Green Lights

Red Flags

Biocentric or ecocentric; guided by a strong land ethic

Anthropocentric and utilitarian; concerned predominantly with human needs and desires

Begins with explicit, clearly stated goals and objectives that are consistent with well-accepted conservation goals

Lacks explicit goals, or goals are ambiguous, contradictory, or not consistent with well-accepted conservation goals

Science-based

Science-informed or (worse) science-ignorant

Scientifically credible and defensible (see section on "the role of science in ecosystem management")

Not scientifically defensible

Ecosystem boundaries based on natural boundaries (e.g., vegetation watershed, ecoregion, scale of key processes or demography of key species) or otherwise defensible

Ecosystem boundaries purely or largely political or otherwise fail to coincide with natural boundaries

Map-based, with management zones (reserves, etc.) clearly delineated on maps

Lacks adequate maps, or maps lack clearly defined management zones

Includes adequate control (protected) areas for management experiments; designates substantial new reserves

Few or no protected areas designated; reserves are too small, cover insufficient area, or are not representative of the kinds of ecosystems experimented on

Demonstrates adequate consideration of the spatial and temporal context of management decisions and action; addresses commodity production) by biological needs--biology is the "bottom line"

Attempts to balance conservation and development or favors development over conservation; pays insufficient attention to biological needs

Fully upholds environmental laws

Is inconsistent with the Endangered Species Act, NFMA, NEPA, Clean Water Act, or other applicable environmental laws

Encourages compatible human uses (if appropriate) and eliminates (or strongly discourages) incompatible uses; explicitly considers the case-specific appropriateness of considering humans as part of the ecosystem

Permits human uses that are incompatible with conservation goals; assumes that humans are part of the ecosystem without examining specific uses and their impacts in the project area

Builds or reconstructs no new roads; decommissions and revegetates old roads

Builds or reconstructs roads; fail to eliminate harmful roads

Does not treat stakeholder opinions as equal; demands credibility, honesty, commitment to conservation goals

Treats all stakeholder opinions as equal in consensus process; ignores differences in knowledge, intelligence, self-interest

Provides adequate opportunity for scientific input throughout process and for thorough public comment and peer review; responds appropriately to comment and review

Fails to engage independent scientists until late in the process; provides inadequate opportunity for public comment, peer review, or revision based on comments and reviews

Makes all data, models, and analysis available to the public in a "user-friendly" format

Fails to make relevant information available, or makes access to information difficult

Is adaptive—applies reasonably rigorous monitoring and research to test hypotheses about effects of management treatments, and adjusts management on the basis of knowledge gained

Is non-adaptive; contains "no surprises" or other ecologically nonsensical clauses; fails to design or implement adequate monitoring and research programs; ignores results of monitoring or research

Is adequately funded, so that all actions, including research, monitoring, and adaptive management, can be implemented as planned

Funding is inadequate to implement the plan in a scientifically defensible manner