1. Introduction The United States is one-third forest and an additional one-fourth is considered grassland pasture and rangeland. Its 737 million acres of forestland are highly diverse both in land tenure and species. About 20% of this forestland is grazed. The United States also has a rich legacy of public forests comprising about 34% of all forestland (Powell et al., 1992). The public lands have been managed under evolving sets of goals that in the 20th century invoked both Abstract Significant changes over the past 150 years in aquatic, terrestrial, landscape, and socioeconomic systems have altered biophysical systems in the interior Columbia basin. Changes and conflict in public policy concerns, such as resource use vs. restoration vs. conser- vation are especially evident in more than 34% of total forest and rangeland in the United States that are federally administered. In the last decade, design and implementation of complex land management strategies has become an issue for public land managers. In turn, the scientific community is often challenged to develop approaches for management of complete ecosystems. This paper discusses the use of science in the assessment and evaluation phases of one large-scale (multi-region) ecosystem management effort on federal lands in the Columbia river basin, the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP), and briefly describes the evalu- ations of three alternative management strategies which are detailed by other papers in this issue. This paper contends that understand- ing the context of land management decisions is essential to defining the veracity or applicability of alternative land management strategies. Evaluating the alternatives is a complicated science process, which requires understanding the effects of each set of direction over both the short and long term, projecting the effects of those directions, making assumptions about pieces not yet developed, and modeling resource change. Published by Elsevier Science B.V. Keywords: Forest management; Ecosystems; Land management planning conservation and industrial utilization principles of stew- ardship. However, late in the 20th century, the complementarity between these dual goals eroded as con- servation goals expanded to include ecological steward- ship concerns (Sexton et al., 1999) and recently renewed concerns over sustainability (Johnson et al., 1999a). These concerns challenge federal land managers to design and implement complex land management strategies that are explicitly based on science. In turn, the science commu- nity is challenged to develop hierarchical approaches for management of complete ecosystems including both bio- physical and socioeconomic systems (Johnson et al., 1999b). This special issue reveals the science used in the *Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (R.W. Haynes). 0378-1127/01/$ - see front matter. Published by Elsevier Science B.V PII: S0378-1127(01)00450-9 Science and ecosystem management in the interior Columbia basin Richard W. Haynes a,* , Thomas M. Quigley b , Jodi L. Clifford c , Rebecca A. Gravenmier d a USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, PO. Box 3890, Portland, OR 97208, USA b USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, La Grande, OR 97850, USA c USDI Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR 97208, USA d lnterior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Portland, OR 97208, USA Forest Ecology and Management 153 (2001) 3-14 Forest Ecology and Management www.elsevier.com/locate/foreco
Transcript
R.W. Haynes et al./Forest Ecology and Management 153 (2001) 3-14 3
1. Introduction
The United States is one-third forest and an additionalone-fourth is considered grassland pasture and rangeland.Its 737 million acres of forestland are highly diverse bothin land tenure and species. About 20% of this forestland isgrazed. The United States also has a rich legacy of publicforests comprising about 34% of all forestland (Powell etal., 1992).
The public lands have been managed under evolving setsof goals that in the 20th century invoked both
Abstract
Significant changes over the past 150 years in aquatic, terrestrial, landscape, and socioeconomic systems have altered biophysicalsystems in the interior Columbia basin. Changes and conflict in public policy concerns, such as resource use vs. restoration vs. conser-vation are especially evident in more than 34% of total forest and rangeland in the United States that are federally administered. In thelast decade, design and implementation of complex land management strategies has become an issue for public land managers. In turn,the scientific community is often challenged to develop approaches for management of complete ecosystems. This paper discusses theuse of science in the assessment and evaluation phases of one large-scale (multi-region) ecosystem management effort on federal landsin the Columbia river basin, the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP), and briefly describes the evalu-ations of three alternative management strategies which are detailed by other papers in this issue. This paper contends that understand-ing the context of land management decisions is essential to defining the veracity or applicability of alternative land managementstrategies. Evaluating the alternatives is a complicated science process, which requires understanding the effects of each set of directionover both the short and long term, projecting the effects of those directions, making assumptions about pieces not yet developed, andmodeling resource change. Published by Elsevier Science B.V.
Keywords: Forest management; Ecosystems; Land management planning
conservation and industrial utilization principles of stew-ardship. However, late in the 20th century, thecomplementarity between these dual goals eroded as con-servation goals expanded to include ecological steward-ship concerns (Sexton et al., 1999) and recently renewedconcerns over sustainability (Johnson et al., 1999a). Theseconcerns challenge federal land managers to design andimplement complex land management strategies that areexplicitly based on science. In turn, the science commu-nity is challenged to develop hierarchical approaches formanagement of complete ecosystems including both bio-physical and socioeconomic systems (Johnson et al.,1999b). This special issue reveals the science used in the*Corresponding author.
0378-1127/01/$ - see front matter. Published by Elsevier Science B.VP I I : S 0 3 7 8 - 11 2 7 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 4 5 0 - 9
Science and ecosystem management in the interior Columbia basin
Richard W. Haynesa,*, Thomas M. Quigleyb, Jodi L. Cliffordc, Rebecca A. Gravenmierd
aUSDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, PO. Box 3890, Portland, OR 97208, USAbUSDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, La Grande, OR 97850, USA
cUSDI Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR 97208, USAdlnterior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Portland, OR 97208, USA
Forest Ecology and Management 153 (2001) 3-14
������������ ��
� � ������
www.elsevier.com/locate/foreco
jgray
About This File: This file was created by scanning the printed publication. Misscans identified by the software have been corrected; however, some mistakes may remain.
R.W. Haynes et al./Forest Ecology and Management 153 (2001) 3-144
assessment and evaluation phases of one large-scale(multi-ecoregion) effort to design such a land managementstrategy for federal lands within the interior Columbia riverbasin.
The remainder of this paper is divided into the followingsections: an introduction to the Interior Columbia Basin Eco-system Management Project (ICBEMP); a discussion of theimplicit science context that underlies successful land man-agement, the elusive issue of goals, and the problems of ad-dressing variable spatial and temporal scales; a review of cur-rent conditions within the area of concern; a brief descriptionof the alternative land management strategies considered; adiscussion about the development of an effects analysis, andthe questions of risk assessment and management; and, a sum-mary and description of the wide variety of articles that fol-low in this issue.
2. The Interior Columbia Basin EcosystemManagement Project
The ICBEMP, chartered in 1993, is a joint effort of theUS Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (FS) and theUS Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Manage-ment (BLM). The project’s explicit charge is to develop ascientifically based ecosystem management strategy for landsadministered by the FS and BLM within the interior Colum-bia river basin (hereafter referred to as the basin1). TheICBEMP study area (Fig. 1) covers approximately 58 mil-lion ha in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming,Nevada and Utah, an area about as large as France. Publiclands managed by the FS and BLM account for 53% of theBasin area.
Early in 1994, an interagency team of federal scientists(known as the Science Integration Team) with assistance froma variety of university scientists and other resource profes-sionals, began a broad-scale assessment of current conditionsacross the entire basin. This assessment addressed biophysi-cal properties such as soils, climate, and hydrologic regimes;
vegetative characteristics and patterns of change; specieshabitat, status and viability; and human social and eco-nomic concerns. The assessment also attempted to esti-mate the extent to which ecosystem diversity and resil-iency had been altered, in order to better understand therelation between various management practices and sys-tem sustainability. Results of this assessment were releasedin a summary publication in 1997 (Quigley and Arbelbide,1997). The Science Integration Team also released aframework for ecosystem management (Haynes et al.,1996), and generated an integrated assessment linkinglandscape, aquatic, terrestrial, social, and economiccharacterizations to describe biological, physical, and so-cial systems (Quigley et al., 1996). This body of workhighlighted connections and possible causal relationsacross disciplines, and provided both spatial under-standing and temporal depth for many critical issues con-cerning Basin ecosystems.
In a concurrent effort, land management teams com-posed of specialists and land managers developed a se-ries of land management alternatives for FS- andBLM-administered lands in the basin. These teams fol-lowed the formal process in the United States that uses anenvironmental impact statement (EIS) based on publicand agency input to develop alternative management de-cisions. Two draft environmental impact statements(DEISs) were released for public comment in late sum-mer 1997 that contained seven distinct land managementalternatives (USDA and USDI, 1997a,b). The Science In-tegration Team attempted to evaluate these alternativesto assess how well they would meet their stated goals,and to highlight any underlying tradeoffs or unintendedeffects which may have been inherent within the strate-gies (Quigley et al., 1997). After extensive public review,the land management (EIS) teams developed a supple-mental draft EIS (SDEIS) which included three additionalalternatives that were responsive to the public’s expressedconcerns over land management issues in the basin. Thesethree alternatives cover FS and BLM lands across theentire project area - some 25.4 million ha. The supple-mental alternatives were released for public comment inMarch 2000 (USDA and USDI, 2000). The Science Advi-sory Group, core members of the Science Integration Team,were asked to conduct an evaluation of these supplementalalternatives from a 1999 review draft (Science Advisory
1 The Basin is defined as those portions of the Columbia river basininside the United States and east of the crest of the Cascade Range, andthose portions of the Klamath river basin and the Great Basin in Oregon(see Fig. 1).
R.W. Haynes et al./Forest Ecology and Management 153 (2001) 3-14 5
Group, 2000; USDA and USDI, 2000). Some cogentprocedures and findings from that evaluation are high-lighted in this special issue.
In the evaluation of these broad-scale land manage-ment strategies, the Science Integration Team focusedon the effects of implementing the ICBEMP SDEISalternatives over the first 100 years on landscape ecol-ogy, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, and social andeconomic conditions. The alternatives are ranked toaddress how well each meets stated criteria for effec-tive ecosystem management. Many of the papers inthis issue demonstrate how the different alternativesresult in different future trajectories, given the histor-ical and current range of conditions across the land-scape and the way those conditions are likely to de-velop over time. Several of the papers will lend anappreciation for the robustness of certain aspects ofthe ecosystem.
3. Conducting science for managing ecosystems
The Science Integration Team of the ICBEMP soughtto place information within a broad, proactive
planning process that considered the social, economic,and biophysical components of ecosystems at the ear-liest stages of policy design. To do this, it was neces-sary to adopt a concept of a functioning ecologicalsystem that integrated a wide variety of often conflict-ing species, habitat, and viability concerns with so-cial and economic considerations consistent with themultiple use mandates of the two lead agencies (Na-tional Forest Management Act, 1976; Federal LandPolicy and Management Act, 1976; among others).The scientific assessments were greatly influenced bycontemporary discussions about the broad goals ofecosystem management, although these discussionshave not produced general agreement on appropriategoals (Johnson et al., 1999a). The Science Integra-tion Team worked within a framework (detailed inHaynes et al., 1996), that addressed current ecologi-cal understandings as well as natural and cultural re-lationships between system components (Fig. 2). Theyadopted a concept of ecological integrity that reflectshuman values (Grumbine, 1992, 1994; Regier, 1993),and a set of biophysical and social characteristics thatcould be monitored for change (Kay, 1993).
Fig. 1. Location of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project study area within the continental United States.
R.W. Haynes et al./Forest Ecology and Management 153 (2001) 3-146
Such an ecosystem management concept explicitlyincludes the issue of scale - both temporal and spatial.Often, there is confusion between geographic extent(area assessed) and data resolution (amount of detailincorporated in the data). Lack of specificity aboutscales also lends to the confusion. Regional scientificassessments like the ICBEMP show trends and describegeneral conditions for biophysical, economic, and so-cial systems for a region and its various subregionalcomponents. Such assessments usually contain broadresolution information on spatial patterns of resources,associated risks to resource values, and trends that re-flect changes over time. Subregional assessments typi-cally rely on mid-resolution data to provide informa-tion on patterns of vegetation composition and struc-ture, trends in social well-being for human communi-ties of interest, and trends in basic conditions of com-munities (places). Assessments of individual landscapefeatures, watersheds, project sites, or specific humancommunities, provide the greatest detail. Fig. 3 illus-trates the concept of spatial scale within a hydrologi-cal system. Much of the ICBEMP assessment data wasreported at the subwatershed or subbasin level.
The context is set by a management approach thatattempts to manage disparate ecosystem componentsat multiple, integrated scales. This approach allows forshifts in patterns due to disturbance, and
adaptation and monitoring through time. Anadromous fishand wide-ranging carnivores like the grizzly, e.g., requirea broad-scale approach. Managing to conserve habitatfor certain aquatic invertebrates or rare plants might bebest handled at a finer scale, but broad-scale processes,such as the hydrology of the region, must often be con-sidered for fine-scale management to be successful. Simi-larly, several generations of humans, and their land man-agement practices exist in the time necessary for a foreststand to reach maturity as “old growth”. Adopting theseconcepts, we assumed that a living system would exhibitintegrity if, when subjected to disturbance, it sustainedan organizing, self-correcting capability to maintain re-siliency. We also assumed that maintaining the integrityof ecosystems and the resiliency of socioeconomic sys-tems could be achieved using the following six goals(Haynes et al., 1996):
1. maintain evolutionary and ecological processes,2. manage using multiple ecological domains and
evolutionary time frames (scale),3. maintain viable populations of native and desired
non-native species,4. manage to enhance social resiliency,5. manage for the human sense of “place”, and6. manage to maintain the mix of ecosystem goods, func-
tion, and conditions that society wants.
Fig. 2. Ecosystem management summary.
R.W. Haynes et al./Forest Ecology and Management 153 (2001) 3-14 7
These goals helped us, as scientists, to form nor-mative judgements about what best indicates “whole-ness”, resiliency, and diversity in their most universaland meaningful senses. The mix of goals acknowl-edges important social values derived from both com-modity and non-commodity uses of natural resources.These goals helped us to provide information todecision-makers that made explicit the extensive rangeof values and choices involved in managing publicland.
We recognize that the integrity of ecosystems ismore an expression of environmental policy thanscientific theory. Our experience has taught us toacknowledge the reluctance of land managers to in-clude societal issues and values in the definition(and evaluation) of ecological integrity. This com-plicates the use of ecosystem integrity since its defi-nition reflects the values of both managers and us-ers. However, we have found that discussing scien-tific findings within the context of management
Fig. 3. Hydrological hierarchy
R.W. Haynes et al./Forest Ecology and Management 153 (2001) 3-148
decisions allow us to highlight very real socialchoices and their consequences, both intended andunintended.
4. Current conditions in the basin
The ecological systems across the Basin arehighly variable. Elevations range from less than 150m to more than 3000 m. The average annual pre-cipitation values range from more than 250 cm inthe Cascade range to less than 20 cm per year in thecentral lowelevation basins and plains (Quigley andArbelbide, 1997). The various soils and seasonalclimates of the Basin support a diversity of plantspecies and plant communities. These, in turn, pro-vide habitats for a number of fish and wildlife spe-cies, including many listed as nationally threatenedor endangered. The Basin is quite dynamic, withoverall diverse and resilient socioeconomic systems,highly productive agricultural systems, and largecontiguous blocks of wilderness and roadless areas.The Basin is also still home to several key popula-tions of anadromous fish. These individual systemcomponents are highly interlinked and disturbancesor risks to one component often have unintendedeffects elsewhere in the system. The assessment ofcurrent conditions in the Basin (Quigley andArbelbide, 1997) found a variety of conditions inthe Basin have changed over the last century.
4.1. Landscape conditions
• Wildland fire has generally increased in inten-sity and severity, though not necessarily in ex-tent. Suppression costs and risks to human lifeand property have also grown.
• Changed vegetation patterns have increased sus-ceptibility to severe fire, and insect and diseasedisturbances of forests.
• Native grasslands, shrublands, large residualtrees, large snags, and old forests have decreaseddue to human uses of land and resources, and in-vasive non-native plant species.
• Tree species mix and age classes have changed.Uniform stands of middle-aged trees predomi-nate. Greatest change in landscape conditions hasoccurred in areas associated with agriculture,
human residences, roading, intensive logging andlivestock grazing.
• Recent levels of management are unlikely to reversedeclining or altered trends in landscape patterns andwatershed conditions. Reversal will require a com-bined conservation and restoration strategy whichrefocuses current management activity.
4.2. Terrestrial ecosystems
• Species that show declining trends are those asso-ciated with old forest structures, shrublands, andgrasslands.
• Habitat alteration is more pronounced in lower el-evation watersheds due to human influences that havealtered disturbance and hydrologic regimes. Habitatremnants and ecological processes remain for re-building and maintaining terrestrial ecosystems.
• Some threatened or endangered species are depen-dent on habitat components not evaluated at the Ba-sin level; they can only be addressed through siteand watershed analysis.
• Non-native plants (including legally defined “nox-ious” weeds) are a significant threat to rangelands.
4.3. Aquatic ecosystems
• Key native salmon species have experienced declinesin ideal salmon habitat and abundance. Most of thesespecies occupy only a fraction of their historicalrange. These species are especially vulnerable at cer-tain stages of their life cycle.
• Anadromous species have declined more than resi-dent fisheries. Even if habitat stabilizes, fragmen-tation, isolation, and non-habitat threats put remain-ing populations at risk.
• Non-native fish, important for recreation and otherpurposes, have established thriving populations,compete with native fish for high quality habitat, andoften interbreed with native stock.
• Habitat alteration is greatest in lower watersheds.Core remnants and ecological processes remain forrebuilding and maintaining systems, but the effectsof dams, hatcheries, fish harvest and introduced fish
R.W. Haynes et al./Forest Ecology and Management 153 (2001) 3-14 9
4.4. Social conditions
• Successful ecosystem management requires active co-operation among local governments and agencies.
• People are concerned about how natural resourcemanagement impacts the social conditions in the com-munities where they live.
• Various stakeholders interpret ecosystem manage-ment differently depending on their concerns and in-terests.
4.5. Economic conditions
• Regional economies are experiencing economicgrowth, especially counties with metropolitan areasor recreation opportunities.
• Regional economies are diverse and have high resil-iency. At the county level, economic resiliency varies.
• Over half of the counties have low resiliency.• Recreation on federal lands is highly valued.• On National Forest and BLM lands, timber, grazing,
and recreation uses are important to local and regionaleconomies.
5. The land management alternatives
As explained above, the FS and BLM released twoEISs for lands they administer within the Basin (seeFig. 4) for public comment (USDA and USDI,1997a,b) and based on the public response to those
documents prepared an SDEIS (USDA and USDI,
Fig. 4. FS- and BLM-administered lands affected by the Interior Columbia Basin SDEIS.
R.W. Haynes et al./Forest Ecology and Management 153 (2001) 3-1410
2000). The ICBEMP SDEIS focuses on critical needs atthe broad scale, landscape health, aquatic habitats, hu-man needs, products and services, and terrestrial habi-tats. The direction of the SDEIS is outcome-based anduses a spatially designated network of important areasfrom which to anchor conservation and restoration ef-forts. The estimated cost of implementing the alternativesis significantly reduced from the level assumed in previ-ous alternatives, and assumes only a moderate level ofincreased funding.
The scientists associated with the ICBEMP were askedto review the draft SDEIS alternatives (S1, S2 and S3).The following papers describe various efforts to deter-mine effects of implementation of the draft alternativesdescribed in the SDEIS. While it was necessary to ana-lyze species and ecosystem components individually, be-cause of the integrated nature of the broad-scale alterna-tives they also were evaluated in terms of how well theymaximized the complex set of ecosystem components andresources. Each alternative was ranked relative to the othertwo, under the parameters set forth here and in the otherdiscussions in this issue.
All three of the alternatives considered here were de-signed to fit within the broad purpose and need of restor-ing or maintaining ecosystem health and integrity overthe long term or supporting economic and social needs,and providing predictable and sustainable levels of prod-ucts and services, including fish, wildlife and native plantcommunities, from lands administered by the FS or theBLM in the project area. These goals are consistent withthe legal mandates and directives of both agencies. Oneway to understand the differences among the alternativesis illustrated in Table 1, which shows the proportion of
Table 1Percentage of federally administrated land assigned to different man-agement prescriptionsa
federally administered lands split among the four primarytypes of management activities. Differences like the em-phasis on restoration in the second and third alternativesare clear. The management alternatives were evaluatedfrom working drafts. Specifics on each alternative can befound in USDA and USDI (2000).2 The alternatives aredescribed generally below.
5.1. Alternative S1
Alternative S1, often called the “no action” alternativebecause it continues practices already in place, representsthe land use management practices currently in use withinthe project area. Over 60 land management plans, eachspecific to an FS or BLM administrative unit and eachdeveloped using somewhat different management defini-tions and policies, are currently in use. The alternativecontinues management specified under each plan, asamended or modified by interim direction,3 as thelong-term strategy for project area lands managed by theFS or BLM. Final standards for rangeland health andguidelines for livestock grazing management (USDA andUSDI, 2000; USDI BLM, 1995, 1997a-c, 1999) currentlybeing implemented on BLM-managed lands are continuedon the same lands, as are recommendations from otherbiological opinions (USDA and USDI, 2000; USDC andNMFS, 1995, 1998; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service,1998).
Many of the existing land use plans are based on theassumption that ecological conditions are currently withinan acceptable range and that disturbances such asfire, or insects and disease, would not substantially
2USDA and USDI (2000) is also available on-line at http://
www.icbemp.gov.3Interim direction includes PACFISH, 11VF7SH, and Eastside
Screens. PACFISH was a comprehensive strategy for improved man-
agement of habitat for Pacific salmon and steelhead on FS- and
BLM-administered lands. The FS and BLM developed the strategy in
1992 and 1993 (PACFISH, 1994, 1995). The USDA FS issued an envi-
ronmental assessment in 1995 for a proposal to protect habitat and
populations of native inland fish. This became known as the inland
native fish strategy or INFISH (INF7SH, 1995). A Decision Notice for
the “continuation of the Interim Management Direction establishing
riparian, ecosystem, and wildlife standards for timber sales” (also known
as Eastside Screens) was signed by the Regional Forester of FS Region
6 in 1994. It amended all eastside (Oregon and Washington) Forest
Plans to include the direction as new standards and guidelines (USDA
FS, 1994).
aOnly for federal lands affected by decisions made as part of theInterior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project.
R.W. Haynes et al./Forest Ecology and Management 153 (2001) 3-14 11
affect planned actions or desired outcomes. Because it isa continuation of the current management direction, al-ternative S1 does not have a comprehensive restorationstrategy within administrative units, and various systemcomponents, i.e., timber, rangeland, wildlife species, aregenerally managed as individual resource issues (USDAand USDI, 2000). This often results in conflicts in man-agement direction, habitat fragmentation, reduction inspecies diversity, and a concomitant decline in resourcesustainability over the long term.
5.2. Alternatives S2 and S3
Alternatives S2 and S3 “focus on restoring and main-taining ecosystems across the project areas and provid-ing for the social and economic needs of people, whilereducing short- and long-term risks to natural resourcesfrom human and natural disturbances” (USDA and USDI,2000). Both alternatives provide four key elements. (1)Integrated management direction addresses the dynamicsof change across entire landscapes and highlights pos-sible broad-scale causal relations among ecosystem com-ponents including vegetation dynamics, terrestrial specieshabitats, aquatic species, and riparian and hydrologicalprocesses, socioeconomic systems and tribal concerns.(2) A process that uses these broad-scale conditions to setcontext and focus issues at the management unit level (stepdown). (3) An adaptive management strategy allows modi-fication of management direction as new information andnew experiential data is collected and understood. (4)Monitoring and evaluation ensure management activitiesare achieving desired results.
Alternatives S2 and S3 identify subwatersheds con-taining key aquatic resources or terrestrial species habi-tats to focus management resources in those areas mostlikely to benefit from maintenance or restorative actions.Management intent is to protect the resources or habitatsin the short term and to enhance them in the long term.Short-term protection and long-term enhancement of keyresources and habitats in these areas are designed to opti-mize results within realistic agency budget levels. Alter-natives S2 and S3 were also designed to “support the eco-nomic and social needs of people, cultures, and commu-nities (in the project area) . . . and to provide sustainablelevels of products and services from lands administeredby the FS and BLM, consistent with other ecological and
restoration goals” (USDA and USDI, 2000). The alterna-tives promote agency support for collaboration with lo-cal communities and tribal governments, particularly thosethat are isolated and economically specialized, as thoseentities develop methods that support their long-rangegoals of economic development and diversification. Fed-eral trust responsibilities, and tribal rights and interestsare addressed as fully as possible within the scope of thedirection (USDA and USDI, 2000).
Alternative S2 contains greater emphasis on conduc-ting step-down analysis at intermediate and fine scales4
to connect local decision and management actions tobroad-scale issues and conditions. This attempts to mini-mize short-term risk from activities and assists in deter-mining the most appropriate location and sequence ofactivities (USDA and USDI, 2000).
Alternative S3 places a greater emphasis on conductingmanagement actions immediately to address “long-termrisks to resources from unnaturally severe disturbance”(USDA and USDI, 2000). Alternative S3 has fewer acresdelineated as priority areas for aquatic and riparian con-servation areas. Alternative S3 also promotes economicparticipation by the local workforce by prioritizing ac-tivities near communities that are economically special-ized in outputs from FS- and BLM-administered lands,and near tribal communities (USDA and USDI, 2000).
6. The development of an effects analysis
The use of various scientific information to estimatebiological, ecological, and socioeconomic effects ofproposed land management strategies is briefly intro-duced in the following section. These effects are thenused to estimate environmental consequences of theproposed management alternatives, which deal with
4Step-down processes take broad-scale directions and translate them
to finer geographic scales. In our use of the terms, broadscale land-
scapes and analyses cover large drainage basins (millions of hectares)
and used 1 km2 square pixel resolution. Intermediate (or mid-)scales
cover subbasins to subwatersheds (tens of thousands to millions of ha)
and mapped features on 1:24 000 aerial photographs. Fine-scale analy-
ses and maps cover subwatersheds to individual vegetation stands (tens
of hectares to tens of thousands of hectares) and involved data ranging
from aerial photographs at 1:24 000 to 1:12 000 and stand-level plot
data.
R.W. Haynes et al./Forest Ecology and Management 153 (2001) 3-1412
geographically broad-scale land management directionfor federal lands within the Basin. Outcomes of theseproposed alternatives are projected at the Basin level,are set in the context of broader conditions and trends,and reflect differences within the Basin among majorgeographic divisions.
6.1. Dealing with uncertainty in ecosystemmanagement
The understandings of natural and human processesthat are key to ecosystem management are often basedon imperfect knowledge leading to uncertain outcomes.One role of science is to provide improved informationthat helps decision-makers understand relative risks andhow alternative management approaches can mitigaterisks to biologically and socially acceptable levels. Thetype and extent of this information helps to clarify fea-sible boundaries, options within the boundaries, conse-quences of those options, and tradeoffs between options.By explicitly assessing risks and the effectiveness of man-agement actions to reduce risks, we increase the prob-ability of societal acceptance of our management actions.However, choosing among options is the normative do-main of the decision-maker, it is not the domain of thescientist.
Ecosystem management, with its emphasis on levelsof spatial and temporal hierarchy, facilitates risk man-agement by focusing discussions and management re-sponses at the level the risks occur. That is, the greatestflexibility for management is attained when risks can bemanaged at the lowest level possible. Decision-makerscontinually choose among different types and amountsof risk whenever they choose a course of action that at-tempts to reconcile disparate objectives. Their decisionsreveal individual differences in willingness to accept risk.In the Pacific Northwest, we seem to be in a time whenpublic land managers are often risk averse as revealedby frequent recommendations for large reserve sites thatminimize risk of species extirpation. In this sense, ourscientific assessments and evaluations of managementdirection are risks assessments. The results help manag-ers to understand how, and how effectively, different
management strategies mitigate risks. They also pro-vide a means to consider additional options that poten-tially could lead to greater flexibility in managementapproaches at the field level.
6.2. Methods
A variety of models was used to evaluate the man-agement direction, as it would reasonably be imple-mented during the next decade and the next century.Most of these models were developed as part of thescientific assessment (see Quigley and Arbelbide, 1997)or the analyses of effects used in the evaluations of theland management strategies as part of a formal EIS (seeQuigley et al., 1997). Models of the relations betweenhabitat and population viability of selected at-risk fishand wildlife species have been recently developed (seeMarcot et al., 2001) to meet the specific needs of esti-mating the potential population responses to land man-agement planning that affects habitats.
Because of the complexity of the problems, many ofthe models used simulation techniques or Bayesian be-lief networks. Both types of models were developedconsidering the hierarchical nature of various processesand relied on a mix of empirical and judgmental rela-tions. These models were used to develop estimates ofhow changes in input condition, especially those re-lated to federal land management, changed output mea-sures of performance. Reviewing both the soundnessof the process relations and the robustness of projectedoutcomes when subject to sensitivity analysis validatedthese models.
The primary landscape model outputs simulated for-est and range vegetation, disturbances, activity levels,and key variables related to landscape condition. Vari-ous outcomes were then used as input into other analy-ses directed toward aquatic, terrestrial, and socioeco-nomic consequences. In the case of both aquatic andterrestrial wildlife species, simulated forest and rangevegetation conditions were inputs to causal relationsamong factors that influenced wildlife species viabil-ity.
6.3. Caveats
Numerous assumptions are both necessary and criti-cal since all projected outcomes depend on them.
5In this case, risk refers to situations in which the outcome is notcertain but the likelihoods of alternative outcomes are known or can beestimated.
R.W. Haynes et al./Forest Ecology and Management 153 (2001) 3-14 13
Some assumptions deal mostly with clarity of direc-tion/intent/rationale. Other deal with establishing com-mon frameworks among the disparate science efforts.Still others, within each individual assessment, linkfunctionally specific management direction with em-pirical information or models (that in turn rest on as-sumptions) and result in projected outcomes.
Examples of the first category of assumptions includea wide range of very general assumptions often deal-ing with institutional and process issues such as whetherregulatory agencies have adequate expertise and re-sources to participate in a timely and effective manneras interagency partners in implementation and moni-toring. The second category of assumptions ensuresconsistency across the various science evaluations. Ex-ample landscape modeling assumptions such as activ-ity levels reflect land use plans and existing habitatconservation strategies. The third category of assump-tions includes those specific to individual science ef-forts. These assumptions, particularly the ones relatedto models, will be discussed in more detail where ap-propriate. The intent of the assumptions is not to artifi-cially restrict management to achieve the most favor-able of outcomes - it is to establish the clarity neces-sary for analysis purposes in the evaluation of SDEISalternatives.
7. Summary
These large-scale ecoregion assessments pose sig-nificant challenges for the scientific community includ-ing the need for an effective partnership between it andmanagers, and others engaged in the political tasks ofgoverning. From the perspective of the scientific com-munity, the lack of clarity in the socioecological prob-lems that lead to the need for comprehensivebroad-scale strategies is frustrating. It creates a barrierto distinguishing issues reflecting different policy pref-erences among the governing partnership from thoseattributable to the lack of information. Furthermore,this lack of clarity around the questions leads to confu-sion about the appropriate spatial and temporal scaleof response to various issues.
This issue contains 11 additional papers. The nexttwo deal with methodological issues. In the first,McIver and Starr examine the proposition that active
restoration will be effective in improving the condition oflands. Marcot et al. (2001) discuss the use of Bayesianbelief models to project abundance and distribution ofpotential terrestrial vertebrate populations and to modelthe influence of landscape characteristics on the condi-tions of aquatic habitat. Rieman et al., Raphael et al., andLehmkuhl et al. deal with the status and trends in terres-trial and aquatic species communities and habitats in re-lation to different broad-scale land management strate-gies. Then, Hemstrom et al. and Hann et al. emphasizethe dynamic nature of broad landscapes. Crone and Haynesdeal with the status and trends in social and economicsystems in relation to different broad-scale land manage-ment strategies. Quigley et al. develop broad-scale mea-sures of composite ecological integrity from various com-ponent measures. Haynes and Quigley, and Mills and Clarkdeal with broad policy issues: management and policyinferences from the science-based evaluations, and theimportant but highly debated issue of the interface be-tween science and policy, respectively.
References
Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 1976. US Laws, Statutes,
etc. Public Law 94-579. Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976 (FLPMA). Act of October 21, 1976. 43 USC Section
1701 (note).
Grumbine, R.E., 1992. Ghost Bears: Exploring the Biodiversity Crisis.
Island Press, Washington, DC.
Grnmbine, R.E., 1994. What is ecosystem management. Conserv. Biol.
8 (1), 27-38.
Haynes, R.W., Graham, R.T., Quigley, T.M. (Eds.), 1996. A Framework
for Ecosystem Management in the Interior Columbia Basin In-
cluding Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. General Tech-
