United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

United States

Department of the

Interior

Bureau of Land

Management

General Technical

Report

PNW-GTR-374

June 1996

A Framework for

Ecosystem Management In

the Interior Columbia Basin

And Portions of the

Klamath and Great Basins
Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

This is not a NEPA decision document

United States United States

Department of Department

Agriculture of the Interior

Forest Service Bureau of Land

Management
A Framework for Ecosystem Management

In the Interior Columbia Basin

And Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins

Richard W. Haynes, Russell T. Graham

and Thomas M. Quigley

Technical Editors

Richard W. Haynes is a research forester at the Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR 97208;

Russell T. Graham is a research forester at the Intermountain Research Station, Moscow, ID 83843;

Thomas M. Quigley is a range scientist at the Pacific Northwest Research Station, Walla Walla, WA 99362.

1996

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Portland, Oregon
ii

ABSTRACT

Haynes, Richard W.; Graham, Russell T.; Quigley, Thomas M., tech. eds. 1996. A framework for ecosystem management in the Interior Columbia Basin including portions of

the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-374. Portland, OR; U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 66 p.

A framework for ecosystem management is proposed. This framework assumes the

purpose of ecosystem management is to maintain the integrity of ecosystems over

time and space. It is based on four ecosystem principles: ecosystems are dynamic, can

be viewed as hierarchies with temporal and spatial dimensions, have limits, and are

relatively unpredictable. This approach recognizes that people are part of ecosystems

and that stewardship must be able to resolve tough challenges including how to meet

multiple demands with finite resources. The framework describes a general planning

model for ecosystem management that has four iterative steps: monitoring, assessment, decision-making, and implementation. Since ecosystems cross jurisdictional

lines, the implementation of the framework depends on partnerships among land

managers, the scientific community, and stakeholders. It proposes that decisionmaking be based on information provided by the best available science and the most

appropriate technologies for land management.

Keywords: Ecosystem assessment, ecosystem principles, ecosystem management,

planning models, management goals, risk analysis.
iii

PREFACE

Preparing this framework involved many people. Much of the early work involved the

entire Science Integration Team and the Eastside Environmental Impact Statement Team.

Jim Morrison and Russ Graham led a small group (Terrie Jain, Tom Quigley, Mark Jensen,

and Gene Lessard) that drafted the second version of this framework. Richard Haynes and

Russ Graham led another small group (Terrie Jain, Chris DeForest, Bruce Marcot, Steve

McCool, and Tom Quigley) that eventually produced the third draft. The final version

was prepared by Richard Haynes, Russ Graham, and Tom Quigley.

The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project received extensive comments

(including anonymous peer reviews) on previous versions of the “Framework for Ecosystem Management in the Interior Columbia Basin.” Lack of clarity was the main complaint. Earlier versions were too vague, conceptual, technical, and contained too much

jargon. At the same time, many people requested more detail, and mechanisms for implementing ecosystem management. People wanted to know how to link science and land

management planning, how this process would be translated into action, how ecosystem

management could be incorporated into existing planning processes and decisions, and

how a more effective means of stakeholder participation could be developed. In response

to these comments, we prepared a new introduction defining the objectives of ecosystem

management and the framework. We expanded the discussion of the science concepts

underlying ecosystem management. We expanded the discussion of the general planning

model and included a discussion of risk assessments. We expanded the discussion on

planning and decision-making to explain the connection between assessments and land-use

planning processes. The section also attempts to define broader and more effective mechanisms for stakeholder participation.
iv

LIST OF ACRONYMS

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FEMAT Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act

FS Forest Service

GIS Geographic information system

GPM General Planning Model

ICBEMP Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFMA National Forest Management Act

RPA Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDI United States Department of the Interior

METRIC CONVERSION

Mile (mi)=1.61 Kilometers (km)

Kilometer (km)=.62 Miles (mi)

Square Kilometers (km2

) =.39 Sq. Miles (mi2)

Meter (m)=3.28 Feet (ft)

Hectare (ha)=10,000 Square Meters (m2

)

Hectare (ha)=2.47 Acres (ac)

Acre (ac)=43,560 Square Feet (ft2

)
1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

INTRODUCTION 7

Ecosystem Management Mandate 7

Framework Definition and Objectives 8

The Role of Science in Ecosystem Management 9

ECOSYSTEM PRINCIPLES AND CONCEPTS 10

Ecosystem Principles and their Implications for Management 10

Ecosystems are dynamic, evolutionary, and resilient 10

Ecosystems can be viewed spatially and temporally within organizational levels 11

Ecosystems have biophysical, economic, and social limits 12

Ecosystem patterns and processes are not completely predictable 12

Ecosystem Management Concepts 13

Boundaries 13

Scales 13

ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT GOALS 15

Maintain Evolutionary and Ecological Processes 18

Manage in the Context of Multiple Ecological Domains

and Evolutionary Time Frames 19

Maintain Viable Populations of Native and Desired Non-Native Species 19

Encourage Social and Economic Resiliency 20

Manage for the Human Sense of “Place” 21

Manage to Maintain the Mix of Ecosystem Goods,

Functions, and Conditions that Society Wants 22

Questions and Implications Raised by the Goals 22
2

GENERAL PLANNING MODEL 23

Monitoring 24

Assessments 26

Decision-making 26

Implementation 27

MANAGING INFORMATION AND INVOLVEMENT 27

Tribal Consultation 27

Governmental Coordination 27

Strategies for Information Management 28

Stakeholder Participation 30

Risk and Uncertainty 32

Risk Assessments 32

Scenario Planning 33

Risk Management 33

INTEGRATED PLANNING FOR ECOSYSTEM

MANAGEMENT ON FEDERAL LANDS 36

EPILOGUE 38

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 39

LITERATURE CITED 41

GLOSSARY 47

APPENDICES 49

LOCATION OF TABLES

Table 1 14

Table 2 14

Table 3 15

LOCATION OF FIGURES

Figure 1 6

Figure 2 8

Figures 3a and 3b 12

Figure 4 25

Figure 5 34

Figures 6a and 6b 35
3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Concepts and principles underlying ecosystem

management are evolving. This framework for

ecosystem management is one product of the

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project. It is a discussion of principles, concepts,

processes, relationships, and methods that may be

useful in implementing ecosystem management.

This framework seeks to place planning procedures within a broad, proactive process that considers the social, economic, and biophysical

components of ecosystems at the earliest stages of

policy design. It is designed for application on

lands administered by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and

the United States Department of the Interior

(USDI) Bureau of Land Management, but it could

also be used by tribes, state agencies, and private

land owners.

The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project is a combined science and management effort of the Forest Service (FS) and Bureau

of Land Management (BLM). The project is

charged to develop a scientifically-based ecosystem

management strategy for lands administered by

the FS and BLM within the Basin.1

 It assesses

over 58 million hectares2

 (145 million acres) in

portions of seven western states and considers

management of over 31 million hectares (75

million acres) of FS- and BLM- administered

lands (fig. 1).

The framework suggests that ecosystem management requires: 1) goals to establish a direction and

purpose; 2) an assessment of resources at multiple

resolutions and geographic extents; 3) some decision variables and decisions; 4) a strategy for

implementing these decisions; 5) a monitoring

program to evaluate the outcomes of decisions;

and 6) adaptive management approaches. These

elements require integration among biophysical

and social disciplines.

In the framework, ecosystem management is based

on scientific knowledge and an understanding of

the social acceptability of management actions.

Scientific approaches can be used to characterize

biophysical and social processes and measure

outcomes. Public participation processes can be

used to help determine the acceptance of management actions used to achieve specific goals. Monitoring can be used to determine baseline

conditions, whether implementation achieves its

objectives, and whether assumed relationships are

true.

This framework defines the role of science in

ecosystem management as providing information

for the decision-making process. This information

helps clarify feasible boundaries, options within

1

The Basin is defined as those portions of the Columbia River

basin inside the United States east of the crest of the Cascades

and those portions of the Klamath River basin and the Great

Basin in Oregon.

2

hectare (ha) = 2.47 acres. See metric conversion table.
4

the boundaries, consequences of those options,

and trade-offs between options. The role of decision-makers is to choose among options; it is not

the role of science.

A portion of this framework focuses on the role

federal agencies have in administering public

lands. The FS and BLM are charged with developing an ecosystem approach to guide assessment,

planning, and management of forest, shrubland,

grassland, and aquatic ecosystems on FS- and

BLM-administered lands within the Basin. This

framework describes approaches that can be used

to manage Federal lands in the Basin in response

to changing societal values, new information, and

the assumed goal of maintaining the integrity of

ecosystems. Ecosystem integrity is assumed to be

a socially acceptable goal for ecosystem management, but the agencies have not yet made formal

decisions on specific goals. Ecosystem integrity

includes maintaining long-term ecosystem health

and providing products and services within an

ecosystem’s capabilities.

Federal land management agencies have legal and

social obligations to sustain the health, diversity,

and productivity of ecosystems for the benefit of

present and future generations. In addition, they

are obligated to fulfill the responsibilities assumed

from treaties with American Indian tribes. This

may include maintaining or restoring viable, and

in some cases harvestable, populations of plants

and animals, or ecological processes. Satisfying all

of these obligations is often complicated by changing and competing public values, the constant

march of science, and land ownership and jurisdictional patterns that do not correspond to ecosystem patterns. Ecosystem management, in this

sense, is another stage in the agencies’ evolving

efforts to satisfy their obligation to stakeholders

while striving to resolve these complications. In

this framework, stakeholders are defined as tribal,

state, county, and local governments, and private

land holders; as well as individuals and groups

representing local and national interests in Federal

land management. Stakeholders also include all of

the citizens of the United States who use, value,

and depend upon the goods, services, and amenities produced by federally administered public

lands.

Four broad principles have guided the development of this framework. These principles are:

ecosystems are dynamic, evolutionary, and resilient; ecosystems can be viewed spatially and

temporally within organizational levels; ecosystems

have biophysical, economic, and social limits; and

ecosystem patterns and processes are not completely predictable. Ecosystems are dynamic; they

change with or without human influence. Existing ecosystem conditions are a product of natural

and human history--including fire, flood, and

other disturbances, climatic shifts, and geological

events such as landslides and volcanic eruptions.

Although ecosystems are dynamic, there are limits

to their ability to withstand change and still maintain their integrity, diversity, and productivity.

Our efforts are guided by an increasing understanding of how larger ecosystem patterns and

processes relate to smaller ecosystem patterns and

processes. Finally, there are limits to our ability to

predict how ecosystems may change. These principles suggest the need for an adaptive approach to

management, one that can be adjusted in response

to new information.

A general planning model is proposed for ecosystem management that has four iterative steps:

monitoring, assessment, decision-making, and

implementation. It is an adaptive model and is

based upon an appreciation that people are part of,

not separate from, ecosystems. Determining

societal expectations for outputs (goods and services) and ecological conditions is a key feature of

the framework. There are differences between

public, tribal, and private lands. For private lands,

individual owners differ in land management

objectives and how they respond to various market

and non-market (including regulatory) incentives.

Assessments describe the status and trends of key

aspects of airsheds, aquatic ecosystems, vegetation

and wildlife, economic activities, and social values

and interests. An exercise of iterative “what if ”
5

questions, called scenario planning, can explore

the trade-offs and relative compatibility of a wide

spectrum of potential management goals.

For Federal lands, stakeholder participation is an

essential element. The framework seeks to change

the previous approach where public participation

often consisted of reacting to predetermined

agency proposals. These proposed changes are

driven by a desire to improve understanding and

confidence in agency policies and actions, including ecosystem management, among stakeholders.

Interagency coordination and intergovernmental

(and sometimes international) cooperation are

essential to the success of an ecosystem approach

to Federal land management. This framework also

seeks to help reconcile the mismatch between

jurisdictional boundaries and ecosystem patterns.

It proposes greater coordination and consistency in

Federal land management. The framework should

improve the ability of the BLM and FS to apply

ecosystem principles in their planning and decision-making processes, while still complying with

treaties with American Indian tribes and pertinent

Federal acts, including the Federal Land Policy

and Management Act, the National Forest Management Act, and the Endangered Species Act.

The framework suggests a strategy for implementing ecosystem management on Federal lands. This

strategy is based on dynamic assessments that

provide characterizations at different levels (a

higher level for context and a lower level to understand processes). It partitions risks to the level

where they are observed and where they impact

decisions. It provides for hierarchical decisions

that are consistent with both the context set at

higher levels and an understanding of specific

processes. This strategy depends on an adaptive

management approach that itself depends on

partnerships and effective stakeholder involvement.
6

Figure 1—Interior Columbia River basin of the United States and portions of the Klamath River basin and the Great

Basin that will be assessed in developing an ecosystem approach for managing public land administered by the Forest

Service and Bureau of Land Management in the interior Northwest.
7

INTRODUCTION

Ecosystem Management Mandate

In July 1993, as part of his plan for ecosystem

management in the Pacific Northwest, President

Clinton directed the Forest Service (FS) to “develop a scientifically sound and ecosystem-based

strategy for management of Eastside forests.” The

President further stated that the strategy should be

based on the Eastside Forest Ecosystem Health Assessment (Everett and others 1994a), recently completed by agency scientists, as well as other studies.

To do so, the Chief of the Forest Service and the

Director of the Bureau of Land Management

jointly directed (see appendices A and B) that an

ecosystem management framework and assessment

be developed for lands administered by the FS and

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) east of

the crest of the Cascades in Washington and

Oregon and other lands in the United States

within the Basin3

 (fig. 1). Moreover, this ecosystem management approach should be founded on

basic natural resource management ethics

(Thomas 1994b). The FS and BLM have stated

their intentions to use the framework and assessment in decision-making processes. Responsible

officials from both agencies will develop ecosystem

management direction using the framework and

assessment, as well as other information. The

framework and assessment are not decision-making documents nor do they set policy for the

agencies. These documents contain information

that can be used in decision-making processes.

Ecosystems are the focus of ecosystem management. According to Salwasser and others (1993 p.

73):

Ecosystems are communities of organisms

working together with their environments as

integrated units. They are places where all

plants, animals, soils, waters, climate, people,

and processes of life interact as a whole

[see fig. 2]. These ecosystems/places may be

small, such as a rotting log, or large, such as a

continent or the biosphere. The smaller ecosystems are subsets of the larger ecosystems; that is,

a pond is a subset of a watershed, which is a

subset of a landscape, and so forth. All ecosystems have flows of things—organisms, energy,

water, air, nutrients—moving among them.

And all ecosystems change over space and time.

Therefore, it is not possible to draw a line

around an ecosystem and mandate that it stay

the same or stay in place for all time. Managing ecosystems means working with the processes

that cause them to vary and to change.

Successfully implementing ecosystem management

requires working within the political and legal

3

The Basin is defined as those portions of the Columbia River

basin inside the United States east of the crest of the Cascades

and those portions of the Klamath River basin and the Great

Basin in Oregon.
8

framework. Policies and laws directly addressing

ecosystem management have recently been

adopted and are still evolving. FS and BLM

policies regarding the implementation of ecosystem management can be summarized as follows:

Ecosystem management will use an ecological

approach to achieve the multiple-use management of the FS and BLM administered forests

and grasslands. A key to ecosystem management is maintaining the integrity of ecosystems

over time and space. Ecosystems cross jurisdictional lines, making cooperation, coordination,

and partnerships necessary while respecting

stakeholders’ rights. Effective stakeholder

involvement to incorporate people’s needs and

desires into management decisions is an integral

part of ecosystem management. Within ecosystem management, decision-making will be

based on information provided by the best

available science and the most appropriate

technologies for land management. To provide

this information, research needs to be promoted

over a broad range of natural and social sciences (USDA 1994a, USDA 1994b).

Framework Definition

and Objectives

A framework is a description of steps and components necessary to achieve some desired goals.

These steps and components might include criteria, principles, concepts, processes, interactions,

ECOSYSTEMS

ECOSYSTEMS

WATER

PLANT

AIR

ANIMAL

LAND

BIOPHYSICAL

SOCIAL

CULTURE

ECONOMY POLITICS

COMMUNITY

Figure 2—Ecosystems are places where biophysical and social components interact as a whole. All ecosystems have flows

of energy, organisms, water, air, and nutrients and each element is affected by other elements. All ecosystems change over

space and time.
9

fundamentals, relationships, methods, and rules

(Kauffmann and others 1994). This framework

seeks to place planning procedures within a broad,

proactive process that considers the social, economic, and biophysical components of ecosystems

at the earliest stages of policy design. It describes

how scientific information can contribute to

informed decisions, decisions that consider the

broad goals of ecosystem management.

Specifically this framework is based on an ecosystem approach to management that:

◆ strives to maintain the integrity of ecosystems

including long-term ecosystem health and the

resiliency and vitality of social and economic

systems;

◆ recommends procedures for examining relations

between the biophysical (land, air, water, plant,

and animal) and social (community, economic,

cultural, and political) ecosystem components of

the Basin;

◆ considers people’s expectations, management and

ecological capabilities, scientific methods, and

current scientific literature;

◆ describes temporal and spatial dimensions for

planning and risk assessment, assessment approaches, monitoring and evaluation needs, and

stakeholder4

 participation processes; and

◆ identifies ecosystem principles that can be used

to develop agency procedures for interagency

coordination, planning, stakeholder involvement,

and management.

Implementing ecosystem management in the

Basin is one approach that can help to restore,

maintain, and enhance the integrity of the regional

environment, where millions of people, plants,

animals, and other organisms reside and interact.

The Basin is a land of extremes--from the depths

of Hells Canyon to the heights of alpine peaks;

from inland deserts to lush cedar forests; and from

small rural communities to sprawling urban areas.

These social and natural resources offer a heritage

of exceptional significance to the Nation and the

world. Maintaining the diversity, long-term

health, and resilience of these resources for future

generations depends on an understanding of how

society values these resources and how natural and

human processes affect the ecology of the Basin.

Conservation and management of these dynamic

ecosystems within an ever-changing social setting

are of vital importance to the people who live

within and outside the Basin.

Shifts in resource flows in the Basin and changing

expectations about the goods and services that

ecosystems provide require changes in how natural

resources are managed. There are growing concerns about wildfire, forest insects and diseases,

exotic plant and animal species, and resource

management practices and their potential effects

on the health and productivity of forest, grassland,

shrubland, and aquatic ecosystems. Declining

populations of some species, such as western

white pine and salmon, are disrupting traditional activities. Moreover, these changing

conditions and values raise concerns about the

ability of communities, cultures, and economies

to persist over time.

The BLM and FS recognize that ecosystems cross

political, jurisdictional, and ownership boundaries.

Ecosystem management strategies should include a

shared commitment between agencies and communities of interest. Therefore, this framework

provides information on assessing ecosystem

conditions irrespective of jurisdiction and shows

how assessments provide context for implementing

ecosystem management within FS- and BLMadministered boundaries.

The Role of Science

in Ecosystem Management

This framework defines the role of science in

ecosystem management as providing information

for the decision-making process. This information

helps clarify feasible boundaries, options within 4

In this framework, stakeholders are defined as tribal, state,

county, and local governments, and private land holders; as

well as individuals and groups representing local and national

interests in Federal land management. This is meant to be

inclusive of all organizations and individuals with an interest

in Federal lands. This includes all United States citizens who

use, value, and depend upon the goods, services, and amenities produced by federally administered public lands.
10

the boundaries, consequences of those options,

and trade-offs between options. It is the role of

the decision-maker to choose among options; it is

not the role of science.

Science provides information on potential changes

in ecosystem structures and functions caused by

management actions (Bormann and others 1994).

This information helps decision-makers understand the relative risks involved in alternative

management approaches so they may develop

reasonable methods to manage risks at biologically

and socially acceptable levels. In this way, current

scientific understanding of forest, grassland, and

other related ecosystems might influence management policies. Fundamental to land management

is the recognition that the management of natural

and human processes is based on incomplete

knowledge. Some of this knowledge includes

expert judgement — which is helpful as long as it

is identified as judgement. The challenge for

resource managers, of course, is to balance biological science with social science and with the philosophical views of how society values renewable and

non-renewable natural resources.

There is a debate over whether principles guiding

ecosystem management are derived from scientific

theory or whether they reflect general ethical

values drawn from contemporary views of social

behavior, professional conduct and responsibilities,

and societal values. This debate has surfaced in

the Society of American Foresters over the adoption of new language in its Code of Ethics

(Cornett and others 1994). From a scientific

perspective, most agree with Grumbine (1994)

who argues that many of the scientific concepts

elevated to the status of principles are in fact

judgements reflecting the values of the scientists

who define the principles. The change to ecosystem management incorporates a struggle about

changing values.

Often, many of the scientific concerns that are

listed as “ecosystem management principles” (for

example, forest health, biodiversity, population

viability) are actually goals that may be selected in

ecosystem management. This framework attempts

to bring forward principles that are not goal statements. It is acknowledged that all scientists have

their personal values, but scientists should leave

important value choices to duly recognized decisionmakers. Normative judgements about desired outcomes and goals are determined through the

established democratic and institutional processes.

ECOSYSTEM PRINCIPLES

AND CONCEPTS

Ecosystem Principles and their

Implications for Management

Four broad principles guided the development of

this framework. These principles are:

1. Ecosystems are dynamic, evolutionary, and

resilient.

2. Ecosystems can be viewed spatially and temporally within organizational levels.

3. Ecosystems have biophysical, economic, and

social limits.

4. Ecosystem patterns and processes are not

completely predictable.

Ecosystems are dynamic, evolutionary, and

resilient—Change is inherent in ecosystems; they

develop along many pathways (O’Neill and others

1986, Urban and others 1987). An ecosystem is

said to be resilient if when disturbed or otherwise

changed, it tends to return to some developmental

pathway or it is cyclic such that its state is always

changing within some definable bounds (Hilborn

and Walters 1992). Ecosystems are the products

of their history (Barret and others 1991). Natural

fires, volcanic eruptions, floods, and wind events,

along with people setting fires, clearing land, and

introducing new (exotic) species have been sources

of ecosystem disturbance (Agee 1994, Robbins

and Wolf 1994). Forest and grassland ecosystems

are generally resilient to a variety of disturbances.

Just as past disturbances and the actions of past

human generations shaped the ecosystems of
11

today, actions of this generation will transform

ecosystems of the future. Past management decisions, combined with natural environmental

disturbances and conditions have influenced

future options (O’Laughlin and others 1993,

Maser 1994).

Historical and potential disturbance regimes have

influenced the patterns and processes on today’s

landscapes (Oliver and others 1994). Ecosystems

are constantly changing and cannot be kept indefinitely in any given state. While ecosystem management can recognize the inherent resiliency of

natural systems, it should also recognize that

maintaining the status quo is difficult and not

necessarily a goal. It should consider the outcomes

of management activities and how they influence

ecosystem development. Scientific knowledge can

be used to help public and private natural resource

managers make choices about dynamic ecosystems

in the face of uncertainty. In addition, assessments

and monitoring programs can be used to evaluate

and track changes in outcomes related to biophysical, social, and economic structures and functions.

Within ecological limits, a wide range of sound

management options, providing different mixes of

goods and services, will exist. No one landscape

condition will be “best”. Selecting the desired

condition is a social decision that can be made by

understanding ecological limits. Fortunately, the

inherent resiliency of ecosystems provides opportunities to test various management approaches,

and adaptive management will allow managers to

learn from experience and make appropriate

changes without significant risk of irreversible

environmental damage. The dynamic nature of

ecosystems requires a dynamic planning process.

Ecosystems can be viewed spatially and temporally within organizational levels— To

describe the dynamic nature of ecosystems, it is

useful to view them as having multiple organizational levels varying over time and space. These

levels can be organized within hierarchies, in

which every level has discrete ecological functions

but at the same time is part of a larger whole

(Allen and Starr 1982, Allen and others 1984,

Koestler 1967). Higher levels usually occupy

larger areas and are usually characterized by longer

time frames (Delcourt and Delcourt 1988, King

and others 1990, King 1993).

As applied to landscape ecology, hierarchy theory

allows for the definition of ecosystems and the

linkages between the different levels of ecological

organization. Ecosystem descriptions (Rosen

1975) and ecosystem processes, structures, and

functions are all defined by the observer (Pattee

1978). Within the vegetation component of

ecosystems, trees can be nested within forests,

forests can be nested within series, and series

nested within formations (fig. 3a). There are a

multitude of environmental constraints, vegetation

patterns, human behaviors, and disturbance processes that can be described for each level, time

frame, and area (Pickett and others 1989, Robbins

and Wolf 1994). Spatial extent can range from a

few square meters to millions of square meters,

and time frames can range from less than one year

to millions of years.

Social and economic components of ecosystems

may be defined spatially and temporally as well,

along an organizational or institutional continuum

(fig. 3b). Organizational levels, time frames, and

spatial extents that are significant to human decision-making often overlap and do not correspond

to the same time frames and spatial extents as

biophysical systems. For example, ecosystem

processes (such as soil formation) that occur over

long time frames (centuries or millennia) hold

little meaning for political processes that operate

biennially. In addition, people respond to environments symbolically, and places important to

people cannot typically be defined by using biophysical hierarchies alone. To some extent, the

selection of hierarchies represents a compromise

among the various disciplines involved in an

assessment.

Viewing ecosystems hierarchically with varying

time frames and spatial extents has several implications for assessments and management. This

approach provides managers with a way to orga-
12

nize the analysis of effects of management practices that take place over multiple time frames and

spatial extents. In addition, it provides for the

recognition that decisions made at one level of the

hierarchy are likely linked to other levels. Viewing

ecosystems as hierarchies ensures that monitoring

programs (measurements, analysis, synthesis, and

evaluation) track ecosystem development or

change over multiple levels, spatial extents, and

time frames.

Ecosystems have biophysical, economic, and

social limits— In all ecosystems, there are limits

to the rate of production and accumulation of

biomass (plant, animal, and human) (Kay 1991,

McCune and Allen 1985). In addition, the environment is constantly in a state of flux, causing

ecosystems to change. Given this, human populations need to recognize that the ability of an ecosystem to provide goods and services has

limitations. Unfortunately, people often make

demands on ecosystems that exceed their biological or physical capabilities (Robbins 1982, Young

and Sparks 1985).

Science provides information about ecosystem

limits; land managers use this information as they

develop ways to allocate finite resources. Society

uses this shared information to make choices

about its behavior. People can choose to modify

their behavior and organize their institutions to be

consistent with the capabilities of ecosystems, or

they can pursue actions inconsistent with the

capabilities of ecosystems. People can also improve ecosystem productivity on some sites

through investments in management practices.

Societal choices regarding the use and allocation of

resources have implications for inter-generational

equity and trade-offs. For example, investments in

ecosystem restoration made by this generation will

provide benefits and options for future generations.

Ecosystem patterns and processes are not

completely predictable— The events that influence ecosystem patterns and processes usually are

unpredictable (Holling 1986). Predictability

varies over temporal and spatial organizational

levels (Bourgeron and Jensen 1994). For example,

from year to year wildfire occurrences are associated with particular seasons and environmental

conditions, but a fire may occur in any season and

under different environmental conditions. Similarly, eruptions of volcanos in the Cascade Mountain Range have occurred, on average, twice each

century for the past 4,000 years (Dzurisin and

others 1994); however, neither when the next

eruption will occur, nor its size and effects can be

Figure 3—Ecosystem organization can be viewed as a hierarchy. Each level of the hierarchy has both time frames

and spatial extents. A vegetation hierarchy is shown in 3a and a social hierarchy is shown in 3b.

3a 3b
13

predicted. In the social dimension, it is possible to

predict crime rates at the regional or community

level, but it is much more difficult to predict the

occurrence of a crime at a particular household.

While people generally prefer predictability, adept

ecosystem managers acknowledge and prepare for

surprise (Kay 1991). The limited predictability of

ecosystem outcomes has several important implications. Land management policies and practices

should provide sufficient flexibility for managers

to respond effectively to any unanticipated effects

of previous decisions. For example, knowledge

gained from adaptive management and monitoring programs may help managers prepare for and

respond to surprise events. As knowledge increases, managers are better able to predict outcomes. Yet, long-term yields of goods and services

may remain unpredictable. Although models are

simplistic representations of real world systems,

they may improve the predictability of outcomes.

Models are never error free, but through adaptive

management their generality, accuracy, and realism

can be improved (Slocombe 1993).

Ecosystem Management Concepts

Boundaries—Delineation of assessment boundaries should be based on a combination of biophysical, economic, and social attributes. On

Federal lands these boundaries should be delineated to facilitate national strategic planning as

well as to set the context of management areas for

local planning and decision-making. Assessment

boundaries should strive to delineate specific

measures of homogeneity. These measures and the

associated boundaries will vary depending on the

perspectives of those defining them. For example,

areas delineated based on biophysical patterns and

processes may not coincide with those based on

hydrologic and aquatic processes, economic trade

areas, or social settings.

Delineation of boundaries internal to an assessment area involves multiple approaches. Economists tend to view an area in terms of economic

regions or counties, hydrologists view an area in

term of watersheds, while ecologists may view an

area in terms of patches of vegetation. These

different approaches result in internal boundaries

that challenge the integration process. It is important to recognize multiple boundaries, but also to

compromise on a common internal boundary set

for analysis and description.

Scales— There are different notions of what scale

means in the literature and often there is confusion between geographic extent and data resolution. An approach clarifying the use of scale is

shown in tables 1, 2, and 3, where geographic

extent refers to the area assessed and resolution

describes the amount of detail incorporated in the

data. Assessments can be described by two-part

names designating both the geographic extent and

the resolution of the data.

In regional and sub-regional assessments, some

ecosystem components cannot be adequately

addressed using broad resolution data. For example, habitat conditions for species with small

home ranges cannot be adequately assessed with

broad resolution data (O’Neill and others 1986).

Similarly, assessments of economic patterns in

rural communities may be more appropriate at the

landscape rather than the regional extent.

Regional assessments (table 1) show trends and

describe general conditions for biophysical, economic, and social components. These assessments

describe social characteristics such as state and

county trends in human populations and urban

versus rural economic growth. They usually contain broad resolution information on spatial patterns of resources and associated risks to resource

values. Sub-regional assessments (table 2) typically

rely on mid-resolution data to provide information

on patterns of vegetation composition and structure, trends in social well-being for human communities of interest, and trends in basic conditions

of communities (places). Assessments of landscapes or specific sites provide the greatest detail

(table 3). These assessments may cover landscapes,

watersheds, or individual project sites and specific
14

Table 2. Attributes and characteristics typically associated with mid-resolution, sub-regional assessments.1

Attributes Landscape ecology Terrestrial Aquatic Social/Economic

Geographic extent Multiple Province Multiple County

watersheds watersheds

Data resolution < 100 ha 1-5 ha 15,000 ha County

watershed

Organizational Watershed Species groups Species groups County

hierarchy

Map scale 1:100,000 1:100,000 1:100,000 1:100,000

1:24,000 1:24,000 1:24,000

Time period2

Short term 1-10 years 1-10 years 1-10 years 1-5 years

Long term 10-300 years 10-100 years 10-100 years 5-50 years

1

The general size of these assessments is thousands to millions of km2 and the general use is for state, regional, and local planning

and policy-making.

2

Short- and long-term time periods for historical and projected patterns and processes differ between types of assessments.

Table 1. Attributes and characteristics typically associated with broad resolution, regional assessments.1

Attributes Landscape ecology Terrestrial Aquatic Social/Economic

Geographic extent River basin River basin River basin States

Data resolution2 > 100 ha > 100 ha > 400,000 ha State, County

Sub-basins

Organizational Multiple Community Watersheds, State, County

hierarchy watersheds & species communities

associations of species

Map scale > 1:100,000 1:2,000,000 1:100,000 1:1,000,000

1:1,000,000

Time period3

Short term 1-10 years 1-10 years 1-10 years 1-5 years

Long term 10-300 years 10-100 years 10-100 years 5-50 years

1

The general size of these assessments is millions to billions of km2 and the general use is for national and regional planning and

policy-making.

2Defining vegetation components is typically on a resolution of 100 ha while the aquatic components are defined by river systems (>

400,000 ha).

3

Short- and long-term time periods for historical and projected patterns and processes differ between types of assessments.
15

Table 3. Attributes and characteristics typically associated with fine resolution, landscape assessments.1

Attributes Landscape ecology Terrestrial Aquatic Social/Economic

Geographic extent Watershed Watershed Watershed Household

Data resolution < 25 ha 1-5 ha Streams Household

Organizational Streams and Species Species Household

hierarchy vegetation

patterns

Map scale 1:24,000 1:24,000 1:24,000 1:100,000

Time period2

Short term 1-10 years 1-10 years 1-10 years Months-5 years

Long term 10-100 years

1

The general size of these assessments is tens to hundreds of km2 and the general use is for multi-forest/district, forest/district, or area

planning and policy-making.

2Short- and long-term time periods for historical and projected patterns and processes differ between types of assessments.

human communities. They typically rely on fineresolution data regarding vegetation patches,

stands, meadows, streams, and social and economic data. Landscape assessments, as described

here, are essentially the same as “ecosystem analysis

at the watershed scale” as used in implementing

the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA 1994a).

No single assessment will adequately address the

complex issues facing resource managers today.

Higher level assessments set context while lower

level assessments help understand processes. Assessments of landscapes or sites cannot adequately

address broad patterns and processes, such as

habitat conditions for wide-ranging species or

global climatic processes. Regional and subregional assessments provide a necessary context

for landscape and site assessments. Together,

multiple assessments (site specific to global) provide a comprehensive basis for land management

decision-making.

Conducting assessments at different geographic

extents also can promote more effective stakeholder participation and learning. Many people

see their interests affected primarily at the local

level. They may choose not to participate in subregional or larger assessments because they might

feel their local concerns will be diluted or unnoticed. Without sub-regional and regional assessments, stakeholders and decision-makers may have

difficulty assimilating the cumulative magnitude

and complexity of many highly detailed, or localized, landscape and site-specific assessments.

Conversely, stakeholders whose interests are national or regional may find it difficult to participate effectively in numerous landscape assessments

based on fine-resolution data.

Undertaking assessments at multiple geographic

extents promotes the inclusion of more interests

into the assessment process. It also serves to provide decision-makers with the appropriate information for particular levels of decision-making.

Therefore, depending on the issues and policies

being addressed, the type of assessment (data

resolution and geographic extent) to conduct can

be specified (see tables 1, 2, and 3).

ECOSYSTEM

MANAGEMENT GOALS

In the broadest context, humans manage ecosystems for a diverse range of goals that reflect different cultural perspectives. Costanza and others

(1991) use the two terms anthropocentric and
16

biocentric to describe two broad cultural perspectives about how society makes decisions affecting

growth (economic and physical), species (for

identification and protection), and habitat (for

humans and other species). The anthropocentric,

or utilitarian, perspective is often reflected in the

view where natural resources are thought to exist

to meet the needs of people. The biocentric perspective views humans as just one of many species

that coexist. Neither perspective offers entirely

satisfactory solutions to resource allocation issues.

The obvious challenge is to make difficult resource

decisions in light of diverse and sometimes contradictory views held by members of society. We live

in a society that seeks the simultaneous achievement of ecological and economic goals. Rather

than a simple anthropocentric or biocentric representation of society’s cultural perspective, a more

complex representation acknowledges that people

sometimes respond in a very anthropocentric

manner, but in another circumstance behave in a

biocentric way. This diversity that exists in individuals also manifests itself in society, and one

challenge for ecosystem management is dealing

with diverse values as part of the process of arriving at goals for land management. The question

becomes how to manage the land to meet these

values and expectations.

Society makes choices through the actions of

individuals and institutions. Ecosystem management is one step in an evolutionary process of land

stewardship. As the understanding of ecology,

economics, and cultural perspectives increases, the

capacity to move toward broad-based goals should

increase also.

The goals of management are in the domain of

public choice and not science. The goals that

drive the management of ecosystems are the result

of decisions that follow from democratic and

institutional processes. Goals are stated or inferred

in laws, regulations, policy statements, decisions,

and budget direction. The legislation guiding the

management of FS- and BLM-administered lands

in the early 1900s centered on protecting resources

and reducing flooding. Goals shifted more toward

providing commodities and stabilizing employment during the middle of the century. Concurrent with the environmental movement of the

1960s and 1970s, the emphasis shifted away from

implicit goals toward establishing a planning

process that developed specific goals (see Cubbage

and others 1993). This is illustrated in current

procedural laws requiring federal agencies to

identify and disclose the effects of management

activities on Federal land (NEPA 1969), and to

develop long-range land use or general management plans (RPA 1974, NFMA 1976, and

FLPMA 1976).

Currently, land and resource management plans,

which establish detailed goals, objectives, and

standards are developed by the FS and BLM for

each administrative unit (generally a FS national

forest or BLM resource area). Legal mandates

require Federal land managers to manage habitat

to maintain viable populations of existing native

and desired non-native vertebrate species (36 CFR

219.19). Regulations also require Federal land

managers to provide for diversity of plant and

animal communities, including endemic and

desirable naturalized plant and animal species

consistent with the overall multiple use objectives

of the planning area (36 CFR 219.26 and

219.17(g)). Managers are also required to consider the American Indian treaties and the trust

responsibilities that follow. The Chief of the

Forest Service recently emphasized the importance

of managing the national forests to maintain the

integrity of ecosystems (Thomas 1994b).

This direction provides insights into the goals of

ecosystem management for the agencies managing

Federal lands, but it does not provide a formal,

clear statement of ecosystem management goals.

Further, developing a framework for ecosystem

management requires a clearly stated and defined

set of goals. The normative process of setting

goals is ongoing. In the absence of explicitly

defined goals by the agencies and society, working

assumptions about goals were developed that

facilitated the completion of the framework.
17

It might be assumed that the general purpose for

ecosystem management is to maintain ecosystem

integrity or system integrity, where system integrity is defined as the degree to which all components and their interactions are represented and

functioning. Ecosystem, here, is being used in its

broadest form, where it encompasses social as well

as biophysical components.

The general purpose for ecosystem management is

derived from the notion of ecological integrity and

is rooted in scientific concepts that reflect human

values (Grumbine 1992, 1994; Regier 1993).

These human values include the normative goal of

maintaining the integrity of a combined natural

and cultural ecosystem. The purpose assumes

ecological understandings and an ethic that guides

the search for proper relationships. In this sense, a

living system would exhibit integrity if, when

subjected to disturbance, it sustains an organizing,

self-correcting capability to maintain resiliency.

The resulting end states may be desired by management and the public but may not be pristine or

naturally whole. Thus, there is a social context to

ecological integrity.

The concern about ecological integrity stems from

Aldo Leopold (1991) who in 1944 equated the

integrity of land with the continuity of stable

biotic communities over long periods of time.

Several years later Leopold stated his intentions

more broadly when he said “A thing is right when

it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and

beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when

it tends to do otherwise” (Leopold 1949). Ecologists in the next several decades further clarified

aspects of these concepts raised by Leopold. Spurr

(1964), for example, focused on the constantly

changing nature of forest ecosystems. Bormann

and Likens (1981) focused on stability and resilience of forest ecosystems. Norton (1992) defined

ecosystem integrity by saying that an ecological

system has maintained its integrity if it retains

(1) the total diversity of the system and (2) the

systematic organization that maintains diversity.

Leopold (1991) provided one view to ecological

integrity. As Kay (1991) points out, “the science

of ecology can, in principle, inform us about the

kind of ecosystem response or reorganization to

expect from a given situation. But it does not

provide us with a scientific basis for deciding that

one change is better than another.” Judgements

about what is desired about ecological conditions

should be made within the context of social values

encompassed within the ecological system under

study. Finally, the notion of integrity with its

emphasis on wholeness does not lend itself to

social and economic systems. For those systems,

the emphasis is on resiliency or the degree to

which those systems can adapt.

Measures of integrity or resiliency require judgements of wholeness which rest on comparisons of

subjectively chosen indicators. In that sense, the

integrity of ecosystems is more an expression of

environmental policy than scientific theory. Many

environmental managers may be reluctant to

include societal issues and values in the definition

(and evaluation) of ecological integrity. However,

assuming that maintaining the integrity of ecosystems is a management purpose, its definition

needs to reflect the values of both managers and

users. Finally, to define the integrity of ecosystems

is to define a set of biophysical and social characteristics that could be monitored for change from

specified values (Kay 1993).

For purposes of this framework, maintaining

ecosystem integrity is composed of two parts:

maintaining ecological integrity and maintaining

the resiliency of social and economic systems. The

six goals listed below are assumed to provide

important benchmarks against which to measure

progress. These assumed goals, like the overall

purpose, represent normative judgements about

what best indicates integrity of ecosystems and

social and economic resiliency. They include

notions of “wholeness”, resiliency, and diversity in

their most universal and meaningful senses. These

goals explicitly recognize the ways in which humans depend on and interact with the environment in our modern world. They seek to reduce
18

risks from ecological surprises. They acknowledge

important social values derived from commodity

and non-commodity use of natural resources. If

adopted, these goals would force decision-makers

to explicitly consider the extensive range of values

and choices involved in managing for integrity of

ecosystems and societal resiliency.

Specific goals are assumed to be:

◆ maintain evolutionary and ecological processes

such as ecological functions, disturbance, water

cycling, energy flow, and nutrient cycling;

◆ manage ecosystems using multiple ecological

domains and evolutionary time frames;

◆ maintain viable populations of native and desired

non-native species;

◆ manage ecosystems to encourage social resiliency;

◆ manage ecosystems for the human sense of

“place”; and

◆ manage ecosystems to maintain the mix of ecosystem goods, functions, and conditions that

society wants.

Maintain Evolutionary and

Ecological Processes

Maintaining evolutionary processes should ensure

that populations remain genetically diverse and are

given ample opportunity for adaptation in the face

of changing environments (Soulé 1980). In part,

this entails maintaining species throughout their

geographic or ecological ranges, especially at the

edge of their range. Under such conditions, adaptation sometimes proceeds most rapidly. For

example, maintaining montane plant communities

at the upper edges of their elevational range might

facilitate the upslope migration of species in the

face of regional warming and drying (Hansen and

others 1990).

Ecological processes pertain to abiotic and biotic

distributions of nutrients, materials, and energy

throughout an ecological community (Noss 1990).

Species affect sustainability and productivity of

their ecological communities through their ecological roles or functions, which range from producing and consuming biomass to cycling nutrients. This goal assumes conditions that allow key

ecological functions to be maintained over time.

Other important ecological processes include

disturbance, water cycling, nutrient cycling, and

energy flow within ecosystems. Maintaining these

processes is sometimes problematic. For example,

Agee (1994) points out that maintaining disturbance regimes is difficult as many types of disturbances occur at different spatial extents and time

frames.

The goal to maintain evolutionary and ecological

processes also involves maintaining native ecosystems across a range of conditions. The overall

concern is that genetic material and important

ecological processes require representation in many

environments to ensure long-term viability. Certainly, this raises questions of what is native or

natural to an ecosystem and how to represent or

conserve it. For some, natural means pre-European settlement, allowing for the sometimes intensive effects of use by American Indian populations

(such as intentional burning of grasslands and

hunting effects on prehistoric ungulates). Conservation of such conditions in disturbance-prone

landscapes, such as the forests of the inland Pacific

Northwest, may entail relying on several kinds of

management ranging from strict protection

(Greene 1988) to more active management

(Everett and others 1994b).

To maintain evolutionary and ecological processes,

managers need to identify locations of rare or

declining ecological communities, locally endemic

species (species found nowhere else), areas of

unusually high species concentrations (sometimes

called “biodiversity hot spots”), and areas least

disturbed by human activities. Then, it is possible

to assess whether existing or proposed management activities and land allocations, such as wilderness, research natural areas, and botanical

waysides, suffice for long-term conservation of

such locations. Attainment of this goal would be

facilitated if consideration were given to expected
19

environmental disturbances such as stand-replacing fire, wind storms, and even short-term fluctuations in weather patterns.

Manage in the Context of

Multiple Ecological Domains

and Evolutionary Time Frames

This goal reflects on the process of ecosystem

management where managers should be cognizant

of different spatial extents and time frames. For

example, ecological succession is typically described at a local level and for several centuries.

Climatic and biome trends are typically studied

over large areas and centuries. Evolutionary ecology can be studied over small or large areas and

generally covers very long time frames.

There is also a space and time dimension for land

management issues. For example, maintaining

long-term productivity of forests and grasslands is

often a site-specific question ranging from the

present to centuries into the future. Eventually

this issue should consider long-term soil protection and renewal. On the other hand, understanding and guiding future biome effects of

climate change, acid precipitation, and ozone

depletion are issues forcing consideration over

areas on the order of 10,000 hectares5

 or more and

over time periods ranging from tens to hundreds

of years into the future.

Several levels of planning can be used to address

issues over space and time. For example, project

planning is typically done for specific sites or small

areas (less than 15,000 ha) and short time frames

(1-5 years). Landscape analysis provides context

for project planning and is typically done on areas

over 15,000 hectares in size with planning horizons up to 10 years. National Forest or National

Grassland Plans, or BLM District Resource Management Plans cover areas hundreds of thousands

of hectares in size and extend up to 10 years in

duration. Finally, broad-based policy planning,

such as for the interior Columbia River basin, is

done for areas over one million hectares in size.

For each planning level, past conditions and future

cumulative effects can be considered. Broadly

based planning levels can extend further into the

past and into the future. Thus, plans that typically

extend beyond a decade can address cumulative

effects, historical conditions, and future effects

with an understanding of the uncertainty inherent

in predicting outcomes and of social value shifts.

Broad-based plans like those for the Basin cannot

be expected to address site-specific conditions and

issues, such as the fate of a particular mushroomgathering site. Conversely, site-specific project

plans cannot address large-area and long-timeframe conditions and issues, for example effects on

the viability of a wide-ranging species such as the

northern goshawk (Reynolds and others 1992).

Instead, the various tiers of assessment, land management issues, and planning efforts should be

threaded together into a consistent whole, so that

site-specific, ecoregion, and broad geographic

conditions and issues can all be treated.

Tying together these multiple tiers of conditions

and issues will be difficult. Factors such as

considering the rights and interests of stakeholders

will complicate the decision process, especially

regarding potential economic and social effects

from management of threatened and endangered

species. Off-site conditions, even if not manageable by federal agencies, can also affect species and

can be considered when making management

decisions. For example, the impacts of reducing

timber harvest on federally administered public

lands can be disclosed along with the impacts of

such reductions on other lands.

Maintain Viable Populations

of Native and Desired

Non-Native Species

There is public concern that ecosystem management maintain viable populations of native and

desired non-native species. The legal definition of

population viability is given in the glossary. In a

broad sense, though, viability can be considered as

the likelihood of continued existence of well- 5

Hectare (ha)= 2.47 acres; See metric conversion table.
20

distributed populations of a species throughout its

current range, to specified future time periods

(Marcot and Murphy, in press). A population can

be defined as a set of plant or animal organisms of

a given species, occurring in the same area, that

could interbreed. A population with high viability

persists in well-distributed patterns for long periods (a century or longer). A viable population is

able to survive fluctuations in demographic, genetic, and environmental conditions and maintain

its vigor and potential for evolutionary adaptation

over a long period of time (Soulé 1987).

There is no single population size that acts as a

universal “minimum viable population”, and thus

for which simple, universal decisions can be made

to ensure viability of all species. Therefore, it is

useful to distinguish between (1) viability risk

analysis, which estimates the likelihood of population persistence or extinction for a specified time

in a specified area, and (2) viability risk management that selects a course of action in which the

risk attitude of the decision-maker plays a major

role. Viability risk analysis and viability risk management are both appropriate parts of scenario and

alternative planning.

Because some species are naturally uncommon or

rare, managing for populations with higher viability, in part, is determined by the ecological capability of the species and its environment. Viability

risk analysis can help to determine such capability

by evaluating species’ key environmental correlates

and how such factors change under management

options, and by projecting future population

responses. Furthermore, management of FS- and

BLM-administered lands entails meeting multiple

objectives, so viability risk management can help

articulate the best social, managerial, and even

political balances that are also ecologically feasible.

Two facets of viability are abundance and distribution. A population must be of sufficient size to

withstand variations in demographic, genetic, and

environmental factors so that births exceed deaths.

Likewise, populations generally should be distributed in space and time to ensure interaction of

individuals and to avoid demographic and genetic

isolation. Because of limited information about

most species, quantitative modeling approaches to

assessing risks of extinction or persistence likelihoods are impossible. For such species, a more

qualitative, “first approximation” approach to

evaluating potential effects on viability may be

appropriate (Boyce and others 1994, Irwin 1994).

The discussion of viability addresses the issue of

continued persistence but does not directly address

the issue of harvestability. Satisfying human needs

often involves harvesting and is particularly important when such harvest has cultural or regional

significance. To be harvestable, there needs to be a

surplus population that exceeds the minimum

viable level. Because of limited information about

most species, quantitative estimates of harvestable

populations are not possible.

Encourage Social and

Economic Resiliency

Ecosystems provide a wide variety of goods and

services. Some are commodities that serve important social and economic functions, others are

necessities for life, and still others provide a higher

quality of life. Ecosystems not only provide economic opportunity, but also provide for our natural and cultural heritage. In the past, one

emphasis of Federal land management was to

develop and maintain the economic status of

human communities.

A human community consists of cultural, social,

economic, and institutional components that are

melded together in a more or less cohesive and

compatible way. This structure provides for a level

of predictability and stability for the community’s

citizens that helps them organize their lives. Yet,

some smaller rural communities, dependent on

natural resources, are subject to an assortment of

exogenous processes that challenge their stability.

The ability of governments to maintain economic

stability at the local level is often constrained.

Communities are often in a state of change, but

smaller rural ones frequently do not have the

capacity to respond proactively to exogenously
21

induced change. Taking a static view of community stability results in the failure to recognize that

communities evolve and change over time in

response to a variety of processes and factors. A

static view often overlooks community adaptability, variations in the types of community dependencies, influences of exogenous forces on

economic stability, and the important roles of

non-commodity ecosystem goods and services.

One aspect of this goal is to facilitate enhancement

of community resiliency. Natural resource agencies may have several roles in this process. One

role might be to increase community understanding about the nature and causes of change. Another role might be to assist communities in

adjusting to change, whether that involves accommodation or exploitation of change. A particularly challenging role for federal agencies would be

to attempt to balance national interests with local

community needs.

Manage for the

Human Sense of “Place”

This goal acknowledges that cultural values and

beliefs are often linked to specific landscapes and

their symbolic meanings. Changes in the landscape that intrude upon sense of place might result

in a decline of cultural attraction, particularly for

groups that maintain strong ties to the natural

environment. Land management, while directed

toward maintenance of ecosystem process and

function, could lead to changes in site attributes.

These attributes and specific human cultures

intertwine to create distinctive places (Flores

1994). This goal requires that ecosystem management be oriented toward recognition of a wider

variety of human needs and desires than past

management practices. Increasing recognition is

given to spiritual, cultural, and even human health

services provided by natural environments.

There are at least four ways that people attach

meanings to place: scenic/aesthetic, activity/goal,

social/cultural, and individual/expressive (Williams 1995). Procedures and processes for understanding the first two types of meanings are fairly

well established (such as the FS scenery management system); however, little research has occurred

on the latter two meanings of place. Williams

(1993) noted that one approach for explaining

place attachment is to examine the concept of

place-identity, which is the importance of the

physical environment in maintaining self-identity.

Natural environments and landscapes can be

important to individuals and cultures because they

may be attached to them emotionally. These

delineations are different from approaches used by

ecologists who define landscapes using biophysical

criteria. Because of these differences, there are

often different views about how landscapes should

be managed (Lewis 1993).

Managing for the human sense of place requires

the recognition that ecosystems and the spaces and

places within them are social constructs (Williams

1995). Place meanings can be organized within a

hierarchy. Understanding the values people have

for “place” is important because it permits managers to fully map and display the complete array of

values people place on their environment. By

incorporating the sense of place, land managers

may also be able to increase the social acceptability

of specific land management actions.

There are implications in defining locations as

places rather than spaces. First, explicitly identifying places recognizes that areas can be defined

because of their social significance. Thus, all

spaces become places. Second, the meaning of

place is influenced by the dominant social group

using a location. For example, Lee (1972) showed

how the social meaning of an urban park changed

diurnally as the patterns of social groups using the

park changed. Lee’s (1972) definition of place

includes how groups define boundaries, the acceptability of certain behaviors, and how violations

of norms would be handled by the dominant

social group. Thus, one location becomes several

places from a human viewpoint. Understanding

this implication can help managers identify who

will be impacted by changes in resource management.
22

Sense of place has a special meaning for American

Indians. Their traditional beliefs often project the

perspective that all things are part of a whole, that

nothing is separate. That is, the land or earth is

not dead, it is alive and sacred (U.S. Department

of Interior 1994). The reverence for place is

ingrained in all their actions and thoughts.

Manage to Maintain the Mix of

Ecosystem Goods, Functions, and

Conditions that Society Wants

A fundamental notion of stewardship is that land

managers work to direct and maintain ecosystems

so as to best fulfill the objectives of owners. Different owners have different preferences for benefit

flows ranging from daily to four times a year to

intergenerational time spans. Owners also vary in

the composition and amount of ecosystem goods,

functions, and conditions that they desire. Some

owners may desire a narrow set of outputs: timber

and deer, for example. Others may desire a broad

set of outputs. The broadest set is appropriate to

publicly-owned lands because constituencies are

likely the broadest and most diverse, and because

some types of outputs will only be available from

public lands (Hyman 1973).

Societal interests are broad regarding the provision

of ecosystem goods, functions, and conditions.

Some goods are extracted when used, whether or

not for conventional commodity markets: examples include minerals, timber, cattle and sheep

grazing, mushrooms and huckleberries, hunting,

and fishing. Other goods are not extracted when

used and remain to be enjoyed by more than one

person--for example, viewing wildlife, back country trail use, and the existence of salmonids, grizzly

bears, grey wolves, and large, old trees. Ecosystem

functions include beneficial processes such as those

that produce the goods listed previously plus

services such as carbon sequestration, and recycling of air, water, and nutrients. Ecosystem

conditions that people desire include “old-growth”

characteristics, clean air, clean water, roadless areas,

scenery, and healthy ecosystems.

Society’s view of ecosystem values, in total, provides an integrated concept of what can possibly

be achieved from specific lands. In this way, land

managers can clarify the limits of ecosystem production and the trade-offs associated with choosing one management direction over another.

Implicit in land managers’ response to social values

is adaptive management, as objectives shift and

increased understanding of ecosystem processes

and functions occurs.

This goal requires an understanding of how management actions might reduce or expand options

and values for future generations since intergenerational questions are embedded in the time

preferences of landowners. A frequent criticism of

current land management is that it focuses on the

current generation and on short-term benefits. In

public land management this is seen as favoring

people who live nearby or are associated with

consumptive uses. All of this is part of a broader

question of who benefits and who gains from

management of FS- and BLM-administered lands.

Understanding this provides a basis for assigning

costs of land management.

Questions and Implications

Raised by the Goals

The discussions leading to these six goals raised a

number of questions about and implications for

attaining ecosystem integrity. First, are all species

(and biodiversity elements) equal? Current Federal land management, for example, attempts to

maintain viable populations of native and desired

non-native vertebrate species and considers

biodiversity to include endemic and desirable

naturalized plant and animal species. As components of biodiversity, current scientific literature

includes species in all taxonomic groups, as well as

ecosystems, communities, and ecological processes; any and all of these components can potentially affect integrity of ecosystems. Moreover, in

some environments exotic species— typically

grasses and grass-like plants and forbs— dominate

many areas (Hobbs and Huenneke 1992). Thus,

specific goals for ecosystem management might
23

need to address this full range of components,

including species in all taxonomic groups.

It is impossible to maximize all populations of

plants and animals simultaneously. One approach

to stating goals that relate to species populations

might be to ensure an adequate likelihood of

viable populations of individual species and/or

species groups (species such as some invertebrates

and lower plants are so poorly known that they are

best assessed in ecological species groups).

There are limits to viability of species and the

productivity of ecosystems. The human population of the planet is predicted to double within the

next century, and these people will use ecosystems

to satisfy their needs and desires. Specific goals

may need to describe how people want to affect

the ecosystems in which they reside and what

conditions they want to pass on to the future.

Describing goals for the future is difficult in that

ecosystems are dynamic and ever-changing over

time and space. In disturbance-prone environments like those in the Basin, static conditions

cannot be expected to be maintained in perpetuity.

The very concept of maintaining desired future

conditions might appropriately be supplanted by

one of maintaining desired future dynamics. The

goal, in this case, might be to maintain or restore

disturbance regimes, species, ecological functions,

and processes, while also using the land for a range

of human interests.

The problem of exotic species raises other questions. In those environments where there is little

hope of restoring “natural” conditions, risk assessments can help to determine what is feasible for

future restoration or conservation, and risk management could determine the best course of action

to meet social and biological goals.

There are limits to ecosystems. The total land area

is limited, there are limits to the resources that can

be extracted from any particular place, and thus

there are limits to the capacity of ecosystems to

support and sustain people. Recognizing that

there are bounds is an important consideration as

long-term goals are discussed for large areas.

To be successful, goals will be respectful of human

needs. Humans assign a sense of place to their

environment through personal, cultural, and

societal values. They derive their livelihoods from

ecosystem outputs. These need not be completely

competitive views, but priorities may need to be

set when developing goals that will both respect

the sense of place and allow resource use to satisfy

human needs.

GENERAL PLANNING MODEL

Planning in ecosystem management is the process

of “writing the ecosystem owner’s manual” (to

describe ecosystems and how they work) and for

creating the “road map” of destinations and alternative routes. This section describes a general

planning model (GPM) approach to ecosystem

management.

The simplest planning model asks a single question and answers it. Better models devote more

attention to the questions and to the choice of

answers. A well-rounded, multi-objective planning model can be used to continually evaluate the

consequences of the answer chosen. The GPM for

ecosystem management has four iterative steps:

monitoring, assessment, decision-making, and

implementation (fig. 4).

Specific goals drive the planning process. Each

iteration is motivated by actions related to goals:

goal attainment, the perceived or actual lack of

goal attainment, or the desire to modify or confirm goals. External influences may initiate actions within the planning cycle. Examples include

emerging issues, changing societal values and

goals, and new scientific understanding (fig. 4).

Monitoring is the method through which these

outside influences can be recognized. The FS and

BLM could monitor traditional effects of their

management actions, as well as emerging issues,

societal values, and advances in scientific understanding. These monitoring efforts need not be

formal and highly visible, however, they could be

the catalyst that initiates an expensive and time

consuming planning process.
24

The objective of the GPM is to set a course for

managing ecosystems to achieve specific goals. It

describes the basic planning procedures and defines the linkages among the planning steps. It is

also notable that each step has considerable room

for complexity, integration, and participation

including both formal and informal public participation. This approach is described to address FS

and BLM management approaches, but concepts

and processes could be used by other landowners

and resource managers. It draws on a basic policy

model laid out by Weimer and Vining (1992).

Monitoring

Monitoring is the process of collecting and evaluating information both to determine baseline

conditions, and to determine if planned activities

have been accomplished, if assumptions are correct, and whether management objectives have

been met. This information can then be used to

reassess, alter decisions, change implementation,

or maintain current management direction. Successful ecosystem management will require a

monitoring program. An effective monitoring

program should reduce uncertainties, test major

assumptions, and possibly result in changes in

management direction (Noss and Cooperrider

1994).

There are four types of monitoring (Noss and

Cooperrider 1994). Implementation monitoring

determines if a planned activity was accomplished.

Effectiveness monitoring determines if the activity

achieved its objective or goal. Validation monitoring determines to what degree assumptions and

models used in developing the plan or assessment

are correct. Baseline monitoring measures a process or element that may be affected by management activities. Each monitoring type has a

specific set of objectives that are applied differently

depending on the questions addressed.

Definitions of issues and problems are needed to

determine monitoring data needs (Jones 1986).

In ecosystem management, management goals and

objectives should identify the information that will

be gathered in the monitoring program. Objectives of the monitoring program should address

the appropriate spatial extents and time frames

within a hierarchy of biophysical or social organization (Bourgeron and others 1994). For instance,

if one anticipates change in vegetation structure to

take 10 years, monitoring on an annual basis

would not be warranted. In this way, monitoring

information from local efforts can be applied at

multiple spatial extents and time frames.

A monitoring program should be founded on

experimental designs allowing inferences to be

made through statistical analysis. Information

gained from a monitoring program should be

useful for identifying changes in conditions, predicting impacts, testing cause and effect relationships, and providing information to managers for

future goal-setting.

Biophysical and social indicators that measure the

element or surrogate of the element being monitored should reflect changes before the changes

become problems. Indicators act as early warning

systems for management activities that are not

producing the desired effects. With an early

warning system, management activities could be

changed prior to causing damage or changes that

are irreversible. Indicators, for example air quality

and employment, should be based on adequate

sample sizes to ensure powerful and confident

statistical analyses. However, some populations,

such as threatened and endangered species, may be

too small to allow for replications and statistical

analysis. In social monitoring some variables are

not amenable to measurement, such as community well-being.

Monitoring is essential to ecosystem management.

Without a monitoring program, management

activity effectiveness, progress toward achieving

objectives, or funding allocation efficiency is

unknown. Monitoring requires commitment

from managers, scientists, decision- and policymakers, the Congress, and society. One benefit of

an effective monitoring program can be effective

adaptive management. Monitoring is expensive.
25

Figure 4—Each step of the General Planning Model for ecosystem management has several parts. Because the

model is iterative, external or internal influences can initiate any step in the process and the process never ends.

Monitoring shows

a need for new

assessments or

added information Emerging

issues

Changing

societal

values and

goals

New scientific

Monitoring understanding

shows a need for

new decisions

Monitoring

shows a need

for changes in

implementation

Implementation

■ Implement decisions on the ground

■ Establish partnerships

■ Publicize decision, facilitate participation

■ Inaugurate adaptive management

Decisions

■ Select management goals

■ Develop management alternatives

■ Predict impacts of alternatives

■ Recommend preferred alternative

■ Select an alternative

Monitoring

■ Monitor biophysical outcomes

■ Monitor social and economic outcomes

■ Monitor societal values and goals

■ Recommend new assessments, new 

■ decisions, and/or new implementation

Assessments

■ Acknowledge stakeholders and their questions

■ Develop situation analysis of biophysical, 

■ social, and economic systems

■ Identify trade-offs and limitations

■ Develop an understanding of future conditions

■ Assess risk for issues of concern
26

In the absence of clearly defined goals and objectives for monitoring strategies, monitoring can

consume an agency’s entire budget. Establishing

priorities, designing the sampling, and linking

monitoring with inventory approaches would be

essential to cost containment.

Assessments

Planners and managers often quickly identify a

problem and then devote the bulk of their efforts

to designing and analyzing solutions. Effective

ecosystem management implementation requires a

clear problem definition, a clear understanding of

management goals and objectives, and a clear and

solid assessment of biophysical and social conditions, trends, and management opportunities

before the creation and selection of possible solutions. The assessment process begins by recognizing who the clients are and what their questions

are. The questions may or may not be clear at the

outset of the process.

Assessments should characterize the biophysical

and social ecosystem components at various time

frames and spatial extents. Assessments can provide comprehensive descriptions of ecosystem

structures, processes, and functions that are critical

to understanding the present conditions and for

projecting future trends. Understanding the past,

present, and possible future of environments

including vegetation, communities, cultures, fish,

wildlife, and other ecosystem components, can

help identify the biophysical, economic, and social

limits of ecosystems. Moreover, assessments can

explicitly depict and model ecosystem components

and their interactions. This is done, in part,

through scenario planning and risk assessments.

Assessing ecosystem components at various time

frames and spatial extents provides the foundation

for making better and more accepted decisions on

the management of natural resources.

Assessments represent a synthesis of current scientific knowledge including a description of uncertainties and assumptions. For Federal land

managers, assessments are not decision documents.

They do not resolve issues or provide direct answers to specific problems. Rather, assessments

provide the foundation for proposed additions or

changes to existing land management direction.

They provide necessary information for policy

discussions and decisions. The geographic area of

the assessment and the data resolution depend on

the systems and the issues being addressed.

Decision-Making

The decision step in the GPM involves developing

management paths for achieving goals and objectives, and developing management alternatives. In

decision-making, alternatives can be explored that

may require changes in laws, regulations, or policies before they can be implemented. Feasible

alternatives have generally been consistent with

available resources and legal and political constraints. Alternatives describe explicit sets of

actions. The ultimate purpose of alternative

development is to help decision-makers and stakeholders understand the realistic and potentially

implementable management options available for

assuring ecosystem integrity. Alternatives should

include realistic funding and implementation

assumptions.

Another step in the decision-making process is to

predict the impacts of each alternative. In ecosystem management, it is particularly important to

represent the diversity of ecosystem goods and

services and all other outcomes of each alternative

clearly. It is important not to reduce the comparison to a single factor (for example, annual timber

harvests).

Using the GPM, decisions can be as broad as

policy statements or as specific as a decision to

close or to develop a recreation site. Decisions can

establish management standards and guidelines,

make land and resource allocations, establish

priorities, and set goals and objectives. They also

enable partnerships and define participation processes. This step is given great attention in Federal

land management under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process in the development of alternatives for Environmental Impact
27

Statements. In Federal land planning, preferred

alternatives are those actions the agency initially

judges as the most feasible method of achieving

desired ends, in a technical and social sense. In the

context of federally administered land, the decisionmaker is the responsible official, such as the Regional

Forester or BLM State Director, who makes the

formal decision from among the alternatives.

Implementation

Implementing decisions usually results in changes

in resource conditions, as well as in establishment

and maintenance of partnerships and participation

processes. Adaptive management can often be

inaugurated during this step. Bormann and

others (1994) describe a systematic approach to

adaptive management that includes expanded

decision-making; linked, not single actions; feedback, including monitoring; and information

synthesis. Linked actions that integrate management and research could be used to generate

information to make adjustments, and facilitate

and inform future decisions. Decisions should be

consistent and integrated with higher-or lowerlevel management decisions affecting the same

piece of ground (in keeping with the notion that

ecosystem levels interact). The private sector can

be positively influenced by this process. For example, one forest products company has noted

that “in many respects, our company due to its

geographic breadth, diversity of activities, and

economic role, has been faced with application of

biophysical, economic, and social planning at

different spatial extents and time frames similar to

those used by the [Basin project].”6

Implementation is the process of turning plans

and decisions into projects and practices on the

ground; establishing mutual learning experiences

for stakeholders, planners, and scientists; and

realizing the projected outcomes of planning.

This phase of the GPM represents what many

stakeholders refer to as “real work”. It is where

inputs are transformed to outputs and where

communities dependent on the flow of goods and

services place emphasis.

MANAGING INFORMATION

AND INVOLVEMENT

Implementing ecosystem management depends on

institutional changes regarding intergovernment

cooperation, expanded needs for stakeholder

participation, and new approaches for data management. Most of these changes involve modifying existing approaches to respond to the

complexity introduced by larger geographic extents.

Tribal Consultation

A special relationship exists between the American

Indian tribal governments and the United States

Government. The sovereign status of the American Indian tribes is recognized through treaties

and executive orders with those tribes and special

provisions of law. These treaties and laws set the

tribes apart from all other United States populations and define a special set of federal agency

responsibilities. Each tribe is a separate entity and

relationships need to be established with each

tribe. Tribal government involvement revolves

around government-to-government relations that

vary in format among tribes. The central feature

of consultation is face-to-face meetings of the

respective decision-makers of the agencies and the

tribes. In addition, tribal involvement contributes

additional expertise and information on assessing

biophysical and social components of ecosystems.

Governmental Coordination

Because ecosystems seldom conform to jurisdictional boundaries, effective ecosystem management requires coordination among different levels

of government. For example, in the Basin there

are tribal interests, and federal, state, and local

governments. This particular ecoregion also

6

Comments on the Scientific Framework for Ecosystem Management in the Interior Columbia Basin (Working Draft--Version

2). 1995. Tom Goodall, Assistant Timberland Manager, Boise

Cascade Corporation, Timber and Wood Products Division,

Northeast Oregon Region. 15 p.
28

crosses national boundaries. Approximately 15

percent of the Columbia River basin is in Canada.

The FS and BLM are required by the National

Forest Management Act (NFMA) and the Federal

Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) to

coordinate planning activities with these governments. For many ecosystem components, decision-making authorities are closely related, further

necessitating coordinated planning. Increased

trust among agencies would be one result of such

cooperation.

Strategies for Information

Management

As resource managers consider changes in management paradigms that focus on complete systems

rather than individual ecosystem components,

information needs change. Focusing on complete

systems also may require changes in traditional

approaches to both broad policy-making and onthe-ground management. Where past management was rule-driven based on relatively static,

functional, steady-state types of information and

management approaches, managers now need to

consider evolutionary trends, relationships, dynamic types of information and flexible approaches to policy-making and land management

that allow constant learning and adaptation.

The collection, maintenance, analysis, and sharing

of information regarding the conditions and

potentials of ecosystems are integral parts of ecosystem management. Few, if any, activities have

more comprehensive implications for the successful implementation of ecosystem management

than information management: the inventory,

acquisition, storage, maintenance, use, and dissemination of data and information. The degree

of success with which resource managers develop

and evaluate options has significant implications

for the quality and cost-effectiveness of the work

they perform.

Although the terms information and data are often

used interchangeably, the distinction between

them is important. Data are facts that result from

the observation of physical phenomena. Information is the interpretation of data used in decisionmaking. Depending on the analysis, different

information can be obtained from similar data.

The importance of information depends on the

decision, that is, what is of considerable importance in one situation or decision may be useless

in another. In addition, information and decisionmaking are closely intertwined. Information

management is critical in each step of the planning

process (fig. 4).

An inter-organizational approach will facilitate the

integrated management of information and effective evaluation across all types of assessments and

plans. Specific outcomes could include:

◆ define appropriate information requirements for

various types of analyses including the interrelations between data and processes;

◆ strive to provide consistent and continuous information across all ownerships or analytical units;

◆ provide linkages between types of assessments;

◆ develop consistent standards including definitions of terms and procedures for information

management collection;

◆ provide a uniform database that is usable for

many disciplines;

◆ develop a process for transition from implementation of short-term strategies to achievement of

long-term goals for integrated information management;

◆ recognize information as an essential resource

and provide for its quality control and maintenance;

◆ promote partnerships between organizations for

data acquisition, storage, sharing, maintenance,

and analysis;

◆ evaluate and implement the use of analytical

tools to the extent practical; and

◆ develop flexible information management systems capable of accommodating changing needs

(FEMAT 1993).
29

To accomplish these outcomes, the agencies need

to establish a current, consistent, and accessible

information network and coordinate analytical

processes to support ecosystem management.

Resource issues have shifted from being primarily

local to being regional, national, and global in

scope. Traditional approaches to information

management, as with land management in general,

often focused on local needs. To meet a broader

focus, an inter-organizational approach is required

where people, data, and technology are all part of

product development and solutions. A key attribute of such an approach is full participation: all

participants at all levels share the responsibility for

building this information infrastructure. Land

management agencies will need to seek out nontraditional sources of information from the full

spectrum of participants involved in ecosystem

management including other federal or state

information/interpretive agencies (such as the

United States Geological Survey and National

Biological Service); universities; environmental,

labor, and industry organizations; tribes; and other

interested parties.

Although spatial data and evaluation models are

essential resources, other types of information will

be valuable for implementing ecosystem management. There is a need to develop a plan for managing these additional sources of information.

The plan could address information sources such

as tribal, public, and private libraries; online catalogs; historical archives; and electronic bulletin

boards. Additional information includes books,

articles, reports, proceedings, workshop summaries, legislation, historical accounts, maps, and

administrative and regulatory guidance.

Effort needs to be placed on raising awareness and

shifting attitudes about the importance of information management itself and in fostering a more

broad-based, multi-functional, multi-organizational approach. Multiple sources for similar

information can be found within and across organizations, sometimes with data being incompatible

or inconsistent.

A key ingredient for information management is

the importance of having a work force well trained

in using and applying resource information, geographic information systems (GIS), and associated

technologies. Resource specialists, managers,

scientists, and stakeholders all need to understand

the value of shared, coordinated data and information to the decision-making process. The environment that often promoted the development of

“my database” should be guided to an environment in which it is desirable to think of “our

databases”.

Traditionally, integrating data has been difficult

because their utility and long-term use were not

considered outside the purpose for which they

were collected. This often resulted in disparate

data with gaps in information. Data collection is

also commonly conducted over different spatial

extents and time frames. A large portion of the

effort put into the Basin assessments involved

collecting data to fill gaps or processing existing

data to make them compatible.

Currently, no source exists that inventories and

catalogs all available data for agencies and organizations. In most instances, data documentation is

poor or lacks quality control. In an integrated

approach, all data would be documented with

well-defined update and maintenance processes.

This integration process would be vertical as well

as horizontal by linking types of assessments and

organizations. Data would be distributed, maintained, and used at the local level but available and

useful at higher levels. This strategy would include consistent methodologies and a core set of

common data.

Inventory and mapping need to be consistent and

integrated across the Basin and be consistent with

other ecoregions. A multi-value, inter-organizational inventory strategy could be implemented

and available to all interested parties. The characteristics of such a strategy would include (FEMAT

1993):
30

◆ common protocols;

◆ coordinated database management;

◆ coordinated quality control;

◆ boundary neutrality;

◆ multi-scale outputs--useful at all scales;

◆ social, economic, biological and physical

components;

◆ component trends;

◆ spatially explicit;

◆ cost efficient; and

◆ adequate protection of proprietary and

sensitive information.

Traditionally, technology has been agency-specific

with limited access. Appropriate technology

should be accessible to the people who need it,

when they need it. Appropriate technology might

include:

◆ geographic information systems;

◆ global positioning satellite information;

◆ image analysis (remote sensing);

◆ database technologies (relational,

object-oriented);

◆ decision support systems/expert systems;

◆ models (such as spatial, simulation, optimization,

growth); and

◆ virtual systems, dynamic linkages, and systems

modeling.

Unless data, information, and routine communications are shared between the various organizations, it will be a struggle to implement ecosystem

management. Using a fully integrated information management strategy will have broad application beyond the Basin.

Stakeholder Participation

Planning can be viewed as an intervention in

ongoing management processes designed to

achieve a future that otherwise might not occur

(Wildavsky 1973). Defining a desired future is

fundamentally a value choice, a choice best explored interactively with stakeholders before managers make decisions on federally administered

land. Selecting among alternatives becomes difficult because (1) resources to achieve desired futures are finite, and therefore subject to allocation

to different, and usually competing, uses, and (2)

there is often confusion between means and desired ends in the policy process. Ecosystem management explicitly recognizes that planners are

confronted with situations where not only are

there differences with regard to preferred outcomes, but differences in beliefs about causation,

resulting in the need for varying organizational

strategies and structures (Lee 1993, Thompson

and Tuden 1959).

Natural resource planning occurs within a political

context, where “veto power” over implementation

of plans is frequently held by stakeholders outside

the Federal Government and expressed through

litigation and political means. Traditional forms

of rational, comprehensive planning have operated

poorly in these settings because they often failed to

accomplish meaningful stakeholder involvement.

Meeting legal requirements of planning processes

has tended to lead to stakeholder involvement at a

point where it is too late to develop widespread

understanding (FEMAT 1993).

Stakeholder participation, then, provides a channel

through which planners are informed of important

issues and the social acceptability/desirability of

means and ends. It helps planners conduct analyses about the things people care about; it is the

gyroscope that maintains the planning course (Lee

1993). Stakeholder participation can also be an

important source of substantive knowledge about

the planning issue as well. Involving stakeholders

in the planning process allows the planner to

receive significant information in the form of
31

personal knowledge (Freidmann 1987). Finally,

stakeholder participation processes may result in

consensus among competing interests on shared

values, permitting action to proceed and building

a feeling of ownership in planning decisions.

Stakeholder participation can be as essential to

successful planning as data collection, model

building, and hypothesis testing. The objective of

stakeholder participation is mutual learning

through the sharing of information, interests, and

values among tribes, scientists, managers, the

interested public, and policy-makers.

Stakeholder participation in ecosystem management is built upon fundamental and sequential

concepts (Freidmann 1973). The first concept is

that of dialogue. Dialogue is characterized by

meaningful interaction among those affected by

planning decisions, including the planners. Dialogue allows communication of important information, such as values, beliefs, preferences,

acceptability, and personal knowledge. The second concept is mutual learning that allows diverse

stakeholders to understand others’ positions and

beliefs. It suggests that agency planners communicate the missions and constraints under which

they operate and incorporate preferences, beliefs,

and knowledge into the planning process. Societal

guidance means that affected stakeholders can

come to terms with the planning issue, resolve

(not necessarily agree to) questions about desired

futures, and organize resources to pursue appropriate courses of action: they have “ownership” in the

decision and have come to some agreement about

the acceptability of management practices. Societal guidance is based on the premise that action

within society is linked to many different groups

and organizational levels, and is not just the responsibility of a centralized agency (Freidmann

1969).

The GPM can incorporate stakeholder participation in each of its steps. The amount of participation sought from stakeholders depends on the

landowner, and on the management objectives and

legal requirements. A private land manager might

have very specific objectives and do the planning

in-house without much external stakeholder

participation. A Federal land manager has different “clients” and operates under more explicit

mandates for stakeholder participation. For example, NEPA requires participation in decisions at

several different points in the process. The FS and

BLM, however, recognize that stakeholder participation extends beyond the scoping and comment

phases of the NEPA process; indeed, ecosystem

management might mean more stakeholder participation in all steps of the GPM.

Stakeholder participation methods vary. For

example, projects conducted under the auspices of

NEPA permit stakeholders to attend public meetings, write letters, and comment on draft documents. People may also participate through

interest groups and government bodies that may

attempt to sway ecosystem policies and practices.

Stakeholder participation may also take subtler

forms. People can and do influence Federal land

management by the officials they elect and by

what consumer products they buy. During each

session of Congress there are numerous public

land reform measures proposed, and in the Northwest, state laws govern many management activities on state and private lands. Since mid-1995,

many state and federal environmental laws have

come under scrutiny by the Congress and western

State legislatures. Another subtle form of stakeholder participation is through consumer preferences (such as for recycled paper, vegetarianism, or

motorized recreation). These preferences can,

through the market, influence the assessment,

decision, implementation and monitoring steps of

the GPM.

Stakeholder participation can be highly visible at

the assessment step. Stakeholders can provide

substantive knowledge about the ecosystems under

discussion as well as about external effects of

management options. They also provide opinions

about different management options, either speaking for themselves or as members of groups.
32

Risk and Uncertainty

Much of our contemporary notions of risk and

uncertainty follow Knight’s (1921) definitions.

Risk refers to situations in which the outcome is

not certain but the likelihoods of alternative outcomes are known or can be estimated. Uncertainty refers to situations where outcomes cannot

be predicted in probabilistic terms. Decision

theory has evolved to deal with risk likelihoods

and alternative outcomes (Baumol 1965). There is

also the crucial distinction between risk/uncertainty and ignorance where ignorance describes

situations where possible outcomes may not be all

recognized (or known) prior to their occurrence

[see Faber and others 1992 for an explanation of

surprise and ignorance].

Considering risks is important in ecosystem management because of the stochastic nature of ecosystem processes and the likelihood of outcomes and

because of the lack of complete information.

Risks associated with predicting outcomes can be

partially mitigated by revealing the underlying

cause and effect relationships. Science plays a

large role in disclosing these relationships. There

is also the need to consider how much risk is

acceptable to decision-makers. This is revealed in

the nature of decisions. Finally there is the broad

question of how much risk society wants to bear.

Risk Assessments— Risk assessments help managers develop a sense of the risks about the outcomes of various management strategies. For

example, risk assessments have been used to rate

the susceptibility of forest stands to insects, diseases or fire. In addition, they can be broadened

to estimate the uncertainty regarding ecosystem

response to forest, grassland, or shrubland management (Marcot 1992). The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1992)

defines an ecological risk assessment as a process

that evaluates the likelihood that adverse ecological

effects may occur as a result of an event large

enough and of a sufficient intensity to elicit adverse effects. A variation of the EPA ecological

risk assessment model is shown in figure 5.

The first step in risk assessment is problem formulation. This includes three sub-steps: (1) identifying the nature and array of management decisions,

(2) identifying and specifying the elements (biophysical, social, economic) of the system, and (3)

describing the desired futures (the biophysical,

social, and economic values to be enhanced, maintained, or protected). The second step is analysis,

and has two phases: (1) characterizing how a

disturbance (natural or planned) interacts with the

biophysical, social, and economic elements of an

ecosystem, and (2) characterizing how the selected

variable or process causes adverse effects under

particular circumstances. The third step is risk

characterization, where the variable or process in

question (for example, risk of fire) interacts with

the elements of an ecosystem (such as production

of specific mushrooms for gathering). The effect

of this analysis is to evaluate the likelihood of

various outcomes associated with management

activities.

When decision-makers choose a course of action,

they are engaged in risk management because in so

doing, they balance often disparate objectives by

choosing among different types and amounts of

risks. Individuals differ in their willingness to

accept risk; so too do professions and disciplines.

As an example, risk averse behavior might lead to

recommendations for large ecological reserves for

local plant or animal populations to minimize the

risk of extirpation. Lack of explicit action also

involves risk. For example, not managing for fire

risk may result in increased reserve size for maintaining selected plant communities. The degree of

risk that people will accept is difficult to estimate;

however, methods exist to help disclose risk attitudes of decision-makers. More difficult still is

estimating the risk preference of the American

people, who own the public lands. Risk attitudes

of professionals and the public alike span a wide

range in the arena of ecosystem management on

federally administered public lands. This is true

whether one considers the local, direct risk of
33

wildfire resulting from management; the risk of

salmon extinction as felt by any number of interested groups; or the risk of mill closures when

impressed on elected officials.

Scenario Planning— The process of risk analysis

and risk management of federally administered

public lands is iterative, and the emphasis is on the

significance of the (adverse and positive) effects in

terms of their types, magnitudes, spatial and

temporal patterns, and the likelihood of ecosystem

recovery without mitigation. Since uncertain

events dominate ecosystem change, scenario planning can be used to describe the extent and nature

of risks from different ecosystem management

actions. Although risk assessments and scenario

planning do not determine a “right answer”, in

that they do not determine society’s acceptance of

risks, they do describe those risks.

Scenario planning helps describe possible futures,

as opposed to a desired future. This process has

three main functions: it provides a mechanism for

understanding the integration of management

options, it allows people to evaluate the merits,

pitfalls, and trade-offs of ecosystem management

choices, and it shapes broad perceptions.

It is not limited to the resource maximization or

cost minimization approaches typical of some

multi-resource planning projects. There are two

general approaches to scenario planning. The first

approach considers varying mixes of inputs and

determines the resulting outcomes. This approach

provides a mechanism for understanding trade-offs

involved in achieving different management goals.

Considering the outcomes of several different

management scenarios helps managers and stakeholders define what might be possible. Scenario

planning in the assessment process uses this approach. The second approach begins with a desired outcome and evaluates different “scenarios”

(alternate routes) to reaching the desired outcome.

This approach is useful in the decision-making

process where differing approaches can be explored

to achieve a desired goal or objective. In a sense,

scenario planning is desktop adaptive management

that allows managers to experiment without incurring real impacts.

Risk Management— Ecosystem management,

with its emphasis on levels of spatial and temporal

hierarchy, facilitates risk management in the sense

that it focuses discussions and management responses at the level the risks occur. The use of risk

in this discussion is technically not risk in the

sense of Knight’s (1921) definition but rather the

characterization of the risks associated with a set of

outcomes and some notion of the societal acceptability of those risks. Risks in this context are

events or activities that pertain to the likelihood of

not reaching desired goals. The process for risk

management uses the framework for ecological

risk assessments presented in figure 5.

In the context of spatial hierarchy, the greatest

flexibility for management is attained when risks

can be managed at the lowest level possible. For

example, in figure 6a the relative contribution of

risk to ecological integrity at regional, sub-regional, landscape, and site levels is shown. A risk

would not be considered a “regional risk” if it

could be adequately addressed by making incremental, individual decisions at lower levels such as

sites.

An example of a regional risk is activities that

threaten anadromous fish populations. Providing

high quality habitat for wide ranging fish species is

a regional concern. Making habitat decisions on a

site or landscape level would not necessarily ensure

that the required habitat was well distributed

throughout the species’ range. Managing the risk

at the regional level would be accomplished

through decisions about where, within the species’

range, quality habitat would be provided, with

site-specific implementation. The alternative

would be to manage the risk as though it were a

risk at every site and prohibit habitat alteration at

any site, which would reduce management flexibility. By strategically selecting where in a region high

quality anadromous fish habitat would be emphasized, management would have more options.
34

A method of partitioning risks through an active

risk management approach can retain flexibility at

the site level (fig. 6a). Figure 6b shows relative

cumulative risks for these same levels. Ovoid A

depicts assessments and/or decisions that address

region and sub-region associated risks; ovoid B

depicts assessments and/or decisions that address

landscape associated risks; and ovoid C depicts

assessments and/or decisions that address site

associated risks. Decisions that address region and

sub-region associated risks (ovoid A) might include regional guides, forest plans, and BLM

district plans and/or revisions. The next level

focuses on risks at the landscape level (ovoid B in

fig. 6b). The most detailed analyses are conducted

at the site level (ovoid C in fig. 6b) and could

include project analyses and planning. Under this

approach regional and landscape analyses and

decisions provide context for the remaining risks

to be addressed at the site level. Through a multilevel analysis and decision process all levels of risk

would be addressed, with management activities

focused on risks at the lowest level possible for

each component of risk.

One purpose of risk management is to allow

flexibility at the site and landscape level to the

RISK ASSESSMENT

PROBLEM FORMULATION

1. What are the management decisions?

2. What are the specifications of various processes?

3. What are the desired futures?

RISK CHARACTERIZATION

Predict outcomes given the various input

assumptions and disturbance processes

Societal decisions regarding the 

acceptability of risks

Data

Acquisition

Verification

and Monitoring 

ANALYSIS

Characterization of 

natural and managerial

disturbances

Characterization of 

biophysical social

economic effects

Figure 5—Ecological risk assessment framework for ecosystem management.
35

Cumulative

Risks

C

B

A

Region Sub-Region Landscape Site

Risk to

Ecological

Integrity

Region Sub-Region Landscape Site

extent compatible with managing risks. For example, establishing standards and guidelines at

levels above site level would require “averaging”

across a wide array of site conditions. For some

sites the standards would be too restrictive, while

for other sites they would not be restrictive

enough. Managing risks at multiple levels reduces

the possibility that a “miss” might occur and

increases the probability that outcomes will be

achieved. For example, managing streams for

quality habitat might involve setting objectives for

the number of large pools per stream reach. Averaging across the entire Basin will result in objectives too high for some areas and too low for

others. Basing the objectives on landscapes and

sites greatly reduces the possibility of a “miss”.

The higher in decision hierarchy one tries to

address the total risks, the fewer options management will likely have and the greater the probability that a decision will be “wrong” for a particular

site. This can best be reduced by managing the

risks at the lowest level, thus allowing the greatest

flexibility at the local level.

Managing to achieve opportunities, desired outcomes, and the provision of goods and services

might result in new risks to ecological objectives.

These new risks could be created through achieving the outcomes (outputs) and should be evaluated to determine how they affect the cumulative

risks associated with not achieving ecological goals

in the area. Addressing these risks might require

additional analyses and could result in changes in

the provision of other goods and services, or in the

total risks to the systems being analyzed. It becomes an iterative process, analyzing risks to

resources, determining the effects on outcomes

(outputs), modifying actions that result in new

projections of output levels, determining effects on

risks to ecological goals, adjusting expectations or

management approaches as appropriate, and

cycling through the analysis until the risks to

ecosystem management are acceptable and the

output levels are achieved to the extent possible.

The final step in risk assessment involves determining societal acceptability. For example, a high

degree of risk of species extinction may not be

societally acceptable. On the other hand, reducing

risks to future generations of, say, catastrophic fire

might be highly desirable. Given the cumulative

nature of these risks, there is danger that society’s

acceptance of land management actions may be

taken for granted. By attempting to manage the

risks, the probability of societal acceptance of

management actions is increased.

Figure 6a—Example of partitioning risk to ecological

integrity across multiple geographic extents.

Figure 6b—An example of cumulative risks to ecological integrity at multiple geographic extents. Ovoids A,

B, and C represent analysis and decision levels that

address risks associated with those levels.
36

INTEGRATED PLANNING FOR

ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT

ON FEDERAL LANDS

To this point the framework has: described why

the FS and BLM are moving forward with implementing ecosystem management; described ecosystem principles and concepts that set the backdrop

for ecosystem management approaches; outlined a

set of assumed goals that may be appropriate for

ecosystem management; proposed a general planning model; and described strategies for managing

information and involvement. But the question

now arises as to how these components of ecosystem management link together to create an

integrated approach for planning on federally

administered lands.

The framework suggests a strategy for implementing ecosystem management on federally administered lands. This strategy is based on dynamic

assessments that provide characterizations at different levels (a higher level for context and a lower

level to understand processes). It partitions risks

to the level where they are observed and where

they impact decisions. It provides for hierarchical

decisions that are consistent with both the context

set at higher levels and an understanding of specific process. This strategy depends on an adaptive

management approach that itself depends on

partnerships and effective stakeholder involvement. The adaptive approach also depends on the

evolving nature of federal planning processes.

One key partnership is the relationship between

science and management. For example, monitoring that is tiered to focus on specific goals and

objectives at each level provides feedback to both

decision processes and to the scientific community

where it validates existing information or motivates new research development and technology

transfer efforts. Science and management partnerships can better manage the rapid evolution and

application of new information.

The strategy suggested in this framework would

support decisions at the level that the issue, ecosystem process, or risk to ecosystem integrity occurs.

In this context decisions would not be restricted to

those mandated through NEPA processes, but

could include policy statements, directives, budget

direction, executive orders, and congressional

direction as well as NEPA decision processes.

Consistency among the various planning levels

could be ensured through assessments and monitoring. Assessments of large areas would provide

context for assessments of small areas. Monitoring

would be used to determine whether the specific

goals were met at various planning levels. Assessments covering smaller areas would describe ecosystem processes and risks to ecosystem integrity

that exist within the smaller areas. Thus, the

combined information from assessments and

monitoring could be evaluated to determine if

local goals were consistent with higher level goals

and if the total risk to ecosystem integrity was

addressed prior to project implementation on the

ground.

The flexibility of management to apply the practices that are most suited to each particular site

would be retained with this strategy. It would be

consistent with the NEPA, NFMA, RPA, and

FLPMA processes that currently exist. Where

necessary the implementing mechanism can be

appropriate NEPA documents and FS and BLM

land management plan amendments or revisions.

Thus, a sub-regional assessment might provide

information used to address risks to viability of

selected species across a multi-forest/BLM district

area. An EIS might be prepared to amend the

plans within the sub-regional area consistent with

the goals from the regional and national level.

These plans would include specific management

direction, derived from a broader context, to

address the risks of viability within the sub-region.

Ecosystem principles illustrated in this framework

point to the need for flexibility in the management

of ecosystems. Also, they stress the need for using

a process that increases knowledge as management

continues. This translates to an adaptive approach

where monitoring and inventory information can
37

be shared through management/research partnerships to increase understanding of ecosystems and

potential management outcomes. As management

practices are applied, monitoring and inventory data

are gathered to test the assumptions about projected

outcomes, consequences, and trade-offs. Through a

research/management partnership, the information

allows testing of hypotheses across regions and

landscapes not possible in traditional research environments. Questions regarding ecosystem processes

and functions often cannot be answered through

experiments conducted on small areas with strict

controls.

This strategy depends on clearly defined goals.

Ecosystem management is not an end in itself, it is

a means to achieving goals. Defining the goals for

ecosystem management also defines the purposes

for which federally administered lands are managed. The discussion presented here regarding

potential goals and current debates about private

property rights and Federal land management,

highlight how difficult it may be to select goals

that are acceptable to the Congress and the public.

Yet, the selection of goals is fundamental to moving forward with ecosystem management on

federally administered lands. Additional development of processes related to implementing ecosystem management cannot supplant the need to

confront the issue of goal selection and priority

setting.

EPILOGUE

A primary issue in land management is stewardship. As Solomon wrote some 2600 years ago,

“one generation comes and another passes but the

land remains.” Our task as land stewards is to

reconcile the new goal of maintaining the integrity

of ecosystems and the resiliency of social and

economic systems with the traditional goal of

providing goods and services. In one sense, this

framework provides a platform that merges science

with changing societal values to help make choices

about dynamic systems in the face of uncertainty.

It acknowledges that the shift to ecosystem management incorporates a struggle about values that

influence land management.
38

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Preparing the framework has involved many

people. Much of the early work involved the

entire Science Integration Team and the Eastside

Environmental Impact Statement Team. In addition, we received verbal and written comments

from many interested parties that were used in

preparing revisions. We thank all of these contributors. Paul Hessburg led the group that developed the initial draft of the section on ecosystem

principles. Jodi Clifford, Kris Lee, Judy

Mikowski, Alison Nelson, and Amy Horne each

played a significant role in developing various

drafts of the framework. Ralph Perkins, Cindy

Dean, Sylvia Arbelbide, George Pozzuto, Jeff

Blackwood, Rick Roberts, Bill Connelly and Eric

Stone provided valuable review comments on

various drafts. Chris DeForest helped review and

edit the final versions. Traci McMerritt provided

the cover art, Irene Stumpf aided in the design of

the figures, Del Thompson designed the overall

publication and readied it for printing, and John

Ivie assisted with design and created the cameraready pages.
39

LITERATURE CITED

Aird, Paul L., comp. 1994. Conservation for the sustainable development of forests worldwide: a compendium of concepts and terms. The Forestry Chronicle. 70(6): 666-674.

Agee, James K. 1994. Fire and weather disturbances in terrestrial ecosystems of the eastern Cascades. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-320. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 52 p. (Everett, Richard L., assessment team leader; Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment; Hessburg, Paul F., science team leader and technical ed., Vol. III: assessment.)

 Allen, T.F.H.; O’Neill, R.V.; Hoekstra, T.W. 1984. Interlevel relations in ecological research and management: some working principles from hierarchy theory. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-110. Fort Collins,

CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station. 11 p.

Allen, T.F.H.; Starr, T.B. 1982. Hierarchy: perspectives for ecological complexity. Chicago, IL: University

of Chicago Press. 310 p.

Barret, S.W.; Arno, S.F.; Key, C.H. 1991. Fire regimes of western larch-lodgepole pine forests in Glacier

National Park, Montana. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 21: 1711-1720.

Baumol, William J. 1965. Economic theory and operations analysis. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall, Inc. 606 p.

Bormann, Bernard T.; Brookes, Martha H.; Ford, E. David [and others]. 1994. Volume V: a framework

for sustainable-ecosystem management. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-331. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 61 p. (Everett, Richard L.,

assessment team leader; Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment.)

Bormann, F. Herbert; Likens, Gene E. 1981. Pattern and process in a forested ecosystem. New York:

Springer-Verlag. 253 p.

Bourgeron, P.S.; Humphries, H.C.; Jensen, M.E. 1994. General sampling design considerations for

landscape evaluation. In: Jensen, M. E.; Bourgeron, P. S., tech. eds. Eastside forest ecosystem health

assessment—Volume II: ecosystem management: principles and applications. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-318. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station: 119-130.

Bourgeron, P. S.; Jensen, M. E. 1994. An overview of ecological principles for ecosystem management. In:

Jensen, M.E.; Bourgeron, P.S., tech. eds. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume II:

ecosystem management: principles and applications. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-318. Portland, OR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 51-64.

Boyce, M.S.; Meyer, J.S.; Irwin, L. 1994. Habitat-based PVA for the northern spotted owl. In: Fletcher,

David James; Manly, Bryan Frederick John, eds. Otago Conference Series 2. Proceedings of the

conference on Statistics in Ecology and Environmental Management, University of Otago, 13-17

December 1993. Dunedin, New Zealand: University of Otago Press. 269 p.

Cornett, Z.J.; Force, J.E.; Radcliffe, S.J. 1994. SAF’s evolving land ethic. Journal of Forestry. 92(11): 6-9.

Costanza, Robert; Daly, Herman E.; Bartholomew, Joy A. 1991. Goals, agenda and policy recommendations for ecological economics. In: Costanza, Robert, ed. Ecological economics: the science and

management of sustainability. New York: Columbia University Press: 1-20.
40

Cubbage, Frederick W.; O’Laughlin, Jay; Bullock, Charles S. III. 1993. Forest resource policy. New York:

John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 564 p.

Delcourt, H.R.; Delcourt, P.A. 1988. Quaternary landscape ecology: relevant scales in space and time.

Landscape Ecology. 2: 23-44.

Dzurisin, D.; Brantley, S.R.; Costa, J.E. 1994. How should society prepare for the next eruption in the

Cascades? In: Abstracts with programs, Geological Society of America 1994 Annual Meeting: A-113.

Everett, Richard; Hessburg, Paul; Jensen, Mark; Bormann, Bernard. 1994a.Volume I: executive summary.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-317. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 61 p. (Everett, Richard L., assessment team leader; Eastside forest

ecosystem health assessment.)

Everett, R.; Oliver, C.; Saveland, J. [and others]. 1994b. Adaptive ecosystem management. In: Jensen,

M.E.; Bourgeron, P.S., tech. eds. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume II: ecosystem

management: principles and applications. Gen. Tech. Rep. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 361-376.

Faber, M.; Mansteiten, R.; Proops, J.L.R. 1992. Humankind and the environment: an anatomy of

surprise and ignorance. Environmental Values. 1(3):217-242.

Flores, Dan. 1994. Place: an argument for bioregional history. Environmental History Review. Winter:

1-17.

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA). Act of Aug. 17, 1974. PL-93-378, 88

Stat. 476, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1600-1614.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an

ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S.

Department of the Interior [and others]. [Irregular pagination].

Freidmann, J. 1969. Notes on societal action. Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 35(5): 311-

318.

Freidmann, J. 1987. Planning in the public domain: from knowledge to action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press. 501 p.

Freidmann, J. 1973. Retracking America. Garden City, NJ: Anchor Press. 289 p.

Gordon, G. 1978. System simulation. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 324 p.

Greene, S.E. 1988. Research natural areas and protecting old-growth forests on Federal lands in western

Oregon and Washington. Natural Areas Journal. 8: 25-30.

Grumbine, R. Edward. 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology. 8(1): 27-38.

Grumbine, R. Edward. 1992. Ghost bears: exploring the biodiversity crisis. Washington, DC: Island

Press. 294 p.

Hansen, A.J.; Urban, D.L.; Garman, S.; and others. 1990. Responses of wildlife habitats to forest management and climate change: a modeling approach. The Northwest Environmental Journal. 6: 419-

420.

Hilborn, R.; Walters, C.J. 1992. Quantitative fisheries stock assessment: choices, dynamics, and uncertainty. New York: Chapman and Hall. 570 p.
41

Hobbs, R.J.; Huenneke, L.F. 1992. Disturbance, diversity, and invasion: implications for conservation.

Conservation Biology. 6(3): 324-337.

Holling, C.S. 1986. Resilience of ecosystems: local surprise and global change. In: Clark, W.C.; Mumn,

R.E., eds. Sustainable development of the biosphere. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University

Press: 292-317.

Hyman, David N. 1973. The economics of governmental activity. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 333 p.

Irwin, L.L. 1994. A process for improving wildlife habitat models for assessing forest ecosystem health.

Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 2(3/4): 293-306.

Jones, B. 1986. Inventory and monitoring process. In: Cooperrider, A.Y.; Boyd, R.J.; Stuart, H.R., eds.

Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau

of Land Management: 1-10.

Kauffmann, M.R.; Graham, R.T.; Boyce, D.A., Jr. [and others]. 1994. An ecological basis for ecosystem

management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-246. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 22 p.

Kay, J.J. 1991. A nonequilibrium thermodynamics framework for discussing ecosystem integrity. Environmental Management. 15: 483-495.

Kay, J.J. 1993. On the nature of ecological integrity: some closing comments. In: Woodley, Stephen; Kay,

James; Francis, George, eds. Ecological integrity and the management of ecosystems. Delray Beach, FL:

St. Lucie Press: 201-212.

King, A.W.; Emanuel, W.R.; O’Neill, R.V. 1990. Linking mechanistic models of tree physiology with

models of forest dynamics: problems of temporal scale. In: Dixon, R.K.; Meldahl, R.S.; Ruark, G.A.;

Warren, W.G., eds. Process modeling of forest growth responses to environmental stress. Portland, OR:

Timber Press: 241-248.

King, Anthony W. 1993. Considerations of scale and hierarchy. In: Woodley, Stephen; Kay, James;

Francis, George, eds. Ecological integrity and the management of ecosystems. Delray Beach, FL: St.

Lucie Press: 19-46.

Knight, Frank N. 1921. Risk, uncertainty, and profit. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin Co. 381 p.

Koestler, Arthur. 1967. The ghost in the machine. New York: MacMillan. 384 p.

Lee, Kai N. 1993. Compass and gyroscope: integrating science and politics for the environment. Washington, DC: Island Press. 243 p.

Lee, R.G. 1972. The social definition of recreational places. In: Burch, W.R.; Cheek, N.R., Jr.; Lee, T.,

eds. Social behavior, natural resources, and the environment. New York: Harper and Row: 68-84.

Leopold, Aldo. 1991. Conservation: in whole or in part? In: Flader, Susan L.; Callicott, J. Bairn, eds. The

river of the mother god and other essays by Aldo Leopold. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin

Press. 384 p.

Leopold, Aldo. 1949. Sand county almanac. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. 226 p.

Lewis, Bernard J. 1993. Problem analysis: the social dimension of ecosystem management. Unpublished

paper. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota. 88 p.
42

Lincoln, R.J.; Boxshall, G.A.; Clark, P.F. 1982. A dictionary of ecology, evolution, and systematics.

Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. 298 p.

Marcot, B.G.; Murphy, D.D. [in press]. Population viability analysis and management. In: Szaro, R., ed.

Biodiversity in managed landscapes: theory and practice. Conference Proceedings. July 13-17, 1992.

Sacramento CA. New York: Oxford University Press.

Marcot, Bruce G. 1992. Putting data, experience, and professional judgement to work in making land

management decisions. In: Nyberg, J.B.; Kessler, W.B., eds. Integrating timber and wildlife in forest

landscapes: a matter of scale: Proceedings of the habitat futures workshop at Pack Experimental Forest,

1989 October 16-20; Eatonville, Washington, Victoria, BC, Canada: Ministry of Forests, Research

Branch and Crown Publications: 140-161.

Maser, Chris. 1994. Sustainable forestry: philosophy, science, and economics. Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie

Press. 373 p.

McCune, B.; Allen, T.F.H. 1985. Will similar forests develop on similar sites? Canadian Journal of

Botany. 63: 367-376.

McNeely, J.A.; Miller, K.R.; Reid, W.V. [and others]. 1990. Conserving the world’s biological diversity.

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland; Washington DC: World Resources Institute, Conservation International, World Wildlife Fund-U.S. and the

World Bank. 193 p.

New Riverside Publishing Company. c1988. Webster’s II: New Riverside University Dictionary. Boston:

Houghton Mifflin, New Riverside Publishing Company. 1536 p.

Norton, Bryan G. 1992. A new paradigm for environmental management. In: Costanza, Robert; Norton,

Bryan G.; Haskell, Benjamin D., eds. Ecosystem health: new goals for environmental management.

Washington, DC: Island Press: 23-41.

Noss, Reed F.; Cooperrider, Allen Y. 1994. Saving nature’s legacy. Washington, DC: Island Press. 416 p.

Noss, R.F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology.

4(4): 355-364.

O’Laughlin, Jay; MacCracken, James G.; Adams, David L. [and others]. 1993. Forest health conditions in

Idaho. Policy Analysis Group Report 11. Moscow, ID: Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment

Station, University of Idaho. 244 p.

Oliver, C.D.; Knapp, W.H.; Everett, R. 1994. A system for implementing ecosystem management. In:

Jensen, M.E.; Bourgeron, P.S., tech. eds. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume II:

ecosystem management: principles and applications. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-318. Portland, OR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 355-366.

O’Neill, R.V.; DeAngelis, D.L.; Waide, J.B.; Allen, T.F.H. 1986. A hierarchical concept of ecosystems.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 253 p.

Pattee, H.H. 1978. The complementarity principle in biological and social structures. Journal of Social

and Biological Structures. 1: 191-200.

Pickett, S.T.A.; Kolasa, J.; Armesto, J.J.; Collins, S.L. 1989. The ecological concept of disturbance and its

expression at various hierarchical levels. Oikos. 54: 129-136.
43

Regier, Henry A. 1993. The notion of natural and cultural integrity. In: Woodley, Stephen; Kay, James;

Francis, George, eds. Ecological integrity and the management of ecosystems. Delray Beach, FL: St.

Lucie Press: 3-18.

Reynolds, R.T.; Graham, R.T.; Reiser, M.H. [and others]. 1992. Management recommendations for the

northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-RM-217. Fort Collins,

CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 90 p.

Robbins, William G.; Wolf, Donald W. 1994. Landscape and the intermontane northwest: an environmental history. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-319. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 32 p. (Everett, Richard L., assessment team leader;

Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment; Hessburg, Paul F., science team leader and tech ed.,

Volume III: assessment.)

Robbins, William G. 1982. Lumberjacks and legislators: political economy of the U.S. lumber industry,

1890-1941. College Station, TX: Texas A & M University Press. 268 p.

Rosen, R. 1975. Biological systems as paradigms for adaptation. In: Day, R.H.; Groves, T., eds: Adaptive

economic models. New York: Academic Press: 39-72.

Salwasser, Hal; MacCleery, Douglas W.; Snellgrove, Thomas A. 1993. An ecosystem perspective on

sustainable forestry and new directions for the U.S. National Forest System. In: Aplet, Gregory H.;

Johnson, Nels; Olson, Jeffrey T.; Sample, V. Alaric, eds. Defining sustainable forestry. Washington,

DC: Island Press: 44-89.

Slocombe, D.S. 1993. Implementing ecosystem-based management. Bioscience. 41(9): 612-622.

Soulé, M.E. 1987. Introduction. In: Soulé, M.E., ed. Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge,

MA: Cambridge University Press: 1-10.

Soulé, M.E. 1980. Thresholds for survival: maintaining fitness and evolutionary potential. In: Soulé,

M.E.; Wilcox, B.A., eds. Conservation biology: an evolutionary-ecological perspective. Sunderland,

MA: Sinauer Associates: 151-170.

Spurr, Stephen H. 1964. Forest ecology. New York: The Ronald Press. 352 p.

Tansley, A.G. 1935. The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology. 16(3): 284-307.

Thomas, Jack Ward. 1994a. Concerning “New Directions for the Forest Service”. Working Draft.

Statement before the Committee on Natural Resources, United States House of Representatives,

February 3, 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Thomas, Jack Ward. 1994b. This time, our moment in history, our future. Speech delivered to the Forest

Service Leadership Meeting, 20-23 June 1994, Houston, TX. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. 15 p.

Thompson, J.D.; Tuden, A. 1959. Strategies, structures, and processes of organizational decision. In:

Thompson, J.D.; Hammond, P.; Hawkes, R.W. [and others]. Comparative studies in administration.

Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press: 195-216.

United Nations Environment Programme. 1992. Conference for the adoption of the agreed text of the

convention on biological diversity. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme. 30 p.
44

Urban, D.L.; O’Neill, R.V.; Shugart, H.H., Jr. 1987. Landscape ecology: a hierarchical perspective can

help scientists understand spatial patterns. Bioscience. 37(2): 119-127.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1994a. A federal agency guide for pilot watershed

analysis. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 140 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1994b. Apr. A national framework: ecosystem management. Program Aid 1502. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 52 p.

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation; Bonneville Power Administration; U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers. 1994. Columbia River system operation review: draft environmental impact statement.

Appendix D: Cultural Resources. Report DOE/EIS-0170. [Irregular pagination].

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Framework for ecological risk assessment. Report EPA/

630/R-92/001 from the Risk Assessment Forum. Washington, DC :U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. 41 p.

U.S. Government. 1982. Rules and regulations. Federal Register 47(190):43050-45052 (36 CFR, in part,

dealing with biodiversity). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U. S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR § 219.3; 219.9; 219.17(g); 219.19;

219.26.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 91-190. [S. 1075], National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Act

of Jan. 1, 1970. [An act to establish a national policy for the environment, to provide for the establishment of a Council of Environmental Quality, and for other purposes.] In its: United States statutes at

large, 1969. 42 U.S.C. sec. 4231, et seq. (1970). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office:

852-856. Vol. 83.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 94-579. Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. Act of

Oct. 21, 1976. 43 U.S.C. 1701 (note).

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 94-588. National Forest Management Act of 1976. Act of Oct. 22,

1976. 16 U.S.C. 1600 (1976).

Waring, R.H.; Schlesinger, W.H. 1985. Forest ecosystems: concepts and management. New York: Academic Press. 340 p.

Weimer, David L.; Vining, Aidan R. 1992. Policy analysis: concepts and practice. 2nd ed. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Publishing Inc. 424 p.

Wildavsky, A. 1973. If planning is everything, maybe it’s nothing. Policy Sciences 4(2): 127-153.

Williams, Daniel R. 1995. Mapping place meanings for ecosystem management. Unpublished report.

On file with: Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Walla Walla, WA. 34 p.

Williams, Daniel R. 1993. Recreation and multi-resource conflict: a framework for examining public ties

to place. Presentation in the “Connections Seminar Series,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service. Unpublished paper. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. November 19.

Young, James A.; Sparks, Abbot B. 1985. Cattle in the cold desert. Logan, UT: Utah State University

Press. 255 p.
45

GLOSSARY

Adaptive management—Feedback which consists

of knowledge or data on the effects or results of an

action. Information is purposely collected and

used to improve future management actions.1

Biodiversity (biological diversity)—The diversity

of plant and animal communities, including

endemic and desirable naturalized plant and animal species.

Biomass—The total mass of living matter within a

given volume of environment.2

Biome—An entire community of living organisms

in a single major ecological region.2

Biophysical—The combination of biological and

physical components in an ecosystem.

Biotic—Living; relating to life or specific life

conditions.2

Decision-maker—In federal land management,

the person authorized to make land management

decisions.

Desired future condition—A portrayal of the land

or resource conditions that are expected to result if

goals and objectives are fully achieved (36 CFR

219).

Disturbance—Any event that alters the structure,

composition, or function of terrestrial or aquatic

habitats; fire, flood, and timber harvest are examples of large-scale disturbances.

Disturbance regime—Natural pattern of periodic

disturbances, such as fire or flood, followed by a

period of recovery from the disturbance, such as

regrowth of a forest after fire.

Diversity—The distribution and abundance of

different plant and animal communities and

species within the area covered by a land and

resource management plan (36 CFR 219.3).

Ecoregion—A continuous geographic area with

similar climate that permits the development of

similar ecosystems on sites with similar properties.

Ecosystem—A community of organisms and their

physical environment interacting as an ecological

unit.3

Ecosystem integrity—System integrity where the

system is defined as the degree to which all components and their interactions are represented and

functioning within an ecosystem. Integrity is the

quality or state of being complete, a sense of

wholeness.

Ecosystem management—“...management driven

by explicit goals, executed by policies, protocols,

and practices, and made adaptable by monitoring

and research based on our best understanding of

the ecological interactions and processes necessary

to sustain ecosystem composition, structure, and

function.”8

Endemic species—Plants or animals that occur

naturally in a certain region and whose distribution is limited to a particular locality.

Exotic—Not native; an organism or species that

has been introduced into an area.

Hierarchy—A general integrated system comprising two or more levels, the higher controlling to

some extent the activities of the lower levels; a

series of consecutively subordinate categories

forming a system of classification.3

Hypothesis—An assertion or working explanation

that leads to testable predictions; an assumption

providing an explanation of observed facts, proposed in order to test its consequences.3

Landscape—A heterogeneous land area with

interacting ecosystems that are repeated in similar

form throughout.4

Monitor—to check systematically or scrutinize for

the purpose of collecting specified categories of

data.
46

Monitoring—A process of collecting information

to evaluate whether or not objectives of a project

are being realized. In land management, monitoring is used to describe continuous or regular measurement of conditions that can be used to

validate assumptions, alter decisions, change

implementation or maintain current management

direction.

Montane—of, growing in, or inhabiting mountain areas.2

Native—Indigenous; living naturally within a

given area.3

Population viability—Relative measure of the

estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals in a species population necessary

for that species’ continued existence; a minimum

number of reproductive individuals in a habitat

that will both support them and enable them to

interact is necessary for a species’ maintenance

[adapted from 36 CFR 219.9].

Resiliency- the degree to which systems adapt to

change.

Resolution—Separation or reduction of something into its constituent parts; here, the degree of

detail incorporated in the data; finer data resolution provides greater detail.2

Scale—Defined in this framework as geographic

extent; for example, regional, sub-regional, or

landscape scale.

Scenario planning—Planning that focuses on an

outline of a hypothesized or projected chain of

events.2

Seral stage—The developmental stages of a plant

community not including the climax community;

typically, young-seral forest refers to seedling or

sapling growth stages; mid-seral forest refers to

pole or medium sawtimber growth stages; and old

or late-seral forests refer to mature and old-growth

stages.

Spatial—of, relating to, or having the nature of

space.2

Species—The lowest principal category of a biological classification distinct from other groups.3

Stakeholders—Tribal, state, county, local governments, and private landholders; as well as individuals and groups representing local and national

interests in Federal land management. This is

meant to be inclusive of all organizations and

individuals with an interest in Federal lands. This

includes all United States citizens who use, value,

and depend upon the goods, services, and amenities produced by federally administered public

lands.

Succession— The more or less predictable changes

in species composition in an ecosystem over time,

often in a predictable order, following a natural or

human disturbance. An example is the development of a series of plant communities (called seral

stages) following a major disturbance.5

Systems modeling— Using a model of a system to

study (or experiment) with the system itself.7

Temporal—Related to, concerned with, or limited

by time.2

Viable—Having the capacity to live, grow, germinate, or develop.

Virtual system—A system that is the essence of

reality but not actual fact, or form.

Watershed—The region draining into a river, river

system, or body of water.2

Weed—Any plant growing where it is not

wanted.3

1

 Bormann and others 1994

2

 New Riverside Publishing Company c1988

3

 Lincoln and others 1982

4

 Noss and Cooperrider 1994

5

 Waring and Schlesinger 1985

6

 Thomas 1994a

7

 Gordon 1978

8

 Ecological Society of America. 1995. The scientific basis

for ecosystem management: An assessment by the ecological

society of America. Prepublication copy. Not paged.
Appendix A–47
Appendix A–48
Appendix B–49
Appendix B–50
Appendix B–51
Appendix B–52
Appendix B–53
Appendix B–54
Appendix B–55
Appendix B–56
Appendix B–57
Appendix B–58
Appendix B–59
Appendix B–60
Appendix B–61
Appendix B–62
Appendix B–63
Appendix B–64
Appendix C–65

Science Integration Team

Thomas M. Quigley, Science Team Leader

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project, Walla Walla, Washington

Sylvia J. Arbelbide, Deputy Science Team Leader

Forest Service, Minerals Area Management Director, Pacific Southwest Region, San Francisco, California

Russell T. Graham, Deputy Science Team Leader

Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Moscow, Idaho

Aquatics

Lynn Decker, Regional Fisheries Program Leader

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, San Francisco, California

Kristine M. Lee, Fisheries/Aquatic Ecology Program Leader

Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Ogden, Utah

Danny Lee, Research Biologist

Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Boise, Idaho

Bruce E. Reiman, Research Fisheries Biologist

Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Boise, Idaho

James R. Sedell, Principal Research Ecologist

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon

Russell F. Thurow, Fisheries Research Scientist

Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Boise, Idaho

Jack Williams, Science Advisor

Bureau of Land Management, Columbia Northwest Technical Assistance Network, Boise, Idaho

Economics

Richard W. Haynes, Research Forester

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Portland, Oregon

Amy L. Horne, Research Forester

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Portland, Oregon

Nicholas Reyna, Forest Economist

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project, Walla Walla, Washington

Landscape Ecology

Carl Almquist, Geologist

U.S. Bureau of Mines, Western Field Operations Center, Spokane, Washington
Appendix C–66

Mike Borman, Range Ecologist

USDI National Biological Service, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, Corvallis, Oregon

Ken Brewer, Landscape Ecologist

Forest Service, Flathead National Forest, Kalispell, Montana

Thomas P. Frost, Research Geologist

U.S. Geological Survey, Western Mineral Resources Branch, Spokane, Washington

Iris Goodman, Research Hydrologist

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Landscape Characterization Research and Development, Las Vegas, Nevada

Wendel J. Hann, Landscape Ecologist

Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana

Paul F. Hessburg, Research Plant Pathologist/Entomologist

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Wenatchee, Washington

Mark E. Jensen, Landscape Ecologist

Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana

Jeff Jones, Wildlife Biologist

Forest Service, Beaverhead National Forest, Dillon, Montana

Mike (Sherm) Karl, Rangeland Management Specialist-Ecologist

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project, Walla Walla, Washington

Robert Keane, Research Ecologist

Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, Montana

Brad Smith, Quantitative Community Ecologist

Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest, Silviculture Laboratory, Bend, Oregon

Social

John S. Bumstead, Social Scientist

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project, Walla Walla, Washington

James Burchfield, Sociologist

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project, Walla Walla, Washington

Steve Galliano, Landscape Architect

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project, Walla Walla, Washington.

Steven F. McCool, Social Scientist

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project, Walla Walla, Washington.

Dave Powell, Forest Silviculturist

Forest Service, Umatilla National Forest, Pendleton, Oregon
Appendix C–67

Spatial

Becky Gravenmier, Natural Resource Specialist/GIS

Bureau of Land Management, OR/WA State Office, Portland, Oregon

John Steffenson, GIS Specialist

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon

Andy Wilson, GIS Specialist

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon

Terrestrial

John Lehmkuhl, Wildlife Ecologist

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Wenatchee, Washington

Bruce G. Marcot, Wildife Ecologist

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Research, Development, and Application Program,

Portland, Oregon

Kurt Nelson, Supervisory Forester/Branch Chief

Forest Service, PayetteNational Forest, Resource Ecology Branch, McCall, Idaho

Elaine Zieroth, Wildlife Biologist/District Ranger

Forest Service, Okanogan National Forest, Tonasket Ranger District, Tonasket, Washington
68

Notes
Haynes, Richard W.; Graham, Russell T.; Quigley, Thomas M., tech. eds. 1996. A framework for ecosystem management in the Interior Columbia Basin including portions of the

Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-374. Portland, OR; U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 66 p.

A framework for ecosystem management is proposed. This framework assumes the purpose

of ecosystem management is to maintain the integrity of ecosystems over time and space. It

is based on four ecosystem principles: ecosystems are dynamic, can be viewed as hierarchies

with temporal and spatial dimensions, have limits, and are relatively unpredictable. This

approach recognizes that people are part of ecosystems and that stewardship must be able to

resolve tough challenges including how to meet multiple demands with finite resources.

The framework describes a general planning model for ecosystem management that has

four iterative steps: monitoring, assessment, decision-making, and implementation. Since

ecosystems cross jurisdictional lines, the implementation of the framework depends on

partnerships among land managers, the scientific community, and stakeholders. It proposes

that decision-making be based on information provided by the best available science and

the most appropriate technologies for land management.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

prohibits discrimination in its programs on the basis of

race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability,

political beliefs, and marital or familial status. (Not all

prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with

disabilities who require alternative means of communication of program information (Braille, large print,

audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Office of

Communications at (202) 720-2791.

To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC

20250, or call (202) 720-7327 (voice) or (202) 720-

1127 (TDD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity employer.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 S.W. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, Oregon 97208-3890