BLM LIBRARY 88035208 Framework for Ecosystem Management in the Interior Columbia River Basin WORKING DRAFT-Version 1 Subject to Revision and Change May 1994 QH 76.5 .P3 F725 Prepared by SCIENTIFIC INTEGRATION TEAM Eastside Ecosystem Management Project 112 E. Poplar Walla Walla, WA 99362 BL^ LIBRARY SC- DENVE; S. CENTER P. 0. BOX 25047 DENVER, CO 80225-0047 ; • The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principal of multiple use management of the Nation's forest resources for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests and National Grasslands, it strives - as directed by Congress - to provide increasingly greater service to a growing nation. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Applicants for all Department programs will be given equal consideration without regard to age, race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibil- ity for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interest of all our people. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in Island Territories under U.S. administration. 1 EASTSIDE ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROJECT 112 East Poplar Street Walla Walla, WA 99362 PH (509) 522-4030 FAX (509) 522-4025 May 3, 1994 In a letter dated January 21, 1994, the Chief of the USDA Forest Service and the Director of the USDI Bureau of Land Management initiated the Eastside Ecosystem Management Project. The lead paragraph in that letter described the essence of the assignment: "In May 1993, a team led by Forest Service scientist Dr. Richard Everett completed an 'Eastside Forest Ecosystem Health Assessment.' In July, as part of his plan for ecosys- tem management in the Pacific Northwest, President Clinton directed 'the Forest Service to develop a scientifically sound and ecosystem-based strategy for manage- ment of eastside forests', and further stated that the 'strategy' should be based on the forest health study recently completed by agency scientists as well as other studies. To further elaborate and extend this charge, we are jointly directing that an ecosystem management framework and assessment be developed for lands administered by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management on those lands east of the Cascade crest in Washington and Oregon and within the interior Columbia River Basin." The Charter, attached to the above-mentioned letter, provides detailed direction on expectations for the products and process of the Eastside Ecosystem Management Project. The Science Integration Team is tasked with the development of an ecosystem management framework. This framework is to include recommended principles and processes the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management might use in ecosystem analysis, planning, and management at all levels within the Basin. Action on develop- ment of an ecosystem management framework did not just begin with the initiation of the Eastside Ecosystem Management Project. Considerable thought, writing, and discussion has occurred prior to this project. A workshop sponsored by the Regional Planning Directors for R-l, R-4, and R-6 of the Forest Service was held in Missoula, Montana in early December 1993 to address a framework for broad-scale assessments. Information from this workshop proved valuable in the current effort. The Eastside Ecosystem Management Project held a workshop designed to assist in development of the framework. We express appreciation to all who have contributed throughout this /$/ process. >.t^ ,A We are now making available the "Framework for Ecosystem Management in the ^* C>* oj' 4$ Interior Columbia River Basin, Working Draft- Version 1" dated May 1994. It is made <&s$yci I I SO ZIAL Culture: The expression of meaning in symbolic systems shared by members of a society. Economy: The set of processes by which factors of production are mobilized through employment and investment and committed to the production of goods and services. Community: The set of processes through which society solidarity is generated and maintained in a society. Political: The set of processes involving the mobilization of societal resources and their commitment and attainment of collective goals. I BIOPHYSICAL I Ecosystem Principles and Their Implications for Management Basic tenets and theories of the ecological and social sciences undedying implementa- tion of ecosystem management can be synthesized. Here we formalize insights from these and other science disciplines into a concise set of principles that form the foundation for regional planning and management of ecosystems at various scales. An ecosystem can be defined as a bounded, coherent, self-maintained system of varied living and non-living interacting parts that are self-organized into biophysical and social components (Golley 1994, Odum 1953, Slocombe 1993a). An ecosystem Is: bounded, coherent, self- maintained system of living and non-living parts that are self-organized Into biophysical and social compenents. Ecosystem management is based on an understanding of the structure, functioning, and interactions of ecosystems and ecosystem components (Jensen and Bourgeron 1994, Slocombe 1993a). It necessitates defining management units according to ecological boundaries, and manages these units by using the best understanding of how ecosystems function. Science and managerial developments over the last 25 years have several common characteristics that can provide a basis for ecosystem management (McHarg 1969; Zonneveld 1988; Slocombe 1993a; 1993b; Bormann and others 1994; Oliver and others 1994). The main features of these approaches include: * Clear description of components, ecosystems, environments, and interactions; * A holistic, comprehensive, and interdisciplinary process; * A system that includes people, their values, and activities; * A clear description and understanding of ecosystem dynamics that considers system patterns, processes, structures, and functions; * Consideration of different scales (temporal, spatial, and social organizational) of system structures and functions; * Ecosystem delineation using biophysical and social criteria; * Planning and management area delineation considering ecological boundaries and peoples' values, expectations, and social institutions. Characteristics of ecosystem management: * description of components, ecosystems, environments, and Interactions; * holistic, comprehensive, and interdisciplinary process; * people, their values and activities, are included; * consideration for ecosystem dynamics; * consideration for multiple scales; and * delineation by biophysical and social criteria. There are three primary steps to implementing ecosystem management: 1) manage- ment unit delineation, 2) understanding ecosystem functions, and 3) a management plan. The first two steps point to the need to: * Determine the kind of information needed to define management units (appen- dix one); * Explore the implications for planning and management of using different data and methods to define ecosystems and management units; * Design a multidisciplinary data collection scheme, including monitoring, of past and present ecosystem states, behaviors, and functioning; * Explore methods to organize, display, and illustrate interrelations of data collected; and * Design methods of multidisciplinary synthesis and interpretation of data. The third step requires developing a socially acceptable system of institutions for administering ecosystem management units. Developing the administrative system requires knowledge and learning in several areas that: * Reveal the kind and quantity of human demands for ecosystem products; * Reveal the human values of interest groups that prompt the expectation for ecosystem products; * Design efficient methods of acquiring information about human values and expectations by using public participation; * Design methods to resolve conflicts arising from differences in expectations for ecosystem products; * Design means (such as simulation of alternate management futures) to inform people of the consequences of alternate ecosystem product choices; and * Allow organizations the adaptability to develop the appropriate mix of skills, performance incentives, and organizational flexibility to implement ecosystem management. The implementation of ecosystem management requires consideration of at least four principles. Principle 1. Ecosystems are dynamic and evolutionary. Change is inherent in ecosystems; they develop along many pathways. Disturbances influencing ecosystem structure and function are common, causing ecosystem evolu- tion to be nonlinear and discontinuous. Therefore, ecosystems are the products of their history. People have long been a source of disturbance through activities such as setting fires, clearing large areas, and introducing new species. Just as the actions of past generations helped shape the ecosystems of today, actions of this generation help shape ecosystems of the future. Past management decisions, combined with natural environmental conditions, have at times limited future options. One management implication of the dynamic character of ecosystems is that manage- ment must be site-specific. Management organizations and resulting management 6 boundaries should be flexible and can change over time. Management practices should consider historical and potential disturbance regimes, and their resultant patterns and effects. Managers must predict the consequences of management activi- ties and consider their influence on ecosystem development including possible change in developmental pathways. Measurement variables and methods should be selected to evaluate changes in ecosystem structures and functions. Principle 2. It is useful to view ecosystems as being organized within a hierarchy of scales of time and space. Ecosystems and their components have temporal, spatial, and social dimensions. Ecosystems occur at different scales within hierarchies and their components interact with each other. Geographic units consist of several interactive hierarchies; for example, a small stream and its adjacent lands are nested within a larger watershed composed of many small streams and their adjacent lands, which is nested within a larger river basin composed of many watersheds. Within and among each of these hierarchical levels, a multitude of environmental constraints, vegetative patterns, human behavior, and disturbance processes exist. Within a social context individuals are nested within families, families within groups, and groups and communities within societies. Temporal hierarchies can be portrayed by the example of a year nested within a decade, which is nested within a century, which is nested within an epoch. Viewing ecosystems as being organized hierarchically has several implications for management. Assessments should be made at several scales, looking at the larger scale to set context and the smaller scale to understand processes. The scales of analyses, characterizations, and decisions should be matched to the scales of issues. Ecological hierarchies should be defined and understood according to ecological patterns and processes. The manager should understand the effects of management practices at all scales. The impacts of decisions in one level of the hierarchy are likely felt in other levels including the impacts of the past on the present and future. Ecosys- tem management should consider the interaction of and evolution of patterns and processes, rather than merely the maintenance of existing patterns. Monitoring ecosystems hierarchically will make it possible to assess multiple at- tributes of ecosystem development or change. Monitoring at several scales will help in assessing the effects of management decisions on different components of the ecosystem and the ecosystem as a whole. Monitoring at frequencies and scales appropriate to disturbance events can help management understand ecosystem development. Principle 3. Ecosystems have biophysical and social limits. In all ecosystems there are limits to the rate and amount of accumulation in biomass (plant, animal, and human). These limits determine the capability of the system to provide goods and services. However, people may make demands on ecosystems that exceed their biological or physical capabilities. Because of limited capabilities, resources can become scarce and must be allocated. People have the ability to modify their behavior to be consistent with the capabilities of the ecosystem and to organize a variety of social institutions to allocate resources. A key management consideration is that conflicts arise when resources are scarce and in demand. Conflicts over ecosystem conditions, products, and services will inevitably occur in a pluralistic society with divergent communities of interest. A major challenge to managers and organizations is to develop the capability and skills to resolve conflict. Conflict resolution should focus on values that diverse communities of interest hold in common, and seek acceptable solutions for all interests to the extent possible. Practi- cal considerations influencing conflict resolution include ecosystem limits, finite resources, organizational structure, current and future societal needs and expecta- tions, and the compatibility of interests. Principle 4. There are limits to the predictability of ecosystem patterns and processes; conditions and events may be predictable at some scales but not at others. Some events are unexpected and unpredictable, such as an earthquake. Predictability varies over temporal, spatial, and social organizational scales. Some events are predictable but the frequency and the magnitude of those events are unpredictable within limits. For example, from year to year, wildfire occurrences are predictable based on time of year and environmental conditions, but the intensity, size, and exact location of fires are less predictable. Another example at the social scale, is the ability to predict crime rate at the regional or community level, but predicting the occurrence of a crime at the family level is more difficult. While people generally prefer predictability, ecosystems and their management must acknowledge and prepare for the unexpected. Since communities of interest offer a variety of viewpoints, public participation in management can lead to strategies for dealing with uncertainty that will be more acceptable to the public. For example, knowledge gained from adaptive management and monitoring and development of flexible social and political processes help people prepare for unexpected events. Adaptive management strategies improve our ability to predict by increasing under- standing; although long-term yields of ecosystem products and services may remain intrinsically unpredictable for some systems and scales. Management actions that change developmental trajectories may increase uncertainty. While models are always simplistic representations of real world systems, they may improve predictability. Such models are never error-free, but can be improved through adaptive management strategies. There is a need to continuously improve how models incorporate criteria for accuracy and realism (Slocombe 1993b). Ecosystem principles: 1. Ecosystems are dynamic and evolutionary; 2. Ecosystems can be viewed within a hierarchy of space and time; 3. Ecosystems have biophysical and social limits; 4. Ecosystem patterns and processes may not be predictable. General Planning Model for the Basin Ecosystem management as an adaptive management, learning, and planning process can be framed in a conceptual model (USDA 1993, Kauffmann and others [in press], Borman and others 1994). A major premise of ecosystem management is that deci- sions on managing natural resources can be improved and made more acceptable than in the past. To accomplish this task, all of the components of the general planning model need to be founded in the principles of ecosystem management. As the con- cept of ecosystem management develops, the need for assessing social and biophysi- cal components at various scales, identifying ecosystem needs and desired futures, resource monitoring, mutual learning, and developing these processes and the result- ing decisions on sound ecosystem principles is becoming evident. These components are the essential elements of a general planning model for the Basin (fig. 3). Under this model, planning is a cyclical process involving iterative steps of assessment, decisions, implementation, and monitoring which cycles back to assessment. All steps occurring with a role for the public through a process of mutual learning. Mutual learning is also a cyclical process of sharing among scientists, managers, interested publics, and policy makers. Each party in the process shares (process description, intermediate results, probable outcomes, preferences, and expectations) and, in turn, learns (by gaining an understanding of and an appreciation for each party's shared information). Good decisions are founded on good information. To accomplish this task, the status of ecosystem structures, processes, and functions within the Basin needs to be determined. Because the biophysical and social components of ecosystems are dynamic and evolutionary, knowledge of past ecosystem structure, process, and functioning is critical in understanding the present conditions and projecting the future trends. This understanding of the past, present, and likely future of the vegetation, communities, cultures, fish, wildlife, and other ecosystem components of the Basin can be used to make better natural resource decisions. This information can be developed by conducting scientific assessments at the various temporal and spatial scales, (fig. 4). Using these assessments of the biophysical and social characteristics of the Basin desired futures and ecosystem needs can be developed. These desired futures and the means by which we choose to achieve them are determined by social values. For example, the assessments might determine that because of past mining in the upper part of the basin there is a potential for leaching of heavy metals (present) into stream waters and the leaching is likely to continue (future), degrading water quality and the associated riparian environment (fig. 5). At the basin scale, water quality might not be threatened in the short-term, but at the watershed and stream scale these metals could present an immediate threat to water quality and ultimately a threat to the water quality of the entire basin in the long-term. Based on these spatial and temporal scales, a desired future to reduce or stop the leaching of the heavy metals could be developed. Figure 3 — Initial components of the genera! planning model. Figure 4 — The initial components of the planning model enclosed within ecosystem principles, and monitor- ing. Using ecosystem assessments, ecosystem needs and/or desired futures can be determined. Using this information administrative actions can he initiated to implement projects. ■^ \ £ Ecosystem Social and Biophysical Assessments At Multiple Temporal and Spatial Scales 10 Upon determining an ecosystem need and/or desired future, administrative actions can direct the ecosystem(s) toward the desired state. This can be accomplished by administrative directive or by using the NEPA process (fig. 4). At this point in the process, alternatives for addressing the heavy metal clean-up, in the above example, could be developed. The alternatives could include no action, damming the stream, covering the contaminated soils, or removing the soil. Administrative action or a decision using the NEPA process could lead to implementing a project in the upper Columbia Basin to address the potential of heavy metals leaching into the stream waters. In making decisions and implementing projects, institutions should treat man- agement as a learning process. In the above example, the decision on how to treat the heavy metal problem should be continuously revisited and revised. By doing such monitoring, planners and decisionmakers can go forward in the face of uncertainty. Figure 5 — To understand the present condition and predict future trends of the social and biophysical components of ecosystems, an understanding of the past is needed. Ecosystems Assessments Viewed Through Time PAST FUTURE PRESENT A fundamental component of these planning processes is the monitoring of each step. Are the assessments supplying information at the different scales and time periods that is adequate to address ecosystem needs and/or desired futures? Did the implementa- tion of the project have the desired results? These questions can be answered with a good monitoring plan. An important component of ecosystem management is mutual learning at all phases of the process among tribal nations, scientists, public, individuals, counties, states, and public agencies. Mutual learning should be woven throughout the process making partners of all the groups in the process (fig. 6 & 7). But, mutual learning in the planning process does not necessarily make the decision a shared process. 11 Depending on the natural resource questions being addressed, the scale of the assessments and the resulting decisions and actions can be initiated at the national, regional, subregional, area, or project level (fig. 8). The information developed at one assessment scale will have applicability for more than one purpose or planning level. Adhering to the ecosystem principles in developing ecosystem needs and desired futures will lead to better natural resource management decisions and actions. By building a good mutual learning process, relationships, understanding, and communi- cation among groups with diverse interests can be improved. Mutual learning can be stressed throughout each of the planning components from the assessments to the monitoring, and throughout all scales. There are many thoughts about public partici- pation processes and mutual learning. One thread of commonality in these thoughts is that participation must be meaningful for people. In our society of instant results and advanced technology, current information is important to people. Equally impor- tant to people is how comments and information provided to a large project are considered and used. Figure 6 — Mutual learning should be weaved through the components of the planning model. 2 £2 «> i I 22 ' S jg Q *■? CQ m fi °* < 8 5 O * * "* / J , O ^ j| ECOSYSTEM ASSBSMENT Q ^ ^ H _ *' c • ■ p. 0. 6. CENTER DENVER, CO 80225-0047 — — ~ — •- ■ ■ ■■ • Mmv QH 76.5 ps p-or ,, . r.j t i 25 1994 Framework for eoOSv«i-« Baoa^ent in thf^tf nor