United StatesDepartment ofAgriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Nor thwestResearch Station

United StatesDepartment of theInterior

Bureau of LandManagement

General TechnicalReportPNW-GTR-374June 1996

A Framework forEcosystem Management Inthe Interior Columbia BasinAnd Portions of theKlamath and Great Basins

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

This is not a NEPA decision document

United States United StatesDepartment of DepartmentAgriculture of the Interior

Forest Service Bureau of LandManagement

A Framework for Ecosystem ManagementIn the Interior Columbia BasinAnd Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins

Richard W. Haynes, Russell T. Grahamand 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.

1996United States Department of Agriculture

Forest ServicePacific Northwest Research Station

Portland, Oregon

ii

ABSTRACTHaynes, Richard W.; Graham, Russell T.; Quigley, Thomas M., tech. eds. 1996. A frame-

work for ecosystem management in the Interior Columbia Basin including portions ofthe 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 thepurpose of ecosystem management is to maintain the integrity of ecosystems overtime and space. It is based on four ecosystem principles: ecosystems are dynamic, canbe viewed as hierarchies with temporal and spatial dimensions, have limits, and arerelatively unpredictable. This approach recognizes that people are part of ecosystemsand that stewardship must be able to resolve tough challenges including how to meetmultiple demands with finite resources. The framework describes a general planningmodel for ecosystem management that has four iterative steps: monitoring, assess-ment, decision-making, and implementation. Since ecosystems cross jurisdictionallines, the implementation of the framework depends on partnerships among landmanagers, the scientific community, and stakeholders. It proposes that decision-making be based on information provided by the best available science and the mostappropriate technologies for land management.

Keywords: Ecosystem assessment, ecosystem principles, ecosystem management,planning models, management goals, risk analysis.

iii

PREFACEPreparing this framework involved many people. Much of the early work involved theentire 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 andRuss Graham led another small group (Terrie Jain, Chris DeForest, Bruce Marcot, SteveMcCool, and Tom Quigley) that eventually produced the third draft. The final versionwas 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 Ecosys-tem Management in the Interior Columbia Basin.” Lack of clarity was the main com-plaint. Earlier versions were too vague, conceptual, technical, and contained too muchjargon. At the same time, many people requested more detail, and mechanisms for imple-menting ecosystem management. People wanted to know how to link science and landmanagement planning, how this process would be translated into action, how ecosystemmanagement could be incorporated into existing planning processes and decisions, andhow a more effective means of stakeholder participation could be developed. In responseto these comments, we prepared a new introduction defining the objectives of ecosystemmanagement and the framework. We expanded the discussion of the science conceptsunderlying ecosystem management. We expanded the discussion of the general planningmodel and included a discussion of risk assessments. We expanded the discussion onplanning and decision-making to explain the connection between assessments and land-useplanning processes. The section also attempts to define broader and more effective mecha-nisms for stakeholder participation.

iv

LIST OF ACRONYMSBLM 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 CONVERSIONMile (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 CONTENTSEXECUTIVE 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 Domainsand 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 ECOSYSTEMMANAGEMENT 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 SUMMARYConcepts and principles underlying ecosystemmanagement are evolving. This framework forecosystem management is one product of theInterior Columbia Basin Ecosystem ManagementProject. It is a discussion of principles, concepts,processes, relationships, and methods that may beuseful in implementing ecosystem management.This framework seeks to place planning proce-dures within a broad, proactive process that con-siders the social, economic, and biophysicalcomponents of ecosystems at the earliest stages ofpolicy design. It is designed for application onlands administered by the United States Depart-ment of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service andthe United States Department of the Interior(USDI) Bureau of Land Management, but it couldalso be used by tribes, state agencies, and privateland owners.

The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Manage-ment Project is a combined science and manage-ment effort of the Forest Service (FS) and Bureauof Land Management (BLM). The project ischarged to develop a scientifically-based ecosystemmanagement strategy for lands administered bythe FS and BLM within the Basin.1 It assessesover 58 million hectares2 (145 million acres) inportions of seven western states and considers

management of over 31 million hectares (75million acres) of FS- and BLM- administeredlands (fig. 1).

The framework suggests that ecosystem manage-ment requires: 1) goals to establish a direction andpurpose; 2) an assessment of resources at multipleresolutions and geographic extents; 3) some deci-sion variables and decisions; 4) a strategy forimplementing these decisions; 5) a monitoringprogram to evaluate the outcomes of decisions;and 6) adaptive management approaches. Theseelements require integration among biophysicaland social disciplines.

In the framework, ecosystem management is basedon scientific knowledge and an understanding ofthe social acceptability of management actions.Scientific approaches can be used to characterizebiophysical and social processes and measureoutcomes. Public participation processes can beused to help determine the acceptance of manage-ment actions used to achieve specific goals. Moni-toring can be used to determine baselineconditions, whether implementation achieves itsobjectives, and whether assumed relationships aretrue.

This framework defines the role of science inecosystem management as providing informationfor the decision-making process. This informationhelps clarify feasible boundaries, options within

1The Basin is defined as those portions of the Columbia Riverbasin inside the United States east of the crest of the Cascadesand those portions of the Klamath River basin and the GreatBasin in Oregon.2hectare (ha) = 2.47 acres. See metric conversion table.

4

the boundaries, consequences of those options,and trade-offs between options. The role of deci-sion-makers is to choose among options; it is notthe role of science.

A portion of this framework focuses on the rolefederal agencies have in administering publiclands. The FS and BLM are charged with devel-oping an ecosystem approach to guide assessment,planning, and management of forest, shrubland,grassland, and aquatic ecosystems on FS- andBLM-administered lands within the Basin. Thisframework describes approaches that can be usedto manage Federal lands in the Basin in responseto changing societal values, new information, andthe assumed goal of maintaining the integrity ofecosystems. Ecosystem integrity is assumed to bea socially acceptable goal for ecosystem manage-ment, but the agencies have not yet made formaldecisions on specific goals. Ecosystem integrityincludes maintaining long-term ecosystem healthand providing products and services within anecosystem’s capabilities.

Federal land management agencies have legal andsocial obligations to sustain the health, diversity,and productivity of ecosystems for the benefit ofpresent and future generations. In addition, theyare obligated to fulfill the responsibilities assumedfrom treaties with American Indian tribes. Thismay include maintaining or restoring viable, andin some cases harvestable, populations of plantsand animals, or ecological processes. Satisfying allof these obligations is often complicated by chang-ing and competing public values, the constantmarch of science, and land ownership and jurisdic-tional patterns that do not correspond to ecosys-tem patterns. Ecosystem management, in thissense, is another stage in the agencies’ evolvingefforts to satisfy their obligation to stakeholderswhile striving to resolve these complications. Inthis framework, stakeholders are defined as tribal,state, county, and local governments, and privateland holders; as well as individuals and groupsrepresenting local and national interests in Federalland management. Stakeholders also include all of

the citizens of the United States who use, value,and depend upon the goods, services, and ameni-ties produced by federally administered publiclands.

Four broad principles have guided the develop-ment of this framework. These principles are:ecosystems are dynamic, evolutionary, and resil-ient; ecosystems can be viewed spatially andtemporally within organizational levels; ecosystemshave biophysical, economic, and social limits; andecosystem patterns and processes are not com-pletely predictable. Ecosystems are dynamic; theychange with or without human influence. Exist-ing ecosystem conditions are a product of naturaland human history--including fire, flood, andother disturbances, climatic shifts, and geologicalevents such as landslides and volcanic eruptions.Although ecosystems are dynamic, there are limitsto their ability to withstand change and still main-tain their integrity, diversity, and productivity.Our efforts are guided by an increasing under-standing of how larger ecosystem patterns andprocesses relate to smaller ecosystem patterns andprocesses. Finally, there are limits to our ability topredict how ecosystems may change. These prin-ciples suggest the need for an adaptive approach tomanagement, one that can be adjusted in responseto new information.

A general planning model is proposed for ecosys-tem management that has four iterative steps:monitoring, assessment, decision-making, andimplementation. It is an adaptive model and isbased upon an appreciation that people are part of,not separate from, ecosystems. Determiningsocietal expectations for outputs (goods and ser-vices) and ecological conditions is a key feature ofthe framework. There are differences betweenpublic, tribal, and private lands. For private lands,individual owners differ in land managementobjectives and how they respond to various marketand non-market (including regulatory) incentives.

Assessments describe the status and trends of keyaspects of airsheds, aquatic ecosystems, vegetationand wildlife, economic activities, and social valuesand interests. An exercise of iterative “what if ”

5

questions, called scenario planning, can explorethe trade-offs and relative compatibility of a widespectrum of potential management goals.

For Federal lands, stakeholder participation is anessential element. The framework seeks to changethe previous approach where public participationoften consisted of reacting to predeterminedagency proposals. These proposed changes aredriven by a desire to improve understanding andconfidence in agency policies and actions, includ-ing ecosystem management, among stakeholders.

Interagency coordination and intergovernmental(and sometimes international) cooperation areessential to the success of an ecosystem approachto Federal land management. This framework alsoseeks to help reconcile the mismatch betweenjurisdictional boundaries and ecosystem patterns.It proposes greater coordination and consistency inFederal land management. The framework shouldimprove the ability of the BLM and FS to apply

ecosystem principles in their planning and deci-sion-making processes, while still complying withtreaties with American Indian tribes and pertinentFederal acts, including the Federal Land Policyand Management Act, the National Forest Man-agement Act, and the Endangered Species Act.

The framework suggests a strategy for implement-ing ecosystem management on Federal lands. Thisstrategy is based on dynamic assessments thatprovide characterizations at different levels (ahigher level for context and a lower level to under-stand processes). It partitions risks to the levelwhere they are observed and where they impactdecisions. It provides for hierarchical decisionsthat are consistent with both the context set athigher levels and an understanding of specificprocesses. This strategy depends on an adaptivemanagement approach that itself depends onpartnerships and effective stakeholder involve-ment.

6

Figure 1—Interior Columbia River basin of the United States and portions of the Klamath River basin and the GreatBasin that will be assessed in developing an ecosystem approach for managing public land administered by the ForestService and Bureau of Land Management in the interior Northwest.

7

INTRODUCTION

Ecosystem Management MandateIn July 1993, as part of his plan for ecosystemmanagement in the Pacific Northwest, PresidentClinton directed the Forest Service (FS) to “de-velop a scientifically sound and ecosystem-basedstrategy for management of Eastside forests.” ThePresident further stated that the strategy should bebased on the Eastside Forest Ecosystem Health Assess-ment (Everett and others 1994a), recently com-pleted by agency scientists, as well as other studies.To do so, the Chief of the Forest Service and theDirector of the Bureau of Land Managementjointly directed (see appendices A and B) that anecosystem management framework and assessmentbe developed for lands administered by the FS andthe Bureau of Land Management (BLM) east ofthe crest of the Cascades in Washington andOregon and other lands in the United Stateswithin the Basin3 (fig. 1). Moreover, this ecosys-tem management approach should be founded onbasic natural resource management ethics(Thomas 1994b). The FS and BLM have statedtheir intentions to use the framework and assess-ment in decision-making processes. Responsibleofficials from both agencies will develop ecosystemmanagement direction using the framework andassessment, as well as other information. Theframework and assessment are not decision-mak-ing documents nor do they set policy for the

agencies. These documents contain informationthat can be used in decision-making processes.

Ecosystems are the focus of ecosystem manage-ment. According to Salwasser and others (1993 p.73):

Ecosystems are communities of organismsworking together with their environments asintegrated units. They are places where allplants, animals, soils, waters, climate, people,and processes of life interact as a whole[see fig. 2]. These ecosystems/places may besmall, such as a rotting log, or large, such as acontinent or the biosphere. The smaller ecosys-tems are subsets of the larger ecosystems; that is,a pond is a subset of a watershed, which is asubset of a landscape, and so forth. All ecosys-tems 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 linearound an ecosystem and mandate that it staythe same or stay in place for all time. Manag-ing ecosystems means working with the processesthat cause them to vary and to change.

Successfully implementing ecosystem managementrequires working within the political and legal

3The Basin is defined as those portions of the Columbia Riverbasin inside the United States east of the crest of the Cascadesand those portions of the Klamath River basin and the GreatBasin in Oregon.

8

framework. Policies and laws directly addressingecosystem management have recently beenadopted and are still evolving. FS and BLMpolicies regarding the implementation of ecosys-tem management can be summarized as follows:

Ecosystem management will use an ecologicalapproach to achieve the multiple-use manage-ment of the FS and BLM administered forestsand grasslands. A key to ecosystem manage-ment is maintaining the integrity of ecosystemsover time and space. Ecosystems cross jurisdic-tional lines, making cooperation, coordination,and partnerships necessary while respectingstakeholders’ rights. Effective stakeholderinvolvement to incorporate people’s needs anddesires into management decisions is an integral

part of ecosystem management. Within ecosys-tem management, decision-making will bebased on information provided by the bestavailable science and the most appropriatetechnologies for land management. To providethis information, research needs to be promotedover a broad range of natural and social sci-ences (USDA 1994a, USDA 1994b).

Framework Definitionand ObjectivesA framework is a description of steps and compo-nents necessary to achieve some desired goals.These steps and components might include crite-ria, 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 flowsof energy, organisms, water, air, and nutrients and each element is affected by other elements. All ecosystems change overspace and time.

9

fundamentals, relationships, methods, and rules(Kauffmann and others 1994). This frameworkseeks to place planning procedures within a broad,proactive process that considers the social, eco-nomic, and biophysical components of ecosystemsat the earliest stages of policy design. It describeshow scientific information can contribute toinformed decisions, decisions that consider thebroad goals of ecosystem management.

Specifically this framework is based on an ecosys-tem approach to management that:

◆ strives to maintain the integrity of ecosystemsincluding long-term ecosystem health and theresiliency and vitality of social and economicsystems;

◆ recommends procedures for examining relationsbetween the biophysical (land, air, water, plant,and animal) and social (community, economic,cultural, and political) ecosystem components ofthe Basin;

◆ considers people’s expectations, management andecological capabilities, scientific methods, andcurrent scientific literature;

◆ describes temporal and spatial dimensions forplanning and risk assessment, assessment ap-proaches, monitoring and evaluation needs, andstakeholder4 participation processes; and

◆ identifies ecosystem principles that can be usedto develop agency procedures for interagencycoordination, planning, stakeholder involvement,and management.

Implementing ecosystem management in theBasin is one approach that can help to restore,maintain, and enhance the integrity of the regionalenvironment, where millions of people, plants,animals, and other organisms reside and interact.The Basin is a land of extremes--from the depthsof Hells Canyon to the heights of alpine peaks;from inland deserts to lush cedar forests; and fromsmall rural communities to sprawling urban areas.

These social and natural resources offer a heritageof exceptional significance to the Nation and theworld. Maintaining the diversity, long-termhealth, and resilience of these resources for futuregenerations depends on an understanding of howsociety values these resources and how natural andhuman processes affect the ecology of the Basin.Conservation and management of these dynamicecosystems within an ever-changing social settingare of vital importance to the people who livewithin and outside the Basin.

Shifts in resource flows in the Basin and changingexpectations about the goods and services thatecosystems provide require changes in how naturalresources are managed. There are growing con-cerns about wildfire, forest insects and diseases,exotic plant and animal species, and resourcemanagement practices and their potential effectson the health and productivity of forest, grassland,shrubland, and aquatic ecosystems. Decliningpopulations of some species, such as westernwhite pine and salmon, are disrupting tradi-tional activities. Moreover, these changingconditions and values raise concerns about theability of communities, cultures, and economiesto persist over time.

The BLM and FS recognize that ecosystems crosspolitical, jurisdictional, and ownership boundaries.Ecosystem management strategies should include ashared commitment between agencies and com-munities of interest. Therefore, this frameworkprovides information on assessing ecosystemconditions irrespective of jurisdiction and showshow assessments provide context for implementingecosystem management within FS- and BLM-administered boundaries.

The Role of Sciencein Ecosystem ManagementThis framework defines the role of science inecosystem management as providing informationfor the decision-making process. This informationhelps clarify feasible boundaries, options within

4In this framework, stakeholders are defined as tribal, state,county, and local governments, and private land holders; aswell as individuals and groups representing local and nationalinterests in Federal land management. This is meant to beinclusive of all organizations and individuals with an interestin Federal lands. This includes all United States citizens whouse, value, and depend upon the goods, services, and ameni-ties produced by federally administered public lands.

10

the boundaries, consequences of those options,and trade-offs between options. It is the role ofthe decision-maker to choose among options; it isnot the role of science.

Science provides information on potential changesin ecosystem structures and functions caused bymanagement actions (Bormann and others 1994).This information helps decision-makers under-stand the relative risks involved in alternativemanagement approaches so they may developreasonable methods to manage risks at biologicallyand socially acceptable levels. In this way, currentscientific understanding of forest, grassland, andother related ecosystems might influence manage-ment policies. Fundamental to land managementis the recognition that the management of naturaland human processes is based on incompleteknowledge. Some of this knowledge includesexpert judgement — which is helpful as long as itis identified as judgement. The challenge forresource managers, of course, is to balance biologi-cal science with social science and with the philo-sophical views of how society values renewable andnon-renewable natural resources.

There is a debate over whether principles guidingecosystem management are derived from scientifictheory or whether they reflect general ethicalvalues drawn from contemporary views of socialbehavior, professional conduct and responsibilities,and societal values. This debate has surfaced inthe Society of American Foresters over the adop-tion of new language in its Code of Ethics(Cornett and others 1994). From a scientificperspective, most agree with Grumbine (1994)who argues that many of the scientific conceptselevated to the status of principles are in factjudgements reflecting the values of the scientistswho define the principles. The change to ecosys-tem management incorporates a struggle aboutchanging values.

Often, many of the scientific concerns that arelisted as “ecosystem management principles” (forexample, forest health, biodiversity, populationviability) are actually goals that may be selected inecosystem management. This framework attempts

to bring forward principles that are not goal state-ments. It is acknowledged that all scientists havetheir personal values, but scientists should leaveimportant value choices to duly recognized decision-makers. Normative judgements about desired out-comes and goals are determined through theestablished democratic and institutional processes.

ECOSYSTEM PRINCIPLESAND CONCEPTS

Ecosystem Principles and theirImplications for ManagementFour broad principles guided the development ofthis framework. These principles are:

1. Ecosystems are dynamic, evolutionary, andresilient.

2. Ecosystems can be viewed spatially and tempo-rally within organizational levels.

3. Ecosystems have biophysical, economic, andsocial limits.

4. Ecosystem patterns and processes are notcompletely predictable.

Ecosystems are dynamic, evolutionary, andresilient—Change is inherent in ecosystems; theydevelop along many pathways (O’Neill and others1986, Urban and others 1987). An ecosystem issaid to be resilient if when disturbed or otherwisechanged, it tends to return to some developmentalpathway or it is cyclic such that its state is alwayschanging within some definable bounds (Hilbornand Walters 1992). Ecosystems are the productsof their history (Barret and others 1991). Naturalfires, volcanic eruptions, floods, and wind events,along with people setting fires, clearing land, andintroducing new (exotic) species have been sourcesof ecosystem disturbance (Agee 1994, Robbinsand Wolf 1994). Forest and grassland ecosystemsare generally resilient to a variety of disturbances.Just as past disturbances and the actions of pasthuman generations shaped the ecosystems of

11

today, actions of this generation will transformecosystems of the future. Past management deci-sions, combined with natural environmentaldisturbances and conditions have influencedfuture options (O’Laughlin and others 1993,Maser 1994).

Historical and potential disturbance regimes haveinfluenced the patterns and processes on today’slandscapes (Oliver and others 1994). Ecosystemsare constantly changing and cannot be kept indefi-nitely in any given state. While ecosystem man-agement can recognize the inherent resiliency ofnatural systems, it should also recognize thatmaintaining the status quo is difficult and notnecessarily a goal. It should consider the outcomesof management activities and how they influenceecosystem development. Scientific knowledge canbe used to help public and private natural resourcemanagers make choices about dynamic ecosystemsin the face of uncertainty. In addition, assessmentsand monitoring programs can be used to evaluateand track changes in outcomes related to biophysi-cal, social, and economic structures and functions.

Within ecological limits, a wide range of soundmanagement options, providing different mixes ofgoods and services, will exist. No one landscapecondition will be “best”. Selecting the desiredcondition is a social decision that can be made byunderstanding ecological limits. Fortunately, theinherent resiliency of ecosystems provides oppor-tunities to test various management approaches,and adaptive management will allow managers tolearn from experience and make appropriatechanges without significant risk of irreversibleenvironmental damage. The dynamic nature ofecosystems requires a dynamic planning process.

Ecosystems can be viewed spatially and tem-porally within organizational levels— Todescribe the dynamic nature of ecosystems, it isuseful to view them as having multiple organiza-tional levels varying over time and space. Theselevels can be organized within hierarchies, inwhich every level has discrete ecological functionsbut at the same time is part of a larger whole

(Allen and Starr 1982, Allen and others 1984,Koestler 1967). Higher levels usually occupylarger areas and are usually characterized by longertime frames (Delcourt and Delcourt 1988, Kingand others 1990, King 1993).

As applied to landscape ecology, hierarchy theoryallows for the definition of ecosystems and thelinkages between the different levels of ecologicalorganization. Ecosystem descriptions (Rosen1975) and ecosystem processes, structures, andfunctions are all defined by the observer (Pattee1978). Within the vegetation component ofecosystems, trees can be nested within forests,forests can be nested within series, and seriesnested within formations (fig. 3a). There are amultitude of environmental constraints, vegetationpatterns, human behaviors, and disturbance pro-cesses that can be described for each level, timeframe, and area (Pickett and others 1989, Robbinsand Wolf 1994). Spatial extent can range from afew square meters to millions of square meters,and time frames can range from less than one yearto millions of years.

Social and economic components of ecosystemsmay be defined spatially and temporally as well,along an organizational or institutional continuum(fig. 3b). Organizational levels, time frames, andspatial extents that are significant to human deci-sion-making often overlap and do not correspondto the same time frames and spatial extents asbiophysical systems. For example, ecosystemprocesses (such as soil formation) that occur overlong time frames (centuries or millennia) holdlittle meaning for political processes that operatebiennially. In addition, people respond to envi-ronments symbolically, and places important topeople cannot typically be defined by using bio-physical hierarchies alone. To some extent, theselection of hierarchies represents a compromiseamong the various disciplines involved in anassessment.

Viewing ecosystems hierarchically with varyingtime frames and spatial extents has several implica-tions for assessments and management. Thisapproach provides managers with a way to orga-

12

nize the analysis of effects of management prac-tices that take place over multiple time frames andspatial extents. In addition, it provides for therecognition that decisions made at one level of thehierarchy are likely linked to other levels. Viewingecosystems as hierarchies ensures that monitoringprograms (measurements, analysis, synthesis, andevaluation) track ecosystem development orchange over multiple levels, spatial extents, andtime frames.

Ecosystems have biophysical, economic, andsocial limits— In all ecosystems, there are limitsto the rate of production and accumulation ofbiomass (plant, animal, and human) (Kay 1991,McCune and Allen 1985). In addition, the envi-ronment is constantly in a state of flux, causingecosystems to change. Given this, human popula-tions need to recognize that the ability of an eco-system to provide goods and services haslimitations. Unfortunately, people often makedemands on ecosystems that exceed their biologi-cal or physical capabilities (Robbins 1982, Youngand Sparks 1985).

Science provides information about ecosystemlimits; land managers use this information as theydevelop ways to allocate finite resources. Society

uses this shared information to make choicesabout its behavior. People can choose to modifytheir behavior and organize their institutions to beconsistent with the capabilities of ecosystems, orthey can pursue actions inconsistent with thecapabilities of ecosystems. People can also im-prove ecosystem productivity on some sitesthrough investments in management practices.Societal choices regarding the use and allocation ofresources have implications for inter-generationalequity and trade-offs. For example, investments inecosystem restoration made by this generation willprovide benefits and options for future genera-tions.

Ecosystem patterns and processes are notcompletely predictable— The events that influ-ence ecosystem patterns and processes usually areunpredictable (Holling 1986). Predictabilityvaries over temporal and spatial organizationallevels (Bourgeron and Jensen 1994). For example,from year to year wildfire occurrences are associ-ated with particular seasons and environmentalconditions, but a fire may occur in any season andunder different environmental conditions. Simi-larly, eruptions of volcanos in the Cascade Moun-tain Range have occurred, on average, twice eachcentury for the past 4,000 years (Dzurisin andothers 1994); however, neither when the nexteruption 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 framesand 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 topredict crime rates at the regional or communitylevel, but it is much more difficult to predict theoccurrence of a crime at a particular household.

While people generally prefer predictability, adeptecosystem managers acknowledge and prepare forsurprise (Kay 1991). The limited predictability ofecosystem outcomes has several important impli-cations. Land management policies and practicesshould provide sufficient flexibility for managersto respond effectively to any unanticipated effectsof previous decisions. For example, knowledgegained from adaptive management and monitor-ing programs may help managers prepare for andrespond to surprise events. As knowledge in-creases, managers are better able to predict out-comes. Yet, long-term yields of goods and servicesmay remain unpredictable. Although models aresimplistic representations of real world systems,they may improve the predictability of outcomes.Models are never error free, but through adaptivemanagement their generality, accuracy, and realismcan be improved (Slocombe 1993).

Ecosystem Management ConceptsBoundaries—Delineation of assessment bound-aries should be based on a combination of bio-physical, economic, and social attributes. OnFederal lands these boundaries should be delin-eated to facilitate national strategic planning aswell as to set the context of management areas forlocal planning and decision-making. Assessmentboundaries should strive to delineate specificmeasures of homogeneity. These measures and theassociated boundaries will vary depending on theperspectives of those defining them. For example,areas delineated based on biophysical patterns andprocesses may not coincide with those based onhydrologic and aquatic processes, economic tradeareas, or social settings.

Delineation of boundaries internal to an assess-ment area involves multiple approaches. Econo-mists tend to view an area in terms of economicregions or counties, hydrologists view an area in

term of watersheds, while ecologists may view anarea in terms of patches of vegetation. Thesedifferent approaches result in internal boundariesthat challenge the integration process. It is impor-tant to recognize multiple boundaries, but also tocompromise on a common internal boundary setfor analysis and description.

Scales— There are different notions of what scalemeans in the literature and often there is confu-sion between geographic extent and data resolu-tion. An approach clarifying the use of scale isshown in tables 1, 2, and 3, where geographicextent refers to the area assessed and resolutiondescribes the amount of detail incorporated in thedata. Assessments can be described by two-partnames designating both the geographic extent andthe resolution of the data.

In regional and sub-regional assessments, someecosystem components cannot be adequatelyaddressed using broad resolution data. For ex-ample, habitat conditions for species with smallhome ranges cannot be adequately assessed withbroad resolution data (O’Neill and others 1986).Similarly, assessments of economic patterns inrural communities may be more appropriate at thelandscape rather than the regional extent.

Regional assessments (table 1) show trends anddescribe general conditions for biophysical, eco-nomic, and social components. These assessmentsdescribe social characteristics such as state andcounty trends in human populations and urbanversus rural economic growth. They usually con-tain broad resolution information on spatial pat-terns of resources and associated risks to resourcevalues. Sub-regional assessments (table 2) typicallyrely on mid-resolution data to provide informationon patterns of vegetation composition and struc-ture, trends in social well-being for human com-munities of interest, and trends in basic conditionsof communities (places). Assessments of land-scapes 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 Countywatersheds watersheds

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

Organizational Watershed Species groups Species groups Countyhierarchy

Map scale 1:100,000 1:100,000 1:100,000 1:100,0001:24,000 1:24,000 1:24,000

Time period2

Short term 1-10 years 1-10 years 1-10 years 1-5 yearsLong term 10-300 years 10-100 years 10-100 years 5-50 years

1The general size of these assessments is thousands to millions of km2 and the general use is for state, regional, and local planningand policy-making.2Short- 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, CountySub-basins

Organizational Multiple Community Watersheds, State, Countyhierarchy watersheds & species communities

associations of species

Map scale > 1:100,000 1:2,000,000 1:100,000 1:1,000,0001:1,000,000

Time period3

Short term 1-10 years 1-10 years 1-10 years 1-5 yearsLong term 10-300 years 10-100 years 10-100 years 5-50 years

1The general size of these assessments is millions to billions of km2 and the general use is for national and regional planning andpolicy-making.2Defining vegetation components is typically on a resolution of 100 ha while the aquatic components are defined by river systems (>400,000 ha).3Short- 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 Householdhierarchy 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 yearsLong term 10-100 years

1The general size of these assessments is tens to hundreds of km2 and the general use is for multi-forest/district, forest/district, or areaplanning 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 fine-resolution data regarding vegetation patches,stands, meadows, streams, and social and eco-nomic data. Landscape assessments, as describedhere, are essentially the same as “ecosystem analysisat the watershed scale” as used in implementingthe Northwest Forest Plan (USDA 1994a).

No single assessment will adequately address thecomplex issues facing resource managers today.Higher level assessments set context while lowerlevel assessments help understand processes. As-sessments of landscapes or sites cannot adequatelyaddress broad patterns and processes, such ashabitat conditions for wide-ranging species orglobal climatic processes. Regional and sub-regional assessments provide a necessary contextfor landscape and site assessments. Together,multiple assessments (site specific to global) pro-vide a comprehensive basis for land managementdecision-making.

Conducting assessments at different geographicextents also can promote more effective stake-holder participation and learning. Many peoplesee their interests affected primarily at the locallevel. They may choose not to participate in sub-regional or larger assessments because they mightfeel their local concerns will be diluted or un-

noticed. Without sub-regional and regional assess-ments, stakeholders and decision-makers may havedifficulty assimilating the cumulative magnitudeand complexity of many highly detailed, or local-ized, landscape and site-specific assessments.Conversely, stakeholders whose interests are na-tional or regional may find it difficult to partici-pate effectively in numerous landscape assessmentsbased on fine-resolution data.

Undertaking assessments at multiple geographicextents promotes the inclusion of more interestsinto the assessment process. It also serves to pro-vide decision-makers with the appropriate infor-mation for particular levels of decision-making.Therefore, depending on the issues and policiesbeing addressed, the type of assessment (dataresolution and geographic extent) to conduct canbe specified (see tables 1, 2, and 3).

ECOSYSTEMMANAGEMENT GOALSIn the broadest context, humans manage ecosys-tems for a diverse range of goals that reflect differ-ent cultural perspectives. Costanza and others(1991) use the two terms anthropocentric and

16

biocentric to describe two broad cultural perspec-tives about how society makes decisions affectinggrowth (economic and physical), species (foridentification and protection), and habitat (forhumans and other species). The anthropocentric,or utilitarian, perspective is often reflected in theview where natural resources are thought to existto meet the needs of people. The biocentric per-spective views humans as just one of many speciesthat coexist. Neither perspective offers entirelysatisfactory solutions to resource allocation issues.

The obvious challenge is to make difficult resourcedecisions in light of diverse and sometimes contra-dictory views held by members of society. We livein a society that seeks the simultaneous achieve-ment of ecological and economic goals. Ratherthan a simple anthropocentric or biocentric repre-sentation of society’s cultural perspective, a morecomplex representation acknowledges that peoplesometimes respond in a very anthropocentricmanner, but in another circumstance behave in abiocentric way. This diversity that exists in indi-viduals also manifests itself in society, and onechallenge for ecosystem management is dealingwith diverse values as part of the process of arriv-ing at goals for land management. The questionbecomes how to manage the land to meet thesevalues and expectations.

Society makes choices through the actions ofindividuals and institutions. Ecosystem manage-ment is one step in an evolutionary process of landstewardship. As the understanding of ecology,economics, and cultural perspectives increases, thecapacity to move toward broad-based goals shouldincrease also.

The goals of management are in the domain ofpublic choice and not science. The goals thatdrive the management of ecosystems are the resultof decisions that follow from democratic andinstitutional processes. Goals are stated or inferredin laws, regulations, policy statements, decisions,and budget direction. The legislation guiding themanagement of FS- and BLM-administered lands

in the early 1900s centered on protecting resourcesand reducing flooding. Goals shifted more towardproviding commodities and stabilizing employ-ment during the middle of the century. Concur-rent with the environmental movement of the1960s and 1970s, the emphasis shifted away fromimplicit goals toward establishing a planningprocess that developed specific goals (see Cubbageand others 1993). This is illustrated in currentprocedural laws requiring federal agencies toidentify and disclose the effects of managementactivities on Federal land (NEPA 1969), and todevelop long-range land use or general manage-ment plans (RPA 1974, NFMA 1976, andFLPMA 1976).

Currently, land and resource management plans,which establish detailed goals, objectives, andstandards are developed by the FS and BLM foreach administrative unit (generally a FS nationalforest or BLM resource area). Legal mandatesrequire Federal land managers to manage habitatto maintain viable populations of existing nativeand desired non-native vertebrate species (36 CFR219.19). Regulations also require Federal landmanagers to provide for diversity of plant andanimal communities, including endemic anddesirable naturalized plant and animal speciesconsistent with the overall multiple use objectivesof the planning area (36 CFR 219.26 and219.17(g)). Managers are also required to con-sider the American Indian treaties and the trustresponsibilities that follow. The Chief of theForest Service recently emphasized the importanceof managing the national forests to maintain theintegrity of ecosystems (Thomas 1994b).

This direction provides insights into the goals ofecosystem management for the agencies managingFederal lands, but it does not provide a formal,clear statement of ecosystem management goals.Further, developing a framework for ecosystemmanagement requires a clearly stated and definedset of goals. The normative process of settinggoals is ongoing. In the absence of explicitlydefined goals by the agencies and society, workingassumptions about goals were developed thatfacilitated the completion of the framework.

17

It might be assumed that the general purpose forecosystem management is to maintain ecosystemintegrity or system integrity, where system integ-rity is defined as the degree to which all compo-nents and their interactions are represented andfunctioning. Ecosystem, here, is being used in itsbroadest form, where it encompasses social as wellas biophysical components.

The general purpose for ecosystem management isderived from the notion of ecological integrity andis rooted in scientific concepts that reflect humanvalues (Grumbine 1992, 1994; Regier 1993).These human values include the normative goal ofmaintaining the integrity of a combined naturaland cultural ecosystem. The purpose assumesecological understandings and an ethic that guidesthe search for proper relationships. In this sense, aliving system would exhibit integrity if, whensubjected to disturbance, it sustains an organizing,self-correcting capability to maintain resiliency.The resulting end states may be desired by man-agement and the public but may not be pristine ornaturally whole. Thus, there is a social context toecological integrity.

The concern about ecological integrity stems fromAldo Leopold (1991) who in 1944 equated theintegrity of land with the continuity of stablebiotic communities over long periods of time.Several years later Leopold stated his intentionsmore broadly when he said “A thing is right whenit tends to preserve the integrity, stability, andbeauty of the biotic community. It is wrong whenit tends to do otherwise” (Leopold 1949). Ecolo-gists in the next several decades further clarifiedaspects of these concepts raised by Leopold. Spurr(1964), for example, focused on the constantlychanging nature of forest ecosystems. Bormannand Likens (1981) focused on stability and resil-ience of forest ecosystems. Norton (1992) definedecosystem integrity by saying that an ecologicalsystem has maintained its integrity if it retains(1) the total diversity of the system and (2) thesystematic organization that maintains diversity.

Leopold (1991) provided one view to ecologicalintegrity. As Kay (1991) points out, “the science

of ecology can, in principle, inform us about thekind of ecosystem response or reorganization toexpect from a given situation. But it does notprovide us with a scientific basis for deciding thatone change is better than another.” Judgementsabout what is desired about ecological conditionsshould be made within the context of social valuesencompassed within the ecological system understudy. Finally, the notion of integrity with itsemphasis on wholeness does not lend itself tosocial and economic systems. For those systems,the emphasis is on resiliency or the degree towhich those systems can adapt.

Measures of integrity or resiliency require judge-ments of wholeness which rest on comparisons ofsubjectively chosen indicators. In that sense, theintegrity of ecosystems is more an expression ofenvironmental policy than scientific theory. Manyenvironmental managers may be reluctant toinclude societal issues and values in the definition(and evaluation) of ecological integrity. However,assuming that maintaining the integrity of ecosys-tems is a management purpose, its definitionneeds to reflect the values of both managers andusers. Finally, to define the integrity of ecosystemsis to define a set of biophysical and social charac-teristics that could be monitored for change fromspecified values (Kay 1993).

For purposes of this framework, maintainingecosystem integrity is composed of two parts:maintaining ecological integrity and maintainingthe resiliency of social and economic systems. Thesix goals listed below are assumed to provideimportant benchmarks against which to measureprogress. These assumed goals, like the overallpurpose, represent normative judgements aboutwhat best indicates integrity of ecosystems andsocial and economic resiliency. They includenotions of “wholeness”, resiliency, and diversity intheir most universal and meaningful senses. Thesegoals explicitly recognize the ways in which hu-mans depend on and interact with the environ-ment in our modern world. They seek to reduce

18

risks from ecological surprises. They acknowledgeimportant social values derived from commodityand non-commodity use of natural resources. Ifadopted, these goals would force decision-makersto explicitly consider the extensive range of valuesand choices involved in managing for integrity ofecosystems and societal resiliency.

Specific goals are assumed to be:

◆ maintain evolutionary and ecological processessuch as ecological functions, disturbance, watercycling, energy flow, and nutrient cycling;

◆ manage ecosystems using multiple ecologicaldomains and evolutionary time frames;

◆ maintain viable populations of native and desirednon-native species;

◆ manage ecosystems to encourage social resiliency;

◆ manage ecosystems for the human sense of“place”; and

◆ manage ecosystems to maintain the mix of eco-system goods, functions, and conditions thatsociety wants.

Maintain Evolutionary andEcological ProcessesMaintaining evolutionary processes should ensurethat populations remain genetically diverse and aregiven ample opportunity for adaptation in the faceof changing environments (Soulé 1980). In part,this entails maintaining species throughout theirgeographic or ecological ranges, especially at theedge of their range. Under such conditions, adap-tation sometimes proceeds most rapidly. Forexample, maintaining montane plant communitiesat the upper edges of their elevational range mightfacilitate the upslope migration of species in theface of regional warming and drying (Hansen andothers 1990).

Ecological processes pertain to abiotic and bioticdistributions of nutrients, materials, and energythroughout an ecological community (Noss 1990).Species affect sustainability and productivity oftheir ecological communities through their eco-

logical roles or functions, which range from pro-ducing and consuming biomass to cycling nutri-ents. This goal assumes conditions that allow keyecological functions to be maintained over time.

Other important ecological processes includedisturbance, water cycling, nutrient cycling, andenergy flow within ecosystems. Maintaining theseprocesses is sometimes problematic. For example,Agee (1994) points out that maintaining distur-bance regimes is difficult as many types of distur-bances occur at different spatial extents and timeframes.

The goal to maintain evolutionary and ecologicalprocesses also involves maintaining native ecosys-tems across a range of conditions. The overallconcern is that genetic material and importantecological processes require representation in manyenvironments to ensure long-term viability. Cer-tainly, this raises questions of what is native ornatural to an ecosystem and how to represent orconserve it. For some, natural means pre-Euro-pean settlement, allowing for the sometimes inten-sive effects of use by American Indian populations(such as intentional burning of grasslands andhunting effects on prehistoric ungulates). Conser-vation of such conditions in disturbance-pronelandscapes, such as the forests of the inland PacificNorthwest, may entail relying on several kinds ofmanagement 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 ordeclining ecological communities, locally endemicspecies (species found nowhere else), areas ofunusually high species concentrations (sometimescalled “biodiversity hot spots”), and areas leastdisturbed by human activities. Then, it is possibleto assess whether existing or proposed manage-ment activities and land allocations, such as wil-derness, research natural areas, and botanicalwaysides, suffice for long-term conservation ofsuch locations. Attainment of this goal would befacilitated if consideration were given to expected

19

environmental disturbances such as stand-replac-ing fire, wind storms, and even short-term fluctua-tions in weather patterns.

Manage in the Context ofMultiple Ecological Domainsand Evolutionary Time FramesThis goal reflects on the process of ecosystemmanagement where managers should be cognizantof different spatial extents and time frames. Forexample, ecological succession is typically de-scribed at a local level and for several centuries.Climatic and biome trends are typically studiedover large areas and centuries. Evolutionary ecol-ogy can be studied over small or large areas andgenerally covers very long time frames.

There is also a space and time dimension for landmanagement issues. For example, maintaininglong-term productivity of forests and grasslands isoften a site-specific question ranging from thepresent to centuries into the future. Eventuallythis issue should consider long-term soil protec-tion and renewal. On the other hand, under-standing and guiding future biome effects ofclimate change, acid precipitation, and ozonedepletion are issues forcing consideration overareas on the order of 10,000 hectares5 or more andover time periods ranging from tens to hundredsof years into the future.

Several levels of planning can be used to addressissues over space and time. For example, projectplanning is typically done for specific sites or smallareas (less than 15,000 ha) and short time frames(1-5 years). Landscape analysis provides contextfor project planning and is typically done on areasover 15,000 hectares in size with planning hori-zons up to 10 years. National Forest or NationalGrassland Plans, or BLM District Resource Man-agement Plans cover areas hundreds of thousandsof hectares in size and extend up to 10 years induration. Finally, broad-based policy planning,such as for the interior Columbia River basin, isdone for areas over one million hectares in size.

For each planning level, past conditions and futurecumulative effects can be considered. Broadlybased planning levels can extend further into thepast and into the future. Thus, plans that typicallyextend beyond a decade can address cumulativeeffects, historical conditions, and future effectswith an understanding of the uncertainty inherentin predicting outcomes and of social value shifts.

Broad-based plans like those for the Basin cannotbe expected to address site-specific conditions andissues, such as the fate of a particular mushroom-gathering site. Conversely, site-specific projectplans cannot address large-area and long-time-frame conditions and issues, for example effects onthe viability of a wide-ranging species such as thenorthern goshawk (Reynolds and others 1992).Instead, the various tiers of assessment, land man-agement issues, and planning efforts should bethreaded together into a consistent whole, so thatsite-specific, ecoregion, and broad geographicconditions and issues can all be treated.

Tying together these multiple tiers of conditionsand issues will be difficult. Factors such asconsidering the rights and interests of stakeholderswill complicate the decision process, especiallyregarding potential economic and social effectsfrom management of threatened and endangeredspecies. Off-site conditions, even if not manage-able by federal agencies, can also affect species andcan be considered when making managementdecisions. For example, the impacts of reducingtimber harvest on federally administered publiclands can be disclosed along with the impacts ofsuch reductions on other lands.

Maintain Viable Populationsof Native and DesiredNon-Native SpeciesThere is public concern that ecosystem manage-ment maintain viable populations of native anddesired non-native species. The legal definition ofpopulation viability is given in the glossary. In abroad sense, though, viability can be considered asthe likelihood of continued existence of well-

5Hectare (ha)= 2.47 acres; See metric conversion table.

20

distributed populations of a species throughout itscurrent range, to specified future time periods(Marcot and Murphy, in press). A population canbe defined as a set of plant or animal organisms ofa given species, occurring in the same area, thatcould interbreed. A population with high viabilitypersists in well-distributed patterns for long peri-ods (a century or longer). A viable population isable to survive fluctuations in demographic, ge-netic, and environmental conditions and maintainits vigor and potential for evolutionary adaptationover a long period of time (Soulé 1987).

There is no single population size that acts as auniversal “minimum viable population”, and thusfor which simple, universal decisions can be madeto ensure viability of all species. Therefore, it isuseful to distinguish between (1) viability riskanalysis, which estimates the likelihood of popula-tion persistence or extinction for a specified timein a specified area, and (2) viability risk manage-ment that selects a course of action in which therisk attitude of the decision-maker plays a majorrole. Viability risk analysis and viability risk man-agement are both appropriate parts of scenario andalternative planning.

Because some species are naturally uncommon orrare, managing for populations with higher viabil-ity, in part, is determined by the ecological capa-bility of the species and its environment. Viabilityrisk analysis can help to determine such capabilityby evaluating species’ key environmental correlatesand how such factors change under managementoptions, and by projecting future populationresponses. Furthermore, management of FS- andBLM-administered lands entails meeting multipleobjectives, so viability risk management can helparticulate the best social, managerial, and evenpolitical balances that are also ecologically feasible.

Two facets of viability are abundance and distribu-tion. A population must be of sufficient size towithstand variations in demographic, genetic, andenvironmental factors so that births exceed deaths.Likewise, populations generally should be distrib-uted in space and time to ensure interaction of

individuals and to avoid demographic and geneticisolation. Because of limited information aboutmost species, quantitative modeling approaches toassessing risks of extinction or persistence likeli-hoods are impossible. For such species, a morequalitative, “first approximation” approach toevaluating potential effects on viability may beappropriate (Boyce and others 1994, Irwin 1994).

The discussion of viability addresses the issue ofcontinued persistence but does not directly addressthe issue of harvestability. Satisfying human needsoften involves harvesting and is particularly impor-tant when such harvest has cultural or regionalsignificance. To be harvestable, there needs to be asurplus population that exceeds the minimumviable level. Because of limited information aboutmost species, quantitative estimates of harvestablepopulations are not possible.

Encourage Social andEconomic ResiliencyEcosystems provide a wide variety of goods andservices. Some are commodities that serve impor-tant social and economic functions, others arenecessities for life, and still others provide a higherquality of life. Ecosystems not only provide eco-nomic opportunity, but also provide for our natu-ral and cultural heritage. In the past, oneemphasis of Federal land management was todevelop and maintain the economic status ofhuman communities.

A human community consists of cultural, social,economic, and institutional components that aremelded together in a more or less cohesive andcompatible way. This structure provides for a levelof predictability and stability for the community’scitizens that helps them organize their lives. Yet,some smaller rural communities, dependent onnatural resources, are subject to an assortment ofexogenous processes that challenge their stability.The ability of governments to maintain economicstability at the local level is often constrained.Communities are often in a state of change, butsmaller rural ones frequently do not have thecapacity to respond proactively to exogenously

21

induced change. Taking a static view of commu-nity stability results in the failure to recognize thatcommunities evolve and change over time inresponse to a variety of processes and factors. Astatic view often overlooks community adaptabil-ity, variations in the types of community depen-dencies, influences of exogenous forces oneconomic stability, and the important roles ofnon-commodity ecosystem goods and services.

One aspect of this goal is to facilitate enhancementof community resiliency. Natural resource agen-cies may have several roles in this process. Onerole might be to increase community understand-ing about the nature and causes of change. An-other role might be to assist communities inadjusting to change, whether that involves accom-modation or exploitation of change. A particu-larly challenging role for federal agencies would beto attempt to balance national interests with localcommunity needs.

Manage for theHuman Sense of “Place”This goal acknowledges that cultural values andbeliefs are often linked to specific landscapes andtheir symbolic meanings. Changes in the land-scape that intrude upon sense of place might resultin a decline of cultural attraction, particularly forgroups that maintain strong ties to the naturalenvironment. Land management, while directedtoward maintenance of ecosystem process andfunction, could lead to changes in site attributes.These attributes and specific human culturesintertwine to create distinctive places (Flores1994). This goal requires that ecosystem manage-ment be oriented toward recognition of a widervariety of human needs and desires than pastmanagement practices. Increasing recognition isgiven to spiritual, cultural, and even human healthservices provided by natural environments.

There are at least four ways that people attachmeanings to place: scenic/aesthetic, activity/goal,social/cultural, and individual/expressive (Will-iams 1995). Procedures and processes for under-standing the first two types of meanings are fairly

well established (such as the FS scenery manage-ment system); however, little research has occurredon the latter two meanings of place. Williams(1993) noted that one approach for explainingplace attachment is to examine the concept ofplace-identity, which is the importance of thephysical environment in maintaining self-identity.Natural environments and landscapes can beimportant to individuals and cultures because theymay be attached to them emotionally. Thesedelineations are different from approaches used byecologists who define landscapes using biophysicalcriteria. Because of these differences, there areoften different views about how landscapes shouldbe managed (Lewis 1993).

Managing for the human sense of place requiresthe recognition that ecosystems and the spaces andplaces within them are social constructs (Williams1995). Place meanings can be organized within ahierarchy. Understanding the values people havefor “place” is important because it permits manag-ers to fully map and display the complete array ofvalues people place on their environment. Byincorporating the sense of place, land managersmay also be able to increase the social acceptabilityof specific land management actions.

There are implications in defining locations asplaces rather than spaces. First, explicitly identify-ing places recognizes that areas can be definedbecause of their social significance. Thus, allspaces become places. Second, the meaning ofplace is influenced by the dominant social groupusing a location. For example, Lee (1972) showedhow the social meaning of an urban park changeddiurnally as the patterns of social groups using thepark changed. Lee’s (1972) definition of placeincludes how groups define boundaries, the ac-ceptability of certain behaviors, and how violationsof norms would be handled by the dominantsocial group. Thus, one location becomes severalplaces from a human viewpoint. Understandingthis implication can help managers identify whowill be impacted by changes in resource manage-ment.

22

Sense of place has a special meaning for AmericanIndians. Their traditional beliefs often project theperspective that all things are part of a whole, thatnothing is separate. That is, the land or earth isnot dead, it is alive and sacred (U.S. Departmentof Interior 1994). The reverence for place isingrained in all their actions and thoughts.

Manage to Maintain the Mix ofEcosystem Goods, Functions, andConditions that Society WantsA fundamental notion of stewardship is that landmanagers work to direct and maintain ecosystemsso as to best fulfill the objectives of owners. Dif-ferent owners have different preferences for benefitflows ranging from daily to four times a year tointergenerational time spans. Owners also vary inthe composition and amount of ecosystem goods,functions, and conditions that they desire. Someowners may desire a narrow set of outputs: timberand deer, for example. Others may desire a broadset of outputs. The broadest set is appropriate topublicly-owned lands because constituencies arelikely the broadest and most diverse, and becausesome types of outputs will only be available frompublic lands (Hyman 1973).

Societal interests are broad regarding the provisionof ecosystem goods, functions, and conditions.Some goods are extracted when used, whether ornot for conventional commodity markets: ex-amples include minerals, timber, cattle and sheepgrazing, mushrooms and huckleberries, hunting,and fishing. Other goods are not extracted whenused and remain to be enjoyed by more than oneperson--for example, viewing wildlife, back coun-try trail use, and the existence of salmonids, grizzlybears, grey wolves, and large, old trees. Ecosystemfunctions include beneficial processes such as thosethat produce the goods listed previously plusservices such as carbon sequestration, and recy-cling of air, water, and nutrients. Ecosystemconditions 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, pro-vides an integrated concept of what can possiblybe achieved from specific lands. In this way, landmanagers can clarify the limits of ecosystem pro-duction and the trade-offs associated with choos-ing one management direction over another.Implicit in land managers’ response to social valuesis adaptive management, as objectives shift andincreased understanding of ecosystem processesand functions occurs.

This goal requires an understanding of how man-agement actions might reduce or expand optionsand values for future generations since inter-generational questions are embedded in the timepreferences of landowners. A frequent criticism ofcurrent land management is that it focuses on thecurrent generation and on short-term benefits. Inpublic land management this is seen as favoringpeople who live nearby or are associated withconsumptive uses. All of this is part of a broaderquestion of who benefits and who gains frommanagement of FS- and BLM-administered lands.Understanding this provides a basis for assigningcosts of land management.

Questions and ImplicationsRaised by the GoalsThe discussions leading to these six goals raised anumber of questions about and implications forattaining ecosystem integrity. First, are all species(and biodiversity elements) equal? Current Fed-eral land management, for example, attempts tomaintain viable populations of native and desirednon-native vertebrate species and considersbiodiversity to include endemic and desirablenaturalized plant and animal species. As compo-nents of biodiversity, current scientific literatureincludes species in all taxonomic groups, as well asecosystems, communities, and ecological pro-cesses; any and all of these components can poten-tially affect integrity of ecosystems. Moreover, insome environments exotic species— typicallygrasses and grass-like plants and forbs— dominatemany 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 ofplants and animals simultaneously. One approachto stating goals that relate to species populationsmight be to ensure an adequate likelihood ofviable populations of individual species and/orspecies groups (species such as some invertebratesand lower plants are so poorly known that they arebest assessed in ecological species groups).

There are limits to viability of species and theproductivity of ecosystems. The human popula-tion of the planet is predicted to double within thenext century, and these people will use ecosystemsto satisfy their needs and desires. Specific goalsmay need to describe how people want to affectthe ecosystems in which they reside and whatconditions they want to pass on to the future.

Describing goals for the future is difficult in thatecosystems are dynamic and ever-changing overtime and space. In disturbance-prone environ-ments like those in the Basin, static conditionscannot be expected to be maintained in perpetuity.The very concept of maintaining desired futureconditions might appropriately be supplanted byone of maintaining desired future dynamics. Thegoal, in this case, might be to maintain or restoredisturbance regimes, species, ecological functions,and processes, while also using the land for a rangeof human interests.

The problem of exotic species raises other ques-tions. In those environments where there is littlehope of restoring “natural” conditions, risk assess-ments can help to determine what is feasible forfuture restoration or conservation, and risk man-agement could determine the best course of actionto meet social and biological goals.

There are limits to ecosystems. The total land areais limited, there are limits to the resources that canbe extracted from any particular place, and thusthere are limits to the capacity of ecosystems tosupport and sustain people. Recognizing thatthere are bounds is an important consideration aslong-term goals are discussed for large areas.

To be successful, goals will be respectful of humanneeds. Humans assign a sense of place to theirenvironment through personal, cultural, andsocietal values. They derive their livelihoods fromecosystem outputs. These need not be completelycompetitive views, but priorities may need to beset when developing goals that will both respectthe sense of place and allow resource use to satisfyhuman needs.

GENERAL PLANNING MODELPlanning in ecosystem management is the processof “writing the ecosystem owner’s manual” (todescribe ecosystems and how they work) and forcreating the “road map” of destinations and alter-native routes. This section describes a generalplanning model (GPM) approach to ecosystemmanagement.

The simplest planning model asks a single ques-tion and answers it. Better models devote moreattention to the questions and to the choice ofanswers. A well-rounded, multi-objective plan-ning model can be used to continually evaluate theconsequences of the answer chosen. The GPM forecosystem management has four iterative steps:monitoring, assessment, decision-making, andimplementation (fig. 4).

Specific goals drive the planning process. Eachiteration is motivated by actions related to goals:goal attainment, the perceived or actual lack ofgoal attainment, or the desire to modify or con-firm goals. External influences may initiate ac-tions within the planning cycle. Examples includeemerging issues, changing societal values andgoals, and new scientific understanding (fig. 4).Monitoring is the method through which theseoutside influences can be recognized. The FS andBLM could monitor traditional effects of theirmanagement actions, as well as emerging issues,societal values, and advances in scientific under-standing. These monitoring efforts need not beformal and highly visible, however, they could bethe catalyst that initiates an expensive and timeconsuming planning process.

24

The objective of the GPM is to set a course formanaging ecosystems to achieve specific goals. Itdescribes the basic planning procedures and de-fines the linkages among the planning steps. It isalso notable that each step has considerable roomfor complexity, integration, and participationincluding both formal and informal public partici-pation. This approach is described to address FSand BLM management approaches, but conceptsand processes could be used by other landownersand resource managers. It draws on a basic policymodel laid out by Weimer and Vining (1992).

MonitoringMonitoring is the process of collecting and evalu-ating information both to determine baselineconditions, and to determine if planned activitieshave been accomplished, if assumptions are cor-rect, and whether management objectives havebeen met. This information can then be used toreassess, alter decisions, change implementation,or maintain current management direction. Suc-cessful ecosystem management will require amonitoring program. An effective monitoringprogram should reduce uncertainties, test majorassumptions, and possibly result in changes inmanagement direction (Noss and Cooperrider1994).

There are four types of monitoring (Noss andCooperrider 1994). Implementation monitoringdetermines if a planned activity was accomplished.Effectiveness monitoring determines if the activityachieved its objective or goal. Validation monitor-ing determines to what degree assumptions andmodels used in developing the plan or assessmentare correct. Baseline monitoring measures a pro-cess or element that may be affected by manage-ment activities. Each monitoring type has aspecific set of objectives that are applied differentlydepending on the questions addressed.

Definitions of issues and problems are needed todetermine monitoring data needs (Jones 1986).In ecosystem management, management goals and

objectives should identify the information that willbe gathered in the monitoring program. Objec-tives of the monitoring program should addressthe appropriate spatial extents and time frameswithin a hierarchy of biophysical or social organi-zation (Bourgeron and others 1994). For instance,if one anticipates change in vegetation structure totake 10 years, monitoring on an annual basiswould not be warranted. In this way, monitoringinformation from local efforts can be applied atmultiple spatial extents and time frames.

A monitoring program should be founded onexperimental designs allowing inferences to bemade through statistical analysis. Informationgained from a monitoring program should beuseful for identifying changes in conditions, pre-dicting impacts, testing cause and effect relation-ships, and providing information to managers forfuture goal-setting.

Biophysical and social indicators that measure theelement or surrogate of the element being moni-tored should reflect changes before the changesbecome problems. Indicators act as early warningsystems for management activities that are notproducing the desired effects. With an earlywarning system, management activities could bechanged prior to causing damage or changes thatare irreversible. Indicators, for example air qualityand employment, should be based on adequatesample sizes to ensure powerful and confidentstatistical analyses. However, some populations,such as threatened and endangered species, may betoo small to allow for replications and statisticalanalysis. In social monitoring some variables arenot amenable to measurement, such as commu-nity well-being.

Monitoring is essential to ecosystem management.Without a monitoring program, managementactivity effectiveness, progress toward achievingobjectives, or funding allocation efficiency isunknown. Monitoring requires commitmentfrom managers, scientists, decision- and policy-makers, the Congress, and society. One benefit ofan effective monitoring program can be effectiveadaptive management. Monitoring is expensive.

25

Figure 4—Each step of the General Planning Model for ecosystem management has several parts. Because themodel is iterative, external or internal influences can initiate any step in the process and the process never ends.

Monitoring showsa need for newassessments or

added informationEmerging

issues

Changingsocietal

values andgoals

New scientificunderstandingMonitoring

shows a need fornew decisions

Monitoringshows a needfor changes inimplementation

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 objec-tives for monitoring strategies, monitoring canconsume an agency’s entire budget. Establishingpriorities, designing the sampling, and linkingmonitoring with inventory approaches would beessential to cost containment.

AssessmentsPlanners and managers often quickly identify aproblem and then devote the bulk of their effortsto designing and analyzing solutions. Effectiveecosystem management implementation requires aclear problem definition, a clear understanding ofmanagement goals and objectives, and a clear andsolid assessment of biophysical and social condi-tions, trends, and management opportunitiesbefore the creation and selection of possible solu-tions. The assessment process begins by recogniz-ing who the clients are and what their questionsare. The questions may or may not be clear at theoutset of the process.

Assessments should characterize the biophysicaland social ecosystem components at various timeframes and spatial extents. Assessments can pro-vide comprehensive descriptions of ecosystemstructures, processes, and functions that are criticalto understanding the present conditions and forprojecting future trends. Understanding the past,present, and possible future of environmentsincluding vegetation, communities, cultures, fish,wildlife, and other ecosystem components, canhelp identify the biophysical, economic, and sociallimits of ecosystems. Moreover, assessments canexplicitly depict and model ecosystem componentsand their interactions. This is done, in part,through scenario planning and risk assessments.Assessing ecosystem components at various timeframes and spatial extents provides the foundationfor making better and more accepted decisions onthe management of natural resources.

Assessments represent a synthesis of current scien-tific knowledge including a description of uncer-tainties and assumptions. For Federal landmanagers, assessments are not decision documents.They do not resolve issues or provide direct an-

swers to specific problems. Rather, assessmentsprovide the foundation for proposed additions orchanges to existing land management direction.They provide necessary information for policydiscussions and decisions. The geographic area ofthe assessment and the data resolution depend onthe systems and the issues being addressed.

Decision-MakingThe decision step in the GPM involves developingmanagement paths for achieving goals and objec-tives, and developing management alternatives. Indecision-making, alternatives can be explored thatmay require changes in laws, regulations, or poli-cies before they can be implemented. Feasiblealternatives have generally been consistent withavailable resources and legal and political con-straints. Alternatives describe explicit sets ofactions. The ultimate purpose of alternativedevelopment is to help decision-makers and stake-holders understand the realistic and potentiallyimplementable management options available forassuring ecosystem integrity. Alternatives shouldinclude realistic funding and implementationassumptions.

Another step in the decision-making process is topredict the impacts of each alternative. In ecosys-tem management, it is particularly important torepresent the diversity of ecosystem goods andservices and all other outcomes of each alternativeclearly. It is important not to reduce the compari-son to a single factor (for example, annual timberharvests).

Using the GPM, decisions can be as broad aspolicy statements or as specific as a decision toclose or to develop a recreation site. Decisions canestablish management standards and guidelines,make land and resource allocations, establishpriorities, and set goals and objectives. They alsoenable partnerships and define participation pro-cesses. This step is given great attention in Federalland management under the National Environ-mental Policy Act (NEPA) process in the develop-ment of alternatives for Environmental Impact

27

Statements. In Federal land planning, preferredalternatives are those actions the agency initiallyjudges as the most feasible method of achievingdesired ends, in a technical and social sense. In thecontext of federally administered land, the decision-maker is the responsible official, such as the RegionalForester or BLM State Director, who makes theformal decision from among the alternatives.

ImplementationImplementing decisions usually results in changesin resource conditions, as well as in establishmentand maintenance of partnerships and participationprocesses. Adaptive management can often beinaugurated during this step. Bormann andothers (1994) describe a systematic approach toadaptive management that includes expandeddecision-making; linked, not single actions; feed-back, including monitoring; and informationsynthesis. Linked actions that integrate manage-ment and research could be used to generateinformation to make adjustments, and facilitateand inform future decisions. Decisions should beconsistent and integrated with higher-or lower-level management decisions affecting the samepiece of ground (in keeping with the notion thatecosystem levels interact). The private sector canbe positively influenced by this process. For ex-ample, one forest products company has notedthat “in many respects, our company due to itsgeographic breadth, diversity of activities, andeconomic role, has been faced with application ofbiophysical, economic, and social planning atdifferent spatial extents and time frames similar tothose used by the [Basin project].”6

Implementation is the process of turning plansand decisions into projects and practices on theground; establishing mutual learning experiencesfor stakeholders, planners, and scientists; andrealizing the projected outcomes of planning.

This phase of the GPM represents what manystakeholders refer to as “real work”. It is whereinputs are transformed to outputs and wherecommunities dependent on the flow of goods andservices place emphasis.

MANAGING INFORMATIONAND INVOLVEMENTImplementing ecosystem management depends oninstitutional changes regarding intergovernmentcooperation, expanded needs for stakeholderparticipation, and new approaches for data man-agement. Most of these changes involve modify-ing existing approaches to respond to thecomplexity introduced by larger geographic ex-tents.

Tribal ConsultationA special relationship exists between the AmericanIndian tribal governments and the United StatesGovernment. The sovereign status of the Ameri-can Indian tribes is recognized through treatiesand executive orders with those tribes and specialprovisions of law. These treaties and laws set thetribes apart from all other United States popula-tions and define a special set of federal agencyresponsibilities. Each tribe is a separate entity andrelationships need to be established with eachtribe. Tribal government involvement revolvesaround government-to-government relations thatvary in format among tribes. The central featureof consultation is face-to-face meetings of therespective decision-makers of the agencies and thetribes. In addition, tribal involvement contributesadditional expertise and information on assessingbiophysical and social components of ecosystems.

Governmental CoordinationBecause ecosystems seldom conform to jurisdic-tional boundaries, effective ecosystem manage-ment requires coordination among different levelsof government. For example, in the Basin thereare tribal interests, and federal, state, and localgovernments. This particular ecoregion also

6Comments on the Scientific Framework for Ecosystem Manage-ment in the Interior Columbia Basin (Working Draft--Version2). 1995. Tom Goodall, Assistant Timberland Manager, BoiseCascade Corporation, Timber and Wood Products Division,Northeast Oregon Region. 15 p.

28

crosses national boundaries. Approximately 15percent of the Columbia River basin is in Canada.

The FS and BLM are required by the NationalForest Management Act (NFMA) and the FederalLand Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) tocoordinate planning activities with these govern-ments. For many ecosystem components, deci-sion-making authorities are closely related, furthernecessitating coordinated planning. Increasedtrust among agencies would be one result of suchcooperation.

Strategies for InformationManagementAs resource managers consider changes in manage-ment paradigms that focus on complete systemsrather than individual ecosystem components,information needs change. Focusing on completesystems also may require changes in traditionalapproaches to both broad policy-making and on-the-ground management. Where past manage-ment was rule-driven based on relatively static,functional, steady-state types of information andmanagement approaches, managers now need toconsider evolutionary trends, relationships, dy-namic types of information and flexible ap-proaches to policy-making and land managementthat allow constant learning and adaptation.

The collection, maintenance, analysis, and sharingof information regarding the conditions andpotentials of ecosystems are integral parts of eco-system management. Few, if any, activities havemore comprehensive implications for the success-ful implementation of ecosystem managementthan information management: the inventory,acquisition, storage, maintenance, use, and dis-semination of data and information. The degreeof success with which resource managers developand evaluate options has significant implicationsfor the quality and cost-effectiveness of the workthey perform.

Although the terms information and data are oftenused interchangeably, the distinction betweenthem is important. Data are facts that result from

the observation of physical phenomena. Informa-tion is the interpretation of data used in decision-making. Depending on the analysis, differentinformation can be obtained from similar data.The importance of information depends on thedecision, that is, what is of considerable impor-tance in one situation or decision may be uselessin another. In addition, information and decision-making are closely intertwined. Informationmanagement is critical in each step of the planningprocess (fig. 4).

An inter-organizational approach will facilitate theintegrated management of information and effec-tive evaluation across all types of assessments andplans. Specific outcomes could include:

◆ define appropriate information requirements forvarious types of analyses including the inter-relations between data and processes;

◆ strive to provide consistent and continuous infor-mation across all ownerships or analytical units;

◆ provide linkages between types of assessments;

◆ develop consistent standards including defini-tions of terms and procedures for informationmanagement collection;

◆ provide a uniform database that is usable formany disciplines;

◆ develop a process for transition from implemen-tation of short-term strategies to achievement oflong-term goals for integrated information man-agement;

◆ recognize information as an essential resourceand provide for its quality control and mainte-nance;

◆ promote partnerships between organizations fordata acquisition, storage, sharing, maintenance,and analysis;

◆ evaluate and implement the use of analyticaltools to the extent practical; and

◆ develop flexible information management sys-tems capable of accommodating changing needs(FEMAT 1993).

29

To accomplish these outcomes, the agencies needto establish a current, consistent, and accessibleinformation network and coordinate analyticalprocesses to support ecosystem management.

Resource issues have shifted from being primarilylocal to being regional, national, and global inscope. Traditional approaches to informationmanagement, as with land management in general,often focused on local needs. To meet a broaderfocus, an inter-organizational approach is requiredwhere people, data, and technology are all part ofproduct development and solutions. A key at-tribute of such an approach is full participation: allparticipants at all levels share the responsibility forbuilding this information infrastructure. Landmanagement agencies will need to seek out non-traditional sources of information from the fullspectrum of participants involved in ecosystemmanagement including other federal or stateinformation/interpretive agencies (such as theUnited States Geological Survey and NationalBiological Service); universities; environmental,labor, and industry organizations; tribes; and otherinterested parties.

Although spatial data and evaluation models areessential resources, other types of information willbe valuable for implementing ecosystem manage-ment. There is a need to develop a plan for man-aging these additional sources of information.The plan could address information sources suchas tribal, public, and private libraries; online cata-logs; historical archives; and electronic bulletinboards. Additional information includes books,articles, reports, proceedings, workshop summa-ries, legislation, historical accounts, maps, andadministrative and regulatory guidance.

Effort needs to be placed on raising awareness andshifting attitudes about the importance of infor-mation management itself and in fostering a morebroad-based, multi-functional, multi-organiza-tional approach. Multiple sources for similarinformation can be found within and across orga-nizations, sometimes with data being incompatibleor inconsistent.

A key ingredient for information management isthe importance of having a work force well trainedin using and applying resource information, geo-graphic information systems (GIS), and associatedtechnologies. Resource specialists, managers,scientists, and stakeholders all need to understandthe value of shared, coordinated data and informa-tion to the decision-making process. The environ-ment that often promoted the development of“my database” should be guided to an environ-ment in which it is desirable to think of “ourdatabases”.

Traditionally, integrating data has been difficultbecause their utility and long-term use were notconsidered outside the purpose for which theywere collected. This often resulted in disparatedata with gaps in information. Data collection isalso commonly conducted over different spatialextents and time frames. A large portion of theeffort put into the Basin assessments involvedcollecting data to fill gaps or processing existingdata to make them compatible.

Currently, no source exists that inventories andcatalogs all available data for agencies and organi-zations. In most instances, data documentation ispoor or lacks quality control. In an integratedapproach, all data would be documented withwell-defined update and maintenance processes.This integration process would be vertical as wellas horizontal by linking types of assessments andorganizations. Data would be distributed, main-tained, and used at the local level but available anduseful at higher levels. This strategy would in-clude consistent methodologies and a core set ofcommon data.

Inventory and mapping need to be consistent andintegrated across the Basin and be consistent withother ecoregions. A multi-value, inter-organiza-tional inventory strategy could be implementedand available to all interested parties. The charac-teristics of such a strategy would include (FEMAT1993):

30

◆ common protocols;

◆ coordinated database management;

◆ coordinated quality control;

◆ boundary neutrality;

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

◆ social, economic, biological and physicalcomponents;

◆ component trends;

◆ spatially explicit;

◆ cost efficient; and

◆ adequate protection of proprietary andsensitive information.

Traditionally, technology has been agency-specificwith limited access. Appropriate technologyshould be accessible to the people who need it,when they need it. Appropriate technology mightinclude:

◆ 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 systemsmodeling.

Unless data, information, and routine communi-cations are shared between the various organiza-tions, it will be a struggle to implement ecosystemmanagement. Using a fully integrated informa-tion management strategy will have broad applica-tion beyond the Basin.

Stakeholder ParticipationPlanning can be viewed as an intervention inongoing management processes designed toachieve a future that otherwise might not occur(Wildavsky 1973). Defining a desired future isfundamentally a value choice, a choice best ex-plored interactively with stakeholders before man-agers make decisions on federally administeredland. Selecting among alternatives becomes diffi-cult because (1) resources to achieve desired fu-tures are finite, and therefore subject to allocationto different, and usually competing, uses, and (2)there is often confusion between means and de-sired ends in the policy process. Ecosystem man-agement explicitly recognizes that planners areconfronted with situations where not only arethere differences with regard to preferred out-comes, but differences in beliefs about causation,resulting in the need for varying organizationalstrategies and structures (Lee 1993, Thompsonand Tuden 1959).

Natural resource planning occurs within a politicalcontext, where “veto power” over implementationof plans is frequently held by stakeholders outsidethe Federal Government and expressed throughlitigation and political means. Traditional formsof rational, comprehensive planning have operatedpoorly in these settings because they often failed toaccomplish meaningful stakeholder involvement.Meeting legal requirements of planning processeshas tended to lead to stakeholder involvement at apoint where it is too late to develop widespreadunderstanding (FEMAT 1993).

Stakeholder participation, then, provides a channelthrough which planners are informed of importantissues and the social acceptability/desirability ofmeans and ends. It helps planners conduct analy-ses about the things people care about; it is thegyroscope that maintains the planning course (Lee1993). Stakeholder participation can also be animportant source of substantive knowledge aboutthe planning issue as well. Involving stakeholdersin the planning process allows the planner toreceive significant information in the form of

31

personal knowledge (Freidmann 1987). Finally,stakeholder participation processes may result inconsensus among competing interests on sharedvalues, permitting action to proceed and buildinga feeling of ownership in planning decisions.

Stakeholder participation can be as essential tosuccessful planning as data collection, modelbuilding, and hypothesis testing. The objective ofstakeholder participation is mutual learningthrough the sharing of information, interests, andvalues among tribes, scientists, managers, theinterested public, and policy-makers.

Stakeholder participation in ecosystem manage-ment is built upon fundamental and sequentialconcepts (Freidmann 1973). The first concept isthat of dialogue. Dialogue is characterized bymeaningful interaction among those affected byplanning decisions, including the planners. Dia-logue allows communication of important infor-mation, such as values, beliefs, preferences,acceptability, and personal knowledge. The sec-ond concept is mutual learning that allows diversestakeholders to understand others’ positions andbeliefs. It suggests that agency planners communi-cate the missions and constraints under whichthey operate and incorporate preferences, beliefs,and knowledge into the planning process. Societalguidance means that affected stakeholders cancome to terms with the planning issue, resolve(not necessarily agree to) questions about desiredfutures, and organize resources to pursue appropri-ate courses of action: they have “ownership” in thedecision and have come to some agreement aboutthe acceptability of management practices. Soci-etal guidance is based on the premise that actionwithin society is linked to many different groupsand organizational levels, and is not just the re-sponsibility of a centralized agency (Freidmann1969).

The GPM can incorporate stakeholder participa-tion in each of its steps. The amount of participa-tion sought from stakeholders depends on thelandowner, and on the management objectives andlegal requirements. A private land manager mighthave very specific objectives and do the planning

in-house without much external stakeholderparticipation. A Federal land manager has differ-ent “clients” and operates under more explicitmandates for stakeholder participation. For ex-ample, NEPA requires participation in decisions atseveral different points in the process. The FS andBLM, however, recognize that stakeholder partici-pation extends beyond the scoping and commentphases of the NEPA process; indeed, ecosystemmanagement might mean more stakeholder par-ticipation in all steps of the GPM.

Stakeholder participation methods vary. Forexample, projects conducted under the auspices ofNEPA permit stakeholders to attend public meet-ings, write letters, and comment on draft docu-ments. People may also participate throughinterest groups and government bodies that mayattempt to sway ecosystem policies and practices.Stakeholder participation may also take subtlerforms. People can and do influence Federal landmanagement by the officials they elect and bywhat consumer products they buy. During eachsession of Congress there are numerous publicland reform measures proposed, and in the North-west, state laws govern many management activi-ties on state and private lands. Since mid-1995,many state and federal environmental laws havecome under scrutiny by the Congress and westernState legislatures. Another subtle form of stake-holder participation is through consumer prefer-ences (such as for recycled paper, vegetarianism, ormotorized recreation). These preferences can,through the market, influence the assessment,decision, implementation and monitoring steps ofthe GPM.

Stakeholder participation can be highly visible atthe assessment step. Stakeholders can providesubstantive knowledge about the ecosystems underdiscussion as well as about external effects ofmanagement options. They also provide opinionsabout different management options, either speak-ing for themselves or as members of groups.

32

Risk and UncertaintyMuch of our contemporary notions of risk anduncertainty follow Knight’s (1921) definitions.Risk refers to situations in which the outcome isnot certain but the likelihoods of alternative out-comes are known or can be estimated. Uncer-tainty refers to situations where outcomes cannotbe predicted in probabilistic terms. Decisiontheory has evolved to deal with risk likelihoodsand alternative outcomes (Baumol 1965). There isalso the crucial distinction between risk/uncer-tainty and ignorance where ignorance describessituations where possible outcomes may not be allrecognized (or known) prior to their occurrence[see Faber and others 1992 for an explanation ofsurprise and ignorance].

Considering risks is important in ecosystem man-agement because of the stochastic nature of ecosys-tem processes and the likelihood of outcomes andbecause of the lack of complete information.Risks associated with predicting outcomes can bepartially mitigated by revealing the underlyingcause and effect relationships. Science plays alarge role in disclosing these relationships. Thereis also the need to consider how much risk isacceptable to decision-makers. This is revealed inthe nature of decisions. Finally there is the broadquestion of how much risk society wants to bear.

Risk Assessments— Risk assessments help man-agers develop a sense of the risks about the out-comes of various management strategies. Forexample, risk assessments have been used to ratethe susceptibility of forest stands to insects, dis-eases or fire. In addition, they can be broadenedto estimate the uncertainty regarding ecosystemresponse to forest, grassland, or shrubland man-agement (Marcot 1992). The United States Envi-ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1992)defines an ecological risk assessment as a processthat evaluates the likelihood that adverse ecologicaleffects may occur as a result of an event largeenough and of a sufficient intensity to elicit ad-verse effects. A variation of the EPA ecologicalrisk assessment model is shown in figure 5.

The first step in risk assessment is problem formu-lation. This includes three sub-steps: (1) identify-ing the nature and array of management decisions,(2) identifying and specifying the elements (bio-physical, social, economic) of the system, and (3)describing the desired futures (the biophysical,social, and economic values to be enhanced, main-tained, or protected). The second step is analysis,and has two phases: (1) characterizing how adisturbance (natural or planned) interacts with thebiophysical, social, and economic elements of anecosystem, and (2) characterizing how the selectedvariable or process causes adverse effects underparticular circumstances. The third step is riskcharacterization, where the variable or process inquestion (for example, risk of fire) interacts withthe elements of an ecosystem (such as productionof specific mushrooms for gathering). The effectof this analysis is to evaluate the likelihood ofvarious outcomes associated with managementactivities.

When decision-makers choose a course of action,they are engaged in risk management because in sodoing, they balance often disparate objectives bychoosing among different types and amounts ofrisks. Individuals differ in their willingness toaccept risk; so too do professions and disciplines.As an example, risk averse behavior might lead torecommendations for large ecological reserves forlocal plant or animal populations to minimize therisk of extirpation. Lack of explicit action alsoinvolves risk. For example, not managing for firerisk may result in increased reserve size for main-taining selected plant communities. The degree ofrisk that people will accept is difficult to estimate;however, methods exist to help disclose risk atti-tudes of decision-makers. More difficult still isestimating the risk preference of the Americanpeople, who own the public lands. Risk attitudesof professionals and the public alike span a widerange in the arena of ecosystem management onfederally administered public lands. This is truewhether one considers the local, direct risk of

33

wildfire resulting from management; the risk ofsalmon extinction as felt by any number of inter-ested groups; or the risk of mill closures whenimpressed on elected officials.

Scenario Planning— The process of risk analysisand risk management of federally administeredpublic lands is iterative, and the emphasis is on thesignificance of the (adverse and positive) effects interms of their types, magnitudes, spatial andtemporal patterns, and the likelihood of ecosystemrecovery without mitigation. Since uncertainevents dominate ecosystem change, scenario plan-ning can be used to describe the extent and natureof risks from different ecosystem managementactions. Although risk assessments and scenarioplanning do not determine a “right answer”, inthat they do not determine society’s acceptance ofrisks, they do describe those risks.

Scenario planning helps describe possible futures,as opposed to a desired future. This process hasthree main functions: it provides a mechanism forunderstanding the integration of managementoptions, it allows people to evaluate the merits,pitfalls, and trade-offs of ecosystem managementchoices, and it shapes broad perceptions.

It is not limited to the resource maximization orcost minimization approaches typical of somemulti-resource planning projects. There are twogeneral approaches to scenario planning. The firstapproach considers varying mixes of inputs anddetermines the resulting outcomes. This approachprovides a mechanism for understanding trade-offsinvolved in achieving different management goals.Considering the outcomes of several differentmanagement scenarios helps managers and stake-holders define what might be possible. Scenarioplanning in the assessment process uses this ap-proach. The second approach begins with a de-sired outcome and evaluates different “scenarios”(alternate routes) to reaching the desired outcome.This approach is useful in the decision-makingprocess where differing approaches can be explored

to achieve a desired goal or objective. In a sense,scenario planning is desktop adaptive managementthat allows managers to experiment without incur-ring real impacts.

Risk Management— Ecosystem management,with its emphasis on levels of spatial and temporalhierarchy, facilitates risk management in the sensethat it focuses discussions and management re-sponses at the level the risks occur. The use of riskin this discussion is technically not risk in thesense of Knight’s (1921) definition but rather thecharacterization of the risks associated with a set ofoutcomes and some notion of the societal accept-ability of those risks. Risks in this context areevents or activities that pertain to the likelihood ofnot reaching desired goals. The process for riskmanagement uses the framework for ecologicalrisk assessments presented in figure 5.

In the context of spatial hierarchy, the greatestflexibility for management is attained when riskscan be managed at the lowest level possible. Forexample, in figure 6a the relative contribution ofrisk to ecological integrity at regional, sub-re-gional, landscape, and site levels is shown. A riskwould not be considered a “regional risk” if itcould be adequately addressed by making incre-mental, individual decisions at lower levels such assites.

An example of a regional risk is activities thatthreaten anadromous fish populations. Providinghigh quality habitat for wide ranging fish species isa regional concern. Making habitat decisions on asite or landscape level would not necessarily ensurethat the required habitat was well distributedthroughout the species’ range. Managing the riskat the regional level would be accomplishedthrough decisions about where, within the species’range, quality habitat would be provided, withsite-specific implementation. The alternativewould be to manage the risk as though it were arisk at every site and prohibit habitat alteration atany site, which would reduce management flexibil-ity. By strategically selecting where in a region highquality anadromous fish habitat would be empha-sized, management would have more options.

34

A method of partitioning risks through an activerisk management approach can retain flexibility atthe site level (fig. 6a). Figure 6b shows relativecumulative risks for these same levels. Ovoid Adepicts assessments and/or decisions that addressregion and sub-region associated risks; ovoid Bdepicts assessments and/or decisions that addresslandscape associated risks; and ovoid C depictsassessments and/or decisions that address siteassociated risks. Decisions that address region andsub-region associated risks (ovoid A) might in-clude regional guides, forest plans, and BLMdistrict plans and/or revisions. The next level

focuses on risks at the landscape level (ovoid B infig. 6b). The most detailed analyses are conductedat the site level (ovoid C in fig. 6b) and couldinclude project analyses and planning. Under thisapproach regional and landscape analyses anddecisions provide context for the remaining risksto be addressed at the site level. Through a multi-level analysis and decision process all levels of riskwould be addressed, with management activitiesfocused on risks at the lowest level possible foreach component of risk.

One purpose of risk management is to allowflexibility 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 CHARACTERIZATIONPredict outcomes given the various input

assumptions and disturbance processes

Societal decisions regarding the acceptability of risks

DataAcquisition

Verificationand Monitoring

ANALYSIS

Characterization of natural and managerial

disturbances

Characterization of biophysical socialeconomic effects

Figure 5—Ecological risk assessment framework for ecosystem management.

35

CumulativeRisks

C

B

A

Region Sub-Region Landscape Site

Risk toEcologicalIntegrity

Region Sub-Region Landscape Site

extent compatible with managing risks. For ex-ample, establishing standards and guidelines atlevels above site level would require “averaging”across a wide array of site conditions. For somesites the standards would be too restrictive, whilefor other sites they would not be restrictiveenough. Managing risks at multiple levels reducesthe possibility that a “miss” might occur andincreases the probability that outcomes will beachieved. For example, managing streams forquality habitat might involve setting objectives forthe number of large pools per stream reach. Aver-aging across the entire Basin will result in objec-tives too high for some areas and too low forothers. Basing the objectives on landscapes andsites greatly reduces the possibility of a “miss”.The higher in decision hierarchy one tries toaddress the total risks, the fewer options manage-ment will likely have and the greater the probabil-ity that a decision will be “wrong” for a particularsite. This can best be reduced by managing therisks at the lowest level, thus allowing the greatestflexibility at the local level.

Managing to achieve opportunities, desired out-comes, and the provision of goods and servicesmight result in new risks to ecological objectives.These new risks could be created through achiev-ing the outcomes (outputs) and should be evalu-ated to determine how they affect the cumulativerisks associated with not achieving ecological goals

in the area. Addressing these risks might requireadditional analyses and could result in changes inthe provision of other goods and services, or in thetotal risks to the systems being analyzed. It be-comes an iterative process, analyzing risks toresources, determining the effects on outcomes(outputs), modifying actions that result in newprojections of output levels, determining effects onrisks to ecological goals, adjusting expectations ormanagement approaches as appropriate, andcycling through the analysis until the risks toecosystem management are acceptable and theoutput levels are achieved to the extent possible.

The final step in risk assessment involves deter-mining societal acceptability. For example, a highdegree of risk of species extinction may not besocietally acceptable. On the other hand, reducingrisks to future generations of, say, catastrophic firemight be highly desirable. Given the cumulativenature of these risks, there is danger that society’sacceptance of land management actions may betaken for granted. By attempting to manage therisks, the probability of societal acceptance ofmanagement actions is increased.

Figure 6a—Example of partitioning risk to ecologicalintegrity across multiple geographic extents.

Figure 6b—An example of cumulative risks to ecologi-cal integrity at multiple geographic extents. Ovoids A,B, and C represent analysis and decision levels thataddress risks associated with those levels.

36

INTEGRATED PLANNING FORECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENTON FEDERAL LANDSTo this point the framework has: described whythe FS and BLM are moving forward with imple-menting ecosystem management; described ecosys-tem principles and concepts that set the backdropfor ecosystem management approaches; outlined aset of assumed goals that may be appropriate forecosystem management; proposed a general plan-ning model; and described strategies for managinginformation and involvement. But the questionnow arises as to how these components of eco-system management link together to create anintegrated approach for planning on federallyadministered lands.

The framework suggests a strategy for implement-ing ecosystem management on federally adminis-tered lands. This strategy is based on dynamicassessments that provide characterizations at differ-ent levels (a higher level for context and a lowerlevel to understand processes). It partitions risksto the level where they are observed and wherethey impact decisions. It provides for hierarchicaldecisions that are consistent with both the contextset at higher levels and an understanding of spe-cific process. This strategy depends on an adaptivemanagement approach that itself depends onpartnerships and effective stakeholder involve-ment. The adaptive approach also depends on theevolving nature of federal planning processes.

One key partnership is the relationship betweenscience and management. For example, monitor-ing that is tiered to focus on specific goals andobjectives at each level provides feedback to bothdecision processes and to the scientific communitywhere it validates existing information or moti-vates new research development and technologytransfer efforts. Science and management partner-ships can better manage the rapid evolution andapplication of new information.

The strategy suggested in this framework wouldsupport decisions at the level that the issue, ecosys-tem process, or risk to ecosystem integrity occurs.In this context decisions would not be restricted tothose mandated through NEPA processes, butcould include policy statements, directives, budgetdirection, executive orders, and congressionaldirection as well as NEPA decision processes.

Consistency among the various planning levelscould be ensured through assessments and moni-toring. Assessments of large areas would providecontext for assessments of small areas. Monitoringwould be used to determine whether the specificgoals were met at various planning levels. Assess-ments covering smaller areas would describe eco-system processes and risks to ecosystem integritythat exist within the smaller areas. Thus, thecombined information from assessments andmonitoring could be evaluated to determine iflocal goals were consistent with higher level goalsand if the total risk to ecosystem integrity wasaddressed prior to project implementation on theground.

The flexibility of management to apply the prac-tices that are most suited to each particular sitewould be retained with this strategy. It would beconsistent with the NEPA, NFMA, RPA, andFLPMA processes that currently exist. Wherenecessary the implementing mechanism can beappropriate NEPA documents and FS and BLMland management plan amendments or revisions.Thus, a sub-regional assessment might provideinformation used to address risks to viability ofselected species across a multi-forest/BLM districtarea. An EIS might be prepared to amend theplans within the sub-regional area consistent withthe goals from the regional and national level.These plans would include specific managementdirection, derived from a broader context, toaddress the risks of viability within the sub-region.

Ecosystem principles illustrated in this frameworkpoint to the need for flexibility in the managementof ecosystems. Also, they stress the need for usinga process that increases knowledge as managementcontinues. This translates to an adaptive approachwhere monitoring and inventory information can

37

be shared through management/research partner-ships to increase understanding of ecosystems andpotential management outcomes. As managementpractices are applied, monitoring and inventory dataare gathered to test the assumptions about projectedoutcomes, consequences, and trade-offs. Through aresearch/management partnership, the informationallows testing of hypotheses across regions andlandscapes not possible in traditional research envi-ronments. Questions regarding ecosystem processesand functions often cannot be answered throughexperiments conducted on small areas with strictcontrols.

This strategy depends on clearly defined goals.Ecosystem management is not an end in itself, it isa means to achieving goals. Defining the goals forecosystem management also defines the purposesfor which federally administered lands are man-aged. The discussion presented here regardingpotential goals and current debates about privateproperty rights and Federal land management,highlight how difficult it may be to select goalsthat are acceptable to the Congress and the public.Yet, the selection of goals is fundamental to mov-ing forward with ecosystem management onfederally administered lands. Additional develop-ment of processes related to implementing ecosys-tem management cannot supplant the need toconfront the issue of goal selection and prioritysetting.

EPILOGUEA primary issue in land management is steward-ship. As Solomon wrote some 2600 years ago,“one generation comes and another passes but theland remains.” Our task as land stewards is toreconcile the new goal of maintaining the integrityof ecosystems and the resiliency of social andeconomic systems with the traditional goal ofproviding goods and services. In one sense, thisframework provides a platform that merges sciencewith changing societal values to help make choicesabout dynamic systems in the face of uncertainty.It acknowledges that the shift to ecosystem man-agement incorporates a struggle about values thatinfluence land management.

38

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSPreparing the framework has involved manypeople. Much of the early work involved theentire Science Integration Team and the EastsideEnvironmental Impact Statement Team. In addi-tion, we received verbal and written commentsfrom many interested parties that were used inpreparing revisions. We thank all of these con-tributors. Paul Hessburg led the group that devel-oped the initial draft of the section on ecosystemprinciples. Jodi Clifford, Kris Lee, JudyMikowski, Alison Nelson, and Amy Horne eachplayed a significant role in developing variousdrafts of the framework. Ralph Perkins, CindyDean, Sylvia Arbelbide, George Pozzuto, JeffBlackwood, Rick Roberts, Bill Connelly and EricStone provided valuable review comments onvarious drafts. Chris DeForest helped review andedit the final versions. Traci McMerritt providedthe cover art, Irene Stumpf aided in the design ofthe figures, Del Thompson designed the overallpublication and readied it for printing, and JohnIvie assisted with design and created the camera-ready pages.

39

LITERATURE CITEDAird, Paul L., comp. 1994. Conservation for the sustainable development of forests worldwide: a compen-

dium 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, PacificNorthwest Research Station. 52 p. (Everett, Richard L., assessment team leader; Eastside forest ecosys-tem 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 manage-ment: 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 ExperimentStation. 11 p.

Allen, T.F.H.; Starr, T.B. 1982. Hierarchy: perspectives for ecological complexity. Chicago, IL: Universityof Chicago Press. 310 p.

Barret, S.W.; Arno, S.F.; Key, C.H. 1991. Fire regimes of western larch-lodgepole pine forests in GlacierNational 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 frameworkfor sustainable-ecosystem management. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-331. Portland, OR: U.S. Depart-ment 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 forlandscape evaluation. In: Jensen, M. E.; Bourgeron, P. S., tech. eds. Eastside forest ecosystem healthassessment—Volume II: ecosystem management: principles and applications. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-318. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest ResearchStation: 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 theconference on Statistics in Ecology and Environmental Management, University of Otago, 13-17December 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 recommenda-tions for ecological economics. In: Costanza, Robert, ed. Ecological economics: the science andmanagement 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 theCascades? 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 forestecosystem 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: ecosystemmanagement: principles and applications. Gen. Tech. Rep. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agricul-ture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 361-376.

Faber, M.; Mansteiten, R.; Proops, J.L.R. 1992. Humankind and the environment: an anatomy ofsurprise 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, 88Stat. 476, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1600-1614.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). 1993. Forest ecosystem management: anecological, 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: PrincetonUniversity 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 westernOregon 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: IslandPress. 294 p.

Hansen, A.J.; Urban, D.L.; Garman, S.; and others. 1990. Responses of wildlife habitats to forest man-agement 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 uncer-tainty. 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 UniversityPress: 292-317.

Hyman, David N. 1973. The economics of governmental activity. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Win-ston. 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, Bureauof Land Management: 1-10.

Kauffmann, M.R.; Graham, R.T.; Boyce, D.A., Jr. [and others]. 1994. An ecological basis for ecosystemmanagement. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-246. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 22 p.

Kay, J.J. 1991. A nonequilibrium thermodynamics framework for discussing ecosystem integrity. Envi-ronmental 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 withmodels 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. Wash-ington, 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. Theriver of the mother god and other essays by Aldo Leopold. Madison, WI: University of WisconsinPress. 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. Unpublishedpaper. 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 landmanagement decisions. In: Nyberg, J.B.; Kessler, W.B., eds. Integrating timber and wildlife in forestlandscapes: 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, ResearchBranch and Crown Publications: 140-161.

Maser, Chris. 1994. Sustainable forestry: philosophy, science, and economics. Delray Beach, FL: St. LuciePress. 373 p.

McCune, B.; Allen, T.F.H. 1985. Will similar forests develop on similar sites? Canadian Journal ofBotany. 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; Washing-ton DC: World Resources Institute, Conservation International, World Wildlife Fund-U.S. and theWorld 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 inIdaho. Policy Analysis Group Report 11. Moscow, ID: Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range ExperimentStation, 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 Socialand Biological Structures. 1: 191-200.

Pickett, S.T.A.; Kolasa, J.; Armesto, J.J.; Collins, S.L. 1989. The ecological concept of disturbance and itsexpression 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 thenorthern 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 environ-mental 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: Adaptiveeconomic models. New York: Academic Press: 39-72.

Salwasser, Hal; MacCleery, Douglas W.; Snellgrove, Thomas A. 1993. An ecosystem perspective onsustainable 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 ForestService Leadership Meeting, 20-23 June 1994, Houston, TX. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, 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 theconvention 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 canhelp scientists understand spatial patterns. Bioscience. 37(2): 119-127.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1994a. A federal agency guide for pilot watershedanalysis. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 140 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1994b. Apr. A national framework: ecosystem manage-ment. 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 Corpsof 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 ProtectionAgency. 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. Actof Jan. 1, 1970. [An act to establish a national policy for the environment, to provide for the establish-ment of a Council of Environmental Quality, and for other purposes.] In its: United States statutes atlarge, 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 ofOct. 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: Aca-demic Press. 340 p.

Weimer, David L.; Vining, Aidan R. 1992. Policy analysis: concepts and practice. 2nd ed. EnglewoodCliffs, 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 tiesto place. Presentation in the “Connections Seminar Series,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService. Unpublished paper. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. No-vember 19.

Young, James A.; Sparks, Abbot B. 1985. Cattle in the cold desert. Logan, UT: Utah State UniversityPress. 255 p.

45

GLOSSARYAdaptive management—Feedback which consistsof knowledge or data on the effects or results of anaction. Information is purposely collected andused to improve future management actions.1

Biodiversity (biological diversity)—The diversityof plant and animal communities, includingendemic and desirable naturalized plant and ani-mal species.

Biomass—The total mass of living matter within agiven volume of environment.2

Biome—An entire community of living organismsin a single major ecological region.2

Biophysical—The combination of biological andphysical components in an ecosystem.

Biotic—Living; relating to life or specific lifeconditions.2

Decision-maker—In federal land management,the person authorized to make land managementdecisions.

Desired future condition—A portrayal of the landor resource conditions that are expected to result ifgoals and objectives are fully achieved (36 CFR219).

Disturbance—Any event that alters the structure,composition, or function of terrestrial or aquatichabitats; fire, flood, and timber harvest are ex-amples of large-scale disturbances.

Disturbance regime—Natural pattern of periodicdisturbances, such as fire or flood, followed by aperiod of recovery from the disturbance, such asregrowth of a forest after fire.

Diversity—The distribution and abundance ofdifferent plant and animal communities andspecies within the area covered by a land andresource management plan (36 CFR 219.3).

Ecoregion—A continuous geographic area withsimilar climate that permits the development ofsimilar ecosystems on sites with similar properties.

Ecosystem—A community of organisms and theirphysical environment interacting as an ecologicalunit.3

Ecosystem integrity—System integrity where thesystem is defined as the degree to which all com-ponents and their interactions are represented andfunctioning within an ecosystem. Integrity is thequality or state of being complete, a sense ofwholeness.

Ecosystem management—“...management drivenby explicit goals, executed by policies, protocols,and practices, and made adaptable by monitoringand research based on our best understanding ofthe ecological interactions and processes necessaryto sustain ecosystem composition, structure, andfunction.”8

Endemic species—Plants or animals that occurnaturally in a certain region and whose distribu-tion is limited to a particular locality.

Exotic—Not native; an organism or species thathas been introduced into an area.

Hierarchy—A general integrated system compris-ing two or more levels, the higher controlling tosome extent the activities of the lower levels; aseries of consecutively subordinate categoriesforming a system of classification.3

Hypothesis—An assertion or working explanationthat leads to testable predictions; an assumptionproviding an explanation of observed facts, pro-posed in order to test its consequences.3

Landscape—A heterogeneous land area withinteracting ecosystems that are repeated in similarform throughout.4

Monitor—to check systematically or scrutinize forthe purpose of collecting specified categories ofdata.

46

Monitoring—A process of collecting informationto evaluate whether or not objectives of a projectare being realized. In land management, monitor-ing is used to describe continuous or regular mea-surement of conditions that can be used tovalidate assumptions, alter decisions, changeimplementation or maintain current managementdirection.

Montane—of, growing in, or inhabiting moun-tain areas.2

Native—Indigenous; living naturally within agiven area.3

Population viability—Relative measure of theestimated numbers and distribution of reproduc-tive individuals in a species population necessaryfor that species’ continued existence; a minimumnumber of reproductive individuals in a habitatthat will both support them and enable them tointeract is necessary for a species’ maintenance[adapted from 36 CFR 219.9].

Resiliency- the degree to which systems adapt tochange.

Resolution—Separation or reduction of some-thing into its constituent parts; here, the degree ofdetail incorporated in the data; finer data resolu-tion provides greater detail.2

Scale—Defined in this framework as geographicextent; for example, regional, sub-regional, orlandscape scale.

Scenario planning—Planning that focuses on anoutline of a hypothesized or projected chain ofevents.2

Seral stage—The developmental stages of a plantcommunity not including the climax community;typically, young-seral forest refers to seedling orsapling growth stages; mid-seral forest refers topole or medium sawtimber growth stages; and oldor late-seral forests refer to mature and old-growthstages.

Spatial—of, relating to, or having the nature ofspace.2

Species—The lowest principal category of a bio-logical classification distinct from other groups.3

Stakeholders—Tribal, state, county, local govern-ments, and private landholders; as well as indi-viduals and groups representing local and nationalinterests in Federal land management. This ismeant to be inclusive of all organizations andindividuals with an interest in Federal lands. Thisincludes all United States citizens who use, value,and depend upon the goods, services, and ameni-ties produced by federally administered publiclands.

Succession— The more or less predictable changesin species composition in an ecosystem over time,often in a predictable order, following a natural orhuman disturbance. An example is the develop-ment of a series of plant communities (called seralstages) following a major disturbance.5

Systems modeling— Using a model of a system tostudy (or experiment) with the system itself.7

Temporal—Related to, concerned with, or limitedby time.2

Viable—Having the capacity to live, grow, germi-nate, or develop.

Virtual system—A system that is the essence ofreality but not actual fact, or form.

Watershed—The region draining into a river, riversystem, or body of water.2

Weed—Any plant growing where it is notwanted.3

1 Bormann and others 19942 New Riverside Publishing Company c19883 Lincoln and others 19824 Noss and Cooperrider 19945 Waring and Schlesinger 19856 Thomas 1994a7 Gordon 19788 Ecological Society of America. 1995. The scientific basisfor ecosystem management: An assessment by the ecologicalsociety 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 TeamThomas M. Quigley, Science Team LeaderForest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem ManagementProject, Walla Walla, Washington

Sylvia J. Arbelbide, Deputy Science Team LeaderForest Service, Minerals Area Management Director, Pacific Southwest Region, San Francisco, California

Russell T. Graham, Deputy Science Team LeaderForest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Moscow, Idaho

AquaticsLynn Decker, Regional Fisheries Program LeaderForest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, San Francisco, California

Kristine M. Lee, Fisheries/Aquatic Ecology Program LeaderForest Service, Intermountain Region, Ogden, Utah

Danny Lee, Research BiologistForest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Boise, Idaho

Bruce E. Reiman, Research Fisheries BiologistForest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Boise, Idaho

James R. Sedell, Principal Research EcologistForest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon

Russell F. Thurow, Fisheries Research ScientistForest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Boise, Idaho

Jack Williams, Science AdvisorBureau of Land Management, Columbia Northwest Technical Assistance Network, Boise, Idaho

EconomicsRichard W. Haynes, Research ForesterForest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Portland, Oregon

Amy L. Horne, Research ForesterForest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Portland, Oregon

Nicholas Reyna, Forest EconomistForest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem ManagementProject, Walla Walla, Washington

Landscape EcologyCarl Almquist, GeologistU.S. Bureau of Mines, Western Field Operations Center, Spokane, Washington

Appendix C–66

Mike Borman, Range EcologistUSDI National Biological Service, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, Corvallis, Oregon

Ken Brewer, Landscape EcologistForest Service, Flathead National Forest, Kalispell, Montana

Thomas P. Frost, Research GeologistU.S. Geological Survey, Western Mineral Resources Branch, Spokane, Washington

Iris Goodman, Research HydrologistU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Landscape Characterization Research and Develop-ment, Las Vegas, Nevada

Wendel J. Hann, Landscape EcologistForest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana

Paul F. Hessburg, Research Plant Pathologist/EntomologistForest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Wenatchee, Washington

Mark E. Jensen, Landscape EcologistForest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana

Jeff Jones, Wildlife BiologistForest Service, Beaverhead National Forest, Dillon, Montana

Mike (Sherm) Karl, Rangeland Management Specialist-EcologistForest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem ManagementProject, Walla Walla, Washington

Robert Keane, Research EcologistForest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, Montana

Brad Smith, Quantitative Community EcologistForest Service, Deschutes National Forest, Silviculture Laboratory, Bend, Oregon

SocialJohn S. Bumstead, Social ScientistForest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem ManagementProject, Walla Walla, Washington

James Burchfield, SociologistForest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem ManagementProject, Walla Walla, Washington

Steve Galliano, Landscape ArchitectForest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem ManagementProject, Walla Walla, Washington.

Steven F. McCool, Social ScientistForest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem ManagementProject, Walla Walla, Washington.

Dave Powell, Forest SilviculturistForest Service, Umatilla National Forest, Pendleton, Oregon

Appendix C–67

SpatialBecky Gravenmier, Natural Resource Specialist/GISBureau of Land Management, OR/WA State Office, Portland, Oregon

John Steffenson, GIS SpecialistForest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon

Andy Wilson, GIS SpecialistForest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon

TerrestrialJohn Lehmkuhl, Wildlife EcologistForest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Wenatchee, Washington

Bruce G. Marcot, Wildife EcologistForest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Research, Development, and Application Program,Portland, Oregon

Kurt Nelson, Supervisory Forester/Branch ChiefForest Service, PayetteNational Forest, Resource Ecology Branch, McCall, Idaho

Elaine Zieroth, Wildlife Biologist/District RangerForest Service, Okanogan National Forest, Tonasket Ranger District, Tonasket, Washington

68

Notes

Haynes, Richard W.; Graham, Russell T.; Quigley, Thomas M., tech. eds. 1996. A frame-work for ecosystem management in the Interior Columbia Basin including portions of theKlamath 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 purposeof ecosystem management is to maintain the integrity of ecosystems over time and space. Itis based on four ecosystem principles: ecosystems are dynamic, can be viewed as hierarchieswith temporal and spatial dimensions, have limits, and are relatively unpredictable. Thisapproach recognizes that people are part of ecosystems and that stewardship must be able toresolve tough challenges including how to meet multiple demands with finite resources.The framework describes a general planning model for ecosystem management that hasfour iterative steps: monitoring, assessment, decision-making, and implementation. Sinceecosystems cross jurisdictional lines, the implementation of the framework depends onpartnerships among land managers, the scientific community, and stakeholders. It proposesthat decision-making be based on information provided by the best available science andthe most appropriate technologies for land management.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)prohibits discrimination in its programs on the basis ofrace, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability,political beliefs, and marital or familial status. (Not allprohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons withdisabilities who require alternative means of communi-cation of program information (Braille, large print,audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Office ofCommunications at (202) 720-2791.

To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture,U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC20250, or call (202) 720-7327 (voice) or (202) 720-1127 (TDD). USDA is an equal employment oppor-tunity employer.

Pacific Northwest Research Station333 S.W. First AvenueP.O. Box 3890Portland, Oregon 97208-3890