commercial products; objectives reflect the many uses and values 

 of forests, including recreation, wildlife, wilderness, timber, graz- 

 ing, and water. A desired state of health does not necessarily 

 imply that the forest can or should be totally free of damaging 

 pests or dead and dying trees at all times. 



The National Forest Management Act requires that a manage- 

 ment plan be developed for each unit of the National Forest 

 System. Through the land management planning process, 

 resource management objectives are set that reflect the capacity 

 of the land and desired future conditions. Forest plans are sub- 

 ject to changes in implementation schedules and to periodic 

 amendment and revision. This process provides forest supervi- 

 sors with the opportunity to change implementation of the forest 

 plan in response to monitoring of forest ecosystems; to examine 

 alternatives and tradeoffs through amendment or revision; to 

 address emerging forest health issues; and to consider the long- 

 range forest health implications of management alternatives. 



Recent, unusually severe pest epidemics and wildfires in some 

 forests have been associated with objectives or practices applied 

 over the past several decades that did not fully consider ecologi- 

 cal processes or ecosystem limitations. For this reason, Monnig 

 and Byler (1992) have recommended that criteria forjudging 

 forest health focus not only on management objectives, but 

 also on ecosystem function and patterns of change. Monnig and 

 Byler summarize criteria forjudging forest health based on 

 ecosystem function by the statements that "a forest in good 

 health is a fully functioning community of plants and animals 

 and their physical environment," and "a healthy forest is an 

 ecosystem in balance." They also suggest using patterns and rates 

 of change compared to historical patterns as criteria forjudging 

 forest health. This approach recognizes the link between forest 

 health and forest succession, a link that was recognized by 

 Leopold (1949) in his statement that "health is the capacity of 

 the land for self-renewal." In suggesting the use of multiple, com- 

 plementary criteria forjudging forest health, Monnig and Byler 

 emphasize the importance of setting management objectives that 

 reflect ecosystem limitations. Richard Wilson has stated that "in 

 the broadest sense, a healthy forest is a description of a produc- 

 tive, resilient, and diverse forest ecosystem; a forest with a future" 

 (Wilson 1991). These several definitions or criteria are useful in 

 the continued integration of forest health along with other 

 ecosystem management considerations into the Forest Service's 

 formal land management planning process. 



Healthy Forests for America 's Future — A Strategic Plan 



