likely toincrease and have further impact on land tenure and onperceptions of rights in forest property. Voluntary adop-tion of forestry best management practices and provi-sion of fiscal and tax incentives to deter ownershipfragmentation are examples.

• Increasingly, laws and regulations that address forestrypractices on private lands are being designed to be moresensitive to private interests in private property. It is alsoincreasingly suggested that regulations be consistent withthe strong history of public policy in favor of environ-mental protection or land use control; be rationally based,reasonably constructed, and developed through due pro-cess; be convincingly determined to be directly beneficial

�

to public health and general welfare; and result in bene-fits that are widely distributed throughout various seg-ments of the public.

• Indian peoples are increasingly seeking and being grantedautonomy of decisionmaking with respect to forestresources on Indian lands. This is occurring in the con-text of the expansion of legal authority of Indian peopleto determine their own destiny and in the way Indianorganizations address issues involving forest resourcesunder their control.

Information Adequacy

Specification

The variables or combinations of variables that can beused to describe property rights, land tenure arrangements,and ways of resolving disputes over such arrangements aremany. Definition and scope issues abound. For example,should public lands be part of land tenure discussions? Isthe legal framework of concern more than just formal laws,regulations, and guidelines? Should property rights assess-ments include case law, administrative law, and formalagreements involving property? And how are noncodifiedcustoms and traditions to be addressed in reviews of landtenure and property rights?

State forestry agency activities involving gathering andanalysis of information regarding property rights, landtenure, and rights of Indian peoples are very limited. In1999, lead forestry agencies in only seven States (Delaware,Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, Texas)specifically stated that they gather and analyze informationabout these conditions. Of those States, two indicated thatthe information was abundant; three indicated that it wassufficient; and two indicated that they had access to some,but very little, information of this sort. Four States indi-cated that the quality of information was adequate; onlyone (Louisiana) stated that it was excellent (NationalAssociation of State Foresters 1999).

Information regarding property rights and land tenurearrangements as they relate to sustainable forestry in theUnited States is critical to building better understanding ofhow property ownership influences forest sustainability.Unfortunately, our understanding of these rights andarrangements in the context of forests and forestry is oftenunclear, primarily because comprehensive informationabout them has not been gathered or subjected to anymethodical analysis. Consider the following concerns overinformation adequacy:

• Measures of rights and tenure—Variables that might beused to measure property rights and land tenure arrange-ments have not been adequately identified. Are current

measures of property rights and land tenure appropriate?What is their origin and how have they changed over theyears? What alternatives might provide a more effectiverepresentation of property rights and tenure conditions?

• Documentation of types of property rights and tenurearrangements—Except in isolated circumstances, infor-mation about the types of, frequency of, and trends inland tenure arrangements has not been assembled in anysystematic fashion. What are the specific statutoryexpressions of property rights within all property regimes(Federal, State, local, treaties, land grants)? How con-sistent are these laws and regulations in their treatmentof property rights as these rights relate to sustainableforestry? What major trends are occurring in formalexpressions (statutes, rules, treaties, administrativeagreements) of concepts of property and land tenure?What is the nature of nonstatutory and nonjudicialexpressions of property rights and land tenure (customsand traditions)? How common and how effective areinstitutions that provide for partial claims to property(easements, trusts)?

• Societal dispute of claims—Information about the numberand types of claims on property rights involving forestshas not been gathered or systematically reviewed forpatterns of importance. How many and how intense arethe disputes? What is the rationale for the disputes? Isthere evidence of stability in certain property rightsclaims? What disputes require the attention of currentlegal systems and which disputes cannot be resolved bycurrent systems? How great is the tension between thepublic good and private claims to property? What is theappropriate balance between the sovereign State andprivate individuals on matters involving land tenure?

• Security of rights and tenure conditions—Informationabout the extent to which current legal and institutionalframeworks provide stability and guarantees of forestproperty rights has not been gathered and analyzed.How common and how significant are conflicting oroverlapping claims on land and resources? How arerights to surface and subsurface resources in forest set-tings being addressed? To what extent do the claims ofIndian peoples to forests cloud private property rights?Are private inholdings within public lands to be consi-dered secure? Do laws providing rights to practiceforestry also extend long-term security to forestryinvestments?

• Recognition of rights of Indian peoples—Except in iso-lated individual cases, information about the type, extent,and status of claims of Indian peoples to forest resourceshas not been adequately documented and analyzed. Towhat extent does the legal framework acknowledge andprotect property rights claims of Indian peoples andhistoric land and resource claims? Are the customary

�

and traditional claims of Indian peoples capable of beingcodified so that they can be recognized and protectedwithin existing legal processes? Is there sufficient flexi-bility within existing legal systems to allow rights claimsbased on nontraditional evidence to be recognized andprotected (for example, a religious need to leave notrace of property use)? How are subsistence claims thatare based upon historic use to be documented, and canthey be resolved through existing legal processes?

• Resolving disputes by due process—Information aboutprocesses for resolving disputes that involve propertyrights and land tenure arrangements has not beencompiled comprehensively. What types of processes arebeing used and how effective are they in addressingproperty rights concerns? Do all current legal frame-works include the elements of due process (notice,opportunity for comment, appeal)? Do procedures (forexample, giving notice) adequately involve those whoare indirectly as well as directly affected by a claimant’sdispute? Are there adequate legal mechanisms forresolving property rights conflicts between Indianpeople, historic land claims, and other claims to the useand ownership of lands and resources?

• Stabilizing influences on rights and tenure—Informa-tion about conditions that foster stability and certaintyin property rights and land tenure conditions has notbeen gathered and assessed in any meaningful way.What broad social, political, and economic conditions(interest rates, taxation, technology) favor or detractfrom certainty respecting property rights and tenurearrangements? What government approaches (fiscal andtax incentives, well-designed regulatory initiatives,right-to-practice-forestry statutes) are most appropriatefor securing stability in conditions of property rights?Can those claiming private property rights in forestsactually facilitate stability in rights to claimed property(for example, through voluntary acceptance of bestforest management practices)? How are tenure arrange-ments to be established so as to secure the degree ofcertainty required for long-term investment in forests?

• Land ownership stability—Except in a limited numberof cases, changes in land ownership patterns, as influ-enced by property rights and land tenure conditions,have not been assessed systematically. What are currentand prospective rates of change in forestland owner-ship? To what extent is fragmentation or consolidationof ownership affected by property right and land tenureconsiderations?

Recommendations

The capacity to influence forest sustainability will dependvery largely on the existence and functionality of processesand institutions that are available to protect and ensure

stability in property rights. Where the latter are in dispute,there must be effective and easily accessible due processthat guides disputing parties toward a solution of the issuesin contention. In the context of Indicator 48, a number ofinformation voids must be addressed. The following actionsseem appropriate:

• Comprehensive review of legal capacity—Conduct acomprehensive review of current property rights andland tenure arrangements with a focus on determiningwhether existing authorities, directions, and policiesactually clarify property rights and provide for appropri-ate land tenure arrangements involving forest resources(examples of information sources are Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis databases, Federal and State appellate court opin-ions, and statutes of Federal, State, and local govern-ments). This review should also assess the effectivenessof current mechanisms and procedures used to resolveproperty disputes. Care should be taken to adequatelyreview the ability to clarify the status of customary andtraditional rights to forest properties sought by Indianpeoples.

• Responsibility for conducting review—Assign responsi-bility for conducting the review of property rights andland tenure arrangements to a specific new or existingresearch or administrative unit of a Federal agency, acollege or university, or a nonprofit organization activelyengaged in such work. This responsibility should beassigned to an organization that has a proven track recordof understanding property rights issues and a history ofproposing workable land tenure arrangements as solu-tions to disputes over property.

• Resources devoted to review—Invest sufficient resourcesin the review so that the review can provide the type andquantity of information necessary to dramaticallyimprove understanding of current customs, authorities,and procedures for clarifying property rights and landtenure arrangements.

Indicator Appropriateness

Indicator Definition

Indicator 48 contains many words and phrases that areunclear in definition and intent—for example “clarifies,”“property rights,” “land tenure arrangements,” “customaryand traditional rights,” “indigenous people,” and “meansof resolving disputes.” Each of these words or phrasessupposedly embodies an agreed-to set of fundamentalconcepts and principles, but such is not always the case.Further compounding the specification problem is that newwords or phrases are continually being suggested, oftenwithout reference to well-established or newly developedprinciples or concepts. The indicator would benefit from

��

rewording such as “provides for appropriate land tenurearrangements, and provides means of resolving propertydisputes by due process.”

Relationship to Other Indicators

Relationships between Indicator 48 and other indicatorsare often unclear, especially where these indicators relateto concepts involving laws and values, public participa-tion, funding, and planning. Specifically, Indicator 48stands in an unclear relationship to Indicators 38 (invest-ment in forests), 39 (investment in research), 49 (planningand assessment), 50 (public participation), 52 (specialvalues), 53 (public involvement and education), 54 (plan-ning and coordination), 57 (enforce laws and codes), 61(forest inventories), 64 (value integrative methods), and66 (human intervention impacts).

Literature Cited

Binkley, C.S.; Raper, C.F.; Washburn, C.L. 1996. Institutional ownershipof U.S. timberland. Journal of Forestry. 94(9): 21-28.

Birch, T.W. 1996. Private forest-land owners of the United States: 1994.Resour. Bull. NE-134. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 183 p.

Bromley, D.W. 1991. Environment and economy: property rights andpublic policy. Cambridge, MA: Basic Blackwell Publishers. 247 p.

Cheng, A.S.; Ellefson, P.V. 1993. State forest practice laws and regula-tions: a review of constitutional and legal environments. Staff Pap. 88.St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources.49 p.

Coggins, G.C.; Wilkenson, C.F.; Leshy, J.D. 1993. Federal public landand resources law. Westbury, NY: The Foundation Press. 1,092 p.

Ellefson, P.V. 2000. Gifford Pinchot’s regulatory vision: Has it beenrealized? Journal of Forestry. 98(5):14-23.

Ellefson, P.V.; Cheng, A.S.; Moulton, R.S. 1995. Regulation of privateforestry practices by State governments. Sta. Bull. 605-1995. St. Paul,MN: MN Agricultural Experiment Station. 225 p.

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

Flick, Warren. 1994. Changing times: forest owners and the law. Journalof Forestry. 92(5): 30-33.

Frykenberg, R.E. 1977. Land control and social structure in Indianhistory. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. 256 p.

Gifis, S.H. 1984. Law dictionary. New York, NY: Barron’s EducationalSeries Publishers. 618 p.

Goldstein, Jon H.; Watson, William D. 1997. Property rights, regulatorytaking, and compensation: implications for environmental protection.Contemporary Economic Policy. 15(4): 32-65.

Hanna, S.S.; Folke, C.; Karl-Goran, M. 1996. Rights to nature: ecological,economic, cultural and political principles of institutions for theenvironment. Washington, DC: Island Press. 298 p.

Lund, H.H. 1995. Property rights legislation in the States: a review. PERCPolicy Series, Issue PS-1. Bozeman, MT: Political Economy ResearchCenter. 35 p.

Malmsheimer, R.W.; Floyd, D.W. 1998. The right to practice forestry:laws restricting nuisance suits and municipal ordinances. Journal ofForestry. 96(8): 27-32.

Marchak, P.M. 1998. Who owns natural resources in the United Statesand Canada. Work. Pap. 20, North American series. Madison, WI:University of Wisconsin, Land Tenure Center. 16 p.

Meltz, R. 1995. The property rights issue. Report 95-200A. Washington,DC: U.S. Congress, Congressional Research Service. 24 p.

Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. Criteria and indi-cators for the conservation and sustainable management of temperateand boreal forests: Criterion Seven. http://www.mpci.org/tac/mexico/tn7_e.html. [Date accessed: February 2002].

Montreal Process Working Group. 2003. The Montreal process. http://www.mpci.org/. [Date accessed: February 2002].

Morales, L.A. 1991. Using private land trusts and conservation easementsto protect the environment: a bibliography. Monticello, IL: VanceBibliographies. [Not paged].

Morrisette, P.M. 2001. Conservation easements and the public good:preserving the environment on private lands. Natural ResourcesJournal. 41(2): 373-426.

Moulton, B. 1995. Takings legislation: protection of property rights orthreat to the public interest. Environment. 37(2): 44-45.

Nash, D. 1999. Indian lands. http://profs.lp.findlaw.com/ilands/ilands_9.html. [Date accessed: August 2001].

National Association of State Foresters. 1999. First approximationassessment report. http://www.stateforesters.org/SFstats.html. [Dateaccessed July 2001].

Rideout, D.B.; Hessein, H. 1997. Principles of forest and environmentaleconomics. Fort Collins, CO: Resource & Environmental ManagementPublishers. [Not paged].

U.S. Congress. 1990. National Indian Forest Resources Management Act.Act of September 19, 1990 [Hearings: 136th Congress, U.S. House ofRepresentatives, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.] SerialNumber 1001-65. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.[Not paged].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1993. The principal lawsrelating to forest service activities. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture. 1,163 p.

Vecsey, C.; Venables, R.W. 1980. American Indian environments: eco-logical issues in Native American history. Syracuse, NY: SyracuseUniversity Press. 208 p.

Warren, S.T. 1997. Criterion seven, indicator 48: a review and discussion.Unpub. doc. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Southern Forest Experiment Station.12 p.

Warren, S.T. 1998. A framework for understanding property rights andresponsibilities in forested land. In: Meeting in the middle: Proceedingsof the 1997 national convention. Bethesda, MD: Society of AmericanForesters: 218-224.

��

Wiebe, K.D.; Tegene, A.; Kuhn, B. 1996. Partial interests in land: policytools for resource use and conservation. Agric. Econ. Rep. 744.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic ResearchService. 68 p.

Wiebe, K.D.; Tegene, A.; Kuhn, B. 1998. Land tenure, land policy, andthe property rights debate. In: Jacobs, H. M., ed. Who owns America?Social conflict over property rights. Madison, WI: University ofWisconsin Press: 168-174.

Zhang, D. 1996. State property rights laws: what, where, and how?Journal of Forestry 94(4): 10-15.

Zhang, D. 1999. The hurdles of property rights legislation. In: Greatlakes, great forests: Proceedings of 1998 convention. Bethesda, MD:Society of American Foresters: 262-269.

��

Appendix

Federal Statutes with Implications for Usufructuary Rightsand Restrictions on Federal Land

Federal statute

Administrative Procedure Act of 1948Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971Antiquities Act of 1906Bald Eagle Act of 1940 (as amended)Clean Air Act of 1955 (as amended)Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (as amended)Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

(as amended)Eastern Wilderness Act of 1975Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended)Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (as amended)Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974General Mining Law of 1872Knutson-Vandenberg Act of 1930Lacey Act of 1900Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918Mineral Leasing Act, Potassium Leasing Law, Sulfur Act of 1920Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947Mineral Resources on Weeks Law Lands of 1947Mining in the Parks Act of 1976Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960National Environmental Policy Act of 1969National Forest Management Act of 1976National Historic Preservation Act of 1976National Park Service Organic Act of 1916National Trails System Act of 1968National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1968Organic Administration Act of 1897Refuge Recreation Act of 1962Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (as amended)Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977Surface Resources Act of 1955Water Resources Planning Act of 1965Weeks Act of 1911Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968Wilderness Act of 1964

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

��

The full text of Indicator 49 is as follows: Extent to whichthe legal framework (laws, regulations, guidelines) supportsthe conservation and sustainable management of forests,including the extent to which it provides for periodicforest-related planning, assessment, and policy reviewthat recognizes the range of forest values, includingcoordination with relevant sectors (Montreal ProcessWorking Group 2003).


Forests are affected by a wide variety of physical, economic,and social influences, many of which originate beyond theforest community in sectors such as energy, agriculture,transportation, communication, environment, and govern-ment. The sustainability of forests is dependent on theability of society to comprehensively evaluate trends andconditions in these diverse sectors and to subsequentlytake responsive actions that will ensure the sustained use,management, and protection of forest resources and thecommunities that depend on them. These actions are typi-cally predicated on well-focused and technically soundplans, assessments, and policy reviews that are sensitive toa range of forest values and are coordinated with a varietyof forest-related sectors (Montreal Process TechnicalAdvisory Committee 2000, Montreal Process WorkingGroup 2003).

The focus of Indicator 49 is on the legal capacity availableto conduct planning, assessments, and policy reviews.Therefore it will be useful to compile information aboutlaws, rules, and responsible agencies that promote thedevelopment of forest plans and the preparation of assess-ments and periodic policy reviews. These compilationsshould document the agencies and organizations involved;the frequency with which plans, analyses, and reviews areprepared; the financial and professional resources devotedto these activities; and their ability to accomplish objec-tives involving conservation and sustainability. Of specialinterest is information describing the capability of agen-cies, plans, assessments, and reviews to address a range offorest values and to foster coordination with plans inrelated sectors (Montreal Process Technical AdvisoryCommittee 2000).

Indicator 49 lists various concepts and principles that areto be addressed. Four of these may be defined as follows:planning consists of disciplined procedures undertaken toguide organizations having an interest in forest sustain-ability (for example, in strategic resource planning, landuse planning, and management planning); assessments arecomprehensive examinations of present and prospectiveecological, economic, or political conditions that are likelyto affect forest sustainability; policy review is the develop-ment and examination of options for addressing importantissues involving forest sustainability; and coordinationwith relevant sectors is the harmonizing or integration ofplans, assessments, and policy reviews originating fromdiverse ecological, economic, and political structures andconditions important to forest sustainability.

The indicator draws special attention to the legal capacityto engage in “coordination with relevant sectors.” A Stateor nation’s forestry sector may be but one of many sectorscapable of fostering sustainability and conservation offorests, and there is much potential for coordination in thisarea (Ellefson 1985, Greeley 1966). For example, therecan be coordination of project plans, forest sector plans,and macro or national plans; of plans for different kindsof forest resources (such as timber, recreation, range, andwildlife); of forestry and nonforestry plans (such as agri-culture plans and mineral plans); of public and privatesector plans (such as those for public timberland invest-ments and private timber processing facilities); and offorestry and nonforestry plans involving functionalinterests (such as timber management plans and generaltransportation plans). Identifying the legal capacity thataddresses these numerous interfaces and promotescoordination among them is a considerable challenge.


Planning Activities

Planning is often considered a central component of forest-land management. Statutes and administrative directivesgoverning the use, management, and protection of forestsinvariably set forth requirements for the development ofplans and directives that provide the framework withinwhich managers can operate to accomplish their organiza-tions’ missions. Since private and public interests in theuse, management, and protection of forests are part ofdynamic political and economic systems, plans are subjectto periodic review and revision. Coordination of various

1 Ellefson, Professor, and Hibbard, Research Specialist, Department ofForest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.

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

Paul V. Ellefson and Calder M. Hibbard1

��

types and levels of plans prepared in response to variouslocal, State, and Federal statutory requirements is anonerous task. An effective approach to coordinating, andin some cases reconciling, plan development and imple-mentation in such an environment is not fully developed.

Plans focused on forest resources are highly variable intheir purpose. However, such plans can take the form of astrategic program plan, which sets general direction towarda mission or vision and results from a formalized butmodest set of exercises, or can embody the combinedresponses of an agency to continuing streams of oftenunexpected issues (Office of Technology Assessment 1990).Examples of the latter are State and Federal agencyactions responding to unexpected judicial and legislativedirectives—actions which when combined constitute a defacto strategic plan. Statewide forest resource plans pre-pared by lead forestry agencies in State government andthe plans required of the USDA Forest Service by theForest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Actof 1974 and the Government Performance and Results Actof 1993 are examples of strategic plans resulting frommore formalized exercises.

Plans can also be very focused in identifying expected out-comes, as in the case of land use and management plans.Of interest are plans that are specific enough to provideclear direction for management activities and concreteenough that success can be measured. They identify poten-tial uses, estimated outputs, and conditions that are desir-able and feasible. They explain how management willaffect key sites, produce important outputs, and protectvital resources and ecosystems. Land use and managementplans tend to be the product of rational planning approachesthat require clearly specified objectives, alternatives, deci-sion criteria, and implementation and monitoring proce-dures. Plans for each administrative unit of the nation’snational forests, as prepared by the USDA Forest Serviceunder authorities set forth by the National Forest Manage-ment Act of 1976, and plans for each refuge prepared bythe USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, as called for by theNational Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of1997, are examples of land use and management plans.

Plans developed to guide the use, management, and pro-tection of forests can emerge from statutes that requiredirect and exclusive consideration of forests as well as fromstatutes that authorize the development of broader multi-sector plans. An example of the former is the strategicplanning process called for by the Forest and RangelandRenewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, which requiresthe preparation of plans that address a variety of interestsin forests (for example, wildlife, fish, timber, grazing) andrequires interdisciplinary consideration of desired forestconditions. Some multisector plans focus on a specific

physical resource, such as air or water, that can be affectedby the use and management of forests. Examples of evenmore broadly construed multisector plans are those requiredof agencies that are responsible for administering theEndangered Species Act of 1973, the Coastal Zone Man-agement Act of 1972, the Clean Water Act of 1987, andthe Clean Air Act of 1990. State governments also developmultiresource plans that affect forests, plans that are oftendeveloped in response to the Federal laws just identified.

Judgments about the usefulness of plans and planningprocesses presumes the existence of standards or measuresof goodness. One obvious source of such standards is thestatutes that authorize the planning activity. For example,these statutes may require public participation or prepara-tion by interdisciplinary teams. Other commonly advocatedstandards for plans or planning processes include legalsufficiency, ability to resolve conflict, cost-effectiveness,existence of a foundation of good data and sound analyses,capability to be implemented on the ground, communica-tion of a clear vision, completion on time, active leader-ship by administrators, and flexibility to accommodateunexpected events. These examples illustrate the range ofstandards by which the strength and weakness of forestplanning activities may be judged (Bryson 1988, Gray andEllefson 1987, Larsen and others 1990, Teeguarden 1990).

Assessment Activities

Assessments are comprehensive examinations of presentand prospective conditions that are likely to affect the use,management, and protection of forests both now and in thefuture. They are often viewed as supportive of plan develop-ment, in that plans generally respond to assessment-identi-fied gaps between current and some desired conditions inthe use, management, and protection of forests. Assessmentshave traditionally been detailed, comprehensive exercisesthat include thorough analysis of data, although movementis toward assessments that examine broad trends in resource,economic, and social conditions that a forestry agencymight adapt to or possibly influence (Sample and LeMaster1995). Some assessments are developed for purposes ofevaluating or monitoring progress toward key goals andobjectives that have been identified in a plan. Examples ofassessments are the renewable resources assessmentrequired by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable ResourcesPlanning Act of 1974 and prepared every 10 years, thecritical habitat assessment for threatened and endangeredspecies required by the National Wildlife Refuge SystemAdministration Act of 1966 (amended 1997), and variousstatewide resource assessments carried out by the forestryagencies of State governments. These statewide assess-ments include the criterion and indicators assessments thatare being prepared by an increasing number of States(such as Oregon).

��

Policy and Program Review Activities

Anticipating, evaluating, and developing options foraddressing important forest resource issues is the focus ofpolicy and program analyses. Issues requiring analysis areselected on the basis of (for example) their urgency, stra-tegic significance, programmatic importance, geographicscope, fiscal implications, or the expectation of usefulresults from analysis. The principal users of policy analysesare generally forestry agency executives, although leadersin other branches of government and in the private sectoroften seek the results of policy analysis. As examples,topics addressed by the policy analysis staff of the USDAForest Service include payments to States from nationalforest receipts, water resource policy and the managementof forests, and the role of public and private recreationenterprises. Policy analysis is also carried out by the renew-able resources and planning staff of the USDI Bureau ofLand Management, the planning and evaluation staff of theUSDI Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Office of Policy,Economics, and Innovation of the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency. State government forest agencies alsohave capabilities for policy and program analysis (forexample, the Resource Policy Division of the OregonDepartment of Forestry).


Private Sector Capacity

Many private organizations have the capacity to undertakepolicy and program reviews, often doing so as part of theirperception of a private sector mission (not necessarily alegal requirement). For example, industrial forestry con-cerns periodically prepare policy reviews of their strategicposition in forest product markets, and reviews of corporateland ownership strategies. Similarly, private companiesconsidering long-term investment in timberland oftenundertake careful review and analysis of such opportuni-ties (for example, the Hancock Timber Resource Group).Private organized interest groups also engage in policyreview and analysis that can be used to influence develop-ment of public policy toward the use and management offorests. Such groups (and an example of each group’sreports) include the Society of American Foresters (“Forestwildlife-habitat relationships: population and communityresponses to forest management” [2002]), the NationalAssociation of State Foresters (“A review of the State andprivate forestry deputy area Washington office” [2002]),the Pinchot Institute for Conservation (“Allocating cooper-ative forestry funds to States: block grants and alternatives”[2001]), The Wilderness Society (“National forests: Poli-cies for the future” [1988]), and Sierra Club (“Forest fires:Beyond the heat and hype” [2002]). Also representing

policy review capacity are special interest group reviewsof National Forest Land Management Plans and critiquesof plans for the sale of timber from public forests.

Private sector capacity for land management planning isapparent in the development and implementation of man-agement plans for private forests. In 1994, approximately5 percent of nearly 10 million private landowners wereknown to have a written plan for the management of theirforest property (table 1). Nationally, these plans directedthe use and management of forest on nearly 154 millionacres of private land. Thirty-seven percent of the planswere prepared by a State government employee (serviceforester), while landowners (21.7 percent) and consultants(10.7 percent) were the next most-frequent plan preparers.Consultants were responsible for plans applied to morethan 25 million acres of private forestland. For 1998, theUSDA Forest Service reported the preparation of nearly28,000 forest management plans (including forest steward-ship plans) that were applied to more than 1.8 million acresof private forest (U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService 1999). A national assessment of forest stewardshipplans found that 84 percent of landowners with such planshad begun to implement them, applying at least one recom-mended activity, such as thinning of trees (Esseks andMoulton 2000). In some cases, forest management certifi-cation programs require development of a managementplan (for example, certification of forest managementpractices by the Sustainable Forestry Initiative of theAmerican Forest and Paper Association).

The private sector’s capacity to prepare land managementplans is also reflected in the legal requirements of Stateforest practice regulatory programs. In some States (forexample, California, Oregon, Washington), private land-owners who want to conduct timber harvests must firstprepare timber harvest plans that prescribe forestry prac-tices considered critical to the sustainability of forestconditions. In the early 1990s, the California Board ofForestry processed between 1,200 and 1,500 such plansper year, while the Oregon Department of Forestry andWashington’s Division of Forest Practices processed15,000 to 20,000 per year and 10,000 to 15,000 per year,respectively (Ellefson and others 1995).

Federal Government Capacity

Planning activities—Federal requirements for planning theuse, management, and protection of forests have existedfor many years. Early planning activities were usuallyinitiated by agency executives who sought to define broadstrategic directions for their agencies. In recent years,however, Federal laws have required planning that is moreformal and more intensive. Prior to 1974, Congress did notspecifically require any Federal land management agency

��

to conduct formal systemwide planning (Coggins and others1993). Today at least 26 Federal statutes require majoragencywide activities involving the preparation of strategicprogram plans or land use and management plans, and atleast 7 of these statutes set planning requirements that areexclusive to forests (table 2). The planning requirements ofthese 26 statutes are implemented by more than 10 federalagencies and result in the production of plans that vary ingeographic scope (national, regional, local) and relevanceto the use and management of forests (Coggins and others1993, Dolgin and Guilbert 1974, Mansfield 1993, Platerand others 1998, Schoenbaum and Rosenberg 1996, WestPublishing Company 1997).

Federal statutes requiring plans focused on forests arenearly evenly split between those that require the prepara-tion of strategic program plans and those that require thepreparation of land use and management plans (table 2).Some of these statutes require planning that addressesmany forest values (water, wildlife, timber, recreation),while those statutes that are not specific to forests tend tohave primary concern for a single forest value. Statutes ofthe latter kind include the Federal Water Pollution ControlAct and the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Although anumber of statutes require that plans be coordinated withrelated sectors, in most cases the statutory requirement to

do so is unclear. This lack of statutory clarity is also thecase with regard to requirements for updating plans,although there are notable exceptions. For example, theNational Forest Management Act of 1976 is very clear inthis respect (plans must be revised at least every 15 years).In many cases (for example, the Clean Water Act of 1987),statutes require the preparation of an initial plan and aresilent on subsequent revision or modification of that plan.Examples of Federal agency strategic and land use andmanagement plans are as follows:

• USDA Forest Service—The U.S. Department of Agri-culture Forest Service is responsible for operating theNational Forest System, for conducting forest resourcesresearch, and for providing technical and financialassistance to State and private forestry agencies. Avariety of statutes require the USDA Forest Service toprepare strategic program plans as well as land use andmanagement plans. An example of the first kind ofstatute is the Forest and Rangeland Renewable ResourcesPlanning Act of 1974 (RPA), which requires preparationof a resources assessment (every 10 years), a resourcesprogram (every 5 years, looking to conditions 45 yearshence), a Presidential statement of policy (to guidebudget formulation), and annual reports on progresstoward implementation of the planning documents

Table 1—Forest management plans prepared by private forest owners, by type of ownerand type of plan preparer (1994)

Owners AreaManagement planpreparation Number Proportion Acres Proportion

thousands percent millions percent

Owners with written plan 531.2 5.4 153.6 39.0Owners without written plan 8,594.1 86.7 226.2 57.5Unknown status 784.9 7.9 13.6 3.5

Total 9,910.2 100.0 393.4 100.0

Plan prepared by:Owner 114.8 21.7 16.7 19.0Consultant 56.5 10.7 25.5 28.9Industrial forester 20.6 3.9 8.9 10.1State government employee 196.2 37.1 16.8 19.1Extension Service 8.9 1.7 0.9 1.0USDA Natural Resources 47.3 9.0 4.6 5.2

Conservation ServiceOther 87.9 16.6 24.0 27.3

Total 532.2 100.7 97.4 110.6

Note: Table totals exceed 100 percent because plans were prepared by more than one type of preparer. Of ownerswith a written plan, 528,800 were nonindustrial private owners (88.1 million acres) and 2,400 were industrial owners(65.5 million acres).Source: Birch (1996).

��

Table 2—Federal statutes authorizing planning activities involving forests and forestry, by various planningcharacteristics (2001)

Range of Coordination Periodic Major forestPrimary forest with plans for updating ownership

Federal statute requiring some form of type of plan values related forest of plans categoryplanning activity required addressed sectors required addressed

Planning focus directly and exclusively onforests and forestryCooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 Strategic Yes Yes * All ownershipsForest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Strategic Yes * Yes All ownerships

Planning Act of 1974Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Strategic Yes Yes * All ownerships

Research Act of 1978McIntire-Stennis Forest Research Act * Yes * * All ownershipsMultiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 * Yes Yes * FederalNational Forest Management Act of 1978 Management Yes Yes Yes FederalRenewable Resources Extension Act of 1978 Strategic Yes Yes Yes All ownerships

Planning focus broad, including forests andforestryAdministrative Procedures Act of 1946 Strategic Yes * Yes All ownershipsAnadromous Fish Conservation Act of 1965 Strategic No * * All ownershipsClean Air Act of 1990 Strategic Yes * * All ownershipsClean Water Act of 1987 Strategic No Yes Yes All ownershipsCoastal Zone Management Act of 1972 Management Yes Yes Yes All ownershipsEndangered Species Act of 1973 Management No No * All ownershipsFederal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Management Yes * * All ownerships

Rodenticide Act (as amended 1996)Federal Land Policy and Management Act Strategic Yes Yes Yes Federal

of 1976Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 Management No * Yes All ownershipsGovernment Performance and Results Act Strategic Yes Yes Yes All ownerships

of 1993Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Management No * Yes All ownerships

of 1965National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 Strategic Yes Yes * All ownershipsNational Park Service Organic Act of 1916 Management No * * FederalNational Trails System Act of 1968 Management No Yes * All ownershipsNational Wildlife Refuge System Management No Yes Yes Federal

Administration Act of 1966 (1997)Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977 Strategic Yes Yes Yes PrivateSurface Mining Control and Reclamation Management Yes * * All ownership

Act of 1977Wilderness Act of 1964 Management No No * FederalWild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 Management No Yes * All ownerships

Note: Asterisk indicates statute is not clear on this point.Source: Plater and others (1998); Schoenbaum and Rosenburg (1996).

�

(Office of Technology Assessment 1992a).2 The processrequires consideration of all forest values, coordinationwith other Federal agencies, and cooperation with otherlevels of government (especially State governments).(Since 1993, the Government Performance and ResultsAct [GPRA] has preempted strategic planning legisla-tive authorities for most Federal agencies. The programelement of RPA has essentially been subsumed by theGPRA; the RPA Assessment now provides the contextfor the GPRA strategic plan).

The response of the USDA Forest Service to the Govern-ment Performance and Results Act of 1993 is anotherexample of strategic program planning. Responding tothe act, the 2000 Plan (revised) sets strategic directionfor the agency for a 5-year period, with each year’sfunding being dependent on progress toward accomplish-ing the goals specified in the plan (U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service 2000a). Four broad goals areidentified (ensure sustainable ecosystems, provide formultiple benefits, ensure development and delivery ofinformation, and ensure organizational effectiveness).Each of these goals is given operational clarity by morefocused objectives (for example, improve and protectwater conditions, improve knowledge base throughresearch and monitoring), time frames for accomplish-ment, and measures of performance. The strategic planalso sets forth provisions for program evaluations andcoordination of overlapping functions.

The USDA Forest Service is also responsible for land useand management planning under authorities specified inthe National Forest Management Act of 1976. This act(which is specific to the national forests) sets forth plan-ning processes and calls for the development of guide-lines or rules that focus attention on the availability ofland for resource management, potential levels ofresource use and management, and ways in which avariety of resource management practices are to becarried out. The actual planning process involves 10steps, including identification of potential uses andestimated outputs, response to issues of public concern,protection of especially valuable resources and ecosys-tems, and plan implementation and monitoring (Officeof Technology Assessment 1992b, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service 2000b). Plans (identified asLand Resource Management Plans) are to be revised at

least every 15 years, must comply with related and rele-vant Federal environmental and resource statutes, andare to be vertically integrated with other planning levelsin the agency (nationwide: strategic plan; region: regionalguide; national forest: land resource management plan;and project-level: specific projects). More than 85national forest plans are to be revised during the periodbeginning in 1999 and ending in 2004.

• USDI Bureau of Land Management—The USDI Bureauof Land Management administers 264 million acres ofFederal public land and the mineral rights underlying564 million acres of Federal public land. The Bureau ofLand Management has responded to the GovernmentPerformance and Results Act of 1993 by preparing astrategic plan. This plan sets forth 5 overall or “blue-print” goals (serve current and future client groups,restore and maintain health of land, promote collaborativemanagement, improve business practices, and improvehuman resources management), 43 performance goals(for example, preserve natural and cultural heritage,establish and implement management standards andguidelines), and a variety of results to be accomplishedover a 3 to 10-year period (for example, evaluate areasand resources that may warrant special recognition,incorporate comprehensive standards for public landhealth into existing land use plans). The agency coor-dinates plan implementation at the national and locallevel with 14 other Federal agencies (Williams 1987).

The Bureau of Land Management also engages in landuse and management planning. Although this planningis guided by an especially wide range of Federal statutesand Executive orders that in some measure require plan-ning activities and, where so, often require considerationof forests, the agency’s major land management planningauthority proceeds from the Federal Land Policy andManagement Act of 1976.3 This act requires the Bureauto prepare land use plans that provide management direc-tion for the Nation’s public lands. These plans are anintegral part of a three-tier planning structure within theagency, namely a national strategic plan (responding tothe Government Performance and Results Act of 1993),resource management plans, and plans for areas ofcritical concern (unique wildlife and special ecosystems).The resource management plans, of which 108 havebeen developed since 1984, address specific resource

2 In addition to the multisector laws that guide the planning of resourcesuse and management generally, the USDA Forest Service must giveconsideration to Federal statutes such as the Alaska National InterestLands Conservation Act of 1980, Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of1980, Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, CooperativeForestry Assistance Act of 1978, Surface Mining Control and ReclamationAct of 1977, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Wilderness Act of1964, National Forest Roads and Trails Act of 1964, and Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960.

3 In addition to the more multisector laws that guide the planning ofresource use and management generally, the USDI-Bureau of LandManagement must give consideration to Federal statutes such as theColorado River Basin Salinity Control Act, Federal Coal LeasingAmendments Act of 1976, Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, PublicRangelands Improvement Act of 1978, and Wild and Free-RoamingHorse and Burro Act (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of LandManagement 2000a).

�

conflicts, reflect public participation and comment, andare accompanied by environmental impact statements.

In response to the Federal Land Policy and ManagementAct of 1976, the USDI Bureau of Land Managementplanning process identifies issues and concerns, assessesinformation, identifies desired outcomes, and specifiesallowable uses and actions needed to achieve desired out-comes. Statutory limitations on the implementation ofthis process include requirements to inventory resourceconditions on public lands, involve the public in plandevelopment, comply with multiple-use principles, coor-dinate plan development and implementation with otherFederal, State, local, and tribal governments, givepriority designation and protection to areas of criticalenvironmental concern, comply with applicable pollu-tion control laws, and recognize development rights ofmining claimants (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureauof Land Management 2000a, 2000b). The agency’sLand Use Planning Handbook requires that specialconsideration be given to forests and forestry: planningmust describe healthy forest conditions and the bestmanagement practices that can be applied in order toaccomplish such conditions (U.S. Department of theInterior, Bureau of Land Management 2000b).

• USDI National Park Service—The U.S. Department ofInterior National Park Service is responsible for themanagement of 83.6 million acres of public land. Usingauthority granted by the National Park Service OrganicAct of 1916 and administrative rules and directives pur-suant to the act, it conducts four interrelated planningprocesses, namely general management planning(agencywide mission and goals), park strategic planning(park-level mission and goals), implementation planning(agencywide and park-level plans of action), and annualperformance planning (agencywide and park-level mea-sures of progress). The order in which these processesoccur flows from broad-scale general management plan-ning through progressively more specific strategic, imple-mentation, and performance planning (U.S. Departmentof the Interior, National Park Service 1998). Major prin-ciples guiding the agency’s planning activities includeuse of interdisciplinary planning approaches and princi-ples, use of scientific and technical information indecision making, use of peer review panels to addressconflicts over validity and interpretation of information,use of alternative dispute resolution processes (internallyand externally), and review and analysis of post-litiga-tion decisions to identify ways of improving futuredecisions (U.S. Department of the Interior, NationalPark Service 2001).

Although the agency’s planning activity consists mostlyof the production of land use and management plans forspecific park units, an agencywide strategic programplan has been developed in response to the Government

Performance and Results Act of 1993 (U.S. Departmentof the Interior, National Park Service 2000). This planfocuses on four major goals: preserve park resources,provide for public enjoyment, strengthen cultural andrecreation resources, and ensure organizational effec-tiveness. Eleven strategies for accomplishing these goalsare specified and include developing additional partner-ships and improving technology and databases. Variouscross-agency issues and suggestions for their resolutionare presented (for example, working with various federalagencies on ecosystem restoration in south Florida). Theagency also identifies management and data issues to bedealt with and describes plans for evaluating programs.

• USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service—TheU.S. Department of Agriculture Natural ResourcesConservation Service is responsible for a wide range offorest resource programs, all of which require some levelof planning. These planning activities are conducted inaccordance with authorities granted by the Soil andWater Conservation Act of 1977 and the GovernmentPerformance and Results Act of 1993. The formerrequires the preparation (every 10 years) of an appraisalof the Nation’s soil, water, and related resources and thedevelopment (every 10 years) of a soil and water conser-vation program. These documents are to be consistentwith the findings of resource inventories and assessments,identification and analysis of alternatives, consultationand consensus-building processes, and sound principlesof plan implementation and program evaluation. Theyare to be transmitted to the U.S. Congress, as are annualreports (to accompany proposed budgets) of progress inimplementing programs. The agency’s mission statementhighlights the importance of conservation planning; theagency’s planning is to guide it in developing programsthat encourage comprehensive planning for managementof natural resources on private and other nonfederalland. This resource management planning is to involveprocesses that integrate social, economic, and ecologicalresource concerns while also maintaining natural systemsand ecological processes. Only two plans and appraisalshave been made by the USDA Natural Resources Con-servation Service under authorities established by theSoil and Water Conservation Act of 1977.

The agency’s planning activities involving forests areresponses to a number of forest and related programsthat have been assigned to the agency for implementa-tion. These planning activities give direction to programsthat provide for natural resource information, communityplanning and development, conservation cost-share pro-gram assistance, conservation planning and implementa-tion, erosion control and reduction, farmland protection,fish and wildlife habitat improvement, forest improve-ment and management, range management, stream restor-ation, water management, water quality improvement,

��

wetland restoration and protection, watershed planning,conservation technical assistance, emergency watershedprotection, and natural resources inventory work. Mostof these functions are carried out in cooperation withState governments and typically require State-developedplans prior to their implementation by the agency. Exam-ples are the Forestry Incentives Program, ConservationReserve Program, and Stewardship Incentive Program,all of which are administered in cooperation with theUSDA Forest Service.

The agency also responds to the Government Perform-ance and Results Act of 1993 by preparing an agency-wide strategic program plan (U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service2000). The plan identifies 4 major goals (enhanceresource productivity, reduce unintended natural resourceimpacts, protect communities from flood and drought,deliver high-quality services to the public) and 14specific objectives that give a focus to these goals (forexample, enhance forestland productivity, enhance fishand wildlife habitats). Coordination of plan develop-ment and implementation with other public and privateentities (and especially with State governments) iscommon and extensive, and involves cooperation onmatters related to education, research, data collection,and program delivery. Provisions are made for programevaluations, including advance (1 year) schedules forevaluation in the agency’s annual operational plan.

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—The Fish and WildlifeService is responsible for conserving, protecting, andenhancing fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for thecontinuing benefit of the Nation (Goble and Freyfogle2002). The agency is guided by more than 150 Federalstatutes, many of which authorize planning activitiesthat are directly relevant to the use, management, andprotection of forests. An example is the agency’s role inadministering the Endangered Species Act of 1973, aplanning role that has been especially important indefining the sustainability of wildlife habitats associatedwith public and private forests. Among other agency-developed plans that have implications for forestresources are the agency’s comprehensive conservationplans for wildlife refuges, its information resources man-agement strategic plan, its endangered species habitatconservation plans, its service-wide strategic and per-formance plans, and the wildland fire and air qualitynational strategic plan.

The agency’s long-range strategic program plan is aresponse to the Government Performance and ResultsAct of 1993 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001a).This plan sets forth 4 mission goals (sustain fish andwildlife populations, conserve habitats through a networkof lands and waters, provide for public use and enjoy-ment, establish partnerships for managing wildlife

resources) and 14 long-term goals that implement thesemission goals (for example, provide for greater recrea-tional use of wildlife refuges, work with private land-owners on eradication of invasive species). Key factorsaffecting the ability to accomplish these long-term goalsare specified (for example, extent of collaboration withpartners, extremes in weather and climate conditions),and coordination with other Federal agencies that haveresponsibilities involving wildlife and wildlife habitatsis described (for example, management of the SouthFlorida Everglades, implementation of the NorthwestForest Plan, recovery of endangered species). The planspecifically addresses major wildlife habitat concernson land not directly administered by the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service. For example, it calls for the restora-tion and establishment by 2005 of 280,000 acres ofwetlands habitat, 524,000 acres of upland habitats, and4,150 riparian or stream miles of habitat not directlyowned or controlled by the agency.

The Fish and Wildlife Service also engages in land useand management planning as authorized by the NationalWildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (asamended 1997). This activity includes the developmentof comprehensive conservation plans for refuges that arepart of the National Wildlife Refuge System (U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service 2001b). These plans are to providea clear and comprehensive statement of desired condi-tions for each refuge and to provide rationales for man-agement decisions needed to accomplish such conditions,including the management of forests considered impor-tant as wildlife habitat. The process of developing com-prehensive conservation plans provides opportunity forpublic involvement and for interaction with other Federalagencies that have responsibilities in relation to themanagement of wildlife. Implementation of completedplans is also to be coordinated with State conservationagencies, tribal governments, and non-governmentalorganizations. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serviceexpects to complete comprehensive conservation plansfor 250 planning areas of the National Wildlife RefugeSystem by 2006. The plans are to be reviewed andupdated at least every 15 years.

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—The Environ-mental Protection Agency is responsible for a wide vari-ety of programs that focus on protecting human healthand safeguarding the natural environment (air, water,and land) on which life depends. The agency influencesthe use, management, and protection of forests throughstatutory authorities that focus on water (wastewater,drinking water, ground water), air (acid rain, globalwarming, emissions), hazardous wastes, insecticides,endangered species, wetlands, and watersheds. Nearlyall of these programs involve planning activities thathave implications for forests. For example, States must

��

develop implementation plans for meeting air and waterquality standards promulgated by the agency under theauthority of the Clean Air Act of 1990 and the CleanWater Act of 1987. Plans authorized by the latter actand developed to address nonpoint pollutant sourcesoriginating in forested areas have been especially impor-tant in determining what forest practices are applied onprivate and public forestland, and how they are applied.

The Environmental Protection Agency has developed astrategic program plan in response to the GovernmentPerformance and Results Act of 1993 (U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency 2000). The strategic planfocuses on 10 goals (clean air, clean and safe water, safefood, pollution prevention, waste management, globalpollutant reduction, quality environmental information,sound environmental science, program compliance, andeffective agency management), each of which is furtherfocused by detailed objectives and performance require-ments. The plan’s development and implementation arecoordinated with more than 100 Federal, State, and localagencies, tribal governments, business and industryorganizations, and environmental and public interestgroups.

The above are examples of Federal agencies that engagein planning the use, management, and protection offorests. Other agencies that are so engaged to somedegree are the Council on Environmental Quality (rulesgoverning administration of the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act of 1969), Army Corps of Engineers (admini-stration of wetland provisions of the Clean Water Act of1987), Department of Defense (plans for Departmentforestlands), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA forestsand private forests), and the USDI Bureau of IndianAffairs.

Assessment activities—Federal agency capacity to under-take comprehensive examinations of present and prospec-tive conditions that are likely to affect the use, management,and protection of forests is significant (table 3). Of the22 example assessments identified in table 3, two-thirdsaddress a range of forest values, although often only for aspecific region or land ownership category (for example,the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Assessment, theNorthern Lands Assessment, and the Southern ForestAssessment). Most assessments are conducted in coordina-tion with other agencies and with different ownerships andlevels of government, although this coordination is oftennot clearly stated in statutes or directives. Coordinationcan be difficult because assessments involving forests canhave differing objectives (timber assessments versus endan-gered species assessments, for example) and are oftenundertaken by a number of Federal agencies, many ofwhich do not have forests as their primary responsibility(Johnson and others 1999). It is also significant that most

Federal assessments are regional or ecosystems based, aswhen the area of concern for planning is determined byscientifically defined, ecologically based geographicboundaries (for example, Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem,Interior Columbia River Basin, Northern Spotted OwlForest Ecosystem) (Hardt 1997).

Agency authority for carrying out assessments is set forthby statutes that call for continuous assessments (monitor-ing) (as in the case of the acid rain deposition program ofthe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), periodicassessments at specified intervals (as with the RenewableResources Assessment of the USDA Forest Service), orintermittent assessments required to address importantissues regarding resource use and management (as withthe Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Report ofthe USDA Forest Service and cooperating agencies). Inter-mittent assessments frequently have a specific geographicfocus, usually a multi-State region. Of the 22 assessmentsidentified in table 3, 17 address conditions on all forestownerships. However, assessments have often focused onwildlife refuges, national forests, national parks, andIndian forestlands.

Assessments are frequently undertaken in concert with thedevelopment of strategic program plans or land use andmanagement plans (for example, the Soil and WaterAppraisal and the Conservation Program of the USDANatural Resources Conservation Service). Information aboutthe conditions and capabilities of resources as providedby assessments has proven to be especially useful in thedevelopment of such plans. Although assessments havelong been useful as a means of evaluating trends in the useand condition of resources, they are increasingly beingused to evaluate progress toward key goals and objectivesthat are specified in agency plans. They have becomeespecially important sources of information for thosemaking judgments about progress toward goals specifiedin the agency strategic program plans required by theGovernment Performance and Results Act of 1993(Sample and Le Master 1995).

Policy and program review activities—Federal agencycapacity for review and analysis of policy and programinitiatives focused on forest resource matters is probablyquite substantial. Unfortunately, comprehensive documen-tation (staff levels, budgets, responsibilities) of this capa-city does not exist. A review of agency staff directoriesand organizational charts reveals that policy and programreviews are undertaken at virtually all levels within agen-cies, namely the departmental level (USDA Office ofBudget and Program Analysis), agency level (PolicyAnalysis Staff, USDA Forest Service), mid-level withinagencies (USDA Forest Service regional office analystsand planners), and field or operational levels (USDA Forest

��

Table 3—Federal environmental and natural resource assessments, by type, administering agency, and source ofauthority (2001)

Authority forAssessment type and title Principal administering agency undertaking assessment

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

Periodic (specified intervals)Forest inventory and analysis USDA Forest Service Forest and Rangeland Renewable

Resources Research Act of 1978Land use and condition inventory USDI Bureau of Land Management Federal Land Policy and

Management Act of 1976Soil and water resource appraisal USDA Natural Resources Conservation Soil and Water Conservation Act

Service of 1977Air pollutant assessment U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Clean Air Act of 1990Water quality assessment U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Clean Water Act of 1987Renewable resources assessment USDA Forest Service Forest and Rangeland Renewable

Resources Planning Act of 1974Indian forestland assessment USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs Indian Forest Resources

Management Act of 1990Regional water and related resources Water Resources Council Water Resource Planning Act

assessment of 1965National forest resource assessment USDA Forest Service National Forest Management Act

of 1978Wildlife refuge resource assessment U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge System

Administration Act of 1966National park resource assessment USDI National Park Service National Park Service Organic Act

of 1916National biological survey USDI National Biological Service Various Federal statutes

Intermittent (determined by need)Environmental impact statements Council on Environmental Quality National Environmental Policy Act

and Proposing Agency of 1969Global climate change effects U.S. Department of Agriculture Global Climate Change Prevention

assessment Act of 1990Endangered species review U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Endangered Species Act of 1973

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

assessment report of 1978 and othersNorthern forestlands assessment Northern Forest Lands Council and Federal and State statutes

USDA Forest ServiceInterior Columbia Basin ecosystem Multiple Federal agencies Various Federal statutes

assessmentSierra Nevada ecosystem assessment USDA Forest Service Various Federal statutesRegional impact assessment of climate U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Clean Air Act of 1990

changeSouthern forest resource assessment USDA Forest Service Various Federal statutes

��

Service national forest analysts and planners). Analysisand review capacity also exists within the research unitsof agencies (USDA Forest Service Resource Valuation andUse Research unit) and agency budget development andcoordination units (Division of Budget, Office of Budget,Planning, and Human Services of the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service). Further complicating judgment aboutpolicy and program review capacity is the large number ofagencies that carry out reviews of broad-based resource orenvironmental programs that are not solely focused on(but include) forest programs (Oversight and EvaluationStaff of the USDA Natural Resources ConservationService).

It appears that there are 200 to 300 policy and programanalysts within Federal agencies responsible for programsaffecting forests. In the Washington, DC Office of theUSDA Forest Service, more than 25 persons have the titleof policy analyst, program analyst, or program planner. Asurvey of four policy and program review units in threedifferent agencies indicates that policy review activity isbeing focused on a wide range of issues and coordinationresponsibilities (table 4).

State Government Capacity

Planning activities—State governments have engaged insome form of forest planning activity since the early 1900s.However, the character of these activities has changeddramatically over the years, as have the number and typeof State government organizations involved. Early plan-ning efforts were focused largely on protecting forestsfrom fire, insects, and diseases and on promoting invest-ments in timber production as a forest use. By the mid-1980s, State-initiated forest planning activities rangedfrom the development of comprehensive statewide forestresource plans to the preparation of plans required byforest practice regulatory programs, and from broad waterquality plans that influence forests to plans for forest-based rural economic development. Also, forest resourceplanning activity, which previously had been largely aresponsibility of lead forestry agencies of States, had by2000 become the province of many units of State govern-ment. In 2000, each State reportedly had 8 to 10 execu-tive-branch units of State government engaged in someform of planning activity focused on forests (Ellefson andothers 2002). Also significant has been the increasinglyaggressive posture of Federal agencies in requiring (orencouraging by means of fiscal incentives) the developmentof multisector plans to address possible impacts of forestryactivities on water, air, wildlife, and other resources (suchas those required by the Clean Water Act of 1987 and theCoastal Zone Management Act of 1972). The CooperativeForestry Assistance Act of 1978 also has done much toencourage lead forestry agencies of State governments to

develop plans that focus on statewide forest resourceconditions.

State government planning activities focused on forestsvary greatly in scope and magnitude. States operate withindifferent planning contexts (for example, large State budgetsversus small State budgets, large forest area versus smallforest area), undertake different planning approaches(issue driven, goal driven, iterative planning), and pursuedifferent goals, objectives, and strategies (Gray andEllefson 1987). Some States (for example, Minnesota)seek to develop broad strategic plans that consist of avision, obstacles to attainment of the vison, and a plan fordealing with such obstacles, while others tend to focus onthe specifics of land use and management, especially forthe forestland that is directly owned and managed by Stategovernments. In yet other States, the aggregate of forestplans prepared by private forest owners as requisites forparticipation in cost-share programs (such as the ForestryIncentives Program), dedicated easement programs (suchas the Forest Legacy Program), or a State’s forest practiceregulatory program (where rules guide plan preparation)become, in a sense, overall plans for the privately ownedforests in those States. Some States (for example, Vermont,Florida, Maine, and Oregon) have seen fit to exert controlover land development generally by means of statutesdirected at growth management. In these States, forests arethus subject to planning in the sense that certain activitiescannot occur within designated forest areas and in thesense that conversion of forests to nonforest uses may beprohibited (Wickersham 1994).

Statewide forest resource planning programs were activelyunderway in 47 States in 1982 (McCann and Ellefson 1982).In 1985, the Council of State Governments determinedthat 29 states had completed first-generation plans andwere in the process of implementing them (Cole 1985). In2003, 45 of the 50 States were determined to be involvedin a variety of forest resource planning processes, such asState-administered forest planning (39 States), comprehen-sive statewide forest resource planning (23 States), agencyoperational planning (38 States), issue- and problem-oriented planning (37 States), and land use allocation plan-ning (10 States). Each State spent, on average, $433,000 in2003 to support forest resource planning activities, althoughthe majority of States spent less than $250,000 (19 Statesinvested less than $50,000, and 11 States more than $1million). Planning activities required the professionaltalent of an average of 4.4 full-time equivalent staff perState. Half of the States regularly seek the public’s perspec-tive during the development of comprehensive statewideplans. The primary reasons for undertaking planning activ-ities were to secure a clearer understanding of agencylong-term directions and to improve the quality of manage-ment and administrative structures (Kilgore and Salk 2003).

��

Tabl

e 4—

Fed

eral

age

ncy

unit

s w

ith

polic

y an

d pr

ogra

m r

evie

w a

nd e

valu

atio

n re

spon

sibi

litie

s, b

y un

it n

ame,

mis

sion

, sta

ff, a

nd e

xam

ple

anal

yses

(20

01)

Age

ncy

poli

cy a

naly

sis

Sta

ffin

g le

vels

and

revi

ew u

nit

Mis

sion

or

resp

onsi

bili

ties

and

assi

gnm

ents

Exa

mpl

e re

view

s an

d an

alys

es

Pol

icy

Ana

lysi

s S

taff

,B

ring

exi

stin

g or

em

ergi

ng p

olic

y qu

esti

ons

Nin

e po

licy

ana

lyst

sE

valu

atio

n of

Sta

te p

aym

ents

fro

m n

atio

nal

Pro

gram

s an

d L

egis

lati

on,

to t

he a

tten

tion

of

agen

cy l

eade

rshi

p an

dan

d tw

o su

ppor

t st

aff

fore

st r

ecei

pts;

rol

e of

pub

lic

and

priv

ate

USD

A F

ores

t S

ervi

cepr

ovid

e qu

alit

y an

alys

is o

f as

sign

ed p

olic

yre

crea

tion

ent

erpr

ises

; an

alys

is o

f w

ater

ques

tions

and

pro

gram

eva

luat

ions

in

a tim

ely

reso

urce

pol

icy

and

the

man

agem

ent

ofan

d ob

ject

ive

man

ner.

Coo

rdin

ate

poli

cyfo

rest

s; a

sses

smen

t of

pol

icy

opti

ons

for

anal

yses

wit

h ap

prop

riat

e pa

rtie

s w

ithi

n an

dF

ores

t S

ervi

ce p

arti

cipa

tion

in

fore

stou

tsid

e th

e go

vern

men

t, in

clud

ing

anal

yses

prod

ucts

cer

tifi

cati

on;

and

eval

uati

on o

fof

age

ncyw

ide

dire

ctio

n an

d st

anda

rds

for

agen

cy f

undi

ng h

isto

ry,

incl

udin

g sp

endi

ngec

onom

ic e

ffic

ienc

y ev

alua

tion

and

tren

ds a

nd n

onap

prop

riat

ed f

undi

ng.

econ

omic

im

pact

ass

essm

ent.

Off

ice

of P

olic

y, E

cono

mic

s,S

uppo

rt a

genc

y’s

mis

sion

thr

ough

Sta

ff a

ssig

ned

toD

evel

opm

ent

of g

uide

line

s fo

r pr

epar

ing

and

Inno

vati

on,

U.S

.ec

onom

ic a

naly

sis

and

prom

otio

n of

four

maj

or o

ffic

esec

onom

ic a

naly

ses,

ass

essm

ent

of U

.S.

Env

iron

men

tal

Pro

tect

ion

inno

vati

on n

eede

d to

ach

ieve

bet

ter,

or c

ente

rsex

peri

ence

s w

ith

econ

omic

inc

enti

ves

for

Age

ncy

mor

e co

st-e

ffec

tive

env

iron

men

tal

and

prot

ecti

ng t

he e

nvir

onm

ent,

and

revi

ew o

fpu

blic

hea

lth

prot

ecti

on.

opti

ons

for

publ

ic i

nvol

vem

ent

in t

hegr

anti

ng o

f en

viro

nmen

tal

perm

its.

Pla

nnin

g an

d E

valu

atio

nP

rovi

de c

ouns

el,

coor

dina

tion

, ed

ucat

ion,

Ten

poli

cy a

naly

sts

Eva

luat

ion

of a

genc

y po

licy

opt

ions

(fo

rS

taff

, Div

isio

n of

Pol

icy

and

and

liai

son

serv

ices

to

the

agen

cy a

ndin

DP

DM

, plu

sD

irec

tor’

s O

rder

s) f

or o

zone

-dep

leti

ngD

irec

tive

s M

anag

emen

tse

rve

as c

oord

inat

ing

poin

t fo

r in

tern

alsu

ppor

t st

aff

subs

tanc

es p

hase

out

plan

, ap

plic

abil

ity

of(D

PD

M),

and

Div

isio

n of

and

exte

rnal

cus

tom

ers,

inc

ludi

ng t

heth

e M

igra

tory

Bir

d T

reat

y A

ct t

o F

eder

alE

cono

mic

s, U

.S.

Fis

h an

dpu

blic

and

oth

er g

over

nmen

tal

bodi

esag

enci

es,

and

deve

lopm

ent

of o

ptio

ns f

or t

heW

ildl

ife

Ser

vice

requ

irin

g as

sist

ance

.m

issi

on,

goal

s, a

nd p

urpo

ses

of t

he N

atio

nal

Wil

dlif

e R

efug

e S

yste

m.

Ove

rsig

ht a

nd E

valu

atio

nC

ondu

ct a

ctiv

itie

s to

ass

ess

qual

ity,

Abo

ut 3

0 po

licy

and

Dev

elop

rat

iona

l ap

proa

ches

to

agen

cyS

taff

, D

ivis

ion

of O

pera

tion

sac

coun

tabi

lity

, ef

fect

iven

ess,

and

rela

ted

prog

ram

resp

onsi

bili

ties

reg

ardi

ng t

he N

atio

nal

Man

agem

ent

and

Ove

rsig

ht,

cons

iste

ncy

in

the

deli

very

of

anal

ysts

, pl

usE

nvir

onm

enta

l P

olic

y A

ct, a

sses

s fi

eld

staf

f-O

ffic

e of

Str

ateg

ic P

lann

ing

cons

erva

tion

ass

ista

nce

as d

efin

ed b

ysu

ppor

t st

aff

prep

ared

des

igns

, pl

ans,

and

spe

cifi

cati

ons

and

Acc

ount

abil

ity,

US

DA

law

s, e

xecu

tive

ord

ers,

rul

es,

regu

lati

ons,

for

inst

alla

tion

of

site

-spe

cifi

c pr

acti

ces,

and

Nat

ural

Res

ourc

es C

onse

rva-

and

poli

cy s

o as

to

impr

ove

the

use

and

eval

uate

the

se f

or c

onsi

sten

cy w

ith

(1)

the

tion

Serv

ice

(als

o D

ivis

ion

ofm

anag

emen

t of

nat

ural

res

ourc

es.

agen

cy’s

mis

sion

and

str

ateg

ic p

lan,

and

(2)

Bud

get

Plan

ning

and

Ana

lysi

sw

ith

the

prod

ucts

and

ser

vice

s de

velo

ped

byan

d D

ivis

ion

of S

trat

egic

coop

erat

ing

inst

itut

es,

cent

ers,

and

Per

form

ance

Pla

nnin

g).

coll

abor

atin

g sc

ient

ists

.

��

Statewide forest plans have been prepared by nearly allStates during the last 20 years (table 5). However, manyStates have failed to update plans they prepared in the1980s (for example, Connecticut, Massachusetts, NewJersey, and Ohio), while others (for example, Colorado,Iowa, Vermont, and Wisconsin) have proceeded to revisetheir existing plan or substitute a similar planning docu-ment or group of planning documents. Those States thathave discarded the notion of a traditional statewide forestplan have focused their planning efforts on: specific forestareas or ownerships (for example, Indiana’s Strategy forState Forest Land Properties, Alaska’s Haines and TananaValley State forest plans, Washington’s State land plan);more inclusive natural resource plans prepared by more

broadly charged natural resource agencies (for example,Illinois Department of Conservation Strategic Plan); stra-tegic focus involving all forest ownerships and managementactivities (for example, Minnesota’s Forest ResourcesCouncil’s Vision, Goals, and Actions for Minnesota’sForests, and Kansas and Nebraska’s sets of operational orprogram plans, which include plans for fire, stewardship,and urban and community forestry); plans structuredaccording to criteria and indicators of forest sustainability(for example, Oregon’s First Approximation Report, andHawaii’s Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable ForestManagement in Hawaii); agency or governing boards’adopted policy directive documents (California’s Board ofForestry’s Policy Document); and plans for specific forest

Table 5—Status of State government-initiated statewide forest resource plans, by State (2001)

Statewide Most recent Statewide Most recentforest version or forest version or

Region resource anticipated Region resource anticipatedand State plan update and State plan update

North South (cont.)Connecticut Yes 1985 Louisiana Yes 1984Delaware Yes 2000 Mississippi Yes 1982Illinois Yes 1999 North Carolina Yes 1987Indiana Yes 1981 Oklahoma Yes 1985Iowa Yes 1995 South Carolina Yes *Maine Yes 1985 Tennessee Yes 1985Maryland Yes 1988 Texas Yes 1981Massachusetts Yes 1985 Virginia Yes 1987Michigan Yes 1983Minnesota Yes 1991 WestMissouri Yes 1991 Alaska Yes 1986New Hampshire Yes 1996 Arizona Yes 2001New Jersey Yes 1983 California Yes 1988New York Yes 1985 Colorado Yes 1998Ohio Yes 1983 Hawaii Yes 1983Pennsylvania Yes 1997 Idaho Yes *Rhode Island Yes 1984 Kansas Yes 1983Vermont Yes 2000 Montana Yes 1996West Virginia Yes 2000 Nebraska Yes 1983Wisconsin Yes 2001 Nevada Yes 1982

New Mexico Yes 1988South North Dakota Yes 2001

Alabama Yes 1988 Oregon Yes 2000Arkansas Yes 1984 South Dakota Yes 1987Florida Yes 1983 Utah Yes 1981Georgia Yes 1985 Washington Yes 1985Kentucky Yes 1983 Wyoming Yes 1985

Note: As alternatives to statewide forest plans, many States have seen fit to develop plans for specific areas, regions, or landowner classes or have adoptedpolicy statements and broader agency plans to guide State direction on forest use, management, and protection. Therefore, many statewide forest plans havenot been updated in recent years. Asterisk indicates information not available.Source: Carpenter (2002); Kilgore and Salk (2003); McCann and Ellefson (1982); and responses to inquiries made of Federal and State agencies.

��

management activities (for example, California’s FirePlan, Hawaii’s Watershed Protection Plan).

Nationwide reviews of the effectiveness of State forestresource planning programs were undertaken in 1987 andin 2003 (Gray and Ellefson 1987, Kilgore and Salk 2003).The reviews showed that all States had statutory authorityto undertake forest planning; that administering agenciesand various client groups (for example, legislators, forestindustries, environmental groups, and State governmentbudget directors) supported planning; and that the strengthof this support increased as planning progressed. Most ofthese developments were expedited by and consistent withthe USDA Forest Service’s planning program goals forState governments. Under authorities set forth by theCooperative Forest Management Act of 1978, the USDAForest Service sought to have statewide forest plans becomethe principal guiding documents for State forestry agencieson matters involving long-range direction, operationalobjectives and targets, budget development, and balanceand coordination of diverse forestry programs (U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 1980). Amongthe specifically identified benefits of planning were betterunderstanding of the condition of and major trends in forestresources, greater sense of agency mission and long-termprogram direction, development of more creative strategiesto address important issues, increased coordination amongdisparate programs, more program and investment account-ability, and increased political support for the forestryprograms of State government.

Assessment activities—State governments have the capa-city and statutory authority to undertake comprehensiveassessments of conditions affecting the use, management,and protection of forests. This capacity can be expressedin the form of one-time assessments of important issues orongoing assessments of resource, economic, or socialconditions affecting forests. Although no systematic andcomprehensive review of assessment programs has beenimplemented by States, the number of such programs isprobably in the hundreds. Examples of recent assessmentsfocused on important issues are those involving proposedexpansions of chip or particleboard industries. At leastthree States have produced comprehensive analyses andrecommendations concerning resource and economicconditions relative to these industries: Missouri (Chip MillReport to the Governor of Missouri, Governor’s AdvisoryCommittee on Chip Mills in 2000); North Carolina (Eco-nomic and Ecological Impacts of Wood Chip Productionin North Carolina, Report of the Southern Center forSustainable Forests in 2000); and Minnesota (GenericEnvironmental Impact Statement on Timber Harvestingand Forest Management, Minnesota Environmental QualityBoard in 1992). Other examples of State assessment capa-city are Washington’s Natural Heritage Program Geographic

Information System (rare plant species and endangeredecosystems), the Vermont Geographic Information System(rare, threatened, and endangered species), the PennsylvaniaBiological Survey (status of plants and animals), theVirginia Forest Resource Assessment (implications of popu-lation growth and land use changes for forest resources),the Illinois Critical Trends Assessment (statewide andregional environmental conditions), the Missouri ResourceAssessment Partnership (development and disseminationof high-quality natural resource information), the ArizonaLand Resource Information System (statewide multipur-pose spatial database of resource extent and conditions),and the California Fire and Resource Assessment Program(amount, extent, and condition of forests and rangelands).Many of these State assessments focus on large ecosystem-bounded regions within a State.

State governments also have the capacity to undertakeassessments as part of efforts to understand the environ-mental consequences of certain proposed actions (table 6).State authority to prepare environmental impact statementsis typically set forth in statutes, executive orders, oradministrative regulations. Sixty percent of States hadestablished these authorities by the early 1980s (Fisherand Phillips 1983). In California, government actions andsome private actions may be assessed. In Kentucky, onlycertain types of development (power plant siting) may beassessed. Minnesota’s authority can apply to broad geo-graphic areas (generic environmental impact statements).Many of the environmental impact assessments conductedin connection with environmental impact statement pro-cesses have a focus on forest conditions (for example,Minnesota’s Generic Environmental Impact Statement onTimber Harvesting and Management). Unfortunately, nonationwide review of the application of such laws inrelation to forest management has been undertaken.

Policy and program review activities—State agenciesoften have the capacity to undertake reviews of importantforest resource issues or programs. However, there is littleinformation on the extent and focus of such capacity at theState level. The forest resource policy and program reviewfunction is seldom assigned to an individual unit withinState government; the function is more commonly spreadamong several subunits of an agency (for example, firemanagement, resource management), combined withadministrative functions involving personnel, budgeting,legal reviews, and legislative liaison activities, or subsumedby a policy and program unit at a higher organizationallevel. Approximately 15 States have cabinet or subcabinet-level planning or policy and program review units, andthese often have some responsibility to review forestresource programs administered by lower-level forestresource units or divisions (Ellefson and others 2001, 2002).Examples of cabinet and subcabinet units are the Division

��

of Environmental Planning and Management of theCalifornia State Lands Commission; Office of Planningand Assessment, Indiana Department of EnvironmentalManagement; Office of Planning and Development,Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection; andOffice of Strategic Planning and Policy, Rhode IslandDepartment of Environmental Management. Policy reviewunits specifically identified as part of a State’s lead forestryagency are very few. They include the Fire and ResourceAssessment Unit (23 employees) of the California Depart-ment of Forestry and Fire Protection, which, in addition toassessing forests and rangelands, also identifies andanalyzes alternative management and policy guidelines;

and the Division of Resource Policy, Oregon Departmentof Forestry, which is responsible for program evaluation,resource planning, public affairs, and legislativecoordination.

Local and Regional Government Capacity

Local and regional governmental jurisdictions are knownto engage in planning, assessment, and policy and programreview activities. Unfortunately, no comprehensive assess-ment of these capacities has been carried out. Forest plan-ning and related activities are initiated by local governmentswhere this is justified by the extent and importance of

Table 6—State environmental impact statement requirements, by State and type of authority(1980)

State and type of authority Authority

Statutory AuthorityCalifornia California Environmental Quality Act of 1970Connecticut Connecticut Environmental Policy Act of 1973Hawaii Hawaii Session Laws of 1974, Chapter 343Indiana Indiana Public Law 98, 1972Maryland Maryland Environmental Policy Act of 1973Massachusetts Massachusetts General Laws of 1977, Chapter 747Minnesota Minnesota Environmental Policy Act of 1973Montana Montana Environmental Policy Act of 1971New York New York Environmental Quality Review Act of 1976North Carolina North Carolina Environmental Policy Act of 1971South Dakota South Dakota Environmental Policy Act of 1974Virginia Virginia Environmental Policy Act of 1973Washington Washington Environmental Policy Act of 1971Wisconsin Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act of 1971

Executive Order AuthorityMichigan Michigan Executive Directive Number Four, May 1974New Jersey New Jersey Executive Order Number 53, October 1973Utah State of Utah Executive Order, August 27, 1974

Special or Limited Rule AuthorityArizona Arizona Game and Fish Commission Policy of July 2, 1971Delaware Delaware Coastal Zone Act of 1973;

Delaware Wetlands Law of 1973Kentucky Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter 278.179, April 1979

(relating to power plants)Mississippi Mississippi Code of 1972 Title 49 Chapter 27

(relating to wetlands)Nevada Nevada Laws of 1971, Chapter 311New Jersey New Jersey Coastal Area Facility Review Act of 1974-1975;

New Jersey Wetlands Act of 1974-1975Rhode Island Rhode Island Environmental Rights Act of 1978

Source: Council on Environmental Quality (1980).

�

forests within those jurisdictions. States that are known tohave local governments with planning capabilities areCalifornia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, andWisconsin. Some States have regional authorities that con-duct planning relevant to forests (such authorities includeCalifornia’s Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and CoastalCommission). In 2000, more than 400 small-scale localgovernment watershed districts were identified in thewestern United States (three times the 1995 total) (NaturalResources Law Center 1998, 2000). These districts oftendirect planning attention to forested watersheds.


Forestry and related government agencies in the UnitedStates have a long history of engaging in forest planningand assessment activities and of undertaking periodicreviews of forest resource policies and programs. In lightof the background and current conditions presented above,the following summary observations may be made aboutthe identification and measurement of legal capacities tocarry out such activities:

• Forest resource agencies at all levels engage in someform of planning, assessment, and policy review activi-ties. In general, there appears to be ample statutory andadministrative authority to conduct these activities,although the intensity with which these authorities areapplied varies widely within and between differentlevels of government. Whether or not this legal capacityis actually being translated into meaningful plans andtheir subsequent implementation is largely unknown.

• Planning activities respond to statutes (or administrativedirectives) that require direct and exclusive considera-tion of forests, and to statutes that require developmentof broad multisector plans (for air, water, or wildlife), ofwhich plans for forests are but one part. Multi-sectorplans appear to fragment responsibility for administra-tion of forest activities rather than integrate forest values.

• Agencies of many types and with many different respon-sibilities for forests engage in planning, assessment, andpolicy review activities. In only a limited number ofcases is there evidence of concerted and effective effortto coordinate these activities within and betweengovernments.

• Agencies produce strategic program plans and land useand management plans. In some cases, these plans areaggregations of individual plans and assessmentsprepared for specific individual forest ownerships orspecific geographic areas. This is often true of statewideplans prepared under the authorities of State governments.

• Some agencies, especially State government agencies,appear to be tending away from the development ofstatewide strategic program plans. Statewide forest

resource plans of State governments are frequently verymuch out of date, and are often being replaced byregional or issue-oriented plans and by criteria andindicator-driven plans.

• Although some agencies separate planning, assessment,and policy review functions organizationally, thesefunctions are usually combined as a single activityassigned to a single administrative unit. Most Statesappear to have a very limited policy analysis and reviewcapacity, at least in the sense of a specific administrativeunit assigned exclusive responsibility for such a function.

• Investments in planning, assessment, and policy reviewactivities involving forests are highly variable in amountand regularity. They are determined by the importanceof the forests being managed by an agency and by thewillingness of agency leadership to promote the impor-tance and usefulness of planning, assessment, andpolicy review activities.

• Many agencies employ advanced methods, high invest-ment levels, and qualified professionals in their conductof planning, assessment, and policy review activities. Ingeneral, Federal agencies are more sophisticated in thisregard than are State, regional, or local governmentagencies.

• Assessment activities are very often one-time effortsthat respond to major issues involving controversy overproposed resource development or management. How-ever, some assessment activities have become monitor-ing programs that are conducted on a continuous basis(air quality monitoring) or at periodic intervals (forestinventory and analysis).

Issues and Trends

The literature identifies a number of major issues andtrends in forest planning, assessment, and policy reviewauthority and capacity. Examples of this literature (fromwhich the following issues and trends are drawn) are:Bryson 1988, Hardt 1997, Sample and Le Master 1995,and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 1990and 2002.

• Agencies are increasingly seeking the flexibility neces-sary to anticipate and take advantage of importantopportunities represented by forests and are more andmore inclined to focus forest planning processes onthese opportunities. This change in emphasis is makingplanning less technical in its emphasis and more focusedon the preferences that flow from pubic debate anddiscussion.

• Individuals and organizations whose interests areaffected by forest resource programs are increasinglyinvolved (through various collaborative processes) in the

�

development of forest plans and the conduct of assess-ments and policy reviews. The general public has agrowing expectation that it will be involved in govern-ment forest planning and related activities.

• Legal and administrative authorities for conducting plan-ning, assessments, and policy activities are increasinglyfragmented (and often conflicting) as are the agenciesresponsible for conducting such activities. Coordinationof these activities is important but difficult. The diver-sity in authorities and agencies often results from theneed to meet the demands of many different and oftencompeting client groups.

• Planning, assessment, and policy analysis have becomemore complex, costly, time-consuming, and, in somecases, even redundant. The desire to address all manage-ment uncertainties with intensive information gatheringand analysis is of growing concern.

• The scope of forest plans and assessments is increas-ingly defined by scientifically determined, ecologicallybased geographic boundaries or the political boundariesof multistate regions. This reflects an interest in ensuringthe physical sustainability of large forested areas.

• Criteria and indicator approaches are increasingly becom-ing an organizing pattern for the development of forestplans and the conduct of assessments and policy reviews.Such approaches provide a structure to guide programdirection and accountability and provide direction forthe gathering of information and its subsequentmanagement.

• Standardized procedures for implementing forest plansand the subsequent monitoring of accomplishment ofplan goals and objectives are becoming increasinglycommon, especially procedures for formally linkingplans and the budgetary and fiscal requirements to imple-ment them. This development is largely a response topublic skepticism about government and an interest ingreater accountability of government generally.

• Access to information, and the capacity to manage andanalyze information, are becoming increasingly impor-tant, but they are often insufficient in amount, quality,and timing. Increasingly, information gathering isregarded as directly supporting efforts to deal with issuesand policy problems. This latter trend is a response tocost concerns as well as to the need for information thatwill serve a wider variety of purposes (planning, moni-toring, public relations, policy development).


Specification

The variables or combination of variables that can be usedto describe legal capacity to carry out planning, assess-ment, and policy review activities are numerous. However,determining exactly what information to gather, analyze,and present when making such an assemblage is difficult.In part, this difficulty arises because the language used todescribe planning, assessment, and policy analysis activi-ties is often unclear, and because the differences betweenthese activities are often blurry. Even if definition and rela-tionship issues are addressed, concerns about informationadequacy continue to arise.

The National Association of State Foresters has assessedthe availability and quality of State forestry agency infor-mation about the legal setting for planning, assessment,and policy reviews involving forests (National Associationof State Foresters 1999). The association reported that 3States have abundant information concerning legal capa-city for planning and related activities, 12 have sufficientinformation, and the remainder have very little or no infor-mation to describe such activities. Five States reportedthat their planning and assessment capacity was excellent,12 that it was adequate, and 3 that it was poor.

Questions about information needs in the area of legalcapacity for planning, resource assessment, and policyreview are as follows:

Extent of activity information—Information about thelegal capacity to plan, assess, and carry out policy analy-ses activities at various levels of government has not beenassembled in any systematic and comprehensive sense.What are the requirements for conducting such activities?Who is responsible for conducting them? Are there differ-ent requirements at different levels of government? Is thereconsistency in the requirements between these differentlevels? Are there legal and constitutional conflicts betweengovernments? What is the status of local planning andzoning initiatives? To what extent do these activities occurin the private sector?

Coordination information—Information about legalrequirements to coordinate planning, assessment, andpolicy analysis activities among and between various levelsof government has not been assembled. What coordinationis required? Do existing legal requirements allow forcross-sectoral, coordinated planning and policy review?Do they ensure that the cumulative results of local andregional planning will be consistent with national plansand vice versa? Do they allow incorporation of ad hocplanning activities occurring at various times and under-taken by various levels of government?

��

Procedure and specification information—Informationabout how planning, assessment, and policy review activi-ties are to be undertaken has not been assembled. Docurrent statutory requirements prescribe procedures forplanning, assessment, and policy review? Are these require-ments detailed and rigid, or do they serve as a flexibleframework for decisionmaking and action? Is the fullintent of the existing laws that address planning, assess-ment, and policy review activities expressed in currentregulations and practices? Do national planning require-ments allow for regional and subregional planning? Dorequirements specify the need for planning leadership?Do they give guidance to such leadership?

Cumulative effect information—Information about legalrequirements for effective linkages between national,regional, and subregional planning, assessment, and policyanalysis has not been gathered. How is such coordinationencouraged? When aggregated, are accumulated resultsconsistent with principles of sustainable forest management?

Investment and incentive information—Informationabout resources devoted to planning, assessments, andpolicy analysis has not been assembled. What is the magni-tude of investments in planning, assessment, and policyreview activities? Are there legal and administrative pro-cesses for allocating resources to these activities and arethey sufficient? Are there legal or fiscal provisions forencouraging these activities, and especially for encour-aging cross-sectoral planning?

Effectiveness information—Information about the effec-tiveness of planning, assessment, and policy review activ-ities has not been compiled except in very limited cases.Are there legal or administrative requirements to determinethe efficiency and effectiveness of these activities? Whatare appropriate measures of success? Are there alternativeand more effective approaches to planning, assessment,and policy review?

Monitoring information—Information about monitoringthat is legally required as part of planning, assessment, andpolicy analysis has not been compiled systematically. Arethere requirements to monitor the results of these activitiesand to adapt these activities to changing circumstances?

This review indicates that considerable uncertainty existsabout the legal capacity of governments to carry out plan-ning, assessment, and policy review activities in connectionwith management for forest sustainability. No organizationor institution has been assigned special responsibility forgathering and preparing timely reports on the status ofthese activities. Furthermore, the planning and analysisefforts of private forest landowners (industrial, nonindus-trial, Indian, nonprofit) and non-Federal public owners

have largely been overlooked, and these non-Federal forestlandowners control nearly two-thirds of the Nation’sforestland.

Recommendations

Our ability to determine the extent to which the legal frame-work provides for forest-related planning, assessment, andpolicy review specified in Indicator 49 is limited by a lackof information in various areas. The information voids thatneed to be addressed are considerable. The followingactions seem appropriate:

Comprehensive review of capacity—Conduct a compre-hensive review of current legal directives that give auth-ority, direction, and resources to forest resource planning,assessment, and policy analysis and review activities. Thisreview should address the information deficiencies des-cribed above and should cover legal directives at Federal,State, and local levels of government. In addition, a syste-matic review of private-sector capability to carry out theseactivities should be initiated.

Responsibility for conducting review—Assign respon-sibility for conducting continuous reviews of planning,assessment, and policy analysis and review capacities to aspecific existing or new administrative unit of a Federalagency (for example, the USDA Forest Service’s Stateand Private Forestry unit, or its Policy Analysis unit), to acollege or university, or to a nonprofit organization engagedin policy review activities (for example, Resources for theFuture, Inc., or the Pinchot Institute for Conservation).The organization chosen should have a proven track recordin conducting analyses and reviews of programs at variouslevels of government and in the private sector.

Devote resources to review—Invest sufficient resources inthe review so that the review provides the type and quan-tity of information necessary to dramatically improve ourunderstanding of abilities to plan, assess, and analyzeconditions important to sustainable forestry.



Indicator 49 suffers from unclear definition of the activitiesspecified, namely forest-related planning, assessment, andpolicy review. Each of these words or phrases supposedlyembodies an agreed-to set of concepts and principles, butthis is not always the case. Further compounding the speci-fication problem is that new words or phrases are contin-ually being suggested (for example, policy planning), oftenwithout reference to well-established or newly developedprinciples or concepts. The meaning of “range of forest

��

values” and “coordination with relevant sectors” is unclearalso. The indicator would benefit from rewording: wesuggest “. . . provides for periodic planning, assessment,and policy reviews that embrace various forest values, andfosters the coordination of forest plans and assessmentswith other sectors.”


Indicators 49 and 54 are closely related. Indicator 49focuses on legal capacity and Indicator 54 focuses oninstitutional capacity, but institutional and legal capacitiesoverlap extensively. In fact, institutional capacity can beviewed as the framework supporting legal authorities. Forpurposes of assessing information resources, Indicators 49and 54 should probably be merged and renamed assuggested above.

Indicator 49 overlaps other indicators also, particularly asthey relate to concepts involving laws and values, publicparticipation, funding, and planning. There is potential foroverlap problems in Indicator 49’s relationship to Indicators38 (investment in forests), 39 (investment in research),50 (public participation), 52 (special values), 53 (publicinvolvement and education), 60 (information and data),61 (forest inventories), 62 (foreign country monitoring),64 (value integrative methods), 65 (new technologies), and66 (human intervention impacts).

Literature Cited


Bryson, J.M. 1988. Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organiza-tions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. 311 p.

Carpenter, C.A. 2002. Conservation and management of forests in thenorthern United States: a first approximation report. Durham, NH: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeast Area, State andPrivate Forestry. [Not paged].

Coggins, G.C.; Wilkenson, C.F.; Leshy, J.D. 1993. Federal public landand resources law. Westbury, NY: Foundation Press. 1,092 p.

Cole, L.A. 1985. Forest resource planning: state of the States. Lexington,KY: Council of State Governments. [Not paged].

Council on Environmental Quality. 1980. Environmental quality: 1979.Annual report to the President. Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office. 365 p.

Dolgin, E.L.; Guilbert, T.G.P. 1974. Federal environmental law. St. Paul,MN: West Publishing. 1,600 p.

Ellefson, P.V. 1985. Forest sector plans: coordination with nonforestryinterests and national plans for development. In: Proceedings, ninthWorld Forestry Congress (Mexico City, Mexico). Rome, Italy: U.N.Food and Agriculture Organization, Department of Forestry: 220-240.

Ellefson, P.V.; Cheng, A.S.; Moulton, R.J. 1995. Regulation of privateforest practices by State governments. Sta. Bull. 605-1995. St. Paul,MN: Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. 225 p.

Ellefson, P.V.; Moulton, R.J.; Kilgore, M.A. 2001. Programs and organi-zations affecting the use, management, and protection of forests: anassessment of agencies located across the organizational landscape ofState governments. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Departmentof Forest Resources. 119 p.

Ellefson, P.V.; Moulton, R.J.; Kilgore, M.A. 2002. An assessment of Stateagencies that affect forests. Journal of Forestry. 100(6):35-42.

Esseks, J.D.; Moulton, R.J. 2000. Evaluating the forest stewardship pro-gram through a national survey of participating forest landowners. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University, Center for Government Studies.113 p.

Fisher, B.D.; Phillips, M.J. 1983. Legal environment of business. St. Paul,MN: West Publishing. 893 p.

Goble, D.D.; Freyfogle, E.T. 2002. Federal wildlife statutes. New York,NY: Foundation Press. 664 p.

Gray, G.J.; Ellefson, P.V. 1987. Statewide forest resource planning pro-grams: an evaluation of program administration and effectiveness. Sta.Bull. 582-1987. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Agricultural ExperimentStation. 149 p.

Greeley, A.W. 1966. Integration of forest development plans and nationaldevelopment plans: administration, operational problems, and possiblesolutions. In: Proceedings, Sixth World Forestry Congress. Rome, Italy:U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, Department of Forestry. [Notpaged].

Hardt, S.W. 1997. Federal land-use planning and its impact on resourcemanagement decisions. In: Public land law II. Denver, CO: RockyMountain Mineral Law Foundation: 4-1 to 4-55.

Johnson, K.N.; Swanson, F.; Herring, M.; Greene, S. 1999. Bioregionalassessments: science at the crossroads of management policy. Covelo,CA: Island Press. 398 p.

Kilgore, M.A.; Salk, R. 2003. An assessment of State forest resourcesplanning in the Northeast United States. Staff Pap. 170. St. Paul, MN:University of Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources. 70 p.

Larsen, G.; Holden, A.; Kapaldo, D. [and others]. 1990. Synthesis of thecritique of land management planning. FS-452. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Vol. 1. 24 p.

Mansfield, M.E. 1993. A primer of public land law. Washington LawReview. 68(4):801-857.

McCann, B.D.; Ellefson, P.V. 1982. Organizational patterns and admini-strative procedures for State forest resources planning. Staff Pap. 31. St.Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources.63 p.

Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. Criteria and indi-cators for the conservation and sustainable management of temperateand boreal forests: criterion seven. http://www.mpci.org/tac/mexico/tn7_e.html. [Date accessed: February 2002].


��

National Association of State Foresters. 1999. First approximationassessment report. http://www.stateforesters.org/SFstats.html. [Dateaccessed: June 2001].

Natural Resources Law Center. 1998. State role in western watershedinitiatives. Res. Rep. No. 18. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado,Natural Resources Law Center. 96 p.

Natural Resources Law Center. 2000. Watershed source handbook. Res.Rep. 24. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, Natural Resources LawCenter. 454 p. + appendices.

Office of Technology Assessment. 1990. Forest Service planning: settingstrategic direction under RPA. OTA-F-411. Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office. 140 p.

Office of Technology Assessment. 1992a. Forest Service planning:summary. OTA-F-506. Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice. 22 p.

Office of Technology Assessment. 1992b. Forest Service planning:accommodating uses, producing outputs, and sustaining ecosystems.OTA-F-505. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 206 p.

Plater, Z.J.B.; Abrahams, R.H.; Golfarb, W.; Graham, R.L. 1998. Environ-mental law and society: nature, law, and society. St. Paul, MN: WestPublishing Company. 1,034 p.

Sample, V.A.; Le Master, D.C. 1995. Natural resource strategic planning:components and processes. PR-1095. Washington, DC: PinchotInstitute for Conservation: [Not paged].

Schoenbaum, T.J.; Rosenburg, R.H. 1996. Environmental policy law.Westbury, NY: Foundation Press. 1,012 p.

Teeguarden, D.E. 1990. National forest planning under RPA/NMFA: whatneeds fixing? FS-462. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service. Vol. 11. 66 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1980. A guide to state-wide forest resource planning. NA-TP-6. Radnor, PA: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, NortheastArea. [Not paged].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1990. Critique of landmanagement planning. FS 452 through FS 462. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Vols 1-11. [Not paged].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1999. Report of the ForestService: fiscal year 1998. http://www.fs.fed.us/pl/pdb/98report/. [Dateaccessed: December 1999].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2000a. USDA ForestService strategic plan (2000 Revision). FS-682. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 73 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2000b. National ForestSystem land resources management planning: final rule. 36 CFR Parts217 and 219. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 69 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2002. The processpredicament: how statutory, regulatory and administrative factors affectnational forest management. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service. 40 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service.2000. Natural Resource Conservation Service strategic plan: 2000-2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, NaturalResource Conservation Service. 49 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2000a.BLM manual: land use planning [1601]. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. [Not paged].

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2000b.BLM land use planning handbook [H-1601-1]. U.S. Department of theInterior, Bureau of Land Management. [Not paged].

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1998. NationalPark Service: park planning. Dir. Order 2. http://www.nps.gov. [Dateaccessed: June 2001].

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 2000. NationalPark Service strategic plan: FY 2001-2005. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 47 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 2001. NationalPark Service: conservation planning, environmental impact analysis,and decisionmaking. Dir. Order 12. http://www.nps.gov. [Dateaccessed: June 2001].

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. EPA strategic plan. EPA-190-R—00-002. http://www.epa.gov. [Date accessed: February 2001].

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001a. Fish and Wildlife Service strategicplan: 2000-2005. http://www.fws.gov. [Date accessed: February 2001].

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001b. Refuge planning. Land use andmanagement series. Service manual, Parts 600-699. http://www.fws.gov.[Date accessed: February 2001].

West Publishing Company. 1997. Selected federal environmental lawstatutes. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company. 1,398 p.

Wickersham, J.H. 1994. The quiet revolution continues: the emerging newmodel for State growth management statutes. Harvard EnvironmentalLaw Review. 18: 489-618.

Williams, J.E. 1987. Planning approaches in the Bureau of LandManagement: trends. 24(2): 24-27.

��

The full text of Indicator 50 is as follows: Extent to whichthe legal framework (laws, regulations, guidelines) supportsthe conservation and sustainable management of forests,including the extent to which it Provides opportunities forpublic participation in public policy and decisionmakingrelated to forests and public access to information(Montreal Process Working Group 2003).


Forests may be managed more sustainably if citizens haveresponsibility for their use, management, and protection.If, through active influence, citizens are given an oppor-tunity to identify areas of opportunity and concern overforests, they are more likely to support the management offorests and the principles of sustainability as they might beincorporated therein. In a broader context, public partici-pation processes can foster practical and political supportfor sustainable management. Access to timely, complete,and accurate information about forests, forest resources,and socioeconomic trends will enhance these participatoryprocesses. Public participation can foster political supportfor sustainable management (Montreal Process TechnicalAdvisory Committee 2000, Montreal Process WorkingGroup 2003).

This indicator gauges capacity for dialogue and interchangebetween the public and government on forest and forest-related issues. In what follows, we review informationabout the legal and programmatic capacity for public par-ticipation and the effectiveness of public participation inpromoting sustainable forest management and conservationin the United States. More specifically, we discuss laws,ordinances, and rules authorizing the development andimplementation of public participation processes; descrip-tive features of implemented public participation processes(number, extent of use, accessibility, required versusoptional, notification approaches, process for respondingto public comment); opportunities for public initiativesand referendums; legal and administrative opportunitiesfor access to formal administrative and judicial systemsfor dispute resolution; administrative structures forcomplying with “freedom of information” requirements;records of formal disputes engaged in and legal actionstaken by the public; and surveys of stakeholders and

interest groups reporting the adequacy of participatory pro-cesses (Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee2000).


Public participation has become a routine and integral partof the land management and related activities of nearly allpublic resource agencies. Public participation pertains tothose processes by which citizens can engage in the devel-opment and implementation of public policies and pro-grams focused on forests. It involves processes that embodydemocratic principles of interactive bargaining, negotiat-ing, and mediation between constituents and managers.Public participation processes open all phases of manage-ment decisionmaking—problem identification, datacollection, analysis, alternative formulation, and choice—to public involvement.

Public participation has been described in a multitude ofways. Cortner and Shannon (1993) describe public partici-pation as a “mechanism of politics.” The Federal LandPolicy and Management Act defines public participationas “. . . the opportunity for participation by affected citi-zens in rulemaking, decisionmaking, and planning withrespect to the public lands, including public meetings orhearings held at locations near the affected lands, oradvisory mechanisms, or such other procedures as may benecessary to provide public comment in a particularinstance.” Daniels and Walker (1998) also describe thefunction of public participation: “. . . public participationprovides a forum whereby scientific information andvalues of the public and the agency can be integrated sothat decisions are viewed as both desirable and feasible.”

The difficulties involved in defining the public in publicparticipation are alluded to by Dresang and Gosling (1999):“. . . it is somewhat difficult to separate the discussion ofwho is participating from how they are participating.” Isthe public composed of those who provide comments fromafar, or is the public composed of those to be directlyaffected (stakeholders) by the results of an agency’s deci-sion, or by the product of a collaborative exercise (Cortner1995)? The definition of public participation is furthermuddied by the vast array of approaches by which the pub-lic can actually participate in decision processes (engagein the electoral process, testify at hearings and meetings,serve on advisory committees, have direct contact withpublic officials, express views and opinions through the

1 Hibbard, Research Specialist, and Ellefson, Professor, Department ofForest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN. (PreparedNovember 2001.)

Public Participation and Access to Information (Indicator 50)

Calder M. Hibbard and Paul V. Ellefson1

��

media, and engage in some form of protest action)(Dresang and Gosling 1999).

“Public participation” (as suggested by this indicator) in notthe only name for public involvement in decisionmakingrelated to the use and sustainable management of forestresources. Other words and expressions can denote the sameconcepts and principles embodied in notions of publicparticipation, including collaboration, public involvement,participatory democracy, community-based involvement,and consensus building. This multiple labeling of the sameor similar concepts can complicate efforts to gather andinterpret information that satisfactorily describes institu-tional capacity for “public participation.”

Public participation processes are attractive to citizens,public officials, and scholars. Resource managers likepublic participation processes because these processesensure that the public has a voice in, and responsibilityfor, sustainable management of forest resources. Citizensfeel that public participation implies local decisionmakingand thus provides for locally appropriate solutions toimportant resource concerns (Carr and Halvorsen 2001).These and related interests have been incorporated into avariety of goals for public participation, including theachievement of broad notions of democracy (movementfrom representative to participatory democracy), politicalequity among client groups, accountability of governmentofficials, specific political goals and objectives, change infundamental agency behavior, more environmentally sen-sitive decisions, citizen support for agency missions andactivities, better educated and informed interests, andresolution of conflict and political struggles over the use,management, and protection of forests (Cortner 1995).Similar reasons and goals for public involvement have beendescribed by McClaran and King 1999; Shindler and others1999; Smith and others 1999; Smith and McDonough 2001;Tuler and Webler 1999; and Wellman and Tipple 1990.

Public participation processes are effective in accomplish-ing desired goals and objectives (such as those listed above)to the extent they are consistent with agreed-to principlesof sound participatory management. The following havebeen suggested as qualities of a well-designed participa-tory process: inclusive, sincere leadership, innovative andflexible, fosters early and continuous involvement, andresults in positive actions toward agreed-to goals (Shindlerand others 1999); meaningful representation, appropriateinvolvement in decisions, thoughtfulness and due consi-deration, logical procedures and outcomes, and actionsconsistent with participant desires (Smith and McDonough2001); good information, good leadership, spectrum ofinterests involved, incentives to explore creative solutions,welcomes diverse personalities, and fosters a sense of own-ership and commitment (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000);

access to processes, power to influence process and out-comes, access to information, promotion of constructiveinteractions, facilitation of constructive behaviors, adequateand focused analyses, and the enabling of social conditionsnecessary for future application of participatory processes(Tuler and Webler 1999). There are also factors that canlimit the effectiveness of participatory processes. Theseinclude mistrust of agency commitment to public partici-pation, complexity of forest management issues, polariza-tion of interest groups, and use of group political power todelay administrative processes (Gericke and Sullivan 1994).Other sources of useful information about public participa-tion processes include Carpenter and Kennedy 1988, Gray1989, Keltner 1994, Moore 1996, Susskind, McKearnon,Thomas-Larmer 1999, and Williams and Ellefson 1997.



Private sector legal capacity for public participation maynot be directly relevant to this review. Purely private actionto seek public participation in policy or program develop-ment is typically motivated by private economic self-interest expressed in response to marketplace signals. Forexample, a company that uses or sells wood products mightseek public comment on its proposed strategic plan for theuse and management of industrial timberland; an organizedspecial-interest group might seek comment to determinethe intensity of public interest in the group’s proposedadvocacy plans; and a private consulting organizationmight initiate public participation actions as an agency-imposed requirement of a government contract.

The 1966 Seventh American Forest Congress was one of theNation’s largest private initiatives in public participation.The congress was a citizen initiative designed to “ . . . makeexplicit the nation’s demand for ecologically sound, eco-nomically viable, and socially responsible management offorests.” Through this congress, citizens were able todevelop a shared vision, a set of principles, and a varietyof recommendations for action. These shared visions, prin-ciples, and recommendations were intended to form acohesive and secure platform for the future of America’sforests. Fifty-two roundtables were organized and con-ducted, 37 collaborative meetings were held, and 575responses were received from individuals. In total, an esti-mated 4,000 persons participated in precongress activities.Of this total, 2,600 participated in roundtable sessions,800 were party to a collaborative meeting, and 575 indivi-duals presented their vision, principles, and next steps forAmerica’s forests. More than 6,200 individual statementsof vision, principles, next steps, and unresolved issues hadbeen generated prior to the congress. The roundtables

��

alone generated 2,000 such statements. The national con-gress itself involved nearly 2,000 persons from all regionsof the Nation (Ellefson and MacKay 1996).


Federal capacity (legal framework) for public participationis largely a product of legislation and rulemaking occurringduring the last 50 years. The Administrative ProceduresAct of 1946 (as amended in 1976), which set significantrequirements for public participation, was soon followedby a number of social welfare laws requiring public shar-ing of agency responsibilities (examples are the HousingAct of 1954 and the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964,which authorized many War on Poverty programs). In the1950s and 1960s, growing public sentiment for agency-public interaction generally led citizens and Federal agen-cies to promote laws, rules, and directives encouragingpublic participation in natural resource decisions. Therewere 7 Federal legal mandates for public participation by1966-67, 23 by 1970-71, and 81 by 1971-72 (Cortner1995). In 2001, at least 23 chapters of the U.S. Code ofFederal Regulations set forth public participation require-ments for Federal actions involving forest and relatednatural resources (see Appendix). These as well as themore general statutory requirements for public participa-tion have had a significant effect on the use and manage-ment of forests and related resources. Especially notablein this respect are the Freedom of Information Act of1966, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, FederalAdvisory Committee Act of 1972, Forest and RangelandsRenewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, Federal LandPolicy Management Act of 1976, Government in theSunshine Act of 1976, National Forest Management Act of1976, and Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990.

Federal statutory requirements for public participationvary greatly in their requirements and administration (seeAppendix). Some are very specific (for example, forscenic area management plans involving national forests“the Secretary shall conduct public hearings and shallsolicit public comment prior to the final adoption of landuse ordinances”), while others are less focused and permitgreater agency discretion (for example, reclamation recre-ation management shall “. . . be developed with appro-priate public participation”). In other cases the Federalgovernment requires that State governments must certifythat public participation has occurred if Federal funds areto be made available (for example, Land and Water Con-servation Fund financial assistance to States; WildlifeRestoration Program financial assistance to States), whilein certain situations Federal agencies engage directly inthe development and implementation of public participa-tion processes (for example, land and resource manage-ment plans for units of the National Forest System). In

addition, some laws are focused on public participation indecisions concerning forest conditions in general (forexample, Coastal Zone Management plans, Forest andRangeland Renewable Resources plans, Federal LandPolicy and Management plans), while many focus onspecific natural resource issues that may be relevant tobroader forest ecosystems (for example, endangeredspecies, soil and water conservation, trail systems, wildand scenic rivers).

Federal statutory requirements for public participation areexpressed in a variety of ways, including procedures forrulemaking, conditions for agency issuance of permits,requirements for public meetings, public access to infor-mation, and processes for developing and implementingplans. From a rulemaking perspective, the AdministrativeProcedures Act (APA) is instrumental in that it grants citi-zens “the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, orrepeal of a federal rule.” Although the law does not specifythe procedures agencies may use to handle petitions, itdoes require that agencies provide for public notice andcomment of proposed regulations or changes to existingregulations. The process involves agency development of aproposed regulation (generally with limited or no publicinvolvement), publication of the proposal in the FederalRegister (along with a procedure for filing comments anda statement of time period during which written commentswill be received), review of public comments, and, as theagency considers appropriate, incorporation of public com-ments in a final rule again to be published in the FederalRegister. The act specifies that the period for public com-ment must be “reasonable” (other statutes, such as theSafe Drinking Water Act, may specify a set period of timefor comments), but does not require agencies to conductpublic hearings (other statutes, such as the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act, may require hearings).Furthermore, the act does not specify a deadline for issu-ance of a final rule, but requires agencies to concludematters “within a reasonable time.” Judicial review ofagency rulemaking activities is authorized by theAdministrative Procedures Act.

Federal capacity for public participation in rulemaking isalso fostered by the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990.The latter specifies legal avenues by which the public(generally representatives of interest groups) may engagein various conflict management processes (bargaining,negotiation, mediation) considered relevant to the estab-lishment of rules and regulations. The act provides aframework for facilitating development of a consensusamong stakeholders, a framework that reportedly reducesthe often-extended period of time involved in rule makingactivities and the frequency, intensity, and cost of litigationbrought forth when stakeholders fail to engage in consensus-building processes. Other benefits attributed to the act

��

include opportunity to identify innovative rules, greaterunderstanding of real-world impacts of proposed rules,and more successful implementation as a result of cooper-ative relationships established between an agency and theparties affected by the rules (Ellefson and others 1995).

Provisions for public participation may also be called forby Federal permitting processes. For example, the CleanWater Act requires agencies to provide public notice of apermit application for the discharge of water pollutants.However, most environmental statutes do not specificallyrequire opportunity for public comment on permit appli-cations. Instead, agencies may offer public commentopportunities under authority granted by their existingrulemaking processes generally. In some respects, environ-mental impact statements may be viewed as applicationsfor permits. Therefore, the National Environmental PolicyAct provides for public participation in the Federalenvironmental impact assessment process. Even thoughthe act does not specifically require public participation atall stages in the development of an environmental impactstatement, the Council on Environmental Quality has setforth regulations requiring agencies to facilitate publicparticipation throughout the process. Agencies are requiredto notify the public of their intent to prepare an environ-mental impact statement and to allow citizens to partici-pate in the various stages of the statement’s development.By authority of the Administrative Procedures Act, citizensmay also litigate against the preparation of an environ-mental impact statement.

Another source of institutional capacity to engage thepublic in agency activities is public meeting laws. TwoFederal public meeting laws are of particular interest: theGovernment in the Sunshine Act and the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act. The former requires “every portion ofevery meeting” of certain Federal agencies to be posted inadvance and open to the public. The law does not requireagencies to solicit public participation, but only requiresthat the public be allowed to attend meetings wheregovernment business is discussed. The Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act governs the establishment, operation, andadministration of advisory committees, requiring that thepublic be notified of all meetings and that such meetingsare open to the public. The Federal Advisory CommitteeAct makes no legal requirement for public participation,only providing a guarantee that the public can be presentat committee meetings.

Another form of institutional capacity for public participa-tion stems from statutes that provide for public access toinformation. The most prominent of such laws is the Free-dom of Information Act, which makes nearly all records ofFederal agencies available to the public. Exceptions areinformation about national defense, internal personnel

rules, trade secrets, medical and personnel files, lawenforcement records, information used to oversee financialinstitutions, geologic information, information exemptedfrom disclosure by another statute, and agency memorandaotherwise unavailable by law. The guarantee of access toinformation was expanded in 1990 by the DisclosureProvision for Research Data Act, which makes available tothe general public the results of certain research generatedby Federal grants. The Emergency Planning and Right-To-Know Act also guarantees public access to information byenabling citizens to participate in determining who needsan emergency response plan and how such plans should bedeveloped. The law also guarantees public access to anumber of types of reports and documents, including theemergency notification of a release, material data safetysheets, emergency and hazardous chemical inventoryforms, toxic chemical release forms, and toxic releaseinventories.

Also relevant to the public’s ability to participate in agencyprocesses are a number of Federal laws that require orstrongly suggest public involvement in planning processes.Examples are the Federal Land Policy and ManagementAct of 1976, the Forest and Rangelands RenewableResources Planning Act of 1974, and the National ForestManagement Act of 1976. These acts include provisionsthat require the administering agency to include the publicin the development of management plans for specifiedFederal lands. In the case of the National Forest Manage-ment Act, provisions are specifically made for the publicto appeal national forestland management plans (Gerickeand Sullivan 1994). Forty Washington office appeals deci-sions regarding land and management plans were madebetween 1996 and January 2002, and the number of appealdecisions made at the agency’s regional levels since 1996probably approaches 2000 (for example, 14 appeal deci-sions involved the Bitterroot National Forest, 54 involvedthe Superior National Forest, and 84 involved the SawtoothNational Forest).


Since the 1960s, States have made explicit and specificcommitments to citizen accessibility to government bypassing laws requiring State agencies and local govern-ments to have open meetings and open records exceptwhere it is necessary to protect the privacy rights of indi-viduals. Forty-nine States have open meeting laws thatapply to the legislative and executive branches at both theState and local government levels (courts are excludedfrom open meeting laws). Of these States, 41 requireadvance notice of meetings, 37 obligate agencies to keepminutes, and 31 do not recognize any action as officialunless it occurs at an open meeting. Officials who meet insecret may be personally fined or otherwise punished in 35

��

States. Complementing open meeting laws are open recordlaws (freedom of information laws), which all States haveestablished. Such laws establish the right of individuals tosee the written records of government, often at a cost tothose making the request (Dresang and Gosling 1999). Theextent to which open State meeting and open record lawsare applied in connection with forest and natural resourcesissues is unknown.

State governments have also established formal ways inwhich citizens can take direct action beyond electingofficials or trying to influence them once they are in office.Twenty States provide for direct initiatives by which citi-zens can make or change State laws (table 1). Laws auth-orizing such initiatives provide that propositions are to beplaced on the ballot if a specified number of signatures ofregistered voters are obtained. In seven States, citizeninitiatives are more indirect: a petition may be submitted

to the State legislature, which can adopt the proposition asreceived, place it on a ballot unaltered, or modify it beforeplacing it on a ballot. State referendum procedures areanother tool empowering citizen participation. Suchprocedures enable voters to reject laws enacted by a Statelegislature or to advise legislatures on important issues.Referendum authority that enables voters to reject lawsenacted by a State legislature exists in 23 States. In someStates, citizens also have access to advisory referendums(by which voters provide advice to a legislature). Duringthe period 1981-1992, 327 citizen-prompted initiativesappeared on State ballots (California 65 initiatives, Oregon44, Colorado 24, Arizona 20) (Public Affairs ResearchInstitute 1992). The extent to which initiatives and referen-dums are used as tools for public participation in mattersinvolving forests and related natural resources is largelyunknown. Where used, they often generate significantinterest and controversy. Examples are California’s 1980sinitiatives to limit the application of certain forest prac-tices and Oregon’s 2000 initiative requiring payments tolandowners for government-imposed regulation thatreduces property values (Oregon Secretary of State 2000).

State governments also have laws, rules, and administra-tive directives that specifically require public participationin forest resource decisions (planning, permitting, rulemaking) and authorize citizen access to government infor-mation about forests. Again, the extent of this capacity hasnot been documented systematically. However, a 1987survey of citizen groups and various government officialsengaged in forest resource planning found that State forestresource planners recognized public involvement as acritical component of statewide planning, and that a highpercentage (56 percent) felt that the public participationwas adequate and appropriate (Gray and Ellefson 1987).Such findings indicate that there is appreciable legal andinstitutional capacity for public participation in Stateforestry matters.

State governments have also seen fit to establish governingor advisory entities through which the public can partici-pate in agency activities. Responsibilities assigned to suchbodies can range from providing advice on program devel-opment and implementation to being legally responsiblefor directing and managing a particular unit of government.Often, but not always, these bodies are composed ofinterested citizens appointed by a State’s governor or bythe chief administrator of the entity that is to be advised orgoverned. In 2000, States had created 248 governing oradvisory bodies that in some way influence the use, man-agement, and protection of forests (table 2). Variouslylabeled as “boards” (Wyoming Board of Land Commis-sioners), “councils” (South Carolina Interagency Councilon Natural Resources Policy), “committees” (MichiganSoil Conservation Committee), or “commissions” (West

Table 1—Legal authority of State governments forinitiatives and popular referendums, State and type ofauthority (1998)

Direct Indirect PopularState initiative initiative referendum

Alabama XAlaska X XArizona X XArkansas X XCalifornia X XColorado XFlorida XIdaho XIllinois XKentucky XMaine X XMaryland XMassachusetts X XMichigan X X XMissouri X XMontana X XNebraska X XNevada X X XNew Mexico XNorth Dakota X XOhio X XOklahoma X XOregon X XSouth Dakota X XUtah X X XWashington X X XWyoming X X

Source: Dresang and Gosling (1999).

�

Table 2—Number of State government governing or advisory bodies influencing the use,management, or protection of forests, by State and unit name (2000)

Governing or advisory bodyRegion andState Board Council Committee Commission Other Total

NorthConnecticut 1 1DelawareIllinois 4 1 1 6Indiana 1 1 2 1 5Iowa 1 1 2 4Maine 6 2 1 9Maryland 1 2 2 7 1 13Massachusetts 1 1Michigan 3 1 1 4 9Minnesota 3 1 4Missouri 1 2 8 11New Hampshire 4 1 1 6New Jersey 1 2 4 7New York 2 1 3Ohio 1 2 3Pennsylvania 1 3 1 1 6Rhode Island 1 1 2Vermont 5 3 1 9West Virginia 5 1 6Wisconsin 4 2 7

Total 44 23 10 33 2 112

SouthAlabama 1 1 2Arkansas 3 3Florida 1 1Georgia 1 1Kentucky 5 3 1 5 1 15Louisiana 2 1 1 4Mississippi 1 1 2North Carolina 1 3 4Oklahoma 1 3 4South Carolina 2 2 4Tennessee 1 1Texas 1 1Virginia 8 8

Total 18 8 3 20 1 50

WestAlaska 3 3Arizona 1 1California 4 1 4 9Colorado 3 1 4Hawaii 1 4 5Idaho 1 2 3Kansas 1 2 3Montana 2 1 2 1 6Nebraska 2 2Nevada 2 1 2 5New Mexico 1 3 4North Dakota 5 2 3 2 12Oregon 5 8 13South Dakota 2 2Utah 1 1Washington 3 1 3 7Wyoming 1 1 2 2 6

Total 30 7 10 39 0 86

Total 92 38 23 92 3 248

Note: Other units are: Indiana Natural Resources Foundation (Department of Natural Resources); Maryland EnvironmentalTrust; and Kentucky Agricultural Water Quality Authority (Department of Agriculture).Source: Ellefson and others (2001).

�

Virginia Commission on Tourism) (examples, table 3), anaverage of five such entities existed in each State (an aver-age of 3.8 per State in the South and an average of 5.6 perState in the North). Kentucky had the greatest number ofadvisory-governing bodies whose actions influenced forestconditions (15), with Maryland (13), Oregon (13), andNorth Dakota (12) following closely behind. Eight Statesreported only one advisory or governing body each, whileone State (Delaware) reported having no such entitiesinvolved in forest matters (Ellefson and others 2001, 2002).

The institutional and legal capacity for public participationat the State government level is also reflected by theextent to which citizens have access to and participate inorganized interest groups. Comprehensive analyses ofcitizen group involvement in forest and related resourcematters have not been conducted, but information aboutthe impact of interest groups at the State level in policydevelopment generally is enlightening. Thomas andHrebenar (1990) describe the degree of interest groupinfluence or effectiveness within States as follows:

• Dominant (influence is overwhelming): Alabama,Alaska, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico,South Carolina, and West Virginia

• Dominant/Complementary (influence is strong butlimited by that of other political actors): Arizona,Arkansas, California, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho,Kentucky, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio,Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington,and Wyoming

• Complementary (influence is balanced with that of otherpolitical actors): Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, SouthDakota, and Wisconsin

• Complementary/Subordinate (some influence exists, butthat of other political actors is primary): Connecticut,Delaware, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Vermont

• Subordinate (influence is weak or inconsequential):none

Table 3—State government governing or advisory bodies (examples) influencing use, management,and protection of forests (2000)

Source: Ellefson and others (2001).

Board of Registered ForestersState Parks BoardNatural Heritage CommissionPollution Control and Ecology CommissionSoil and Water CommissionEnergy CommissionWildlife Conservation BoardWater Resources Control BoardBiodiversity CouncilBoard of Forestry and Fire ProtectionForest Resources CouncilEconomic Development CommissionCouncil on Environmental QualityCommission on Water Resources ManagementCommission on Animal SpeciesBoard of Land Use AppealsCommission on Natural Area PreservesForest Products CommissionPollution Control BoardEndangered Species Protection BoardHardwood Development CouncilNatural Resources Ethics CommissionRural Development CouncilEnvironmental Protection CommissionForestry CommissionEconomic Development Partnership

Environmental Education CouncilWood Product Competitive BoardGeographic Information Systems CouncilBoard of Licensure for Professional ForestersLand Use Regulation CommissionCoastal Resources Management CouncilBoard of Pesticides ControlEnvironmental Priorities CouncilInteragency Council on Natural Resources PolicyTourism Development BoardWater Monitoring CouncilEnvironmental Science BoardEnvironmental Quality BoardCommission on Hazardous Waste ManagementBoard of Environmental ReviewForest, Parks and Recreation CouncilBoard of Surface MinesCommerce and Economic Growth CommissionState Game CommissionFish and Wildlife Management BoardCommunity Forestry CouncilWetlands Trust BoardWildlife and Parks CommissionCouncil on Ecosystem Management

��

Local Government Capacity

Local units of government often follow the lead of theirState counterparts on matters of public access to govern-ment decisionmaking. In many cases, local units of gov-ernment are bound by State law on such matters (Dresangand Gosling 1999). Unfortunately, the legal and institu-tional capacity of local governments to engage citizens inlocal government actions generally, and forest resourcematters specifically, has not been assessed systematicallyor comprehensively.


Public participation is an important step in determiningand accomplishing societal interests in the sustainabilityof forests. This review suggests the following:

• The public participates in public agency decisions in avariety of ways. Members of the public engage in elec-toral processes, testify at public hearings and meetings,participate directly in multistakeholder collaborationactivities, and engage in challenge or protest actions.The range of approaches to public participation is broadbecause the resource, social, and political issues associ-ated with forests and their management are diverse.

• The legal capacity needed to engage the public in deci-sions regarding forest sustainability exists for nearly allState and Federal agencies that have responsibility forforests and related resources. However, the extent towhich this capacity is exercised varies considerablywithin and among levels of government.

• Public participation processes are embodied in variouslegally established administrative structures and proce-dures. The latter include rulemaking (citizen right topetition regarding proposed rules), permit issuing (citi-zen right to know and deliberate issuance of proposedpermits), planning (citizen right to participate in designof plans and programs), and information (citizen right toaccess government information).

• Federal authority to initiate public participation activi-ties emanates from forest resource law (for example,National Forest Management Act), from environmentallaw (for example, National Environmental Policy Act),and from general government administrative law (forexample, Administrative Procedures Act). There is sub-stantial variation in the scope, focus, and intensity ofFederal agency capacity stemming from these differentlegal authorities. Furthermore, Federal legal requirementsfor public participation are not always comprehensive;they very often focus on a single natural resource sector(for example, wildlife, water, recreation).

• State government authority to engage in public partici-pation and related activities emanates primarily from

open meeting and open record laws (only one State doesnot have an open-meeting law). However, States alsoauthorize public participation in policy development viainitiatives and referendums (all States have some formof authority for initiatives and referendums), citizen ser-vice on governing or advisory entities (248 such entitiesfocus on forest resource and related agencies), forestresource planning activities, and participation in interestgroups that focus the forest resource interests of manycitizens.

• Local units of government often follow their Statecounterparts on matters of public access to governmentdecisionmaking. The capacity of local governments toengage in public participation activities related tosustainable forestry is largely unknown.

Issues and Trends

Many questions remain to be asked about public participa-tion in activities related to the sustainable management offorests. For example, who is the public and what is itsproper role? What constitutes participation and when shouldit occur? What is the proper response of agency officials toresource decisions made with public participation? Towhat extent does broad citizen involvement promote theelusive “public interest” in forests? What distinctions (ifany) should be made between participatory democracy andrepresentative democracy? Should public officials beresponsible to elected representatives when determiningappropriate policies and directions regarding sustainabil-ity? Should legislative authority invested in an agency bedevolved to collaborative groups or to a participatoryprocess? Should persons or groups that do not engage inpublic participation be excluded from future decisionsregarding policy selections? Do arrangements for publicparticipation give the public access to the necessary scien-tific and technical expertise? Is conflict (as opposed toagreement and harmony) inherently bad, and are localsolutions necessarily preferable to “top-down” solutions?And is there danger in focusing on well-functioning colla-borative processes at the expense of substantive and soundsustainable forestry policies and programs? These and ahost of related issues arise whenever the phrase “publicparticipation” is used by professionals and lay citizens(McCloskey 1996, 2001; Wellman and Tipple 1990;Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000).

The effectiveness of public participation processes hasalso been the subject of discussion and debate. Concernedparties often wonder what constitutes a successful or effec-tive public participation process (U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service 2002). McCool and Guthrie(2001) suggest at least two standards: product-orientedmeasures of success (preparation of a plan, implementation

��

of a plan, social and political acceptability) and process-oriented measures of success (two-way learning, responsi-bility, relationship building, representation of interests). Infact, however, few studies of effectiveness have been con-ducted. Those that have been carried out suggest that publicparticipation processes often favor highly educated, oldermales with higher incomes (Carr and Halvorsen 2001) andindividuals who represent commodity or environmentalinterests (Baas 1993). Others have focused on participantsatisfaction with public participation processes and thecosts associated with such processes. McClaran and King(1999) found that all 96 national forest plans stimulatedat least one appeal by 1989 and that the average was 8.4appeals per plan. At the time of the study, 574 appealshad been resolved at an average cost of $50,000 per plan.Gerlicke and Sullivan (1994) estimated that publicparticipation in national forest planning on 61 nationalforests cost the Government $61 million and required anaverage of 16 person-years of time. These costs do notinclude those incurred by interest groups and individualswho participated in the planning processes.

The literature devoted to issues and trends in public parti-cipation in relation to forest sustainability is especiallyrich. Examples of this literature (from which the followingissues and trends are drawn) are: Baas 1993; Carr andHalvorsen 2001; Cortner and Shannon 1993; Daniels andWalker 1998; Lawrence and Daniels 1996; McCloskey1996, 2001; Moore 1996; Smith and McDonough 2001;U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 2002;Williams and Ellefson 1997; Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000.

• Declining trust in government institutions generally hasoften distanced citizens from involvement in civicaffairs. Invigorated and more engaging use of publicparticipation may be increasing citizen involvement ingovernment activities and rebuilding a sense of trust ingovernment institutions.

• Multiple fragmented interests and the decline of inte-grative forces in forest resource decisionmaking haveled to policy and program impasses that have fosteredan increasing interest among agencies and other inter-ested parties in new approaches for determining howforest resources will be used, managed, and protected.The huge expense and social costs associated with suchimpasses have been a major stimulus to renewed interestand vigor in public participation. Conflict-laden issuesmay persist, but there may be a growing sense that citi-zens are part of a community who have common inter-ests and are actively and cooperatively determining theuse, management, and protection of forests.

• Decentralization of agency decisionmaking regardingforests and related resources has fostered greater citizeninterest in becoming involved in agency decisionmaking.Citizens who share a sense of community based on their

common interest in a physical place appear more likelyto become active participants in public participationprocesses.

• Formal processes (public hearings, advisory committees)for engaging the public in agency decisionmaking areincreasingly viewed as adversarial in nature and aretherefore limited in their ability to deal with conflictand discord over appropriate directions for forest sus-tainability. Agencies are increasingly interpreting theirpublic participation authority to be more interactive andcollaborative in nature.

• There is increasing disagreement about the relativemerits of participatory democracy and representativedemocracy. For example, there are those who argue thatagencies should directly engage citizens to determineagency roles and directions, and there are others whoargue that these roles and directions should be deter-mined by elected or appointed political officials.Concern over agency failure to exercise leadership inresponse to legislative mandates is also at issue.

• The effectiveness of public participation, and the rela-tive merits of approaches that might be used to engagethe public in agency decisionmaking, are increasinglyunclear. It is uncertain whether public participationleads to a better reflection of the broad public interest insustainable forestry than do other approaches to deter-mining such interest. Analyses of efficiency and effec-tiveness are often muddied by unclear expectationsabout the role of public participation in rulemaking,permit issuance, and planning.

• More attention is being focused on determining whoconstitutes the public of interest with respect to agencydecisionmaking. Efforts are being made to be moreinclusive of interested parties, involving more than themost directly affected and most interested ones. How-ever, discovering the appropriate combination of citizeninput and professional expertise remains a difficult andunsolved problem within many agencies.

• The extent of application of public participation insustainable forestry decision making is increasingly ofconcern, especially where such participation might beapplied to private sector actions. Public participationapplied to private forestlands implies that propertyrights and property tenure arrangements have changed.Similarly, the public’s right of access to informationregarding how private decisions are made also points toprivacy and property rights issues.

• Public participation in the form of public access to thecourts as a way of addressing issues involving forestsustainability has been common for many years. Lawsand legal decisions have directed courts to be moreliberal in determining who can bring a suit and the typesof issues that can be addressed by citizen advocates.

��

• Interactive or collaborative public participation pro-cesses are increasingly being viewed as effective meansof coordinating activities that involve many programs ormany landowner categories. They are also being viewedas effective approaches for undertaking joint manage-ment activities (for example, Federal and State firecontrol activities), mobilizing resources (for example,financial and personnel resources), and exchanginginformation and sharing ideas (for example, multiagencyinformation management).

• Public participation processes are becoming more sensi-tive to the growing interests of ethnic and other minoritygroups in forest and related natural resources. The lan-guage, traditions, and cultural background of such groupshave often limited agency efforts to solicit minorityinvolvement in agency decisionmaking (Baas 1993).Conversely, and often because of language, traditions,and background, such groups have been reluctant to getinvolved in agency matters.


Specification

Information about public participation and public accessto information considered important to forest sustainabil-ity has been the focus of attention by many public andprivate organizations. In 1999, the National Association ofState Foresters reported that 3 States had abundant infor-mation about public participation, 17 had sufficient infor-mation, and 3 had little information. It was consideredsomewhat troubling that 27 States had no informationabout public participation and public access to information.Four States reported that the quality of their informationwas excellent, 17 that it was adequate, and 2 that it waspoor (National Association of State Foresters 1999). Asbest can be determined, no other organization has under-taken efforts to determine the nature and timeliness ofinformation about public participation activities in thecontext of forest resources. Those that have been under-taken have not always been comprehensive or capable ofbeing aggregated and usefully summarized. Furthermore,the available information often lacks a concerted focus onpublic participation and information-access activities.

Relatively little empirical research has been done on publicparticipation processes, especially in relation to forest andrelated natural resource issues. In large measure this voidresults from problems in defining the intent and appro-priate scope of public participation, and the lack of consis-tency in standards for judging the success of public parti-cipation processes. Even though many have offered genericcriteria for assessing public participation processes (Carr

and Halvorsen 2001, Cortner 1995, Shindler and others1999, Smith and McDonough 2001, Tuler and Webler1999), the results of research using such criteria oftenremain unclear and indeterminate. There have been manycase studies of public participation, but little compilationof these studies has occurred. Very limited research hasbeen undertaken to connect conflict management andpublic participation activities, testing the hypothesis thatpublic participation processes provide a venue in which toconstructively manage conflict. As an example, Gerickeand Sullivan (1994) found that the proportion of forestdesignated as wilderness and the level of developedrecreation use were good predictors of potential levels ofconflict, and that the amount of time spent in publicparticipation processes was not a significant factor inpredicting levels of conflict.

The voids in information about public participation andpublic access to information are numerous and representsignificant challenges to research. Examples of theseinformation voids are as follows:

Measurement information—Variables that are appro-priate for measuring the extent and effectiveness of publicparticipation processes have not been identified andassembled. What are the goals of these processes and howdo these affect the variables and measurement techniquesapplied to them? Do different goals lend themselves to theuse of different variables and approaches to measurement?Can the variables used to measure the processes be com-pared when applied to different processes? How are thesevariables to actually be measured?

Extent of activity information—Compilation of theFederal legal framework for public participation that isrelated to forest resources has not been completed. Stateand local legal requirements for public participation havenot been compiled. How extensive are local, State, andFederal authorities for public participation? Are theserequirements changing over time? How do public partici-pation processes interact between and within levels ofgovernment? How often does the public participate inparticipation processes? What are their expectations, andare those expectations being met?

Responsible organization information—Public and pri-vate entities involved in public participation processes havenot been identified comprehensively and systematically.What agencies are involved, what legal authority assignsthem responsibility, and is such authority being interpretedaccurately? Are there organizational patterns that enhanceor hinder the public participation process? Do public par-ticipation processes vary among different administeringagencies?

��

Coordination information—Requirements for coordin-ating public participation among and between governmentshave not been compiled. How do differing public partici-pation processes affect coordination of citizen interestsacross sectors, geography, and agencies? Are there legalrequirements for coordination? Does the legal frameworkprovide for processes that can be effective mechanisms forcross-sectoral policy integration? Does the legal frame-work support or discourage collaborative processes inwhich multisectoral actors come together at multiplelevels to formulate and implement policy?

Procedure and specification information—Approachesto public participation in connection with the use andmanagement of forest resources are many; their type andfrequency of use have not been compiled or assessed.What degree of autonomy does the legal framework pro-vide to decisionmakers when they work within collabor-ative and participatory processes? How much flexibility isthere within the legal framework for different mechanismsof public participation? How prescriptive are the laws andregulations (for example, do they specify how to conductpublic participatory meetings)?

Effectiveness information—The effectiveness of publicparticipation processes has received only limited attention,and conclusions about it have been assembled only in apiecemeal fashion. What indicators should be measured todetermine effectiveness? Do such indicators of effective-ness vary from process to process and from entity to entity?How would outcomes that might be expected from partici-patory democratic processes differ from those that mightbe expected from a representative democratic process? Aresome processes more effective in certain situations than inothers (such as collaborative versus public hearings, orlegislative versus judicial involvement of citizens)? Whattypes of monitoring might be appropriate to determiningthe long-term consequences of public participation?

Recommendations

The public’s ability to influence forest sustainability willdepend a great deal on the public’s access to informationand to agency decisionmaking processes, as Indicator 50suggests. A number of information voids must be addressedif the institutional setting for public participation in sus-tainable forest use and management is to be improved.The following measures for dealing with these informationvoids would seem appropriate:

Perform comprehensive periodic reviews—Conduct com-prehensive periodic reviews of current Federal, State, andlocal authorities that give direction and resources to publicparticipation processes and public access to information.Guided by the above suggested information deficiencies,

the reviews should give special attention to the collectionof information concerning the different types of publicparticipation processes, the organizations that implementthem, and the effect of participatory activities on theaccomplishment of desired forest values.

Assign responsibility for conducting reviews—Assignresponsibility for conducting continuing reviews of theseauthorities to a specific, existing administrative unit of aFederal agency (such as the USDA Forest Service’sPrograms and Legislation unit, State and Private Forestryunit, or Research and Development unit), a college oruniversity, or other nonprofit organization (such as thePinchot Institute for Forest Conservation or the NationalAssociation of State Foresters). This responsibility shouldbe assigned to an organization that has a proven trackrecord in addressing the complexities of developing andimplementing public participation programs involvingforests and their sustainability.

Devote resources to reviews—Invest sufficient financialand personnel resources to provide the type and quantityof information necessary to dramatically improve under-standing of current abilities to develop and implementpublic participation activities considered important tosustainable forestry.



Analysis of the legal capacity to engage in activities sug-gested or alluded to by Indicator 50 is hampered by theuse of undefined words and phrases, including “public,”“public participation,” public policy,” “decisionmaking,”and “public access to information.” These words or phrasesare supposedly grounded in an agreed-to set of concepts,but such is not always the case. For example, the term“public” is at times used to refer to those affected by orinterested in a pending resource decision, while at othertimes it is used to refer to society in general. Also troublingis the inclusion in the Indicator of the phrase “. . . [opportu-nities for] public access to information.” It would probablybe better to discuss public access to information in con-nection with Indicator 53 (public involvement activities andpublic education). Finally, we propose that Indicator 50 bereworded as follows: “. . . provides opportunity for citizensto participate, in an informed manner, in decisions affectingforests.”


Indicator 50 is clearly and directly related to Indicators 48(property rights), 49 (planning), 51 (best-practice codes),

��

52 (special values), 53 (public involvement and education),and 66 (impacts of human intervention). It is less directlyrelated to Indicators 38 (investment in forests), 39 (invest-ment in research), 40 (new technologies), 57 (enforcement),61 (inventory information), 63 (scientific understanding),and 64 (value integrative methods).

Literature Cited

Baas, J.M. 1993. Assessing ethnic group participation in Federal landmanagement agency public involvement processes. In: Ewert, A.W.;Chavez, D.J.; Magill, A.W., eds. Culture, conflict, and communicationin the wildland-urban interface. Boulder, CO: Westview Press:357-370.

Carpenter, S.L.; Kennedy, W.J.D. 1988. Managing public disputes: apractical guide for handling conflict and reaching agreements. SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 293 p.

Carr, D.S.; Halvorsen, K. 2001. An evaluation of three democratic commun-ity-based approaches to citizen participation: surveys, conversationswith community groups, and community leaders. Society and NaturalResources. 14(2):107-126.

Cortner, H.J. 1995. Legal and institutional considerations in publicparticipation in the United States. In: Tsuchiya, T.; Kakizawa, H., eds.Proceedings, international symposium on public participation andenvironmental conservation. Tokyo, Japan: Japan Society of ForestPlanning Press: 1-13.

Cortner, H.J.; Shannon, M.A. 1993. Embedding public participation in itspolitical context. Journal of Forestry. 91(7):14-16.

Daniels, S.E.; Walker, G.B. 1998. Rethinking public participation innatural resource management: concepts from pluralism and five emerg-ing approaches. In: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization:pluralism and sustainable forestry and rural development: Proceedingsof an international workshop. Rome, Italy: United Nations Food andAgriculture Organization: 29-48.

Dresang, D.L.; Gosling, J.J. 1999. Politics and policy in American Statesand communities. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon Publishers. 459 p.

Ellefson, P.V.; Cheng, A.S.; Moulton, R.J. 1995. Regulation of privateforestry practices by State governments. Station Bull. 605-1995. St.Paul, MN: Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. 225 p.

Ellefson, P.V.; MacKay, D.G. 1996. Synthesized vision, principles andnext steps: seventh American Forest Congress roundtable meetings,collaborative meetings and individual responses. Staff Pap 112. St.Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources.337 p.


Ellefson, P.V.; Moulton, R.J.; Kilgore, M.A. 2002. An assessment of Stateagencies that affect forests. Journal of Forestry 100(6):25-34.

Gericke, K.L.; Sullivan, J. 1994. Public participation and appeals ofForest Service plans: an empirical examination. Society and NaturalResources. 7(2): 125-135.

Gray, B. 1989. Collaborating: finding common ground for multipartyproblems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 329 p.


Keltner, J.W. 1994. The management of struggle: elements of disputeresolution through negotiation, mediation and bargaining. Cresskill,NJ: Hampton Press, Inc. 268 p.

Lawrence, R.L.; Daniels, S.E. 1996. Public involvement in naturalresource decision making: goals, methodology, and evaluation. Papersin Forest Policy 3. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, ForestResearch Laboratory. 49 p.

McClaran, M.P.; King, D.A. 1999. Procedural fairness, personal benefits,agency expertise, and planning participants’ support of the ForestService. Natural Resources Journal. 39(3): 443-458.

McCloskey, M. 1996. The skeptic: collaboration has its limits. HighCountry News. 1996 May 13. [Not paged].

McCloskey, M. 2001. A critique of public participation and collaborativeexercises (summary comments at closing session of internationalsymposium). Society and Natural Resources. 14: 627-634.

McCool, S.F.; Guthrie, K. 2001. Mapping the dimensions of successfulpublic participation in messy natural resources management situations.Society and Natural Resources. 14(4): 309-323.



Moore, C.W. 1996. The mediation process: practical strategies for man-aging conflict. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 624 p.

National Association of State Foresters. 1999. First approximationassessment report. http://www.stateforesters.org/SFstats.html. [Dateaccessed: September 2001].

Oregon Secretary of State. 2000. General election voters pamphlet: 2000.Salem, OR: Oregon Secretary of State. [Not paged]. (Vol. 1).

Public Affairs Research Institute. 1992. Initiative and referendum ana-lysis. Report 3 (June). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, PublicAffairs Research Institute. [Not paged].

Shindler, B.; Cheek, K.A.; Stankey, G.H. 1999. Monitoring and evaluatingcitizen-agency interactions: A framework developed for adaptivemanagement. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-452. Portland, OR: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest ResearchStation. 48 p.

Smith, P.D.; McDonough, M.; Mang, M.T. 1999. Ecosystem managementand public participation: Lessons from the field. Journal of Forestry.97(10): 32-38.

Smith, P.D.; McDonough, M. 2001. Beyond public participation: fairnessin natural resource decisionmaking. Society and Natural Resources.14(3): 239-249.

��

Susskind, L.; McKearnan, S.; Thomas-Larmer, J. 1999. The consensusbuilding handbook: a comprehensive guide to reaching agreement.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 1,147 p.

Thomas, C.S.; Hrebenar, R.J. 1990. Interest groups in the States. In: Gray,V., Jacob, H., Albritton, R.B., eds. Politics in the American States: acomparative analysis. Glenwood, IL: Harper-Collins Publishers:147-162.

Tuler, S.; Webler, T. 1999. Voices from the forest: what participants expectof a public participation process. Society and Natural Resources. 12(5):437-453.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2002. The process pre-dicament: how statutory, regulatory and administrative factors affectnational forest management. Washington, DC: Department ofAgriculture. 40 p.

Wellman, J.D.; Tipple, T.J. 1990. Public forestry and direct democracy.The Environmental Professional. 12:77-86.

Williams, E.M.; Ellefson, P.V. 1997. Going into partnership to manage alandscape. Journal of Forestry. 95(5): 29-33.

Wondolleck, J.M.; Yaffee, S.L. 2000. Making collaboration work: lessonsfrom innovation in natural resource management. Washington, DC:Island Press. 277 p.

��

TITLE 16 – CONSERVATION

Chapter 1 – National Parks, Military Parks,Monuments, and Seashores

Subchapter I – National Park Service

Sec. 1a-5. Additional areas for National Park System:“Each study under this section shall be prepared withappropriate opportunity for public involvement, includingat least one public meeting in the vicinity of the area understudy, and after reasonable efforts to notify potentiallyaffected landowners and State and local government.”

Subchapter LX – National Military Parks

Sec. 430-g. Advisory Commission: “Notice of meetingsand agenda shall be published in local newspapers whichhave a distribution which generally covers the areaaffected by the park. Advisory Commission meetings shallbe held at locations and in such a manner as to ensureadequate public involvement.”

Subchapter LXIX – Outdoor Recreation Programs

Part B – Land and Water Conservation Fund

Sec. 4601-8. Financial assistance to States: “That no planshall be approved unless the Governor of the respectiveState certifies that ample opportunity for public participa-tion in plan development and revision has been accorded.The Secretary shall develop, in consultation with others,criteria for public participation, which criteria shall con-stitute the basis for the certification by the Governor.”

Part E – Reclamation Recreation Management

Sec. 4601-33. “Management of reclamation lands shall bedeveloped with appropriate public participation.”

Chapter 2 – National Forests

Subchapter I

Sec. 479a. Conveyance of National Forest System landsfor educational purposes: “… an opportunity for publicparticipation in a disposal under this section has beenprovided, including at least one public hearing or meeting,to provide for public comment.”

Subchapter II – Scenic Areas

Sec 541b. Boundaries of scenic-research area; adjustmentsto subarea boundary; development of management plan;establishment of subareas; management objectives:“Provided, that, from time to time, the Secretary may,after public hearing or other appropriate means for publicparticipation, make adjustments in the boundaries of sub-areas to reflect changing natural conditions or to providefor more effective management of the Area and each of thesubareas in accordance with the purposes and provisionsof the subchapter.” “As soon as practicable after December22, 1974, the Secretary shall, with provisions for appro-priate public participation in the planning process, developa comprehensive management plan for the Area.”

Sec. 544d. Scenic area management plan: “The Secretaryand the Commission shall conduct public hearings andsolicit public comment prior to the final adoption of landuse ordinances.”

Sec. 546a-1. Administration and management: “In prepar-ing the management plan, the Secretary shall consult withappropriate State and local government officials, providefor full public participation, and consider the views of allinterested parties, organizations, and individuals.”

Chapter 5A – Protection and Conservation of Wildlife

Subchapter III – Endangered Species of Fish and Wildlife

Sec. 668dd. National Wildlife Refuge System: “The publicshould be given a full and open opportunity to participatein decisions regarding acquisition and management ofNational Wildlife Refuges.”“…ensure appropriate publicinvolvement opportunities will be provided in conjunctionwith refuge planning and management activities.”

Chapter 5B – Wildlife Restoration

Sec. 669. Cooperation of Secretary of the Interior withStates: “…to encourage State fish and wildlife agencies toprovide for public involvement in the process of develop-ment and implementation of a wildlife conservation andrestoration program.”

Sec. 669c. Allocation and apportionment of availableamounts: “…provisions to ensure public participation inthe development, revision, and implementation of projectsand programs required under this paragraph. A State shallprovide an opportunity for public participation in the

Appendix

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Requirements for PublicParticipation Processes Involving Forest and Related Resources, 2001

��

development of the comprehensive plan required underparagraph (1).”

Chapter 6 – Game and Bird Preserves; Protection

Sec. 698r. Administration: “The secretary shall develop andconduct a program to promote and encourage awareness ofand participation in the development of the general man-agement plan for the Preserve by persons owning propertyin the vicinity of the Preserve, other interested groups andindividuals, State, county, and municipal agencies, and thegeneral public.” “In preparing and implementing the plandescribed in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall give fullconsideration to the views and comments of the indivi-duals, groups, and agencies described in paragraph (1).”

Sec. 698u-5. Advisory Committee: “Meetings shall be heldat such locations and in such a manner as to ensure ade-quate opportunity for public involvement. In compliancewith the requirements of FACA, the advisory Committeeshall choose an appropriate means of providing interestedmembers of the public advance notice of scheduledmeetings.”

Chapter 7 – Protection of Migratory Game andInsectivorous Birds

Subchapter I – Generally

Sec. 701. Game and wild birds; preservation: “These pro-tocols may be incorporated into existing actions; however,the MOU shall recognize that the agency may not be ableto implement some elements of the MOU until such timeas the agency has successfully included them in eachagency’s formal planning process (such as revision ofagency land management plans, land use compatibilityguidelines, integrated resource management plans, andfishery management plans), including public participationand NEPA analysis, as appropriate.”

Chapter 27 – National Trails System

Section. 1244. National scenic and national historic trails:“The Secretary of the Interior shall – (i) encouragecommunities and owners of land along the trail, nativeHawaiians, and volunteer trail groups to participate in theplanning, development, and maintenance of the trail.”

Chapter 28 – Wild and Scenic Rivers

Sec. 1274. Component rivers and adjacent lands:“Commission meetings shall be held at locations and insuch a manner as to ensure adequate public involvement.”

Sec. 1276. Rivers constituting potential additions tonational wild and scenic rivers system: “For purposes ofsuch river studies, the Secretary shall consult with each

River Study Committee authorized under section 5 of theMichigan Scenic Rivers Act of 1990, and shall encouragepublic participation and involvement through hearings,workshops, and such other means as are necessary to beeffective.”

Chapter 32 – Marine Sanctuaries

Sec. 1445a. Advisory Councils, Public participation andprocedural matters: “The following guidelines apply withrespect to the conduct of business meetings of an AdvisoryCouncil: (1) Each meeting shall be open to the public, andinterested persons shall be permitted to present oral orwritten statements on items on the agenda. (2) Emergencymeetings may be held at the call of the chairman or presid-ing officer. (3) Timely notice of each meeting, includingthe time, place, and agenda of the meeting, shall be pub-lished locally and in the Federal Register, except that incase of a meeting of an Advisory Council established toprovide assistance regarding any individual national marinesanctuary the notice is not required to be published in theFederal Register. (4) Minutes of each meeting shall bekept and contain a summary of the attendees and mattersdiscussed.”

Chapter 33 – Coastal Zone Management

Sec. 1455. Administrative grants: “Management programprovides for public participation in permitting processes,consistency determinations, and similar decisions.”

Sec. 1455b. Protecting coastal waters: “Opportunities forpublic participation in all aspects of the program, includingthe use of public notices and opportunities for comment,nomination procedures, public hearings, technical andfinancial assistance, public education, and other means.”

Sec. 1458. Review of performance: “In evaluating a coastalstate’s performance, the Secretary shall conduct the eval-uation in an open and public manner, and provide fullopportunity for public participation, including holdingpublic meetings in the State being evaluated and providingopportunities for the submission of written and oral com-ments by the public. The Secretary shall provide the publicwith at least 45 days’ notice of such public meetings byplacing a notice in the Federal Register, by publication oftimely notices in newspapers of general circulation withinthe State being evaluated, and by communications withpersons and organizations known to be interested in theevaluation. Each evaluation shall be prepared in reportform and shall include written responses to the writtencomments received during the evaluation process. Thefinal report of the evaluation shall be completed within120 days after the last public meeting held in the Statebeing evaluated. Copies of the evaluation shall be immedi-ately provided to all persons and organizations participat-ing in the evaluation process.”

�

Chapter 35 – Endangered Species

Sec. 1535. Cooperation with States: “…provision is madefor public participation in designating resident species offish or wildlife as endangered or threatened; provision ismade for public participation in designating residentspecies of plants as endangered or threatened.”

Chapter 36 – Forest and Rangeland RenewableResources Planning

Subchapter 1 – Planning

Sec. 1600. Congressional findings: “…to serve the nationalinterest, the renewable resource program must be based ona comprehensive assessment of present and anticipateduses, demand for, and supply of renewable resources fromthe Nation’s public and private forests and rangelands,through analysis of environmental and economic impacts,coordination of multiple use and sustained yield opportun-ities as provided in the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Actof 1960, and public participation in the development ofthe program.”

Sec. 1601. Renewable Resource Assessment: “In develop-ing reports … the Secretary shall provide opportunity forpublic involvement and shall consult with other interestedgovernmental departments and agencies.”

Sec. 1604. National Forest System land and resource man-agement plans: “The Secretary shall provide for publicparticipation in the development, review, and revision ofland management plans including, but not limited to,making the plans or revisions available to the public atconvenient locations in the vicinity of the affected unit fora period of at least three months before final adoption,during which period the Secretary shall publicize and holdpublic meetings or comparable processes at locations thatfoster public participation in the review of such plans orrevisions.”

Sec. 1611 Timber: “Plans for variations in the allowablesale quantity must be made with public participation asrequired by section 1604(b) of this title.”

Sec. 1612. Public participation: “In exercising his authori-ties under this subchapter and other laws applicable to theForest Service, the Secretary, by regulation, shall establishprocedures, including public hearings where appropriate,to give the Federal, State, and local governments and thepublic adequate notice and an opportunity to commentupon the formulation of standards, criteria, and guidelinesapplicable to Forest Service programs.” “In providing forpublic participation in the planning for and managementof the National Forest System, the Secretary, pursuant tothe Federal Advisory Committee Act and other applicablelaw, shall establish and consult such advisory boards as hedeems necessary to secure full information and advice on

the execution of his responsibilities. The membership ofsuch boards shall be representative of a cross section ofgroups interested in the planning for and management ofthe National Forest System and the various types of useand enjoyment of the lands thereof.” “In accordance withthis section, the Secretary of Agriculture, acting throughthe Chief of the Forest Service, shall establish a noticeand comment process for proposed actions of the ForestService concerning projects and activities implementingland and resource management plans developed under theForest and Rangeland Resources Planning Act of 1974and shall modify the procedure for appeals of decisionsconcerning such projects.” “Prior to proposing an actionreferred to in subsection (a), the Secretary shall give noticeof the proposed action, and the availability of the actionfor public comment by (A) promptly mailing notice aboutthe proposed action to any person who has requested it inwriting, and to persons who are known to have participatedin the decisionmaking process; and (B)(I) in the case of anaction taken by the Chief of the Forest Service, publishingnotice of action in the Federal Register; or (ii) in the caseof any other action referred to in subsection (a), publishingnotice of action in a newspaper of general circulation thathas previously been identified in the Federal Register asthe newspaper in which notice under the paragraph maybe published. (2) Comment – The Secretary shall acceptcomments on the proposed action within 30 days afterpublication of the notice in accordance with paragraph (1).(c) Right to Appeal – Not later than 45 days after the dateof issuance of a decision of the Forest Service concerningactions referred to in subsection (a), a person who wasinvolved in the public comment process under subsection(b) through submission of written or oral comments or byotherwise notifying the Forest Service of their interest inthe proposed action may file an appeal. (d) Disposition ofan Appeal. – (1) Informal disposition. – (A) In general;. –Subject to subparagraph (B), a designated employee of theForest Service shall offer to meet with each individualwho files and appeal in accordance with subsection (c) andattempt to dispose of the appeal. (B) Time and location ofthe meeting. – Each meeting in accordance with subpara-graph (A) shall take place – (I) not later than 15 days afterthe closing date for filing an appeal; and (ii) at a locationdesignated by the Chief of the Forest Service that is in thevicinity of the lands affected by the decision. (2) Formalreview. – If this appeal is not disposed of in accordancewith paragraph (1), an appeals review officer designatedby the Chief of the Forest Service shall review the appealand recommend in writing, to the official responsible fordeciding the appeal, the appropriate disposition of theappeal. The official responsible for deciding the appealshall then decide the appeal. The appeals review officershall be a line officer at least at the level of the agencyofficial who made the initial decision on the project oractivity that is under appeal, who has not participated in

�

the initial decision and will not be responsible for imple-mentation of the initial decision after the appeal is decided.(3) Time for disposition – Disposition of appeals underthis subsection shall be completed not later than 30 daysafter the closing date for filing of an appeal, provided thatthe Forest Service may extend the closing date by an addi-tional 15 days. (4) If the Secretary fails to decide theappeal within the 45-day period, the decision on which theappeal is based shall be deemed to be a final agency actionfor the purpose of chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code.(e) Stay – Unless the Chief of the Forest Service determinesthat an emergency situation exists with respect to a deci-sion of the Forest Service, implementation of the decisionshall be stayed during the period beginning on the date ofthe decision – (1) for 45 days, if an appeal is not filed, or(2) for an additional 15 days after the date of the disposi-tion of an appeal under this section, if the agency action isdeemed final under subsection (d)(4).”

Chapter 40 – Soil and Water Resources Conservation

Sec. 2004. Continuing appraisal of soil, water, and relatedresources: “Appraisal shall be made in cooperation withconservation districts, soil and water conservation agen-cies, and other appropriate citizen groups, and local andState agencies under such procedures as the Secretary mayprescribe to ensure public participation.”

Chapter 51 – Alaska National Interest LandsConservation

Subchapter V – Federal-State Cooperation

Sec. 3181. Alaska Land Use Council: “Cooperative agree-ments established pursuant to this section shall include aplan for public participation consistent with the guide-lines…” “The Council shall establish and implement a pub-lic participation program to assist the Council to carry outits responsibilities and functions under this section. Suchprogram shall include, but is not limited to – (1) A com-mittee of land-use advisors appointed by the Cochairmenmade up of representatives of commercial and industrialland users in Alaska, recreational land users, wildernessusers, environmental groups, Native Corporations, andother public and private organizations. To the maximumextent practicable, the membership of the committee shallprovide a balanced mixture of national, State, and localperspective and expertise on land and resource use issues;and (2) A system for (A) the identification of persons andcommunities, in rural and urban Alaska, who or which maybe directly or significantly affected by studies conducted,or advice and recommendations given by the Council pur-suant to this section, and (B) guidelines for, and implemen-tation of, a system for effective public participation bysuch persons or communities in the development of suchstudies, advice, and recommendations by the Council.”

Chapter 54 – Resource Conservation

Subchapter V – Resource Conservation

Sec. 3452. Definitions: “The term ‘planning process’ meansthe continuous effort by any State, local unit of govern-ment, or local nonprofit organization to develop and carryout effective resource conservation and utilization plansfor a designated area, including development of an areaplan, goals, objectives, policies, implementation activities,evaluations and reviews, and the opportunity for publicparticipation in such efforts.”

Chapter 63 – Federal Cave Resources Protection

Sec. 4303. Management actions: “… foster communica-tion, cooperation, and exchange of information betweenland managers, those who utilize caves, and the public.”

Chapter 71 – Atlantic Coastal Fisheries CooperativeManagement

Sec. 5104. State implementation of coastal fishery man-agement plans: “... the Commission provides adequateopportunity for public participation in the plan preparationprocess, including at least four public hearings and pro-cedures for the submission of written comments to theCommission.”

Chapter 80 – Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation

Sec. 6106. Cooperation: “(A) Meetings – The advisorygroup shall – (I) ensure that each meeting of the advisorygroup is open to the public; and (ii) provide, at each meet-ing, an opportunity for interested persons to present oralor written statements concerning items on the agenda.(B) Notice – The Secretary shall provide to the publictimely notice of each meeting of the advisory group. (c)Minutes – Minutes of each meeting of the advisory groupshall be kept by the Secretary and shall be made availableto the public.”

TITLE 33 - NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLEWATERS

Chapter 26 – Water Pollution Prevention and Control

Subchapter I – Research and Related Programs

Sec. 1251. Congressional declaration of goals and policy:“Public participation in the development, revision, andenforcement of any regulation, standard, effluent limita-tion, plan, or program established by the Administrator orany State under this chapter shall be provided for, encour-aged, and assisted by the Administrator and the States.The Administrator, in cooperation with the States, shalldevelop and publish regulations specifying minimumguidelines for public participation in such processes.”

��

Subchapter III – Standards and Enforcement

Sec. 1329 Nonpoint source management programs:“…describes the process, including intergovernmentalcoordination and public participation, for identifying bestmanagement practices…”

Chapter 27 – Ocean Dumping

Subchapter I – Regulation

Sec. 1414b. Ocean dumping of sewage sludge and indus-trial waste: “The Administrator shall provide an opportun-ity for public comment regarding the establishment andimplementation of compliance agreements and enforce-ment agreements entered into pursuant to this section.”

Chapter 29 – Deep Water Ports

Sec. 1509. Marine environmental protection and naviga-tional safety: “subject to … and the provision of adequatepublic involvement, the Secretary shall prescribe andenforce procedures.”

Chapter 36 – Water Resources Development

Subchapter V – General Provisions

Sec. 2319. Reservoir management: “The Secretary shallensure that, in developing or revising reservoir operatingmanuals of the Corps of Engineers, the Corps shall providesignificant opportunities for public participation, includingopportunities for public hearings.”

TITLE 43 – PUBLIC LANDS

Chapter 12 – Reclamation and Irrigation of Lands byFederal Government

Subchapter I-A – Reclamation Reform

Sec. 390jj. Water Conservation: “The Secretary is author-ized and directed to enter into memorandums of agreementwith those Federal agencies having capability to assist inimplementing water conservation measures to assure coor-dination of ongoing programs. Such memorandums shouldprovide for involvement of non-Federal entities such asStates, Indian tribes, and water user organizations to assurefull public participation in water conservation efforts.”

Chapter 35 – Federal Land Policy and Management

Subchapter I – General Provisions

Sec 1702. Definitions: “The term ‘public involvement’means the opportunity for participation by affected citi-zens in rulemaking, decisionmaking, and planning withrespect to the public lands, including public meetings orhearings held at locations near the affected lands, oradvisory mechanisms, or such other procedures as maybe necessary to provide public comment in a particularinstance.”

Subchapter II – Land Use Planning and Land Acquisitionand Disposition

Sec 1712. Land use plans: “The Secretary shall, withpublic involvement and consistent with the terms of thisact, develop, maintain and when appropriate, revise landuse plans…” “the Secretary … shall provide for meaning-ful public involvement of State and local governmentofficials.” “The Secretary shall allow an opportunity forpublic involvement and by regulation shall establish pro-cedures, including public hearings where appropriate, togive Federal, State, and local governments and the publicadequate notice and opportunity to comment upon andparticipate in the formulation of plans and programs relat-ing to the management of public lands.”

Subchapter III – Administration

Sec. 1739. Advisory councils: “In exercising his authoritiesunder this Act, the Secretary, by regulation, shall establishprocedures, including public hearings where appropriate,to give the Federal, State, and local governments and thepublic adequate notice and an opportunity to commentupon the formulation of standards and criteria for, and toparticipate in, the preparation and execution of plans andprograms for, and the management of, public lands.”

��

The full text of Indicator 51 is as follows: Extent to whichthe legal framework (laws, regulations, guidelines) supportsthe conservation and sustainable management of forests,including the extent to which it encourages best-practicecodes for forest management (Montreal Process WorkingGroup 2003)


Forest management practices that are well designed andproperly applied are fundamental to the sustainability offorest resources. At all levels (stand, landscape, local,regional, national, global), forests depend on the applicationof forest practices that are capable of ensuring sustaineduse, management, and protection of important social,economic, and biological values. Exploitive or destructiveforest practices may lead to short-term financial or socialgains, but they may also cause temporary or irreparableharm to ecological and biological processes in forests andultimately decrease long-term social and economic welfare.Well-founded best-practice codes, and the forest manage-ment practices required by such codes, can ensure sustainedforest productivity for market goods, protection of ecologi-cal values, and protection of the various social, cultural,and spiritual values offered by forests. Such codes andpractices can be among the most important tools forresponding to national trends and conditions involvingforests (Cubbage and Moffat 1997, Montreal ProcessWorking Group 2003, Montreal Process TechnicalAdvisory Committee 2000).

Useful data for measuring Indicator 51 are compilationsand descriptions of laws and programs at national andsubnational levels that require the establishment of appro-priate practices and harvesting activities, specification ofpractices and harvesting activities to be applied, anddesignation of the programmatic means by which suchpractices are to be delivered to landowners and timberharvesters (for example, fiscal incentives, technical assis-tance, regulations and ordinances). Similarly useful indescribing this indicator are the compilation and descrip-tion of processes that encourage monitoring of the rate atwhich these practices are actually being applied and, whenappropriate, updated (Montreal Process TechnicalAdvisory Committee 2000).

Concepts and principles that are to be identified andaddressed are suggested by the indicator. For the purposesof this review best-practice codes can be defined as a setof forest management or harvesting standards (benchmarks,yardsticks, touchstones, measures, criteria) that fostersustainable management of forests for various values andbenefits. Best practices are also referred to as best manage-ment practices, forest-practice guidelines, forest practicerules, acceptable practices, and management ordinances.To encourage codes is to promote the development ofbest-practice codes (through leadership, organization,funding) and their subsequent application in response tovarious types of programs (for example, educational, tech-nical assistance, fiscal incentives, tax incentives, regulatoryprograms).


Typically, best-practice codes are summations of variousforest practices considered to be technically, economically,and politically acceptable for achieving certain desiredconditions of forest sustainability. Their development bypublic and private agencies usually involves a collabora-tive process whereby the final sets of best practices arethose that produce sustainable forest conditions and, to theextent possible, meet the biological, economic, and socialobjectives of those engaged in their development. Althoughinitially developed in response to concern over nonpointforest sources of water pollutants, codes have been devel-oped for nearly all forest practices (for example, roads,pesticides, reforestation, prescribed fire) that are importantto the attainment of values associated with forests, such aswildlife, recreation, wetlands, timber, and aesthetic beauty.

Best-practice codes have been developed and implementedby a large number of public and private organizations. Thediversity of these organizations has often resulted in theproduction of a variety of best management codes thatreflect the interests and requirements of the sponsoringorganizations. In some cases such codes are well coordin-ated, but in other cases they may be in direct conflict.Privately developed and implemented codes of forestpractices include the Sustainable Forestry Initiative of theAmerican Forest and Paper Association (2001a) and theforest certification program of the Forest StewardshipCouncil (1999). Although some private initiatives haveoccurred, government organizations, in response to variouslegal mandates, have been the most active force in pursuingthe development and application of best-practice codes.


Best-Practice Codes for Forest Management (Indicator 51)


��

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, responding torequirements of the 1972 Amendments to the Federal WaterPollution Control Act and the Coastal Zone ManagementAct of 1972, has been and continues to be a major stimulusin the development of best management practices, espe-cially those developed by State governments. Similarly,the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed best-practice codes focused on wildlife values, and the USDAForest Service has developed best management practicesfor forestlands that are part of the National Forest System(Anderson 2000).

Ultimately, the usefulness of best-practice codes depends onthe extent to which they are applied by forest landownersand timber harvesters. In some cases, voluntary acceptanceand application of codes is the primary approach to secur-ing their use. Landowner and harvester goodwill and senseof stewardship toward forests is considered the only moti-vation necessary to accomplish the application of appro-priate forest practices. On their own initiative, groups oftimber harvesters, nonindustrial private landowners, andindustrial timberland owners may band together to develop,adopt, and apply best-practice codes. In certain situations,however, government may need to play a major role.Uninformed or misinformed landowners and harvestersmay require information provided by educational initiatives(often provided by State Extension Service programs) ortechnical assistance programs (provided individually bypublic or private service foresters) if they are to applybest-practice codes. Government-sponsored fiscal and taxincentives may also be necessary where landowners andharvesters lack the financial resources needed to applybest-practice codes. And where landowners and harvestersare not persuaded of the necessity to apply certain forestpractices that are considered essential to sustaining impor-tant forest values, a regulatory or mandatory approach hasbeen found necessary.

Best-practice codes and the programs that foster theirimplementation are dynamic systems that require carefulmonitoring. Such monitoring can be most useful in deter-mining whether more aggressive delivery of good prac-tices via more or better organized programs is necessary,or whether there are technical problems (such as obsole-scence or ineffectiveness) with the forest practices recom-mended in the best-practice code. Compliance monitoringand effectiveness monitoring have been a key componentof most private and public initiatives involving best-prac-tice codes. Some States have conducted six or more cyclesof compliance monitoring over a period of 10 to 12 years(National Association of State Foresters 2001).



Private organizations representing a variety of interests insustaining forests have developed and implemented codesof best practices for forest management. Adopted by vari-ous forest certification programs, these codes of best forestpractices clearly demonstrate the capacity of the privatesector to assume responsibility for ensuring the sustain-ability of forests and the communities that are dependentupon them. The motives for their development and imple-mentation are many, and include improving the perform-ance of forest management activities and the strengtheningof the credibility and public acceptance of forestry ingeneral. A significant aspect of all private certificationefforts is that they represent voluntary, nonregulatoryapproaches to the promotion of improved forest practicesand forest management systems. Certification of a forestimplies that the management practices being applied meetapproved standards of a designated authority (Society ofAmerican Foresters 1999).

There are more than 25 nongovernmental forest certifica-tion programs worldwide plus a number of governmentalefforts to develop criteria and indicators of sustainableforest management. Best-practice codes are frequently themost visible on-the-ground expression of sustainable forestmanagement (Confederation of European Paper Industries2000, Society of American Foresters 1999).2 In the UnitedStates, five major nongovernmental certification programsrecommending best practices for forest management havegained considerable attention (table 1). Although the bestpractices recommended by these programs can differ sub-stantially in content, all programs have standards that insome way address such subjects as planning, management,reforestation, forest operations, special places, pesticides,product utilization, fish and wildlife, and soil and waterresources. Programs typically set forth sets of best-prac-tice principles or objectives within which participants aregiven substantial flexibility to develop more exactingpractices considered appropriate to specific resource, eco-nomic, and political settings (American Forest and PaperAssociation 2001a, 2001b; Forest Stewardship Council2000). The exact nature of the practices being applied inresponse to these principles has not yet been compiled in a

2 Examples of international certification programs and activities are theInternational Standards Organization (ISO) 14001 EnvironmentalManagement System (especially ISO TR 14061), Pan-European ForestCertification, Alliance of World Wide Fund for Nature and World Bank,World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Center forInternational Forestry Research, and programs in various countries,including Austria, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark,Finland, France, Ghana, Indonesia, Latvia, Malaysia, Mexico, Norway,Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom (Confederation ofEuropean Paper Industries 2000, Society of American Foresters 1999).

��

Tabl

e 1—

Non

gove

rnm

enta

l fo

rest

cer

tifi

cati

on p

rogr

ams

prom

otin

g be

st-f

ores

t-pr

acti

ce s

tand

ards

, by

prog

ram

cha

ract

eris

tic

(199

9)

For

est

Cer

tifi

cati

on P

rogr

am

Env

iron

men

tal

Man

agem

ent

Pro

gram

Sus

tain

able

For

estr

yF

ores

t S

tew

ards

hip

Sys

tem

s: F

ores

try

Gre

en T

agch

arac

teri

stic

Init

iati

ve P

rogr

amC

ounc

il P

rogr

amIS

O 1

4000

: T

C 2

01T

ree

Far

m P

rogr

amF

ores

try

Pro

gram

Spo

nsor

Am

eric

an F

ores

t an

dF

ores

t S

tew

ards

hip

Inte

rnat

iona

l S

tand

ards

Am

eric

an F

ores

tN

atio

nal

For

estr

yP

aper

Ass

ocia

tion

Cou

ncil

Org

aniz

atio

nF

ound

atio

nA

ssoc

iati

on (

NFA

) an

d(A

F&

PA)

Nat

iona

l W

oodl

and

Ow

ners

Ass

ocia

tion

Mis

sion

Pro

mot

e co

mm

itm

ent

Impr

ove

fore

stP

rovi

de s

tand

ardi

zed

mea

nsE

nsur

e su

stai

nabl

eP

rom

ote

land

owne

rto

sus

tain

able

for

estr

ypr

acti

ces

thro

ugh

by w

hich

com

pani

es c

anfo

rest

s by

pro

vidi

ng l

and-

reco

gnit

ion

ofan

d th

e m

easu

res

bym

arke

t-ba

sed

addr

ess

envi

ronm

enta

low

ners

wit

h in

form

atio

nre

spon

sibi

lity

for

whi

ch t

he p

ubli

c ca

nm

echa

nism

sim

pact

s of

the

ir a

ctiv

itie

san

d vo

lunt

ary

veri

fica

-su

stai

nabl

e w

oodl

and

mea

sure

thi

sti

on o

f su

stai

nabl

em

anag

emen

tco

mm

itm

ent

fore

st p

ract

ices

Eli

gibl

e pa

rtie

sA

F&

PA m

embe

rsIn

tere

sted

for

est

Org

aniz

atio

ns i

nvol

ved

inO

wne

rs o

f 10

or

mor

eN

FA m

embe

rsla

ndow

ners

envi

ronm

enta

l m

anag

emen

tac

res

of f

ores

tlan

d

For

est

prac

tice

Pri

ncip

les:

use

Prin

cipl

es:

com

ply

with

Prin

cipl

es:

give

env

iron

men

tal

Pri

ncip

les:

bro

aden

Pri

ncip

les:

pro

mot

est

anda

rd k

eyre

spon

sibl

e fo

rest

law

s, e

stab

lish

cle

arm

anag

emen

t hi

gh p

rior

ity,

prac

tice

of

sust

aina

ble

fore

st s

usta

inab

ilit

y by

prin

cipl

espr

acti

ces,

pro

tect

for

est

tenu

re t

o la

nd,

resp

ect

com

mun

icat

e ex

tern

ally

,fo

rest

ry;

com

mun

icat

eso

und

man

agem

ent

heal

th a

nd p

rodu

ctiv

ity,

indi

geno

us p

eopl

es’

com

ply

wit

h la

ws

and

rule

s,to

and

inv

olve

pub

lic;

invo

lvin

g pl

anni

ng,

tree

prot

ect

spec

ial

fore

stri

ghts

, en

hanc

e w

ell-

assi

gn r

espo

nsib

ilit

y fo

rpr

uden

tly

use

harv

esti

ng,

road

site

s, c

onti

nuou

sly

bein

g of

wor

kers

and

envi

ronm

enta

l m

anag

emen

t,ch

emic

als;

ref

ores

tco

nstr

ucti

on,

skid

ding

,im

prov

e pr

acti

ce o

fco

mm

unit

ies,

ens

ure

prom

ote

envi

ronm

enta

lha

rves

ted

land

s;po

st-h

arve

st e

valu

atio

ns,

fore

st m

anag

emen

tw

ide

rang

e of

env

iron

-pl

anni

ng,

esta

blis

hm

anag

e fo

r qu

alit

ypr

oduc

t ut

iliz

atio

n,m

enta

l an

d so

cial

ben

e-pe

rfor

man

ce d

isci

plin

e,w

ater

, w

ildl

ife,

chem

ical

app

lica

tion

s,fi

ts, c

onse

rve

biol

ogic

alev

alua

te p

erfo

rman

ce,

aest

heti

cs,

spec

ial

com

mun

ity

and

dive

rsit

y, d

evel

op f

ores

tes

tabl

ish

audi

t sy

stem

s,si

tes,

and

bio

dive

rsit

yem

ploy

ee r

elat

ions

,m

anag

emen

t pl

ans,

enco

urag

e ve

ndor

s to

econ

omic

via

bili

ty,

and

mon

itor

for

estr

y ac

tivi

-es

tabl

ish

envi

ronm

enta

lre

cord

keep

ing

ties

, co

nser

ve n

atur

alm

anag

emen

t sy

stem

sfo

rest

s, a

nd p

lan

envi

ron-

men

tall

y fo

r pl

anta

tion

s

For

est

prac

tice

Vol

unta

ry v

erif

icat

ion

Thi

rd-p

arty

aud

its

Fir

st-,

sec

ond-

, or

thi

rd-

Thi

rd-p

arty

aud

its

Thi

rd-p

arty

aud

its

stan

dard

aud

its

or s

econ

d- a

nd t

hird

-pa

rty

audi

tspa

rty

audi

ts

Sou

rce:

Ada

pted

fro

m S

ocie

ty o

f Am

eric

an F

ores

ters

(19

99).

��

comprehensive sense, nor has the effectiveness of thepractices been addressed by long-term research activities.

The administration of certification programs varies consi-derably. Some are directly involved in encouraging theapplication of best-practice codes (Sustainable ForestryInitiative, Green Tag Forestry Program), while others areinternational bodies that accredit certification organiza-tions. An example of the latter is the Forest StewardshipCouncil which (as of 1999) has accredited two nationalcertifiers in the United States, namely Scientific Certifica-tion Systems and SmartWood (a program of the RainforestAlliance), which work through various regionally basedorganizations. The best-practice codes developed by theseregional organizations are required to be consistent withthe Forest Stewardship Council’s 10 principles of forestsustainability. The Green Tag Forestry Program sets forthprinciples of best forest practices, and then engages theservices of foresters who are members of the Society ofAmerican Foresters to guide their application to forestsowned by participating landowners. The ISO certificationprocess does not specify principles of best forest practices,but instead allows their development and adoption byorganizations seeking certification (Society of AmericanForesters 1999).

The best-practice standards promoted by programs certify-ing sustainable forest management conditions are useful tothe extent they are actually applied in a forest setting.Except in certain limited cases, information about theirability to actually achieve principles of forest sustainabilityis limited. However, the acreage of forestland enrolled bythe programs in the United States in 1999 is substantial.These programs include the Sustainable Forestry InitiativeProgram (56.5 million acres), American Tree FarmProgram (85 million acres), Forest Stewardship CouncilProgram (4.6 million acres), and Green Tag Forestry Pro-gram (2,100 acres) (Society of American Foresters 1999).As interest in encouraging best practices by the use ofcertification programs continues to grow, the number andsophistication of such programs grow also. The changingconditions created by this evolutionary process pose spe-cial challenges to identifying, compiling, and measuringthe ability of privately initiated certification programs toencourage the use of best-practice codes (Cook andO’Laughlin 1999). The certification system worldwide hasyet to determine who the major organizational players willbe and what set of comprehensive codes they will advo-cate as most useful for accomplishing sustainable forestryobjectives. The information management task implied bythis endeavor is lessened in some cases by the periodicstatus reports issued by some sponsoring organizations (forexample, American Forest and Paper Association 2001a,Forest Stewardship Council 1999).


A number of Federal laws and associated Federal rules andadministrative directives represent a significant capacity toinfluence forest practices applied on public and privateforestland (table 2). Of the 16 Federal laws listed in thetable, all but 3 rely indirectly on State governments todevelop and implement best management practice codesthat are considered important to the achievement of certainnational interests in forests. These laws typically requireState actions that favor the establishment of forest-practicecodes to be implemented in various State-selected ways(for example, the Clean Water Act required programs forcontrolling nonpoint-source pollution; the Coastal ZoneManagement Act required the adoption of enforceablebest-practice codes). In nine of the Federal statutes identi-fied, Federal law directly promotes or limits the applica-tion of certain practices on all forest ownerships (forexample, the Occupational Safety and Health Act statesconditions for felling and skidding; the Federal Insecticide,Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act states conditions for pesti-cide application in wetlands). Only three of the Federalstatutes identified call for best-forest-practice codes to bedeveloped specifically for Federal lands (for example, theNational Forest Management Act states conditions forgrowing and harvesting timber in national forests). Mostbest-practice codes of Federal agencies are included in theland management plans that guide the use and managementof Federal public lands.

The following are more detailed examples of laws that auth-orize the Federal Government to establish and encouragethe application of forest practices considered necessary tosustain forests (Brown and others 1993; U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service 1993; West Publishing 1997).

Direct prescriptions—

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: Requiresthe establishment and implementation of workplace safetyand health standards. As examples, the safety standards (orbest practices) cover felling, bucking, limbing, loading,skidding, road and bridge building, and the use of explo-sives. Federal administrative responsibility for rule promul-gation and enforcement rests with the U.S. Department ofLabor.

Endangered Species Act of 1973: Requires prevention ofthe extinction of endangered species of flora and fauna,and authorizes regulations as deemed necessary and advis-able to provide for the conservation of such species.Where necessary for the conservation and survival of suchspecies, recovery plans are to be developed that includesite-specific management actions as may be necessary toachieve a plan’s goal. Certain harmful actions are prohibited

��

outright; these include actions that result in significanthabitat modification or that harass, harm, kill, trap, orinvolve collection of endangered or threatened species offish and wildlife. Federal administrative and enforcementresponsibility for the act rests with the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service and the National Marine and FisheriesService.

National Forest Management Act of 1976: Requires thepreparation of land and resource management plans fornational forests and requires that such plans include (asexamples) guidelines ensuring that timber is harvestedonly where soil, slope, or watershed conditions will not beirreversibly damaged; there is assurance that lands can beadequately restocked within 5 years after harvest; protec-tion is provided for streams, streambanks, shorelines,lakes, and wetlands; and cut blocks, patches, or strips areshaped and blended with natural terrain. Federal admini-strative authority for the act rests with the Forest Service,U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976:Requires the preparation of land-use plans for Federalpublic lands (land administered by the Bureau of LandManagement) that ensure that the use and management ofsuch lands shall be in compliance with applicable pollu-tion control laws, including air, water, noise, and otherpollution-control standards or plans; and will minimizeadverse impacts on the natural, environmental, scientific,cultural, and other resources and values (including fishand wildlife habitats) of the public lands involved. Federaladministrative authority for the act rests with the Bureauof Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior.

Indirect prescriptions—

Clean Water Act of 1987 (amendments to Federal WaterPollution Control Act): Requires States to prepare a non-point-source management program, specifically to identifywaters that require action to control nonpoint sources ofpollution, to identify nonpoint sources that add significant

Table 2—Federal statutes requiring development and application of best-forest-practice standards, by resource focusand landowner application

Federal statutory requirements forapplication of forest-practice code

Major forest Direct Federal Direct Federal Indirect State(or related) application application actionresource of only to to all for code

Federal statute concern Federal land forestland development

Clean Air Act of 1990 Air X XClean Water Act of 1987 Water X XCoastal Zone Management Act of 1972 Comprehensive XEndangered Species Act of 1973 Fish and Wildlife X XFederal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act (as amended 1996) Comprehensive X XFederal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 Comprehensive XFish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 Fish and Wildlife XNational Park Service Organic Act of 1916 Recreation XNational Trails System Act of 1968 Recreation X XNational Wildlife Refuge System Administration

Act of 1966 (amended 1997) Fish and Wildlife XOccupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 Comprehensive X XRivers and Harbors Act of 1890 Water X XSoil and Water Conservation Act of 1977 Comprehensive XSuperfund Act of 1980 Comprehensive X XSurface Mining Control and Reclamation

Act of 1977 Comprehensive XWild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 Recreation X X

Note: Superfund Act of 1980 is the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, andRodenticide Act includes the Agricultural Worker Protection Standard for the distribution and use of pesticides.Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (1993), and West Publishing (1997).

��

pollutants, and to develop plans for identifying best man-agement practices and measures to control each categoryand subcategory of nonpoint sources. Federal administrativeresponsibility for the act rests with the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency. Enforcement of the nonpoint-sourceplans is a State responsibility.

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972: Requires Statesto develop plans to implement economically achievablemeasures for the control of nonpoint sources of pollutantsoriginating in designated coastal regions of the UnitedStates. Forest management measures include preharvestplanning, streamside management, road construction andreconstruction, site preparation, fire management, revege-tation of disturbed areas, and wetland management. Statesmust implement these measures by means of enforceablepolicies and mechanisms. Federal administrative responsi-bility rests with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencyand the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.Enforcement of the plans is a State responsibility.

Clean Air Act of 1990: Requires each State to develop aplan that provides for implementation, maintenance, andenforcement of air quality standards in each air qualitycontrol region within its boundaries. Implementationinvolves establishing practices that will prevent significantdeterioration of air quality (including visibility) in andnear national parks, wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas.Smoke management plans address prescribed burningpractices. Although major administrative and enforcementresponsibility rests with the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, States are responsible for administering Stateplans.


State governments also have significant legal frameworksfor encouraging the development and implementation offorest practice codes. In 2001, all States had some form offorest practice code, and 60 percent of these codes hadbeen revised one or more times since 1994. The practicesset forth by these codes were being applied to forests at arate of 86 percent (National Association of State Foresters2001). Many state forest practice codes were establishedin response to federal laws that require implementable andenforceable programs focused on the water quality impactsof forest practices, although most now address a variety offorest values and the forest practices used to enhance orprotect such values. The State-developed codes focusedprimarily on private forests, although many apply to State-owned public forests (some even to federal lands, althoughjurisdictional disagreements are common) (Ellefson andothers 1995).

State governments have the capacity to direct forest prac-tice codes on a variety of forest values and to implementthe codes in a variety of programmatic ways (table 3). In1992, State-adopted best forest practices focused on waterquality, reforestation, timber harvesting, forest protection,wildlife protection, recreation, and aesthetic qualities.Most of the guidelines developed to address these valueswere delivered via technical assistance programs (28 per-cent of total program applications), with broader educa-tional and extension programs a close second (27 percent).Other program types employed were fiscal incentives (15percent of applications), voluntary guidelines (13 percent),regulatory (11 percent), and tax incentives (6 percent).State forestry agencies are unlikely to rely on a single typeof program to deliver their forest-practice codes. Forexample, educational and technical assistance programswere used by 46 and 47 States, respectively, to protectwater quality, yet 34 States also used voluntary guidelinesand 28 States employed regulatory measures for suchpurposes.

The number and type of State agencies engaged in thedevelopment of forest-practice codes is substantial. In theyear 2000, nearly 1,000 State government entities (depart-ments, divisions, bureaus, governing boards) were engagedin some form of forest resource management activity thatmay very likely lead to the development of codes specify-ing the best forest management practices to be applied bypublic and private landowners and timber harvesters(Ellefson and others 2001a and 2002). These State agenciesranged from those with traditional resource conservationand management responsibilities (forests, wildlife, parks,recreation, water), to agencies that have broader environ-mental and public health responsibilities that might beinfluenced by forest practices. The capacity of those agen-cies to foster development and implementation of forest-practice codes rests in large measure on the variety ofState laws the agencies are responsible for implementing.State laws applicable to forestry nonpoint-source pollutionin 2001 included forest practice and conservation laws(11 States), lake and stream protection laws (27 States),wetland protection laws (23 States), stream crossings laws(23 States), sediment and erosion control laws (29 States),chemical use laws (15 States), persistent problem person(bad actor) laws (12 States), and storm water laws (10 States)(National Association of State Foresters 2001). In imple-menting these laws, extensive partnering (for example,sharing of knowledge and expertise) occurs among Stateagencies on matters involving codes of best managementpractices. In 2001, 32 States reported forestry agenciespartnering with a State’s environmental protection agency,38 reported such partnering with a State’s water qualityagency, and 24 reported such partnering with a State’s fishand wildlife agency (National Association of StateForesters 2001).

��

Table 3—State government programs promoting best-forest-practice standards on private forests,by forestry activity, region, and type of program (1992)

Number of States in region having program typeMajor forestryactivity and North- Mid- Mid- South- South Great Rockytype of program east Lake Atlantic continent east Central Plains Mtns. West Total

Protect water qualityEducational programs 6 3 6 5 5 5 5 5 6 46Technical assistance 6 3 7 5 5 5 5 6 5 47Voluntary guidelines 5 3 6 4 5 5 1 4 1 34Tax incentives 1 1 4 3 0 1 3 1 0 14Fiscal incentives 2 3 5 3 1 4 5 4 2 29Regulatory programs 6 1 5 1 4 1 0 2 6 26

Promote reforestationEducational programs 6 3 6 5 6 5 4 5 6 46Technical assistance 6 3 6 5 6 5 5 6 4 46Voluntary guidelines 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 4 1 15Tax incentives 2 3 3 3 1 1 0 1 2 16Fiscal incentives 5 2 5 3 4 5 5 5 3 37Regulatory programs 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 6 14

Improve timber-harvesting methods

Educational programs 6 3 6 5 5 4 5 5 6 45Technical assistance 6 3 7 5 6 5 5 6 4 47Voluntary guidelines 4 2 6 1 3 3 2 4 2 27Tax incentives 2 2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 9Fiscal incentives 3 0 4 0 0 1 2 2 1 13Regulatory programs 4 0 4 0 1 1 0 1 6 17

Protect from wildfire,insects, and diseases


Protect wildlife andendangered species


Enhance recreationand aesthetic qualities


Note: Regional groupings of States are Northeast: CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT; Lake States: MI, MN, WI; Mid-Atlantic: DE, MD, NJ, NY, PA, VA, WV;Mid-Continent: IL, IN, KT, MO, OH; Southeast: AL, FL GA, MS, NC, SC; South Central: AR, LA, OK, TN, TX; Great Plains: IA, KS, NB, ND, SD;Rocky Mountain: AZ, CO, MT, NM, UT, WY; West: AK, CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, WA.Source: Ellefson and others (1995).

�

State capacity to encourage the use of forest practice codesoften depends on informed landowners and professionallyastute timber harvesters and professional resource managers(foresters, wildlife managers). In 1995, 25 States had activeregistration, certification, or licensing programs for timberharvesters (MacKay and others 1996). Of this total, sixStates had licensing programs requiring persons conduct-ing timber harvesting activities to demonstrate, by writtenor field examinations, an informed ability to do so. Innearly all cases, an understanding of a State’s code of bestforest practices was the basis for granting a license. In2001, 26 States reported certification programs for timberharvesters, and 13 States reported some form of licensingof professional foresters (National Association of StateForesters 2001).

State capacity to develop and encourage the application ofbest forest practice codes is substantial. In addition, Stateshave demonstrated considerable ability to monitor the rateat which such codes are being applied. In 1997, 34 Statesconducted compliance monitoring programs to determinewhether the codes were being applied (table 4) (Ellefsonand others 2001b). Although nearly one-third of the Stateshad not initiated a formal compliance monitoring program,this does not mean that forest practices are not monitoredin those States. In some States, monitoring activities(inspections) are carried out when landowners benefit

from cost-share practices (such as the Federal ForestryIncentives Program and Stewardship Incentives Program)or when formally designated Tree Farms are reinspected.In States where forestry operations are by law incompleteuntil approved by an inspector, the required preharvest andpost-harvest inspections are considered to be compliancemonitoring. Legislative directives often compel compliancemonitoring. Montana requires determination of “how cur-rent forest practices are affecting watersheds,” Minnesotarequires “a program for monitoring silviculture practicesand the application of timber harvest and forest manage-ment guidelines,” and Washington requires “annual assess-ment of how regulations and voluntary processes areworking.” (Ellefson and others 2001b).

Forest practices most commonly monitored by States arethose focused on water quality, riparian areas, and forestedwetlands (table 5). In 2000, the results of monitoring werefound to be used in a variety of ways, including modificationof education and training programs (23 States), targetingof technical assistance programs (20 States), modificationof existing guidelines (11 States), and development ofadditional guidelines (12 States) (National Association ofState Foresters 2001). In 1997, the lead (or traditional)State forestry agency was the only agency engaged inmonitoring compliance with recommended best forestpractices in only 20 States (Ellefson and others 2001b).

Table 4—Characteristics of State programs monitoring compliance with best-forest-practice standards, by region (1997)

Region

Monitoring characteristic North South West Total

- - - - - - - - - number of States - - - - - - - - -

Compliance monitoring program:Yes 11 13 10 34No 9 0 7 16

Compliance monitoring conducted:All harvested sites 2 2 4 8Sample of harvested sites 9 12 5 26Certain sites more intensely 4 2 7 13

Training required to participate in monitoring 10 11 7 28Incentive provided private landowner to access

property 2 0 1 3Individual landowner compliance information

made public 5 7 9 21

Note: Compliance monitoring may be focused on forest-practice guideline programs that are voluntary, mandatory, orboth. Nationally, 13 States have compliance monitoring programs that are part of a voluntary practice program (North: 4;South: 8; West: 1); 9 are part of a mandatory program (North: 3; South: 1; West: 5); and 12 involve both voluntary andmandatory programs (North: 4; South: 4; West: 4). (North Region: CT, DL, IA, IL, IN, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, NH,NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, VT, WV, WI; South Region: AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, OK, SC, TN, TX, VA; West Region:AK, AZ, CA, CO, HI, ID, KS, MT, NB, ND, NM, NV, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY.)Source: Ellefson and others (2001b).

�

Compliance monitoring of forest-practice guidelines hasoccurred over a number of years in some States. In theSouth, for example, some States have conducted five ormore statewide compliance monitoring surveys, and haveoften found rates of compliance with recommended bestmanagement practices exceeding 90 percent (Greis 2002).Compliance rates for southern States were as follows:

• Alabama (6 statewide surveys, 93 percent compliance)

• Arkansas (2 statewide surveys, 1999 last survey,80 percent compliance)

• Florida (10 statewide surveys, 1999 last survey,96 percent compliance)

• Georgia (3 statewide surveys, 1998 last survey,79 percent compliance)

• Kentucky (1 statewide survey, 35 percent compliance)

• Louisiana (4 statewide surveys, 1997 last survey,83 percent compliance)

• Mississippi (1 statewide survey, 87 percent compliance)

• North Carolina (2 statewide surveys, 1996 last survey,95 percent compliance)

• Oklahoma (monitoring program under development)

• South Carolina (5 statewide surveys, 1997 last survey,90 percent compliance)

• Tennessee (2 statewide surveys, 1996 last survey,63 percent compliance)

• Texas (4 statewide surveys, 1999 last survey, 89 percentcompliance)

• Virginia (10 statewide surveys, 1999 last survey,90 percent compliance)


Local units of government have significant capacity todevelop and implement forest-practice codes. Hickmanand Martus (1991) identified nearly 400 local ordinancesnationwide regulating forestry practices. Of these ordi-nances, more than 70 percent were established since 1980and half since 1985. Martus and others (1993) identified522 local ordinances regulating forestry activities in 24States, with 68 percent of them in northeastern States and27 percent in southern States. In 1996, there were morethan 100 local ordinances directing the application offorest practices in New York alone. As of 2000, county andmunicipal governments in 10 of the 13 southern States hadenacted a total of 346 forest-related ordinances (Georgiaand Virginia account for one-half of the total), which is amarked increase from 7 States and 141 ordinances in 1992(Spink and others 2001). Some State forest-practice lawsprohibit or severely restrict local governments from regu-lating forest practices. Oregon’s Forest Practices Act isquite specific in this respect: “. . . no unit of local govern-ment shall adopt any rules, regulations or ordinances ortake any other actions that prohibit, limit, regulate, subjectto approval or in any other way affect forest practices onforestland.” Idaho and Washington also restrict localgovernments from the development of forest-practicecodes and their implementation via regulatory means.

The magnitude of local development of forest-practicecodes can be better judged in the context of the total num-ber of local political jurisdictions within a State that couldpossibly adopt best-practice codes and subsequentlyencourage their implementation. By State, local jurisdic-tions having such guidelines were as follows: Colorado: 3of 63 counties; Delaware: 1 of 3 counties; Florida: variousof 57 counties; Georgia: 11 of 159 counties; Illinois: 100of 1,200 municipalities and 1 of 102 counties; Louisiana:1 of 64 parishes; Maryland: 20 of 23 counties; Michigan:10-15 of 1,200 townships; Minnesota: 1 of 87 counties;New Jersey: 300 of 567 municipalities and 15 of 21 coun-ties; New York: 70 of 900 municipalities; North Dakota:7 of 53 counties; Pennsylvania: 13 of 420 municipalities;Vermont: 2 of 251 municipalities; and Wisconsin: 3-4 of1,500 municipalities and 2 of 72 counties (Ellefson andothers 1995). Expanding this information to a nationwidesetting, in 1991 about 8 percent of all local jurisdictionshad some form of forest-practice guidelines embraced by aregulatory program (the proportion probably would havebeen higher if nonregulatory initiatives had been consi-dered) (Ellefson and others 1995).

Table 5—Forest resource values subject to Stategovernment monitoring of best-forest-practicestandards, by region (1997)

Region

Subject area North South West Total

- - - - - - - number of States - - - - - - -

Water quality 11 13 9 33Riparian 10 11 9 30Wetland 9 8 7 24Soil productivity 1 5 7 13Wildfire, insects

and diseases 3 1 9 13Aesthetics 4 3 5 12Wildlife habitat 2 1 8 11Reforestation 3 1 6 10Cultural-historic

resources 2 0 3 5Recreation 2 0 2 4Other 1 3 5 9

Source: Ellefson and others (2001b).

��


Forestry and related agencies in the United States haverecognized the importance of codes that embody bestforest practices. Well-designed forest-practice codes, theuse of which is actively encouraged, are often critical toensuring the sustainability of forest resources. In light ofthe background and current conditions presented above,the following observations are made about the legalcapacity to develop and implement such codes:

• Best-practice codes represent a summation of techni-cally effective, economically wise, and politicallypalatable forest practices considered necessary for sus-taining forest conditions and values. They are identifiedby a variety of terms or labels, including best manage-ment practices and forest practice guidelines. They aremost often developed in response to a legal requirement.

• Best-practice codes are applied in order to sustain forestsgenerally and to ensure the sustainability of a variety ofimportant forest values and benefits. However, the legalcapacity to develop codes has usually been exercised inresponse to concerns over the quality and quantity ofwater flowing from forested areas.

• Legal capacity to develop and implement best-practicecodes exists among many different types of public andprivate organizations, with government organizations atvarious levels being among the more active proponentsof the development and implementation of such codes.

• Application of codes by landowners and timber harvest-ers is encouraged by legal capacities expressed as avariety of programs, including those involving educa-tion, technical assistance, tax incentives, fiscal incen-tives, and regulatory requirements. In most cases, amixture of different types of programs has proven tobe most effective. Regulatory programs focused onprivately owned forests continue to be controversial.

• Management practices are monitored so that the effec-tiveness of best management practice codes can beassessed and rates of application can be determined.The information obtained by monitoring is used toimprove programs that encourage the use of forest-prac-tice codes and to delete, add, or modify best manage-ment practices to make the codes more capable ofsustaining desired forest values.

• Federal agencies have significant legal capacity todevelop and promote best-forest-practice codes fordirect application to Federal lands and in some cases tononfederal lands. Directed by extensive legal frame-works, these agencies also encourage State governmentsto develop and promote the use of best-forest-practicecodes (usually by required assessments and the encour-agement of the adoption of enforceable mechanisms).

• State government legal capacity to develop and imple-ment codes of best management practices is also veryextensive. This capacity is expressed via a number ofprogram types, most common of which are voluntaryparticipation by landowners and timber harvesters.Often in response to Federal incentives, States have alsobeen very active in monitoring the use of codes of bestmanagement practices.

• Local units of government exercise legal capacity(ordinances) to develop and implement codes of bestmanagement practices. This capacity is highly variablein form and in the degree to which it is exercised.

• Private organizations are active in the development andimplementation of best-practice codes. Codes developedand implemented by private organizations are generallypart of forest certification programs and are usuallydesigned to advance the interests of the organizingparties. Certification programs are becoming increas-ingly common, involve sophisticated best-practicestandards, and are being applied to ever-larger areas offorestland.

Issues and Trends

The literature identifies a number of major issues andtrends involving best management codes and actions takento encourage their use. Examples of this literature (fromwhich the following issues and trends are drawn) are: Brownand others 1993, Cubbage and Moffat 1997, Dissmeyer1994, Ellefson and others 1995, Ellefson and others 2001a,Hickman and Martus 1991, Ice and others 1997, Martusand others 1993, Mater 1999, National Association ofState Foresters 2001, and Spink and others 2001.

• Legal frameworks supporting best management codesfor forest management have been strengthened in recentdecades with the establishment of a large number ofFederal laws and regulations that directly or indirectlyinfluence the forest practices of public and private land-owners. State-initiated programs that legally mandate orregulate the manner in which forest practices may beapplied have increased both in number and intensityduring the past three decades. Local government lawsand regulations have also grown significantly.

• The number of government agencies involved in thedevelopment and implementation of codes of best man-agement practices for forestry has increased dramati-cally over the past three decades. In most cases, eachagency’s involvement is grounded in its responsibilityfor a single forest value (for example, air, water, wild-life), a situation that poses significant challenges tocoordination within and among governments and to theunderstanding of different sets of codes by landownersand timber harvesters.

��

• Educational and technical assistance programs areincreasing in intensity and sophistication, enabling land-owners and timber harvesters to become more aware ofand sensitive to the importance of codes of best forestpractices. These programs take many forms, includingregistration and certification of timber harvesters,licensing of forestry professionals, and certification offorest property by private organizations that havedeveloped standards of forest sustainability.

• The complexity of the codes that set forth best man-agement practices, and the accompanying increase inthe cost of applying the recommended or required prac-tices, is increasingly straining landowner and timberharvester acceptance of such codes and the willingnessto apply them. This is so even though educational andtechnical assistance efforts have made landowners andtimber harvesters more and more aware of the existenceand virtues of the codes.

• Regulatory programs that require the application ofcodes of forest practices, especially State governmentprograms, continue to be controversial, but they haveincreased in number, scope, and sophistication over thepast three decades. Within a regulatory framework,specific trends and issues include increasing specifica-tion of best management practices in law (rather than inadministrative rules), growing use of collaborativeapproaches to rulemaking and program implementation,the increased challenge of coordination among differentgovernment regulatory jurisdictions (for example, Stateand Federal jurisdictions) responsible for forest-practicecodes, and development of contingent regulations thatprovide enforcement authority when voluntary compli-ance with recommended forest practices does not occur.

• Implementation of Total Maximum Daily Load Limitrules and criteria aimed at further reducing nonpoint-source water pollutants is increasingly of concern to theFederal and State agencies responsible for developingand encouraging the use of codes of best managementpractices. Among specific issues are definitions ofimpaired waters, the legal status of silvicultural sources(point versus nonpoint sources), and interagency dis-agreements about the importance of different sources ofwater pollutants and how they should be addressed (forexample, forests versus agriculture).

• Monitoring the effectiveness of best management prac-tices is becoming increasingly more common and moresophisticated. Challenges posed to monitoring the effectof forest practices on water quality are increasingly beingovercome, yet monitoring the impacts of forest practiceson many other forest values (for example, biologicaldiversity, forest aesthetics) continues to pose challenges.The results of monitoring are becoming more widelyused as a tool to encourage the use of best management

practices and to improve the development of codes thatembody more technically sound forest practices.

• Increasingly innovative approaches to developing andencouraging the use of codes of best forest practices areappearing on the scene. They are often considered asalternatives to allegedly costly and cumbersome regula-tory programs. Included among newer approaches aregreen certification or stewardship programs, industry-sponsored certification programs (for example, theSustainable Forestry Initiative), cost-share payments,preferential property and State income tax treatments,technical assistance and extension activities, and con-servation easements and land trusts that embody bestmanagement practices for forestry.


Specification

Information about codes of best management practices andtheir application has been the focus of attention of manypublic and private organizations. In 1999, the NationalAssociation of State Foresters (1999) sought a better under-standing of State forestry agency information concerningcodes of best management practices. The Associationreported 9 States with abundant information concerningbest-practice codes, 16 with sufficient information, and theremainder with very little or no information to describesuch codes. As for the quality of information about best-practice codes, 15 States reported it was excellent, 15 thatit was adequate, and 4 that it was poor. The Associationhas also conducted periodic surveys seeking informationabout the design, application, and monitoring of best man-agement practices being implemented by State govern-ments (National Association of State Foresters 2001).

The American Forest & Paper Association (AmericanForest & Paper Association 1993), National Council of thePaper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI1994, 1995, 1996), Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tetra Tech 1992), andthe Environmental Law Institute (Environmental LawInstitute 1997, 1998) have also made concerted efforts tocollect information about codes of best management prac-tices. Various research organizations have undertakenanalyses to determine the status of best-practice codes andof the programs that are being used to encourage theirapplication (Brown and others 1993, Ellefson and others1995, Green and Siegel 1994, Hickman and Martus 1991,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2001). The WorldWide Web provides access to current State-by-State com-pilations of best management practices and forest-practicecodes (for example, Water Quality and Best ManagementPractices for Loggers at http://www.usabmp.net).

��

Given the seemingly wide variety and large number ofefforts that have been made to compile information aboutlegal and related structures that promote best-practicecodes, a logical conclusion might be that an ample supplyof information has been accumulated and that informedjudgments can be made about legal capacities to establishbest-practice codes and focus them in positive ways onforest sustainability. This may be true in the aggregate, butit masks the existence of very serious information short-comings. For example, current information about best-practice codes is seldom capable of describing the chang-ing legal conditions within which codes are developed andimplemented (very little effort has been made to coordi-nate compilations and analyses over time), and is notalways comprehensive or capable of being aggregated andusefully summarized (compilations and analyses are ran-domly undertaken and typically focused on particularprograms, forest values, and selected geographic areassuch as some, but not all, States). Available informationalso often lacks a concerted focus on the effectiveness ofcurrent legal structures and the programs they promote(their actual ability to exert influence on sustainabilitygoals is largely unknown). More specifically, informationvoids of the following types are common:

• Measurement information—Information about whichvariables should be measured and how they should bemeasured, so as to accurately portray conditions involv-ing codes of best management practices, has not beenassembled. What conditions should be measured andsubsequently compiled (for example, compliance rates,area of forest covered, number of landowners engaged,forest value focused on by code)? What variables arethe best indicators that agreed-to standards of sustain-able forest management are being achieved? How oftenare these variables to be measured? Are special mea-surement needs associated with different best-practicecodes?

• Extent-of-activity information—Information about thelegal requirements to develop and encourage applicationof best-practice codes has been assembled in an oftenuncoordinated way. This has resulted in the collectionof information that depicts only current conditions, lackslocal, regional, and national consistency, and fails toportray the role being played by private initiatives.What are the legal requirements for developing andencouraging the application of best-practice codes atvarious geographic levels and by various organizations?How are these requirements changing over time, if atall? Are there differences in requirements at differentlevels of government? Is there consistency across theserequirements? Are there legal and constitutional issuesat stake between governments? What is the status oflocally developed codes and efforts to encourage theirapplication? To what extent do these activities occur in

the private sector? Are compilations as currently carriedout useful for guiding policy and program direction?

• Responsible-organization information—Only verylimited information about which private and publicorganizations are actively engaged in the developmentand implementation of best management codes has beenassembled. What government agencies are engaged incode development and implementation and at whatlevels are they engaged? What legal authority assignsthem responsibility, and is this authority being inter-preted accurately? Do public and private organizationsengaging in code development have similar or differinggoals and objectives, and do these goals and objectivesfoster or hinder code development and implementation?What has prompted private organizations to engage incode development and implementation? Are thereorganizational patterns in the public and private sectorthat, if known and publicized, would enhance overallapplication of code development and implementation?

• Coordination information—Information about require-ments to coordinate development and implementation ofbest-practice codes among and between various levelsof government and various private concerns has notbeen assembled. Do conflicts exist between the variousentities engaged in developing and implementing codesof best management practices? If so, how might they beproductively resolved? What are the requirements forcoordination? Do they allow for cross-sectoral, coordi-nated planning and review? Do they ensure that thecumulative results of local, State, and regionally devel-oped codes will lead to outcomes consistent withnational requirements and vice versa? Do they allowincorporation of ad hoc code development activitiesoccurring at various times and undertaken at variouslevels of government?

• Procedure and specification information—Informationabout how best-practice codes are to be developed andencouraged has not been assembled. Do current statu-tory requirements prescribe procedures for code develop-ment and implementation? Are these in a detailed formator in a broad framework giving deference to administra-tors and rulemaking procedures? Is the full intent of theexisting laws that address codes and means for theirencouragement expressed in current codes of forestpractices? Do national requirements for codes allow forregional and subregional development of such codes?Do requirements specify the need for leadership in theirdevelopment? Do they give guidance to such leadership?

• Scope-of-practice information—Information about best-practice codes for values in addition to water have notbeen comprehensively assembled. What best manage-ment-practice codes have been developed for the rangeof values associated with forests, in addition to water

��

quality? What approaches have been used to encouragedevelopment and application of this broader range ofpractices? What legal requirements mandate develop-ment of best management practices for the broad rangeof values associated with forests? Do these legal require-ments differ among agencies at the same level of govern-ment and between levels of government? Are thesedifferences complementary or competitive? Are therebarriers to developing best management practice codesin addition to those focused on water? If so, how mightthey be overcome?

• Investment-and-incentive information—Informationabout resources devoted to best practice code develop-ment and implementation has not been assembled exceptin some very limited cases. What is the magnitude ofinvestment in public and private code development andimplementation activities? Are there legal and admini-strative processes for allocating resources to these activ-ities and are they sufficient? Are there legal or fiscalprovisions for encouraging these activities, and espe-cially for encouraging cross-sectoral code developmentand implementation activities?

• Encouragement-and-promotion information—Informa-tion about the appropriateness of various programmaticways of encouraging the application of codes of bestmanagement practices has been compiled for only a fewStates and regions. What are the type and frequency ofprograms that might be used to encourage application ofbest management practices contained in codes? Whatare the relative efficiency and effectiveness of theseapproaches in fostering BMP application by landownersand timber harvesters? Are certain categories of land-owners and timber harvesters more responsive to certaintypes of programs? What is the appropriate scale andadministrative design for successful implementation ofa program? What types of programs tend to rewardapplication of desirable practices rather than punishundesirable practices?

• Effectiveness information—Information about the effec-tiveness of best-practice codes in accomplishing sustain-able forestry objectives has not been compiled except insome very limited cases. Are there legal or administra-tive requirements to determine the efficiency and effec-tiveness of these codes? What are appropriate measuresof success? Are there more effective approaches toaccomplishing code development and implementation?

• Monitoring information—Monitoring of the applicationand effectiveness of codes of best management prac-tices, and especially of forest practice effectiveness, hasbeen carried out by a number of organizations (espe-cially State governments) but could be improved. Arethere legal requirements to monitor the results of apply-ing codes of best management practices? Is this infor-mation from monitoring activities being used to adapt

codes to changing circumstances? Is the informationbeing collected and analyzed in such a way that it canbe used to fulfill legal requirements assigned to anagency? Are compliance surveys or audits statisticallywell designed? Are the results of various monitoringefforts capable of being accumulated to portray soundrepresentations of conditions at the landscape, regional,and national levels? What is being done to monitoradministrative processes used to manage best-practicecodes? How accurately are practices actually beingmeasured? Is the information robust and truly reflectiveof actual conditions?

Recommendations

The ability to influence forest sustainability will depend agreat deal on consistent, long-term application of best-practice codes for forest management as suggested byIndicator 51. In order to improve the legal setting for thisapplication, we must address a variety of informationvoids. In order to suitably deal with these voids, thefollowing actions would seem appropriate:

• Comprehensive periodic reviews—Conduct periodic andcomprehensive reviews of current authorities that givedirection to and resources for the design, implementa-tion, and monitoring of best-practice codes for forestmanagement. Guided by the above-suggested informa-tion deficiencies, the reviews should give special atten-tion to the collection of information concerning thetypes of best-practice codes, the organizations thatimplement such codes, the compliance rates for currentowners, and the effect of the codes on desired forestvalues. This information should be gathered at Federal,State, and local levels of government. In addition, asystematic review of private-sector capability to carryout these activities should be initiated.

• Responsibility for conducting reviews—Assign responsi-bility for conducting continuous reviews of best manage-ment codes to a specific current or new administrativeunit within a Federal agency (such as a USDA ForestService State and Private Forestry unit or Research andDevelopment unit), a college or university, or other non-profit organization (for example, the National Associa-tion of State Foresters or the National Council of thePaper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement). Thisresponsibility should be assigned to an organization thathas a proven track record in addressing the complexitiesof developing, implementing, and applying best-forest-management codes to public and private forests.

• Devote resources to reviews—Invest in the reviewssufficient resources to provide the type and quantity ofinformation necessary to dramatically improve under-standing of current abilities to develop and apply best-forest-management codes considered important tosustainable forestry.

��



Unclear definitions of the activities specified by Indicator51 are troublesome, especially the elusiveness of theIndicator’s major descriptive words and phrases, such as“encourages” and “best-practice codes.” These words orphrases supposedly embody an agreed-to set of conceptsand principles around which information-gathering effortscan take place. Such is not always the case, as is highlightedby the need to define “encourages” and “best-practicecodes” earlier in this review. The former is taken to meanconditions promoting the development of codes (leader-ship, organization, funding) and their application via oneor more types of programs (for example, educational,technical assistance, fiscal incentives, tax incentives,regulatory), while the latter is viewed as a set of manage-ment or harvesting standards (benchmarks, yardsticks,touchstones, measures, criteria) that foster sustainabilityof forests for various values.

Lacking a clear understanding and definition of Indicator51 makes the exercise of determining legal capacity to“encourage best-practice codes for forest management”difficult at best and makes the products of such compila-tions of questionable value. Rigorous attention to defini-tions would enable analysts to clearly focus attention onquestions such as: Do we have the capacity to establishcodes, and, once established, how is their applicationprogrammatically encouraged? Compounding the definitionproblem is the reality that many researchers, analysts, andadministrators consider “codes” to be synonymous withlegal regulations, and regard “best practices” equivalent tobest management practices (BMPs), forest-practice guide-lines, or acceptable practices. We suggest that the use ofthe word “code” in the context of forest practices is verymuch out of date and quite misleading. A more appropriatespecification of the Indicator would be “. . . encouragesthe application of the best forestry practices consideredsuitable for specific forest conditions.”


Indicator 51 overlaps other indicators, particularly as theyrelate to laws and values, public participation, funding,and planning. Clearly, there is potential for confusion inIndicator 51’s relationship to Indicators 38 (value of invest-ment), 54 (planning and coordination), 57 (enforce laws,regulations, and guidelines), 58 (investment in forests),60 (information and data), 61 (forest inventories), 62(foreign country monitoring), 63 (scientific understanding),64 (value integrative methods), 65 (new technologies), and66 (human intervention impacts).

Literature Cited

American Forest and Paper Association. 1993. State forest practicesthroughout the United States: a review of forest laws, practices acts,and best management practices. Washington, DC: American Forest &Paper Association. [Not paged].

American Forest and Paper Association. 2001a. Sustainable ForestryInitiative Program sixth annual progress report. Washington, DC:American Forest and Paper Association. 25 p.

American Forest and Paper Association. 2001b. Sustainable ForestryInitiative standard: principles and objectives. http://www.afandpa.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Environment_and_Recycling/SFI/The_SFI_Standard/The_SFI_Standard.htm. [Date accessed: September2001].

Anderson, S. 2000. A short history of best management practices. Paperpresented at Oregon Society of American Foresters; annual meeting,2000 May 19; Durham, NC: Forest History Society. [Not paged].

Brown, T.C.; Brown, D.; Binkley, D. 1993. Laws and programs forcontrolling nonpoint pollution in forest areas. Water Resources Journal.29(1):1-13.

Confederation of European Paper Industries. 2000. Comparative matrixof forest certification schemes. Brussels, Belgium: Confederation ofEuropean Paper Industries. 16 p.

Cook, P.S.; O’Laughlin, J. 1999. Toward sustainable forest management:certification programs (P I). Report 18. Moscow, ID: University ofIdaho, Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group. 174 p.

Cubbage, F.W.; Moffat, S.O. 1997. Criterion seven, indicator 51: a reviewand discussion. Unpublished document, available from U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 25 p.

Dissmeyer, G.E. 1994. Evaluating the effectiveness of forestry bestmanagement practices in meeting water quality goals or standards.Misc. Pub. 1520. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service. [Not paged].

Ellefson, P.V.; Cheng, A.S.; Moulton, R.S. 1995. Regulation of privateforestry practices by State governments. Sta. Bull. 605-1995. St. Paul,MN: Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. 225 p.

Ellefson, P.V.; Kilgore, M.A.; Phillips, M.J. 2001b. Monitoring compliancewith BMPs: experience of State forestry agencies. Journal of Forestry:99(1):11-17.

Ellefson, P.V.; Moulton, R.J.; Kilgore, M.A. 2001a. Programs and organi-zations affecting the use, management, and protection of forests: anassessment of agencies located across the organizational landscape ofState government. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Departmentof Forest Resources. 119 p.

Ellefson, P.V.; Moulton, R.J.; Kilgore, M.A. 2002. An assessment of Stateagencies that affect forests. Journal of Forestry: 100(6):35-42.

Environmental Law Institute. 1997. Enforceable State mechanisms forcontrol of nonpoint source water pollution. Washington, DC: Environ-mental Law Institute. 59 p.

Environmental Law Institute. 1998. Almanac of enforceable State laws tocontrol nonpoint source water pollution. Washington, DC: Environ-mental Law Institute. 293 p.

��

Forest Stewardship Council. 1999. Status of national and regional certifi-cation initiatives. Doc. 4.3.3. http://www.fscoax.org./principal.html.[Date accessed: August 2001].

Forest Stewardship Council. 2000. FSC principles and criteria. Doc. 1.2.http://www.fscoax.org/principal.htm. [Date accessed: August 2001].

Green, J.L.; Siegel, W.C. 1994. The status and impact of State and localregulation on private timber supply. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-255. Ft.Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, RockyMountain Research Station. 22 p.

Greis, J.G. 2002. Water and wetlands: southern forest resource assess-ment. Journal of Forestry: 100(7):42-45.

Hickman, C.A.; Martus, C.E. 1991. Local regulation of private forestrypractices in the eastern United States. In: Proceedings: 1991 annualmeeting of Southern Forest Economics Workers. Baton Rouge, LA:Louisiana State University, Department of Forestry: 73-90.

Ice, G.G.; Stuart, G.W.; Waide, J.B. and others. 1997. Twenty-five yearsof the Clean Water Act: how clean are forest practices? Journal ofForestry: 95(7):9-13.

MacKay, D.G.; Ellefson, P.V.; Blinn, C.R. 1996. Registration, certificationand licensing: creating better timber harvesters. Journal of Forestry:94(7):27-31.

Martus, C.E.; Haney, H.L.; Siegel, W.C. 1993. Preliminary impact of localgovernment forestry-related ordinances affecting harvesting in theeastern United States. In: Wear, D.N., ed. Policy and forestry: design,evaluation, and spillovers. Proceedings, 1993 annual meeting: SouthernForest Economics Workers. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 138-146.

Mater, C.M. 1999. Understanding forest certification: answers to keyquestions. DP-3-99. Washington, DC: Pinchot Institute for Conserva-tion. 35 p.

Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. Criteria andindicators for the conservation and sustainable management of temper-ate and boreal forests: criterion seven. http://www.mpci.org/tac/mexico/tn7_e.html. [Date accessed: February 2002].

Montreal Process Working Group. 2003. The Montreal process.Http:www.mpci.org/ [Date accessed: February 2002].

National Association of State Foresters. 1999. First approximationassessment report. http://www.stateforesters.org/SFstats.html. [Dateaccessed July 2001].

National Association of State Foresters. 2001. State nonpoint sourcepollution control programs for silviculture. http://www.stateforesters.org/reports/NONPOINT%20REPORT.htm. [Date accessed: August 2001].

NCASI. 1994. Southern regional review of State nonpoint source controlprograms and best management practices for forest managementoperations. Tech. Bull. 686. Research Triangle Park, NC: NationalCouncil of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement. 152 p.

NCASI. 1995. Western States nonpoint source program review. Tech.Bull. 706. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Council of the PaperIndustry for Air and Stream Improvement. 101 p.

NCASI. 1996. Northcentral States nonpoint source program review. Tech.Bull. 710. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Council of the PaperIndustry for Air and Stream Improvement. 62 p.

Society of American Foresters. 1999. Report of task force on forestmanagement certification programs. http://www.safnet.org/policyandpress/fmcp199.cfm. [Date accessed: June 2001].

Spink, J.J.; Haney, H.L.; Greene, J.L. 2001. Survey of local forestry-related ordinances and regulations in the South. In: Pelkki, M.H., ed.Hardwoods: an underdeveloped resource? Proceedings: 2000 annualmeeting of Southern Forest Economics Workers. Monticello, AR:Arkansas Forestry Center: 41-46.

Tetra Tech. 1992. Summary of State manuals of forestry best managementpractices. Fairfax, VA: Tetra Tech, Inc. [Not paged].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1993. The principal lawsrelating to Forest Service activities. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service. 1,163 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. National managementmeasures to control nonpoint source pollution from forestry. NonpointSource Control Branch. February. Washington, DC: U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency. [Not paged].

West Publishing Company. 1997. Selected Federal environmental lawstatutes. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company. 1,398 p.

��


Institutional Framework

��

�

The full text of Indicator 53 is as follows: Extent to whichthe institutional framework supports the conservation andsustainable management of forests, including the capacityto provide for public involvement activities and publiceducation, awareness, and extension programs, and makeavailable forest-related information (Montreal ProcessWorking Group 2003).


A well-informed and knowledgeable citizenry provides afoundation of support for successful, sustainable forestmanagement. Such support is dependent on access to legaland institutional conditions capable of promoting theorganizations and programs necessary to inform the publicabout forest resource sustainability, and then to engage thepublic in decisions regarding resource sustainability. To dothis requires recognition that different groups of citizenshave different information needs (for example, elementaryschool children, high school students, forest landowners,and timber harvesters need different kinds of information).It also requires recognition that such information can becommunicated in many ways (for example, by written andelectronic media, and by classroom and field instruction).Further, it requires awareness of the surprising number ofpublic and private organizations that are both able andwilling to communicate needed information (for example,environmental organizations, trade organizations, environ-mental education foundations, federal and State extensionservices) (Montreal Process Working Group 2003, MontrealProcess Technical Advisory Committee 2000).

Brief definitions of three concepts that are central to Indi-cator 53 are: provide for public education and awareness—provide access to information enabling the general publicto be aware of and take responsible actions regarding con-cepts of forest sustainability; provide for extension programs—provide access to educational initiatives (and methods)implemented by various partnering organizations seekingto meet the forest sustainability information needs of vari-ous audiences (Reed and others 1997); and make availableforest and related information—provide access to profes-sionally guided, technical forestry assistance focused on theon-site information needs of individual landowners, mana-gers, and operators (for example, timber harvesters andprivate woodland owners) (Sampson and DeCoster 1997).

Indicator 53 suggests the review of a very broad spectrumof material. In order to facilitate the review undertakenherein, certain subjects are excluded. For example, theindicator refers to providing opportunity for public involve-ment activities, but this subject is not discussed herebecause the legal and institutional capacity for publicinvolvement in the decisionmaking process is addressed indepth in our discussion of Indicator 50 (opportunities forpublic participation). Also, this review does not discusscapacity to educate professional resource managers, asubject that is discussed in connection with Indicator 55(develop and maintain human resource skills).

Useful data for measuring Indicator 53 include compila-tions and descriptions of laws and programs that promotepublic education on matters concerning forest sustain-ability and conservation. Examples of useful informationare number of full-time-equivalent employees assigned torelevant extension, public education, and environmentaleducation programs; number of schools (grades K through12) with active educational programs relevant to sustain-able forestry; number of school districts with definedcurricular standards for teaching about forest resourcesustainability; number of forest landowners and timberharvesters who attend outreach education programsfocused on sustaining forest resources; number of plansprepared and implemented as a consequence of technicalforestry assistance to landowners; and number of periodi-cals and web sites providing information about forestresource sustainability (Montreal Process TechnicalAdvisory Committee 2000).


An informed citizenry and knowledgeable owners and man-agers of forests are central requirements for the sustainabil-ity of forest resources. If citizens, owners, and managersare well informed, they will in all likelihood have expec-tations that are consistent with the sustainability of forestresources and will take actions individually and collec-tively that are compatible with principles of sustainability.The great breadth and amount of existing knowledge aboutforest resources, and the great range of potential audiencesfor information about forests pose significant challengesfor educational programs. It is also necessary to considerwhat organizations should be responsible for presentingeducational information about the sustainability of forestresources.1 Ellefson, Professor, and Hibbard, Research Specialist, Department of

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

Public Education and Extension (Indicator 53)


�

The recipients (or targets) of educational activities differin their informational needs. These recipients range fromthe members of the general public who have only a per-functory interest in forest resources to landowners whoseek advice about protecting forests from a particularspecies of destructive insect. The information sought canbe very general (such as information about who ownsforests and why they desire ownership) or very specific(such as advice about designing roads and skid trails fortimber harvesting operations). Information can be commun-icated to intended audiences in a variety of ways—possiblyin publications, videos, and films, and by means of satel-lite communication, workshops, formal lectures, or thelike. And educational activities can take place in differentsettings, including the K through 12 classroom, long-distance learning via satellite, and hands-on experience ina demonstration forest.2

Educational initiatives involving forest resource sustain-ability are undertaken by an extremely diverse set ofpublic and private organizations. Nearly every Federalagency has some responsibility to inform the public orsegments thereof about conditions that affect forests. TheU.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to imple-ment the National Environmental Education Act of 1990 isan example, as is the longstanding involvement of the U.S.Department of Agriculture in extension programs guidedby statutes such as the Morrill Act of 1862, the Smith-LeverAct of 1914, and the Renewable Resources Extension Actof 1978. State governments have statutory requirementsand programs that often mirror Federal laws and programsin both the breadth of subject material addressed and thenumber of agencies engaged in conveying such material.A most notable educational and extension partnershipinvolves State governments, local governments, and landgrant universities. Private organizations also present greatnumbers of educational programs, many of which addressforest sustainability. The National Wildlife Federation andthe Audubon Society are prominent examples of privateorganizations with strong environmental educationinitiatives.

Educational efforts aimed at informing citizens, landowners,and managers about principles of forest sustainability mustconvey an appropriate message. Because information canbe used to further a set of preferred values regarding forestsustainability, many organizations are extremely sensitiveto the need to provide “factual” or “value-neutral” infor-mation to audiences. Their credibility, and in some casestheir very existence as an organization, is dependent onavoiding bias or prejudice in the information they provide.Certainly, such organizations are generally free to maketheir case; information and arguments presented by oppos-ing organizations will frequently set the record straight.Again, most organizations seek to present value-neutralinformation that can be used by the public, landowners, andmanagers when making individual or collective decisionsabout forest sustainability.

Current Institutional Capacity

The Nation’s institutional capacity to offer educationalexperiences focused on forest and related resources isrepresented by the involvement of many different publicand private organizations. Unfortunately, a systematic andcomprehensive review of the totality of this capacity hasnever been undertaken. Such a review would requireattention to State, local, and tribal governments; nongovern-mental organizations; universities, colleges, and schools;Federal Government; business, industry, and foundations;and various types of media. The following is a briefexamination of the capacity represented by some of theseorganizations.

Private-Sector Capacity

Private-sector capacity to undertake public education, exten-sion, and technical assistance efforts is extensive. Morethan 80 private national organizations claim responsibilityfor educational initiatives that focus on an extremely widerange of audiences, with forest resource messages that areequally diverse in substance and method of delivery(appendix A). The private sector has the capacity todistribute information about forests via more than 180different periodicals that in some manner address publicand professional interests in the sustainability of forests(appendix B). Internet Web sites offer similar potential.

At this time, the extent and intensity of private involve-ment in educational and technical assistance programs canbe suggested only by examples. The programs are manyand varied, but most involve partnering between and amongvarious public and private groups that have an interest inpublic education on matters involving forest sustainability.Examples of programs currently being implemented are:the Tree Farm System (American Forest Foundation—

2 Environmental education can be communicated by means of formal edu-cation or informal education. Formal education takes place in traditionaland highly structured settings—typically in elementary and secondaryschools, colleges, and universities. Formal environmental education initi-atives directed at students in elementary and secondary schools (gradesK-12) commonly involve curriculum development and the provision ofsupplementary educational materials. Formal post-secondary educationalinitiatives may focus on technical career preparation, preservice teachereducation, and professional continuing education. Informal environmentaleducation occurs outside or beyond formal education systems, possiblyon an ad hoc basis, and is often sponsored by businesses, governmentagencies, nonprofit organizations, and the media (newspapers, magazines,television, and computer networks) (U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency 1996).

��

70,000 properties and 20 million forest acres); forestowners associations (National Woodland Owners Associa-tion—42,000 landowners and 3.4 million forest acres);industry landowner assistance programs (approximately7 million forest acres); landowner cooperatives (approxi-mately 20 cooperatives in the Midwest and Northeast);cross-boundary initiatives (such as the Applegate Partner-ship [Oregon], Gulf Coastal Ecosystem Partnership[Mississippi], and Monadnock Landscape Partnership[New Hampshire and Massachusetts]); land trust andconservation easement partnerships (such as the Land TrustAlliance, Trust for Public Land, The Nature Conservancy,and Conservation Fund); stewardship forestry organizations(such as the Institute for Sustainable Forestry [California]and the Mountain Association for Community EconomicDevelopment [Kentucky]); K-12 student education (suchas Project Learning Tree [more than 600,000 K-12 educa-tors and more than 40 million students since 1980], ProjectWILD, and Project WET; the National EnvironmentalEducation Enhancement Project (nearly 20 States encour-aged and guided by private-interest groups partnering withgovernment resource and environmental agencies); associ-ations and interest groups (such as the North AmericanAssociation for Environmental Education, National WildlifeFederation [Backyard Wildlife Habitat Program], NationalAudubon Society, Society of American Foresters [Walk-in-the-Forest Program], and Sierra Club [Adopt-a-WatershedProgram]); and foundations (the Pew Charitable Trusts,Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and American Forest Founda-tion) (American Forest Foundation 1993, Best and Wayburn2001, Siegel 1993, U.S. Department of Agriculture ForestService 1997, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1966).

Private educational initiatives are also significant elementsof various privately sponsored forest certification programs.The intent of the educational element of these programs isto inform private forest landowners about principles ofsustainable forest management and to encourage the appli-cation of forest management practices that are consistentwith these principles. Various organizations sponsor certi-fication programs that are generally similar in the broadstandards they set forth for forest sustainability, but vary interms of the specific practices required to meet such stan-dards. Examples of private organizations sponsoring certi-fication programs are the Forest Stewardship Council(Principles and Criteria for Forest Stewardship), AmericanForest and Paper Association (Sustainable Forestry Initia-tive), American Forest Foundation (Tree Farm Program),and National Woodland Owners Association (Green TagProgram) (Mater 1999).


Federal agencies have substantial legal authority andinstitutional capacity to undertake educational programs

focused on forest sustainability. At least 19 Federal lawsauthorize such programs, and at least 7 of these lawsappear to be focused primarily on forests (for example,Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978), while 5 arebasically enabling statutes that authorize educational pro-grams in general (for example, the first and second MorrillActs of 1862 and 1890) (table 1). The other statutes iden-tified here focus primarily on agriculture and conservationeducation (three) and environmental education in general(for example, the National Environmental Education Actof 1990), yet they represent significant potential forencouraging better understanding of the sustainability offorest resources. In summary, legal authority for Federalagencies to establish and implement education programsfocused on forest resource matters does not appear to bewanting.

Federal programs that represent institutional capacity foreducation relevant to forest sustainability are numerousand varied (appendix C). At a minimum, there are nearly120 programs implemented by at least 5 cabinet-leveldepartments or agencies (more than 50 in the Departmentof Agriculture, 3 in the Department of Commerce, 1 in theDepartment of Energy, more than 10 in the Department ofthe Interior, and nearly 40 in the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency). These programs vary in mission,scope, and education delivery vehicle, but all have someeducational element relevant to forest resource sustain-ability. Some are purely educational and informational(for example, the National Agricultural Library or theNational Technical Information Service), while others areoriented toward research, development, and promotion (forexample, the Natural Resources and Sustainable Agricul-tural Systems program). Some programs are actually com-binations of many other programs (for example, the ForestTaxation Program), and may have multiple objectivesranging from regulation and enforcement to direct on-siteresource management. The budgets associated with theseprograms range from a few hundred thousand dollars tohundreds of millions of dollars. The programs accomplishtheir mission via various delivery mechanisms, such as thedissemination of technical information, the provision ofspecialized services, regulatory and directive methods,advisory services and counseling, training and education,and capacity-building grants. Without question, Federaleducational programs relevant to forest sustainability arevery far-reaching and present a wide range of significantinformation (Ellefson and others 2001, 2002).

Public education—Broad segments of the general publicare often unaware of or misinformed about the use, man-agement, and protection of forests. However, it seemsclear that there is substantial virtue in communicating tothe public the important role that forests play in our lives.If this information is communicated, the public may gain a

��

heightened awareness of forests, treat them with greaterrespect, and encourage investment in their sustainablemanagement. Unfortunately, much of the forestry com-munity’s focus is on immediate and highly visible politicalissues involving forests, with only minimal attentiondirected to the general public’s need for a more basicunderstanding of forests and forest sustainability (Best andWayburn 2001). Many existing Federal laws explicitly orimplicitly authorize educational programs that have ageneral educational component.

No comprehensive assessment of Federal forestry educa-tional programs focused on the general public has been pre-pared, although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencyhas made various attempts to do so (U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency 1996). Therefore, Federal capacity foreducating the public will be illustrated by reference to thefollowing examples:

• Natural Resources Conservation Education Program(NRCEP)—The NRCEP is a joint effort of the USDAForest Service and National Association of StateForesters. The program seeks to increase awareness,knowledge, and appreciation of natural resources andecosystems, help develop the critical thinking skillsneeded to recognize the complexity of resource issuesand make realistic choices, and encourage individualresponsibility for conserving natural resources and usingthem wisely. NRCEP funds are used mainly to work withpartners to jointly fund conservation education projectsthroughout the United States. A national program that isimplemented locally, NRCEP funds environmental edu-cation projects, strengthens partnerships between fundedorganizations, and collaborates on local projects. Othersponsors and partners include the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, National Environmental EducationTraining Foundation, National Forest Foundation,

Table 1—Federal statutes authorizing major public educational programs involving forests and related naturalresources (2002)

Major focus of educational efforts authorized by statute

Primarily Primarilyforests and agriculture and Primarily Primarily

related conservation environmental enablingnatural (including (including and

Federal statute resources forests) forests) authorizing

Morrill Act (first 1862; second 1890) XHatch Act (1887) XSmith-Lever Act (1914) XClarke-McNary Act (1924) XBankhead Jones Act (1935) XNorris-Doxey Cooperative Farm Forestry

Act (1937) XFederal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act (1948 as amended) XClean Water Act (1948 as amended) XSmokey the Bear Act (1952) XClean Air Act (1955 as amended) XMcIntire-Stennis Act (1962) XYouth Conservation Corps (1970) XFederal Advisory Committee Act (1972) XRural Development Act (1972) XCooperative Forestry Assistance Act (1978) XRenewable Resources Extension Act

(1978, 1988, 1990) XStevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation

Act (1980) XForest Stewardship Act (1990) XNational Environmental Education Act (1990) X

��

American Forest Foundation, several agencies withinthe Department of the Interior, the Natural ResourcesConservation Service, and a host of local and Stateorganizations (Best and Wayburn 2001, U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture, Forest Service 1994, 1997).

• Project Learning Tree (PLT)—This national, not-for-profit, environmental education program is funded byState boards of education, private companies, profes-sional associations, individual donations, and State andFederal agencies. The program seeks to improve byeducational means public understanding of naturalresource issues in order to promote public participationin decisionmaking processes involving natural resources.PLT works with more than 50,000 teachers each year inpartnership with the Environmental Protection Agencyand the National Environmental Education AdvancementProject. Complementary to PLT are Project WET(focused on water and related resources) and ProjectWILD (focused on wildlife conservation; since itsinception in 1980, Project Wild has engaged more than600,000 educators and more than 40 million students).Although all three projects relate to natural resourceissues, PLT focuses more directly on forests (Best andWayburn 2001, U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService 1994, 1997).

• National Environmental Education Advancement Project(NEEAP)—The NEEAP seeks to implement and shapeenvironmental education programs by serving as aconduit between environmental education leaders andtheir counterparts in other States, and between state andnational organizations and expertise. Organizations par-ticipating as partners in the program include the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, National Fish andWildlife Foundation, North American Association forEnvironmental Education, National Association of Con-servation Districts, and National Wildlife Federation.NEEAP provides leadership clinics, workshops, seedfunding, informational services, and networking oppor-tunities for participating States (U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency 2002).

• North American Association for Environmental Educa-tion (NAAEE)—This is a consortium program funded bythe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (approxi-mately $2 million annually) and coordinated with a widerange of public and private organizations. The associationfocuses on information dissemination, education reformand innovation through training, and the expansion ofpartnerships. The consortium is an active sponsor ofprojects such as the National Conservation TrainingCenter, the North American Association for Environ-mental Educators, the National Water Education forTeachers (WET) Project, and the North AmericanAssociation for Environmental Education (U.S.Environmental Protection Agency 2002).

• Environmental Education Outreach Program (EEOP)—Administered by the USDA Forest Service, EEOP is asummer environmental education program taught bystudent interns. The program’s major objectives are tomeet with youth from diverse ethnic and socioeconomicbackgrounds; to identify their concerns and knowledgeabout natural resources and the environment; to exposeyoung people from inner-city areas to information aboutthe environment, natural resources, and careers innatural resources; and to identify appropriate approachesfor outreach to and education of youth of diverse ethnic,socioeconomic, and geographic backgrounds (Best andWayburn 2001, U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService 1994, 1997).

• Environmental Education Grants Program (EEGP)—Administered by the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency’s Office of Environmental Education, the pro-gram provides grants for the purpose of enhancing thepublic’s awareness, knowledge, and skills needed tomake informed decisions that affect environmentalquality. Since 1992, the Office has received between $2million and $3 million in grant funding per year and hasawarded about 1,700 grants, mostly to K-12 schoolprograms. Many of these programs focus on forest andrelated resources (for example, Friends of Urban Forests—California; Forest Wildlife Information Center—Pennsylvania; Project Learning Tree—New Hampshire;Meet the Wilderness—Colorado; Natural ResourcesEducation Council—North Carolina). In addition toEEGP, the Office also administers the National Environ-mental Education and Training Foundation (NEETF),which encourages public-private partnerships to supportenvironmental education initiatives, and annuallyawards challenge grants of from $5,000 to $40,000 each(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2002).

The focus of many public environmental education organi-zations is the development and distribution of classroom-ready teaching aids. Many of the latter are monitored forbalance and scientific accuracy by the National Project forExcellence in Environmental Education. Examples oforganizations or projects providing these educationalresources are the National WET Project, the GroundwaterFoundation, and Project Learning Tree. Some Federalagencies also provide classroom teaching aids (for exam-ple, the wetlands curriculum and guides provided by theOffice of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).

Extension initiatives—The Smith-Lever Act of 1914created an extension service that made it possible for land-grant colleges to extend information to all citizens of aState through the cooperative efforts of local, State, andFederal governments (Sampson and DeCoster 1997). Thepartnership was originally named the Agricultural Exten-sion Service, but its name was changed to Cooperative

��

Extension Service to better reflect the involvement ofthe various institutions engaged in extension work. Thecooperating units of government work to combine theirresources in support of university-based extension pro-grams, one area of which embraces natural resources andenvironmental management, including forest resources.Historically, the design and implementation of extensionprograms have been directed to meeting the long-terminformation needs of clients (by developing knowledgeneeded to solve problems); providing unbiased, credibleinformation; avoiding making decisions for clients (insteadgenerating alternatives and explaining consequences);engaging in policy education (but avoiding formulationand implementation); pursuing flexibility to meet indivi-dual client needs (by avoiding rigid curricula); and deliv-ering information through well-qualified experts. Thiscultural setting is a basis for typical extension roles,namely problem-solving education, research implemen-tation, technology transfer, building human capacity, andseeking feedback on research needs (Reed and others1997).

National legal authority for implementing extensionforestry programs is rooted in the Morrill Act (1862 and1890), Hatch Act (1887), Smith-Lever Act (1914), andRenewable Resources Extension Act (1978). The forestryextension programs authorized by these laws are admin-istered and coordinated nationally by the USDA Cooper-ative State Research, Education, and Extension Service(CSREES). Recognizing the disparate program objectivesof extension and the many agencies seeking to accomplishthese objectives, the CSRESS promotes extensive partner-ing opportunities among a wide variety of public andprivate organizations (for example, USDA Forest Service,USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDIFish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, State foresters, rural conservation districts, forest-landowner associations, and various environmental interestgroups) (Biles 1996, Hamilton and Biles 1998, Reed andothers 1997, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooper-ative State Research, Education, and Extension Service2000).

A principal funding mechanism for supporting forestry,range, recreation, wildlife, and wood products extension isthe Renewable Resources Extension Act (RREA) of 1978.In 1999, RREA was federally funded at a level of about $3million (States contributed an additional $27 million in theform of funding and in-kind services) and provided supportfor more than 711 extension staff-years, distributed amongmajor program components as follows: forestland 42 per-cent, rangeland 12 percent, fish and wildlife 23 percent,outdoor recreation 5 percent, and environmental andpublic policy 19 percent (table 2). The extension efforts ofthe forestland program component were focused on forest

production activities (36 percent of extension staff years),environmental quality concerns (16 percent), utilizationof forest products (23 percent), environmental education(16 percent), and continuing education of resource profes-sionals (10 percent) (table 2). Reed and others (1997)reported the areas of expertise of 545 extension foresters,each of whom was permitted to claim 3 areas of expertise.Selected areas of expertise and percentages of extensionforesters claiming such expertise were:

• Forest management—33 percent.

• Wood products, natural resource stewardship, urban andcommunity forestry—10 percent each.

• Timber harvesting, economics and policy, wildlife andfisheries, watersheds, agroforestry, environmental andyouth education, forest health and protection, Christmastrees, windbreaks, range management—less than 5percent each.

• Wood energy, maple syrup production, forest fireprevention—less than 1 percent each.

Technical assistance—Federal agencies have legal andinstitutional capacity to provide technical assistance onmatters involving forest resources, but State forestry agen-cies do most of the program implementation. Technicalassistance commonly refers to on-site assistance (such asforestland management advice) provided by technicalprofessionals (such as forest resource professionals). Theagencies that provide such assistance are often the sameones that provide public education and extension services.Examples of Federal technical assistance programs are asfollows (Best and Wayburn 2001, National Research Council1998, Sampson and DeCoster 1997, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency 1997, U.S. Department of Agriculture,Natural Resources Conservation Service 2002):

• Forest Stewardship Program—provides planning andmanagement technical assistance. Administered by theUSDA Forest Service and State forestry agencies.

• Resource Conservation and Development Program—provides for technical assistance. Administered by theUSDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and theUSDA Farm Service Agency.

• Conservation Planning—provides technical assistance.Administered by the USDA Natural Resources Conser-vation Service and local conservation districts.

• Conservation Technical Assistance Program—providestechnical and planning assistance in connection withresource conservation practices. Administered by theUSDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.

• Cooperative Forestry Assistance Program—providestechnical assistance to State forestry agencies.Administered by the USDA Forest Service.

��

• Pollution Prevention Technical Assistance Program—provides technical assistance to help businesses andState agencies enhance pollution prevention programs.Administered by the U.S. EPA Office of PollutionPrevention and Toxics.

• Environmental Pollution Technical Assistance—programs providing technical assistance on a widerange of environmental topics. Administered by the

U.S. EPA Office of Science Policy, National Center forEnvironmental Assessment, National Risk ManagementResearch Center, and others.

State and Local Government Capacity

Information about State legal and institutional capacityto engage in public education, extension activities, and

Table 2—Renewable resources extension staffing, by region, program component, and national programobjective (1999)

National program objective (extension staff-years)

Region and Environmental Environmental Continuingprogram component Production quality Utilization education education Total

NorthForestland 32.3 19.9 23.9 18.5 10.4 105.0Rangeland 3.0 4.2 4.0 2.4 1.7 15.3Fish and wildlife 9.1 14.6 1.5 22.8 11.3 59.3Outdoor recreation 1.4 2.8 4.0 3.9 3.1 15.2Environmental and

public policy 10.8 19.3 3.6 22.8 9.6 66.1

Total 56.6 60.8 37.0 70.4 36.1 260.9

SouthForestland 49.4 16.3 23.0 16.9 12.6 118.2Rangeland 7.5 2.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 10.5Fish and wildlife 18.5 8.4 7.3 13.3 3.5 51.0Outdoor recreation 1.5 2.8 2.7 5.6 1.7 14.3Environmental and

public policy 3.8 12.0 3.2 9.8 4.6 33.4

Total 80.7 41.6 36.5 46.0 22.6 227.4

WestForestland 26.6 10.3 20.1 10.9 6.4 74.3Rangeland 22.8 6.4 6.8 17.5 3.6 57.1Fish and wildlife 19.3 13.5 2.2 13.6 1.9 50.5Outdoor recreation 0.6 0.0 3.4 0.1 0.3 4.4Environmental and

public policy 4.8 10.6 5.8 13.6 2.1 36.9

Total 74.1 40.8 38.3 55.7 14.3 223.2

National TotalsForestland 108.3 46.5 67.0 46.3 29.4 297.5Rangeland 33.3 12.7 11.1 20.3 5.5 82.9Fish and wildlife 46.9 36.5 11.0 49.7 16.7 160.8Outdoor recreation 3.5 5.6 10.1 9.6 5.1 33.9Environmental and

public policy 19.4 41.9 12.6 46.2 16.3 136.4

Total 211.4 143.2 118.8 172.1 73.0 711.4

Source: USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (2000).

��

technical assistance has not been assessed comprehensively,although modest assessments have been undertaken (forexample, Ellefson and others 1995). In many cases, Federaland State education and technical assistance programs areclose partnerships, and this makes separate identificationof State and Federal emphasis and investments in these pro-grams quite difficult. A classic example is the longstandingpartnership of Federal, State, and local governmentsengaged in the implementation of extension programs.

In 1992, State educational and technical assistance pro-grams offered to private forest landowners for the purposeof encouraging forest sustainability existed in virtually allStates and focused on nearly all types of major forestryactivity that would benefit from such programs (table 3).For the most part these programs were implemented by

agencies with a long tradition in forestry (for example,State forestry agencies and land grant universities), althoughState wildlife management agencies in all 50 Statesreported in 1985 that they offered education and technicalassistance opportunities to private forest landowners inter-ested in State government management of wildlife and fishhabitat associated with forests (Wigley and Melchiors1987). In 2000, 12 cabinet-level units of State governmentand 58 first-tier subcabinet-level units implemented pro-grams that provided information about forest resourcemanagement to private landowners. Six governing oradvisory bodies of State government were also so engaged.In three States, extension is combined with a State forestryagency that also offers on-site technical assistance tolandowners (Ellefson and others 2001, 2002).

Table 3—Number of State government education and technical assistance programs promoting best-forest-practicestandards on private forests, by forestry activity, region, and type of program (1992)

Number of States in region having program type

Major forestry activity North- Lake Mid- Mid- South- South Great Rockyand type of program east States Atlantic Continent east Central Plains Mtn. West Total

Protect water qualityEducational programs 6 3 6 5 5 5 5 5 6 46Technical assistance 6 3 7 5 5 5 5 6 5 47

Promote reforestationEducational programs 6 3 6 5 6 5 4 5 6 46Technical assistance 6 3 6 5 6 5 5 6 4 46

Improve timber-harvesting methods

Educational programs 6 3 6 5 5 4 5 5 6 45Technical assistance 6 3 7 5 6 5 5 6 4 47





Enhance recreationand aesthetic qualities


Note: Regional groupings of States are Northeast: CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT; Lake States: MI, MN, WI; Mid-Atlantic: DE, MD, NJ, NY, PA, VA, WV;Mid-continent: IL, IN, KT, MO, OH; Southeast: AL, FL, GA, MS, NC, SC; South Central: AR, LA, OK, TN, TX; Great Plains: IA, KS, NB, ND, SD;Rocky Mountain: AZ, CO, MT, NM, UT, WY; West: AK, CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, WA.Source: Ellefson and others (1995).

��

Cooperative Extension Service programs are an integralpart of the educational matrix in all States (Biles 2001). In2001, staff persons assigned to forest and related extensionservice responsibilities averaged 7.8 per State, althoughthe number ranged from 1 person each in 9 States to asmany as 35 persons each in 1 State (table 4). States witha relatively large number of persons officially engagedin extension activities are Oregon (35), Minnesota (21),Washington (20), Pennsylvania (19), New Hampshire (17),and Kentucky (15). It should be noted, however, that thesenumbers are not full-time staff equivalents; rather they aresimply the number of people reported to have an officialrole, however large or small, in a State’s extension serviceprogram. Each State has an average of six full-time-equi-valents devoted to extension activities focused specificallyon forestland (and supported by the Renewable ResourcesExtension Act) (table 5). Again, the level of staffing variesconsiderably among States—it is highest in California(39.8 staff years), Mississippi (22.0), Georgia (20.5),North Carolina (19.6), and Missouri (15.3); and lowest inConnecticut (0.0), Delaware (0.1), New Mexico (0.2), andColorado (0.5). State extension staffing is concentratedprimarily on forest production (2.2 full-time-equivalentsper State), and utilization (1.3 full-time-equivalents perState) (table 5) (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooper-ative State Research, Education, and Extension Service2000).

State governments also implement a variety of K-12environmental education programs that often includerequirements leading to a better understanding of forestsand related resources. In 1998, nearly all States had astatewide administrative structure (office, board, center, orcommittee) that fostered environmental education; mostbenefited from some reasonably stable source of funding(Ruskey and others 2001) (table 6). However, in only 12States is K-12 environmental instruction required by lawor administrative policy. Where this is the case, mostStates have also developed a master environmental educa-tion plan and a suggested environmental education curri-culum (table 6). Typical of State-mandated initiatives arethose in Wisconsin, where an environmental education lawenacted in 1990 was patterned, in part, after the Council ofState Governments’ Model State Environmental EducationLaw (Council of State Governments 1993). Wisconsin hasa State environmental education coordinating board, anenvironmental education grants program, State environ-mental education centers, and mandatory environmentalliteracy assessment of students and teachers. Other Stateshave developed sophisticated support systems for teachers.An example is Michigan’s EE-Link (developed and admin-istered by the University of Michigan, supported by theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency), which allowseducators to gain Internet access to environmental infor-mation, including organized instructional materials (U.S.Environmental Protection Agency 1996).

Table 4—Number of forest resource and related Cooperative Extension Service staff, by State (2001)

Number of Number of Number ofextension extension extension

State staff State staff State staff

Alabama 7 Louisiana 9 Ohio 10Alaska 1 Maine 1 Oklahoma 5Arizona 1 Maryland 4 Oregon 35Arkansas 12 Massachusetts 2 Pennsylvania 19California 11 Michigan 11 Rhode Island 3Colorado 2 Minnesota 21 South Carolina 13Connecticut 2 Mississippi 12 South Dakota 1Delaware 3 Missouri 2 Tennessee 9Florida 8 Montana 3 Texas 5Georgia 9 Nebraska 7 Utah 4Hawaii 9 Nevada 6 Vermont 4Idaho 4 New Hampshire 17 Virginia 15Illinois 1 New Jersey 1 Washington 20Indiana 9 New Mexico 7 West Virginia 3Iowa 3 New York 10 Wisconsin 11Kansas 1 North Carolina 13 Wyoming 7Kentucky 15 North Dakota 1

Note: Total staff representing extension is 389. Number of extension staff is not comparable to “full-time extension staff-years.”Source: Biles (2001).

��

Table 5—Forestland component staff of Renewable Resources Extension Act (RREA) program, by Stateand national program objective (1999)

National program objective (RREA staff-years)

Environmental Environmental ContinuingState Production quality Utilization education education Total

Alabama 2.5 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.3 9.8Alaska 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.2 1.5Arizona 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 1.7Arkansas 1.5 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.8 4.1California 16.0 3.8 13.1 6.9 0.0 39.8Colorado 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5Connecticut 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Delaware 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1Florida 1.0 1.0 0.4 1.0 0.0 3.4Georgia 5.0 5.5 7.0 1.0 2.0 20.5Hawaii 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.2Idaho 1.5 1.0 0.6 0.8 0.8 4.7Illinois 0.3 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.8 2.6Indiana 1.6 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.3 4.7Iowa 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.9Kansas 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.1 3.6Kentucky 2.7 0.2 2.8 1.0 1.5 8.2Louisiana 5.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.3 9.3Maine 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.5Maryland 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.1 0.5 2.7Massachusetts 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.9Michigan 2.0 1.5 1.5 2.5 0.0 7.5Minnesota 0.3 1.3 1.0 0.6 0.7 3.9Mississippi 16.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 22.0Missouri 5.0 3.2 3.2 3.0 0.9 15.3Montana 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.2 0.4 3.3Nebraska 0.0 0.8 1.8 0.8 0.0 3.4Nevada 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.6New Hampshire 3.4 2.3 0.8 2.0 1.0 9.5New Jersey 1.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.0New Mexico 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2New York 3.0 0.8 1.7 0.8 0.7 7.0North Carolina 5.0 3.0 4.0 5.6 2.0 19.6North Dakota 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.0Ohio 3.3 0.5 2.7 0.0 0.0 6.5Oklahoma 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.0 1.7Oregon 4.6 1.0 3.9 1.0 2.0 12.5Pennsylvania 1.8 1.8 1.1 1.0 0.7 6.4Rhode Island 0.2 2.0 0.2 1.5 0.3 4.2South Carolina 5.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 6.7South Dakota 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.1 1.3Tennessee 1.0 0.1 0.5 1.0 0.5 3.1Texas 1.2 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 2.7Utah 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0Vermont 1.0 0.0 0.8 1.0 0.2 3.0Virginia 2.6 0.4 1.7 1.5 1.0 7.2Washington 1.6 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.6 6.3West Virginia 1.5 0.6 2.0 1.0 0.3 5.4Wisconsin 1.5 0.6 2.0 1.0 0.3 5.4Wyoming 3.5 1.5 3.0 0.0 0.0 8.0

Average per State 2.2 0.9 1.3 0.9 0.6 6.0

Note: RREA is the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Extension Act.Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (2000).

�

Table 6—State environmental education programs, by State and by type of program structure, program,and funding (1998)

Major ProgramComponents of program structure administrative funding

components sourcesK-12 Environmental Environmental established established

Environmental instruction education (office, board, (trust fund,instruction master plan curriculum guide center, general State

State required prepared prepared committee) revenue)

Alabama X XAlaska XArizona X XArkansas X X X X XCalifornia X X X XColorado X X XConnecticut X XDelaware XFlorida X XGeorgia X XHawaii X X XIdaho XIllinois X XIndiana X XIowa X X XKansas X XKentucky X X XLouisiana X X XMaine XMaryland X X XMassachusetts X X X XMichigan XMinnesota X X X XMississippi XMissouri XMontana X XNebraska XNevada X X XNew Hampshire XNew Jersey X XNew Mexico XNew York X XNorth Carolina X X XNorth DakotaOhio X X X XOklahoma XOregon X XPennsylvania X X X XRhode Island XSouth Carolina X XSouth Dakota XTennessee XTexas X XUtah XVermont XVirginia XWashington X X X X XWest Virginia X X XWisconsin X X X XWyoming X

Source: Ruskey and others (2001), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1996).


Forestry and related public and private organizations in theUnited States have a long history of providing informationabout the use, management, and protection of forests.Efforts to provide such information is motivated by adesire to heighten public awareness of forest sustainabilityprinciples and to acquaint citizens with the potential offorests to enhance their economic and social well-being.In light of the background and current conditions discussedabove, the following observations are made about theidentification and measurement of activities involving thedevelopment and transfer of information concerning forestsustainability:

• Information about forest resources is enormous in quan-tity and breadth, as is the range of potential audiencesseeking such information. As new information aboutforests is produced as a result of formal research activitiesor everyday experiences, the task of packaging and dis-seminating information about forests to an ever-growingassemblage of interests becomes increasingly challenging.

• Information about forests can be communicated in avariety of ways, depending on the audience of interestand the outcomes desired. Educational initiatives thatrelate to the sustainability of forest resources rangefrom the highly structured curricula implemented inelementary and secondary schools to the more dispersedpublic-affairs approaches focused on changing orreinforcing opinions of the general public (which oftenhas only a passing interest in forests).

• Organizations responsible for communicating informa-tion about forest sustainability are many in number anddiverse in mission and program responsibilities, and theintensity with which they engage in educational activi-ties varies greatly. At times, certain organizations (forexample, private advocacy groups) are prone to bias andone-sidedness in the information they convey.

• Extensive partnering occurs among and between publicand private organizations that are responsible for educa-tional initiatives involving forest sustainability. Notableexamples are the Cooperative Extension Service, whichinvolves Federal, State, and local partnering in thefinancing and delivery of extension services, and theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s extensive part-nering with State organizations on educational mattersrelated to environmental quality.

• Educational programs are extensively commingled withvarious other types of programs (programs such as tech-nical assistance, fiscal incentives, tax relief, and regula-tory actions) that promote the application of managementprinciples commonly associated with forest sustainabil-ity. Implementation of education programs in ways thatcomplement other types of programs often leads to more

efficient accomplishment of overall forest sustainabilitygoals and objectives.

• Private-sector capacity to undertake public education,extension, and technical assistance efforts is extensive.More than 80 private national organizations have edu-cational initiatives focused on forest sustainability.Privately sponsored forest certification programs havean important role in education involving forestsustainability.

• Federal Government agencies implement a wide rangeof education programs focused on forest sustainabilityand have extensive legal and institutional capacity to doso. At least 19 Federal laws, including the RenewableResources Extension Act of 1978 and the NationalEnvironmental Education Act of 1990, authorize suchactivity. This capacity is exercised via programs involv-ing public education generally, extension service pro-grams, and one-on-one technical assistance initiatives.In recent years, growth in extension service initiativesadministered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture hasbeen modest, whereas new authorities have significantlyexpanded the capacity of the U.S. Environmental Pro-tection Agency to undertake environmental education(often involving forest sustainability).

• State government agencies have substantial legal andinstitutional capacity to carry out educational programs.In many cases these programs are conducted in closepartnership with Federal programs; an example is theCooperative Extension Service, which engages theeducational abilities of approximately six full-time-equivalent staff years per State. In recent years, Stategovernments have initiated a variety of K-12 environ-mental education programs, many of which are relevantto better understanding of forest sustainability principles.

Issues and Trends

The literature identifies a number of major issues andtrends involving extension and public education as relatedto forest sustainability and conservation. Examples of thisliterature (from which the following issues and trends aredrawn) are Bennett 1995; Ellefson and others 2001, 2002,2003; Hamilton and Biles 1998; Hubbard and Dangerfield1998; Leirman and Kulich 1987; Megalos and Payne 1995;National Research Council 1998; Reed and others 1997;Rivera 1996; Ruskey and others 2001; Sampson andDeCoster 1997, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency1996; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative StateResearch, Education, and Extension Service 1994; andU.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 2002.

• Organizations involved in the development and imple-mentation of educational programs having implicationsfor forest sustainability have increased considerably in

�

number and strength. Although this has provided oppor-tunities to serve more and larger audiences, it has alsoposed challenges to program coordination (includingconcerns over interorganizational rivalries, especially inan era of program downsizing) and to presentation ofintegrated, consistent messages regarding forest sustain-ability (including concern over focus on a single forestor environmental value, which poses significant chal-lenges to coordination within and between organizationsand to confusion among client groups that hear mixedmessages).

• New technologies (such as distance delivery technolo-gies) continue to transform the way in which informationabout forest sustainability is communicated. Organiza-tions responsible for educational initiatives are increas-ingly challenged to seek out and adopt new technologiesand to use them to their fullest potential.

• Client groups seeking information about forest sustain-ability are becoming increasingly diverse and are seek-ing information that is more in tune with their culturaland ethnic experiences and background. Organizationsresponsible for educational initiatives are challenged tomeet these increasingly diverse information needs. Suchchallenges are a reality in a world where the success ofprograms depends on the use of marketing skills and asound understanding of the audiences to be served.

• Subject material considered relevant to forest sustain-ability is growing in breadth. Client groups are increas-ingly seeking a broader range of information about theuse, management, and protection of forest environments.However, this development does not decrease the impor-tance of communicating information about economi-cally important forest uses, including timber production.

• Although the number of organizations providing infor-mation about forest sustainability is increasing, theseorganizations are quite mixed in terms of their ability toprovide timely, high-quality, value-neutral informationabout forest sustainability. In the future, public andprivate providers of information will be challenged tobroaden the sources from which they draw informationand to carefully monitor the quality of informationprovided by such sources.

• Evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of educa-tional programs is becoming increasingly important toorganizations that are responsible for such programs.Although evaluations are often hampered by the diffuseand long-term nature of the benefits delivered by invest-ments in education and extension, the pressure to evaluateprograms is likely to become even greater as competitionfor financial resources increases in both the public andprivate sectors. Especially troubling is the modest scaleat which many education and technical assistanceprograms are implemented (willing participants oftenexceed supply).

• Educational programs at grades K-12 are increasinglybeing implemented to expose students to a better under-standing of forest sustainability. However, implementa-tion of these programs is often prevented by unresolveddebate about the wisdom of integrating the programsinto existing lessons (history, science, social studies)versus presenting environmental and related subjectmaterial in separate and distinct blocks or courses. Thetrend is toward the latter.

• Nongovernmental organizations are increasingly takingthe lead in environmental education and are increas-ingly devoting attention to matters involving forest sus-tainability. Especially important are State environmentaleducation associations and councils, which seek tostrengthen State capacity for effective environmentaleducation. Presently, 45 States have environmentaleducation associations.


Specification

The diversity in form and function of extension, educa-tional, and technical assistance programs raises manyquestions about the information required to adequatelyassess educational conditions considered necessary forforest sustainability and conservation. Educationalprograms are carried out in many different ways by a widearray of organizations. This makes it very difficult topresent an understandable picture of the Nation’s capacityto promote principles of forest sustainability via educa-tional activities. A number of information concerns needto be addressed. For example (and from a strategic per-spective), there is a pressing need for information about:

• Status and condition of education initiatives—magni-tude and extent of current and planned investments ineducational programs.

• Need for investment in new or existing educationalprograms—identification of objectives and assessmentof educational program investments needed toaccomplish them.

• Processes by which information is communicated—determinations of adequacy, assessment of neededinvestments, identification of financial resources, anddesignation of responsibility for implementation.

• Effectiveness and efficiency of educational invest-ments—relationship between desired conditions offorest sustainability and type and level of educationalprogram.

• Knowledge and information networks—communicationand information flow between users and providers ofinformation.

�

• Regional and national influences on educational initia-tives—in contrast to local conditions, influence ofbroader geographic forest conditions, populationstructure, type and mix of client groups, research anddevelopment resources.

• Regional and international comparisons—determina-tion of educational deficiencies, focusing of public andprivate investments, learning experiences for improvingprogram efficiency.

Neither public nor private organizations have comprehen-sively assessed the availability of information abouteducational and extension programs that relate to forestsustainability. Notable providers of such information arecertain Federal agencies (for example, the USDA Cooper-ative State Research, Education, and Extension Service),most of which focus only on programs for which they aredirectly responsible. In 1999, the National Association ofState Foresters (1999) sought a better understanding ofState forestry agency information concerning educationalinitiatives. The Association reported that 34 States hadsuch information and that 16 did not. Of the 34 States withinformation, 7 indicated that the information was abun-dant, 18 indicated that it was sufficient, and the remainderindicated that they had some (but generally very little)information. Eleven States reported that the quality oftheir information was excellent, 19 that it was adequate,and the remainder that it was poor.

The following comments and questions may be helpful inguiding efforts to better understand the institutional capa-city for and the role of extension and education thatsupport forest sustainability and conservation:

• Measurement Information—Information about whichvariables should be measured and how they should bemeasured so as to accurately portray conditions involv-ing extension, education, and technical assistanceprograms has not been assembled. What data should beobtained and compiled (for example, number of personscontacted, forest area under management, number andtype of management actions taken)? How often arethese data to be obtained? Are special data needs asso-ciated with different types of educational programs orwith public and private programs? What kinds of datacould be used to identify successful and indispensableeducational efforts (for example, reforestation under-taken, species habitats protected, continuation ofemployment)?

• Extent-of-activity information—Information about edu-cation, extension, and technical assistance is oftenscattered among public and private collecting organiza-tions and often lacks local, regional, and national consis-tency. What are the legal requirements for investing ineducational programs at various geographic levels? How

are these requirements changing over time? Are theredifferent requirements at different levels of government?Is there consistency across these requirements? What isthe status of local efforts to encourage investment ineducation and extension programs? What is the condi-tion of private education, extension, and technical assis-tance programs and what is the extent of privateinvestment in such programs? Are current compilationsdescribing these programs useful for guiding policy andprogram direction?

• Responsible-organization information—The private andpublic organizations actively engaged in the develop-ment and implementation of education, extension, andtechnical assistance programs have not been listed com-prehensively. What government agencies are responsiblefor and engaged in these programs, and what is the levelof their involvement? What legal authority assigns themresponsibility, and is this authority being interpretedaccurately? What is the involvement of private organi-zations in relevant education and related programs? Dopublic and private organizations engaging in educa-tional activities have similar or differing goals andobjectives that foster or hinder needed investment ineducation programs important to forest sustainability?Should certain government levels be responsible forproviding certain types of educational programs forcertain forest landowners? Is there a standard for theeducational efforts of various organizations, or areorganizations working at cross-purposes, diminishingpublic confidence in the information being provided?Are there organizational patterns in the public andprivate sector that, if known and publicized, wouldenhance overall investment in education (alternatives toextension leadership by universities and technicalassistance leadership by State forestry agencies)?

• Coordination information—Information about require-ments to coordinate development and implementation ofeducation, extension, and technical assistance programsamong and between various levels of government andvarious private concerns has not been assembled. Whatconflicts exist among the various entities engaged indeveloping and carrying out educational programs?How might they be productively resolved? What are therequirements for coordination? Do they allow for cross-sectoral, coordinated planning and review (for example,with programs involving fiscal incentives, tax incen-tives, and regulatory requirements)? Do they ensure thatthe cumulative results of local, State, and regionallyimplemented educational, extension, and technicalassistance programs will be consistent with nationalrequirements and vice versa? Do they allow incorpora-tion of ad hoc educational activities occurring at varioustimes and undertaken by various levels of government?

�

• Investment and incentive information—Informationabout resources devoted to education, extension, andtechnical assistance has not been assembled comprehen-sively. What is the magnitude of investment in publicand private education focused on forest sustainability?Is there an appropriate level of investment in these pro-grams, and if there is, how is it determined (for exam-ple, by percentage of landowners to be contacted, or bynumber of K-12 students provided educational kits)?Are there legal and administrative processes for allocat-ing resources to education focused on forest sustainabil-ity, and if so, are they effective? Are there legal or fiscalmeans for encouraging development of educationalprograms, especially those related to the sustainablemanagement of multiple forest resources?

• Effectiveness information—Information about the effec-tiveness of various types and levels of educational,extension, and technical assistance programs in promot-ing sustainable forestry has not been compiled compre-hensively. Are there legal or administrative requirementsto determine the efficiency and effectiveness of educa-tional and related programs? What are appropriate mea-sures of success? What are the relative efficiencies ofeducational programs generally versus other policytools for accomplishing forest sustainability? Are theremore effective approaches to organizing and admini-stering educational and extension programs (alternativesto land-grant university leadership, alternatives to Stateforestry agency leadership)? Are some organizationsmore effective than others in developing educationalmessages about forest sustainability, and if so why?How are different messages best communicated todifferent audiences?

• Procedure and specification information—Informationabout standards and procedures for the development andimplementation of educational, extension, and technicalassistance programs has not been assembled. Do currentstatutory requirements prescribe procedures for develop-ing educational programs and the material presented insuch programs? Are such requirements detailed, or dothey establish a broad framework that gives discretion toadministrators, educators, and land managers? Is the fullintent of the existing laws that require education andrelated programs expressed in current rules and admini-strative procedures? Do national requirements foreducational programs allow for regional and subregionaldevelopment of programs consistent with regional inter-ests? Do requirements specify the need for leadership intheir development? Do they give guidance to such lead-ership? Is there any coordination among organizationsin the development of educational materials?

Recommendations

Indicator 53 suggests that success in achieving forestsustainability requires consistent, long-term investments ineducation, extension, and technical assistance programs.In order to improve our understanding of the legal andinstitutional setting within which this will occur, we mustaddress a variety of information voids. Many of thesevoids are described above. We recommend that the follow-ing actions be taken:

• Comprehensive periodic reviews. Conduct periodic andcomprehensive reviews of current institutional capacityand associated authorities that give direction andresources to educational, extension, and technicalassistance programs considered necessary for forestsustainability. These reviews should be guided by theinformation deficiencies we have just discussed andshould emphasize the collection of information aboutthe type and extent of educational programs, organiza-tions responsible for ensuring appropriate levels ofinvestment in educational programs, and the long-termappropriateness and effectiveness of these programs.This information should be gathered at Federal, State,and local levels of government. In addition, a systematicreview of private sector capability to undertake educa-tional programs relevant to forest sustainability shouldbe initiated.

• Responsibility for conducting reviews. Assign responsi-bility for conducting continuous reviews of educational,extension, and technical assistance activities to a specificcurrent or new administrative unit of a Federal agency(for example, the USDA Cooperative State Research,Education, and Extension Service’s Natural Resourcesand Environmental Management Unit, the USDA ForestService’s State and Private Forestry Unit or Researchand Development Unit, or the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency’s Office of Environmental Education),a college or university, or other nonprofit organization(for example, the National Association of State Forestersor the National Association of Professional ForestrySchools and Colleges). This responsibility should beassigned to an organization that has a proven trackrecord in addressing the complexities of educational,extension, and technical assistance programs relevantto forest sustainability.

• Devote resources to reviews. Invest sufficient resourcesin the reviews to provide the information necessary todramatically improve our understanding of the capacityto plan, construct, and maintain educational, extension,and technical assistance initiatives considered importantto sustainable forestry.

�



The terminology in which Indicator 53 is stated is notadequately clear. The meanings of the phrases “publicinvolvement,” “public education,” and “make availableforest-related information” should be defined. Until theyare defined, these phrases cannot serve as useful guides toinformation-gathering efforts. Furthermore, determiningexactly what is to be included under the umbrella term“education” (Indicator 53 includes topics as diverse aspublic involvement, public education, and extensionprograms) also poses problems for information gathering.And failure to acknowledge capacities represented bytechnical assistance and related programs appears to be amajor deficiency.

The indicator could be improved if it were better definedand more appropriately focused. As has also been suggestedelsewhere (Roundtable on Sustainable Forestry 1999), thiscould be accomplished by changing the indicator’s word-ing to “provides for educational activities focused onvarious segments of the citizenry and the general public.”Reference to public involvement should be moved to othermore appropriate indicators.


The breadth of subject material suggested by Indicator 53poses a number of crosscutting problems, most of whichcould be avoided if the Indicator focused strictly on educa-tional initiatives directed at the general public. Indicators50 (opportunities for public participation), 55 (develophuman resource skills), and 51 (encourage best-practicecodes) seem to have a great amount of overlap withIndicator 53. Indicators 50 and 53 both indicate analysis ofpublic involvement activities, while Indicator 55 suggestsa number of educational issues that overlap with Indicator53. Other indicators that may have additional overlap orclose relationships with Indicator 53 include Indicator 39(level of expenditure on research, development, and edu-cation), Indicator 44 (employment), Indicator 57 (enforce-ment), Indicator 58 (investment and taxation policies), and60 and 62 (information availability and scope).

Literature Cited

American Forest Foundation. 1993. Environmental education activityguides: Pre K-8. Washington, DC: American Forest Foundation. [Notpaged].

Bennett, C. 1995. Targeting outcomes of extension programs (TOP): anintegrated approach to planning and evaluating. In: Hubbard, W., ed.Education and communication applications in natural resource man-agement. Athens, GA: University of Georgia, Georgia Center forContinuing Education: 137-139.

Best, C.; Wayburn, L.A. 2001. America’s private forests: status andstewardship. Covelo, CA: Island Press. 268 p.

Biles, L.E. 1996. Education perspective: nonindustrial private forests. In:Baughman, M.J., ed. Nonindustrial private forests: Learning from thepast, prospects for the future. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota ExtensionService: 28-33.

Biles, L.E. 2001. Cooperative Extension Service personnel in forestmanagement and wood products: a directory. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, Education, andExtension Service. 82 p.

Butler, G.S.; Slack, J.D. 1994. U.S. educational policy interest groups:institutional profiles. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. 228 p.

Council of State Governments. 1993. Model State environmentaleducation law. Center for the Environment. http://www.csgwest.org.[Date accessed: October 2001].

Ellefson, P.V.; Cheng, A.S.; Moulton, R.J. 1995. Regulation of privateforestry practices by State government. Sta. Bull. 605-1995. St. Paul,MN: Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. 225 p.

Ellefson, P.V.; Hibbard, C.; Kilgore, M.A. 2003. Federal and State agen-cies and programs focused on non-Federal forests in the United States:an assessment of intergovernmental roles and responsibilities. StaffPap. 167. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Department of ForestResources. 142 p.

Ellefson, P.V.; Moulton, R.J.; Kilgore, M.A. 2001. Programs and organi-zations affecting the use, management, and protection of forests: anassessment of agencies located across the organizational landscape ofState government. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Departmentof Forest Resources. 119 p.


Gale Group. 2002. Encyclopedia of associations: 2001. Detroit, MI: GaleGroup Publishers. [Not paged].

Hamilton, R.A.; Biles, L.E. 1998. Forestry extension in the United States.[Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]: 56-66.

Hubbard, W.G.; Dangerfield, C.W. 1998. Understanding and overcomingforestry technology transfer barriers in the U.S. In: Johnson, J.E., ed.Extension forestry: bridging the gap between research and application.Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University:67-78.

Leirman, W.; Kulich, J. 1987. Adult education challenges of the 1990s.New York, NY: Croom Helm Publishers. 215 p.

Malonis, J.A. 2000. Encyclopedia of business. Detroit, MI: Gale GroupPublishers. [Not paged].

Mater, C.M. 1999. Understanding forest certification: answers to key ques-tions. DP-3-99. Washington, DC: Pinchot Institute for Conservation.35 p.

�

Megalos, M.; Payne, S. 1995. Electronic delivery of environmentalmaterials: reaching new audiences via the internet. In: Hubbard, W.,ed. Education and communication applications in natural resourcemanagement. Athens, GA: University of Georgia, Georgia Center forContinuing Education: 26-34.

Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. Criteria andindicators for the conservation and sustainable management oftemperate and boreal forests: criterion seven. http://www.mpci.org/tac/mexico/tn7_e.html. [Date accessed: February 2002].


National Association of State Foresters. 1999. First approximationassessment report. http://www.stateforesters.org. [Date accessed:September 2001].

National Research Council. 1998. Forested landscapes in perspective:prospects and opportunities for sustainable management of America’snon-Federal forests. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 249 p.

National Wildlife Federation. 2001. Conservation directory: 2001 guideto worldwide environmental organizations. Washington, DC: NationalWildlife Federation. 595 p.

Reed, A.S.; Garland, J.J.; Biles, L.E. 1997. Extension forestry organiza-tional processes, programs and policies. In: Hubner, R.; Beck, R., eds.Approaches to extension in forestry: experiences and future develop-ments. IUFRO Pub. 1. Working Party Extension (S6.06-03). Vienna,Austria: International Union of Forest Research Organizations: 117-136.

Rivera, W.M. 1996. Agricultural extension in transition worldwide: struc-tural, financial and managerial strategies for improving agriculturalextension. Public Administration Development. 16:151-161.

Roundtable on Sustainable Forestry. 1999. Criterion level summary:Indicators 53-59. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). http://sustainableforests.net. [Date accessed: June 2001].

Ruskey, A.; Wilke, R.; Beasley, T. 2001. A survey of the status of State-level environmental education in the United States: 1998 update.Journal of Environmental Education. 32 (4): 4-14.

Sampson, R.N.; DeCoster, L.A. 1997. Public programs for privateforestry: reader on programs and options. Washington, DC: AmericanForests. 100 p.

Siegel, W.C. 1973. Long-term contracts for forestland and timber in theSouth. Res. Pap. SO-87. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agri-culture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 18 p.

Trzyna, T.C.; Margold, E.; Osborn, J.K. 1996. World environmentalorganizations. London, England: Earthscan Publications. 263 p.

University of Minnesota 2002. Social sciences in forestry: a bibliography.http://forestry.lib.umn.edu/. [Date accessed: October 2001].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, Educationand Extension Service. 1994. Shaping the future: a strategic plan fornatural resources and environmental management education. http://www.nrem.net/description/index.html. [Date accessed: October 2001].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, Education,and Extension Service. 2000. Renewable resources education: report toCongress on the 1996-2000 renewable resources extension program.18 p. + appendices. http://www.reeusda.gov/1700/programs/nrem.htm.[Date accessed: October 2001].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1994. Natural resourceconservation education: education and conservation partners for abrighter tomorrow. FS-550. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service. [Not paged].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1997. First approxima-tion report for sustainable forest management: report of the UnitedStates on the criteria and indicators for the sustainable management oftemperate and boreal forests. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service. 220 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2002. The processpredicament: how statutory, regulatory and administrative factors affectnational forest management. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service. 40 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.2002. Conservation programs. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs[Date accessed: October 2001].

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Report assessing environ-mental education in the U.S. and the implementation of the NationalEnvironmental Education Act of 1990. Washington, DC: U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency, National Environmental Education AdvisoryCouncil. 50 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Technical assistancedirectory. EPA/600/K-97/001. Washington, DC: U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Office of Research and Development. 100 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Environmental educationgrants program: 1997-2001. EPA-171-F-00-001. Washington, DC: U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Education.[Not paged].

Wigley, T.B.; Melchiors, M.A. 1987. State wildlife management programsfor private lands. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 15:580-584.

�

Appendix A

Private Organizations Engaged in Public Education ActivitiesInvolving Forest Resources (2002)

American Fisheries SocietyAmerican Forest and Paper AssociationAmerican Forest FoundationAmerican ForestsAmerican RiversAmerican Society of Environmental HistoryAmerican Society of Landscape ArchitectsAmerican Water Resources AssociationArbor Day FoundationAssociation of Consulting ForestersAssociation of Ecosystem Research CentersAssociation of Environmental and Resource EconomicsAssociation of State Wetland ManagersBlue Mountains Natural Resources InstituteCalifornia Association of Resource Conservation DistrictsCenter for Conservation Biology NetworkChesapeake Bay FoundationColorado Riparian AssociationDefenders of WildlifeEarth Island InstituteEarth Pledge FoundationEarthwatchEcological Society of AmericaEnvironmental Defense FundEnvironmental Design Research AssociationEnvironmental Law InstituteForest History SocietyForest Landowners AssociationForest Products SocietyForest Resources Systems InstituteForest Stewardship CouncilFriends of the EarthGreenpeaceHardwood Forestry FundIsland Resources FoundationInternational Association for Landscape EcologyIzaak Walton League of AmericaLeague of Conservation VotersLiberty Tree AllianceNational Audubon SocietyNational Association of Conservation DistrictsPesticide Action NetworkRainforest Action NetworkRenewable Natural Resources FoundationResource Renewal InstituteResources for the FutureSaving America’s Forests

Sierra ClubNational Association of Environmental ProfessionalsNorth American Association for Environmental EducationNational Association of Conservation DistrictsNational Association of Professional Forestry Schools and

CollegesNational Association of Resource Conservation and

Development CouncilsNational Environmental Education Training FoundationNational Fish and Wildlife FoundationNational Forest FoundationNational Institutes for Water ResourcesNational Parks and Conservation AssociationNational Tree TrustNational Wildlife FederationNature ConservancyNatural Areas AssociationNatural Resources Defense CouncilNatural Resources Law CenterNatural Resource Leadership InstituteNew Forests ProjectSociety of American ForestersSociety for Ecological RestorationSociety of Environmental Journalists and Environmental

JournalismSociety for Range ManagementSociety of Wetland ScientistsSoil and Water Conservation SocietySoil Science Society of AmericaSouthern Forest-Based Economic Development CouncilStudent Conservation AssociationTall Timbers Research StationTaxpayer Assets ProjectTemperate Forest FoundationTrees for the FutureTrout UnlimitedTrust for Public LandUnion of Concerned ScientistsWater Environmental FederationWatershed Management CouncilWestern Forestry and Conservation AssociationWilderness SocietyWildlife Management InstituteWildlife SocietyWoods Hole Research CenterWorld Stewardship Institute

Source: Various directories, including Butler and Slack (1994), Gale Group (2002), Malonis (2000), National Wildlife Federation (2001), Trzyna and others(1996).

�

Appendix B

Periodicals Conveying Information About Use, Management, andProtection of Forest Resources (2002)

Agriculture and Human ValuesAgriculture, Ecosystems, and EnvironmentAgroforestry SystemsAmerican Christmas Tree JournalAmerican Journal of Agricultural EconomicsAmerican Review of Public AdministrationAppita JournalApplied Engineering in AgricultureApplied GeographyAppraisal JournalArboricultural JournalBioCycleBiodiversity and ConservationBiomass and BioenergyBoston College Environmental Law ReviewBrookings ReviewCellulose Chemistry and TechnologyChemosphereChristmas TreesClimate ResearchClimatic ChangeCommon Property Resource DigestConsultantContemporary Economic PolicyCrosstiesCulture and AgricultureEcological ApplicationsEcological ModelingEcologistEcology Law QuarterlyEconomic and Political WeeklyEconomic BotanyEconomic Development & Cultural ChangeEconomic GeographyEcosystem HealthEnergyEnergy EconomicsEngineered Wood JournalEnvironment and BehaviorEnvironment and HistoryEnvironment and PlanningEnvironmental and Resource EconomicsEnvironmental EthicsEnvironmental HistoryEnvironmental ManagementEnvironmental Science and PolicyEnvironmental ValuesEnvironmentalistEvaluation ReportExperimental AgricultureFarm ManagementForest and Landscape ResearchForest Ecology and ManagementForest LandownerForest LogForest MagazineForest PerspectivesForest Policy and EconomicsForest Products JournalForest ScienceForest, Snow, and Landscape ResearchForestry

Forests, Trees and LivelihoodsForests, Trees and People NewsletterGeoforumGeographical JournalGeorge Wright ForumGlobal Ecology and BiogeographyGlobal Environmental ChangeGrassroots DevelopmentGrowth and ChangeHuman EcologyHuman OrganizationIssues in Science and TechnologyJournal of ...

Agricultural & Applied EconomicsAgricultural & Resource EconomicsAgricultural EconomicsAnthropological ResearchApplied Social PsychologyArboricultureArchitectural Planning & ResearchArid EnvironmentsEconomic Behavior & OrganizationEconomic PerspectivesEnvironment and DevelopmentEnvironmental Economics &

ManagementEnvironmental EducationEnvironmental ManagementEnvironmental Planning & ManagementEnvironmental PsychologyEnvironmental SystemsForest EconomicsForest ScienceForestryIndustrial EcologyInterdisciplinary EconomicsLeisure ResearchNatural Resources & Life Sciences

EducationNon-Timber Forest ProductsPark and Recreation AdministrationPublic EconomicsRange ManagementRegional ScienceRisk and UncertaintyRural DevelopmentRural StudiesSustainable ForestryInstitute of Wood ScienceTravel ResearchTree SciencesTropical Forest ProductsTropical Forest ScienceTropical ForestryWorld Forest Resource Management

Land and Water Law ReviewLand Degradation and DevelopmentLand EconomicsLand Use PolicyLandscape and Urban PlanningLandscape ResearchLegacy

LeisureLeisure SciencesManagement ScienceMinnesota ForestsMonthly Labor ReviewMountain Research & DevelopmentNational ParksNational WoodlandsNatural Areas JournalNatural Resource ModelingNatural Resources ForumNatural Resources JournalNew ForestsNews of Forest HistoryPolicy SciencesPolicy Studies JournalPolitical Research QuarterlyPolityProgress in Paper RecyclingPublic Administration ReviewPublic Administration & DevelopmentPulp and PaperPulp and Paper InternationalQuarterly Journal of ForestryRange Management & AgroforestryRangeland JournalRangelandsRegional Science & Urban EconomicsRegional StudiesRenewable EnergyRenewable Resources JournalResource and Energy EconomicsReview of Agricultural EconomicsReview of Economics and StatisticsRural SociologyScience of the Total EnvironmentSociety and Natural ResourcesSocio-Economic Planning SciencesSouthern Journal of Applied ForestrySouthern LumbermanStructural Change & Economic DynamicsTemperate AgroforesterTigerpaperTimber ProducerTourism AnalysisTree FarmerTRI NewsTropical Forest UpdateWalnut Council BulletinWater Resources ResearchWestern Journal of Applied ForestryWomen in Natural ResourcesWood and Fiber ScienceWood and Wood ProductsWood Energy NewsWood TechnologyWoodland StewardWorld Resource ReviewWorld WatchYellowstone Science

Source: University of Minnesota (2002).

�

Appendix C

Federal Agency Programs Containing Educational Elements Relevant toForest Resources, by Agency (2001)

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Research Service:National Agricultural LibraryNatural Resources and Sustainable

Agricultural SystemsOffice of Pest Management PolicyPasture Systems and WatershedsWater Management Research LaboratoryAnimal and Plant Health InspectionService:AquacultureWildlife ServicesCooperative State Research,Education, and Extension Service:Cooperative Extension ServiceExtension Indian Reservation ProgramForest Products Research, Education, and

ExtensionHispanic-Serving Education Grants

ProgramInvasive Species ProgramMulticultural Scholars ProgramRenewable Resources Extension ProgramSecondary Agricultural Education

Challenge GrantsSmall Farm ProgramSustainable Agriculture Research and

Education ProgramTribal Colleges Endowment FundTribal Colleges Education Equity Grants

ProgramWater Quality ProgramWildlife and Fisheries ProgramEconomic Research Service:Agricultural and Rural Economic ResearchFarm Service Agency:Aerial Photography Field OfficeConservation Reserve ProgramConservation Reserve Enhancement

ProgramForeign Agricultural Service:Emerging Markets ProgramExport Assistance ProgramMarket Access ProgramForest Service:Agroforestry ProgramCooperative Forest Health Protection

ProgramForest Products Conservation and

Recycling ProgramForest Stewardship ProgramForest Taxation ProgramNational Forest-Dependent Rural

Communities ProgramNorthwest Economic Adjustment InitiativeResearch and Development ProgramsRural Development, Forestry, and

CommunitiesState Fire Assistance

Forest Service (cont.):Stewardship Incentives ProgramVolunteer Fire Assistance ProgramWildlife Management & Education

ProgramsNational Agricultural Statistics Service:Agricultural Statistics ReportsNatural Resources Conservation Service:Conservation of Private Grazing Land

InitiativeConservation Technical AssistanceEnvironmental Quality Incentives ProgramForestry Incentives ProgramGreat Plains ConservationResource Conservation and DevelopmentSnow Survey and Water Supply ForecastingSoil SurveySoil and Water ConservationWater Bank ProgramWatershed Protection and Flood PreventionWatershed Surveys and PlanningWildlife Habitat Incentives Program

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration:Forest Products and Building Materials

DivisionNational Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration:National Weather ServiceTechnology Administration:National Technical Information Service

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Research:Office of Scientific & Technical

Information

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs:Endangered Species on Indian LandsEnvironmental Management: Indian

ProgramsForestry on Indian LandsWater Resources on Indian LandsFish and Wildlife Service:Conservation Law Enforcement Training

AssistanceWildlife RestorationMigratory Bird Banding & Data AnalysisGeologic Survey:National Cooperative Geologic Mapping

ProgramUpper Mississippi River System

MonitoringNational Park Service:National Landmarks ProgramRivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance

ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY

Office of the Administrator:Common Sense InitiativeEnvironmental Education GrantsEnvironmental Education and Training

ProgramProject XLSmall Business OmbudsmenSmall Business Regulatory Enforcement

ProgramsOffice of Air and Radiation:Agstar ProgramAir Information CenterAir Toxics ProgramClimate Change ResearchClimate Protection ProgramsMobile Sources ProgramParticulate Matter ProgramsOffice of Children’s Health Protection:Children’s Health ProtectionOffice of Environmental Education:National Environmental Education ActOffice of Environmental Information:EMPACT (Community Tracking Program)EMAP ( Monitoring and Assessment

Program)Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and ToxicSubstances:Community Right To Know ProgramDesign for the EnvironmentPesticide Applicator Certification and

TrainingPesticide RegistrationPesticide ReregistrationPesticide Residue Tolerance ReassessmentsOffice of Research and Development:Environmental Technology VerificationExploratory Grants ProgramHuman Health ResearchScience to Achieve Results Fellowship

ProgramOffice of Solid Waste and EmergencyResponse:Hazardous Substance ResearchResource Conservation & Recovery Act

ProgramsRisk Management ProgramOffice of Water:Clean Water Action Plan Related ResearchCoastal Environmental MonitoringGreat Lakes ProgramGulf of Mexico ProgramLake Champlain Basin ProgramLong Island Sound StudyNPDES (Pollutant Discharge Permitting

Program)Rural Water Technical AssistanceSafe Drinking Water Research

The full text of Indicator 54 is as follows: Extent to whichthe institutional framework supports the conservation andsustainable management of forests, including the capacityto undertake and implement periodic forest-relatedplanning, assessment, and policy review, including cross-sectoral planning and coordination (Montreal ProcessWorking Group 2003).


Forests are affected by a wide variety of physical, eco-nomic, and social influences, many of which originatebeyond the forest community in sectors such as energy,agriculture, transportation, communication, environment,and government. The sustainability of forests is dependenton the institutional ability of societies to comprehensivelyevaluate trends and conditions in these diverse sectors andtake responsive actions that will ensure the sustained use,management, and protection of forest resources and thecommunities that are dependent upon them. These actionsare typically predicated on institutional conditions thatfoster the production of well-focused and technically soundplans, assessments, and policy reviews that are sensitive toa range of forest values and are coordinated with a varietyof forest-related sectors (Montreal Process Working Group2003, Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee2000).

The focus of the indicator is on the institutional capacityavailable to conduct planning, assessments, and policyreviews. Useful measures of this capacity include enumer-ations of the public and private agencies and organizationsinvolved; information about the frequency with whichplans, analyses, and reviews are prepared; the financialand professional resources devoted to these activities; andinformation about the ability of public and private institu-tions to accomplish plan objectives involving conservationand sustainability. Of special interest is information aboutthe ability of agencies, plans, assessments, and reviews toaddress issues involving coordination and cross-sectoralplanning (Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee2000).

Indicator 54 refers to planning, assessments, policy review,and cross-sectoral planning and coordination. To guide

this review, we define these terms as follows: planningrefers to disciplined procedures undertaken to guideorganizations having an interest in forest sustainability(for example, strategic resource planning, land use andmanagement planning); assessments are comprehensiveexaminations of present and prospective conditions (eco-logical, economic, political) that are likely to affect forestsustainability; policy review is the development and exam-ination of options for addressing important issues involvingforest sustainability; cross-sectoral planning is planningthat embraces diverse ecological, economic, and politicalstructures and conditions important to forest sustainability;and coordinating is harmonizing and integrating plans,assessments, and policy reviews important to forestsustainability.

The indicator draws special attention to the institutionalcapacity to engage in cross-sectoral planning and coordin-ation. A State or nation’s forestry sector may be but oneof many sectors capable of fostering sustainability andconservation of forests. There is potential for cross-sector-ing at interfaces between project plans, forest sector plans,and macro or national plans; interfaces between plans fordifferent forest resources (for example, timber, recreation,range, wildlife); interfaces between forestry and nonforestryplans (for example, agriculture, minerals); interfacesbetween public and private-sector plans (public timberlandinvestments and private timber processing facilities); andinterfaces between forestry plans and nonforestry plans foractivities that affect forestry-related functions (such asgeneral transportation plans). The number of potentialinterfaces relevant to forest sustainability is large and thereis considerable opportunity for coordination (Ellefson1985, Greeley 1966).


Planning Activities

Planning is often considered a central component of forest-land management. Statutes and administrative directivesgoverning the use, management, and protection of forestsinvariably set forth requirements for agency developmentof plans and directives that provide the framework withinwhich managers can develop operational approaches foraccomplishing organizational missions. Since private andpublic interests in the use, management, and protection offorests are part of dynamic political and economic systems,plans are subject to periodic review and revision.


Forest Planning, Assessment, and Policy Review (Indicator 54)


�

Coordination of various types and levels of plans preparedin response to various local, State, and Federal statutoryrequirements is an onerous task. An effective approach tocoordinating, and in some cases reconciling, plan develop-ment and implementation has not yet been realized.

Forest resources plans are highly variable in their purpose,content, and focus. Strategic program plans, land use andmanagement plans, and multisector plans have recogniz-able characteristics.

A strategic program plan sets the general direction of anagency’s efforts to achieve its mission or vision and resultsfrom a formalized but modest set of exercises or from thecombined responses of an agency to continuing streams ofoften-unexpected issues. Examples of the latter are Stateand Federal agency actions responding to unexpected judi-cial and legislative directives, actions which when combinedform a de facto strategic plan. Statewide forest resourceplans prepared by lead forestry agencies in State govern-ment, and the plans required of the USDA Forest Serviceby the Forest and Rangeland Renewable ResourcesPlanning Act of 1974 and the Government Performanceand Results Act of 1993, are examples of strategic plansresulting from more formalized exercises.

Plans can also be very focused in identifying expected out-comes, as in the case of land use and management plans.Of interest is agency capacity to develop plans that arespecific enough to provide clear direction for managementactivities, and concrete enough so that success can bemeasured. Such plans can identify uses, outputs, andconditions that are desirable and feasible, and can explainhow management will affect key sites, produce importantoutputs, and protect vital resources and ecosystems. Landuse and management plans tend to be the product ofrational planning approaches that require clearly specifiedobjectives, alternatives, decision criteria, and implementa-tion and monitoring procedures. Plans for each of theNation’s national forests, as prepared by the USDA ForestService under authorities set forth by the National ForestManagement Act of 1976, and plans for each refuge, asprepared by the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service underauthorities set forth by the National Wildlife Refuge SystemImprovement Act of 1997, are examples of use and man-agement plans for public lands. Plans prepared by nonin-dustrial private forestland owners in response to manyfiscal incentive programs (such as the Forest StewardshipAct of 1990) and tax incentive programs (such as propertytax relief) are examples of private planning initiatives.

Plans developed to guide the use, management, and pro-tection of forests can be prepared in response to statutesthat require direct and exclusive consideration of forests,or in response to statutes that authorize the development

of broad multisector plans. The Forest and RangelandRenewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, for example,requires the preparation of plans that address a variety ofinterests in forests (such as wildlife, fish, timber, and graz-ing) and requires interdisciplinary consideration of desiredforest conditions. Some multisector plans focus on a speci-fic physical resource (for example, air or water) that maybe affected by the use and management of forests. Exam-ples of more broadly construed multisector plans are thoserequired of agencies that are responsible for administeringthe Endangered Species Act of 1973, Coastal Zone Man-agement Act of 1972, Clean Water Act of 1987, and CleanAir Act of 1990. State governments also develop multi-resource plans that affect forests, and these plans are oftendeveloped in direct response to the enactment of Federallaws.

Judgments about how well institutions execute their respon-sibility for developing plans (whether strategic program,land use and management, or multisector) and the imple-mentation of planning processes presume the existence ofstandards or measures of goodness. An obvious source ofsuch standards is the statutes that authorize an agency toengage in planning activities (for example, required publicparticipation, preparation by interdisciplinary teams).Examples of other commonly advocated standards are legalsufficiency, ability to resolve conflict, cost-effectiveness, afoundation of accurate data and sound analysis, practica-bility, communication of a clear vision, timely completion,active leadership by administrators, and flexibility suffi-cient to accommodate unexpected events. This list ofstandards is not all-inclusive, but it illustrates the range ofconditions to be considered in assessing the strengths andweaknesses of forest planning efforts (Bryson 1988, Grayand Ellefson 1987, Larsen and others 1990, Teeguarden1990).

Assessment Activities

Assessments are comprehensive examinations of presentand prospective conditions that are likely to affect the use,management, and protection of forests now and in thefuture. They are often viewed as supportive of plan devel-opment in that plans generally respond to assessment-identified gaps between current and desired conditions inthe use, management, and protection of forests. Assess-ments developed by public agencies have traditionallybeen detailed, comprehensive, data-driven exercises,although movement is toward assessments that examinebroad trends in resource, economic, and social conditionsthat a forestry agency might adapt to or attempt to influ-ence (Sample and LeMaster 1995). Some assessmentshave been developed to evaluate or monitor agencyprogress toward key goals and objectives that have beenidentified in a plan. Examples of assessments are the

��

USDA Forest Service’s renewable resources assessment,which is prepared every 10 years as is required by theForest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Actof 1974; the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service’s criticalhabitat assessment for threatened and endangered species,which is required by the National Wildlife Refuge SystemAdministration Act of 1966 (amended 1997); and variousstatewide resource assessments carried out by the forestryagencies of State governments (including the assessmentsof criteria and indicators that are being prepared by anincreasing number of States).

Policy and Program Review Activities

Anticipating, evaluating, and developing options foraddressing important forest resource issues is the focus ofpolicy and program analysis. Organizations typicallyselect issues requiring analysis on the basis of such factorsas their urgency, strategic significance, programmaticimportance, geographic scope, fiscal implications, and theexpectation of useful results from analysis. The clients ofpublic agency policy analyses are generally forestry agencyexecutives, although leaders in other branches of govern-ment and in the private sector often seek the results ofpolicy analysis. Examples of topics addressed by the policyanalysis staff of the USDA Forest Service include paymentsto States from national forest receipts, water resourcepolicy and the management of forests, and the role ofpublic and private recreation enterprises. Policy analysis isalso carried out by the renewable resources and planningstaff of the USDI Bureau of Land Management, the plan-ning and evaluation staff of the USDI Fish and WildlifeService, and the Office of Policy, Economics, and Innova-tion of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Stategovernment forest agencies have policy and programanalysis capabilities (for example, the Resource PolicyDivision of the Oregon Department of Forestry), andprivate organizations often have significant capacity toundertake policy and program reviews.



As stated before, private organizations often have signifi-cant capacity to undertake policy and program reviews.For example, industrial forestry concerns periodicallyprepare policy reviews of their strategic position in forestproduct markets and of their corporate landownershipstrategies. Similarly, private companies looking to timber-land as a long-term investment opportunity often under-take careful review and analysis of such opportunities (forexample, Hancock Timber Resource Group). Privateorganized interest groups also engage in policy review and

analysis activities, often as a means of influencing thedevelopment of public policy on the use and managementof forests. Examples of such groups and their publicationsinclude the Society of American Foresters (“Forest Wild-life-Habitat Relationships: Population and CommunityResponses to Forest Management” [2002]), the NationalAssociation of State Foresters (“Review of State andPrivate Forestry Deputy Areas of USDA Forest Service”[2002]), the Pinchot Institute for Conservation (“AllocatingCooperative Forestry Funds to States: Block Grants andAlternatives” [2001]), the Wilderness Society (“NationalForests: Policies for the Future” [1988]), and the SierraClub (“Forest Fires: Beyond the Heat and Hype” [2002]).Also representing policy review capacity are special-inter-est group reviews of National Forest land managementplans and critiques of plans to offer timber sales frompublic forests.

Private-sector institutional capacity for land managementplanning is apparent in the development and implementa-tion of management plans for private forests. In somecases, forest management certification programs requiredevelopment of a management plan as a prerequisite forcertification (for example, certification of forest manage-ment practices by the Sustainable Forestry Initiative of theAmerican Forest and Paper Association). In 1994, approxi-mately 5 percent of nearly 10 million private landownershad a plan for the management of their forest property(table 1). Nationally, these plans directed the use and man-agement of forest on nearly 154 million acres of privateland. Thirty-seven percent of the plans were prepared by aState government employee (service forester), while land-owners (21.7 percent) and consultants (10.7 percent) werethe next most frequent plan preparers. Consultants wereresponsible for plans applied to more than 25 million acresof private forestland. For 1998, the USDA Forest Servicereported the preparation of nearly 28,000 forest manage-ment plans (including forest stewardship plans) that wereapplied to more than 1.8 million acres of private forest(U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 1999). Anationwide study found that 84 percent of landowners withforest stewardship plans had begun to implement them,applying at least one recommended activity (Esseks andMoulton 2000).

Private-sector capacity to prepare land management plansis also reflected by the legal requirements of State forestpractice regulatory programs. As a prerequisite to timberharvesting on private forests (for example, in California,Oregon, and Washington), landowners are required to pre-pare a timber harvest plan that prescribes forestry practicesconsidered critical to the sustainability of forest condi-tions. In the early 1990s, the California Board of Forestryprocessed between 1,200 and 1,500 such plans per year,while the Oregon Department of Forestry and Washington’s

��

Division of Forest Practices processed 15,000 to 20,000per year and 10,000 to 15,000 per year, respectively(Ellefson and others 1995).


Planning activities—Federal institutional capacity forplanning the use, management, and protection of forestshas existed for many years. Early planning activities wereusually initiated by agency executives seeking to definebroad strategic direction for the activities of their agencies.In recent years, however, Federal laws have required agen-cies to engage in planning that is more formal in processand more focused in substance. Prior to 1974, Congressdid not specifically require any Federal land managementagency to conduct formal systemwide planning (Cogginsand others 1993). Today there are at least 26 Federal sta-tutes that require major agencywide activities involvingthe preparation of strategic program or land use and manage-ment plans. One-third of these statutes establish planningrequirements that are directly or exclusively applicable toforest programs or management (table 2). The planningrequired by these 26 statutes is carried out by at least 10different Federal agencies and results in plans that vary ingeographic scope (national, regional, local) and relevanceto the use and management of forests (Coggins and others1993, Dolgin and Guilbert 1974, Goble and Freyfogle 2002,

Mansfield 1993, Plater and others 1998, Schoenbaum andRosenburg 1996, U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService 2002, West Publishing Company 1997).

Federal statutes requiring agency-developed plans focusedon forests are nearly evenly split between those that requirethe preparation of strategic program plans and those thatrequire land use and management plans (table 2). The plan-ning requirements focused exclusively on forests address awide range of forest values (water, wildlife, timber, recre-ation), while those not specific to forests tend to have pri-mary concern for a single forest value. Although a numberof statutes require agency-prepared plans to be coordinatedwith related sectors, in most cases the statutory require-ment to do so is unclear. This lack of statutory clarity isalso the case with regard to requirements for updatingplans, although there are notable exceptions. For example,the National Forest Management Act of 1976 is very clearin this respect (plans must be revised at least every 15years). In many cases (for example, the Clean Water Actof 1987), statutes require the preparation of an initial planand are silent on subsequent revision or modification ofthat plan. Most, but not all, Federal statutory planningrequirements apply to all major forest landownership cate-gories. Examples of Federal agency responses to laws thatrequire the preparation of strategic and land use andmanagement plans are presented in the following pages:

Table 1—Forest management plans prepared by private forest owners,by type of owner and type of plan preparer (1994)

Owners AreaManagement planpreparation Number Proportion Acres Proportion

thousands percent millions percent

Owners with written plan 531.2 5.4 153.6 39.0Owners without written plan 8,594.1 86.7 226.2 57.5Unknown status 784.9 7.9 13.6 3.5

Total 9,910.2 100.0 393.4 100.0

Plan prepared by:Owner 114.8 21.7 16.7 19.0Consultant 56.5 10.7 25.5 28.9Industrial forester 20.6 3.9 8.9 10.1State government employee 196.2 37.1 16.8 19.1Extension Service 8.9 1.7 0.9 1.0USDA Natural Resources

Conservation Service 47.3 9.0 4.6 5.2Other 87.9 16.6 24.0 27.3

Total 532.2 100.7 97.4 110.6

Note: Table totals exceed 100 percent because plans were prepared by more than one type of preparer. Ofowners with a written plan, 528,800 were nonindustrial private owners (88.1 million acres), and 2,400 wereindustrial owners (65.5 million acres).Source: Birch (1996).

��

Tabl

e 2—

Fed

eral

sta

tute

s pr

ovid

ing

inst

itut

iona

l aut

hori

ty f

or p

lann

ing

acti

viti

es in

volv

ing

fore

sts

and

fore

stry

, by

vari

ous

plan

ning

cha

ract

eris

tics

(20

01)

Coo

rdin

atio

nM

ajor

for

est

Pri

mar

yR

ange

of

wit

h pl

ans

for

Per

iodi

cow

ners

hip

Fed

eral

sta

tute

req

uiri

ng s

ome

form

type

of

plan

fore

st v

alue

sre

late

d fo

rest

upda

ting

of

cate

gory

of p

lann

ing

acti

vity

requ

ired

addr

esse

dse

ctor

spl

ans

requ

ired

addr

esse

d

Pla

nnin

g fo

cus

dire

ctly

and

exc

lusi

vely

on

fore

sts

and

fore

stry

Coo

pera

tive

For

estr

y A

ssis

tanc

e A

ct o

f 19

78S

trat

egic

Yes

Yes

*A

ll o

wne

rshi

psF

ores

t an

d R

ange

land

Ren

ewab

le R

esou

rces

Pla

nnin

g A

ctS

trat

egic

Yes

*Y

esA

ll o

wne

rshi

psof

197

4F

ores

t an

d R

ange

land

Ren

ewab

le R

esou

rces

Res

earc

h A

ctS

trat

egic

Yes

Yes

*A

ll o

wne

rshi

psof

197

8M

cInt

ire-

Ste

nnis

For

est

Res

earc

h A

ct*

Yes

**

All

ow

ners

hips

Mul

tipl

e-U

se S

usta

ined

Yie

ld A

ct o

f 19

60*

Yes

Yes

*F

eder

alN

atio

nal

For

est

Man

agem

ent A

ct o

f 19

78M

anag

emen

tY

esY

esY

esF

eder

alR

enew

able

Res

ourc

e E

xten

sion

Act

of

1978

Str

ateg

icY

esY

esY

esA

ll o

wne

rshi

ps

Pla

nnin

g fo

cus

on f

ores

ts, f

ores

try

and

rela

ted

reso

urce

sA

dmin

istr

ativ

e P

roce

dure

s A

ct o

f 19

46S

trat

egic

Yes

*Y

esA

ll o

wne

rshi

psA

nadr

omou

s F

ish

Con

serv

atio

n A

ct o

f 19

65S

trat

egic

No

**

All

ow

ners

hips

Cle

an A

ir A

ct o

f 19

90S

trat

egic

Yes

**

All

ow

ners

hips

Cle

an W

ater

Act

of

1987

Str

ateg

icN

oY

esY

esA

ll o

wne

rshi

psC

oast

al Z

one

Man

agem

ent A

ct o

f 19

72M

anag

emen

tY

esY

esY

esA

ll o

wne

rshi

psE

ndan

gere

d S

peci

es A

ct o

f 19

73M

anag

emen

tN

oN

o*

All

ow

ners

hips

Fed

eral

Ins

ecti

cide

, F

ungi

cide

, an

d R

oden

tici

de A

ctM

anag

emen

tY

es*

*A

ll o

wne

rhip

s(a

s am

ende

d 19

96)

Fed

eral

Lan

d P

olic

y an

d M

anag

emen

t Act

of

1976

Str

ateg

icY

esY

esY

esF

eder

alF

ish

and

Wil

dlif

e C

onse

rvat

ion

Act

of

1980

Man

agem

ent

No

*Y

esA

ll o

wne

rshi

psG

over

nmen

t P

erfo

rman

ce a

nd R

esul

ts A

ct o

f 19

93S

trat

egic

Yes

Yes

Yes

All

ow

ners

hips

Lan

d an

d W

ater

Con

serv

atio

n F

und

Act

of

1965

Man

agem

ent

No

*Y

esA

ll o

wne

rshi

psN

atio

nal

Env

iron

men

tal

Pol

icy

Act

of

1969

Str

ateg

icY

esY

es*

All

ow

ners

hips

Nat

iona

l P

ark

Ser

vice

Org

anic

Act

of

1916

Man

agem

ent

No

**

Fed

eral

Nat

iona

l T

rail

s S

yste

m A

ct o

f 19

68M

anag

emen

tN

oY

es*

All

ow

ners

hips

Nat

iona

l W

ildl

ife

Ref

uge

Sys

tem

Adm

inis

trat

ion

Man

agem

ent

No

Yes

Yes

Fed

eral

Act

of

1966

(19

97)

Soi

l an

d W

ater

Con

serv

atio

n A

ct o

f 19

77S

trat

egic

Yes

Yes

Yes

Pri

vate

Sur

face

Min

ing

Con

trol

and

Rec

lam

atio

n A

ct o

f 19

77M

anag

emen

tY

es*

*A

ll o

wne

rshi

psW

ilde

rnes

s A

ct o

f 19

64M

anag

emen

tN

oN

o*

Fed

eral

Wil

d an

d S

ceni

c R

iver

s A

ct o

f 19

68M

anag

emen

tN

oY

es*

All

ow

ners

hips

Not

e: A

ster

isk

indi

cate

s st

atut

e is

not

cle

ar o

n th

is p

oint

.S

ourc

e: P

late

r an

d ot

hers

(19

98);

Sho

enba

um a

nd R

osen

burg

(19

96).

��

• USDA Forest Service—The USDA Forest Service isresponsible for the National Forest System, forestresources research, and technical and financial assistanceto State and private forestry agencies. A variety ofstatutes require the Forest Service to prepare strategicprogram plans and land use and management plans. Inaddition to the more multisectoral laws that guide theplanning of resources use and management generally,the Forest Service must give consideration to suchFederal statutes as the Alaska National Interest LandsConservation Act of 1980, Fish and Wildlife Conserva-tion Act of 1980, Archeological Resources ProtectionAct of 1979, Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of1978, Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of1977, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, WildernessAct of 1964, National Forest Roads and Trails Act of1964, and Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960.

An example of strategic program planning is the Forestand Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of1974 (RPA), which requires preparation of a resourcesassessment every 10 years, a resource program every 5years looking to conditions 45 years hence, a Presidentialstatement of policy to guide budget formulation, andannual reports on progress toward implementation ofthe planning documents (Office of Technology Assess-ment 1990, 1992a). The RPA process requires consider-ation of all forest values, coordination with other Federalagencies, and cooperation with other levels of govern-ment (especially State governments). Since 1993, theGovernment Performance and Results Act (GPRA) haspreempted strategic planning legislative authorities formost Federal agencies. The program element of the RPAhas in effect been subsumed by the GPRA; the RPAAssessment now provides the context for the GPRAstrategic plan.

The response of the USDA Forest Service to the Govern-ment Performance and Results Act of 1993 is anotherexample of strategic program planning. Responding tothe act, the 2000 plan (revised) sets strategic directionfor the agency for a 5-year period, with each year’s fund-ing being dependent on progress toward accomplishingthe goals specified in the plan (U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service 2000a). Four broad goals areidentified (ensure sustainable ecosystems, provide formultiple benefits, ensure development and delivery ofinformation, and ensure organizational effectiveness).Each of these is given operational clarity by morefocused objectives (for example, improve and protectwater conditions, improve knowledge base throughresearch and monitoring), time frames for accomplish-ment, and measures of performance. The strategic planalso sets forth provisions for program evaluations andcoordination of overlapping functions.

The USDA Forest Service is also responsible for landuse and management planning under authorities speci-fied in the National Forest Management Act of 1978.Specific to the national forests, this statute specifiesplanning processes and calls for guidelines that focusattention on the availability of land for resource manage-ment, potential levels of resource use and management,and ways in which a variety of resource managementpractices are to be carried out. The actual planningprocess involves 10 steps, including identification ofpotential uses and estimated outputs, response to issuesof public concern, protection of especially valuableresources and ecosystems, and plan implementation andmonitoring (Office of Technology Assessment 1992b,U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 2000b).Plans (identified as Land Resource Management Plans)are to be revised at least every 15 years, must complywith related and relevant Federal environmental andresource statutes, and are to be vertically integratedwith planning at other levels in the agency (nationwide:strategic plan; region: regional guide; national forest:land resource management plan; and project-level:specific projects). More than 85 national forest plans areto be revised during the period beginning in 1999 andending in 2004.

• USDI Bureau of Land Management—The USDI Bureauof Land Management administers 264 million acres ofFederal public land and the mineral rights underlying564 million acres of Federal public land. The Bureauhas produced a strategic plan in response to require-ments of the Government Performance and Results Actof 1993. This plan sets forth 5 major (or blueprint) goals(serve current and future client groups, restore andmaintain health of land, promote collaborative manage-ment, improve business practices, and improve humanresources management), 43 performance goals (forexample, preserve natural and cultural heritage, establishand implement management standards and guidelines),and a variety of results to be accomplished over a 3- to10-year period (for example, evaluate areas and resourcesthat may warrant special recognition, incorporate com-prehensive standards for public land health into existingland use plans). The Bureau coordinates plan implemen-tation at the national and local level with 14 otherFederal agencies.

The USDI Bureau of Land Management also engages inland use and management planning (Williams 1987).The agency is guided by an especially wide range ofFederal statutes and Executive orders that require plan-ning activities, and many of these activities involveconsideration of forests. In addition to multisector lawsthat guide institutional capacity for planning related toresource use and management generally, the Bureau ofLand Management must give consideration to Federal

��

statutes such as the Colorado River Basin SalinityControl Act, Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of1976, Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, Public RangelandsImprovement Act of 1978, and Wild and Free-RoamingHorse and Burro Act (U.S. Department of the Interior,Bureau of Land Management 2000a). However, theBureau’s major land management planning authorityproceeds from the Federal Land Policy and ManagementAct of 1976, which requires the Bureau to prepare land-use plans that provide management direction for theNation’s public lands. These land-use plans are part ofthe Bureau’s three-tier planning structure, whichconsists of a national strategic plan (responding to theGovernment Performance and Results Act of 1993),resource management plans, and plans for areas that areof critical concern (because they have unique wildlifeand special ecosystems). The resource managementplans, of which 108 have been developed since 1984,address specific resource conflicts, reflect publicparticipation and comment, and are accompanied byenvironmental impact statements.

The USDI Bureau of Land Management planning pro-cess, developed in response to the Federal Land Policyand Management Act of Act of 1976, is as follows:identify issues and concerns, assess information, iden-tify desired outcomes, and specify allowable uses andactions needed to achieve desired outcomes. Statutorylimitations on the implementation of this process includerequirements to inventory resource conditions on publiclands; involve the public in plan development; complywith multiple-use principles; coordinate plan develop-ment and implementation with other Federal, State,local, and tribal governments; give priority designationand protection to areas of critical environmental concern;comply with applicable pollution control laws; andrecognize development rights of mining claimants (U.S.Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management2000a, 2000b). The Bureau’s Land Use Planning Hand-book requires that planning describe healthy forest con-ditions and the best management practices that can beapplied in order to accomplish such conditions (U.S.Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management2000b).

• USDI National Park Service—The National Park Serviceis responsible for the management of 83.6 million acresof public land. Under authority granted by the NationalPark Service Organic Act of 1916 and administrativerules and directives pursuant to the act, the NationalPark Service carries out four interrelated planningprocesses: general management planning (agencywidemission and goals), park strategic planning (park-levelmission and goals), implementation planning (agency-wide and park-level plans of action), and annualperformance planning (agencywide and park-level

measures of progress). The order in which these processesoccur flows from broad-scale general managementplanning through progressively more specific strategic,implementation, and performance planning (U.S.Department of the Interior, National Park Service 1998).Major principles guiding the agency’s planning activi-ties include use of interdisciplinary planning approachesand principles, use of scientific and technical informationin decisionmaking, use of peer review panels to addressconflicts over validity and interpretation of information,use of alternative dispute resolution processes (internallyand externally), and review and analysis of post-litiga-tion decisions to identify ways to improve future deci-sions (U.S. Department of the Interior, National ParkService 2001).

Although the agency’s planning activities are heavilyfocused on specific park units (taking the form of landuse and management plans), an agencywide strategicprogram plan has been developed in response to theGovernment Performance and Results Act of 1993 (U.S.Department of the Interior, National Park Service 2000).The plan focuses on four major goals, namely (1) to pre-serve park resources, (2) to provide for public enjoyment,(3) to strengthen cultural and recreational resources, and(4) to ensure organizational effectiveness. Eleven strate-gies for accomplishing these goals are specified (forexample, develop additional partnerships, improvetechnology and databases), and various cross-agencyissues and suggestions for their resolution are presented(for example, working with various Federal agencies onsouth Florida ecosystem restoration). The agency alsosuggests management and data issues to be dealt withand describes plans for evaluating programs.

• USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service—TheUSDA Natural Resources Conservation Service is respon-sible for a wide range of forest resource programs, all ofwhich require some level of planning prior to theirimplementation. These planning activities are conductedin accordance with authorities granted by the Soil andWater Conservation Act of 1977 and the GovernmentPerformance and Results Act of 1993. The formerrequires the preparation (every 10 years) of an appraisalof the Nation’s soil, water, and related resources and thedevelopment (every 10 years) of a soil and water conser-vation program. These documents are to be consistentwith the findings of resource inventories and assessments,identification and analysis of alternatives, consultationand consensus-building processes, and sound principlesof plan implementation and program evaluation. Theyare to be transmitted to the U.S. Congress, as are annualreports (to accompany proposed budgets) of progress inimplementing the program. This planning and programdevelopment is to involve processes that integrate social,economic, and ecological resource concerns while also

��

ensuring the maintenance of natural systems and ecolo-gical processes. Only two plans and appraisals have beenmade by the Natural Resources Conservation Serviceunder authorities established by the Soil and WaterConservation Act of 1977.

The agency’s planning activities involving forests areresponses to a number of forest and related programsthat have been assigned to the agency for implementa-tion. These planning activities give direction to programsthat provide for natural resource information, commun-ity planning and development, conservation cost-shareprogram assistance, conservation planning and imple-mentation, erosion control and reduction, farmlandprotection, fish and wildlife habitat improvement, forestimprovement and management, range management,stream restoration, water management, water qualityimprovement, wetland restoration and protection,watershed planning, conservation technical assistance,emergency watershed protection, and natural resourcesinventory. Most of these functions are carried out incooperation with State governments and typically requireState-developed plans prior to their implementation bythe agency. Examples are the Forestry Incentives Pro-gram, Conservation Reserve Program, and StewardshipIncentive Program, all of which are administered incooperation with the USDA Forest Service.

The agency also responds to the Government Performanceand Results Act of 1993 by preparing an agencywidestrategic program plan (U.S. Department of Agriculture,Natural Resources Conservation Service 2000). Theplan identifies 4 major goals (enhance resource produc-tivity, reduce unintended natural resource impacts, pro-tect communities from flood and drought, deliver high-quality services to the public) and 14 specific objectivesthat give a focus to these goals (for example, enhanceforestland productivity, enhance fish and wildlife habi-tats). Coordination of plan development and implemen-tation with other public and private concerns (especiallywith State governments) is extensive and involvescooperation on matters including education, research,data collection, and program delivery. Provisions aremade for program evaluations, including advance (by 1year) insertion of evaluation schedules into the agency’sannual operational plans.

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—The Fish and WildlifeService is responsible for conserving, protecting, andenhancing fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitatsfor the continuing benefit of the Nation. The agency isguided by more than 150 Federal statutes, many of whichauthorize planning activities that are directly relevant tothe use, management, and protection of forests. Anexample is the agency’s role in administering the Endan-gered Species Act of 1973, a planning role that has beenespecially important in defining the sustainability of

wildlife habitats associated with public and privateforests. Among other agency-developed plans that haveimplications for forest resources are comprehensiveconservation plans for wildlife refuges, an informationresources management strategic plan, endangered specieshabitat conservation plans, servicewide strategic andperformance plans, and a wildland fire and air qualitynational strategic plan.

The agency’s long-range strategic program plan is pre-pared in response to the Government Performance andResults Act of 1993 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service2001a). The plan states 4 mission goals (sustain fish andwildlife populations, conserve habitats through a networkof lands and waters, provide for public use and enjoy-ment, establish partnerships for managing wildliferesources) and 14 long-term goals that implement thesemission goals (for example, provide for greater recrea-tional use of wildlife refuges, work with private land-owners on eradication of invasive species). Key factorsaffecting the ability to accomplish these long-term goalsare specified (for example, extent of collaboration withpartners, extremes in weather and climate conditions),as is coordination of wildlife-related activities with otherFederal agencies that have responsibilities involvingwildlife and wildlife habitats (for example, managementof the South Florida Everglades, implementation of theNorthwest Forest Plan, recovery of endangered species).The plan has specific provisions for addressing majorwildlife habitat concerns on land not directly adminis-tered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. For example,the plan calls for the restoration and establishment (by2005) of 280,000 acres of wetlands habitat, 524,000 acresof upland habitats, and 4,150 riparian or stream miles ofhabitat not directly owned or controlled by the agency.

The Fish and Wildlife Service also engages in land useand management planning as authorized by the NationalWildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (asamended in 1997). This includes the development ofcomprehensive conservation plans for refuges that arepart of the National Wildlife Refuge System (U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service 2001b). These plans are to providea clear and comprehensive statement of desired condi-tions for each refuge and to provide for rational manage-ment decisions needed to accomplish such conditions,including the management of forests considered impor-tant as wildlife habitat. The process of developing com-prehensive conservation plans provides opportunity forpublic involvement and for interaction with other Federalagencies that have responsibilities for the managementof wildlife. Implementation of completed plans is alsoto be coordinated with State conservation agencies, tribalgovernments, and non-governmental organizations. TheU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expects to completecomprehensive conservation plans for 250 planning areas

��

of the National Wildlife Refuge System by 2006. Theplans are to be reviewed and updated at least every 15years.

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—The U.S.Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for awide variety of programs that focus on protecting humanhealth and safeguarding the natural environment (air,water, and land) upon which life depends. The agencyinfluences the use, management, and protection offorests through statutory authorities that focus on water(wastewater, drinking water, ground water), air (acidrain, global warming, emissions), hazardous wastes,insecticides, endangered species, and wetlands andwatersheds. Nearly all of these programs involve plan-ning activities that have implications for forests. Forexample, States must develop implementation plans formeeting air and water quality standards promulgated bythe agency under authorities of the Clean Air Act of1990 and the Clean Water Act of 1987. The latter actauthorizes plans developed to address nonpoint pollutantsources originating in forested areas, and these planshave been especially important in determining whatforest practices are applied, and how they are applied onprivate and public forestland.

The Environmental Protection Agency has developed astrategic program plan in response to the GovernmentPerformance and Results Act of 1993 (U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency 2000). The strategic planfocuses on 10 goals (clean air, clean and safe water, safefood, pollution prevention, waste management, qualityenvironmental information, sound environmental science,reduced global environmental risk, program compliance,and effective agency management). Multiple objectivesand performance requirements are specified for each ofthese goals. The plan’s development and implementa-tion are coordinated with more than 100 Federal, State,and local agencies, tribal governments, business andindustry organizations, and environmental and publicinterest groups.

Other Federal agencies that engage in planning the use,management, and protection of forests include theCouncil on Environmental Quality (establishes rulesthat govern administration of the National Environ-mental Policy Act of 1969), Army Corps of Engineers(administers wetland provisions of the Clean Water Actof 1987), Department of Defense (prepares plans for theDepartment’s forestlands), Tennessee Valley Authority(manages its forests and assists private forest landowners),and U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (manages Indianforestland).

Assessment activities—Federal agencies have significantinstitutional capacity to undertake comprehensive exam-inations of present and prospective conditions that are

likely to affect the use, management, and protection offorests (table 3). Of the 22 assessments identified here asexamples, two-thirds address a range of forest values,although often only for a specific region or land-ownershipcategory (for example, the Interior Columbia Basin Eco-system Assessment, the Northern Lands Assessment, andthe Southern Forest Assessment). Most of these assess-ments are conducted in coordination with other agenciesand with different ownerships and levels of government,but the details of this coordination are not always specifiedclearly by statutes or agency directives. Coordination canbe difficult because assessments involving forests can havediffering objectives (timber assessments versus endangeredspecies assessments) and are often undertaken by a num-ber of Federal agencies, many of which do not have forestsas their primary responsibility (Johnson and others 1999).It is also significant that most Federal assessments areregional or ecosystems based; that is, the area of concernfor planning is determined by scientifically defined, eco-logically based geographic boundaries (for example,Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, Interior Columbia RiverBasin, Northern Spotted Owl Forest Ecosystem) (Hardt1997). This approach enables the development and imple-mentation of policies and programs that comprehensivelypromote the sustainability of the large-scale, regionalecosystems in question.

Agency authority for carrying out assessments is set forthby statutes that call for continuous assessments (monitor-ing) (such as the acid rain deposition program of the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency), periodic assessmentsat specified intervals (such as the Renewable ResourcesAssessment of the USDA Forest Service), or intermittentassessments required to address important issues related toresource use and management (such as the Forest EcosystemManagement Assessment Report of the USDA ForestService and cooperating agencies). Intermittent assess-ments frequently have a specific geographic focus, usuallya multi-State region. About 80 percent of the assessmentsidentified in table 3 address conditions on all forest own-erships. Notable exceptions are those focused on wildliferefuges, national forests, national parks, and Indianforestlands.

Assessments are frequently undertaken in concert with thedevelopment of strategic program plans or land use andmanagement plans (as, for example, in the case of the Soiland Water Appraisal and the Conservation Program of theUSDA Natural Resources Conservation Service). Resourceinformation provided by assessments has proven to beespecially useful in the development of such plans. Assess-ments are increasingly being used to evaluate progresstoward key goals and objectives that are specified in agencyplans, and have become especially important sources ofinformation for agency employees who must evaluate

��

Table 3—Federal environmental and natural resource assessments, by type, administering agency, and source ofauthority (2001)

Assessment type and title Principal administering agency Authority for undertaking assessment

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

assessments

Periodic (specified intervals)Forest inventory and analysis USDA Forest Service Forest and Rangeland Renewable

Resources Research Act of 1978

Land use and condition inventory USDI Bureau of Land Management Federal Land Policy and ManagementAct of 1976

Soil and water resource appraisal USDA Natural Resources Conservation Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977Service

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

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

Renewable resources assessment USDA Forest Service Forest and Rangeland RenewableResources Planning Act of 1978

Indian forestland assessment USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs Indian Forest Resources ManagementAct of 1990

Regional water and related resources Water Resources Council Water Resource Planning Act of 1965assessment

National forest resource assessment USDA Forest Service National Forest Management Act of 1976

Wildlife refuge resource assessment U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge SystemAdministration Act of 1966

National park resource assessment USDI National Park Service National Park Service Organic Act of 1916

National biological survey USDI National Biological Service Various Federal statutes

Intermittent (determined by need)Environmental impact statements Council on Environmental Quality and National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

proposing agency

Global climate change effects U.S. Department of Agriculture Global Climate Change Prevention Actassessment of 1990

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

Forest ecosystem management USDA Forest Service and others National Forest Management Act of 1978assessment report and others

Northern forestlands assessment Northern Forest Lands Council and Federal and State statutesUSDA Forest Service

Interior Columbia Basin ecosystem Multiple Federal agencies Various Federal statutesassessment

Sierra Nevada ecosystem assessment USDA Forest Service Various Federal statutes

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

Southern forest resource assessment USDA Forest Service and others Various Federal statutes

�

progress toward goals specified in their agency’s strategicprogram plans, as required by the Government Perform-ance and Results Act of 1993 (Sample and Le Master1995).

Policy and program review activities—Federal agencyinstitutional capacity for review and analysis of policy andprogram initiatives focused on forest resource matters issubstantial. Unfortunately, no comprehensive documenta-tion of staff levels, budgets, and responsibilities that reflectthis capacity exists. An examination of agency staff direc-tories and organizational charts reveals that policy andprogram reviews are undertaken at virtually all levelswithin agencies. For example, such reviews are conductedat the departmental level (USDA Office of Budget andProgram Analysis), at the agency level (Policy AnalysisStaff, USDA Forest Service), at middle levels within agen-cies (USDA Forest Service’s regional office analysts andplanners), and at field or operational levels (USDA ForestService’s National forest analysts and planners). Analysisand review capacity also exists within the research units ofagencies (USDA Forest Service’s Research and Develop-ment’s Resource Valuation, and Use Research unit) andagency budget development and coordination units (U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service’s Division of Budget and Officeof Budget, Planning, and Human Resources). Furthercomplicating judgment about policy and program reviewcapacity is the large number of agencies that reviewbroad-based resource or environmental programs that arenot solely focused on forests (the USDA Natural ResourceConservation Service’s Oversight and Evaluation Staff).

The number of policy and program analysts within Federalagencies that are responsible for programs affecting forestsis probably in the range of 200 to 300. In the Washington,D.C. office of the USDA Forest Service, more than 25 per-sons have the title of policy analyst, program analyst, orprogram planner. A review of four policy and programreview units in three agencies indicates that policy reviewactivity is being applied to a wide range of issues andcoordination responsibilities (table 4).


Planning activities—State governments have engaged insome form of forest planning activity since the early 1900s,although the character of these activities and the numberand type of State government organizations involved inthem have changed dramatically over the years. Earlyplanning efforts were focused largely on protecting forestsfrom fire, insects, and diseases and on promoting invest-ments in timber as a forest use. By the mid 1980s, State-initiated forest planning activities ranged from the devel-opment of comprehensive statewide forest resource plansto the preparation of plans required by forest practice

regulatory programs, and from broad water quality plansto plans for forest-based rural economic development.Moreover, forest resource planning activities, which throughthe late 1960s were largely the domain of a State’s leadforestry agency (division of forestry, bureau of forestry,forestry commission), had by 2000 become the province ofmany units of State government. In 2000, each Statereportedly had 8 to 10 executive branch units of Stategovernment (cabinet, sub-cabinet, governing commission)that engaged in some form of planning activity focused onforests (Ellefson and others 2001, 2002). Certain federalstatutes require that State government agencies developmultisector plans to address possible impacts of forestryactivities on water, air, wildlife, and the like (for example,Clean Water Act of 1987, Coastal Zone Management Actof 1972). The Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978also has done much to encourage lead forestry agencies ofState government to develop plans that focus on statewideforest resource conditions (U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service 1980).

The capacity of State governments to engage in planningactivities focused on forests varies greatly. States operatewithin different planning contexts (large state budgetsversus small State budgets, large forest area versus smallforest area), take different approaches to planning (issuedriven, goal driven, or adaptive planning), and pursue dif-ferent goals, objectives, and strategies (Gray and Ellefson1987). Some States (Minnesota, for example) seek todevelop broad strategic plans that formulate a vision,discuss obstacles to attaining the vision, and present a planfor dealing with such obstacles. Other States tend to focuson the specifics of land use and management, especiallywith respect to the forestland that is directly owned andmanaged by State governments (State forests). In yet otherStates, the aggregate of forest plans prepared by privateforest owners as a requirement for participation in cost-share programs (Forestry Incentives Program), dedicatedeasement programs (Forest Legacy Program), or a State’sforest practice regulatory programs (rules guiding planpreparation) become, in a sense, plans for a State’s pri-vately owned forests. Some States control land develop-ment generally by means of statutes that manage growth(for example, Vermont, Florida, Maine, Oregon); in theseStates, forests are subject to planning both in the sensethat certain activities cannot occur within designated forestareas and in the sense that forests cannot be converted tononforest uses (Wickersham 1994).

Statewide forest resource planning programs were activelyunderway in 47 States in 1982 (McCann and Ellefson1982), while in 1985, the Council of State Governmentsdetermined that 29 States had completed first-generationplans and were in the process of implementing them (Cole1985). In 2003, 45 of 50 States were determined to be

��

Tabl

e 4—

Fed

eral

age

ncy

unit

s w

ith

polic

y an

d pr

ogra

m r

evie

w a

nd e

valu

atio

n ca

paci

ties

, by

unit

nam

e, m

issi

on, s

taff

, and

exa

mpl

e an

alys

es (

2001

)

Age

ncy

poli

cy a

naly

sis

Sta

ffin

g le

vels

and

revi

ew u

nit

Mis

sion

or

resp

onsi

bili

ties

and

assi

gnm

ents

Exa

mpl

e re

view

s an

d an

alys

es

Pol

icy

Ana

lysi

s S

taff

,B

ring

exi

stin

g or

em

ergi

ng p

olic

y qu

esti

ons

Nin

e po

licy

ana

lyst

sE

valu

atio

n of

Sta

te p

aym

ents

fro

m n

atio

nal

Pro

gram

s an

d L

egis

lati

on,

to t

he a

tten

tion

of

agen

cy l

eade

rshi

p;an

d tw

o su

ppor

t st

aff

fore

st r

ecei

pts;

rol

e of

pub

lic

and

priv

ate

USD

A F

ores

t S

ervi

cepr

ovid

e qu

alit

y an

alys

is o

n as

sign

ed p

olic

yre

crea

tion

ent

erpr

ises

; an

alys

is o

f w

ater

ques

tion

s an

d pr

ogra

m e

valu

atio

ns i

n a

reso

urce

pol

icy

and

the

man

agem

ent

ofti

mel

y an

d ob

ject

ive

man

ner.

Coo

rdin

ate

fore

sts;

ass

essm

ent

of p

olic

y op

tion

s fo

rpo

licy

ana

lyse

s w

ith

appr

opri

ate

part

ies

For

est

Ser

vice

par

tici

pati

on i

n fo

rest

pro

duct

sw

ithi

n an

d ou

tsid

e go

vern

men

t, in

clud

ing

cert

ific

atio

n; a

nd e

valu

atio

n of

age

ncy

anal

yses

of

agen

cy-w

ide

dire

ctio

n an

dfu

ndin

g hi

stor

y, i

nclu

ding

spe

ndin

g tr

ends

stan

dard

s fo

r ec

onom

ic e

ffic

ienc

yan

d no

napp

ropr

iate

d fu

ndin

g.ev

alua

tion

and

eco

nom

ic i

mpa

ct a

sses

smen

t.

Off

ice

of P

olic

y, E

cono

mic

s,S

uppo

rt a

genc

y’s

mis

sion

thr

ough

eco

nom

icS

taff

ass

igne

d to

fou

rD

evel

opm

ent

of g

uide

line

s fo

r pr

epar

ing

and

Inno

vati

on,

anal

ysis

and

pro

mot

ion

of i

nnov

atio

n ne

eded

maj

or o

ffic

es o

r ce

nter

sec

onom

ic a

naly

ses,

ass

essm

ent

of U

.S.

U.S

. E

nvir

onm

enta

lto

ach

ieve

bet

ter,

mor

e co

st-e

ffec

tive

expe

rien

ces

wit

h ec

onom

ic i

ncen

tive

s fo

rP

rote

ctio

n A

genc

yen

viro

nmen

tal

and

publ

ic h

ealt

h pr

otec

tion

.pr

otec

ting

the

env

iron

men

t, an

d re

view

of

opti

ons

for

publ

ic i

nvol

vem

ent

inen

viro

nmen

tal

perm

its.

Pla

nnin

g an

d E

valu

atio

nP

rovi

de c

ouns

el,

coor

dina

tion

, ed

ucat

ion,

Ten

poli

cy a

naly

sts

plus

Eva

luat

ion

of a

genc

y po

licy

opt

ions

(fo

rS

taff

, Div

isio

n of

Pol

icy

and

liai

son

serv

ices

to

the

agen

cy a

nd s

erve

supp

ort

staf

fD

irec

tor’

s O

rder

s) f

or o

zone

-dep

leti

ngan

d D

irec

tive

s M

anag

e-as

coo

rdin

atin

g po

int

for

inte

rnal

and

subs

tanc

es p

hase

out

plan

, ap

plic

abil

ity

of t

hem

ent,

and

Div

isio

n of

exte

rnal

cus

tom

ers,

inc

ludi

ng t

he p

ubli

cM

igra

tory

Bir

d T

reat

y A

ct t

o F

eder

alE

cono

mic

s, U

.S.

Fis

h an

dan

d ot

her

gove

rnm

enta

l bo

dies

req

uiri

ngag

enci

es,

and

deve

lopm

ent

of o

ptio

ns f

or t

heW

ildl

ife

Ser

vice

assi

stan

ce.

mis

sion

, go

als,

and

pur

pose

s of

the

Nat

iona

lW

ildl

ife

Ref

uge

Sys

tem

.

Ove

rsig

ht a

nd E

valu

atio

nC

ondu

ct a

ctiv

itie

s to

ass

ess

qual

ity,

Abo

ut 3

0 po

licy

and

Dev

elop

rat

iona

l ap

proa

ches

to

agen

cyS

taff

, D

ivis

ion

of O

pera

tion

sac

coun

tabi

lity

, ef

fect

iven

ess,

and

con

sist

ency

rela

ted

prog

ram

ana

lyst

sre

spon

sibi

liti

es r

egar

ding

the

Nat

iona

lM

anag

emen

t an

d O

vers

ight

,in

the

del

iver

y of

con

serv

atio

n as

sist

ance

as

plus

sup

port

sta

ffE

nvir

onm

enta

l P

olic

y A

ct, a

sses

s fi

eld

staf

f-O

ffic

e of

Str

ateg

ic P

lann

ing

defi

ned

by l

aws,

Exe

cuti

ve o

rder

s, r

ules

,pr

epar

ed d

esig

ns,

plan

s, a

nd s

peci

fica

tion

s fo

ran

d A

ccou

ntab

ilit

y, U

SD

Are

gula

tion

s, a

nd p

olic

y so

as

to i

mpr

ove

the

inst

alla

tion

of

site

-spe

cifi

c pr

acti

ces,

and

Nat

ural

Res

ourc

es C

onse

r-us

e an

d m

anag

emen

t of

nat

ural

res

ourc

es.

eval

uate

the

se f

or c

onsi

sten

cy (

1) w

ith

the

vati

on S

ervi

ce (

also

Div

isio

nag

ency

’s m

issi

on a

nd s

trat

egic

pla

n, (

2) w

ith

of B

udge

t P

lann

ing

and

the

prod

ucts

and

ser

vice

s de

velo

ped

byA

naly

sis

and

Div

isio

n of

coop

erat

ing

inst

itut

es a

nd c

ente

rs,

and

(3)

Str

ateg

ic P

erfo

rman

cew

ith

coll

abor

atin

g sc

ient

ists

.P

lann

ing)

.

��

involved in a variety of forest resource planning processes,such as State-administered forest planning (87 percent ofStates), comprehensive statewide forest resource planning(51 percent of States), agency operational planning (84percent of States), issue- and problem-oriented planning(82 percent of States), and land-use allocation planning(22 percent of States). States spent, on average, $433,000in 2003 to support forest resource planning activities,although the majority of States spent less than $250,000(19 States invested less than $50,000, 11 States more than$1 million). Planning activities required the professionaltalent of an average of 4.4 full-time-equivalent staff perState. Half the States regularly seek the public’s perspec-tive during the development of comprehensive statewideplans. Planning activities were undertaken primarily tosecure a clearer understanding of agency long-term direc-tions and to improve the quality of management andadministrative structures (Kilgore and Salk 2003).

Statewide forest plans have been prepared by nearly allStates during the last 20 years (see Indicator 49, table 5,page 36). However, many States have not updated plansthey prepared in the 1980s (for example, Connecticut,Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Ohio), while others haverevised their plan or substituted a similar planningdocument or group of planning documents for it (forexample, Colorado, Iowa, Vermont, and Wisconsin). ThoseStates that have discarded the policy of preparing atraditional statewide forest plan have focused theirplanning efforts on specific forest areas or ownerships (forexample, Indiana’s Strategy for State Forest LandProperties, Alaska’s Haines and Tanana Valley State forestplans, Washington’s State land plan); more inclusivenatural resource plans prepared by more broadly chargednatural resource agencies (for example, IllinoisDepartment of Conservation Strategic Plan); strategicfocus involving all forest ownerships and managementactivities (for example, Minnesota’s Forest ResourcesCouncil’s Vision, Goals, and Actions for Minnesota’sForests; Kansas and Nebraska’s sets of plans for variousoperations or programs which include fire, stewardship,and urban and community forestry); plans structuredaccording to criteria and indicators of forest sustainability(for example, Oregon’s First Approximation Report,Hawaii’s Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable ForestManagement in Hawaii); policy directive documentsadopted by agencies or governing boards (California’sBoard of Forestry’s Policy Document); and plans for spe-cific forest management activities (California’s Fire Plan,Hawaii’s Watershed Protection Plan).

A nationwide review conducted in 1987 found that allStates had governmental institutions with statutory auth-ority to undertake forest planning, and that support ofadministering agencies and various client groups for

planning (such as legislators, forest industries, environ-mental groups, State government budget directors) wasconsiderable and increased in strength as planning activi-ties progressed (Gray and Ellefson 1987). Most of theseplanning arrangements were promoted by the USDA ForestService under authorities established by the CooperativeForest Management Act of 1978 (USDA Forest Service1980). Among the specifically identified benefits of plan-ning were greater sense of long-term program direction,increased coordination among disparate programs, greaterpublic awareness of forest conditions, more programaccountability, and increased political support for theforestry programs of State government (Gray and Ellefson1987).

Assessment activities—State governments have the insti-tutional capacity and statutory authority to undertake com-prehensive assessments of conditions affecting the use,management, and protection of forests. State governmentagencies conduct both one-time assessments of importantissues and ongoing assessments of resource, economic, orsocial conditions affecting forests. Although there hasbeen no systematic and comprehensive review of assess-ment programs implemented by States, the number of suchprograms is probably in the hundreds. Examples of recentassessments focused on important issues include thoseinvolving proposed expansions of chip or particleboardindustries. At least three States—Minnesota, Missouri, andNorth Carolina—have produced comprehensive assess-ments of resource and economic conditions in relation tothese industries (Missouri: Chip Mill Report to the Governorof Missouri, Governor’s Advisory Committee on ChipMills [2000]; North Carolina: Economic and EcologicalImpacts of Wood Chip Production in North Carolina,Report of the Southern Center for Sustainable Forests[2000]; and Minnesota: Generic Environmental ImpactStatement on Timber Harvesting and Forest Management,Minnesota Environmental Quality Board [1992]). Otherexamples of State assessment capacity are Washington’sNatural Heritage Program Geographic Information System(rare plant species and endangered ecosystems), theVermont Geographic Information System (rare, threatened,and endangered species), the Pennsylvania BiologicalSurvey (formal system defining status of plants andanimals), the Virginia Forest Resource Assessment (assess-ment of implications of population growth and land usechanges for forest resources), the Illinois Critical TrendsAssessment (statewide and regional environmental condi-tions), the Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership(develops and disseminates high-quality natural resourceinformation), the Arizona Land Resource InformationSystem (statewide multipurpose spatial database ofresource extent and conditions), and the California Fireand Resource Assessment Program (assesses amount,extent, and condition of forests and rangelands). Many of

��

these State assessments focus on large ecosystem-boundedregions within a State.

State governments also have the institutional capacity toundertake assessments as part of efforts to understand theenvironmental consequences of certain proposed actions.State authority to prepare environmental impact statementsis typically set forth in statutes, Executive orders, or admin-istrative regulations. By the early 1980s, 60 percent ofStates had established these authorities, although how andto whom they are applied varies considerably from Stateto State (Fisher and Phillips 1983) (see Indicator 49, table6, page 38). For example, California’s authority applies togovernment and some private actions, Kentucky’s authorityis limited to certain types of development (power plantsiting), and Minnesota’s authority can apply to broad geo-graphic areas (generic environmental impact statements).Many of the environmental impact assessments conductedvia environmental impact statement processes have a focuson forest conditions (for example, Minnesota’s GenericEnvironmental Impact Statement on Timber Harvestingand Management). It is not known exactly how often andin what manner such laws have been applied in relation toforest resources in the United States.

Policy and program review activities—State agenciesoften have institutional capacity to undertake policy andprogram reviews of important forest resource issues orprograms. However, there is little information on the extentand focus of such capacity at the State level. Usually theforest resource policy and programs review function is notassigned to a specific stand-alone unit within State govern-ment. Typically, it is spread among many subunits of anagency (for example, fire management, resource manage-ment), or combined with administrative functions involv-ing personnel, budgeting, legal reviews, and legislativeliaison activities, or is performed by a policy and programunit at a higher organizational level. At the cabinet orsubcabinet level of State government, about 15 States haveplanning or policy and program review units, and thesevery likely have some responsibility to review forestresource programs administered by lower-level forestresource units or divisions (Ellefson and others 2001).Examples are the Division of Environmental Planning andManagement of the California State Lands Commission;the Office of Planning and Assessment, Indiana Departmentof Environmental Management; the Office of Planning andDevelopment, Connecticut Department of EnvironmentalProtection; and the Office of Strategic Planning and Policy,Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management.Policy review units specifically identified as part of aState’s lead forestry agency are very few. They include theFire and Resource Assessment Unit (23 employees) of theCalifornia Department of Forestry and Fire Protection,which, in addition to assessing forests and rangelands, also

identifies and analyzes alternative management and policyguidelines, and the Division of Resource Policy, OregonDepartment of Forestry, which is responsible for programevaluation, resources planning, public affairs, andlegislative coordination.


Local and regional governmental jurisdictions are knownto engage in planning, assessment, and policy and pro-gram review activities. Unfortunately, no comprehensivenational assessment of this capacity has been made. Localgovernments undertake forest planning and related activi-ties if the forests in their jurisdictions are large and locallyimportant. States that are known to have local governmentswith planning capabilities are California, Massachusetts,Minnesota, Oregon, and Wisconsin. In some States, regionalauthorities conduct planning relevant to forests (for exam-ple, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and the CoastalCommission in California). In 2000, more than 400 small-scale local government watershed initiatives (districts)were identified in the western United States (3 times the1995 total) (Natural Resources Law Center 1998, 2000).These initiatives often involve forested watersheds.


Forestry and related public and private organizations in theUnited States have a long history of institutional capacityfor engaging in forest planning and assessment activities,and for undertaking periodic reviews of forest resourcepolicies and programs. The capacity of such organizationsfor planning, assessment, and policy review may besummarized as follows:

• Private individuals and organizations represent importantinstitutional capacity for carrying out planning, assess-ment, and policy review activities focused on forestsand related natural resources. These individuals andorganizations are diverse, as are the planning, assess-ment, and policy review activities they carry out. Theextent to which this capacity is actually being used toproduce meaningful plans that are implemented effec-tively is largely unknown.

• Public forest resource agencies at all levels engage insome form of planning, assessment, and policy reviewactivities. In general, there appears to be ample authorityfor planning, assessment, and policy review, althoughthe institutional capacity for exercising these authoritiesvaries widely within and between different levels ofgovernment.

• Institutional planning capacity responds to both statutesor administrative directives that require direct and exclu-sive consideration of forests, and to statutes that requiredevelopment of multi-sector plans for resources such as

��

air, water, or wildlife. Multisector authority tends tofragment institutional capacity and the administrationof forest activities rather than to integrate considerationof forest values.

• Agencies of many types and with many different respon-sibilities for forests engage in planning, assessment, andpolicy review activities. In only a limited number ofcases is there evidence of concerted and effective effortto coordinate these capacities and activities within andbetween governments.

• Agencies can produce strategic program plans as well asland use and management plans. In some cases, theseplans are essentially aggregations of individual plansand assessments prepared for specific individual forestownerships or specific geographic areas. Plans that areassembled in this way are commonly produced byagencies of State governments.

• Some agencies, especially State government agencies,appear to be reducing their participation in the develop-ment of statewide strategic program plans. The state-wide forest resource plans of State governments arefrequently very much out of date, and are often beingreplaced by regional or issue-oriented plans and byplans that are driven by criteria and indicators.

• Although some agencies separate planning, assessment,and policy review functions organizationally, thesefunctions most often are combined as a single activityassigned to a single administrative unit. Few Statesassign exclusive responsibility for policy analysis andreview to a specific administrative unit.

• Investments in institutions that have responsibility forplanning, assessment, and policy review activitiesinvolving forests are highly variable in amount andregularity. They are determined by the importance ofthe forests being managed and by the willingness ofagency leadership to promote the importance andusefulness of planning, assessment, and policy reviewactivities.

• Many agencies devote substantial levels of resources(substantial finances, advanced analytical methods, andhighly educated professionals) to their planning, assess-ment, and policy review activities. In general, Federalagencies invest more heavily in these activities than doState, regional, or local government agencies.

• Assessment activities are very often one-time effortsthat respond to major issues involving controversy overproposed resource development or management. How-ever, some assessment activities have become monitor-ing initiatives that are conducted on a continuous basis(such as air-quality monitoring) or at periodic intervals(such as forest inventory and analysis).

Issues and Trends

The literature identifies a number of issues and trends inforest planning, assessment, and policy review activitiesthat are worth noting in the context of institutional capa-city. Examples of this literature (from which the followingissues are drawn) are: Bryson 1988, Hardt 1997, Sampleand LeMaster 1995, U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service 1990 and 2002.

• Agencies are increasingly seeking the flexibility neces-sary to anticipate and take advantage of importantopportunities represented by forests, and are more andmore inclined to focus forest planning processes onthese opportunities. This change in emphasis is makingplanning less technical in its emphasis and more focusedon the preferences that flow from public debate anddiscussion.

• Clients of forest resource programs are increasinglyinvolved (through various collaborative processes) in thedevelopment of forest plans and in the conduct ofassessments and policy reviews. This is part of a generalpublic expectation for greater interaction in decision-making with government agencies.

• Institutional capacity for conducting planning, assess-ment, and policy activities is increasingly fragmented,as are the agencies responsible for conducting suchactivities. This diversity in institutional capacity andlegal authorities often results from the need to meet thedemands of many different and sometimes competingclient groups. There is increased recognition of theimportance of coordinating the planning, assessment,and policy review activities of multiple agencies.

• Planning, assessment, and policy analysis have becomemore complex, costly, and time-consuming. The desireto address all management uncertainties with intensiveinformation gathering and analysis is of growingconcern.

• Institutional capacity to prepare forest plans and assess-ments increasingly recognizes planning boundaries asdefined by scientifically defined, ecologically basedgeographic boundaries or the political (State) boundar-ies of large multi-State regions. This trend is driven inlarge measure by an interest in ensuring the physicalsustainability of large forested areas.

• Approaches based on criteria and indicators are becomingincreasingly common. Such approaches to planning,assessment, and policy analysis provide a structure toguide program direction and accountability, and providedirection for the gathering of information and itssubsequent management.

��

• The technical, budgetary, and fiscal practicability offorest plans is increasingly being emphasized, as ismonitoring of progress in achieving plan goals andobjectives. These trends are largely a response to thepublic’s skepticism about the effectiveness of govern-ment programs and the public’s interest in greateraccountability of government.

Gathering and analyzing information that can be directlyuseful in dealing with issues and problems is receivinggreater emphasis. This trend is a response to cost concernsand to the need for information that will serve a widervariety of purposes (such as planning, monitoring, publicrelations, and policy development). Approaches that treatinformation gathering as an isolated technical exercise arebeing de-emphasized.


Specification

The variables or combination of variables that can be usedto describe institutional capacity to undertake planning,assessment, and policy review activities, and the agenciesand organizations involved in these functions, are numerous.It is often difficult to determine exactly what informationto gather, analyze, and present to make a useful picture ofinstitutional capacity.

The National Association of State Foresters has surveyedState forestry agency information about the institutionalsetting for planning, assessment, and policy reviews involv-ing forests (National Association of State Foresters 1999).The Association reported that 5 States had abundant infor-mation about institutional capacity for planning and relatedactivities, that 12 States had sufficient information of thatkind, and that the rest had very little or none. Seven Statesreported that the quality of their information was excellent,11 that it was adequate, and 6 that it was poor.

The kinds of information that could be used to clarify thecapacity of institutions to conduct planning, resourceassessment, and policy review activities are as follows:

• Extent-of-activity information—Comprehensive infor-mation about the institutional capacity for planning,assessment, and policy analysis activities at variouslevels of government has not been assembled systemati-cally. What are the requirements for conducting suchactivities? Who is responsible for conducting suchactivities? Are there different requirements at differentlevels of government? Is there consistency across theserequirements? Are there legal and constitutional issuesat stake between governments? What is the status oflocal planning and zoning initiatives? To what extent do

planning, assessment, and policy analysis activitiesoccur in the private sector?

• Coordination information—Information about require-ments for coordination of planning, assessment, andpolicy analysis activities among and between institutionsat various levels of government has not been assembled.What coordination is required? Do the requirementsaddress the need for cross-sectoral coordinated planningand policy review? Do they ensure that the cumulativeresults of local and regional planning will be consistentwith national plans and vice versa? Do they allow incor-poration of ad hoc planning activities occurring at varioustimes and undertaken by various levels of government?

• Procedure and specification information—Informationabout the procedures to be employed in planning,assessment, and policy review activities undertaken byvarious institutions has not been assembled. Do currentstatutory requirements prescribe procedures for plan-ning, assessment, and policy review? Are these proce-dures specified in detail, or in a broad framework thatallows for administrative discretion and flexibility inrulemaking procedures? Is the full intent of the existinglaws that address planning, assessment, and policyreview activities expressed in current regulations andpractices? Do national planning requirements allow forregional and subregional planning? Do requirementsspecify the need for planning leadership? Do they giveguidance to such leadership?

• Cumulative effect information—Information aboutrequirements for effective institutional linkages betweennational, regional, and subregional planning, assessment,and policy analysis activities has not been gathered. Arethe accumulated results of planning, assessments, andanalysis at various levels consistent with principles ofsustainable forest management?

• Investment and incentive information—Informationabout resources devoted to planning, assessments, andpolicy analysis activities has not been assembled. Whatis the magnitude of investments in planning, assessment,and policy review activities? Are there legal and admin-istrative processes for allocating resources to theseactivities, and are the resources so allocated sufficient?Are there legal or fiscal provisions for encouragingthese activities, and especially for encouraging cross-sectoral planning?

• Effectiveness information—Comprehensive informationabout the effectiveness of planning, assessment, andpolicy analysis activities has not been compiled, exceptin some very limited cases. Are there legal or admini-strative requirements to determine the efficiency andeffectiveness of these activities? What are appropriatemeasures of success? Are there alternative, more effec-tive ways to carry out planning, assessment, and policyreview activities?

��

• Monitoring information—Information about monitoringcapacity associated with planning, assessment, andpolicy analysis activities has not been compiled syste-matically. Are there requirements to monitor the resultsof these activities and to adapt them to changingcircumstances?

Recommendations

The information adequacy issues we have just discussedmust be resolved if we are to effectively assess institu-tional capacity to conduct planning, assessment, andpolicy analysis and review activities as described inIndicator 54. The following actions seem appropriate:

• Comprehensive review of capacity—Conduct a compre-hensive review of current organizations that haveauthority, direction, and resources to undertake forestresource planning, assessment, and policy analysis andreview activities. The review should address each ofthese activities as they occur at Federal, State, and locallevels of government, and should be designed to correctthe information deficiencies we have described. In addi-tion, a systematic review of private-sector capability tocarry out these activities should be initiated.

• Responsibility for conducting review—Assign responsi-bility for conducting continuous reviews of planning,assessment, and policy analysis and review capacities toa specific current or new administrative unit locatedwithin a Federal agency (such as the USDA ForestService’s State and Private Forestry unit, or the USDAForest Service’s National Forest System); a college oruniversity; or a nonprofit organization engaged in policyreview activities (e.g., Resources for the Future, Inc. orthe Pinchot Institute for Conservation). This responsi-bility should be assigned to an organization that has aproven track record in conducting analyses and reviewsof programs at various levels of government and theprivate sector.

• Devote resources to review—Invest sufficient resourcesin the review to provide the type and quantity of infor-mation necessary to dramatically improve our under-standing of current abilities to plan, assess, and analyzeconditions important to sustainable forestry.



Indicator 54 does not provide clear definitions of themajor activities to be examined. The terms and phrases“forest-related planning,” “assessment,” “policy review,”and “cross-sectoral planning and coordination” are poorlydefined. The specification problem is complicated further

by the introduction of new words and phrases (for exam-ple, “policy planning”). Each of these words or phrasessupposedly embodies an agreed-to set of concepts andprinciples, but this is not always the case. Also, it is unclearwhat units are to be included under the umbrella phrase“institutional capacity.” We recommend that the indicatorbe reworded to read: “. . . provides for periodic planning,assessment, and policy reviews that embrace various forestvalues and fosters the coordination of forest plans andassessments with other sectors.”


Indicators 54 and 49 are very similar in their coverage.Indicator 54 focuses on institutional capacity and Indicator49 focuses on legal capacity, but institutional and legalcapacities are very closely related. Assessment of informa-tion resources might be facilitated if Indicators 49 and 54were merged.

Indicator 54 overlaps with other indicators that relate toconcepts involving laws and values, public participation,funding, and planning. More specifically, it overlaps withIndicators 38 (investment in forests), 39 (investment inresearch), 50 (public participation), 52 (special values), 53(public involvement and education), 60 (information anddata), 61 (forest inventories), 62 (foreign country monitor-ing), 64 (value integrative methods), 65 (new technolo-gies), and 66 (human intervention impacts).

Literature Cited

Birch, T.W. 1996. Private forest landowners of the United States: 1994.Resour. Bull. NE-134. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 183 p.

Bryson, J.M. 1988. Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organiza-tions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. 311 p.

Carpenter, C.A. 2002. Conservation and management of forests in thenorthern United States: a first approximation report. Durham, NH: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeast Area, State andPrivate Forestry. [Not paged].

Coggins, G.C.; Wilkenson, C.F.; Leshy, J.D. 1993. Federal public landand resources law. Westbury, NY: The Foundation Press. 1,092 p.

Cole, L.A. 1985. Forest resource planning: state of the States. Lexington,KY: Council of State Governments. [Not paged].

Council on Environmental Quality. 1980. Environmental quality: 1979:annual report to the President. Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office. 365 p.

Dolgin, E.L.; Guilbert, T.G.P. 1974. Federal environmental law. St. Paul,MN: West Publishing. 1,600 p.

Ellefson, P.V. 1985. Forest sector plans: coordination with nonforestryinterests and national plans for development. In: Proceedings, ninthWorld Forestry Congress (Mexico City, Mexico). Rome, Italy: UnitedNations Food and Agriculture Organization, Department of Forestry:220-240.

��

Ellefson, P.V.; Cheng, A.S.; Moulton, R.J. 1995. Regulation of privateforest practices by State governments. Sta. Bull. 605-1995. St. Paul,MN: Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. 225 p.

Ellefson, P.V.; Moulton, R.J.; Kilgore, M.A. 2001. Programs and organi-zations affecting the use, management, and protection of forests: anassessment of agencies located across the organizational landscape ofState governments. St. Paul, MN: Department of Forest Resources,University of Minnesota. 119 p.


Esseks, J.D.; Moulton, R.J. 2000. Evaluating the forest stewardshipprogram through a national survey of participating forestland owners.De Kalb, IL: Northern Illinois University, Center for GovernmentStudies. 113 p.

Fisher, B.D.; Phillips, M.J. 1983. Legal environment of business. St. Paul,MN: West Publishing. 893 p.

Goble, D.D.; Freyfogle, E.T. 2002. Federal wildlife statutes. New York:Foundation Press. 664 p.


Greeley, A.W. 1966. Integration of forest development plans and nationaldevelopment plans: administration, operational problems and possiblesolutions. In: Proceedings, sixth World Forestry Congress. Rome, Italy:United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Department ofForestry. [Not paged].

Hardt, S.W. 1997. Federal land-use planning and its impact on resourcemanagement decisions. In: Public Land Law II. Denver, CO: RockyMountain Mineral Law Foundation: 4-1 to 4-55.

Johnson, K.N.; Swanson, F.; Herring, M.; Greene, S. 1999. Bioregionalassessments: science at the crossroads of management policy. Covelo,CA: Island Press. 398 p.

Kilgore, M.A.; Salk, R. 2003. An assessment of State forest resourcesplanning in the northeast United States. Staff Pap. 170. St. Paul, MN:University of Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources. 70 p.

Larsen, G.A.; Holden, D. Kapaldo [and others]. 1990. Synthesis of thecritique of land management planning. FS-452. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 24 p. Vol. I.

Mansfield, M.E. 1993. A primer of public land law. Washington LawReview. 68(4):801-857.

McCann, B.D.; Ellefson, P.V. 1982. Organizational patterns and admini-strative procedures for State forest resources planning. Staff Pap. 31. St.Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources.63 p.



National Association of State Foresters. 1999. First approximationassessment report. http://ww.stateforesters.org/SFstats.html. [Dateaccessed: November 2001].

Natural Resources Law Center. 1998. State role in western watershedinitiatives. Res. Rep. 18. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, NaturalResources Law Center. 96 p.

Natural Resources Law Center. 2000. Watershed source handbook. Res.Rep. 24. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, Natural Resources LawCenter. 454 p. + app.

Office of Technology Assessment. 1990. Forest Service planning: settingstrategic direction under RPA. OTA-F-411, U.S. Congress. Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 140 p.

Office of Technology Assessment. 1992a. Forest Service planning: sum-mary. OTA-F-506, U.S. Congress. Washington, D.C: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office. 22 p.

Office of Technology Assessment. 1992b. Forest Service planning:accommodating uses, producing outputs, and sustaining ecosystems.OTA-F-505, U.S. Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office. 206 p.

Plater, Z.J.B.; Abrahams, R.J.; Golfarb, W.; Graham, R.L. 1998. Environ-mental law and society: nature, law and society. St. Paul, MN: WestPublishing Company. 1,034 p.

Sample, V.A.; LeMaster, D.C. 1995. Natural resource strategic planning:components and processes. PR-1095. Washington, DC: PinchotInstitute for Conservation: [Not paged].

Schoenbaum, T.J.; Rosenburg, R.H. 1996. Environmental policy law.Westbury, NY: Foundation Press. 1,012 p.

Teeguarden, D.E. 1990. National forest planning under RPA/NMFA: whatneeds fixing? FS-462. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agricul-ture, Forest Service. 66 p. Vol. 11.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1980. A guide to state-wide forest resource planning. NA-TP-6. Radnor, PA: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, NortheastArea. [Not paged].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1990. Critique of landmanagement planning. FS 452–462. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service. [Not paged]. Vols. 1–11.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1999. Report of theForest Service: fiscal year 1998. http://www.fs.fed.us/pl/pdb/98report/.[Date accessed: November 2001]

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2000a. USDA ForestService strategic plan (2000 revision). FS-682. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 73 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2000b. National ForestSystem land resources management planning: final rule. 36 CFR Pts217, 219. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 69 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2002. The process pre-dicament: how statutory, regulatory and administrative factors affectnational forest management. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service. 40 p.

��

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.2000. Natural Resources Conservation Service Strategic Plan: 2000-2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, NaturalResources Conservation Service. 49 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2000a.BLM manual: land use planning (1601). http://www.blm.gov. [Dateaccessed: August 2001].

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2000b.BLM land use planning handbook (H-1601-1). http://www.blm.gov.[Date accessed: August 2001].

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1998. NationalPark Service: park planning. Director’s Order 2. http://www.nps.gov/pub_aff/index.htm. [Date accessed: June 2001].

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 2000. NationalPark Service strategic plan: FY 2001-2005. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 47 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 2001. NationalPark Service: conservation planning, environmental impact analysis,and decisionmaking. Directors Order 12. http://www.nps.gov/pub_aff/index.htm. [Date accessed: June 2001].

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. EPA strategic plan. EPA-190-R—00-002. http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/epastrat.pdf. [Dateaccessed: November 2001].

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001a. Fish and Wildlife Service strategicplan: 2000-2005. http://www.fws.gov. [Date accessed: November2001].

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001b. Refuge planning. Land use andmanagement series. Service manual, parts 600-699. http://www.fws.gov.[Date accessed: November 2001].

West Publishing Company. 1997. Selected Federal environmental lawstatutes. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company. 1,398 p.

Wickersham, J.H. 1994. The quiet revolution continues: the emergingnew model for State growth management statutes. Harvard Environ-mental Law Review. 18: 489-618.

Williams, J.E. 1987. Planning approaches in the Bureau of LandManagement. Trends. 24(2): 24-27.

��

The full text of Indicator 55 is as follows: Extent to whichthe institutional framework supports the conservation andsustainable management of forests, including the capacityto develop and maintain human resource skills acrossrelevant disciplines (Montreal Process Working Group2003).


Forest sustainability and conservation are possible only ifpersons engaged in the development and implementation offorest resource policies and programs possess the necessaryknowledge and skills. Of special importance to sustainabil-ity is access to a broad range of disciplines (for example,economics, statistics, ecology) and resource orientations(for example, timber, water, recreation, wildlife). Theseskills are developed by means of formal educationalprograms, professional work experiences, and access tocontinuing education opportunities. Relevant educationalprograms are made available by a number of organizationsand are provided in various forms, including training byprofessional societies, continuing education programs,extension outreach programs, and professional technicalassistance programs (Montreal Process Working Group2003, Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee2000).

Useful data for measuring institutional capacity to accom-plish Indicator 55 include compilations and descriptions oflaws and programs that promote conditions consideredessential to maintaining human resource skills across rele-vant disciplines. Examples of potentially useful informationare number of professionals by discipline (for example,economics, statistics, ecology) and resource orientation(for example, timber, water, recreation, wildlife); numberof degrees confirmed by formal educational institutions(universities, colleges, technical schools); and continuingeducation offerings by subject, enrollment, and manner ofpresentation. Various other kinds of information can alsobe of importance, such as the number of professionalsengaged directly in land management activities by disci-pline (or resource orientation) per unit of forested area(Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee 2000).

Indicator 55 suggests various concepts and principles thatneed to be addressed. For the purposes of this review,human resource skills can be defined as interdisciplinaryprofessional knowledge and insight required to developand apply principles of sustainable forestry, and acrossrelevant disciplines can be defined as encompassing variousdisciplines (for example, economics, statistics, ecology)and various resources (timber, water, recreation, wildlife)important to forest sustainability. The indicator implicitlyacknowledges the importance of information describingintegration across disciplines and across resources, as wellas information demonstrating the integration of biophysicaland social subject matter.


Human resources and the talent, ingenuity, and creativitythey represent are critical to the sustainability of forestsand the communities that depend on them. Ecological,economic, and social skills are required, and these skillsmust be integrated effectively. Both the quality and thequantity of human resources are significant, since both canhave a direct bearing on the amount and quality of benefitsprovided by forest and related natural resources.

Development of human resources begins with early experi-ences and education and continues through a lifetime ofexposure to various experiences and learning opportunities.Much of the development of skills relevant to the manage-ment of forest resources occurs as part of formal educa-tional processes at universities, colleges, or technicalschools. The skills and knowledge developed in these set-tings are maintained and increased by lifelong continuingeducation and direct professional work experience. Mostof these opportunities for learning are provided or sup-ported by employers and educational institutions.

The rapid pace of scientific discovery in the natural sciencesand the continuing improvement in understanding of humansystems and processes have combined to produce a sub-stantial and dynamic body of knowledge that is relevant tothe sustainability of forests. This knowledge serves as afoundation for the decisions made by forest resource pro-fessionals. For this reason, it is important that professionalsbe exposed to this knowledge base on a continuing basis,absorbing knowledge about a variety of disciplines impor-tant to informed assessments and judgments regardingforest sustainability. Moreover, the occurrence of new andunforseen developments affecting forest sustainability


Human Resource Skills (Indicator 55)


��

makes it imperative that this foundation of knowledge isadded to and updated continually. This enlargement andupdating of knowledge is essential if management decisionsare to be relevant and forest resources are to be sustained.


Professional Workforce Capacity

Comprehensive and meaningful information about the pro-fessional workforce relevant to forest sustainability has notbeen compiled. The available information often relatesonly to certain categories of employers (for example, aState agency) or to certain types of forestry professionals(for example, professionals engaged in research). Conflict-ing definitions of “expert,” “authority,” or “professional”are invariably at the core of the information problem. Whohas knowledge and skill that is relevant to forest sustain-ability, and what portion of the Nation’s workforce shouldbe classified as having the professional skills required toensure the sustainability of forests? Some suggest that therelevance of professions to sustainability should be deter-mined by the extent to which professionals focus oncertain resources associated with forests (for example,professional timber manager, professional watershed mana-ger), while others suggest that the professional sphereshould include all those who hold professional degrees andare engaged in matters involving forests (for example,meteorologists engaged in fire weather forecasting). Alsoadding to information problems concerning professionalcapacity is the reality that employees of some Federal andState agencies with relatively new responsibilities involvingforest sustainability have yet to be properly acknowledged,identified, and made party to existing information-gather-ing processes (for example, the U.S. Environmental Pro-tection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Stateand local pollution control agencies, and watershed man-agement districts). Because nationwide comprehensivereviews of the forestry professional workforce have notbeen made, what follows are examples of the public andprivate professional workforces focused on mattersinvolving forest sustainability.

Federal agencies—The USDA Forest Service reported theemployment of 34,511 full-time-equivalent (FTE) employ-ees in fiscal year 2001. This workforce was distributedamong agency programs as follows: National Forest Sys-tem: 15,893 FTEs (46 percent); wildland fire management:7,178 FTEs (21 percent); infrastructure improvement andmaintenance: 3,841 FTEs (11 percent); forest and range-land research: 2,644 FTEs (8 percent); State, private, andinternational programs: 774 FTEs (2 percent); land acquisi-tion: 112 FTEs (less than 1 percent); and other employeesinvolved with trust funds and permanent and discretionary

appropriations: 4,069 FTEs (11 percent). The USDA ForestService also employs nearly 14,600 persons as part of theYouth Conservation Corps, Job Corps, and Senior Com-munity Service Employment Program. Forty-nine percentof the agency’s workforce is composed of minorities,women, and persons with disabilities, and approximatelyone-third of these persons are in leadership positions (U.S.Department of Agriculture Forest Service 2001).

Federal Government forestry research capacity is widelydispersed across many Federal agencies. In 1995, the USDAForest Service reported the employment of 607 researchscientists distributed as follows: foresters: 138; ecologists,biologists, botanists: 72; plant pathologists: 69; wildlifeand fishery biologists: 59; engineers: 44; economists,social scientists: 28; forest products technologists: 25;statisticians, mathematicians: 19; geneticists: 19; soilscientists: 19; hydrologists: 13; and other disciplines suchas geologists, physicists, and range scientists: 102 (U.S.Department of Agriculture Forest Service 2002a). A 2001review of research capacity indicates that the agencyengaged the talents of 658 full-time-equivalent researchers,or 49 percent of the total number employed by the agency,forest industry, and academic institutions (table 1). Thenumber of research scientists employed by the agencydeclined by more than 45 percent during the period 1985through 1999. The largest proportional declines were inthe research forester and forest products technologistclassifications, whereas the largest increase occurred inecologists engaged in research (from 9 in 1985 to 50 in1999) (National Research Council 2002).

The USDI Bureau of Land Management reported that infiscal year 2001 it employed 2,846 FTE persons in 5 activ-ity areas with a direct bearing on resource sustainability.These persons were assigned as follows: land resources1,647 FTEs (of which 64 were assigned to the forest man-agement subactivity); threatened and endangered speciesmanagement 193 FTEs; recreation management 622 FTEs;and resource protection 384 FTEs (U.S. Department of theInterior, Bureau of Land Management 2002). In fiscal year2001, the USDI National Park Service employed 2,730 FTEemployees in park resource stewardship and 4,628 FTEemployees in visitor services (U.S. Department of theInterior, National Park Service 2002). The USDI Fish andWildlife Service employed 5,540 FTE employees in thefollowing resource management areas in fiscal year 2002:ecological services 1,887 FTE employees; law enforcement375 FTE employees; migratory bird management 553 FTEemployees; and refuge operations and management 2,725FTE employees (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002).Information about the professional workforce engaged inforest sustainability activities in other Federal agencies(for example, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S.Department of Commerce) has not been compiled.

��

State agencies—Various State government agencies employprofessional personnel to address matters of forest sustain-ability (Ellefson and others 2001, 2002). However, nosystematic and comprehensive compilation of the type andnumber of these employees in State government has beenmade. More than 22,000 persons were employed in Stateforestry programs in 1998 (table 2) (National Associationof State Foresters 1998). Of this total, 26 percent wereconsidered to be managerial or professional employees.Some States had relatively few such employees (Delawareand New Hampshire had only 13); other States had manymore (California had 670 and Washington had 640). Theaverage number of such employees per State was approxi-mately 120. Information of a similar nature is available for1994 and 1996 and for some prior years.

Information about State government agency staff whoadminister forest practice regulatory programs has beengathered periodically since the early 1980s. In 2003, anestimated 1,039 full-time-equivalent employees in 276 Stateagencies were involved with programs regulating forestrypractices (Ellefson and others 2003). Of these full-time-equivalents, more than 470 were assigned to lead Stateforestry agencies in the 10 States with comprehensive forestpractice laws, with California, Oregon, and Washingtonaccounting for 84 percent of the total (table 3). Staffing inthe 10 States with comprehensive programs increased bynearly 124 percent from 1985 through 2003, but staffing insome States remained the same or decreased slightly duringthat period. In 1991, State lead forestry agencies employedthe following numbers (full-time-equivalents) of regulatorystaff per 100,000 acres of private timberland: Alaska 0.05,

California 1.26, Idaho 0.42, Maine 0.04, Massachusetts0.59, Nevada 4.46, New Mexico 0.36, Oregon 0.75, andWashington 1.26 (Ellefson and others 1995).

Private organizations—Information about the professionalworkforce of private organizations focused on forest sus-tainability is particularly limited in quantity and quality.Professionals who specialize in forest sustainability areknown to be employed in many private organizations,including advocacy interest groups, business investmentfirms, professional societies, timber harvesting companies,forestry consulting firms, and corporations engaged inindustrial forestry operations. Forestry consultants typi-cally are affiliated with corporations, partnerships, andsole proprietorships, and most are general foresters, althoughmany have professional specialties within forestry. Theirclients include landowners, forest industries, investmentand financial industries, attorneys, government agencies,bankers, trusts, and Native American corporations. Con-sulting foresters are often represented by the Associationof Consulting Foresters of America, which had 610members in 38 States and 2 Canadian Provinces in 2002(Association of Consulting Foresters in America 2002).

The most recent known national assessment of forestresource professionals affiliated with industrial forestryconcerns was conducted in 1986 (Ellefson and Irving1989). The assessment focused on 70 timberland-owningcompanies that accounted for 72 percent (49.4 millionacres) of the Nation’s 1986 industrial timberland ownership(68.6 million acres). The 70 companies employed 3,569professional foresters, 445 of whom held administrative

Table 1—Forestry research scientist capacity, by sustainable forestmanagement focus and research institution (2001)

Major forestry research institutions(full-time-equivalents in research)

USDASustainable forest Forest Forestmanagement focus Service Academic industry Total

Biological diversity 112 136 10 258Productive capacity 158 96 67 321Ecosystem health 156 53 5 214Soil and water 86 84 20 190Carbon cycles 41 47 3 91Socio-economics 80 114 9 203Institutional framework 25 45 0 70

Total 658 575 114 1,347

Source: National Research Council (2002), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service(2002a).

��

Table 2—State government forestry program personnel, by State and type of personnel (1998)

Type of forestry program personnel

Administrative Seasonal andState Managerial Professional Technical and clerical temporary Total

Alabama 82 119 199 39 0 439Alaska * * * * * *Arizona 8 19 6 5 4 42Arkansas 5 65 216 17 37 340California 592 78 3,057 628 1,500 5,855Colorado 12 63 12 20 57 164Connecticut 1 24 3 3 13 44Delaware 4 9 9 2 2 26Florida 27 348 715 27 150 1,267Georgia 21 120 461 122 193 917Hawaii 12 46 20 11 61 150Idaho 24 132 5 50 210 421Illinois 10 27 21 8 86 152Indiana 20 63 * 64 228 375Iowa 8 17 15 1 150 191Kansas 4 8 3 4 25 44Kentucky 43 61 113 24 80 321Louisiana 18 73 200 19 220 530Maine 4 120 20 12 15 171Maryland 8 56 46 11 2 123Massachusetts 5 27 13 7 * 52Michigan 54 66 155 25 57 357Minnesota 11 223 92 74 270 670Mississippi 15 155 400 90 74 734Missouri 23 58 134 11 37 263Montana 26 104 28 16 76 250Nebraska 5 20 3 9 5 42Nevada 75 7 97 6 20 205New Hampshire 7 6 23 5 25 66New Jersey 33 33 31 10 30 137New Mexico 12 36 2 9 2 61New York 25 163 140 12 170 510North Carolina 29 76 532 64 250 951North Dakota 2 11 10 1 50 74Ohio 25 55 15 25 120 240Oklahoma 8 40 98 14 23 183Oregon 160 222 17 110 527 1,036Pennsylvania 74 130 85 60 200 549Rhode Island 8 7 15 1 24 55South Carolina 105 64 94 72 30 365South Dakota 6 19 6 4 5 40Tennessee 12 65 264 20 279 640Texas 16 78 137 67 18 316Utah 13 21 1 14 64 113Vermont 10 34 11 9 2 66Virginia 18 35 112 29 144 338Washington 110 530 100 80 380 1,200West Virginia 5 62 25 14 61 167Wisconsin 7 223 148 18 398 794Wyoming 4 16 12 5 3 40

Total 1,806 4,034 7,921 1,948 6,377 22,086

Note: Asterisk indicates information not available.Source: National Association of State Foresters (1998).

��

positions at the central headquarters of their companies(table 4). The remainder (3,124) were either directlyengaged in the management of company lands, procuredtimber from noncompany land, or provided services toowners of nonindustrial private forests. The 1,709 foresterswho were responsible primarily for forestry activities oncompany land were responsible for more than 49.4 millionacres of timberland, an average of 28,814 acres of timber-land per forester. The average acreage of of timberland perforester varied depending on a company’s total timberlandownership: 28,300 acres per forester for companies withless than 300,000 acres of timberland, 24,917 acres perforester for companies with 300,000 to 1 million acres,and 32,246 acres per forester for companies with morethan 1 million acres of timberland. Such information isavailable on a regional basis.

Formal Professional Education

Formal professional education, meaning professional edu-cation received prior to employment in a field of forestryor related resource employment, is usually provided byuniversities, colleges, and technical schools (Appendix A).Because these institutions generally have responsibility foreducation and research involving many subjects and disci-plines, they are well suited to the task of providing educa-tional experiences involving the broad array of subjectmatter that is required to apply principles of forest sustain-ability. Unfortunately, information about this professionaleducational landscape is not uniform across information-gathering organizations and not consistent in form overtime. However, meaningful information about capacity tooffer formal professional education involving forest

Table 3—Lead State forestry agency staffing for the administration of comprehensive forest practice regulatoryprograms, by State (1985-2003)

Staffing (full-time equivalents)

State 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 2003

Alaska 6.5 6.5 4.5 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 7.9California 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 74.0 83.0 94.0 124.5Connecticut * * * * * * * 3.0Idaho 4.5 5.5 5.5 8.0 10.0 8.0 13.7 20.0Maine * * * * * 6.0 6.0 12.7Massachusetts 16.0 16.0 17.0 16.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 16.0Nevada 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 7.0New Mexico 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 9.0Oregon 44.1 48.2 48.2 53.6 62.6 64.3 64.3 94.0Washington 58.1 58.1 73.0 73.0 77.5 77.5 112.8 176.0

Total 209.2 214.3 228.2 233.1 253.6 273.1 320.8 470.1

Note: Asterisk indicates information not available or program not established. Connecticut Forest Practices Act established June 28, 1991.Source: Ellefson and others (1995, 2003).

Table 4—Industrial foresters employed by 70 leading U.S. wood-based companies,by primary responsibility and region (1986)

Region

Responsibility North South West Total

Manage company-owned or leased land 226 1,082 401 1,709Procure timber from noncompany land 121 983 122 1,226Provide services to private woodland owners 28 153 8 189

Total 375 2,218 531 3,124

Note: Excludes 445 foresters engaged in administrative supporting activities at company headquarters.Source: Ellefson and Irving (1989).

��

resources is collected by the Society of American Foresters(SAF), the Society of Wood Science and Technology(SWST), the Food and Agricultural Educational Informa-tion System, and the National Association of ProfessionalForestry Schools and Colleges. Another source of relevantinformation is the Southeastern Section of The WildlifeSociety, which offers accreditation to programs that meetthe Section’s criteria for professional education.

The Society of American Foresters is the organization offi-cially charged with accreditation of professional forestryeducational programs in the United States. It judges suchprograms in light of various criteria, including programgoals and objectives, curriculum, faculty and students,physical facilities, and organizational and administrativesupport (Society of American Foresters 2000). The broadscope of these criteria reflects the forest resource profes-sional’s need for a wide range of knowledge and skills. In2001, colleges, universities, institutes, and other educa-tional organizations offered 136 educational programsinvolving forestry or natural resources (Appendix A). Ofthese, the SAF accredited 47 as professional degree pro-grams and recognized 23 as technical education programsinvolving forest resources.

The Society of Wood Science Technology is the accredit-ing organization for professional programs leading to thebachelor’s degree in wood science and wood technology.Initiated in 1984, the SWST has accreditation standardsvery similar to those applied by the Society of AmericanForesters. As of 2001, 25 university-level programs wereknown to offer professional education in wood science andtechnology. The SWST accredited 9 of these 25 programs(Society of Wood Science and Technology 2002).

The Food and Agricultural Education Information Systemprovides a broad range of higher education statistics relatedto agricultural and natural resources. The System is a coop-erative endeavor involving the USDA Cooperative StateResearch, Extension, and Education Service and theDepartment of Agricultural Economics of Texas A&MUniversity. Its purpose is to provide empirical informationfor use in planning and coordinating efforts directed towardsupporting higher education in the food, agricultural, andnatural resource sciences. Focusing on topics such asenrollment, faculty, degrees awarded, and placement, theSystem annually surveys institutions that are members ofthe National Association of Professional Forestry Schoolsand Colleges (62 colleges or departments), the AmericanAssociation of State Colleges of Agriculture and RenewableResources (56 colleges or departments), the Society ofAmerican Foresters (48 colleges, schools, or departments),and the National Association of State Universities andLand Grant Colleges/Academic Committee on Organizationand Policy/Academic Programs Section (85 departments

or colleges of agriculture, forestry, and renewable resources).Some institutions are members of more than one of theseorganizations. Not all institutions respond to the System’sannual survey (the average response rate is about 70 per-cent); therefore, the following estimates of faculties, enroll-ment, and degrees granted may be considered conservative.

An estimated 1,596 resident full-time faculty were engagedin forestry or natural resources instruction in 2001, ofwhom 44 percent (705 faculty, or 360 full-time-equivalents)had specializations directly related to forest resources(table 5). The most common teaching specialities weregeneral forestry (18 percent of faculty), forest biology (15percent), forest management (14 percent), and forestsciences (12 percent). A significant number of faculty wereengaged in instruction involving broader environmental ornatural resource topics (891 faculty, or 449 full-time equi-valents), nearly all of which are important to the develop-ment of professional skills that might be applied to theuse, management, and protection of forests. The mostcommon of these specialities were wildlife and wildlandsmanagement, and renewable natural resources and conser-vation generally (table 5).

Students enrolled in forest resources and natural resourcesinstructional programs at colleges and universities totaled31,650 in 2001. Of these students, only 29 percent (9,080)had academic specializations directly related to forestresources (table 6). Of this 29 percent, 5,360 students (59percent of forest resource-focused students) had generalforestry or forest management as areas of specialization.The largest number of forest resources-oriented studentswere pursuing the baccalaureate degree (6,955 students).A large number of students (22,570) were engaged in pro-fessional skills instruction involving wildlife and wildlandsmanagement, environmental science and studies, andgeneral renewable natural resources and conservation.These areas of specialization all have relevance to the use,management, and protection of forests. In 2001, 7,921degrees were awarded in the fields of forest resources(27 percent) and natural resources (73 percent). Of these,78 percent were baccalaureate degrees (table 7).

Indicator 55 emphasizes that the integration of varioussubjects and disciplines into professional education iscritical to the sustainable management of forest resources.Through program accreditation procedures and standards,organizations such as the Society of American Forestersprovide direction as to the appropriate mixture of skills,disciplines, and technical competencies within a forestrycurriculum. In 1998, employers rated the importance ofskills needed for long-term professional success as follows,in descending order: ability to work in teams, ability toaddress public concerns, understanding of requirementsfor healthy ecosystems, adoption of innovative approaches

��

Table 5—Faculty (resident full-time) engaged in forest resources and natural resources instruction at colleges anduniversities, by academic specialization and academic rank (2001)

Academic faculty rank

Associate AssistantAcademic specialization Professor professor professor Instructor Other Total

Forest resourcesForestry, general 64 ( 46) 31 ( 21) 29 ( 18) 3 ( 1) 2 ( 1) 129 ( 87)Forest harvesting and production 6 ( 3) 3 ( 1) 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) 9 ( 4)Forest products technology 27 ( 9) 20 ( 5) 9 ( 4) 0 ( 0) 4 ( 2) 60 ( 20)Timber harvesting 4 ( 1) 6 ( 2) 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) 10 ( 3)Forest sciences 46 ( 17) 24 ( 10) 15 ( 8) 2 ( 0) 0 ( 0) 87 ( 35)Forest biology 53 ( 32) 35 ( 17) 15 ( 11) 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) 103 ( 60)Forest engineering 10 ( 6) 6 ( 2) 7 ( 3) 3 ( 2) 1 ( 1) 27 ( 14)Forest hydrology 9 ( 4) 5 ( 1) 4 ( 1) 1 ( 1) 0 ( 0) 19 ( 7)Forest management 40 ( 17) 32 ( 18) 22 ( 12) 3 ( 2) 0 ( 0) 97 ( 49)Forest mensuration 23 ( 13) 15 ( 8) 10 ( 6) 1 ( 1) 0 ( 0) 49 ( 28)Urban forestry 4 ( 2) 4 ( 2) 3 ( 1) 0 ( 0) 1 ( 1) 12 ( 6)Wood science 29 ( 11) 11 ( 5) 5 ( 3) 0 ( 0) 1 ( 0) 46 ( 19)Pulp and paper technology 12 ( 7) 5 ( 3) 8 ( 5) 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) 25 ( 15)Forest soils 10 ( 4) 5 ( 2) 2 ( 1) 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) 17 ( 7)Forest sciences, other 9 ( 4) 3 ( 1) 3 ( 1) 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) 15 ( 6)

Subtotal 346 (176) 205 ( 98) 132 ( 74) 13 ( 7) 9 ( 5) 705 (360)

Natural resourcesRenewable natural resources and

conservation, general 72 ( 32) 44 ( 23) 29 ( 16) 0 ( 0) 3 ( 1) 148 ( 72)Environmental science studies 33 ( 16) 21 ( 9) 30 ( 13) 2 ( 1) 3 ( 3) 89 ( 42)Natural resources management

& policy 52 ( 19) 27 ( 15) 20 ( 7) 2 ( 1) 5 ( 1) 106 ( 43)Natural resources law enforce-

ment & protection service 3 ( 1) 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) 3 ( 1)Fishing & fisheries sciences

management 53 ( 22) 22 ( 12) 23 ( 11) 0 ( 0) 2 ( 1) 100 ( 46)Wildlife & wildlands

management 79 ( 42) 44 ( 26) 37 ( 24) 2 ( 1) 0 ( 0) 162 ( 93)Rangeland science management 57 ( 26) 23 ( 13) 14 ( 8) 0 ( 0) 1 ( 0) 95 ( 47)Parks, recreation, & leisure

studies 21 ( 10) 18 ( 12) 14 ( 8) 1 ( 1) 1 ( 1) 55 ( 32)Parks, recreation, & leisure

facilities management 10 ( 6) 7 ( 5) 10 ( 6) 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) 27 ( 17)Water resources 16 ( 6) 14 ( 6) 6 ( 3) 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) 36 ( 15)Natural resources, other 33 ( 19) 17 ( 7) 18 ( 13) 1 ( 1) 1 ( 1) 70 ( 41)

Subtotal 429 (199) 237 (128) 201 (109) 8 ( 5) 16 ( 8) 891 (449)

Total 775 (375) 442 (226) 333 (183) 21 (12) 25 (13) 1,596 (809)

Note: Numbers in parentheses are full-time-equivalent faculty.Source: Texas A&M University (2002).

��

Table 6—Student enrollment in forest resources and natural resources instruction at colleges and universities,by academic specialization and type of degree (2001)

Academic program – enrollment

Two-year Baccalaureate Master’s DoctoralAcademic specialization program program program program Total

Forest resourcesForestry, general 45 2,672 354 170 3,241Forest harvesting and production 31 50 3 4 88Forest products technology 0 147 17 4 168Timber harvesting 0 0 0 0 0Forest sciences 0 436 206 145 787Forest biology 0 464 180 139 783Forest engineering 0 250 15 10 275Forest hydrology 0 18 29 7 54Forest management 25 1,756 187 151 2,119Forest mensuration 0 0 32 20 52Urban forestry 39 222 30 4 295Wood science 0 281 64 53 398Pulp and paper technology 0 543 11 9 563Forest soils 0 5 15 4 24Forest sciences, other 49 111 29 44 233

Subtotal 189 6,955 1,172 764 9,080


conservation, general 0 2,089 290 154 2,533Environmental science studies 27 4,016 576 348 4,967Natural resources management

and policy 0 1,389 135 108 1,632Natural resources law enforcement

and protection service 0 33 0 0 33Fishing and fisheries sciences

management 0 1,492 301 111 1,904Wildlife and wildlands management 58 5,029 747 296 6,130Rangeland science management 0 454 158 80 692Parks, recreation, and leisure studies 0 1,338 86 56 1,480Parks, recreation, and leisure

facilities management 0 1,387 133 38 1,558Water resources 0 287 132 75 494Natural resources, other 0 203 118 226 1,147

Subtotal 85 18,317 2,676 1,492 22,570

Total 274 25,272 3,848 2,256 31,650

Source: Texas A&M University (2002).

��

Table 7—Degrees granted in forest resources and natural resources at colleges and universities,by academic specialization and type of degree (2001)

Academic program – degrees awarded

Two-year Baccalaureate Master’s DoctoralAcademic specialization program program program program Total

Forest resourcesForestry, general 43 529 198 16 786Forest harvesting and production 12 30 2 0 44Forest products technology 0 22 4 0 26Timber harvesting * * * * *Forest sciences 0 121 44 8 173Forest biology 0 116 54 20 190Forest engineering 0 79 2 0 81Forest hydrology 0 6 9 1 16Forest management 4 389 80 17 490Forest mensuration 0 0 2 6 8Urban forestry 15 60 2 0 77Wood science 0 85 20 12 117Pulp and paper technology 0 104 6 4 114Forest soils 0 1 1 2 4Forest sciences, other 26 2 7 2 37

Subtotal 100 1,544 431 88 2,163


conservation, general 0 446 94 28 568Environmental science studies 7 1,197 184 46 1,434Natural resources management

and policy 0 391 41 15 447Fishing and fisheries sciences

management 0 306 96 19 421Wildlife and wildlands management 29 1,153 230 38 1,450Rangeland science management 0 93 43 22 158Parks, recreation, and leisure studies 0 382 28 14 424Parks, recreation, and leisure

facilities management 0 360 58 8 426Water resources 0 79 50 4 133Natural resources, other 0 242 19 36 297

Subtotal 36 4,649 843 230 5,758

Total 136 6,193 1,274 318 7,921

Note: Asterisk indicates information not available.Source: Texas A&M University (2002).

to forest management, use of creative approaches forworking with the public, ability to evaluate and synthesizeinformation, and understanding of landscape-level planningand management (Sample and others 1999). Employersreported that the largest gaps between importance leveland performance level were in the areas of working inteams and addressing public concerns.

Employers also have an interest in securing persons withappropriate technical competencies (Sample and others1999). In descending order of importance, the followingareas of competence were identified: ethics, written com-munication, oral communication, silvicultural systems,managerial leadership, collaborative problem-solving,resource management, forest ecology, forest inventory and

��

biometry, landscape analysis (Geographic InformationSystems), tree and plant species identification, humanresource management, watershed management, resourceeconomics, financial management, alternative dispute reso-lution, fire dynamics, organizational development, forestsoils, resource policy and law, wildlife biology, govern-ment relations, forest pathology, conservation biology,forest engineering, transportation systems, rural commun-ity development, wildland and protected areas manage-ment, range management, and foreign languages. Exceptfor plant identification, the gaps between performance andimportance of a technical skill were largest for variousaspects of communicating with and managing people.

Continuing and Life-Long Education

Continuing education is generally viewed as those learningexperiences (or informational updates) occurring aftercompletion of formal professional education. The intent ofcontinuing education is to “constantly refine the sensitivi-ties of professionals, enlarge their concepts, add to theirknowledge, and perfect their skills so they can dischargetheir responsibilities within the context of their own per-sonalities and the needs of society of which they are apart.” (Houle 1980). Continuing education has always beenrecognized as important to maintaining skills acrossforestry disciplines (a need suggested by Indicator 55)(Miller and Lewis 1999). However, only since the 1970shave concepts of lifelong learning experiences for forestresource professionals begun to gel and become formalprograms assumed by accountable institutions. This devel-opment has not occurred without acrimony, most notablyin struggles with issues involving (1) the purposes ofcontinuing education, (2) the emphasis that continuingeducation should place on scientific and technical updatesthat increase productivity of the workforce, and (3) thedevelopment of the professional as a contributor to thebroader interests of society (Swanson and Arnold 1996).

Public and private organizations employing forest resourceprofessionals typically offer or require programs focusedon professional development and in-service education. Theextent and nature of these programs have not been docu-mented comprehensively. Although they are not common,legal requirements for provision of or encouragement ofcontinuing education opportunities for natural resourceprofessionals do exist at both the State and Federal Govern-ment levels. It appears that most of the relevant lawssimply require agencies to collaborate with universitiesand related institutions on continuing education matters.Examples of Federal legal requirements are as follows:

• TITLE 7—AGRICULTURE; Chapter 64—AgriculturalResearch, Extension, and Teaching; Subchapter III—Agricultural Research and Education Grants and Fellow-ships; Sec. 3152. Grants and fellowships for food and

agricultural sciences education; “(g) Continuing educa-tion. The Secretary shall conduct special programs withcolleges and universities, and with organizations in theprivate sector, to support educational initiatives to enablefood and agricultural scientists and professionals tomaintain their knowledge of changing technology, theexpanding knowledge base, societal issues, and otherfactors that impact the skills and competencies neededto maintain the expertise base available to the agricul-tural system of the United States. The special programsshall include grants and technical assistance.”

• TITLE 16—CONSERVATION; Chapter 36—Forest andRangeland and Renewable Resources Planning; Sub-chapter III—Extension Programs; Sec. 1672. Generalprogram authorization: “(a) Types of programs; precon-ditions and cooperation with State program directors,etc. The Secretary of Agriculture (hereinafter in thissubchapter referred to as the “Secretary”), under condi-tions the Secretary may prescribe and in cooperationwith the State directors of cooperative extension pro-grams and eligible colleges and universities shall . . . (6)assist in providing continuing education programs forprofessionally trained individuals in fish and wildlife,forest, range, and watershed management and relatedfields…”

• TITLE 25—INDIANS; Chapter 33—National IndianForest Resources Management; Sec. 3114. Postgradua-tion recruitment, education and training programs: “TheSecretary shall maintain a program within the Division ofForestry of the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the ongoingeducation and training of Bureau of Indian Affairs, AlaskaNative, and Indian forestry personnel. Such programshall provide for (1) orientation training for Bureau ofIndian Affairs forestry personnel in tribal-Federal rela-tions and responsibilities; (2) continuing technicalforestry education for Bureau of Indian Affairs, AlaskaNative, and tribal forestry personnel; and (3) develop-mental training of Indian and Alaska Native personnelin forestland based enterprises and marketing.”

State governments also have legal authorities requiringcontinuing education of natural resource professionals. Insome States, the requirements are part of general forestresource law. This is the case in Minnesota, where theState’s MN Sustainable Forest Resources Act encourages“. . . timber harvesters and forest resource professionals toestablish continuing education programs within theirrespective professions that promote sustainable forestmanagement . . . the Forest Resources Council shall, whereappropriate, facilitate the development of these programs”(Minnesota Forest Resources Council 2002). In otherStates, requirements for continuing education are integralparts of licensing and regulatory programs. This is thecase in California, where the State’s Forest Practice Rules

��

authorize the Director of the California Division of Forestryand Fire Protection to “. . . conduct timber operator edu-cation programs in addition to or in lieu of approvingprograms conducted by others . . . courses shall use edu-cational materials approved by the Director . . . and shalladdress the content of rules established by the Board”(California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection1997).

Continuing education opportunities are provided by agreat number of institutions with diverse expertise andequally diverse capabilities. However, most continuingeducation is provided by employers, and of that so offered,90 percent is accomplished in collaboration with otherorganizations (Cervero 2000). Colleges and universitiesare major sources of continuing education in forestry andrelated natural resource fields. Most, if not all, of thecolleges, universities, and technical schools previouslyidentified (Appendix A) provide such opportunities.Examples are:

• Executive Management Program for Natural ResourceManagers, Pennsylvania State University

• Institute for Sustainable Natural Resource ContinuingEducation Programs, University of Minnesota

• Continuing Education Coordinating CommitteePrograms for Forestry and Range, ContinuingEducation, Universities of Oregon and Washington

• Center for Environmental Continuing Education, DukeUniversity

• Consortium for Continuing Education for EcosystemManagement, Northern and Southern Rocky MountainUniversities

• Georgia Center for Continuing Education, School ofForest Resources, University of Georgia

• Center for Ecological Management of Military Lands,Department of Forest Sciences, Colorado StateUniversity

• Center for Continuing Education, University ofMontana.

Federal natural resource agencies provide professionalresource managers with numerous opportunities for con-tinuing education. For example, the USDA Forest Serviceprovides a two-track program involving a technical leader-ship component (workshops on fish habitat management,wildlife habitat and plant management, vegetation moni-toring, and managing forested ecosystems) and a programleadership component (workshops on leadership and com-munication, natural resource policy, values and economics,and program management) (U.S. Department of AgricultureForest Service 2002b). A number of other Federal agencies

have similar programs that are relevant to needs of naturalresource professionals, for example:

• National Training Center, U.S. Geological Survey

• National Education and Training Center, USDI Fish andWildlife Service

• The Learning Place, USDI National Park Service

• National Training Center, USDI Bureau of LandManagement

• National Employee Development Center, USDA NaturalResources Conservation Service

• National Environmental Training Center, U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency.

These Federal programs and centers provide a wide vari-ety of continuing education opportunities, meeting theneeds of professional employees at various career stages(entry-level employees, new employees, mid-career pro-fessionals). Most often, the programs consist of shortcourses and workshops with some opportunities for longerperiods of formal study (university graduate education). Inaddition to these single-agency-oriented programs, multi-agency collaborative efforts exist to offer continuingeducation opportunities for forest and natural resourceprofessionals. An example is the Carhart Natural Wilder-ness Training Center, which is sponsored by the USDIBureau of Land Management, USDI National Park Service,USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDA Forest Service.The center provides educational opportunities for landmanagers assigned wilderness management responsibilities.

State forestry and related natural resource agencies alsooffer continuing education programs. Unfortunately, theseprograms have not been identified systematically and havenot been assessed as to their focus and intensity. As withFederal agency programs, State agency programs probablytake a variety of forms ranging from technical and scienti-fic training to computer technology training, managementtraining, and workplace safety training. Most of theseopportunities are probably offered in conjunction withother State, Federal, and local agencies or universities.

Continuing education opportunities for forest resourceprofessionals are also provided by various private organi-zations, including professional societies, industry associa-tions, conservation groups, and environmental advocacyorganizations (Appendix B). As might be expected, theseopportunities address a diverse array of subjects anddisciplines. Some organizations, such as the Society ofAmerican Foresters, offer member certification programsthat require some type of continuing education for certifi-cation maintenance. Other groups, such as the AmericanForest and Paper Association (AF&PA), encourage member

��

continuing education that emphasizes knowledge and appli-cation of sustainable forestry principles (AF&PA Sustain-able Forestry Initiative). Some private organizations, suchas The Nature Conservancy, sponsor periodic workshopsand conferences focused on critical natural resource issues.Many private corporations and interest groups involved inforest management offer professional development or in-service training programs, and often require that theiremployees participate in these programs.

Certification and Licensing Program Education

Institutional capacity to maintain human resource skill isalso present in occupational registration, certification, andlicensing programs focused on forest resource professionalsand timber harvesters. Most such programs have a requirededucational component. The terminology of these programsis confusing, but registration implies that individuals volun-tarily list their names on an official roster managed bysome public or private organization; certification impliesthat certain minimum qualifications (education, experi-ence) are met; and licensing is exclusionary in that govern-ment authorization is required to engage in professionalpractices (MacKay and others 1996). Such programs areusually established to assure the public that only competentpersons are providing a service or practicing a trade.

Proponents of these programs argue that they are necessaryto protect public health and safety. Unfortunately, theprograms are beset by various problem areas, includingvoluntary versus mandatory application, the relationshipbetween the professional and the general public, the pro-cedure and substance of eligibility standards, the questionof educational requirements, the imposition of penaltiesfor noncompliance, and the responsibility for programfinancial support (Garland 1996, MacKay and others 1996,Young 1987).

State registration, certification, and licensing programs forforestry professionals were in effect in 16 States in 1996(Block 2000, Society of American Foresters 2001) (table 8).All of these programs had minimum educational require-ments; many had continuing education requirements. TheStates with such programs are: voluntary registration—Michigan, New Jersey, Oklahoma, West Virginia; manda-tory registration—Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, NorthCarolina, South Carolina; mandatory licensing—Alabama,California, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, NewHampshire; and mandatory certification—Connecticut.Florida’s forester registration program was allowed toexpire because there were too few public complaints tojustify the program.

Table 8—State-initiated professional forester registration and licensing programs, by State and programcharacteristics (2001)

Voluntary or Foresters Term ofType of mandatory registered license or Credentialing Continuing education

State program program or licensed registration requirements requirements

Alabama Licensing Mandatory 1,000 1 year E, ED 10 credits per yearArkansas Registration Mandatory 450 1 year E, ED&EX 6 credits per yearCalifornia Licensing Mandatory 1,550 2 years E, ED&EX NoneConnecticut Certification Mandatory 120 5 years E 6 credits per 2 yearsGeorgia Registration Mandatory 1,220 2 years E, ED&EX 12 credits per 2 yearsMaine Licensing Mandatory 1,000 1 year E, ED&EX 12 credits per 2 yearsMaryland Licensing Mandatory 206 2 years E, ED&EX 8 credits per 2 yearsMassachusetts Licensing Mandatory 45 1 year E, ED&EX 20 credits per yearMichigan Registration Voluntary 500-600 Indefinite ED&EX NoneMississippi Registration Mandatory 2,000 2 years E, ED 16 credits per 2 yearsNew Hampshire Licensing Mandatory 350 2 years E, ED&EX 20 credits per 2 yearsNew Jersey Registration Voluntary 64 Indefinite ED&EX 6-9 credits per yearNorth Carolina Registration Mandatory 1,050 1 year E, ED&EX 10 credits per yearOklahoma Registration Voluntary 116 1 year ED&EX NoneSouth Carolina Registration Mandatory 1,600 1 year E, ED&EX 10 credits per yearWest Virginia Registration Voluntary 350 1 year ED&EX 10 credits per year

E = written or oral exam; ED = education requirements only; EX = experience requirements only; ED&EX = education and experience requirements.Connecticut’s certification program is the same as a licensing program.Source: Society of American Foresters (2001).

��

State governments have established occupational registra-tion, certification, and licensing programs focused ontimber harvesters or timber buyers (MacKay and others1996). Twenty-five such programs existed in 1995, namely:registration—Iowa, Rhode Island; certification—Alabama,Connecticut, Florida, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, NorthCarolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia; licensing—California, Illinois, Massachusetts, West Virginia. Marylandhas both registration and certification programs, and WestVirginia has a certification and a licensing program.

Private organizations also engage in the design and imple-mentation of occupational registration and certificationprograms, nearly all of which have some continuingeducation component. The American Forest and PaperAssociation has a long history of working with States todevelop effective registration and certification programsfor timber harvesters. Similarly, the Society of AmericanForests sponsors a Certified Forester Program. Professionalforesters granted certification status must complete 60contact hours in continuing forestry education prior torecertification every 3 years (Society of AmericanForesters 2002).


Professional education programs focused on maintaininghuman resource skills are an important component offorest sustainability and conservation. This review ofprofessional education programs suggests the following:

• Professional educational opportunities occur in someform in virtually all public and private natural resourceand related organizations. Activities range from formalprofessional education in a university setting to profes-sional continuing education via electronic media, andfrom forest practice workshops for timber harvesters tonational and international conferences on forest sustain-ability and conservation.

• Formal education of resource professionals is generallyprovided by universities, colleges, and some technicalschools. These institutions offer students an opportunityto select courses in a wide array of subjects and disci-plines. Much information about these formal educa-tional programs is available, but this information isoften questionable in quality and consistency.

• Resource professionals can get their formal educationby participating in university and college programs thatfocus strictly on forest resources, or in broad naturalresource and environmental studies programs offered bysuch institutions. The breadth of subjects and disciplinesapplicable to the sustainability of forests makes thispossible. In 2001, less than half the faculty engaged in

the education of forest and natural resource profes-sionals claimed forest resources as a primary area ofexpertise.

• In recent years, formal professional education programsappear to have increased student exposure to a widerrange of disciplines (for example, mathematics, eco-nomics, sociology, communication, administration,conflict management) and a broader set of resources(timber, water, wildlife, range, recreation). However, themagnitude of this increase is unclear, as is the extent towhich integration of knowledge actually occurs acrossdisciplines and across resources.

• Formal programs educating forest resource professionalsare often required to conform to standards specified byaccreditation programs. The Society of AmericanForesters (47 professional degree programs, 23 technicaleducation programs) and the Society of Wood Scienceand Technology (9 baccalaureate degree programs) arethe most widely known organizations accrediting edu-cational programs in professional forestry and woodscience. Except for professional wildlife education pro-grams in the Southeast, other natural resource programs(such as fisheries, range management, wildlife, waterresources, environmental conservation) are not knownto be subject to accreditation procedures.

• Continuing education programs for forest resource pro-fessionals are offered by a wide array of organizations,and are often implemented in a partnership fashion. Theapproaches to continuing education range from corres-pondence courses to formal doctoral programs, andfrom short-term workshops to extensive internationalforest-study tours. Universities and colleges are majorsources of continuing education, although employersand some private organizations (including professionalassociations and special-interest groups) provide suchopportunities. At least three Federal statutes provide forthe continuing education of forest resource and relatedprofessionals.

• Occupational registration and certification programsfocused on forest resource professionals and timberharvesters commonly require the maintenance ofprofessional skills applied to forest and related naturalresources. State governments have been most active indeveloping and implementing such programs. At least16 States registered, certified, or licensed forestryprofessionals in 1996, and 25 States applied similaroccupational programs to timber harvesters in 1995.

Issues and Trends

The literature identifies a number of major issues andtrends involving institutional capacity to promote humanresource skills. Examples of this literature (from which the

��

following issues and trends are drawn) are: Alford 1980,Cervero 2000, DeSteiguer and Merrifield 1979, Ellefson1989, Garland 1995, Houle 1980, Levine 1997, MacKayand others 1996, National Research Council 2002, Sampleand others1999, Society of American Foresters 1994,Swanson and Arnold 1996, Tombaugh 1998, Young 1987.

• Formal educational programs for professionals at theuniversity and college level are increasingly beleagueredby shrinking financial support for university programsgenerally, and by requirements to make educationalprogram decisions on the basis of rigorous cost-contain-ment procedures. These conditions suggest that universityadministrators need to be persuaded of the importanceof forestry education programs and that partnershipsbetween educational programs and the client groupsthey serve need to be strengthened. Competition forbright students and competent faculties will increase inthe years ahead.

• Accreditation mechanisms to promote higher standardsfor formal professional education will increase. How-ever, the use of accreditation mechanisms will raisequestions about assignment of responsibility for accred-itation, accreditation across broader natural resourceinterests (timber, wildlife, water, recreation, environ-mental studies), expansion of the competency standards(technical versus managerial skills) used to judge pro-gram conditions, and accreditation of graduate educa-tion programs (programs beyond the first professionaldegree).

• Continuing professional education is becoming increas-ingly important to forest sustainability. Notable in thisrespect are employers’ increasing assumptions of respon-sibility for continuing education activities (in someareas, surpassing that assumed by all other providerscombined); growth in collaborative institutional andprogram arrangements (especially between universitiesand employers) for providing continuing education; andincreased designation of continuing education as aprerequisite for professional and related registration,certification, and licensing.

• Continuing professional education as a system isincreasingly beset by concerns about the fundamentalintent of continuing education programs (for example,updating professional knowledge generally versusimproving professional technical competency), andabout institutional governance and responsibility forcontinuing education programs over long periods oftime (for example, assignment of responsibility andleadership, mission and strategic planning, acquiringand allocating resources, program monitoring andevaluation, avoidance of destructive organizationalcompetition).

• Formal educational institutions that graduate resourceprofessionals who will be engaged in the sustainablemanagement of forests will increase in number anddiversity. The range of disciplines and resource special-ities required for the sustainable management of forestswill draw talent from an increasing variety of formaleducational programs (for example, conservationbiology, environmental studies, landscape architecture,and archeology), in addition to those traditionallyaccredited as formal forestry education programs.

• The development of knowledge bases required to addressforest sustainability and conservation is increasinglybeing hindered by severe declines in research capacity.Federal research organizations in particular suffereddeclines in numbers of full-time-equivalent researchers,especially in the fields of entomology, plant pathology,chemistry, soil science, and forest product technologies.


Specification

Information about maintaining human resource skills acrossrelevant disciplines has been assessed by various public andprivate organizations. In 1999, the National Association ofState Foresters reported that only two States had abundantinformation about professional and related education, thatnine had sufficient information about such activities, andthat three had little information. Thirty-four States reportedthat they had no information concerning educational activ-ities required to maintain the human resource skills neededfor forest sustainability. Three States reported that thequality of their information was excellent, 10 that it wasadequate, and 1 that it was poor (National Association ofState Foresters 1999).

The Society of American Foresters, Society of WoodScience Technology, and Food and Agriculture EducationalInformation System are major sources of informationabout professional education programs important to forestsustainability. However, no known sources of comprehen-sive information exist for continuing education programsfocused on resource professionals, technicians, and timberharvesters. Information about formal and continuing edu-cation programs in related fields (for example, conservationbiology, environmental conservation, wildlife manage-ment, recreation, law, and political science) has not beengathered and synthesized comprehensively.

Measurement information—It is not known what varia-bles should be measured, or how they should be measured,to accurately portray conditions required to establish andmaintain necessary human resource skills. What condi-tions should be measured and subsequently assessed (for

��

example, characteristics of students, needs of employers,quality of faculties, relevance of subjects, levels of invest-ment)? What variables and measurement techniques areappropriate given the large number and variety of institu-tions engaged in skill maintenance? What measurablecharacteristics would best indicate that the human skillsneeded to achieve sustainable forest management havebeen accomplished? How often are these variables to bemeasured? Are there special measurement needs associ-ated with different types of educational activity (such asformal professional education and continuing education)?What information would most clearly identify trends?

Extent of activity information—Information about rele-vant formal and related educational activities has oftenbeen assembled in an uncoordinated way. The result ofthis is often information that depicts only current condi-tions and lacks local, regional, and national consistency.The diversity of institutions offering education makesinformation gathering difficult, although the Food andAgriculture Educational Information System is certainly astep in the right direction. What kinds of educationalprograms exist at various geographic levels, and whatorganizations support and present them? How large arethese programs? How are programs and program availabil-ity changing? Does the content of relevant skill-buildingprograms vary significantly from school to school, and ifso, why? What is the status of educational programs thatare sponsored by local government, and of conservationeducation programs at community colleges and smallliberal-arts colleges? Are compilations of skill-buildinginformation as currently conducted useful for guidingpolicy and program direction? Is there a need to expandand improve the focus of centralized reporting systems foreducational programs such as the Food and AgricultureEducational Information System?

Responsible organization information—Organizationsactively engaged in relevant educational activities (andespecially in continuing education) have not been listedcomprehensively. What public and private organizationsare engaged in activities that maintain human skills acrossresource disciplines? What authority assigns them respon-sibility, and is this authority being interpreted accurately?Do some organizations have an advantage in providingeducational opportunities? What are these institutionaladvantages? Do different public organizations engaging ineducational initiatives have similar or differing goals andobjectives, and are these goals and objectives consistentwith the maintenance of resource-oriented skills? Whatroles do private organizations play in skill maintenance?Are there organizational patterns in the public and privatesectors that, if known and publicized, would enhanceoverall maintenance of human skills across relevantdisciplines?

Coordination information—Information about coordina-tion of activities important to maintenance of human skillshas not been assembled. What are current patterns of coor-dination, including requirements and incentives for coor-dination? Do program conflicts exist between the variousentities engaged in education focused on the maintenanceof relevant skills? How might they be resolved produc-tively? Do existing coordination efforts encourage coordi-nation across relevant forest resource disciplines? Do theyensure that the cumulative results of local, State, andregionally undertaken education will lead to outcomesconsistent with national requirements for maintaininghuman skills? Do they allow for incorporation of ad hoceducational activities (such as special continuing educa-tion) occurring at various times and undertaken by variouslevels and types of educational institutions? Are differenteducational offerings comparable (for example, conserva-tion biology and environmental conservation)? How is thecomparability of different educational programs deter-mined, and by whom?

Procedure and specification information—Informationabout standards for the development and implementationof relevant educational programs has not been assembled.Is there a broad agreed-to framework within which publicand private administrators of educational programs seek todevelop and implement programs relevant to maintaininghuman skills important to forest sustainability? How aresuch frameworks, including specific standards (such as theSAF Accreditation Standards, and the timber harvestercontinuing education standards) developed and imple-mented? Do national educational standards allow forregional and subregional development of specialty educa-tion programs focused on maintaining certain resourceskills?

Scope of skill-maintaining information—Informationabout educational programs for maintaining skills oftenfocuses only on a limited range of skills associated withselected forest benefits. What capacity exists for maintain-ing skills across the wide range of values associated withforests (timber, water, wildlife, recreation)? What can bedone to encourage the development of the wide range ofskills required for forest sustainability? Are differentresource-oriented institutions such as university depart-ments and private continuing education programs comple-mentary or competitive in this respect?

Investment and incentive information—Comprehensiveinformation about resources devoted to the maintenance ofskills across relevant disciplines has not been assembledexcept in some very limited cases. What is the magnitudeof investment in various relevant educational activities,and especially in continuing education? Are political andadministrative processes for allocating resources to these

��

activities effective and sufficient? Are there fiscal incen-tives for encouraging the development of skills acrossrelevant disciplines?

Effectiveness information—Comprehensive informationabout the effectiveness of various approaches to main-taining relevant skills has not been compiled. Do existinglaws or administrative directives require that the efficiencyand effectiveness of skill-enhancing programs be assessed?What are appropriate measures of success? What opinionsdo stakeholders and interest groups have about these pro-grams? What are the skill requirements for employment inforest resource programs? Are educational programsmeeting these requirements?

Monitoring information—Information about the moni-toring of programs designed to maintain skills relevant toforest sustainability has not been assembled. Are therelegal or administrative requirements to monitor the resultsof educational activities of various types? Who is orshould be responsible for gathering and analyzing suchinformation? Is the information from monitoring activitiesbeing used to adapt educational programs to changingcircumstances? Is the information being collected andanalyzed in useful ways?

Recommendations

Indicator 55 suggests that it is necessary to develop andmaintain the institutional capacity to ensure availability ofthe wide range of skills required to meet expectations forthe sustainable management of forest resources. Manyinformation needs must be addressed if we are to under-stand how to accomplish this. We recommend the follow-ing actions:

• Comprehensive periodic reviews. Conduct periodic andcomprehensive reviews of current authorities and publicand private institutions that direct and commit resourcesto educational programs that teach resource skills impor-tant to forest sustainability. These reviews should gatherand synthesize information about the providers of edu-cational efforts, the content of educational offerings,coordination of activities by providers, and programeffectiveness and appropriateness.

• Responsibility for conducting reviews. Assign responsi-bility for conducting reviews of educational efforts to aspecific unit of a Federal agency, a college or university,or other nonprofit organization. This responsibilityshould be assigned to an organization that has a proventrack record in addressing the complexities of educationand human resource development within the forestresource arena. Such organizations include the Societyof American Foresters, the National Association of Pro-fessional Schools and Colleges, and the administrators

of the Food and Agriculture Educational InformationSystem.

• Devote resources to the reviews. Invest sufficientresources in the reviews to obtain the informationnecessary to dramatically improve understanding of ourcapacity to provide the skills essential to sustainableforestry.



There are a number of definition, scope, and interpretationproblems in connection with Indicator 55. The breadth andindefiniteness of the phrases “human resource skills” and“relevant disciplines” make information gathering difficult.Human resource skills may be classified by occupationalcategory (for example, professionals, timber harvesters,technicians), function (for example, administration,research, education), discipline (for example, economics,ecology, statistics), and resource orientation (for example,timber, water, recreation). Furthermore, the phrase “acrossrelevant disciplines” seems to refer to integration and inter-disciplinary activities, yet it is problematic whether thefocus of interpretation should be on “across disciplines,”“across resource orientations,” or “across social andbiological dimensions.” And continuing education seemsto be implied by the indicator. It should be borne in mindthat employers, as well as schools, are major providers ofcontinuing education.

The indicator might be better specified as institutionalcapacity to “. . . develop and maintain professional andrelated human skills across relevant disciplines andresource orientations.”


Indicators 55 and 53 overlap with respect to extensionprograms and making forest-related information available.Indicator 55 also overlaps with Indicators 39 (level ofexpenditure on research, development, and education), 44(direct and indirect employment in the forest sector), 45(average wage rates and injury rates), 46 (viability andadaptability to changing economic conditions), 56 (infra-structure), 57 (enforcement), 59 (trade policies), 63(development of scientific understanding), 64 (costs andbenefits), and 65 (new technologies).

Literature Cited

Alford, H.J. 1980. Power and conflict in continuing education: survivaland prosperity for all? Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishers. 247 p.

��

Association of Consulting Foresters in America. 2002. History ofAssociation of Consulting Foresters. http://www.acf-foresters.com.[Date accessed: December 2001].

Block, N.E. 2000. Credentialing and accreditation programs: taking theforestry profession to the next level. Journal of Forestry. 98(4): 18-22.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 1997. Californiaforest practice rules. Sacramento, CA: California Department ofForestry and Fire Protection. 240 p.

Cervero, R.M. 2000. Trends and issues in continuing professional educa-tion. In: Mott, V.W.; Daley, B.J., eds. Charting a course for continuingprofessional education: reframing professional practice. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Publishers: 5-18.

DeSteiguer, J.E.: Merrifield, R.G. 1979. The impact of the environmentalera on forestry education in North America. Unasylva. 31:21-25.

Ellefson, P.V. 1989. Investments in forest economics research. In:Ellefson, P.V., ed. Forest resource economics and policy research:strategic directions for the future. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 19-40.

Ellefson, P.V.; Irving, F.D. 1989. Industrial forester staffing of leadingwood-based companies: an examination of forester responsibilities.Journal of Forestry. 87(3):42-44.

Ellefson, P.V.; Cheng, A.S.; Moulton, R.J. 1995. Regulation of privateforestry practices by State government. Sta. Bull. 605-1995. St. Paul,MN: Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. 225 p.



Ellefson, P.V.; Kilgore, M.A.; Hibbard, C.M. 2003. State government pro-grams regulating forestry practices: current agencywide status andreview of program effectiveness. St. Paul, MN: University ofMinnesota, Department of Forest Resources; unpublished report. 120 p.

Garland, J.J. 1995. Accreditation, certification, and licensing of the forestryworkforce. In: Council on Forest Engineering, ed. Sustainability, foresthealth and meeting the Nation’s needs for wood products. Raleigh, NC:North Carolina State University, College of Forest Resources: 221-227.

Garland, J.J. 1996. Status of accreditation, certification, and licensing ofthe U.S. harvesting workforce. In: Canadian Pulp and Paper Associa-tion, ed. Certification: environmental implications for forestry opera-tions. Montreal, Canada: Canadian Pulp and Paper Association: E111-E118.

Houle, C.O. 1980. Continuing learning in the professions. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 390 p.

Levine, A. 1997. Higher education’s status as a mature industry. TheChronicle of Higher Education. 43(21):A8.

MacKay, D.G.; Ellefson, P.V.; Blinn, C.R.; Tillman, S.J. 1996. Registra-tion, certification, and licensing programs: creating better timberharvesters. Journal of Forestry. 94(7):27-31.

Miller, C.; Lewis, J.G. 1999. A contested past: forestry education in theUnited States, 1898-1998. Journal of Forestry. 97(9):38-43.

Minnesota Forest Resources Council 2002. Forest Resources ContinuingEducation Program. http://www.frc.state.mn.us. [Date accessed:December 2001].



National Association of State Foresters. 1998. State forestry statistics:1998. http://www.stateforesters.org/SFstats.html. [Date accessed:November 2001].

National Association of State Foresters. 1999. First approximation assess-ment report. http://www.stateforesters.org/SFstats.html. [Date accessed:December 2001].

National Research Council. 2002. National capacity in forestry research.Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 144 p.

Sample, V.A.; Ringgold, P.C.; Block, N.E.; Giltmier, J.W. 1999. Forestryeducation: adapting to the changing demands on professionals. Journalof Forestry. 97(9): 4-10.

Society of American Foresters. 1994. Education for forest resources: newdirections for the 21st century. Conference Proceedings. Bethesda,MD: Society of American Foresters. [Not paged].

Society of American Foresters. 2000. Accreditation handbook: standards,procedures, and guidelines for accrediting educational programs inprofessional forestry. Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters.29 p.

Society of American Foresters. 2001. SAF task force report on foresterregistration and licensing: 2001. http://www.safnet.org/policyandpress/LRCinfo.cfm. [Date accessed: January 2002].

Society of American Foresters 2002. SAF Certified Forester Program.http://www.safnet.org/certifiedforester/index.cfm. [Date accessed:December 2001]

Society of Wood Science and Technology. 2002. Standards and proce-dures for accreditation of wood science and technology programs.http://www.swst.org. [Date accessed: January 2002].

Swanson, R.A.; Arnold, D.E. 1996. The purpose of human resourcedevelopment is to improve organizational performance. In: Rowden,R.W., ed. New directions for adult and continuing education. 72. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. [Not paged].

Texas A&M University. 2002. Food and agriculture education informa-tion system: agriculture, forestry and renewable resource highereducation statistics. College Station, TX: Department of AgriculturalEconomics. http://faeis.usda.gov. [Date accessed: January 2002].

Tombaugh, L.W. 1998. The forces of change driving forestry education.Journal of Forestry. 96(2):4-7.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2001. USDA ForestService FY 2000 and FY 2001 annual GPA performance plan. http://www.fs.fed.us/pl/rpa/AnnPlan. [Date accessed: December 2001].

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2002a. A review of thecapacity to conduct and apply research and development aimed atimproving forest management and delivery of forest goods and ser-vices. Review draft, March 7, 2002. Washington, DC: [Not paged].

��

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2002b. Continuing educa-tion program for natural resource professionals. http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/education/mission.html. [Date accessed: January 2002].

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2002.Fiscal Year 2002 proposed budget. http://www.blm.gov/budget/index.html. [Date accessed: January 2002].

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 2002. Fiscal Year2003 proposed budget. http://www.nps.gov/pub_aff/index.htm. [Dateaccessed: January 2002].

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Fiscal Year 2003 proposed budget.http://budget.fws.gov. [Date accessed: January 2002].

Young, S.D. 1987. The rule of experts: Occupational licensing in America.Washington, DC: CATO Institute. 99 p.

��

Appendix A

Selected Colleges, Universities, and Technical Schools with Professional, Technical,or Pre-Professional Education in Forestry or Related Natural Resources, 2001

Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College, GA (3)Alabama A & M University, AL(1)Alcorn State University, MS (1)Allegheny College, MD (3)Arizona State University, AZAuburn University, AL (1,2)Augustana College, ILBall State University, INBrown University, RICalifornia Polytechnic State University, CA (2)Central Lakes College, MNCentral Oregon Community College, OR (3)Chemeketa Community College, ORClark University, MAClemson University, SC (1,2)College of the Redwoods, CACollege of William and Mary, VAColorado State University, CO (1,2)Columbia University, NYCornell University, NY (1)Dabney S. Lancaster Community College, VA (3)Delaware State University, DE (1)Duke University, NC (2)Eastern Oklahoma State College, OK (3)Florida A & M University, FL (1)Florida Atlantic University, FLHocking College, OH (3)Horry-Georgetown Technical College, SC (3)Humboldt State University, CA (2)Indiana University, INIowa State University, IA (1,2)Kansas State University, KA (1)Kentucky State University, KY (1)Lake City Community College, FL (3)Langston University, OK (1)Lincoln University, MO (1)Louisiana State University, LA (1,2)Louisiana Tech University, LA (2)Lurleen B. Wallace State Junior College, AL (3)Michigan State University, MI (1,2)Michigan Technological University, MI (2,3)Mississippi State University, MS (1,2)Montana State University-Bozeman, MT (1)Mt. Hood Community College, ORNew Mexico State University, NM (1)New York State Ranger School, NYNorth Carolina A&T University, NC (1)North Carolina State University, NC (1,2)North Dakota State University, ND (1)Northern Arizona University, AZ (2)

Northeastern Illinois College, ILOhio State University, OH (1,2)Oklahoma State University, OK (1,2)Oregon State University, OR (1,2)Oregon Graduate Institute of Science & Technology, ORPaper Industry Management Association, ILPaul Smith’s College of Arts and Sciences, NY (3)Pennsylvania College of Technology, PA (3)Pennsylvania State University, PA (1,2)Pennsylvania State University-Mont Alto, PA (3)Pittsburgh State University, KSPrinceton University, NJPurdue University, IN (1,2)Reedy College, CA (3)Rutgers University, NJSan Diego State University, CASanta Rosa Junior College, CASierra College, CASouth Carolina State University, SC (1)South Dakota State University, SD (1)Southern University, LA (1)Southern Illinois University, IL (2)Southeastern Illinois College, IL (3)Southwest Texas State University, TXSouthwestern Oregon Community College, ORSpokane Community College, WA (3)State University of New York, NY (2,3)Stephen F. Austin University, TX (2)Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry, GATennessee State University, TN (1)Texas A & M University, TX (1,2)Texas Tech University, TXTuskegee University, AL (1)University of Alaska, AK (1,2)University of Arizona, AZ (1)University of Arkansas, AR (1,2)University of California-Berkeley, CA (1,2)University of California-Davis, CAUniversity of Colorado, COUniversity of Connecticut, CT (1)University of Delaware, DL (1)University of Denver, COUniversity of Florida, FL (1,2)University of Georgia, GA (1,2)University of Hawaii, HI (1)University of Idaho, ID (1,2)University of Illinois, IL (1,2)University of Kansas, KSUniversity of Kentucky, KY (1,2)

(continued)

��

1 = Land grant university; 2 = Society of American Foresters accredited professional degree program; and 3 = Society of American Foresters recognizedtechnical educational program.

Appendix A

Selected Colleges, Universities, and Technical Schools with Professional, Technical,or Pre-Professional Education in Forestry or Related Natural Resources, 2001 (continued)

University of Maine, ME (1,2)University of Maine-Fort Kent, ME (3)University of Maryland, MD (1)University of Massachusetts, MA (1,2)University of Michigan, MI (2)University of Minnesota-Duluth, MNUniversity of Minnesota-Twin Cities, MN (1,2)University of Missouri, MO (1)University of Montana, MT (2)University of Nebraska-Lincoln, NE (1)University of Nevada, NV (1)University of New Hampshire, NH (1,2,3)University of Oregon, ORUniversity of Pennsylvania, PAUniversity of Rhode Island, RI (1)University of the South, TN

University of Tennessee, TN (1,2)University of Vermont, VT (1,2)University of Virginia, VAUniversity of Washington, WA (2)University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI (1,2)University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, WI (2)University of Wyoming, WYUtah State University, UT (1,2)Vermillion Community College, MN (3)Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, VA (1,2)Virginia State University, VAWashington State University, WA (1,2)West Virginia University, WA (1,2)Western Michigan University, MIYale University, CT (2)

��

Appendix B

Private Organizations Providing Continuing Education OpportunitiesInvolving Timber and Wood-Based Commodities

Alaska Forest Association

American Chestnut Foundation

American Conifer Society

American Forest and Paper Association

American Institute of BiologicalSciences

American Institute of ChemicalEngineers-Forest Products Division

American Institute of TimberConstruction

American Plywood Association

American Wood Council

American Wood Preservers Institute

Appalachian Hardwood Manufacturers

Architectural Woodwork Institute

Arkansas Wood ManufacturersAssociation

Association for TemperateAgroforestry

California Forest Products Commission

California Forestry Association

California Redwood Association

Composite Panel Association

Empire State Forest ProductsAssociation

Empire State Paper Research Institute

Evergreen Partnership

Florida Wood Council

Forest Industries Telecommunications

Forest Industry Training and EducationCouncil

Forest Landowners of California

Forest Products Society

Georgia Forestry Association

Hardwood Manufacturers Association

Hardwood Plywood and VeneerAssociation

Hardwood Utilization Consortium

Hawaii Forest Industry Association

Idaho Forest Products Commission

Independent Forest ProductsAssociation

Indiana Lumber and Builders’ SupplyAssociation

Intermountain Forest IndustryAssociation

Intermountain Woodnet

International Association of PalletRecyclers

International Society of WoodAnatomists

Kentucky Wood ProductsCompetitiveness Corporation

Lignin Institute

Lumberman’s Association of Texas

Lumbermen’s Credit Association

Maine Council on Sustainable ForestManagement

Maine Wood Products Association

Michigan Forest Association

Michigan Lumber and BuildingMaterials Association

Minnesota Forest Industries

Mississippi Forestry Association

National Arbor Day Foundation

National Forest Foundation

National Hardwood LumberAssociation

Material Dealers Association

National Lumber and BuildingMaterial Dealers Association

National Paper Trade Association

National Particleboard Association

North American Horse and MuleLoggers Association

North American Wholesale LumberAssociation

Northeastern Retail LumberAssociation

Northwest Forestry Association

Northwest Timber Workers ResourceCouncil

Northwest Wood Products Association

Ohio Forestry Association

Oregon Forest Industries Council

Particleboard and Medium DensityFiberboard Institute

Pulp and Paperworkers ResourceCouncil

Secondary Wood Products Consortium

Society of Wood Science andTechnology

Southern Forest Products Association

Southern Lumber ExportersAssociation

Southern Pine Council

Technical Association of the Pulp andPaper Industry

Temperate Forest Foundation

Tennessee Forestry Association

Timber Trade Federation

Washington Contract LoggersAssociation

Washington Forest ProtectionAssociation

Western Forestry and ConservationAssociation

Western Red Cedar LumberAssociation

Western Wood Products Association

World Timber Network

��

The full text of Indicator 56 is as follows: Extent to whichthe institutional framework supports the conservation andsustainable management of forests, including the capacityto develop and maintain efficient physical infrastructureto facilitate the supply of forest products and services andsupport forest management (Montreal Process WorkingGroup 2003).


Capital resources that take the form of physical infrastruc-ture are essential to the management of forests and ulti-mately to economic development and the quality of life inrural forested areas. Government investments in publicinfrastructure such as roads, bridges, sewerage and sanita-tion systems, schools, parks, and other physical facilitiesare important complements to the capital investments madeby private firms (such as plants and equipment). Togetherthey constitute the capital basis for protecting forests andrelated resources and for producing the goods and servicesthat help to sustain the economies of forested areas(Montreal Process Working Group 2003, Montreal ProcessTechnical Advisory Committee 2000).

Data useful for measuring this indicator are compilationsand descriptions of laws and programs at national andsubnational levels that promote investments in forestinfrastructure. From a forest resource perspective, usefulinformation includes types, locations, and magnitudes offorest infrastructure (for example, campgrounds, roads,trails, signs, fire lookouts, interpretative and educationalfacilities), forest area judged to be adequately serviced byexisting infrastructure and plans for future infrastructureinvestments, portion of existing infrastructure beingmanaged to designated standards and needs, and extent towhich public- and private-sector budgets devote financialresources to new construction of infrastructure, as opposedto maintenance of existing infrastructure. Also relevant isthe extent to which local, regional, and national inventor-ies of infrastructure are undertaken and the degree towhich the information provided by these inventories isrelevant to decisions regarding the use, management, andprotection of forests. In assessing this indicator, oneshould be aware that measurements can be interpreted invarious ways. For example, while roads are important to

most interests in the sustainability of forests, some seg-ments of society may consider roads to have a negativeimpact on the importance of certain forest values(Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee 2000).

Concepts and principles that are to be identified andaddressed are suggested by the indicator. To guide thisreview, brief definitions of three important concepts are:physical infrastructure—the underlying, large-scale, capitalassets (physical and tangible) required in order to use,manage, and protect forest resources; facilitate the supplyof—the ability of infrastructure to efficiently expedite theavailability of services and products from forests; andsupport forest management—the ability of infrastructure toprovide for activities considered essential to tending oradministering forests and related resources.

The definition of physical infrastructure as used here doesnot preclude consideration of other types of infrastructure.For example, physical infrastructure can include at leastfour basic elements, i.e., forest ecosystems as infrastructure(“green infrastructure”), forestland base infrastructure(trails, roads, recreation facilities), processing and manu-facturing infrastructure (manufacturing and fabricatingfacilities), and broad forest community infrastructure(such as schools, hospitals, highways, libraries, museums,and sanitation systems) that promotes health and safetyinterests and contributes to the quality of life in towns,cities, and rural areas. Although these categories are notmutually exclusive, they do provide a useful structure forreview and assessment of information concerning forestinfrastructure. We do not think that it would be useful tointerpret Indicator 56 as applying to green infrastructure,as such information is presented in great depth in discus-sions of indicators associated with Criteria One throughSix.


The notion of infrastructure conveys the sense of basic,underlying framework or features. Frequently it is used torefer to technical or structural features such as militaryinstallations, communication systems, and the transporta-tion networks of an organization, city, or nation. The infra-structure of a particular locality or region provides thephysical basis for economic and social life for those wholive and work in that area. Whether running a business,raising a family, or merely visiting from another region,people depend on—and to varying degrees, come to


Physical Infrastructure (Indicator 56)


��

expect—a core framework of services to be available,from roads and communication systems to schools andmedical facilities. With such a framework in place, peoplecan pursue the myriad activities that are the basis of theireveryday lives. Unless this basic underpinning is available,many activities necessary to a well-functioning society,including the sustaining of forest resources, may not bepossible (Fox 1987, Lewis and others 1993, Munnel 1990,Sears and others 1990, U.S. Department of Agriculture1990, Vaughn 1983).

People who live and work in rural forested areas utilize avariety of resources in pursuing their interests. Someresources are used to provide goods and services that aredirectly consumed, while others are used as a resource inthe production of other products (for example, timber asan input in the production of wood products). Within sucha context, resources can take different forms, includingbiophysical resources (trees, water, wildlife), humanresources (labor, management skills), and capital resources(plants and equipment). The latter are frequently viewedas capital assets directly supportive of manufacturingprocesses, but important capital resources also includeroads, bridges, electricity, communication systems, healthand educational facilities, and law enforcement and fireprotection services, all of which are essential to the varietyof productive and consumptive activities of a community,region, or State. Although the term infrastructure can beapplied to all three types of resources, it is usuallyemployed as a descriptor for capital resources.

The capital resources important to the infrastructure of anarea or community may originate from private as well as

public sources. Private capital can originate from variousinternal sources (such as reinvested business revenue) andfrom a myriad of external sources (including public andprivate lending institutions). Private investments in infra-structure are most commonly viewed as physical capital(investments in plants, facilities, and equipment) requiredin order to carry out primary production processes. How-ever, some firms consider capital to include the humancapital (investments in work-related training, employeehealth and educational benefits) required to enhance laborand managerial skills, and the community capital (invest-ments in the establishment and maintenance of communityservice organizations via donations and sponsorship ofevents) needed to provide a wholesome and secure com-munity for employees and supportive citizens. In somecases, the financial resources of lending institutions areconsidered to be capital. These financial resources aremade available to private enterprises for a variety ofpurposes, including the establishment of certain kinds ofinfrastructure that have broader social purposes (forexample, pollution control facilities).

The public sector is also a major contributor to infrastruc-ture. Federal, State, and local governments invest accruedor borrowed revenue directly (as in the construction ofroads and dams) or indirectly (as in cost-share projectswith private enterprises) in infrastructure as a means ofenhancing private-sector production and improving thequality of life of individuals and communities in general(table 1). Government investment in infrastructure is arecognition that even with available private capital, firmsand businesses may need additional investment in infrastruc-ture if they are to be productive and operate efficiently.

Table 1—Functional categorization scheme for public infrastructure, by type of facility

Service facilities Production facilities

Education: Elementary, middle, and secondaryschools; public libraries

Health: Hospitals, nursing homes, ambulatorycare facilities (outpatient, dental, health),residential facilities (dependent children,emotionally disturbed persons, handicappedpersons, persons with drug abuse problems),emergency vehicle services

Justice: Jails and prisons, law enforcementfacilities

Recreation: Community recreation facilities

Transportation: Railroads, airports, streets andhighways, inter- and intra-community transit

Source: Vaughan (1983).

Energy: Direct power suppliers

Fire safety: Fire stations, communication systems,water supply and storage facilities

Solid waste: Disposal sites, collection facilitiesand equipment

Telecommunications: Cable and satellitetelevision, over-air television, disaster preparationfacilities

Wastewater: Sewer mains and collection systems,treatment and disposal systems

Water supply: Community systems (storagefacilities, treatment facilities, delivery systems),on-site wells and cisterns

��

There must be roads and bridges in place to permit busi-nesses to obtain raw materials and to transport productsand services to markets, just as business must have accessto facilities that provide electricity, water, wastewatertreatment, and communications. The magnitude of suchinvestments and the distribution of their benefits overmany firms and communities positions government in aleading and responsible role for their provision.

Public infrastructure investments are often popularlyviewed as supportive only of businesses or economic enter-prises. In reality, however, such investments help support awide variety of social functions considered necessary tohealthy and wholesome communities. Public school build-ings, for example, are an obvious necessity. Likewise, policeand fire protection services require adequate physical facil-ities and equipment if they are to provide citizens theopportunity to live and work in an atmosphere of security.Parks and recreation facilities give citizens the opportunityto experience the aesthetic dimension of natural surround-ings in a relaxed and unconstrained fashion.

Effective and well-functioning infrastructure depends onwell-planned investments that are efficient and of anappropriate scale. For this reason, guiding principles havebeen provided for Federal investments in infrastructure(for transportation, water resources, energy, and environ-mental protection) (Presidential Executive Order 1994).Infrastructure investment and management should bebased on systematic analysis of benefits and costs. Personswho are responsible for infrastructure investment andmanagement should consider the full range of optionsavailable for accomplishing desired objectives, quantifybenefits and costs to the extent possible, discount costsover the full life-cycle of projects, and directly and expli-citly address project uncertainty. Infrastructure invest-ments and management require efficient management ofinfrastructure facilities (sound operational practices, appro-priate pricing of services provided), active participation ofthe private sector (appropriate private-sector ownership,financing, construction, operation), and sharing of projectdevelopment with State and local governments.


Private-Sector Capacity

Private sources of information describing infrastructureinvestments of relevance to sustaining forests are few, andthe amount of information they provide is not very exten-sive. The information often originates from many uncoor-dinated sources, is seldom capable of being compared inany meaningful way, and, because of definition problemsand inconsistent time periods assessed, poses real problems

for sound analysis over long periods of time. In addition,nearly all of the published information focuses on woodproduct manufacturing and processing. With the notableexception of information about private investments in theinfrastructure necessary for the prevention of water pollu-tion, very little information is devoted to descriptions ofinfrastructure devoted to other forest benefits (such aswater, recreation, range, and wilderness). Notable in thisrespect is the lack of information about infrastructure thatsupports outdoor recreation on private forestland (forexample, roads, bridges, campsites, shelters) (Teasley andothers 1999).

Some private publishers periodically present informationabout the extent of capital assets in certain segments of thewood-based industry, most notably the number of process-ing facilities (usually referred to as mills) and the numberof new or closed manufacturing facilities. Examples ofsuch publishers or publications are Miller Freeman Publica-tions,2 Business Week (R&D expenditures), MaharashtraIndustry Directory, Wood Science & Marketing (Univer-sity of Washington), Forbes (annual report on Americanindustry), and WoodCenter.net. Information on infra-structure can also be gleaned from the annual reports ofindividual companies and from a variety of privatelysponsored Web sites.

Trade associations representing the wood-based industryalso periodically publish information regarding plant capa-city and capital investments in various types of infrastruc-ture. An example is the American Forest and Paper Associ-ation, which annually reports capital expenditures for paperand wood product manufacturing, primary mills and con-verting plants, and environmental protection expenditures(tables 2 and 3) (American Forest and Paper Association2000). Much of the information reported by the associa-tion has been published previously by the U.S. CensusBureau.

Federal Government agencies are active in gathering andreporting information about relevant manufacturing estab-lishments and capital investments. Most notable are theU.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of EconomicAnalysis. To the extent that establishments and capitalexpenditures are reflective of infrastructure conditions, theU.S. Census Bureau’s Economic Census of Manufacturingand Report on Annual Capital Expenditures present awealth of statistical information by State and industry(table 4) (U.S. Census Bureau 2001a, 2001b). In some

2 Miller Freeman directories include Lockwood-Post’s Directory of Pulp,Paper and Allied Trades; Pulp and Paper North American Fact Book;Lumber and Panel North American Fact Book; Directory of WoodProducts Industry; Secondary Wood Products Manufacturers Directory;and Pulp and Paper Company Profiles (Vol. I: United States, Volume II:Canada).

��

Table 2—Capital expenditures in paper manufacturing and wood product manufacturing in theUnited States, by region—1997, 1998, and 1999

Paper manufacturing Wood product manufacturing

Region 1997 1998 1999 1997 1998 1999

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - thousands of dollars - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Northeast 1,366,253 1,584,799 1,236,995 238,100 302,123 245,704North Central 1,973,850 2,113,766 2,059,378 537,222 552,908 645,781South 4,397,278 3,952,498 3,030,662 1,330,272 1,330,272 1,399,972West 818,342 818,342 670,345 610,997 610,997 727,105Pacific 695,790 695,790 594,264 453,730 453,730 602,197

Total 9,251,723 8,492,703 6,997,380 2,812,452 2,796,300 3,018,562

Source: American Forest and Paper Association (2000).

Table 3—Capital expenditures for environmental protection bythe pulp and paper industry in the United States, by type ofresource protected (1990-2000)

Investment by resource protectedTotal

Year investments Water Air Land

- - - - - - - - - - - - - millions of dollars - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1990 1,292 579 478 2351991 1,343 676 479 1891992 1,048 486 379 1831993 737 337 275 1251994 721 286 249 1861995 625 309 219 971996 740 352 251 1371997 588 325 151 1121998 627 312 129 1861999 718 360 290 682000 1,117 382 657 78

Note: Land category includes investments to curb pollutants such as sold waste.Source: American Forest and Paper Association (2000).

Table 4—Establishments and capital expenditure of wood-based industry in theUnited States, by type of industry (1997)

CapitalIndustry Establishments expenditures 1997

thousands of dollars

Logging 13,533 780,601Sawmills and wood preservation 4,841 1,161,016Veneer, plywood, engineered wood products 1,841 762,558Millwork, containers, other wood products 10,685 945,660Pulp, paper, paperboard mills 546 5,727,647Converted paper products 5,322 2,867,486Wood furniture 8,061 255,044

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2001a).

��

cases, information reporting is hampered by U.S. CensusBureau rules limiting disclosure of information whendoing so would reveal the identity of individual firms.Nevertheless, the information reported is very useful.


Information regarding Federal authority and institutionalcapacity to develop and maintain infrastructure is scatteredamong various sources and seldom has as a central focusthe importance of infrastructure in sustaining certain forestconditions. Legal authority to expend appropriated fundson infrastructure is seldom stated specifically in statutesaddressing forests and related resources. Usually, suchauthority is specified as part of broader authority to spendmonies generally. For example, the National Trails SystemAct of 1968 authorizes the appropriation of specificamounts of money for development of certain trails (forexample, Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail, AppalachianNational Scenic Trail), while the Federal Land Policy andManagement Act of 1976 establishes a working capitalfund to be used for investments in the management ofpublic lands, including infrastructure investments. Like-wise, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable ResourcesPlanning Act of 1974 authorizes the installation of a trans-portation system to service the National Forest System,and the Public Rangelands Improvements Act of 1978authorizes investments in infrastructure that will improveFederal rangelands (dams, roads, trails). Unfortunately,there has been no comprehensive review of Federal legalauthority specifically for infrastructure investments in thearea of natural resources.

Data about Federal investments in public works are gath-ered by the U.S. Census Bureau as part of the agency’sannual survey of State and local government finances(U.S. Census Bureau 2000a). The definition of publicworks infrastructure is very broad, and includes invest-ment in highways, airports, sewerage, water supply, solidwaste facilities, mass transit, and water transport termi-nals, all of which have implications for forest sustainabil-ity. In 1995, Federal expenditures in these activitiestotaled $12.8 billion of the $193.0 billion invested bygovernment (7 percent Federal, 29 percent State, 64 per-cent local), of which an estimated 39 percent was in theform of capital expenditures. A dataset that focuses moredirectly on Federal Government capital outlays in naturalresources shows that such expenditures totaled $3.3 billionin 1995, $3.0 billion in 1994, $6.1 billion in 1993, $5.5billion in 1992, $4.7 billion in 1990, $4.1 billion in 1985,and $4.0 billion in 1980) (U.S. Census Bureau 2000b).

Information about USDA Forest Service investments ininfrastructure is similarly diffuse, although some is pub-licly available in reports of independent agencies (for

example, General Accounting Office 1991) and in theagency’s annual reports. For example, in the NationalForest System in 1998, the agency was involved in theconstruction of more than 200 miles of road and recon-struction of more than 2,700 miles of road, construction ormaintenance of more than 130,000 miles of trails, andconstruction or reconstruction of six bridges (U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture Forest Service 1999). A recent butsignificant change in road infrastructure within the NationalForest System has been the decommissioning of roads,which has increased from about 1,500 miles per year in1996 to about 2,800 miles per year in 1999 (U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture Forest Service 2000). For the years1994 through 1998, the agency’s investments in the con-struction and maintenance of facilities, roads, and trailswere, in millions of dollars, as follows (U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service 1999):

Facility Road and Trail

Year Construction Maintenance Construction Maintenance

1994 94,437 26,476 130,896 79,1801995 61,588 26,304 129,655 83,7841996 46,029 23,008 115,359 81,0191997 59,974 26,008 115,000 81,0191998 47,919 24,244 114,951 84,974

Information about infrastructure investments in the NationalPark System is periodically issued by independent govern-ment agencies (for example, General Accounting Office1995). In addition, the USDI National Park Serviceprovides information on investments in improvements,maintenance, and construction, although these may or maynot be related to forests and associated resources. Forselected years, these investments, in millions of dollars,were as follows (U.S. Department of the Interior, NationalPark Service 2000):

Improvements andYear maintenance Construction

1990 160.0 108.51991 179.6 134.11992 212.1 193.31993 224.8 226.81994 222.9 205.61995 234.0 192.01996 234.0 168.01997 246.0 188.0

The National Outdoor Recreation Supply InformationSystem (NORSIS) provides extensive information aboutrecreation infrastructure (Betz 1998, Betz and others 1999,Cordell 1999). Compiled for the 1998 Renewable ResourcesPlanning Act Assessment of Outdoor Recreation and Wil-derness, the system organizes information (primarily at thecounty level) from an extensive variety of references anddatabases (both public and private). The system presents

��

summary measures of outdoor recreation infrastructure interms of area (acres), miles (roads and trails), and numberof units (campgrounds), with the information organized bymajor resource ownership categories (Federal, State, local,and private) (table 5).


The capacity of State governments to gather, analyze, anddistribute information regarding infrastructure relevant tothe use, management, and protection of forests has notbeen surveyed systematically or comprehensively. Little isknown about the legal and institutional capacity of Stategovernments to promote investments in infrastructure. Someprivate organizations representing State governments at

the national level have gathered State expenditure infor-mation that has relevance to infrastructure generally, butnot to forest infrastructure specifically (for example, infor-mation about State general expenditures, and Federaldirect payments to States) (Council of State Governments2000).

State capacity to affect various elements of forest infra-structure is also described by a 2000 analysis of Stategovernment executive agencies influencing the use, man-agement, and protection of forests. The analysis deter-mined that nationwide in 2000 there were 47 Cabinet-levelentities (departments, agencies, commissions) engaged ineconomic development and business promotion activitiesinvolving investment in infrastructure important to forest

Table 5—Recreational infrastructure database sets for the National Outdoor Recreation SupplyInformation System, by recreation provider (1998)

Federal agencies Local agencies

Estate agenciesMultiple-use agenciesUSDA Forest ServiceBureau of Land Management

Resource protection and public useNational Park ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Other Federal land resourcesIndian landDepartment of Defense land

Water resource agenciesBureau of ReclamationU.S. Army Corps of EngineersTennessee Valley AuthorityNational Oceanic and Atmospheric

AdministrationSpecially designated Federal systems

National Wilderness Preservation SystemNational Recreation AreasNational Trails SystemNational Wild and Scenic Rivers

State agencies

State park systems in the United StatesState park areasState park facilities

Other State resource systemsState forestsState wildernessState fish and wildlife landState trust landsState scenic rivers

Source: Adapted from Betz (1998).

Municipal recreation and parksCounty recreation and parksSpecial park districtsLocal recreation facilities and sites

Urban agencies

GreenwaysRails-to-trailsLand trustsTourism development

Private sector

Recreation landNature ConservancyIndustrial timber lands

Private recreation businessesCampgroundsDownhill and cross-country skiingOutfitters and guidesFarm-ranch vacationsAmusements and attractionsGolf and tennis facilitiesVacation homes and resorts

Public-private partnerships

Scenic bywaysWatchable wildlife

��

conditions. Forty-six sub-Cabinet (first-tier) entities wereengaged in similar matters. Nineteen governing or advi-sory bodies to Executive agencies also had influence overinfrastructure matters related to economic development.Also at the department level were six State entities involvedin the development of transportation and communicationinfrastructure (Ellefson and others 2001 and 2002).

Information about State and local investments in publicworks is gathered by the U.S. Census Bureau as part of theagency’s annual survey of State and local governmentfinances (U.S. Census Bureau 2000a). In 1995, Stateexpenditures for public works totaled $56.4 billion of the$193.0 billion invested by governments (7 percent Federal,29 percent State, 64 percent local). State and local govern-ment capital outlays in the area of natural resources were$2.9 billion in 1996, $3.0 billion in 1994, $6.1 billion in1993, $5.5 billion in 1992, $4.7 billion in 1990, $4.1 billionin 1985, and $4.0 billion in 1980. Capital outlays in thearea of parks and recreation were $4.9 billion in 1996,$4.1 billion in 1995, $3.9 billion in 1994, $3.8 billion in1993, $3.9 billion in 1992, $3.9 billion in 1990, $2.2billion in 1985, and $2.0 billion in 1980 (U.S. CensusBureau 2000b).


Information about local government expenditures for con-struction and maintenance of infrastructure directly relevant

to forests and forest uses has not been gathered or assessed.However, data about local investments in public works aregathered by the U.S. Census Bureau (U.S. Census Bureau2000a). In 1995, local expenditures on these activitiestotaled $123.7 billion of the $193.0 billion invested bygovernment (7 percent Federal, 29 percent State, 64percent local).

Infrastructure in forested counties in Michigan, Minnesota,and Wisconsin was assessed in 1993 using U.S. CensusBureau county government finance and related reports(Lewis and others 1993). The focus was on 1986 capitaloutlays by all levels of government (local, State, Federal)in counties that did not have large urban centers (popula-tions exceeding 25,000) and whose land area was at least25 percent forested. Forty-five percent of the counties inthe three States had these characteristics. Of the totalcapital outlay for infrastructure in 1986, the largest portionwas directed to education services (57 percent in Michigan,39 percent in Minnesota, 44 percent in Wisconsin), withcore infrastructure a distant second in level of capital out-lay (table 6). Capital investment in environmental infra-structure did not exceed 3 percent of total capital outlaysin any of the States analyzed.


An effective level of infrastructure is important to accom-plishing a diversity of societal interests in the sustainability

Table 6—State and local government capital outlays for infrastructure in forestedcounties of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, by infrastructure category (1986)

Major infrastructure category Michigan Minnesota Wisconsin

- - - - - - percent of capital outlays - - - - - -

Core infrastructure (transportation, utilities, 15 22 26sewerage, and sanitation)

Education services (schools and libraries) 57 39 44

Environment (parks, recreation, natural 1 2 3resources)

Social services (hospitals and health care) 9 4 5

Public safety (police and fire protection) 3 3 5

Housing and community development * 10 1

Other capital outlays 15 29 16

Total percent 100 100 100

Total dollars (in thousands) $2,384,381 $895,978 $1,940,672

Note: Capital expenditures represent all capital expenditures by all levels of government in a county. Less than onepercent indicated by asterisk.Source: Lewis and others (1993).

��

of forests and the communities that depend on them. Thisreview of infrastructure capacity at Federal, State, andlocal levels of government suggests the following:

• Infrastructure is often presumed to exist as a set ofconditions facilitating the management of forests, use ofbenefits provided by forests, and quality of life ofcommunities that see forests as a community attribute.Infrastructure is often taken for granted. In fact, it is afoundation that must be invested in, built, managed, andmaintained.

• Infrastructure occurs as a result of investment in variousdesirable facilities. This includes investments associatedwith forest resource conditions (forest roads and trails,recreational facilities), processing and manufacturingfacilities (particle board mills, pulp and paper mills),and community-supporting facilities (schools, highways,sewage treatment facilities). Determining acceptablelevels of investment in public infrastructure is difficultbecause of the often differing preferences of forestusers. For example, different forest users have differentviews about the desirability of forest road systems.

• Legal authority and institutional capacity to build infra-structure important to forest and community sustain-ability is distributed among and within many levels ofgovernment. In reality, nearly all forest resource agen-cies exercise some capacity to influence infrastructure,although very few government agencies have explicitresponsibility for infrastructure conditions. The greatestresponsibility for promoting infrastructure investmentslies with economic development agencies, pollutioncontrol agencies, and some resource managementagencies.

• Concern about forest-related infrastructure tends to focuson physical facilities associated with the extraction,processing, and distribution of wood and wood products(for example, forest roads, manufacturing mills, high-way systems). In terms of visibility, investment levels,and available information, less concern appears to befocused on the infrastructure necessary to provide otherforest benefits (for example, recreation, water, range).

• Infrastructure investments by the private sector areprimarily the result of access to privately raised capital,which is often complemented by government-providedfinances and technical advice. Private-sector investmentstend to focus on processing infrastructure while thegovernment focuses on infrastructure requirements ofthe community as a whole (highways, schools, com-munication systems).

Issues and Trends

The literature identifies a number of major issues andtrends that relate to infrastructure capacity as it affects

forest sustainability and conservation. Examples of thisliterature (from which the following issues and trends aredrawn) are: Aschauer 1991a, 1991b; Fox 1987; GeneralAccounting Office 1992; Lewis and others 1993; Munnel1990; Sears and others 1990; U.S. Department of Agri-culture Forest Service 1997, 2000, 2003; Vaughn 1983.

• The relevance of traditional definitions and concepts ofinfrastructure to forest sustainability is increasinglybeing challenged. The concept of infrastructure asphysical structures such as roads, buildings, processingfacilities, and communication systems is being enlargedto include green infrastructure (ecosystems filteringpollutants and providing aesthetic, recreational, andspiritual qualities); facilities that disperse, transform, orstore by-products of economic activities (facilities forstorage of toxic materials); and facilities that focus onobjectives not previously considered (such as camp-grounds, ski lifts, recreational trails).

• There is increasing recognition that the benefits providedby infrastructure are very diffuse, and that it is thereforeextremely difficult to determine market values for manycurrent or proposed public investments in infrastructure.Furthermore, the benefits from public investments ininfrastructure are often only loosely connected to theprices users pay for them. In some cases, users pay noclearly identifiable fee for the use of certain infrastruc-ture. For example, hunters and recreationists usuallypay no explicit fee for use of public forest roads andtrails. The results of these conditions are frequentlysignificant distortions in important economic relation-ships and subsequent investment decisions.

• There is increasing skepticism that public investmentsin forest and related infrastructure are promoting eco-nomic development and private-sector productivity. Thisskepticism gives rise to serious questions about the rolesof government and the private sector in fostering infra-structure investments necessary for certain forest usesand management activities.

• Specifying appropriate levels of public investment ininfrastructure is increasingly being viewed as a majorchallenge. This is largely because such determinationsare often made without benefit of a market system thatestablishes appropriate levels of pricing in a forest sus-tainability context. A private firm can compare revenueswith costs and adjust output capacity to the point atwhich marginal cost equals marginal revenue, but theproduction of forest infrastructure by government isseldom subject to these market mechanisms.

• The task of determining appropriate types and levels ofinvestment in infrastructure is being made more difficultby intense political debates over the use, management,and protection of forests. For example, there is strongdisagreement about the extent to which roads should bebuilt and maintained in public forests, and about the

��

extent to which economic development (often in theform of wood processing facilities) should be allowed tooccur in forested areas. This problem is of special con-cern for public lands, for which there are often multiple,shifting, and contradictory objectives for forest sustain-ability.

• Expected demographic changes are likely to have asignificant impact on the type and intensity of forestinfrastructure required in the future. Preferences forsome forest uses (for example, preferences for certainrecreational activities) may change dramatically aspopulation structure changes or as population densitydeclines in some forested regions and increases inothers.

• Maintenance of existing infrastructure continues to be aconcern for both public and private sectors. For thepublic sector, backlogs in the maintenance of roads,trails, bridges, and dams are well documented. Com-pounding the problem is the need to decommissionroads on some public forests. In the private sector, agingprocessing facilities and the advent of new technologiesare placing greater stress on private sources of capitalfor needed improvements in infrastructure.

• Permanent infrastructure installations are increasinglyviewed as deterrents to the production of certain forestbenefits. Sentiment for minimal, if any, permanentphysical infrastructure is increasing in some segmentsof society that find forest benefits diminished by thepresence of permanent structures (such as roads, build-ings, communication structures). This problem reflectsbroader contradictions in infrastructure requirementsassociated with multiple needs.


Specification

The diversity in form and function of infrastructure raisesmany questions about the information required to adequatelyassess the infrastructure conditions considered necessaryto forest sustainability and conservation. A number ofinformation concerns must be addressed. For example,there is a pressing need for information about the statusand condition of infrastructure (magnitude and extent ofcurrent and planned capital outlays in infrastructure), needfor investment in new or existing infrastructure (identifica-tion of desired objectives and assessment of infrastructureinvestments needed to accomplish them), processes bywhich infrastructure is provided (determinations of ade-quacy, assessment of investment needs, identification offinancial sources, designation of responsibility for imple-mentation), effectiveness and efficiency of infrastructureinvestments (relationship between desired conditions of

forest sustainability and required type and level of infra-structure), knowledge and information networks (commun-ication and information flow between users and providersof infrastructure), regional and national influences oninfrastructure (in contrast to local conditions, influence ofbroader geographic forest conditions, population structure,type and mix of industries, financial capital, research andeducation resources), and regional and internationalcomparisons (determination of infrastructure deficiencies,focusing of public and private investments, use of learningexperiences to increase program efficiency) (Lewis andothers 1993).

Information about infrastructure considered important toforest sustainability and conservation has received verylimited attention from public and private organizations.Notable providers are Federal agencies (for example, U.S.Census Bureau), most of which focus on the infrastructurerequired for industrial production (including wood-basedproduction). The National Association of State Forestershas surveyed State forestry agency information concerninginfrastructure. The association reported that only 14 Stateshad access to such information. Of the 14 States withinformation, 3 indicated that they had abundant informa-tion, 7 that they had sufficient information, and 4 that theyhad some, but generally very little, information. Two Statesreported that the quality of their information was excellent,11 that it was adequate, and 2 that it was poor (NationalAssociation of State Foresters 1999).

The following kinds of information might be useful in clar-ifying the capacity of institutions to provide the infrastruc-ture required for forest sustainability and conservation:

• Measurement information—Information about whichvariables are important and how they should be mea-sured to accurately portray conditions involving forestinfrastructure has not been assembled. What indicatorsshould be measured and compiled (for example, roaddensity per unit area, roads per capita)? What infrastruc-ture indicators are most appropriate for various standardsof sustainable forest management (for example, camp-grounds, trails, educational facilities, timber manage-ment)? How often should these indicators be measured?Are special indicators and measurement needs associ-ated with different types of infrastructure, or with publicversus private infrastructure? What is an appropriateindicator of necessary infrastructure (for example, whatare appropriate standards for roads and processingfacilities)?

• Extent of activity information—Information about infra-structure is often scattered unevenly among public andprivate collecting organizations, and lacks local,regional, and national consistency. What are the legalrequirements for investing in infrastructure at various

��

geographic levels and by various organizations? Howare these requirements changing over time? Are theredifferent requirements at different levels of government?Is there consistency among these requirements? What isthe status of local efforts to encourage infrastructuredevelopment? What is the condition of private infra-structure and the extent of private investment in suchinfrastructure? How does current infrastructure relate topublic and private forest plans? What portion of infra-structure is being managed to some agreed-upon stan-dard? Are compilations of data, as currently carried out,useful for guiding policy and program direction?

• Responsible organization information—Comprehensiveinformation about what private and public organizationsare actively engaged in the development and mainten-ance of forest and related infrastructure has not beenassembled. What government agencies, and at whatlevels, are engaged in infrastructure development andmaintenance (for example, USDA Forest Service, U.S.Department of Transportation, U.S. Geological Survey,State and local governments)? What legal authorityassigns them responsibility, and is such authority beinginterpreted accurately? Should certain levels of govern-ment be responsible for providing infrastructure forcertain categories of forest landowners? Do public andprivate organizations that engage in infrastructure devel-opment have similar or differing goals and objectives,and do these objectives foster or hinder needed invest-ment in infrastructure? Are there organizational patternsin the public and private sector that, if known and publi-cized, would enhance overall investment in infrastructure?

• Coordination information—Information about require-ments for coordinating the development and mainten-ance of infrastructure among and between various levelsof government and various private concerns has notbeen assembled. What conflicts exist among the variousentities engaged in developing and maintaining forestinfrastructure? How might they be resolved produc-tively? What are requirements for coordination? Dothey allow for cross-sectoral, coordinated planning andreview (for example, in the construction of road systemsinvolving multiple forest ownerships)? Do they ensurethat the cumulative results of local, State, and regionallydeveloped infrastructure will lead to outcomes consis-tent with national requirements and vice versa? Do theyallow incorporation of ad hoc code development activi-ties occurring at various times and undertaken by vari-ous levels of government?

• Scope of infrastructure information—Comprehensiveinformation about forest infrastructure in addition tothat required for wood production and processing hasnot been assembled. What infrastructure has been devel-oped for the range of values associated with forests?

What approaches have been used to encourage thedevelopment of such infrastructure? What laws requirethe development of infrastructure for the broad range ofvalues associated with forests? Do these legal require-ments differ among agencies at the same level of gov-ernment and among different levels of government? Arethese differences complementary or competitive? Arethere barriers to the development of infrastructure thatis not focused on wood production and processing? Ifso, how might they be overcome?

• Investment and incentive information—Comprehensiveinformation about resources devoted to infrastructuredevelopment and maintenance has not been assembled.What is the magnitude of investment in public and privateinfrastructure? Is there an appropriate level of investmentin new infrastructure, possibly as a percentage of exist-ing infrastructure? Are there legal and administrativeprocesses for allocating resources to infrastructure devel-opment and maintenance, and are they sufficient? Arethere legal or fiscal provisions for encouraging infra-structure development, and especially for encouragingcross-sectoral development and maintenance activities?

• Effectiveness information—Comprehensive informationabout the effectiveness of various types and levels ofinfrastructure in supporting sustainable forestry interestshas not been compiled. Are there legal or administrativerequirements to determine the efficiency and effective-ness of infrastructure development? What are appro-priate measures of success? Are there more effectiveapproaches to infrastructure development and mainten-ance than those currently in use?

• Monitoring information—Limited monitoring of thecondition of forest infrastructure and levels of invest-ment therein has been conducted, often by Federalagencies. However, more intensive monitoring could beuseful. Are there legal requirements to monitor thecondition of forest infrastructure? Is the informationobtained by means of monitoring being used to adaptinfrastructure investments to changing circumstances? Isthe information being collected and analyzed in waysthat enable agencies to fulfill their legal responsibili-ties? Are the results of monitoring efforts capable ofbeing accumulated to portray conditions at the land-scape, regional, and national levels?

Recommendations

The ability to achieve forest sustainability will dependvery largely on consistent, long-term investments in appro-priate types of infrastructure. In order to improve under-standing of the legal and institutional setting within whichsuch investment will occur, a variety of information voidsmust be addressed. We recommend that the followingactions be taken:

��

• Comprehensive periodic reviews—Conduct periodic andcomprehensive reviews of current authorities and insti-tutions that give direction and resources to the physicalinfrastructure considered necessary for forest sustain-ability. These reviews should be guided by the informa-tion deficiencies suggested above. Special attentionshould be given to the collection of information aboutthe type and extent of infrastructure, the organizationsresponsible for ensuring appropriate levels of infrastruc-ture, and the long-term appropriateness and effective-ness of forest infrastructure. This information shouldreflect conditions at Federal, State, and local levels ofgovernment. In addition, a systematic review of private-sector capability to create and maintain appropriateinfrastructure should be initiated.

• Responsibility for conducting reviews—Assign responsi-bility for continuous reviews of forest infrastructure to aspecific existing or new administrative unit of a Federalagency (for example, the USDA Forest Service’s Stateand Private Forestry unit or Research and Developmentunit), a college or university, or other nonprofit organi-zation (for example, the National Association of StateForesters or the National Council of the Paper Industryfor Air and Stream Improvement). This responsibilityshould be assigned to an organization that has a recordof success in addressing the complexities of forestinfrastructure.

• Devote resources to reviews—Invest in the review suffi-cient resources to provide the type and quantity of infor-mation necessary to dramatically improve understandingof current abilities to plan, construct, and maintainforest infrastructure that is important to sustainableforestry.



The activities specified by Indicator 56 are not definedclearly. The phrases “physical infrastructure,” “facilitatesupply of forest products and services,” and “support forforest management” must be explained if informationgathering is to proceed in an orderly way. The problem ofdefinition is further complicated by the use of old terms(such as “public works”) and new terms (such as “greeninfrastructure”) that reflect different perceptions ofinfrastructure.

The scope of the subject matter addressed by Indicator 56is also of concern. Physical infrastructure can consist ofleast four basic elements, namely forest ecosystems asinfrastructure, forestland base infrastructure (such as roads,recreation facilities), forest product processing infrastruc-ture (such as manufacturing facilities), and broad forest

community infrastructure (such as schools and hospitals).Although these distinctions are not mutually exclusive,they will regulate information gathering for this indicator.The Roundtable on Sustainable Forestry has suggested thatIndicator 56 be interpreted as applying only to implemen-tation of forest plans and capital investments in the man-agement and protection of the forestland base (forexample, forest roads and recreational facilities). Whilegermane, larger-scale infrastructure systems (for example,mills, production facilities, public and freight transporta-tion systems, energy infrastructure, water infrastructure,financial systems, banking systems) are beyond the scopeof this indicator. Such an approach would make the infor-mation-gathering task much easier. However, to limitinterpretation of the indicator in such a way would severelyconstrain efforts to appreciate and understand the impor-tance of infrastructure (in its broadest sense) to forestsustainability and conservation.

Infrastructure scope and definition problems will continueto be troublesome. However, we recommend that theindicator be reworded to refer to institutional capacity to“Develop and maintain physical infrastructure necessaryto manage and protect forests and to make available therange of goods and services that forests are capable ofproviding.”


Indicator 56 overlaps with several others, particularly asthey relate to concepts involving development and imple-mentation of forest management plans. There is potentialfor difficulty in this respect in Indicator 56’s relationshipto Indicators 10 (area of forestland), 35 (area of recrea-tional forestland), 36 (facilities available for recreationand tourism), 38 (investment in forests and product pro-cessing), 42 (forestland spiritual values), 46 (changingeconomic conditions), 49 (planning and assessment), and54 (planning and coordination).

Literature CitedAmerican Forest and Paper Association. 2000. Paper, paperboard and

wood pulp statistics: 2001. Washington, DC: American Forest andPaper Association. 93 p.

Aschauer, D.A. 1991a. Infrastructure: America’s third deficit. Challenge.34(2): 39-45.

Aschauer, D.A. 1991b. The third deficit. GAO Journal. Spring: 4-8.

Betz, C.J. 1998. Outdoor recreation supply in the United States: a descrip-tion of the resources, data, and other information sources. Asheville,NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern ResearchStation. [Not paged].

Betz, C.J.; English, D.B.K.; Cordell, H.K. 1999. Outdoor recreationresources. In: Cordell, H.K.; McKinney, S.M., ed. Outdoor recreation inAmerican life. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing: 39-182.

��

Cordell, H.K. 1999. Framework for assessment of demand and supplytrends in outdoor recreation. In: Cordell, H.K.; McKinney, S.M., eds.Outdoor recreation in American life. Champaign, IL: SagamorePublishing: 31-38.

Council of State Governments. 2000. The book of States: 2000-2001.Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments. 551 p. Vol. 33.



Fox, William F. 1987. Public infrastructure and economic development.In: Rural economic development in the 1980’s: preparing for the future.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic ResearchService, Division of Agriculture and Rural Economy: 13-1 to 13-23.

General Accounting Office. 1991. Forest Service: difficult choices facefuture of the recreation program. GAO/RCED-91-115. Washington,DC: General Accounting Office. 34 p.

General Accounting Office. 1992. Rural development: rural Americafaces many challenges. GAO/RCED-93-35. Washington, DC: GeneralAccounting Office. 124 p.

General Accounting Office. 1995. National parks: difficult choices needto be made about the future of the parks. GAO/RCED-95-238.Washington, DC: General Accounting Office. 52 p.

Lewis, B.J.; Ellefson, P.V.; Moulton, R.J. 1993. Public infrastructure andrural development in forested areas of the Lake States: a review andassessment of information needs. Staff Paper Series 90. St. Paul, MN:University of Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources. 137 p.

Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. Criteria andindicators for the conservation and sustainable management of temper-ate and boreal forests: criterion seven. http://www.mpci.org/tac/mexico/tn7_e.html. [Date accessed: February 2000].


Munnel, A.H. 1990. How does public infrastructure affect regionaleconomic performance? New England Economic Review. Sept.-Oct.:11-32.

National Association of State Foresters. 1999. First approximationassessment report. http://www.stateforesters.org/SFstats.html. [Dateaccessed: December 2001].

Presidential Executive Order. 1994. Principles for Federal infrastructureinvestments. Executive Order 12893 of January 26, 1994. FederalRegister 59(20). 3 p.

Sears, D.W.; Rowley, T.D.; Reid, J.N. 1990. Infrastructure investment andeconomic development: an overview. In: Infrastructure investment andeconomic development. AGES 9069. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Division of Agricultureand Rural Economy: 1-18.

Teasley, D.W.; Bergstroom, J.C.; Cordell, H.K. [and others]. 1999. Privatelands and outdoor recreation in the United States. In: Cordell, H.K.;McKinney, S.M., eds. Outdoor recreation in American life. Champaign,IL: Sagamore Publishing: 183-218.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000a. Annual survey of State and local governmentfinances, Department of Commerce. http://www.census.gov/govs/www/estimate97.html. [Date accessed: December 2001].

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000b. Statistical abstract of the United States.Washington, DC: Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau.1,005 p.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2001a. General summary 1997: economic census,manufacturing (Subject series). EC97M31S-GS. Department ofCommerce. http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/ec97stat.htm. [Dateaccessed: December 2001].

U.S. Census Bureau. 2001b. Annual capital expenditures: 1999. ACE/99.Washington, DC: Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 16 p.+ appendices.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1990. Infrastructure investment and eco-nomic development. AGES 9069. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Economic Research Service, Division of Agriculture andRural Economy. [Not paged].

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 1997. First approximationreport for sustainable forest management: report of the United Stateson the criteria and indicators for the sustainable management oftemperate and boreal forests. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture Forest Service. 220 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 1999. Report of the ForestService: Fiscal Year 1999. http://www.fs.fed.us/pl/pdb/98report/. [Dateaccessed: November 2001].

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2000. Forest Service road-less area conservation. Final environmental impact statement. http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/feis/. [Date accessed: November 2001].

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2003. Sustainabilityassessment highlights for the northern United States. NA-TP-05-03.Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, NortheastArea State and Private Forestry. 99 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 2000. NationalPark Service statistical abstract: 1999. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-ment of the Interior, National Park Service. 52 p.

Vaughn, R.J. 1983. Financing public works in the 1980s. In: Barker, M.,ed. Rebuilding America’s infrastructure: an agenda for the 1980s.Durham, NC: Duke University Press: 108-120.

��

The full text of Indicator 57 is as follows: Extent to whichthe institutional framework supports the conservation andsustainable management of forests, including the capacityto enforce laws, regulations, and guidelines (MontrealProcess Working Group 2003).


The achievement of conditions conducive to forest conser-vation and sustainability implies that various biophysicalstandards (for example, forestry best management practices)and assorted political processes (for example, collaborativeprocesses, legislative processes) have been appropriatelyengaged and applied. In many cases, this will occur inresponse to market systems or to various participatoryprocesses involving different segments of the public. How-ever, there may be circumstances in which sustainabilitystandards are applied only in response to the fear ofpenalty or punishment. Some unwilling persons or entitiesrespond only to the imposition of a sanction in the form ofan order, fine, or incarceration. Without adequately andappropriately applied enforcement efforts, the effectivenessof laws, regulations, and guidelines focused on forestresources may be substantially diminished in somecircumstances (Montreal Process Technical AdvisoryCommittee 2000, Montreal Process Working Group 2003).

Useful data for measuring institutional capacity to accom-plish this indicator are compilations and descriptions oflaws and programs at national and subnational levels thatenforce conditions considered essential to forest sustain-ability (for example, legally authorized penalties and jailsentences, number of personnel employed in enforcementroles, administrative and judicial review capabilities, andnumber and type of programs, databases, and clearing-houses established to monitor violations). The laws thatrequire enforcement actions relevant to sustaining forestconditions are far-ranging. They address, for example,conditions of the environment (air, water, pesticides,hazardous waste), fisheries and wildlife (harvest limits,species preservation, subsistence hunting), timber harvest-ing (road construction, harvest limits, health and safety),and special features protection (sensitive or fragile areascontaining unique environmental attributes or resources).In addition, many laws promote sustainability by meansless harsh than those commonly thought of as enforcement

actions, namely education, technical assistance, fiscalincentives, and tax incentives. In a broader sense, the latterprograms may also be considered enforcement mechanismseven though their appeal is directed to the self-interest oflandowners and timber harvesters (Montreal ProcessTechnical Advisory Committee 2000).

Indicator 57 refers to concepts and principles that shouldbe defined. Enforcement refers to actions taken to compelconformity with desired conditions or implementation offavored programs. Examples of enforcement actions includeinspections, investigations, and imposition of fines. Lawsare legislatively binding and authoritatively prescribedstandards that must be adhered to. Examples include airand water quality laws. Regulations are operational proce-dures that govern the actions of persons or organizations.They are interpreted and enforced by public agencies, andinclude, for example, rules promulgated in response toState forest practice laws. Guidelines are criteria, touch-stones, or benchmarks such as recommended best manage-ment practices. Guidelines may be incorrectly specified bythe indicator, in that guidelines in the United States aregenerally viewed as standards to be voluntarily compliedwith by landowners and timber harvesters, often in responseto offers of fiscal and technical assistance. Moreover,“enforcement” is widely associated with laws and regula-tions that make certain actions mandatory, whereas“incentives” is typically associated with guidelines.


Enforcement of favored conditions that will accomplishsocietal interests in the sustainability of forests requires adelicate balancing of public and private interests in forests.In the context of the enforcement of laws and rules, thisbalance is achieved when nearly everyone expects certainstandards of sustainability to be applied whether theyagree with the standards or not, and this expectation detersthe contrary actions of those who do not wish to comply.In guideline enforcement, a balance occurs when land-owners and timber harvesters respond to various forms ofincentives by voluntarily following procedures and apply-ing practices that also lead to conditions of sustainability.The balance between public and private interests in forestsis fragile. So too is the political balance between laws andrules obeyed out of fear, and guidelines followed in responseto persuasive tactics that appeal to the ethics of foreststewardship and ultimately to sustainable forestry. Therehave been many rancorous political battles between those


Enforcement of Laws, Regulations, and Guidelines (Indicator 57)


��

who have attempted to define the appropriate balancebetween the two (Callicott 2000, Ellefson 2000).

Enforcement of laws, rules, and guidelines can take manyforms. If the emphasis is on persuasive actions focused onguidelines, the forest resources community has access toan enormous array of programs that represent Federal andState capacity to promote sustainability. Such programsrange from educational and technical assistance programsto fiscal and tax incentives, and from payment for use anddevelopment rights to legally binding arrangements fortransferring property between owners. As for enforcementof actions by threat of punishment, the range of tools isequally wide. Penalties (for example, fines and incarcera-tion) exist for violation of endangered-species laws andfailure to comply with regulatory rules being implementedby State air and water quality agencies. For example, inArkansas it is unlawful to remove any trees growing belowthe normal high-water mark on any river or stream, andviolation of this law is punishable by a fine to be not morethan $1,000 (Environmental Law Institute 1998). Yet, inother States (for example, Indiana, Maine, Missouri, andWisconsin), forestry laws require the withholding of a taxbenefit (or recapture of taxes avoided) if agreed-to forestmanagement plans are violated, or laws may conditionreceipt of cost-share monies on a landowner’s willingnessto apply certain forestry practices. On Federal public lands,enforcement by means of threats of penalties is authorizedby a variety of laws, regulations, and administrative direc-tives. Penalties may be imposed for violations involvingtimber harvest trespass, endangered species habitat destruc-tion, and failure to maintain safe and healthy workingconditions. In some situations, Federal agency administra-tive withdrawal of access to unique resources located onpublic lands is also viewed as an enforcement action.

The complex jurisdictional conditions that surround theenforcement of laws and regulations and the promotion ofguidelines can be especially challenging to those whoattempt to map patterns of enforcement. Some resourceconditions are a Federal responsibility (for example, wild-life habitat management on Federal lands) and some are aState responsibility (for example, State determination ofharvest levels on Federal lands), while in other cases (forexample, endangered species) responsibility rests primarilywith the Federal Government. In yet other situations,Federal and State enforcement jurisdictions operate coop-eratively on enforcement matters (educational and fiscalincentives, health and safety standards), while in others(for example, air quality standards, pesticide use standards)the Federal Government may again be the preeminentauthority. Local units of government also have significantenforcement authority, especially in matters of land use(for example, zoning and subdivision of property).

The task of describing enforcement activities and programsis also made difficult by issues involving definitions. Whatconstitutes a violation and what is an appropriate attendantpenalty? Enforcing agencies seek clarity in both, as doviolators of the law, yet both prefer some latitude in thedefinition of an offense and the nature of the sanctions tobe imposed. Room for bargaining and negotiation maybenefit both sides. In reality, however, statutory languagemay at times be so broad that confusion ensues and agen-cies have to seek direction from rule-making processes orthe opinions of courts. Statutory phrases like “prohibitwaste disposal,” “forbid discharge of a pollutant,” or“enjoin pollutants from nonpoint sources” can perplexenforcement. At the other extreme, the standards or thres-holds of conduct stipulated in law may be so explicit thatenforcing agencies have difficulty applying the standardsto geographically diverse forest conditions or to the diver-sity of honorable intentions of landowners and timberharvesters. Forest practice regulatory rules are sometimesparticularly explicit in specifying standards (for example,harvest operations cannot commence without an on-siteinspection, trees over 24 inches in diameter cannot beharvested, riparian buffer strips must be 150 feet in widthand pesticides will not be applied therein).

Current Insitutional Capacity


Authorities and programs—Federal agencies have sub-stantial authority and institutional capacity to enforcelaws, regulations, and guidelines that contain standardsimportant to the sustainability of forests and relatedresources. For example, in administering the NationalForest System “all persons employed in the Forest Serviceof the United States shall have authority to make arrestsfor the violation of the laws and regulations relating to thenational forests” (Public Law 58-138; Agricultural Appro-priations Act of March 3, 1905). In furtherance of thisauthority, the agency is also authorized to cooperate withany State or political subdivision thereof in the enforcementof laws involving national forests (Cooperative LawEnforcement Act of 1971). Similarly, the USDI Bureau ofLand Management is authorized to “institute a civil actionfor an injunction to prevent any person from utilizing pub-lic lands in violation of regulations” (Federal Land Policyand Management Act of 1976). The agency has the author-ity to develop regulations for public land use, management,and protection; to initiate civil actions for violation ofregulations, including nature of relief expected; to enterinto contracts with law enforcement officials as necessaryto enforce regulations; and to cooperate with regulatoryand law enforcement officials of any State or politicalsubdivision thereof. Similar authorities are granted toother Federal agencies (for example, the USDI National

��

Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service enforcethe laws and regulations for which they are responsible)(West Publishing Company 1997). Although extensiveenforcement authority does exist, there is only a limitedunderstanding of how such authorities are interrelated andof the extent to which cooperation in enforcement mattersactually occurs (American Forest and Paper Association1994).

Enforcement authorities of Federal agencies can be exer-cised in a wide variety of ways. However, the most com-monly referred-to approach to the enforcement of forest

sustainability standards is by exercising authority toinspect, investigate, and impose fines and prison sentences.The mere existence of authority to impose fines or seekcourt-imposed prison terms can significantly influencebehavior regarding the adoption of forest sustainabilitystandards. Information about such authorities and theirapplication is modest. Two of 7 Federal statutes focuseddirectly and exclusively on forests grant authorities toimpose fines, while 11 of 20 Federal laws that are morebroadly focused on the environment and natural resourcesauthorize fines and court-imposed prison sentences fornoncompliance with statutory provisions (table 1). Most

Table 1—Enforcement actions authorized by selected Federal statutes relevant to forest resources,by statute and type of action (2001)

Type of action authorized to compel action or enforcement

Specifies Specifies Authorizes Authorizesfines and Authorizes standards, funds education &

prison development action, or required to incentivessentences to of rules to process to compel to compel

Federal statute be imposed be followed be followed action action

Focus directly and exclusively on forests and forestryCooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 X XForest Conservation and Shortage Relief Act of 1990 X X X X

(timber exports)Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning X X

Act of 1974Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960National Forest Management Act of 1978 XNational Forest System Drug Control Act of 1986 XRenewable Resources Extension Act of 1978 X X X

Focus broad, but including forests and forestryAdministrative Procedures Act of 1946 X XArcheological Resources Protection Act of 1979 X X XClean Air Act of 1990 X X X X XClean Water Act of 1987 X X X X XCoastal Zone Management Act of 1972 X X X XEndangered Species Act of 1973 X X X X XFederal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act X X X X

(as amended 1996)Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 X X X XFederal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 X X X XFish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 XNational Environmental Policy Act of 1969 X X XNational Trails System Act of 1968 X XNational Wildlife Refuge System Administration X X X X

Act of 1966 (1997)Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 X X X X XPublic Lands U.S. Criminal Code of 1948 X XSoil and Water Conservation Act of 1977 X XSolid Waste Disposal Act of 1986 X X X X XSurface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 X XWild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 X XWilderness Act of 1964 X

Sources: Coggins and others (2001); U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (1993); West Publishing Company (1997).

��

statutorily authorized fines and imprisonment relate to fishand wildlife statutes, although archeological resources,human health and safety, and pesticide use and manage-ment are often the focus of enforcement (table 2).

Agency-promulgated rules and regulations are also enforce-ment tools, in that they establish standards of conduct thatcommand respect and influence behavior (Kerwin 1999).Influencing both the substance of sustainable forestry andthe processes by which sustainable forestry is accomplished,rules and regulations are extremely common enforcementmechanisms among Federal natural resource agencies.Especially notable in this respect have been rules and rule-making efforts related to the implementation of the NationalForest Management Act of 1976, Endangered Species Actof 1973, and Federal Land Policy and Management Actof 1976. During the 5-year period beginning in 1997,4 Federal agencies issued nearly 400 final rules for guidingthe actions of other Federal agencies and the public (table3). Rules issued by the USDI Fish and Wildlife Serviceaccounted for the vast majority of these final rules (mostof which were required to implement the EndangeredSpecies Act of 1973). Similar in many respects to rules,Presidential Executive orders also serve as enforcementmechanisms in that they command respect and ultimatelycoerce compliance with desired policy and programdirections (Appendix A).

Enforcement can also be exercised in a number of otherways. Unfortunately, information describing this Federalinstitutional capacity is usually scattered, inconsistent, andin many cases nonexistent. For example, few if any compi-lations or analyses have been made of enforcement actionsinvolving injunctive relief imposed by Federal courts inresponse to civil violations identified by Federal agencies.At best, there have been modest efforts to determine thefrequency and disposition of Federal cases generallyinvolving environmental and natural resource statutes(Alden and Ellefson 1997, Jones and Taylor 1995, Wasby1983) (table 4). Similarly, there has been but modest atten-tion paid to: (1) agency administrative withdrawal of cer-tain Federal public lands as a means of protecting themfrom deleterious uses and management practices (U.S.General Accounting Office 1995); (2) agency review ofpermits granted by authority of environmental and naturalresource statutes (for example, permits for timber harvest-ing, mineral extraction, and access to private property); (3)actual or threatened suspension of financial payments ifcompliance with plans, management directives, or sustain-ability standards are not met (for example, failure of Stategovernments to adhere to certain provisions of the CoastalZone Management Act of 1972) (West Publishing Company1997); (4) agency acquisition (primarily from nonprofitorganizations) of certain private lands or resources con-sidered to be in jeopardy (U.S. General Accounting Office

1994); and (5) enforcement of public interest in forestsustainability by moral persuasion that is promoted throughan assortment of fiscal and tax incentives and the extend-ing of information and technical assistance. Federal statu-tory capacity for this persuasive approach is extensive(table 5).

Enforcement magnitude—Comprehensive informationdescribing the extent of Federal agency capacity forenforcement has not been assembled. The followingexamples describing Federal agency enforcement effortsmust suffice, although much of the information does notrelate exclusively to forestry and forest-resource matters.

The USDI Bureau of Land Management (responsible for264 million acres of Federal public land) implements alaw enforcement program involving approximately 200law enforcement officers who patrol areas as large as 1.8million acres. Enforcement activities focus on a widearray of illegal activities involving timber, oil, and gastrespass; mineral theft and fraud; cultural resource vandal-ism and theft; unlawful land occupancy; recreational siteviolations; illegal hazardous waste dumping; wrongful useof off-road vehicles; and drug-related offenses. Enforce-ment is especially critical for formally designated specialplaces on Federal public lands, and more than 3,000 ofthese have been identified. The agency’s 1998 budgetrequest for resource protection and law enforcement wasnearly $16 million. In 1996, enforcement actions involvedan estimated 7,200 felonies and misdemeanors and 4,700natural-resource violations (USDI Bureau of Land Mana-gement 2001).

The USDI National Park Service is responsible for 84million acres of Federal public land. More than 288 millionpersons visited these lands in 2001. In fiscal year (FY)2001, the Park Service spent more that $196 million onlaw enforcement, of which $140 million was invested inenforcement related to resource protection (vandalism,archeological safeguards) and ranger law enforcement(search and rescue, vehicle violations). Since 1996, theagency has spent about twice as much on enforcement thatis related to resource protection as it has spent on rangerlaw enforcement. In FY 2001, the actual law enforcementand protection workload was as follows: law enforcementincidents, 85,300; natural resource incidents (violations),18,800; search and rescue incidents, 4,200; emergencymedical incidents, 13,700; archeological protectionincidents, 320; vandalism incidents, 3,300; and resourceincidents, 19,800. The agency’s enforcement activities arefacilitated by the use of a computer-based clearinghouseof information on archeological looting and vandalism(called LOOT or Listing of Outlaw Treachery). Between1985 and 1987, 1,620 incidents involving archeologicalresources were reported by Federal agencies, leading to

��

Table 2—Penalties and punishment authorized by Federal statutes relevant to forest resources (2001)

Federal statute Penalties for violations and provision for related enforcement

Preservation of American Antiquities Persons appropriating any object of antiquity on Federal Government landsAct of 1906 subject to penalties of up to $500 or up to 90 days (or both).

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 Persons failing to comply with regulations regarding taking, killing, orpossessing migratory birds subject to penalties up to $500 or imprisonment upto 6 months (or both) ($2,000 or 2 years [or both] for sale of birds).

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Persons possessing or selling eagles subject to penalties of up to $5,000 orAct of 1940 imprisonment up to 1 year (or both) (second violation: $10,000 and 2 years).

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Persons failing to properly register or use pesticides subject to various penaltiesRodenticide Act (as amended) ranging from maximums of $1,000 to $25,000 and from maximums of 30 days

to 3 years imprisonment.

Public Lands U.S. Criminal Code Persons engaged (on Federal public lands) in timber trespass, tree injury, settingof 1948 of wildfires, destruction of livestock fences, destruction of survey markers, or

deception at land and timber sales subject to various penalties ranging frommaximums of $500 to $3,000 and from maximums of 6 months to 3 yearsimprisonment.

Occupational Safety and Health Act Persons violating safety and health rules subject to civil and criminal penaltiesof 1970 ranging from maximum of $7,000 to $70,000 and 6 months imprisonment.

Endangered Species Act of 1973 Persons knowingly (civil crime) or willfully (criminal crime) engaged inviolations of endangered species law subject to various penalties ranging frommaximums of $500 to $50,000 and from maximums of 6 months to 1 yearimprisonment. Criminal violations also result in loss of any permits or leasesauthorizing use of Federal land.

Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 Persons violating quarantine of noxious weeds or promoting their disseminationsubject to penalties of up to $5,000 or up to 1 year imprisonment (or both).

Federal Land Policy and Management Persons violating provision of act regarding use and protection of public landsAct of 1976 subject to penalties up to $1,000 or up to 12 months imprisonment (or both).

Archeological Resources Protection Persons damaging, removing, or defacing archeological resource on FederalAct of 1979 public lands subject to criminal penalties ranging from maximum of $10,000 to

$100,000 and from maximum of 1 year to 5 years imprisonment. Civil penaltiesassigned by land manager.

Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 Persons importing, exporting, selling, or purchasing wildlife in violation of(wildlife) Federal laws subject to civil and criminal penalties ranging from maximum of

$250 to $20,000 and up to 5 years imprisonment.

Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1986 Persons or organizations violating compliance orders for management ofhazardous wastes subject to civil and criminal penalties ranging frommaximums of $25,000 to $1,000,000 and from 2 to 15 years imprisonment.

National Forest System Drug Control Persons acting to harm Federal officials or Federal property subject to penaltiesAct of 1986 ranging from maximums of $10,000 to $20,000 and from maximum of 10 to 20

years imprisonment. Special enforcement powers assigned to Forest Serviceemployees (carry firearms, make arrests).

Forest Resource Conservation and Persons illegally exporting unprocessed Federal timber subject to penaltiesShortage Relief Act of 1990 ranging from maximum of $75,000 to $500,000. Violators may be barred from(timber exports) purchasing Federal timber for up to 5 years.

National Wildlife Refuge Persons violating act’s provisions subject to fines prescribed by Title 18 U.S.C.Administration Act of 1966 or up to 1 year imprisonment (or both).

Sources: Coggins and others (2001); U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (1993); West Publishing Company (1997).

��

Table 3—Final rules issued by Federal natural resource agencies, by agency (1997-2001)

Year

Agency 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

USDA Forest Service 6 10 9 5 13USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 3 1 1 2 0USDI Bureau of Land Management 13 14 5 6 10USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 54 57 56 63 52USDI National Park Service 5 2 5 4 3

Note: Information for 2001 is for January through October 2001.Source: National Archives and Records Administration (2001a).

Table 4—Environmental and natural resource statutes subject to litigationin Federal district and appellate courts, by major Federal statutory categoryand number of cases (1980-1990)

Federal statute category and law No. of cases

Fish and wildlife lawsEndangered Species Act of 1973 57Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 2Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 1National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 1Wild Horses and Burros Protection Act of 1971 2

Total fish and wildlife cases 63

Waste and pollution prevention lawsFederal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 1

(amended 1996)Noise Control Act of 1972 4Rivers and Harbors Act of 1889 (as amended) 27Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 5Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1977 6Toxic Substances Control Act of 1989 5

Total waste and pollution cases 48

Planning, land use, and management lawsCoastal Zone Management Act of 1972 10Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act

of 1974 1Historic Preservation Act of 1966 8Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 11Minerals Leasing Act of 1920 2Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 4National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 37Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 2

Total land use and management cases 75

Total all cases 186

Source: Alden and Ellefson (1997).

��

134 citations, 49 arrests, 57 criminal convictions, 16 felonyconvictions, and 17 civil penalties (Carnett 1991; U.S.Department of the Interior, National Park Service 2001).

The USDI Fish and Wildlife Service law enforcementprogram addresses a wide variety of illegal activities bothdomestically and internationally. Authority for this stemsfrom 14 laws and several treaties specific to wildlife andplants. Information identifying enforcement actions thatdirectly and exclusively involve forests is limited, althoughcertain actions clearly have relevance to forests andforestry. Examples are pursuit of habitat destruction cases,promotion and enforcement of habitat conservation plansunder the Endangered Species Act of 1973, investigationof domestic crimes involving federally protected species,monitoring and regulation of unlawful trade in domesticwildlife, and investigation of environmental hazards andcontaminants that pose a special threat to wildlife. The

agency’s 2000 caseload involving forestry or closelyrelated matters was as follows: archeological destruction,6 cases; eagle protection infractions, 120 cases; endan-gered species violations, 4,101 cases; National WildlifeRefuge trespass, 228 cases; and wild bird conservationviolations, 64 cases. With a budget of nearly $50 million,the agency in 2001 employed 253 agents, 94 wildlifeinspectors, and a staff of wildlife forensics scientists.Information identifying the portion of the agency’s lawenforcement budget and personnel that are devoted speci-fically to matters involving forests is not available (U.S.Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service2001).

The USDA Forest Service enforcement program focuseson curbing a variety of illegal activities ( for example,arson, theft, vandalism, and use of controlled substances)that occur primarily in the National Forest System. To

Table 5—Federal fiscal and educational programs promoting or evoking actions important to the sustainability offorests, by program focus and administering agency (2001)

Federal statute or program Principal administering agency Program focus

National Environmental Education U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Environmental education, grants,Act of 1990 internships, and awards

Conservation Reserve Program U.S. Department of Agriculture Educational and financial assistance to(Farm Bill 1995) (Farm Service Agency) reduce soil erosion

Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act U.S. Department of Agriculture Technical and financial assistance andof 1978 (Forestry Incentives, Forest (Forest Service) land protection via easementsStewardship, Stewardship Incentives,Forest Legacy)

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act U.S. Department of the Interior Technical and financial assistance forof 1980 (Fish and Wildlife Service) planning

Reforestation Tax Incentives Internal Revenue Service and Reforestation tax incentive, investment(Recreational Boating Safety and U.S. Department of Agriculture tax credit, reforestation trust fundFacilities Improvement Act of 1980) (Forest Service)

Renewable Resources Extension Act U.S. Department of Agriculture Education and technical assistanceof 1978 (Cooperative State Research,

Education, and Extension Service)

Clarke-McNary Act of 1924 U.S. Department of Agriculture Education and technical assistance

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program U.S. Department of Agriculture Financial incentives for wildlife(Federal Agricultural Improvement (Natural Resources Conservation habitat improvementand Reform Act of 1996) Service)

Environmental Quality Incentives U.S. Department of Agriculture Educational, financial, and technicalProgram (Farm Bill 1996) (Natural Resources Conservation assistance for conservation activities

Service)

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (1993), West Publishing Company (1997), and various agency documents describing programs andstatutory authority.

��

facilitate this work, the agency has established the LawEnforcement Management Reporting System (LEMARS),a data retrieval system that provides management with ameans of identifying and following law enforcement activ-ities. The system is designed to consistently and accuratelydocument information on violations occurring within theNational Forest System by type, location, resources dam-aged, and estimated property loss. Numbers of law enforce-ment incidents and violations on the national forests haverisen substantially in recent years, going from about144,000 in 1996 to more than 285,000 in 2000 (U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 2000). Timbertrespass incidents on the national forests in 1994 totaled143,232 (1992: 114,328; 1993: 111,512), with closelyrelated incidents numbering 8,209 in the same year (1992:5,414; 1993: 6,168). The agency’s law enforcement budgetin 1998 was $64.0 million, as compared to $8.3 million in1992. The agency conducts law enforcement investigationswith a staff of about 450 professionals, who are assignedto the agency’s regional administrative centers and to thenational headquarters in Washington, D.C. (U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture, Forest Service 2001).


Authorities and agencies—States have substantial institu-tional capacity to enforce laws, regulations, and guidelinesthat will further the application of standards essential forforest sustainability. An assessment conducted in 1992found that many States had programs promoting State-adopted best forest practices, and that these programsfocused on a wide variety of forest benefits (for example,water quality, reforestation, timber harvesting, forest pro-tection, wildlife protection, recreation, and aesthetic quali-ties). Eleven percent of these best practices were enforcedby regulatory means, with such an approach being mostcommonly applied to activities involving water quality,wildlife, endangered species, wildfire, insects, and diseases(table 6). Other State programs included technical assist-ance (28 percent), education and extension (27 percent),fiscal incentives (15 percent), voluntary guidelines (13 per-cent), and tax incentives (6 percent) (Ellefson and others1995).

Lists of State laws authorizing enforcement action focusedon nonpoint forest sources of water pollution have beencompiled periodically. These authorities exist both ascomprehensive State water pollution control laws and asState forest practices laws focused specifically on nonpointsources of pollutants. Nearly all States have laws of thefirst kind, while slightly more than 30 States have forestlaws that grant legal authority to enforce application ofwater-pollution prevention activities (Appendix table B.1).Further evidence of institutional enforcement capacitywith regard to nonpoint pollutants has been gathered by

the National Association of State Foresters (2001). In2000, 21 percent of States used only voluntary programsto promote forestry best management practices on privateforests; 35 percent used voluntary programs plus a backupenforcement penalty (a “bad actor” or “contingency” law)for failure to willingly apply best management practices;27 percent used only regulatory programs for enforce-ment; and 17 States used some combination of all threeapproaches. The numbers of States that have establishedlegal enforcement authority with respect to forest practicesare as follows: forest practice standards generally, 11 States;lake and stream protection standards, 27 States; wetlandprotection standards, 23 States; stream crossing standards,23 States; sediment and erosion control standards, 29States; chemical application standards, 15 States; stormwater discharge standards, 10 States; and laws authorizingactions against especially troublesome landowners andtimber harvesters (bad-actor laws), 12 States.

The diversity of State agency capacity and involvement inthe enforcement of forest resource standards is great(Ellefson and others 2001 and 2002). In the year 2000,more than 100 State cabinet-level executive branch unitswere so engaged, while more than 200 entities at the first-tier subcabinet level had direct or indirect responsibilityfor enforcement activities (table 7). More than 50 govern-ing bodies and advisory bodies to executive branch unitsalso had enforcement responsibilities in various States.Over half of the first-tier subcabinet entities so involvedhad moderate or substantial influence over the use, man-agement, and protection of forests. Governing or advisorybodies had somewhat less enforcement influence: only 4of 10 had moderate or substantial influence.

In some States, the enforcement of forest-practice stan-dards is constrained by State laws that limit or conditionthe ability to adopt enforceable regulations that are morestringent than any Federal environmental regulations.Known as “no more-stringent” laws, such statutes occur inabout one-third of the States and are usually but not alwaysfocused on nonpoint sources (including forest sources) ofwater pollutants. For example, Montana State law prohibitsrules “more stringent than the comparable Federal regula-tions or guidelines that address the same circumstances”;Kentucky forbids imposition under any permit of “anylimitation, monitoring requirement, or other conditionwhich is more stringent than . . . would be applicableunder Federal regulation”; Oregon bars the EnvironmentalQuality Commission and the Department of EnvironmentalQuality from “promulgating or enforcing any effluentlimitation upon nonpoint source discharges from forestoperations on forestlands unless mandated under the CleanWater Act”; and Idaho requires environmental agencies inthe water pollution control area to “not impose require-ments beyond those of the Federal Clean Water Act.”

��

Table 6—State government programs promoting best-forest-practice standards on private forests,by forestry activity, region, and type of program (1992)

Number of States in region having program typeMajor forestryactivity and North- Lake Mid- Mid- South- South Great Rockytype of program east States Atlantic Continent east Central Plains Mtn. West Total

Protect water qualityEducational programs 6 3 6 5 5 5 5 5 6 46Technical assistance 6 3 7 5 5 5 5 6 5 47Voluntary guidelines 5 3 6 4 5 5 1 4 1 34Tax incentives 1 1 4 3 0 1 3 1 0 14Fiscal incentives 2 3 5 3 1 4 5 4 2 29Regulatory programs 6 1 5 1 4 1 0 2 6 26

Promote reforestationEducational programs 6 3 6 5 6 5 4 5 6 46Technical assistance 6 3 6 5 6 5 5 6 4 46Voluntary guidelines 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 4 1 15Tax incentives 2 3 3 3 1 1 0 1 2 16Fiscal incentives 5 2 5 3 4 5 5 5 3 37Regulatory programs 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 6 14

Improve timberharvesting methods






Enhance recreation andaesthetic qualities



��

Other States with similar statutory provisions are Florida,Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Ohio, Pennsylvania, SouthDakota, Utah, and Wisconsin. Not all prohibit outright theadoption of enforcement standards more stringent thanFederal law; many require a detailed and complex set ofjustifications and procedural reviews if proposed Statestandards are more stringent than Federal requirements.Among problems with “no more-stringent” laws is the lossof State flexibility to address unique and especially severeresource problems that may require more severe enforce-able measures than those authorized by Federal law(Environmental Law Institute 1997).

Enforcement mechanisms—State agencies that areresponsible for administering forest-practice regulatoryprograms focused on private forests have substantial insti-tutional capacity to enforce laws and rules. They do so in avariety of ways, including the use of informal conferences,notices to comply, stop-work orders, corrective actions,

injunctions, and civil and criminal penalties. Informationdescribing the nature of these enforcement actions isreadily available from State agencies responsible for suchprograms (Ellefson and others 1995). For example, from1984 through 1991, regulatory enforcement actions inCalifornia numbered as follows: misdemeanor actions,461; injunctions, none; license denials, 4; and correctiveactions, 110. In Oregon during 1989, 109 citations wereissued as follows: failure to notify of intent to harvest, 32percent of citations; improper harvest activities, 24 per-cent; improper written plans, 16 percent; road constructionand maintenance, 15 percent; incomplete reforestation, 9percent; and inappropriate chemical application, 2 percent.Similar information exists for other States with regulatoryprograms focused on forests.

State forest-practice laws often authorize State agencies torepair damage caused by violations of forest-practice rules.For example, the Washington Department of Natural

Table 7—State government executive branch units exercising enforcement functions involving the use,management, and protection of forests, by organizational level and type of activity (2000)

Cabinet or sub-cabinet levelexecutive branch units

Governing orSubcabinet Subcabinet advisory bodies to

Cabinet level level executive branchPrimary enforcement function level first tier second tier units

Functional enforcement activitiesAdministration, personnel, operations 4 10 2 0Information, information management 5 29 12 3Law, legal counsel 51 27 3 0Occupational licensing 2 6 1 9Planning, budgeting, review, analysis 8 18 9 3Regulation, permits, enforcement 1 22 11 3Other 13 17 3 3

Total 84 129 41 21

Resource-oriented enforcement activitiesAir quality, pollutant management 1 29 9 8Energy conservation 14 9 5 1Environmental quality, protection, 22 16 0 21

managementWaste management, recycling 0 19 7 4Chemical and pesticide abatement 0 4 4 2Water quality, pollutant management 0 33 15 6Other 1 12 4 2

Total 38 122 44 44

Total 122 251 85 65

Note: Some units recorded more than once because of multiple enforcement functions.Source: Ellefson and others (2001, 2002).

��

Resources “may expend funds available to undertake andcomplete [corrective forest practices], and operator, timberowner, and forest landowner shall be jointly liable for theactual, direct cost thereof.” Similarly, in Oregon, “the StateForester or by contract [shall] repair the damage or correctthe unsatisfactory condition . . . and shall prepare an item-ized [cost] statement thereof and shall deliver a copy to theoperator, timber owner and landowner.” Under Maryland’sCritical Areas Act, illegal timber cutting resulting in fail-ure to reforest can result in a circuit court’s assessingviolators the cost of replanting the trees. And in Vermont,the Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources may “fixand order compensation for any public property destroyed,damaged or injured [as a result of unacceptable dischargein waters]” and may order persons responsible for waterpollution to reimburse governments that have taken correc-tive action. Other States that have authority to take cor-rective action include Idaho and Nevada, where operatorsand landowners who fail to take corrective action and sub-sequently do not reimburse the State for the cost of doingso may be refused future permits to harvest timber or mayhave liens imposed on their forest property. In Idaho, forexample, the State will not accept an operator’s notifica-tion of intent to harvest timber until corrective action istaken on a previously harvested site. In California andOregon, the State has authority to place a lien on property.Oregon’s authority in this respect is clear: failure to reim-burse the State for corrective actions “shall constitute ageneral lien upon the real and personal property of theoperator, timber owner, and landowner . . . and may beforeclosed in the manner provided by law.”

Laws known as “bad-actor laws” or “contingency regula-tions” have been adopted by at least 12 States in recentyears. These laws impose obligations only on those land-owners or timber harvesters who have already committedor are in the process of committing violations of standardsconsidered necessary to forest sustainability. Under thesetypes of statutes, the owner or harvester has no prior obli-gation (to, for example, obtain a permit before harvesting),and the enforcement response tools are more limited, morenarrowly focused, and less complex than might occurunder comprehensive regulatory laws. States with bad-actor laws or contingency regulations include Delaware,Idaho, New Hampshire, Virginia, and West Virginia. InDelaware the State Forester can issue special orders requir-ing cessation of silvicultural activities that are likely topollute a waterway and can require implementation ofcorrective measures. In Virginia a cease-and-desist ordermay be issued and corrective actions may be ordered. InIdaho, if a landowner or timber harvester fails to applyappropriate best management practices or is known tohave willfully caused degradation of water resources, anoperating bond may be required as a condition for contin-uing timber-harvesting activities. In West Virginia, if

failure to use a particular best management practice iscausing or contributing to soil erosion and water pollution,an order for immediate suspension of work may be issuedif there is a present danger to life or if there is risk ofuncorrectable soil erosion. In New Hampshire, the State isauthorized to issue cease-and-desist orders to suspendlogging or forestry operations in areas where such opera-tions are likely to result in pollution of surface water orground water.

Information about civil and criminal penalties for viola-tion of legally established forest-practice standards isreadily available from various compilations of Stateforestry and related law. For example, penalties of thefollowing nature existed in 1992: Alaska—civil penalty upto $10,000 per violation; California—criminal penalty upto $1,000, or 6 months in prison, or both; Connecticut—civil penalty up to $5,000 for each offense; Idaho—crimi-nal penalty misdemeanor violation with fines recoverableby administering agency; Maine—civil penalty for failureto notify (harvest of less than 50 cords: up to $50, morethan 50 cords: up to $1,000 each occurrence), continuedoperation after cessation order up to $1,000 per day;Massachusetts—civil penalty up to $100 per acre for eachacre in violation, harvest without license $500 per viola-tion; Montana—civil penalty up to $1,000 per violation ofStreamside Management Act; Nevada—criminal penaltymisdemeanor fines and prison sentence; New Mexico—criminal penalty misdemeanor fines and prison sentence;Oregon—civil penalty up to $10,000 per violation andcriminal penalty misdemeanor fine of $2,500 or 1 year inprison for individuals and $5,000 or twice the gain for cor-porations; Virginia—civil penalty up to $5,000 per viola-tion; Vermont—civil penalty up to $10,000 per day ofviolation and criminal penalty up to $25,000 or up to 6months in prison, or both; Washington—civil penalty up to$5,000 per violation and criminal penalty $100 to $1,000or 1 year in prison, or both; and West Virginia—civilpenalty up to $2,500 first offense and up to $5,000 subse-quent offenses (Ellefson and others 1995). Some Statesrely on a matrix of factors when imposing penalties, onefactor being prior violations committed by a landowner ortimber harvester (for example, Montana’s implementationof streamside management zone regulations).

Investments and personnel—States employ professionalsin enforcement activities important to sustainable forestry.Unfortunately, nearly all of the readily accessible informa-tion concerns enforcement personnel involved with forest-practice laws administered by State agencies. Informationabout enforcement and investigation personnel involved inarson, theft, and fraud may exist but has not been compiledand analyzed. Similarly, information on the enforcementpersonnel of agencies with broader environmental respon-sibilities that are relevant to forest resource conditions (for

��

example, pollution control agencies, departments of agri-culture, environmental quality boards) is just becomingavailable (Ellefson and others 2003). In 2003, the 10 Stateswith comprehensive forest-practice regulatory programsadministered by lead forestry agencies employed more than470 full-time-equivalents (FTEs) to carry out enforcementactivities (table 8). In 1991, the 320 FTEs engaged in suchactivities represented only 5 percent of the total FTEsof lead forestry agencies in the 10 States considered. Ifenforcement personnel affiliated with agencies that are nottraditionally considered lead forestry agencies is included,the number exceeds 400 (table 9).

Information about the intensity of enforcement efforts(investment per acre, personnel per acre, and number offield inspections) is especially relevant to an understandingof institutional enforcement capacity. Such informationhas been gathered and analyzed for only the 10 States withlead forestry agencies that are responsible for comprehen-sive forest-practice regulatory programs. Institutionalcapacity measurements for 1992 for these States were asfollows: Alaska: 0.05 FTEs per 100,000 acres of privateforests, $7 investment per 1,000 acres, 40 percent of FTEtime on field inspections; California: 1.26 FTEs per100,000 acres of private forests, $543 investment per1,000 acres, 40 percent of FTE time on field inspections;Idaho: 0.42 FTEs per 100,000 acres of private forests,$164 investment per 1,000 acres, 60 percent of FTE timeon field inspections; Maine: 0.04 FTEs per 100,000 acresof private forests, $20 investment per 1,000 acres, 10 per-cent of FTE time on field inspections; Massachusetts: 0.59FTEs per 100,000 acres of private forests, $20 investment

per 1,000 acres, 35 percent of FTE time on field inspec-tions; Nevada: 4.46 FTEs per 100,000 acres of privateforests, $16,234 investment per 1,000 acres, 45 percent ofFTE time on field inspections; New Mexico: 0.36 FTEsper 100,000 acres of private forests, $27 investment per1,000 acres, percentage of FTE time on field inspectionsnot available; Oregon: 0.75 FTEs per 100,000 acres ofprivate forests, $318 investment per 1,000 acres, 45 per-cent of FTE time on field inspections; and Washington:1.26 FTEs per 100,000 acres, $836 investment per 1,000acres, 15 percent of FTE time on field inspections(Ellefson and others 1995).

State capacity to enforce the use of forest-practice codesoften depends on informed landowners and professionallyastute timber harvesters, as well as professional resourcemanagers such as foresters and wildlife managers. In 1995,25 States had active registration, certification, or licensingprograms for timber harvesters (MacKay and others 1996).Of this total, six States had licensing programs under whicha person was not allowed to conduct timber-harvestingactivities without demonstrating through written or fieldexams an informed ability to do so. In nearly all cases, anunderstanding of a State’s code of best forest practices wasthe basis for granting a license. In 2001, 26 States reportedcertification programs for timber harvesters, and 13 Statesreported some form of licensing of professional foresters(National Association of State Foresters 2001).

Monitoring and analysis—Enforcement activities of Stateforestry agencies rely on their ability to monitor the rate atwhich the forest-practice standards are being applied.

Table 8—Lead State forestry agency staffing for the administration of comprehensive forest practiceregulatory programs, by State (1985-2003)

Staffing

State 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 2003

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - full-time equivalents - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Alaska 6.5 6.5 4.5 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 7.9California 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 74.0 83.0 94.0 124.5Connecticut * * * * * * * 3.0Idaho 4.5 5.5 5.5 8.0 10.0 8.0 13.7 20.0Maine * * * * * 6.0 6.0 12.7Massachusetts 16.0 16.0 17.0 16.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 16.0Nevada 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 7.0New Mexico 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 9.0Oregon 44.1 48.2 48.2 53.6 62.6 64.3 64.3 94.0Washington 58.1 58.1 73.0 73.0 77.5 77.5 112.8 176.0

Total 209.2 214.3 228.2 233.1 253.6 273.1 320.8 470.1

Note: Asterisk indicates information not available or program not established. Connecticut Forest Practices Act established June 28, 1991.Source: Ellefson and others (1995, 2003).

��

Table 9—Staffing of State forest practice regulatory programs,by selected States and administering agency (1991)

State and agency Staffing

full-time equivalentsAlaska

Division of Forestry 3.0Division of Fish and Game 5.0Department of Environmental Conservation 2.0

CaliforniaDepartment of Forestry and Fire Protection 94.0Regional water quality agencies 12.0Department of Fish and Game 10.0State Water Resources Board 1.0

ConnecticutDivision of Forestry 4.0 (est)

FloridaRegional water management districts 2.8

IdahoDepartment of Lands 13.7Division of Environmental Quality 4.0

MaineMaine Forest Service 6.0Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife 0.5Land-use Regulation Commission 1.0Department of Environmental Protection 0.1

MarylandChesapeake Bay Critical Areas Program 8.0Waterways Access Program 4.0 (est)Nontidal Wetlands Program 1.0

MassachusettsDivision of Forests and Parks 15.0

Montana 2.0Division of Forestry

NevadaDivision of Forestry 5.0

New MexicoDivision of Forestry and Resources Conservation 7.0

OregonDepartment of Forestry 64.3Department of Environmental Quality 2.0Department of Fish and Wildlife 2.0

WashingtonDivision of Forest Practices 112.8Department of Fisheries 7.0Department of Ecology 9.2Department of Wildlife 5.0

Total 403.4

Source: Ellefson and others (1995).

��

Only then can the agencies redirect or intensify theirenforcement efforts toward critical problems or opportuni-ties. In 1997, 34 States conducted compliance-monitoringprograms to determine whether relevant codes were beingapplied (table 10) (Ellefson and others 2001a). Althoughnearly one-third of the States had not initiated a formalcompliance-monitoring program, this does not mean thatforest practices are not monitored in those States. In some,monitoring activities (inspections) are carried out whenlandowners participate in cost-share programs (for exam-ple, Federal Forestry Incentives Program and StewardshipIncentives Program) or when formally designated TreeFarms are reinspected. In States where forestry operationsare by law incomplete until approved by an inspector, therequired preharvest and postharvest inspections are consi-dered compliance monitoring. Legislative directives oftencompel compliance monitoring. Montana requires deter-mination of “how current forest practices are affectingwatersheds,” Minnesota requires “a program for monitor-ing silviculture practices and the application of timber har-vest and forest management guidelines,” and Washingtonrequires “annual assessment of how regulations andvoluntary processes are working” (Ellefson and others2001a).

The forest practices most commonly monitored by Statesare those that most strongly affect water quality, riparianareas, and forested wetlands (table 11). In 2000, the resultsof monitoring were found to be used in a variety of ways,including modification of education and training programs(in 23 States), targeting of technical assistance programs(in 20 States), modification of existing guidelines (in 11States), and development of additional guidelines (in 12

States) (National Association of State Foresters 2001). In1997, the lead State forestry agency was the only agencyengaged in monitoring compliance with recommendedbest forest practices in only 20 States (Ellefson and others2001b).


Many local units of government have laws, rules, and guide-lines that are significant contributors to forest sustainability(ordinances protecting special resources, limiting timberharvesting, preserving individual trees). Whether they havethe capacity to actually enforce these laws, rules, and guide-lines is largely unknown. Hickman and Martus (1991)identified nearly 400 local ordinances regulating forestrypractices in 1991, with more than 70 percent establishedsince 1980 and half established since 1985. In 1993,Martus and others (1995) identified 522 local ordinancesregulating forestry activities in 24 States, with 68 percentof them in northeastern States and 27 percent in southernStates. In 1996, there were more than 100 local ordinancesdirecting the application of forest practices in New Yorkalone. As of 2000, county and municipal governments in10 of the 13 southern States had enacted a total of 346forest-related ordinances (an increase from 7 States and141 ordinances in 1992), most of which were enacted inStates experiencing rapid urban expansion (Wear andGreis 2002).

Local enforcement potential is suggested by the totalnumber of local political jurisdictions within a State thatcould possibly adopt laws, rules, and guidelines affectingforest sustainability. In 1991, an estimated 8 percent of all

Table 10—State programs monitoring compliance with best-forest-practice standards, by region andnumber of States (1997)

Compliance monitoring conducted

Monitoringprogram On On Incentive Individual

exists On all sample of selected Monitor provided landownerharvested harvested sites more training to private compliance

Region Yes No sites sites intensely required landowner made public

North 11 9 2 9 4 10 2 5South 13 0 2 12 2 11 0 7West 10 7 4 5 7 7 1 9

Total 34 16 8 26 13 28 3 21

Note: Compliance monitoring may be focused on forest-practice guideline programs that are voluntary, mandated for landowners and harvesters,or both. Nationally, 13 States have compliance monitoring programs that are part of a voluntary practice program (North: 4, South: 8, West: 1); 9that are part of a mandatory program (North: 3, South: 1, West: 5); and 12 that involve both voluntary and mandatory programs (North: 4, South: 4,West: 4). (North Region: CT, DL, IA, IL, IN, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, VT, WI, WV; South Region: AL, AR, FL, GA,KY, LA, MS, NC, OK, SC, TN, TX, VA; West Region: AK, AZ, CA, CO, HI, ID, KS, MT, NB, ND, NM, NV, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY.)Source: Ellefson and others (2001a).

��

local jurisdictions nationwide had forest-practice enforce-ment potential. This estimate is based on the known fre-quency of forest-practice regulatory programs at the locallevel in the following States: Colorado, 3 of 63 counties;Delaware, 1 of 3 counties; Florida, various of 57 counties;Georgia, 11 of 159 counties; Illinois, 100 of 1,200 munici-palities and 1 of 102 counties; Louisiana, 1 of 64 parishes;Maryland, 20 of 23 counties; Michigan, 10 to 15 of 1,200townships; Minnesota, 1 of 87 counties; New Jersey, 300of 567 municipalities and 15 of 21 counties; New York, 70of 900 municipalities; North Dakota, 7 of 53 counties;Pennsylvania, 13 of 420 municipalities; Vermont, 2 of 251municipalities; and Wisconsin, 3 to 4 of 1,500 municipali-ties and 2 of 72 counties (Ellefson and others 1995).

In some cases, State forest-practice laws prohibit orseverely restrict local governments from regulating forestpractices. The argument is that the existence of many andpotentially conflicting regulatory jurisdictions can be anadministrative burden to those owning land or operatingbusinesses in many different parts of a State. Oregon’sForest Practices Act is quite specific in this respect: “. . .no unit of local government shall adopt any rules, regula-tions or ordinances or take any other actions that prohibit,limit, regulate, subject to approval or in any other wayaffect forest practices on forestland.” Idaho and Washingtonalso restrict local governments from developing forest-practice codes and implementing them.


Enforcement of accepted forestry standards is often animportant and necessary step in furthering societal interests

in the sustainability of forests and the communities thatdepend on them. This review of institutional enforce-ment actions at Federal, State, and local levels of govern-ment suggests the following:

• Enforcement authority and institutional capacity neededto achieve standards of forest sustainability exist fornearly all State and Federal agencies that have responsi-bility for forests and related resources. However, theextent to which this capacity is exercised varies consi-derably within different levels of government andamong different agencies. Enforcement authority isnoticeably scattered among many different agencies ofState government.

• Institutional capacity for enforcement is exercised in avariety of ways, ranging from preharvest reviews andpostharvest inspections to fines and imprisonment, andfrom court-ordered injunctions to recovering the cost ofrepairing damaged resources through liens on privateproperty. Because the resource, social, and politicalconditions associated with forests are diverse, the rangeof enforcement mechanisms must be very broad. Insome respects, use of incentives to shape behavior canbe viewed as enforcement.

• Penalties associated with enforcement capacity includebroad civil and criminal actions, provisions for fines andjail sentences, termination of actions by injunctions,rescinding of previously granted incentives, revoking oflicenses and permits, and placement of liens on propertyfor violations committed. The effectiveness of thesepenalties in shaping the behavior of landowners andtimber harvesters is largely unknown.

Table 11—State programs monitoring compliance with best-forest-practicestandards, by region, resource, or condition monitored and number ofStates (1997)

Region (number of States)

Subject area North South West Total

Water quality 11 13 9 33Riparian 10 11 9 30Wetland 9 8 7 24Soil productivity 1 5 7 13Wildfire, insects, and diseases 3 1 9 13Aesthetics 4 3 5 12Wildlife habitat 2 1 8 11Reforestation 3 1 6 10Cultural-historic resources 2 0 3 5Recreation 2 0 2 4Other 1 3 5 9

Source: Ellefson and others (2001b).

��

• Enforcement authority and institutional capacity emanatefrom both environmental law (relating, for example, tosolid waste disposal) and public health law (relating, forexample, to toxic substances), as well as law that isspecifically focused on forests and forestry practices.There is substantial variation in the scope, focus, andintensity of State and Federal agency enforcement capa-city stemming from these different legal authorities andrelating to forests.

• Enforcement authority is very often designed and orga-nized to be implemented in a targeted fashion. For exam-ple, enforcement actions are focused on specific sectors(private forests), geographic areas (riparian areas),forestry practices (clearcutting), pollutants (pesticides),and products or benefits (timber, wildlife). Enforcementauthority and the intensity with which institutions applyit are not uniform across these target areas.

• Enforcement of laws, rules, and guidelines is oftenaccomplished through the involvement of third parties.Examples of such third parties include those that license,certify, or register timber harvesters on the basis of theirunderstanding of acceptable forestry activities.

• Environmental pollution control law often exemptsforestry or silvicultural activities from the standards andpenalties specified therein, instead deferring to incen-tives, cost-sharing, or voluntary programs as means ofaccomplishing sustainable forestry objectives.

• Enforcement actions may defer to voluntary compliancewith forest-practice standards, rules, and guidelines, butvery often link voluntary actions to some enforcementmechanism. For example, compliance with best manage-ment practices may void the need for a permit, excusecompliance with a related law, or make operationsimmune from being defined as a nuisance.

• State governments in some cases have been extremelyreluctant to adopt programs that rigorously and directlyenforce the application of sustainable forestry practices.Instead, they rely on voluntary compliance with suchpractices, buttressed by educational and incentive pro-grams. However, many States have adopted “bad-actor”laws or “contingent regulations” that focus enforcementon the exceptionally uncooperative landowner or timberharvester.

• State governments have often limited their enforcementability to sustainability standards specified by Federallaw or regulation (for example, through “no more-strin-gent” laws). By State law or regulation, State-adoptedstandards that are more stringent than Federal standardsare not allowed. Such limitations on enforcement relateprimarily to control of water pollutants from nonpointsources.

• Local units of government are often engaged in enforce-ment actions involving forest sustainability, althoughmany States limit or prohibit local regulation. Theextent and effectiveness of local regulatory enforcementof sustainable forestry practices are not known.

Issues and Trends

The literature identifies a number of major issues andtrends involving the enforcement of laws, regulations, andguidelines relevant to forest sustainability and conserva-tion. Examples of this literature (from which the followingissues and trends are drawn) are: Anderson 2000, Cubbageand Moffat 1997, Ellefson and others 1995, Ellefson andothers 2001b and 2002, Environmental Law Institute 1997and 1998, Ice and others 1997, National Association ofState Foresters 2001, National Research Council 1998,U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 2002, andWear and Greis 2002.

• The number of Federal, State, and local governmentagencies involved in the enforcement of standards offorest sustainability has increased dramatically over thepast 3 decades. In most cases, each agency’s enforcementauthority is grounded in that agency’s responsibility fora single forest value (for example, air, water, or wildlife).This requires much coordination within and betweengovernments, and forces landowners and timberharvesters to try to keep abreast of many differentenforcement provisions.

• Legal frameworks supporting the enforcement of stan-dards of forest sustainability have been strengthened inrecent decades by many new Federal laws and regula-tions that directly or indirectly influence the forestpractices of public and private landowners. TheseFederal laws have in many cases nurtured political andadministrative environments within which State andlocal governments have sought and applied morerigorous enforcement authority.

• Management approaches of regulatory agencies andland management agencies have become increasinglydivergent. Land management agencies attempt to focuson long-term ecosystem and social needs (for example,implementation of long-term strategic plans), whileregulatory agencies tend to focus in the short term onindividual proposed actions (for example, reviewpermits, inspect projects).

• Institutional frameworks supporting the enforcement ofstandards of forest sustainability have been strengthenedin recent decades with the establishment of a largenumber of Federal laws and regulations that directly orindirectly influence the forest practices of public andprivate landowners. These Federal laws have in many

��

cases nurtured political and administrative environmentswithin which State and local governments have soughtand applied more vigorous enforcement authority.

• Enforcement authorities of governments at differentlevels have increased in number and complexity, andthis suggests a need for more coordination and greaterclarification of roles and responsibilities. This is trueespecially for the enforcement authorities of localgovernments.

• State governments have made increasing use of “bad-actor” laws or “contingent regulatory” laws. Under suchlaws, landowners and harvesters do not have prior obli-gations to government (for example, to obtain a permitbefore harvesting). Enforcement is focused on onlythose landowners or timber harvesters who have alreadycommitted or are in the process of committing a viola-tion of law or rules.

• Enforceable authority is increasingly being establishedfor targeted areas such as specially protected watersheds,estuaries, and coastal waters; wild and scenic rivers; fishand wildlife habitat; and specially designated watersthat are considered impaired. This focusing of authorityprovides for more explicit operating requirements forlandowners and timber harvesters.

• States are increasingly limiting the expansion of regula-tory enforcement via State laws that prohibit adoptionof standards that are more stringent than Federal stan-dards for forestry, natural resources, or environmentalprotection generally. This decreases legal and admini-strative flexibility to address issues of sustainability thatare unique to a State.

• Enforcement authorities emanating from forest law andfrom broad environmental law have increasingly comeinto conflict as environmental agencies have moreaggressively enforced environmental statutes. This isespecially common for enforcement authorities involv-ing nonpoint-source water pollution.


Specification

Information about the institutional capacity for enforcinglaws, rules, and guidelines that are considered important toforest sustainability has been surveyed by various publicand private organizations. In 1999, the National Associa-tion of State Foresters surveyed State forestry agencyinformation about institutional enforcement capacity. Itwas found that 6 States had abundant information aboutthe enforcement of laws, rules, and guidelines and that 19had sufficient information of this kind. Twenty-one Stateshad no information about enforcement. Eight States reported

that the quality of their information was excellent, 19 thatit was adequate, and 5 that it was poor (National Associa-tion of State Foresters 2001).

The following questions relate to the gathering of informa-tion that might help us better assess institutional capacityto enforce standards of forest sustainability andconservation:

• Measurement information—Information about whichvariables are significant and how they should be mea-sured to accurately portray conditions involving enforce-ment capacity has not been assembled. What conditionsshould be measured and compiled (for example, person-nel per unit area, area of forest covered, number of land-owners and harvesters involved, rate of compliance withstandards, rates of fines, durations of prison sentences,number of open cases pending administrative or judicialreview)? What measurable conditions are the best indi-cators that standards of sustainable forest managementare being met? How often are these variables to be mea-sured? Are there special measurement needs associatedwith different types of enforcement activity?

• Extent of enforcement activity information—Informationabout the extent of institutional enforcement capacityhas often been assembled in an uncoordinated way, sothat the results depict only current conditions and lacklocal, regional, and national consistency. What are thelegal mandates for enforcement at various geographiclevels and by various organizations? How are theserequirements changing over time? Are there differencesbetween requirements at different levels of government?Are these requirements consistent? Are there legal andconstitutional issues at stake between governments?Exactly how much enforcement is occurring (number ofviolations, judicial injunctive relief, prosecutions, Federalcontract violations) and what is its focus (by forest bene-fit, landowner category)? How much is being invested inenforcement (in money, personnel, equipment]? Whatare the educational requirements for employment inenforcement programs (basic, specialized, continuingeducation)? What is the status of local governmentenforcement programs (extent, reason for proliferation)?Are compilations of information about enforcement as itis currently carried out useful for guiding future policyand program direction? Is there a need to expandcentralized reporting systems for enforcement (LOOTsystem, LEMARS system, reporting of county andmunicipal enforcement activities)?

• Responsible organization information—Comprehensiveinformation about what organizations are activelyengaged in enforcement activities has not been assem-bled. What government agencies are engaged inenforcement, and at what levels? What legal authorityassigns them responsibility, and is this authority being

��

interpreted accurately? Do different public organizationsengaging in code development have similar or differinggoals and objectives, and do any differences hinder codedevelopment and implementation? Do private organiza-tions have a role in enforcement, and if they do, what isthe nature of that role and what prompted such involve-ment (for example, privately sponsored forest certifica-tion programs)? Are there organizational patterns in thepublic and private sector that, if known and publicized,would enhance overall enforcement of standards offorest sustainability?

• Coordination information—Information about require-ments for coordination of enforcement activities amongand between various levels of government has not beenassembled. What conflicts exist between the variousentities engaged in enforcement? How might they beproductively resolved? What coordination is required?Do requirements for coordination allow for cross-sectoral, coordinated planning and review? Do theyensure that the cumulative results of local, State, andregionally undertaken enforcement will be consistentwith national requirements and vice versa? Do theyallow incorporation of ad hoc enforcement activitiesoccurring at various times and undertaken by variouslevels of government?

• Procedure and specification information—Informationabout how enforcement standards and procedures arebest developed and implemented has not been assembled.Do current statutory requirements prescribe proceduresfor developing and implementing enforcement actions?Are these procedures detailed and restrictive, or do theyconstitute a broad framework that permits administra-tive discretion and flexibility? Is the full intent of theexisting laws that require enforcement expressed incurrent rules and administrative procedures? Do nationalrequirements for enforcement allow for regional andsubregional development of enforcement actions? Dorequirements specify the need for leadership in theirdevelopment? Do they give guidance to such leadership?

• Scope of enforcement information—Information aboutenforcement activities frequently focuses on enforce-ment that is related to wildlife and water quality, failingto comprehensively assess enforcement focused on otherforest benefits. What enforcement capacity exists for therange of values associated with forests? What approacheshave been used to encourage development and applica-tion of enforcement actions focused on this broaderrange of benefits? What legal requirements are there forenforcement of sustainability standards for the broadrange of values associated with forests? Do these legalrequirements differ among agencies at the same level orat different levels of government? Are any differences

complementary or competitive? Are there barriers todeveloping and implementing enforcement actions otherthan those focused on water and wildlife? If so, howmight they be overcome?

• Investment and incentive information—Comprehensiveinformation about resources devoted by various institu-tions to enforcement activities has not been assembled.What is the magnitude of investment in enforcementactivities? Are there legal and administrative processesfor allocating resources to these activities, and are theysufficient? Are there legal or fiscal provisions forencouraging these activities, and especially for encour-aging cross-sectoral development and implementationof enforcement activities?

• Alternative types of enforcement information—Compre-hensive information about the appropriateness of varioustypes of enforcement actions has not been compiled.What is the array of enforcement actions (for example,fines, imprisonment, revocation of permits, issuance ofcease-and-desist orders) that might be undertaken toensure that sustainability standards are applied? What isthe relative efficiency and effectiveness of each of theseapproaches in fostering compliance by landowners andtimber harvesters? Are certain categories of landownersand timber harvesters more apt to respond to certaintypes of enforcement actions? What is the appropriatescale and administrative design for successful imple-mentation of an enforcement program?

• Effectiveness information—Information about the effec-tiveness of various approaches to enforcement in achiev-ing sustainable forestry interests has not been compiled.Are there legal or administrative requirements to deter-mine the efficiency and effectiveness of different waysof conducting enforcement activities? What are appro-priate measures of success? Are enforcement programsfunded and staffed at the appropriate level? Are theremore effective ways to accomplish the objectives ofenforcement (for example, fiscal incentives, technicalassistance)? What opinions do stakeholders and interestgroups have of enforcement actions?

• Monitoring information—Information about the moni-toring of enforcement programs and activities has notbeen assembled. Are there legal requirements to monitorthe results of enforcement activities? Is the informationfrom monitoring activities being used to adapt enforce-ment actions to changing circumstances? Is the informa-tion being collected and analyzed in such a way that itis useful to enforcement agencies? Are monitoring pro-grams statistically well designed? What is being done tomonitor the administrative processes used to manageenforcement programs?

��

Recommendations

As Indicator 57 suggests, our ability to influence forestsustainability will depend a great deal on consistent, long-term enforcement of standards associated with forestsustainability and conservation. In order to improve ourunderstanding of the institutional setting for such enforce-ment, we must address a variety of information voids. Werecommend that the following actions be taken:

• Comprehensive periodic reviews. Conduct periodic andcomprehensive reviews of institutional capacities toenforce laws, rules, and guidelines relevant to sustain-able forestry. The reviews should give special attentionto the collection of information concerning the differenttypes of enforcement activities, the organizations thatimplement them, and the effectiveness of enforcementactions in promoting and conserving desired forestvalues. Information about enforcement at Federal, State,and local levels of government should be gathered.Special attention should be directed to informationabout local, county, and municipal enforcementactivities, which appear to be expanding rapidly.

• Responsibility for conducting reviews. Since there is nosingle source of comprehensive information aboutforest-related enforcement activities, assign responsibil-ity for conducting continuous reviews of these activitiesto a specific new or current administrative unit of aFederal agency (such as the USDA Forest Service’s LawEnforcement and Investigations Unit, State and PrivateForestry Unit, or Research and Development Unit), acollege or university, or other nonprofit organization(for example, the National Association of State Foresters).This responsibility should be assigned to an organiza-tion that has achieved a good track record in addressingthe complexities of developing and implementingenforcement programs that involve forests and theirsustainability.

• Devote resources to reviews. Invest sufficient moneyand personnel in the review to obtain the type and quan-tity of information necessary to significantly improveour understanding of current abilities to develop andimplement the enforcement actions that are important tosustainable forestry.



Some of the words and phrases used in stating Indicator 57have not been defined clearly. The word “enforce” iscommonly taken to mean “compel conformity with somestandard,” but the concept of compulsion is not at all appro-priate in the context of a discussion of “guidelines” as they

are understood in the United States. In this country, guide-lines are generally viewed as standards (criteria, touch-stones, or benchmarks) to be voluntarily complied with bylandowners and timber harvesters. Only if guidelines areviewed as being coercive (rather than adopted in responseto fiscal incentives or technical information) should theybe thought of as part of enforcement activities. It furtherconfuses the issue that the term “enforcement” is widelyassociated with laws and regulations that make certainactions mandatory, whereas the term “incentives” is typi-cally associated with guidelines in a voluntary sense. Werecommend that the wording of Indicator 57 be changed to“enforce laws and regulations and assure implementationof guidelines,” as has been suggested elsewhere (Round-table on Sustainable Forestry 1999).


Indicator 57 overlaps with several others, particularly asthey relate to laws, values, public participation, funding,and planning. There is potential for difficulty in this respectin Indicator 57’s relationship to Indicators 40 (extensionand use of new technology), 51 (best-practice codes),54 (planning and coordination), 58 (investment in forests),60 (information and data), and 66 (human interventionimpacts). Even though the focus of information gatheringis different for the two indicators (legal versus institutionalcapacity), consideration should be given to mergingIndicator 57 and Indicator 51, which relates to best-prac-tice codes. They have much in common conceptually, andthe information that describes them frequently has rele-vance both to best-practice codes and to their enforcement.

Literature Cited

Alden, A.; Ellefson, P.V. 1997. Natural resource and environmental liti-gation in the Federal courts: a review of parties, statutes, and circuitsinvolved. Staff Pap. 125. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota,Department of Forest Resources. 50 p.

American Forest and Paper Association. 1994. Federal laws and regula-tions affecting private forestry. Washington, DC: American Forest andPaper Association. [Not paged].

Anderson, S. 2000. A short history of best management practices. Presen-tation, Oregon Society of American Foresters annual meeting. Durham,NC: Forest History Society. [Not paged].

Callicott, J.B. 2000. Aldo Leopold and the foundations of ecosystemmanagement. Journal of Forestry. 98(5):15-22.

Carnett, C. 1991. Legal background of archeological resources protec-tion. Archeology and Ethnography Tech. Brief 11. U.S. Department ofthe Interior, National Park Service. http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/PUBS/TECHBR/tch11pr.htm. [Date accessed: August 2001].

Coggins, G.C.; Wilkinson, C.F.; Leshy, J.D. 2001. Federal public land andresources law. New York, NY: Foundation Press. 1,232 p.

��

Cubbage, F.W.; Moffat, S.O. 1997. Criterion seven, indicator 51: a reviewand discussion. Unpublished document. New Orleans, LA: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station.25 p.

Ellefson, P.V. 2000. Has Gifford Pinchot’s regulatory vision beenrealized? Journal of Forestry. 98(5):15-22.


Ellefson, P.V.; Kilgore, M.A.; Hibbard, C.M. 2003. State governmentprograms regulating forestry practices: current agencywide status andreview of program effectiveness. Unpublished report. St. Paul, MN:University of Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources. 120 p.

Ellefson, P.V.; Kilgore, M.A.; Phillips, M.J. 2001a. Monitoring compli-ance with BMPs: experience of State governments. Journal of Forestry.99(1):11-17.

Ellefson, P.V.; Moulton, R.J.; Kilgore, M.A. 2001b. Programs and organi-zations affecting the use, management, and protection of forests: anassessment of agencies located across the organizational landscape ofState government. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Departmentof Forest Resources. 119 p.


Environmental Law Institute. 1997. Enforceable State mechanisms forcontrol of nonpoint source water pollution. Washington, DC: Environ-mental Law Institute. 59 p.

Environmental Law Institute. 1998. Almanac of enforceable State laws tocontrol nonpoint source water pollution. Washington, DC: Environ-mental Law Institute. 293 p.

Hickman, C.A.; Martus, C.E. 1991. Local regulation of private forestrypractices in the Eastern United States. In: Louisiana State University,Department of Forestry. Proceedings, annual meeting of SouthernForest Economics Workers. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana StateUniversity, Department of Forestry: 73-90.

Ice, G.G.; Stuart, G.W.; Waide, J.B. [and others]. 1997. Twenty-five yearsof the Clean Water Act: how clean are forest practices? Journal ofForestry. 95(7): 9-13.

Jones, E.S.; Taylor, C.P. 1995. Litigating agency change: the impact of thecourts and administrative appeals process on the Forest Service. PolicyStudies Journal. 23(2): 310-336.

Kerwin, C.M. 1999. Rulemaking: how government agencies write lawand make policy. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.294 p.

MacKay, D.G.; Ellefson, P.V.; Blinn, C.R. 1996. Registration, certificationand licensing: creating better timber harvesters. Journal of Forestry.94(7):27-31.

Martus, C.E.; Haney, H.L.; Siegel, W.C. 1995. Local forest regulatoryordinances: Trends in the Eastern United States. Journal of Forestry.93(6):27-31.


Montreal Process Working Group. 2003. The Montreal Process. http://www.mpci.org/. [Date accessed: February 2001].

National Archives and Records Administration. 2001a. Federal Register(1997 through October 2001). Washington, DC: National Archives andRecords Administration. [Not paged].

National Archives and Records Administration. 2001b. Codification ofproclamations and Presidential executive orders. Title 3, Code ofFederal Regulations. Washington, DC: National Archives and RecordsAdministration. [Not paged].

National Association of State Foresters. 2001. State non-point source pollu-tion control programs for silviculture. http://www.stateforesters.org/reports. [Date accessed: June 2001].

National Conference of State Legislatures. 2001. State statute forestrycitations. http://www.ncsl.org/programs/ESNR/FORESTCI.HTM.Denver, CO. [Date accessed; June 2001].

National Research Council. 1998. Forested landscapes in perspective:prospects and opportunities for sustainable management of America’snonfederal forests. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 249 p.

Roundtable on Sustainable Forestry. 1999. Criterion-level summary:indicators 53-59. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). http://sustainableforests.net. [Date accessed: June 2001].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1993. The principal lawsrelating to Forest Service activities. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service. 1,163 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2000. Law enforcementand investigations: FY2000. On file with: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, Law Enforcement and Investigations,Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2001. Law enforcementhandbook. FSH 5309.11. http://www.fs.fed.us/cgi-bin/Directives/get_dirs/fsh?5309.11!. Washington, D.C. [Date accessed: June 2001].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2002. The process pre-dicament: how statutory, regulatory, and administrative factors affectnational forest management. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture. 40 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2001.Safety on public lands: protecting you and public resources.www.blm.gov. [Date accessed: June 2001].

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Divisionof Law Enforcement: annual report FY 2000. (www.fws.gov). [Dateaccessed: June 2001].

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 2001. Lawenforcement in the National Park System. http://data2.itc.nps.gov/budget2/documents/law%20enforcement%20funding%20history.pdf[Date accessed: June 2001].

U.S. General Accounting Office. 1994. Federal lands: land acquisitionsinvolving nonprofit conservation organizations. GAO/RCED-94-149.Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office. 49 p.

U.S. General Accounting Office. 1995. Federal lands: information on landowned and on acreage with conservation restrictions. GAO/RCED-95-73FS. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office. 42 p.

Wasby, S.L. 1983. Interest groups and litigation. Policy Studies Journal.11(4): 697-670.

Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G. 2002. Southern forest resource assessment. Gen.Tech. Rep. SRS-53. Ashville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 635 p.

West Publishing Company. 1997. Selected environmental law statutes. St.Paul, MN: West Publishing Company. 1,398 p.

��

Appendix A

Presidential Executive Orders Representing Enforcement ActionsRelevant to Forest and Related Resources, 1961-2000

Greening Government through Environmental Management Leadership (EO 13148; 2000)Invasive Species Federal Action Directive (authorities addressing invasive species) (EO 13112; 1999)Federal Interagency Partnership on Lake Tahoe Ecosystem (establishment of . . . ) (EO 13057; 1997)Federal Agency Standards for Content of Recycled Paper (EO 12995; 1996)Management and Use of National Wildlife Refuge System (EO 12996; 1996)International Union for Conservation of Nature & Natural Resources (legal immunity) (EO 12986; 1996)Commission on Environmental Cooperation (establishment of . . . ) (EO 12904; 1994)Advisory Committee on Trade and the Environment (establishment of . . . ) (EO-12905; 1994)Environmental Cooperation Agreement (enforce NAFTA) (EO 12915; 1994)President’s Council on Sustainable Development (establishment of . . . ) (EO-12852; 1993)Grazing Fee on Federal Lands (establish rates for . . . ) (EO 12548; 1986)Presidents’s Commission on Americans Outdoors (establishment of . . .) (EO 12503; 1985)Commission on Indian Reservation Economies (establishment of . . .) (EO 12401; 1983)Animal Damage Control on Federal Lands (environmental safeguards for . . . (EQ 12342; 1982)Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions (specify conditions of . . .) (EO 12114; 1979)Environmental Evaluation Functions (transfer of certain federal responsibilities) (EO 12040; 1978)Off-Road Vehicle Use on Federal Public Lands (establish conditions for . . .) (EO 11989; 1977)Protection of Wetlands (establish responsibility and standards for . . .) (EO 11990; 1977)Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality (EO 11991; 1977)Preservation of Endangered Species (establish responsibility and standards for . . . ) (EO 15683; 1976)Animal Damage Control on Federal Lands (environmental safeguards for . . . ) (EO 11643; 1972)National Forests in Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, and Wisconsin (boundary of . . .) (EO 10932; 1961)

Source: National Archives and Records Administration (2001b).

��

App

endi

x ta

ble

B.1

—P

rovi

sion

s of

maj

or e

nfor

ceab

le S

tate

law

s to

con

trol

non

poin

t so

urce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

, by

Stat

e, w

ater

pol

luti

on l

aw, a

ndre

quir

emen

ts f

or f

ores

try

(200

1)

Stat

eN

onpo

int-

sour

ce w

ater

pol

luti

on c

ontr

ol la

wF

ores

try

nonp

oint

-sou

rce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

law

Ala

bam

aW

ater

pol

luti

on c

ontr

ol la

w re

quir

es a

per

mit

for d

isch

arge

of w

ater

For

estr

y C

omm

issi

on h

as p

ower

to a

dopt

and

pro

mul

gate

rule

s an

d re

gula

tion

s pe

r-po

llut

ants

, alt

houg

h ce

rtai

n no

npoi

nt-s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

from

agr

i-ta

inin

g to

all

pha

ses

of fo

rest

ry. H

owev

er, f

or e

nfor

cem

ent t

he C

omm

issi

on re

lies

cult

ure

and

silv

icul

ture

are

exc

lude

d fr

om th

e pe

rmit

requ

irem

ent.

on v

olun

tary

BM

Ps,

lice

nsin

g re

quir

emen

ts fo

r for

este

rs, a

nd th

e S

tate

’s w

ater

pol

lu-

Sta

te m

ay d

irec

tly

enfo

rce

agai

nst n

onpo

int s

ourc

es, i

f the

y ca

use

poll

utio

n co

ntro

l act

. Sta

te la

w a

utho

rize

s so

il a

nd w

ater

con

serv

atio

n di

stri

cts

tovi

olat

ion

of w

ater

qua

lity

sta

ndar

ds o

r dea

l wit

h an

y ty

pe o

f wat

er“f

orm

ulat

e re

gula

tion

s go

vern

ing

the

use

of la

nds

wit

hin

the

dist

rict

in th

e in

tere

stpo

llut

ion

resu

ltin

g fr

om n

egli

genc

e or

that

pro

duce

s a

heal

th h

azar

d.of

con

serv

ing

soil

and

soi

l res

ourc

es a

nd p

reve

ntin

g an

d co

ntro

llin

g so

il e

rosi

on.”

Att

orne

y G

ener

al m

ay c

omm

ence

a c

ivil

enf

orce

men

t act

ion

for

“Any

man

agem

ent g

uide

line

s de

velo

ped

by w

ater

shed

man

agem

ent a

utho

riti

esda

mag

es fo

r pol

luti

on o

f the

wat

ers

of th

e S

tate

. Enf

orce

men

t[a

spe

cial

form

of a

utho

rity

wit

hin

som

e so

il a

nd w

ater

con

serv

atio

n di

stri

cts]

toin

clud

es o

rder

s, in

junc

tion

s, c

ivil

act

ions

of d

amag

es fo

r pol

luti

onpr

otec

t for

este

d w

ater

shed

s sh

all f

ollo

w th

e be

st m

anag

emen

t pra

ctic

es e

stab

lish

ed(r

ecov

er re

ason

able

cos

ts to

pre

vent

, min

imiz

e, o

r cle

an u

p an

yby

the

For

estr

y C

omm

issi

on.”

Enf

orce

men

t of d

istr

ict l

and

use

regu

lati

ons

is b

yda

mag

e), c

osts

of r

esto

ckin

g of

fish

kil

led,

civ

il p

enal

ties

of $

100

toin

junc

tion

ord

ered

by

circ

uit c

ourt

s or

by

dist

rict

s pe

rfor

min

g ne

eded

cor

rect

ions

$25,

000

per d

ay, a

nd c

rim

inal

pen

alti

es fo

r wil

lful

vio

lati

on o

ran

d su

bseq

uent

reco

very

of e

xpen

ses.

gros

sly

negl

igen

t vio

lati

ons.

Ala

ska

Wat

er p

ollu

tion

con

trol

law

pro

hibi

ts p

erso

ns fr

om “

poll

ut[i

ng] o

rC

omm

issi

oner

of N

atur

al R

esou

rces

may

issu

e no

npoi

nt s

ourc

e po

llut

ion

regu

la-

add[

ing]

to th

e po

llut

ion

of th

e ai

r, la

nd, s

ubsu

rfac

e la

nd, o

r wat

er o

fti

ons

subj

ect t

o D

epar

tmen

t of E

nvir

onm

enta

l Con

serv

atio

n ap

prov

al. O

n S

tate

,th

e S

tate

.” T

he A

lask

a D

epar

tmen

t of E

nvir

onm

enta

l Con

serv

atio

nm

unic

ipal

, and

pri

vate

fore

stla

nd, S

tate

law

pro

vide

s th

at “

envi

ronm

enta

lly

sens

i-(D

EC

) ha

s br

oad

auth

orit

y to

ado

pt p

ollu

tion

sta

ndar

ds a

nd “

toti

ve a

reas

” sh

all b

e re

cogn

ized

“in

the

deve

lopm

ent o

f reg

ulat

ions

and

bes

t man

age-

dete

rmin

e w

hat q

uali

ties

and

pro

pert

ies

of w

ater

indi

cate

a p

ollu

ted

men

t pra

ctic

es th

at a

re d

esig

ned

to im

plem

ent n

onpo

int s

ourc

e po

llut

ion

cont

rol

cond

itio

n . .

.” If

an

acti

vity

pre

sent

s “a

n im

min

ent o

r pre

sent

dan

ger”

mea

sure

s.”

Bef

ore

begi

nnin

g fo

rest

ry o

pera

tion

s on

pri

vate

or S

tate

pub

lic

fore

stto

the

peop

le o

f th

e S

tate

or

wou

ld r

esul

t in

or b

e li

kely

to r

esul

t in

land

, the

ope

rato

r mus

t sub

mit

to th

e D

irec

tor o

f the

Sta

te D

ivis

ion

of F

ores

try

a“i

rrev

ersi

ble

or ir

repa

rabl

e da

mag

e” to

the

envi

ronm

ent,

the

DE

C m

ay“d

etai

led

plan

of o

pera

tion

s.”

Unl

ess

a st

op-w

ork

orde

r is

issu

ed o

r the

age

ncy

issu

e an

em

erge

ncy

abat

emen

t ord

er w

itho

ut a

hea

ring

. Sup

erio

r cou

rtex

tend

s th

e re

view

per

iod,

the

oper

ator

may

com

men

ce w

ork,

at t

he la

test

, 30

days

may

als

o en

join

vio

lati

ons

of s

tatu

tes,

regu

lati

ons,

ord

ers,

or p

erm

its

afte

r sub

mis

sion

of t

he p

lan.

The

pla

n m

ust b

e re

new

ed a

nnua

lly.

Dir

ecto

r may

and

impo

se s

anct

ions

incl

udin

g ci

vil p

enal

ties

of b

etw

een

$500

and

issu

e or

ders

to c

ease

vio

lati

ons

of p

lan

or to

repa

ir a

ny re

sult

ing

dam

age.

Vio

lati

on$1

0,00

0 fo

r th

e in

itia

l vio

lati

on a

nd n

ot m

ore

than

$5,

000

for

each

of s

tatu

te, r

egul

atio

n, d

irec

tive

, or s

top-

wor

k or

der c

an re

sult

in a

max

imum

civ

ilsu

bseq

uent

day

of t

he v

iola

tion

. If a

vio

lati

on o

ccur

s w

ith

crim

inal

fine

of $

10,0

00, o

r, if

cri

min

al n

egli

genc

e is

foun

d, c

harg

es o

f a m

isde

mea

nor.

negl

igen

ce, i

t is

cons

ider

ed a

mis

dem

eano

r.R

epai

rs m

ay p

roce

ed w

ith

the

viol

ator

liab

le fo

r the

ir c

ost.

Ari

zona

Wat

er p

ollu

tion

law

aut

hori

zes

deve

lopm

ent o

f pro

gram

s fo

r non

poin

tS

tate

law

doe

s no

t app

ear t

o co

ntai

n en

forc

emen

t req

uire

men

ts s

peci

fica

lly

focu

sed

sour

ce d

isch

arge

s, in

clud

ing

deve

lopm

ent o

f enf

orce

able

mec

hani

sms.

on n

onpo

int s

ourc

e w

ater

pol

luti

on fr

om fo

rest

ry a

ctiv

itie

s.H

owev

er, t

he D

epar

tmen

t of E

nvir

onm

enta

l Qua

lity

is re

quir

ed to

adop

t a “

prog

ram

to c

ontr

ol n

onpo

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

of a

nypo

llut

ant o

r com

bina

tion

of p

ollu

tant

s in

to n

avig

able

wat

ers.

” T

hus,

enfo

rcea

ble

mec

hani

sms

coul

d be

cre

ated

by

regu

lati

on.

cont

inue

d

Ap

pen

dix

B

��

App

endi

x ta

ble

B.1

—P

rovi

sion

s of

maj

or e

nfor

ceab

le S

tate

law

s to

con

trol

non

poin

t so

urce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

, by

Stat

e, w

ater

pol

luti

on l

aw, a

ndre

quir

emen

ts f

or f

ores

try

(200

1) (

cont

inue

d)

Stat

eN

onpo

int-

sour

ce w

ater

pol

luti

on c

ontr

ol la

wF

ores

try

nonp

oint

-sou

rce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

law

Ark

ansa

sW

ater

pol

luti

on c

ontr

ol la

w e

stab

lish

es a

gen

eral

dis

char

ge p

rohi

biti

onS

tate

law

doe

s no

t app

ear t

o co

ntai

n en

forc

emen

t req

uire

men

ts s

peci

fica

lly

focu

sed

that

may

be

used

to ta

ke e

nfor

cem

ent a

ctio

n ag

ains

t non

poin

t sou

rce

on n

onpo

int s

ourc

e w

ater

pol

luti

on fr

om fo

rest

ry a

ctiv

itie

s. H

owev

er, t

here

is a

disc

harg

es, n

amel

y un

law

ful t

o “c

ause

pol

luti

on .

. . o

f any

of t

here

stri

ctio

n on

tree

-cut

ting

nea

r riv

er b

eds,

nam

ely

“it i

s un

law

ful t

o re

mov

e an

yw

ater

s of

this

Sta

te,”

or t

o “p

lace

or c

ause

to b

e pl

aced

any

sew

age,

tree

s gr

owin

g be

low

the

norm

al h

igh

wat

erm

ark

on a

ny ri

ver

or s

trea

m w

hich

has

indu

stri

al w

aste

, or o

ther

was

tes

in a

loca

tion

whe

re it

is li

kely

to c

ause

been

des

igna

ted

as a

nav

igab

le ri

ver o

r str

eam

.” V

iola

tors

are

sub

ject

to a

fine

of n

otpo

llut

ion

of a

ny w

ater

s of

this

Sta

te.”

Pol

luti

on a

nd E

colo

gyle

ss th

an $

10.0

0 an

d no

t mor

e th

an $

1,00

0.C

omm

issi

on is

the

resp

onsi

ble

enfo

rcem

ent a

genc

y an

d is

aut

hori

zed

to c

ondu

ct in

vest

igat

ions

and

adm

inis

trat

ive

proc

eedi

ngs,

and

inst

itut

eci

vil e

nfor

cem

ent a

ctio

ns in

the

prop

er c

ourt

. Adm

inis

trat

ive

pena

ltie

sm

ay b

e no

gre

ater

than

$10

,000

per

day

of

viol

atio

n; c

ivil

act

ions

may

resu

lt in

pen

alti

es n

ot o

ver

$10,

000

per

day

of v

iola

tion

, an

orde

r to

enjo

in v

iola

tion

s an

d/or

com

pel c

ompl

ianc

e, a

n or

der f

or re

med

ial

mea

sure

s, a

nd re

cove

ry o

f all

cos

ts, e

xpen

ses,

and

dam

ages

. Vio

lati

ons

may

als

o be

cri

min

al m

isde

mea

nors

pun

isha

ble

by im

pris

onm

ent f

orno

t mor

e th

an 1

yea

r, o

r a

fine

of

not m

ore

than

$25

,000

, or

both

.A

pur

pose

ful,

know

ing,

or r

eckl

ess

viol

atio

n ad

vers

ely

affe

ctin

ghu

man

hea

lth

or th

e en

viro

nmen

t is

a fe

lony

, pun

isha

ble

byim

pris

onm

ent.

Cal

ifor

nia

Wat

er p

ollu

tion

con

trol

law

(Por

ter-

Col

ogne

Act

) est

abli

shes

enf

orce

-S

tate

’s fo

rest

pra

ctic

es la

w a

ddre

sses

non

poin

t-so

urce

pol

luti

on in

the

cont

ext o

fab

le p

erm

itti

ng p

rovi

sion

s an

d em

pow

ers

regi

onal

wat

er q

uali

ty c

on-

fore

stry

pra

ctic

es a

nd ti

mbe

r har

vest

ing

acti

viti

es. L

aw d

ivid

es th

e S

tate

into

thre

etr

ol b

oard

s to

ord

er th

e ab

atem

ent o

f non

poin

t-so

urce

dis

char

ges.

dist

rict

s (c

oast

fore

st, n

orth

ern

fore

st, s

outh

ern

fore

st) w

ith

dist

inct

rule

s es

tabl

ishe

dT

imbe

r har

vest

ing

oper

atio

ns c

ondu

cted

und

er th

e S

tate

’s fo

rest

pra

c-by

the

Sta

te B

oard

of F

ores

try.

Rul

es m

ust “

prot

ect t

he s

oil,

air,

fish

, and

wil

dlif

e,ti

ces

act a

re e

xem

pt fr

om th

e w

aste

dis

char

ge re

quir

emen

ts if

the

law

’san

d w

ater

reso

urce

s, in

clud

ing,

but

not

lim

ited

to, s

trea

ms,

lake

s, a

nd e

stua

ries

,” a

ndre

quir

emen

ts a

re c

erti

fied

as

best

man

agem

ent p

ract

ices

by

the

U.S

.m

ust i

nclu

de m

easu

res

for “

soil

ero

sion

con

trol

, for

sit

e pr

epar

atio

n th

at in

volv

esE

nvir

onm

enta

l Pro

tect

ion

Age

ncy.

Enf

orce

men

t of p

ollu

tion

con

trol

dist

urba

nce

of s

oil o

r bur

ning

of v

eget

atio

n fo

llow

ing

timbe

r har

vest

ing

activ

ities

. . .

,la

w is

by

orde

r, in

junc

tion

, or r

emed

ial a

ctio

n w

ith

cost

reco

very

.fo

r wat

er q

uali

ty a

nd w

ater

shed

con

trol

, for

floo

d co

ntro

l . .

. [et

c.].

” R

ules

are

Oth

er s

ecti

ons

of th

e la

w p

rovi

de fo

r civ

il p

enal

ties

, inj

unct

ions

,im

plem

ente

d th

roug

h re

quir

emen

ts fo

r lic

ensi

ng o

f for

este

rs a

nd fo

r fil

ing

and

mis

dem

eano

r pro

secu

tion

s, a

nd a

dmin

istr

ativ

e or

ders

.ap

prov

al o

f tim

ber h

arve

st p

lans

; “. .

. no

per

son

shal

l con

duct

tim

ber o

pera

tion

sun

less

a ti

mbe

r har

vest

ing

plan

pre

pare

d by

a re

gist

ered

pro

fess

iona

l for

este

r has

been

sub

mit

ted

for s

uch

oper

atio

ns to

the

Dep

artm

ent o

f For

estr

y.”

Law

pro

vide

sfo

r pub

lic

com

men

ts a

nd re

view

of p

ropo

sed

plan

s by

oth

er a

genc

ies.

Rep

orts

of

com

plet

ion

of w

ork

mus

t be

file

d w

ithin

1 m

onth

aft

er c

ompl

etio

n of

the

acti

vity

desc

ribe

d in

the

plan

, and

ope

rati

ons

mus

t be

insp

ecte

d w

ithi

n 6

mon

ths.

Enf

orce

-m

ent m

easu

res

incl

ude

lice

nse

acti

ons,

mis

dem

eano

r pro

secu

tion

s (w

ith

fine

s of

not m

ore

than

$1,

000

per

day

or im

pris

onm

ent f

or m

ore

than

6 m

onth

s), c

ivil

inju

ncti

on a

ctio

ns, a

nd d

epar

tmen

tal c

orre

ctiv

e ac

tion

s w

ith

cost

reco

veri

es.

Alt

houg

h lo

cal g

over

nmen

t reg

ulat

ion

of fo

rest

ry is

larg

ely

pree

mpt

ed, t

heC

alif

orni

a Ta

hoe

Reg

iona

l Pla

nnin

g A

genc

y m

ay a

dopt

rule

s th

at a

re s

tric

ter t

han

thos

e pr

omul

gate

d by

the

Boa

rd o

f For

estr

y.co

ntin

ued

��

App

endi

x ta

ble

B.1

—P

rovi

sion

s of

maj

or e

nfor

ceab

le S

tate

law

s to

con

trol

non

poin

t so

urce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

, by

Stat

e, w

ater

pol

luti

on l

aw, a

ndre

quir

emen

ts f

or f

ores

try

(200

1) (

cont

inue

d)

Stat

eN

onpo

int-

sour

ce w

ater

pol

luti

on c

ontr

ol la

wF

ores

try

nonp

oint

-sou

rce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

law

Col

orad

oW

ater

pol

luti

on c

ontr

ol la

w e

stab

lish

es a

gen

eral

pol

icy

decl

arat

ion

Boa

rd o

f Agr

icul

ture

has

the

pow

er a

nd d

uty

“to

fost

er a

nd p

rom

ote

the

cont

rol o

ffa

vori

ng th

e pr

even

tion

of d

isch

arge

of u

ntre

ated

pol

luta

nts.

How

ever

,so

il e

rosi

on o

n . .

. fo

rest

land

s.”

Sta

te la

w d

oes

not a

ppea

r to

spec

ify

enfo

rcem

ent

the

law

doe

s no

t hav

e a

gene

ral e

nfor

ceab

le p

rohi

biti

on th

at d

irec

tly

requ

irem

ents

rela

ted

to n

onpo

int-

sour

ce w

ater

pol

luti

on fr

om fo

rest

ry a

ctiv

itie

s.ap

plie

s to

non

poin

t sou

rces

. Ins

tead

, the

law

con

fers

aut

hori

ty o

n th

eW

ater

Qua

lity

Con

trol

Com

mis

sion

to a

dopt

regu

lati

ons

whi

ch m

ayin

clud

e no

npoi

nt-s

ourc

e re

gula

tion

s. T

he la

w s

peci

fica

lly

requ

ires

the

use

of n

onre

gula

tory

mec

hani

sms

befo

re re

gula

tory

app

roac

hes

may

be u

sed.

Con

nect

icut

Wat

er p

ollu

tion

con

trol

law

mak

es it

a v

iola

tion

to d

isch

arge

any

sub

-S

tate

fore

stry

law

requ

ires

any

per

son

enga

ged

in c

omm

erci

al fo

rest

pra

ctic

es to

stan

ce to

the

wat

ers

of th

e S

tate

wit

hout

a p

erm

it, n

amel

y “.

. . n

oob

tain

and

mai

ntai

n a

Sta

te c

erti

fica

te in

one

of t

hree

cat

egor

ies,

nam

ely

fore

ster

,pe

rson

or m

unic

ipal

ity

shal

l ini

tiat

e, c

reat

e, o

rigi

nate

, or m

aint

ain

any

supe

rvis

ing

fore

st p

rodu

cts

harv

este

r, an

d fo

rest

pro

duct

s ha

rves

ter.

Cer

tifie

ddi

scha

rge

of w

ater

, sub

stan

ce o

r mat

eria

l int

o th

e w

ater

s of

the

Sta

tefo

rest

ers,

sup

ervi

sors

, and

har

vest

ers

are

requ

ired

to fi

le a

nnua

l rep

orts

of t

heir

wit

hout

a p

erm

it fo

r suc

h di

scha

rge

issu

ed b

y th

e C

omm

issi

oner

of

activ

ities

and

con

tinui

ng e

duca

tion.

The

cer

tific

atio

n pr

oces

s pr

ovid

es a

bas

is fo

rE

nvir

onm

enta

l Pro

tect

ion.

” “D

isch

arge

” m

eans

“th

e em

issi

on o

f any

assu

ring

that

fore

st p

ract

ices

are

con

duct

ed in

acc

orda

nce

wit

h fo

rest

pra

ctic

e ru

les

wat

er, s

ubst

ance

or m

ater

ial i

nto

the

wat

ers

of th

e S

tate

, whe

ther

or

addr

essi

ng n

onpo

int-

sour

ce w

ater

pol

luti

on. S

tate

law

aut

hori

zes

the

Com

mis

sion

erno

t suc

h su

bsta

nce

caus

es p

ollu

tion

.” In

suc

h a

cont

ext,

disc

harg

e is

of E

nvir

onm

enta

l Pro

tect

ion

to a

dopt

regu

lati

ons

“gov

erni

ng th

e co

nduc

t of f

ores

tno

t lim

ited

to p

oint

sou

rces

. In

sett

ing

stan

dard

s fo

r per

mit

s, th

epr

acti

ces

incl

udin

g, b

ut n

ot li

mit

ed to

, the

har

vest

of c

omm

erci

al fo

rest

pro

duct

s . .

.C

omm

issi

oner

mus

t con

side

r “be

st m

anag

emen

t pra

ctic

es,”

nam

ely

such

regu

latio

ns s

hall

prov

ide

for a

com

preh

ensi

ve s

tate

wid

e sy

stem

of f

ores

t pra

c-pr

acti

ces

that

redu

ce th

e di

scha

rge

of w

aste

into

the

wat

ers

of th

e S

tate

tice

s re

gula

tions

whi

ch w

ill .

. . a

ffor

d pr

otec

tion

to a

nd im

prov

emen

t of a

ir a

nd w

ater

and

that

hav

e be

en d

eter

min

ed to

be

acce

ptab

le b

ased

on

tech

nica

l,qu

alit

y . .

.” T

he la

w a

lso

auth

oriz

es m

unic

ipal

itie

s to

regu

late

fore

st p

ract

ices

in a

econ

omic

, and

inst

itut

iona

l fea

sibi

lity

. Enf

orce

men

t aut

hori

ties

incl

ude

man

ner c

onsi

sten

t wit

h th

e S

tate

law

. Mun

icip

al re

gula

tion

s m

ust b

e ap

prov

ed b

yor

ders

pro

hibi

ting

or a

bati

ng p

ollu

tion

and

ord

ers

to c

orre

ct p

oten

tial

the

Com

mis

sion

er. E

nfor

cem

ent t

ools

incl

ude

civi

l pen

alti

es o

f up

to $

5,00

0 pe

rso

urce

s of

pol

luti

on. C

ivil

pen

alti

es a

re a

vail

able

up

to $

25,0

00 p

er d

ay.

day

per o

ffen

se, c

ompl

ianc

e or

ders

, inj

unct

ions

, and

den

ial,

susp

ensi

on, o

rC

rim

inal

act

ions

may

be

brou

ght f

or w

illf

ul v

iola

tion

s w

ith

a sa

ncti

onre

voca

tion

of a

cer

tifi

cate

.of

up

to $

25,0

00 p

er d

ay a

nd/o

r 1

year

of

impr

ison

men

t.

Del

awar

eW

ater

pol

luti

on c

ontr

ol la

w re

quir

es th

at “

. . .

no p

erso

n sh

all,

wit

hout

Sta

te’s

fore

stry

adm

inis

trat

or “

shal

l pro

vide

for t

he p

rote

ctio

n of

the

wat

ers

of th

efi

rst h

avin

g ob

tain

ed a

per

mit

from

the

Dep

artm

ent o

f Nat

ural

Res

ourc

esS

tate

from

pol

luti

on b

y se

dim

ent d

epos

its

resu

ltin

g fr

om s

ilvi

cult

ural

act

ivit

ies.

” A

and

Env

iron

men

tal C

ontr

ol, u

nder

take

any

act

ivit

y th

at m

ay c

ause

or

spec

ial o

rder

may

be

issu

ed b

y th

e ad

min

istr

ator

if it

is d

eter

min

ed th

at a

n ow

ner o

rco

ntri

bute

to d

isch

arge

of a

pol

luta

nt in

to a

ny s

urfa

ce o

r gro

undw

ater

. . .

”op

erat

or is

con

duct

ing

any

silv

icul

tura

l act

ivit

y in

a m

anne

r tha

t is

caus

ing

or is

The

ado

pted

per

mit

ting

regu

lati

ons

are

aim

ed a

t poi

nt s

ourc

es, b

ut th

eli

kely

to c

ause

alt

erat

ion

of p

hysi

cal,

chem

ical

, or b

iolo

gica

l pro

pert

ies

of a

ny S

tate

Sta

te a

lso

can

use

this

sta

tuto

ry a

utho

rity

to d

eal w

ith

nonp

oint

-sou

rce

wat

er, r

esul

ting

from

sed

imen

t dep

osit

ion

and

pres

enti

ng a

n im

min

ent a

nd s

ubst

an-

poll

utio

n ev

ents

. Num

erou

s no

npoi

nt a

ctiv

itie

s do

not

requ

ire

a pe

rmit

tial

dan

ger t

o pu

blic

hea

lth,

saf

ety,

or w

elfa

re, o

r rec

reat

iona

l, co

mm

erci

al, i

ndus

tria

l,(f

or e

xam

ple,

act

ivit

ies

invo

lvin

g dr

aina

ge d

itch

es; u

ncon

tam

inat

edag

ricu

ltur

al o

r oth

er re

ason

able

use

s. T

he o

rder

may

dir

ect t

he o

wne

r or o

pera

tor

stor

mw

ater

dis

char

ges;

app

lica

tion

of f

erti

lize

r; p

low

ing

or c

ulti

vati

ng“t

o ce

ase

imm

edia

tely

all

or p

art o

f the

sil

vicu

ltur

al a

ctiv

itie

s on

the

site

and

tofo

r agr

icul

tura

l or h

orti

cult

ural

pur

pose

s; ir

riga

tion

; mov

emen

t of e

arth

impl

emen

t spe

cifi

ed c

orre

ctiv

e m

easu

res

wit

hin

a st

ated

per

iod

of ti

me.

” S

peci

alfo

r bui

ldin

g ex

cava

tion

s). E

nfor

cem

ent m

echa

nism

s in

clud

e ci

vil

orde

rs a

re is

sued

aft

er n

otic

e an

d he

arin

g an

d ar

e ef

fect

ive

not l

ess

than

5 d

ays

afte

rpe

nalt

ies,

ord

ers,

and

inju

ncti

ons.

serv

ice,

exc

ept f

or e

mer

genc

y sp

ecia

l ord

ers

whi

ch m

ay b

e is

sued

imm

edia

tely

.F

ailu

re to

com

ply

can

lead

to c

ivil

pen

alti

es o

f $20

0 to

$2,

000

per v

iola

tion

per

day

,al

thou

gh in

tent

iona

l and

kno

win

g vi

olat

ions

of o

rder

s ar

e su

bjec

t to

fine

s of

$50

0to

$10

,000

per

vio

lati

on p

er d

ay.

cont

inue

d

��

App

endi

x ta

ble

B.1

—P

rovi

sion

s of

maj

or e

nfor

ceab

le S

tate

law

s to

con

trol

non

poin

t so

urce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

, by

Stat

e, w

ater

pol

luti

on l

aw, a

ndre

quir

emen

ts f

or f

ores

try

(200

1) (

cont

inue

d)

Stat

eN

onpo

int-

sour

ce w

ater

pol

luti

on c

ontr

ol la

wF

ores

try

nonp

oint

-sou

rce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

law

Flo

rida

Wat

er p

ollu

tion

con

trol

law

adm

inis

tere

d by

the

Dep

artm

ent o

f Env

iron

-S

tate

reli

es o

n vo

lunt

ary

best

man

agem

ent p

ract

ices

; enf

orce

men

t, if

nec

essa

ry, i

sm

enta

l Pro

tect

ion

(DE

P) p

rohi

bits

any

per

son

“. .

. to

caus

e w

ater

pol

lu-

unde

r the

Sta

te’s

wat

er p

ollu

tion

dis

char

ge la

ws.

Whe

re a

ppli

cabl

e, p

erso

nsti

on s

o as

to h

arm

or i

njur

e hu

man

hea

lth

or w

elfa

re, a

nim

al, p

lant

, or

enga

ging

in fo

rest

har

vest

ope

rati

ons

mus

t fil

e a

“not

ice

of a

gen

eral

per

mit

” w

ith

aqua

tic

life

or p

rope

rty.

” A

lso

a vi

olat

ion

of S

tate

law

is fa

ilur

e to

obt

ain

a w

ater

man

agem

ent d

istr

ict.

a pe

rmit

requ

ired

by

law

, rul

e, o

r reg

ulat

ion

adop

ted

to p

reve

nt s

uch

poll

u-ti

on. A

ddit

iona

l and

sep

arat

e S

tate

law

pro

vide

s w

ater

pol

luti

on p

reve

ntio

nen

forc

emen

t aut

hori

ty fo

r Flo

rida

’s fi

ve w

ater

man

agem

ent d

istr

icts

. DE

Pen

forc

emen

t pow

ers

incl

ude

civi

l act

ions

for d

amag

es; a

ctio

ns fo

r civ

ilpe

nalt

ies

up to

$10

,000

per

day

; adm

inis

trat

ive

acti

ons

for d

amag

es; a

ndad

min

istr

ativ

e or

ders

for a

bate

men

t or o

ther

cor

rect

ive

acti

on, s

ubje

ct to

adm

inis

trat

ive

hear

ings

. The

law

als

o pr

ovid

es fo

r inj

unct

ions

and

for

crim

inal

pro

secu

tion

for v

iola

tion

s co

mm

itte

d w

ith

inte

nt.

Geo

rgia

Wat

er p

ollu

tion

cont

rol l

aw a

utho

rize

s a

perm

it pr

ogra

m to

con

trol

non

-S

tate

fore

stry

law

s do

not

app

ear t

o co

ntai

n en

forc

eabl

e pr

ovis

ions

rela

ting

dir

ectl

ypo

int s

ourc

es th

at m

ay im

pair

wat

er q

uali

ty. S

peci

fica

lly,

law

requ

ires

to n

onpo

int-

sour

ce p

ollu

tion

. How

ever

, Sta

te d

oes

requ

ire

regi

stra

tion

of p

rofe

s-a

perm

it fo

r any

one

seek

ing

to “

erec

t or m

odif

y fa

cili

ties

or c

omm

ence

sion

al fo

rest

ers,

wit

h co

ntin

uing

edu

cati

on a

nd re

lice

nsin

g. F

ores

t pra

ctic

es fo

r hir

eor

alt

er a

n op

erat

ion

of a

ny ty

pe w

hich

wil

l res

ult i

n th

e di

scha

rge

ofm

ust b

e co

nduc

ted

by a

pro

fess

iona

l for

este

r. E

nfor

cem

ent o

f lic

ensi

ng re

quir

emen

tspo

llut

ants

from

a n

onpo

int s

ourc

e in

to th

e w

ater

s of

the

Sta

te, w

hich

incl

udes

inju

ncti

on, l

icen

se re

voca

tion

, and

mis

dem

eano

r pro

secu

tion

.w

ill r

ende

r or i

s li

kely

to re

nder

suc

h w

ater

s ha

rmfu

l to

the

publ

ic .

. .”

Perm

its a

re re

quir

ed o

nly

if th

e S

tate

’s E

nvir

onm

enta

l Pro

tect

ion

Div

isio

n“h

as is

sued

one

to th

e sa

me

pers

on fo

r a p

oint

sou

rce

disc

harg

e.”

Inju

nc-

tive

reli

ef a

nd c

ivil

pen

alti

es o

f up

to $

50,0

00 p

er d

ay a

re p

rovi

ded

for,

as

are

crim

inal

pen

alti

es o

f $2,

500

to $

25,0

00 a

nd/o

r im

pris

onm

ent.

Haw

aii

Wat

er p

ollu

tion

con

trol

law

incl

udes

som

e pr

ovis

ions

that

may

be

used

Sta

te la

w d

oes

not a

ppea

r to

cont

ain

enfo

rcem

ent r

equi

rem

ents

spe

cifi

call

y fo

cuse

dto

take

enf

orce

men

t act

ion

agai

nst n

onpo

int s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

that

are

on n

onpo

int s

ourc

e w

ater

pol

luti

on fr

om fo

rest

ry a

ctiv

itie

s.no

t per

mitt

ed o

r tha

t res

ult i

n w

ater

qua

lity

viol

atio

ns. A

dmin

istr

ativ

e an

dci

vil (

up to

$10

,000

for e

ach

offe

nse)

pen

alti

es a

re a

utho

rize

d. C

rim

inal

sanc

tion

s ar

e m

ore

stri

ngen

t if t

he v

iola

tion

was

“kn

owin

g” ra

ther

than

“neg

ligen

t.”

cont

inue

d

��

App

endi

x ta

ble

B.1

—P

rovi

sion

s of

maj

or e

nfor

ceab

le S

tate

law

s to

con

trol

non

poin

t so

urce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

, by

Stat

e, w

ater

pol

luti

on l

aw, a

ndre

quir

emen

ts f

or f

ores

try

(200

1) (

cont

inue

d)

Stat

eN

onpo

int-

sour

ce w

ater

pol

luti

on c

ontr

ol la

wF

ores

try

nonp

oint

-sou

rce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

law

Idah

oW

ater

pol

luti

on c

ontr

ol la

w p

rovi

des

that

“no

per

son

shal

l con

duct

a n

ewS

tate

fore

stry

law

requ

ires

the

For

est B

oard

to “

deve

lop

met

hods

for c

ontr

olli

ngor

sub

stan

tial

ly m

odif

y an

exi

stin

g no

npoi

nt-s

ourc

e ac

tivi

ty th

at c

anw

ater

shed

impa

cts

resu

ltin

g fr

om c

umul

ativ

e ef

fect

s” o

f for

est p

ract

ices

. Und

er th

ere

ason

ably

be

expe

cted

to lo

wer

the

wat

er q

uali

ty o

f an

outs

tand

ing

Idah

o F

ores

try

Act

, bes

t man

agem

ent p

ract

ices

are

def

ined

as

prac

tice

s th

at th

ere

sour

ce, e

xcep

t whe

re th

e no

npoi

nt s

ourc

e ac

tivi

ties

are

tem

pora

ry o

rF

ores

t Boa

rd d

eter

min

es to

be

the

“mos

t eff

ecti

ve a

nd p

ract

icab

le m

eans

of

shor

t-te

rm a

nd d

o no

t alt

er th

e es

sent

ial c

hara

cter

of a

str

eam

seg

men

t.”pr

even

ting

or r

educ

ing

the

amou

nt o

f non

poin

t pol

luti

on g

ener

ated

by

fore

stP

rior

age

ncy

appr

oval

is re

quir

ed to

con

duct

any

new

non

poin

t-so

urce

prac

tice

s,”

and

the

rule

s un

der t

he a

ct e

stab

lish

sit

e-sp

ecif

ic B

MP

s fo

r str

eam

acti

viti

es a

ffec

ting

suc

h w

ater

s. W

here

tota

l max

imum

dai

ly lo

ads

are

segm

ents

of c

once

rn. I

f im

plem

enta

tion

of B

MP

s is

insu

ffic

ient

to p

rote

ct b

ene-

requ

ired

, the

Sta

te m

ust d

evel

op “

poll

utio

n co

ntro

l str

ateg

ies

for b

oth

fici

al u

ses,

the

fore

st a

ctiv

ity

may

be

deem

ed “

an im

min

ent o

r sub

stan

tial

thre

at.”

poin

t sou

rces

and

non

poin

t sou

rces

for r

educ

ing

thos

e so

urce

s of

pol

lutio

n.”

Ope

rato

rs a

re re

quir

ed to

pos

t a n

otic

e of

inte

nt to

eng

age

in fo

rest

ry p

ract

ices

;If

a p

erso

n fa

ils

to o

btai

n ne

w n

onpo

int-

sour

ce a

ppro

val i

n th

ose

few

a bo

nd is

requ

ired

whe

re a

n op

erat

or h

as fa

iled

to a

pply

BM

Ps

or w

illf

ully

cau

sed

inst

ance

s w

here

it is

requ

ired

(out

stan

ding

reso

urce

wat

ers)

, or f

ails

tode

grad

atio

n of

wat

er re

sour

ces.

Rul

es a

re e

nfor

ced

thro

ugh

issu

ance

of n

otic

es o

fim

plem

ent b

est m

anag

emen

t pra

ctic

es a

nd v

iola

tion

s of

wat

er q

uali

tyvi

olat

ion

and

ceas

e an

d re

pair

ord

ers.

Rel

evan

t san

ctio

ns in

clud

e su

its

for r

epar

a-st

anda

rds

resu

lt, t

he S

tate

may

inst

itut

e a

civi

l act

ion.

Non

poin

t-so

urce

tion

s, a

ttac

hmen

t of l

iens

, bon

d fo

rfei

ture

, and

inju

ncti

ve re

lief

. The

Rig

ht to

activ

ities

not

con

duct

ed a

ccor

ding

to B

MPs

may

be

subj

ect t

o co

mpl

ianc

eC

ondu

ct F

ores

t Pra

ctic

es A

ct li

mit

s th

e ci

rcum

stan

ces

unde

r whi

ch fo

rest

pra

ctic

essc

hedu

les,

adm

inis

trat

ive

and

civi

l rel

ief i

nclu

ding

inju

ncti

ve re

lief

.m

ay b

e de

emed

a n

uisa

nce.

Illin

ois

Wat

er p

ollu

tion

con

trol

law

pro

vide

s th

at “

No

pers

on s

hall

cau

se o

rS

tate

law

doe

s no

t app

ear t

o co

ntai

n en

forc

emen

t pro

visi

ons

spec

ific

ally

focu

sed

onth

reat

en o

r all

ow th

e di

scha

rge

of a

ny c

onta

min

ants

that

wou

ld c

ause

or

nonp

oint

-sou

rce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

from

fore

stry

act

ivit

ies.

tend

to c

ause

wat

er p

ollu

tion

, or t

hat w

ould

vio

late

regu

lati

ons

or s

tan-

dard

s . .

.” E

nfor

cem

ent o

ccur

s by

inju

ncti

on, m

anda

mus

, or o

ther

app

ro-

pria

te re

med

y an

d/or

civ

il p

enal

ties

. Civ

il p

enal

ties

of a

max

imum

of

$50,

000

for

the

viol

atio

n an

d $1

0,00

0 fo

r ea

ch c

onti

nuin

g da

y m

ay b

eas

sess

ed.

Indi

ana

Wat

er p

ollu

tion

con

trol

law

pro

vide

s th

at “

A p

erso

n m

ay n

ot: (

1) th

row

,S

tate

law

doe

s no

t app

ear t

o co

ntai

n en

forc

emen

t pro

visi

ons

spec

ific

ally

focu

sed

onru

n, d

rain

, or o

ther

wis

e di

spos

e in

to a

ny o

f the

str

eam

s or

wat

ers

ofno

npoi

nt-s

ourc

e w

ater

pol

luti

on fr

om fo

rest

ry a

ctiv

itie

s.In

dian

a; o

r (2)

cau

se, p

erm

it, o

r suf

fer t

o be

thro

wn,

run,

dra

ined

, all

owed

to s

eep,

or o

ther

wis

e di

spos

ed in

to a

ny w

ater

s; a

ny o

rgan

ic o

r ino

rgan

icm

atte

r tha

t cau

ses

or c

ontr

ibut

es to

a p

ollu

ted

cond

itio

n of

any

wat

ers,

as d

eter

min

ed b

y ru

le .

. .”

Wat

er P

ollu

tion

Con

trol

Boa

rd c

an e

stab

lish

requ

irem

ents

for p

erm

its

“to

cont

rol o

r lim

it th

e di

scha

rge

of c

onta

min

-an

ts in

to S

tate

wat

ers.

” W

hile

this

is n

ot li

mit

ed to

poi

nt s

ourc

es, t

hecu

rren

t reg

ulat

ions

cov

er p

erm

itti

ng fo

r poi

nt s

ourc

es a

nd d

o no

t req

uire

perm

its

for “

any

intr

oduc

tion

of p

ollu

tant

s fr

om n

onpo

int-

sour

ce a

gri-

cult

ural

and

sil

vicu

ltur

al a

ctiv

itie

s.”

Law

s ar

e en

forc

ed b

y ad

min

istr

ativ

eor

der,

civ

il p

enal

ties

of u

p to

$25

,000

per

day

, and

inju

ncti

ons.

Fai

lure

to c

ompl

y w

ith

an o

rder

is a

mis

dem

eano

r.co

ntin

ued

��

App

endi

x ta

ble

B.1

—P

rovi

sion

s of

maj

or e

nfor

ceab

le S

tate

law

s to

con

trol

non

poin

t so

urce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

, by

Stat

e, w

ater

pol

luti

on l

aw, a

ndre

quir

emen

ts f

or f

ores

try

(200

1) (

cont

inue

d)

Stat

eN

onpo

int-

sour

ce w

ater

pol

luti

on c

ontr

ol la

wF

ores

try

nonp

oint

-sou

rce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

law

Iow

aW

ater

pol

luti

on c

ontr

ol la

w c

onta

ins

a ge

nera

l pro

hibi

tion

aga

inst

unp

er-

Sta

te la

w d

oes

not a

ppea

r to

cont

ain

enfo

rcem

ent p

rovi

sion

s sp

ecif

ical

ly fo

cuse

d on

mit

ted

disc

harg

es o

f pol

luta

nts

(def

ined

as

“was

tes”

) int

o w

ater

s, w

hich

nonp

oint

-sou

rce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

from

fore

stry

act

ivit

ies.

may

be

used

to re

ach

som

e ty

pes

of n

onpo

int-

sour

ce d

isch

arge

s. E

nfor

ce-

men

t is

thro

ugh

ceas

e an

d de

sist

ord

ers,

civ

il p

enal

ties

up

to $

5,00

0 pe

rda

y, in

junc

tion

s, a

nd c

rim

inal

(ser

ious

or a

ggra

vate

d m

isde

mea

nor)

pros

ecut

ion.

Cit

ies

and

coun

ties

are

aut

hori

zed

to a

sses

s a

civi

l pen

alty

equa

l in

amou

nt to

the

pena

lty

asse

ssed

by

the

Sta

te.

Kan

sas

Wat

er p

ollu

tion

con

trol

law

pro

vide

s th

at “

No

pers

on s

hall

pla

ce o

r per

mit

Sta

te la

w d

oes

not a

ppea

r to

cont

ain

enfo

rcem

ent p

rovi

sion

s sp

ecif

ical

ly fo

cuse

d on

to b

e pl

aced

or

disc

harg

e or

per

mit

to f

low

into

any

of

the

wat

ers

of th

eno

npoi

nt-s

ourc

e w

ater

pol

luti

on fr

om fo

rest

ry a

ctiv

itie

s.S

tate

any

pol

luta

nts,

exc

ept p

ursu

ant t

o a

perm

it.”

Enf

orce

men

t of t

hese

prov

isio

ns is

by

corr

ecti

ve a

ctio

n or

ders

, civ

il p

enal

ties

of u

p to

$10

,000

,an

d cr

imin

al p

rose

cuti

ons.

Ken

tuck

yW

ater

pol

luti

on c

ontr

ol la

w m

ay b

e en

forc

ed a

gain

st n

onpo

int-

sour

ceS

tate

For

est C

onse

rvat

ion

Act

(199

8) e

stab

lish

es e

nfor

ceab

le m

echa

nism

s ap

pli-

disc

harg

es th

at p

ollu

te S

tate

wat

ers

in v

iola

tion

of a

ppli

cabl

e st

anda

rds

cabl

e to

com

mer

cial

tim

ber h

arve

stin

g. N

o pe

rson

sha

ll c

ondu

ct c

omm

erci

al ti

mbe

ror

regu

lati

ons:

“N

o pe

rson

sha

ll, d

irec

tly

or in

dire

ctly

, thr

ow, d

rain

, run

harv

esti

ng o

pera

tion

s un

less

a c

erti

fied

“m

aste

r log

ger”

is o

n si

te w

ho h

asor

oth

erw

ise

disc

harg

e in

to a

ny o

f the

wat

ers

of th

e C

omm

onw

ealt

h . .

.co

mpl

eted

cer

tain

edu

cati

onal

requ

irem

ents

(inc

ludi

ng c

onti

nuin

g ed

ucat

ion

ever

yan

y po

llut

ant i

n co

ntra

vent

ion

of th

e st

anda

rds

adop

ted

by .

. . r

ule,

3 ye

ars)

. Tim

ber h

arve

stin

g op

erat

ions

mus

t use

app

ropr

iate

bes

t man

agem

ent

regu

lati

on, p

erm

it o

r ord

er o

r any

pro

visi

on o

f the

sta

tute

.” T

he N

atur

alpr

acti

ces

(BM

Ps)

whi

ch a

re d

efin

ed b

y th

e S

tate

’s D

ivis

ion

of F

ores

try,

app

rove

dR

esou

rces

and

Env

iron

men

tal P

rote

ctio

n O

ffic

e or

the

Att

orne

y G

ener

alby

the

Agr

icul

ture

Wat

er Q

uali

ty A

utho

rity

, and

revi

ewed

by

the

For

estr

y B

est

may

inst

itut

e an

act

ion

to re

cove

r pen

alti

es o

r bri

ng a

n ac

tion

see

king

Man

agem

ent P

ract

ices

Boa

rd. I

f a lo

gger

or o

pera

tor f

ails

to u

se a

ppro

pria

te B

MP

san

inju

ncti

on. V

iola

tors

are

sub

ject

to a

civ

il p

enal

ty n

ot to

exc

eed

or is

cau

sing

wat

er p

ollu

tion,

a w

ritte

n w

arni

ng is

issu

ed a

nd/o

r the

logg

er o

r ope

rato

r$2

5,00

0 pe

r da

y fo

r ea

ch v

iola

tion

. Kno

win

g vi

olat

ions

are

a f

elon

ym

ust a

tten

d a

conf

eren

ce w

ith

dist

rict

fore

ster

s. C

onti

nued

fail

ure

to c

ompl

y ca

npu

nish

able

by

a fi

ne n

ot to

exc

eed

$25,

000,

or

impr

ison

men

t of

1 to

resu

lt in

issu

ance

s of

a s

peci

al o

rder

man

dati

ng im

med

iate

impl

emen

tati

on o

f the

5 ye

ars,

or

both

.co

rrec

tive

mea

sure

s or

ces

sati

on o

f all

or a

por

tion

of t

he ti

mbe

r har

vest

ing

oper

a-ti

on. S

ubse

quen

t fai

lure

to d

isco

ntin

ue n

onco

mpl

ianc

e m

ay re

sult

in lo

gger

or

oper

ator

bei

ng d

eem

ed a

“ba

d ac

tor”

and

sub

ject

ed to

civ

il p

enal

ties

of u

p to

$1,0

00. A

gric

ultu

re W

ater

Qua

lity

Act

als

o es

tabl

ishe

s en

forc

eabl

e B

MP

s th

at a

pply

to fa

rm o

pera

tion

s of

10

or m

ore

acre

s, in

clud

ing

silv

icul

ture

con

duct

ed o

n su

chop

erat

ions

.

Lou

isia

naW

ater

pol

luti

on c

ontr

ol la

w p

rohi

bits

any

per

son

from

con

duct

ing

anS

tate

fore

stry

law

pro

vide

s th

at a

ny p

erso

n w

ho c

uts

stan

ding

cyp

ress

tree

s on

wat

erac

tivi

ty “

whi

ch re

sult

s in

the

disc

harg

e of

any

sub

stan

ce in

to th

e w

ater

sbo

ttom

s ow

ned

by th

e S

tate

of

Lou

isia

na is

sub

ject

to a

fin

e (u

p to

$5,

000)

and

/or

of th

e S

tate

wit

hout

the

appr

opri

ate

perm

it, v

aria

nce,

or l

icen

se.”

The

law

impr

ison

men

t (up

to 6

mon

ths)

. Fur

ther

mor

e, th

e S

tate

’s N

atur

al a

nd S

ceni

c R

iver

sis

not

app

lica

ble

to “

unin

tent

iona

l non

poin

t-so

urce

dis

char

ge re

sult

ing

Act

pro

hibi

ts c

omm

erci

al h

arve

stin

g of

tim

ber w

ithi

n 10

0 fe

et o

f low

-wat

er m

arks

,fr

om a

gric

ultu

ral,

hort

icul

tura

l, or

aqu

acul

tura

l pro

duct

s.”

Reg

ulat

ions

wit

h ex

cept

ions

incl

udin

g se

lect

ive

harv

esti

ng o

f tre

es, c

utti

ng to

con

trol

dis

ease

or

also

exc

lude

from

the

perm

itti

ng re

quir

emen

ts “

intr

oduc

tion

of p

ollu

-in

sect

s, a

nd h

arve

stin

g ti

mbe

r for

per

sona

l use

by

the

pers

on o

wni

ng th

e pr

oper

ty.

tant

s fr

om n

onpo

int s

ourc

es re

sult

ing

from

nor

mal

agr

icul

tura

l and

Civ

il p

enal

ties

of

up to

$1,

000

per

day

for

each

vio

lati

on c

an b

e im

pose

d.si

lvic

ultu

ral a

ctiv

ities

.”co

ntin

ued

��

App

endi

x ta

ble

B.1

—P

rovi

sion

s of

maj

or e

nfor

ceab

le S

tate

law

s to

con

trol

non

poin

t so

urce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

, by

Stat

e, w

ater

pol

luti

on l

aw, a

ndre

quir

emen

ts f

or f

ores

try

(200

1) (

cont

inue

d)

Stat

eN

onpo

int-

sour

ce w

ater

pol

luti

on c

ontr

ol la

wF

ores

try

nonp

oint

-sou

rce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

law

Mai

neW

ater

pol

lutio

n co

ntro

l law

pro

vide

s th

at “

No

pers

on m

ay d

irec

tly o

rS

tate

fore

stry

law

aut

hori

zes

rule

s to

pro

tect

wat

er q

uali

ty. M

anag

emen

t pla

ns a

rein

dire

ctly

dis

char

ge o

r cau

se to

be

disc

harg

ed a

ny p

ollu

tant

wit

hout

firs

tre

quir

ed fo

r cle

arcu

ts in

exc

ess

of 5

0 ac

res.

Lan

dow

ners

are

requ

ired

to n

otif

y th

eob

tain

ing

a li

cens

e” fr

om th

e ap

prop

riat

e S

tate

age

ncy,

a p

rohi

biti

on th

atS

tate

’s fo

rest

ry a

genc

y pr

ior t

o ha

rves

ting

tim

ber a

nd to

file

repo

rts

on ti

mbe

r sal

es.

incl

udes

non

poin

t-so

urce

dis

char

ges.

If d

isch

arge

, em

issi

on, o

r dep

osit

ofE

nfor

cem

ent i

nclu

des

civi

l for

feit

ures

of $

1,00

0 pe

r vio

lati

on o

f per

form

ance

sta

n-an

y m

ater

ials

into

any

wat

ers,

air

, or l

and

cons

titu

tes

a su

bsta

ntia

l and

dard

s. V

iola

tion

of n

otic

e re

quir

emen

ts re

sult

s in

a c

ivil

forf

eitu

re o

f $50

for

imm

edia

te d

ange

r to

the

heal

th, s

afet

y, o

r gen

eral

wel

fare

, the

gov

erni

ngha

rves

ts o

f 50

cord

s or

less

and

$1,

000

for l

arge

r har

vest

s or

for f

ailu

re to

sub

mit

Stat

e ag

ency

sha

ll re

ques

t the

Att

orne

y G

ener

al to

init

iate

imm

edia

teot

her r

epor

ts. F

or u

norg

aniz

ed p

orti

ons

of th

e S

tate

, the

Lan

d U

se R

egul

atio

nin

junc

tion

pro

ceed

ings

to p

reve

nt s

uch

disc

harg

e. A

ddit

iona

l enf

orce

men

tC

omm

issi

on e

stab

lish

es fo

rest

pra

ctic

e re

gula

tion

s, in

clud

ing

tim

ber h

arve

stin

gm

echa

nism

s in

clud

e ad

min

istr

ativ

e co

nsen

t ord

ers,

civ

il in

junc

tive

stan

dard

s fo

r sla

sh d

ispo

sal,

clea

rcut

siz

e an

d lo

cati

on, r

eten

tion

of b

uffe

r str

ips,

rem

edie

s, a

nd c

ivil

pen

alti

es o

f up

to $

10,0

00 p

er d

ay. C

rim

inal

vio

la-

and

a ge

nera

l req

uire

men

t to

“rea

sona

bly

avoi

d se

dim

enta

tion

of s

urfa

ce w

ater

s.”

tion

s ca

n re

sult

in a

fin

e of

not

less

than

$10

0 an

d no

t mor

e th

anT

he S

tate

’s s

hore

land

zon

e la

w p

rote

cts

area

s w

ithi

n 25

0 fe

et o

f the

nor

mal

hig

h-$2

5,00

0 pe

r da

y of

vio

lati

on.

wat

er li

ne o

f any

gre

at p

ond,

rive

r, o

r sal

twat

er b

ody,

wit

hin

250

feet

of a

coa

stal

wet

land

or

the

upla

nd e

dge

of a

fre

shw

ater

wet

land

, and

wit

hin

75 f

eet o

f th

ehi

ghw

ater

line

of a

str

eam

. Sta

tute

lim

its

tim

ber h

arve

stin

g in

the

prot

ecte

d ar

eas

tose

lect

ive

cutt

ing

of n

o m

ore

than

40

perc

ent o

f tre

es 4

inch

es o

r mor

e in

dia

met

er in

any

10-y

ear p

erio

d, p

rohi

bits

tim

ber h

arve

sts

wit

hin

75-f

oot a

reas

abu

ttin

g gr

eat

pond

sho

rela

nds

zone

d fo

r res

ourc

e pr

otec

tion

, and

requ

ires

refo

rest

atio

n w

ithi

n 2

grow

ing

seas

ons

of a

ny h

arve

st b

eyon

d th

e 75

-foo

t buf

fer.

Mar

ylan

dW

ater

pol

lutio

n co

ntro

l law

pro

vide

s th

at “

a pe

rson

may

not

dis

char

ge a

nyS

tate

fore

stry

law

requ

ires

the

Dep

artm

ent o

f Nat

ural

Res

ourc

es “

to a

dmin

iste

rpo

llut

ant i

nto

the

wat

ers

of th

is S

tate

.” T

o en

forc

e th

is re

quir

emen

t the

fore

st c

onse

rvat

ion

prac

tice

s on

pri

vate

ly o

wne

d fo

rest

land

and

man

age

publ

icly

Dep

artm

ent o

f the

Env

iron

men

t may

requ

ire

nonp

oint

-sou

rce

disc

harg

ers

owne

d fo

rest

land

s,”

and

auth

oriz

es th

e pr

omul

gati

on a

nd e

nfor

cem

ent o

f rul

es a

ndto

obt

ain

perm

its

unde

r cer

tain

cir

cum

stan

ces.

Enf

orce

men

t of p

erm

its

isre

gula

tion

s sp

ecif

ying

fore

st p

ract

ice

stan

dard

s, w

hich

are

to b

e en

forc

ed b

y di

stri

ctby

cor

rect

ive

acti

on o

rder

s, in

junc

tion

s, c

ivil

pen

alti

es n

ot e

xcee

ding

fore

stry

boa

rds.

Sta

te la

w a

lso

prov

ides

for l

icen

sing

of p

rofe

ssio

nal f

ores

ters

.$1

0,00

0 pe

r day

(jud

icia

lly)

or $

1,00

0 pe

r day

(adm

inis

trat

ivel

y), o

rU

nder

the

Sta

te’s

Non

tida

l Wet

land

s pr

ogra

m, f

ores

try

acti

viti

es a

re re

quir

ed to

hav

ecr

imin

al p

rose

cutio

n. F

urth

erm

ore,

on

land

man

aged

und

er a

n ag

ricu

ltur

alan

ero

sion

and

sed

imen

t con

trol

pla

n, e

xcep

t tha

t var

ious

fore

stry

pra

ctic

es a

reso

il c

onse

rvat

ion

and

wat

er q

uali

ty p

lan

appr

oved

by

the

loca

l soi

l con

-ex

empt

ed fr

om th

e pl

anni

ng re

quir

emen

t. U

nder

the

Che

sape

ake

Bay

Cri

tica

l Are

ase

rvat

ion

dist

rict

, “it

is u

nlaw

ful f

or a

ny p

erso

n to

add

, int

rodu

ce, l

eak,

Pro

tect

ion

Pro

gram

, “al

l har

vest

ing

of ti

mbe

r in

the

Che

sape

ake

Bay

Cri

tica

l Are

asp

ill,

or o

ther

wis

e em

it s

oil o

r sed

imen

t int

o w

ater

s of

the

Sta

te o

r to

plac

esh

all b

e in

acc

orda

nce

wit

h pl

ans

appr

oved

by

the

dist

rict

fore

stry

boa

rd.”

soil

or

sedi

men

t in

a co

ndit

ion

or lo

cati

on w

here

it is

like

ly to

be

was

hed

into

wat

ers

of th

e S

tate

by

runo

ff o

f pre

cipi

tati

on.”

Enf

orce

men

t is

byin

junc

tive

reli

ef o

r cor

rect

ive

acti

on o

rder

s. C

ivil

pen

alti

es u

p to

$25

,000

per

day

or c

rim

inal

pen

alti

es u

p to

$50

,000

and

/or

1 ye

ar im

pris

onm

ent

may

be

impo

sed.

cont

inue

d

��

App

endi

x ta

ble

B.1

—P

rovi

sion

s of

maj

or e

nfor

ceab

le S

tate

law

s to

con

trol

non

poin

t so

urce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

, by

Stat

e, w

ater

pol

luti

on l

aw, a

ndre

quir

emen

ts f

or f

ores

try

(200

1) (

cont

inue

d)

Stat

eN

onpo

int-

sour

ce w

ater

pol

luti

on c

ontr

ol la

wF

ores

try

nonp

oint

-sou

rce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

law

Mas

sach

uset

tsW

ater

pol

luti

on c

ontr

ol la

w p

rohi

bits

any

per

son

from

“. .

. di

scha

rgin

gS

tate

fore

stry

law

(For

est C

utti

ng P

ract

ices

Act

) req

uire

s pr

epar

atio

n of

min

imum

any

poll

utan

t int

o w

ater

s of

the

com

mon

wea

lth,

exc

ept i

n co

nfor

mit

yfo

rest

cut

ting

pra

ctic

es a

nd g

uide

line

s (b

est m

anag

emen

t pra

ctic

es).

Lan

dow

ners

wit

h a

perm

it .

. . o

r sh

all b

e pu

nish

ed b

y a

fine

. . .

or

by im

pris

onm

ent

mus

t giv

e pr

ior n

otic

e to

the

appr

opri

ate

agen

cy a

nd to

nei

ghbo

ring

pro

pert

y ow

ners

. . .

or s

hall

be

subj

ect t

o a

civi

l pen

alty

not

to e

xcee

d $2

5,00

0 pe

r da

y of

of in

tent

to h

arve

st. T

he n

otic

e m

ust i

nclu

de a

pro

pose

d cu

ttin

g pl

an. N

ot c

over

edsu

ch v

iola

tion

.” H

owev

er, r

egul

atio

ns is

sued

pur

suan

t to

the

law

exe

mpt

by th

e la

w is

cut

ting

for t

he o

wne

r’s

own

use,

cut

ting

of l

ess

than

25,

000

boar

d fe

etfr

om p

erm

it re

quir

emen

ts “

any

intr

oduc

tion

of p

ollu

tant

s fr

om n

on-p

oint

or 5

0 co

rds,

or l

and-

clea

ring

act

ivit

ies.

Enf

orce

men

t is

by s

top-

wor

k or

der a

nd fi

neso

urce

agr

icul

tura

l and

sil

vicu

ltur

al a

ctiv

itie

s, in

clud

ing

runo

ff fr

omof

up

to $

100

per a

cre.

Har

vest

ing

timbe

r for

hir

e or

pro

fit r

equi

res

a li

cens

e an

dor

char

ds, c

ulti

vate

d cr

ops,

pas

ture

s, ra

nge

land

s, a

nd fo

rest

land

s.”

requ

ires

lice

nsee

s to

dem

onst

rate

fam

ilia

rity

wit

h th

e S

tate

’s la

ws

on fo

rest

ry a

ndE

nfor

cem

ent m

echa

nism

s, in

add

itio

n to

civ

il p

enal

ties

, inc

lude

ord

ers

tim

ber h

arve

stin

g; e

nfor

cem

ent i

s by

fine

and

inju

ncti

on. S

tate

law

als

o pr

ohib

its

the

and

inju

ncti

ve re

lief

.pl

acem

ent o

f sla

sh w

ithi

n 25

feet

of a

ny c

onti

nuou

sly

flow

ing

stre

am, o

r any

pon

d,ri

ver,

or w

ater

sup

ply.

For

estr

y op

erat

ions

in w

etla

nds

are

subj

ect t

o ad

diti

onal

regu

lati

ons

and

to b

est m

anag

emen

t pra

ctic

e re

quir

emen

ts.

Mic

higa

nW

ater

pol

luti

on c

ontr

ol la

ws

proh

ibit

the

dire

ct o

r ind

irec

t dis

char

ge in

toS

tate

fore

stry

law

aut

hori

zes

fore

st im

prov

emen

t dis

tric

ts w

here

in m

inim

um fo

rest

the

wat

ers

of th

e S

tate

any

sub

stan

ce th

at is

or m

ay b

ecom

e in

juri

ous

topr

acti

ce s

tand

ards

are

to b

e ap

plie

d. P

erso

ns w

ho in

tend

to c

ondu

ct fo

rest

ry o

pera

-pu

blic

hea

lth,

saf

ety,

or w

elfa

re; t

o do

mes

tic,

com

mer

cial

, ind

ustr

ial,

agri

-ti

ons

mus

t sub

mit

a fo

rest

man

agem

ent p

lan

noti

fyin

g th

e di

stri

ct b

oard

of i

nten

t to

cult

ural

, rec

reat

iona

l use

s; to

the

valu

e or

uti

lity

of r

ipar

ian

land

s; o

r to

com

ply

wit

h th

e fo

rest

pra

ctic

e st

anda

rds.

The

boa

rd c

an is

sue

a no

tice

of v

iola

tion

live

stoc

k, w

ild

anim

als,

bir

ds, f

ish,

aqu

atic

life

, or p

lant

s. T

he D

epar

tmen

tif

a fo

rest

pra

ctic

e ru

le is

vio

late

d an

d m

ay o

rder

the

oper

ator

to m

ake

“rea

sona

ble

of E

nvir

onm

enta

l Qua

lity

may

pro

mul

gate

rule

s an

d is

sue

orde

rs re

stri

ct-

effo

rts

to re

pair

the

dam

age

or c

orre

ct th

e un

sati

sfac

tory

con

diti

on.”

If th

e op

erat

orin

g th

e po

llutin

g co

nten

t of a

ny w

aste

mat

eria

l or p

ollu

ting

subs

tanc

e di

s-fa

ils

to c

ompl

y, th

e bo

ard

may

take

act

ion

and

then

file

a li

en to

reco

ver t

he c

osts

of

char

ged

or s

ough

t to

be d

isch

arge

d in

to a

ny w

ater

s of

the

Stat

e. T

he S

tate

the

acti

on. S

tate

’s In

land

Lak

es a

nd S

trea

ms

law

requ

ires

per

mit

s fo

r pro

ject

s th

atm

ay b

ring

civ

il a

ctio

ns o

r cri

min

al p

rose

cuti

ons

in c

ourt

, rev

oke

a pe

rmit

,af

fect

lake

s an

d st

ream

s (f

or e

xam

ple,

str

eam

cro

ssin

gs).

Enf

orce

men

t is

by c

ivil

issu

e an

ord

er o

f aba

tem

ent,

or re

fer c

ases

to th

e A

ttorn

ey G

ener

al.

acti

on w

ith

fine

s up

to $

10,0

00 p

er d

ay.

Sanc

tions

incl

ude

civi

l fin

es o

f not

less

than

$2,

500

and

not m

ore

than

$25,

000

per d

ay, a

nd te

rms

of im

pris

onm

ent a

nd o

ther

pen

alti

es fo

rkn

owin

g vi

olat

ions

.

Min

neso

taW

ater

pol

luti

on c

ontr

ol la

w o

blig

ates

eve

ry p

erso

n to

not

ify

the

Sta

te o

fS

tate

fore

stry

law

s ha

ve fe

w p

rovi

sion

s re

gula

ting

pri

vate

fore

stry

ope

rati

ons

wit

hth

e di

scha

rge

of a

ny s

ubst

ance

or m

ater

ial t

hat m

ay c

ause

pol

luti

on o

f the

resp

ect t

o no

npoi

nt-s

ourc

e w

ater

pol

luti

on, a

ltho

ugh

the

Sus

tain

able

For

est

wat

ers

and

the

disc

harg

er to

take

all

reas

onab

le a

ctio

ns to

min

imiz

e or

Res

ourc

es A

ct o

f 199

5 pr

ovid

es fo

r vol

unta

ry fo

rest

pra

ctic

e gu

idel

ines

. Dep

art-

abat

e th

e po

llut

ion

caus

ed. R

ules

sta

te th

at n

o se

wag

e, in

dust

rial

was

te, o

rm

ent o

f Nat

ural

Res

ourc

es is

pro

hibi

ted

from

sel

ling

Sta

te fo

rest

land

that

bor

ders

othe

r was

tes

shal

l be

disc

harg

ed fr

om e

ithe

r a p

oint

or n

onpo

int s

ourc

eon

or i

s ad

jace

nt to

mea

nder

ed la

kes

or p

ubli

c w

ater

s an

d w

ater

cou

rses

, and

if th

ein

to th

e w

ater

s of

the

Sta

te in

suc

h qu

anti

ty o

r in

suc

h a

man

ner

as to

Dep

artm

ent h

arve

sts

thes

e S

tate

land

s, it

mus

t “re

serv

e th

e ti

mbe

r and

impo

se o

ther

caus

e w

ater

pol

luti

on. E

nfor

cem

ent a

ccom

plis

hed

by c

rim

inal

pro

secu

-co

ndit

ions

dee

med

nec

essa

ry to

pro

tect

wat

ersh

eds,

wil

dlif

e ha

bita

t, sh

orel

ines

, and

tion

, civ

il p

enal

ties

, inj

unct

ion,

and

oth

er a

ctio

ns to

com

pel p

erfo

rman

ce.

scen

ic fe

atur

es.”

Cle

ar c

uttin

g is

pro

hibi

ted

whe

re “

soil,

slo

pe o

r oth

er w

ater

shed

con

-di

tions

are

frag

ile”

and

with

in c

erta

in d

ista

nces

of w

ild, s

ceni

c, a

nd re

crea

tiona

l riv

ers.

Mis

siss

ippi

Wat

er p

ollu

tion

con

trol

law

pro

hibi

ts a

ny p

erso

n “.

. . t

o ca

use

poll

utio

nF

ores

t Har

vest

ing

Law

requ

ires

that

cer

tain

num

bers

of t

rees

be

left

on

each

acr

e fo

rof

any

wat

ers

of th

e S

tate

or t

o pl

ace

or c

ause

to b

e pl

aced

any

was

tes

in a

grow

ing

stoc

k an

d/or

see

d tr

ees

afte

r har

vest

. Law

doe

s no

t app

ly to

land

cle

arin

glo

cati

on w

here

they

are

like

ly to

cau

se p

ollu

tion

; and

to d

isch

arge

any

for c

rop

prod

ucti

on, p

astu

re, b

uild

ing

site

s, o

r roa

ds, o

r to

nonc

omm

erci

al c

utti

ng b

yw

aste

s in

to a

ny w

ater

s of

the

Sta

te w

hich

redu

ce th

e qu

alit

y of

suc

how

ners

for t

heir

ow

n us

e. E

nfor

ceab

le b

y in

junc

tion

or b

y m

isde

mea

nor o

r pro

secu

-w

ater

s be

low

est

abli

shed

wat

er q

uali

ty s

tand

ards

.” E

nfor

cem

ent i

s by

tion

wit

h a

fine

of

$25-

$50

per

wor

king

uni

t of

40 a

cres

or l

ess.

adm

inis

trat

ive

orde

rs, c

ivil

pen

alti

es o

f up

to $

25,0

00 p

er d

ay, i

njun

ctio

n,or

mis

dem

eano

r pro

secu

tion

. Reg

ulat

ions

pro

vide

that

no

perm

it m

ay b

ere

quir

ed fo

r non

poin

t agr

icul

ture

and

sil

vicu

ltur

e po

llut

ion.

cont

inue

d

��

App

endi

x ta

ble

B.1

—P

rovi

sion

s of

maj

or e

nfor

ceab

le S

tate

law

s to

con

trol

non

poin

t so

urce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

, by

Stat

e, w

ater

pol

luti

on l

aw, a

ndre

quir

emen

ts f

or f

ores

try

(200

1) (

cont

inue

d)

Stat

eN

onpo

int-

sour

ce w

ater

pol

luti

on c

ontr

ol la

wF

ores

try

nonp

oint

-sou

rce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

law

Mis

sour

iW

ater

pol

luti

on la

w p

rovi

des

that

it is

“un

law

ful f

or a

ny p

erso

n to

cau

seS

tate

law

doe

s no

t app

ear t

o co

ntai

n en

forc

emen

t pro

visi

ons

spec

ific

ally

focu

sed

onpo

llut

ion

of a

ny w

ater

s of

the

Sta

te o

r to

disc

harg

e an

y w

ater

con

tam

inan

tsno

npoi

nt-s

ourc

e w

ater

pol

luti

on fr

om fo

rest

ry a

ctiv

itie

s.in

to a

ny w

ater

s of

the

Sta

te w

hich

redu

ce th

e qu

alit

y of

suc

h w

ater

s be

low

esta

blis

hed

wat

er q

ualit

y st

anda

rds.

” E

nfor

cem

ent i

s th

roug

h ad

min

istr

ativ

epe

nalt

ies

up to

$10

,000

per

day

, civ

il p

enal

ties

up

to $

10,0

00 p

er d

ay, a

ndcr

imin

al p

rose

cuti

on.

Mon

tana

Wat

er p

ollu

tion

con

trol

law

mak

es it

unl

awfu

l to

caus

e po

llut

ion

of a

nyS

tate

fore

stry

law

requ

ires

cre

atio

n of

str

eam

side

man

agem

ent z

ones

for f

ores

tS

tate

wat

ers

or to

pla

ce o

r cau

se to

be

plac

ed a

ny w

aste

s w

here

they

wil

lst

ream

s (s

trip

at l

east

50

feet

wid

e) w

ithi

n w

hich

cer

tain

act

ivit

ies

are

proh

ibit

ed,

caus

e po

llut

ion

of a

ny S

tate

wat

ers.

How

ever

, exe

mpt

from

the

proh

ibi-

incl

udin

g: b

road

cast

bur

ning

; off

-roa

d ve

hicl

e op

erat

ion;

cle

arcu

ttin

g; ro

ad c

on-

tion

is “

any

plac

emen

t of m

ater

ials

that

is a

utho

rize

d by

a p

erm

it is

sued

stru

ctio

n (u

nles

s ne

cess

ary

for s

trea

m c

ross

ing)

; han

dlin

g, s

tora

ge, a

ppli

cati

on, o

rby

any

Sta

te o

r Fed

eral

age

ncy

. . .

if th

e ag

ency

’s p

erm

itti

ng a

utho

rity

disp

osal

of h

azar

dous

sub

stan

ces;

and

dep

osit

of s

lash

in w

ater

bod

ies.

Dep

artm

ent

incl

udes

pro

visi

ons

for r

evie

w o

f the

pla

cem

ent o

f mat

eria

ls to

ens

ure

of N

atur

al R

esou

rces

and

Con

serv

atio

n ha

s in

spec

tion

aut

hori

ty o

n F

eder

al, S

tate

,th

at it

wil

l not

cau

se p

ollu

tion

of s

tate

wat

ers.

” S

tatu

te a

lso

mak

es it

and

priv

ate

land

to e

nsur

e co

mpl

ianc

e w

ith

the

rule

s fo

r str

eam

side

man

agem

ent

unla

wfu

l to

“cau

se d

egra

dati

on o

f Sta

te w

ater

s w

itho

ut a

utho

riza

tion

”zo

nes

and

may

issu

e ci

vil p

enal

ties

of u

p to

$1,

000

per d

ay, a

s w

ell a

s re

habi

lita

tion

and

esta

blis

hes

a de

tail

ed n

onde

grad

atio

n po

licy

for S

tate

wat

ers.

orde

rs. S

tate

’s fo

rest

pra

ctic

e la

w re

quir

es u

se o

f bes

t man

agem

ent p

ract

ices

and

Dep

artm

ent o

f Env

iron

men

tal Q

uali

ty h

as g

ener

al in

spec

tion

and

pen

alty

requ

ires

that

not

ice

be g

iven

pri

or to

com

men

cem

ent o

f any

fore

stry

pra

ctic

es.

auth

orit

y fo

r vio

lati

ons

of th

e w

ater

qua

lity

cod

e, in

clud

ing

issu

ance

of

Con

sult

atio

n w

ith

land

owne

r or o

pera

tor m

ay re

sult

, the

inte

nt o

f whi

ch is

tosp

ecif

ic c

ompl

ianc

e or

ders

, cle

anup

ord

ers,

and

adm

inis

trat

ive

pena

ltie

spr

ovid

e in

form

atio

n an

d ad

vice

.of

up

to $

10,0

00 p

er v

iola

tion

per

day

. Civ

il a

ctio

ns in

clud

e te

mpo

rary

and

perm

anen

t inj

unct

ions

, whi

le ju

dici

al re

med

ies

incl

ude

civi

l pen

al-

ties

of

up to

$25

,000

per

day

and

, for

wil

lful

or

negl

igen

t vio

lati

ons

ofth

e di

scha

rge

proh

ibit

ion,

cri

min

al f

ines

of

up to

$25

,000

per

day

, or

impr

ison

men

t of

up to

1 y

ear,

or b

oth.

Cri

min

al p

enal

ties

may

be

doub

led

for r

epea

t vio

lati

ons.

Neb

rask

aW

ater

pol

luti

on la

w m

akes

it u

nlaw

ful t

o “c

ause

pol

luti

on o

f any

wat

ers

Sta

te la

w d

oes

not a

ppea

r to

cont

ain

enfo

rcem

ent p

rovi

sion

s sp

ecif

ical

ly fo

cuse

d on

of th

e S

tate

or t

o pl

ace

or c

ause

to b

e pl

aced

any

was

tes

in a

loca

tion

nonp

oint

-sou

rce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

from

fore

stry

act

ivit

ies.

How

ever

, the

Sta

te’s

whe

re th

ey a

re li

kely

to c

ause

pol

luti

on”

of S

tate

wat

ers.

Enf

orce

men

t is

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Con

trol

Act

may

be

appl

icab

le to

fore

stry

act

ivit

ies.

thro

ugh

corr

ecti

ve a

ctio

n or

ders

, inj

unct

ions

, civ

il p

enal

ties

up

to $

10,0

00pe

r day

, and

cri

min

al (f

elon

y an

d m

isde

mea

nor)

pro

secu

tion

. Sta

te m

ayre

cove

r dam

ages

for r

esto

ckin

g th

e w

ater

s w

ith

fish

or r

eple

nish

ing

wil

dlif

e.

Nev

ada

Wat

er p

ollu

tion

con

trol

law

aut

hori

zes

pres

crip

tion

s fo

r “di

ffus

e so

urce

s”S

tate

fore

stry

law

requ

ires

a p

erm

it fo

r log

ging

ope

rati

ons

and

for c

onve

rsio

n of

(equ

ival

ent t

o no

npoi

nt s

ourc

es) o

f wat

er p

ollu

tant

s th

at a

re “

sign

ific

antl

yti

mbe

rlan

d to

any

use

oth

er th

an th

e gr

owin

g of

tim

ber.

All

logg

ing

perm

its

requ

ire

caus

ing

or a

ddin

g to

wat

er p

ollu

tion

in v

iola

tion

of a

wat

er q

uali

ty s

tan-

the

use

of b

est m

anag

emen

t pra

ctic

es to

pre

vent

, eli

min

ate,

or r

educ

e w

ater

pol

luti

onda

rd.”

Spe

cial

regu

lati

ons

exis

t to

prot

ect t

he L

ake

Taho

e w

ater

shed

.fr

om d

iffu

se s

ourc

es. V

iola

tion

of p

erm

it c

ondi

tion

s ca

n re

sult

in a

dmin

istr

ativ

eIt

is il

lega

l to

disc

harg

e w

aste

wit

hin

100

feet

of L

ake

Taho

e or

a s

trea

mre

voca

tion

of p

erm

it a

nd/o

r cha

rge

of a

mis

dem

eano

r vio

lati

on p

unis

habl

e w

ith

aor

oth

er w

ater

sup

ply

in th

e w

ater

shed

.fi

ne (u

p to

$1,

000)

and

/or i

mpr

ison

men

t (6

mon

ths

or le

ss).

Sta

tute

pro

hibi

ts“f

elli

ng o

f tr

ees,

ski

ddin

g, r

iggi

ng o

r co

nstr

ucti

on o

f ro

ads

wit

hin

200

feet

of

aw

ater

body

” or

trac

tor l

oggi

ng o

n sl

opes

of 3

0 pe

rcen

t or m

ore.

Var

ianc

es m

ay b

egr

ante

d fo

r bot

h pr

ohib

itio

ns. T

ract

or s

kid

trai

ls, l

andi

ngs,

logg

ing

truc

k ro

ads

and

fire

brea

ks to

be

loca

ted,

con

stru

cted

, use

d, a

nd le

ft s

o as

to n

ot “

appr

ecia

bly

dim

inis

h w

ater

qua

lity

.”co

ntin

ued

��

App

endi

x ta

ble

B.1

—P

rovi

sion

s of

maj

or e

nfor

ceab

le S

tate

law

s to

con

trol

non

poin

t so

urce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

, by

Stat

e, w

ater

pol

luti

on l

aw, a

ndre

quir

emen

ts f

or f

ores

try

(200

1) (

cont

inue

d)

Stat

eN

onpo

int-

sour

ce w

ater

pol

luti

on c

ontr

ol la

wF

ores

try

nonp

oint

-sou

rce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

law

New

Ham

pshi

reW

ater

pol

luti

on c

ontr

ol la

w d

oes

not e

xpre

ssly

focu

s on

non

poin

t sou

rces

Sta

te fo

rest

ry la

w a

utho

rize

s th

e D

epar

tmen

t of R

esou

rces

and

Eco

nom

ic D

evel

op-

yet r

equi

res

that

“. .

. af

ter a

dopt

ion

of a

giv

en c

lass

ific

atio

n fo

r a s

trea

m,

men

t to

deve

lop

and

impl

emen

t enf

orce

able

pro

visi

ons

rega

rdin

g ti

mbe

r har

vest

ing

lake

, pon

d, ti

dal w

ater

, or s

ecti

on o

f suc

h w

ater

, it s

hall

be

unla

wfu

l for

on p

riva

te a

nd p

ubli

c la

nds.

Law

requ

ires

fili

ng o

f a n

otic

e of

inte

nt to

cut

, cro

ss-

any

pers

on o

r per

sons

to d

ispo

se o

f any

sew

age,

indu

stri

al, o

r oth

er w

aste

s,co

mpl

ianc

e w

ith

the

Sta

te’s

wet

land

s pe

rmit

ting

pro

gram

, and

com

plia

nce

wit

h th

ein

suc

h a

man

ner a

s w

ill l

ower

the

qual

ity

of th

ese

wat

ers

. . .”

The

Sta

te’s

Alt

erat

ion

of T

erra

in P

rogr

am. H

arve

stin

g is

pro

hibi

ted

wit

hin

spec

ifie

dD

epar

tmen

t may

issu

e ce

ase-

and-

desi

st o

rder

s, s

eek

inju

ncti

ve re

lief

indi

stan

ces

of g

reat

pon

ds, a

nd s

tand

ing

bodi

es o

f wat

er, a

nd w

ithi

n 50

fee

t of

any

cour

ts, r

eque

st c

ivil

pen

alti

es o

f up

to $

10,0

00 p

er d

ay, o

r im

pose

adm

in-

pere

nnia

l str

eam

. Law

als

o pr

ohib

its

disp

osal

of s

lash

and

mil

l res

idue

in a

nyis

trat

ive

pena

ltie

s of

not

mor

e th

an $

2,00

0 pe

r off

ense

. Wil

lful

or n

egli

-pe

renn

ial s

trea

m o

r sta

ndin

g bo

dy o

f wat

er. C

ease

-and

-des

ist o

rder

s ca

n be

issu

edge

nt v

iola

tion

s, o

r kno

win

g fa

ilur

e to

obe

y a

law

ful o

rder

sub

ject

s th

eag

ains

t any

tim

ber o

pera

tion

in v

iola

tion

of t

he la

w; v

iola

tion

s m

ay b

e en

join

ed b

yvi

olat

or to

a f

ine

of u

p to

$25

,000

per

day

and

/or

impr

ison

men

t for

up

supe

rior

cou

rt. A

dmin

istr

ativ

e fi

nes

may

als

o be

ass

esse

d fo

r any

off

ense

, not

toto

6 m

onth

s.ex

ceed

$2,

000

per v

iola

tion

. The

Alt

erat

ion

of T

erra

in P

rogr

am re

quir

es lo

gger

s to

noti

fy o

f int

ent t

o cu

t and

obl

igat

es th

em to

abi

de b

y ap

prop

riat

e be

st m

anag

emen

tpr

acti

ces

to in

clud

e al

l Sta

te la

ws

pert

aini

ng to

logg

ing

oper

atio

ns. S

tate

’sC

ompr

ehen

sive

Sho

rela

nd P

rote

ctio

n la

w is

als

o pa

rtly

app

lica

ble

to fo

rest

ryac

tivi

ties

as

it re

quir

es n

atur

al w

oodl

and

buff

ers

near

sho

rela

nds.

New

Jer

sey

Wat

er p

ollu

tion

cont

rol l

aw p

rohi

bits

the

disc

harg

e of

any

pol

luta

nt e

xcep

tS

tate

law

doe

s no

t app

ear t

o co

ntai

n en

forc

emen

t pro

visi

ons

spec

ific

ally

focu

sed

onas

aut

hori

zed

by s

tatu

te o

r und

er a

per

mit

. Enf

orce

men

t pro

visi

ons

nonp

oint

-sou

rce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

from

fore

stry

act

ivit

ies.

incl

ude

com

plia

nce

orde

rs, i

njun

ctiv

e re

lief

, civ

il p

enal

ties

of n

ot m

ore

than

$50

,000

for e

ach

viol

atio

n, a

nd c

rim

inal

san

ctio

ns if

ther

e is

akn

owin

g or

reck

less

vio

lati

on th

at c

ause

s a

sign

ific

ant a

dver

se e

nvir

on-

men

tal e

ffec

t.

New

Mex

ico

Wat

er p

ollu

tion

con

trol

law

doe

s no

t con

tain

enf

orce

able

pro

visi

ons

Sta

te la

w d

oes

not a

ppea

r to

cont

ain

enfo

rcem

ent p

rovi

sion

s sp

ecif

ical

ly fo

cuse

d on

dire

ctly

app

lica

ble

to n

onpo

int-

sour

ce d

isch

arge

s. H

owev

er, l

aw d

oes

nonp

oint

-sou

rce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

from

fore

stry

act

ivit

ies.

How

ever

, the

Sta

te’s

fore

stau

thor

ize

the

Wat

er Q

uali

ty C

ontr

ol C

omm

issi

on to

pro

mul

gate

and

prac

tice

s la

w re

quir

es p

erm

its

and

insp

ecti

ons

for t

imbe

r har

vest

ing

beyo

nd s

peci

fied

publ

ish

regu

lati

ons

to p

reve

nt o

r aba

te w

ater

pol

luti

on in

the

Sta

te a

nd to

spec

ifie

d m

inim

um ti

mbe

r vol

umes

and

har

vest

are

as. N

ew M

exic

o co

unti

es m

ayre

quir

e pe

rmit

s. L

aw p

rovi

des

for a

dmin

istr

ativ

e or

ders

and

pen

alti

es u

pal

so e

nact

enf

orce

able

ord

inan

ces

addr

essi

ng h

arve

st p

ract

ices

(Rio

Arr

iba

Cou

nty

to $

25,0

00 p

er d

ay.

has

a ti

mbe

r har

vest

per

mit

pro

cess

that

inco

rpor

ates

as

man

dato

ry c

ondi

tion

s th

eS

tate

’s v

olun

tary

fore

st p

ract

ice

guid

elin

es).

New

Yor

kW

ater

pol

lutio

n la

w d

ecla

res

Stat

e po

licy

to m

aint

ain

reas

onab

le s

tand

ards

Sta

te la

w d

oes

not a

ppea

r to

cont

ain

enfo

rcem

ent p

rovi

sion

s sp

ecif

ical

ly fo

cuse

d on

of w

ater

pur

ity

“and

to th

at e

nd re

quir

e th

e us

e of

all

kno

wn

avai

labl

eno

npoi

nt-s

ourc

e w

ater

pol

luti

on fr

om fo

rest

ry a

ctiv

itie

s.an

d re

ason

able

met

hods

to p

reve

nt a

nd c

ontr

ol th

e po

llut

ion

of th

e w

ater

sof

the

Sta

te.”

Enf

orce

men

t is

by a

dmin

istr

ativ

e or

der,

inju

ncti

on, a

civ

ilpe

nalt

y of

up

to $

25,0

00 p

er d

ay, o

r cr

imin

al p

rose

cuti

on (

for

wil

lful

viol

atio

ns).

cont

inue

d

��

App

endi

x ta

ble

B.1

—P

rovi

sion

s of

maj

or e

nfor

ceab

le S

tate

law

s to

con

trol

non

poin

t so

urce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

, by

Stat

e, w

ater

pol

luti

on l

aw, a

ndre

quir

emen

ts f

or f

ores

try

(200

1) (

cont

inue

d)

Stat

eN

onpo

int-

sour

ce w

ater

pol

luti

on c

ontr

ol la

wF

ores

try

nonp

oint

-sou

rce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

law

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Wat

er p

ollu

tion

law

spe

cifi

es (a

bsen

t a p

erm

it o

r spe

cial

ord

er) t

hat n

oS

edim

enta

tion

Pol

luti

on C

ontr

ol A

ct re

gula

tes

cert

ain

kind

s of

land

-dis

turb

ing

pers

on s

hall

cau

se o

r per

mit

any

was

te, d

irec

tly

or in

dire

ctly

, to

be d

is-

acti

vity

that

cau

ses

eros

ion

and

sedi

men

tati

on a

nd re

quir

es th

e D

epar

tmen

t of

char

ged

to o

r in

any

man

ner i

nter

mix

ed w

ith

the

wat

ers

of th

e S

tate

inE

nvir

onm

ent,

Hea

lth

and

Nat

ural

Res

ourc

es to

ado

pt “

For

est P

ract

ice

Gui

deli

nes

viol

atio

n of

the

wat

er q

uali

ty s

tand

ards

app

lica

ble

to a

ssig

ned

clas

sifi

-R

elat

ed to

Wat

er Q

uali

ty”

(bes

t man

agem

ent p

ract

ices

for f

ores

t act

ivit

y). T

heca

tion

s. V

iola

tors

of t

he la

w m

ay b

e as

sess

ed c

ivil

pen

alti

es o

f up

togu

idel

ines

are

pre

sent

ed in

the

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Cod

e as

wel

l as

in a

$10,

000

per v

iola

tion

per

day

, mis

dem

eano

r cri

min

al fi

nes

of u

p to

For

estr

y P

ract

ices

Man

ual i

ssue

d by

the

Div

isio

n of

For

est R

esou

rces

. For

est

$15,

000

per

viol

atio

n pe

r da

y, o

r fe

lony

cri

min

al f

ines

of

up to

$25

0,00

0ac

tivi

ties

con

duct

ed in

acc

orda

nce

wit

h th

ese

guid

elin

es a

re e

xem

pt fr

om th

e ot

her

per v

iola

tion

per

day

; the

y al

so a

re s

ubje

ct to

inju

ncti

ve re

lief

.pr

ovis

ions

of t

he a

ct.

Nor

th D

akot

aW

ater

pol

luti

on la

w m

akes

it u

nlaw

ful “

to c

ause

pol

luti

on o

f any

wat

ers

Sta

te la

w d

oes

not a

ppea

r to

cont

ain

enfo

rcem

ent p

rovi

sion

s sp

ecif

ical

ly fo

cuse

d on

of th

e S

tate

or t

o pl

ace

or c

ause

to b

e pl

aced

any

was

tes

in a

loca

tion

nonp

oint

-sou

rce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

from

fore

stry

act

ivit

ies.

whe

re th

ey a

re li

kely

to c

ause

pol

luti

on o

f the

wat

ers

of th

e S

tate

.” T

his

prov

isio

n is

not

rest

rict

ed to

poi

nt s

ourc

es. S

tate

law

als

o re

quir

es a

perm

it fo

r a ra

nge

of a

ctiv

itie

s th

at w

ould

cau

se a

“di

scha

rge”

or “

wou

ldot

herw

ise

alte

r the

phy

sica

l, ch

emic

al, o

r bio

logi

cal p

rope

rtie

s of

any

wat

ers

of th

e S

tate

in a

ny m

anne

r not

alr

eady

law

full

y au

thor

ized

.”E

nfor

cem

ent a

ctio

ns in

clud

e em

erge

ncy

orde

rs, j

udic

ial i

njun

ctio

ns,

fine

s of

up

to $

50,0

00, a

nd, f

or w

illf

ul v

iola

tion

s, ja

il te

rms

of 1

or

2ye

ars.

Civ

il p

enal

ties

of u

p to

$10

,000

per

day

are

als

o av

aila

ble

for

viol

atio

ns w

itho

ut w

illf

ul in

tent

.

Ohi

oW

ater

pol

luti

on la

w a

ppli

es to

all

wat

ers

of th

e S

tate

. How

ever

, pol

luti

onL

aw s

peci

fica

lly p

rovi

des

for c

ontr

ol o

f sed

imen

t and

rela

ted

runo

ff fr

om a

gric

ultu

ral

resu

lting

from

farm

ing,

silv

icul

tura

l, or

ear

thm

ovin

g ac

tiviti

es is

exe

mpt

ed.

and

silv

icul

tura

l act

ivit

ies

by d

irec

ting

the

Div

isio

n of

Soi

l and

Wat

er C

onse

rvat

ion,

Loc

al u

nits

of g

over

nmen

t (su

ch a

s S

oil a

nd W

ater

Con

serv

atio

n D

istr

icts

)D

epar

tmen

t of N

atur

al R

esou

rces

, (w

ith

the

appr

oval

of t

he S

oil a

nd W

ater

Con

ser-

have

inhe

rent

pow

ers

to a

bate

pol

luti

on fr

om s

uch

sour

ces

if it

is d

eter

-va

tion

Com

mis

sion

) to

adop

t rul

es e

stab

lish

ing

“tec

hnic

ally

feas

ible

and

eco

nom

i-m

ined

to c

onst

itut

e a

nuis

ance

.ca

lly

reas

onab

le s

tand

ards

to a

chie

ve a

leve

l of m

anag

emen

t and

con

serv

atio

npr

acti

ces

in fa

rmin

g or

sil

vicu

ltur

al o

pera

tion

s th

at w

ill a

bate

win

d or

wat

er e

rosi

onof

the

soil

or a

bate

the

degr

adat

ion

of th

e w

ater

s of

the

Sta

te b

y an

imal

was

te o

r by

soil

sed

imen

t inc

ludi

ng s

ubst

ance

s at

tach

ed th

eret

o.”

The

law

furt

her e

mpo

wer

s th

eD

ivis

ion

to “

esta

blis

h pr

oced

ures

for .

. . e

nfor

cem

ent o

f rul

es fo

r agr

icul

tura

l and

silv

icul

ture

pol

luti

on a

bate

men

t.” T

he la

w is

impl

emen

ted

at th

e fa

rm a

nd fo

rest

leve

l by

loca

l soi

l and

wat

er c

onse

rvat

ion

dist

rict

s.

Okl

ahom

aW

ater

pol

luti

on la

w m

akes

it “

unla

wfu

l for

any

per

son

to c

ause

pol

luti

onS

tate

Boa

rd o

f Agr

icul

ture

“sh

all a

dmin

iste

r sil

vicu

ltur

e be

st m

anag

emen

t pra

ctic

esof

any

wat

ers

of th

e S

tate

or t

o pl

ace

or c

ause

to b

e pl

aced

any

was

tes

in a

in c

oope

rati

on w

ith

fore

stry

land

use

rs u

nder

the

prov

isio

ns o

f Sta

te a

nd F

eder

allo

cati

on w

here

they

are

like

ly to

cau

se p

ollu

tion

of a

ny a

ir, l

and

or w

ater

s”w

ater

pol

luti

on la

ws,

whi

ch in

clud

e th

e pr

oces

s to

iden

tify

sil

vicu

ltur

ally

-rel

ated

and

decl

ares

any

suc

h ac

tion

to b

e a

publ

ic n

uisa

nce.

Reg

ulat

ions

exp

ress

lyno

npoi

nt s

ourc

es o

f pol

luti

on a

s de

fine

d by

the

Okl

ahom

a E

nvir

onm

enta

l Qua

lity

cons

true

the

law

to in

clud

e no

npoi

nt s

ourc

es. F

or v

iola

tion

s, th

e D

epar

t-C

ode

and

sett

ing

fort

h pr

oced

ures

and

met

hods

to c

ontr

ol to

the

exte

nt fe

asib

lem

ent o

f Env

iron

men

tal Q

uali

ty m

ay s

eek

an in

junc

tion

, a c

ivil

pen

alty

of

such

sou

rces

.” T

he s

tatu

te d

oes

not e

xpre

ssly

set

out

enf

orce

men

t aut

hori

ty fo

r bes

t-up

to $

10,0

00 p

er v

iola

tion

, and

/or m

isde

mea

nor c

rim

inal

pen

alti

es o

fm

anag

emen

t pra

ctic

es.

$200

to $

10,0

00, a

nd/o

r im

pris

onm

ent f

or u

p to

6 m

onth

s. H

owev

er, t

hela

w d

ives

ts th

e D

epar

tmen

t of j

uris

dict

ion

over

agr

icul

tura

l and

sil

vicu

l-tu

ral n

onpo

int s

ourc

es, i

nste

ad a

ssig

ning

juri

sdic

tion

to th

e D

epar

tmen

t of

Agr

icul

ture

for a

gric

ultu

ral d

isch

arge

s an

d to

the

Con

serv

atio

n C

omm

is-

sion

for e

rosi

on c

ontr

ol. N

eith

er o

f the

se e

ntit

ies

appe

ars

to h

ave

enfo

rce-

men

t aut

hori

ties

app

lica

ble

to n

onpo

int-

sour

ce d

isch

arge

s.co

ntin

ued

��

App

endi

x ta

ble

B.1

—P

rovi

sion

s of

maj

or e

nfor

ceab

le S

tate

law

s to

con

trol

non

poin

t so

urce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

, by

Stat

e, w

ater

pol

luti

on l

aw, a

ndre

quir

emen

ts f

or f

ores

try

(200

1) (

cont

inue

d)

Stat

eN

onpo

int-

sour

ce w

ater

pol

luti

on c

ontr

ol la

wF

ores

try

nonp

oint

-sou

rce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

law

Ore

gon

Wat

er p

ollu

tion

con

trol

law

pro

hibi

ts p

erso

ns fr

om p

ollu

ting

“an

y w

ater

sS

tate

’s F

ores

t Pra

ctic

es A

ct re

quir

es th

at fo

rest

ope

rati

ons

be c

ondu

cted

in a

ccor

d-of

the

Sta

te,”

from

pla

cing

was

te w

here

it is

“li

kely

to e

scap

e or

be

ance

wit

h ru

les

and

stan

dard

s “r

elat

ing

to a

ir a

nd w

ater

pol

luti

on c

ontr

ol.”

Sta

teca

rrie

d in

to th

e w

ater

s of

the

Sta

te b

y an

y m

eans

,” a

nd fr

om d

isch

argi

ngF

ores

try

Boa

rd e

stab

lish

es b

est m

anag

emen

t pra

ctic

es (B

MP

s) “

to in

sure

that

non

-w

aste

s in

to w

ater

if th

e di

scha

rge

redu

ces

wat

er q

uali

ty “

belo

w th

e st

an-

poin

t sou

rce

disc

harg

es o

f pol

luta

nts

resu

ltin

g fr

om fo

rest

ope

rati

ons

do n

ot im

pair

dard

s es

tabl

ishe

d by

rule

for s

uch

wat

ers.

” T

he g

ener

al p

rohi

biti

on is

not

the

achi

evem

ent a

nd m

aint

enan

ce o

f wat

er q

uali

ty s

tand

ards

.” O

pera

tors

are

requ

ired

expr

essl

y li

mit

ed to

poi

nt s

ourc

es; i

t is

inte

rpre

ted

to a

ddre

ss n

onpo

int-

to c

ompl

y w

ith

BM

Ps,

unl

ess

they

can

dem

onst

rate

that

alt

erna

tive

pra

ctic

es y

ield

sour

ce d

isch

arge

s. V

iola

tion

s of

the

gene

ral p

rohi

biti

on p

rovi

sion

are

bett

er re

sult

s. F

ores

try

Boa

rd is

aut

hori

zed

to re

quir

e a

wri

tten

pla

n fo

r for

estr

yde

emed

a p

ubli

c nu

isan

ce.

oper

atio

ns if

ope

rati

ons

are

wit

hin

100

feet

of a

str

eam

use

d by

fish

or f

or d

omes

tic

use.

Als

o, o

pera

tors

mus

t giv

e w

ritt

en n

otic

e of

che

mic

al a

ppli

cati

ons

to th

e F

ores

try

Boa

rd w

hich

in tu

rn m

ust n

otif

y pe

rson

s th

at a

re w

ithi

n 10

mil

es o

f th

e ap

plic

atio

nan

d ho

ld d

owns

trea

m s

urfa

ce w

ater

righ

ts. W

here

fore

st o

pera

tors

are

in c

ompl

ianc

ew

ith

the

Boa

rd’s

BM

Ps,

then

the

oper

atio

ns a

re n

ot c

onsi

dere

d in

vio

lati

on o

f any

wat

er q

uali

ty s

tand

ards

. Als

o, fo

rest

ry o

pera

tion

s ar

e im

mun

e fr

om p

riva

te n

uisa

nce

acti

ons

if th

ey a

re in

com

plia

nce

wit

h th

e ac

t and

wit

h B

MP

s. E

nfor

cem

ent i

sth

roug

h in

spec

tion

, not

ice

of v

iola

tion

, iss

uanc

e of

adm

inis

trat

ive

orde

rs (c

ease

-an

d-de

sist

or r

epar

atio

n or

ders

), a

nd g

ener

al c

rim

inal

and

civ

il p

enal

ties

, inc

ludi

ngpo

tent

ial c

ivil

san

ctio

ns o

f up

to $

5,00

0 pe

r vio

lati

on.

Penn

sylv

ania

Wat

er p

ollu

tion

law

aut

hori

zes

Sta

te to

“en

forc

e re

ason

able

ord

ers

and

Sta

te la

w d

oes

not a

ppea

r to

cont

ain

enfo

rcem

ent p

rovi

sion

s sp

ecif

ical

ly fo

cuse

d on

regu

lati

ons

for t

he p

rote

ctio

n of

any

sou

rce

of w

ater

for p

rese

nt o

r fut

ure

nonp

oint

-sou

rce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

from

fore

stry

act

ivit

ies.

How

ever

, wit

h re

spec

t to

supp

ly to

the

publ

ic, a

nd p

rohi

biti

ng th

e po

llut

ion

of a

ny s

uch

sour

ce o

fer

osio

n an

d se

dim

ent r

elat

ed p

ollu

tant

s, fo

rest

har

vest

ing

acti

viti

es in

volv

ing

eart

h-w

ater

rend

erin

g th

e sa

me

inim

ical

or i

njur

ious

to th

e pu

blic

hea

lth

orm

ovin

g m

ust c

ompl

y w

ith

the

regu

lato

ry p

rogr

am a

utho

rize

d by

the

Cle

an S

trea

ms

obje

ctio

nabl

e fo

r pub

lic

wat

er s

uppl

y pu

rpos

es.”

Vio

lati

on o

f law

is a

Law

.su

mm

ary

offe

nse

puni

shab

le b

y a

fine

of

not l

ess

than

$10

0 no

r m

ore

than

$10

,000

for e

ach

offe

nse.

Wil

lful

or n

egli

gent

vio

lati

ons

are

mis

-de

mea

nors

pun

isha

ble

by a

fin

e of

not

less

than

$2,

500

nor

mor

e th

an$2

5,00

0 fo

r eac

h se

para

te o

ffen

se a

nd/o

r im

pris

onm

ent i

n th

e co

unty

jail

for a

per

iod

of n

ot m

ore

than

1 y

ear.

Civ

il p

enal

ties

may

be

asse

ssed

not

to e

xcee

d $1

0,00

0 pe

r day

per

vio

lati

on. S

tate

may

als

o is

sue

orde

rs o

rse

ek in

junc

tive

reli

ef.

Rho

de Is

land

Wat

er p

ollu

tion

law

mak

es it

unl

awfu

l for

any

per

son

to p

lace

any

pol

lu-

Sta

te fo

rest

ry la

w re

quir

es, f

or th

e cu

ttin

g of

tree

s fo

r com

mer

cial

fore

st p

rodu

cts,

tant

in a

loca

tion

whe

re it

is li

kely

to e

nter

the

wat

ers

of th

e S

tate

.re

gist

ratio

n w

ith th

e D

epar

tmen

t of E

nvir

onm

enta

l Man

agem

ent a

s a

woo

ds o

pera

tor.

Enf

orce

men

t is

by n

otic

es o

f vio

lati

on, c

ompl

ianc

e or

ders

, inj

unct

ive

Cut

ting

wit

hout

suc

h re

gist

rati

on is

a m

isde

mea

nor p

unis

habl

e by

a fi

ne o

f $10

0 to

reli

ef, c

rim

inal

liab

ilit

y, a

nd c

ivil

pen

alti

es o

f up

to $

25,0

00 p

er d

ay.

$500

.

Sou

th C

arol

ina

Wat

er p

ollu

tion

law

mak

es it

unl

awfu

l for

any

per

son,

dir

ectl

y or

indi

-S

tate

fore

stry

law

doe

s no

t spe

cifi

call

y re

gula

te n

onpo

int s

ourc

es o

f wat

er p

ollu

tant

sre

ctly

, to

disc

harg

e po

llut

ants

into

the

wat

ers

of th

e S

tate

, exc

ept a

s in

on p

riva

te la

nds.

How

ever

, the

Ero

sion

and

Sed

imen

t Red

ucti

on A

ct re

quir

es th

eco

mpl

ianc

e w

ith

a pe

rmit

issu

ed b

y th

e D

epar

tmen

t of H

ealt

h an

dD

HE

C to

pro

mul

gate

regu

lati

ons

for e

rosi

on a

nd s

edim

ent r

educ

tion

and

sto

rmw

ater

Env

iron

men

tal C

ontr

ol (D

HE

C).

Enf

orce

men

t is

by a

dmin

istr

ativ

em

anag

emen

t on

land

ow

ned

by th

e S

tate

, a S

tate

age

ncy,

a q

uasi

-Sta

te a

genc

y, o

ror

ders

, inj

unct

ive

reli

ef, c

ivil

pen

alti

es o

f up

to $

10,0

00 p

er d

ay, a

ndla

nd u

nder

the

man

agem

ent o

r con

trol

of s

uch

an e

ntit

y. F

or fo

rest

land

con

trol

led

crim

inal

pen

alti

es fo

r wil

lful

or n

egli

gent

vio

lati

on o

f $50

0 to

$25

,000

by th

e S

tate

For

estr

y C

omm

issi

on, t

he c

omm

issi

on m

ust d

evel

op a

nd im

plem

ent a

per

day

and/

or im

pris

onm

ent f

or u

p to

2 y

ears

.se

dim

ent r

educ

tion

pla

n, d

oing

so

in c

onsu

ltat

ion

wit

h th

e D

HE

C.

cont

inue

d

��

App

endi

x ta

ble

B.1

—P

rovi

sion

s of

maj

or e

nfor

ceab

le S

tate

law

s to

con

trol

non

poin

t so

urce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

, by

Stat

e, w

ater

pol

luti

on l

aw, a

ndre

quir

emen

ts f

or f

ores

try

(200

1) (

cont

inue

d)

Stat

eN

onpo

int-

sour

ce w

ater

pol

luti

on c

ontr

ol la

wF

ores

try

nonp

oint

-sou

rce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

law

Sou

th D

akot

aW

ater

pol

luti

on la

w p

rohi

bits

dis

char

ges

of w

aste

that

resu

lt in

wat

erS

tate

law

doe

s no

t app

ear t

o co

ntai

n en

forc

emen

t pro

visi

ons

spec

ific

ally

focu

sed

onqu

alit

y vi

olat

ions

, and

the

plac

emen

t of w

aste

s in

loca

tion

s w

here

they

are

nonp

oint

-sou

rce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

from

fore

stry

act

ivit

ies.

like

ly to

cau

se w

ater

pol

luti

on. T

he S

tate

’s W

ater

Man

agem

ent B

oard

isre

quir

ed to

pro

mul

gate

wat

er q

uali

ty s

tand

ards

and

to c

lass

ify

wat

erac

cord

ing

to it

s be

nefi

cial

use

s. T

he s

tand

ards

mus

t pro

tect

pub

lic

heal

th,

use

of w

ater

s fo

r pub

lic

wat

er s

uppl

ies,

pro

paga

tion

of f

ish

and

aqua

tic

life

and

wil

dlif

e, re

crea

tion

al p

urpo

ses,

and

agr

icul

tura

l, in

dust

rial

, and

othe

r leg

itim

ate

uses

. Per

sons

vio

lati

ng ru

les

are

liab

le fo

r a c

ivil

pen

alty

not t

o ex

ceed

$10

,000

or

for

dam

ages

to th

e en

viro

nmen

t, or

bot

h.C

rim

inal

vio

lati

ons

are

mis

dem

eano

rs s

ubje

ct to

a fi

ne n

ot to

exc

eed

$10,

000

and/

or a

sen

tenc

e of

up

to 1

yea

r im

pris

onm

ent.

Tenn

esse

eW

ater

pol

luti

on la

w (W

ater

Qua

lity

Con

trol

Act

of 1

977)

pro

hibi

ts th

eS

tate

law

doe

s no

t app

ear t

o co

ntai

n en

forc

emen

t pro

visi

ons

spec

ific

ally

focu

sed

ondi

scha

rge

of s

ewag

e, in

dust

rial

was

tes,

or o

ther

was

tes

into

wat

ers,

or a

nonp

oint

-sou

rce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

from

fore

stry

act

ivit

ies.

loca

tion

from

whi

ch it

is li

kely

that

the

disc

harg

ed s

ubst

ance

wil

l mov

ein

to w

ater

s. H

owev

er, t

he la

w d

oes

not a

pply

to “

any

agri

cult

ural

or

fore

stry

act

ivit

y or

the

acti

viti

es n

eces

sary

to th

e co

nduc

t and

ope

rati

ons

ther

eof o

r to

any

land

s de

vote

d to

the

prod

ucti

on o

f any

agr

icul

tura

l or

fore

stry

pro

duct

s, u

nles

s th

ere

is a

poi

nt-s

ourc

e di

scha

rge

from

a d

isce

rn-

ible

, con

fine

d, a

nd d

iscr

ete

wat

er c

onve

yanc

e.”

Enf

orce

men

t of t

he la

w is

thro

ugh

corr

ecti

ve a

ctio

n or

ders

, civ

il p

enal

ties

up

to $

10,0

00 p

er d

ay,

crim

inal

mis

dem

eano

r pro

secu

tion

, and

inju

ncti

ons.

Vio

lato

rs a

re a

lso

subj

ect t

o ac

tion

for d

amag

es.

Texa

sW

ater

pol

luti

on la

w p

rovi

des

that

no

pers

on m

ay d

isch

arge

sew

age,

mun

i-S

tate

Soi

l and

Wat

er C

onse

rvat

ion

Boa

rd a

nd s

oil a

nd w

ater

con

serv

atio

n di

stri

cts

cipa

l was

te, r

ecre

atio

nal w

aste

, agr

icul

tura

l was

te, o

r ind

ustr

ial w

aste

are

empo

wer

ed to

pla

n, im

plem

ent,

and

man

age

prog

ram

s fo

r aba

ting

agr

icul

tura

lin

to o

r adj

acen

t to

any

wat

er in

the

Sta

te. E

xem

pted

from

this

pro

hibi

tion

and

silv

icul

tura

l non

poin

t-so

urce

pol

luti

on. W

here

sil

vicu

ltur

al n

onpo

int s

ourc

esar

e di

scha

rges

aut

hori

zed

by p

erm

it, d

isch

arge

d in

com

plia

nce

wit

h a

are

iden

tifi

ed a

s im

port

ant w

ater

qua

lity

pro

blem

s, th

e B

oard

can

cer

tify

a p

rogr

amce

rtif

ied

wat

er q

uali

ty m

anag

emen

t pla

n as

pro

vide

d un

der t

he S

tate

for a

ddre

ssin

g th

e pr

oble

m, u

sing

loca

l soi

l and

wat

er c

onse

rvat

ion

dist

rict

s as

the

agri

cult

ure

code

, and

act

ivit

ies

unde

r the

juri

sdic

tion

of t

he D

epar

tmen

t of

key

impl

emen

ters

of t

he p

lan.

The

Boa

rd a

dopt

s ru

les

for t

he p

lans

in c

ompl

ianc

eP

arks

and

Wil

dlif

e, G

ener

al L

and

Off

ice

(coa

stal

man

agem

ent)

, or t

hew

ith

Sta

te w

ater

qua

lity

sta

ndar

ds.

Rai

lroa

d C

omm

issi

on o

f Tex

as. E

nfor

cem

ent i

s th

roug

h ad

min

istr

ativ

epe

nalt

ies

of u

p to

$10

,000

per

day

, civ

il p

enal

ties

of

betw

een

$50

and

$10,

000,

and

inju

ncti

ons.

Uta

hW

ater

pol

luti

on la

w m

akes

it u

nlaw

ful f

or a

ny p

erso

n to

dis

char

ge a

Sta

te la

w d

oes

not a

ppea

r to

cont

ain

enfo

rcem

ent p

rovi

sion

s sp

ecif

ical

ly fo

cuse

d on

poll

utan

t int

o w

ater

s of

the

Sta

te o

r to

caus

e po

llut

ion

whi

ch c

onst

i-no

npoi

nt-s

ourc

e w

ater

pol

luti

on fr

om fo

rest

ry a

ctiv

itie

s.tu

tes

a m

enac

e to

pub

lic

heal

th a

nd w

elfa

re, i

s ha

rmfu

l to

wil

dlif

e, fi

sh,

or a

quat

ic li

fe, o

r im

pair

s do

mes

tic,

agr

icul

tura

l, in

dust

rial

, rec

reat

iona

l,or

oth

er b

enef

icia

l use

s of

wat

er. V

iola

tion

s of

thes

e pr

ohib

itio

ns a

retr

eate

d as

a p

ubli

c nu

isan

ce. I

f vio

lati

ons

occu

r, th

e S

tate

’s W

ater

Qua

lity

Boa

rd m

ay g

ive

wri

tten

not

ice,

may

see

k in

junc

tive

reli

ef in

a c

ivil

act

ion,

purs

ue c

ivil

pen

alti

es n

ot to

exc

eed

$10,

000,

or,

in th

e ca

se o

f wil

lful

or

gros

s ne

glig

ence

, see

k fi

nes

not t

o ex

ceed

$25

,000

.co

ntin

ued

��

App

endi

x ta

ble

B.1

—P

rovi

sion

s of

maj

or e

nfor

ceab

le S

tate

law

s to

con

trol

non

poin

t so

urce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

, by

Stat

e, w

ater

pol

luti

on l

aw, a

ndre

quir

emen

ts f

or f

ores

try

(200

1) (

cont

inue

d)

Stat

eN

onpo

int-

sour

ce w

ater

pol

luti

on c

ontr

ol la

wF

ores

try

nonp

oint

-sou

rce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

law

Ver

mon

tW

ater

pol

luti

on c

ontr

ol la

w p

rohi

bits

dis

char

ge o

f any

was

te, s

ubst

ance

,S

tate

fore

stry

law

requ

ires

not

ice

of in

tent

to h

arve

st w

hen

harv

est i

nvol

ves

mor

eor

mat

eria

l int

o th

e w

ater

s of

the

Sta

te w

itho

ut a

per

mit

. For

cer

tain

than

40

acre

s. S

tate

fore

stry

age

ncy

mus

t rev

iew

the

prop

osed

har

vest

to d

eter

min

ecl

asse

s of

wat

ers,

the

Sta

te “

shal

l not

regu

late

acc

epte

d ag

ricu

ltur

al o

rco

mpl

ianc

e w

ith

silv

icul

tura

l gui

deli

nes

and

fore

stry

sta

ndar

ds a

nd re

quir

emen

tssi

lvic

ultu

ral p

ract

ices

, as

are

defi

ned

by th

e co

mm

issi

oner

s of

agr

icul

ture

,w

ith

resp

ect t

o w

ater

qua

lity

, wet

land

s, a

nd ri

pari

an z

ones

. Exe

mpt

ions

from

not

ice

food

and

mar

kets

and

fore

sts,

par

ks a

nd re

crea

tion

. . .

” L

aw is

enf

orce

able

are

prop

erti

es u

nder

a S

tate

-app

rove

d fo

rest

man

agem

ent p

lan.

Vio

lati

on o

f law

or

by a

dmin

istr

ativ

e or

ders

, em

erge

ncy

orde

rs, a

dmin

istr

ativ

e pe

nalt

ies

ofru

les

may

res

ult i

n a

pena

lty

of u

p to

$50

,000

and

up

to $

25,0

00 p

er d

ay f

or a

con

-up

to $

25,0

00 f

or a

sin

gle

viol

atio

n or

$10

,000

per

day

(bu

t not

mor

eti

nuin

g vi

olat

ion.

Mun

icip

al b

ylaw

s m

ay n

ot re

stri

ct “

acce

pted

sil

vicu

ltur

alth

an $

100,

000

tota

l) fo

r a c

onti

nuin

g vi

olat

ion,

civ

il e

nfor

cem

ent,

and

prac

tices

.”cr

imin

al e

nfor

cem

ent.

Vir

gini

aW

ater

pol

luti

on la

w p

rovi

des

that

exc

ept a

s ot

herw

ise

perm

itte

d by

law

,S

tate

fore

stry

law

dec

lare

s th

at if

sil

vicu

ltur

al a

ctiv

itie

s ar

e be

ing

cond

ucte

d in

ait

sha

ll b

e un

law

ful f

or a

ny p

erso

n to

pla

ce p

ollu

tant

s in

to S

tate

wat

ers

man

ner t

hat c

ause

s or

is li

kely

to c

ause

pol

luti

on, t

he S

tate

fore

ster

“. .

. m

ay a

dvis

ew

hich

can

sub

stan

tial

ly im

pair

the

law

ful u

se o

r enj

oym

ent o

f suc

h w

ater

sth

e ow

ner o

r ope

rato

r of c

orre

ctiv

e m

easu

res

need

ed to

pre

vent

or c

ease

the

poll

u-an

d th

eir e

nvir

ons

by o

ther

s. V

iola

tion

s ar

e m

isde

mea

nors

and

pun

isha

ble

tion

.” T

he S

tate

fore

ster

is a

lso

gran

ted

auth

orit

y “.

. . t

o is

sue

spec

ial o

rder

s to

any

by a

fin

e of

not

less

than

$10

0 no

r m

ore

than

$50

0 or

by

conf

inem

ent i

now

ner o

r ope

rato

r . .

. to

ceas

e im

med

iate

ly a

ll o

r par

t of s

ilvi

cult

ural

act

ivit

ies

on a

jail

for

not

mor

e th

an 1

2 m

onth

s or

bot

h su

ch f

ine

and

impr

ison

men

t. A

nysi

te a

nd to

impl

emen

t spe

cifi

ed c

orre

ctiv

e m

easu

res

wit

hin

a st

ated

per

iod

of ti

me.

”pe

rson

who

se p

rope

rty

is d

amag

ed o

r who

se p

rope

rty

is th

reat

ened

wit

hA

lso

auth

oriz

ed is

the

issu

ance

of e

mer

genc

y or

ders

(wit

hout

adv

ance

not

ice

orda

mag

e m

ay s

eek

from

the

cour

t an

inju

ncti

on e

njoi

ning

any

vio

lati

on o

fhe

arin

g) if

an

“. .

. ow

ner o

r ope

rato

r is

cond

ucti

ng a

ny s

ilvi

cult

ural

act

ivit

y in

ath

is la

w.

man

ner w

hich

is c

ausi

ng o

r is

like

ly to

cau

se a

n al

tera

tion

of t

he p

hysi

cal,

chem

ical

or b

iolo

gica

l pro

pert

ies

of a

ny S

tate

wat

ers

resu

ltin

g fr

om s

edim

ent d

epos

itio

n . .

.”A

civ

il p

enal

ty o

f up

to $

5,00

0 pe

r vi

olat

ion

per

day

may

be

asse

ssed

aft

er th

eow

ner

or o

pera

tor

has

been

giv

en a

n op

port

unit

y fo

r a

hear

ing.

Ord

ers

may

be

enfo

rced

by

inju

ncti

on.

Was

hing

ton

Wat

er p

ollu

tion

law

pro

hibi

ts th

e di

scha

rge

of a

ny o

rgan

ic o

r ino

rgan

icS

tate

fore

stry

law

(For

est P

ract

ices

Act

) req

uire

s th

e S

tate

For

est P

ract

ices

Boa

rd to

mat

ter t

hat s

hall

cau

se o

r ten

d to

cau

se w

ater

pol

luti

on a

nd re

quir

es a

prom

ulga

te re

gula

tion

s th

at e

stab

lish

min

imum

fore

st p

ract

ices

sta

ndar

ds. R

egul

a-pe

rmit

for t

he d

ispo

sal o

f sol

id o

r liq

uid

was

te m

ater

ial i

nto

wat

ers

of th

eti

ons

dete

rmin

e w

hich

fore

st p

ract

ices

fall

wit

hin

whi

ch o

f fou

r cla

sses

of p

ract

ices

,S

tate

. The

Sta

te D

epar

tmen

t of E

colo

gy e

nfor

ces

the

law

by

brin

ging

an

rang

ing

from

Cla

ss I,

requ

irin

g no

not

ific

atio

n, th

roug

h C

lass

II-I

V, r

equi

ring

acti

on, i

ssui

ng o

rder

s or

dir

ecti

ves,

or i

mpo

sing

pen

alti

es. W

illf

ul v

iola

-no

tifi

cati

on a

nd s

ubm

issi

on o

f an

appl

icat

ion

for a

ppro

val.

Cla

ss IV

fore

st p

ract

ices

tion

s ar

e cr

imes

pun

isha

ble

by a

fin

e of

up

to $

10,0

00 a

nd/o

r im

pris

on-

are

cons

ider

ed to

hav

e “a

pot

enti

al fo

r sub

stan

tial

impa

ct o

n th

e en

viro

nmen

t and

men

t for

not

mor

e th

an 1

yea

r. C

ivil

vio

lati

ons

incu

r pe

nalt

ies

of u

p to

ther

efor

e re

quir

e an

eva

luat

ion.

” T

he S

tate

Dep

artm

ents

of E

colo

gy a

nd N

atur

al$1

0,00

0 pe

r da

y pe

r vi

olat

ion.

Res

ourc

es e

nfor

ce th

e la

w. T

he a

ttor

ney

gene

ral a

lso

may

eng

age

in e

nfor

cem

ent

acti

ons,

and

a c

ount

y m

ay b

ring

act

ions

in s

uper

ior c

ourt

aga

inst

the

Sta

te d

epar

t-m

ents

, lan

dow

ners

, tim

ber o

wne

rs, a

nd o

pera

tors

. San

ctio

ns in

clud

eci

vil p

enal

ties,

coll

ecti

on o

f cos

ts, o

r dis

appr

oval

, for

up

to 1

yea

r, of

a fo

rest

pra

ctic

es a

ppli

cati

on.

cont

inue

d

��

App

endi

x ta

ble

B.1

—P

rovi

sion

s of

maj

or e

nfor

ceab

le S

tate

law

s to

con

trol

non

poin

t so

urce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

, by

Stat

e, w

ater

pol

luti

on l

aw, a

ndre

quir

emen

ts f

or f

ores

try

(200

1) (

cont

inue

d)

Stat

eN

onpo

int-

sour

ce w

ater

pol

luti

on c

ontr

ol la

wF

ores

try

nonp

oint

-sou

rce

wat

er p

ollu

tion

law

Wes

t Vir

gini

aW

ater

pol

luti

on la

w g

ener

ally

doe

s no

t app

ear t

o pr

ovid

e fo

r the

regu

la-

Sta

te fo

rest

ry la

w re

quir

es a

lice

nse

for c

omm

erci

al ti

mbe

r har

vest

and

pur

chas

e of

tion

or p

rohi

biti

on o

f non

poin

t-so

urce

dis

char

ges.

tim

ber o

r log

s fo

r res

ale,

and

cer

tifi

cati

on o

f sup

ervi

sors

of l

oggi

ng s

ervi

ces.

If th

eD

ivis

ion

of F

ores

try

noti

fies

the

Off

ice

of W

ater

Res

ourc

es (D

ivis

ion

of E

nvir

on-

men

tal P

rote

ctio

n) th

at fa

ilur

e to

use

a p

arti

cula

r bes

t man

agem

ent p

ract

ice

isca

usin

g or

con

trib

utin

g, o

r has

the

pote

ntia

l to

cont

ribu

te, t

o so

il e

rosi

on o

r wat

erpo

llut

ion,

the

Div

isio

n of

Env

iron

men

tal P

rote

ctio

n m

ay is

sue

a w

ritt

en c

ompl

ianc

eor

der,

issu

e im

med

iate

sus

pens

ion

of w

ork

orde

rs, s

uspe

nd li

cens

es o

r cer

tifi

cate

sfo

r 30

to 9

0 da

ys f

or th

e se

cond

vio

lati

on w

ithi

n 2

year

s, o

r re

voke

lice

nses

or

cert

ific

ates

for t

hird

vio

lati

ons

wit

hin

2 ye

ars.

The

Div

isio

n m

ay s

eek

civi

l pen

alti

esof

up

to $

2,50

0 fo

r th

e fi

rst o

ffen

se a

nd $

5,00

0 fo

r su

bseq

uent

off

ense

s.

Wis

cons

inW

ater

pol

luti

on la

w a

utho

rize

s th

e D

epar

tmen

t of N

atur

al R

esou

rces

Sta

te fo

rest

ry la

w p

rovi

des

for a

tax

ince

ntiv

e pr

ogra

m th

at re

quir

es s

ubm

issi

on o

f a(D

NR

) to

issu

e ge

nera

l ord

ers

and

adop

t rul

es fo

r pre

vent

ing

and

abat

ing

fore

st m

anag

emen

t pla

n. F

ailu

re to

file

not

ice

of in

tent

to h

arve

st c

an re

sult

in fi

nes

poll

utio

n of

the

wat

ers

of th

e S

tate

. The

DN

R m

ay is

sue

orde

rs f

or th

eof

up

to $

1,00

0. P

erso

ns in

tent

iona

lly

harv

esti

ng m

erch

anta

ble

tim

ber i

n vi

olat

ion

abat

emen

t of n

onpo

int-

sour

ce p

ollu

tion

whi

ch it

has

det

erm

ined

to b

eof

the

law

are

sub

ject

to fo

rfei

ture

equ

al to

20

perc

ent o

f th

e cu

rren

t val

ue o

f the

sign

ific

ant o

n a

case

-by-

case

bas

is. V

iola

tors

of a

genc

y or

ders

are

sub

ject

tim

ber h

arve

sted

. Fur

ther

mor

e, a

ll s

lash

whi

ch fa

lls

into

or i

s de

posi

ted

in a

ny la

keto

adm

inis

trat

ive

pena

ltie

s of

up

to $

5,00

0 pe

r day

.or

str

eam

or o

n th

e la

nd o

f an

adjo

inin

g ow

ner,

mus

t be

rem

oved

imm

edia

tely

.V

iola

tors

are

sub

ject

to fi

nes

of n

ot m

ore

than

$50

; how

ever

, rep

eat o

ffen

ders

are

subj

ect t

o hi

gher

fine

s an

d im

pris

onm

ent.

Wyo

min

gW

ater

pol

luti

on la

w (W

yom

ing

Env

iron

men

tal Q

uali

ty A

ct) p

rohi

bits

Sta

te la

w d

oes

not a

ppea

r to

cont

ain

enfo

rcem

ent p

rovi

sion

s sp

ecif

ical

ly fo

cuse

d on

“cau

sing

, thr

eate

ning

or a

llow

ing

the

disc

harg

e of

any

pol

luti

on o

r was

teno

npoi

nt-s

ourc

e w

ater

pol

luti

on fr

om fo

rest

ry a

ctiv

itie

s.in

to th

e w

ater

s of

the

Sta

te”

or “

alte

ring

the

phys

ical

, che

mic

al, r

adio

lo-

gica

l, bi

olog

ical

or b

acte

riol

ogic

al p

rope

rtie

s of

any

wat

ers

of th

e S

tate

”un

less

aut

hori

zed

by p

erm

it. E

nfor

cem

ent m

easu

res

incl

ude

ceas

e-an

d-de

sist

ord

ers,

tem

pora

ry a

nd p

erm

anen

t inj

unct

ive

reli

ef, r

epar

atio

ns fo

rda

mag

es, c

ivil

pen

alti

es o

f up

to $

10,0

00 p

er v

iola

tion

per

day

, and

crim

inal

pen

alti

es o

f up

to $

25,0

00 p

er v

iola

tion

per

day

and

/or

impr

ison

men

t of

up to

1 y

ear.

Sou

rces

: Ada

pted

fro

m E

llef

son

and

othe

rs (

1995

); E

nvir

onm

enta

l Law

Ins

titu

te (

1997

, 199

8); N

atio

nal C

onfe

renc

e of

Sta

te L

egis

latu

res

(200

1); W

ear

and

Gre

is (

2002

).

��


Economic Framework

��

��

The full text of Indicator 58 is as follows: Extent to whichthe economic framework (economic policies and measures)supports the conservation and sustainable management offorests through investment and taxation policies and aregulatory environment which recognize the long-termnature of investments and permit the flow of capital inand out of the forest sector in response to market signals,nonmarket economic valuations, and public policydecisions in order to meet long-term demands for forestproducts and services (Montreal Process Working Group2003).


The sustainability of forests and the many benefits theyare capable of providing requires high levels of sustainedinvestment in forest management and protection. It is onlythrough such investment that the full range of products,values, and services provided by forests can be ensured. Ifinvestment capital is lacking in the forest sector, sustain-able management and the associated economic, ecological,and social benefits may not be obtained. Similarly, ifinvestment capital is prevented from leaving the forestsector, inefficiencies can occur and over-exploitation offorests is a possibility. Investment is affected by a numberof economy-wide factors, most notably product or serviceprices, forestland productivity, and discount rate as affectedby risk (Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee2000, Montreal Process Working Group 2003).

Forest investment is often discouraged by certain inherentcharacteristics of forests. For example, they typically growvery slowly, and this results in substantial holding costsand revenue uncertainty; they are at risk from insect anddisease infestations and natural disturbances (fire and wind)that can seriously erode or wipe out the capital investmentin trees; and they have a very low degree of liquidity(National Research Council 1998). Other investmentopportunities often provide greater return with less risk.Understanding the economic framework within whichcapital can readily flow in and out of the forest sector willsuggest the degree to which policies and programs supportadequate long-term investment that promotes sustainableforestry (Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee2000).

Information indicating economic capacity for investmentthat promotes sustainability can be found in compilationsand descriptions of laws, policies, and programs thatencourage or discourage investment in, and managementof, private forests. Information about the use, efficiency,and effectiveness of tax incentives or disincentives (suchas income tax and property tax) and fiscal incentives (suchas grants, cost-share assistance, and conservation ease-ments) is relevant.

This review focuses on the nation’s policy and programcapacity to promote adequate private investment in forestresources within existing economic frameworks (taxationand fiscal incentives). Information about actual levels ofinvestment in the management, use, and protection offorest resources is given only limited attention here. Regu-latory programs that force private investments in forestsare not reviewed here; they are given extensive coveragein the review of Indicator 57 (enforcement of laws, regu-lations, and guidelines). We acknowledge the importanceof legal and institutional capacity to encourage investmentin public forests, but an examination of information aboutsuch capacity is beyond the scope of this review.

Concepts and principles that are to be identified andaddressed are suggested by the indicator. To guide thisreview, brief definitions of three important concepts are:forest investment—expenditure of funds to increase theproduction of goods and services from forestland; taxincentives—programs designed to alter the timing, type, oramount of tax expected from private forestland or theincome produced from the property; and fiscal incentives—financial payments to owners of private forestland for thepurpose of encouraging certain land uses or managementpractices or both (Ellefson 1992, Klemperer 1996).


Forests provide a wide range of ecological, social, andeconomic values. Nationally, they provide more than 16.3billion cubic feet of wood fiber to support a forest productsindustry that employs more than 1.3 million people, con-tributes in excess of $40 billion in wages per year, andannually produces products valued at more than $200billion (Congressional Information Service 2000). Forestsalso provide important nonmarket outputs such as wildlifehabitat, clean water, recreational opportunities, andaesthetic enjoyment.

1 Kilgore, Assistant Professor, and Ellefson, Professor, Department ofForest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.

Investment, Taxation, and Regulatory Environment (Indicator 58)

Michael A. Kilgore and Paul V. Ellefson1

�

Accounting for more than 474 million acres, or nearlytwo-thirds of all forest area in the United States, privateforests are owned by some 10 million ownership units(Birch 1996, USDA Forest Service 1996). Eighty-fivepercent of the area of private forests is in nonindustrialprivate ownership, with the remaining 15 percent ownedby the forest products industry (Smith and others 2001).Nearly one-half of the Nation’s private forestland consistsof tracts at least 500 acres in size, with 80 percentaccounted for by tracts at least 50 acres in size. Fifty-ninepercent of the ownerships are smaller than 10 acres in size(National Research Council 1998).

The economic and ecological contributions of the Nation’sprivate forests are significant. More than 80 percent of theNation’s timber harvest (13.4 million cubic feet) originatesfrom private forests; 61 percent of its growing stock inven-tory occurs on private lands; an estimated 148 million acresof private forestland is available for recreational use by thegeneral public; 70 percent of carbon sequestered in theNation’s forests is located on private lands (Heath andBirdsey 1996); habitat for 86 percent of all species listedas threatened or endangered (609 species) is located onprivate property (U.S. General Accounting Office 1994);and hunting and fishing are among the most popular recre-ational activities on private forests (U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service 2001a). The ability of privateforests to sustainably provide these products and servicesis directly dependent on the level of investment devoted tothem.

Landowners may invest in private forests for a number ofreasons: to maintain the land in a forested condition; toimprove the growth and value of trees; to reduce the riskof loss due to insects, diseases, fire, or vandalism; to developor improve access through road and trail construction; tosupport management planning such as timber harvest orestate planning; or to support specific land managementobjectives such as tree planting, timber stand improve-ment, or wildlife habitat improvement (National ResearchCouncil 1998). Many forest landowners (primarily nonin-dustrial landowners) invest in forests in order to capture avery broad range of market and nonmarket benefits (forexample, recreation, esthetic enjoyment, part of residence)(Birch 1996, Kuuluvainen and others 1996). Yet for otherlandowners (for example, timberland investment manage-ment organizations), investments are made with the intentof maximizing return on investment. This is often true ofindustrial timberland owners and other owners of largeprivate forest holdings. Nearly 30 percent of privatelyowned forestland area (industrial and nonindustrial) ismanaged with timber production as a principal goal, yetonly 3 percent of owners consider timber production to bethe primary reason for ownership (U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service 2001a).

Adequate investment in the Nation’s private forests requiresan economic climate that fosters the flow of capital in andout of the forest sector. Some have questioned whether theamount of capital required to capture many forest invest-ment opportunities in the United States is available frommost landowners (Kaiser and Royer 1997). Reasonssuggested for this deficiency include high establishmentcosts, long investment horizons, uncertain markets, lowliquidity of and access to capital, and various biologicalrisks associated with forests (National Research Council1998). The implication is that many individuals andorganizations perceive forestland investments as charac-terized by high risk and low yield, and thus reject them infavor of alternative opportunities considered safer andcapable of providing greater return.

Analyses have suggested that investments in forests shouldnot be regarded as having high risk and low return. Onesuch analysis suggests that as an asset class, timberlandinvestment portfolios are characterized by higher-than-average returns for a given level of risk (Binkley andothers 1996). The analysis reports that the average cumu-lative total return (nominal return including land appreci-ation) during the 10-year period ending in 1996 was 21.4percent annually for timberland investments and 18.0 per-cent annually for the S&P 500 Index. Indeed, institutionalinvestment in timberland grew from less than $100 millionin 1986 to more than $6 billion in 1997, suggesting thatlong-term returns to timberland investment are competi-tive with those from other investments (Yin and Izlar 2001).

Taxation as Investment Influence

Tax policy can be an important means of encouraging ordiscouraging behavior that leads to production of goodsand services associated with forests. Tax policy can signif-icantly affect the profitability of forest investments (Baileyand others 1999), and has been applied in forestry for atleast three basic public purposes: to encourage privateforestland owners to invest in activities that result inincreased timber supply and encourage the flow of capitalfrom outside sources into the forestry sector; to compensateprivate forestland owners for the many nontimber valuesprovided by forests from which society as a whole bene-fits; and to provide an equitable basis for long-term invest-ment in forests (U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService 1990). The taxes that most commonly affect forestinvestment and management decisions are those onincome, property, and estates.

Tax policy must be well designed, properly focused, andwell administered if it is to guide investment toward worth-while opportunities represented by forests and forestry.Hibbard, Kilgore, and Ellefson (2001) suggest that goodtax policies will have the following characteristics:

��

• Equity—Tax policies should provide for fair treatmentof various sectors and of individuals within a sector.Under an equitable tax policy, taxpayers would be liablefor the same amount of tax given the same set of cir-cumstances and across a range of abilities to pay. Taxescan be designed to be proportional or to be discrimina-tory in the sense of being progressive or regressive. Taxequity is not achieved easily, however (Klemperer 1996).

• Efficiency—Tax policies should be efficient in gather-ing revenue for government operations and influencingprivate investment decisions. They should not distort oradversely affect market behavior, nor should theyadversely affect the timing of activities such as harvestactivities and timber stand improvement. Taxationshould neither favor nor discourage decisions to convertforestland to a nonforest use. Tax policies and programsshould also be administered efficiently (for example,efficient collection and enforcement).

• Simplicity—Tax policies should be easy to understandand administer. Taxpayers should clearly know who istaxing them, how the tax is determined, and how tomake use of various tax provisions. Tax policies that aredesigned with simplicity in mind tend to breed a senseof fairness, reduce compliance costs, and increaseaccountability. Principles of simplicity and equity canbe in conflict. For example, full provision for variabilityin forest management conditions (for example, sitecharacteristics, growth rates, markets, species, and land-owner objectives) would make the most theoreticallyequitable forest tax prohibitively costly to administerand too complex to apply correctly. Appropriate taxpolicy balances equity and simplicity (MinnesotaDepartment of Revenue 2000).

• Adequacy, stability, and visibility—Tax policies shouldprovide an adequate, stable, and visible source ofrevenue to pay for government services. The revenuegenerated by tax polices should be adequate and shouldbe stable from one tax period to the next. Tax policiesand their administration should be clear and widelyknown, so that there is political accountability for theaccomplishment of desired policy outcomes.

To determine whether tax polices promote sustainableforestry, we should ask the following questions (Hibbardand others 2001): How do the tax policies affect invest-ments in long-term forest productivity? How do they affectthe propensity of private forestland owners to apply ecolo-gically sound forest management practices? How do theyencourage retention or expansion of the forestland base?How do they protect and increase the production of wild-life habitat and other important nontimber benefits?Unfortunately, however, the extent to which tax policiesencourage these outcomes is often unclear. (Brockett and

Gebhard 1999, Klemperer 1989, National Research Council1998).

Fiscal Incentives as Investment Influence

Fiscal incentives can also be used as a policy tool toaddress certain characteristics of forests and forestry thattend to discourage forest investments. Tree planting, forexample, requires significant capital expenditure withoutfinancial return for very long periods of time, often 60years or more. Fiscal incentives can be used by govern-ment to encourage landowners to make these long-terminvestments, investments they might not otherwise consi-der (Sampson and DeCoster 1997). By providing financialpayments to offset or reduce these large initial capitaloutlays, government can increase landowner return oninvestment and at the same time encourage the productionof important goods and services desired by the public ingeneral. Fiscal incentive programs initially were devel-oped to focus on the production of timber, and typicallyprovided cost-share payments to landowners for tree plant-ing, site preparation, and other cultural practices that tendto increase productivity. More recently, fiscal incentiveprograms have been developed and implemented to addressa wide range of forest resource benefits (for example, wild-life habitat improvement, scenic landscape improvement)(U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 2001b,U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural ResourcesConservation Service 2001).

Current Economic Capacity


Income tax provisions—The Federal tax code contains anumber of provisions that affect private landowners inter-ested in the management of their forests. For example, thetax code contains provisions that govern the allocation ofcosts of purchasing forestland (percentage of value attri-buted to land, timber, and other property improvements),the treatment of expenses commonly associated with forestmanagement activities, and the depreciation of equipmentand land improvements (Bailey and others 1999). Many ofthese tax provisions are complex, and vary depending ontaxpayer classification (for example, corporate versusindividual), use and purpose of owning the property(investment versus a business or hobby), and level oftaxpayer involvement in managing the forest (materialversus no material participation) (Haney and others 2001).Relatively few provisions, however, have the unique andspecific objective of encouraging landowners to make long-term investments in the management of forest resources.Rather, tax provisions often apply to a broad range ofincome-producing activities of which forest management

��

is but one. Three provisions that are available to encourageinvestment in forest resources management are as follows:

• Reforestation amortization and investment credit. Thereforestation amortization and investment credit isspecific to forestland owners. Qualified reforestationexpenditures (or afforestation expenditures in the caseof planting or seeding non-forested land) paid or incurredin a tax year are eligible for a 10 percent investment taxcredit. Unlike a deduction, which is an offset againstincome, a credit is a direct offset against taxes. Inaddition, qualified reforestation costs (direct expensesincurred in establishing a stand of timber, whether byplanting, seeding, or natural regeneration) can be amor-tized as a deduction over 8 tax years to an annual maxi-mum of $9,500 if the credit is taken. Individuals,estates, partnerships, and corporations are eligible foreither or both the amortization and the tax credit. Trustsare not eligible for either (Haney and others 2001).Additionally, Federal and State cost-share paymentsused for reforestation can generally be excluded fromgross income.

• Capital gains treatment of timber—The Federal taxcode also provides for lower tax rates (capital gains taxtreatment) on the sale or cutting by the owner of stand-ing timber that meets certain standards (how long timberhas been owned, how it is disposed of, and whether ornot it is held as an investment or as part of a business).Capital gains treatment for timber can substantiallylower tax bills. In 1999, noncorporate taxpayers weretaxed at five levels for ordinary income, with a maxi-mum rate of 39.6 percent. Noncorporate long-termcapital gains, however, were generally taxed at rates nohigher than 20 percent (10 percent for gain that other-wise would be taxed in the lowest, 15 percent ratebracket). Certain noncorporate capital gains realizedafter December 31, 2000 are taxed at a top rate of 18percent and at a bottom rate of 8 percent if the timberhas been held for 5 years (table 1). For corporations,

ordinary income and long-term capital gains are taxedat the same rates (table 2) (Haney and others 2001).

• Management expense—Corporate and noncorporatetimber owners may generally deduct management costsrelating to timber held as an investment against incomefrom any source in the year they were incurred (asopposed to capitalizing them). Management costs includenormal expenses associated with managing the forestproperty (for example, consultant fees, labor, silvicul-tural and related management activities) and carryingcharges (for example, insurance, property taxes). Thespecific tax treatment of management costs and carryingcharges depends on a landowner’s specific tax classifica-tion and ownership objectives (Haney and others 2001).

Estate tax provisions—Federal estate taxes can imposesignificant burdens on the inheritors of highly valued forest-lands (table 3). Because a high tax rate may be imposed(50 percent maximum in 2002), estate taxes can affectforest management and timber harvesting activities andmay, in extreme circumstances, force premature timberliquidation or outright forestland disposal in order to satisfyestate taxes. Major reforms in Federal estate tax provisionswere made in 1997 and 2001. Through 2001, the Federalestate and gift tax were combined into a unified tax on thetransfer of wealth. A “unified credit” shielded large, life-time gifts and estates from tax, up to a certain value. Giftsand estates over the unified credit were taxed at rates rang-ing from 37 to 50 percent. Beginning in 2002, gift andestate taxes are treated separately, each with their ownexemptions ($1 million each for gift and estate exemptionsin 2002, with the latter increasing to $3.5 million in 2009).The maximum gift and estate taxes (55 percent in 2002)will decrease to 45 percent by 2009. In 2010, the estatetax is eliminated completely, and the maximum gift taxrate will equal the top individual income tax rate. At theend of 2010, however, these provisions are scheduled to“sunset,” returning the estate and gift taxes to their statusprior to 2002.

Table 1—Federal noncorporate income tax rates (2001)

Type of taxpayer (taxable income) Type of income

Married taxpayers Single Estates Ordinary Net capitalfiling joint return taxpayers and trusts income gains

thousands - - - - - - - percent - - - - - -

$ 0 – 45,200 $ 0 – 27,050 $ 0 – 1,800 15 8$ 45,201 –109,250 $ 27,051 – 65,550 $ 1,801 – 4,250 27.5 18

$ 109,251 – 166,500 $ 65,551 – 136,750 $ 4,251 – 6,500 30.5 18$ 166,501 – 297,350 $ 136,750 – 297,350 $ 6,501 – 8,900 35.5 18$ 297,351 + $ 297,351 + $8,901 + 39.1 18

Source: Haney and others (2001).

��

Current estate tax law provides for (a) an increasing creditthat has the effect of exempting a portion of the value ofthe estate from taxation, (b) valuation of the forestlandestate (both land and timber up to certain limits) on thebasis of current use (as opposed to fair market value), and(c) exclusion of up to 40 percent of the land and timber’svalue (up to certain limits) if the land is enrolled in aqualified conservation easement. With careful planning,the death tax liability on a forestland estate can be reducedby more than 50 percent by taking advantage of specificestate tax provisions (Peters and others 1998).

Fiscal incentive programs—The Federal Government hasa number of agencies and programs involved in reducingor offsetting large initial investments in management andrelated activities considered necessary to protect, improve,restore, and sustain forest resources (National ResearchCouncil 1998) (table 4). Although not all of these programsand agencies focus directly on forests, Federal funds avail-able for cost-share and related fiscal support of privateactions affecting forest conditions probably exceeds $1billion annually. These funds are administered by at leastseven major Federal agencies. The following are fiveexamples of Federal fiscal incentive programs that encour-age long-term investment in the management of forests.Some of these programs were terminated by the 2002Farm Bill and replaced by similar, but not identical,programs that have yet to be fully developed.

• Forest Legacy Program (FLP)—The Forest LegacyProgram is designed to protect private forestlands frombeing converted to nonforest uses. Focusing on protect-ing environmentally sensitive forestlands, the FLP pro-vides for the acquisition of partial interests in privatelyowned forestlands using conservation easements. Aslegally binding agreements that transfer certain propertyrights from one party to another, conservation easementsrestrict development while requiring practices that sus-tain forest values. Voluntary participation in the programis limited to private forestland owners. To qualify, land-owners must prepare a multiple-resource managementplan that accompanies the conservation easement. TheFederal Government may fund up to 75 percent ofprogram costs, with at least 25 percent coming fromprivate, State, or local sources. In addition to gainsassociated with the sale or donation of property rights,many landowners also benefit from reduced taxes asso-ciated with limits placed on land use. The USDA ForestService administers the Forest Legacy Program in coop-eration with State foresters. The State grant option allowsStates a greater role in implementing the program. TheFLP also encourages partnerships with local governmentsand land trusts, recognizing the important contributionsthat landowners, communities, and private organizationsmake to conservation efforts (U.S. Department of Agri-culture, Forest Service 2001b). In 2001, $60 million wasappropriated to the Forest Legacy Program (table 5).

• Forest Stewardship Program (FSP)—The Forest Steward-ship Program provides resources to assist private forest-land owners in developing plans for the sustainablemanagement of their forests. Program funds are used topay for professional advice and assistance in preparingdetailed natural resource management plans that reflectboth landowner objectives and broader society-wideinterests in private forests. These forest managementplans provide guidance for the production of timber,wildlife habitat, watershed protection, recreational

Table 3—Federal estate and gift tax rates(2002-2009)

Maximum estate andEstate tax applicable gift tax rate

Tax Exclusion Tax Taxyear amount year rate

percent

2002 $1,000,000 2002 502003 $1,000,000 2003 492004 $1,500,000 2004 482005 $1,500,000 2005 472006 $2,000,000 2006 462007 $2,000,000 2007 452008 $2,000,000 2008 452009 $3,500,000 2009 45

Source: U.S. Department of the Treasury (2002).

Table 2—Corporate Federal income tax rates (2001)

Type of income(maximum

marginal tax rate)

Ordinary Net capitalTaxable income income gains

- - - - - - - percent - - - - - -

$ 0 – 50,000 15 15$ 50,000 – 75,000 25 25$ 75,000 – 100,000 34 34

$ 100,000 – 335,000 39 39$ 335,000 – 10,000,000 34 34

$ 10,000,000 – 15,000,000 35 35$ 15,000,000 – 18,333,333 38 38$ 18,333,333+ 35 35

Source: Haney and others (2001).

��

opportunities, and other benefits. While there are noownership restrictions, recipients of FSP-funded planstypically own less than 1,000 acres of forestland. Parti-cipation is available to individuals and noncommerciallandowners who agree to manage their forestland as

specified in a plan for at least 10 years. FSP is not a cost-share program; rather it provides technical and planningguidance, encouraging multiresource management.Completion of a forest stewardship plan is required oflandowners seeking eligibility for cost-share assistance

Table 4—Federal programs providing financial assistance to public and private interests in forests and relatedresources, by program, resource focus, available funding, and administering agency (2002)

Program Resource focus Available funds Lead administering agency

Chesapeake Bay Grants Program Water $15 million U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Coastal Zone Program Wildlife $9 million USDI Fish and Wildlife Service

Conservation Operations Program Soil NA USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

Conservation Reserve Program Soil $250 million (est) USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Soil $200 million (est) USDA Natural Resources Conservation ServiceProgram

Economic Action/Rural Community Forests $15 million USDA Forest ServicePrograms

Emergency Watershed Protection Program Water * USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

Environmental Quality Incentives Program Soil & Water $174 million USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

Farmland Protection Program Land $10 million (est) USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

Forest Health Protection Program Forests NA USDA Forest Service

Forestry Incentives Program Forests $7 million USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

Forestry on Indian Lands Program Forests $38 million USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs

Forest Legacy Program Forests $60 million USDA Forest Service

Forest Stewardship Program Forests $33 million USDA Forest Service

Land and Water Conservation Fund Grants Land $40 million USDI National Park ServiceProgram

Nonpoint Source Implementing Grants Water $200 million U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyProgram

North American Wetlands Conservation Wetlands & $44 million USDI Fish and Wildlife ServiceProgram (Act) Wildlife

National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Wetlands $12 million USDI Fish and Wildlife ServiceProgram

National Estuary Program Water $15 million U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Payments in lieu of taxes Various $150 million USDI Bureau of Land Management

Stewardship Incentives Program Forests (None) USDA Forest Service

Sustainable Development Challenge Grants Land $5 million U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Rural Community Fire Protection Program Forests $2 million USDA Forest Service

Urban and Community Forestry Program Forests $30 million USDA Forest Service

Water Quality Cooperative Agreement Water $19 million U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyGrants Program

Watershed Protection and Flood Water $100 million USDA Natural Resources Conservation ServicePrevention Program

Wetlands Program Development Grants Wetlands $15 million U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyProgram

Wetlands Reserve Program Wetlands $76 million USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation Wildlife $1 million USDI Fish and Wildlife ServiceProgram

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program Wildlife $8 million (est) USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

Note: Annual funding level presented. Asterisk indicates information is not readily available.

��

through the Stewardship Incentives Program. Approxi-mately $33 million was appropriated for this program inFY 2001 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService 2001b) (table 5).

• Stewardship Incentives Program (SIP)—Established in1990, the Stewardship Incentives Program providesfinancial assistance to private landowners to carry outforest stewardship plans and also supports implementa-tion of forestry practices by other Federal and Stateagencies through their land conservation programs. Theplanning and evaluation requirements of the FSP, andthe broadness of the range of management activities theSIP program supports, encourage landowners to under-take a variety of forest enhancement and protectionactivities that might not otherwise be accomplished. TheSIP supports a wide range of forest management activi-ties that, when implemented as part of a comprehensiveforest stewardship plan, contribute to a healthy forestecosystem. These activities include development ofstewardship plans; reforestation and afforestation; forestand agroforest improvement; windbreak and hedgerowestablishment, maintenance, and renovation; soil andwater protection and improvement; riparian and wetlandprotection and improvement; fisheries habitat enhance-ment; wildlife habitat enhancement; and forest recrea-tion enhancement. SIP participants generally own lessthan 1,000 acres, with waivers up to 5,000 acres on landswith potential for significant public benefit. The FederalGovernment may reimburse the landowner for up to 75percent of approved expenses, to a maximum of $10,000per year per landowner, in exchange for landowner agree-ment to maintain and protect SIP-funded practices for aminimum of 10 years. No Federal appropriations were

made for this program in 2001 (U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service 2001b) (table 5).

• Forestry Incentives Program (FIP)—Since its inceptionin 1973, the Forestry Incentives Program has supportedtree planting, forest stand improvement, and site pre-paration for natural regeneration. In all three instances,the principal goal is to build or restore the capacity ofnonindustrial private forestlands to produce timber. How-ever, the program recognizes that healthy productiveforests also provide many other public goods, such aswatershed protection, wildlife habitat, aesthetics, andrecreational activities. Participation in the FIP is limitedto nonindustrial private forestland owners, whose proper-ties must meet selection criteria designed to ensure thatthe most productive forestland receives funding. Partici-pants generally own less than 1000 acres of forest. TheFederal Government may pay up to 75 percent ofapproved expenses, to a maximum of $10,000 per yearper landowner, in exchange for landowner agreement tomaintain and protect funded practices for a minimum of10 years. In 2001, $6.8 million was appropriated to theFIP (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural ResourcesConservation Service 2001) (table 5).

• Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)—The Conserva-tion Reserve Program encourages farmers to converthighly erodible cropland or other environmentally sensi-tive agricultural land to vegetative cover (for example,tame or native grasses, wildlife habitat plantings, trees,filter strips, or riparian buffers). Farmers receive an annualrental payment for the term of a multiyear contractwhich can be of 10 to 15 years duration. Cost-sharing isprovided to establish the vegetative cover practices. TheFederal Government may pay up to 50 percent of cover

Table 5—Funding levels of selected Federal fiscal incentive programs focusedon private forests (1993-2001)

Forest Stewardship Forest ForestryFiscal Stewardship Incentives Legacy Incentivesyear Program Program Program Program

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - dollars - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1993 23,280,000 17,847,000 9,915,000 12,446,0001994 25,791,000 17,932,000 6,948,000 12,820,0001995 25,908,000 18,283,000 0 6,625,0001996 23,378,000 4,500,000 3,000,000 6,325,0001997 23,378,000 4,500,000 2,000,000 6,325,0001998 23,880,000 6,500,000 4,000,000 6,325,0001999 28,830,000 0 7,012,000 16,325,0002000 29,833,000 0 29,933,000 5,376,0002001 32,782,000 0 59,868,000 6,811,000

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (2001b); U.S. Department of Agriculture,Natural Resources Conservation Service (2001).

��

crop or tree establishment costs, and rental payments ofup to $50,000 per year per landowner during the 10-yearrental period. CRP tree-planting contracts applied tomore than 2.6 million acres as of the end of 2001 (U.S.Department of Agriculture, Farm Services Agency 2002;U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural ResourcesConservation Service 2001).


State governments have also established tax and fiscalincentives programs important to forest sustainability. Thefollowing describes selected State tax and fiscal incentiveprograms focused on forest sustainability.

Taxation provisions—State income, estate, and propertytaxes often include provisions designed to protect the

sustainability of privately owned forests. Property taxesare unique to State and local governments and are imple-mented in many different ways when applied to forestland.In 1992 all States had tax provisions designed to promotesustainable forestry. Tax programs for promoting refores-tation (16 States) and protecting water quality (14 States)were most common (table 6). In 1985, 11 States had taxincentive programs designed specifically to encourageprivate landowners to create, improve, or preserve forestwildlife habitat (Wigley and Melchiors 1987) (table 7).

• Income tax—All but seven States impose income taxeson individuals, with marginal tax rates ranging from 0.5to 12 percent. Only four States do not have an incometax on corporations (Deloitte & Touche 2002). Of Stateswith income tax codes for individuals and corporations,the majority use the Federal tax code as the basis for

Table 6—State government fiscal and tax programs promoting best-forest-practice standards on private forests, byforestry activity, region, and type of program (1992)

Number of States in region having program typeMajor forestryactivity and North- Lake Mid- Mid- South- South- Great Rockytype of program east States Atlantic continent east central Plains Mtn. West Total

Protect water qualityTax incentives 1 1 4 3 0 1 3 1 0 14Fiscal incentives 2 3 5 3 1 4 5 4 2 29

Promote reforestationTax incentives 2 3 3 3 1 1 0 1 2 16Fiscal incentives 5 2 5 3 4 5 5 5 3 37

Improve timber-harvesting methodsTax incentives 2 2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 9Fiscal incentives 3 0 4 0 0 1 2 2 1 13

Protect from wildfire,insects, and diseasesTax incentives 0 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 6Fiscal incentives 1 1 4 2 1 0 2 4 2 17

Protect wildlife andendangered speciesTax incentives 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3Fiscal incentives 3 2 5 3 2 4 5 2 2 28

Enhance recreation andaesthetic qualitiesTax incentives 1 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 1 8Fiscal incentives 4 1 6 2 2 4 2 3 1 25


��

treating income and expenses for State income taxpurposes. (Purdue University 2002). For example, mostStates use Federal adjusted gross income as the startingpoint for determining State income tax liabilities. Nearlyall State income tax codes contain provisions that differfrom the Federal tax code, some of which affect forest-land owners. For example, analysis of income tax lawsin 14 southern States revealed that the treatment ofspecific income tax provisions (for example, standarddeductions, deductibility of Federal income taxes,exemptions, and long-term capital gains exclusions)varied, and could affect tax liabilities associated withforestland investment and management (Bailey andothers 1999, Federation of Tax Administrators 2001).

• Estate tax provisions—Twenty-nine States impose estateor inheritance taxes. The latter are often “piggyback”taxes, whereby a State takes a portion of the Federalestate tax as a State tax credit. The tax paid generallyequals the difference between the estate tax creditallowed on the Federal estate tax return, on the onehand, and the estate or inheritance tax imposed by theState government, on the other. The net result is no netincrease in the taxpayer’s liability. Sixteen States imposean inheritance tax on heirs receiving the property, andfive States tax the right of the decedent’s estate to trans-fer property (Peters and others 1998).

• Property tax provisions—Property tax is most oftencollected by counties and distributed to the local unitsof government who impose the tax (for example, coun-ties, cities, townships, school districts, or other specialtaxing districts). Although the property tax is generallya local source of revenue, nearly every aspect ofproperty taxes is controlled by State statutes and Stateagencies. In 1994-1995, property taxes generated $193billion, a sum that was 28.6 percent of the total revenueneeded by local units of government (Sokolow 1998).

Depending on the specific design of the program, theproperty tax generally has one to three functions: toraise money for the taxing authority, to redistributeincome and wealth, and to encourage certain types ofbehavior (Grayson 1993). Tax program design deter-mines the entity subject to the tax, the methods oftaxation, and the use of the revenue collected (Hibbardand others 2001, Purdue University 2002).

A wide variety of property tax classifications and pro-grams exist in the United States. Five of these havespecial relevance to forests and forestry: current use, advalorem, flat, yield, and exemption. An examination of63 programs or classifications determined program fre-quency as: current use, 36; ad valorem, 15; flat tax, 9;and combined current use-ad valorem programs, 3(Hibbard and others 2001, Purdue University 2002)(tables 8 and 9). At least one type of program exists ineach State. Yield tax is not considered separately; it isalways imposed in addition to another tax type andcould be added to all of the categories.

• Current-use programs. In the United States, morethan half of all property tax programs for forestlandare current-use programs (tables 8 and 9). Suchprograms employ income capitalization formulas forvaluation, administratively or legislatively determinedland-use values, or annual measures of timberlandgrowth value. More than three-fifths of current useprograms employ income capitalization formulas,which value land according to the income it canproduce. Most programs based on income capitaliza-tion make use of soil and land productivity classes.These soil or land productivity classes are translatedinto yield information, which is multiplied by adetermined average price, often a multiyear movingaverage, and then management costs are deducted.Not all States deduct management costs when capi-talizing land income. A number of different methodsare used to calculate these costs. The capitalizationrate used in current-use valuation is often indexed toa Federal or State bank rate, with the current rateaveraging 9.9 percent (varying from 4.5 percent to 13percent). The rate selected is important and it is oftenselected in a highly charged political environment(Hibbard and others 2001, Purdue University 2002).

Typically, determined-use values are established byState agencies or boards. Counties determine thevalues in a few instances and State legislatures deter-mine them even more rarely. Since the seeminglymore scientific method of income capitalization isreally politically determined, determined values maynot be of any greater or lesser value or objectivitythan income capitalization values. Determined-use-value programs make up one-third of the current useprograms, and the balance are programs using values

Table 7. State wildlife agencies offering fiscal, tax, andtechnical services to enhance private investment inforest and related wildlife habitat (1985)

Program type offered

Fiscal Tax Technical-Region incentives incentives educational

- - - - - - - - - number of States - - - - - - - - - -

East 3 3 19South 0 0 6North 5 5 18West 4 3 7

Total 12 11 50

Source: Wigley and Melchiors (1987).

��

Tabl

e 8—

Stat

e fo

rest

pro

pert

y ta

x pr

ogra

ms,

by

Stat

e, p

rogr

am t

ype,

elig

ibili

ty, a

nd a

d va

lore

m c

hara

cter

isti

cs (

2000

)

Eli

gibi

lity

req

uire

men

tsM

odif

ied

ad v

alor

em

Min

imum

Max

imum

Min

imum

Man

agem

ent

Per

cent

Min

imum

Mod

ifie

dO

rigi

nal

Pro

duct

ivit

yC

apit

aliz

atio

nS

tate

Pro

gram

nam

eP

rogr

am t

ype

acre

age

acre

age

His

tory

inco

me

plan

stoc

ked

grow

thra

tera

tecl

asse

sP

rice

rate

Cos

ts

- -

- -

- -

perc

ent -

- -

- -

-pe

rcen

t

Ala

bam

aC

lass

III

Inco

me

1020

4A

genc

y4.

50.1

5 (o

fca

pita

liza

tion

set

Y*P

)

Ala

ska

Exe

mpt

ion

Ari

zona

Cla

ss I

Mod

ifie

d25

ad v

alor

em

Ark

ansa

sIn

com

e20

2010

-yea

rca

pita

liza

tion

aver

age

Cal

ifor

nia

Tim

berl

and

Inco

me

15 c

ubic

prod

ucti

onca

pita

liza

tion

ft/a

cre

zone

s

Col

orad

oA

gric

ultu

ral

Inco

me

40Y

es10

2929

13la

ndca

pita

liza

tion

Con

nect

icut

For

estl

and

Inco

me

2512

.4ca

pita

liza

tion

Del

awar

ea.

For

est-

use

land

Det

erm

ined

-10

2 yr

s$1

,000

/yr

use

valu

e

b. C

omm

erci

alE

xem

ptio

n10

Yes

f

ores

t pla

ntat

ion

Flo

rida

Agr

icul

tura

lIn

com

e7

$30

to12

.6$1

2.85

/pu

rpos

esca

pita

liza

tion

$70/

cord

acre

Geo

rgia

a. A

gric

ultu

ral

Mod

ifie

d2,

000

7510

09

p

refe

rent

ial

ad v

alor

em

ass

essm

ent

b. C

onse

rvat

ion

Inco

me

2,00

0

use

capi

tali

zati

onan

d ad

val

orem

Haw

aii

Tim

ber

farm

Det

erm

ined

-use

10Y

espr

oper

tyva

lue

Idah

oa.

For

estl

and

Ad

valo

rem

5

less

than

5

acr

es

b. F

ores

tlan

dsIn

com

e5

5,00

012

5-ye

ar

tax

capi

tali

zati

onav

erag

e

c. F

ores

tB

are

ad

pro

duct

sva

lore

m

yie

ld ta

x

Illi

nois

a. O

ther

far

mla

ndIn

com

e.

Yes

4

b. V

eget

ativ

eC

apit

aliz

atio

n66

ft.

1633

.3

fil

ter

stri

pco

ntin

ued

�

Tabl

e 8—

Stat

e fo

rest

pro

pert

y ta

x pr

ogra

ms,

by

Stat

e, p

rogr

am t

ype,

elig

ibili

ty, a

nd a

d va

lore

m c

hara

cter

isti

cs (

2000

) (c

onti

nued

)

Eli

gibi

lity

req

uire

men

tsM

odif

ied

ad v

alor

em

Min

imum

Max

imum

Min

imum

Man

agem

ent

Per

cent

Min

imum

Mod

ifie

dO

rigi

nal

Pro

duct

ivit

yC

apit

aliz

atio

nS

tate

Pro

gram

nam

eP

rogr

am t

ype

acre

age

acre

age

His

tory

inco

me

plan

stoc

ked

grow

thra

tera

tecl

asse

sP

rice

rate

Cos

ts

- -

- -

- -

perc

ent -

- -

- -

-pe

rcen

t

Indi

ana

a. C

lass

ifie

dFl

at10

f

ores

tlan

d($

1 pe

r ac

re)

b. W

oodl

and

Mod

ifie

d50

33.3

100

ad v

alor

em

c. W

indb

reak

s50

ft.

d. W

ildl

ife

Fla

t<

10 a

c.d.

hab

itat

($1

per

acre

)

e. F

ilte

r st

rips

Fla

t20

ft.

70 f

t.($

1 pe

r ac

re)

Iow

aa.

For

est

Exe

mpt

ion

220

0

res

erva

tion

tree

s/ac

.

b. A

gric

ultu

ral

Inco

me

7

use

capi

tali

zati

on

Kan

sas

Agr

icul

tura

lIn

com

e30

.0us

eca

pita

liza

tion

Ken

tuck

yA

gric

ultu

ral

Inco

me

10la

ndca

pita

liza

tion

& a

d va

lore

m

Lou

isia

naT

imbe

rlan

dIn

com

e 3

$2,0

00/y

r4

10$6

.53

capi

tali

zati

on/a

c

Mai

neF

ores

tlan

dP

rodu

ctiv

ity

10Y

es

Mar

ylan

dA

gric

ultu

ral

Det

erm

ined

Yes

use

use

valu

e

Mas

sach

uset

tsa.

For

estl

and

Mod

ifie

d10

Yes

16.7

5% f

mv

ad v

alor

em

b. R

ecre

atio

nM

odif

ied

525

% f

mv

la

ndad

val

orem

Mic

higa

na.

Pri

vate

for

est

Flat

160

1,20

0

res

erva

tion

($1

per

acre

)tr

ees

b. C

omm

erci

alF

lat

Yes

20 c

u.

for

est r

eser

ve($

1 pe

r ac

re)

ft/a

c/yr

Min

neso

taa.

Tim

berl

and

(2b)

Mod

ifie

d1.

2ad

val

orem

b. T

ree

grow

th ta

xP

rodu

ctiv

ity

5

Mis

siss

ippi

Agr

icul

tura

lIn

com

e15

5>

10us

eca

pita

liza

tion

Mis

sour

iF

ores

tF

lat

20cr

opla

nds

($3

per

acre

)co

ntin

ued

�

Tabl

e 8—

Stat

e fo

rest

pro

pert

y ta

x pr

ogra

ms,

by

Stat

e, p

rogr

am t

ype,

elig

ibili

ty, a

nd a

d va

lore

m c

hara

cter

isti

cs (

2000

) (c

onti

nued

)

Eli

gibi

lity

req

uire

men

tsM

odif

ied

ad v

alor

em

Min

imum

Max

imum

Min

imum

Man

agem

ent

Per

cent

Min

imum

Mod

ifie

dO

rigi

nal

Pro

duct

ivit

yC

apit

aliz

atio

nS

tate

Pro

gram

nam

eP

rogr

am t

ype

acre

age

acre

age

His

tory

inco

me

plan

stoc

ked

grow

thra

tera

tecl

asse

sP

rice

rate

Cos

ts

- -

- -

- -

perc

ent -

- -

- -

-pe

rcen

t

Mon

tana

For

estl

and

Inco

me

155

capi

tali

zati

on

Neb

rask

aA

gric

ultu

ral

Mod

ifie

d80

land

ad v

alor

em

Nev

ada

Agr

icul

tura

lM

odif

ied

75

use

ad v

alor

em

New

For

estl

and

Det

erm

ined

10H

amps

hire

use

valu

e

New

Jer

sey

Agr

icul

tura

lD

eter

min

ed 5

2 yr

sY

es5

use

use

valu

e

New

Mex

ico

Agr

icul

tura

lIn

com

e 1

use

capi

tali

zati

on

New

Yor

kF

ores

tlan

dM

odif

ied

50Y

es80

100

(480

-a)

ad v

alor

em

Nor

thF

ores

tlan

dIn

com

e20

9C

arol

ina

capi

tali

zati

on

Nor

th D

akot

aF

ores

t ste

w-

Fla

t10

ards

hip

tax

($0.

50 p

er a

cre)

Ohi

oa.

Cur

rent

Inco

me

103

yrs

$2,5

00/y

r

agr

icul

tura

lca

pita

liza

tion

u

se v

alue

b. F

ores

tM

odif

ied

10Y

es50

100

ta

x la

wad

val

orem

Okl

ahom

aT

imbe

rlan

dM

odif

ied

ad v

alor

em

Ore

gon

(New

pro

gram

)A

d va

lore

m

Pen

nsyl

vani

aF

ores

t res

erve

sIn

com

e10

9.5

$4.7

1/ac

capi

tali

zati

on

Rho

de I

slan

dF

ores

tlan

dD

eter

min

edY

esus

e va

lue

Sou

thA

gric

ultu

ral

Inco

me

5C

arol

ina

use

capi

tali

zati

on

Sou

thA

gric

ultu

ral

Det

erm

ined

Dak

ota

land

use

valu

e

Tenn

esse

eF

ores

tlan

dIn

com

eY

esca

pita

liza

tion

and

ad v

alor

emco

ntin

ued

��

Tabl

e 8—

Stat

e fo

rest

pro

pert

y ta

x pr

ogra

ms,

by

Stat

e, p

rogr

am t

ype,

elig

ibili

ty, a

nd a

d va

lore

m c

hara

cter

isti

cs (

2000

) (c

onti

nued

)

Eli

gibi

lity

req

uire

men

tsM

odif

ied

ad v

alor

em

Min

imum

Max

imum

Min

imum

Man

agem

ent

Per

cent

Min

imum

Mod

ifie

dO

rigi

nal

Pro

duct

ivit

yC

apit

aliz

atio

nS

tate

Pro

gram

nam

eP

rogr

am t

ype

acre

age

acre

age

His

tory

inco

me

plan

stoc

ked

grow

thra

tera

tecl

asse

sP

rice

rate

Cos

ts

- -

- -

- -

perc

ent -

- -

- -

-pe

rcen

t

Texa

sT

imbe

rlan

dIn

com

e5

of 7

4ca

pita

liza

tion

year

s

Uta

hA

gric

ultu

reD

eter

min

ed 5

2 yr

s6

use

use

valu

e

Ver

mon

tM

anag

edD

eter

min

ed25

Yes

fore

stla

ndus

e va

lue

Vir

gini

aF

ores

t use

Inco

me

2040

8.58

capi

tali

zati

on

Was

hing

ton

a. C

lass

ifie

dD

eter

min

ed20

f

ores

tlan

dus

e va

lue

b. D

esig

nate

dD

eter

min

ed20

2

0

for

estl

and

use

valu

e

c. O

pen

spac

eD

eter

min

ed 5

ti

mbe

rus

e va

lue

Wes

t Vir

gini

aM

anag

edIn

com

e10

Yes

403

tim

berl

and

capi

tali

zati

on

Wis

cons

inM

anag

edFl

at10

Yes

20 c

u. f

t.fo

rest

($0.

83 p

er a

cre)

per

acre

Wyo

min

gA

gric

ultu

ral

Inco

me

7.67

land

capi

tali

zati

on

Not

e: F

air

mar

ket v

alue

is in

dica

ted

by “

fmv.

” F

or M

inne

sota

and

New

Yor

k, “

2b”

and

“”48

0-a”

ref

er to

sec

tion

s in

Sta

te la

w, r

espe

ctiv

ely.

��

Tabl

e 9—

Stat

e fo

rest

pro

pert

y ta

x pr

ogra

ms,

by

Stat

e, a

dmin

istr

atio

n, p

enal

ties

, and

sev

eran

ce-y

ield

cha

ract

eris

tics

(20

00)

Adm

inis

trat

ion

Pen

alti

esS

ever

ance

or

yiel

d ta

xO

ther

cha

ract

eris

tics

Sta

te a

ndC

ontr

act

Per

cent

of

Per

cent

of

Per

cent

Num

ber

ofP

rivi

lege

Per

cent

of

prog

ram

nam

eA

ppli

cati

on

F

eeA

genc

ype

riod

Rol

lbac

kIn

tere

stin

vent

ory

stum

page

Type

or s

etca

tego

ries

tax

seve

ranc

e

Ala

bam

aC

lass

III

One

-tim

eC

ount

y3

year

sS

ever

ance

Set

14E

xem

ptio

nS

tand

ing

asse

ssor

tim

ber

Ala

ska

Sev

eran

ceL

ocal

Aux

ilia

ryS

tate

fore

sts

Ari

zona

Cla

ss I

Sev

eran

ceSe

t2

Ark

ansa

sS

ever

ance

Set

2S

peci

al$0

.15/

acre

tim

berl

and

for

fire

tax

prot

ecti

on

Cal

ifor

nia

Tim

berl

and

pro-

Cou

nty

Up

toY

ield

2.9

Exe

mpt

ion

Sta

ndin

gdu

ctio

n zo

nes

boar

d10

yea

rsti

mbe

r

Col

orad

oA

gric

ultu

ral

Sta

teN

one

land

agen

cy

Con

nect

icut

For

estl

and

Yes

Sta

teY

ield

2 to

10

Con

veya

nce

1% to

fore

ster

tax

10 %

of

sale

pri

ce

Del

awar

ea.

For

est u

seY

esC

ount

y1

year

Non

eE

xem

ptio

nC

omm

erci

al

land

asse

ssor

b. C

omm

erci

alY

esS

tate

1 ye

arN

one

f

ores

tag

ency

p

lant

atio

n

Flo

rida

Agr

icul

tura

lO

ne-t

ime

Cou

nty

Non

epu

rpos

esap

prai

ser

Geo

rgia

a. A

gric

. pre

fere

n-Y

ield

Non

e

tial

ass

essm

ent

b. C

onse

rvat

ion

Yie

ldP

erce

nt

use

of f

air

mar

ket

valu

e

Haw

aii

Tim

ber

farm

Yes

Sta

te20

yea

rsY

esN

one

prop

erty

agen

cyco

ntin

ued

��

Tabl

e 9—

Stat

e fo

rest

pro

pert

y ta

x pr

ogra

ms,

by

Stat

e, a

dmin

istr

atio

n, p

enal

ties

, and

sev

eran

ce-y

ield

cha

ract

eris

tics

(20

00)

(con

tinu

ed)

Adm

inis

trat

ion

Pen

alti

esS

ever

ance

or

yiel

d ta

xO

ther

cha

ract

eris

tics

Sta

te a

ndC

ontr

act

Per

cent

of

Per

cent

of

Per

cent

Num

ber

ofP

rivi

lege

Per

cent

of

prog

ram

nam

eA

ppli

cati

on

F

eeA

genc

ype

riod

Rol

lbac

kIn

tere

stin

vent

ory

stum

page

Type

or s

etca

tego

ries

tax

seve

ranc

e

Idah

oa.

For

estl

and

Non

e3%

a. le

ss th

an 5

acr

es

b. F

ores

tlan

ds ta

x10

yea

rsN

one

c. F

ores

t pro

duct

s10

yea

rsY

ield

c. y

ield

tax

Illi

nois

a. O

ther

far

mla

ndY

ield

4%

b. V

eget

ativ

eY

ield

4%

fil

ter

stri

p

Indi

ana

a. C

lass

ifie

dD

ept.

ofN

one

a. f

ores

tlan

dN

atur

alR

esou

rces

b. W

oodl

and

Non

e

c. W

indb

reak

sN

one

d. W

ildl

ife

habi

tats

Non

e

e. F

ilte

r st

rips

Non

e

Iow

aa.

For

est

Cou

nty

Non

e

res

erva

tion

asse

ssor

b. A

gric

ultu

ral u

seN

one

Kan

sas

Agr

icul

tura

l us

eN

one

Ken

tuck

yA

gric

ultu

ral

land

Non

e

Lou

isia

naT

imbe

rlan

dY

esP

aris

h4

year

sS

ever

ance

2.25

%6

For

est

$0.0

8/ac

asse

ssor

to 5

%pr

otec

tion

tax

Mai

neF

ores

tlan

d5

year

sN

one

Mar

ylan

dA

gric

ultu

ral

Use

Yes

Dep

t. of

15 y

ears

Non

eN

atur

alR

esou

rces

Mas

sach

uset

tsa.

For

estl

and

Eve

ryS

tate

Yes

Yes

Yie

ld8%

10 y

ears

fore

ster

b. R

ecre

atio

n la

ndY

ield

8%co

ntin

ued

��

Tabl

e 9—

Stat

e fo

rest

pro

pert

y ta

x pr

ogra

ms,

by

Stat

e, a

dmin

istr

atio

n, p

enal

ties

, and

sev

eran

ce-y

ield

cha

ract

eris

tics

(20

00)

(con

tinu

ed)

Adm

inis

trat

ion

Pen

alti

esS

ever

ance

or

yiel

d ta

xO

ther

cha

ract

eris

tics

Sta

te a

ndC

ontr

act

Per

cent

of

Per

cent

of

Per

cent

Num

ber

ofP

rivi

lege

Per

cent

of

prog

ram

nam

eA

ppli

cati

on

F

eeA

genc

ype

riod

Rol

lbac

kIn

tere

stin

vent

ory

stum

page

Type

or s

etca

tego

ries

tax

seve

ranc

e

Mic

higa

na.

Pri

vate

for

est

Cou

nty

5Y

ield

5%a.

res

erva

tion

asse

ssor

b. C

omm

erci

al Y

es$1

/ac

7-15

Yie

ld5%

b. f

ores

t res

erve

year

s pl

us$1

/acr

e

Min

neso

taa.

Tim

berl

and

(2b)

Non

eb.

Tre

e gr

owth

tax

10 y

ears

Yes

Non

e

Mis

siss

ippi

Agr

icul

tura

l us

eC

ount

yS

ever

ance

12F

ores

t$0

.09/

acas

sess

orac

reag

eta

x

Mis

sour

iF

ores

t cr

opla

nds

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yie

ld6%

Mon

tana

For

estl

and

Sev

eran

ce$0

.15/

mbf

Neb

rask

aA

gric

ultu

ral

land

Non

e

Nev

ada

Agr

icul

tura

l us

eC

ount

yN

one

asse

ssor

New

Jer

sey

Agr

icul

tura

l us

eA

nnua

lS

tate

3 ye

ars

Non

eag

ency

New

Mex

ico

Agr

icul

tura

l us

eY

esC

ount

yS

ever

ance

0.13

%R

esou

rce

0.03

75%

asse

ssor

exci

se ta

xfo

r ti

mbe

rpr

oces

sing

New

Yor

kF

ores

tlan

dA

nnua

lC

ount

y10

yea

rY

ield

6%(4

80-a

)as

sess

orro

llin

g

Nor

th C

arol

ina

For

estl

and

Yes

Cou

nty

3 ye

ars

Yes

Sev

eran

ce4

asse

ssor

Nor

th D

akot

aF

ores

t ste

war

d-Y

esC

ount

y5

year

sN

one

ship

tax

com

mis

sion

er

Ohi

o a. C

urre

nt a

gri-

Ann

ual

$25

Cou

nty

3 ye

ars

Non

ea.

cul

tura

l use

audi

tor

a. v

alue

b. F

ores

t tax

law

Yes

$50

Cou

nty

Non

eau

dito

r

Okl

ahom

aT

imbe

rlan

dN

one

cont

inue

d

��

Tabl

e 9—

Stat

e fo

rest

pro

pert

y ta

x pr

ogra

ms,

by

Stat

e, a

dmin

istr

atio

n, p

enal

ties

, and

sev

eran

ce-y

ield

cha

ract

eris

tics

(20

00)

(con

tinu

ed)

Adm

inis

trat

ion

Pen

alti

esS

ever

ance

or

yiel

d ta

xO

ther

cha

ract

eris

tics

Sta

te a

ndC

ontr

act

Per

cent

of

Per

cent

of

Per

cent

Num

ber

ofP

rivi

lege

Per

cent

of

prog

ram

nam

eA

ppli

cati

on

F

eeA

genc

ype

riod

Rol

lbac

kIn

tere

stin

vent

ory

stum

page

Type

or s

etca

tego

ries

tax

seve

ranc

e

Ore

gon

(New

pro

gram

)Y

ield

$3.1

9/m

bf

Pen

nsyl

vani

aF

ores

t res

erve

sY

esC

ount

y7

year

s6%

Non

ebo

ard

Rho

de I

slan

dF

ores

tlan

dY

esS

tate

Non

eag

ency

Sou

th C

arol

ina

Agr

icul

tura

l us

eY

es6

year

sS

ever

ance

4

Sou

th D

akot

aA

gric

ultu

ral

land

Non

e

Tenn

esse

eF

ores

tlan

dY

esC

ount

yN

one

asse

ssor

Texa

sT

imbe

rlan

dY

esC

ount

y5

year

s7%

Non

eap

prai

ser

Uta

h Agr

icul

ture

use

Yes

Cou

nty

5 ye

ars

Non

eas

sess

or

Ver

mon

tM

anag

edY

es10

yea

rs20

Non

efo

rest

lan

d

Vir

gini

aF

ores

t use

Yes

Cou

nty

6 ye

ars

Sev

eran

ce11

asse

ssor

Was

hing

ton

a. C

lass

ifie

dN

one

10 y

ears

Yie

ld5%

a. f

ores

tlan

dF

ores

t fir

eb.

Des

igna

ted

Yes

Cou

nty

10 y

ears

Yie

ld5%

prot

ecti

onb.

for

estl

and

asse

ssor

tax

c. O

pen

spac

eY

es 7

yea

rsY

ield

5%c.

tim

ber

Wes

t Vir

gini

aM

anag

ed5

year

9%Y

ield

3.22

%W

oodl

and

$2 p

erti

mbe

rlan

dta

xpa

rcel

Wis

cons

inM

anag

ed f

ores

t25

or

Unl

imit

ed5

Yie

ld5%

50 y

ears

Wyo

min

gA

gric

ultu

ral

land

Non

e

Not

e: F

or p

rogr

am n

ame

and

type

in a

ppli

cati

on c

olum

n re

fer

to ta

ble

8.

��

of annual growth for taxation. Only two States, Maineand Minnesota, use annual growth programs, in whichannual growth is multiplied by an average price that isthen reduced by a legislatively determined percentage.(Hibbard and others 2001, Purdue University 2002).

• Ad valorem tax program—Ad valorem tax systemsare the second most-common type of property taxprogram for forestland (tables 8 and 9). Most advalorem forestland property tax programs are modifiedin nature, with very few utilizing a full fair-marketvalue as the basis for property valuation. Mostprograms also reduce the fair-market value by somepercentage, and the reduction is often greater forforested land than for land that is not in a forestedcondition. Ad valorem programs in many States(especially those with very limited forestland area)simply combine forestland into an agricultural classi-fication. In yet other States, a special forest classifi-cation is established, and forestland is taxed using areduced fair market valuation. The differences in ratereductions are great, with some States instituting aslight reduction in valuation and other States provid-ing more than a 50-percent reduction in taxable value.

• Flat tax program—Flat tax programs tax all lands atthe same rate, although some are accompanied by ayield tax (tables 8 and 9). Nine such programs exist atthe time of this writing (four of these in one State).Flat tax rates vary from $0.50 per acre to $3.00 peracre, with an average charge of $1.16 per acre.

• Tax exemption program—Property tax exemption pro-grams, in which certain forestlands are exempted fromproperty taxation for a limited or indefinite period oftime, are relatively rare in the United States, occurringonly in Alaska, Delaware, and Iowa (tables 8 and 9).

Three States (Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee) com-bine an income capitalization valuation mechanismand an ad valorem or modified ad valorem valuationmechanism. These programs value land by assigninga percentage of an income capitalization valuationplus a percentage of an ad valorem valuation to equala full valuation. Georgia bases its full “current use”value on 65 percent of an income capitalization valueand 35 percent of comparable market sales.

State governments can also levy an additional propertytax on forestland. Generally, these taxes are for suchmanagement activities as fire protection or for discour-aging changes in forestland use, although they mayalso include severance taxes that are sometimes leviedagainst processors as well as producers. Examples ofsuch tax programs are the Privilege Tax (Alabama),Special Timberland Tax (Arkansas), Conveyance Tax(Connecticut), Forest Protection Tax (Louisiana),

Forest Acreage Tax (Mississippi), Resource ExciseTax (New Mexico), Land-Use Change Tax (RhodeIsland), Forest Fire Protection Tax (Washington), andWoodland Tax (West Virginia) (Hibbard and others2001, Purdue University 2002).

Fiscal incentive programs—Many States have developedcost-share and other fiscal incentive programs to helpprivate landowners manage forest resources sustainably(Bullard and Straka 1988, Ellefson and others 1995) (table6). In 1992, State fiscal incentive programs targeting refor-estation existed in 8 of 10 States and fostered forest prac-tices important to water quality in 6 of 10 States. Fiscalincentives were common even for purposes of promotingpractices that enhanced forest recreation and aestheticqualities (25 States), and protecting wildlife and endan-gered species (28 States).

A variety of State agencies offer financial assistance toprivate landowners. For example, in 1985, the wildlifeagencies of 12 States provided fiscal incentives to privatelandowners to manage forested habitats as required byvarious species of wildlife (Wigley and Melchiors 1987)(table 7). Seven cabinet-level units of State governmentand 29 first-tier subcabinet units implemented programsthat provided fiscal assistance to private landowners in2000. Three governing or advisory bodies of State govern-ment did this also. In addition, many agencies of Stategovernment also offered tax and fiscal incentives for pur-poses of economic development and business promotion ina forest resource context (in 2000: 47 cabinet-level units,46 subcabinet-level units) (Ellefson and others 2001,2002).

Many State fiscal incentive programs are developed to com-plement Federal cost-share programs either by providingfunding or by addressing specific resource needs notaddressed by Federal cost-share programs (Appendix A).Most State programs concentrate on reforestation andrelated activities that promote investment in healthy andsustainable forests. For example, the Wisconsin ForestLandowner Grant Program provides up to 65 percent cost-share assistance (up to $10,000 per year) to private land-owners within the State to develop land management plansand implement certain land management practices. Thelatter include tree planting and timber stand improvementmeasures such as crop-tree release, crop-tree pruning, andthinning. Such practices can be directed toward timberproduction as well as toward enhancement of fish and wild-life habitat (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources2001). Virginia’s cost-share program provides 40 percentof the cost of restoration or management of pine, and isfunded by Virginia’s forest industry with matching fundsfrom the Virginia general fund (Virginia Department ofForestry 2001).

��


Forestland owners in the United States have a long historyof making long-term investments in reforestation and vari-ous silvicultural practices. Tax policies and fiscal incentiveprograms can influence the extent to which the Nation’sprivate landowners invest in the management of theirforests and maintain the land in a forested condition. Inlight of the background and current conditions discussed,the following observations are made about the identifica-tion and measurement of the legal and institutional capa-city to foster investment that is important to sustainableforestry.

• Federal and State governments use taxation and fiscalassistance programs to influence long-term investmentin the use and management of private forests. Thesetypes of programs enable private forestland owners toobtain assistance in underwriting capital investmentsdeemed necessary to provide for a variety of importantbenefits associated with forests.

• Taxation programs applicable to all citizens, or exclu-sively to owners of private forests, are of various typesand are implemented by local, State, and Federal gov-ernments. They include taxes on income, estates, andproperty, and each of these programs can affect theefficiency and profitability of private investments inforest management.

• Federal income tax provisions, such as those that applyto reforestation and other silvicultural practices, helpreduce the overall income tax liability of forest owners.However, with the exception of reforestation amortiza-tion provisions, investment credit provisions, and provi-sion for exclusion of reforestation cost-share paymentsfrom income, few of these measures are designedexclusively to encourage investment in private forests.Reforestation investment credit provides taxpayers adirect offset against tax liability for reforestation activi-ties. With a credit limit of 10 percent of qualified refor-estation expenses up to $10,000, the credit’s annualbenefit is greatest for those taxpayers with modestannual reforestation investments.

• Federal and State estate tax laws can place significantburdens on the heirs of highly valuable forest properties.In order to satisfy death tax liabilities often associatedwith estate transfer, forestland may be sold or timbermay be prematurely liquidated. Current estate tax lawsdo have provisions (current-use valuation, use of con-servation easements) that can significantly reduceforestland estate tax burdens.

• State income taxes provide very limited incentive forlong-term investment in forest resources, although someState codes provide special benefits to owners of privateforests. State income tax programs often use the Federal

income tax program as a basis for establishing liabilityfor State taxes generally.

• Forestland is taxed in a variety of ways by State andlocal units of government. Most property tax programshave provisions that reduce net tax liability. The fourtypes of property tax programs most frequently appliedto private forests are current use, modified ad valorem,flax tax, and tax exemption.

• The Federal Government has a number of financialincentive programs that affect investment in forests.These are implemented by various Federal agencies.They are designed to complement private investments ina range of forestry practices (for example, reforestation,timber-stand improvement). In recent years, the scopeof forest benefits and related management activitiesaddressed by these programs has broadened consider-ably (for example, wildlife, recreation). Unfortunately,the level of funding for Federal forestry cost-share pro-grams has varied significantly over time (for example,the Forestry Incentives Program is currently funded atone-half its 1993 level).

• Financial incentive programs have also been establishedby State governments and are often complementary toFederal fiscal incentive programs. The focus of Stateprograms and the level of funding they offer to privatelandowners vary extensively among States.

Issues and Trends

The literature identifies a number of major issues andtrends associated with investing in forest resources, andwith the policy tools directed at such investments. Exam-ples of this literature (from which the following issues andtrends are drawn) are: Binkley and others 1996, Ellefson1989, Gaddis and others 1995, Haney and others 2001,Hibbard and others 2001, Klemperer 1989, NationalResearch Council 1998, Peters and others 1998, U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 2001a, Wearand Greis 2002, and Yin and Izlar 2001.

• Forests are increasingly looked to as viable long-termfinancial investments, especially by institutional invest-ors. In the mid-1980s, only six timberland investmentmanagement organizations existed in the U.S., and theirtotal assets were less than $100 million. By 1997, due inpart to changes in tax laws, 11 investment companiesheld timberland assets in the U.S. estimated at $6 billion.This rapid growth in institutional timberland investmentsuggests that forestland is increasingly viewed as a com-petitive investment asset. Indeed, the average annualreturn for institutional timberland investments exceededthat of the S&P 500 index over a 10-year period endingin 1996.

��

• Economic and demographic factors have increased theinfluence that Federal and State estate and inheritancetaxes have on forest conditions and management actions.The high marginal tax burdens associated with suchtaxes can alter long-term forest management goals andinvestment decisions. In extreme situations, these taxescan result in premature timber liquidation to satisfy taxliabilities. Certain Federal estate tax provisions for for-estland (current-use valuation and exclusion for conser-vation easements) can have a substantial effect onFederal and estate tax liability.

• The owners of forestland must have a good understand-ing of the many and often complex provisions of Federaland State tax laws that pertain to forest ownership. Thelack of such an understanding can dramatically affectthe profitability of forestland investments. Recent analy-ses suggest that landowners who fail to use advantage-ous income tax provisions can lose more than one-thirdof their timberland revenues to income taxes.

• Land management practices eligible for cost-shareassistance through Federal and State fiscal incentiveprograms have increased considerably in number andare likely to increase further. Whereas the initial focusof such programs was largely on improving timberlandproductivity, cost-share programs today provide finan-cial assistance for a wide range of forest and relatedmanagement activities having wildlife, water quality,and environmental benefits.

• Conservation easements and property tax programs areincreasingly looked to as tools to help protect forest-lands from being converted to nonforest uses, especiallywhere development pressure is great. When appropri-ately combined with other tax and fiscal incentives,conservation easements apparently can be useful toolsto accomplish interests in forest sustainability.

• Useful analyses of the efficiency and effectiveness offorest tax and fiscal incentive programs have been veryfew in number. Significant uncertainty exists about theefficiency of such programs, the appropriate scale fortheir implementation, and the proper combination inwhich they should be applied. The lack of such analysisof State and Federal forest tax programs is of specialconcern.


Specification

The variables or combinations of variables that can beused to describe the economic climate that fosters theconservation and sustainable management of foreststhrough long-term investment are numerous. Such a

climate is the collective influence of market conditions,taxation and investment laws and policies, trade policies,financial and related assistance to forestland owners, andregulatory conditions on the management and use of theNation’s private forest resources. In 1999, the NationalAssociation of State Foresters surveyed State forestryagency information about investment and tax policies. Theassociation reported that only eight States had such infor-mation. Of these States, two had abundant information,four had sufficient information, and two had some infor-mation. Two States reported that the quality of theirinformation was excellent, four that it was adequate, andtwo that it was poor (National Association of StateForesters 1999).

Conditions contributing to the investment climate forforest management (for example, tax policy, cost-shareprograms) have been the subject of analyses and research.Unfortunately, comprehensive ongoing assessments ofthese factors, and of their collective influence on theinvestment climate for forest resources management, arenot being conducted. There is no centralized and syste-matic collection and no ongoing analysis of informationabout Federal and State programs that are designed toencourage long-term investment in forest resourcesmanagement. Currently, such information (about programtype, scope, and investment levels) is scattered among avariety of public and private organizations. Gaps in infor-mation about the use and effectiveness of various publicpolicies and programs directed at forestland owners areespecially noticeable. For example, little information isavailable about forestland owner use of income tax pro-visions or about returns on public sector investments.

The following information gaps exist:

• Measurement information—It has not been determinedwhat variables should be measured to describe and eval-uate the overall investment climate for forest manage-ment. What variables contribute to forestland ownerinterest in making long-term investments? How can theybest be described and evaluated? What variables are thebest predictors of changes in the investment climate forforest management?

• Cumulative effect information—Information has notbeen compiled on the extent to which laws, policies,and programs collectively foster a climate conducive toinvesting in forest resources. How do the various taxa-tion, incentive, and regulatory tools collectively influ-ence the extent and overall performance of forestinvestment? What is the interdependence of combina-tions of laws, policies, and programs? Do certain com-binations of policy tools work to effectively encourageor discourage forest investment?

�

• Effectiveness information—Information is incompleteon how various laws, policies, and programs have influ-enced forest investment decisions and performance. Docertain policies really make a difference in the level ofinvestment in forest resources, or would such invest-ment occur without their existence? Can efficiencies begained by modifying the scale of programs designed toencourage landowner investment in forests? Do weunderstand the relative effectiveness of various policytools in promoting investment in forests? Do we suffi-ciently understand the attitudes and perceptions offorestland owners toward which tax and fiscal incentivesare directed?

• Participation information—Information has not beenassembled on the rate of forestland owner participationin various programs designed to encourage forest invest-ment. To what extent do forestland owners participate invarious programs designed to encourage long-termforest investment? How many forestland owners takefull advantage of the various tax provisions available tothem? Do levels of participation reflect only the effec-tiveness of policy tools, or do they reflect lack of land-owner awareness and understanding?

• Investment information—Information on the magnitudeof forest investment has not been compiled. What is theoverall level of investment in forestland? How does forestinvestment vary among groupings of private forestlandowners? How do levels of private forest investmentcompare with levels of investment in public forests? Arethere regional variations in forestland investment? Howdoes U.S. investment in forestland compare to that inother parts of the world? How have investment levelschanged over time?

• Public investment information—Information aboutlevels of Federal investments in private forests has beencompiled, but information on State-level investments inprivate forests is incomplete. What is the current levelof public investment in the management of private forestresources? How has this level of investment changedover time? How much do State governments invest inthe management of private forests?

• Encouragement and promotion information—Informa-tion has not been assembled about the methods used toencourage private investment in forestland. Whatapproaches are used to encourage such private invest-ment? What information is made available to potentialinvestors and how is it presented? How effective andefficient are programs for fostering landowner invest-ment? Are certain types of forestland owners more aptto respond to certain information delivery methods?How do private forestland owners become aware ofinvestment opportunities and assistance?

Recommendations

Our ability to determine the extent to which the economicframework encourages and rewards investment in forestresources, as suggested by Indicator 58, is limited by alack of information in various areas. The informationvoids that need to be addressed are considerable. Thefollowing actions seem appropriate:

• Comprehensive periodic reviews. Comprehensive reviewsof the economic climate that supports long-term invest-ment in private forest resources should be conductedperiodically. These reviews should be guided by theabove-suggested information deficiencies and shouldgive special attention to describing the factors thatcontribute to or detract from landowner investments inforest resources. Compiling information on the numer-ous programs available to private forestland owners toassist them in making long-term investments should bea central part of such an initiative.

• Responsibility for conducting reviews. At present, nosingle source of information describes and assesses themyriad tax laws, cost-share programs, and regulatoryprovisions affecting private forest investment. Responsi-bility for collecting and analyzing this informationshould be assigned to a specific unit within a Federalagency (for example, the USDA Forest Service Stateand Private Forestry unit), college, university, or non-profit organization (for example, the National Associa-tion of State Foresters). The organization assigned thisresponsibility should have substantial experience andexpertise in conducting analyses and reviews of theinvestment climate for forest management.

• Resources needed for reviews. Invest sufficient resourcesto conduct reviews that will lead to increased under-standing of the economic climate for investing in forestresources, the factors contributing to this climate, pri-vate-sector investment response, and needed policy andprogrammatic changes to more effectively promotesustainable forest management.



Indicator 58 is an extremely broad statement that encom-passes a variety of economic dimensions associated withforests. The term “investment policies,” as it relates topromoting sustainable forestry practices, is not definedadequately. Investment policies can include several com-ponents, such as access to capital, investment perform-ance, market access, and resource supply, and the lack ofspecificity hampers analysis of information pertinent tothe indicator. Also, many policies that are enacted for

��

purposes other than the encouragement of forest invest-ment have a direct and often substantial impact on theinvestment climate. Specificity regarding the treatment ofinformation about these policies and programs is needed.The indicator also refers to “nonmarket valuations” and“public policy decisions,” and these concepts need clarifi-cation. Inclusion of the term “regulatory environment” isespecially troubling, as Indicator 51 explicitly addressesregulatory laws and programs directed at forcing the appli-cation of sustainable forest management practices. Andfinally, Indicator 58 does not distinguish between publicand private investment. It appears that the indicator ignoresinvestments in lands that make up over one-third of theNation’s forestland base.

The ability to gather information about economic capacitysuggested by Indicator 58 would be greatly enhanced ifthe indicator were better focused and its wording reducedor modified. One possible approach to a rewording of theindicator is as follows: “. . . provides for policies andprograms that promote the long-term flow of capital intoand out of public and private forest sectors in response tochanges in market and nonmarket forces.”


Indicator 58 appears to overlap with Indicators 1 and 2(extent of forestland), 5 (fragmentation), 12 (plantations),14 (timber removals), 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34 (produc-tion and consumption), 38 (value of investment), 41 (ratesof return on investment), 42 (area under management), 43(non-consumptive-use forest values), 44 and 46 (employ-ment and community needs), 48 (property rights), 51(best-practice codes), 59 (trade policies), 60 (informationand data), 64 (value integrative methods), 65 (new tech-nologies), and 66 (human intervention impacts).

Literature Cited

Bailey, P.D.; Haney, H.L.; Callihan, D.S.; Greene, J.L. 1999. Income taxconsiderations for forest landowners in the South: a case study on taxplanning. Journal of Forestry. 97(4): 10-15.

Binkley, C.S.; Raper, C.F.; Washburn, C.L. 1996. Institutional ownershipof U.S. timberland: history, rationale, and implications for forestmanagement. Journal of Forestry. 94(9): 21-28.


Brockett, C.D.; Gebhard, L. 1999. NIPF tax incentives: do they make adifference? Journal of Forestry. 97(4): 16-21.

Bullard, S.H.; Straka, T.J. 1988. Structure and funding of state-level cost-share programs. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 5: 132-135.

Congressional Information Service. 2000. Agricultural statistics. In:American Statistics Index: 1996. Washington, DC [Not paged].

Deloitte & Touche. 2002. Taxation in North America. www.dtonline.com/northamr. Cincinnati, OH [Date accessed: November 2001].

Ellefson, P.V. 1989. Forest resource economics and policy research:strategic directions for the future. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.403 p.

Ellefson, P.V. 1992. Forest resources policy: process, participants, andprograms. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 504 p.



Ellefson, P.V.; Moulton, R.J.; Kilgore, M.A. 2002. An assessment of Stateagencies that affect forests. Journal of Forestry. 100(6): 35-42.

Federation of Tax Administrators. 2001. A national summary of Stateindividual and corporate income tax rates. http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/tax_stru.html. [Date accessed: November 2001].

Gaddis, D.A.; New, B.D.; Cubbage, F.W.; and others. 1995. Accomplish-ments and economic evaluations of forestry incentives programs: areview. Working Pap. 78. Research Triangle Park, NC: SoutheasternCenter for Forest Economics Research. 47 p + appendix.

Grayson, A.J. 1993. Private forest policy in western Europe. Wallingford,UK: CAP International Publishers. 329 p.

Haney, H.L.; Hoover, W.L.; Siegel, W.C.; Greene, J.L. 2001. Forest land-owners’ guide to Federal income tax. Agric. Handb. 718. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 157 p.

Heath, L.S.; Birdsey, R.A. 1996. Carbon sequestration on nonindustrialprivate forestlands in the U.S. In: Baughman, M.J., ed. Proceedings:symposium on nonindustrial private forests: learning from the past,prospects for the future. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota,Minnesota Extension Service: 326-333.

Hibbard, C.M.; Kilgore, M.A.; Ellefson, P.V. 2001. Property tax programsfocused on forest resources: a review and analysis. Staff Pap. 150. St.Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources.78 p.

Kaiser, F.H.; Royer, J.P. 1997. The appropriate role of U.S. Governmentprograms in fostering U.S. forest investment. In: Schmithusen, F.;Siegel, W.C., eds. Developments in forest and environmental lawinfluencing natural resource management and forestry practices in theUnited States of America and Canada. IUFRO research group 6.13.00,Forest law and environmental legislation. Vienna, Austria: InternationalUnion of Forest Research Organizations: 329-335.

Klemperer, W.D. 1989. Taxation of forest products and forest resources.In: Ellefson, P.V., ed. Forest resource economics and policy research:strategic directions for the future. Boulder, CO: Westview Press:276-287.

Klemperer, W.D. 1996. Forest resource economics and finance. NewYork, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 551 p.

��

Kuuluvainen, J.; Karppinen, H.; Ovaskainen, V. 1996. Landownerobjectives and nonindustrial private timber supply. Forest Science.42(3): 300-309.

Meeks, G. 1982. State incentives for nonindustrial private forestry.Journal of Forestry. 80(1): 18-22.

Minnesota Department of Revenue. 2000. Forestry tax reform: a taxsystem that makes sense for Minnesota. St. Paul, MN: MinnesotaDepartment of Revenue. [Not paged].



National Association of State Foresters. 1999. First approximationassessment report. http://www.stateforesters.org/SFstats.html. [Dateaccessed: November 2001].

National Research Council. 1998. Forested landscape in perspective:prospects and opportunities for sustainable management of America’snonfederal forests. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 249 p.

Peters, D.M.; Haney, H.L., Jr.; Greene, L.L. 1998. The effects of federaland state death and gift taxes on nonindustrial private forestlands in theMidwestern states. Forest Products Journal. 48(9): 35-44.

Purdue University. 2002. Tax management for timberland ownership:national timber tax website. http.://www.timbertax.org. [Date accessed:October 2001].

Sampson, R.N.; DeCoster, L.A. 1997. Public programs for privateforestry: reader on programs and options. Washington, DC: AmericanForests. 100 p.

Smith, B.W.; Vissage, J.S.; Darr, D.R.; Sheffiels, R.M. 2001. Forestresources of the United States: 1997. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-219. St. Paul,MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North CentralResearch Station. 190 p. + map.

Sokolow, A.D. 1998. The changing property tax and state-local relations.Publius. 28(1): 165-197.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Services Agency. 2002. Monthlyactive CRP contract reports. http://www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/cepd/crp_reports.htm. [Date accessed: November 2001].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1990. An analysis of thetimber situation in the United States: 1989-2040. Pts I, II, and III. Gen.Tech. Rep. RM-199. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Station. 268 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2001a. 2000 assessmentof forest and range lands. FS-687. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service. 78 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2001b. State and privateforestry, cooperative forestry programs. http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/programs/loa/index.shtml. [Date accessed: November 2001].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.2001. Conservation programs. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/NRCSProg.html. [Date accessed: November 2001].

U.S. Department of the Treasury. 2002. Federal estate tax program. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i706.pdf. [Date accessed: November 2001].

U.S. General Accounting Office. 1994. Endangered Species Act: infor-mation on species protection on nonfederal lands. GAO/RCED-95-16.Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, Resources,Community, and Economic Development Division. 29 p.

Virginia Department of Forestry. 2001. Conservation Incentive Programfact sheet. vipnet.org/dof. [Date accessed: November 2001].

Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G. 2002. Southern forest resource assessment. Gen.Tech. Rep. SRS-53. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 635 p.

Wigley, T.B.; Melchiors, M.A. 1987. State wildlife management programsfor private lands. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 15:580-584.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2001. Private landownerforestry assistance program guide. http://www.dnr.state.wi.us. Madison,WI. [Date accessed: November 2001].

Yin, R.; Izlar, B. 2001. Supply contract portfolio insurance: applyingfinancial engineering to institutional timberland investment. Journal ofForestry. 99(5): 39-44.

��

Appendix

Forestry Cost-Share Programs Implemented by State Governments

Program title and description

Alabama Agricultural and Conservation Development Program (1985): 60 percent for tree planting, site preparation, andtimber stand improvement; funding level: $750,000 per year; funding source: general State revenue.

California Forest Improvement Program (1980): 75 percent for site preparation, reforestation, stand improvement, planning,and fish and wildlife habitat improvement; funding level: (*); funding source: revenue from sale of State forest timber.

Illinois Forest Development Programs (1983): 83 percent for tree planting, site preparation, and timber stand improvement;funding level: (*); funding source: 4 percent timber harvest fee.

Iowa Woodland Fencing Program (1985): 50 percent for fencing of forestland subject to soil loss from grazing; fundinglevel: (*); funding source: general State revenue.

Louisiana Forest Productivity Program (1998): 50 percent for reforestation and timber stand improvement; funding level:$4.1 million/year; funding source: timber severance tax.

Maryland Woodland Incentives Program (1986): 50 percent for reforestation and timber stand improvement; funding level:(*); funding source: 4 to 5 percent tax on wooded lands transferred to nonagricultural use valuations for property taxes.

Minnesota Forestry Improvement Program (1985): 65 percent for fencing and firebreaks and 50 percent for roadconstruction; funding level: (*); funding source: general State revenue.

Mississippi Forest Resources Development Program (1974): 50 to 75 percent for reforestation and timber standimprovement; funding level: $3 million; funding source: timber harvest tax.

Missouri Soil and Water Conservation Program (1985): 75 percent for tree planting and fencing; funding level: (*), fundingsource: .001 percent sales tax fee.

New Jersey Farmland Preservation Program (1986): 50 percent for plantation establishment, site preparation, and standimprovement; funding level: (*); funding source: State bond fund.

North Carolina Forest Development Program (1978): 40 to 60 percent for tree planting, site preparation, and standimprovement; funding level: $2.2 million per year; funding source: timber harvest tax and general State revenue.

South Carolina Forest Renewal Program (1981): 40 percent for reforestation, stand improvement, and prescribed burning;funding level: $660,000 per year; funding source: timber harvest tax and general State revenue.

Tennessee Reforestation Incentives Program (1997): 50 percent for reforestation and timber stand improvement; fundinglevel: $160,000 per year; funding source: real estate transfer receipts.

Texas Reforestation Foundation Program (1981): 50 percent for reforestation practices; funding level: $350,000 per year;funding source: voluntary forest industry assessment on primary forest products.

Virginia Reforestation Timberland Program (1970): 40 percent for site preparation, tree planting, and stand improvement;funding level: $2.2 million per year; funding source: harvest tax and general State revenue.

Wisconsin Forest Landowner Grant Program (1980s): 65 percent for land management plans, tree planting, and standimprovement; funding level: (*); funding source: (*).

Note: Asterisk indicates information is not readily available.Source: Bullard and Straka (1988); Meeks (1982); U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (2001b).

��

The full text of Indicator 59 is as follows: Extent to whicheconomic frameworks (economic policies and measures)support the conservation and sustainable management offorests through non-discriminatory trade policies forforest products (Montreal Process Working Group 2003).


The interpretation of Indicator 59 reflects the assumptionthat free trade and nondiscriminatory trade advance sus-tainable management of forests. This review of informationand information-gathering capacity will not question thispremise. Measures of the indicator over time should cap-ture domestic trade policy impacts and trends of importsand exports in order to promote transparency in implement-ing trade policy. Indicator measures should capture alsothe use of tariff barriers (import and export duties), non-tariff barriers (subsidies, export controls, below-marketwages, transportation costs) and other factors that distortdomestic and international markets. These types of distor-tions can lead to deforestation and forest degradation byproviding strong disincentives to sustainable forest manage-ment. In addition, policies that distort the marketplace canobscure an understanding of factors, such as economiccosts and benefits, affecting resource allocation and envi-ronmental impacts (Montreal Process Technical AdvisoryCommittee 2000, Montreal Process Working Group 2003,U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 1997).

There are positive effects that can be associated withincreased trade liberalization that would likely result fromnondiscriminatory trade policies. One positive effect oftrade liberalization is to increase investments in sustain-able forest management. Reduced trade barriers and costsallow investors to shift resources from the payment ofpenalties and duties to enhancement of product quality,including environmental quality, in order to successfullycompete in current global markets.


Nondiscriminatory trade can be significantly influencedby the will of governments to encourage a competitive andfair market for domestic industries. Sustainable forest

management is enhanced by the prospect of fair and com-petitive markets for forest products. Countries that developa significant international trade for their forest productsindustries rely on national policies to promote competitiveparticipation in global markets through support for inter-national agreements on the rules of trade.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) serves as the leadinternational institution that facilitates trade by settingguidelines and policies for dispute resolution and tradedevelopment among member countries (World TradeOrganization 2001). The WTO and its member countrieshave defined nondiscriminatory trade practices as thosepractices that do not apply unequal treatment to importsfrom different trading partners “as through preferentialtariff rates for imports from particular countries or traderestrictions that apply to the exports of certain countriesbut not to similar goods from other countries.” Nondis-criminatory trade as referred to by Indicator 59 impliestariff and nontariff effects on trade in wood products.Nonwood forest resources that are traded and whosemanagement contributes to sustainable forest managementare not included in this review because of the difficulty intracking, by trade data codes, wood material in other pro-duct categories such as horticulture, food, and chemicalproducts. The WTO Ministerial Declaration of 2001 estab-lishes three priorities under the trade and environmentsection as: (1) a foundation of multilateral environmentalagreements with respect to scope and application of regu-lations; (2) encouragement of information exchange andobserver inputs; and (3) reduction or elimination of non-tariff and tariff barriers (World Trade Organization 2001).


Nondiscriminatory trade practices form a crucial elementof a country’s overall trade policy with regard to sustain-able economic development and sustainable resourcemanagement. The promotion of free and fair trade requiresmutual cooperation and exchange among countries. It alsothrives under the reciprocal openness of borders underagreed-upon international frameworks and institutions(Barbier and others 1994).

Trade practices can have indirect and direct effects on eco-nomic, social, and environmental elements of a country.Direct discriminatory practices are usually specific appli-cations of tariffs that limit the flow of goods betweencountries. Provisions under the WTO and other trade

1 Ingram, Economic Policy Analyst, and Hicks, Coordinator of TradePolicy, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, InternationalPrograms and Foreign Agricultural Service, Washington, DC.

Forest Products Trade (Indicator 59)

C. Denise Ingram and Michael Hicks1

��

agreements result in a level of monitoring and in assess-ments of the legitimacy of trade systems. Other practices,however, are not as clear-cut. The most-favored-nation(MFN) status, for example, is bestowed upon a countrythat the U.S. finds to have the capacity and political willto participate in trade resulting in the reduction or elimi-nation of tariffs (U.S. Department of State 2002a, 2002b).However, some countries interpret the selection of specificcountries for MFN status as a form of indirect discrimina-tion toward the non-MFN countries.

Several types of nontariff barriers may have indirect effectson trade. Subsidies by a government (i.e., tax incentives,research and development investments) can also be inter-preted as barriers to free trade and a challenge to economicdevelopment. Categories of indirect measures that areindicative of trade imbalances include quantitative restric-tions, measures influencing prices, health and technicalstandards, customs and administrative entry procedures,trade agreements, and ocean freight charges and regula-tions (Bourke 1988). Assessment of these barriers andindirect measures requires a complex of data that reflectdomestic actions under, and reactions to U.S. trade policy.

U.S. Agency Trade Responsibility

The United States participates globally to develop policiesthat support nondiscriminatory practices in forest productstrade. A variety of domestic institutions have responsibili-ties and mandates for trade activities and strategies. U.S.leadership in the coordination of these agencies and pro-grams increasingly reflects environmental linkages totrade, and especially to trade in products from naturalresources.

The U.S. agency primarily responsible for trade negotia-tions and Federal trade policy is the Office of the U.S.Trade Representative (USTR). The USTR administers tradepolicy as mandated by the executive branch of government.Department-level government agencies are representedthrough committee appointments to draft trade policystatements and trade agreements, and to carry out trademandates according to guiding legislation and Executiveorder. Bilateral and multilateral trade agreements fallwithin the purview of the USTR. A brief history of majortrade policy developments provides a context for U.S.interpretations of trade priorities and strategies.

The U.S. Tariff Commission was established in 1916, andwithin the next decade, the concept of the most-favored-nation principle was formally instituted as part of the basicfoundation of U.S. trade policy (U.S. Department of State2002a, 2000b). The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of1934 and the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 gave the Presi-dent the authority to further trade policy through bilateral

and multilateral negotiations. The Reciprocal Trade Agree-ments Act of 1934 provided authority for U.S. participa-tion in the initial rounds of the General Agreement onTariffs and Trade (GATT) held in Geneva, Switzerland in1947. A GATT report in 1971 recommended a push formajor trade negotiations, which took place at the Tokyoround of GATT in 1973. In 1975 the International TradeCommission (ITC) evolved from the former U.S. TariffCommission in conjunction with the signing of the U.S.Trade Act of 1974 (U.S. Department of State 2002a,2000b). The first United Nations (UN) session on tradeand employment established the International TradeOrganization (established in 1946), as an initiative sub-mitted by the United States (U.S. Department of State2002a, 2000b). The UN further facilitates the globaldialogue on trade through the sessions of the UNCommission on Trade and Development.

Policy Trends Affecting Trade

Trade policy developments that affect the forestry andforest products sector favorably include those that result inincreased transparency, effective governance (trade capa-city), and environmental monitoring. Reliable and timelydata must exist in order for countries to analyse the link-ages between trade policies and the sustainability of forestresources production and consumption. In 1996, the Har-monized Commodity Description and Coding System wasapplied to the Standard International Trade Classification(SITC) system. This reflected the expanding number andtypes of traded products, including forest products (U.S.International Trade Commission 2002). This developmentmakes it easier to track trade in forest products and tounderstand the effects of technological change on thistrade.

Illegal logging, illegal wood trade, and associated corrup-tion can be interpreted as nontariff barriers to trade. Thetracking of illegal trade in forest products can draw lessonsfrom the experiences of the Convention on InternationalTrade in Endangered Species of 1973. Through scientificstudy and open debate among its members, the Convention“regulates the international trade in wild animals andplants and their products when it is determined that thistrade does, or potentially could, threaten their survival inthe wild.” The difficulties inherent in tracking and moni-toring trade flows of forest products may invite increasedinvestments in circumvention and corruption, and the costsof gross distortions in market dynamics that result fromillegal activities are borne unsustainably by the resourcebase.

There are concerns that the adoption of certification sys-tems by governments may result in nontariff barriers totrade. Systems of certification require that forest resource

��

management meet certain standards so that the productsmade from those resources are considered environmentallyfriendly. Most certification programs are private-sectorinitiatives. Companies use them as marketing tools in orderto enhance their environmental image. The U.S. Govern-ment does not have a policy on certification. In the UnitedStates, various national and subnational laws and regula-tions provide a reasonable and effective system of promot-ing sustainable forest management on public lands, whilecertification remains a voluntary private-market initiative.

Open Access to Markets

Owners of forest resources will not invest in sustainablemanagement of those resources unless they have reasonableassurance that their investments will have a fair and com-petitive chance of paying off. Those who depend on inter-national trade in forest products for financial success musthave government leadership in forming international poli-cies that encourage free and fair trade. Trade must be basedupon nondiscriminatory policies that can be reciprocatedby other countries that serve as export markets.

Compliance with Tariff Reductions

A general goal of international trade agreements is to strivetoward continually reduced tariffs on forest products. Thereduction of tariffs is usually negotiated and phased inover a period of time. When tariffs are reduced, marketsbecome more competitive (assuming no other barriers ornontariff discriminatory practices are put in place), tradeincreases, and economic development opportunities expandfor participating countries. The United States currently haslittle to no tariff on forest products imported from mostcountries.

Effects of Domestic Subsidies on Trade

Countries that provide subsidies to an industry increasethe lack of will and decrease the opportunity for industrymembers to participate in markets under normal decision-making. Subsidies mask market dynamics, and participantsneed information about market dynamics in order to makegood business decisions. A lack of data on market dyna-mics thus reduces the likelihood of success and thereforereduces the production and income potential for thecountry.

Labor Costs and Investment

Higher labor costs in any given sector influence variousbusiness decisions, including the location of productionunits, and thus influence the flow of goods. Lower laborcosts in conjunction with the raw material costs of pro-duction influence the movement of investment from one

country to another. Industries will take advantage of lowerlabor costs to produce similar goods at lower cost, therebyincreasing profit margins. The impact of production loca-tion choices directly influences which resources will beselected as raw material for wood processing. The abilityof a country to sustainably meet raw material resourcedemands is directly affected by decisions for investmentsby the industry. Increased investments in a country due tolower labor costs can result in a greater strain on localresources. Likewise, countries that maintain higher laborcosts in a developed and technologically advanced indus-try will influence the shift of investments to areas wherecosts are lower. Meanwhile, the higher income populationsmay now have the luxury of “purchasing” other forestproducts and services in the form of leisure activities,environmental concerns and support, asset management,and other cultural, religious, and social activities thatreflect and promote sustainable forest management.

Current Conditions

The consumption and trade of forest products has increasedapproximately fourfold in real terms over the last 30 years,and is projected to increase further in the years ahead.Forest products are broadly defined to include unprocessedwood products (for example, chips, logs, lumber) as wellas highly processed wood products (for example, fiber-board, plywood) and paper products (for example, printingand writing paper). According to the UN Food and Agri-culture Organization, world trade (imports and exports) offorest products totaled more than $300 billion in 2000.Canada, the United States, Finland, Germany, and Swedenaccount for 50 percent of forest-product exports. TheUnited States, along with four other countries (Germany,Japan, China, and the United Kingdom), account foralmost 45 percent of forest-product imports.

In 2001, the value of new construction in the United Statesincreased by 5.6 percent over the 2000 level, to $861billion, in large part due to the strength of the residentialconstruction market. Residential construction traditionallyaccounts for a significant portion of the softwood lumberand structural panel products consumed annually in theUnited States. Residential housing starts totaled 1.60million units in 2001, compared to 1.57 million units in2000. Not surprisingly, consumption of many construction-related wood products increased in 2001. However, a near-record level of imports ($15.1 billion) kept prices of woodproducts generally lower in 2001 in spite of the strongconstruction market. Imports of softwood lumber, primar-ily from Canada, and structural panel products fromCanada, Brazil, and Chile accounted for almost one-halfof total imports on a value basis (Howard 2001a).

��

Canada remains the dominant provider of softwood lumberimports into the United States at a share of approximately94 percent, but other countries in Europe and elsewherehave slowly increased their participation in this market.Hardwood lumber imports declined slightly in 2001 on avalue basis compared to the previous year’s sharp increases.Other solid wood products exhibited similar fluctuations,notably imports of softwood plywood, oriented strandboard, hardwood plywood, and fiberboard products. Paperand paperboard imports continue to show increases at thebeginning of this decade (Howard 2001a, 2001b).

Given the high level of consumption of wood products inthis country, imports play a significant role in forest pro-ducts trade. Imports of industrial roundwood (much of itfrom Canada) surged during the past decade, increasingfrom 246,000 cubic meters in 1991 to 6.992 million cubicmeters in 1999 as the United States experienced an extendedperiod of unprecedented economic growth, near-recordhousing starts, and reduced availability of Federal timberin the U.S. Pacific Northwest. (Industrial roundwood isdefined as sawlogs, veneer logs, pulpwood, chips andparticles, and wood residues.)

Imports have also been the center of several trade disputes,most notably with Canada. The softwood lumber disputewith Canada is one of our most complex and longest run-ning bilateral trade disputes, dating back to October 27,1982. There have been repeated countervailing duty inves-tigations into alleged Canadian subsidies in the softwoodlumber sector. Consultations in late 1994 and early 1995led to the U.S.-Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement. Theagreement, which was signed on May 29, 1996, was retro-active to April 1, 1996. On April 2, 2001, immediatelyfollowing the expiration of the agreement, the Coalitionfor Fair Lumber Imports (and others) filed countervailingduty and antidumping petitions with the Department ofCommerce (DOC) and the U.S. International Trade Com-mission. On March 22, 2002, the DOC announced its finalsubsidy determination, finding a subsidy rate of 18.79 per-cent. The DOC also found that Canadian companies wereselling products into the U.S. market at below fair-marketvalue, and imposed antidumping duties ranging from 2.18to 12.44 percent. Products manufactured in the MaritimeProvinces are exempt from the countervailing duty, as areproducts of certain manufacturers who rely entirely onlogs from the Maritimes or Maine. On May 2, the ITCannounced its final injury determination, finding a threatof material injury in both the countervailing duty andantidumping investigations of Canadian softwood lumber.

Overall, however, the United States has some of the lowesttariff rates in the world (U.S. International Trade Commis-sion 2002). From 1989 to 1999, average U.S. tariffs on allprimary goods remained stable at about 2.0 percent and

declined from 6.1 percent to 4.2 percent for manufacturedgoods. Only countries such as Singapore, Australia, HongKong, and Switzerland had lower (or zero) tariffs or simi-lar declines during that same period. Examples of generalU.S. wood-products tariffs range from mostly zero to 8percent on some plywood products (U.S. InternationalTrade Commission 2002).

After a modest increase in 2000, U.S. wood-productsexports declined sharply in 2001, from $6.2 billion in2000 to $5.2 billion in 2001, because of continued weakeconomic conditions in Japan and several other Asian mar-kets. U.S. wood-products exporters were also hurt by thestrong dollar. Significant declines were registered in mostmarkets and most product sectors in 2001. China was theonly major market to show any degree of strength in 2001.

U.S. producers are increasingly facing increased competi-tion at home and abroad, not only from longtime compe-titors like Canada and Northern Europe but also fromproducers in Estonia, Latvia, Chile, Malaysia, and Brazil.With the breakup of the former Soviet Union, Estonia andLatvia have emerged as two of the leading suppliers oflogs, chips, and, lumber. Russia has reemerged as a lead-ing producer and exporter of logs. Russian exports of logsand chips totaled 27.4 million cubic meters in 1999, pri-marily to Finland, China, and Japan. U.S. exports of soft-wood logs to Japan have dropped by more than 60 percentduring the past decade. Nevertheless, were it not for theUnited States’ plant health regulations requiring heat treat-ment of unprocessed wood products prior to import, it isquite possible that the United States would also be a sig-nificant importer of Russian logs. The economics are suchthat heat treatment is not a commercially viable option.

A similar situation can be seen in other commodities. TheUnited States is the world’s largest producer of lumber andplywood, but, even here, U.S. producers are facing increas-ing competition. Finland has doubled its plywood produc-tion over the past decade. China, Malaysia, and Brazil nowaccount for almost one-quarter of the world’s plywoodproduction. Brazilian softwood plywood producers are evenbeginning to make some inroads into the U.S. domesticmarket. And as noted earlier, we are seeing more and moresoftwood lumber in the U.S. market from European sup-pliers (Austria, Finland, Germany, and Sweden), as well asfrom Chile and New Zealand.


Other Montreal Process indicators that overlap Indicator59 include Indicator 38 (value of investments), Indicator44 (employment), Indicator 45 (average wage rates),Indicator 46 (community viability), and Indicator 48

��

(appropriate land tenure). Each of these will reflectresponses to trade flows that are dependent on forestresource supply and management decision making in theUnited States.


The United States has a long history of trade and eco-nomic development research, both in academia and inFederal agencies. However, the lack of a clear guidingnational strategy for trade analysis is shown by theexistence of autonomous trade research in forestry andforest products.

Measuring this indicator involves social and politicaldifficulties. For example, domestic antitrust laws governthe sharing or discussion of individual company data.Responses to trade actions are often divided along philo-sophical and pragmatic lines, such as those between pro-ducers and consumers, developers and environmentalists,and various other stakeholders.

There is not yet a clear and coordinated priority in theUnited States to commit resources to the measurement ofeconomic and institutional trade issues. A shift in priori-ties will be required to provide the level of consistent,comprehensive, and national-level trade analysis necessaryto contribute to the knowledge of overall trade policiesand their impacts.

One problem is that studies and analyses are available, butno one public entity has responsibility for tracking orcompiling information and measurements. Some of thehurdles we face are finding, identifying, and assessing theconclusions of the various reports and studies in order toestablish a minimal level of consistent tracking of tradedevelopments and impacts. Neither the USDA ForestService nor any other Federal agency has a mandate toundertake these reviews; however, we anticipate a push tobuild these analyses into future work as international tradeissues demand increased attention and debate.

Recommendations

Early analysis of the status of Indicator 59 suggests thatthere is increased interest in understanding the linkagesbetween trade and impacts on the environment in theUnited States. The United States has the world’s mostcomplete compilations of national trade data, and a varietyof public and private institutions compile and analyzecomponents of trade activities and trends. The efforts varyand are in many ways disjointed, thus projecting a less-than-national emphasis on comprehensive trade strategies.

Moreover, the United States has only a recent history ofadopting institutional strategies or guidance to ensureconsistent implementation of trade analyses reflectingenvironmental and resource management impacts.

The most current effort of this kind is the 1999 ExecutiveOrder 13141 that requires the Council on EnvironmentalQuality and the U.S. Trade Representative to conduct anenvironmental review of all natural resource trade agree-ments, both bilateral and multilateral (U.S. Trade Repre-sentative 1999a). Implementation of the new trade policywill contribute data and methodologies to assist in themeasurement of Indicator 59 in the future.

Data Analysis and Approaches

The analysis of trade data goes beyond direct measurementof trade flow changes and market implications. It is diffi-cult to assess whether a country’s economic frameworkwill fully support sustainable forest management if mea-sures such as the internalizing of costs and benefits are notprovided. Many of the current analytical approaches aredesigned to reflect, albeit on aggregate levels, the impli-cations of trade policy changes through the linkages ofsocial and environmental variables that reflect sustainableforest management characteristics.

The most common approaches to analysis of trade data arespatial equilibrium econometric models that reflect his-torical and projected trends under alternative policy andtechnology scenarios (Boyd 1983). Expertise in traderesearch is available at institutions such as the Center forInternational Trade in Forest Products, the University ofWisconsin-Madison, the University of Washington, andPurdue University. The United States is also a member ofthe International Institute for Applied Systems Analysisresearch collaboration on global forest-sector analysis,including trade. One of the more recent applications offorest products trade analysis is the Accelerated TariffLiberalization study, conducted by the U.S. Governmentand collaborating universities (U.S. Trade Representative1999b). This is a one-time study of the potential impactsof reductions in tariff rates on forest products in the Asia-Pacific region, including environmental implicationsreflected in the projections of changing harvest levels.

Analytical approaches require the establishment of a base-line of data and information that, in itself, is a valuablemeasure of trade potential and the underlying resourcerequirements to reach that potential. How do those require-ments affect sustainable forest management goals andpossibilities? Trade models allow the analysis of policyimpacts, such as the effects of removal of tariffs (tradeliberalization), on trade flows and related resource supplyand management opportunities.

��

The political sensitivity of trade is analyzed by approachesthat use content analyses of news articles, public responseto trade issues, and other social drivers that influencedecisions which, in turn, are linked to sustainable forestmanagement potential. More recently, some qualitativestudies tracked developments in the United States andother countries with regard to certification schemes andtheir potential to serve as nontariff barriers. Case studiesare also used to gain an understanding of various coun-tries’ trade capacity developments in order to previewpotential effects of U.S. trade policy changes on sustain-able forest management.

• Data analysis and requirements—What variable orcombination of variables can be used for measuring theeffectiveness or existence of nondiscriminatory tradepolicies for forest products? Like many other institu-tional indicators, the information required goes beyondstrictly quantifiable data. Although much of this infor-mation exists, it has not been analyzed in such a way asto measure this indicator adequately. For this reason, thediscussion of applicable data suggests not only the typeof data but also the need for strategic analyticalapproaches to processing that data.

• Annual import and export data—Time series analysis ofbasic annual import and export data for the United Stateswould provide a foundation for following trends in tradeflows and would reflect changes in trade policies or spe-cific trade actions. Trade data coupled with productiondata also provides a basis for determining consumptionpatterns as a link to supply trends and to the potentialfor sustainable forest management.

• Technical barriers to trade—The Agreement on Tech-nical Barriers to Trade, established under the WTO,requires members of the WTO to ensure that their legaland regulatory guidelines do not constitute barriers tofree trade. An analysis of compliance of forest productsstandards with the Code of Good Practice of the agree-ment would provide a view of U.S. commitment tonondiscriminatory trade policies in forest products(International Organization for Standardization 2002).

• Domestic legislation affecting trade—A survey ofdomestic legislation affecting trade would identify thelegislative and regulatory provisions that encourage ordiscourage nondiscriminatory trade policies for forestproducts. Four pieces of legislation provide examples:(1) the Jones Act of 1920, which provides regulation ofintercoastal shipping of goods such as lumber, thusaffecting resource demand and supply balances bothdomestically and with neighboring producers (Boyd1983); (2) the Forest Resource Conservation and Short-age Relief Act of 1990 prohibits exports of raw logsfrom Federal land harvests in the western region (westof the 100th meridian) (U.S. Code 1993); (3) the Export

Trading Company Act of 1982, which promotes thedevelopment of export trading associations and theexpansion of export trade in general (U.S. Code 1982);and (4) the Foreign Sales Corporation Act, whichprovides tax reduction incentives to U.S. companiesoperating in other countries in order to promote exportsby relieving the tax on some of the profits from thoseexports (Export FSC International 2002).

• Countervailing, antidumping, and safeguard actions—The World Trade Organization and regional trade agree-ments generally allow for individual parties to maintaindiscretion in the development and application of domestictrade laws and regulations. A tally of actions by theUnited States under appropriate laws would not in itselfidentify less than nondiscriminatory practices regardingtrade imports. Successful challenges to the applicationof domestic trade regulations could occur through bila-teral, regional, or WTO provisions. There is a need foranalysis of the trends in the number of countervailingduty, antidumping, and safeguard actions by the UnitedStates for forest products. This information would showthe extent to which the United States issues bilateralactions under domestic laws that might be challenged asdiscriminatory or prohibitive to free trade.

• Invasive and alien species—Invasive and alien speciesincreasingly threaten the full range of biological, social,and economic values that are derived from forestresources. A 1999 study at Cornell University (Environ-mental News Network 1999) estimated that the UnitedStates suffers approximately $123 billion in damageannually from alien species of insects, diseases, andother nonindigenous species. Under international tradelaws and agreements, countries have the right to setstandards for safety and health. The challenge withinthe context of sustainable forest management is tomaintain sustainability with adequate protection, whilenot reducing sustainability by adopting discriminatorytrade that leads to conversion of forest resources tononforest uses. Sanitary and phytosanitary regulationscould constitute barriers to trade or be applied in adiscriminatory fashion. An analysis of the number ofactions by the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspec-tion Service that affect trade in the United States wouldprovide a measure of potential discriminatory policies.

• Cross-sectoral influences on trade policies—Externalinfluences on trade in forest products include policiesand trends in other sectors such as agriculture, transpor-tation, commerce, and environment. Such linkages aredifficult to define and quantify, but increased analysis ofcross-sector impacts on the forestry and forest productssectors are needed because these influences often resultin land-use changes and often increase the opportunitycosts of holding land in forest cover.

��

• Environmental measures to affect forest management—Within the last decade, producers and owners of forestresources have made increasing use of environmentalcertification as a marketing device. Quantitative researchin the area of certification is, however, lacking for theforest products sector (International Tropical TimberOrganization 1990).

• Tariff liberalization—The trade policy of the UnitedStates has consistently promoted free trade throughoutvarious administrations. There is, however, a growingdebate on the net impacts of trade on natural resourcesand environmental goals. Does tariff liberalization inthe forest-products sector encourage unsustainableforestry practices in individual countries? Does tariffliberalization promote efficient use of resources so thatincreased investment leads to high levels of conserva-tion and the ability to afford the costs of environmentalprotection? Few studies have provided conclusiveinsight into this debate. Several leading econometricstudies of national, regional, and global forest-productstrade have included analyses of the environmentalimpacts of shifts in trade flows, and especially of shiftsin production levels (i.e., harvesting) that may occur asa result of the projected trade flows. These and otherissues could be addressed by future empirical work inthis area, and the results of this work would providedata on the extent to which U.S. trade policies promotesustainable forest management.

• Internalized costs and benefits—Internalized costs andbenefits may affect the final results of environmentalimpact analyses. Trade data and related information areoften provided at relatively high levels of aggregation.Thus, analyses of trade policies and their impacts aredifficult to complete for specific issues or concerns.Often, the total benefits and costs associated with tradepolicy changes do not include environmental valuessuch as biodiversity benefits or net positive carbon-storage shifts.

• NAFTA environmental agreement—The North AmericanFree Trade Agreement contains guidelines and rules foractions under an environmental “side” agreement(NAFTA Secretariat 2002). This trilateral trade agree-ment between the United States, Canada, and Mexicowas implemented in 1994 to remove barriers to trade andinvestment among the three countries. Under NAFTA,the challenge is to strike a balance between free tradeand investment and the promotion of domestic eco-nomic development. The environmental agreementprovides for challenges to a party’s level of enforcementand administration of its domestic environmental laws.The number of actions taken against the United Statesunder the side agreement would indicate not only thestrength of U.S. environmental and trade laws, but alsothe effectiveness of these laws through enforcement.

Sustainable forest management goals could be directlyaffected by the degree to which the United States appliesits own environmental legislation and regulations.

• Consistency and priority of nontariff measures—A vari-ety of nontariff measures such as quotas, investmentincentives, and tax credits may reflect less than non-discriminatory commitments to free and fair trade by acountry. An analysis of U.S. nontariff measures in theforest products sector, and trends in their use over time,would provide additional understanding of the extent towhich our commitments to nondiscriminatory trade areconsistent and are given priority. For example, data andanalysis of U.S. subsidies in the forestry and forestproducts sector (for example, for trucking and roadconstruction) could identify areas in need of furtherenhancement of competitiveness to support fair trade.

• National and subnational procurement requirements—The procurement requirements of national and localgovernments underscore the linkage between consump-tion choices for products made from forest resourcesand the sustainability limits of exporting countries. Thepercentage of recycled content used in paper productsand in certified wood content are two examples of howprocurement policies may reflect goals. At the sametime, these policies can be considered nontariff barriersthat constitute discriminatory trade policies if they aretargeting specific countries or regions.

• Domestic processing requirements—One commonlyperceived trade barrier is the implementation of a coun-try’s regulations regarding processing requirements.These requirements ensure that there is employment andincome for labor, while adding value to industries throughthe promotion of downstream processing. Increasedinternal processing of wood can reduce demand for logsper unit of output with increased wood recovery andmultiple product outputs. On the other hand, increasedcapacities in wood processing and attractive foreignexchange from exports of downstream products mayencourage unsustainable harvest levels, thus contribut-ing to unsustainable forest-management practices. Anunderstanding of domestic processing requirements willindicate potential policy applications linked to unsus-tainable or unfair trade.

• Bilateral trade agreements—Bilateral trade agreementsare an increasingly common means of fostering free andfair trade, cooperation, and partnerships for addressingmutual goals in a region or with neighboring countries.These agreements also enable countries to anticipateand make adjustments for the impacts of trade flows andchanges. Thus, countries can make specific provisionsfor monitoring and assessing progress toward economic,social, and environment objectives. The implementationof U.S. Executive Order 13141 adds a new dimension toand enhances the development of trade agreements.

��

Institutional Links to Data Inadequacy

The inadequacies of data to support measurement of non-discriminatory trade policy linkages to sustainable forestmanagement range from a simple lack of data or datacollection to more complicated institutional developmentsthat require strategic planning of data and informationmanagement. Some data are not being collected, eventhough their collection would be consistent with the missionof existing public agencies or other institutions. In othercases, the data are collected but coverage is inadequate orthe protocol for data collection must be changed to pro-vide more relevant and informative data. Institutionaldecisions must be made with regard to the existing datagaps in areas such as:

• Tracking forested areas under certification schemes:No single entity is compiling this information.

• External costs and benefits that are not being internal-ized: Data are not collected or are not under any insti-tution’s control; methodologies and linkages are notwell understood.

• External influences on trade policy: Uncertainty of theextent to which policy is implemented.

• Number of nontariff barriers: A one-time study, notconducted regularly enough or with adequate coverage.

• Impacts of tariff liberalization: A one-time study, notconducted on a regular basis.

• Number of Animal & Plant Health inspection serviceactions: Need systems in place to track regularly. Theseactions are published in the Federal Register, but no oneentity has a mandate to summarize them.

• Survey of domestic trade legislation: Protocol changesare required to meet the needs of users. It is possible thatthese changes come under multiple agency missions,but it is not clear which ones.

Applicable Data and Data Sources

Sources of data that indicate the level and impacts ofnondiscriminatory trade policies in the United States aredescribed in table 1. The listing is not all-inclusive, but

Table 1—Organizational sources of information for assessing nondiscriminatory trade policies in the United States

Organization Description of data On-line access

United States Customs Tariff schedules www.customs.ustreas.gov

International Trade Commission Countervailing, antidumping, and www.usitc.govsafeguard actions database,competitive studies

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Country studies of nontariff barriers, www.apec.orgtariff rates

USDA Foreign Agricultural Service Import-export data www.fasonline.gov

International Tropical Timber Studies on certification and labeling www..or.jp/inside/download/Organization of wood products Certification_Schemes.doc

World Trade Organization Trade policy reviews by country www.wto.org

North American Forestry Commission Data not described www.fs.fed.us/global/nafc/welcome.html

North American Free Trade Act, Country reports www.nafta-sec-alena.orgCommission on EnvironmentalCooperation

Department of Commerce, Industry database on value of www.census.gov/epcd/www/Bureau of Census shipments, employment, wages 97EC31.HTM

USDA Forest Service, Periodic publications on trade, www.fpl.fs.fed.us/econ/Forest Products Laboratory consumption, production, and prices Publications.htm#Stat

World Bank Trade databases, country reports, www.worldbank.comtariff statistics

��

does represent the majority of the national sources ofcritical data and information for the analyses suggestedabove.

Literature Cited

Barbier, E.B.; Burgess, J.C.; Bishop, J.; Aylward, B. 1994. The economicsof the tropical timber trade. London, UK: Earthscan Publications, Ltd.179 p.

Bourke, I.J. 1988. Trade restrictions and their impacts on internationaltrade in forest products. Rome, Italy: United Nations Food andAgriculture Organization, Department of Forestry. 140 p.

Boyd, R. 1983. Lumber transport and the Jones Act: A multicommodityspatial equilibrium analysis. Bell Journal of Economics. 14 (1):202-212.

Environmental News Network. 1999. Alien species destroying U.S. eco-systems. In: Pimentel, D. [and others]. Environmental and economiccosts associated with non-indigenous species in the United States.[Environmental News Network: January 26, 1999]. Ithaca, NY: CornellUniversity, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences. [Not paged].

Export FSC International. 2002. About Export Foreign Sales CorporationInternational. http://www.exportfsc.com/. [Date accessed: November2001].

Howard, J.L. 2001a. U.S. timber production, trade, consumption, andprice statistics. Res. Pap. FPL-F\RP-595. Madison, WI: U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 90 p.

Howard, J.L. 2001b. U.S. Forest products annual market review andprospects, 1999-2002. Res. Note FPL-RN-0282. Madison, WI: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory.5 p.

International Organization for Standardization. 2002. Background to theAgreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. Geneva, Switzerland:International Organization for Standardization. [Not paged].

International Tropical Timber Organization, 1990. Guidelines for the sus-tainable management of natural tropical forests. http://www.itto.or.jp/policy/PolicyDevelopmentarchive.html. [Date accessed: November2001].



NAFTA Secretariat. 2002. North American free trade agreement. http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/english/index.htm

U.S. Code. 1982. Export Company Trading Act of 1982. Public Law97-290, October 8, 1982.

U.S. Code. 1993. Forest Resource Conservation and Shortage Act of1990. Public Law 101-382. 16 U.S.C. 620-620j, August 20, 1990 (asamended 1993).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1997. First approxima-tion report for sustainable forest management: report of the UnitedStates on the criteria and indicators for the sustainable management oftemperate and boreal forests. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service. 220 p.

U.S. Department of State. 2002a. The language of trade: chronology ofmajor trade developments affecting United States trade policy. http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/trade/language/chron.txt. [Date accessed:November 2001].

U.S. Department of State. 2002b. Information services bulletin.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State. [Not paged].

U.S. International Trade Commission. 2002. Harmonized tariff scheduleof the United States (2002) (Rev. 1) http://usitc.gov/wais/reports/arc/hts2002.htm. [Date accessed: November 2001].

U.S. Trade Representative. 1999a. The Executive order on environmentalreviews - November 1999. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.http://www.ustr.gov/environment/environmental.shtml. [Date accessed:November 2001].

U.S. Trade Representative. 1999b. Accelerated tariff liberalization in theforest products sector: a study of the economic and environmentaleffects. http://www.ustr.gov/releases/1999/11/forest.pdf. [Dateaccessed: November 2001].

World Trade Organization. 2001. DOHA WTO ministerial 2001: mini-sterial declaration. WT/MIN(01)/Dec/1. 20 November 2001. Geneva,Switzerland: World Trade Organization. http://docsonline.wto.org.[Date accessed: November 2001].

222

Ellefson, Paul V.; Hibbard, Calder M.; Kilgore, Michael A.; Granskog, James E., eds.2005. Legal, institutional, and economic indicators of forest conservation andsustainable management: review of information available for the United States. Gen.Tech. Rep. SRS-82. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Southern Research Station. 221 p.

This review looks at the Nation’s legal, institutional, and economic capacity to promoteforest conservation and sustainable resource management. It focuses on 20 indicators ofCriterion Seven of the so-called Montreal Process and involves an extensive search andsynthesis of information from a variety of sources. It identifies ways to fill informationgaps and improve the usefulness of several indicators. It concludes that there issubstantial information about the application of such capacities, although that applicationis widely dispersed among agencies and private interests; which in turn has led todiffering interpretations of the indicators. Individual chapters identify a need to furtherdevelop the conceptual foundation on which many of the indicators are predicated.While many uncertainties in the type and accuracy of information are brought to light,the review clearly indicates that legal, institutional, and economic capacities to promotesustainability are large and widely available in both the public and private sectors.

Keywords: Criterion and indicators, economic capacity, institutional capacity, legalcapacity, Montreal Process, sustainable management.

The Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), is dedicated to the principle of multiple use management of the Nationʼs forest resources for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests and National Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation.

The USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA̓ s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

4

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

FOREST SERVICE

SOUTHERN RESEARCH STATION

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT SRS-82JULY 2005

-

Legal, Institutional, and Economic Indicators of Forest Conservation and Sustainable M

anagement:

Review of Inform

ation Available for the United States

2005

legal, institutional, and economic indicators of …legal, institutional, and economic indicators of...

Documents