Ecosystem Management and the Use of Natural Resources · Ecosystem Management and the Use of...

557

Ecosystem Management andthe Use of Natural Resources

Marlin Johnson, James Barbour, David W. Green, Susan Willits,Michael Znerold, James D. Bliss, Sie Ling Chiang, andDale Toweill

Key questions addressed in this chapter

♦ ♦ Ecosystem use and sustainability

♦ ♦ Compatability between short-term use and maintenance of long-term sustainability

♦ ♦ Healthy ecosystems and healthy economies

♦ ♦ Resource extraction enhances environmental values

Keywords: Forestry, grazing, mining, resource planning, ecosystem health,resource demand

558 M. Johnson et aI./Ecosystem Management and the Use of Natural Resources

1 INTRODUCTION

Ecosystems have been supporting human life for morethan 10,000 years in North America and for even longerin other parts of the world. People have used theirenvironment to extract the goods needed for survival—obtaining food from wildlife, wild plants, cultivatedcrops, and livestock, and finding shelter from naturalareas or making it from plants. Public lands in theUnited States still supply many of these needs.

In the past, some societies used resources in waysand quantities that were not sustainable. Archeologicalrecords from North America indicate that the Anazasiof Mesa Verde and other regions had seriouslydepleted their forest resources before the sites wereabandoned (Cartledge and Propper 1993). Archeologi-cal records from other parts of the world tell a similarstory – many societies declined after deforestation orimproper forest management. For example, the Su-merian empire in Mesopotamia collapsed by 2000 BC,after deforestation of mountains and improper meth-ods of irrigation led to salinity of irrigation water andgreatly reduced crop yields. Crete became a commer-cial power a few centuries later, primarily as a result ofits abundant wood supply. Wood was hauled greatdistances to supply other nations that had lost theirforests. Venice, Rome, Cyprus, Egypt, England, andother countries all declined as commercial powerswhen their forests became depleted (Perlin 1989).Conversely, forest lands that were properly managedenhanced the society’s standard of living. In one case,16th and 17th century Sweden supported its militaryefforts and empire through use of timber resources(Sundberg et al. 1994).

As outlined in MacCleery and Le Master (thisvolume), human population growth and resourcedemand are inextricably linked. Both are increasing ata substantial rate. It is important on both the local andthe global scale that ecosystems and resources bemaintained and managed to continue to provide abroad array of resources to meet the physical, re-creational, and spiritual needs of people.

Management of resources on public lands in theUnited States has been evolving since the late 1800s,when the conservation movement helped start asystem of federal Iandholdings designed to protect theland while providing for various resource uses. AfterWorld War II, an increased level of prosperity creatednew and greater demands for beef, wood products,and minerals, and a more mobile population createddemands for additional recreation opportunities andother services that federal lands could provide. Federalland managers responded to these demands andprovided an increasing level and variety of goods and

services to the public. During the 1960s and 1970s, aseries of Iegislative mandates provided direction tofederal agencies to manage federal lands for a broadarray of products and services within a sustainableframework. At the same time, the rise of theenvironmental movement forced the country tobecome aware of the effects of increased production ofgoods and services on the environment. Clean air,clean water, threatened species, biological diversity,and healthy forests and rangeland became increasinglyimportant goods and services provided by federallands (MacCleery and Le Master, this volume). A newmanagement philosophy, ecosystem management,evolved for federal lands.

Ecosystem management, as currently practiced onpublic lands in the United States, means managing thelands in ways that ensure, within reasonable limits,that the functionality of damaged ecosystems is restor-ed and healthy ecosystems are sustained. It does notmean that resources are set aside and not used; rather,these lands must continue to satisfy human needs. Itsgoal is to provide productive biologically diverse eco-systems and ensure quality of life by strengthening theessential connection between economic prosperity andenvironmental well-being (interagency EcosystemManagement Task Force 1995).

Under the ecosystem approach, goals are developedbased on predictions of sustainability and activities aredesigned to achieve the desired goals at a landscape(regional) level. This regional or ecosystem scale is oneof the major differences between the traditionalmultiple-use management of the past and the eco-system management of today (MacCleery and LeMaster, this volume). Although scale issues are a criticalcomponent of the success of ecosystem management,plannmg on regional scales also vastly increases thecomplexity of management and may create problemsin development of criteria to evaluate the accomplish-ments of land managers (see MacCleery and Le Master,this volume).

Resource managers, who operated efficiently andeffectively when agency mandates were clearly under-stood, public participation was limited, and resourceswere abundant, often find themselves taxed to the limitgiven the complexities associated with landscape-leveldecisions and increased demand from growingpopulations. When establishing standards for healthyfunctional ecosystems, resource managers must con-sider a range of biological, geological, climatic, andpolitical factors. At the landscape level, where land-ownership patterns are often complex, federal, state,and private management mandates vie for consider-ation. At the same time, interest groups have becomemore effective at using the courts and politics to bring

Humans as Agents of Ecological Change 559

pressure to bear on the decision-making process. First-line managers from different agencies also operate atwidely varying scales, from Ranger Districts to mineralbasins, and from state boundaries to vast river basins.With few exceptions, none of these established bound-aries interrelates between agencies, leading to frustra-tion as managers attempt to integrate plans andpolicies.

The goal of this chapter is to provide guidance tofirst-line natural resource managers and resourcespecialists charged with “on the ground” implement-ation of ecosystem management. These arc themanagers who must simultaneously manage resourcesunder their jurisdiction to produce marketablecommodities and provide a wide range of non-marketamenities within a framework that ensures sustain-ability of both on a long-term scale, while maintainingfunctionality in the ecosystem. The complexities of eco-system management require managers to deal withnew issues and consult with a wide range of specialists.Many agencies have hired people in new fields such aslandscape ecology, sociology, and decision supportmodeling. When the appropriate skills are not readilyavailable on-staff, managers who want to make the bestdecisions must reach out and find these skills.

Although this chapter concentrates on opportunitiesto find compatibility among potentially competingresource uses, tradeoffs also must be made. Resourcemanagers charged with making these sometimes diffi-cult decisions can benefit from all the chapters in thispublication. From Data Management to ecosystem Divers-ity to Public Expectations and everywhere in-between,this book is designed to assist a manager in thesedecisions,

This chapter also considers some of the variousvalues that people derive from the ecosystems wemanage. The products of ecosystem management, asdefined in this paper, are all the resources sought frompublic lands. They include the materials removed fromthe land as well as desirable recreational and aestheticvalues. Some examples of resources sought from publiclands are wildlife and fish, recreation, minerals, woodfiber, grazing for livestock, clean water, and manyspecial products such as Christmas trees, mushrooms,and berries, and the healthy sustainable plant com-munities that produce them.

1.

2.

Examples are presented of approaches that resourcemanagers and scientists have taken to implement thebroad policy directions provided by landscape-levelassessments. The scale and scope of these examplesrange from treatments applied to a few acres, to inte-grated management plans incorporating millions ofacres of land managed under multiple ownerships andjurisdictions. Although the examples vary greatly in

focus, they share the common theme of attempting tofind ways to understand how best to manage eco-systems to provide multiple benefits at the landscapelevel rather than produce single-commodity outputswith little or no regard for how each treatment unitrelates temporally and spatially to the landscape.Additionally, this chapter will demonstrate ways tocalculate just what goods and services can be expectednow and in the future while managing for these goals.The authors believe it is critical that managers find away to integrate the planned production of goods andservices into ecosystem management, for without thatfocus, ecosystem management will be guilty of thesame narrowness as the systems it has replaced (seeMacCleery and Le Master, this volume).

The approaches are grouped into six emphasisareas: (1) fish and wildlife, (2) recreation, (3) riparianwetland areas, (4) rangelands, (5) nonrenewableresources, and (6) forest management. Case studies aresummarized in Table 1.

2 BASIC CONCEPTS OF ECOSYSTEMMANAGEMENT

Any time public land managers make a decision aboutactively managing the resources, they must deal with arange of issues and concerns about why the action isbeing taken and what impact it will have on the biolo-gical, economic, and social well-being of the land andassociated communities. To deal with these issues eff-ectively, land managers must address the followingthemes related to implementing ecosystem manage-ment:

Identify clear objectives – The objectives need to bebased on biological capacity, long-term distur-bance history, and economic and social consider-ations. These objectives must include meetingsociety’s needs for natural resources, either con-sumptive or nonconsumptive.

Deal with political boundaries – Managers must rec-ognize and work with different governments(federal, tribal, state, and local) and agencies (Fishand Wildlife Service, National Marine FisheriesService, U.S. Geological Service (USGS), USDAForest Service, and USDA Bureau of Land Man-agement (BLM)), all of which have different juris-dictions, regulations, laws, constituents, andfunctions. Some agencies are set up to map, moni-tor, and provide development opportunities(USGS), while others try to manage to provide thebroadest spectrum of use and protection (ForestService); even within agencies, rules and regula-tions vary (Forest Service vs. BLM).

560 M. Johnson et al./Ecosystem Management and the Use of Natural Resources

Table I. Ecosystem Management Case Studies.

Resource Example Location Scale/scope Participants Approach

Fish and Wildlife Boise NationalForest

Landscape

Fish and Wildlife Feral pigmanagement

Recreation Idaho SCORTP

Riparian wetlands Muddy Creekproject

Rangeland Arroyo ColoradoAllotment

Nonrenewableresources

Columbia RiverBasin Assessment

Forestmanagement

Augusta Creekproject

Forestmanagement

WashingtonLandscape Study

Forestmanagement

Forestmanagement

Ponderosa PineForestPartnership

Crowley Protect

Forestmanagement

Westsideexamples

Forestmanagement

Eastside examples

ID

HI

ID

WY

NM

ID, MT,OR, WA

OR

WA

CO

AZ

OR

OR, CA

Landscape

Statewide

Watershed

Landscape

Landscape

Landscape

Landscape

Landscape

Landscape

Stand.

Stand

Forest Service

U.S. Park Service

State and federalagencies, privategroups

Federal, state, andprivate landmanagers

Federal, state, andprivate landmanagers

Federal agencies

Forest Service

Forest Service,university

County, NationalForest, and timberindustry

Forest Service

State, federal, andlocal agencies;private industry;individuals

Federal and stateagencies, privatecompanies

Conduct risk assessment ofmultiple managementalternatives.

Restore natural ecosystems whilemaintaining cultural andrecreational values.

Develop partnerships bydefining common goals.

Develop consensus to restore,enhance, and maintain properfunctioning condition.

Improve and maintain health ofrangelands without reducinggrazing level.

Conduct quantitative assessmentof mineral deposits within anecosystem framework.

Evaluate simulations of futurelandscape and watershedconditions for habitat, timber,and disturbance risk.

Evaluate managementalternatives that meet wildlifeand timber objectives.

Develop partnership to uniteforest health with communitysustainability.

Enhance aspen, diversity,recreation, and timber productsthrough management.

Use adaptive managementscenarios to integrate habitat,timber, structural diversity, andrisk.

Evaluate alternativemanagement regimes in fireorigin stands of inland NW foreffects on stand structure andhealth.

3. Tie scales together – Activity planning starts at thelandscape and watershed levels but actually getsimplemented at the stand, pasture, or camp-ground level. Evaluations at various scales cangive completely different results. Decisions needto be made and evaluations done at the correctgeographic and temporal scales.

4. Work closely with public – The public should beseen as something more than a group of people

who must be educated. The public needs to be in-volved throughout the activity planning processto help establish common goals and action plansand be treated as partners. The combined supportand energy of a larger group is a key component tothe success of implementing ecosystem manage-ment. Lack of understanding of short-term andlong-term results and consequences between alter-natives is one of the major factors leading to dis-agreements on alternative management scenarios.


5. Assess alternatives for multiple resources – Integra-tion of multiple disciplines, legislative authorities,scales, and time frames is the art of ecosystemmanagement. Managers are responsible for as-sessing alternative ways to meet varying needs,including some that are in conflict with eachother. Conducting risk assessments of multiplemanagement alternatives for a variety of re-sources is a key element of this responsibility. Theability to develop possible actions that can be com-bined into alternatives to maximize achievementof multiple goals simultaneously is important.

6. Deal with economics and social needs – Cost effec-tiveness of treatments, economic well-being ofcommunities, and effective use of scarce financialresources need to be included in the overall evalu-ation of projects.

7. Implement, adapt, and monitor – The most effectivetool that a manager has is to actually conduct busi-ness on the ground as promised and then monitorthe results to determine if the activity producedacceptable results. Adapting management and ac-tivities to new information learned from researchand monitoring is important to producinghealthy, diverse, and productive natural re-sources.

3 CASE STUDIES

3.1 Fish and Wildlife

Among the most cha l leng ing prob lems fac ingmanagers of public lands in the United States is themanagement of fish and wildlife. Frustrations occurpartially because federal land managers do not havedirect authority over fish or wildlife populations, yetmanagement practices are supposed to ensure viablepopulations of these species. As a practical matter, thismeans that each land manager not only facesconstraints imposed by the most sensitive of (typically)300 to 500 recognized fish, amphibian, reptile, bird, andmammal species, but also must deal with the interestsand legal requirements of those agencies that do havemanagement authority. That authority is split amongseveral agencies. State fish and wildlife managementagencies have the mandate for managing residentspecies (i.e., those fish and wildlife species thattypically reside within a drainage basin year around,such as most f ish species, amphibians, repti les,nonmigratory birds, a n d m o s t m a m m a l s ) a n dparticularly game species (e.g., trout, bass, deer, elk).Most migratory species (and all species classified as

threatened or endangered under provisions of theEndangered Species Act of 1969 as amended) aremanaged by federal agencies. The National MarineFisheries Service manages threatened and endangeredanadromous fish and marine mammals, and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service manages migratory birds andthreatened and endangered nonmigratory fish, am-phibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. These agenciesoften have limited flexibility. In the case of threatenedand endangered species, constraints are imposed notonly by federal law (National Forest Management Act,Endangered Species Act), but also by international law(Convention on international Trade in EndangeredSpecies) and treaties. State agencies typically faceeconomic constraints as well. In most instances,funding for agency operations is based on the sale oflicenses and tags for fishing and hunting, which oftenoccur on public lands.

There are other, less obvious, reasons associatedwith the frustration public land managers often feelwhen faced with the management of fish and wildlife.The first of these is a recreational (and therefore, social)concern. Fishing and hunting is a major, if not themajor, recreational activity on public lands, attractingmany people and generating tremendous economicimpacts (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). Second,public concern is often driven by the perception ofscarcity (and therefore, value) of public land, parti-cularly areas that are deemed as special places becauseof some perceived unique quality, such as a roadlessarea. Because these services are perceived as bothunique and scarce, perceived public value for pro-tection of fish and wildlife resources (usually throughprotection of particular areas) is often very high. Theseconcerns are provoked and aggravated by commodityproduction values for timber or livestock forage. Asprivate goods and services, timber and grazing arerelatively abundant and market-driven, providingdirect economic benefits to a small private sector andindirect benefits to end-users, but at some cost to non-market, public resources. Thus, decisions that mayaffect fish and wildlife populations are almost alwayscontroversial.

In addition to such social concerns, some subtle bio-logical concerns exist. Management implies manipula-tion, and manipulation of habitats often results inlong-term changes to both the terrain and the devel-opment of vegetation (i.e., fish and wildlife habitat)through time. Both have important implications. Roaddevelopment increases sedimentation in area watersand directly affects the degree of silt deposited instream gravels. Silt, in turn, affects the viability ofaquatic insect populations and both the food base andspawning area available to fish populations. Roads,


even if closed to human travel, provide attractive travelcorridors for most medium and large wildlife species,changing patterns of habitat use. Because roads arealso attractive to hunters, they increase the vulner-ability of game animals to harvest (an effect vastlymultiplied when roads are left open to vehicularaccess). Changes in vegetation often have a bewilder-ing number of both immediate and long-term impactson fish and wildlife populations (Maser 1988). Habitatsare fragmented (Harris 1984), and because the turnoverrates of fish and wildlife populations differ dramatic-ally from stand recruitment rates (and from eachother), changes through time will not be in synchronywith current situations.

As a simple example, the harvest of a single tree in ariparian area can have immediate effects: a reduction instream shading (which contributes to warming of thewater temperature); reduction in local food supply(seeds, buds, insects) for a variety of amphibians,reptiles, birds, and small mammals; elimination ofcritical nesting habitat for songbirds and small mam-mals; and effects on travel corridors (e.g., screeningand resting places) for a wide range of species, fromamphibians to birds and large mammals. Over the longterm, harvest of this same tree might reduce thecontribution of woody debris (essential for fish hidingplaces and stream thermoregulation) to the stream;eliminate a potential snag necessary for woodpeckers,owls, or other birds or mammals, and subsequently thefallen wet, rotting wood necessary to support a localamphibian population; and (by opening the canopy)change the site to a younger seral stage of willows,supporting an entirely different group of local species.

So what does a manager do? Because these concernsare unavoidable, are there any guidelines? In fact, thereare. The following examples demonstrate, at least inpart, key factors that affect public land decision-making as identified by Yaffee (1994) in his analysis ofthe spotted owl controversy in the Pacific Northwest.These factors include the heightened complexity ofmanagement issues associated with expanding andconfl icting public values, the ambiguous andconflicting norms of collective choice, and the in-herently complicated future environmental issues.Yaffee also identified a reduced capacity to meetdemands, resulting from declining slack in the naturalresource base and in the ability of government to actproactively because of discouraging fiscal realities,unstable coalitions because of fragmented power andinterests, and limited vision and guidance from electedand appointed officials and the management insti-tutions they control. Based on his analysis, Yaffeeidentified four essential components for building moreeffective agencies and the decision-making process:

1. New mechanisms to bridge the agency-non-agency boundary to build understanding and po-litical concurrence.

2. Altered approaches to organizational manage-ment, including updated notions of leadership.

3. Improved means of gathering and analyzing in-formation about resource problems, organiza-tional possibilities, and political and social context.

4. Ways to promote a culture of creativity and risk-taking to generate more effective options for thefuture.

3.1.1 Evaluation of limber Sales Effects onForest Birds on the Boise NationalForest in Idaho

This case study focuses on approaches used to identifythe effects of a proposed timber sale on the long-termviability of two forest bird species, the pileated wood-pecker (Dryocopus pileatus) and flammulated owl (Otusflammeolus ), documented by Erickson and Toweill(1994).

Case study attributesScale: SecondaryScope: Environmental analysisInstrument: FormalParticipants: Forest Service and state fish and gameagency staffDuration: 30-year planning horizon

BackgroundThe species of interest in this example have specifichabitat needs that feature mature stands of timber. Pastharvest practices changed the composition of nativestands, reducing suitable patch size, altering dominanttimber stands, reducing and fragmenting suitable habi-tat, and increasing susceptibility to further alterationthrough effects of insect pests, fire, and normal patternsof plant succession. The forest had experiencedcatastrophic increases in insect and disease infestations,associated with an increase in the number of stems peracre following decades of fire prevention and livestockgrazing in a fire-dominated ecosystem. Wide areas werefacing high risks of extensive stand-replacing wildfires,and treatment was clearly demanded, both to reducerisks and to increase the potential for future pro-ductivity. An analysis of hazards clearly demonstratedthat the risks pertained to not only the vegetation in thearea but also the continued viability of fish and wildlifepopulations. In other words, the no-action alternativeitself contained a threat of massive ecological changebecause of clearly identified risks.


Geographic areaThe area included in this analysis was the 15,000-acreLogging Gulch Timber Sale area, plus adjoininghabitats within the potential dispersal range of the birdspecies of concern.

Project descriptionThis analysis examined the amount of suitable habitatand its present distribution, and it identified potentialrisks and plant succession patterns to evaluate thedistribution of suitable habitats to the 30-year planninghorizon,

The analyses focused on key species and criticalhabitats currently available for each (spatial analysis).Direct impacts to critical wildlife habitats were mod-eled for a variety of alternative management proposals(including no action). Then, a species-by-species popu-lation risk model featuring population demographiccharacteristics [minimum size of required habitat], habi-t& quality and distribution, and vulnerability tocatastrophic events (wildfire, flood, landslides) wasapplied to the remaining critical habitats. Five- and30-year projections of vegetation response to potentialcurrent hazards and each proposed management alter-native were then examined to estimate effects ofchanges in habitat quality and distribution through timeassociated with each alternative. Each projection wasanalyzed to ensure that critical habitats for each specieswere well distributed and in sufficient proximity to eachother throughout the analysis period to maintain viablepopulations. These models were developed andreviewed with other agencies having management res-ponsibilities, providing each agency a basis for full eva-luation of potential risks and benefits of each alternative,including the no-action alternative. Although not re-ported here, similar analyses were completed forimpacts to several populations of game animals.

OutcomeThe outcome of this approach was to explore graphi-cally the full range of predictable risks of all alterna-tives, including the no-action alternative, given whatwas known about the functional ecosystem andspecific habitat requirements of the species of concern.This approach significantly reduced confusion aboutthe potential effect of proposed actions and resulted inmuch interagency consensus and support.

Lessons learnedThe first and most important lesson is that vegetationregimes are constantly changing naturally, and thatlack of direct intervention by human activities does notequate to protection in perpetuity. Any long-rangeplanning to ensure ecosystem sustainability must

explicitly identify and strive to predict natural changesin succession as well as changes resulting from humanactivity. The second lesson is related to the temporalscale of changes – to sustain ecosystems, all criticalcomponents for any species must be maintained andbe accessible to the organisms of concern throughoutthe entire planning cycle. Many plants and mostanimal populations turn over completely (and somemany times) within the typical tree life cycle, and lossor inaccessibility of critical habitat components duringany portion of this period can result in loss ofsustainability of natural resources. The lesson is based,explicitly or intuitively, on risk assessment. Landscapesare exposed to many risks, from fire to invasion byundesirable species. Ensuring ecosystem sustainabilitydemands a conservative approach to landscape altera-tion on a temporal scale, and it should be accompaniedby redundant safety mechanisms such as several dis-crete areas of habitat for a given species in the event ofunforeseen losses.

EvaluationThe approach used can be generalized to any fish andwildlife species (or group). However, it is information-intensive, which limits its application to a smallnumber of wildlife species of particular interest if timeor funding is limited.

Contact personsJohn Erickson, Forest Wildlife Biologist, Boise NationalForest, Boise, Idaho 83702 (tel. 208-364-4100); DaleToweill, Wildlife Program Coordinator, Idaho Depart-ment of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho 83707 (tel. 208-334-3180).

3.1.2 Removal of Pigs From Hawaiian NationalParks

Although it is easy to see that the protection andmanagement of native species is vitally important froman ecosystem management viewpoint, management ofnon-native species is less clear. This example identifiessome approaches used to manage a non-native species.

Case study attributesScale: SecondaryScope: Management planInstrument: FormalParticipants: InteragencyDuration: indefinite

BackgroundPigs were probably initially brought to the HawaiianIslands by Polynesian settlers between 1,200 and 1,500


years ago. Populations of feral pigs were consequentlysupplemented by releases of domesticated Europeanpigs (Baker 1979, Vtorov 1993), and feral populationsreflect strong influence of European stocks. Feral pigshave been implicated in alteration of native flora andfauna, both through direct actions such as foraging(Singer 1981) and indirect actions such as developmentof wallows (Baker 1979) and dispersal of non-nativeplant species. Although removal of pigs has beenadvocated by restoration biologists, removing pigsfrom an area will not by itself eliminate problemsassociated with non-native plant species (Huennekeand Vitousek 1990).

Pigs are important in Polynesian culture and pro-vide recreational hunting opportunities for residents(Anderson and Stone 1993). Support for elimination offeral pigs from the ecosystem is not universal, andremoval efforts are strongly opposed by some groups.State forests are managed to provide both recreationalhunting and sustained yield of feral pigs, among otherthings (Katahira et al. 1993), and most control effortshave been limited to National Parks. Past pig controlefforts on National Parks included public hunts (Stoneand Loope 1987), but hunts proved to be largely in-effective when populations were low, partly as a resultof ingress of pigs from other areas. Although poisoningis used elsewhere (Hone and Stone 1989), it is notacceptable in Hawaii because of the potential for ad-verse secondary poisoning effects and social concerns.

Geographic areaHawaiian Islands, specif ical ly Hawaii VolcanoesNational Park on the island of Hawaii and HaleakalaNational Park on the island of Maui.

Project descriptionTwo projects are described here. The first, theHawaiian Volcanoes National Park or HAVO Project(Katahira et al. 1993), was conducted on the island ofHawaii. The second, the Kipahulu Valley Project, wasconducted in the Haleakala National Park on the islandof Maui (Anderson and Stone 1993).

The HAVO Project focused on three of nine fencedenclosures totaling 19 acres in the Hawaiian VolcanoesNational Park. Pig control methods included huntingwith dogs, trapping, baiting, and snaring. Eradicationwas achieved in all nine fenced units over the course of3 years. Professional hunting with dogs was the mosteffective control method, although public huntingproved ineffective as a method of eradication. In theKipahulu Valley Project, snaring was the only methodused to eradicate pigs in two fenced units. This projectwas apparently successful in eradicating pigs from oneunit and greatly reducing their numbers in the other.

The success of this project led to the adoption ofsnaring techniques by groups such as the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, the Hawaii Department of Forestryand Wildlife, The Nature Conservancy Council ofHawaii, the Maui Land and Pineapple Company, andother landowners who manage natural areas in remotelocations.

OutcomeWhere pig control is an objective, secure barriers arenecessary to confine pigs or restrict their access. Sturdyfences with barbed wire at ground level are effectivebut require constant maintenance. The methods offence construction and therefore the costs depend onthe types of animals being confined or restricted(Katahira et al. 1993). Maintenance of fences in areaswith cattle requires taller and sturdier fences with asecond strand of barbed wire along the top (Hone andAtkinson 1983). Snaring pigs in unfenced areas canconsiderably reduce populations, but may not elimi-nate the pigs. Without continued control efforts, popu-Iations will quickly reach precontrol levels (Andersonand Stone 1993).

However, it is still unclear how, or if, the removal ofpigs by itself will contribute to the restoration of natu-ral Hawaiian ecosystems. Available evidence suggeststhat some characteristics of the natural ecosystems,such as soil microarthropods, may return to normalwithout further active management. Even when pigsare removed, other non-native species such as rats andsnails remain. The ability of these animals to preventthe restoration of natural ecosystems will be an important factor in determining the success of restorationefforts.

Lessons learnedChanges in ecosystem function may be associated witha single invasive species, but they are often associatedwith impacts of multiple species. Although gains can bemade by significantly reducing or eradicating someundesirable species, recovery may be impossible with-out a multifaceted approach. Eradication of undesir-able species, where possible, is time-consuming anddifficult. It often demands developing and maintainingimpervious barriers to recolonization. Control meth-ods outside of impervious barriers can reduce popula-tions over the short term but only as long as efforts aremaintained; populations may recover quickly whencontrol efforts are reduced or terminated.

Contact personTim Tunison, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, Hawaii(tel. 808-967-8226).


3.1.3 Idaho Comprehensive OutdoorRecreation and Tourism Plan

The Idaho comprehensive outdoor recreation andtourism plan (SCORTP) provides an example of themany opportunities provided by an interagency,federal-state cooperative framework.

Case study attributesScale: PrimaryScope: State management planInstrument: FormalParticipants: InteragencyDuration: Definite

BackgroundEach state is required to prepare a comprehensive out-door recreation plan to be eligible for certain matchingfunds under the Land and Water Conservation FundAct of 1965

Geographic areaStatewide

Project descriptionUnder the leadership of the Idaho Department of Parksand Recreation, development of the Idaho SCORTPwas broadened to include participation by other stateagencies with a role in recreation (including the Depar-tments of Recreation, Commerce, Fish and Game, andWater Resources), federal agencies (including six IdahoNational Forests, BLM, Bureau of Reclamation, andNational Park Service), and private groups (includingthe Idaho Association of Counties, Idaho Association ofCities, ldaho Recreation initiative, and Idaho Found-ation for Parks and Lands). Participants identified 15recreation goals, such as to improve maintenance andprovide recreation and tourism infrastructure andservices, to promote a unified communication andmarketing program, and to promote and maintain highquality fish and wildlife recreation opportunities. Eachgoal was reviewed by all participants, who identifiedwhether the goal was central to their organization’smandate (allowing them to assume a leadership role),included within the mandate (allowing formation ofpartnerships), not excluded by the mandate (allowinga supporting role in some situations), or excluded bythe mandate.

OutcomeThe primary outcome of this exercise was the creationof a partnership framework that identifies opportuni-ties for forming partnerships. Moreover, the synergycreated by this process resulted in explicit identifica-

This open process resulted in an interagency network of

people with differing perspectives but common goals ofproviding recreational opportunities in Idaho. Onceobjectives were identified, many potential avenues forfuture development of partnerships and pooling oflimited resources were identified, creating synergybetween the partners and smoother delivery ofrecreational opportunities to a wide range of customers.

tion of objectives and resources, which has resulted inpooling of efforts, expertise, timing, and (in someinstances) funding. Thus, more is being accomplishedunder this unified framework than would have occur-red had the partners separately pursued their owninterests. In addition, this process has enhanced theopportunity to mesh projects; for example, while oneagency planned to develop a public boat ramp, anotherdeveloped a riverside park in a nearby area. This pro-cess has also reduced the potential for conflicts; opencommunication about plans prevent situations such aspromoting recreational fishing in an area where fishpopulations are depressed.

Evaluation

Contact personJake Howard, SCORTP Project Leader, Idaho Depart-ment of Parks and Recreation, Boise, Idaho (tel. 208-334-4180).

3.2 Riparian Wetland Areas and Effects ofLivestock Management

Although riparian wetland areas constitute less than 9percent of the 270 million acres of public lands beingmanaged by the BLM, these areas are the most econ-omically and environmentally valuable. In 1991, theBLM launched a nationwide program cal led theRiparian Wetland Initiative for the 1990s (Platts et al.1987, Debano and Schmidt 1989, Myers 1989, Welsch1991, Elmore and Kauffman 1994). One of the chiefgoals of this initiative is to restore and maintainriparian wetland areas so that 75 percent or more ofriparian areas are properly functioning by 1997.

The overall objective is to achieve the widest varietyof vegetation and habitat diversity for wildlife, fish,and watershed protection. This objective is importantto remember because riparian wetland areas willfunction properly long before they achieve anadvanced successional stage. It is also well toremember that the management goals for the area andthe corresponding desired plant community may notcorrespond with the potential plant or naturalcommunity.


The functioning condition of a riparian wetlandarea is a result of interaction among hydrology, landform/soils, and biology. Riparian wetland areas arefunctioning properly when adequate vegetation ispresent (1) to dissipate stream energy associated withhigh water flow, thereby reducing erosion and imp-roving water quality, (2) to develop the filter sedimentand flood plain, (3) to improve floodwater retentionand groundwater recharge, (4) to develop root massesthat stabilize the streambank against erosion, (5) todevelop diverse ponding and change characteristics toprovide proper habitat and water depth, and (6) toprovide shade for extended duration with cooltemperatures necessary for fish production, breeding,and other uses and support greater biodiversity.

The definition of proper functioning condition(PFC) is then translated into a set of minimum nationalstandards consisting of checklist criteria for determin-ing the PFC. The checklist criteria are developed by anational-level interdisciplinary team for three compo-nents: hydrologic, biological, and erosion deposition.The process of assessing whether a riparian wetlandarea is functioning properly requires a team of spe-cialists in vegetation, soils, and hydrology. A biologistalso needs to be involved because of the high fish andwildlife values associated with riparian wetland areas.After each riparian wetland area is assessed, the area isclassified into one of four categories: PFC, functional atrisk, nonfunctional, and unknown. For areas that arcfunctional at risk, an assessment should be made of thetrend (upward, downward, or not apparent).

Management actions are then developed toconsider such factors as critical water quality problems,potential for improvement, risk of further degradation,threatened and endangered species habitat, andfisheries and recreational values. Areas identified asfunctional-at-risk with a downward trend are often thehighest management priority because a decline inresource value is apparent but can usually be restoredin a cost-effective manner. As most riparian valueshave already been lost, restoration of a nonfunctionalarea is often not cost-effective and usually receives alow priority.

The effectiveness of each action must be assessed asmanagement actions are being implemented throughvarious prescriptions, such as regulating livestock gra-zing practices while accommodating uses; developingwater for dispersed grazing; planting trees, shrubs, andgrasses; constructing fences; and conducting pre-scribed burns. Progress toward meeting PFC must bedocumented through monitoring. Sites should berevisited periodically as part of the overall monitoringprogam, which reflects long-term trends. With achange in management, most riparian wetland areas

can achieve PFC in a few years, although some will takeyears to achieve the identified desired plant commu-nity or advanced ecological status such as late-seral andnatural plant diversity conditions.

When determining whether a riparian wetland areais functioning properly, the condition of the entirewatershed is important, including the upland andtributary watershed system. The entire watershed caninfluence the quality, abundance, and stability ofdownstream resources by controlling production ofsediment and nutrients, influencing streamflow, andmodifying the distribution of chemicals throughoutthe area. Although a healthy riparian wetland areadoes not necessarily indicate a healthy watershed, anunhealthy watershed will eventually cause damage todownstream riparian areas.

Muddy Creek Project

The Muddy Creek drainage is located in south-centralWyoming in the upper Colorado River. This watershedencompasses nearly 300,000 acres of mixed federa1,state, and private lands in Carbon County and hadbecome rather degraded. Although there was noformal assessment and classification of the riparianarea, it was certainly in the functional-at-risk condition,at best, before restoration work began in the early1990s.

Management plans had been developed for theentire watershed. However, in the 1990s, a coordinatedresources management (CRM) group was initiated tofocus on management in the upper half of the per-ennial headwaters of the drainage. The CRM project,one of the original National Seeking Common Grounddemonstration projects, was initiated by the localconservation district to promote consensus among allaffected interests as opposed to confrontationalmanagement of the natural resources in the projectareas To date, more than 25 members are workingtogether to restore, enhance, and maintain theabundant resources in the area while maintaining theeconomic stability and cultural heritage of the peopleon the Iand.

Throughout the watershed, improvements in thehealth of rangelands (including riparian) have been theresult of shorter duration of use and improvedmanagement rather than reduction in l ivestocknumbers. The following techniques are being used:

• Water is piped from the creek to a tire trough; theoverflow returns to the creek. These sites have re-duced the effects of cattle trailing and tramplingalong stream banks.


• Upland water development is resulting in better dis-tribution of livestock on land and is reducing im-pacts on riparian areas by both livestock andwildlife.

• Cross fencing is being used to divide large pasturesto shorten the duration of livestock use in a givenarea. The fencing is built to address wildlife con-cerns; for example, barbed wire fences have asmooth bottom wire to allow small game and ante-lope to pass under the fence.

• Prescribed burning is used to restore the ecologicalbalance that was lost in the last 100 years of fire suppression. Such burning increases grass cover, whichreduces soil erosion, and also increases plant diver-sity, thus improving habitat and forage for wildlifeand livestock.

• Several types of in-stream structures are utilized torepair and improve the riparian zone and fisherieshabitat. Although the natural system will eventuallyrepair itself, these structures speed up the process.

• Nearly 10,000 seedlings of many plant species havebeen planted in the past 2 years to accelerate woodyplant revegetation. Woody plants are important forbank stability, stream shading, and wildlife habitat.Revegetation of native woody plants is often a slowprocess, but it is important to the healing of the ri-parian habitat.

• Roads are sources of sediment. In addition to edu-cating the public who drive through the area, sev-eral measures are being used to address thisproblem: placing water bars across roads, eliminat-ing or replacing stream crossings with culverts, re-routing roads, signing roads for voluntary non-use,and closing roads.

Lessons learnedWildlife, livestock, and all the associated naturalresources, including the proper functioning riparianareas in the watershed, have improved since theinitiation of the project. The greatest indication ofsuccess is the people story: many people with diversebackgrounds and interests who are working togetherlo develop trust, respect, and commitment to an overallvision and conservation ethic on land management.

Contact personsEric Luse, Washington Office, Bureau of Land Manage-ment, 1849 C Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20240, (202)452-7743; Wayne Elmore, Prineville District, Bureau ofLand Management, 185 East 4th Street, P.O. Box 550,Prineville, OR 97754 (tel. 503-447-4115).

3.3 Rangelands

The BLM is steward for 177 million acres of westernpublic rangelands. During the past 30 years, publicland-users and managers have learned much abouthow nature works. The BLM recognizes the progressthat has been made in improving public lands, but atthe same time it believes that greater success requires abroader approach, one that considers more fully howliving things interconnect and affect each other.Success also requires enabling all people who share aninterest in public lands to collaborate in finding lastingsolutions. The current grazing regulations reflect theseideas (Herbel 1985, Laycock 1991, Cool 1992, Sharpe etal. 1992, National Research Council 1994).

3.3.2 BLM Goals and Practices

The goals of BLM rangeland management are:

1. to improve rangeland health to provide lastingbenefits for users of public rangelands and futuregenerations,

2. to assist rural western communities in buildingstable economies on a foundation of sustainableresources, and

3. to ensure that public lands users have a meaning-ful say in managing public lands.

The grazing regulations require establishment ofresource advisory councils (RACs) to provide mean-ingful participation in BLM resource management pro-grams. Councils represent diverse interests, employconsensus decision-making, and can provide advice tothe BLM on land management issues. The RACs playan important role in helping to design state or regionalstandards and guidelines. Regulations also require theestablishment of standards and guidelines for grazingadministration, which should be developed at the stateor regional level to reflect geographic differences and toinvolve stakeholders. Standards and guidelines must bebased on the fundamentals of rangeland health, whichemphasize improving watersheds, restoring areas nearstreambeds, protecting water quality, and supportinghealthy plant and animal communities.

Many rangelands on public lands in the westernUnited States are not healthy by current standards,mainly as a result of improper grazing practices (e.g.,overgrazing), lack of adequate facilities (e.g., sourcesand distribution of water, fencing, and cattle guards),and out-of-date management plans for improvingrangeland condition. To restore these lands to ahealthy condition could mean a permanent ortemporary reduction in grazing levels for the


allotment. In the following success story, the allotmenthas been managed to restore and maintain the healthof a rangeland without reduction in animal unitmonths (AUMs) (an AUM is the amount of forageneeded to sustain one cow, five sheep, or five goats fora month) allowing year-long grazing use in the allot-ment. There have been situations where a reduction inAUMs was necessary to maintain the health of therangeland. In most of these cases, operators werepersuaded to adopt the new practices without appeals.These are success stories as well.

A full AUM fee is charged for each month of grazingby adult animals if the grazing animal (1) is weaned, (2)is at least 6 months old when entering public land, or(3) will become 12 months old during the period of use.For fee purposes, an AUM is the amount of forage usedby five weaned or adult sheep or goats or one cow, bull,steer, heifer, horse, or mule. The term AUM iscommonly used in three ways: (1) stocking rate, as in xacres/AUM, (b) forage allocation, as in allotment A, and(3) utilization, as in x AUM consumed from unit B.

3.3.3 Arroyo Colorado Allotment

Geographic areaThe Arroyo Colorado allotment is located 35 miles westof Los Lunas, New Mexico, in Cibola County. Thevalley of the Arroyo Colorado, which is surrounded byrough, broken topography and mesas, is approxi-mately 16 miles long and 79 miles wide. Elevationsrange from 5,600 to 7,200 ft. The allotment is 72,165acres or approximately 113 square miles, including46,910 acres of public land, 14,135 acres of private land,and 11,120 acres of state land. The allottee has a stock of670,680 animals, which include cattle and horses. Atotal of 48 of 8,156 AUMs are reserved for big game(e.g., mule deer, pronghorn antelope); 68 percent of theforage capacity for livestock is on public lands.

Project descriptionThe Acoma Pueblo purchased the allotment fromWilson Cattle Company in October of 1978. In 1984,because of their interest in improving the condition ofthe rangelands and producing a more efficient andeconomical cattle operation, the Pueblo entered into acooperative m a n a g e m e n t p l a n w i t h t h e S o i lConservation Service and BLM. To implement theplan, which would initially be an eight- to nine-pasturedeferred rotation grazing scheme, the Pueblo haveconstructed pasture fences, a water pipeline, storagetanks, retention dams, and cattle guards. They alsodeveloped springs, and maintained existing roads anddams. The Pueblo wants to improve rangeland condi-tion and its cattle breeding program, calf crop, and calf

size, which will ultimately increase their profit. Theaverage shipping; weight of calves in recent years hasbeen 500 lb.

The 1977 range survey showed that 96 percent of theallotment was in either poor or fair condition. Since1984, many signs have indicated that the condition hasimproved, primanly as a result of better facilities andthe diligent effort of the range manager and staff ininspecting and monitoring the range condition andfrequent herding through pastures to prevent over-grazing.

The new management approach has resulted in thefollowing changes:

• bare areas have been filled in with perennial coverand fewer annuals are growing

• many seedlings of alkali sacaton and fourwingsaltbush are growing in alluvial grassland areas

• more vegetation is growing along the eroded banksof the Arroyo Colorado

• more plant and animal litter are accumulating

• vegetation is growing near watering places

• vegetation is holding the soil in place

• increased cover is decreasing the rate of evaporationfrom the soil surface

During the 1989 drought, the allotment had moreforage than did the surrounding allotments, eventhough it received no more rainfall. Moisture was not alimiting factor because the vigor of the Individualplants was at a higher level. The forage withstooddrought because soil moisture was held available for alonger time.

Lessons learnedThe manager has observed plant growth in eachpasture and has moved livestock when necessary; live-stock have been moved frequently to take advantage offorage quantity and quality, which has improvedrangeland health. The trend of range condition hasapparently been improving, as indicated by heaviercalves and by the fact that the BLM has been able totransplant pronghorn antelope into their historicalrange.

This project shows that it is possible and practicableto improve and maintain the health of rangelandswithout a reduction in grazing level. It shows that thelevel of Interest of the Iocal grazing manager is the keyto successful implementation of improvements. Lastly,it shows that prompt response to changes in localforage condition are critical to achieving long-termimprovement in the condition of the ecosystem.


Contact personDwain W. Vincent or Hector Vil lalobos (AreaManager), Rio Puerco Resource Area, 435 MontanoRoad, NE, Albuquerque, NM 87107(tel. 505-761-8704).

3.4 Nonrenewable Resources

Mineral resources are one of the products that thepublic demands from public lands. Ecosystem manage-ment for nonrenewable resources is different than thatfor renewable resources. For renewable resources, weassure long-term sustainability by changing or usingthe resource at a replaceable rate only. This is not poss-ible with nonrenewable resources by definition. Thus,the emphasis in ecosystem management for non-renewable resources is to take steps to assurecompatibility with reclamation of sites and minimumimpacts on other values.

Knowing what, where, and how many mineralresources exist, or are likely to exist, in an area can helpmeet management objectives. Mineral assessments areone way to supply this information. Two mineralassessment approaches are used: qualitative andquantitative. The U.S. Geological Survey and theformer Bureau of Mines have conducted qualitativemineral resource evaluations for approximately44,000,000 acres of federal lands since the WildernessAct of 1964 was implemented. This work has identifiedor ranked areas for mineral potential and has helped inrecognizing the need to exclude many mineralizedareas from wilderness designation. Results of 20 yearsof qualitative assessments for approximately 80 areasare summarized in Marsh et al. (1984).

Quantitative assessment allows a quantitative com-parison of the value of mineral resource developmentto development of other resources (Singer 1993). Un-discovered resources have been the focus of thisapproach. Quantitative assessment requires forecast-ing, an activity most geologists do not relish. Federalgeologists rarely have the option of selecting theregions that they will assess. These areas commonlylack obvious signs of undiscovered mineral deposits.The Government uses assessments in multiple ways,and the results are subject to public scrutiny. To facil-itate the assessment process, a three-part quantitativeassessment approach was developed to allow econo-mic comparison of undiscovered mineral deposits toother competing land uses (Singer 1975) and to satisfyinformation needs of land management (Fig. 1). Thisquantitative assessment includes (1) delineation ofareas permissive for specific mineral deposit types, (2)estimation of undiscovered mineral deposits usingsubjective methods or spatial models, and (3)development or use of models of grade, tonnage, and

other characteristics of each mineral deposit type(Singer 1993).

Two types of ecosystem management decisionsinvolve mineral resource development, those requiredfor proposed mineral development in the managementregion and those involved in making land allocationsduring resource management planning. To make thesedecisions, tracts of various existing or proposed land-use designations and ecosystems in the managementregion are superimposed at appropriate scales. Oncethis has been done, some areas may be found to haveecosystems that are sensitive to mining and are there-fore excluded. Other areas may allow mineral develop-ment, but mining may be conducted only with con-straints. Limitations on mineral development need tobe clearly defined to private sector mining corpor-ations during the leasing phase or prior to their entryinto an area for locatable minerals. Examples ofpossible constraints include no surface occupancy orsurface occupancy prohibited during certain seasonsrelated to wildlife migration or breeding activity.

If a site is proposed for future mining, the reclam-ation plan needs to be an integral part of the mine plan.When the mine is decommissioned, will it meetecosystem management goals such as returning thesite to its approximate pre-mining state? If pre-miningconditions are not possible, will surface modificationand other modifications be compatible with long-termecosystem requirements? Mining, as compared toother land uses (e.g., timber production, grazing),affects small areas. Often, the size of the area disturbedby mining is similar in size to areas changed by naturaldisturbances (Salwerowicz 1994). In addition, activemining is a short-term event when compared to thelong life of ecosystems. However, the type of changesto the sites can be very different. It is the state of thepost-mining site and its long-term impact in theecosystem that need careful evaluation (Ripley et al.1996). Resource extraction may occur, given thatecosystem management sees that the needs of theecosystem as a whole are met (Salwcrowicz 1994).

Mining may be used to help reclaim lands originallydisturbed by mining activity by reworking metallifer-ous mine tailings left by previous operations. Addi-tional processing of the tailings removes more metaland reduces the amount of potentially toxic materialsavailable to the ecosystem. Reducing the volume oftailings remaining from past placer mining activity orof coarse waste rock left by other types of mining ispossible if the material is suitable for use as aggregate.Disposal of reworked material can be done in ways thatmeet ecosystem management goals. Assessmentswould need to provide appropriate data on tailing andwaste material characteristics. No example of this type


Fig. 1. Quantitative nonrenewable resource assessments comprise three parts, which can be applied to land allocation decision inecosystem management land allocation (modified after Singer, 1993).

of approach in mineral assessment could be found, butit may represent a promising new direction.

Example Projects

Spanski (1992) demonstrated the general use of quanti-tative assessment, and Gunther (1992) described its usein economic analysis. More than 27 quantitative miner-al assessments covering more than 1.2 billion acreshave been completed (Singer 1993). Most assessmentareas were in the United States, but assessments werealso conducted in selected areas of Central and SouthAmerica.

The result of most quantitative mineral resourceassessments appears to be the modification of bound-aries between lands of different designations. Forexample, land boundaries affecting State of Alaska and

Native Corporation lands were changed after the com-pletion of the mineral resource assessment of Alaska inthe late 1970s (D.A. Singer, personal communication,1996). Assessment reports are frequently used in theevaluation of land for property exchanges or landacquisitions.

Tongass National Forest assessmentThe Tongass National Forest assessment in SoutheastAlaska (Brew et al. 1992) estimated the gross-in-placevalue (disregarding costs associated with exploration,development, and extraction) of undiscovered metalsat $23.5 billion. The resulting action was the creation ofa land-use designation for mineral management pre-scription. The number of areas so designated increasedfrom 6 to 12 in the draft EIS land management plan.


Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management ProjectIn January 1994, the Chief of the Forest Service and theDirector of BLM, under the direction of PresidentClinton, initiated a study that eventually becameknown as the Interior Columbia Basin EcosystemManagement Project. Its initial goal was to develop astrategy for dealing with anadromous fish habitat andwatershed conservation; the project was eventuallyexpanded to include all of the Columbia River Basin(parts of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington),plus southeastern Oregon. (Note: Information on theInterior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Pro-ject is from a written communication from T.P Frost,1996.)

The overall goals were to provide management toolsthat can be used to sustain or restore ecosystemintegrity, to promote products and services desired bysociety over the long term, and to provide ways tobalance ecosystem conditions, resource uses, andcompeting needs of stakeholders. Pursuant to thesegoals, assessments were also made of current andhistoric landscape conditions, aquatic and terrestrialhabitats, species distributions and populations, andeconomic and social conditions. The project producedscientific assessments of the potential future conditionsand possible tradeoffs likely under a number of differ-ent disturbance scenarios and management practices.

The Geological Survey was asked to provide esti-mates of the value of undiscovered mineral resourcesfor the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Manage-ment Project using quantitative mineral resourceassessment. The results are summarized in Box et al.(1996), Bookstrom et al. (1996), Zientek et al. (1996), andBookstrom et al. (1995). Knowledge about the presenceof existing mineral deposits was used in economic andsocial assessments and helped to identify sites possiblydisturbed by past mining. Information on existingmetallic mines and potentially undiscovered deposits(and possible infrastructure related to extraction, bene-faction, and processing) was considered in the land-scape ecology assessment. A map derived from thelithology map, which showed where sand and gravelwas likely, was used to identify areas or tracts currentlyor l ikely to be disturbed by mining. The tractboundaries are part of the assessment of aquatic andriparian ecosystems. This map was also found to beuseful in the economic assessment. The phosphatemineral resource map was used in a similar fashion forterrestrial ecosystem and economic assessments.

Earth science information was relevant to assess-ments of past, current, and potential ecological,economic, and social conditions in the area. Bedrocklithology was used to assess aquatic integrity and toidentify areas likely to contain some possible roosting

sites for cave-dwelling bats (Johnson and Raines 1995).Areas with limestone caves and lava tubes are likely, asare adits and other underground structures of pastmining, to contain this habitat (Frost et al. 1996). Anumber of derivative maps were prepared using bed-rock lithology, together with rock chemistry (Raines etal. 1996) and regional geochemistry (Raines and Smith1996), to help evaluate terrestrial and aquatic eco-systems. Information on hazards associated withearthquake (Algermissen et al. 1990) and volcanicactivity (Hoblitt et al. 1987) was explicitly included inevaluation of the landscape ecosystem.

Lessons learnedGood mineral assessments can lead to good ecosystemplanning and management by providing informationon possible future mineral development impacts, sothat this information can be integrated in plans forother resource uses. Mineral assessments assistespecially in transportation planning, but also intrade-off analysis and land allocation to various uses.They can help with socioeconomic analysis, ecosystemrestoration plans, and aquatic integrity. In a fewinstances they have also led to expanding otherecosystems such as aquatic habitats.

3.5 Forest Management

As forest managers make the transition from managingfor single product or species outputs and values (e.g.,timber, endangered species) to managing for multipleoutputs or values on a broader scale (e.g., provenance,landscape, watershed, century-long time-frame), theyseek ways to maintain ecosystem diversity and health.This transition concentrates attention during theplanning phase on how actions at one location affectecosystem attributes in other areas and the structure ofthe landscape in total.

3.5.1 landscape-level Background

Most first-line forest managers typically encounterquestions regarding management on areas rangingfrom a few to about 100,000 acres (Forest ServiceRanger District) and occasionally as large as a NationalForest or BLM District (+500,000 acres). The analyticalunit is typically a watershed or drainage, and questionsrevolve around what types of treatments arc neededwithin the watershed to restore or maintain itsecosystem function or how groups of watershedsmight be summed to achieve sustainability on largerlandscapes. Managers must look at time frames that aredecades or centuries long and try to understand howconditions and activities today will play out over time.

572 M. Johnron et aI./Ecosystem Management and the Use of Natural Resources

The landscape-level case studies are intended toprovide ideas about how to address these two types ofproblems. We outline examples of analyses at differentspatial scales, which include a watershed level analysis(Augusta Creek project), implementation of a restora-tion plan for a Ranger District (Ponderosa Pine ForestPartnership, Crowley Project), and landscape analysisand planning tools for large areas (Washington Land-scape Study).

Within these examples and throughout the forestmanagement community, there are recurrent themes,or challenges, that must be addressed to implementecosystem management successfully in our publicforests. The challenges tend to involve restoration ofriparian health and function or changes in speciescomposition and stand structure, and they are mani-fested at the stand or project level rather than thelandscape level. These smaller scales are the levelswhere on-the-ground activities occur and where thelandscape-level concepts of ecosystem managementbecome reality. In recognition of this fact, we includeinformation on the state-of-the-art in addressing stand-or project-level issues. These studies add to the tool kitavailable to resource specialists who advise first-linemanagers in developing the stand-level prescriptionsthat ultimately sum to landscape-level decisions. Wecho se ex amp l e s t h a t i n c l u de r e s e a r ch - s c a l eimplementation of treatments and extend the range ofactivities well beyond those envisioned for productionforestry.

3.5.2 Stand-Level Background

In the northwest United States, project-level examplestypically apply generically to either coastal areas westof the Cascade Mountains or the interior east of theCascades. Stand-level approaches to management willbe briefly summarized for each area. For the most part,these approaches are being tested as research projectsand can be considered as “promising possibilities” atpresent.

Westside examplesMuch of the federal land west of the Cascades iscovered by the Northwest Forest Plan for the Recoveryof the Northern Spotted Owl (USDA Forest Service andRLM 1994). A recurring theme on these lands is tohasten the development of late-successional structurein areas that were previously managed as single-species plantations intended to maximize timberproduction.

The scale of this task can be daunting. The SiuslawNational Forest covers about 660,000 acres, withapproximately 200,000 acres of plantations less than 30

years old. Only about 60,000 acres are designated asMatrix or areas with primary emphasis on timberproduction, while the remainder falls into variousother land allocations where timber management isrestricted or excluded. Although the Siuslaw may be anextreme case, other larger National Forests also haveconsiderable areas of young plantations, e.g., 350,000acres on the Willamette National Forest (Mayo 1995);many of these National Forests fall within areas withrestricted management options. Although no detailedsurvey exists, it is safe to say that there are millions ofacres of young plantations that were originally esta-blished to maximize timber production but now will bemanaged for other objectives. Managers are faced withthe problem of changing stand trajectories in anattempt to create a mosaic of species composition andstand structures in a relatively short time-frame. Thenew objective is to perpetuate a healthy, productive,biologically diverse forest that will continue to havesocial and economic outputs.

Eastside examplesOn the eastside of the Cascade Mountains, problemsassociated with small-diameter, densely stocked standsare common. These stand types tend to create large,structurally uniform areas; successful implementationof ecosystem management in the West will requireworkable management strategies for these areas. Someof these stands have a component of larger, older treesbut all share a dense small-diameter component. Thestands often arose as a result of successful firesuppression efforts, and all contain timber that is ofmarginal value.

Situations where all the trees in a given area aresmall diameter might occur when stands arose afterstand replacement fires in the early part of the century,followed by successful fire suppression over the past 70or so years. Situations where there is a component oflarge-diameter trees in the stand are common inponderosa pine stands, where periodic low-intensityfires have been excluded. In both cases, late-succes-sional structure might be created by active manage-ment, and commercial thinning will sometimes be theappropriate tool.

3.5.3 Augusta Creek Project

Geographic areaThe Augusta Creek project is located on the WillametteNational Forest in western Oregon. It includes areasdesignated as wilderness, unroaded areas, areas wheretimber harvest is prescribed, and an aquatic reservesystem.


BackgroundThe goal of ecosystem management on public landsmeans maintaining native species, ecosystem pro-cesses and structures, and long-term ecosystemproductivity. However, we currently lack the know-ledge necessary to state accurately and completely hownative species, ecosystem processes, and productivitycan be sustained. Recognition of this condition led tousing a relatively conservative approach to human useof ecosystems, which relied on past conditions andnatural patterns as guides for future managementdesigns.

Project descriptionThe Augusta Creek project (Cissel and others, in press)was initiated to establish and integrate landscape andwatershed objectives to guide management activitieswithin a 19,000-acre planning area. The preliminaryobjective was to maintain native species, ecosystemprocesses and structures, and long-term ecosystemproductivity in a federally managed landscape wheresubstantial acreage has been allocated to timberharvest.

A landscape management strategy was developedthat uses past landscape conditions and disturbanceregimes to provide key reference points and designelements for future landscape objectives. One premiseof this approach is that native species have adapted tothe range of habitat patterns resulting from disturb-ance events over thousands of years. The probability ofsurvival of these species is reduced if their environ-ment is maintained outside the range of these historicalconditions. Similarly, ecological processes, such asnutrient and hydrological cycles, have historicallyfunctioned within a range of conditions established bydisturbance and successional patterns. Managementactivities that move structures and processes outsidethe range of past conditions may adversely affect eco-systems in both predictable and unforeseen ways. Asecond premise of the strategy recognizes that existingconditions of human use must be integrated with thishistoric template to meet long-term objectives.

The analytical process involved five sequentialphases. Work in each phase was conducted in the con-text of the larger surrounding watersheds and wasdesigned to efficiently link to implementation ofmanagement objectives.

Fire history – A fire history study was conductedwithin the planning area over the last 500 years. Plotlevel data were used to map 27 fire events. The mapswere used to reconstruct and analyze vegetationpatterns within the same 500-year period.

Analysis of conditions, processes, and uses – Severalapproaches were used to analyze the aquatic system

and hillslope-to-stream connections. Landslide anddebris-flow occurrences and potential for future occur-rences were mapped from aerial photographs, existingmaps, and field surveys. Relative susceptibility of thelandscape to rain-on-snow peak flows and contribu-tions to summer baseflows were mapped. A time-series analysis of aerial photographs spanning 40 yearswas used to assess riparian vegetation dynamics anddisturbance history. Both prehistoric and contempor-ary human uses were described and mapped. Currenthuman uses included hiking, camping, angling, hunt-ing, and harvest of timber and special forest products.

Landscape objectives and prescriptions – The planningarea was subdivided into three general categories sothat specific landscape management objectives couldbe developed:1. large reserves from the Willamette National Forest2. landscape areas for prescribed timber harvests3. an aquatic reserve system

Projection of future conditions – Maps of future land-scape and watershed conditions were developed bysimulating the growth of existing forest stands using asimple stand-age model in the Geographical Inform-ation System (GIS). Following timber cuts, blocks werereset to specific stand conditions, according to a timberharvest schedule determined by the landscape object-ives and prescriptions for the area. Growth was againsimulated until the next scheduled cutting. A set ofmaps depicting future landscape conditions was gen-crated at 20-year intervals for the next 200 years.

Evaluation – The Augusta Creek landscape design(ACLD) was evaluated by comparing it to the futurelandscape generated by application of standards,guidelines, and assumptions in the Northwest ForestPlan (NWFP).

Results from the landscape maps show a gradualchange in the landscape from the relatively frag-mented forest of today to one dominated by largerblocks and containing a wider array of stand types asdescribed in the landscape objectives. By the year 100,the future landscape appeared significantly differentfrom the existing landscape. Gradual change conti-nued before stabilizing in the year 200. The conclusionsof the study are as follows:

I . The ACLD appears superior for most taxa evalu-ated, especially those dependent on large patchesof old forest habitat.

2. Compared to the NWFP, the landscape in theACLD is much less fragmented and is expected tobe less susceptible to wildfire, wind, and insectdisturbance.

3. The NWFP is superior with respect to providingmore early serial habitat.


4. The board-foot yield of timber is about 6 percenthigher under the NWFP scenario. However, thisincrease is within the error terms of estimates andthus would be considered equal for either plan.Timber value may be higher under the ACLD sce-nario because of larger, higher value trees.

5. Hydrology and debris slides and flows are ex-pected to differ little between the two scenarios.

Lessons learnedThe project provides an example of how ecosystemmanagement activities on a project level can be linkedto wider objectives, standards, and guidelines esta-blished on a much larger scale. Specifically, AugustaCreek can be viewed as a post-watershed analysisimplementation of the Northwest Forest Plan.Although the general approach to landscape manage-ment should be generally applicable to other land-scapes, the mix of specific design elements and theresulting consequences will likely vary considerably.The ability of ecologists and land managers to incor-porate new perspectives for ecosystem management islimited by several factors, including the lack ofanalytical and modeling approaches to landscape-scaleproblems. Although many of the required componentsare currently available, or are the subject of ongoingresearch, more effort should be directed to projectingand evaluating the effects of land-use actions on thesustainability of ecosystem properties from bothecological and social perspetives.

Contact personJohn Cissel, Blue River Ranger District, WillametteNational Forest, Blue River, OR 974113 (tel. 541-822-3317)

3.5.4 Washington Landscape Study

Geographic areaThe Washington Landscape Study is located on stateland on the Clallarn River at the western end of theOlympic Peninsula.

Project descriptionThe Washington Landscape Study (Cary et al., in press)was initiated by the Department of Natural Resources(DNR) of Washington State. The objective was to eva-luate management alternatives across land ownershipsthat meet the needs of wildlife in late-serial forestswhile minimizing impacts on the production of com-modities. A major reason for choosing this area wasthat the DNR had developed a substantial database onthis landscape and had adapted the database to theSNAP-II landscape simulator.

A conceptual model of landscape management, spe-cific to westside western hemlock-Douglas-fir forests,was developed using ecological theory and concepts.The biodiversity alternatives included conservation ofbiological legacies at harvest (soil food webs, coarsewoody debris), both planting and natural regeneration,precommercial thinning, favorable density thinninglong (70-130 year) rotations, and differing degrees ofintervention. Four riparian management schemes wereused: the Washington Forest Practices Board (WFPB)regulations, two FEMAT-like approaches, and a vari-able polygon scheme that emphasized protection ofstream banks and thinning to promote development oflarge trees. Four new indices of forest ecosystem healthwere developed, as well as several economic measuresrelating to timber harvest. The SNAP-II simulationswere conducted for a 300-year period.

Many alternative landscape management scenarioswere developed. The key scenarios were as follows:

• No manipulation, with protection of the entire land-scape.

• Protection of wide riparian buffers with maximumnet present value (MAX NPV) of timber on remain-ing areas.

• MAX NPV using protection of riparian buffers, us-ing current WFPB regulations.

• MAX NPV using more frequent intervention (thin-ning at 30, 50, and 70 years with final harvest at > 110years).

• MAX NPV using less frequent intervention (thin-ning at 30, 60, and 90 years with final harvest at > 130years).

• Maximization of biodiversity with alternating 70-and 110-year rotations.

• Selection of 30 percent late serial forest (LSF) forbiodiverslty simulations, including 20 percent inniche diversity and 10 percent in fully functionalmanaged forests.

Some results of the management scenario simulationsare as follows:

• No manipulation – 180 years required to meet the30 percent LSF goal; no commodities produced(NPV = 0); ecological crunches occurred before for-est maturity (crunches would lead to continued spe-cies declines or extinctions).

• Protection using wide, FEMAT-like buffers – Morethan 200 years required to meet 30 percent LSF goal;LSFs badly fragmented by intervening intensivelymanaged forest; NPV = $48.5 million.


• Maximization of net present value – No LSFs; inad-equate riparian protection; >25 species at risk; NPV= $70.3 million.

• Other intermediate results.

ResultsResults from the economic analysis of costs showedmanagers the following:

• Transition costs from present to regulated state canbe large.

• NPV depends on timing of incentives.

• Estimated present value cost for each 10 percent in-crease in LSF could be as low as $100/acre.

• This approach is a net benefit solution for managersof multiple-use public lands.

Salient points about regional benefits are as follows:

• Diversification of wood products industry• Increased secondary manufacturing• Increased direct employment• Increased indirect employment• increased tax revenues

All of these regional gains are substantial compared tothe suggested incentive programs. However, details ofthe gains vary markedly with the assumptions made.

Lessons learnedThis project provides an example of state and federalcooperation to explore alternatives for implementingecosystem management objectives across multipleland-ownerships while minimizing impacts on theproduction of both plant- and animal-based commo-dity projects. This approach highlights the ability toidentify a wide variety of ecological, social, and econo-mic benefits under various management alternatives.However, it also highlights the sensitivity of theprojected results to the input assumptions. Thus, theproject shows how analytrcal projects can be used notonly for making land management decisions but alsofor identifying key assumptions that require betterdocumentation prior to implementing study results.

Contact personAndy Carey, Olympia Forestry Sciences Laboratory,3625 93rd Ave. SW, Olympia, WA 98512-9193 (tel. 360-959-2345).

3.5.5 Ponderosa Pine Forest Partnership

The Ponderosa Pine Forest Partnership (PPFP) prac-tices community-public lands stewardship by buildingrelationships that unite forest health with community

sustainability. This multi-member partnership emer-ged from a recognition of common needs created by aweakened local timber industry and declining foresthealth. The PPFP has learned how commercial loggingcan restore badly needed forest health and how theNational Forests can support local communities in thespirit of ecosystem management. The Partnership hasreplaced gridlock and uncertainty with constructiveaction.

The PPFP was initiated when Montezuma Countysubmitted a proposal to the USDA Rural CommunityAssistance program and won a grant for $25,000. Anagreement was made among the county, the San JuanNational Forest, and the Colorado Timber IndustryAssociation to share time and data, seek markets forsmall-diameter timber, and hire geographical informa-tion system (GIS) mapmakers and ecology researchers.

Geographic areaThe PPFP is a demonstration of adaptive managementtechniques on 189,000 acres of southwest Colorado’sponderosa pine forests located on the Mancos-DoloresRanger District within the San juan and Rio GrandeNational Forests. Second-growth pine and a thickunderstory of Gambel oak dominate the terrain foundbetween 7,500 and 8,500 ft throughout the area. A cent-ury of heavy logging, cattle-grazing, and fire suppres-sion have created an unnaturally dense and stagnantponderosa pine forest at risk of mountain pine beetleinfestation and catastrophic wildfire.

Project descriptionFrom 1950 to 1980, the San Juan Forest timber harvestaveraged 45 million board feet (mmbf) per year. Since1980, it has averaged 24 mmbf, with 12 mmbf harvestedin 1994 and 1995. Mill closings marked these later years.About 65 years of timber-related activities, combinedwith federal agency control of about 75 percent of theland, profoundly shaped local culture and socialvalues. Today, nearly one-third of the District’s timber-land is second-growth ponderosa pine.

Using tree-ring dating and analysis, ecologists fromFort Lewis College and Northern Arizona Universityassessed pre-1870 ponderosa pine forest fire history, aswell as current ecological conditions across the189,000-acre study area. Long-time local residents wereinterviewed as other researchers examined historicaluses and past management of these local pine forests.The ecologists speculate that before European settle-ment, periodic fires, whose frequency averaged 5 to 40years, created a landscape characterized by large andwidely spaced ponderosa pines, ground vegetationdominated by native grasses, and scattered thickets ofyounger pine regeneration. Stumps still surviving fromturn-of-the-century logging show that before 1870,


trees were as large as 27 inches in diameter and num-bered 40 to 50 per acre. This is considerably differentfrom today’s situation. Now, the average size is about 8inches and there are 280 to 390 trees per acre. Most treesare less than 90 years old. Open grassy areas are un-common. Wildfires in the pine zone have been activelysuppressed for the last 100 years.

The PPFP hallmark is the cooperative developmentof a GIS map database to facilitate understanding ofecosystem relationships and provide the basis for astrong public involvement process. To develop thevegetation maps, stand exam data were put into GISformat and used to classify and map areas of risk forpine beetle. The Forest’s Integrated Resource Invent-ory (IRI) team provided detailed GIS maps and dataabout on-site conditions and capabilities. All themapped data were used to recommend the best sitesand priorities for treatment.

The predominance of small-diameter trees makesconventional sawtimber sales and pricing infeasible.The demonstration work is designed to find a feasibleand fair approach to ecosystem restoration that main-tains timber management as part of the rural culture.Forest Service and Colorado state foresters formulatedsilvicultural prescriptions to conduct forest restorationat the project sites. The key objective has been torestore vegetative diversity that mimics the diversitythat had been caused by natural disturbances before1870. The prescriptions specify removal of manysmaller trees, leaving all trees 16 inches and larger. Inthe past, only the larger trees would have beenharvested. Harvests have been designed to help createa more clumped appearance and create openings fornatural regeneration, much like presettlement condit-ions. The few large trees that remain provide importanthabitat for plant and animal species not found in thesecond-growth forests.

The reintroduction of fire is a key element of thisrestoration project. After locally contracted loggershave completed harvesting these stands, Forest Servicecrews will conduct prescribed burns. Periodic follow-up bums will be scheduled at various intervals for upto 10 years. Areas will be closely monitored to evaluatethe effectiveness of treatments in reducing fire anddisease risk and promoting pine regeneration.

Simultaneously, local timber industry representa-tives are testing new timber harvesting techniques.Colorado State University (CSU) developed a plan tohelp the timber industry monitor the efficiency of newequipment and logging methods. CSU has also takenan active role in researching alternative product oppor-tunities for small pine material. The PPFP goals hingeheavily on identifying marketable products fromsmall-diameter trees.

The PPFP goals also rely heavily on pricing for theraw materials. Historically, raw materials from smallpine do not convert into valuable end-products. Theprimary appraisal system for valuing timber in theForest Service does not accurately reflect the much-reduced markets for smaller material. Stewardshipcontracts have been considered that would allow thecontractor to perform needed land management acti-vities and, in turn, be given salvage rights to the rawmaterial.

lessons learnedFederal, state, and local governments and many localcooperators, each with different goals, can all worktogether to achieve their respective goals through eco-system management. “The challenge,” as one partnersays, “is to develop a community stewardship modelthat allows communities to be active players in makingecological and community sustainability work togeth-er.” The strategies that reduce pine beetle and wildfirerisks, increase plant and animal diversity, and establish asustainable flow of wood to local communities havebecome a model for managing second-growth pond-erosa pine forests on public lands in the West.

Contact personMike Preston, Montezuma County Public Lands Co-ordinator, Administrative Office, Court House, Cortez,CO 81321 (tel. 970-565-8317).

3.5.6 Crowley Project

Geographic areaThe Crowley Project was undertaken on the CocoinoNational Forest in Arizona. The objectives were to en-hance recreation, vegetative diversity, and visual qual-ity while maintaining production of wood products.

BackgroundThroughout the U.S. inland west, aspen forests eco-systems are aging and are often being replaced byconifer forests. This is part of the natural successionprocess, which has been going on since the last Ice Age.However, since European people became a dominantforce in the area, one major change has occurred: farfewer new aspen stands are being created. Undernatural conditions, aspen sprouts rapidly after periodiccrown fires, creating new stands of younger age classesto replace older stands that are burned or replaced byconifers. Whether the stand that burns is mostly pureaspen or whether conifers take over, the extra sunlightand heat provided to the forest floor by removing theoverstory causes prolific sprouting from the aspenroots. The shoots grow rapidly, resulting in a pure ornear-pure aspen forest.


Ungulate grazing (which removes fine fuels andalso aspen suckers) in the last half of the 19th and early20th centuries, fire control, and timber harvest byselective methods have all contributed to the lack ofnew aspen regeneration. Most recent inventories inArizona (Connor et al. 1990) and New Mexico (VanHooser et al. 1993) show declining acreages from pre-vious inventories, but increasing volumes. Photo-graphs previous to the 1950s show aspen stands whereconifers predominate today.

Even though aspen is not considered a valuablespecies from a wood standpoint, ecologists, wildlifebiologists, silviculturists, landscape architects, andother resource managers recognize its high value forscenic beauty, wildlife habitat, and biological diversityas well as the variety it provides in forests usuallydominated by conifers. The solution to aspen regen-eration and overall maintenance of acreage of aspenstands seems fairly obvious: harvest, burn, or a combi-nation of these to remove the overstory and allow newaspen forests to develop. However, in real life, manyother factors immensely complicate the implement-ation of these activities. In the Crowley Project, successhas been achieved in improving the ecosystem whilealso producing wood products for society.

The vegetation in this management block is largelydominated by a sea of ponderosa pine, mostly pole andsmall sawtimber size. However, scattered through thearea are several small aspen clones, ranging from only10 to 15 trees up to 1 to 2 acres in size. These smallgroups of aspen provide much-needed diversity andvisual variety in an area with little topographic or veg-etative diversity. The small aspen clones are uniformlyvery old and are being crowded out by ponderosa pine.When the aspen try to regenerate with new suckers,they are decimated through grazing, primarily by elk,but sometimes by livestock as well. The result is aspenclones that are dying slowly as the old trees die.

Besides aspen loss, four other environmentalconcerns needed to be addressed in the CrowIey block:(1) invasion of meadows by ponderosa pine, (2) lack ofage-class diversity, (3) loss of opportunities to viewlarge yellow-pine trees, and (4) overly dense forests,which are not allowing optimal tree growth andcreation of large trees and old-growth conditions overtime. Older ponderosa pine with yellow bark (oftencalled yellow-bellies) is highly desirables for viewing.However, over the last 100 years, much of this specieshas been harvested in the CrowIey block. The remain-ing yellow-bellies are often hidden from view by thesea of smaller pines surrounding them. Additionally, asa result of the dense stocking of the small trees, growthof each tree is extremely slow, so large yellow-belliesare not being developed for the future

Project descriptionA project was designed to improve conditions forthe aspen clones as well as for visual quality, treegrowth, and diversity. No aspen trees were harvestedbecause of their extremely low number. However,ponderosa pine trees less than 16 inches diameter atbreast height (dbh) within and in a circle about75-ft-wide around each clone were harvested to openthe area to sunlight. Harvest disturbed the ground,enhancing aspen sucker production. A total of 20 aspenclones are being treated in a 496-acre area. Each clone isbeing enclosed in a 6.5-ft-high fence to prevent elk andlivestock from browsing on the new aspen shoots. Pastresearch ind ica ted that such fences must bemaintained for about 7 years until the new trees arelarge enough so that elk browsing will not causesignificant damage. This fencing is a very expensive(approximately $6,000 per mile of fence), but anecessary part of this project.

Pines are also part of the Crowley Project – re-moving pines that are invading meadows creates newage-classes for diversity, removing small pines fromlarge pine stands enhances viewing opportunities, andthinning enhances tree growth. An associated recre-ational value enhanced by the Arizona Department ofGame and Fish is increased levels of elk hunting.

Besides these recreational and environmentalbenefits, the Crowley Project is also producing much-needed raw materials for local industry and consu-mers. A total of 14,160 hundred cubic feet (CCF) oftimber is being harvested. Of this, 6,850 CCF is pulp (5to 8.9 inch dbh) and 7,310 CCF is sawtimber or treesgreater than 9 inches dbh. Total value returned to theGovernment from this sale is $410,153.

A significant part of increasing aspen regeneration iseliminating or reducing the amount of browsing by elk.In Crowley, the existing population of aspen did notprovide the opportunity to create enough new aspenstands to provide more new shoots than the elk popu-lation could use. However, one promising possibility isthat where there is more aspen, it should be feasible toharvest larger areas and thus eliminate the high cost offencing. Along with the harvest, another possiblemeasure is to (temporarily) reduce the elk herds in thearea through hunting. In northern Arizona this is beingdone by the Arizona Game and Fish department. InGame Management Unit 7 around San FranciscoPeaks, permits have been increased as follows: 1991and 1992, 1,275 permits; 1993, 1,375 permits; 1994, 1,475permits; 1995 and 1996, 2,147 permits. In the long run,this will diminish elk numbers, or at least minimizeincreases, and the consequent impact on aspenregeneration.


Lessons learnedThe Crowley Project is an outstanding example of en-hancing aspen, diversity, and other environmentalquality factors, enhancing recreational opportunitiesand quality, and producing wood for meeting con-sumer demand. Current forest management activitieshave made significant progress in moving the areatoward a sustainable condition, although it will take100+ years to get there. The timber sale is the mostcost-effective way to achieve needed environmentalimprovements.

Contact personJim Rolf, Peaks Ranger District, Coconino NationalForest (tel. 520-527-8239). There are many other areaswhere aspen is being enhanced through ecosystemmanagement projects. In some of these areas, aspen ismuch more dominant (including pure stands) than inthe Crowley area. Two other contacts with expertiseand knowledge of projects involving aspen are (1)Wayne Sheperd, Rocky Mountain Station, Fort Collins,CO (tel. 303-498-1259) and (2) Dale Bartos, Inter-mountain Research Station, Logan, UT (tel. 801-755-3567).

3.5.7 Colville study

The Colville Study (Barbour et al. 1995, Ryland 1996)was an integrated study intended to help natural re-source managers understand the silvicultural, opera-tional, and economic implications of performing forestoperations in small-diameter, densely stocked stands.This study was a cooperative effort involving the Col-ville National Forest, Idaho Panhandle National Forest,Ochoco National Forest, USDA Forest Service ForestProducts Laboratory, Boise Cascade, Riley CreekLumber, Vaagan brothers Lumber, Oregon State Uni-versity, University of Idaho, University of Washington,Washington State University, and Forest ServicePacific Northwest Research Station.

Geographic areaThe study focused on the Rocky II timber sale on theColville National Forest in northeastern Washington.The sale consisted of 18 separate cutting units, totaling764 acres of thinning that were representative of thedensely stocked, small-diameter stands in the forest. Arecent inventory had found 115,000 acres of small-dia-meter, densely stocked stands (Colville National Forest1994).

Project descriptionThe objective of the forest managers was to develop astrategy for changing the trajectories of the small-

diameter, densely stocked stands in an attempt to (1)create late-successional structure from large areas ofuniform stands, (2) decrease forest health risk, (3)improve wildlife habitat, particularly for white-taileddear and cavity-nesting birds, and (4) improve standaesthetics.

Various silvicultural regimes and residual densitieswere modeled using the Inland Empire variant of theForest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) for four differentstand types. Future stand structures were judgedaccording to their success in providing large-diametertrees, large snags, overstory height, crown height, andother factors. The modeling exercise illustrated thatchanges in the pattern and rate of stand developmentcould be induced through silvicultural treatment tocreate desired ecological features and generate timberoutputs. The most evident change was the develop-ment of large-diameter trees, which could providelarge snags for cavity-nesting birds and other wildlifeas well as sawtimber. These simulations illustrated theeffects of varying degrees of disturbance and suggestthat meeting stated ecosystem objectives will requiresome form of intervention to allow stands to developthe necessary structural and habitat characteristics.

A harvester forwarder system was monitored dur-ing harvesting of the Rocky II timber sale, and produc-tion functions were developed for the system. Addi-tional work is in progress to develop similar functionsfor small tractor logging systems. Lumber and veneerrecovery studies were conducted to develop grade andvolume yield equations for small-diameter logs. Suit-ability of the material for several composite productsand mechanical and kraft pulps was also determined.Reports on these studies are forthcoming.

A financial analysis package is also under develop-ment. This package is intended to help timber plannersunderstand what types of treatments are feasible andcan be accomplished using timber sales, when thinningcontracts are the best option, and when costs will be sohigh that a hands-off approach is the only option.

Lessons learnedThe ecosystem objectives outlined by the forest man-agers would not be met in a reasonable timeframe (lessthan 200 years) if no treatment was done. Any of theother treatments would meet the objectives sooner, butthe economics of harvesting and processing the small-diameter material is extremely sensitive to piece size andmarket conditions. Harvesting and processing smallmaterial is expensive, and the quantity and value of theresulting products are fairly low. Designing timber salesso that the purchaser can react quickly to fluctuatingmarkets is one way to increase the likelihood that timbersales will sell and ecosystem management objectives


will be reached. Finally, the economic evaluation oftimber stands for possible sale is very complex. A com-puter program is needed to understand the interactionsof the various components.

Contact personJamie Barbour, Portland Forestry Sciences Laboratory,Portland, OR (tel. 503-326-4274).

3.5.8 Blacks Mountain Experimental ForestProject

In the rush to create stands with diverse species andstructures, it is not known whether we can manageold-growth stands to perpetuate their values over time.Information about how old-growth stands have re-sponded to thinning treatments is as useful as inform-ation on whether younger stands can be manipulated toaccelerate the creation of late-seral conditions. In 1938,research was initiated on thinning old-growth stands ofeastside pine types, which contained large trees (31.5inches dbh, about 5 tpa) at least 300 years old. At thattime, the stands were influenced by frequent low-intensity fires and sheep grazing, which kept the under-story open and fuel levels low. With the end of sheepgrazing and the exclusion of fire, a dense understory ofponderosa pine and white fir has developed.

Geographic areaThe Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest is located innortheastern California. The study area is roughly10,000 acres of interior ponderosa pine cover type,locally known as eastside pine. This cover type is foundon about 2.3 million acres in California, nearly 14percent of the total available commercial forest inCalifornia.

Project descriptionSix levels of thinning, from a no-thin control to 95percent removal, were tested on the Blacks MountainExperimental Forest (Dolph et al. 1995). Measurementswere taken at 5, 10, 20, and 50 years after treatment fort r e e g rowth , vo l ume p roduc t i on , d i ame t e rdistribution, and species composition. Results showthat the diameter growth was greater on the moreintensive treatments, which result in smaller stems;volume production was initially decreased in theintensive thinning, but significantly increased in the20-50-year period, probably because of in-growth; anddiameter distribution showed a consistent increase intrees <27.5 inches dbh, regardless of treatment, and adecrease in trees >27.5 inches dbh in intensive thin-ning. Finally, although no relationship was found in

species composition between treatments, an increasein competition from the in-growth in the understorycontributed to the mortality of large trees, even in thecontrol. Major changes on the study plots wereobserved for both the exclusion of fire and the thinningtreatments.

Lessons learnedThe decline of the old, large-tree component demon-strates an important point that other authors havereported: characteristics or functions of old-growthstands cannot be guaranteed in perpetuity by simplypreserving existing old-growth tracts (Debell andFranklin 1987). Like young-growth stands, old-growthstands must be managed for desired attributes.

Contact personKathy Harcksen, Lassen National Forest, 55 S. Sacra-mento St., Susanville, CA 96130 (tel. 916-257-2151).

4 CONCLUSIONS

Ecosystem management provides the opportunity toproduce and use natural resources in ways that ensure,within reasonable limits, sustained ecosystem func-tions. In fact, ecosystem management includes provi-ding for the needs of humans. We face the continuingchallenge of finding ways to forecast how ecosystemsare likely to respond to changes related to the pro-duction and use of our resources. The resourcesdesired from public lands include wildlife and fish,recreation, minerals, wood fiber, forage for livestock,clean water, and many special products, includingChristmas trees, mushrooms and berries.

Planning is foremost in importance as we face thechallenge of meeting ecosystem management goals.We found that users of public lands must be involvedin developing regional standards and guidelines. Plan-ning at the regional scale must become a collaborativeeffort, including all levels of government as well asindustrial and private cooperators. Planning at thesite-specific level must be linked to wider objectives asis shown in the Augusta Creek example. Partnershipsmust be forged and planning integrated on a landscapebasis to mesh agency responsibilities and pool per-sonnel and funding resources. We have shown severalexamples (e.g., Washington Landscape Study, Recre-ation, Muddy Creek, Ponderosa Pine Forest Partner-ship) where such effort has been successful. Resourceuses must be monitored to prevent over-use and deg-radation, or to ensure restoration as in the Rangelandsexample in the Arroyo Colorado allotment.

Alternative management practices for resourceproduction need to be evaluated to determine possible


impacts on the health of the ecosystem. State andfederal agencies, working together, are beginning toinstill a common land ethic in the public. We believe,and have shown several examples, that resources canbe managed to produce marketable commodities aswell as provide a wide range of non-market amenitieswithin a framework that ensures sustainability.

Scale, scope, and temporal change are all criticalfactors in producing resources through ecosystemmanagement. We have shown that a century-plusplanning horizon must be considered before we cansee what management activities are needed on thelandscape today. Vegetative regimes constantlychange, and the lack of direct intervention by humanactivities does not equate to protection in perpetuity.Not doing any vegetation management would havedire consequences in forests that have gone throughmajor changes from their presettlement condition.Native species have adapted to a range of habitatpatterns, as shown by historical disturbance events andecological processes. This is one key to evaluating theimpact of resource production on ecosystem health.We have shown in the Fish and Wildlife and otherexamples that long-range planning must consider notonly change resulting from human activity but alsonatural changes resulting from vegetative succession.One way to assure integration of resource productionand use into healthy ecosystems is to see that manage-ment activit ies mimic the patterns of naturaldisturbance (e.g., Crowley Project, Ponderosa PineForest Partnership).

We have shown that management approaches areavailable that manipulate vegetation and wildlife pop-ulations to produce healthy ecosystems. In fact, wehave found that in some cases ecosystems must betreated to achieve ecosystem goals such as diversityand long term-sustainability (Crowley Project, Ponder-osa Pine Forest Partnership, Blacks Mountain Experi-mental Forest Project, and others). We have found thattraditional products and methods of extraction mustsometimes be modified to deal with current ecosystemconditions. We have also shown that exploration anddevelopment of nonrenewable resources are possible ifexploration is regulated to minimize impacts toecosystems and if proposed restoration is compatiblewith long-term ecosystem sustainability.

Humans as Agents of EcologIcal Change 581


Marlin JohnsonUSDA Forest ServiceSouthwestern RegionFederal Building517 Gold Avenue, SWAlbuquerque, NM 87102, USA

James BarbourUSDA Forest ServicePacific Northwest Research StationP. O. Box 3890Portland, OR 97208-3890, USA

David W. GreenUSDA Forest ServiceForest Products LaboratoryOne Gifford Pinchot DriveMadison, WI 53705-2398, USA

Susan WillitsUSDA Forest ServicePacific Northwest Research StationP. O. Box 3890Portland, OR 97208-3890, USA

THE AUTHORS

Michael ZneroldUSDA Forest ServiceSan Juan-Rio Grande National ForestMancos-Dolores Ranger DistrictP.O. Box 210Dolores, CO 81323, USA

James D. BlissU.S. Geological SurveyTucson Field OfficeCorbett Building210 East 7th StreetTucson, AZ 85705-8454, USA

Sie Ling ChiangU.S. Depatment of the InteriorBureau of Land Management1849 C Street, NWWO-300, LS 2O2BWashington, DC 20240, USA

Dale ToweillIdaho Department of Fish and GameWildlife Program CoordinatorP.O. Box 25660 S. WalnutBoise, ID 83712, USA

Ecological StewardshipA Common Reference for Ecosystem Management

Volume II• Biological and Ecological Dimensions

• Humans as Agents of Ecological Change

Editors

R.C. Szaro, N.C. Johnson, W.T. Sexton & A.J. Malk

A practical reference for scientists and resource managers

Date post:	20-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Ecosystem Management and the Use of Natural Resources · Ecosystem Management and the Use of...

Documents