An ecological basis for ecosystem management

Abstract

Burns, chartered this team to recommend an ecological basis for ecosystem management. This report is not intended to provide details on all aspects of ecosystem management; it simply provides information and makes recommendations for an ecological basis for ecosystem management. The report is not a decision document. It does not allocate resources on public lands nor does it make recommendations to that effect.The report of this Study Team may be relied upon as input in processes initiated under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Forest Management Act (NFMA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), Administrative Procedures Act (APA), and other applicable laws. The information contained in this report is general in nature, rather than site specific. Implementation of ecosystem management and allocation of resources on Forest Service administered lands is the responsibility of the National Forest System in partnership with Forest Service Research and State and Private Forestry. Implementation is done through Forest and project plans that are subject to the NEPA process of disclosing the effects of proposed actions and affording the opportunity for public comment. The Southwestern Region follows a planning process for projects called Integrated Resource Management (IRM).The opinions expressed by the authors do not necessarily represent the policy or position of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Forest Service, The Nature Conservancy, or the Arizona Game and Fish Department.The Study Team acknowledges the valuable input of more than 50 individuals from various agencies, universities, professional organizations, and other groups who provided thoughtful comments of an earlier draft of this document. Some of their comments are included in Appendix 3. (Upper left) Road expansion to accommodate increased traffic in forested areas. Photo from Bev Driver. (Upper right) Cypripedium calceolus, a rare species found on the Santa Fe National Forest, New Mexico. Fine filter analyses help protect uncommon species. Photo by Reggie Fletcher. (Lower) Small openings in a ponderosa pine forest created by hotspots in a low-intensity fire. Photo by Ron Moody.

Evaluating tradeoffs among ecosystem services in the management of public lands

“…Multiple-use management eventually evolved to incorporate ecosystem management-formally adopted by the Forest Service in 1992 (Thomas 1996, USDA FS 1992. Whereas multiple-use management tended to focus on landscape outputs-cubic feet of timber, animal unit months of grazing, or recreation days, for example-ecosystem management focused more on landscape conditions, with outputs more often viewed as byproducts of meeting ecosystem objectives (Grumbine 1994, Kaufmann et al 1994, MacLeary and LeMaster 1999. Ecosystem management also broadened the management perspective to consider social and ecological interactions over a variety of spatial and temporal scales, rather than outputs produced at a single time and place (MacLeary and LeMaster 1999).…”

Public Perceptions of Sagebrush Ecosystem Management in the Great Basin

“…The values and expectations of urban residents are often in conflict with those of traditional resource-based users in range and forest landscapes (Shindler et al 2011). Thus, land managers face a complex and interrelated set of ecological, economic, and social challenges while working to create land management strategies that are both ecologically sound and socially acceptable (Kaufmann et al 1994;Loomis 2002;Shindler et al 2002).…”

Integrating Collaboration, Adaptive Management, and Scenario-Planning: Experiences at Las Cienegas National Conservation Area

“…Because this initial planning effort frustrated stakeholders who felt they were unable to meaningfully participate, in 1995 the BLM Field Manager decided to initiate a collaborative process for developing the site's resource management plan (RMP), encouraging more extensive public engagement, guided by the principles of ecosystem management (Grumbine 1994, Kaufmann et al 1994, Christensen et al 1996, Szaro et al 1998. BLM employed a neutral facilitator and worked directly with participants to design the planning process, which included a series of open public meetings.…”