    Ecosystem Planning: Northwest Forest and Interior Columbia River Basin
    Plans Demonstrate Improvements in Land-Use Planning (Letter Report,
    05/26/99, GAO/RCED-99-64).

    Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Forest Service's
    and the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) efforts to implement two
    ecosystem-based studies--the Northwest Forest Plan and the Interior
    Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, focusing on: (1) the extent
    to which each effort has addressed long-standing planning deficiencies;
    (2) whether the agencies encountered the delays and significant costs
    that have been characteristic of previous planning efforts; and (3) the
    effect that the plans have had, or are expected to have, on the quantity
    and quality of timber sold from federal lands covered by the plans.

    GAO noted that: (1) both the process used to develop and implement the
    Northwest Forest Plan and the process being used to develop a plan to
    manage federal lands in the interior Columbia River basin address many
    of the long-standing planning deficiencies that have contributed to
    delays, increased costs, and unmet objectives in other land management
    plans; (2) the Forest Service and BLM completed the Northwest Forest
    Plan expeditiously and at a relatively low cost, while the interior
    Columbia River basin plan has taken much longer and cost much more than
    originally expected and has not yet been approved; (3) the Northwest
    Forest Plan was developed in 1 year at a cost of about $3.5 million; (4)
    this was a timely and cost-effective effort compared with past national
    forest planning efforts that took from 3 to 10 years to complete and, in
    the Pacific Northwest, cost between $5 million and $8 million even
    though they covered much smaller areas; (5) the timeliness of the plan
    was, in part, a function of the fact that the agencies had been
    gathering data on the old-growth forest habitat of the northern spotted
    owl for many years; (6) although the agencies' 5-year effort to develop
    a plan for the interior Columbia River basin has overcome some
    long-standing deficiencies, it has not yet led to a final plan; (7) the
    ongoing project has already taken 2-1/2 years longer and, at $41
    million, cost $10 million more than anticipated; (8) some of the delays
    and higher costs to date have occurred because the agencies
    underestimated the time and effort required to address the ecological
    diversity and broad array of land management issues that exist in the
    interior Columbia River basin; (9) GAO also believes that their
    originally proposed alternatives did not give adequate information to
    stakeholders on how and with what effect the alternatives would be
    implemented; (10) timber harvests have declined significantly since the
    1980s and will likely remain at current levels under the Northwest
    Forest Plan; (11) existing laws have resulted in less federal land being
    available for timber production and less timber being produced from the
    land that is available; (12) moreover, the Forest Service and BLM
    overestimated the volume of timber to be harvested under their original
    preferred management alternative for federal lands in the interior
    Columbia River basin; and (13) as a result, the agencies created
    unrealistic expectations for relatively high timber harvests that would
    probably not have occurred.

    --------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

     REPORTNUM:  RCED-99-64
         TITLE:  Ecosystem Planning: Northwest Forest and Interior Columbia
    	     River Basin Plans Demonstrate Improvements in Land-
    	     Use Planning
          DATE:  05/26/99
       SUBJECT:  Timber sales
    	     Environmental monitoring
    	     Forest management
    	     Interagency relations
    	     Schedule slippages
    	     Wildlife conservation
    	     Strategic planning
    	     Environmental policies
    	     Land management
    	     Cost overruns
    IDENTIFIER:  Pacific Northwest Forest Plan
    	     Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
    ** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
    ** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
    ** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
    ** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
    ** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
    ** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
    ** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
    ** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
    ** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
    **                                                              **
    **                                            **
    **                                                              **
    ** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
    ******************************************************************

    Cover
    ================================================================ COVER

    Report to Congressional Requesters

    May 1999

    ECOSYSTEM PLANNING - NORTHWEST
    FOREST AND INTERIOR COLUMBIA RIVER
    BASIN PLANS DEMONSTRATE
    IMPROVEMENTS IN LAND-USE PLANNING

    GAO/RCED-99-64

    Ecosystem Planning

    (141095)

    Abbreviations
    =============================================================== ABBREV

      BLM - Bureau of Land Management
      GAO - General Accounting Office

    Letter
    =============================================================== LETTER

    B-281830

    May 26, 1999

    The Honorable Frank Murkowski
    Chairman, Committee on Energy
     and Natural Resources
    United States Senate

    The Honorable Don Young
    Chairman, Committee on Resources
    House of Representatives

    The Honorable Larry Combest
    Chairman, Committee on Agriculture
    House of Representatives

    The decision-making process used by the Department of Agriculture's
    Forest Service in carrying out its mission is costly and
    time-consuming, and the agency has often failed to achieve its
    planned objectives.\1 Inefficiency and waste within the process have
    already cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.\2
    Difficulties in addressing ecological issues that transcend the
    Forest Service's administrative boundaries and jurisdiction have
    contributed to the inefficiency in developing, and ineffectiveness in
    implementing, forest as well as other federal land management
    plans.\3

    Traditionally, the Forest Service, the Department of the Interior's
    Bureau of Land management (BLM), and other federal land management
    agencies developed plans to manage federal resources independently
    and focused mainly on the resources within the administrative
    boundaries of individual national forests, parks, and other federal
    land management units.  These planning efforts often failed to
    adequately consider ecological issues that transcend administrative
    boundaries--such as issues concerning watersheds\4 or the habitats of
    wide-ranging species, including migratory birds, bear, and salmon.
    The agencies' past planning efforts also suffered from other
    long-standing deficiencies, including (1) inadequate involvement by
    other federal agencies and the public, (2) a lack of comparable
    environmental and socioeconomic data, (3) inadequate monitoring to
    determine the effects of past management decisions, and (4) a lack of
    accountability for time and costs.

    In the early 1990s, the Forest Service and BLM both announced that
    they would adopt a management approach that focuses on ecosystems.
    We have reported on ecosystem management as an approach and have
    concluded that specific steps are necessary for its successful
    implementation.  These include (1) delineating ecosystems, (2)
    understanding the ecology of ecosystems, (3) making management
    choices, and (4) adapting management to new information.

    Recently, the Forest Service and BLM have begun testing the
    efficiency and effectiveness of using broad-scoped, ecosystem-based
    studies to analyze ecological issues that transcend their
    jurisdictions and to collaborate on plans for federal land management
    units throughout large ecological regions defined by geophysical
    features, such as watersheds, or the habitats of wide-ranging
    species, such as the northern spotted owl.  Two of the largest of the
    agencies' ecosystem-based studies--a July 1993 plan,\5 the Northwest
    Forest Plan (see app.  I), and an ongoing planning effort, the
    Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (see app.
    II)--are intended to provide direction for managing about 90 million
    acres of federal land in all or parts of eight northwestern states.

    Concerned about the potential costs, timeliness, and effectiveness of
    broad-scoped, ecosystem-based studies, you asked us to examine the
    two planning efforts.  In this report, we discuss (1) the extent to
    which each effort has addressed long-standing planning deficiencies,
    (2) whether the agencies encountered the delays and significant costs
    that have been characteristic of previous planning efforts, and (3)
    the effect that the plans have had, or are expected to have, on the
    quantity and quality of timber sold from federal lands covered by the
    plans.

    --------------------
    \1 Forest Service Decision-Making:  A Framework for Improving
    Performance (GAO/RCED-97-71, Apr.  29, 1997) and Tongass National
    Forest:  Lack of Accountability for Time and Costs Has Delayed Forest
    Plan Revision (GAO/T-RCED-97-153, Apr.  29, 1997).

    \2 See, for example, Forest Service:  Lack of Financial and
    Performance Accountability Has Resulted in Inefficiency and Waste
    (GAO/T-RCED/AIMD-98-135, Mar.  26, 1998).

    \3 Forest Service Decision-Making:  A Framework for Improving
    Performance (GAO/RCED-97-71, Apr.  29, 1997).

    \4 A watershed is an area of land in which all surface water drains
    to a common point.  A watershed can range from less than 100 acres
    drained by a single stream to many thousands of acres drained by
    hundreds of smaller streams that ultimately form one stream or river.

    \5 W.  Clinton and A.  Gore, Jr., The Forest Plan for a Sustainable
    Economy and a Sustainable Environment (July 1, 1993).

       RESULTS IN BRIEF
    ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

    Both the process used to develop and implement the Northwest Forest
    Plan and the process being used to develop a plan to manage federal
    lands in the interior Columbia River basin address many of the
    long-standing planning deficiencies that have contributed to delays,
    increased costs, and unmet objectives in other land management plans.
    For example, (1) federal interagency coordination has improved; (2)
    opportunities for public involvement have improved; (3) scientific
    assessments and analyses have generated better environmental and
    socioeconomic data for more informed management decisions, and (4)
    processes have been or will be established to monitor the effects of
    decisions and adapt management to new information.

    The Forest Service and BLM completed the Northwest Forest Plan
    expeditiously and at a relatively low cost, while the interior
    Columbia River basin plan has taken much longer and cost much more
    than originally expected and has not yet been approved.  The
    Northwest Forest Plan was developed in 1 year at a cost of about $3.5
    million.  This was a timely and cost-effective effort compared with
    past national forest planning efforts that took from 3 to 10 years to
    complete and, in the Pacific Northwest, cost between $5 million and
    $8 million even though they covered much smaller areas.  The
    timeliness of the plan was, in part, a function of the fact that the
    agencies had been gathering data on the old-growth forest habitat of
    the northern spotted owl for many years.  In addition, the federal
    court injunctions on timber sales created a sense of urgency and
    focus.  The result was a plan that provides the agencies' field
    managers with direction for implementation and sets standards for
    holding them accountable.  Although the agencies' 5-year effort to
    develop a plan for the interior Columbia River basin has overcome
    some long-standing deficiencies, it has not yet led to a final plan.
    The ongoing project has already taken 2-1/2 years longer and, at $41
    million, cost $10 million more than anticipated.  Some of the delays
    and higher costs to date have occurred because the agencies
    underestimated the time and effort required to address the ecological
    diversity and broad array of land management issues that exist in the
    interior Columbia River basin.  Additional delays and costs are being
    incurred because the agencies are developing one or more new
    management alternatives in response to public and congressional
    criticism of their originally proposed draft management
    alternatives--including their preferred alternative.  We also believe
    that their originally proposed alternatives did not give adequate
    information to stakeholders on how and with what effect the
    alternatives would be implemented.

    Timber harvests have declined significantly since the 1980s and will
    likely remain at current levels under the Northwest Forest Plan.
    Existing laws, including the Endangered Species Act, and their
    implementing regulations and judicial interpretations, have resulted
    in less federal land being available for timber production and less
    timber being produced from the land that is available.  Moreover, the
    Forest Service and BLM overestimated the volume of timber to be
    harvested under their original preferred management alternative for
    federal lands in the interior Columbia River basin.  As a result, the
    agencies created unrealistic expectations for relatively high timber
    harvests that would probably not have occurred, largely because of
    regulatory agencies' concerns over the impact of harvests on natural
    resources and shortfalls in funding to implement the plan.

       BACKGROUND
    ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

    The federal government owns about 30 percent (650 million acres) of
    the nation's total surface area.  Together, the Forest Service and
    BLM manage about 70 percent of all federal lands.  The Forest Service
    manages about 192 million acres of land, including about one-fifth of
    the nation's forestlands, through three levels of field management--9
    regional offices, 123 forest offices, and about 600 district offices.
    Laws guiding the management of the national forests require the
    agency to manage its lands under the principles of multiple use and
    sustained yield to meet the diverse needs of the American people.
    Under the multiple-use principle, the agency is required to plan for
    six renewable surface uses--outdoor recreation, rangeland, timber,
    watersheds and water flows, wilderness, and wildlife and fish.  Under
    the sustained-yield principle, the agency is required to manage its
    lands to provide high levels of all of these uses to current users
    while sustaining undiminished the lands' ability to produce these
    uses for future generations.  In addition, the Forest Service is
    required by its guidance and regulations to consider the production
    of nonrenewable subsurface resources--such as oil, gas, and hardrock
    minerals\6 --in its planning.

    BLM manages almost 264 million acres of land, including about 177
    million acres located mainly in the western United States and about
    87 million acres in Alaska, through three levels of field
    management--12 state offices that oversee district and resource area
    offices.\7 BLM also manages the mineral estate that underlies almost
    300 million acres managed by other agencies, including the Forest
    Service.  The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 requires
    the agency to manage its lands for multiple uses and sustained yield.
    Under the act, multiple uses include recreation; range; timber;
    minerals; watersheds; fish and wildlife; and natural scenic,
    scientific, and historic values.

    The Forest Service and BLM must comply with the requirements of the
    National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.  This act and its
    implementing regulations specify the procedures for integrating
    environmental considerations through environmental analyses and for
    incorporating public input into the agencies' decision-making
    processes.  The act requires that a federal agency prepare a detailed
    environmental impact statement for every major federal action that
    may significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
    Environmental impact statements are designed to ensure that important
    effects on the environment will not be overlooked or understated
    before the government makes a commitment to a proposed action.

    In developing plans and making decisions to implement projects,\8 the
    Forest Service and BLM must also comply with the requirements of
    other environmental statutes, including the Endangered Species Act,
    the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Wilderness Act, and the
    Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as well as other laws, such as the
    National Historic Preservation Act.  In particular, section 7 of the
    Endangered Species Act generally prohibits federal agencies from
    taking actions in pursuit of their primary missions, such as timber
    production, if those actions would put threatened or endangered
    species at risk.  When proposing a project, a federal agency is
    prohibited from taking an action that would jeopardize the existence
    of threatened or endangered species or adversely modify designated
    critical habitat.

    Several federal regulatory agencies are responsible for enforcing
    environmental laws and regulations.  For example, the Department of
    the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of
    Commerce's National Marine Fisheries Service share responsibility for
    ensuring the protection and recovery of plant and animal species
    listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.
    The Environmental Protection Agency has authorities and
    responsibilities to implement major environmental statutes, including
    those to protect and enhance air quality (the Clean Air Act) and to
    restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
    of the nation's waters (the Clean Water Act).

    In April and July 1993, the President directed the development of
    what would become, respectively, the Northwest Forest Plan and the
    Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project.  The Northwest
    Forest Plan was developed in response to court injunctions that
    barred the Forest Service and BLM from selling timber harvested in
    the range of the northern spotted owl, which was listed as a
    threatened species in 1990.  The Northwest Forest Plan includes two
    components that focus on forest management and economic development.
    The first component includes a regional land management plan that
    provides management direction for the 22.3 million acres of land
    managed by the Forest Service and BLM in the range of the northern
    spotted owl.  (See fig.  1.) The land management plan's development
    began with a scientific assessment by six federal agencies that
    described current and desired ecological conditions within the owl's
    range.\9 The plan was completed when the Secretaries of Agriculture
    and the Interior approved it in April 1994.  The plan is currently
    being implemented.  The second component of the Northwest Forest
    Plan, an economic assistance program aimed at helping the region
    adjust to changes in federal forest management, is not discussed in
    this report.

       Figure 1:  The Geographical
       Boundaries of the Northwest
       Forest Plan and of the Interior
       Columbia Basin Ecosystem
       Management Project

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Sources:  Forest Service and
       BLM.

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    In July 1993, the President also directed the Forest Service to
    develop a regional land management plan for national forests in
    Oregon and Washington east of the crest of the Cascade Mountains.
    The plan is being developed to avoid conflicts of the sort that
    prompted the Northwest Forest Plan.  In January 1994, the Forest
    Service and BLM agreed to expand the scope of the plan to include all
    lands managed by BLM in eastern Oregon and Washington.  (See the
    Eastside Planning area in fig.  1.) In July 1994, the two agencies
    further expanded the project to include their lands in much of Idaho,
    western Montana, and small portions of Nevada, Wyoming, and Utah.
    (See the Upper Columbia River Basin planning area in fig.  1.) The
    total planning effort encompasses about 72 million acres of federal
    land and is known as the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management
    Project.  In June 1997, the agencies released a set of draft
    management alternatives, including their preferred alternative, for
    public comment.  In October 1998, responding to congressional and
    public criticisms, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior
    announced their decision to develop one or more new draft
    alternatives.

    --------------------
    \6 Hardrock minerals include gold, silver, lead, iron, and copper.

    \7 During 1999, BLM is planning to streamline its organizational
    structure by combining its district and resource area offices into
    field offices.

    \8 Projects are on-the-ground activities, such as harvesting timber,
    restoring species' habitats, and constructing campsites.

    \9 The six federal agencies were the Forest Service, BLM, the Fish
    and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the National Marine
    Fisheries Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

       THE FOREST SERVICE AND BLM HAVE
       ADDRESSED MANY LONG-STANDING
       PLANNING DEFICIENCIES
    ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

    During the past 5 fiscal years, we have issued reports identifying
    long-standing deficiencies in federal land management decision-making
    generally and in the Forest Service's decision-making
    particularly.\10 These deficiencies include a lack of (1) adequate
    involvement in the decision-making process by other federal agencies
    and the public, (2) comparable environmental and socioeconomic data
    among agencies, and (3) monitoring to determine the effects of past
    management decisions.  These deficiencies have increased, and could
    continue to increase, the time and costs needed for any federal land
    management agency to reach a decision at any organizational level.
    The processes used to develop and implement the Northwest Forest Plan
    and to develop a plan for managing federal lands in the interior
    Columbia River basin address these deficiencies.

    --------------------
    \10 Forest Service Decision-Making:  A Framework for Improving
    Performance (GAO/RCED-97-71, Apr.  29, 1997); Tongass National
    Forest:  Lack of Accountability for Time and Costs Has Delayed Forest
    Plan Revision (GAO/T-RCED-97-153, Apr.  29, 1997); Forest Service:
    Lack of Financial and Performance Accountability Has Resulted in
    Inefficiency and Waste (GAO/T-RCED/AIMD-98-135, Mar.  26, 1998); and
    Ecosystem Management:  Additional Actions Needed to Adequately Test a
    Promising Approach (GAO/RCED-94-111, Aug.  16, 1994).

          INTERAGENCY COORDINATION HAS
          IMPROVED
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

    Involving federal regulatory agencies, such as the Fish and Wildlife
    Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Environmental
    Protection Agency, at the beginning of the planning process and
    maintaining their involvement throughout the process can expedite
    decision-making.  However, federal land management agencies have not
    always sought the regulatory agencies' early involvement.  For
    example, before the Northwest Forest Plan was developed, a lack of
    coordination among federal agencies was identified as a major cause
    of the impasse that existed in the region.

    In developing and implementing the Northwest Forest Plan, federal
    agencies have worked together to improve coordination and
    communication with positive results.  For instance, according to
    agency officials, the time and resources required for federal land
    management agencies to consult with federal regulatory agencies as
    required under the Endangered Species Act has generally declined.
    However, agency officials believe additional improvements are
    warranted.

    The development of a plan to manage federal lands in the interior
    Columbia River basin has been an interdisciplinary and interagency
    effort from the beginning.  While the Forest Service and BLM have led
    the effort, other federal agencies have provided both staff and
    funding to support the project.

          OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC
          PARTICIPATION HAVE IMPROVED
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

    The public has expressed its desire to become more involved in
    federal land management decision-making and has demonstrated its
    preference for presenting its concerns, positions, and supporting
    documentation during, rather than after, an agency's development of
    proposed plans.  It has also signaled its intent to challenge through
    administrative appeals and lawsuits decisions that it has not been
    involved in reaching.  The Forest Service has often not, however,
    adequately involved the public throughout the decision-making
    process, and efforts to address ecosystem issues and concerns have
    occasionally excluded key nonfederal landowners.\11

    Because the court injunctions that had enjoined the Forest Service
    and BLM from selling timber until they addressed issues related to
    protecting the threatened northern spotted owl and its habitat
    necessitated quick action, the public was not involved in the
    scientific assessment that started the development of the Northwest
    Forest Plan.  However, public comments were requested, and over
    100,000 were received, on the draft plan.  Moreover, since the plan
    was approved, federal agencies have shown their willingness to
    involve nonfederal parties in their decision-making.  For example,
    the agencies have established advisory committees that include the
    general public, local governments, and other groups.  Among other
    things, these committees helped to determine whether agencies'
    activities were in compliance with the plan's requirements.

    The public has had many opportunities to participate in the
    development of a plan to manage federal lands in the interior
    Columbia River basin.  For example, the agencies (1) held meetings
    with the public in dozens of locations to identify people's concerns
    about federal land management; (2) held over 200 meetings, briefings,
    and consultations to keep the public and other interested parties
    informed during the development of alternatives to manage federal
    lands in the basin; and (3) requested, received, analyzed, and are
    considering comments from nearly 83,000 parties on the seven
    different land management alternatives included in the original draft
    plan issued in June 1997.

    --------------------
    \11 See, for example, Oregon Watersheds:  Many Activities Contribute
    to Increased Turbidity During Large Storms (GAO/RCED-98-220, July 29,
    1998).

          EFFORTS ARE UNDER WAY TO
          COLLECT AND USE COMPARABLE
          DATA
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3

    Effective interagency coordination is dependent on, among other
    things, comparable environmental and socioeconomic data that are
    useful and easily accessible to decisionmakers.  However, data
    gathered by federal agencies are often not comparable, large gaps in
    the available information exist, and agencies may not know who has
    what information or how existing information can be made available
    within agencies, across agencies, and to the public.  These data
    limitations continue to hinder the development of federal land
    management plans, result in legal challenges to the plans, and limit
    the implementation of efforts to expedite decision-making.

    Since the Northwest Forest Plan was approved, federal agencies have
    made some progress in standardizing the data to be collected and in
    mapping the region on a consistent scale.  In addition, the Forest
    Service and BLM are accumulating comparable data on, for example,
    forest cover and landowners' behavior, across large areas within the
    region and are testing the data to see if they are useful to field
    managers for decision-making.

    The scientific assessment of ecological and socioeconomic systems and
    conditions in the interior Columbia River basin has contributed
    greatly to data comparability.  For example, maps of particular
    variables, such as vegetation types, grizzly bear range, and
    household income, are stored in geographic information systems that
    can be retrieved not only by federal agencies but also by the public
    and can be used for decision-making by many levels of government.

          THE PLANS REQUIRE, OR WILL
          REQUIRE, REGIONAL MONITORING
          AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.4

    Once a plan is approved, agencies must move toward monitoring its
    implementation to meet long-term and annual goals and objectives and
    to adapting the plan's management when new information becomes
    available.  Historically, the Forest Service has failed to live up to
    its own monitoring requirements, particularly those for monitoring
    the effects of past management decisions.  Not monitoring and
    evaluating its decisions could expose the Forest Service to further
    litigation.

    The Northwest Forest Plan requires an extensive monitoring program.
    The Forest Service and BLM have completed 4 years of monitoring to
    determine whether the plan's requirements are being implemented, and
    the agencies are beginning to evaluate whether the plan is achieving
    its desired results.

    A plan to manage federal lands in the interior Columbia River basin
    has not been approved.  However, the agencies have acknowledged the
    importance of adaptive management and their original proposal
    identified steps for monitoring the plan's implementation.

       IN CONTRAST TO THE NORTHWEST
       FOREST PLAN, THE DRAFT
       MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE
       INTERIOR COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN
       HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO DELAYS AND
       INCREASED COSTS
    ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

    The Northwest Forest Plan was developed and approved in about 1 year,
    at a cost of about $3.5 million.  By contrast, after spending over 5
    years and about $41 million through the end of fiscal year 1998, the
    Forest Service and BLM have exceeded time and cost estimates but have
    still not made the necessary management choices and finalized a plan
    to manage federal lands in the interior Columbia River basin.  The
    agencies estimate that they will need another $10.9 million to reach
    a decision in March 2000.

    Key factors that contributed to the timely and cost-effective
    development of the Northwest Forest Plan included (1) the sense of
    urgency created by the court injunctions, (2) the strong leadership
    displayed by the administration in developing the plan, and (3) clear
    objectives focusing the effort primarily on the minimum habitat needs
    of the northern spotted owl and other species that depend on
    old-growth forests for their habitat.  Moreover, the plan provides
    the agencies' land managers with adequate direction for
    implementation and sets standards for holding them accountable.  For
    instance, federal lands in the plan area are divided into seven
    categories.  The lands in some categories are set aside or withdrawn
    for specific uses, such as recreation, or reserved to protect habitat
    for owls and other species.  The lands in other categories are
    available for multiple uses.  The lands in each category are to be
    managed in accordance with requirements that include allowable and
    prohibited activities and other guidance.  For example, timber
    harvesting to reduce the density of trees is allowed on lands
    reserved to protect owl habitat, but generally not in stands over 80
    years old.

    There are two major reasons why the planning effort for the interior
    Columbia River basin has taken longer and cost more than anticipated.
    First, the agencies underestimated how much time it would take to
    address the multitude of ecological and socioeconomic issues in the
    basin--a region encompassing about 8 percent of the surface area of
    the United States.  The ecology of the interior Columbia basin is a
    diverse mixture of forest and range types that support many species,
    produce a wide array of goods and services, and have varied
    requirements for restoration and conservation.

    The second reason for the effort's additional time and costs is that
    the agencies chose to develop one or more new alternatives in
    response to widespread criticism of their original draft alternatives
    from the public and the Congress.  A final decision on a plan to
    manage federal lands in the basin is now not expected until March
    2000.  The fiscal year 1999 budget for the project is $5.7 million,
    and the agencies estimate that they will need $5.2 million in fiscal
    year 2000.

    While much of the criticism reflected differences in opinion over how
    the federal lands should be managed, some of it related to how
    successful the agencies were in taking the steps necessary to
    implement ecosystem management.  One of the necessary steps is to
    delineate ecosystem boundaries for consistent management.  Although
    the agencies did this when they selected the basin as their planning
    area, they have acknowledged that their original proposal addressed
    issues that are not appropriately dealt with at the scale of the
    basin.  These include plant and animal species with limited ranges
    whose management requires site-specific information that cannot be
    provided at the scale of the basin.  The agencies have pledged to
    focus their revision on critical broad-scale issues related to
    landscape health, aquatic habitats, human needs, products and
    services, and terrestrial habitats.

    In announcing their intent to supplement their draft proposal with a
    new alternative or alternatives that focus on basinwide issues, the
    agencies made it clear that the choice of a preferred alternative or
    alternatives for the interior Columbia River basin project is the
    first in a series of decisions that will affect federal land
    management.  It is also clear that if more issues are resolved at the
    basinwide scale, fewer issues will have to be resolved at smaller
    scales.  Conversely, if more broad-scale issues are deferred, the
    agencies will later need more planning resources and time to complete
    a comprehensive plan for the basin.

    We believe that for the issues addressed by the draft proposal, the
    agencies also failed to complete one of the essential steps in
    ecosystem management--making management choices.  In our past work,
    we concluded that this step includes identifying (1) desired future
    ecological conditions; (2) the types, levels, and mixes of activities
    to meet these conditions; and (3) the distribution of activities
    among land units over time.\12 Because the agencies did not complete
    this step, we believe that it is difficult to determine how and where
    management activities would be implemented in specific locations
    under the different alternatives.  Stakeholders therefore, had to
    base their analyses of the alternatives on the intent of each
    alternative--such as aggressively restoring degraded lands through
    active management, emphasizing the production of goods and services,
    or promoting restoration by establishing a system of reserves where
    management activities are limited--rather than on specific expected
    results.

    For example, rather than allocate the estimated potential timber
    harvest among administrative land units, such as national forests, as
    they did for the Northwest Forest Plan, the Forest Service and BLM
    allocated the estimated potential timber harvests and other
    activities to noncontiguous but ecologically similar groupings of
    land--called �clusters��that are scattered throughout the basin.
    These clusters do not correspond to the borders of administrative
    land units.  (Fig.  2 shows the boundaries of forest clusters in the
    basin.) Therefore, this approach did not indicate what level of
    economic activity could be expected for individual national forests
    or BLM management units.  Hence, those economically dependent on
    these units, such as timber industry employees, did not have an
    adequate understanding of the economic impact of the different land
    management alternatives and could not make informed choices among
    them.

       Figure 2:  Forest Clusters in
       Lands Within the Boundaries of
       the Interior Columbia River
       Basin Project Area

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Note:  The lands in the project
       area that are not shaded are
       dominated by range ecosystems
       rather than forests.  The
       agencies also divided these
       areas into noncontiguous range
       clusters.

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Source:  Interior Columbia
       Basin Ecosystem Management
       Project.

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    When the agencies announced that they would prepare an additional
    alternative or alternatives for managing the basin and that they
    would improve their proposal by focusing on basinwide issues, they
    also indicated that the revision would provide only general guidance
    on some of those issues.  We are concerned that general guidance will
    not complete the step of making management decisions and all that
    that step entails.  General guidance alone will not provide
    stakeholders with the clear and well-defined management alternatives
    they need to make informed choices, nor will it provide the Congress
    and the public with the standards they need to hold federal land
    managers accountable.

    --------------------
    \12 Ecosystem Management:  Additional Actions Needed to Adequately
    Test a Promising Approach (GAO/RCED-94-111, Aug.  16, 1994).

       THE QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF
       TIMBER FROM WESTERN FEDERAL
       LANDS WILL REMAIN LOW
    ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

    The process used to develop the Northwest Forest Plan was timely and
    cost-effective and successfully addressed many of the long-standing
    deficiencies associated with federal land management planning.
    Moreover, the broad-scale, ecosystem-based approach used to develop
    the plan was sufficient for the courts to lift the injunctions
    related to the spotted owl controversy.  The plan has not, however,
    reversed the sharp decline caused by the injunctions in the quantity
    and quality of timber sold from federal lands in the Pacific
    Northwest.  As a result, the consequences of this decline�higher
    per-unit costs for agencies to provide the timber and for loggers to
    harvest it--have also not been reversed.  Significant changes in this
    situation are unlikely to occur under current planning and
    environmental laws.

    The Forest Service and BLM overestimated the volume of timber to be
    harvested under their original preferred management alternative for
    federal lands in the interior Columbia River basin.  As a result, the
    agencies created unrealistic expectations for relatively high timber
    harvests that would probably not have occurred, largely because of
    regulatory agencies' concerns and shortfalls in funding to implement
    the plan.

          THE NORTHWEST FOREST PLAN
          CALLS FOR SIGNIFICANTLY
          LOWER TIMBER SALES
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

    The volume of timber sold from federal lands covered by the Northwest
    Forest Plan declined from a yearly average of about 5.0 billion board
    feet\13 in the 1980s to a low of 297 million board feet in 1994
    following the injunctions barring federal timber sales in northern
    spotted owl habitat.  (See app.  I, fig.  I.3.) After the plan was
    approved, the injunctions were lifted, but timber sales were not
    substantially increased.  In the first 4 full fiscal years of the
    plan, sales averaged about 687 million board feet per year, largely
    because of restrictions imposed by the plan on how and where timber
    can be commercially harvested.  This level of sales is roughly
    consistent with the plan's projections for the first 4 years of
    implementation.

    The quality of the timber sold from the plan area has also declined,
    in part because of the plan's restrictions on the location and age of
    trees that can be harvested.  For example, the plan restricts the
    harvest of older trees to protect the habitat of the northern spotted
    owl and other species.  Older trees are commercially valuable because
    they yield relatively higher-grade timber that can be manufactured
    into a broad array of wood products, including lumber.  As a result
    of the plan's restrictions, the proportion of this high-grade timber
    harvested from national forests in the plan area has decreased from
    an average of about 86 percent during the 1980s to an average of less
    than 75 percent during fiscal years 1995 through 1998.  (See app.  I,
    fig.  I.4.)

    As the quantity and quality of timber have declined, the per-unit
    costs to the federal government and logging companies have increased
    dramatically.  For example, the Forest Service's per-unit costs of
    operating the timber program almost doubled from $126 per thousand
    board feet in fiscal year 1992 to $243 per thousand board feet in
    fiscal year 1997.  (See app.  I, fig.  I.6.) This increase is largely
    attributable to the proportionally higher fixed costs, such as
    expenses associated with depreciation on existing facilities and
    roads, and inefficiencies inherent in smaller harvests.  The agencies
    have also significantly reduced the use of clear-cutting--the removal
    of all trees from a timber-harvesting site at one time--as the
    preferred harvesting method.  The substitution of more
    environmentally sensitive, but costlier harvesting methods has almost
    doubled the per-unit costs to private companies of logging on federal
    lands in the Pacific Northwest.  (See app.  I, fig.  I.7.)

    --------------------
    \13 A board foot is a measure of wood volume equal to an unfinished
    board 1 foot long, 1 foot wide, and 1 inch thick.  Different methods
    for estimating board feet yield different estimates.  To account for
    these differences, we have converted all board feet volumes into a
    standard measure using the method of estimation employed by the
    Forest Service's Northwest Region.

             TIMBER SALES ARE UNLIKELY
             TO SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE
             OVER CURRENT LEVELS
    -------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1.1

    The overall decline in the quantity and quality of timber from
    federal lands covered by the Northwest Forest Plan is unlikely to be
    reversed, given existing laws, including the Endangered Species Act,
    and their implementing regulations and judicial interpretations.
    Restrictions imposed by the plan to comply with these laws resulted
    in the injunctions being lifted but also resulted in lower timber
    sales relative to the 1980s.  The plan initially projected that the
    agencies would be able to sell an average of about 958 million board
    feet per year during the plan's first decade.  While this level
    represents a decline of more than 80 percent from sale levels during
    the 1980s, subsequent analyses of the ecological conditions of the
    land by the Forest Service and BLM reduced the annual projected sale
    volume to 840 million board feet for the first decade.  Since then,
    the Forest Service has announced that it will further reduce its
    portion of the projected sale volume--thereby reducing the total for
    the plan area.  According to the Forest Service, the new projected
    sale volume will most likely be 746 million board feet per year.

    Although an annual timber sale level of 746 million board feet is
    more than double the lowest level reached as a result of the federal
    court injunctions, it is just a small fraction of the sale levels
    experienced during the 1980s.  (See app.  I, fig.  I.3.) Timber sales
    reached their lowest level as a result of the injunctions in fiscal
    year 1994, when the agencies sold about 300 million board feet, or
    about 6 percent of the 5.0 billion board feet sold, on average, each
    year during the 1980s.  In comparison, the average annual sale level
    of 746 million board feet projected by the Forest Service under the
    plan equals about 15 percent of the average level sold during the
    1980s.  Thus, there is less than a 9-percent difference between the
    predicted annual sale level under the plan and the lowest level sold
    under the injunctions when compared with the average level of timber
    sold during the 1980s.

    Furthermore, although the agencies do not believe timber sales will
    fall below the projected annual average of 746 million board feet,
    they are unlikely to increase.  Since the plan was approved in 1994,
    18 additional species have been listed under the Endangered Species
    Act as endangered or threatened in the area covered by the plan.  In
    addition, recent policy initiatives mean that federal lands are more
    likely to assume additional responsibility for protecting threatened
    and endangered species.  For example, in exchange for commitments by
    nonfederal land owners to protect threatened and endangered species,
    the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries
    Service agreed that if measures beyond those in the commitment were
    needed, they would be implemented first on federal lands.

          THE FOREST SERVICE AND BLM
          HAVE OVERESTIMATED THE
          VOLUME OF TIMBER TO BE
          HARVESTED IN THE INTERIOR
          COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2

    The volume of timber harvested from federal lands in the interior
    Columbia River basin declined from a peak of 3.3 billion board feet
    in fiscal year 1987 to about 900 million board feet in fiscal year
    1997.  According to the Forest Service and BLM, their preferred
    management alternative in the original draft plan would have reversed
    this trend and led to average yearly harvests of about 1.7 billion
    board feet, thus providing economic support for local communities.
    However, our review indicated that for this plan, as for the
    Northwest Forest Plan, the agencies overestimated the volume of
    timber to be harvested under the preferred management alternative.

    In estimating the volume of timber to be harvested under this
    alternative, the Forest Service and BLM did not adequately take into
    account the concerns of federal regulatory agencies, budgetary
    constraints, and the potential impact of new information and events.
    For this, as for other planning efforts, the Fish and Wildlife
    Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Environmental
    Protection Agency expressed concern that the original preferred
    alternative's emphasis on active management, including timber
    harvesting, would cause unacceptable environmental consequences.  In
    addition, as the Forest Service did in developing some of the first
    forest plans, the two agencies developed the plan's management
    alternatives without reference to likely funding levels.  The
    agencies' preferred alternative and estimate of timber output assumed
    a significant increase in appropriated funds, which the agencies are
    not likely to receive.  Finally, new information and events, similar
    to those likely to affect timber sales in the Pacific Northwest,
    could further reduce timber sales.  For instance, additional species
    could be listed; federal lands in the basin could assume more
    responsibility for protecting wildlife and fish and their habitats;
    additional federal lands could be set aside for conservation; and the
    results of additional analyses could limit the acreage available for
    multiple uses, including timber harvesting.  For all of these
    reasons, the volume of federal timber available for sale is likely to
    be smaller than estimated under the agencies' preferred management
    alternative.

       CONCLUSIONS
    ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

    The Northwest Forest Plan is one of the first broad-scoped,
    ecosystem-based plans to be developed and implemented.  Experience
    with it has shown that an ecological approach to planning, coupled
    with urgency, strong leadership, and clear objectives, can address
    many of the long-standing deficiencies associated with planning for
    and managing federal lands.  The plan was developed in a timely and
    cost-effective manner compared to other Forest Service planning
    efforts, and it contains direction to be implemented by line
    managers.  In addition, processes were established to, among other
    things, (1) involve federal regulatory agencies and the public in
    land management decision-making, (2) monitor the effects of
    management decisions, (3) collect and use comparable environmental
    data, and (4) adapt management to new information obtained through
    monitoring and research.

    However, the Northwest Forest Plan's implementation has also shown
    that correcting long-standing management deficiencies will not
    necessarily lead to increases in the volume or quality of timber
    produced.  Requirements in federal land planning and environmental
    laws and their judicial interpretations have sharply reduced federal
    timber sales from their average level during the 1980s and are likely
    to keep them at about the current level.  These requirements have
    also reduced the quality of the federal timber available for sale and
    have increased the costs for federal agencies to operate the timber
    program and for private companies to harvest the timber.

    In developing a plan to manage federal lands in the interior Columbia
    River basin, the Forest Service and BLM have also worked to overcome
    some long-standing planning deficiencies.  However, without the sense
    of urgency that focused efforts to develop the Northwest Forest Plan,
    they have not demonstrated the discipline and accountability for time
    and costs needed to produce a timely decision on the management of a
    large and complex region.  Nor have the agencies focused their plan
    on those issues that should be addressed at such a large scale.
    Finally, the agencies have not provided enough detail about the
    possible outcomes of alternatives.

    Ultimately, the Forest Service, BLM, the Congress, and other
    interested parties must make some difficult decisions about managing
    federal lands in the interior Columbia River basin.  To do this, the
    agencies will need to determine what issues are appropriately
    addressed in the interior Columbia River basin plan and what issues
    are appropriately addressed at smaller geographic scales.  To
    complete the interior Columbia River basin plan, the agencies will
    then need to (1) decide what steps land managers must take to reach
    clearly defined objectives that they can be held accountable for
    accomplishing, (2) determine how the distribution of management
    activities over time among the various federal land units, including
    those activities that produce goods and services such as timber, will
    be affected by basinwide management decisions, and (3) ensure that
    basinwide management decisions and estimates of outputs such as
    timber fully take into account environmental laws and regulations,
    budgetary constraints, and other variables.

       RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE
       SECRETARIES OF AGRICULTURE AND
       THE INTERIOR
    ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

    We recommend that the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior
    provide additional direction to the interagency team responsible for
    developing the plan for managing federal lands in the interior
    Columbia River basin.  Specifically, the Secretaries should direct
    that in revising the draft plan to focus on those issues that are
    appropriately addressed basinwide, the team should, (1) identify the
    ecological and socioeconomic trade-offs among the different land
    management alternatives proposed to address basinwide issues,
    including the likely effects of those alternatives on ouputs such as
    timber across federal land units within the basin; (2) provide land
    managers with clear direction for implementation along with
    performance standards for holding them accountable; and (3) make
    basinwide management decisions and estimates for outputs such as
    timber taking full account of existing environmental laws and
    regulations, budgetary constraints, and other variables.

    Given that the agencies intend the interior Columbia River basin plan
    to make management decisions for a limited number of basinwide issues
    and that additional management plans focused on smaller geographic
    scales will therefore be needed to provide additional management
    direction, we also recommend that the Secretaries direct the the
    interagency team to prepare for the Congress and the public details
    on how the additional plans will be integrated with the interior
    Columbia River basin plan and to estimate the time and resources that
    will be needed.

       AGENCY COMMENTS
    ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

    We provided copies of a draft of this report to the Forest Service,
    BLM, the Northwest Forest Plan's Regional Interagency Executive
    Committee, and the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management
    Project Executive Steering Committee for review and comment.  Because
    the two ecosystem management plans are interagency efforts, the
    Regional Interagency Executive Committee and the Executive Steering
    Committee provided comments with the concurrence of the Forest
    Service and BLM.

    For those sections of the report dealing with the Northwest Forest
    Plan, the Regional Interagency Executive Committee generally agreed
    with our findings and conclusions.  However, in its comments, the
    Committee emphasized a point that merits further discussion and
    analysis.  The Committee commented that our emphasis on the timber
    program should be matched with an equal emphasis on other components
    of the plan, such as interagency cooperation and the strategy
    intended to restore and maintain the ecological health of watersheds.
    We discussed in detail many aspects of the Northwest Forest Plan,
    including its correction of long-standing management deficiencies
    that we previously identified, such as a lack of interagency
    cooperation.  However, many of the intended benefits of the
    plan--especially those associated with the long-term and overall
    health of federal lands and resources--will not be realized for many
    years, and accurate measures to gauge longer-term improvements have
    yet to be developed.  Therefore, we did not make any changes to the
    report.

    The Committee's comments and our responses to them are found in
    appendix III of this report.  The Committee also provided several
    clarifications to the report, which we incorporated where
    appropriate.

    For those sections of the report dealing with the Interior Columbia
    Basin Ecosystem Management Project, the Executive Steering Committee
    generally agreed with our findings and recommendations.  However, in
    its comments, the Committee emphasized several points.  First, the
    Committee said that we did not adequately present differences in the
    scope and approaches of the interior Columbia River basin project and
    the Northwest Forest Plan that contributed to the relative
    differences in the time and costs to develop them.  We agree that
    these differences are important, and we revised the draft to
    highlight them.  More importantly, it was not our intent to compare
    the costs of the interior Columbia River basin project and of the
    Northwest Forest Plan, but to compare the actual time and costs of
    the project to initial estimates made by the agencies.  Second, the
    Committee provided us with a time line for completing the project.
    As a result, we updated the report and deleted the first part of our
    draft recommendation that the agencies develop a time line for
    completing the project.  Third, with respect to our recommendation
    that the agencies identify trade-offs between management
    alternatives, the Committee emphasized that there are limits to how
    specific they can be about the effects of management decisions at the
    basinwide scale.  We acknowledge these limits and revised our
    recommendation to emphasize that it applies only to those issues that
    the agencies determine should be addressed at the basinwide scale.
    Fourth, the Committee said that the supplemental draft environmental
    impact statement would address our draft recommendation that the
    agencies clearly state the impact of environmental laws, regulations,
    budgetary constraints, and other variables on timber sales volumes.
    However, because actions related to this recommendation are not yet
    complete, we did not make any changes to it.

    We added our second recommendation on the time and resources needed
    to complete the planning process for federal lands in the basin after
    the agencies reviewed our draft report.  We believe that the
    recommendation is warranted, given the limits on a basinwide decision
    and the need for additional decisions at a smaller scale.

    The Committee's other comments and our responses to them are found in
    appendix IV of this report.  The Committee also provided several
    clarifications to the report, which we incorporated where
    appropriate.

    We conducted our work from September 1997 through March 1999 in
    accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
    Appendix V explains our methodology in detail.

    We are sending copies of this report to Senator Bingaman, Ranking
    Minority Member, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources;
    Representative George Miller, Ranking Minority Member, House
    Committee on Resources; and Representative Charles Stenholm, Ranking
    Minority Member, House Committee on Agriculture.  We are also sending
    copies of this report to the Honorable Dan Glickman, Secretary of
    Agriculture; the Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior;
    the Honorable Mike Dombeck, Chief of the Forest Service; the
    Honorable Tom Fry, Acting Director of the Bureau of Land Management;
    and other interested parties.  We will make copies available to
    others on request.

    If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
    call me at (202) 512-3841.  Major contributors to this report are
    listed in appendix VI.

    Barry T.  Hill
    Associate Director, Energy,
     Resources, and Science Issues

    IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NORTHWEST
    FOREST PLAN ADDRESSES MANY
    LONG-STANDING DEFICIENCIES BUT
    CANNOT PROVIDE HISTORIC LEVELS OF
    TIMBER
    =========================================================== Appendix I

    Experience with the Northwest Forest Plan\14 has shown that an
    ecological approach to planning, coupled with a sense of urgency,
    strong leadership, and clear objectives, can address many of the
    long-standing deficiencies we have found associated with planning for
    and managing federal lands.  Compared to other Forest Service plans,
    this one was developed expeditiously and cost-effectively�it took
    about a year and cost about $3.5 million--and contains clear
    direction to field managers.  In addition, processes were established
    to, among other things, (1) involve federal regulatory agencies and
    the public in land management decision-making, (2) collect and use
    comparable environmental data, and (3) adapt management to new
    information obtained through monitoring and research.

    The Northwest Forest Plan satisfied the courts so that they were
    willing to lift the injunctions that had barred the Forest Service
    and BLM from selling timber in northern spotted owl habitat.
    However, the plan called for an 81-percent reduction in the volume of
    timber sold, compared with the volume sold in the 1980s, and the
    agencies have subsequently reduced this estimate.  Additionally, the
    quality of the timber sold relative to what was sold in the 1980s has
    declined, and the agencies' costs of providing timber and loggers'
    costs of harvesting it have increased significantly on a per-unit
    basis.\15 Moreover, the overall decline in the volume and quality of
    timber sold from federal lands in the Pacific Northwest is unlikely
    to be reversed, given existing laws, including the Endangered Species
    Act, and their implementing regulations and judicial interpretations.
    As a result, the increases in the agencies' and loggers' per-unit
    costs that were linked to this decline will also not be reversed.

    --------------------
    \14 We use the term �Northwest Forest Plan� to include a group of
    documents that led to a formal interagency plan to manage federal
    lands in the Pacific Northwest.

    \15 Costs are measured in dollars per board foot.  A board foot is a
    measure of wood volume equal to an unfinished board 1 foot long, 1
    foot wide, and 1 inch thick.

       THE NORTHWEST FOREST PLAN WAS
       DEVELOPED TO RESOLVE A CONFLICT
       BETWEEN CONSUMPTION AND
       CONSERVATION
    --------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

    In the late 1980s and early 1990s, timber sales on lands in northern
    spotted owl habitat managed by the Forest Service and BLM in the
    Pacific Northwest were brought to a virtual halt by federal court
    injunctions.  In various rulings, the federal courts enjoined the
    agencies from selling timber until they addressed issues related to
    protecting the habitat of this owl,\16 which was listed as threatened
    under the Endangered Species Act.  In response, the President
    directed his administration to develop a plan that would (1) satisfy
    the courts so they would lift the injunctions, (2) protect the
    environment, and (3) help stabilize the regional economy.  The result
    was the Northwest Forest Plan.

    The Northwest Forest Plan includes two components that focus on
    forest management and economic development.  The first component
    includes a regional land management plan that provides management
    direction for the 22.3 million acres of land managed by the Forest
    Service and BLM in the range of the northern spotted owl.\17 The
    regional plan's development began with a scientific assessment by six
    federal agencies that described current and desired ecological
    conditions within the owl's range.\18 The assessment also included 10
    alternatives for managing the federal lands.  Each alternative
    depicted a different mix of management guidance to protect habitat
    for owls and other species while also providing for other uses of the
    forests, including timber harvesting.  The potential environmental
    and economic effects of each alternative were examined and compared
    in a draft supplemental environmental impact statement,\19 and a
    preferred alternative was chosen by the President for further
    examination in a final supplemental environmental impact
    statement.\20 A record of decision,\21 signed by the Secretaries of
    Agriculture and the Interior in April 1994, selected one land
    management option and amended the land management plans for 19
    national forests and 7 BLM districts in the Pacific Northwest\22 on
    the basis of the option.

    The land management plan allocated federal lands into seven
    categories, including lands set aside by the agencies or withdrawn by
    the Congress for specific uses, such as recreation and wilderness;
    lands reserved to protect habitat for owls and other species; and
    "matrix lands" (those available for multiple uses, including timber
    harvesting).  Lands in each category are to be managed in accordance
    with requirements (standards and guidelines) established by the
    record of decision.  These include allowable and prohibited
    activities and other guidance.  For example, timber harvesting to
    reduce the density of trees is allowed on lands reserved to protect
    owl habitat, but generally not in stands over 80 years old.  Of the
    24.5 million acres of land covered by the Northwest Forest Plan, 78
    percent were either set aside for specific uses, such as recreation,
    or reserved to protect habitat for owls and other species.  The
    remaining 22 percent were available for multiple uses, including
    timber harvesting.

    In addition, the regional plan recognizes that a one-size-fits-all
    approach may not be appropriate and allows for the requirements to be
    tailored to fit the ecological conditions specific to each of 12
    geographic provinces (e.g., old-growth rain forests in western
    Washington and drier forests in northern California).  The plan also
    includes an aquatic conservation strategy intended to restore and
    maintain the ecological health of watersheds and the aquatic
    ecosystems within them.  The strategy, among other things, requires
    the Forest Service and BLM to (1) analyze conditions in watersheds
    identified as key to protecting fish at risk of becoming extinct and
    to providing high-quality water before beginning management
    activities, such as timber harvesting, on either reserved or matrix
    lands and (2) eventually conduct an analysis of conditions in all
    watersheds on federal lands as a basis for ecosystem planning and
    management.

    The second component of the Northwest Forest Plan is an economic
    assistance program aimed at helping the region adjust to changes in
    federal forest management.  The Environmental Protection Agency, the
    Small Business Administration, and agencies within five federal
    departments--Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, Labor,
    Commerce, and the Interior--are to provide $1.2 billion in funding to
    communities, tribes, businesses, and individuals to help them make
    the transition from dependency on federal timber to other employment
    opportunities.\23 Additionally, the Corps of Engineers participated
    in both the ecological and economic components of the Northwest
    Forest Plan.

    --------------------
    \16 See, for example, Seattle Audubon Society v.  Evans, 771 F.
    Supp.  1081 (W.D.  Wash.), aff'd, 952 F.2d 297 (9th Cir.  1991) and
    Seattle Audubon Society v.  Moseley, 798 F.  Supp.  1484 (W.D.  Wash.
    1992), aff'd sub nom., Seattle Audubon Society v.  Espy, 998 F.2d 699
    (9th Cir.  1993).

    \17 An additional 2.2 million acres of federal land within the range
    of the northern spotted owl are managed primarily by the National
    Park Service and are not subject to the management direction of the
    Northwest Forest Plan.

    \18 Forest Ecosystem Management:  An Ecological, Economic, and Social
    Assessment, Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team
    (FEMAT)(July 1993).  The six federal agencies were the Forest
    Service, BLM, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park
    Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Environmental
    Protection Agency.

    \19 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Management
    of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related
    Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl, Forest Service
    and BLM (July 1993).

    \20 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Management
    of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related
    Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl, Vols.  I and
    II, Forest Service and BLM (Feb.  1994).

    \21 Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of
    Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern
    Spotted Owl and Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat
    for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within
    the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl, Forest Service and BLM (Apr.
    1994).

    \22 GAO uses the term Pacific Northwest to describe lands in northern
    California, western Oregon, and western Washington.

    \23 The economic assistance program is not evaluated in this report.

       DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION
       OF THE NORTHWEST FOREST PLAN
       HAS ADDRESSED MANY
       LONG-STANDING PLANNING
       DEFICIENCIES
    --------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

    An ecosystem-based regional land management plan has helped federal
    land management agencies reconcile differences in the geographic
    areas that must be considered in reaching decisions under different
    planning and environmental laws.  Additionally, in developing and
    implementing the plan, the agencies addressed long-standing
    deficiencies in, and barriers to, timely, orderly, and cost-effective
    land management planning.  These deficiencies include a lack of (1)
    accountability for the time and costs in developing plans, (2)
    adequate involvement in the decision-making process by other federal
    agencies and the public, (3) comparable environmental and scientific
    data among agencies, and (4) monitoring to determine the effects of
    past management decisions.\24

    --------------------
    \24 Ecosystem Management:  Additional Actions Needed to Adequately
    Test a Promising Approach (GAO/RCED-94-111, Aug.  16, 1994), Forest
    Service Decision-Making:  A Framework for Improving Performance
    (GAO/RCED-97-71, Apr.  29, 1997), and Tongass National Forest:  Lack
    of Accountability for Time and Costs Has Delayed Forest Plan Revision
    (GAO/T-RCED-97-153, Apr.  29, 1997).

          DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTHWEST
          FOREST PLAN FOLLOWED THE
          PRACTICAL STEPS IN
          IMPLEMENTING AN ECOSYSTEM
          APPROACH TO FEDERAL LAND
          MANAGEMENT
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.1

    Because the boundaries of administrative units and natural systems
    are frequently different, federal land management plans have often
    considered effects only on those portions of natural systems or
    portions of their components�such as the habitats of threatened and
    endangered species�that exist within the boundaries of the
    administrative units covered by the plans.  Because the habitat of
    the northern spotted owl extends over many Forest Service and BLM
    administrative units, a new approach was needed.  The agencies
    developed the Northwest Forest Plan using an approach consistent with
    the practical steps we identified to implement ecosystem
    management.\25 (See fig.  I.1).

    The agencies accomplished the first step when they delineated an
    ecosystem that matched the geographic scope of the issue at hand,
    namely the habitat range of the northern spotted owl, without regard
    to administrative boundaries.  This allowed the agencies to analyze
    ecological issues at an appropriate geographic scale, and the
    resulting plan establishes a consistent boundary for management.
    Other issues, such as providing high-quality water, are addressed at
    smaller, more appropriate, geographic scales.

       Figure I.1:  Practical Steps to
       Implement Ecosystem Management

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Source:  Ecosystem Management:
       Additional Actions Needed to
       Adequately Test a Promising
       Approach (GAO/RCED-94-111, Aug.
       16, 1994).

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Under the second step, six federal agencies performed a scientific
    assessment and also described current and desired ecological
    conditions within the owl's range.  The desired ecological conditions
    represent the minimum level of integrity and functioning--or
    threshold--needed to maintain or restore a healthy ecosystem.

    Under the third step, the agencies identified in the plan the types
    of activities that are prohibited in each of the seven land
    categories.  They also described the conditions--sometimes referred
    to as desired future conditions--that should occur in each category.

    To accomplish the fourth step, the plan requires a continuous
    monitoring program, the results of which could lead to changes in
    management direction.  In addition, the plan allocated 6 percent of
    the lands to 10 adaptive management areas where the agencies can
    develop and test innovative land management approaches to achieve
    ecological and economic goals and revise or amend the plan
    accordingly.  For example, one area is developing and testing
    approaches to integrate timber production with the restoration and
    maintenance of riparian habitat.

    --------------------
    \25 See, for example, Ecosystem Management:  Additional Actions
    Needed to Adequately Test a Promising Approach (GAO/RCED-94-111, Aug.
    16, 1994) and Forest Service Decision-Making:  A Framework for
    Improving Performance (GAO/RCED-97-71, Apr.  29, 1997).

          AFTER AN INITIAL DELAY, THE
          REGIONAL PLAN WAS DEVELOPED
          IN A TIMELY AND
          COST-EFFECTIVE MANNER
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.2

    Initially, even after federal courts enjoined the agencies from
    selling timber, the Forest Service and BLM were slow to develop plans
    adequate to protect the owl until the President became involved.
    Fueled by a sense of urgency related to the court injunctions, as
    well as strong leadership within the administration and clear
    objectives, six federal agencies developed a regional land management
    plan in a timely and cost-effective manner.

    In October 1989, the Congress directed the Forest Service to develop
    a plan to conserve the species by September 30, 1990.\26 The agency
    failed to produce a plan by the deadline.  In May 1991, a federal
    district court judge enjoined the Forest Service from selling timber
    in owl habitat, noting that the agency's failure to develop a
    conservation plan exemplified a �deliberate and systematic� refusal
    by the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service to comply
    with the laws protecting wildlife.  The court ordered that a plan be
    completed by March 1992.  In July 1992, the judge rejected the plan
    developed by the Forest Service and issued another injunction barring
    the agency from selling timber in owl habitat until it made changes
    to the plan to address, among other things, the viability of other
    old-growth-dependent species.  The court ordered that a plan be
    completed by August 1993.  Similarly, in February 1992, another
    federal district court judge enjoined BLM from selling timber in owl
    habitat until it analyzed the effects of logging in the species'
    habitat.\27

    To end the impasse, the President convened a forest conference in
    Portland, Oregon, in April 1993, at which he directed his cabinet to
    develop the required plan.  The scientific assessment by the six
    federal agencies that described current and desired ecological
    conditions within the owl's range was completed in about 3 months.
    In April 1994, the departments of Agriculture and the Interior
    approved the Northwest Forest Plan, completing their efforts a year
    after the forest conference, at a cost of about $3.5 million.  In
    comparison, the Forest Service spent about 10 years and $13 million
    revising the land management plan for the Tongass National Forest in
    southeastern Alaska.\28

    Key differences between the process used to develop the Northwest
    Forest Plan and the process previously used by the Forest Service to
    amend or revise forest plans such as the one for the Tongass National
    Forest contributed to the plan's timely and cost-effective
    development.  These differences include (1) the sense of urgency
    related to the court injunctions, (2) the strong leadership displayed
    by the President and the involvement of high-ranking administration
    officials in developing the plan, and (3) clear objectives based in
    part on the need to preserve the habitat of the northern spotted owl
    and other old-growth-dependent species.

    --------------------
    \26 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations
    Act for Fiscal Year 1990, P.L.  101-121, 103 Stat.  747.

    \27 Portland Audubon Society v.  Lujan, 784 F.  Supp 786 (D.  Or.
    1992).

    \28 Tongass National Forest:  Lack of Accountability for Time and
    Costs Has Delayed Forest Plan Revision (GAO/T-RCED-97-153, Apr.  29,
    1997).

          INTERAGENCY COORDINATION HAS
          IMPROVED UNDER THE PLAN
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.3

    Before the Northwest Forest Plan was developed, a lack of
    coordination among federal agencies had been identified as a major
    cause of the impasse that existed in the region.  Virtually all
    parties involved in the conflict over the use of late-successional
    forests\29 agreed that federal agencies would need to work together
    to improve coordination and communication.

    Interagency coordination in the development of the land management
    plan began with the scientific assessment by the Forest Service, BLM,
    the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the
    National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Environmental Protection
    Agency.  Additionally, these six agencies--together with the U.S.
    Army Corps of Engineers; Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation
    Service; and Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S.  Geological
    Survey, and National Biological Service\30 --developed a guide
    intended to standardize the process for conducting watershed analyses
    under the plan's aquatic conservation strategy.\31 The guide provides
    a systematic way to understand and organize ecosystem information and
    to estimate the effects of management activities.  The guide has been
    credited with increasing the consistency with which a watershed's
    condition is assessed.

    Also, in 1995, four agencies--the Forest Service, BLM, the Fish and
    Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries
    Service--developed a streamlined Endangered Species Act consultation
    process.  According to agency officials, the process has generally
    decreased the time and resources needed for consultation on a project
    in the area covered by the plan.  However, they noted that further
    improvements are still needed.

    Finally, the Northwest Forest Plan created interagency committees and
    an office to bring together officials from various agencies to help
    establish policy and to provide scientific and research information
    to line managers.  For example, the Regional Ecosystem Office was
    established to support a group of senior regional officials�the
    Regional Interagency Executive Committee�in implementing the
    Northwest Forest Plan.  Members of the Regional Ecosystem Office are
    detailed from each of the federal agencies responsible for forest
    management in the region.  The office is a focal point for
    scientific, technical, administrative, and policy expertise.
    According to the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Northwest
    Forest Plan's interagency agreements have resulted in "substantial
    staff efficiencies" and have helped to defuse "the friction that
    previously resulted from conflicting agency mandates."

    --------------------
    \29 Late-successional forests contain trees that are at least 80
    years old and can include old-growth forests made up of trees that
    are at least 180 to 220 years old.

    \30 In 1996, the National Biological Service became the Biological
    Resources Division of the U.S.  Geological Survey.

    \31 Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale:  Federal Guide for
    Watershed Analysis, the Regional Interagency Executive Committee and
    the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee, Portland, Ore.  (Aug.
    1995).  In addition to federal agencies, tribal governments, and the
    states of California, Oregon, and Washington and associated counties
    helped develop the guide.

          OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC
          PARTICIPATION HAVE IMPROVED
          UNDER THE PLAN
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.4

    Virtually all parties involved in the conflict agreed that states,
    tribes, local governments, and the public should have a better
    opportunity to share their concerns, issues, and ideas directly with
    federal decisionmakers on how the forests should be managed.  Because
    of the urgent need to resolve the court injunctions, the public was
    not directly involved in the scientific assessment that began the
    process to develop the Northwest Forest Plan.  However, public
    comments were requested, and over 100,000 were received, on the draft
    supplemental environmental impact statement that compared the
    potential environmental and economic impact of each of the 10
    management alternatives included in the assessment.

    Since the plan was approved, federal agencies have shown a
    willingness to involve nonfederal parties in their decision-making
    and to come together with these parties to discuss, understand, and
    address their concerns.  Toward this end, 12 Provincial Advisory
    Committees were created--one for each of the geographic provinces
    identified in the plan--to involve local governments, tribes, and the
    public in managing the region's forests.  Members of these committees
    may include representatives from state, county, and tribal
    governments; the timber industry; environmental groups; recreation
    and tourism organizations; and the public at large, as well as
    officials from the federal agencies.  Among other things, these
    committees participated in areawide reviews in fiscal years 1996,
    1997, and 1998 to determine whether timber sales, forest roads, and
    restoration activities were in compliance with the plan's
    requirements (implementation monitoring).

    Nonfederal parties have also been involved in analyzing watershed
    conditions on Forest Service and BLM lands.  For example, the
    municipal watershed for the city of Sandy, Oregon, was included in a
    watershed analysis conducted by the Forest Service in conjunction
    with BLM, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the city of Sandy.
    After completing the watershed analysis, the Forest Service and BLM
    entered into a formal memorandum of understanding with the city to
    maintain or improve the quality and quantity of water from the
    watershed.

          EFFORTS ARE UNDER WAY TO
          COLLECT AND USE COMPARABLE
          ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.5

    According to a recent Council on Environmental Quality report,\32 the
    team that prepared the scientific assessment found that the agencies'
    history of dealing with environmental issues on a small scale, such
    as individual sites, left the agencies with data for the region that
    were inconsistent from place to place and difficult to use with
    precision for analyzing natural resource issues at larger scales.
    Since the Northwest Forest Plan was approved, progress has been made
    in standardizing the data to be collected and in mapping federal
    lands on a consistent scale across the region.  For example, Forest
    Service and BLM data on vegetation across the region are being
    combined into one map.  Once the map is completed, the agencies will
    be able to update the map with new information as the vegetation
    changes over time.  According to a BLM official, the agencies will
    also use the map as a basis for other maps, such as a map of northern
    spotted owl habitat.

    In addition, both the Forest Service and BLM are accumulating data
    across large areas within the region and testing the data to see if
    they are useful to land managers for decision-making.  For example,
    the Forest Service is developing a data set for an area in the Coast
    mountain range in Oregon that includes information on forest cover
    and landowners' behavior for both federal and nonfederal lands.
    Using the data set, the agency can project the effect of proposed
    land management decisions over time to predict what the landscape
    will look like up to 100 years in the future.

    BLM has compiled a data set for the Umpqua River basin in Oregon and
    may use it for long-term planning in the area.  Agency officials
    showed us how the data can be used to identify locations where land
    management activities, such as timber harvesting, will produce the
    smallest impact on the landscape.  Officials from the Fish and
    Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the
    Environmental Protection Agency support BLM's use of the data set for
    the long-term planning of projects, stating that planning based on
    data across a large area will help them in reaching decisions about
    the impact of BLM's projects on threatened and endangered species and
    on water quality.

    --------------------
    \32 J.  Pipkin, The Northwest Forest Plan Revisited (Sept.  1998).
    Mr.  Pipkin is the Director of the Office of Policy Analysis at the
    Department of the Interior.  The report was commissioned by the
    Council on Environmental Quality.

          THE NORTHWEST FOREST PLAN
          REQUIRES REGIONAL MONITORING
          AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.6

    Monitoring is an essential component of natural resource management
    because it provides information on the relative success of management
    strategies in achieving desired ecological conditions and management
    objectives.  Monitoring is linked to the process of adaptive
    management--a continuous cycle of planning, acting, monitoring, and
    evaluating--that can lead to continuous improvement in land
    management.  (See fig.  I.2.)

       Figure I.2:  Adaptive
       Management Cycle

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Source:  Adapted from Forest
       Ecosystem Management:  An
       Ecological, Economic, and
       Social Assessment, Report of
       the Forest Ecosystem Management
       Assessment Team (July 1993).

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    The Northwest Forest Plan requires the agencies to monitor their land
    management activities to determine whether (1) the plan's standards
    and guidelines are being followed (implementation monitoring), (2)
    they are achieving the plan's desired results (effectiveness
    monitoring), and (3) the plan's underlying assumptions about the
    activities are sound (validation monitoring).  The agencies have
    completed 3 years of implementation monitoring and are beginning to
    do effectiveness monitoring.  They have not developed a plan for
    validation monitoring, but agency officials told us that some
    validation monitoring is being performed.

       THE NORTHWEST FOREST PLAN
       PROVIDES A WIDE RANGE OF
       ECOSYSTEM BENEFITS
    --------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3

    The Northwest Forest Plan was the first broad-scale attempt to apply
    an ecosystem approach to resolving natural resource issues.  It not
    only caused the injunctions against federal timber sales to be lifted
    but also provided guidance on protecting the environment across the
    ecosystem, including areas critical to water quality.  As a result,
    the plan benefits other federal agencies�such as the National Marine
    Fisheries Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the
    National Park Service�that are not bound by the plan's standards and
    guidelines.

          THE NORTHWEST FOREST PLAN
          PROVIDES MANAGEMENT
          DIRECTION FOR MORE THAN
          PROTECTING NORTHERN SPOTTED
          OWL HABITAT
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3.1

    According to a federal judge, the agencies creating the Northwest
    Forest Plan could not comply with environmental laws without planning
    on an ecosystem basis.  Although the original controversy focused on
    protecting northern spotted owl habitat, the plan contains provisions
    to protect other species and to restore and maintain watersheds
    because these activities are important to the overall health of the
    ecosystem.

    To meet the agencies' obligations under the Endangered Species Act,
    the plan designated over 10 million acres, or more than 40 percent of
    the federal land in the plan area, as reserves to conserve and create
    habitat for listed species.  This area also provides habitat for many
    other species that are not listed.  The plan also requires the
    agencies to gather data on the habitat and location of over 400
    species in the plan area that are not listed but about which little
    is known.  If the agencies find rare and sensitive species among this
    group, they may decide that management actions are needed to keep
    them from becoming threatened or endangered.

    To maintain and restore the ecological health of watersheds and the
    aquatic environment, the plan established an aquatic conservation
    strategy.  The strategy contains four components:  (1) creating
    reserves to protect lands along streams; (2) designating �key�
    watersheds that provide high-quality water and habitat for at-risk
    fish species; (3) performing ecological analyses of key and other
    watersheds to aid in planning management activities; and (4)
    restoring the health of watersheds and the aquatic environment.

    To implement the aquatic conservation strategy, the Northwest Forest
    Plan set aside over 2.6 million acres as riparian reserves.  The plan
    also designated over 9 million acres as key watersheds in which no
    major activity�such as timber harvesting�can take place until an
    ecological analysis of the watershed has been completed.  The
    agencies have made progress in completing watershed analyses for both
    key and other watersheds.  As of 1997, the Forest Service had
    completed 234 watershed analyses of the 480 it planned to complete
    and BLM had completed 70 analyses, covering about 70 percent of its
    lands in the plan area.  Finally, the agencies have performed
    watershed restoration activities.  For example, from 1994 to 1997,
    the Forest Service completed riparian restoration projects, such as
    planting vegetation, on almost 16,000 acres.

          THE NORTHWEST FOREST PLAN
          PROVIDES BENEFITS TO OTHER
          AGENCIES NOT DIRECTLY
          AFFECTED BY THE PLAN'S
          MANAGEMENT DIRECTION
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3.2

    Although the Northwest Forest Plan's management direction is specific
    to the Forest Service's and BLM's land management activities, other
    federal agencies report that they have benefited from the plan in
    ways that will help them accomplish their missions.  For example,
    according to the National Marine Fisheries Service, it has
    successfully applied the science from the plan's scientific
    assessment in a variety of nonfederal habitat conservation efforts in
    various parts of the country.  The National Park Service pointed out
    that four of its parks are adjacent to late-successional reserves
    designated by the plan and that the reserves will contribute to the
    parks' biological diversity, wildlife viability, and ecological
    integrity.  Officials from the Environmental Protection Agency have
    also identified ways in which the plan has helped the agency carry
    out its environmental protection missions.  For example, riparian
    reserve stream buffers created by the plan have enhanced source water
    protection�a responsibility for the agency under the Safe Drinking
    Water Act.  The Environmental Protection Agency has also been able to
    share watershed data gathered under the plan, thereby reducing the
    burden of acquiring and managing it.

    All three agencies have indicated that the interagency collaboration
    that occurred during the development of the Northwest Forest Plan has
    continued beyond the plan's implementation.  For example, according
    to the National Marine Fisheries Service, the agency has colocated a
    field office with other federal agencies, resulting in improved
    working relationships and enhanced resource protection.  An
    Environmental Protection Agency official noted that the success of
    the interagency collaboration on the Northwest Forest Plan
    contributed to collaboration on other efforts, such as the interior
    Columbia River basin planning effort.

       TIMBER VOLUME AND QUALITY HAVE
       DECLINED AND COSTS HAVE
       INCREASED UNDER THE NORTHWEST
       FOREST PLAN
    --------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4

    The Northwest Forest Plan satisfied the courts so that they were
    willing to lift the injunctions barring the Forest Service and BLM
    from selling timber in northern spotted owl habitat.  The plan
    satisfied the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and the
    National Forest Management Act and its implementing regulations.  It
    also provided assurance that the processes and functions of
    late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystems, as well as of the
    riparian habitat essential for many aquatic and terrestrial species,
    would be maintained and restored.  In addition, the plan provided
    guidance to federal agencies on protecting the environment.

    However, to comply with the statutory requirements incorporated in
    the plan, the Forest Service and BLM have had to, among other things,
    (1) significantly reduce the volume and commercial quality of the
    timber sold and (2) significantly reduce the use of clear-cutting as
    the preferred method to harvest timber.\33 As a result, the agencies'
    costs to provide timber and loggers' costs to harvest it have
    significantly increased on a per-unit basis.

    --------------------
    \33 Clear-cutting is a harvesting method that removes all trees from
    a timber-harvesting site at one time.

          THE VOLUME OF TIMBER SOLD
          HAS DECREASED SIGNIFICANTLY
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4.1

    The fertile soils of the Pacific Northwest provide some of the best
    conditions in the United States for growing trees, and federal lands
    in the region are recognized as some of the nation's most productive
    and valuable commercial forest properties.  From fiscal year 1980
    through fiscal year 1989--the last year before federal timber sales
    in northern spotted owl habitat were barred by court-ordered
    injunctions--the Forest Service and BLM sold an average of 5 billion
    board feet of timber per year from the lands bounded by the plan.\34
    During the first 4 full fiscal years of the plan--fiscal years
    1995-98--timber sales from federal lands bound by the plan averaged
    about 687 million board feet per year, or less than 14 percent of the
    volume sold during the 1980s.  (See fig.  I.3.)

       Figure I.3:  Volume of Timber
       Sold From Federal Lands in the
       Northwest Forest Plan Area,
       Fiscal Years 1980-98

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Sources:  Forest Service and BLM.

    The authors of the Northwest Forest Plan concluded in an
    environmental impact statement that the volume of timber sold from
    federal lands in the Pacific Northwest during the 1980s could not be
    sustained.  The plan's scientific assessment concluded that the
    situation in the Pacific Northwest had reached a point where
    satisfying the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and other
    applicable laws required a course of action that would substantially
    reduce the availability of timber from federal forests in the region
    inhabited by the northern spotted owl.  As a result, the Northwest
    Forest Plan imposes management restrictions on late-successional
    timber stands and other ecologically important areas, resulting in a
    sharp decline in the projected volume of timber available for sale
    from federal lands in the Pacific Northwest.  The plan anticipated
    that the volume of timber available for sale over the first 10 years
    of the plan--called the probable sales quantity�would be about 9.58
    billion board feet, or an average of about 958 million board feet per
    year.\35

    --------------------
    \34 Different methods for estimating board feet yield different
    estimates.  To account for these differences, we have converted all
    board feet volumes into a standard measure using the method of
    estimation employed by the Forest Service's Northwest Region.

    \35 This estimate does not include "other wood." Other wood is wood
    that is too decayed, crooked, small, or otherwise unsuitable for
    processing into a saleable product.  Historically, other wood has
    accounted for about 10 percent of the total harvest volume from
    timber-suitable federal lands in the planning area.  The original
    probable sale quantity of 958 million board feet per year grew to
    1.054 billion board feet (rounded to 1.1 billion board feet in some
    instances) when a 10-percent increase was included for other wood.

          THE QUALITY OF TIMBER
          HARVESTED FROM FEDERAL LANDS
          IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST HAS
          DECLINED
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4.2

    Not only has the volume of timber sold from federal lands in the
    Pacific Northwest declined but so also has the quality of the timber
    harvested.  Restrictions on the location and age of trees that can be
    harvested are intended to protect and enhance the habitat of the
    northern spotted owl and other species that depend on the region's
    late-successional and old-growth forests.  However, these
    restrictions also limit the harvesting of some of the most
    commercially valuable trees.  For instance, restrictions on
    harvesting older trees have contributed to the decline in timber
    available to produce lumber and other commercially valuable
    products--known as sawtimber.\36 As a proportion of timber harvested
    from Forest Service lands, sawtimber fell from an average of almost
    86 percent during the 1980s to an average of less than 75 percent
    during fiscal years 1995-98.  (See fig.  I.4.)

       Figure I.4:  Sawtimber as a
       Percentage of Total Volume of
       Timber Harvested From Forest
       Service Lands in the Pacific
       Northwest, Fiscal Years 1980-98

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Source:  Forest Service.

    Moreover, the quality of the sawtimber harvested from federal lands
    in the Pacific Northwest has dropped, as illustrated by the decrease
    in the percentage of high-quality Douglas fir sold in the area
    covered by the Northwest Forest Plan.  Douglas fir accounts for about
    two-thirds of the timber volume harvested from federal lands in the
    Pacific Northwest.  It is one of the most commercially valuable tree
    species because of its size and quality.  The most valuable Douglas
    fir are often found in late-successional and old-growth forests.
    However, the quality of the Douglas fir sawtimber that is being sold
    has dropped dramatically, in part because of the Northwest Forest
    Plan's restrictions on harvesting in late-successional and old-growth
    areas.  During the 1980s, about 22 percent of the Douglas fir
    sawtimber sold from federal lands in western Oregon and western
    Washington was graded as the highest quality.\37 This figure dropped
    to about 9 percent for fiscal years 1995-97.  (See fig.  I.5.)

       Figure I.5:  Percentage of
       High-Grade Douglas Fir Sold on
       Federal Lands in Western Oregon
       and Western Washington, Fiscal
       Years 1980-97

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Source:  Timber Data Company.

    --------------------
    \36 When trees are harvested and cut into logs, they are graded on
    the basis of qualities such as the diameter of the log and how clear,
    or free of knots, the wood is.  Sawtimber is typically more valuable
    than other timber because it can be manufactured into a broader array
    of wood products and often contains a larger amount of clear,
    high-grade wood.

    \37 The highest-quality sawtimber, logs known as �peelers,� were so
    named because, historically, they were "peeled" to make veneer.
    Species of trees are graded on different scales.  Only some species
    can produce logs of sufficiently high quality to be graded as
    peelers.  Douglas fir grown west of the Cascade ridge is of such high
    quality that it has more than one grade of peeler--it has four
    grades.

          TIMBER PROGRAM'S PER-UNIT
          COSTS HAVE INCREASED FOR
          LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCIES AND
          LOGGERS IN THE PACIFIC
          NORTHWEST
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4.3

    While the volume and quality of timber have declined, the unit cost
    to the Forest Service to operate the timber program and the unit cost
    to private companies that harvest the timber have risen dramatically.
    In fiscal year 1992, the Forest Service spent about $126 per thousand
    board feet to operate the timber program.\38 By fiscal year 1997 the
    cost had almost doubled to $243 per thousand board feet.\39 (See fig.
    I.6.)

       Figure I.6:  Cost Per Thousand
       Board Feet to Operate the
       Forest Service's Timber Program
       in the Pacific Northwest,
       Fiscal Years 1992-97

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Source:  Forest Service.

    The Forest Service reports that nationally, per-unit costs have
    increased because the fixed costs of conducting the timber sale
    program, such as the expenses associated with depreciation on
    facilities and roads, have not changed, even though less timber is
    being sold.  Additionally, certain activities that contribute to the
    cost of the timber program--such as sale preparation and harvest
    administration--are less efficient at lower harvest levels.  As a
    result, the unit cost of performing these activities has generally
    increased as the size of the timber program has decreased.

    The unit cost per board foot to loggers to harvest timber on federal
    lands in the Pacific Northwest has also increased dramatically, in
    large part because of the more environmentally sensitive harvesting
    methods required on federal lands.  Virtually all of this cost
    increase can be attributed to the increase in the stump-to-truck
    cost, that is, the cost to fell a tree, prepare it for
    transportation, and load it on a truck.  (See fig.  I.7.)

       Figure I.7:  Cost Per Thousand
       Board Feet to Log in National
       Forests in Western Washington
       and Western Oregon, Fiscal
       Years 1980-97

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Source:  Timber Data Company.

    These costs have increased, in part, because clear-cutting, which is
    a relatively economical method of harvesting, has been significantly
    reduced, and more costly and time-consuming timber-harvesting methods
    are being used.  For example, a growing number of federal land
    managers are requiring environmentally sensitive logging techniques
    that also increase costs, such as having loggers use helicopters to
    remove trees from an area instead of having trucks drive to the
    harvesting site, which could damage the environment.

    --------------------
    \38 This includes all direct and indirect costs.  Direct costs
    include the expenses for such activities as preparing and
    administering timber sales and reforesting cutover areas.  Indirect
    costs mainly include the expenses for responding to appeals and
    litigation, as well as general administrative costs.

    \39 For fiscal year 1997, the federal government adopted new
    accounting standards that require the Forest Service to include the
    cost of road construction as an annual expense instead of carrying
    the cost as an asset on its balance sheet.  This change was
    responsible for an 8.4-percent increase in the reported cost of the
    Forest Service's national timber program for fiscal year 1997.

       THE QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF
       FEDERAL TIMBER FROM THE PACIFIC
       NORTHWEST WILL REMAIN LOW AND
       UNIT COSTS WILL REMAIN HIGH
    --------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5

    The overall decline in the quantity and quality of timber from
    federal lands covered by the Northwest Forest Plan is unlikely to be
    reversed, given existing laws, including the Endangered Species Act,
    and their implementing regulations and judicial interpretations.
    Although restrictions imposed by the plan to comply with these laws
    caused the federal injunctions to be lifted, they also resulted in
    reduced timber sales, lower-quality timber, and increases in per-unit
    costs for federal agencies to operate the timber program, and for
    loggers to harvest timber from federal lands.  The Forest Service and
    BLM estimate that the most likely volume of timber sold in an average
    year during the first decade of the plan will be about 746 million
    board feet.  This level of annual sales is not significantly above
    the lowest level of sales experienced as a result of the
    injunctions�about 300 million board feet�when compared with the 5
    billion board feet of timber sold in an average year during the
    1980's.  The restrictions imposed by the plan that reduced timber
    sales to this level are likely to keep them at about this level.
    Additionally, because these restrictions are also responsible for
    reducing the timber's quality and increasing the program's operating
    and harvesting costs, the quality and costs are unlikely to change
    substantially.

          TIMBER'S DECLINING QUANTITY
          AND QUALITY ARE PRIMARILY
          THE RESULTS OF STATUTORY
          REQUIREMENTS
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5.1

    Although the sharp decline in the volume of timber sold can be traced
    to the court injunctions and the quantity and quality of the timber
    currently available for sale can be traced to specific components of
    the plan, cutbacks in the timber program can generally be traced to
    requirements in federal planning and environmental laws.  These laws
    include the Endangered Species Act, the National Forest Management
    Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Clean Water Act,
    and the Clean Air Act.  Further requirements are embodied in the
    laws' implementing regulations and judicial interpretations.\40 These
    laws define minimum levels�or thresholds�to be met to protect
    individual natural resources or assign responsibility for defining
    these levels to executive branch officials.\41

    According to the plan, the sharp drop in timber volume from the
    levels that prevailed during the 1980s is a consequence of previous
    high harvest levels that severely limited the options available to
    land managers attempting to comply with the environmental laws.  For
    example, the alternative options considered during the plan's
    development that would have provided higher probable sale quantities
    were not adopted because they were deemed incompatible with the
    requirements of the Endangered Species Act or the National Forest
    Management Act and its implementing regulations.

    The decrease in the quality of federal timber sold in the Pacific
    Northwest is also ultimately attributable to the requirements of
    planning and environmental laws.  For example, the Forest Service
    believes that legal requirements--coupled with changes in public
    attitudes concerning the most appropriate management priorities for
    national forest lands�resulted in a shift toward using timber sales
    to accomplish stewardship objectives instead of providing wood.\42
    The Forest Service has shifted its management emphasis under its
    broad multiple-use and sustained-yield mandate from consumption
    (primarily producing timber) to conservation (primarily sustaining
    wildlife and fish).  It has also made clear that its overriding
    mission and funding priority is to maintain and restore the health of
    the lands entrusted to its care, and it has stated its intention to
    limit goods and services--including commercial sawtimber and other
    forest products--to the types, levels, and mixes that the lands are
    capable of sustaining.\43

    In the past, the primary purpose of most timber sales was to help
    meet this demand for wood products; therefore, these sales included a
    significant amount of commercially valuable timber.  However, more
    and more timber sales are being designed to help attain various
    stewardship objectives.  For example, sales are being used as a tool
    to accelerate the development of late-successional conditions in
    young forest stands.  While these sales are designed to yield a
    profit whenever circumstances allow, the size, type, and quality of
    the timber sold are dictated by the desired stewardship outcome.  As
    a result, the types of trees being harvested have shifted from live
    to dead and dying trees and from large-diameter to small-diameter
    trees.

    This shift in emphasis is notable in the Pacific Northwest.  Between
    fiscal year 1992 and fiscal year 1997, the proportion of timber
    harvested from Forest Service lands in the Pacific Northwest
    primarily to help meet the nation's demand for wood fell from about
    96 percent to about 39 percent of the harvest's total volume, while
    the proportion of timber harvested for forest stewardship purposes
    grew from less than 1 percent to about 55 percent.\44 (See fig.
    I.8.)

       Figure I.8:  Timber Volumes
       Harvested From Forest Service
       Lands in the Pacific Northwest
       to Meet Commodity and
       Stewardship Objectives, Fiscal
       Years 1992-98

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Source:  Forest Service.

    --------------------
    \40 Forest Service Decision-Making:  A Framework for Improving
    Performance (GAO/RCED-97-71, Apr.  29, 1997).

    \41 Ecosystem Management:  Additional Actions Needed to Adequately
    Test a Promising Approach (GAO/RCED-94-111, Aug.  16, 1994).

    \42 See for example, Forest Management Program Report, Fiscal Year
    1997, Forest Service (FS-627, July 1998) and Changing Economics of
    the National Forest Timber Sale Program, Forest Service (1998).

    \43 Forest Service:  Lack of Financial and Performance Accountability
    Has Resulted in Inefficiency and Waste (GAO/T-RCED/AIMD-98-135, Mar.
    26, 1998) and Forest Service Management:  Little Has Changed as a
    Result of the Fiscal Year 1995 Budget Reforms (GAO/RCED-99-2, Dec.
    2, 1998).

    \44 A third type of timber harvest, personal use sales, remained
    relatively steady, ranging between about 4 and about 7 percent of the
    Forest Service's volume in the Pacific Northwest between fiscal year
    1992 and fiscal year 1997.  Personal use harvests are intended
    primarily to supply firewood, Christmas trees, and other
    miscellaneous forest products to individuals for their own
    consumption.

          THE QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF
          TIMBER SOLD ARE UNLIKELY TO
          INCREASE SUBSTANTIALLY OVER
          LEVELS EXPERIENCED DURING
          THE INJUNCTIONS
    ------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5.2

    According to the original estimate in the Northwest Forest Plan, the
    likely amount of timber the Forest Service and BLM would be able to
    sell during the first decade of the plan�the probable sale
    quantity�would average about 958 million board feet per year.
    However, by August 1995, just 16 months after the plan was finalized,
    the Forest Service and BLM had reduced the probable sale quantity to
    840 million board feet per year.  Moreover, the Forest Service
    expects to further reduce its portion of the probable sale quantity
    and estimates that the resulting total probable sale quantity will
    fall to an average annual level of 746 million board feet�22 percent
    less than the originally estimated probable sale quantity.  The drop
    in probable sale quantity bears out the plan's observation that
    changes could occur.  For example, the plan noted that timber sale
    levels could be affected by requirements for conducting additional
    environmental analysis or setting aside additional lands to protect
    threatened or endangered species or by a change in the acreage
    allocated to riparian reserves following an analysis and inventory of
    intermittent steams.  Officials told us that the probable sale
    quantity will likely change yet again.

    Even if the probable sale quantity does not drop below an average of
    746 million board feet per year, this level of sales is only a small
    fraction of the levels common during the 1980s, and, from this
    perspective, it is not significantly higher than the levels under the
    federal court injunctions (see fig.  I.3).  Timber sales reached
    their lowest level as a result of the injunctions in fiscal year
    1994, when the agencies sold 297 million board feet, or about 6
    percent of the 5 billion board feet sold, on average, each year
    during the 1980s.  The most likely average annual sale level under
    the plan is about 746 million board feet, or about 15 percent of the
    level sold during the 1980s.  There is only a 9-percent difference
    between the level predicted under the plan and the lowest level under
    the injunctions when compared with the average level during the
    1980s.

    Furthermore, even if the probable sale quantity does rise, it is
    unlikely that timber sales will increase significantly.  Since the
    plan was approved, additional species have been listed as threatened
    and endangered, and agreements have been signed that require federal
    lands to assume a growing proportion of the responsibility for
    protecting wildlife and fish.  These developments suggest that timber
    sales under the Northwest Forest Plan may have peaked in fiscal year
    1996, when 841 million board feet were sold.

    While the management direction in the Northwest Forest Plan is
    intended to support the recovery of the northern spotted owl and
    conserve other species dependent on old-growth forests by maintaining
    the ecological health of forested and aquatic ecosystems, 18 species
    in the plan area have been listed as endangered or threatened under
    the Endangered Species Act since the plan was approved--15 fish, 1
    frog, and 2 plants.  Although 9 of these species were recently listed
    (March 1999), the new listings are not expected to affect federal
    timber sales in the Pacific Northwest because the listings are for
    salmon and trout species whose habitat requirements are similar to
    those of the salmon and trout species already listed.  The additional
    listings, however, further reduce the chance that restrictions in the
    plan protecting these species' habitat will be lifted.

    In addition, the pressure to maintain habitat on federal lands to
    protect threatened and endangered species is expected to grow.  The
    Forest Service and BLM are required by the National Environmental
    Policy Act to consider activities occurring on nonfederal lands in
    deciding which activities may occur on their lands.  We believe this
    requirement, coupled with recent policy initiatives, means that
    federal lands will assume a growing proportion of the responsibility
    for protecting threatened and endangered species and that these
    species' habitats will increasingly be concentrated on Forest Service
    and BLM lands in the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere.

    Additionally, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and
    Wildlife Service have incorporated a �no surprises� policy into
    habitat conservation plans under section 10 of the Endangered Species
    Act.\45 Under this policy, nonfederal landowners, in exchange for
    adopting a habitat conservation plan to protect threatened and
    endangered species, will be exempt from land-use restrictions and
    other mitigation measures affecting covered species beyond those
    restrictions and measures already addressed in the habitat
    conservation plan.  If the status of the species unexpectedly worsens
    because of circumstances not addressed in the habitat conservation
    plan, the burden of imposing additional conservation measures would
    fall primarily on the federal government and on nonfederal landowners
    that have not developed a habitat conservation plan.  There are about
    3 million acres of nonfederal land under habitat conservation plans
    within the range of the northern spotted owl.

    Finally, according to a recent report on the Northwest Forest
    Plan,\46 part of the administration's intent in developing a regional
    land management plan was to minimize the impact of protecting and
    recovering threatened and endangered species on nonfederal lands.
    Seventy-eight percent of the lands were either set aside for specific
    uses, such as recreation, or reserved to provide habitat for
    endangered and threatened species and other species dependent on
    late-successional forest for habitat.  Timber harvesting on these
    lands is either prohibited or allowed only for stewardship purposes.
    Timber harvests for commercial purposes are allowed on the remaining
    22 percent of the lands but are subject to management provisions.
    While these provisions are intended to preserve late-successional
    forests for habitat, they also have the effect of limiting timber
    harvests.  If more late-successional acreage is preserved on federal
    lands, less must be preserved on nonfederal lands to provide
    sufficient habitat for endangered, threatened, and other species that
    depend on this type of forest for habitat.  Essentially, the plan
    established a trade-off, increasing habitat protection requirements
    and timber-harvesting restrictions on federal lands in order to
    increase the nonfederal acreage available for timber harvesting and
    other nonconservation uses.

    --------------------
    \45 63 Fed.  Reg.  8859 (Feb.  23, 1998).

    \46 J.  Pipkin, The Northwest Forest Plan Revisited (Sept.  1998).

    DEFICIENCIES IN DEVELOPING A
    MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE INTERIOR
    COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN HAVE RESULTED
    IN DELAYS AND UNFULFILLED PROMISES
    ========================================================== Appendix II

    The development of a plan to manage about 72 million acres of federal
    land in the interior Columbia River basin is at a critical juncture.
    From the outset, the Forest Service and BLM have stated that a
    regional ecosystem management approach will cut the cost of amending
    federal land management plans in half because decisions will be made
    once for the region rather than for each federal land unit in the
    basin.  However, after spending over 5 years and almost $41 million
    through fiscal year 1998, the agencies have still not made the
    necessary management choices and selected a management plan for the
    basin.  The Forest Service and BLM estimate that they will need at
    least another $10.9 million to reach a decision in March 2000.  One
    view expressed by both the public and some in the Congress is that
    funding for the effort should be terminated.  According to some
    holding this view, the ecological and socioeconomic data that have
    been gathered and the analyses that have been performed should be
    forwarded to local Forest Service and BLM administrative units for
    the agencies to consider and use in revising their land management
    plans.

    In developing a management plan for the interior Columbia River
    basin, the Forest Service and BLM have attempted to address
    ecological issues along the boundaries of natural systems rather than
    along the boundaries of administrative units and have worked to
    overcome some long-standing planning deficiencies.  They have (1)
    worked in collaboration with other federal agencies, (2) offered many
    opportunities for public participation in the process, and (3)
    conducted a scientific assessment that has generated greatly improved
    ecological and socioeconomic data on the basin.  However, developing
    the plan has taken far longer and cost far more than expected.

    Some of the delays and higher costs occurred because the agencies
    significantly underestimated the time and effort required to address
    a multitude of ecological and socioeconomic issues and human
    activities at such a large geographic scale.  Additional time and
    funds are being expended because the agencies decided to develop one
    or more new management alternatives in response to widespread
    criticism of their original draft alternatives from the public and
    the Congress.  We believe that this criticism can be attributed, in
    part, to the failure of the agencies to limit their proposal to those
    issues that are appropriately addressed at the scale of the basin and
    to include for those issues the elements necessary for a successful
    ecosystem management plan.  The agencies asked for comments on a
    draft management plan that spelled out the basic intent of seven
    different alternative strategies but that did not provide adequate
    detail to determine how the strategies would be implemented or what
    effects they would have in particular locations.  As a result, the
    Congress and other interested parties could not make informed choices
    among the alternatives.  Moreover, as they did for the Northwest
    Forest Plan, the Forest Service and BLM overestimated the volume of
    federal timber to be harvested under their preferred land management
    alternative.

       A MULTISTEP PROCESS IS BEING
       USED TO DEVELOP A MANAGEMENT
       PLAN FOR THE INTERIOR COLUMBIA
       RIVER BASIN
    -------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1

    The plan to manage federal lands in the interior Columbia River basin
    is being developed to avoid a conflict between consumption and
    conservation such as the one in the Pacific Northwest that led to
    injunctions against timber sales on federal lands.  Table II.1
    summarizes the major events in developing the plan.

                                            Table II.1

                             Time Line of Major Events in Developing
                                a Management Plan for the Interior
                                       Columbia River Basin

    ---------  --------  --------------------------------------------------------------------
    1993       July      The President directs the Forest Service to develop a scientifically
                         sound ecosystem-based strategy for national forests in Oregon and
                         Washington east of the crest of the Cascade mountain range.

    1994       January   The Forest Service and BLM sign a charter expanding the scope of the
                         strategy to include BLM lands in eastern Oregon and Washington.

               July      The Forest Service and BLM expand the scope of the effort to include
                         the upper Columbia River basin in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and
                         Nevada.

    1996       June      The agencies issue a framework for ecosystem management in the
                         project area.

               December  The agencies issue an integrated scientific assessment of the
                         project area.

    1997       May       The agencies issue a scientific evaluation of the potential effects
                         of preliminary management alternatives.

               June      The agencies issue a more detailed scientific assessment of the
                         project area.

               June      The agencies release for public comment a draft environmental impact
                         statement for each of the two planning areas: eastern Oregon and
                         Washington and the upper Columbia River basin, which together make
                         up the interior Columbia basin. The comment period is to end October
                         6, 1997.

               Septembe  The agencies extend the public comment period to February 6, 1998.
               r

               December  The agencies extend the public comment period to April 6, 1998.

    1998       March     In response to a congressional mandate, the agencies issue an
                         analysis of the economic and social conditions of communities in the
                         project area.

               March     The public comment period is extended to May 6, 1998, to allow time
                         to review the March 1998 analysis of economic and social conditions.

               May 6     The public comment period ends. Nearly 83,000 comments were
                         received.

               October   The agencies issue an analysis of public comments on the draft
                         environmental impact statements.

               October   The Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior announce their
               8         decision to present one or more new alternatives in a supplemental
                         draft environmental impact statement sometime in mid-1999.

    1999       Septembe  A supplemental draft environmental impact statement is to be
               r         released for public comment.

    2000       March     A final environmental impact statement and record of decision are to
                         be issued.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In March 1993, environmental groups petitioned the Forest Service's
    Pacific Northwest (Region 6) office to revise its minimum management
    requirements for old-growth-dependent wildlife species on national
    forests in Oregon and Washington east of the crest of the Cascade
    mountain range (the Eastside planning area).  The petitioners claimed
    that the requirements in effect at the time, which were intended to
    ensure the continued viability of certain old-growth-dependent
    species, (1) lacked credibility and (2) had not been developed for
    other old-growth-dependent species that needed them.  The petitioners
    also contended that the region had no alternative for the Eastside
    area but to adopt the type of large-scale planning done under court
    order in the range of the northern spotted owl.  They requested a
    moratorium on timber harvesting and road building in the Eastside
    area's mature and old-growth forests.

    In July 1993, the President directed the Forest Service to develop a
    scientifically sound ecosystem-based management strategy for the
    Eastside area's national forests.  He also directed that the strategy
    be based on a forest health study that had been completed in May 1993
    by a team of agency scientists, as well as other studies.

    In January 1994, the Forest Service and BLM signed an "Eastside
    Ecosystem Management Project" charter that expanded the scope of the
    strategy to include all lands managed by BLM in eastern Oregon and
    Washington.  The charter called for four products:  (1) a framework
    for ecosystem management, (2) a scientific assessment of the interior
    Columbia River basin, (3) an environmental impact statement that
    presented a preferred alternative for managing Forest Service and BLM
    lands in eastern Oregon and Washington, and (4) a scientific
    evaluation of the management alternatives in the environmental impact
    statement.  According to the agencies, the preferred alternative in
    the environmental impact statement should both restore degraded
    habitats and provide commodities to help support local communities.

    In July 1994, the Forest Service and BLM expanded the scope of the
    planning effort to include the development of a strategy for managing
    federal lands in much of Idaho, western Montana, and small portions
    of Nevada, Wyoming, and Utah (the Upper Columbia River Basin planning
    area).  The effort to develop management strategies for both the
    Eastside planning area and the upper Columbia River basin planning
    area is known as the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management
    Project.

    Between May 1994 and July 1995, the Forest Service issued three
    interim management strategies.  One established riparian, ecosystem,
    and wildlife standards for timber sales in eastern Oregon and
    Washington (the Eastside Screens).\47 Another established
    requirements for managing anadromous fish\48 in eastern Oregon and
    Washington, Idaho, and portions of California.\49 The third
    established requirements for managing inland native fish.\50 The
    ecosystem management framework called for in the January 1994 charter
    was completed in June 1996.\51 It described the principles and the
    planning and analysis processes for managing ecosystems in the basin
    at multiple geographic scales and resolutions of data.

    An integrated scientific assessment of the interior Columbia River
    basin was issued in December 1996.\52 A scientific evaluation of the
    seven land management alternatives contained in a February 1996
    internal working draft of the environmental impact statement was
    completed in May 1997.\53

    In June 1997, the agencies released a more detailed version of the
    scientific assessment.\54 That same month, the Forest Service and BLM
    also issued two draft environmental impact statements for public
    comment (dated May 1997)�one for the Eastside planning area and
    another for the Upper Columbia River Basin planning area.

    The draft environmental impact statements are very similar to each
    other.  Both addressed the environmental, economic, and social
    effects of seven different land management alternatives representing
    a wide range of management prescriptions.  These alternatives
    included a preferred alternative to aggressively restore forest,
    rangeland, and watershed health through active management as well as
    alternatives to maintain the status quo, emphasize the production of
    goods and services, establish a system of reserves on federal lands
    within which management activities would be limited, and others.

    The original closing date for public comments on the draft
    environmental impact statements was October 6, 1997.  However, in
    September 1997, the comment period was extended to February 6, 1998,
    to give the public more time to review the voluminous documents.  In
    total, the detailed scientific assessment, draft environmental impact
    statements, and associated documents ran to nearly 6,000 pages.  In
    December 1997, the comment period was extended to April 6, 1998.
    Then, in March 1998, it was extended to May 6, 1998, to give the
    public time to review a report issued that month on the economic and
    social characteristics of the basin and the estimated effects of the
    seven different land management alternatives in the environmental
    impact statements on communities in the basin.\55 The report was
    prepared pursuant to the Department of the Interior and Related
    Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998 (P.L.  105-83).

    In an October 8, 1998, letter to key members of the Congress, the
    Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior announced that, because
    of widespread criticism of the June 1997 draft environmental impact
    statements by both the public and the Congress, the Forest Service
    and BLM would issue one or more new management alternatives in a
    supplemental draft environmental impact statement in mid-1999.
    According to the Secretaries' letter, the supplemental draft
    environmental impact statement would be followed by another public
    comment period.  Agency officials have since told us that the
    supplemental draft environmental impact statement is to be released
    for public comment in September 1999 and a final environmental impact
    statement and record of decision are to be issued in March 2000.

    --------------------
    \47 Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian, Ecosystem,
    and Wildlife Standards for Timber Sales, Forest Service (May 20,
    1994; amended on June 5, 1995, and July 31, 1995).

    \48 Anadromous fish (e.g., salmon and steelhead) hatch in freshwater,
    migrate to the ocean, mature there, and return to freshwater to
    reproduce.

    \49 Implementation of Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous
    Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho,
    and Portions of California, Forest Service (Feb.  24, 1995).  This
    strategy is known as PACFISH.

    \50 Inland Native Fish Strategy, Forest Service (July 28, 1995).
    This strategy is known as INFISH.

    \51 Richard W.  Haynes, Russell T.  Graham, and Thomas M.  Quigley,
    tech.  eds., A Framework for Ecosystem Management in the Interior
    Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins, Forest
    Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report
    PNW-GTR-374 (Portland, Ore.:  1996).

    \52 Thomas M.  Quigley, Richard W.  Haynes, and Russell T.  Graham,
    tech.  eds., Integrated Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem
    Management in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath
    and Great Basins, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station,
    General Technical Report PNW-GTR-382 (Portland, Ore.:  1996).

    \53 Thomas M.  Quigley, Kristine M.  Lee, and Sylvia J.  Arbelbide,
    tech.  eds., Evaluation of EIS Alternatives by the Science
    Integration Team, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station,
    General Technical Report PNW-GTR-406 (Portland, Ore.:  1997).

    \54 Thomas M.  Quigley, and Sylvia J.  Arbelbide, tech.  eds., An
    Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia Basin and
    Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins (vols.  I-IV), Forest
    Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report
    PNW-GTR-405 (Portland, Ore.:  1997).

    \55 Nicholas E.  Reyna, Richard H.  Phillips, and Gerald W.
    Williams, Economic and Social Conditions of Communities:  Economic
    and Social Characteristics of Interior Columbia Basin Communities and
    an Estimation of Effects on Communities from the Alternatives of the
    Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin Draft Environmental Impact
    Statements, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project
    (1998).

       DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN HAS
       ADDRESSED SOME LONG-STANDING
       DECISION-MAKING DEFICIENCIES
       AND ACCOMPLISHED SOME OF THE
       STEPS NECESSARY FOR ECOSYSTEM
       MANAGEMENT
    -------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2

    In developing a management plan for the interior Columbia River
    basin, the Forest Service and BLM have attempted to address
    ecological issues along the boundaries of natural systems and have
    worked to overcome some of the long-standing deficiencies that have
    plagued federal land management decision-making.  The agencies have
    (1) collaborated with other federal agencies, (2) involved the public
    in the decision-making process, and (3) conducted a scientific
    assessment to develop improved ecological and socioeconomic data on
    the basin.  At the same time, the agencies have also taken some of
    the steps that we believe are necessary to implement ecosystem
    management.

          FEDERAL AGENCIES HAVE
          COORDINATED THE PLANNING
          EFFORT FROM THE BEGINNING
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:2.1

    The Forest Service and BLM are the lead agencies on the Interior
    Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project; however, the project has
    been a multiagency effort from the beginning.  An executive steering
    committee has directed the project.  The committee is composed of
    three Forest Service regional foresters, three BLM state directors,
    two Forest Service research experimental station directors, a deputy
    regional director of the Environmental Protection Agency, and
    regional directors of the National Marine Fisheries Service and the
    Fish and Wildlife Service.

    The committee created an ad hoc interagency senior-level team of
    senior executives from the Forest Service, BLM, and three federal
    regulatory agencies�the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and
    Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service.  This
    team's purpose was to ensure that the draft environmental impact
    statements complied at the basin scale with the requirements of the
    many relevant land management and environmental protection laws,
    including the National Forest Management Act, the Federal Land
    Management and Policy Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the
    Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Clean Air Act.
    The draft environmental impact statements also called for the Forest
    Service and BLM to develop a memorandum of understanding with the
    three regulatory agencies that would facilitate collaboration in
    implementing the project.

    Two separate groups have carried out the overall planning effort.
    One group--known as the Science Integration Team--was responsible for
    developing three of the four products called for in the January 1994
    charter--the framework for ecosystem management, the scientific
    assessment of the interior Columbia River basin, and the scientific
    evaluation of the management alternatives in the draft environmental
    impact statements.  The other group--known as the Environmental
    Impact Statement Team--is responsible for developing the two
    environmental impact statements.  Both groups are interdisciplinary
    and interagency teams of biologists, botanists, geologists,
    economists, sociologists, and others.  They have consisted primarily
    of Forest Service and BLM staff but have also included
    representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency; Interior's
    U.S.  Geological Survey, National Biological Service,\56 Fish and
    Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Mines; Commerce's National Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Administration and National Marine Fisheries Service;
    and universities.  Other cooperating agencies include the National
    Park Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Bonneville Power
    Administration.

    The vast majority of the project's costs have been borne by the
    Forest Service and BLM, but other agencies have also contributed
    staff and resources.  The Forest Service spent about 85 percent and
    BLM about 15 percent of the nearly $41 million spent by those two
    agencies on the project as of the end of fiscal year 1998.  In
    addition, the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that it spent
    $487,600 on the project between fiscal year 1994 and January 1998,
    primarily for salaries.  The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that
    it has spent about $250,000 per year on developing the plan since
    fiscal year 1995.

    --------------------
    \56 In 1996, the National Biological Service became the Biological
    Resources Division of the U.S.  Geological Survey.

          THE PUBLIC HAS PARTICIPATED
          SINCE THE PLANNING EFFORT
          BEGAN
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:2.2

    The public has had many opportunities to participate in the planning
    process.  Before developing the draft environmental impact
    statements, the Environmental Impact Statement Team held scoping
    meetings in dozens of locations with members of the public to
    identify issues and concerns associated with the lands managed by the
    Forest Service and BLM.  While developing the draft environmental
    impact statements, the team held over 200 informational meetings,
    briefings, and consultations.  Nearly 83,000 citizens; advocacy
    groups; corporations; and federal, tribal, state, and local agencies
    commented on one or both of the draft environmental impact
    statements.  An independent team of natural resource professionals
    from the Forest Service and BLM prepared a content analysis of those
    comments,\57 and the Environmental Impact Statement Team will
    consider them in preparing the supplemental draft environmental
    impact statement.

    According to the content analysis of the public comments on the draft
    environmental impact statements, �many are frustrated with the
    process for public collaboration and suspect their input is not being
    considered by government decision-makers.� However, as we have
    observed in reviewing other federal land management planning efforts,
    while the benefits of working together cooperatively often outweigh
    the costs of early and continuous public involvement, dissatisfaction
    with the agencies' process for public involvement often cannot be
    dissociated from dissatisfaction with the outcome of the process.
    Thus, some parties opposed to the preferred management alternative in
    the draft environmental impact statements--which would aggressively
    restore forest, rangeland, and watershed health through active
    management but not emphasize the production of goods and
    services--may be expressing dissatisfaction with the agencies'
    process for public involvement.  These parties may also be expected
    to avail themselves of statutory or regulatory opportunities for
    administrative appeal and judicial review if they are similarly
    dissatisfied with the management alternative or alternatives
    scheduled to be presented in the supplemental draft environmental
    impact statement.

    --------------------
    \57 Final Analysis of Public Comment for the Eastside and Upper
    Columbia River Basin Draft Environmental Impact Statements, Content
    Analysis Enterprise Team (1998).

          EFFORTS ARE UNDER WAY TO
          COLLECT AND USE COMPARABLE
          DATA
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:2.3

    The scientific assessment of ecological and socioeconomic systems and
    conditions in the basin greatly contributed to data comparability for
    the basin.  The Science Integration Team assembled over 170 �data
    layers,� or maps, of particular variables, such as vegetation types,
    grizzly bear range, employment, and income.  These data are stored in
    geographic information systems and can be retrieved not only by
    federal land managers at the forest or district level but also by the
    public.  As a result, pertinent information--which is not restricted
    to the agencies' administrative boundaries or jurisdictions--can be
    used for decision-making by many levels of government.  Despite these
    benefits, many of the comments on the draft environmental impact
    statements criticized the uses of data from the scientific
    assessment.

          DEVELOPMENT OF A MANAGEMENT
          PLAN FOR THE INTERIOR
          COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN
          FOLLOWED THE FIRST PRACTICAL
          STEPS IN IMPLEMENTING AN
          ECOSYSTEM APPROACH TO
          FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:2.4

    In addition to addressing several long-standing planning
    deficiencies, the Forest Service and BLM are using an approach in the
    interior Columbia River basin that is consistent with the first two
    practical steps needed to implement ecosystem management (see fig.
    I.1).  They have (1) delineated ecosystems at several geographic
    scales based on watersheds and (2) conducted a scientific assessment
    to better understand the ecosystems' ecologies.  The agencies are now
    in the process of completing the third step--making management
    choices.  They have also acknowledged the importance of the fourth
    step--adaptive management--and have proposed monitoring steps to
    determine whether the plan's management direction is being followed
    (implementation monitoring) and whether the plan is accomplishing the
    desired conditions (effectiveness monitoring).

    In the past, when the Forest Service and BLM developed a separate
    land management plan for each of their administrative units, they
    produced 74 separate land management plans for the basin.  In
    developing a basinwide plan, the agencies recognized that
    decision-making at the level of an administrative unit resulted in a
    fragmented and, perhaps, inconsistent approach to addressing many of
    the broader-scale ecological issues that transcend the boundaries of
    national forests and BLM districts.  Therefore, as is consistent with
    the first practical step of ecosystem management, they are using
    watersheds at three different geographic scales as the plan's
    building blocks.  The broadest scale is essentially the basin itself,
    which encompasses about 144 million acres and contains about 75
    million acres of federal land managed by the Forest Service or
    BLM.\58 The basin was then divided into 164 subbasins averaging
    800,000 to 1,000,000 acres in size, over 2,000 watersheds averaging
    50,000 to 100,000 acres, and over 7,000 subwatersheds averaging
    15,000 to 20,000 acres.

    Under the second practical step of ecosystem management, the
    scientific assessment--completed at a cost of about $22.7
    million--has provided extensive knowledge of the interior Columbia
    River basin.  The initial integrated assessment examined past and
    present biophysical (i.e., aquatic, terrestrial, and landscape),
    social, and economic systems on all lands in the basin regardless of
    ownership and discussed the probable outcomes of the agencies'
    current management practices and trends.  An expanded version of the
    assessment provided more detail on terrestrial, aquatic, landscape,
    economic, and social conditions in the basin.

    --------------------
    \58 The draft management plans address 72 million of the 75 million
    acres.

       DELAYS AND INCREASED COSTS CAN
       BE TRACED PRIMARILY TO THE
       MAGNITUDE OF THE EFFORT AND THE
       FAILURE TO PRESENT AN ADEQUATE
       DRAFT PLAN
    -------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3

    The delays and increased costs that have been and will be incurred to
    develop a plan to manage federal lands in the interior Columbia River
    basin can be traced primarily to two factors.  First, the Forest
    Service and BLM significantly underestimated the time and effort
    required to address the multitude of ecological and socioeconomic
    issues and human activities that they considered for an area
    encompassing roughly 8 percent of the United States.  Second, the
    management plan that the agencies proposed in June 1997 was widely
    criticized, and, as a result, they are spending additional time and
    money developing a new approach for the basin that will yield one or
    more new management alternatives.

    Some criticism of the original proposal focused on the agencies'
    decision to address issues that were not basinwide in nature.  We
    also believe that although the agencies presented alternatives in
    June 1997 that reflected different management strategies, they did
    not clearly identify how the alternatives would be implemented or
    what their consequences would be in particular locations.  These are
    elements that we believe are necessary for a successful ecosystem
    management plan.  Without this information, the Congress and other
    interested parties could not make informed choices among the proposed
    management alternatives.  Moreover, without this specificity, the
    chosen management alternative would have been difficult, if not
    impossible, for federal land managers to implement, monitor,
    evaluate, and be held accountable for.

          THE SIZE AND SCOPE OF THE
          PROJECT LED TO UNANTICIPATED
          DELAYS AND COSTS
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:3.1

    The broad geographic scope of the planning area, coupled with the
    multitude of issues and activities that the agencies decided to
    address, presented the agencies with a daunting challenge in
    developing a plan to manage federal lands in the interior Columbia
    River basin.  Reviewing the draft proposal also posed a challenge to
    the public that the agencies acknowledged by extending the original
    120-day comment period to 330 days.  As is clear, the Forest Service
    and BLM underestimated the overall time and effort that would be
    required to develop a plan.

    The scope of the effort has included a multitude of ecological and
    socioeconomic issues affecting both forests and rangelands.  For
    example, the scientific assessment and draft plan have addressed not
    just old-growth-dependent species, but other endangered and
    threatened species--such as anadromous fish (including salmon) and
    the grizzly bear--with different and/or more extensive habitat
    requirements.  They have also addressed issues such as costly
    outbreaks of wildfires, insects, and diseases; invasions of exotic
    weeds; declines in soil fertility and water and air quality;
    wilderness preservation; mounting legal challenges; and unpredictable
    flows of commodities such as timber and livestock forage.

    As the issues increase, so too do the number of human activities that
    need to be addressed in developing a management plan to restore the
    health of forests and rangelands in the basin.  The scope of the
    assessment included not only timber harvesting and road building, but
    also fire suppression; livestock grazing; mining; damming and water
    diversions; agricultural, industrial, urban, and residential
    development; and the deliberate or accidental introduction of
    nonnative plants, insects, and diseases.

    Because the basin is so large and so many issues are being addressed,
    the process is taking much longer and costing much more than
    anticipated.  For instance, in 1994, when the Forest Service and BLM
    added the Upper Columbia River Basin planning area, they doubled the
    geographic scope of the planning effort.  (See fig.  1.) The charter
    called for the draft environmental impact statement for the Eastside
    planning area to be completed by January 1995.  In April 1995, after
    the agencies decided to do an environmental impact statement for the
    upper Columbia River basin planning area, the Chief of the Forest
    Service announced that the draft statements would be issued in the
    fall of 1995.  The date for issuing the draft statements was later
    postponed to August 1996, and the statements were finally released in
    June 1997.  The public comment period for the draft statements was
    originally 120 days, but the agencies ultimately extended it to 330
    days to give people time to review the volumes of scientific data and
    wide-ranging management alternatives.

    The budget for the project has also grown since it started.  The
    initial estimated cost for the assessment and the Eastside management
    plan was $5 million.  In 1995, the agencies stated that the 3-year
    budget (through fiscal year 1996) for the expanded project area was
    $31 million.  As of the end of fiscal year 1998, the Forest Service
    and BLM had spent nearly $41 million.

          CRITICISM OF THE DRAFT PLAN
          LED TO A DECISION TO PREPARE
          A SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT
          ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
          STATEMENT
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:3.2

    Faced with widespread criticism over the agencies' preferred
    alternative in the draft plan, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
    Interior wrote to Members of Congress in October 1998 that they would
    �pursue alternative proposals to meet the interests and concerns of
    the public� and present them in a supplemental draft environmental
    impact statement.  This effort will add time and costs to the
    project.  The agencies now expect to issue the supplemental statement
    in September 1999 and anticipate that a final plan will be approved
    in March 2000.  The fiscal year 1999 budget for the project is $5.7
    million (some of which would have been needed even without the
    decision to prepare new alternatives).  According to the project
    team, another $5.2 million will be needed in fiscal year 2000 to
    complete the plan.

    Criticism of the original proposal was, indeed, widespread, coming
    from environmental organizations and conservationists, resource-based
    industries, local and tribal governments, and federal agencies.  The
    nature of the criticism was also broad.  The public critiqued, among
    other things, (1) the feasibility of trying to develop a management
    plan at the scale of the basin for the issues that the agencies
    addressed; (2) the clarity and specificity of the proposed management
    direction; (3) the range of the proposed alternatives; (4) the
    quantity, quality, and interpretation of scientific data; (5) the
    depth of coverage of specific issues; and (6) the projected outcomes
    of the preferred alternative.

    While much of the criticism could have been anticipated, given the
    controversial nature of the issues, the first two categories of
    criticism relate to how the agencies handled the first and third
    steps of ecosystem management.  As shown in fig.  I.1, the first step
    toward ecosystem management is to delineate the boundaries of
    ecosystems at several geographic scales across which consistent
    management can be applied.  As part of that step, we believe that it
    is also necessary to identify the issues that are appropriately
    addressed at those scales.  In their original draft proposal, the
    agencies did delineate ecosystems at different scales and attempted
    to address both basinwide and subbasin issues.  In their October 8,
    1998, letter to key Members of Congress, the Secretaries of
    Agriculture and the Interior stated that the new management
    alternative(s) in the supplemental draft environmental impact
    statement and record of decision would focus on the limited number of
    issues that must be resolved at the basin level.  Issues that are
    subbasin in scale will be addressed through other planning efforts.

    The letter stated that the new Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem
    Management Project's approach would include basinwide direction built
    around four basic components:  aquatic habitat; terrestrial species
    habitat; landscape health; and human needs, products, and services.
    According to the letter, the aquatic and terrestrial approach will
    attempt to protect wide-ranging species, such as anadromous fish,
    lynx, and wolverine, by ensuring that adequate habitat is available
    across administrative units.  The aquatic strategy will also address
    basinwide considerations that arise from the agencies'
    responsibilities under the Clean Water Act.  The needs of plants and
    animals with smaller ranges will be addressed at the most appropriate
    geographic scale.  By reducing the number of issues covered by the
    proposal, the agencies may either address or make moot some of the
    public criticism.  For example, criticism of how the original version
    addressed a particular sensitive species that has a small range would
    not be relevant under a new approach that does not attempt to address
    that species' needs.

    As of February 1999, the planning effort's Environmental Impact
    Statement Team was sorting out the issues that should be addressed in
    the basinwide supplemental draft environmental impact statement from
    those that should be addressed later at the subbasin and watershed
    scales.  According to these officials, issues that are not basinwide
    but that extend beyond the boundaries of national forests or BLM
    units will be addressed by adjacent units working together.  They had
    not decided how the agencies would oversee the plan's implementation
    to determine whether the basinwide management direction was being
    followed and whether it was accomplishing the desired conditions.

    Some of the public comments, as well as our observations, suggest
    that the agencies did not complete the third step of ecosystem
    management for certain issues.  The third step is to make management
    choices that identify (1) the desired future ecological conditions;
    (2) the type, level, and mix of activities needed to meet those
    conditions; and (3) the distribution of activities among land units
    over time.  While the June 1997 proposal articulated the broad
    strategic differences among the proposed management alternatives, it
    did not provide detailed information on the desired future
    conditions, activities, and distribution of activities for each one.
    Without such detailed information for each of the alternatives,
    stakeholders cannot readily associate particular ecological outcomes
    and economic outputs with each one, and analyses of the alternatives
    must be based on their intent, rather than on specific expected
    results.

    For example, the draft environmental impact statements included
    �desired ranges of future conditions� that could be expected in 50 to
    100 years if the management direction specified in an alternative
    were implemented.  The draft environmental impact statements
    specified management direction through objectives and standards.
    Objectives are indicators used to measure progress toward achieving a
    desired future condition and are designed to be accomplished in 10
    years.  Standards are requirements to act or refrain from acting in a
    way intended to achieve the objectives.  Collectively, the objectives
    and standards should identify the activities that are required,
    allowed, or restricted on federal lands in the basin.

    According to one description in the draft environmental impact
    statements of a desired range of future economic conditions,
    "Economic activity is generated in rural communities, including
    private sector employment, government agency employment, income,
    number of recreation visits, and revenues shared with local
    governments.� An indicator to measure progress toward achieving these
    conditions states that the agencies' objective is to "derive social
    and economic benefits, promote commercial activity, and foster demand
    for labor and capital formation through producing a mix of goods and
    services." Most, if not all, of the seven land management
    alternatives in the draft environmental impact statements would have
    met these desired economic conditions and this objective.  However,
    the level of economic activity generated in rural communities under
    each of the alternatives could have varied significantly.

    The level of economic activity generated in rural communities under
    each of the alternatives in the draft environmental impact statements
    could also have varied significantly with the activities that would
    have been required, allowed, or restricted on particular national
    forests or BLM districts.  For instance, the Northwest Forest Plan
    allocated the estimated level of potential timber sales over the
    first 10 years of the plan among the national forests and BLM
    districts covered by the plan.  Thus, individuals, companies, and
    communities economically dependent on these lands had an expectation
    about the future availability of timber from them, and federal land
    managers could plan and be held accountable for meeting these
    targets.  Conversely, the draft environmental impact statements for
    the interior Columbia River basin allocated estimated potential
    timber sales and other activities to noncontiguous, but ecologically
    similar, �clusters� of forests and rangelands scattered throughout
    the basin.  (See fig.  II.I for the boundaries of forest clusters.)
    The draft environmental impact statements did not, however, identify
    where in each cluster an activity would likely occur.  Without
    knowing the estimated levels of potential timber sales and other
    activities on national forests or BLM districts, those economically
    dependent on the forests or districts did not have an adequate
    understanding of how much economic activity might be generated at the
    local level by federal timber sales and other activities.

       Figure II.1:  Forest Clusters
       in Lands Within the Boundaries
       of the Interior Columbia River
       Basin Project Area

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Note:  The lands in the project
       area that are not shaded are
       dominated by range ecosystems
       rather than forests.  The
       agencies also divided these
       areas into noncontiguous range
       clusters.

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Source:  Interior Columbia
       Basin Ecosystem Management
       Project.

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    According to the analysis of public comments, many were critical of
    the how complete the agencies were in making management decisions
    about ecological issues as well.  Many commented that the objectives
    and standards for management activities were inconsistent, were too
    vague to be quantified or measured, or lacked time frames and
    locations.  For example, one professional society wrote that many
    contradictory goals and directions exist and that it was not clear
    who would decide which way to go when trade-offs are necessary.  The
    Fish and Wildlife Service wrote that the restoration direction in the
    preferred alternative was not clearly developed into a strategy that
    included guidelines, time frames, and measurable objectives.  The
    Service went on to say that much more information was needed on the
    actions for carrying out the restoration, how it would be
    implemented, and how progress and compliance would be measured.
    Another theme of the comments was that watershed management
    activities must be more clearly defined so that the public can
    understand what activities will result from a decision.  According to
    the summary, most comments on specific wildlife habitat issues noted
    that the public and wildlife would benefit from clearer, more
    precise, and more accurate descriptions of the proposed management.
    With respect to management for viable populations of wildlife, many
    commented that there was little difference among the objectives,
    standards, and guidelines for the different alternatives, making it
    difficult to determine whether the standards and guidelines could
    achieve the intended differences.

    The agencies announced their intent to limit the focus of the revised
    alternatives to issues that are basinwide in scale.  However, the
    Secretaries' letter to Members of Congress also indicated that the
    revised alternatives would contain only general guidance on some of
    those issues.  For example, the letter said that landscape health
    issues, such as the rapid spread of noxious weeds and the potential
    for costly and dangerous fires, would be addressed though general
    objectives and guidance and that the specific design for
    on-the-ground activities would be appropriately addressed at the
    subbasin or local level.  We are concerned that general guidance will
    not be adequate to provide the necessary standards of accountability
    for land managers, the Congress, or the public.  Furthermore, it is
    possible that general guidance on basinwide issues will not provide
    these stakeholders with the clear and well-defined management
    alternatives they expect.  For example, project managers told us in
    January 1999 that they had not decided whether the supplemental
    environmental impact statement would contain an estimate of commodity
    levels under the new alternatives.  This was reiterated in the
    comments on our draft report made by the Interior Columbia Basin
    Ecosystem Management Project's Executive Steering Committee when it
    wrote that specific prescriptions related to such things as timber
    harvest and grazing levels would not be appropriate at the scale of
    the basin.

    The public is accustomed to Forest Service and BLM land management
    plans that provide a high level of detail on land allocations,
    project activities, and commodity outputs.  The directors of the
    interior Columbia River basin project have told us that it is not
    possible to provide for the entire basin the level of detail that one
    might expect for a national forest.  What is possible, they say, is
    to make basinwide decisions about management strategies and then make
    more refined decisions at a smaller scale.

    Indications from the October 8, 1998, letter, however, are that the
    revised proposal will provide less rather than more detail on
    management steps and outcomes.  If so, to limit criticism such as
    they received on the original proposal, the agencies must make it
    clear that the purpose of the project is to decide on a broad
    strategy for management in the basin�whether that strategy be active
    management, letting nature take its course (passive management), or
    emphasizing commodity production�and that they cannot produce a plan
    for this scale that is as detailed as a plan for a single
    administrative unit.

    If the purpose of the revised proposal is to present broad
    alternative strategies, two other observations are relevant.  First,
    the Chief of the Forest Service has often stated over the last 2
    years that the agency's primary goal is to maintain or restore the
    health of the land and that active management is necessary to achieve
    this goal.  A decision that would not do much more than adopt active
    management as the strategy for the interior Columbia River basin,
    therefore, would not represent a significant advancement.  Second, if
    fewer decisions are made at a basinwide level, more decisions must be
    made at a subbasin level.  As the balance shifts toward local
    decision-making, the amount of time and money required to complete
    individual unit management plans, as well as to complete the overall
    planning process for lands in the basin, will increase.

       THE QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF
       FEDERAL TIMBER IN THE INTERIOR
       COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN WILL
       CONTINUE TO DECLINE
    -------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:4

    Besides not providing the specific information decisionmakers needed
    to make informed choices among the seven different land management
    alternatives, the draft environmental impact statements overestimated
    the volume of federal timber to be harvested under the preferred land
    management alternative.  As a result, the Forest Service and BLM
    created unrealistic expectations, and the Congress and other
    interested parties were asked to make choices on the basis of
    incorrect information about the alternative's ability to generate
    economic activity within the basin.

          THE VOLUME OF TIMBER
          HARVESTED HAS DECREASED
          SIGNIFICANTLY
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:4.1

    The volume of timber harvested from federal lands in the interior
    Columbia River basin has declined steeply since fiscal year 1990
    following years of high output.  Timber harvests on federal lands in
    the basin reached historically high levels in the late 1980s.  The
    Forest Service and BLM harvested an average of just over 3 billion
    board feet from fiscal year 1985 through fiscal year 1990.  Timber
    harvests on these lands declined steeply starting in fiscal year
    1991, averaging just over 1.5 billion board feet from fiscal year
    1991 through fiscal year 1997, with the lowest volumes occurring in
    the most recent years.  (See fig.  II.2.) This decline can be
    attributed to the three interim strategies (PACFISH, INFISH, and the
    Eastside Screens), requirements in planning and environmental laws,
    and changes in public values and the agencies' mission and funding
    priorities.

       Figure II.2:  Volume of Timber
       Harvested From Forest Service
       and BLM Units Entirely Within
       the Interior Columbia River
       Basin, Fiscal Years 1985-97

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Source:  Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project.

          THE QUALITY OF TIMBER
          HARVESTED ON FEDERAL LANDS
          IN THE BASIN WILL DECLINE
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:4.2

    In the draft environmental impact statements, the Forest Service and
    BLM cautioned that trees would have been harvested under their
    preferred management alternative primarily to restore the health of
    forest ecosystems rather than to produce wood fiber.  As a result,
    the trees would have been small in diameter and would have had less
    commercial value.

    For example, timber stands would have been selected for harvesting or
    thinning to reduce the dense growth that makes small trees
    susceptible to insects, diseases, or catastrophic wildfires.\59 Or,
    timber would have been harvested from the ecologically undesirable
    even-age tree stands often planted after clear-cutting.  In addition,
    the preferred alternative would have required that a specified number
    of large trees be left standing.

    --------------------
    \59 See Thomas M.  Quigley, Kristine M.  Lee, and Sylvia J.
    Arbelbide, tech.  eds., Evaluation of EIS Alternatives by the Science
    Integration Team, Vol.  1, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research
    Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-406 (Portland, Ore.:  1997)
    and Western National Forests:  Catastrophic Wildfires Threaten
    Resources and Communities (GAO/T-RCED-98-273, Sept.  28, 1998).

          THE FOREST SERVICE AND BLM
          OVERESTIMATED THE VOLUME OF
          FEDERAL TIMBER TO BE
          HARVESTED UNDER THEIR
          PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
    ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:4.3

    According to the Forest Service and BLM, the preferred management
    alternative in the draft environmental impact statements�which, they
    said, would have aggressively restored forest, rangeland, and
    watershed health through active management--would have reversed the
    trend of declining timber harvests on federal lands in the basin.
    Data on recent timber harvests that we obtained from the agencies,
    which were not included in the draft environmental impact statements,
    showed that, according to the Forest Service and BLM, the volume of
    timber that would have been harvested from federal lands in the basin
    under the preferred alternative would have exceeded by 81 percent the
    volume harvested in fiscal years 1996 and 1997 under the three
    interim management strategies.  However, our review indicates that
    the agencies overestimated the volume of federal timber to be sold
    under their preferred management alternative, just as they did under
    the Northwest Forest Plan.

    Under their preferred alternative, the Forest Service and BLM
    estimated that an average of about 1.7 billion board feet per year
    would have been harvested over the first 10 years of plan.  Other
    alternatives, including the one that emphasized the production of
    goods and services, would have yielded even higher volumes of timber.
    However, federal regulatory agencies have expressed concern, as they
    have for other planning efforts, that the preferred alternative's
    emphasis on active management would have caused unacceptable
    environmental consequences.\60 In addition, as the Forest Service did
    in developing some of the first forest plans,\61 the Forest Service
    and BLM developed the management alternatives without reference to
    likely funding levels.\62 The agencies' preferred alternative and
    their estimate of timber output were predicated on a significant
    increase in appropriated funds, which they are not likely to receive.
    The regulatory agencies' concerns and fiscal constraints would have
    reduced the volume of federal timber to be harvested under the
    preferred management alternative.

    Projections of the volume of timber to be harvested from federal
    lands in the basin may also be reduced in response to new information
    and events.  Legislative requirements to consider new information and
    events, such as the listing of a new species under the Endangered
    Species Act, have made it difficult for the Forest Service and BLM to
    predict when any decision can be considered final and can be
    implemented, reducing the agencies' ability to achieve the objectives
    in their plans.\63

    --------------------
    \60 See, for example, Tongass National Forest:  Lack of
    Accountability for Time and Costs Has Delayed Forest Plan Revision
    (GAO/T-RCED-97-153, Apr.  29, 1997) and Forest Service
    Decision-Making:  A Framework for Improving Performance
    (GAO/RCED-97-71, Apr.  29, 1997).

    \61 Forest Service:  Issues Related to Managing National Forests for
    Multiple Uses (GAO/T-RCED-96-111, Mar.  26, 1996).

    \62 In their October 8, 1998, letter to Members of Congress, the
    Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior said they had asked the
    regional executives to develop a plan that can accommodate a range of
    funding levels for Congress and the administration to consider.

    \63 Forest Service Decision-Making:  A Framework for Improving
    Performance (GAO/RCED-97-71, Apr.  29, 1997).

             FEDERAL REGULATORY
             AGENCIES WERE CRITICAL OF
             THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
    ---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:4.3.1

    Although the Forest Service and BLM are responsible for managing
    their lands to sustain multiple uses, including timber production,
    federal regulatory agencies are responsible for implementing and
    enforcing environmental laws and regulations on those lands.  Because
    of their disparate missions and responsibilities, federal regulatory
    agencies sometimes disagree with federal land management agencies on
    an acceptable level of risk to individual natural resources and on
    the best approaches for achieving environmental objectives.

    Failure to reach agreement with the federal regulatory agencies
    almost certainly ensures that a plan will not be implemented.  In
    particular, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine
    Fisheries Service will formally consult with the Forest Service and
    BLM under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act before any decision
    is reached on a basinwide plan.  If the regulatory agencies find that
    the proposed management alternative does not meet the requirements of
    the Endangered Species Act, they will issue a jeopardy opinion--an
    opinion that asserts that the alternative would appreciably reduce
    the likelihood of a listed species' survival and recovery.  The
    issuance of a jeopardy opinion would effectively prevent the plan
    from being implemented as proposed.

    In commenting on the draft environmental impact statements, three
    federal regulatory agencies�the National Marine Fisheries Service,
    the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Environmental Protection
    Agency�expressed concern that the management alternative preferred by
    the Forest Service and BLM would not adequately protect species'
    habitat, water quality, or other natural resources and would
    therefore not meet the minimum requirements set by such laws as the
    Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act.  The planning
    effort's interdisciplinary and interagency Science Integration Team,
    although not possessing the authority of the regulatory agencies,
    raised similar concerns about the preferred alternative.

    The three federal regulatory agencies and the Science Integration
    Team criticized the assertion by the Forest Service and BLM that
    active management could continue at current or higher levels.  They
    were concerned that the high level of activity being proposed, even
    if done in the name of ecological restoration, would have
    unacceptable consequences on species' habitat and water quality.

    For instance, the Science Integration Team wrote, in discussing the
    need for active versus passive restoration, that "there are instances
    where long-term benefits [of active restoration] may not exceed
    short-term environmental costs or adverse ecosystem impacts, making a
    passive restoration approach more appropriate." One consequence of
    less emphasis on active management and more emphasis on passive
    management would be less timber sold.  (Other consequences, according
    to the agencies, would be fewer activities such as prescribed burning
    and noxious weed treatment.)

    The National Marine Fisheries Service expressed concern that efforts
    to restore lands above valley floors and streams (upland areas),
    which would include timber harvesting, would further degrade already
    degraded aquatic ecosystems and would likely cause further extinction
    of aquatic species.  The Environmental Protection Agency expressed
    concern that �aggressive restoration� under the agencies' preferred
    alternative would likely cause road construction and logging in
    otherwise roadless areas that provide habitat for many different
    species.  The agency commented that such restoration could pose �a
    significant risk to aquatic and terrestrial resources--both in the
    short and long term." The Fish and Wildlife Service commented that
    the alternatives did not �adequately address recovery of listed
    species, nor preclude the need for future listings in context with
    land management."

    The regulatory agencies proposed specific changes to the preferred
    management alternative that would have restricted commodity
    production.  For example, the Fish and Wildlife Service recommended
    that a particular standard be modified to protect additional
    large-diameter Douglas fir trees.  The National Marine Fisheries
    Service recommended that the preferred alternative be amended to
    restrict timber harvesting in a larger portion of riparian areas and
    old-growth forests.  The agency also commented that the preferred
    alternative attempted to meet only the minimum requirements for
    listed and sensitive species and that managing to these �lower
    limits� was not acceptable.  Reducing the acreage available for
    timber harvesting and reducing the risk to listed and sensitive
    species would result in less timber being sold.

             BUDGETARY CONSTRAINTS
             WILL LIMIT THE VOLUME OF
             TIMBER TO BE SOLD OR
             HARVESTED
    ---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:4.3.2

    Because the trees to be harvested under the preferred management
    alternative often would have had low or no commercial value, the
    revenue generated from them would not have covered the costs of their
    removal.  For instance, while pointing out that small-diameter trees
    have become much more prevalent in today's forests, the Science
    Integration Team observed that the trees would be difficult for the
    agencies to sell, particularly if the alternative required expensive
    logging methods, such as removing trees with helicopters rather than
    trucks, to reduce the impact of logging on the lands.  The project
    team estimated that the agencies would need significant additional
    appropriations to implement the preferred alternative's active
    restoration approach.

    The Forest Service and BLM estimated in 1997 that fully funding the
    preferred alternative's implementation would cost approximately $268
    million per year.  Funding at this level would require federal land
    management and regulatory agencies to obtain an increase in current
    funding levels of about $137 million, or about twice their current
    levels for the sort of work described in the draft environmental
    impact statements.

    We believe that the costs of aggressively restoring forest,
    rangeland, and watershed health through active management, as the
    Forest Service and BLM originally proposed, would be likely to
    require even more appropriated funds than the agencies estimated.
    For example, agency officials and outside analysts agree that one
    restoration activity�harvesting small-diameter trees to reduce the
    risk of catastrophic wildfire--may require hundreds of millions of
    dollars a year in appropriated funds.\64 Our preliminary analysis of
    the Forest Service's fuel reduction costs indicates that about $725
    million a year may be needed through fiscal year 2015 to treat the 39
    million acres in the interior West at high risk of uncontrollable
    wildfire.  The interior Columbia River basin falls completely within
    the interior West and contains a significant portion of the 39
    million acres at high risk.

    At a May 15, 1997, congressional hearing, the Chairman of the
    Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Senate Committee on
    Appropriations, informed the Forest Service and BLM that it would be
    virtually impossible to come up with the money needed to implement
    the preferred management alternative.  Other members of the Senate
    Committee on Appropriations also expressed reservations about the
    future availability of appropriated funds to implement the agencies'
    preferred alternative.

    The Fish and Wildlife Service and the Environmental Protection Agency
    have also raised doubts about the availability of funds.  In
    commenting on the draft environmental impact statements, the Fish and
    Wildlife Service recommended "that continued effort to define and
    implement a selected alternative be based on reasonably predictable
    human and fiscal resources." The Environmental Protection Agency
    commented that "given the large increase in projected restoration
    activities, there is some question as to whether full implementation
    is possible under current funding levels, as assumed in the [draft
    environmental impact statements]."

    The draft environmental impact statements did not assess the impact
    of lower funding levels on environmental restoration, commodity
    production, or local economic activity.  However, the Forest Service
    and BLM estimated that about 45 percent of their costs to implement
    the preferred alternative would have been for timber harvesting.
    Therefore, less than full funding would probably have reduced the
    volume of timber sold or harvested.

    --------------------
    \64 Western National Forests:  A Cohesive Strategy Is Needed to
    Address Catastrophic Wildfire Threats (GAO/RCED-99-65, Apr.  2,
    1999).

             NEW INFORMATION AND
             EVENTS MAY REDUCE THE
             VOLUME OF TIMBER SOLD
    ---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:4.3.3

    As has occurred in the Pacific Northwest, the volume of timber to be
    sold from federal lands in the basin may also be reduced in response
    to new information and events.  Additional species could be listed as
    endangered or threatened, or habitat deemed critical to listed
    species' protection could be designated, under the Endangered Species
    Act.  Additional agreements with nonfederal landowners could be
    signed that would require federal lands to assume more responsibility
    for protecting wildlife and fish.  Additional analyses and
    assessments at the subbasin and watershed levels could reduce the
    acreage available for multiple uses.  Finally, additional lands could
    be set aside for conservation�as wilderness, wild and scenic rivers,
    national monuments, and recreational areas.  Any one of these events
    could reduce the agencies' ability to achieve the commodity
    objectives in their plan.

    (See figure in printed edition.)Appendix III
    COMMENTS FROM THE NORTHWEST FOREST
    PLAN'S REGIONAL INTERAGENCY
    EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
    ========================================================== Appendix II

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    The following are GAO's comments on the Regional Interagency
    Executive Committee's letter dated April 5, 1999.

    GAO COMMENTS

    1.  We agree that there are many components to the plan besides the
    timber program and many ways to measure the benefits of the Northwest
    Forest Plan besides commodity production.  Components of the
    Northwest Forest Plan, such as interagency coordination and
    monitoring, are discussed in detail in the report.  The aquatic
    conservation strategy and the potential contribution of the plan to
    the overall health of the ecosystem are also discussed in the report.
    However, we could not provide more detail because many of the plan's
    contributions, especially to the overall health of the ecosystem and
    its sustainability, will not be fully realized for many years.
    Additionally, as we noted in March 1998 testimony,\65 the Forest
    Service has not developed objective, verifiable accomplishment
    measures and criteria that focus on actual improvements and gauge
    longer-term (5- to 10-year) trends in the condition of specific
    resources or attributes of environmental quality.  Therefore, it is
    not yet possible to accurately measure the plan's contributions to
    improved ecosystem sustainability, healthier forests, and cleaner
    water.  Finally, our review of the Northwest Forest Plan was limited
    to the regional plan developed to provide management direction for
    22.3 million acres of federal lands in the Pacific Northwest and did
    not include the plan's other major component�an economic adjustment
    (worker and community assistance) initiative.

    2.  In our report, we compare federal timber sale levels for three
    important periods:  (1) the 10-year period (fiscal years 1980-89)
    prior to the federal court injunctions that brought timber sales to a
    virtual halt, (2) the level of timber sales under the injunctions
    (fiscal years 1990-94), and (3) the projected level of timber sales
    during the first decade after the injunctions were lifted (fiscal
    years 1995-2004).  Additionally, the graphs in this report provide
    timber sale and other data by year for fiscal years 1980-98.

    3.  We recognize that technological improvements have allowed some
    mills in the Pacific Northwest to make better use of smaller-diameter
    trees.  However, as stated in our report, the quality, and thus the
    commercial value, of trees harvested from federal lands in the
    Pacific Northwest has declined.

    (See figure in printed edition.)Appendix IV

    --------------------
    \65 Forest Service:  Lack of Financial and Performance Accountability
    Has Resulted in Inefficiency and Waste (GAO/T-RCED-98-135, Mar.  26,
    1998).

    COMMENTS FROM THE INTERIOR
    COLUMBIA BASIN ECOSYSTEM
    MANAGEMENT PROJECT'S EXECUTIVE
    STEERING COMMITTEE
    ========================================================== Appendix II

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    The following are GAO's comments on the Interior Columbia Basin
    Ecosystem Management Project's Executive Steering Committee's letter
    dated April 6, 1999.

    1.  We agree that there are important differences in the size and
    complexity of the areas addressed by the Interior Columbia Basin
    Ecosystem Management Project and the Northwest Forest Plan that have
    contributed to the differences in the amount of time and money spent
    on each.  We did not intend to suggest that the two plans should have
    been completed over a similar period of time at a comparable cost.
    Rather, our point with respect to the interior Columbia River basin
    plan was that it has taken significantly longer and cost much more
    than the agencies anticipated.  We revised the body of our report to
    emphasize some of the differences between the two plans, noting that
    the interior Columbia River basin plan covers a larger geographical
    area and its development included more opportunities for public
    participation.

    2.  We consider the Committees' commitment to issuing a supplemental
    draft environmental impact statement for public comment in September
    1999 and to completing the project by March 2000 to be fully
    responsive to the recommendation in our draft report that the
    interagency team be directed to establish a time line for revising
    the draft plan.  We therefore updated the time line in the report to
    reflect these dates (see table II.1) and deleted this recommendation.

    3.  It is apparent from the Committee's comments and from the
    Secretaries' October 8, 1998, letter to Members of Congress that the
    interior Columbia River basin plan will not provide a comprehensive
    blueprint for managing the federal lands in the basin.  According to
    the Committee, the supplemental draft environmental impact statement
    will include the best estimate that science can provide of the
    effects of their proposed actions and will give land managers enough
    direction to make site-specific project decisions in the context of
    broad-scale information.  Later in their comments, the Committee
    wrote that the land management agencies' plans have traditionally
    provided specific prescriptions for such things as timber harvests
    and grazing levels but that this type of prescription would be
    inappropriate for a plan at the scale of the basin.

    In a draft of this report, we recommended that the project identify
    the ecological and socioeconomic trade-offs among the different land
    management alternatives and provide land managers with clear
    direction and performance standards for implementation.  We
    acknowledge that the environmental impact statement and final plan
    for the interior Columbia River basin cannot be as specific with
    respect to trade-offs or performance standards as the plans for
    managing national forests or BLM lands.  We therefore revised the
    recommendation to refer only to those issues that the agencies
    determine need to be addressed at a basinwide scale.  Nevertheless,
    we continue to believe that, for those basinwide issues, the agencies
    must thoroughly describe the ecological and socioeconomic trade-offs
    of the different management approaches so that the Congress, the
    public, and other interested parties can meaningfully evaluate the
    different alternatives.

    Because a basinwide impact statement or record of decision will not
    be able to describe in detail all management activities throughout
    the basin, additional management decisions will have to be made at a
    scale smaller than the basin.  We are reminded of early estimates by
    the agencies that a basinwide scientific assessment and decision
    would cut their planning costs in half.  Therefore, we also revised
    the recommendation to stress that it is important for the agencies to
    tell the public and the Congress how this decision-making process
    will unfold, how much it will cost, and how long it will take.

    4.  The Committee commented that it has received clear direction from
    the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to recognize budget
    realities and the requirements of environmental laws in completing
    the project.  However, because the supplemental statement and
    subsequent planning documents have not yet been issued and the team's
    actions are not complete, we made no changes to our recommendation.

    5.  To avoid the implication that the agencies withdrew any of their
    original management alternatives, we revised the report to say that
    they are developing one or more new alternatives.

    In addition to the agency letter printed in this appendix, the
    Committee's comments included an attachment with several technical
    observations on, for example, the estimated budget for the project in
    fiscal year 2000.  We have revised the report to respond to these
    comments, where appropriate.

    The attachment also included another substantive issue.  The
    Committee said our report should not evaluate the effectiveness of
    the strategy solely on the basis of its impact on timber production.
    They emphasized the importance of the plan for other variables,
    including the habitats of wildlife such as salmon, bulltrout, grizzly
    bear, lynx, and 187 other species of concern.  We agree that the
    interior Columbia River basin plan reviewed in this report should
    ultimately be evaluated on the basis of much more than its impact on
    timber production.  However, the plan is still in the proposal phase
    and its ecological benefits have yet to be achieved.  While our
    discussion of the interior Columbia River basin plan's potential
    impact on timber production is also speculative, one of our three
    objectives was to report on the actual or expected effect of the plan
    on the quantity and quality of timber sold from federal lands.

    OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
    =========================================================== Appendix V

    Concerned about the potential costs, time, and effectiveness of
    broad-scoped, ecosystem-based analyses and studies, the Chairmen of
    the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the House
    Committee on Resources, and the House Committee on Agriculture asked
    us to examine the Northwest Forest Plan and the Interior Columbia
    Basin Ecosystem Management Project.

    In this report, we used as criteria the practical steps in
    implementing an ecosystem approach to federal land management and
    identified deficiencies and barriers within the federal land
    management agencies' decision-making processes to discuss (1) the
    extent to which each effort has addressed long-standing planning
    deficiencies, (2) the problems encountered by the agencies that have
    contributed to delays and increased costs, and (3) the effect that
    the plans have had, or are expected to have, on the quantity and
    quality of timber sold from federal lands covered by the plans.

    Our review of the Northwest Forest Plan was limited to the regional
    plan developed to provide management direction for 22.3 million acres
    of land managed by the Forest Service and BLM in the Pacific
    Northwest.  We did not review the plan's other major component--an
    economic adjustment initiative to assist workers, tribes, and
    communities affected by reductions in federal timber harvests.  In
    addition, in performing our work, we did not evaluate any scientific
    documents or conclusions used or being used in either the Northwest
    Forest Plan or the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management
    Project.

    For our review of the Northwest Forest Plan, we met with, and
    examined documents provided by, managers and staff from the
    interagency group established to help managers implement the plan.
    We also contacted officials or reviewed documents from (1) the Forest
    Service's Pacific Northwest (Region 6) and Pacific Southwest (Region
    5) offices and its Pacific Northwest Research Station, (2) BLM's
    California and Oregon state offices, and (3) Agriculture's Office of
    Forestry and Economic Assistance.  In addition, we spoke with
    officials from (1) the Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife
    Service and (2) the Department of Commerce's National Marine
    Fisheries Service about issues pertaining to the Endangered Species
    Act.  We also spoke with officials from (1) the Environmental
    Protection Agency, (2) Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs, and (3)
    the Small Business Administration about issues pertaining to
    interagency coordination and cooperation.  Finally, we also met with
    and obtained information from representatives of environmental groups
    and timber industry organizations.

    For our review of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management
    Project, we examined proposed management alternatives in draft
    environmental impact statements.  In the course of our work, we also
    met with and obtained documents provided by project managers and
    staff, including the past and current team leaders.  We also spoke
    with and obtained information relevant to the proposed plan from
    environmental groups, industry, county associations, and a Forest
    Service employee group.

    We performed our work from September 1997 through March 1999 in
    accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  We
    obtained comments on a draft of this report from senior regional
    officials responsible for the two plans.  These comments and our
    responses are presented in appendixes III and IV.

    MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
    ========================================================== Appendix VI

    ENERGY, RESOURCES, AND SCIENCE
    ISSUES

    Ross Campbell
    Charles S.  Cotton
    Charles T.  Egan
    Elizabeth R.  Eisenstadt
    Cheryl Pilatzke

    OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

    Doreen Stolzenberg Feldman

    *** End of document. ***