This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, mile others may be from any type of cornputer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and irnproper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e-g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduœd by sedioning the original, beginning at the upper lefi-hand corner and continuing from lef? to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced fonn at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographie prints are avaiiable for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
Bell & Howell Information and Leaming 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600
Policy, Philosophy or Propaganda? Ecosystem Management in Sequoia National Forest
Catherine M. Rigg
A thesis subrnitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Graduate Department of Geography University of Toronto
O Copyright by Catherine M. Rigg 1998 National Library Bibliothèque nationale 1+1 of,", du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services seivices bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395. me Wellington Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Ottawa ON KIA ON4 Canada Canada Yovr iiie Vorre refërence
Our & Narre reUrence
The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant a la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microfomq vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/fih, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.
The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or othenvise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. Policy, Philosophy or Propaganda? Ecosystem Management in Sequoia National Forest. M.A., 1998. Catherine M. Rigg, Department of Geography, University of Toronto.
ABSTRACT
The emergence of "ecosystem management" within resource management discourse reflects growing support for management directed at sustaining ecosystem. This thesis reviews ecosystem management literature and identifies four dominant themes of ecosystem management. This framework is employed to examine United States Forest Service implementation of ecosystem management at the local level. A case study examining giant sequoia management in Sequoia National Forest, Caiifomia, is presented.
The Sequoia National Forest case study suggests that the application of ecosystem management is affected by poor relations between managers and stakeholders, inadequate policies and ineffective policy implementation, and a Iack of ecological research on which to base management decisions. Six recornmendations are presented: (1) improving communication and establishing tmst; (2) encouraging confidence in and cornrnitment to the process; (3) acknowledging biases; (4) investing in research and science; (5) reconciling policy and funding constraints with long-term planning; and (6) exploring the relationship between values and science. My deepest gratitude to everyone in California who made this research possible: especially Bob Rogers and the Sequoia National Forest Staff, Joe Fontaine and Carla Cloer. 1 appreciate everyone's patience with my endless inquiries in my quest to synthesize decades of experïence and information over the course of six weeks. A special thank you to Denise Lindsey and Ellen Winters who both kindly opened their homes to a homeless graduate student. I am most indebted to my supervisor, Alex Clapp, whose encouragement and insight was invaluable throughout the course of this research. I would also like to thank the other members of my cornmittee, Tony Davis and Virginia Maclaren, for their comments and assistance. I was fortunate enough to receive funding from the Department of Geography for travel expenses. Additional assistance from AIex Clapp was also much appreciated. Finally, thank you to my family who continue to support my academic adventures and who instilled in me the confidence to travel down uncertain paths. And to Eliot, who carried me through to the end (again), I thank you a million times over. TABLE OF CONTFNTS .. Abstract ...... ii... Ackno wledgements ...... 111 Table of Contents ...... :...... iv Appendices ...... vi. vu. List of Figures and Tables ...... List of Abbreviations and Acronyrns ...... vm
1. Introduction ...... 1
1.1. Genesis of Ecosystem Management ...... 1 1.2. Objectives ...... -2 1.3. Methodology ...... 4 1.4 . Organization of Study ...... 7
2 . Literature Review ...... -9
2.1. USFS History and Resource Management Policy ...... 9 2.2. Changing Public Values and Restmcturing the USFS ...... -10 2.3. Ecosystern Management ...... 13 2.4. Sequoia National Forest and Giant Sequoia Management ...... 16
3 . Sequoia National Forest and Giant Sequoia Management ...... 20
3.1 Sequoia National Forest Study Site...... 20 3.2. Giant Sequoia Ecology ...... 23 3.2.1. Range and Associated Forest Cover ...... 23 3.2.2. Succession and Regeneration ...... 26 3.2.3. Associated Animal Species ...... 28 3.2.4. Distinctive Characteristics of the Giant Sequoia ...... 29 3.3. History of Giant Sequoia Management by Sequoia National Forest ...... 30 3.3.1. Euro-American Discovery and Commercial Exploitation ...... 30 3.3.2. Fire Suppression and Fire Policy ...... 32 3.3.3. Logging Activity Revisited ...... 35 3.3.4. Policy Direction in Giant Sequoia Management ...... 38 3.3.5. The Role of Science in Giant Sequoia Management ...... 40 3.3.6. Alternative Management Took in Giant Sequoia Management ...... 42
4 . Conceptual Framework and Application of Ecosystem Management ...... 46
4.1. Conceptual Frarnework of Ecosystem Management ...... 46 4.2. Application of Ecosystem Management in Giant Sequoia Management ...... ,...... 50 4.2.1. Ecological Approach to Systems Management ...... 51 4.2.2. Adaptive Scientific Management ...... 56 4.2.3. Cooperation and Collaboration ...... 62 4.2.4. Integrating Social Values into Resource Management ...... -70 4.3. Deer Creek Grove Case Study ...... 75 4.3.1. Background ...... 75 4.3.2. Challenges and Lessons ...... 78 4.4. Giant Sequoia and Ecosystem Management Summarized ...... 82 4.4.1. Ecological Approach to Systems Management ...... 83 4.4.2. Adaptive Scientific Management ...... 84 4.4.3. Cooperation and Collaboration ...... -34 4.4.4. Integration of Socid Values ...... -85
5. The Future of Giant Sequoia Management ...... 86
5.1. Sources of Conflict ...... 86 5.1.1. Management Goals ...... 86 5.1.2. Structural versus Process Restoration ...... 88 5.1.3. Management Planning Processes ...... 90 5.2. Future strategies for Giant Sequoia Management in Sequoia National Forest ...... 91
6 . Ecosystem Management in Resource Management ...... 95
6.1. Generd Challenges to the Application of Ecosystem Management by the USFS ...... 95 6.2. Recornmendations for hproving USFS Application of Ecosystem Management ...... 101 6.3. Conclusions ...... 105
7 . References ...... 108 APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Sarnple Research Questions ...... 122
Appendix 2. Field Research Schedule ...... 125
Appendix 3. List of Interviewees ...... 127
Appendix 4. Policy Landmarks in USFS History ...... 128 Appendix 5. Presidential Proclamation ...... 132
Appendix 6. Forest Pian Irnplementation/NEPA Triangle ...... 133
Appendix 7. Summary of Ecosystem Management in Sequoia National Forest ...... 134 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 3.1. Map of Sequoia National Forest. California ...... 22
Figure 3.2. Map of Giant Sequoia Distribution in Sequoia National Forest ...... 23
Figure 3.3. Sequoia National Forest Tirnber Production i 960-1 997 ...... 24
Figure 3.4. Percentage of Living Giant Sequoias by Century of Establishment ...... 27
Table 3.1. Tradeoff of Alternative Management Tools ...... , ...... ,...... 44
vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYlMS
AFSEEE Association of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics ASM Adaptive Scientific Management AUM Animal Unit Month BLM Bureau of Land Management CASPO California Spotted Owl CDF California Department of Forestry and Fire CE Categoncal Exclusion dbh Diameter Breast Height DC Deer Creek Grove DFPZ Defensible Fuel Profile Zone EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EM Ecosystern Management ESA Ecological Society of America GSEC Giant Sequoia Ecology Cooperative IRM Integrated Resource Management LMP Land Management Plan MHDSF Mountain Home Demonstration State Forest MOU Memorandum of Understanding MMBF Million Board Feet (timber voIurne measurement) MSA Mediated Settlement Agreement MULC Multiple Use Liaison Cornmittee MUSY Multiple Use Sustained YieId Act of 1960 (U.S. Federal) NBS National Biological Survey NEPA National Environmental Protection Act of 1974 (US. FedeI-al) NFF National Forest Foundation NFMA National Forest Management Act of 1976 (U.S. Federal) N-PS National Park Service OTA Office of Technology Assessment (US.Federal Government) PNR People and Natural Resources (Program) PSW Pacific Southwest (Research Station) m Resource/Inventory/Monitoring SFP Sierra Forest Products SNFCC Sierra Nevada Frarnework for Conservation and Collaboration SNEP Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project SO Supervisor's Office SQF Sequoia National Forest SRL S ave-the-Redwoods League UC University of California USDA United States Department of Agriculture USDI United States Department of the Interior USFS United States Forest Service USGS United States Geological Survey
.S. Vlll 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Genesis of Ecosystem Management
In recent decades the influence of environmentai consciousness on natural resource management
has been considerable. As a result of growing public support for environmentally responsible
management. the historical tenets of resource management (based on the perception of resources as
inexhaustible and only useful for anthropocentric ends) have been increasingly called into question
(Knight and Bates 1995). Furthemore, public pressure is mounting for a shift from cornmodity resource
production and single species management to management based on ecological science and directed at
sustaining dynamic ecosystems (Swanson et al. 1997). Natural resource managers are also beginning to
recognize the influence of underiying socio-political conditions in natural resource management. The
emergence of ecosystem management (EM) within resource management discourse in the early 1990s
reflected the need for public land managers to consider both socio-political value systems and ecosystem-
based science in management policy and action.
Ecosystem management challenges resource managers to reconcile social, political, econornic, cultural and ecological issues in management decisions. Often resource managers discover that ". ..while the scientific comrnunity can estabiish the vdidity and reliability of various ecosystem management
practices, their acceptability and feasibility are perhaps more closely linked with social and politicai
approval than technical viability" (Haeuber and Franklin 1996, 692). As a result, ecosystem management requires that resource managers work within the context of human institutions and direct management activities to reflect socio-political value systems while not compromising resource sustainability.
Ecosystem management thus "strives to accommodate a mix of social values .. . while maintaining viable, sustainable, natural resource values and options for future generations" (Kennedy and Thomas 1995,
3 17). Despite widespread interest in the concept of ecosystem management, however, land management agencies, private institutions or organizations have accepted no single definition. As a result, there are no ''formai rules defining acceptable and unacceptable conduct," and the application of ecosystem management involves "considerable amounts of discretion. negotiation, deliberation, and learning"
(Meidinger 1997, 363). In the last decade, numerous (private and public) agencies and organizations have drafted loosely
defined concept papers and policy guidance documents examining ecosystem management as a means by
which to achieve sustainable resource management. The United States Forest Service (USFS) is one of
18 federai agencies currently exploring the concept and its implications for resource management
activities in the future (Haeuber 1996). On June 4, 1992. 12~USFS Chief Dale Robertson officially
declared ecosystem management as the new policy by which the agency would manage public resources
(Thomas 1996; Sarnpson 1992). The USFS considers ecosystem management to be "enhanced multiple
use planning" (Thomas 1996, 703), referring to agency cornrnitment to manage public resources for
"multiple uses" as outiined by the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960' (MUSY). The agency does
not view ecosystem management and multiple use as mutually exclusive, rather it contends that
ecosystem management complements multiple use by providing a balanced practical and philosophical
framework by which the USFS can manage for each of the multiple use components.
The adoption of ecosystem management reflects acknowledgement by agency leadership of the need to reassess the traditional USFS approach to resource management. Throughout the past several decades, critics have charged that agency bias toward timber production represents a comrnitment to
"dominant use" or "single use" rather than true multiple use management (Alverson et al. 1994; Clawson 1975). Additianally, public support for resource management based on amenity value is increasing (Steel and Lovrkh 1997; Shindler 1997). Compounded by accusations of below-cost harvesting practices
(Sarnple and O'Toole 1989) and an increasing number of public appeals to proposed management activities (Jones and Taylor 1995)' ecosystem management offers the USFS the opportunity to restore public confidence in an agency determined to achieve responsible land stewardship in the 21st century
(Khom and Franklin 1997).
1.2. Objectives
Thomas and Huke (1996) define EM as a cornrnitment by the USFS "to manage national forests and grasslands to meet human needs while rnaintaining the health, diversity and productivity of these
' According to the MultipIe Use Sustained Yield Act, multiple use is comprised of five distinct components: timber, recreation, fish and wildlife, rangeland, and water and soils management (Zinser 1995; Loomis 1993). ecosysterns" (14). Current USFS Chief Michael Dombeck further expanded the concept of EM to include "col1aborative stewardship" whereby the public has a more active role in the decision-making process (Dombeck 1997). This shift in USFS policy and philosophy is considered by many to represent a
"changing of the guard" in federal land management (Brown and Harris l992b).
The success of this purported attempt at agency restmcturing has yet to be determined. The adoption of EM as a framework for forest resource management potentiaily represents a significant shift in USFS policy direction from emphasizing commercial interests to achieving more integrated resource management2. Lirnited research, however, has been conducted to determine whether the adoption of EM by the USFS is, in fact, affecting local-level management strategies. This thesis examines the application of EM at the local level by evaluating the current rnanagement strategies employed by the USFS in the management of the giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum (Lindl.) Buchholz) in Sequoia National
Forest (SQF) in the Sierra Nevada range in south-central California, USA.
There are four broad research questions that direct this research. These questions address EM theory, the implementation of EM, and means by which to improve application of EM at the local level.
(1) In what (general) historical context did EM evolve as the guiding principle in resource management? What (specific) historical events and issues affect the ability of SQF (and the USFS) to apply EM in giant sequoia management today?
(2) How successful is SQF in applying the four dominant themes of EM (outlined in Chapter 4) in giant sequoia management? What potential exists for SQF (and the USFS) to improve the application of EM?
(3) What are the primary sources of confiict between interest groups3 and SQF regarding giant sequoia management? How cmthese issues be resolved?
(4) What are the prirnary obstacles to the appIication of EM and how can these obstacles be overcorne in the future?
The first question provides the background to this research. Questions 2 and 3 are based on empirical research directed at detennining the degree to which SQF (and the USFS) has applied the
The phrase "integrated resource management" is used in this thesis in the conceptual sense and is considered synonymous with EM. The phrase is not to be interpreted as refemng to the body of literature on IRM, which is substantial in and of itself (see Lang 1986; Walther 1987). Throughout this thesis the temis "interest groups" and "stakeholden" are used interchangeably. Both refer to groups that are actively involved in the resource management decision-making process. principles of EM on the ground. Finally, the last question is intended to draw general conclusions (based
on the experience of SQF resource managers) on the application of EM by the USFS throughout the
national forest system. These conclusions are also relevant to public and private resource managers
outside of the USFS in reconciling some of the challenges of applying EM in the field.
A number of broader issues were raised during the course of my research. For example, the compatibility of EM and multiple use in resource management is debatable (Grumbine 1994b). For the
USFS, EM provides the principles by which the agency applies its multiple use mandate. As giant sequoia groves are considered "protected," and therefore distinct From the land base managed according to the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act, the relationship between the concepts of multiple use and EM cannot be deterrnined from this research. For the purposes of this thesis, 1have restricted rny analysis to evaluating local-level activities specifically related to giant sequoia management. Thus this research describes what is happening on the ground, and offers suggestions and Iessons from the local-level experience. The long-term value and future of EM in resource management, however, has been debated extensively elsewhere (see Grumbine 1997; Haeuber 1996; Christensen et al. 1996; Knight and Bates
1995; Grumbine 1994a; Grumbine 1994b; SIocombe 1993).
1.3. Methodology
My research methodology consists of three primary components: first, a comprehensive literature survey; second, an examination of USFS documents relating to both ecosystem management and giant sequoia management; and third, conducting conversational interviews with giant sequoia managers, scientists, industry representatives and the public. Between September 1997 and June 1998, research was camied out at the University of Toronto. During this period 1compfeted the cornprehensive literature review, developed research questions, and established initial contact with individuals in California.
The first challenge in evduating EM at the ground Ievel is defining the evaluation criteria.
Unfortunately, there is no one generally accepted definition of EM, however, a number of recumng themes emerge in the literature. For the purposes of this thesis, I drew on EM literature published by resource managers, acadernics, and scientists to develop a comprehensive and inclusive definition of EM.
The four dominant themes and their various characteristics are outlined in Chapter 4. Foliowing identification of the dominant EM thernes, questions were designed based on the key
characteristics of each theme. These questions fonned the general frarnework that directed
conversational interviews and identified relevant research documents during the six week field research
component of this thesis (for a sample of research questions see Appendix 1). Certain issues were more
relevant to specific interviewees than others, and interviews were designed to address the interviewees
area of expertise and experience in giant sequoia management. As 1became comfortable with the issues,
many of the questions fmt identified were deemed unnecessary, and new questions were raised. This
flexible approach pennitted me to identify and explore issues that affect the ability of SQF to apply the
principles of EM in giant sequoia management.
Dunng June and July 1998, conversational interviews with representatives of identified interest
groups were conducted (for a complete schedule of field research activities see Appendix 2). Those
interviewed were selected to include representatives of govemment agencies, members of the academic
comrnunity, environmentd activists representing national and local interests, the timber industry, and as
many other interested parties as deemed necessary (see Appendix 3). Conversational interviews follow a
semi-structured format in which "a flexible interview guide with a lirnited number of preset questions" is
employed (World Bank 1996, 204). 1 found this "conversational" style placed the interviewee at ease
and allowed the interviewer to explore (in greater detail) issues raised during the course of the
conversation. As this research requires me to "see beyond the party line," cornfortable interaction with
interviewees is essential. Furtherrnore, narrative and anecdotal information resulting from conversational
interviews provides insight into the dynamic relationship between interest groups and SQF. Finally, in
addition to the more extensive interviews with prominent figures involved in giant sequoia management
issues, a number of inforrnal conversations were also conducted with general SQF personnel during my
time in the Supemisor's office4 (SO).
Participant observation was also employed as a research tool. "Participant observation" is considered to be the collection of qualitative data that leads to a thorough understanding of individuals' practices, motivations and attitudes (World Bank 1996). This entaiIs "investigating the project
- - Some of these conversations were conducted in confidence. For a complete list of sources, contact the author. background, studying the general characteristics of a beneficiary population, and living for an extended
period among beneficiaries, during which interviews, observations, and analyses are recorded and
discussed" (World Bank 1996, 203). The expenence of working in the SO and interacting with agency
employees on a daiiy basis offered further insight into USFS culture and management direction.
During my time at the SO, I also reviewed numerous SQF documents concerning both completed
and proposed management activities. Much of the matenal relating to giant sequoia management is
unavailable outside the SQF SO and rnany files and unpublished texts in the office proved extremely
useful for this research. To ease organization, 1 divided the collected documents into such categories as:
fire ecology and management, restoration management, giant sequoia management and policy, giant
sequoia ecological research, legislation, and workshops and symposiums related to giant sequoia
management. Many unpublished interna1 (in-agency) and external (to interested publics) letters
regarding the USFS official position on the giant sequoia controversy aIso provide valuable insight into
agency public relations. Most of these documents are useful in supporting some of the general
conclusions I reached during the interview process. A number of recumng themes emerged as 1 spent
time with those actively involved in giant sequoia management, and in rnany SO documents these issues
are acknowledged and discussed.
The information collected during the document review and conversational interviews was
compiled and then organized according to rny four dominant themes of EM. In this manner, various
opinions and observations about how SQF is considering the various characteristics of EM in giant
sequoia management were categorized to facilitate analysis and evduation. These four themes form the
structure of my research (see Chapter 4).
Dunng the course of my six-week field research season, 1 also had the opportunity to visit
numerous SQF giant sequoia groves, several groves managed by the National Park Service (NPS), and a
grove under management by the California Department of Forestry and Fire (CDF). This experience
permitted me to view first-hand the impact of fire suppression on fuel loading.' In addition, 1 was able to
visit areas that had experienced several prescribed burns on national parklands, and visudly contrast
"Fuel loading" refers to the amount of dead and down woody vegetation. Fuel loads are considered in the caIcuIation of fixe hazard indices for national forest lands. groves rnanaged by fire (NPS) with those managed by mechanical treatment6 (CDF and SQF
management). Findly, the grandeur and magnificence of the species can really only be understood
following the experience of being dwarfed by an old-growth sequoia. Notably, those interviews
conducted in groves often were more personal and impassioned as individuals expressed their concems
regarding the future of giant sequoia management.
1.4. Organization of Study
This thesis is organized into three primary sections: first, the literature review identifies the
bodies of literature relevant to the examination of the application of EM at the local Ievel; second, 1
outline the background and history of the case study, present the conceptual frarnework of EM, discuss
the application of EM by SQF on giant sequoia management, identifi the pnmary sources of conflict
between SQF and interest groups, and suggest future strategies for @ant sequoia management; and third.
1 discuss the broader issues that affect USFS application of EM and outline means to improve the
application of EM on the ground. The literanire regarding USFS history and resource management is profuse. Chapter 2 reviews
and critiques the research relevant to this research. For ease and organization, the publications are
divided into four categories: USFS history and resource management policy; changing public values and
the process of agency restructuring; ecosystem management and public participation; and giant sequoia
management and fire ecology. Some of the literature pertains to multiple aspects of my research.
The case study is organized into three primary sections. Chapter 3 provides background
information on SQF and the giant sequoia species. 1 outline the ecologicai characteristics and requirernents of giant sequoia groves and review the history of giant sequoia management by SQF.
Chapter 4 develops the conceptual framework by which SQF giant sequoia management is evaluated.
First, 1 review EM theory and synthesize the principles of EM (identified in EM literature) into four dominant themes. Within each of these themes 1outline a number of more detailed chstracteristics. This conceptual frarnework of EM is then applied to the case of giant sequoia management, utilizing the same
Thughout this thesis, "mechanical treatment" refers to the application of silvicultural practices to achieve management goals. structure (the four themes) developed in the definition of EM. Under each of the dominant thernes, 1 identify giant sequoia management activities (as they relate to each theme), and then discuss and qualitatively evaluate each activity. Finally, 1 review recent collaborative efforts directed at implementing management action in an individual grove (Deer Creek). This "case study within a case study" reveals how rniscommunication and mutual distrust can compt a well-intentioned process.
Finaily, in Chapter 5 1 identify the primary sources of conflict that have stalled grove management activities and suggest future opportunities and strategies for giant sequoia management.
This thesis concludes by considering the obstacles preventing the USFS from successfulIy applying the principles of EM. Chapter 6 also outlines recommendations for irnproving USFS implementation of EM in the friture. UItimately, the ,sirnt sequoia experience illuminates rnany issues that are relevant to public land resource managers in general. 2.1. USFS History and Resource Management Policy
Works by Hirt (1994) and Clary (1986) provide the most comprehensive survey of USFS history
2nd the evolution of resource management policy. Clary (1986) condernns the USFS's historical bias towards timber production. He argues that the agency considers public lands as insurance against a future timber famine and suggests that forest resources are vafued soleiy according to market economics.
Hirt (1994) claims this emphasis on commodity use stems from a "conspiracy of optimisrn" within the agency. Furthemore, USFS management direction is affected by a process of congressional hinding that favours timber production (Hirt 1994; Clary 1986). Despite the eight years separating these critiques of
USFS management, the authors reach many similar conclusions. However, Clary's scathing critique likely stems from the context in which he published his work (during the height of the Reagan era) while
Hirt is more sympathetic in his analysis of USFS management.
For a survey of laws and refonns affecting USFS resource management since 1905'. Loornis
(1993) and Zinser (1995) are useful references. Both authors note the significance of the Multiple Use
Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (MUSY) in the codification of the phrase "multiple use" and in the establishment of the principles which continue to guide USFS resource management. Additional landmark legislative mandates arrived in the fom of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and the 1976 National Forest Management Act (NFMA) which together set the precedent for public participation and established a framework for management planning that emphasized the preservation of environmental quality on national forest lands (Zinser 1995). For further discussion of the significant laws and reforrns throughout USFS history see Appendix 4.
When examining the history of the USFS, one must also consider the relationship between the political and economic circumstances affecthg nanird resource management. Sample (1990) and
O'Toole (1988) andyze the role and infl-ùence of congressional budgets on agency management plans and policies. While O'Toole (1988) emphasizes the socio-political context from which budget decisions stem (and are subsequently enacted), Sarnple (1990) is narrower in scope, specifically exarnining trends
' The USFS was officially formed in 1905 under the direction of Gifford Pinchot (for further detail see Appendix 4).
9 in congressional funding from 1960 to 1986 and resulting impact on resource planning and prograrns. Furthemore, Sarnple argues that the linkage between the volume of timber harvested and federal
payments must be abolished to remove the incentive for emphasizing cornmodity production and achieve
balanced multiple-use management (Sample and O'Toole 1989). O'Toole is more critical of the ability of the USFS to implement tme multiple-use management, although he agrees with Sample that the
process by which congressional funding is secured can be largely held responsible for the agency's
purported timber bias. My research suggests that USFS resource managers are acutely aware of the need for changes in the congressional budgetary process in order for them to effectively apply EM in national
forest land management. While many USFS employees support the shift towards more integrated
resource management, the influence of broader political and economic forces has affected the rate and
direction of agency change.
2.2. Changing Public Values and Restmcturing the USFS
Despite congressional resistance, public disapproval of forest management plans and distrust of
agency personnel has compelled the USFS to reconsider its traditional approach to resource management
(Thomas 1996). Many authors claim that the USFS is experiencing a revolutionary restructuring
process- a "changing of the guard"- resulting from both public (extemal) and ernployee (intemal)
pressure (see Sabatier et al. 1996; Thomas 1996; Thomas and Huke 1996; Miller 1996; Brown and Harris
1993; Gale 1992; Brown and Harris 1992a; Brown and Harris 1992b). Additionally, many submit that
the USFS is recognizing that an integrated approach to resource management considering "ecological
integrity" and involving "collaborative stewardship" will define forest management strategies for the 2 1st century (see also Dombeck 1997; Wester 1997; Kohm and Franklin 1997; Mohai and Jakes 1996;
Mangold 1995; Gale 1992; Kessler 199 1; Cortner 199 1). Literature on public participation often examines the relationship between citizen involvement in resource management and changing paradigms and values within the public sector. Steel and Lovrich
(1997) outline conflicting naturd resource management paradigms and argue that public environmental awareness necessitates a shift from the dominant (anthropocentric) resource-management paradigm to a new (biocentric) resource management paradigm. My research suggests that rnanaging for multiple value systerns is one of the greatest challenges to USFS resource management. In fact, the USFS's efforts to reconcile biocentric values with economic restrictions and political mandates are cornrnonly received with cynicism by many members of the environmentai cornrnunity. EM is a continuing experiment and will likely require rigorous examination and analysis to determine its potentiai for improving resource management. A senes entitled "Challenges" and published by the Pacific Northwest Research Station suggests that the USFS is, at the very least, theoretically committed to integrating the diverse range of public vaIues, uses and concerns into naturai resource management. The members of the People and Natural Resources (PNR) Program (USFS employees) prepare each issue and, while PMI personnel also write some articles, most are contracted out to independent researchers. Due to the diversity of authors and their experience, the Challenges series offers valuable insight into the dynamic relationship between the public and public resource managers (see Brunson et al. 1996; Shindler and Neburka 1996; Bradley et al. 1995). Additionally, there are several issues that discuss the challenges and benefits of adaptive management (see Stankey 1997; Shindler and Cheek 1997). In fact, many authors' conclusions are relevant in the case of giant sequoia management where value systems figure predominantly in collaborative rnanagement strategies. The USFS, recognizing the importance of managing public lands according to pubIic value systems, are atternpting to direct the current management planning process to be more interactive and participatory (J. Allen, pers. cornrn.). A collection of papers published in a symposium entitled "Change in the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service and Its Consequences for National Forest Policy" identifies the processes responsible for reinventing the USFS (Mohai 1995). Several of the contributing authors dso discuss the implications that potential policy revisions rnight have on the socio- political and economic forces that drive the agency. For example, Jones and Taylor (1995) examine the impact of administrative appeals and litigation on agency change, noting that the increased public involvement via the courts has forced federal agencies such as the USFS to "change the way they do business" (3 11). A more productive and less antagonistic approach to rnanagement (defmed by new policies or existing policy revision and designed to avoid the path of litigation) would therefore not only benefit the USFS but also non-government organizations with limited funding eamiarked for legal battles. Farnham and Mohai (1995) conciude that in order to ascertain patterns and the degree of change
within the national forest system, "it is important to look at the data from different regions, and perhaps
even different forests" (277). My thesis contributes to this effort.
Many authors cite the founding of the Association of Forest Service Employees for
Environmental Ethics (AFSEEE) in 1989 as evidence of an improved resource ethic within the agency (see Knight and Bates 1995; Gaie 1992; Brown and Harris 1992a; Brown and Harris 19926). In
particular, the news bulletin published by AFSEEE, Inner Voice, provides a useful analysis of USFS
cornmitment to integrated resource management strategies. The articles range in focus from monitoring
specific management projects to broader issues of restructuring agency hierarchy. For example, the
recent appointment of Michael Dombeck (a fisheries biologist by training) as the 14th Chief of the USFS,
is regarded by many AFSEEE members as a positive step in agency restructuring (Durbin 1997).
Rasmussen (1997), on the other hand, criticizes the USFS headquarters in Washington, D.C., for its
rnyopic view of national forest management and proffered that without irnproved leadership (which may
corne in the fomof Chief Dombeck), the future of the federal land management agency is questionable.
AIthough the impact of AFSEEE on USFS organizational culture and resource management has
yet to be determined, social surveys of agency personnel reveal that support for a management paradigm that is founded in ecological science, and is responsive to public opinion (the social paradigm), is developing (Sabatier et al. 1996; Brown and Harris 1992a; Brown and Harris 19926). The NPS set the precedent for public land managers to ernbrace this approach to resource management. Dunng 1990 and
1991, NPS management activities in Yellowsrone (following the infamous 1988 fires) were under the banner of "ecosystern management." As a result, resistance by USFS leadership to adopting a management strategy associated with the NPS stalled formal declaration of EM as an officia1 policy of the USFS (H. Salwasser, pers. cornm.). During this period, a USFS program entitled "New Perspectives" was announced which embraced the pnnciples of participation, sustainability, collaboration and integration in responsible socio-econornic and ecological resource management (Kessler and Salwasser 1995; Kessler 1991). "New Perspectives" was the first step in formalizing (and thus legitimizing) agency restructuring through official new policies and approaches to resource management. The prograrn dso stimulated interest by agency personnel in the concept of integrated resource management, and effectively served as "a testing of the waters of change" within the USFS (Kessler and Salwasser 1995, 179).
Recognizing that the "New Perspectives" prograrn generally included the basic principles of
EM*, pressure soon mounted frorn both USFS employees and interest groups to formally adopt EM (H. Salwasser, pers. comm.). Additionally. international interest in the concept and a favourable (national)
political climate strengthened the case for EM (H. Salwasser, pers. comm.). Finally, on June 4, 1992,
then USFS Chief Dale Robertson declared EM the new policy that would guide future USFS management decisions (Zinser 1995; Sampson 1992). Three years later, Grumbine (1997) States "... it
appears that EM] is set to carry the day on US.public lands . . . it rernains to be seen. of course, whether new policies on paper cm be implemented successfully on the ground" (41).
2.3. Ecosystem Management
EM represents a new integrated and holistic approach to natural resource management. The
concept is receiving increasing attention in acadernic journais as resource managers express interest in
ecosystem-based management strategies (S locombe 1993). However, despite broad interest in integrated
management, the term "ecosystem management" has remained somewhat of an enigma.
The concept of EM has been addressed and debated by academics and professionals. Adgee and
Johnson (1988) analyze EM from primarily a scientific perspective, and emphasize data collection and research as a means by which to achieve EM. They conclude that the fundamental feature of EM is flexibility, and that a blueprint for EM is unlikely. This idea is reiterated by Grumbine (1994a) in a paper entitled "What is Ecosystem Management?" in which the author identifies ten dominant themes of
EM. Later, in a review, he emphasized those themes that he believed to be of particular relevance to working professionals (Grumbine 1997). Grumbine's analysis is arguably superior to many conceptions of EM; he directs his attention toward developing a practical framework for resource managers and attempts to incorporate ecological and socio-political constraints into his work. Slocombe (1993) also
The elements of "New Perspectives" (NP)-- participation, sustainability. collaboration, and integration (Kessler 1991)- are al1 inherent in an EM approach to resource management. NP was field-oriented (involving specific "NP" projects) and was ultimately used to generate EM policy (W. Salwasser, pers. comm.). For further discussion see Kessler and Salwasser (1 995). focuses on integrating the aforementioned constraints but emphasizes the importance of institutional,
social and economic factors in EM. The latter is an important distinction from the perspective of the
USFS- an agency defined by a hierarchical structure and directed by poiicy (see Appendix 4) to manage
according to public needs. Thus while Grumbine (1997) defines EM from the position of a conservation
biologist, Slocombe's (1993) conception of EM is rooted in the broader principles of social science and
recognizes the political and econornic realities facing resource management agencies.
Knight and Bates (1995) suggest that the utilitarian conservation philosophy of the 19th century
is giving way to more integrated and holistic resource management. The contributing authors also
emphasize the importance of an improved set of ethics, flexibility, and new and rigorous scientific
standards for achieving improved management practices. This new direction in resource management is
represented by the emergence of concepts such as EM within resource management discourse.
While there is yet to be one accepted definition of EM, sirnilar ideas are evident throughout the
Iiterature. A 1996 symposium in the journal Ecological Applications offers the perspectives of acadernics, government agencies, and industry in a collection of papers considenng the future of EM in naturd resource management. Again the integration of science with human values is considered paramount. The 13~USFS Chief, Jack Ward Thomas, defines EM as "the integration of ecological, economic, and social factors in order to maintain and enhance the quality of the environment to meet current and future needs" (2996, 703). Thomas reasserts the importance of flexibility and integration in resource management and acknowledges the invaiuable role of theoretical and applied ecologists in the development of EM. The paper by Thomas (1996) is useful in that it clearly identifies the components of
EM most valued by the USFS at the time of his leadership. His position reiterates the points outlined by a
USFS brochure entitied "A National Framework: Ecosystem Management" which identifies the four fundamental principles that continue to guide USFS implementation of EM to date: an ecological approach to resource management, the use of scientific knowledge, the development of partnerships, and encouraging active participation by constituents (USFS 1994a, 1).
The practical application of EM by USFS resource managers is best addressed by Manley et al.
(1995) who develop a conceptuai frarnework for "sustaining ecosysterns" by considering physicai, biological and cultural/social needs. The authors outline fourteen steps (based on the NFMA and NEPA planning process) to be applied at the landscape level in application of EM in management projects. In a dense set of appendices, Manley et ai. outline a number of "ecosystem elements" intended to aid in defining management goals and designing management activities. Resource managers are to select elements suited to individual management projects. The compilation of these ecosystem elernents effectively serves as the first step toward the functional application of EM by the USFS. Recognizing the latter, Piirto and Rogers (1998) describe Manley et al. (1995) as a "pioneering effort by field oriented practitioners to put the concepts of ecosystem management to work on the ground" (2).
Several academics and researchers have attempted to measure EM success as applied by the
USFS. In conjunction with the environmental organization The Wildemess Society, Yaffee et al. (1996) assess the current experience of EM in a review of 619 cases involving federal agencies, environmental groups and private interests throughout the United States. The authors consider the characteristics of EM projects, participants involved, and the obstacles to project success. Due to the broad scope of the research, however, the reviews of individual projects were brief and generally superficial. Ultimately, however, they identify two comrnon elements in successfuI EM projects: (1) research and sound scientific information, and (2) stakeholder involvement. Mersmann et al. (1993) reviewed the
"Ecosystem Management Research Project" or, the guachita and Ozark National Forests in Arkansas, and focused on the interactions between researchers, managers and citizens. They conclude that increased collaboration resulted in greater respect for the constraints (legislative, economic, or value- based) faced by each group.
Throughout the Iiterature on EM, the integration of public participation is identified as fundamental in the success of EM tirne and time again. Critics charge, however, that despite the agency asking for public input, public concerns are rarely incorporated into the final decisions (US.OTA 1992;
Wondolleck 1988). Confiict over management decisions often stems from imbalances of power between managers and constituents (Wondolleck 1988). Reconciling these imbalances fto the extent possible) through proactive participation offers an effective dtemative to the administrative appeals process in resolving conflict (Crowfoot and Wondolleck 1990). FoIlowing an illegal (or unsatisfactory) action by the USFS, the public cornrnonly pursues adrninistrative appeals. As mentioned previously, the appeals process is both costly and tirne consuming, and change is sought by both the agency and public interest groups. The collaborative component of EM suggests that the USFS is committed to incorporating public concerns into forest rnanagement plans.
According to their multiple use mandate, the USFS must manage to satisfy the needs of multiple constituencies. A report prepared by the US Office of Technology Assessment ( U.S. OTA; 1992) notes the difficulties of reconciling various (and often confiicting) demands into the USFS decision-making process. They conclude that the agency must conduct more comprehensive public forums to lessen conflict and open communication between interest groups and the USFS, specifically regarding large- scale, intensive management prograrns. Furthermore, these forums must provide tangible results as the
USFS has a poor reptation for responding to citizen concerns (PNR 1995b; Wondolleck 1988). Forums, however, are only one means by which the USFS can improve communication with its constituencies.
The development of interactive education and outreach programs is aiso essential to improving communication with interested publics (SNEP 1996).
The recent three-volume publication by the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) also emphasizes these points in its analysis of government agency, industry, and public relations (Ruth 1996).
Kubel et al. (1996) outline the benefits of collaborative management where "the public works iteratively and continuously with managers and scientists, and public input is genuinely integrated into the process and evaiuated on par with other information" (611). The SNEP (1996) report is the most recent and comprehensive examination of resource management in the Sierra Nevada and is generally considered a handbook for future management direction by federal agencies in Califomia. In addition to considering the relationship between public participation and resource management, the SNEP report also documents recent scientific research on disturbance regimes, ciimate, vegetative history, floral and faunal populations, and outlines strategies for future management of the Sierra Nevada ecosystem.
2.4. Sequoia National Forest and Giant Sequoia Management
Giant sequoia management is a subject that has received national attention iargely because of the immense size and longevity of giant sequoia specimens. This attention, however, has often been rooted in controversy. Solnit (1997) recounts the conflicts between SQF personnel and local environmental activists over giant sequoia management. She provides a cynical analysis of agency dedication to grove protection and emphasizes USFS personne1 resistance to public input as a fundamental barrier to
effective resource management.
The official SQF Land and Resource Management Plan (LMP)(SQF 1988) and its associated environmental impact statement provide the foundation on which land managers ultirnatety base their management decisions. As many sections of the LMP have since been superceded by the California
Spotted Owl (CASPO) Interim Guidelines (USFS 1993) and, more recently, regional direction for riparian corridors and mesocarnivoreg habitat (Sprague 1998), the lack of a formal arnendment to the
LMP to incorporate new ecological information is the source of much controversy between SQF and the environmental cornrnunity. Thus the standing LMP is important in my examination of challenges to effective implementation of EM in giant sequoia management.
Additionaily, papers from two symposia on giant sequoia management published by the Pacific
Southwest (PSW) Research Station (USFS 1986; USFS 1994b) provide differing perspectives on the place of giant sequoias in the Sierra Nevada ecosystem and their value to society. The differences reflect the broader context in which the symposiums were conducted; the first workshop in 1985 occurred as the groves were being exploited for commercial production, and the second symposium (in 1992) followed the signing of the Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA) which removed giant sequoia groves from the timber production land base. Thus the first symposium focuses on wood properties and products (Piirto
1986), silvics (Weatherspoon 1986), genetic variation (Libby 1986), and growth and yield of the giant sequoia (Dulitz 1986). The second symposium, focuses mainly on values and perceptions (Tweed 1994;
Parsons 1994), disturbance environrnents (Stephenson 1994). and management s trategies (Stewart et al.
1994). USFS ernployees, NPS managers, CDF representatives, members of the timber industry, academics and the environmental comrnunity attended both workshops. The diversity of ideas presented in the symposiums are representative of the difficuIty of balancing multiple interests and value systerns.
EM Iiterature also emphasizes the importance of an ecological approach to resource rnanagement based on sound scientific howledge. Because giant sequoias are a pioneer species dependent on fire disturbance for regeneration, understanding fire ecology is particularly important in developing
- - - Mesocarnivores were formerly referred to as "furbearers." appropriate management strategies. The most comprehensive work on fire ecology is published by Pyne
(1982; 1984; Pyne et al. 1996). Pyne et ai. (1996) reviews the history of fire management in the United
States, and emphasizes the importance of integrating fire science into fire management (and EM) strategies. Additionally, the SNEP report examines the role of fire as a pnmary "agent of change" in the
Sierra Nevada. (SNEP 1996). Husari and McKelvey (1996) explore options for reintroducing fire to the
Sierra Nevada through "more liberal application of current fire policy and through changes in existing fire policy" (1 101). Recognizing social, environmental and fiscal constraints, the authors emphasize the importance of re-introducing fire for fire-adapted communities throughout the Sierra Nevada.
The role of ecological restoration in resource management is well documented (see Allen 1996;
Weigand and Haynes 1996; Klimas and Peterson 1996). Restoration ecology is particularly important in the management of giant sequoias. Restoration of grove structure and processes as they relate to fire regimes and fuel conditions is a primary concern of resource managers (Fullmer et al. 1996).
Additionally, restoration of conditions in adjacent ecosystems, restoration from historic loggïng effects, and restoration of groves that have been encumbered by recreational facilities are essential to consider in grove management (Fullmer et al. 1996). Public resistance to fire restoration however- due prirnarily to aesthetic concerns and opposition to process restoration strategies- developed during the 1980s in response to NPS burning programs marnes 1987; Stone and Cavallaro 1989). Reconciling the ecological requirements of the giant sequoia with public concerns over smoke pollution and the appearance of fire scars is one of the greatest challenges of applying EM in SQF.
Harvey et al. (1980) conducted the most comprehensive work on giant sequoia ecology. The authors examine the impact of soi1 temperature, light availability and relative humidity on giant sequoia reproduction. They also identify common arthropods, insects, birds and marnmals associated with &nt sequoia groves. Based on NPS management experience and fire policies, the authors outline optimal conditions for prescribed buming programs. Harvey et al. (1980) emphasizes the NPS grove management mode1 (Le. prescribed burning) as the research was conducted on NPS lands and in conjunction with NPS resource managers. The importance of water availability in giant sequoia reproduction and community structure is docurnented by Rundel (1971; 1972b). Additionally,
Bonnicksen and Stone (1981; 1982) consider giant sequoia grove structure to be characterized by a "rnosaic of [vegetative] aggregations." Bonnicksen and Stone (1985) and Bonnicksen (1988) emphasize the need for intensive scientific data collection within graves in order to establish quantifiable
(structural) management targets. Finally, correspondence between individuds involved in giant sequoia management issues (both intemal and external to SQF) documents the positions of the interest groups and provides insight into the rationale for management decisions. Furthermore, statements from the 1991 Congressional Hearing concerning giant sequoia grove management allude to several sources of conflict between interest groups and SQF. Many of these issues are revisited in documents from the 1997 USFS Leadership Conference that addressed future giant sequoia management initiatives. Uitimately, the combination of academic and government Iiterature with informal correspondence and unpublished documents chronides how conflict over giant sequoia management has developed in the past and how it rnight progress in the future. 3. SEQUOIA NATIONAL FOREST AND GIANT SEQUOIA MANAGEMENT
3.1. Sequoia National Forest Study Site
On JuIy 2, 1908, Sequoia National Forest (SQF) was established by executive order of President
Theodore Roosevelt. SQF is located on the eastern edge of the San Joaquin Valley. California, approximately halfway between the Los Angeles Basin and the San Francisco population centers. It is
the tenth Iargest national forest in California with over 445,000 hectares of national forest land within
SQF boundaries. Elevation ranges from just under 300 meters above sea level to 3770 meters at Florence
Peak in the Golden Trout Wilderness. Throughout SQF there are six wilderness areas totaling 126,138
hectares: Golden Trout, Domeland, Jennie Lakes, Kiavah, Monarch and South Sierra Wildemess (Figure
3.1.). Administrative designations divide SQF into five Ranger Districts: Hume Lake, Tule River, Hot
Springs, Greenhorn and Canne11 Meadow. SQF is also partitioned into four distinct geographic units, the two largest of which are separated by Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park Hume Lake Ranger
District comprises the northern unit of SQF while the other five districts form the three southern units.
Over 230 permanent employees and 180 temporary staff are charged with managing al1 five districts.
There are 50 campgrounds in SQF and IO day use areas that serve just fewer than IO million recreational visitors annually.
SQF has rich and diverse flora and fauna. The forest is home to over 2000 species of plants, of which 25 are considered sensitive plant species according to federal and state regulations (SQF 1992).
Of course, the outstanding feature of SQF is the presence of giant sequoia groves. Of the 75 naturally occumng groves in the world, al1 are on the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada in southem California
(Stephenson 1996). Collectively, the groves cover just less than 15.500 hectaresi0 (USFS 1998a). Of this area, 49% and a total of 43 individual groves are managed by the USFS (Stephenson 1996; USFS 1997a).
Within the boundaries of Sequoia National Forest (SQF) alone, there are 40 individual groves occupying slightly less than 7,800 hectares (USFS 1998a; see Figure 3.2). Thus SQF is the most suitable study area
- -
'O Area calculated at the "hypothetical perimeter line" (see section 4.2.1 .).
20 Figure 3.1. Map of Sequoia National Forest, California
Source: USDA Forest Service Forest Map (http://rO5sOO 1 .pswfs.gov/visitorcenter/titmVsequoiahtml) Figure 3.2. Map of Giant Sequoia Distribution in Sequoia National Forest Giant Sequoia Groves
Sequia N&*oml Forest to examine the experience of USFS resource managers in applying the principles of EM in giant sequoia management. Principal large mamals in SQF include mule deer, black bear and the mountain lion. USFS sensitivet1species include fisher, marten and the Sierra Nevada red fox. Additionally, Califomia State regulations list the wolverine as threatened in SQF (SQF 1992). Other mammals include the grey fox, coyote, squirrels, and chipmunks. Cornmon game birds are the valley and mountain quail. grouse, doves and ducks. Furthermore, the peregrine falcon and California condor (both federally endangered species) have been sighted in SQF". USFS sensitive avian fauna also includes the willow flycatcher, northem goshawk, bald eagle, great grey owl and the California sponed owl.
Finaily, SQF is managed according to the principles of "multiple use" management for
"sustained yields of renewable resources of water, forage, wood, wildlife, minerais and recreation" (SQF
1998). In particular, water energy is harnessed by hydroelecïric operations on several major rivers in the forest. Furthermore, there are 55 grazing permits and approximately 55.000 animal months" of grazing permitted. Finally, SQF timber production has been in steady dec1inel4 since peak production in the early
1970s (see Figure 3.3.). Projected timber production for 1998 is approximately 12 million board feet
(MMBF)- primarily the result of increasingly stringent environmental regulations and legal opposition to numerous timber sales by the Sierra Club.
3.2. Giant Sequoia Ecology
3.2.1. Range and Associated Forest Cover
FossiI records indicate that giant sequoias were widely distributed and likely occurred in continuous forests from present-day Idaho to California before they began their southwesterly migration
" USFS "sensitive" species are identified as part of an "early warning system" which encourages the application of management activities designed to prevent the need for listing species under the Endangered Species Act in the future. l2 The last California condor was rernoved from SQF in 1984 as part of a captive breeding program directed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Incidentally, the condor was discovered in a giant sequoia tree (in the Starvation Grove Cornplex) during logging activities in the early 1980s. l3 An Animal Unit Month (Am) is considered to be a cow and caIf or two sheep grazing for one rnonth. l4 The exception to this decline occurs during the early to rnid-1980s under legislation passed by the Reagan Administration which encouraged commercial production throughout national forest lands. Figure 3 -3. Sequoia National Forest Timber Production 1960- 1997.
Fiscal Year
Source: Data from Rogers 1998a. in the late Tertiary (Harvey 1985; Harvey et al. 1980). Their present range is restricted to a narrow, 420-
kilometer disjunct belt dong the western slopes of the central and southem Sierra Nevada (Stephenson
1996). Giant sequoia groves are located at altitudes varying from 1400m to 2300m (Stewart et al. 1994;
Wright and BaiIey 1982). Current scientific thought suggests that soi1 rnoisture, temperature, and natural
disturbance patterns likely account for the present grove distribution (Stephenson 1996; Harvey et al.
1980).
The giant sequoia grove ecosystern is generally classified as a sequoia-mixed conifer forest type.
The only distinguishing feature for this forest type is the presence of the giant sequoia itself
(Weatherspoon 1990; Rundel 1971). Common associates include: sugar pine (Pinus larnbertiana),
ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), white fir (Abies concolor), incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), and
California bIack oak (Quercus kelloggifl (Bonnicksen and Stone 1982; Harvey et al. 1980). Other
species found in the sequoia-rnixed conifer forest include Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesir'), red fir
(Abies magnifica) and Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffieyi) (Harvey et al. 1980). There appears to be no
definitive combination or frequency of any of these species within groves in general-- rather, grove
species composition is likely related to environmental variabies such as elevation, latitude, exposure, soi1
moisture, and historical disturbance regimes (Harvey et al. 1980).
Research conducted by Bonnichen and Stone (1982; 1981) concludes that the sequoia-mixed
conifer forest is a component of the greater forest mosaic rather than of any singIe vegetation unit. In
fact, the defining feature of giant sequoia succession seerns to be that of patchiness (Harvey et al. 1980).
The inconsistent substrate conditions and species composition in giant sequoia groves, in combination
with the patchy nature of disturbance regirnes such as fire and disease, support the authors' conclusion.
Thus giant sequoia groves can be considered a "mosaic of vegetation types or successional stages" with
sequoia specimenl' trees effectively existing as relicts in climax stands of white fir (Harvey et ai. 1980).
However, it is essentid to recognize that the concept of climax communities is itself controversial.
Research conducted by Swetnarn (1993) on fire history and climate change in giant sequoia groves, for example, concludes that giant sequoia fire regimes and frequencies were continuously changing. Thus,
lS "Specirnen" refers to any individual giant sequoia tree greater than 2.5 meten in diameter at breast height.
25 Swemam argues, his conclusions support "an ecologicai paradigm that ernphasizes the ubiquity of change in [giant sequoia] ecosystems, rather than tendencies toward stasis or climax cornrnunities" (888).
3.2.2. Succession and Regeneration
Giant sequoias continue to meet their Iight requirements by their dominant height position in the forest and require canopy-destroying disturbance to create suitable conditions for regeneration (Leisz
1994; Stephenson 1994). Furthemore, they are shade-intolerant and do poorIy in cornpetition with their shade-tolerant coniferous associates (such as white fir and incense cedar) if a disturbance does not sufficiently open the canopy or expose the minerai soi! for seed germination (Piirto and Rogers 1998;
Weatherspoon 1990). Once a sequoia seedling has successfully established. hcwever, it can maintain dominance over cornpetitors through rapid growth if growing conditions are favourable (Weatherspoon
1990). Optimal germination occurs when sunlight is one-half full strength, soil moisture is near field capacity, and the soi1 is friable and slightly acidic (Wright and Bailey 1982). Fire opens the canopy and provides suitable soil conditions and the convective movement of hot air in intense surface fires is the primary rnechanism by which the serotinous cones of the giant sequoia are dned and opened (Stephenson
1994; Wright and Bailey 1982; Peattie 1953).
Beyond seedling establishment, ecological knowledge regarding the regeneration of giant sequoia groves is lirnited (Stephenson 1994; Wright and Bailey 1984). Work by Stephenson ( 1994), however, suggests that: (1) fires intense enough to kill the forest canopy locally did occur in sequoia groves before forest structure and fuel loads were significantly altered by Europeans; (2) post fire sequoia seed dispersal, seedling establishment, growth and survival are highest where fires have bumed most intensely; and (3) most living sequoias today occur in even-aged cIurnps that likely correspond to
"hot spots" that killed the forest canopy in past fires. He concludes that levels of reproduction in @nt sequoia groves are insufficient to maintain viable population levels (Stephenson 1994: see Figure 3.4).
These conclusions have important ramifications for giant sequoia persistence both in the past and in the future. Figure 3.4. Percentage of Living Sequoias by Cenhiry of Establishment
-900 -700 -500 -300 -100 100 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 Century of Establishment
Source: Stephenson (1 994), with author's permission. 3.2.3. Associated Animal Species
In addition to fire, several animal species are also thought to have an important effect on sequoia regeneration. The Douglas squirrel (Tarninsciurus douglas~,or chickaree, is considered to have a moderate to slight impact on the annual release of sequoia seeds (Dulitz 1997; Harvey et al. 1980). The chickaree is not solely adapted to giant sequoias, but rather feeds on the cones of most conifer species in the sequoia-mixed conifer forest type. Giant sequoia cones are 5-8 centimeters long and produce approximately 200 seeds (Dulitz 1997; Harvey et al. 1980). The Douglas squirrel consumes the cone scales and cuts giant sequoia cones from branches throughout the year thereby causing a continuous release of sequoia seeds. The long-horned beetle (Phymatodes nitidus) also affects sequoia seed release by rnining and laying eggs within cones of age classes four years and older (Dulitz 1997; Harvey et al.
1980). Cones darnaged by the beetle dry and open during the late summer and fa11 months (often just preceding early snowfall) thereby reducing the threat of desiccation and seed failure. The gelechiid moth
(Gelechia sp.), on the other hand, reduces sequoia seed production by attacking first-year cones and releasing seeds that are non-germinable. Harvey et al. (1980) consider the impact of the moth minimal.
Giant sequoia groves also provide suitable habitat for a number of other species. Of particular consequence are the California spotted owl (Strir occidentalis) and mesocamivores which have recently received a great deal of legislative and media attention. Most of this publicity has focused on designing and implernenting timber management practices that do not compromise species habitat requirernents.
Due to the old-gowth characteristics of grove ecosystems, active nesting sites and protected activity centers often coincide with grove boundaries (R. Rogers, pers. comrn.). Mesocarnivores such as the pine marten (Martes amerkana) and fisher (Malles pennan~~'have also been sighted within sequoia grove boundaries (D. Dulitz, pers. comm.). To date there has been no research conducted on the specific ecological relationships between these species and SQF giant sequoia groves. Considenng their stams as sensitive species (SQF 1992), research efforts focused on documenting the latter may prove a valuable investment of time and money.
Ultimately, the combination of explosive reproduction following fire disturbance (when the cones are dried and opened and the ground is cleared of litter and duff) with repeated reproduction
(achieved through the continual release of seeds due to animal activity) is an impressive evolutionary set of survival strategies and adaptations (Harvey et al. 1980). The viability of giant sequoia seeds, however,
is extremely low, especially if they fail on duff and iitter where desiccation and the threat of insect and
fimgal attacks are high; for exarnple, of a million seeds on a tree in auturnn, it is possible only one wiIl
germinate the following spring (Leisz 1994; Harvey et al. 1980; Peattie 1953). Furthemore, giant sequoia cones take over two years to mature, and the cones may remain green and closed for over twenty years (Harvey et al. 1980).
3.2.4. Distinctive Characteristics of the Gianf Sequoicr
The giant sequoia is a hardy species, historically able to withstand most severe fire events. Its life span can stretch over 3000 years; ultirnately, the demise of a giant sequoia is IikeIy the result of weakened boIes, root decay, windthrow or undercutting by strearn banks and/or fire scars (Leisz 1994;
Harvey et al. 1980; D. Piirto pers. cornm.). The sap contains tannic acid, a chernical used in modern fire extinguishers, which assists in the protection of the sequoia during intense fire events (Peattie 1953). It is dso the Iargest tree species in the worId in terms of volume, with an average height of 80m and diarneter of three to six rneters (Wright and Bailey 1982). Their immense gkth is compounded by the thickness of their bark that further aids in f~eprotection (Harvey et al. 1980). Sequoia bark is fibrous, reddish- brown, and furrowed; at the base of the colurnnar trunks of large trees the bark may be two feet thick
(Brockman 1986).
Despite the immense size of a mature giant sequoia, the rooting system cornmoniy extends no deeper than I meter with the rnost abundant feeder roots in the upper 0.6 rn of the soi1 substrate
(Weatherspoon 1990). The lateral extent of the rooting system, however, averages a distance of 30 meters from the boIe (in welI drained areas- in soils with high water content the root system may extend only 12-15 meters from the bole) to occupy an area of over 0.3 hectares (Weatherspoon 1990). The root system of sequoia seedlings consists of a taproot that improves the chance of survivaI during dry summers. After 6 to 8 years of growth, however, lateral root growth predominates and elongation of the taproot ceases. Weatherspoon (1990) concludes: ". .. considering the shailowness of the root system and the great above ground mass of large giant sequoias, it is rernarkable that so many of these giants, especidly leaners, rernain standing for so long" (559). The impressive features of the giant sequoia will continue to impress scie~tists,resource managers and the public alike into the next rnillenium. The long-term conservation of giant sequoia groves, however, will depend on the success of alternative management strategies in restoring groves to a condition predating the impact of fire suppression. A review of giant sequoia history and the current management debate reveais a tumultuous reiationship between humans and the giant sequoia species. It aiso provides the context fiom which many of the contentious issues currently surrounding giant sequoia management in SQF were borne.
3.3. History of Giant Sequoia Management
3.3.1. Euro-Arnericun Disco very and Commercial Exploitation
nie giant sequoia was first observed and recorded by ~uro-Arnericanst6on the 1833 Joseph
Walker expedition through the Sierra Nevada (Rogers 1996; Stephenson 1996). The published account of this joumey and the reference to "some trees of the Redwood species, incredibIy large- some of which would measure from 16 to 18 fathoms round the trunk at the height of a man's [sic] head above the ground" was virtudly unnoticed (Dulitz 1997; Willard 1995). It was not until the rediscovery of the trees by A.T. Dowd in 1852 that the species received widespread public recognition. This attention coincided with increased interest in western tree species for timber extraction purposes.
The first stage of econornic exploitation of the giant sequoia occurred in the year following
Dowd's discovery. Interestingly, the first sequoias felled were cut not for timber production but ratlier exhibition p~r~oses'~.Commercial logging of the giant sequoia, however, began in the 1860s and continued without interruption for several decades (Johnston 1996). Opposition to commercial exploitation of the species was voiced during the first decade of timber activity, and, eventually, the 1873 California Legislature declared ". .. willfully cut[ting] down or strip[ing] of its bark any tree sixteen feet
l6 Preceding Euro-Arnencan discovery. it is believed that native arnerican use of the &.ntsequoia dates back 10.000 to 12,000 years (Piirto et ai. 1997; Elliott-Fisk et al. 1996; Duliu 1997). Despite some archaeological research conducted by Hull (1989), understanding of native utilization of the sequoia is lirnited. Speculation that the bark of the giant sequoia was stripped and used to create shelters by native arnerican communities, however, is a popular hypothesis (Dulitz 1997). " The 1st specimen sequoia cut for exhibition was for the Chicago World's Fair in 1893 (Piirto et al. 1997) [4.9 meters] in diameter" a misdemeanor (Piirto et al. 1997). However, state law had a minimal effect on
the scale and intensity of logging practices, and by the 1880s most groves were privately owned by large
lurnber companies (Piirto et al. 1997).
From 1853 to the turn of the century, many groves were logged for giant sequoias, whitewoods
or both (Stephenson 1996). The felling of specimen giant sequoias however, was an enormous challenge
to early loggers. Due to the immense size of the individual trees and the brittleness of old-growth
sequoia heartwood, trees would often break into unmerchantable pieces when they fell to the ground
(USFS 1958). Furthemore, the size of the felled logs made transportation both expensive and
logistically difficult. These practical difficulties compounded with increasingly negative media attention
eventually lead to a reduced rate of timber exploitation at the turn of the century.
In the next several decades carnpaigns by conservation activists such as John Muir- who
described the giant sequoia as "... Nature's forest masterpiece, and, so far as I know, the greatest of ail living things" (Piirto et al. 1997, 50)- furthered the grove protection cause. Interestingly, Gifford
Pinchot rnirrored Muir's sentiment, declaring his resentment of "the giganticaily wasteful lumbering of the great Sequoias [and] ... the practice of making vine stakes hardly bigger than walking sticks out of
these greatest of living things" (Pinchot 1947, 102-103). Thus while these two prominent figures in the
history of resource management agreed on the issue of commercial exploitation of giant sequoias, they
parted ways on the greater philosophical issues surrounding resource use (the "utilitarian
conservationisrn" associated with Pinchot) versus preservation (advanced by Muir) (Rosenburg 1994).
Economic conditions caused by the Great Depression in the Iate 1920s and early 1930s largely
rnarked the end of commercial lumbering in giant sequoia groves (Piirto et al. 1997). Between 1926 and
1960, most privately owned lands containing giant sequoias (albeit largely cut-over properties) were
acquired by state or federal agencies (Piirto et al. 1997). This conversion in land ownership from the
pnvate sector to public land management agencies was considered by many to achieve long-term protection of the groves. 3.3.2. Fire Suppression and Fire Policy
While timber production in the groves abated, the issue of fire protection became a primary concern for resource managers. In retrospect, when considering the impact of fire suppression on giant sequoia reproduction, it is ironic that the "protection" of giant sequoias from commercial logging would corne to mean the absolute exclusion of fire. Today, fire protection has resulted in the accumuIation of surface and aerial fuels both within and surrounding groves thus increasing the risk of cata~tro~hic'~ wildfie (Stephenson 1996; Weatherspoon and Sbner 1996). A brief review of fire management history by the USFS illuminates the broader resource management concems that would later prove to have a significant impact on grove succession and viability.
The debate over USFS fire management and control intensified following the surnmer of 1910 in which an estimated 220,000 hectares burned throughout northern and western national forest lands (Pyne
1984; Pyne et al. 1996). Throughout the following decade, proponents of systematic fire protection and absolute suppression arnassed support within federal management agencies. Despite the considerable expense of fire suppression, the USFS discovered that funding for fire fighting was an effective means by which to bolster their national budget requests (Hirt 1994; Clary 1986). The national forests were considered investments in the future (primarily through timber production and gazing potential), and the govemment charged that fire control should "be commensurate with the value of the resources under protection" O?yne 1984, 242). Furthemore, the USFS was cornrnitted to "progressive" scientific management techniques, and light burning was equated with the antiquated practices of the native peoples (Schiff 1962). Ultimately, this mentdity was to define USFS fire control and suppression policies for almost a century.
During the depression years, USFS attention was redirected toward mcre intensive management of the backcountry which had, at one time, been cut over or abandoned (meet al. 1996). Droughts again threatened large areas throughout the western United States. The agency adopted the "10:OO a.m.
l8 Neither the word "catastrophic" nor its effects are defined in SQF documents, despite being identified as a management goal in the MSA (specifically refening to the need for fuel reduction to reduce the risk of "catastrophic" fxe) (SQF 1990,9). Furtherrnore, SQF (1997a) notes that fuel loading in groves is generally considered to be excessive and that damage to old growth trees (of al1 species) is "considered undesirable if not 'catastrophic"' (6). policy," whereby fire fighters would aim for fire control by 10:OO a.m. the day following the report of a fire, or, if the latter was not achieved, 10:00 a.m. the following day, ad infinitum, until the fire was contained and extinguished (F'yne et al. 1996). Considered by some to be "panic legislation" responding to the drought situation (Pyne et al. 1996), the USFS publicly rnaintained that aggressive suppression was both effective and necessary to ensure forest value (economic, ecological and aesthetic) into the future. Following the Second World War, fire research continued, and evidence that controlkd burning might be ecologically sensible and an effective means by which to reduce fuel Ioads mounted (Pyne et al.
1996). The USFS, concerned that such research would cal1 into question the very foundation of the their fire poticy, denounced the results as invalid and controversial. The agency even went so far as to suppress the publication of results from its own research stations that contradicted oficial orthodoxy
(Pyne 1984). In short, research on fire control was encouraged, while the examination of tire effects was generally opposed. Furthemore, research during this period was considered merely an adjunct of administration, and fire control was primarily considered an administrative issue rather than a scientific probIem (me et al. 1996). Thus the study of fire behaviour was placed in the realm of theoreticd science, unsolvable and therefore fiscally irresponsible. This attitude contrats sharply with the NPS experience. In the years following the Second
World War NPS managers and scientists conducted research and conctuded that a half-cenmry of fire suppression had resulted in dangerous IeveIs of fuel accumulation throughout public lands (Pyne et al.
1996). In the 1963 Report of the Special Advisory Commission on National Parks (Leopold et al. 1963), the effects of fire suppression policies on species composition and fuel Ioads in Sierran coniferous forests were outlined and the need for a more comprehensive and applied research prograrn was addressed. Five years Iater, the report recornmendations were incorporated into National Parks Service policy (Parsons and Nichols 1986). Ln this manner NPS fire policy shifted from fire exclusion to inclusion. It was also during this period that the first experimental prescribed burns were conducted on National Park lands in
California (N. Stephenson, pers. corn.). In 1964, a controlled bum in the Redwood Mountain giant sequoia grove in Kings Canyon National Park was canied out and the importance of fire in stimulating giant sequoia regeneration and creating a mosaic of vegetation types becarne increasingly evident
(Parsons and Nichols 1986; Harvey et al. 1980). Current NPS fire policy perrnits some natural fires to bum and recognizes prescribed burning as an appropriate management tool under certain conditions and
forest types (Harvey et al. 1980; J. Manley pers. comm.).
While the most recent scientific studies continue to support the role of fire as an essentid
component of the Sierra Nevada ecosystem (SNEP 1996), USFS fire management policies have not been
revised in line with NPS fire policy. Severai factors likely contnbute to this inconsistency. First, the
NPS manages "entire ecosystems to preserve examples of natural cornmunities ...[to ultirnately
achieve] .. . the unimpeded interaction of native ecosystem processes and structural elements" (Parsons
and Nichols 1986, 26-27). This is in contrat with the USFS mandate to manage public resources for
multiple uses as outlined by MUSY. Fire is often considered by the USFS to be a threat ro timber
resources (pers. obsv.) as weil as aesthetically displeasing to visitors, as evidenced by the initial public
reaction to the Yellowstone fires in 1988 (McInnis 1997; Fuller 199 1). In SQF, for example, visual
quality continues to be emphasized as an important consequence of proposed management activities (R.
Rogers, pers. comm.).
Secondly, NPS employees have several decades of experience in managing prescribed bums
under varying environmentd conditions. USFS managers, on the other hand, lack experience and
confidence in controlled bums and thus are more conservative when considering the use of fire to
achieve desired conditions.lg Additionally, the current direction for fire management in mixed conifer areas (as outlined in the 1988 SQF Land and Resource Management Plan) is to "... utilize 'control' suppression strategy."" Furthemore, the LMP continues. "... the maximum size of 90 percent of al1 wildfires at containment is expected to be 15 acres.. . generally, do not use prescribed fire" (SQF 1988.4-
50). In fact, the LMP provides insufficient standards or guidelines for dealing with current fuel ioading in SQF (R. Rogers pers. comrn.). However, agency employees are in the process of developing a plan amendment that will provide managers more flexibility in allowing fires to persist under certain conditions (A. Gelobter, pers. comm.).
'' "Desired condition" is a USFS iechnicd term ". .. derived from the Forest Plan [LMP] and other management direction. They are based on goals, objectives, standards and guidelines, and other general or specific management direction" (SQF 1997a. 50). The "desired condition" is compared to the "existing condition" to determine what possibIe management practices can move existing condition toward desired. 20 This refers to imrnediately gaining control and suppressing dl €ire events whenever possiblz. Finally, the USFS continues to promote the "Smokey the Beai' mentality to recreational visitors
(Little 1993; Williams 1995). Although "Smokey the Bear" is intended to prevent (unnatural) human- ignited fires, the carnpaign does not involve an active outreach program designed to educate visitors about the ecological value of fire as a naturai disturbance regime. Thus "Smokey the Bear" serves to perpetuate the perception of tire as destructive and unnatural. In contrast to the USFS, the NPS has spent a great deal of time and energy developing public education progams. Currently, the USFS (and SQF in particular) has an insufficient educational program and the recreational experience on a national forest is defmed by numerous signposts reminding one that "Only YOU Can Prevent Forest Fires" (pers. obsv.).
As mentioned previously, giant sequoias are directly affected by the USFS policy of fire suppression. Fire scars reveal that the giant sequoias were frequently burned in the past, although there is minimal evidence of catastrophic crown fires (Dawson and Greco 1994; Wright and Bailey 1984).
Fire suppression has resulted in the establishment of thickets of white fir (Abies concolor) and other shade-tolerant species under giant sequoia groves, severely inhibiting the ability of sequoia seedlings to compete and creating a dangerous fire hazard (Stephenson 1994; Dawson and Greco 1994; Wright and
Bailey 1982). In the 1970s the USFS recognized that the suppression of natural disturbance regimes in the groves was inhibiting giant sequoia reproduction (R.Rogers, pers. comm.). Ultimately, SQF used the latter to justiSf the logging activities in the earIy 1980s that would initiate over a decade of controversy and conflict over giant sequoia management.
3.3.3. Logging Activiîy Revisited
In 1975, SQF initiated their first attempt at a prescribed burn in the 34-hectare2' Bearskin grove
(Piirto et ai. 1997). Resource managers noted that the burns initially resulted in reduced fuels and substantial sequoia regeneration in the burned area. Unfortunately, the sequoia seedlings experienced a high rnortality rate in the years following the burn- the result, according to the USFS, of an insufficiently
"hot7' frre that would have opened the canopy and exposed mineral soi1 (Piirto et al. 1997). Eight years
21 Area calculated at the "hypothetical perimeter Iine" (see section 4.2.1 .).
35 later, managers decided to follow the burn treatment with a "seed tree"" regeneration harvest. Piirto et al. (1997) state that this action was intended to accomplish "both fuel reduction and giant sequoia seedling establishment" (52). Additionally, Rogers (1986) ciairns that the agency was encouraged by the initial success of the burn and "decided to make a modest attempt at logging within the sarne grove" (32).
This activity was to mark the first step in USFS management of giant sequoia groves by mechanical means.
Between 1983 and 1986, approxirnately 490 hectares (Stephenson 1996) in a total of 11 individuai sequoia groves were logged (R. Rogers, pers. cornrn.). The rationale for mechanical management was based on two prirnary observations: (1) that white fir presence was unnaturally high and that there was a lack of giant sequoia reproduction; and (2) that giant sequoia generally occupied prime timber growing sites and thus there existed opportunities for increasing tirnber productivity on SQF
(Rogers 1986). Grove treatments included seed tree, shelterwood, sanitation and thinningz (Rogers
1986). About one-third of the total area cut was selectively logged and the remaining two thirds were cleared in "distinct 2 to 10 ha patches within an otherwise intact grove matrix" (Stephenson 1996, 1441).
Specirnen sequoias (and occasionally other mixed conifer species) were maintained as seed sources and the cut areas were planted with mixed ponderosa pine and giant ~equoia~~(Stephenson 1996; R. Rogers pers. comm.).
SQF carried out the logging activities under the guise of "grove enhancement" although critics charge that the results were little more than "modified clear-cutting" (Solnit 1997; Stephenson 1996;
Cloer 1994). Piirto et al. (1997) claim that the USFS complied with NEPA public involvement requirements before proceeding on any of the proposed management activities. Representatives of the
Sierra Club, on the other hand, state that the only indication that giant sequoias were being logged was through careful scrutiny of al1 proposed timber sales, some of which listed small quantities of redwood in the sale notice (J. Fontaine pers. cornrn.; C. Cloer pers. comrn.). Regardless, SQF has since
" A "seed tree" silvicultural beatment is one in which individual trees are left standing as seed sources for regeneration purposes. In this case, incense cedar, white fir, ponderosa pine, and sugar pine were cut. Al1 species, including giant sequoia, were retained as seed sources (R. Rogers, pers. comrn.). 23 For detailed descriptions of alternative silvicultural treatments see Kimmins (1992) or Young and Giese (1990). " In several groves ponderosa pine was planted and giant sequoias were lei3 to naturally regenerate. Sugar pine and white fir were also planted in some cases (R. Rogers, pers. comm.). acknowledged that public consensus was lacking and that logging in the early 1980s was an error in
public relations (Piirto et ai. 1997; Solnit 1997). The agency maintains, however, that actions carried out
during that period were ecologically and econornicaily justified. Despite the latter, logging activities
ceased in 1986- the result of an injunction received by the environmental cornrnunity on the basis that
SQF did not meet the environmental impact statement (EIS) requirements of NEPA (Solnit 1997; Cloer
1994; J. Fontaine, pers. comm.). A negotiated settlement was subsequently reached in 1986 in which
SQF agreed to cancel any further proposed management activities in giant sequoia groves (J. Fontaine pers. cornrn-). Present conditions in the groves Vary according to the intensity of past management activities.
Areas in which selective logging was prescribed are currently virtually indistinguishable frorn the
surrounding uncut forest matrix (Stephenson 1996). The larger areas in which most of the vegetation
was removed (with the exception of specimen sequoias and some seed trees) are now dorninated by shrubs and planted or naturally-seeded trees (Stephenson 1996). In certain areas, the density of the planted ponderosa pine is rerniniscent of a small timber plantation (pers. obsv.). In addition, some logged groves do not yet show signs of successful giant sequoia regeneration due to the dense shrub (pnmarily
Cennothus spp. and Arctostaphylos spp.) ground cover (pers. obsv.). SQF managers maintain, however, that due to the rapid growth rate of giant sequoias, sequoia seedlings will eventually outcornpete both the shrubs and planted species. Furthemore, Ceanothus spp. is often a precursor to forest regeneration, as it fixes nitrogen and improves soi1 conditions. Careful and detailed monitoring of these groves would have provided useful information on the effects of management activities of varying intensities on giant sequoia regeneration. Unfortunately, monitoring activities to date have been minimal (R. Rogers pers. comm.; S. Davis pers. cornrn.). Ultimately, the "success" of logging in the groves is debatable. According to SQF personnel, the cut groves have high levels of successful sequoia regeneration, both in planted and unplanted plotsU (S.
Davis pers. comm.). Assuming the latter is true, rneasurement of "success" then rests on whether SQF
The empirical data to support this claim was not made available to me during my limited field research. My personal observations suggest that, in some cases, this is true, while in others sequoia regeneration is not as successful as implied. achieved its "desired condition." According to Rogers (1986), SQF was concerned about reducing the density of the understory and increasing giant sequoia regeneration. Furthemore, SQF wanted to utilize the timber production capacity of giant sequoia grove sites. These objectives were reiterated in a number of intemal USFS rnemos circulated during the tirne that logging activities were taking place26.
Considering this set of expectations, SQF activities were, arguably, both successhil and defensible.
However, the USFS soon realized that their own objectives were not necessarily aligned with public values. Conflict ensued over the ecological effects of mechanical treatment in the groves, and the ability of the USFS to manage giant sequoia grove ecosystems began to be questioned by representatives from local environmentai organizations.
3.3.4. Policy Direction in Giant Sequoia Management
In 1988 the Regional Forester adopted the Sequoia National Forest Land und Resource
Management Plan (SQF 1988) based on research outlined in the accompanying final Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS). This document established the management direction and associated long-range goals and objectives for SQF for the following 10 to 15 years. Members of various interest groups, including both environmental groups and the timber industry, met the plan with a number of appeals
(Elliott-Fisk et al. 1996). In an effort to address concerns, SQF hired a professional mediator to resolve the issues between SQF and the appellants. The resulting Mediated Senlement Agreement (MSA) (SQF
1990) declared that al1 management activities relating to giant sequoias would henceforth be intended "to protect, preserve, and restore the groves for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations"
(6). The mediation process began in March 1989 and the final document was signed in July of 1990.
Over the course of this penod numerous meetings were conducted with the intent to "avoid prolonged and complicated litigation and to further public interest" (SQF 1990, 3). Approximately one-third of the
MSA deals with issues directly related to the management of giant sequoias. Signatones agreed that the groves were to be removed from the timber base, and various management conditions were outlined,
26 For specific references, contact author. including the reqüirement that SQF carry out comprehensive mapping and fuel inventories in each grove
(SQF 1990). Ultimately, the goai of this mediation process was to develop an amendment to the
contentious LMP, incorporating the information and restrictions outlined by the MSA (R. Rogers pers.
cornm.). The requisite amendments and EIS were then to be reviewed through the formalized NEPA
process- the course of which was intended to take approxirnately two years (SQF 1990,4). To date, the
information contained in the MSA has not been forrnally arnended to the LMP. In fact, only the required
mapping of grove boundarïes and influence zones has been completed (see section 4.2.1 .).
Even though the MSA is not officially an amendment to the LMP, it is treated as such by SQF
(R. Rogers pers. comm.; L. Jurnp pers. cornrn.). The most significant accomplishment of the MSA was
the removd of giant sequoia groves from the calcuIated timber production land base. It should be noted,
however, that the inability of SQF to meet the timeline set in the MSA has resulted in some signatones
questioning the agency's cornmitment to an agreement signed over eight years ago (pers. obsv.).
Furtherrnore, the application of the California Spotted Owl Interim guidelines and recent restrictions on
activities affecting mesocarnivore habitat has effectively reduced the MSA to being only one of several
documents that restrict management activities in SQF (R. Rogers pers. corm.).
In 1992, a symposium entitled "Giant Sequoias: Their Place in the Ecosystem and Society" was
organized by the USFS. The conference was attended by most of the MSA signatories, and alternative
management strategies to protect, preserve, and restore sequoia groves were discussed and debated. Al1 delegates agreed that fire suppression presented a serious hazard to long-term grove viability, but the debate surrounding the most effective means by which to reduce the fuel loads remained unresolved.
Less than a week before the symposium, an intemal rnemorandum signed by then Regional Forester
Ronald Stewart (1992) directed other Region 5 national forests to cornply with the intent of the policy and management direction outlined in the MSA (emphasis included in original document). Stewart (1992) emphasized the need for the development of "detailed long term management plans for al1 the groves, inchding those within Congressionally designated wilderness" (2). The significance of this letter is that it represents consistent local and regional policy direction on the issue of giant sequoia management. Additionally, several weeks later, a visit to SQF by then President George Bush was accompanied by the signing of a presidential proclamation declaring the groves to be ". .. unique natural treasures that are being rnanaged for biodiversity, perpetuation of the species, public inspiration and spiritual. aesthetic, recreational, ecological and scientific value" (Bush 1992; see Appendix 5). This further endorsed the protection of the groves from commercial activity and coordinated management direction at local, regional and national levels to preserve the giant sequoia in perpetuity.
3.35. The Role of Science in Giant Sequoia Management
Despite administrative agreement on the policy direction of giant sequoia management, there rernain a number of unsettIed issues regarding the form of that management. Neither the MSA, regional directive, nor the presidential proclamation provide any details on how to achieve the goals of protection, preservation and restoration of giant sequoia groves. Since 1992, managers and scientists have attempted to define these three words to develop a framework for a broader giant sequoia management strategy
(SQF 1997a; Stephenson 1996). Even this action has incited confiict with certain members of the environrnental comunity who charge that the division of these tem reduces the original intent of the
MSA in which the words "protect, preserve, and restore" were used together to Lbclearlyindicate a value statement regarding the future of the groves" (Cloer 1997; ernphasis in original document). They argue that the individual definitions may prejudice project decisions to favour activities not intended by the
MSA. For exarnple, they are concemed that "protection" might become synonymous with "protection from fire" and could be used to justiQ mechanical treatment in the groves in preference to reintroducing fire as a natural disturbance. For the agency's part, forest resource managers cIaim to be concerned about the threat of catastrophic fiethat might threaten specimen sequoias (SQF 1997a).
The Sierra Nevada Ecosystern Project (SNEP) Final Report to Congress (1996) is a "scientific review of the remaining old growth in the national forests of the Sierra Nevada ecosystem by an independent panel of scientists, with expertise in diverse areas related to this issue" (SNEP 1996, 1). The final report provides a Iist of critical findings, case studies, and outlines alternative management strategies. Issues relating to giant sequoia management are considered in several chapters of the final report. Even though the SNEP report is generally considered a collection of the most recent and best ecosystem science for the Sierra Nevada by managers and scientists alike, it is not a legd document that
requires any public or private lands be managed according to the prescriptions outiined by SNEP
contributors. Regardless, much like the MSA, the SEPreport is being treated as such by public land
management agencies (L. Jump pers. corn.; K. Duysen pers. comm.). A representative of the local
timber industry even went so far as to declax the report to be the new "bible" of the USFS in Region 5.
The SNEP case study on giant sequoia ecology and management (past and future) does provide
some valuable insight and direction for land management agencies charged with managing sequoia
groves. Stephenson (1996) provides the most comprehensive overview of alternative management
options for giant sequoia groves based on available ecological research (see also Elliott-Fisk et al. 1996).
He States that sequoia management policy is an ethical decision reflecting human values and that "the
role of science is to inforrn and support the expression of those values" (1432). Furthemore he
recognizes that broad variability in existing grove conditions resulting from differing management
histories dictates equally variable and flexible management strategies. While Stephenson does distinguish
between the terms "protection," "preservation" and "restoration," he reasons that:
"... once grove structure (which broadly includes the spatial arrangement and sizes of forest patches and the diameters, heights, and densities of the trees in the patches) and fuel characteristics are restored to pre-Euroamerican conditions, pre-Euroamerican fire behaviour will follow, and groves will thus be less susceptible to severe wildfires" (1443).
Thus, he argues, the processes of grove protection and restoration can proceed simultaneously. The third process, grove preservation27,involves the maintenance of restored groves. Many of the techniques used to restore giant sequoia groves will also be effective tools for Iong-term preservation. Ultimately, however, the goal is to allow natural processes to operate within grove boundaries without significant human intervention (R. Rogers pers. comrn.; J. Fontaine pers. comrn.).
Stephenson (1996) proposes that the range of conditions during the millennium preceding
Euroamerican settlernent is a reasonable restoration goal. During this period changes in the relative proportions of trees species slowed and, according to available paleoecological records, grove
" Stephenson (1996) refers to grove "conservation"rather than "presewation." This is conscious distinction intended to remove the potential implication of grove stasis (freezing in time) that is often associated with the term "presewation"(N. Stephenson, pers. comrn.). composition was most similar to modem conditions. Furthermore, despite claims of global warrning, climatic change during the tast 1OOO years has tended to be relatively non-directional when cornpared to the preceding several thousand years (Stephenson 1996; Swetnarn 1993). Until future research suggests otherwise, this suggested restoration target is generaily accepted by resource managers (see Piirto and
Rogers 1998).
SeIecting the appropriate tools by which to achieve restoration goals, however, rernains a contentious and unresolved issue between resource managers, scientists and the public. Furthermore, the debate concerning structural and process restoration management strategies (discussed in greater detail in section 5.2.2.) continues to be a source of conflict. Fundmentaily, the issue can be brought dom to the base level of "fire versus chainsaws." As Stephenson (1996) notes, however, these tools are not mutually exclusive; "either or both cm be used, depending on objectives and practical considerations" (1452).
3.3.6. Alternative Management Took in Gianf Sequoia Management
The most conservative approach, however, would be to maintain the natural disturbance processes which sustained gant sequoia ecosystems in the past (Stephenson 1996). As mentioned previously, differences in land management agency mandates and experience dictates the extent to which either tooI (saw or fire) is employed. Reservations of USFS resource managers regarding the reintroduction of fire into sequoia groves are twofold. They are prirnarily concerned that the existing fuet ladder created by shade-tolerant species and dead debris could result in a crown fire that would threaten established trees (Christensen 1993). Second, they fear that the loss of mature trees would reduce the possibility of successful seedling establishment, thereby risking the long-term viability of the groves thernsehes (Wright and Bailey 1982).
Additionally, USFS managers currently lack the experience and confidence to employ such a recalcitrant management strategy on giant sequoia groves. Numerous variables must be considered in controlled burns. For exarnple, a prescribed fire regime should rnirnic natural variations in the intensity and frequency of disturbances. Recent research suggests that locally high-intensity fires are important as they open the canopy for sequoia seedling establishment (Parsons 1994). Moreover, fire should be used onIy in the late surnrner or fa11 to facilitate optimal germination conditions for giant sequoia seedlings. The use of prescribed fire as a management tool is clearly challenging; controlled burning requires ideal
conditions to avoid conflagration. Increased collaboration with NPS scientists and managers (to
capitalize on three decades of burning experience) seems a reasonable and necessary step in USFS giant
sequoia management.
Altematively, mechanical treatments that mimic natural processes have been proposed.
Physically cutting openings in the canopy, thinning the understory and using a light surface burn to
prepare the seed bed would reduce the risks inherent in prescribed fire management strategies. However,
artificial seeding would also be required, as a low intensity surface fire would induce Little response from
the serotinous cones high in the canopy (Stephenson 1996; 1994). Not surprisingly, the forest products
industry is in support of practices that rnimic natural processes and provide tangible economic benefits.
Duysen (1994), a representative of the local timber industry, outlines the negative aspects of controlled
burning; he notes the difficulty of controlling fire intensity, concerns regarding air pollution, the fact that
post-bum areas are not aesthetically pleasing, the problem of inadequate site preparation for regeneration
if a burn is not properly managed, and the non-utilized destroyed conifer resource (138). He argues that
mechanical management (logging the understory) is superior to controlled burning aesthetically.
econornically, and ecologically (1 994, 138).
Ultimately, both mechanical treatment and prescribed burns have advantages and disadvantages
(see Table 3.1.). The USFS has developed proposds which combine prescribed cutting with controlled
burns, weighing ecology against economic benefits and the secut-ity of mechanized management (see
SQF 1997a). To date, however, there have been no management activities (aside from mapping boundaries) in giant sequoia groves since 1986 (R. Rogers pers. cornm.).
The reality, however, is that we do not fully understand the dynarnic processes of fire ecology.
Scientific laowledge regarding giant sequoia ecology is lirnited (Stephenson 1996; Parsons 1994). More research is necessary to "determine the natural spatial scale of canopydestroying disturbance in sequoia groves if we are to understand the management implications of patch dynarnics" (Stephenson 1994, 61).
Critics argue that artificial disturbance by means of chainsaws does not consider the greater issues of grove ecosystem dynarnics (J. Fontaine pers. comrn.). Stephenson (1994) also notes that fire may do more than simply open the canopy. For example, it is possible that fire kills potential pathogens and alters soil properties to favour seedling growth and survivai. However, defining natural fire regimes in
the past presents some difficulty for fire ecologists. Swetnarn (1993) concluded that "giant sequoia fire
regirnes were clearly nonstationary; fire frequencies and sizes constantly changed through time" (88).
Until researchers fully understand the processes by which sequoia groves persist, perhaps resource
managers should employ multiple management strategies.
Table 3.1. Tradeoffs of Alternative Management Tool FIRE 1 SAWS Structural objectives achieved with moderate Structural objectives achieved with excellent precision precision Conservative: maintains the processes that More Iikely to have unknown or unexpected short sustained groves in the past, such as nutrient and long terrn ecosystem consequences cycling and soil sterilization No soil compaction, usually low erosion Potential for soil compaction and greater erosion, depending on approach 1 Policy ailows use in many designated wildernesses Would require special exemption for use in Idesignated wildernesses Low or no potential for cornmodity production as High potential for commadity production as an an incidental byproduct of restoration incidental byproduct of restoration Smoke production and a chance of fire escape No smoke or chance of fire escape unless debris is rernoved bv buming -- - 1 High potential for scaning trees, providing 1 Lower potential for scarring trees,%ut high chance possible entry points for pathogens lof entry of root pathogens through cut stumps Adequate natural seed release following treatment ,Some species (particularIy sequoia) will require manual seeding or ~lantine - 1 ~elativel~inex~ensiveto apply over large areas May be very expensive if costs are not -p&ially- 1: offset bv cornrnoditv ~roduction Source: Stephenson (1996), with author's permission.
Extensive new research on fire history and the effects of fire intensity on forest structure and
pathogen populations is currentIy underway (Parsons 1994). Furthemore, the ecological value of the
non-sequoia understory is of increased interest to forest ecologists (Willard 1995; 1994). Recent genetic
research also suggests that giant sequoia population viability rnight depend on natural regeneration (involving fire) (Fins and Libby 1994). While management options exist, little is known with certainty
regarding the long-term effects of the various strategies on grove ecosystem dynamics (Leisz 1994).
UltirnateIy, grove management has two pnmary goals: to reduce fuel hazards and rnaintain "natural" ecosysterns. Forest managers should consider the compatibility (or incompatibility) of these objectives in designing appropriate management strategies. Finally, new research should be continuously integrated into the decision-making process, and management strategies should, whenever possible, be based on sound ecological knowledge. These are essential components of the policy adopted by the USFS in 1992, ecosystem management. 4. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND APPLICATION OF ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT IN GLANT SEQUOIA MANAGEMENT
4.1. Conceptual Framework of Ecosystem Management
As mentioned previously, the USFS have identified four central tenets to EM: an ecological approach to management, decisions based on sound ecological science, participation, and partnerships
(USFS 1994a). USFS literature regarding the practical implementation of EM, however, is limited. An exception is the "conceptual hework" designed by Manley et aI. (1995) to bridge ecosystem theory and the practical application of EM by the USFS. The authors outline a process that improves the use of scientific information in analyses, planning, and decision-making, and propose rnethods for identifjhg key ecosystem elements and environmental indicators (defined by individual project requirements) to be utilized in the application of EM on the ground. In order to examine the application of EM by the USFS however, the ambiguity of the term must be resolved and a comprehensive definition of EM be adopted. Manley et al. (1995) broadly define EM as:
".. . the skillful, integrated use of ecological knowledge at various scaies to produce desired resource values, products, services and conditions in ways that aiso sustain the diversity and productivity of ecosystems. This approach blends physicd, biological, and culturaVsocial needs" (203).
It is revealing to compare the Manley et al. (1995) with EM as conceived by the Ecologicaf Society of
Arnerica (ESA): ".. . FM is] management driven by explicit goals, executed by policies, protocols, and practices, and made adaptable by monitoring and research based on our best understanding of the ecologicd interactions and processes necessary to sustain ecosystem structure and function" (Christensen et al. 1996, 668-669).
The ESA definition focuses on sustaining ecosystem structure and function according to ecologically established management parameters directed by human values and Iegislation. Manley et al. (1995), on the other hand, emphasize managing for ecosystem "products" and "services" in such a manner that will not compromise healthy ecosystem processes. The subtle differences between these two definitions illuminates the fine distinction between designing management strategies to sustain ecosystems versus ernphasizing human use and value of resources. Notably, the USFS maintain that sustainable ecosystems
and human resource use need not be mutually exclusive.
The relationship between these concepts is further explored by Grumbine (1994b). Grumbine
(1994b) considers EM as a fundamental reframing of how humans perceive and interact with nature. He
suggests that there are two strearns of EM thought: those advocating "an inclusive vision of protecting
ecological integrity" and those attempting to "graft the new ecosystem view of nature ont0 the old
resourcisrn [sic] standard of 'for humans only"' (1994b, 9). Gmmbine considers these two conceptions
of EM as diarnetrically opposed. As mentioned previously, however, the USFS maintain that it can
manage both comodity and non£ommodity resources according to the principles of EM. For the purposes of this research, I was forced to consider whether 1 should measure USFS
application of EM solely according to the agency's definition of EM or expand that definition to include
elements of EM identified by academic and scientific literature. 1 believe one of the strengths of EM to
be that it is not a concept exclusive to the USFS, but also firmly rooted in the discourse of the academic
and scientific community. While one definition of EM has yet to prevail, 1posit that the healthy dialogue
surrounding the concept is a valuable source of information for forest managers. Thus 1 believe that the
synthesis of available literature and identification of recurrent themes in EM from numerous sources will
result in a superior definition by which to evaluate the application of EM by the USFS. Ultimately, by
incorporating EM themes identified by authors such as Gmmbine (1997; 1994a) into a definition of EM,
rny evaluation of giant sequoia management by the USFS will have broader applications to the general
EM discourse and literature.
1 have identified four dominant themes emerging from academic, govenment and industry publications on EM theory and application. These thernes serve as the framework for the following analysis of SQF management activities. Within each of the four central themes, a number of definitive characteristics must be considered when designing, irnplementing or evaluating an EM project. I have drawn these characteristics From relevant literature and outlined them below under each of the four themes: an ecological approach to systerns management, adaptive scientific management, cooperation and collaboration, and the integration of social vaiues into the management process. (1) Ecological Approach to Systems Management
Systerns management is based on the concept of multiplicity. Haeuber (1996) recognizes the
imporhnce of considering multiple spatial and temporal scales in resource management as "no single ccrrect scale for EM exists (genetic, species, population, landscape); instead. EM focuses on interactions
at different scales" (26). Christensen et al. (1996) and Slocombe (1993) identify understanding the
complexity and interconnectedness in ecosystem structure, process and function as an essential
component of EM. The SNEP report (1996) concludes that the creation and analysis of integrated
ecological inventories is one manner by which resource managers can embrace and lem about
ecosystem interactions. In addition, "the development of interactive, spatially explicit models that permit dl participants to view likely outcornes of proposed management alternatives across the landscape" is a
useful approach in the application of EM (Meyer and Swank 1996). EM should also identify and
incorporate ecological (venus arbitrary) boundaries into management strategies (Grurnbine 1997; Meyer
and Swank 1996; Grumbine 1994a; Slocombe 1993). Finally, EM must recognize the dynamic character
of ecosystems (Christensen et al. 1996) while focusing on establishing long-term sustainability
(Grumbine 1997; Manley et al. 1996: Grumbine 1994a).
(2) Adaptive Scientific Management
Acknowledging limited scientific understanding of ecosystem processes and functions, adaptive scientific management (ASM) requires managers to constantly re-evaluate management decisions. First and foremost, ASM requires identification of clear operational goals (Christensen et al. 1996; Meyer and
Swank 1996; Stanford and Poole 1996) and the adoption of an active, management orientation by naturd resource agencies (Slocombe 1993). ASM requires increased and continuous research, surveys and assessrnent to achieve satisfactory levels of data collection to evaluate management activities
(Chnstensen et al. 1996). Furthermore, data collection activities must also involve improved coordination and use of existing data (Grumbine 1997; Grumbine 1994a; Stanford and Poole 1996).
USFS (1994a), Manley et al. (1995), and Thomas (1996) dl stress the value of making resource management decisions based on sound ecological science. This can be achieved through extensive experimentation by scientists and managers alike (Gmmbine 1997; Grumbine 1994a; Yaffee et al. 1996). An anticipatory, flexible, research and planning process allows managers to adapt to uncertainty (Gnirnbine 1994a; SIocombe 1993). Finally, biologicat, ecological, social and economic monitoring of al1 resource management activities is essentiai (SNEP 1996) in order to supply the new information necessary to evaluate and adjust rnanagement strategies to meet human and ecosystem needs (Manley et al. 1995). In ASM, "policies are designed as hypotheses and rnanagement implemented as experiments to test those hypotheses" (Holling 1996, 734).
(3) Cooperation and Collaboration
Successful cooperation and coIIaboration in resource management requires that groups with differing value systerns work together to reach a specified goal. interagency cooperation is one component of the social or human dimension of EM (Gmmbine 1997; 1994a). Resource managers must share research experiences with one another so that management decisions can be based on the most recent and best scientific information available (SNEP 1996). Public participation is aIso a critical element of EM (Thomas 1996; Manley et al. 1995; USFS 1994a). Participation should involve collaborative decision-making to develop (and increase) trust between policy makers, managers, scientists and the public (Thomas 1996; USFS 1994a). In particular, Dombeck (1997) emphasizes collaboration as an effective means by which to achieve meaninal public participation. Furthemore, the sharing of power between al1 stakeholders is an essential feature of EM (Thomas1996; USFS 1994a). These partnerships should be designed to increase understanding of the economic, social and political limitations of respective partners (Mersmann et al. 1993). Finally, cooperation and collaboration should be supported by effective organizational and decision-making structures so that there exists a sufficient infrastructure for the application of EM principles (Yaffee et al. 1996).
(4) Integration of Social Values
The integration of social values into resource management involves recognizing broader societal issues that influence the direction and shape of resource management activities. The "cooperation and collaboration" therne referred to the tangible actions performed by resource management agencies with extemal partners. The integration of social values into the management process is more abstract in that it involves considering general trends in social values and defining "the publicm- a group rarely represented by one cohesive value system (SNEP 1996). Furthermore, EM requires that hurnans be considered ecosystem components and value thernselves as a part of ecosystem processes rather than apanfrorn them (Haeuber 1996; Christensen 1996). Irnproving general understanding of the human role in ecosystem dynamics, however, requires improved education for the public, scientists and managers
(Grumbine 1997; 1994a). Ultimately, education on the relationship between social values, science and resource management goals is essential for the successful application of EM in public resource management.
During the course of my field research, I explained the above conception of EM to USFS employees with whom 1 conducted conversationai interviews. Nurnerous people noted that if 1 were to ask individuais to list the dominant themes of EM, 1would likely receive as many different responses as the number of people asked. Furtherrnore, al1 agreed that the above themes are a fair representation of
EM and an effective gauge by which to measure USFS management activity. By evduating USFS management according to a definition of EM based on work by authors of various professiond affiliations, 1 believe that my analysis of the application of EM at the ground level will be a greater contribution to both EM and USFS research and literature. Limiting the definition of EM to the four components identified by the USFS would mean evaluating agency activities by agency-defined criteria, thus restncting the value of my analysis and conclusions for EM projects directed by other resource management agencies and organizations.
The success of EM as a guiding principle in resource management requires that each of the above characteristics be evduated both individually and in concert. By considering the above thernes and characteristics in the context of giant sequoia management, 1 develop a qualitative assessrnent of the degree to which the USFS have been successful in applying EM at the local level.
4.2. Application of Ecosystem Management in Giant Sequoia Management
In order to evaluate the application of EM by SQF, each of the themes outlined above are considered in the context of giant sequoia management. Certain EM characteristics are more abstract and thus do not lend themselves to assessing the practical application of EM on the ground. Therefore key
characteristics of each theme that are directly relevant to giant sequoia management were first selected
and activities relating to each characteristic identified. The following resuks are organized according to
current management activities in giant sequoia groves as they relate to each of the four themes. SQF management activities are evaluated below by determining how well the activities incorporate and reflect
the lcey characteristics of each theme. Following identification and a brief presentation of the relevant
activities (what is happening in SQF), an evaluation (under the sub-heading "Evaluation and
Considerations") of those activities in the context of EM is presented (what should be happening in
SQF). Some suggestions are offered for future giant sequoia management direction.
4.2.1. Ecological Approach to Systems Management
(1) Grove Mapping and Scaie
The mapping of giant sequoia groves occurred between 1992 and 1995 and was conducted by a
SQF-appointed mapping tearn. The process of mapping involved two basic steps: establishing the grove
administrative boundary and identifying the grove influence zone2'. The grove administrative boundary
was deterrnined by first calculating a hypothetical perimeter line within which "any naturally occurring
giant sequoia (1 foot [30 centirneters] or Iarger at diameter breast height [dbh]) which is located within
500 feet r151.5 meters] of at least 3 other giant sequoias (each 1 foot [30 centimeters] or larger dbh),
shd1 always be included" (SQF 1990, 13). EncircIing the hypothetical perimeter line a buffer area of 300
or 500 foot [91 or 151.5 meters] estabIished the offkial grove administrative boundary within which
there is mechanical entry only for the purposes of fuel reduction. An additional 500-foot [151.5 meter]
buffer zone was then mapped aroi'nd the grove administrative boundary to establish the grove influence
zone (in which any isolated giant sequoia under 3 feet [90 centimeters] dbh is protected from logging).
Topographie features could be used to define grove boundaries if al1 MSA signatories were in agreement.
Exceptions to this mapping process are identified in the MSA (SQF 1990). The proposed grove
boundaries were subsequentiy confirmed and approved by a "Grove Boundary Team" comprised of
" The mapping protocol is outlined in the MSA (SQF 1990). For a more in-depth review of the mapping process see also Elliott-Fisk et al. (1996). representatives from the Sierra Club, the Save-the-Redwoods League, the timber industry, and the USFS
(Elliott-Fisk et al. 1996). The validation process was completed in May 1998.
Grove boundaries are considered "the minimum protection criteria, and secondary to Spotted
Owl Habitat Area, roadless area, condor site, botanical area management, and other areas of special designation" (Elliott-Fisk et al. 1996). Both the mapping and the validation crews were directed to note any indication that the grove was shrinking or expanding (R. Rogers pers. comm.). Very few stumps were found outside of current grove boundaries suggesting grove boundaries are neither expanding nor contracting2'. To date, SQF has planned no Further research on grove boundaries.
(2) Ecological inventories
The MSA States: "it is desirable that the Sequoia National Forest shall inventory al1 ,aiant sequoias (3 feet [36 inches] or Iarger dbh) in each Grove by size and approximate location in order to provide a suitable database for future protection of the sequoias" (1990, 9). Furthemore, SQF is required by the MSA to inventory and evaluate fbel loads in order to prioritize groves for fuel reduction treatment. Currently, only two groves, Deer Creek Grove and Converse Basin, have been inventoried for tree composition, understory vegetation and fuel loads. This is in stark contrast to data available for NPS groves, in which every living sequoia was individually mapped in the 1960s and 1970s (N. Stephenson pers. corn..).
There are no plans to expand SQF inventories to include faunal populations despite the SNEP recommendation that resource managers complete biological inventories for individual groves. Elliott-
Fisk et al. (1996) urged SQF to ". .. undertake a scientifically vdid description of their grove ecosysterns, gathering statistically sound data on the biota of the groves, the physiognomy of the forest, plant cornrnunities, soi1 types and depth. surface and sub-surface hydrology, dead vs. standing vs. downed biomass, fuels, and the presence of disease and darnage frorn fringi, insects, air pollutants and other agents" (303).
29 This conclusion is consistent with research conducted by Rundel (197 1). SQF have made lirnited headway on this, admittedly substantive, list of research priorities. The agency
maintains that they are currently focusing on restoring grove habitat and reason that a naturally
functioning grove ecosystem will attract native species (R. Rogers, pers. cornrn.).
A graduate research project involving canopy gap analysis in giant sequoia groves is planned although the scope and methodology of the research have yet to be established. The role of fire in
establishing these gaps and a "mosaic of [vegetative] aggregations" is well documented (Stephenson 1996; Bonnicksen and Stone 1982; Bonnicksen and Stone 1981; Harvey et al. 1980). Considering the
long history of fire suppression in the groves, however, establishing a scientific control for this research
will be problematic. Calculating previous gap structure and size from even-age aggregations is the most
reasonable method, although accuracy is limited (N. Stephenson, pers. cornrn.). The initial stages of this
research involve data collection by the fuels and vegetation inventory tearn in Deer Creek Grove and
Converse g as in^' and preliminary air photo interpretation.
(3) EcoIogicaI modeling To date SQF has not used ecological modeling to improve understanding of grove structure and hinction, inputs, throughputs and outputs. This is (in part) due to the fact that the available data is
severely limited. Furthemore, no appropriate forest dynarnics model exists (N. Stephenson, pers.
comm.). Therefore a substantial time, energy and financial cornmitment is required by SQF to develop
an effective ecoIogical model.
In the process of preparing their chapter for the SNEP report, Elliott-Fisk et al. (1996) proposed to run a dernonstration model designed to predict the effects of various fuel treatments on fire behaviour in a sequoia-rnixed conifer ecosystem. The project, however, never came to fruition- the reasons for which are unclear and speculative. It is possible that the departure of the Forest ~upervisor~'rnidway during the SNEP process affected agency confidence in moving ahead with pve modeling and
30 The fuels and vegetation inventory team are including a note of any gaps larger than approximateiy 0.1 hectare (see Piirto and Rogers 1998) in the data log (L. Jump, pers. comm.). This will assist in ground-tnithing gaps identified by air photo interpretation.
31 Then Forest Supervisor Sandra Key left SQF for the position of Forest Supervisor at Bridger-Teton National Forest in Jackson, Wyoming. management. Furthemore, SQF may have felt that the project was too prescriptive and was concerned that criticism from stakeholders (prirnarily grazing interests, off-road vehicle groups and the timber industry) would erupt into yet another series of conflicts and controversy @. EIliott-Fisk, pers. comm.).
Finaily, considering the recent Iegal challenges to SQF management a~thorit~~~,the Forest rnay have been concemed about relinquishing control over giant sequoia management to a group of external scientists and resource managers.
EvuZuafion und Consùïeratàons
Managing giant sequoia groves according to the principles of ecosystern and systerns management entails considering the complex interactions by various ecosystem components. In the grove mapping process, developing an ecological inventory and utilizing ecosystem models, SQF has inadequately considered grove ecosystern dynarnics.
The process of establishing grove boundaries resulted in the first detaiied and accurate mapping of giant sequoia groves in SQF. Additionaily, the rnapping team discovered several groves that were previously unidentified as well as concluding that two individually named groves (listed by Rundel
1972a) were actually part of other confirmed groves. In the end, the mapping was considered a successful project by al1 involved, albeit a timeconsuming and expensive venture. The "Grove
Boundary Team," in particular, was pleased with agency accuracy and cornmitment to the process (J.
Fontaine, pers. comm.). This is significant as praise for USFS involvement in giant sequoia management is delivered infrequently by interest groups, especially by representatives from the Sierra CIub.
Despite these positive sentiments, the SNEP (1996) report has raised some important questions regarding the scientific vdidity of the boundary definitions. As noted by Eiliott-Fisk et al. (1996) and
Stephenson (1996), the MSA's definitions of grove administrative boundaries and influence zones have
Little ecological basis. Studies suggest that subsurface water is the limiting feature preventing giant
32 see Bill H.R. 2077, the "Sequoia Ecosystem and Recreation Preserve Act" supported by the Sierra Club and introduced by Representative George Brown (D-CA). The Act proposes to establish a "Giant Sequoia National Forest keserve" which would comprise of just under 140,000 hectares in SQF. This area wouId be removed Erom the hberbase and prohibit new road buiIding and mining patents. The Preserve would be managed by SQF for recreational opportunities and to "protect and preserve giant sequoia ecosystem." sequoia reproduction in the mixed conifer forest beyond current grove boundaries (Rundel 1971; 1972b).
As such, "one of the primary needs for assuring sequoia ecosystem sustainability is undisturbed grove
hydrology" (Stephenson 1996, 1457). Stephenson (1996) recomrnecds defining both hydrologie and fire
influence zones in areas adjacent to current grove boundaries. Both these zones should be considered in
any proposed management activities in and around groves.
This mises the very important issue of spatial scaks. Most stakeholders and scientists agree that
the sub-watershed basin is sufficient for management purposes (A. Gaffrey, pers. cornrn.). SQF recognizes that hydrology and fire must be considered in the design of management strategies both
specifically for groves and for the surrounding rnixed conifer forest. However, the extent of this area
remains unspecified and, to date, there are no formal plans to redefine or broaden existing grove
boundary definitions (R. Rogers, pers. cornm.). Representatives from the environmental cornrnunity are
skeptical about this vague cornmitment by SQF to recognize ecosystem processes that extend beyond
official grove boundaries. Furthermore, considering the lirnited understanding of giant sequoia
ecosystem dynarnics, there is the possibi ity that the sub-watershed basin is inadequate for grove
conservation (D. Elliott-Fisk, pers. corn.) To deal with these uncertainties, representatives from the
Sierra Club charge that SQF should address the issues of disturbance, hydrology and general ecosystem
functions in a fonnalized forest-wide giant sequoia grove management plan (C. Cloer, pers. corn.; J.
Fontaine, pers. cornm.).
Recent interest has been focused on defining grove ecosystem boundaries in addition to administrative boundaries. Current differences of opinion on which scale is most appropriate for
management purposes generally reflect the varying agendas of individud stakeholders. Ecosystem boundaries, however, should be decided according to the ecological requirements of groves. Again, further research should be directed at examining the relationship between major watershed, sub- watershed basins and grove ecosystem. An interesting study, for example, rnight consider how closely current grove boundaries correlate with sub-watershed basins. Additionally, fire histories for individud groves and the surrounding rnixed conifer forest should be documented.
A more detailed ecoIogical inventory is essential in defining a grove ecosystem. SQF data on grove ecology must extend beyond simply fuel conditions and tree and understory species composition. Furthermore, more research and investment should be directed toward the design of ecoIogica1 models to
improve understanding of grove dynarnics. As stakeholders debate appropriate ecosystem boundaries,
more detailed information is necessary to develop a scientifically substantiated definition of giant
sequoia grove ecosystems. Ecological modeling will aid in this effort.
SQF is making some valuable headway on grove ecosystem research. Work by Piirto and Rogers
(1998) identifies key environmental elernents and indicators in giant sequoia ecosystems. This work
follows the EM frarnework outlined by Manley et ai. (1995) with data derived from research conducted
by a wide range of academics, scientists, resource managers and government agencies. However, while
Piirto and Rogers (1998) offer a signifiant contribution to current understanding of giant sequoia grove
ecosysterns based on existing docurnented research, simultaneous primary research activity must ako
occur. Bluntly stated, SQF managers must "get out of the office," or eIse the bureaucratie and
administrative reputation of the USFS prove true.
4.2.2. Adaptive Scientific Management
(1) Goals The USFS manage giant sequoia groves to "protect, preserve, and restore the groves for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations" (SQF 1997a, 6). These basic goals are officially identified in the Mediated Settlement Agreement (SQF 1990), regional policy statement
(Stewart 1992), and Presidentid Proclamation (Bush 1992). None of the documents, however, specify how protection, preservation and restoration are to be achieved.
In September 1997, SQF issued a report entitled "Giant Sequoia Fire Protection Strategy:
Collaborative Stewardship of a National Treasure" (SQF 1997a). This document was the culmination of a year-long coIlaborative process with local interest groups. The report represented the first stage of
USFS giant sequoia management activity according to MSA direction: protection. Distinctions between the three tenns were outlined as follows:
(1) PROTECT naturally occurring groves from events that are contnry to, or dismptive of, natural ecological processes. Protect historical, prehistorical, and biological artifacts within the groves from agents that couId destroy them or accelerate their naturd rate of detenoration. (2) PRESERVE the groves by allowing ecological processes, or equivalents thereof, to maintain the dynamics of forest structure and function.
(3) RESTORE the groves to their natural state where contemporary human activities have interfered with the natural processes- especially the processes of fire and hydrology (SQF 1997%7).
These definitions were reviewed both internally (by agency employees) and externally (by some MSA signatories and certain members of interest groups) (R. Rogers pers. cornm.). Despite the latter. critics
charge that SQF is misrepresenting the original intent of the MSA statement (see Chapter 3, section
3.3.5.). This has incited yet another controversy and spurred increasingly adversarial relations between
SQF and the Sierra Club. Beyond the above definitions, there is no further direction in SQF grove management.
Stephenson (1996) outlines alternative management strategies to meet these goals, and Piirto and Rogers (1998) identie the key ecosystem elements that must be considered in evduating and designing
strategies. To date, however, SQF has no more detailed direction for giant sequoia grove management
than "protection, preservation, and restoration."
(2) Data Collection and Monitoring There are currently no management activities planned or occumng in SQF giant sequoia groves.
A prescribed burn in the mixed-conifer forest adjacent to Deer Creek grove was scheduled for Fa11 1998,
but it has since been cancelled due to pressure from the Sierra Club to postpone al1 individual grove management activities until a forest-wide giant sequoia grove management plan is completed (discussed
in greater detail in section 4.3.). The forest-wide grove management plan is not intended to be a
blueprint for al1 management activities pertaining to giant sequoia ecosystems. Rather, it would set management direction to "assure that groves will not be homogeneously rnanaged" and ensure al1 aspects of the grove be considered sirnultaneous?y (Cloer 1997, 2). Wildlife, watershed condition, viewsheds, migration corridors, winter uses, and recreation oppominities would be included (Cloer 1997,2-3). As mentioned previously however, SQF data on grove ecosystems is limited to fuel conditions and tree and understory species composition. Furthemore, this data (colIected during the months of July and August 1998) exists for only two groves, Deer Creek Grove and Converse Basin. SQF does intend to collect this information for al1 40 groves, and in doing so will fulfill the MSA requirement to "inventory
and evaluate each Grove for its fuel load build-up" (SQF 1990, 9). The data would then permit SQF to
priontize the groves according to frre hazard and deveIop management strategies to deal with the groves
rnost severely threatened by catastrophic fire events. However, resource managers now recognize that data collection must extend beyond simply fuels inventories for giant sequoia groves (R. Rogers, pers. cornrn.). Despite the latter, there are currently no comprehensive ecological data collection activities scheduled by SQF.
Monitoring activity by SQF is also limited. The effects of the thinning and group selection operations in the early 1980s on giant sequoia regeneration were monitored at one, three, and five (in some cases) years following the logging activity (S. Davis, pers. corn.). Since that time there has been no active monitoring in any grove- logged or unlogged. This information would be enorrnously valuable in determining some of the short and long-term effects of mechanical treatment in giant sequoia ecosystems.
(3) Fïexibiiity and Experimentation In January 1997, over forty rnembers of the USFS attended a Giant Sequoia Leadership
Conference in Visalia, California, to address the issue of giant sequoia management. The role of the
USFS resource manager3) as an authority figure was discussed and debated within the context of giant sequoia management activities. Jeff Simon of the Pinchot Institute presented a paper that addressed broad restrictions to managerial flexibility and freedom. In particular, Simon (1993) notes: "More recently, environmental laws have produced altogether new poiicies and processes that have narrowed the line officer's flexibility. With stringent environmental assessment responsibilities, monitoring requirernents, and new systems of accountability, the planning process and every other basis of decision making have changed dramaticdly. The decision maker now must not only direct forest and project planning dong specific courses of procedure, but must also share the decision making responsibility with the public. The social,
33 USFS employees are comprised of line oficers and prograrn staff. Line officers are considered to be the Chief, Deputy Chief, Regional Foresters, Forest Supervisors, and District Rangers. Under each of these positions there are prograrn staff to coordinate and apply line officerdecisions. The term "resource manager" in this thesis refers to both line officers and members of the prograrn staff who are in close contact with interest groups and often do most of the "ground work." environmental, and political complexities of the late twentieth century have drarnaticdly altered the land manager's freedom" (170).
While speaking generally about USFS managers, these observations are no more relevant than in the case
of giant sequoia management where social values and Iegal constraints affect the flexibility of managers.
This is not to imply that increased legal accountability is a negative influence in land resource
management planning or giant sequoia management. On the contrary, detaiIed documentation and
analysis of the environmental, econornic and social impacts of proposed activities reflect a more
inclusive and open planning and management process. Currently any degree of flexibility or opportunity to experiment in SQF giant sequoia groves,
however, is virtudly nonexistent. SQF managers must act in accordance with the MSA, the CASPO
Interim Guidelines, and the (now Iargely outdated) 1988 SQF Forest Land and Resource Management
Plan. Al1 proposed management actions must then be evaluated in accordance with the NEPA process.
Furtherrnore, any proposed activities that involve giant sequoia groves have been cancelled due to
resistance by the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club argues that SQF has still not fulfilled MSA requirements
and that any management authority maintained by resource managers should be further curtailed until
they meet these obligations. For their part, SQF managers believe they are already wearing a proverbial
straightjacket (pers. obsv.).
Evaluation and Considerations
Adaptive scientific management begins by identifying clear, operationai goals for management
activities. Existing SQF @am sequoia management goals must be brought from the broad down to the
specific- to "protect, preserve, and restore" is simply not suff~cient Recomrnendations outlined in the
SNEP report are a significant step forward in this respect. Stephenson (1996) identifies appropriate
restoration targets and discusses alternative approaches to achieving protection and preservation (see
Chapter 3, section 3.3.6.). In doing so, he provides a strong foundation from which SQF resource
managers can build.
This process is already underway with research currently being conducted by Piirto and Rogers
(1998). The authors identiQ a set of key elements thought to be adequate to define and control the management activities needed to protect, preserve, and restore national forest giant sequoia groves. They
then employ the concepts of "reference variability" and "recornmended management variability" to
define the natural range of variability for environmentai indicators and the desired operating range for
resource managers, respectively.
Piirto and Rogers (1998) attempt to define quantifiable structural gods for giant sequoia
e~os~stems~~.Certain elements of giant sequoia management however, do not lend themselves neatly to
quantitative assessment. For exarnple, quantiQing public attitudes, beliefs and values is problematic.
Furthennore, lirnited scientific understanding of grove dynamics necessitates some qualitative evaluation
of both structural and process goals (N. Stephenson, pers. cornm.). Piirto and Rogers (1998) maintain
that by identiQing a range of values (labeled the "naturai range of variability"), the difficulties involved
in quantifying environmental indicators can be resolved to the best of our ability. Ideally, resource
managers would identiQ a combination of both qualitative and quantitative structura1 and process goals.
SQF need a strong program for research, inventory and monitoring (RIM) ehat runs parallel to the
design and implernentation of management activities. Currently, data collected by SQF is inadequate.
The lack of fiscal support is the major irnpediment to increasing RIM activity on SQF. The USFS
budgetary process rewards managers for successful projects with meaurable outcomes (R. Rogers, pers.
comrn.). Giant sequoia management however, does not fit well within a frarnework that finances short-
term management projects at the expense of ongoing research and monitoring activity. The USFS has
little econornic incentive to invest in giant sequoia management activities as sequoia research offers
limited (if any) financiai returns. As such, the lack of capitd investment by regional and national agency
offices has restricted SQF's ability to fulfill its MSA obligations (R. Rogers, pers. comm.; J. Allen, pers.
comrn.). SQF must realize, however, that responsible grove management is art investment in public
credibility and should be considered distinct from commercial activities on national forest lands.
Adaptive scientific management requires that resource management agencies have the financiai
means to implement management projects when they are deemed necessary. In the decade following a
34 This represents a different approach to giant sequoia management than the predominantly process-oriented strategies employed by the NPS. The benefits and weaknesses of each approach are outlined by Stephenson (1996). A brief discussion of structural versus process restoration as a source of conflict in giant sequoia management is presented in Chapter 5, section 5.2. prescribed burn, for exarnple, managers must monitor and plan for several follow-up controlled bums.
The 2974 Resources Planning Act was intended to tie proposed resource objectives to five-year budgets
to ensure funding for management activities for more than one fiscal year (loornis 1993). Recently,
however, shrinking budgets and a continuously changing political clirnate has made budgetary security
largely obsolete (R. Rogers, pers. comm.; N. Stephenson, pers. comm.). SQF resource managers have
been forced to pursue other avenues of fùnding, including special USFS and National Forest
~oundation'~(NE) gants. In addition, the relationship between a resource manager and a giant sequoia grove is
complicated by the life span of the giant sequoia species. Individual specimen sequoias have lived for
thousands of years. yet SQF resource managers desire irnrnediate results from management activities (J.
Fontaine, pers. comm.). The NPS, on the other hand, employs a more conservative approach by allowing
natural processes to work over long time penods (J. Manley, pers. comrn.). The different approaches
can be traced back to the fundarnentally different agency mandates. While the NPS is mandated to
maintain natural ecosystems, the USFS manage for "multiple uses" and (ultirnately) the production of goods and services for the Arnerican people. This "production" mentality, in concert with the lack of economic incentive to irnplernent management activities gradually, resulted in the logging activities of the early 1980s. While the groves are now removed from the timber production base, the inability to reconcile long-term goals with short-term management activities remains a fundamental challenge to the successful application of EM. Finally, giant sequoia resource managers are severely Iirnited in their ability to experiment in grove ecosystems. Currently, the pnmary factors that limit experimentation and flexibility in SQF are
Iaw and bureaucracy. Notably, a 1970 government report determined that resource managers in the field lacked the flexibility needed to respond effectively to public needs:
"In order to rnaxirnize local comrnunity support those persons in the Forest Service most intimately associated with local community interests [i.e., the district rangers] must be free to act . . . yet his [sic] authority is severely limited and al1 too frequently his decisions and answers are bureaucratically determined ... He is therefore denied the flexibility to meet issues and
35 The NFF is a govemment organization with the mandate to taise money for worthy USFS projects outside of the normal funding process. problems on an ad hoc basis. It rnight dso be said that his decisions are always predeterrnined, at least with respect to major issues and problems" (US Congress, Senate Committee on Intenor and Insular Affairs 1970,244).
In the case of giant sequoia management, my research suggests that this conclusion remains accurate. Managers are constrained by the sensitivity of the giant sequoia issue and are unable to act on their own
initiative without first receiving direction from their supenors. Furthermore, the controversy surrounding
giant sequoia management has instilled a fear in SQF resource managers of any proposed grove
management activities. The threat of litigation weighs heavily on their shoulders. Thus legal restrictions
and requirements, agency bureaucracy, and the extemal threat of litigation has hindered the ability of
SQF resource managers to design and evaluate giant sequoia management strategies as scientific
experiments.
4.2.3. Cooperation and Collaboration
(1) Mediated Settlement Agreement Public participation and collaborative planning in giant sequoia management was initiated by the
nurnerous appeals to the 1988 SQF Land and Resource Management Plan (Elliott-Fisk et al. 1996). As
mentioned previously, a professional mediator was employed by SQF to resolve some of the more
contentious issues identified by interest groups. This is significant, as SQF was the first national forest
to successfully engage in a fodmediation process for a comprehensive LMP a~nendrnent~~(M.
Chislock-Bethke, pers. corn.). The MSA was effectively a launching point for collaboration with interest groups and represented a new approach to conflict resolution.
The MSA was pïimarily concerned with the protection of giant sequoias from logging and catastrophic fire resulting from hazardous fuel Ioading. Furthermore, the agreement removed giant sequoia groves from the calculated timber land base and reduced the allowable saie quantity (AS@ of the entire national forest from 100 MMBF to 75 MMBF (SQF 1990, 41). At the time of signing, there was some concern that SQF could not produce an ASQ of 75 MMBF without compromising wildlife
36 Other national forests have reached mediated settlements for individual issues, however none have entered mediation for arnendments to the LMP in general. habitat requirements (J. Fontaine, pers. comrn.). Since 1990, however. SQF timber production levels
have fakn substantially (see back to Figure 3.3) thereby lessening pressure on wildlife habitat. In
addition to MSA restrictions, the CASPO Interim Guidelines, riparian comdor restrictions, and
mesocarnivore habitat requirements reduced SQF timber production to 18.4 MMBF in 1997 (Rogers
1998a).
SQF also agreed to inform al1 MSA signatories of any proposed action in giant sequoia groves
frorn routine maintenance to intensive large-scale projects. Since 1990, the only activity in groves has
been in the form of hazard tree removal dong the popular 'Trail of 100 Giants" in Long Meadow Grove.
Initially, SQF included the hazard tree removal in the grove in the larger "South Roadside Hazard Tirnber
Sale" justifiing the sale as an "eKective and econornical" rneans by which to deal with the hazard
(Schutza 1996). The subsequent controversy surrounding the proposed logging activity in the grove
resulted in removal of the grove hazard trees from the timber sale. The trees" were ultimately felled by
USFS employees under the pretext that they posed irnmediate threat to public safety. In announcing the
decision, District Ranger Judy Schutza concluded her statement with the following: "1 hope to revisit the possibility of using timber harvest as a tool in recreation management. However, for the time being at
Ieast, there will be no logging of any kind in the Long Meadow Grove" (Schutza 1996, 2). Critics seethe
over the irony of her final sentence (pers. obsv.). They claim that despite MSA requirements and public
resistance to the proposed activities, SQF managers acted according to their own agenda and with blatant
disregard for role and value of public participation (C. Cloer, pers. comm.).
The MSA has been described as a "painful, emotional experience" (R. Rogers, pers. comm.) in
which interest groups had "very Little cornmon ground and very Iittle room to work with what was left"
(K. Duysen, pers. comm.). The mediation process took a heavy toIl on participants. Significantly,
several USFS employees retired after signing the MSA, related, in part, to the ernotional exhaustion
following a year of intensive negotiations (M. Chislock-Bethke, pers. cornrn.). In fact, only one member
from the original four-person negotiation team remains at SQF. Furthermore, many of the signatories are
scattered throughout the state of California and are no longer actively involved in giant sequoia
37 No giant sequoias were cut during the hazard tree removal (R. Rogers, pers. comm.).
63 management issues (R. Rogers, pers. corn.). While the MSA represented the initial step in
collaborative grove management, SQF were not abIe to meet the terms of the agreement and appeals were
re-instigated "before the ink was dry" (K. Duysen, pers. cornrn.).
(2) Workshops/Symposia/Conferences
Workshops, symposia, and conferences are forums through which SQF cm communicate with
representatives of interest groups. Since the controversial Iogging activities in giant sequoia groves in
the early 1980s, there have been four noteworthy workshops to address issues relating to giant sequoia
management. Members of the interested public, scientists, acadernics and resource managers attended
three of the meetings. The fourth involved only USFS employees.
Amidst the controversy arising from thinning operations in giant sequoia groves, SQF organized
a workshop to address the issue of giant sequoia management. Over a two day period in May of 1985,
representatives from the environmental cornmunity, timber industry, NPS, State Forests and Parks, along
with scientists, resource managers and acadernics, presented information on numerous subjects relating
to the giant sequoia; grove history, silvics, genetics, growth and yield, wood properties and products,
insect and disease relationships and management strategies were al1 addressed. The workshop was
designed to identiQ and consolidate state-of-the-art knowfedge of giant sequoia ecology and
management.
Following the removal of giant sequoias from the timber production base by the 1990 MSA, a
second symposium entitled "Giant Sequoias: Their Place in the Ecosystem and Society" was held in June
1992. Over one hundred people attended, including many of the participants from the 1985 workshop.
This symposium differed from the former in that it addressed a wider range of issues; for example, public vaiues and perceptions, disturbance environments, grove development, and views from agency leadership were discussed. Field trips to groves managed by SQF, Mountain Home Dernonstration State Forest and
Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks were also organized to facilitate participant observation of the various management strategies employed by public land management agencies.
SQF Mure to produce an official LMP amendment following the MSA and the second giant sequoia symposium led to the organization of a leadership conference in January 1997 for USFS employees involved in giant sequoia management3'. The workshop was intended to "develop regional
WSFS Pacific Southwest Region] support for, and collaboration on, a region-wide strategy for
integrating giant sequoia management into Forest Plans" (MULC 1997, 1). The participants agreed to
explore potential opportunities to implement fire protection projects for several dernonstration groves.
This would involve identifying a "community-of-interest" (including the USFS), designing collaborative
stewardship workshops, and establishing a "communications network" to keep participants informed on
the progress of demonstration projects (Chislock-Bethke 1997).
Only two rnonths following the USFS leadership conference, a collaborative project was initiated to design a fire protection strategy for Deer Creek Grove (DC), SQF. A total of 37 local and non-local interested members of the public participated in several workshops and a field trip between March and
July of 1997. The resulting report outlined alternative approaches to reducing hazardous fuel Ioading in
DC (SQF 1997a). By focusing on one srnail grove, SQF hoped to use DC as a prototype for further fire protection activities in other giant sequoia groves (R. Rogers, pers. cornm.). Despite active participation by a diverse group of stakeholders, unclear expectations and miscommunication resulted in another fiery carnpaign by disappointed and disillusioned Sierra Club representatives. The implications of the latter and an overail anaiysis of the DC cdlaborative process are discussed in greater detail in section 4.3.
(3) Giant Sequoia Ecology Cooperative
In Novernber 1993, National Biological Survey (NBS) Research Scientist, Dave Parsons, proposed the formation of an "Interagency Research and Applied Ecology Cooperative" for the Sierra
Nevada region and with a special focus on giant sequoia management. The mandate of the cooperative was twofold: (1) facilitate the application of quaiity science in the decision-rnaking process of land management agencies, and (2) stimulate interactions among research and management staffs of diverse agencies and universities (USFS 1997b). In 1996, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) forrnaiized the formation of a "Giant Sequoia Ecology Cooperative" to provide leadership in applied research on the
'* Additionaily, the recent publication of the SNEP (1996) finai report to Congress also spmed SQF managers to act on the management recommendations outlined by the SNEP science team, ecology of giant sequoia-mixed conifer forests (USFS et al. 1996). Representatives from the USFS
administration, USFS research staff, UC, NPS, NBS, and the CDF signed the agreement.
The MOU just preceded the publication of the SNEP report which recornrnended the Giant
Sequoia Ecology Cooperative (GSEC) "be consulted before finalizing broad goals for restoration and
conservation" (Stephenson 1996, 1461). Additionally, Stephenson (1996) suggested an active research
and monitoring program be coordinated and detailed grove restoration plans be reviewed by GSEC.
Despite this cal1 to action very little has actually been produced or even reviewed by GSEC. The only
tangible resuh is a paper entitled "Restoration as a Component of Ecosystem Management for Giant
Sequoia Groves in Califcrnia" (Fullmer et ai. 1996) CO-authoredby D. FulImer and R. Rogers (USFS), N.
Stephenson (NBS) and J. Manley (NPS). Since the formation of GSEC, limited funding and a lack of leadership have thwarted any good intentions (23. Rogers, pers. cornm.). In fact, there have been no
GSEC meetings since 1996.
Evaluation and Considerations
As mentioned previously, the primary accornplishment of the MSA was the removal of giant sequoia groves from the timber production land base. The mediation process also brought al1 interested parties to the table and represented a new approach to land management planning which emphasized public participation and collaborative management. These are significant achievements and ail MSA participants must be applauded for the tirne and energy required to produce the final agreement.
Unfortunately, since 1990 SQF have not managed to fulfill al1 (or even most) obligations outlined in the
MSA. This is despite the fact that SQF anticipated "that the NEPA process, including preparation of amendments and an EIS, rnay take up to two years" (SQF 1990, 4). The inability of SQF to meet set deadlines ha. eroded the increased public confidence in the agency that irnmediately followed the mediation process (pers. obsv.; see McDonald 1994).
A number of explanations have been forwarded to explain the agency's laggarcily pace. Some
USFS employees cite external circumstances that were beyond SQF's control. For example, less than two weeks after signing the MSA, a 25,000 acre [IO,120 hectare] fire raged through the Hot Springs and
Greenhorn Ranger Districts- the fallout of which required the redirection of SQF personnel for airnost a year (J. Allen, pers. cornm.). Furthermore, legislation such as the CASPO Intenm Guidelines (USFS
1993) and regional direction on riparian corridors and mesocarnivores (Sprague 1998) has preempted much of what is documented in the MSA by adding further restrictions on SQF management activities.
The guidelines specifically related to giant sequoia groves, however, remain unaffected by hirther local, regional, or national directives.
In actuality, SQF must shoulder some of the responsibility for not upholding the tems of the agreement. Several SQF employees reveaied that the agency was aware that the schedule was unredistic at the time of signing, even if there were no external circumstances over the two-year time frame.
Furthermore, the SQF organizational resistance to the agreement affected implementation. Those who actuaily carried out the work did not necessarily endorse the guidelines outlined in the MSA, and the lack of support at the ground level ultirnately eroded the enthusiasm of those who believed in the document.
Finally, resistance was not solely restncted to managers "on the ground." Some line officers with decision-making authority, while not overtly defying the MSA requirements, also made no active attempt to move forward on developing an officiai amendment to the LMP.
In the end, several MSA participants expressed the view that the agreement was so much of a compromise that no one was wholly satisfied with the outcome (J. Fontaine, pers. comm.; L. Jump, pers. cornrn.). This is the plight of many collaborative projects which attempt to reconcile multiple (and often conflicting) value systerns and interests. The inability to reach meaningful comrnon ground has haunted any coIlaborative negotiations deaiing with giant sequoia management. This is contrary to the observation that collaboration results in greater respect for the constraints faced by citizens, managers, and researchers (Mersmann et al. 1993). In the case of giant sequoias, the long history of antagonistic relationships has, thus far, precluded any mutual understanding.
There seems to be general agreement that completing an officia1 amendment to the 1988 LMP to indude MSA agreements, CASPO guidelines, SNEP recomrnendations, and regional direction for mesocarnivores, old growth habitat, and riparian corridors is necessary. Furthemore, the Sierra Club request for a forma1 amendment to the LMP in the fom of a forest-wide giant sequoia grove management strategy (with an accompanying EIS which meets the full requirements of the NFMA and NEPA) should be honored. Currently, there is disagreement over the legal obligations of SQF to develop a forest-wide grove management strategy. However, whether or not SQF are legaIly required to produce this document, the process would help establish the guidelines, standards and objectives from which individud grove management activities could be designed. In short, a forest-wide giant sequoia management strategy is a good idea. Not only would the arnendment serve as a first step towards management activity in the groves, it would also (hopefully) resolve one of the issues of contention between the Sierra Club and SQF. This, of course, assumes that SQF managers could get the details of a proposed strategy ratified by al1 the interest groups.
Workshops, conferences and symposia have proved effective forums to communicate ideas and science relating to giant sequoia ecology and management. The success of these meetings, however, is rneasured by the ability of the USFS to move forward with the recornrnendations presented by workshop participants. The first workshop in 1985 was followed by the cancellation of Iogging activity in the groves, although the succeeding 1988 LMP retained the groves within the timber production land base.
The second symposium in 1992, was followed by the successful rnapping of al1 SQF gimt sequoia groves in accordance with the MSA (dbeit overdue). Finally, following the leadership conference for USFS employees in 1997, SQF did move ahead on the demonstration grove project.
While there was USFS action following the three conferences, a closer examination of the relationship between these meetings and management activities is revealing. In the case of the first symposium logging activities ceased, but this was primarily due to the injunction sought by the environmental cornrnunity, not the workshop itself. Furthermore, the inclusion of the groves in the 1988
LMP timber production base suggests that SQF maintained the belief that mechanicd treatment of the groves for commercial production was an effective and acceptable management strategy. The second symposium was followed by completion of the grove boundary mapping. However, the mapping was several years overdue and was not a result of the symposium proceedings. Rather, the rnapping dated back to the comrnitments outlined in the 1990 MSA. Finally, the DC collaborative project and the leadership conference were followed by an attempt to do several prescribed burns within the vicinity of
DC. Miscornmunication and the negative reaction by the Sierra CIub to this proposal, however, ultimately lead to the canceHation of the proposed burns (see section 4.3 for details). SQF is currently involved in a two-tiered "stntegic planning" process for giant sequoia
management; first, SQF personnel are attempting to improve communication between the three National
Forests in which giant sequoia groves are Iocated, and, second, there is a concerted effort by the agency
to gain public credibility and trust (M. Chislock-Bethke, pers. cornm.). This process is essential to the
success of future collaborative projects both with the public and intra-agency. However, SQF must
realize that the Sierra Club will likely view any offering of the olive branch with skepticism. In such
cases, agency personnel should not be defensive when dealing with critical members of the public.
Rather they should consider why people remain cynical and cautious in their dedings with the USFS and
focus on building trust in future colIaborative projects.
Achowledgment of previous failures (or even rnistakes) in public participation and collaborative
decision-making can only improve relations between SQF and interest groups. At the time of writing,
SQF is organizing a conference to move ahead with developing an official amendment to the LM.. The
conference is intended to be project-specific (M. Chislock-Bethke, pers. comm.). hdividuals and
organizations that remain actively involved in the giant sequoia management dialogue are invited to share
their respective expertise.
Finally, the Giant Sequoia Ecology Cooperative should be invigorated. An inter-agency
cooperative group of scientists, acadernics and managers provides a forum for debate and discussion
between agencies with varying mandates and expenence in giant sequoia management. Additionally,
GSEC has enormous potentiai to increase SQF credibility. For example, critics of SQF management
strategies often cite the lack of dialogue between federal agencies (namely the USFS and NPS) as
evidence that SQF is not committed to responsible and informed grove management. Therefore
publicizing communication between SQF and the NPS (through GSEC) rnay help legitimize the agency's cornmitment to exploring alternative grove management strategies.
Leadership and funding limitations must be resolved in order to ensure GSEC effectiveness.
Recent interest expressed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to become active in the co~~erative'~may provide that source of leadership (R. Rogers, pers. cornm.). Furthemore, the USFS,
'' BLM lands include only one grove (Case Mountain Grove) and therefore BLM involvement in issues relating to gant sequoia management has been limited in the past. NPS, NBS, CDF, and UC representatives must work to deviate the funding limitations that have, to
date, severely restricted GSEC activity. Unfortunately, continuing reiuctance by ai1 aforementioned
groups to invest time, energy and rnoney in the cooperative is not encouraging (pers. obsv.).
4.2.4. Integration of Social Values
(1) Defining the Public The Use of the National Forests (1907) written by the USFS founding father, Gifford Pinchot,
first addressed the issue of management of public lands by the people:
"National Forests are made for and owned by the people. They should also be managed by the people. They are made, not to give the officers in charge of them a chance to work out theories, but to give the people who use them, and those who are affected by their use, a chance to work out their own best profit. This means that if National Forests are going to accomplish anything worth while the people must know al1 about them and must take a very active part in their management. The officers are paid by the people to act as their agents and to see that al1 the resources of the Forests are used in the best interest of everyone concerned. What the people as a whole want will be done. To do it it is necessary that the people carefuIIy consider and plainly state just what they want and then take a very active part in seeing that they get it" (ernphasis added; 25).
These words continue to provide the foundation from which the USFS manage public lands. Defining
"what people as a whole want," however, has become increasingly challenging to modem USFS resource managers. In the case of giant sequoia management, numerous members of the public voice multiple
(and often conflicting) value systems and interests.
Determining who the public is and what it wants has plagued SQF. In the pat, SQF hm effectively selected the "public" that best served the agency's own interests (pers. obsv.). The long history of SQF emphasis on cornrnodity production thus resulted in "the public" becoming synonymous with "the timber industry" (J. Fontaine, pers. cornm.). In recent years, however, there has been a notable change in the role and composition of "the public." While some view this transition as effecting a positive change in agency fùnction, others maintain that the resulting conflict and inability to move forward on anything to do with giant sequoia management is too high a price. "The public" refers to individual citizens (or groups of citizens) who are actively involved in
resource management decision-making. In many cases, however, interest groups end up representing
"the public" because individual citizens lack the time, energy or expertise to respond to proposed actions
and attend endless meetings. The varied interest groups involved in the 1990 MSA is indicative of the
emergence of a broader conception of "the public ." Signatories included: environmental organizations,
the tirnber industry, grazing. recreation, and the native american comm~nit~~~.This diverse community of
interests representing "the public," however, has made any agreement on giant sequoia management a
difficult and exhausting task.
In addition, "the public" is ofien equated with the recreational users of SQF. This "public" is
generally ignorant of the role of fire as a naniral disturbance regime and view giant sequoias as living
monuments that should be frozen in time (D. EIliott-Fisk, pers. comm.). Furthermore, road access to
groves and "vista views" of giant sequoia specimens are generally valued by this "public" (R. Rogers,
pers. comm.). As this group is largely unaware of the issues surrounding giant sequoia management,
individual opinions and active involvement in management decisions are generally not pursued by SQF
(R. Rogers, pers. comm.). Interested publics who are prepared to commit time and energy into becoming
well versed with the science and management issues are, on the other hand, encouraged to enter the
debate.
(2) Education
A report by the U.S. Office of Technology Assessrnent (US.OTA 1992) cnticized the approach
to public education cornrnonly adopted by USFS resource managers:
".... managers work to "educate" the public and change people's rninds about the agency policies and practices rather than explore alternatives to satisfy the public's goals and objectives. Information prograrns are undertaken more from a desire to shape public opinion than to incorporate public opinion into policy decisions. The Forest Service typically develops and defines public issues
The environmental cornrnunity included the Sierra Club, Save-the-Redwoods League, The Wilderness Society, and the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund; the timber indusîry included Sierra Forest Products and Sequoia Forest Industries; grazing interests were represented by The Califomia Cattlernen's Association; recreational interest groups included California Trout Inc. and Kaweah Flyfishers, California Native Plant Society, Phantom Duck Club, California Association of Four Wheel Drive Clubs, the California Department of Parks and Recreation, and the High Desert Multiple-Use Coaiition; the native arnerican cornrnunity was represented by The Tule River Indian Council. internally and then invites the public to review and comment. This approach perpetuates the notion that public participation is nothing more than a forum in which to 'inform and educate' the publicW(85).
This rnentality undermines the value of interactive education. In the context of EM, education is not
simply for the benefit of the public, but also for resource managers, scientists and policy makers.
Education has received lirnited attention by SQF in the past. Recently, however, SQF has
attempted to be more involved in developing public education campaigns and prograrns. In 1995, SQF
Giant Sequoia Specialist Bob Rogers was the featured host oii a five-part television series on giant
sequoias. The series was a part of an educational interactive program for the local Kern County School
system (MULC 1995). Additionally, SQF was involved in a docurnentary series entitled "A Gift frorn the Earth" produced by a Japanese Film Company. In 1996, SQF managers also presented an illustrated
taik entitled "Giant Sequoias: Histoncal Perspective on a National Controversy" to two local service
organizations (MULC 1997). Finally, one goal of the SNEP Science Team was to produce an educational CD-ROM (in collaboration with SQF) on giant sequoia ecology and management. Despite enthusiasm by many
involved in the SNEP study, a limited budget and opposition by influential members of the SNEP team eventually extinguished the project (D. Elliott-Fisk, pers. comm.). Participants at the final SNEP meeting
in 1994 did, however, outline the information they believed to be of most value for the CD. This project has potential, especially if it is designed to be interactive and thus facilitates communication between users and SQF.
Evaluation and Considerations
SQF enjoys positioning itself as the impartial arbitrator charged with balancing conflicting interests (pers. obsv.). SQF, however, seem to be alone in this view. Unlike many cases involving conflict over resource management where the commercial industry is deemed the "bad guy," in the case of giant sequoia management bot. environmental groups and commercial interests lay blame at the feet of SQF (pers. obsv.). In fact, many interest group representatives are intimately aware of SQF history-- in some cases even more than agency employees themselves are (pers. obsv.). Thus in order to establish positive relationships with interest groups, it is important that SQF resource managers acknowledge their own biases and value systems. SQF is not a monolithic entity- it is comprised of different people with
varied experience, opinions and ideas. Capitdizing on this diverse community will facilitate more even-
handed interaction between interest groups and SQF.
Defining "the public" will likely continue to elude resource managers charged with identieing and integrating social values into the management process. In the case of giant sequoias, the general public perception of giant sequoias is that of "unchanging, sacred objects, not as dynamic members of evolving ecosysterns" (Tweed 1994,5). Reconciling scientific understanding of ecosystems with human value systems is the challenge of EM. USFS employees, NPS researchers and managers, representatives from the timber industry, and members of the environmental comrnunity continuously reiterated the idea that giant sequoia management is an ethical issue based on human values. Human value systems, however, are not homogenous. SQF is thus required to determine which value system (or group of values) is most aligned with ecological understanding and management capacity.
The removal of giant sequoia groves from the timber production land base has effectively reduced the initiai Ievel of interest and involvement of many of the aforementioned groups. In fact, SQF conunitment to protect, preserve, and restore the groves resulted in increased involvement by the environmental comrnunity and generally a less active role by cornrnodity interest groups. Currently, giant sequoias seem to be managed according to the demands of the most vocal interest group that wields the threat of legal action (pers. obsv.). This has resulted in one group CO-optingthe role of "the public";
"the public" is now largely equated with "the Sierra Club" in management negotiations, much to the chagrin of many SQF employees who remain cornrnitted to the idea of representing multiple interests.
Additionally, the Sierra Club and SQF have a long history of conflict and distrust (R. Rogers, pers. cornm.; C. Cloer, pers. conun.). This baggage has severely restricted rneaningful communication between these two groups thereby limiting any movement on grove management activities (pers. obsv.).
SQF management according to the "values" of the Sierra Club seems to be simply a reversa1 of fortune. Rather than diversifying interests, SQF have substituted environmental interests for commercial interests- This, however, may not be as exclusionary as it first appears. First, the preservation-onented giant sequoia management direction is in line with the value system represented by the Sierra Club. As such, it seerns reasonable that they would most interested in affecting management decisions. Second, according to principles of EM, SQF are to integrate social values into management decisions. If, as
posited by Steel and Lovrich (1997), Steel et al. (1997) and Shindler (1997), there is a shift in public
values to favour biocentric over anthropocentric management, the values of the environmental
community (including the Sierra Club) may be an accurate representation of society in general. SQF
resource managers must rernain open to this possibility.
Regardless, so long as SQF continues to maintain an adversarial relationship with the Sierra
Club, the Sierra Club will likely continue to file lawsuits; likewise, so long as the Sierra Club files
lawsuits, SQF resource managers will be reluctant to establish positive relations with Sierra Club
representatives. Both groups must work to build respect and trust in one another before successful
collaboration cm occur. The current gridlock over giant sequoia management issues benefits nobody in
the long-tenn, least of al1 the giant sequoia groves.
Educational and outreach programs are one means by which to increase mutual understanding of
the constraints faced by scientists, managers, and interest groups. In the past, SQF has only been
involved in educational activities when approached by externai organizations. SQF must move beyond
this "reactionary" approach to education and initiate prograrns without requiring external stimulus. While
still in the initial stages of development, the "Adopt-A-Grove" concept represents a new cornmitment by
the agency to energize environmental education. Additionally, the program (designed for classrooms,
corporations and comrnunity organizations) has the potential to educate and fundraise at the sarne tirne
(M. Chislock-Bethke, pers. comrn.).
SQF must be careful, however, not to design programs that appear to serve the sole interest of
agency managers and scientists. Rather, projects should be focused on improving the dialogue between
forest personnel, industry representatives and the public. The NPS experience with educationd programs
is a valuable source of information for SQF managers. Guided walks, evening seminars, park newspapers, books and brochures have been successful, especially for improving understanding of the
prescnbed fire program (Parsons 1994). Furtherrnore, NPS fire research is available on the internet.
Interest expressed by SQF personnel in developing interactive programs is prornising. Recent involvement by SQF in the giant sequoia case study as one component of the broader "Biodiversity
Forum" (established by UC at Santa Barbara), has demonstrated the potential for using internet technology to establish dialogue on proposed management activities. It should be noted, however, that
SQF has not yet developed an official Forest WebPage, let alone explored educational possibilities on the
Internet.
Finally, in a message to al1 USFS employees from current Chief Michael Dombeck on his first
day in office, he outlined the function of the modem resource manager:
"Our task is not to dictate the course or the outcome (or debates on how national forests should be rnanaged). Rather we need to be facilitators, the suppliers of knowledge and expertise, the educators and communicators who help people search for solutions" (Dombeck 1997, 1).
Certain SQF employees, 1 believe, have taken this to heart. Others pay it lip service. Giant sequoias are
laden with social values, and many of the frustrations and challenges of managing giant sequoia groves
and ecosystems are a consequence of conflicting value systems. Values, for example, dictate what
management tools individuals deem acceptable. Science is able to identify options; values ultirnately
determine which option is selected.
4.3. Deer Creek Case Study
4.3.1. Background
In December 1996, Forest Supervisor A. GafTrey directed SQF personnel to begin work on a fire protection strategy for SQF giant sequoia groves. Of the three management goals outlined in the MSA
("protect, preserve, and restore"), "protectionfiorn [catastrophic] fire" was to be the focus of the analysis
(Gaffrey 1996; emphasis in original). The intention of the project was to design a frre protection strategy for an individual grove that would later be used as a prototype for sirnilar analyses on other SQF groves
(R. Rogers, pers. comrn.). During the candidate grove selection process, "the only absolute requirement was relative simplicity in terrns of geography and public controversy" (SQF 1997a, 1). Additional considerations included: physical access, Ranger District resources, resource values, relationship to other fue protection needs, related fire protection planning, investments already made that related to grove protection, public sentiment and ecological sensitivity (SQF 1997a). Deer Creek Grove (DC), in the Hot
Springs Ranger District, was selected by SQF personnel. DC is the southemmost naniraily occurring giant sequoia grove in the Sierra Nevada range. It is
small (less than 60 hectares at the grove administrative boundary) with over 30 mature sequoias. although
the grove lacks exceptionally large specimens (Willard 1995). The surrounding forest is best defined as a
young and mid-aged mixed conifer forest type (Willard 1995). Between 1914 and 1919. the grove and
adjacent forest were logged for a total of approximately 2.1 iMMBF of non-sequoia conifers by the
privately owned Deer Creek Lumber Company. The recorded species composition of the cut was
estimated to be 48% white fir, 24% ponderosa, 14% sugar pine, and 14% incense cedar (Willard 1995).
There has been speculation that giant sequoias may have been felled however there are no conspicuous
sequoia sturnps (Willard 1995; pers. obsv.). In the absence of fire, regeneration of the logged area has
created a dense young forest of shade-tolerant species under an overstory of giant sequoias (pers. obsv.).
Overall, lirnited giant sequoia and pine species regeneration is evident (Walker 1997). Localized stands
of almost century-old giant sequoias can, however, be found, suggesting that the logging activities did
stimulate sorne sequoia reproduction (pers. obsv.).
The process for developing a fire protection plan for DC was based on the principles of
"collaborative stewardship" as outlined by USFS Chief Michael Dombeck (1997). The integration of
interested publics in the left-side of the NEPA triangle (also referred to as the "plan to project stage"; see
Appendix 6) was intended to rnake the fire protection planning process effective and efficient (Schutza
1997). Previous to this project, the "plan to project" stage was considered an internal process and the
public were only involved following SQF announcement of a proposed management activity (R. Rogers,
pers. cornrn.). By "starting srnall" and including interest groups in the process of defining grove
conditions and identifying possible management practices, SQF hoped to avoid future conflict over proposed management action in groves. Furthemore, the process was the first step to initiating
management activity in SQF giant sequoia groves.
Between March and July 1997, a series of four meetings and one field trip was organized by
SQF. A total of 37 people from a broad spectmm of interests participated in the process (Rogers 1998b).
The result of the "plan ta project" exercise was the aforementioned report (see section 4.2.2.) entitled
"Giant Sequoia Fire Protection Strategy: Collaborative Stewardship of a National Treasure" in which management goals for DC are addressed, existing and desired conditions outlined, and possible management opportunities and practices recornmended (SQF 1997a). Commercial thinning of the
adjacent mixed-conifer forest was included as a possibility, and several references to a broader
Defensible Fuel Profile Zone (DFPZ) strategy were rnade4l. The information contained in the report was intended to reflect the general consensus of project participants (R. Rogers, pers. comrn.). Sierra Club
representatives, however, charge that SQF were moving toward a predetermined course of action and
believe that most of the report was written before the colIaborative process began. Furtherrnore, they
argue that the outlined proposals are not accurate representations of the information as it was understood
by participants involved in the collaborative process (C.Cloer, pers. comm.; J. Fontaine, pers. comrn.).
Despite the latter, in Iate June 1998, SQF proposed management action in DC as deveioped by
the "plan to project" process and defined in SQF (1997a). A public scoping letter was sent to collaborative participants to comment on proposed prescnbed burning activity" in and around DC. The
letter was then followed up with phone calls to participants to clarify and discuss the proposa1 (R.
Rogers, pers. cornm.).
Reaction to the proposed management activity was rnixed. Some believed the scale of the DC project to be "manageable" and "approachable" (D. Elliott-Fisk, pers. comrn.; L. Blumberg, pers. cornm.;
K. Anderton, pers. comm.). They dso, however, expressed the need for improved data coIIection on the grove before any action is initiated. Representatives from Sierra Forest Products were generally in support of the DC proposal, aithough they believed a combination of prescnbed burning and mechanical thinning could achieve fire protection goals. The Sierra Club, on the other hand, opposed the planning and implementation of any projects before: (1) a science-based, peer-reviewed definition of a sequoia grove and its ecosystem is developed; (2) regional guidelines are established for management of al1 giant sequoia groves within USFS boundaries; (3) a forest-wide giant sequoia management plan for SQF is forrnaiIy arnended to the 1988 LMP; and (4) a fire and fueis management policy that reflects current knowledge of fire's role in forest ecology is also officidly arnended to the LMP (Cloer 1998). As none of the latter was in place, a letter writing carnpaign to the USFS Chief, Vice President Gore and Secretary
41 The issue of a broad DFPZ strategy is a major source of contention between the environmental community and SQF. For further discussion of DFPZs, see section 4.3.2. 42 The proposed management plan did not include any logging activity in or around DC, with the exception of rninimd felling to create fie control lines. Lyons was initiated to object to the DC proposa1 and overall SQF management of giant sequoia groves.
in response, on July 17, 1998, SQF District Ranger Del Pengiliy issued the following statement:
"Through the scoping process it has become clear that the Sierra Club and its members do not support the project or the Final Report of the "Giant Sequoia Fire Protection Strategy." Therefore, 1 am putting the proposai on hold until this support can be gained" (Pengilly 1998).
4.3.2. Challenges and Lessons
Examining the DC process in the context of EM is revealing. The reasons for the eventual
cancellation of the proposed prescribed burning activity in DC primady can be traced back to SQF
failure to Iisten to collaborative partners at the outset of the project. The Sierra Club demands listed in
the previous section were not a surprise for SQF resource managers. The environmental community
(beyond simply the Sierra Club) has voiced these concerns for many years. In fact, correspondence
preceding the "plan to project" collaborative project clearly States that the Sierra Club would not support
any activity in DC before SQF fulfilled its previous commitment to formally amend the LMP (Cloer
1997). The Sierra Club entered the collaborative process under the impression that this was an
"exercise" to explore ideas and options on how to achieve ecological restoration in a giant sequoia grove.
They were of the belief that the process would not result in any activity in the grove (J. Fontaine, pers.
comm.). SQF, on the other hand, claim that al1 participants were aware that a proposed project may
result from the "plan to project" process.
Other participants, however, also expressed confusion over the intent of the collaborative
process. In fact, during DC meetings, participants were often told they were being too prescriptive and
that they were not to focus on designing a project but rather to discuss how one might approach grove planning (K. Duysen, pers. cornrn.; D. Dulitz, pers. comm.). Clearly, participant expectations of the collaborative process significantly differed from those of SQF resource managers. Miscornrnunication and a generd lack of understanding of the "plan to project" process are responsible for this incongmity.
Before the DC collaborative effort, SQF had never attempted to involve interest groups in the "plan to project" process and evidently did not effectively cornrnunicate the role and purpose of their involvemen t. SQF managers acknowledge that the USFS has a poor record of collaborative decision-making in
the pst, although they claim that there has been a concerted effort to improve (M. Chislock-Bethke, pers.
comm.). Despite this effort, rniscornrnunication and diffenng conceptions of what "collaboration"
involves coloured participant experiences. Furthemore, EM requires that al1 members of a collaborative
effort share power (Thomas 1996). In the case of DC, the rote of SQF as either compliant facilitator or
director/decision-rnaker was not clarified and co1laborators were not entirely aware of their own function.
Ultimately, the DC experience only heightened distrust between the Sierra Club and SQF thereby
potentidy reducing the possibility of effective collaboration in the future (pers. obsv.).
The proposed activity in DC also inadequately considered the interconnectedness and complexity
of ecosystems as required by systems management. The project was solely focused on fuels reduction
and achieving a desired stand structure based on calculations to approximate age/size distribution and
stocking for rnixed conifer stands under uneven-aged management (SQF 1997a). As such, only data on
fuel loading, understory vegetation and tree composition was collected. A more detailed ecological
inventory should be cornpleted before SQF move ahead with even small-scale management projects-43
The lack of a scientifically sound definition for giant sequoia groves and their ecosystems should aiso be addressed before proposed management activities are implemented. A criticism of the DC process was that the issues discussed by participants were presented to them "in a bubble" (J. Fontaine, pers. comm.). Sierra Club participants expressed concem that they were unaware of other SQF activities
(namely timber sales) proposed for the major DC watershed. This was despite the presence of the
District Ranger (who presurnably was aware of al1 projects in the Hot Springs Ranger District) at rnany of the meetings. Certain participants felt deceived when they discovered several timber sales were advertised in the vicinity of DC. For its part, SQF clairns that information on other proposed management activities was, in fact, provided at one of the collaborative meetings. Exarnination of the
43 According to SQF, there were effectively two projects at DC: one was directed at fire protection by means of prescribed burning, the second was aimed at ecological restoration. During the same period that the DC burn was being considered, a simultaneous ecologicai restoration project was proposed by SQF to the USFS Washington Office. SQF was chosen to participate in the "Chief s Pilot Stewardship Program" md in April 1998, a business plan was submitted to secure funding for the project. No NEPA analysis has yet been initiated for this project, nor has any decision been reached regarding the use of prescribed fire as a restoration tool (R. Rogers, pers. comm.). Among the interest groups involved in the collaborative process, however, there seerns to be sorne confusion over how these two projects are distinct from each other (pers. obsv.). meeting agenda and minutes could not resolve this discrepancy as both proved suitably vague- "Linda
Brett discusses how DC fits into the bigger picture" (SQF 1997a). Regardless, it is revealing that, yet
again, miscomrnunication seerns to have faulted the process.
Interest in proposed timber sales in the DC watershed, however, ties into broader concems
regarding SQF's controversial DFPZ strategy. In 1996 SQF created the now infamous "spaghetti maps"
which were based on fire management concepts outlined in a technical fuels report for Lassen, Plumas and Tahoe National Forests (Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe National Forest 1995). A DFPZ is defined as: "a strategically located strip or block of land on which f'ueIs, both living and dead, have been modified. The objective is to reduce the potential for a crown fire, and to allow fire suppression personnel a reasonably safe location from which to take action against a wildfire" (SQF 1997a, 53).
These zones of reduced fuels average ?A mile in width (400 meters) and are usually located dong ridgetops. SQF claims the creation of the maps was only an "exercise" to provide fire managers the opportunity to consider where they would establish reduced fuel zones (J. Allen, pers. comrn.). Not surprisingly, the maps shocked the environmental cornrnunity due the extent of the thinned zones (dong most of the SQF primary ridgetops). Furthemore, the maps were produced without any supporting documentation thereby inciting suspicions over the intent of the maps. Subsequent correlation between advertised timber sales and potential DFPZs lead many to speculate that the maps represented more than a hanniess "exercise" (C. Cloer, pers. cornrn.; J. Fontaine, pers. cornm.).
During the final weeks of the DC process, a revised environmental assessrnent (EA) on the
Hatchett Timber Sale (SQF 1997b) was made public. Included in the EA were several maps which revealed proposed timber sales in the upper reaches of the DC major watershed, as well as a map which showed a proposed DFPZ running directly through the southem haif of DC itself. This suggested to rnany of the participants that there were two separate processes operating at the same time: the DC collaborative process, and a much broader process directed at establishing ndgetop DFPZs throughout
SQF (C. Cloer, pers. comm.). Thus, in the case of DC, the magnitude of the DFPZ concept and unclear
SQF intentions created a context where there was already a high degree of skepticism (K. Anderton, pers. comrn.). Additionally, following the conclusion of the collaborative process, another timber sale (Onion
Sale) advertised several timber lots in areas directly adjacent to DC. By that time, many participants were highly skeptical of SQF's commitment to collaboration and an open and honest management
process (J. Fontaine, pers. comm.).
The SQF defense rests on the fact that: (1) agency involvement in developing the Hatchett Sale
dated back to three years preceding the DC process and (2) the sale had been presented to DC
participants (M. Chislock-Bethke, pers. cornm.). In the case of the Onion Sale, resource managers
involved in the DC collaborative meetings claimed not to know that it existed. Bob Rogers, the SQF
Giant Sequoia Specialist, described the Onion Sale as simply "a case where the left hand did not know
what the right hand was doing" (pers. cornm.). If true, this is a clear example of where infra-agency communication is essential- in addition to effective communication with collaborative partners.
Incidentaliy, the Hatchett Sale was appealed and litigated by the Sierra Club on the basis that the
DFPZ concept required full NEPA anaiysis before being implemented as a forest-wide management strategy (C. Cloer, pers. comm.). A week after the formal litigation, the sale was withdrawn by the SQF
Forest Supervisor, who cited changes in the economics of the commercial market for justification.
Representatives of the Sierra Club, however, question the vdidity of that claim (C. Cloer, pers. cornm.).
Furthermore, no contractors bid on the Onion Saie and it was eventually cancelled. Finally, a Iawsuit filed by the Sierra Club requiring SQF to prepare an EIS and go through the appropriate NEPA analysis for the purported DFPZ strategy is currently in litigationql.
Despite the aforementioned litigation (which is supported by the environmental cornrnunity in general), Save-the-Redwoods League (SRL) believes that SQF involvement in the DC process was an effort in good faith (K. Anderton, pers. comm.). However, SRL representatives note, there were a number of unfortunate concurrences that eroded the process, not the least of which was the proposed
Hatchett Tirnber Sale. Furtherrnore, the Wilderness Society (another environmental group) does not categorically oppose neither thinning nor prescribed burning in the groves. The WiIderness Society acknowIedges, however, that Sierra Club has legitimate concerns regarding SQF management of giant sequoia groves in general (L. BIumberg, pers. comm.). Likewise, SRL would support experimental
-- - " SQF maintain that there is no forest-wide DFPZ strategy and therefore they are not legally required to go through the formal NEPA process. prescribed burning on a smdl scale, although they also believe SQF should move ahead with
amendments to the 1988 LMP as requested by the Sierra Club (K. Anderton, pers. cornm.).
Additional observations by DC participants revealed some of the chdlenges faced by SQF.
Representatives from Sierra Forest Products (SFP) believe that SQF has been in a "state of constant
planning for ten years" (K. Duysen, pers. comrn.). Action (as perceived by the timber industry) is
continually roadblocked by the environmental cornrnunity. Frustrated and exhausted, SFP is reluctant to
remain involved in collaborative projects that seem to simply incite further conflict between SQF and the Sierra Club. David Dulitz, Forest Manager of Mountain Home Demonstration State or est". expressed
concern that SQF constantly expects the "worst": that managers will request public input and
subsequently not be abte to act (pers. cornm.). This Iack of confidence in collaborative management
(founded or not) is certain to doom any project before it even gets off the ground.
Currently, giant sequoia management is in a stdemate following the end of the DC process.
From December 1996 to July 1998, SQF managers attempted to initiate the fust long-term management- related action in a &nt sequoia grove since the cessation of logging activities in the early 1980s. The failure of DC, while a setback, should not preclude successful giant sequoia management in the future.
However, it will be up to SQF resource managers and Sierra Club representatives to resolve their differences before success is even a remote possibility.
4.4. Giant Sequoia and Ecosystem Management Summarized
The experience of SQF and giant sequoia management illustrates the difficulty of applying EM at the ground Ievel. While 1 believe dl groups involved in efforts to protect, preserve, and restore giant sequoia groves are sincerely conimitted to sustaining the species, SQF appears to have failed, in the short-term, to appty the principles of EM. The current state of suspended activity in giant sequoia groves can be primarily attributed to the inability of SQF resource managers to effectively implement collaborative planning and cooperate with other resource management agencies. 1 would be rerniss to
'' Mountain Home Demonstration State Forest (MHDSF') is under the management of CDF. Giant sequoia management by mechanical treatment (for sustained yield commercial production) has been practiced in MHDSF since the turn of the century, first by private landowners and then by CDF when Mountain Home grove was purchased by the State of California in 1946. mention, however, that the environment in which SQF managers function is not always conducive to
collaborative, efficient and effective management. Not only are managers constrained by bureaucratie
infighting, conflicting agendas and lirnited budgets, they are also required to collaborate with groups
which constantly question the very integrity of the agency the managers represent. Continuous legal
challenges to SQF management activities by the Sierra Club have also restricted action and reduced
motivation within the agency to deal with the giant sequoia issue, EM is intended to provide the
framework for managers to move beyond these constraints and "blend the needs of people and
environmental values in such a way that the National Forests and Grasslands represent diverse, healthy,
productive, and sustainable ecosystems" (USDA 1994a, 13). The experience of SQF managers suggests
this is easier said than done.
In the management of giant sequoias, SQF inadequateiy considers (and applies the characteristics of) al1 four components of EM. The following surnmary identifies the shortcomings of SQF management and offers general direction for future giant sequoia management strategies (see also Appendix 7) .
4.4.1. Ecological Approach to Systems Management
(1) the definition of a "giant sequoia grove" is not scientifically substantiated (2) there exists no generally accepted definition of a "gant sequoia ecosystem" (3) there are inadequate ecologicai inventories of al1 giant sequoia groves (4) no ecological mode1 is utilized by SQF to improve knowledge of grove ecosystem processes and complex interactions
Each of the above must be addressed and/or resolved by SQF before resource managers can hope to garner support from environmentai and scientific communities for proposed management activities in giant sequoia groves. Despite general agreement on the definition of a "giant sequoia grove" in the
MSA, most MSA signatories have since recognized the importance of considering ecological boundaries.
Most of this information constitutes the minimum base level of ecological knowIedge necessary before management activities in grove ecosystems cmproceed. Research by Stephenson (1996) and Piirto and
Rogers (1998) provides the foundation from which to move ahead on developing an improved ecological approach to systems management in giant sequoia groves. 4.4.2. Adaptive Scientific Management
(1) there is a lack of specific guidelines, objectives and standards necessary for management action (2) there is inadequate data collection (MM) on giant sequoia ecosystems (3) there is inadequate monitoring of groves affected by logging activities in the 1980s (4) resource managers lack flexibility and the ability to experiment in giant sequoia management
Again, broad management goals must be brought down to the specific and outlined for each giant sequoia
grove within SQF boundaries. Investment into research, inventory and monitoring (MM) activities is essentid to establish the scientific foundation from which management activities can be designed. SQF should also irnmediately begin to maintain detailed records of the effects of logging activities in the eariy
1980s on grove structure and function. Findly, a balance between meeting legal requirements and freedom to experiment by resource managers should be identified. Increasing manager flexibility in the field, however, will onIy be possible after establishing a base tevel of tmst with the environmental community.
4.4.3. Cooperation and Collaboration
(1) there exists minimal confidence and tmst between the environmental comrnunity and SQF (2) miscornmunication is pervasive both intemal and externd to SQF (3) there is delayed and limited response to workshops and symposia (4) the inter-agency cooperative (GSEC) is inactive
The history of distmst between the environmental cornrnunity and SQF has impeded any advances in cooperative rnatters related to giant sequoia management. The failure of SQF to meet the requirements of an ecologically-based, adaptive scientific approach to giant sequoia management bas further incited skepticism that SQF is committed to the protection, preservation and restoration of giant sequoia groves.
I believe rnany SQF resource managers do, however, share these goals with members of the environmental cornmunity. Miscornmunication and a Iack of general understanding of institutional constraints have hindered the ability of SQF to fulfill commitments and capitalize on the general support and enthusiasm following successful workshops and symposiums. Additionally, the lack of leadership and cornmitment by al1 members of GSEC has rendered the inter-agency cooperative ineffective. 1 believe SQF would be well-advised to adopt a leadership role and invigorate the cooperative. This would serve the dud purpose of improving partnerships and communication with other resource management agencies as well as being positively received by interest groups. UItimately, SQF will be unable to initiate management activities in giant sequoia groves before they resolve some of the conflict and improve trust levels with the environmental cornmunity and, in particular, the Sierra Club.
4.4.4. Integration of Social Values
(1) SQF has difficulty defining "the public" and respective "value systems" (2) SQF has yet to effectively demonstrate cornmitment to the development of educational carnpaigns and interactive programs to comrnunicate knowiedge and value systerns
Finally, SQF must resolve who "the public" are and on what value system resource decisions are based.
SQF managers consider "the public" to be "vast and varied" (A. Gaffrey, pers. cornm.) and maintain that the USFS are at the "nexus of democracy" (A. Gaffrey, quoted in Chislock-Bethke 1997). The agency, however, must acknowledge its own biases as they inevitably affect management decisions.
AdditionalIy, admission of personal bias will serve to improve the perception of the USFS as an agency cornmitted to open and honest communication. Furthermore, in the case of giant sequoia management, the "vast and varied" public seems to be currently represented by the Sierra Club. As this may be acceptable (considering the preservation-oriented management direction), SQF resource managers must move beyond the volatile, acrimonious and accusatory dialogue with environmental activists. Finally, developing interactive educational programs will provide SQF the opportunity to judge whether the
Sierra Club does, in fact, represent the generai (and educated) public. SQF must be careful, however, not to alienate other stakeholders. However, I suspect improving relations with the Sierra Club will encourage other interest groups to rernain active in future constructive projects involving giant sequoia management. 5. THE FUTURE OF GIANT SEQUOIA MANAGEMENT
5.1. Sources of Confiict
Resolving conflict is the first step to effective giant sequoia management in the future. As
mentioned previously, conflict over giant sequoia management is primarily between SQF and the Sierra
Club. While other interest groups may subscxibe to one side or the other, the lack of any grove
management activities in SQF is due to the inability of these two groups to resolve their differences.
There are three primary sources of conflict regarding giant sequoia management: (1) management goals
(ecosystem preservation versus species perpetuation) (2) the means by which to achieve those goals
(structural versus process restoration) and (3) the agency's approach to long-term management planning
(topdown versus bottom-up management).
5.1.1. Management Goals
Despite general agreement on "protecting, preserving, and restorïng" giant sequoia groves.
different interpretations of these ternis has created conflict between SQF and the Sierra Club. The Sierra
Club maintains that the phrase, in its entirety, refers to the preservation of the giant sequoia ecosystem.
They claim that SQF considers "protection, preservation and restoration" in a species-specific context
and thus are only concerned about the perpetuation of the giant sequoia species and not about the general sequoia ecosystem (C. Cloer, pers. cornm.). The Sierra Club interpretation of SQF management goals is based on their experience with the logging activities in the 1980s; by SQF's admission, the togging was designed to increase giant sequoia regeneration. SQF maintain that the logging activity was to the benefit of giant sequoia reproduction. causing many of the environmental cornrnunity to doubt SQF's new comrnitment to ecosystem management over species-specific management.
Ultimately, the issue of conflicting goals cm be brought down to fùndarnentally different value systerns: valuing the production of sustained yield versus the preservation of intact ecosystems (J.
Manley, pers. cornm.). If SQF's goal is to achieve giant sequoia reproduction, the experience of Mountain Home Demonstration State Forest should be examined. If, on the other hand, they wish to maintain naturally fùnctioning ecosystems, the NPS mode1 of management is most appropriate. For their part, SQF resource managers claim that they are committed to maintaining functioning and viable grove
ecosystems (R. Rogers, pers. cornm.). The lack of a scientifically substantiated definition of either a
LLgrove" or a "grove ecosystem," however, undermines their official position. Furthemore, SQF's
history reveals a tendency toward production and commodity goals rather than ecosystem preservation.
There are some SQF resource managers that would be satisfied with increased sequoia
reproduction alone (pers. obsv.). These managers are, quite simply, intimidated by the logistical
complexity of rnanaging for grove ecosystems. The SQF forest matrix that surrounds the established
grove boundaries is rnanaged according to the USFS "multiple use" mandate. Thus rnanaging for grove ecosystems (which will likely extend beyond established grove boundaries) raises a number of controversial issues regarding the compatibility of a "use" such as tirnber production and grove ecosystem preservation. The long history of belligerent relations between SQF and the Sierra Club makes resource managers reticent to address these controversial issues. Despite this, 1 beiieve that there is sincere cornmitment by many SQF personnel to the preservation of giant sequoia ecosystems. The
Sierra Club has, effectively, forced the debate to examine the complex issue of multiple management scales- a matter the agency has yet to adequateiy reconcile with its multiple use mandate (pers. obsv.).
SQF personnel committed to the management of grove ecosysterns recognize that the issue of scale must be resolved before SQF can clah that giant sequoias are being rnanaged according to the principles of EM. Despite this recognition, conflict remains. Sorne individuals consider the core values of the
Sierra Club and SQF to be fundmentally different (A. Gaffrey, pers. comrn.). Furtherrnore, Sierra Club emphasis on nature preservation is, arguably, not compatible with resource management at al1 (H.
Salwasser, pers. cornm.). The Sierra Club, on the other hand, is concerned that SQF believe that mechanical treatment is the only possible means by which to achieve protection, preservation, and restoration (J. Fontaine, pers. cornrn.). Many in the environmental cornrnunity (beyond simply the Sierra
Club) are fearful of mechanicd management, and are equally skeptical of SQF intentions. AI1 agree, however, with Stephenson's conclusion that the single-worst threat to the sustainability of giant sequoia groves is inaction- that "the ongoing changes in forest succession and buildup of hazardous fuels in most groves cannot be ignored" (1996, 1460). 5.1.2. Structural versus Process Restoration
Detemiining the most effective tools by which to achieve the aforementioned goals is also a rnatter of significant controversy. Conflict between the Sierra Club and SQF is rooted in the well- documented debate over process versus structural restoration (see Stephenson 1996; Vale 1987).
Stephenson (1996) surnrnarizes the process/structuralist division:
", .. structural restorationists have argued that grove structure (the spatial arrangement and sizes of forest patches and the diameters, heights, and densities of trees in the patches) and species composition must be restored, by whatever means possible, before natural processes (particularly fire) are allowed to run a more natural course in determinhg grove dynarnics .. . in contrast, process restorationists have argued that initial grove structure is unimportant; the goal of restoration is to restore the major processes (particularly fire) that shaped sequoia ecosystems in pre-Euroamerican times in such a way that 'the interaction of those processes with other ecosystem elements. ..[ is] ... similar to that which would have occurred had modem humans not inter~ened'~~'(1444).
NPS management strategies are traditionally process-oriented, and involve the reintroduction of fire to reduce fuel loads and reshape forest structure (Fullmer et al. 1996). The USFS, on the other hand, subscnbes to stmctural restoration goals in gant sequoia management by advocating the combined use of mechanical and prescribed fire treatments to manipulate forest structure and finction (Fullmer et ai. 1996). Notably, the NPS ha. recentiy expressed interest in reconciling process and structural restoration targets to improve the effectiveness of management strategies (N. Stephenson, pers. comm.).
The SQF approach to giant sequoia management is rooted in the basic principles of structural restoration. USFS policies support strucnirally-directed magement; NEPA analysis, for example, requires that managers define "desired conditions" (stnictural goals) before proceeding with proposed management activities. Piirto and Rogers (1998) also identify structural goals in their effort to develop an ecological foundation for giant sequoia management. Using the concept of a "naturai range of variabiIity" the authors attempt to quantitatively identify a range of structural targets. In doing so, they both resolve the challenge of defining precise struchml goals for grove restoration and acknowledge the
46 Parsons et al. 1986 int~sicvariability of giant sequoia ecosysterns. However, Piirto and Rogers (1998) do not restrict themselves to defining structural goals. They also consider ecosystem processes such as fire return intervals and water distribution in giant sequoia groves. In addition, they conclude that structure and process are inextricably linked. This is significant in that it represents a new approach to USFS resource management.
Structurai restoration can be achieved by mechanical means or by the use of prescribed fire.
Process restoration, on the other hand, can only be achieved through the reintroduction of natural disturbance regimes. Process restoration involves permitting natural processes to operate at an undefined
(and often slow) rate rather than attempting to accelerate management to achieve desired objectives.
SQF concern that fuel loading in the groves must be reduced irnmediately (for fear of catastrophic fire). is not shared (to the same extent) by the environmental community. Rather, many believe SQF should establish guidelines and baseline data before considering management actions (J. Fontaine, pers. comm.;
K. Anderton, pers. cornrn.). Representatives from the environmental c~mmunitycontinuously reiterated the belief that the groves have existed for tens of thousands of years and that the effects of a century of fire suppression need not be resolved "irnrnediately" without careful consideration.
Stephenson (1996) provides justification for process restoration:
"Given how little we know about sequoia ecosystems (which include more than just the trees focused on by structural restorationists), a conservative management approach is to (1) avoid introducing new processes (such as mechanical restoration and its accompanying soi1 disturbance) which have unknown immediate or long-term effects on many ecosystem components, and (2) restore and maintain those processes that sustained the grove ecosysterns in the past" (1445).
Most in the environmental comrnunity support a "conservative management strategy" although sorne are not adverse to the possibiIity of mechmical thinning in certain groves with heavy fuel loading (L.
Blumberg, pers. comm.). They recognize, however, that Sierra Club concerns regarding inadequate forest policies to direct management actions are justified.
For the Sierra Club, the issue of trust weighs heavily in the organization's support of process over structurai restoration. Representatives simply do not trust SQF to responsibly use mechanical treatment to achieve structurai goals, especially considering lirnited understanding of grove ecosystem dynamics (J. Fontaine, pers. cornm.). Furthemore, SQF terminology for defining "desired conditions" in
giant sequoia groves is considered by many to echo timber management jargon; phrases such as
"overstocked conditions," "decadent old-growth" and "an excess ador deficit of X year-old trees" al1
instill fear that SQF wiIl manage grove ecosysterns as they would a tree farm.
SQF resource managers are quick to note that structural restoration can be achieved by
prescribed buming. The DC management proposal, for exarnple, only involved prescnbed bums. In
future management activities, SQF managers stress that mechanical treatment would only be employed
for fuel reduction purposes, and then only after a complete EIS is prepared47. They point to the support
of some rnembers of the environmental cornrnunity for limited mechanical thinning and resent the dissenting opinion of the Sierra Club (pers. obsv.). Regardless, the fact remains that there is not
unanimous support for mechanical treatment. Until SQF and the Sierra Club reconcile some of their differences, any proposed action in giant sequoia groves is likely to be opposed. A reasonable first step may be to reconcile process and structural restoration goaIs (see Stephenson 1996) by utilizing research by Piirto and Rogers (1998) on natural variability wiîhin grove ecosysterns (structure) in concert with implementing prescribed buming programs (process).
5.1.3. Management PIanning Processes
Sierra Club resistance to any activity in giant sequoia groves will be maintained until SQF fulfill obligations to produce an official amendment to the 1988 LMP including the provisions outlined in the
1990 MSA. SQF argues that since the MSA there have been scientific advances (SNEP) and changes in
USFS policy (EM and CASPO legislation) that would have ultimately preempted an amendment anyway.
Furthemore, SQF managers want to adopt a "bottom-up" approach to the planning process by "doing components and building up experience" (Le., the individuai grove, DC prototype approach) before amending the LlMP (J. Allen, pers. cornm.). The Sierra Club, on the other hand, are demanding a long- range, forest-wide giant sequoia management plan be arnended to the 1988 LMP before any activity
47 In accordance with the MSA Guidelines (SQF 1990). proceeds in giant sequoia groves. The latter effectively represents a "top-dom'' approach to land
rnanagement planning (J. Allen, pers. cornrn.).
These fundamentally different opinions on how land rnanagement planning should proceed are a
prirnary source of conflict between SQF managers and Sierra Club representatives. The Sierra Club
believes that SQF should be required to identify standards and guidelines for grove management
activities before any action is permitted on the ground. Furtherrnore, Sierra Club representatives argue
that SQF already cornrnitted to develop a forest-wide giant sequoia grove management plan in the 1988 LMP. As mentioned previously, SQF managers contest this interpretation of the LMP. They maintain
that the groves risk conflagration under current fuel conditions and therefore it is necessary to address
short-term threats to the groves so that "there will be a long-tem" (R. Rogers, pers. corn.). Conflict over the immediacy of the fuel ioading threat to giant sequoia groves is, as yet, unresolved.
The SNEP report provides SQF resource managers with the tools to proceed on developing an
LMP amendment founded in the most recent scientific research on Sierra Nevada ecosystems. In addition to giant sequoia management, SQF should capitalize on this wealth of information to amend the fire and fuels component of the LMP. The recent decision by Forest Supervisor, Art Gaffrey, to cancel the DC bum in lieu of arnending the LMP indicates that SQF is recognizing that grove management activities will be contested until Sierra Club concerns are abated.
5.2. Future Strategies for Giant Sequoia Grove Management
First and foremost, giant sequoia resource managers must clearly communicate the goals and expectations of collaborative management. Interest group involvement in the "plan to project" side of the
"NEPA triangle" has the potential to improve stakeholder understanding of the early stages of land management planning. Additionally, including interest groups in the development of management proposals will make the planning process more transparent. The DC coliaborative stewardship project is an example of where miscommunication and faIse expectations ultimately eroded the process. Interest groups and SQF must consider what positive learning experiences they can extract from the DC process and move forward. SQF resource managers must also direct energy into institutionalizing support for giant sequoia
management projects at al1 hierarchical levels within the USFS. Continuous and detailed intra-agency communication will be essential to achieve institutionai support. Current levels of communication are inadequate and power stmggles between SQF personnel4 must be resolved before SQF can hope to advance in giant sequoia management. Furthermore, increased communication between al1 land management agencies charged with giant sequoia management is necessary . Varying experience and knowledge should be exploited by al1 agencies. SQF, for example, cm learn from the NPS prescribed burn program and educational initiatives.
A broad coalition of politicai and economic support for giant sequoia research must be aIso established. Giant sequoia management will require a multi-year financial cornmitment to ensure success. The USFS budgetary process, in its current form, does not reward long-term projects with few economic retums (a description which characterizes giant sequoia management). In fact, the pol itics of
USFS funding is described by some as "positively schizophrenic"; for example, Congress rewards the production of board feet while USFS leadership daims that timber harvests should be effectively a byproduct of EM (J. Men, pers. comm.). Another SQF employee went so far as to describe the funding process as "arcane" and out of line with USFS management direction. Potentiai solutions include the possibility of giant sequoia management receiving higher budgetary priority at national. regional and local levels, however this rnay serve only to exacerbate conflict with other management projects currently vying for financial support. Exploring funding opportunities through the NFF and initiating jointly funded projects with other land management agencies may be a more effective and less controversial route to securing research and management capital.
Despite funding constraints, there is evidence SQF is working to improve relations with other research organizations. Work by Piirto and Rogers (19981, for exampte, is a joint project between SQF and California Polytechnic State ~niversit~.'~dditionall~,a potential collaborative partnership
48 Agency infighting for resources and differing opinions of the priority of various interests (timber, fire, grazing, etc.) hamper the ability of SQF to manage resource effectively and efficiently (pers. obsv.).
49 It should be noted that Doug Piirto, Professor of Foresay at Caiifornia Polytechnic State University, is a former USFS employee. This, however, in no way reduces the importance of the research conducted by Piirto and Rogers (1998). involving SQF and Save-the-Redwoods League is promising. Working in conjunction with members of
the environmental community will increase trust and improve communication. Specifically, SQF
managers have expressed interest in entering an Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Save-the-
Redwoods League to work on (1) improving collaborative skills and (2) conducting a stakeholder survey
and andysis on giant sequoia management (M. Chislock-Bethke, pers. comrn.). Cornrnitment by both
parties to an MOU, however, has yet to be confirmed.
SQF are also in the process of organizing a conference designed to bring together individuals
who have contributed to the sequoia debate over the years. SQF managers are determined not to conduct
the conference according to the "present information and then ask for feedback" formula (M. Chislock-
Bethke, pers. comrn.). Rather, they intend to ask workshop participants to cornrnunicate the direction
they wish to see SQF giant sequoia management proceed. One of the prirnary focuses of the meeting will
be to identify components that should be addressed in an official amendment to the 1988 LMP. Finally, recognizing the need for more integrated management at the regional level, the USFS are
developing a Sierra Nevada Framework for Conservation and Collaboration (S-WCC) "in response to the
new information provided in the SNEP report and the Forest Service's California spotted owl protection
efforts" (USFS 1998b, 1). The SNFCC is comprised of both short and long-term components which are
organized into four basic tasks: (1) clarification of existing guidelines and identification of relevant new
information that should be considered in future planning especially concerning key resource issuess0; (2)
a synthesis of the need for new direction from existing science, scientific reports, and an evaluation of
how implementation of CASPO Interim Guidelines affect key resources; (3) development and adoption
of forest plan arnendments, together with required NEPA process; and (4) development of a long range
conservation framework that describes the broad goals for the health and management of ecosysterns in the Sierra and protocols for watershed level planning and impIementation of actions to achieve these goals in coordination across the Sierra Nevada range (Sprague 1998,2).
In July 1998, the USFS (through the PSW Research Station) completed a scientific review (the second basic task) which is intended to be the first step in reconciling the information provided by SNEP
Key resource issues include: CASPO, mesocamivores, roadless areas, riparian and aquatic ecosystems. and fire and fuels management. and CASPO documents. This review provides a strong scientific and ecological foundation for future management strategies in the Sierra Nevada (H. Salwasser pers. comrn.). During the course of completing the other three SNFCC tasks, public meetings will be conducted and the opinions of interest groups sought. SQF resource managers predict that the issue of giant sequoia management will be raised during this process. As such, they are awaiting direction from the SNFCC before they proceed on a forma1 plan arnendment. As the framework will directIy affect the design and implementation of future giant sequoia management strategies, this may be an expedient decision. However, further stalling rnay perpetuate the perception of SQF as steadfastly opposed to the production of a plan amendment.
Cornrnunicating the significance of the SNFCC in USFS management (for the Pacific Southwest Region) to al1 interest groups will be essential to abate criticism. Ultimately, the SNFCC wilI be based on the principles of EM, and thus its success rests on the ability of the resource manager to apply EM on national forest lands. 6. ECOSYSTl3M MANAGEiMENT IN RESOURCE MANAGElMENT
6.1 General Challenges to the Application of Ecosystem Management by the USFS
The troubles plaguing giant sequoia management are not unique to SQF. Several fundamental
issues ultimately affected the ability of USFS resource managers to work in collaborative projects and
advance management proposals relating to giant sequoia management: (1) the value of public confidence
and trust, (2) the need for effective policies, and (3) the importance of comprehensive scientific research
throughout national forest land management. The following challenges are drawn from the SQF
experience and placed in the context of general USFS resource management.
(1) Lack of Confidence and Trust
The theme of distmst was recurrent throughout the course of my research. The USFS first
betrayal of public confidence cm be traced back to the late 1960s and early 1970s when the
environmentai community began to voice concern about agency bias toward timber production (Brunson
and Kennedy 1995). Reiterating the official position that public lands were to be managed for "multiple
use," USFS managers maintained their roles as inforrned and authoritative stewards, claiming they knew
what was best for forest resources.
NEPA (1969) and NFMA (1976) represented a new era in public land management, emphasizing the importance of public participation in the planning and management of national forest lands. Both acts are indicative of general public dissatisfaction with USFS management direction and decision- making. Despite the significance of these acts however, it has taken over twenty years for the administrative requirements of both to be understood and accepted by the USFS (D. Piirto, pers. comm.).
Indeed, there remains today institutional resistance to the time, energy and financial cornmitment necessary to fulfill NEPA requirements (R. Rogers, pers. comm.). Interest groups are acutely aware of this resistance and thus are often skeptical of the agency's purported cornmitment to collaborative management and public participation.
In the case of giant sequoia management, trust in SQF was severely damaged in the early 1980s when Iogging activity in groves was discovered without adequate public announcement or NEPA analysis. The environmental comrnunity fett deceived and disparaged by SQF, and the endless train of
litigation was initiated. Additionally, when the subsequent 1988 LMP retained the groves within the
timber production base, many in the environmental community interpreted the agency's actions to mean
that SQF had no intention of rnanaging the groves for anything other than commercial production.
Numerous appeds to the LMP ultimately Iead to the 1990 MSA- a landmark in the giant sequoia
management debate. However, SQF's inability to rneet the requirements of the MSA (within the
anticipated two year rime frarne) further eroded trust between interest groups and SQF (pers. obsv.).
Finally, miscommunication and (according to the Sierra Club) rnisrepresentation, during the DC
collaborative process has effectively rendered confidence in SQF management non-existent. While the
Sierra CIub remain the most cynicd and distrustfi1 of SQF, other stakeholders also recognize that SQF
are Iiving with the legacy of violating public trust and confidence in the past (J. Manley, pers. comrn.).
SQF resource managers, for their part, acknowledge they have made errors in pubtic relations (J.
Allen, pers. comm.; Solnit 1997). They also, however, emphasize that distrust cuts both ways. SQF managers are distinctly aware of what they cal1 an "entrenched conflict industry" that pervades public
land management (M. Chislock-Bethke, pers. comrn.). This refers to the idea that environmental
organizations continuously oppose policies and actions advanced by the USFS in order to perpetuate
their own existence. The timber industry reiterates the concem that "without environmental 'problems'
there would be no need for environmental groups" (K. Duysen, pers. corn.) suggesting that the
environmental cornmunity rnay continue to resist SQF management proposals for mercenary ends.
Furthemore, additional distrust stems from current proposed Iegislation (Bill H.R. 2077 supported by the
Sierra Club) which involves re-zoning most of SQF as a "no-cut" or "non-consumptive use" national
forest." Considering the latter, SQF believe the Sierra Club have reason to roadblock management
proposds to prove SQF as incapable of successfulIy managing giant sequoia groves under current
management conditions (J. Allen, pers. comm.).
Lack of accountability by both the environmental cornrnunity and SQF contributes to the perpetuation of a mutually distrustful relationship. In general, PNR (1995a) notes "the growing sense of
This is not unprecedented. The San Bernardino National Forest and Los Padres National Forest in southem California (Los Angeles area), for exarnple, are considered "non-consumptive use" national forests. disenfranchisement between citizens and government (a problem not lirnited to forest management); a
perception that the institutions designed to serve society have lost their sense of responsibility"(2). In
particular, representatives from the environmental cornmunity are fnistrated by the seeming inability of
resource managers to take responsibility for failed management activities (J. Fontaine, pers. corn.).
SQF employees, on the other hand, claim equal frustration over the various (and sometimes conflicting) demands of individual members of the environmental cornmunity. Additionally, both groups declared verbal cornmitments followed by conflicting written statements to be a serious problem. In the future, resolution of disputes based on verbal miscornunication rnay necessitate clear and explicit documentation of al1 interactions.
Ultimately, this adversarial relationship renders collaborative planning ineffectual. USFS resource managers cannot take trust for granted. Trust must be gradually established between a11 collaborative partners through clear communication and sincere cornrnitment to irnproving relationships.
Broader appreciation for the human (or social) dimension of EM by resource managers should be addressed through irnproved training on collaboration. Furthemore, the establishment of constructive and positive reIationships with interest groups should be encouraged and rewarded by the agency. In the words of former Chief Jack Ward Thomas (1996), "there is no better way to build understanding and trust than to work together for the cornrnon good. .. and, improvements in trust and mutual respect are surely needed" (704). Trust is, perhaps, the most valuable cornmodity in collaborative projects.
Recognition of the latter by both interest groups and the USFS is necessary for functional and effective public land management in the future.
(2) Adequate Policies and Effective Poiicy Implementation
Building tmst requires that resource managers have a supportive and effective institutional framework to design and implement management proposals. NEPA, in particular, affects the design of proposed management actions, the deveropment of EAs and EISs, public scoping and participation, and
(ultimately) the implementation of the proposed action. NEPA is purely procedurai whereas EM is substantive, and NEPA thus provides the process according to which the pnnciples of EM are appiied (J.
Allen, pers. cornrn.). Documentation requirements for NEPA, however, are substantial and often incite organizational resistance. Additionally, =PA documents involve data synthesis and integration of
social, physical and biological information. Given the general reluctance to fuifiIl documentation
requirements, resulting EAs and EISs often do not adequately integrate this information and are thus
criticized and litigated by stakeholders. Inadequate policy standards and guidelines continue to plague giant sequoia management.
Despite appeals over a decade ago to arnend the SQF LMP, an official amendment is still withstanding.
Organizational resistance to the planning process primarily accounts for the deiay in arnending the 1988
LMP (pers. obsv.). Currently, however, SQF fire management officiais are utilizing the recent
publications Integrution of Wildland Fire Management Into Land Management Planfiing (USFS 1997~)
and Wildland Fire Management Policy: Implernentation Procedures Reference Guide (USFS 1998c) to
update and improve fire management policy to be more flexible and experimental (A. Gelobter, pers.
cornrn.) . These reports suggest that general USFS policy direction is in Iine with the current scientific
understanding of fire as a natural disturbance regime. A challenge to new policies, however, is the
integration of existing ecologicd knowledge with social values and fiscal realities. The USFS is charged with designing management strategies that meet these requirements. Although this is a daunting task, updating fire management policies offers the USFS the opportunity to restore public confidence in the agency as a leader in natural resource and fire management. Lessons derived from the sequoia experience may be valuable additions to experimental fire management throughout the national forest system. The SNFCC will provide the direction and general guidelines for USFS management throughout the Sierra Nevada region. The USFS challenge is to determine the fine line between the specific and general, such that individuai forest (and ecoregion) variation will not be compromised nor will guidelines be so general as to be rendered virtually useless. Additionally, identifying goals and developing cnteria to meet those goals will require interest groups and the USFS to respect the limitations and value systerns of al1 collaborative partners. This wiil be a gradua1 process and will involve both a learning organization and a learning community with open minds and clear expectations. As such, the SNFCC should be considered a "work in progress" that may take several years to organize and implement in its entirety
(USDA 1998b). Ultimately, drawing public participation into the left-side of the NEPA triangle, or the "plan to project" stage, will, through time, increase participant understanding of the USFS planning process as well as identify public concerns before a project is proposed. Well-written NEPA documentation should also be rewarded to encourage more integrated and effective management analyses (J. Allen, pers. comm.). Furthemore, existing and new USFS policy must attempt to facilitate the ecosystem mode1 within the planning process (E. Grumbine, pers. comm.). Resistance to the ecosystem mode1 is rooted in the institutional frarnework of the USFS- a consequence of the adversariai history between the NPS conservation policies and a USFS culture based on production of resources (E. Grumbine, pers. cornrn.).
Policy change which embraces the principles of EM is further hindered by the current political climate (directed by a Republican Congress) which is decisively opposed to EM (E. Grumbine, pers. cornrn.). As Congress allocates budgets, activities involving commercial resource production are prioritized. Ultirnately, policy change is IikeIy to be gradua1 as USFS personnel adjust to meet the needs of EM and the demands of Congress. As current USFS Chief Michael Dombeck noted during his first months in office, there is an immediate need to determine clear direction from the "quagrnire of conflicting laws, regulations, overlapping agency responsibilities, congressional overtures and court actions" (Wester 1997, 30). Despite the sense of urgency, 1 believe changes in agency management are likely to be less of a "revolution" and more of a graduai move toward balancing cornrnodity and non- comrnodity uses in national forest lands. Resistance both within agency ranks and by commodity interests will likely slow the process of restructuring. Increased public interest and involvement in public land management, however, will assist in achieving steady improvement in diverse natural resource management initiatives. Above all, USFS policy must continually be reassessed to ensure it reflects current knowledge of ecosystem science and resource management issues.
(3) Investment in Scientif~cResearch and Data Collection
"Every management activity is an experiment and should be treated as such" (Whelan 1995,
295). Poorly developed ecological knowledge and unreliable data plague forest resource management (Whelan 1995). Thus cleady defined objectives, well-trained managers, and flexible management decisions are of utmost importance in forest management. Recognition of scientific uncertainty in ecological research will also assist in designing and implementing responsible resource management strategies (Christensen et al. 1996; Ludwig et al. 1993). History has demonstrated that policies without sound ecological foundations offer only short-term solutions. For example, the long-term effects of fire suppression are increasingly evident: large-scale, high-intensity fires threaten fuel-laden national forests.
Any comprehensive policy amendment, whether it be for fire or timber management, requires substantiai research and data collection to provide the scientific foundation on which to base management decisions. In relation to the NPS, the USFS have not directed funding into forest ecological research to nearly the same extent. USFS research has traditiondly focused on growth rate, yield and genetic resistance- reflecting the traditional USFS emphasis on comodity production. Recent research conducted by USFS Research Stations, however, reflects a broader scientific focus (see http://www.fs.fed.us/research/). The PSW Research Station, for example, has a research staff with diverse interests and credentials- fom molecular biologists to Iandscape architects. Current PSW research includes exarnination of the physical processes that govern watersheds and wildland ecosystems, in addition to issues such as the impact of global change on forest policy and management
(http://www.psw.fs.fed.us/). Resource managers must publicize these research initiatives. "On the ground" research, conducted by scientists and managers who directly interact with the public, will irnprove the perception of the agency as cornmittecf to managing for the long-tenn sustainability of natural resources.
Lack of data and insufficient research on @nt sequoia grove dynarnics contributed to the failure of SQF managers to implement proposed management actions. Research conducted by Shindler and
Neburka (1996) concluded that the utilization of current and refiable scientific data added considerably to establishing a credible decision-making process. While research on giant sequoia ecology and management is diverse, acadernics and federal agencies such as the NPS have conducted much of the work. Research on giant sequoia productivity, on the other hand- such as the potential significance of properties of giant sequoia to wood utilization (see Piirto and Wilcox 198 1) and stocking effects on early growth of planted sequoia (see Heald and Barrett 1998)- is published by USFS scientists. Despite the latter, recent research by Gmke et al. (1996) on the response of giant sequoia canopy foliage to atmospheric ozone suggests that the USFS is considering broader issues which rnay affect giant sequoia viability. Furthemore, Manley et al. (1995) offers direction fcr future USFS research opportunities by emphasizing the importance of diverse scientific information in identifying key ecosystem indicators in the application of EM. At a symposium on EM in 1994, Associate USFS Chief David Unger stated that improved use of science in decision-making would involve
"...[the] continued independence of Our research am and strengthening of research efforts, as well as development of guidelines for eady and continuous collaboration of scientists and decision makers, and upgrading of the technical skills of Our workforce. We must also clarify the roIe of the scientist in providing information and assessing risks and consequences and the manager in using this information and other information in making decisions" (Unger 1994).
Increased research efforts are essential such that management decisions cmbe based on sound ecological information. Commitment to more integrated and comprehensive research, and the development of scientificdly substantiated management policies, offers the USFS the opportunity to restore public confidence in an agency with a fledgling past, but which stnves to be a leader in natural resource management.
6.2 Recommendations for Improving USFS Application of Ecosystem Management
Based on SQF experience in giant sequoia management and general Iiterature on resource management, 1identie six potentiai means by which the USFS can increase opportunities for successfu1
EM in the future. These recomrnendations are by no means definitive and are intended to supplement existing Iiterature on EM. Furthermore, they are broad recornrnendations. and thus wiIl be either more or less relevant to resource managers depending on the specific circurnstances influencing individual management processes. (1) Talk early and often and focus on establishing tmst with collaborative partners
Interactions between collaborative partners should start early and be continuous throughout the decision-making process. Potential sources of conflict should be identified at the outset of the process and resolved whenever possible. Furthemore, clearly defined "rights, needs, roles, desires, and responsibilities arnong groups" (Thomas 1996, 704) will reconcile differences in perception which may render communication difficult and preclude any real collaborative effort (Bradley et al. 1995). Pre- emptive mitigation can also be achieved by clearly defining the parameters of the project and through documentation of al1 positions and expectations of the colIaborative partners. Resource managers should also recognize the importance of exploring the various stakeholders' understanding of EM "including appropriate management practices incorporated under the concept and implications of these practices"
(Bradley et al. 1995, 2). Acknowledging and rectifying power imbalances will increase trust and confidence between colIaborators. Individuals should "enter interactions with genuine intentions and be open, honest and respectfui" during the collaborative process (ShindIer and Cheek 1997, 2). Ultimately, patience, flexibility, receptiveness and responsiveness will improve the potential for successful collaboration.
(2)Be confident in the process and fdfîll al1 commitments always and immediately
From the outset, the USFS resource managers must define and articulate their reasons for involving the public, and "make good on their comrnitment" (Shindler and Neburka 1996, 2). Motivated individuals must continuousiy reinforce their comrnitment to, and confidence in, the process. Confidence results from perception by collaborators that their presence is affecting management direction. Shindler and Neburka (1996) note that "projects where interest group agendas and/or agency land allocation guidelines are under debate nationally are challenging, even exhausting public participation efforts at the local level.. . [thus it] is essential that [collaborators] ideas and concerns be assigned a level of legitimacy that ensures serious consideration" (2). Often, where individuals are given explicit responsibilities, they perceive their involvement to personally affect the outcome (Yaffee and WondoIleck 1997).
Furthemore, leaders should be identified and accepted by al1 involved in the collaborative process and, where possible, the decision rnaker (Le., Forest Supervisor) should be present to indicate support from agency superiors (Yaffee and Wondolleck 1997). Finaily, the USFS must fulfill cornmitments and institutionalize support for EM at al1 agency levels. Successful collaboration is measured by actually seeing the results of group decisions on the ground. Tangible results also irnprove agency accountability as resulting actions can be weighed against documented decisions and objectives.
(3) Acknowledge biases
Individual and organizational biases often beget skepticism in collaborative decision-making.
Acknowledging these biases in an open and honest forum will help establish the credibility of coIlaborative partners. The USFS has long viewed itself as a neutral mediator- "a steward of the cornmon ground" (Kuentzel 1996)- despite a history defined by commercial production and a distinctive
"timber bias" (Hirt 1994; Clary 1986). Bradley et al. ( 1995) expand on the issue of industry and agency biases, noting that
"... it is also the case that the knowledge structure (or "images") of experts, even in closely related fields, will be different in important respects based on their specific training and experience. We rnight expect, therefore, that a forest ecologist who has been working for an environmental group to have a different image of ecosystem management than a forest ecologist who has been working for the timber industry" (2).
Often agency bias is perpetuated by tradition bound superiors whose cornmitment to collaboration is restricted to satisfying procedural requirements. The USFS must acknowledge that they are more than disinterested participants but rather an agency comprised of individuals with different ideas and personal biases that affect management direction and application. In addition to personal biases, larger institutional, political and econornic forces influence the agency's agenda and values. USFS limitations resulting from these forces should be identified in the initial stages of the coIlaborative process.
(4) lnvest in research and science
EM requires current and reliable information and improved knowledge of the cultural/social, physicd and biological dimensions of ecosystems (ManIey et al. 1995). Recognizing and addressing uncertainty and risk through adaptive scientific management is also necessary for successful application of EM. Cortner et al. (1995) note that the USFS must "find a balance between research focused on short- term, practical problem solving and research focused on long-term theoretical development" (3).
Stanford and Poole (1996) observe that "virtually al1 resource management plans that fail do so in the
absence of a common body of empiricai knowledge founded upon clear articulation of ecologicai theory"
(742). Expanding the current base of ecological information can be achieved by (1) extending
independent research efforts and (2) pursuing collaborative studies with academic institutions and other
federal resource management agencies. This will not only increase the (theoretical and applied)
ecologicai knowledge base for resource managers, but will also legitimize USFS cornmitment to
improving communication between agency and non-agency scientists and managers.
(5) Reconcile policy and funding constraints with long-term planning
The extent to which existing laws, policies and regulations may constrain or aid the development and implementation of EM is currently unknown (Cortner et al. 1995). Research must be conducted to determine the complex relationship between existing legislation and the application of EM. The success of EM hinges on the ability of USFS to remove institutional resistance to the time, energy, and financial cornmitment necessary to achieve integrated resource management. Furthemore, ecosystems are inherently uncertain and unpredictable and thus require flexible and adaptive policies. Holling (1996) posits that "policies and management that apply fixed rules for achieving constant yields (e.g., constant carrying capacity of cattle or wildlife, or constant sustainable yield of fish, wood, or water), independent of scale, lead to systems that gradually Iose resilience, Le., to ones that suddenly break down in the face of disturbances that previously could be absorbed" (733). Reconciling the dynamic nature of ecosystems with fûnding constraints and policy direction is an immediate and formidable challenge for USFS resource managers. Their abiIity to overcome bureaucracy and prioritize the application of EM principles, however, will ultimately detedethe fate of EM in USFS resource management.
(6) Explore the relationship between values and science
The relationship between values and science in resource management is complex and varied.
Stanford and Poole (1996) state that "scientists and managers must guide the pub!ic in setting goals, pointing out incornpatibilities and consequences of different resource values based to the extent possible on measured processes and responses (empirical data)" (743). Resource managers must be careful, however, not to adopt an authocitarian role in the collaborative process. This cm be avoided by using empirical data to direct management decisions whenever possible. However, the public must agree with
(or at minimum accept) USFS management direction and activities (U.S. OTA 1992). Grumbine (1997) notes that "there is a Iarge gap in American environmental values between what sustaining ecosystems requires and what people desire" (46). Scientists and resource managers must therefore attempt to
"[integrate] science into al1 aspects of human society and culture" such that decisions will be based on a
"value-driven, holistic, and inclusive science" (Cooperrider 1996, 737). Effective communication of science both externally (the public) and internally (USFS employees) is an essential component in the application of EM. Potential means by which to improve communication include: (1) interactive education programs and (2) employing scientists and ecologists in rnid-staff positions (i.e., in the
Supervisor's offke) to actively work with, and communicate science to, managers, planners and the public. Priority concems and issues can be identified by value systerns; science cm improve understanding and offer solutions to rectify concerns. The fine Iine between managing resources according to ethical value systems or science (where they conflict) is, as yet, undefined. Further research shouId be directed into examining this controversial and unresolved issue.
6.3. Conclusion
The ongoing debate surrounding the application and understanding of EM suggests that EM is affecting the dialogue and direction of resource management. There are many that believe EM is a strong frarnework and mode1 for the future of resource management. The concept, however, remains somewhat enigrnatic without supporting legislative direction or a generally accepted definition. Despite the latter. managers, scientists and academics agree that EM involves reconciling the complex relationships between social, political, economic, biological, physical and ecological variables. This is a daunting task. Additionally, the feasibility and long-term implications of an EM approach to resource and Iand management is yet to be adequately determined (Christensen et al. 1996). At present, EM has evolved into a rnyriad of forms implemented by various agencies and organizations with different mandates and policy restrictions. This research examines one agency, the USFS, and identifies some of the issues and
concerns arising frorn "on the ground" management practices.
Currently, the USFS is rnoving from being a timber management agency to a more integrated
land and resource management planning agency (J. Allen, pers. comm.). Support for agency
"reinvention" is well documented (see Miller 1996; Thomas 1996; Thomas and Huke 1996; Farnham and Mohai 1995; Brown and Harris 1992a; Brown and Harris 1992b; Sampson 1992). Much as EM takes
different fom across agencies and organizations however, so too does it throughout national forest
lands. Agency reinvention is a slow and tenuous process, hindered by general institutional resistance to
change and Local dynarnics between national forest personnel and their constituencies. The case of giant
sequoia management illuminates some of the challenges to the application of EM by the USFS. The lack
of confidence and trust in SQF managers, inadequate forest policies, and insufficient scientific research,
ultimately Iead to gridlock and frustration for al1 involved.
The USFS must leam from both successful and unsuccessful ventures in the experiment that is EM. Resolving sources of conflict and identifying areas of agreement will aid in advancing management
activities in giant sequoia grove ecosystems. Furthermore, open and honest communication is essential for the successful application of EM. At present, SQF (and the USFS in general) are at the nadir in the public confidence curve. Priority must be placed on establishing trust and positive relationships with interest groups for, ultimately, success begets success. With each successful cooperative project, increased mutual respect and understanding for the constraints faced by each of these groups will improve. Failures, on the other hand, result in increased tension between groups and severely inhibit the potential for successful collaborative ventures in the future.
The USFS are an agency in transition and, by my observations, are experiencing growing pains.
"People are no longer proud to work for the USFS" (L. lump, pers. comm.), and the motives and integrity of the agency are constantly under siege. EM, however, offers the agency the opportunity to respond to public calls for more balanced management on national lands. The value of EM rests on how managers, scientists, and the public approach resource management problerns. Critics charge that USFS terms such as "ecosystem management" and "collaborative stewardship" are merely buzzwords full of holIow promises. They are, however, good buzzwords that, as the agency learns and improves relations with local communities, rnay affect change at the local level. "EM is and will dways be 'work in progress' that will undergo continual refinement and improvement as practitioners gain experience and knowledge, and as new technology provides tools to incorporate into the process" (Thomas 1996, 703). It is possible that EM rnay be renarned if federai agencies, institutions, and organizations reach agreement on resource management terrns and definitions. "Sustainable Forest Management," for example, has garnered international support and thus rnay represent the new face of EM (H. Sdwasser, pers. cornm.).
Finally, EM remains an experirnent in agency policy, philosophy, and, perhaps, propaganda.
While abundant Iiterature is available on EM theory and philosophy, there is a noticeable Iack of research on the pmctical implementation of EM. Only monitoring and research at the forest IeveI will ascertain the value of EM in the context of USFS resource management. This thesis adds to the Lirnited examination of the application of Eh4 "on the ground." Ultimately, research on EM will increase in value as lessons derived from experience at the local level are made available to managers throughout the national forest system. Adgee, J.K. and Johnson, D.R. 1988. Ecosystem Management for Parks and Wilderness. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Allen, M.F. 1996. 'The Roie of Restoration Ecology in Ecosystem Management: Opportunities and Responsibilities" In ïïte Role of Restoration in Ecosystem Management. D.L. Pearson and C.V. Nimas (eds). Madison, WI: Society for Ecological Restoration; pp. 1 1-14.
Alverson, W.S., Kuhlmann, W., and D.M. Waller 1994. Wild Forests: Conservation Biology and Public Policy. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Barnes, E. 1987. An Introduction to the Fire and Landrcape Issues in Sequoia und Kings Canyon National Parks, California. (APublic Appeal). Dated December 1987.
Bonnicksen, T.M. 1988. "Standards of Naturalness: The National Parks Management Challenge" Landscape Architecture 78(22): 120, 134.
Bonnicksen, T.M. and E.C. Stone 1985. "Restoring Naturalness to National Parks" Environmental Management 9(6): 479486.
1982. "Reconstruction of a presettlement giant sequoia-mixed conifer forest comrnunity using the aggregation approach" Ecology 63(4): 1134- 1 148.
1981. "The Giant Sequoia-Mixed Conifer Forest Community Characterized through Pattern AnaIysis as a Mosaic of Aggregations" Forest Ecology and Management 3 (4):307-328.
Bradley, G., Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. and A. Kearney 1995. "Ecosystem Management: The Problem of Assuming Shared Images" Challenges No. 10. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service.
Brockman, C.F. 1986. Trees of North Arnerica. New York: Golden Press.
Brown, G. and C. Harris 1993. "The Implications of Work Force diversification in the US Forest Service" Society and Natural Resources 5: 23 1-245.
1992a. "The US Forest Service: Toward the New Resource Management Paradigrn?" Society and Natural Resources 5: 23 1-245.
1992b. 'The United States Forest Service: Changing of the Guard" Natural Resotrrce Journal 32(3): 449466.
Brunson, M.W., Kruger, L.E. and C.B- Tyler 1996. "Social Acceptability in Ecosystem Management" Challenges No. 17. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service.
Bmnson, M.W. and J.J. Kennedy 1995. "Redefrning 'Multiple Use': Agency Responses to Changing Social Values" In A New Century for Natural Resources Management. R.L. Knight and S.F. Bates (eds.). Washington, D.C.: ïsland Press; pp. 143- 157. Bush, G. 1992. Giant sequoias in national forests. A proclamation by the President of the United States of America. Signed July 14, 1992.
Chislock-Bethke, M. 1997. Letter to Giant Sequoia Leadership Participants. File Code: 2060. Dated Febmary 16.
Christensen, N.L. 1993. "Fire Regirnes and Ecosystem Dynamics" In Fire in the Environment: The Ecological, Atrnospheric, and Climatic Importance of Vegetation Fires. Cmtzen, P.J. and Goldammer, J.G. (eds). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; pp. 233-244.
Christensen, N.L, Bartuska, A.M., Brown, J.H., Carpenter, S., D'Antonio, C., Francis, R., Frankiin, J.F., MacMahon, J.A., Noss, R.F., Parsons, D.J., Peterson, C.H,Turner, M.G. and R.G. Woodmansee 1996. 'The Report of the Ecological Society of Arnerica Cornmittee on the Scientific Bais for Ecosystem Management" Ecological Applications 6(3): 665-69 1,
Clary, D.A. 1986. Timber and the Forest Service. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Clawson, M. 1975. Forests For Whom and For What? Baltimore: Resources for the Future Inc.
CIoer, C. 1998. Letter to Mr. Art Gaffrey; Supervisor, Sequoia Nationd Forest. Dated June 7.
1997. Letter to Bob Rogers regarding the management of Deer Creek Mill grove. Dated May 4, 1997.
1994. "Reflections on Management Strategies of the Sequoia National Forest: A Grassroots View" In Proceedings of the Symposium on Giant Sequoias: Their Place in the Ecosysfern and Socieïy. PSW-GTR-151. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service; pp. 129-136.
Cooperrider, A.Y. 1996. "Science as a Mode1 for Ecosystem Management: Panacea or Problem?" Ecological Applications 6(3): 736-737.
Cortner, H.J. 1991. "Interface Policy Offers Opportunity and Challenges: USDA Forest Service strategies and constraints" Journal of Foresty 89 (June): pp. 3 1-34.
Cortner, H.J., Shannon, M.A., Wallace, M.G., Burke, S. and M.A. Moote 1995. "Institutional Barriers and Incentives for Ecosystem Management: A Problem Analysis" Challenges No.5. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service.
Crowfoot, J.E. and Wondolleck, J.M. 1990. Environmental Disputes: Cornmunisr Involvernent in Conflict Resolution. Washington, D.C.:Island Press.
Dawson, K.J. and S.E. Greco 1994. "The Visual Ecology of Prescribed Fire in Sequoia National Park" In Proceedings of the Symposium on Giunt Sequoias: Their Place in the Ecosystern and Sociev. PSW-GTR-151. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service; pp. 99- 108. Dombeck, M. 1997. "Sustaining the Health of the Land through Collaborative Stewardship" Message to al1 Forest Service Employees from Mike Dombeck on his first day as Chief, Januq 6. 1997. Dulitz, D. 1997. Facts and Lore about Giant Sequoia. Springville, CA: Mountain Home Demonstration State Forest.
1986. "Growth and Yield of Giant Sequoia" In Proceedirrgs of the Workshop on Management of Giant Sequoia. May 24-25, 1985, ReedZey, CA. PSW-GTR-95. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service; pp. 14- 16.
Durbin, K. 1997. "Cm Dombeck Change the Forest Service?" lnner Voice 9(4): 9- 11.
Duysen, G.H. 1994. "Perspectives of the Forest Products Industry on Management Strategies" In Proceedings of the Symposium on Giant Sequoias: Their Place in the Ecosystem and Society. PSW-GTR-151. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service; pp. 137-138.
Elliott-Fisk, D.L., Stephens, S.L., Aubert, J.E., Murphy, D., and J. Schaber 1996. "Mediated Settlement Agreement for Sequoia National Forest, Section B. Giant Sequoia Groves: An Evaluation" In Sierra Nevada Ecosysrem Project: Final Report to Congress. Addendum, Chapter 8. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildlands Resources; pp. 277-324.
Farnham, T.J. and P. Mohai 1995. "National Forest Timber Management Over the Past Decade: A Change in Ernphasis for the Forest Service?" Policy Studies Journal 23(2): 268-280.
Fins, L. and W. Libby 1994. "Genetics of Giant Sequoia" In Proceedings of the Symposium on Giant Sequoias: Their Place in the Ecoqutern and Society. PSW-GTR-15 1. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service; pp. 65-68.
Fuller, M. 1991. Forest Fires: An Introduction to Wildland Fire Behavior, Management, Firefighting, and Prevention. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Fullmer, D.G., Rogers, R.R., Manley, J.D. and N.L. Stephenson 1996. "Restoration as a Component of Ecosystem Management for Giant Sequoia Groves in Caiifornia" In The Role of Restoration in Ecosystem Management. D.L. Pearson and C.V. Klimas (eds.). Madison, WI: Society for EcoIogicaI Restoration; pp. 109- 115.
Gale, R.P. 1992. "Living with 'Agency Ulcers:' Lessons from the USDA Forest Service" Journal of Forestry 90 (September): pp. 37-42.
Gafîrey, A. 1996. Letter to District Ranger J. Schutza regarding "Fire Protection Strategy for Giant Sequoia Groves on Sequoia National Forest." File Code: 1950f2330. Dated December 1 1, 1996.
Grulke, N.E., MilIer, P.R., and D. Scioli 1996. "Response of giant sequoia canopy foliage to elevated concentrations of atmospheric ozone" Tree Physiology 16: 575-58 1.
Grumbine, R.E. 1997. "Reflections on 'What is Ecosystem Management?"' Conservation Biology 1 1(1), pp. 41-47.
(ed.) 1994b. Environmental Policy and Biodiversity. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
1994a. "What is Ecosystem Management?" Conservation Biology 8(1): 27-38. Haeuber, R. 1996. "Setting the Environmental Policy Agenda: The Case of Ecosystem Management" Natural Resources Journal 36 (Winter): pp. 1-28.
Haeuber, R. and J. Franklin 1996. "Perspectives on Ecosystem Management" Ecological Applications 6(3):692-693.
Harvey, H.T. 1985. "Evolution and history of giant sequoia" In Proceedings of the workshop on management of giant sequoia. May 24-25, 1985. Reedley, CA. PSW-GTR-95. Berkeley, CA.: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service; pp. 1-3.
Harvey, H.T..Shetlhammer, H.S. and RE. Stecker 1980. Giant Sequoia Ecology: Fire and Reproduction. Washington, D.C.: US Department of the Interior National Park Service.
Heald, R.C. and T.M.Barrett 1998. "Effects of Planting Density on EarIy Growth of Giant Sequoia" Western Jouml of Applied Forestry (in press).
Hirt, P. 1994. -4 Conspiracy of Optimism: Management of the National Forests since World War Two. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Holling, C.S. 1996. "Surprise for Science, Resilience for Ecosysterns, and Incentives for People" Ecological Applications 6(3): 733-735.
H.R. 2077. Sequoia Ecosystem and Recreation Preserve Act of 1997. Bill in the House of Representatives. Introduced June 26, 1997, by Representative G. Brown (D-CA).
Hull, K.L. 1989. The 1985 south entrance and Mariposa grove archueological excavations. Final report. Nationai Park Service, USDI.
Husari, S.]. and K.S. McKelvey 1996. "Fire Management Policies and Programs" In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress. Voiume II, Section IV, Chapter 40. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildlands Resources; pp. 110 1- 11 18.
Johnston, H. 1996. Theyfelled the redwoods. San Francisco, CA: Stauffer Publishing Co.
Jones, E.S. and C.P. Taylor 1995. "Litigating agency change: the impact of the courts and administrative appeds process on the Forest Service" Policy Studies Journal 23 (2):3 10-336.
Kennedy, J.J. and J.W. Thomas 1995. "Managing Natural Resources as Social Value" In A New Century for Natural Resources Management. R.L. Knight and S.F. Bates (eds.). Washington, D.C.: Island Press; pp. 3 11-32 1.
Kessler, W.B. 1991. " 'New Perspectives' for the Forest Senice" Journal of Soi1 and Water Conservation 46 (January/February): pp. 6-7.
Kessler, W.B. and Salwasser, H. 1995. "Natural Resource Agencies: Transfonning from Within" In A New Century for Natural Resources Management. R.L. Knight and S.F. Bates (eds.). Washington, D.C.: Island Press; pp. 17 1-1 87.
Khom, K.A. and J.F. Franklin (eds.) 1997. Creating a Forestry for the 21" Century. Washington, D.C.: IsIand Press.
Ill Kimmins, J.P. 1992. Balancing Act: Environmental Issues in Forestry. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Mimas, C.V. and D.L. Peterson 1996. "Restoration Priorities for the Future: Science, Culture and Managementy7In me Role of Restoration in Ecosystem Management. D.L. Pearson and C.V. Klimas (eds). Madison, WI: Society for Ecologicai Restoration; pp. 216-219.
Knight, R.L., and Bates, S.F. (eds.) 1995. A New Century for Natural Resources Management. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Kubel, J., Doak, SC., Carpenter, S., Stutevant, V.E. 1996. 'The Role of the Public in Adaptive Ecosystem Management" ln Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress. Volume II, Section II, Chapter 20. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildlands Resources; pp. 6 11-627.
Kuentzel, W.F. 1996. "Socially Acceptable Forestry: Mediating a Compromise or Orchestrating the Agenda?" In Defining Social Acceptabiliry in Ecosystem Management, A Workshop Proceedings, June 23-25, 1992, Kelso, Washington. PNW-GTR-369. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service; pp. 49-63.
Lang, R. (ed.) 1986. Integrated Approaches to Resource Planning adManagement. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.
Lassen, Plumas and Tahoe National Forests 1995. Technical Fueis Report. Pacific Southwest Region: USDA Forest Service.
Leisz, D.R. 1994. "Remarks for the Giant Sequoia Symposium" In Proceedings of the Symposium on Giant Sequoias: Their Place in the Ecosystem and Society. PS W-GTR- 15 1. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service; pp. 1-4.
Leopold, A.S., Cain, S.A., Cottam C.M., Gabrielson, IN. and T.L. Kimbal 1963. "Wildlife management in the National Parks" American Forests 69(4): 32-35,6 1-63.
Libby, W.J. 1986. "Genetic Variation and Early Performance of Giant Sequoia in Plantations" In Proceedings of the Workshop on Management of Giant Sequoia, May 24-25, 198.5. Reedley, CA. USDA Forest Service. PSW-GTR-95: pp. 17-18.
Little, C.E. 1993. "Smokey's Revenge" American Forests Vol. 99 (May/June): pp. 24-25t.
Loomis, J.B . 1993. Integrated Public Lands Management: Principles and Applications to National Forests, Parks, CVildlife Refiges, and BLM Lands. New York: Columbia University Press.
Ludwig, D., Hilborn, R. and C. Walters 1993. "Uncertainty, Resource Exploitation and Conservation: Lessons fiom History" Science 260: 17,36.
Mangold, R.D. 1995. "Sustainable Development: The Forest Service's Approach" Journal of Forestry 93 (November): pp. 25-28.
Manley, P.N., Brogan, G.E., Cook, C., Flores, M.E., Fullmer, D.G., Husari, S., Jimerson. T.M., Lux, L.M., McCain, M.E., Rose, J.A., Schmitt, G., Schuyler, J.C., and M.J. Skinner 1995. Sustaining Ecosystem: A Conceptual Framework. Version 1.O. R5-EM-TM-00 1. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Region and Station, USDA Forest Service.
McDonald, J. 1994. '"The Sequoia Forest Plan Settiement Agreement as it Affects Sequoiadendron giganteum: A Giant Step in the Right Direction" In Proceedings of the Symposium on Giant Sequoias: nteir Place in the Ecosystem and Society. PSW-GTR-151. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service; pp. 126-128.
Meidinger, E.E. 1997. "Organizational and Legal Challenges for Ecosystem Management" In Creating a Forestry for the 21" Centus.. K.A. Kohm and J.F. Franklin (eds.). Washington, D.C.: Island Press; pp. 36 1-379.
Mersmann, T.J.,Baker, J.B ., Guldin, J.M. and Pell, W.F. 1993. "Implementing Ecosystem Management Research: Bringing Researchers, Managers, and Citizens Together." Paper presented at the Symposium on Ecosystem Management Research, Hot Springs, Arkansas (AvailabIe from author). Meyer, J.L. and Swank, W.T. 1996. "Ecosystem Management Challenges Ecologists" Ecological Applications 6(3): 738-740.
Mchis, D. 1997. "The Burning Season" Earth (Waukesha-Wis) Vol. 6 (August): pp. 36-41.
Miller, C. 1996. "A Cautionq Tale: Reflections on Reinventing the Forest Service" Journal of Forestry 94 (January): pp. 6-10.
Mohai, P. 1995. 'The Forest Service since the National Forest Management Act: assessing bureaucratic response to extemd and intemal forces for change" Policy Studies Journal 23 (2):247-252.
Mohai, P. and Jakes, P. 1996. "The Forest Service in the 1990s: 1s It Headed in the Right Direction?" Journal of Forestry 94 (January); pp. 3 1-37.
Multiple Use Liaison Cornmittee (MULC) 1997. Sequoia National Forest Progress in Management of the Giant Sequoia Resource; December 1996 - March 1998; A Report Pursuant to a Mediated Settlement Agreement on the Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Prepared by R. Rogers. Porterville, CA: SQF,USDA Forest Service.
1995. Sequoia National Forest Progress in Management of the Giant Sequoia Resource; December 1994 - November 1995; A Report Pursuant to a Mediated Settlement Agreement on the Forest Lund and Resource Management Plan. Prepared by R. Rogers. Porterville, CA: SQF, USDA Forest Service.
O'Toole, R. 1988. Reforming the Forest Service. Washington, D.C.: 'Island Press.
Parsons, D. 1994. "Objects or Ecosystems? Giant Sequoia Management in National Parks" In Proceedings of the Symposium on Giant Sequoias: Their Place in the Ecosystem and Society. PSW-GTR- 15 1. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service; pp. 109-1 15.
Parsons, D.J. and H.T.Nichols 1986. "Management of Giant Sequoia in the National Parks of the Sierra Nevada, California" In Proceedings of the Workshop on Management of Giant Sequoia, May 24- 25, 1985, Reedley, California. PSW-GTR-95. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service; pp. 26-29.
Peattie, D.C. 1953. A Natural History of Western Trees. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Pengilly, D. 1998. Letter to Deer Creek Interested Parties. File Code: 1990. Porterville, CA: SQF, USDA Forest Service. Dated July 17.
People and Natural Resources Program 1995a. "Future Forests for Society: Where to Next?" Challenges No. 4. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service.
1995b. "Effective Citizen-Agency Collaboration is Occurring" Challenges. No.5. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service.
Piirto, D. and W. Wilcox 1981. Comparative Properties of Old- and Young-Growth Giant Sequoia of Potential Significance to Wood Utilization. BuIletin 190 1. University of California. Division of Agricultural Sciences. Published in cooperation with USDA. Piirto, D.D. 1986. "Wood of Giant Sequoia: Properties and Unique Characteristics" In Proceedings of the Workshop on Management of Giant Sequoia, May 24-25, 1985, Reedley, CA. PSW-GTR- 15 1. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service; pp. 19-23.
Piirto, D.D., and R.R. Rogers 1998. An Ecological Foundation for Management of National Forest Giant Sequoia Ecosysterns. Draft dated August 17, 1998. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service (in peer-review).
Piirto, D.D., Rogers, R.R. and M. ChisIock-Bethke 1997. "Cornrnunicating the RoIe of Science in Managing Giant Sequoia Groves" In Cornrnunicating the Role of Silviculture in Managing the National Forests, Proceedings of the National Silviculture Workshop. GTR-NE-238. Radnor, PA: Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service; pp. 48-57.
Pinchot, G. 1947. Breaking New Ground. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co.
Pinchot, G. 1907. The Use of the National Forests. USDA Forest Service.
Pyne, S.J. 1984. Introduction to Wildland Fire: Fire Management in the United States. (First Edition). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
1982. Fire in America: A Cultural Hisfory of Wildland and Rural Fire. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Pyne, S.J., Andrews, P.L., and RD. Laven 1996. Introduction to Wildland Fire. (Second Edition). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Rasmussen, M. 1997. "A View from the Inside: The Forest Service Headquarters" Inner Voice 9(4): 14- 19.
Robinson, G. 0. 1978. The Forest Service. Baltimore: Resources for the Future Inc.
Rogers, R. 1998a. Timber Management on the Sequoia National Forest. Prepared at the request of Robert Powers. (unpublished document). 1998 b. Issue Briefing: Deer Creek Giant Sequoia Grove Fire Protection and Ecological Restoration. Dated July 16, 1998. (unpublished document).
1996. Giant Sequoias: Histon'cal Perspectives on a National Controversy . Presen ted to the Giant Sequoia Core Team. May 8, 1996. (unpublished document).
1986. "Management of Giant Sequoia in the National Forests of the Sierra Nevada, California" h Proceedings of the Workshop on Management of Giant Sequoia. May 24-25. 1985, Reedley, California. GTR-PSW-95. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service; pp. 32-36.
Rosenburg, K.A. 1994. Wilderness Preseruation: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC- CLIO Inc.
Rundel, P.W. 1971. "Comrnunity structure and stability in the giant sequoia groves of the Sierra Nevada" The Arnerican Midland Xuturalist 85(2) : 47 8-492. 1972a. "An annotated check list of the groves of Sequoiadendron giganteum in the Sierra Nevada, California." M~droiio2 1: 3 19-328.
1972b. "Habitat restriction in gant sequoia: the environmental control of grove boundaries" The Arnerican Midland Naturalist 87(1): 8 1-99.
Ruth, L. 1996. "Conservation and Controversy: National Forest Management, 1960-1995" In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress. Volume II, Section II, Chapter 7. Davis: University of California, Center for Water and Wildlands Resources; pp. 145-163.
Sabatier, P., Loomis, J., and C. McCarthy 1996. "Policy Attitudes and Decisions within the Forest Service" Journal of Forestry 94 (January): pp. 42-46.
Sample, V.A. 1990. The Impact of the Federal Budget Process on National Forest Planning. New York: Greenwood Press.
Sample, V.A. and R. 07Toole 1989. "What's really driving national forest management?" Arnerican Forests 95(102): 59, 65-57.
Sampson, N. 1992. "Pivot Point for hblic Forests" Arnerican Forests 98 (9-10): 13-16.
Schutza, J. 1997. Letter to potential Deer Creek collaborative partners. File Code: 1950/2330. Dated Februarj 12, 1997.
1996. Letter to Mediation Participants, Re: Hazardous Trees, Long Meadow Grove. File Code: 1570/2360. Dated January 8, 1996.
Sequoia National Forest (SQF) 1998. Sequoia National Forest Highlights. Porterville, CA: S QF, USDA Forest Service.
1997a. Giant Sequoia Fire Protection Strategy: Collaborative Stewardship of a National Treasure. Prepared by R. Rogers. Final Report, September 3, 1997. Porterville, CA: SQF,USDA Forest Service. 1997b. Environmental Assessment Revised Hatchett Analysis Area. Porterville, CA: SQF, USDA Forest Service.
1992. Sensitive Plant and Animal Species of Sequoia National Forest. (2pp.) USDA Forest Service. (unpubiished document).
1990. Mediated Settlement Agreement. Sequoia National Forest: United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service.
1988. Sequoia National Forest Land and Resaurce Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Staternent. Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service.
Schiff, A.L. 1962. Fire and Water: Scientific Heresy in the Forest Service. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Shindler, B. 1997. "Citizen Values and Participation in the Tongass National Forest Debate" In Public Lands Management in the West: Citizens, Interest Groups, and Values. B .S. S tee1 (ed.) . Westport: Praeger Publishers; pp. 165- 172.
Shindler, B. and K.A. Cheek 1997. "Monitoring and Evaluating Citizen and Agency Interactions: A Framework Developed for Adaptive Management" Challenges No. 19. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service.
Shindler, B. and 3. Neburka 1996. "What Does Successful Public Participation Look Like? Identifying Comrnon Attributes" Challenges No.12. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service.
Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) 1996. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress. Voiumes 1-N, Addendum. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.
S irmon, J. 1993. "National Leadership" In Environmental Leadership: developing effective skills and styles. J.K.Berry and J.C. Gordon (eds.). Washington, D.C.: Island Press; pp. 165-1 84.
Slocombe, D.S. 1993. "Implementing Ecosystem-based Management: Development of theory, practice and research for planning and managing a region" BioScience 43(9): 6 12-622.
Solnit, R. 1997. "Among the Giants" Sierra July/August: pp. 30-37, 63.
Sprague, G.L. 1998. Letter to Forest Supervisors regarding "hproving Conservation Options for National Forests in the Sierra Nevada." FiIe Code: 2090. Dated May 1, 1998.
Stanford, J.A. and G.C. Poole 1996. "A protocol for Ecosystem Management" Ecological Applications 6 (3) : 74 1-744.
Stankey, G.H. 1997. "Adaptive Management Areas: Responding to the Challenge" Challenges No.18. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service. Steel, B.S. and N.P. Lovrich 1997. "An Introduction to Natural Resource Policy and the Environment: Changing Paradigms and Values" In Public Lanak Management in the West: Citizem. Interest Groups, and Values. B.S. Steel (ed.). Westport: Praeger Publishers; pp. 3-15.
Steel, B.S., List, P. and B. Shindier 1997. "Managing Federal Forests: National and Regional Public Orientations" In Public Lanh Management in the West: Citizens. Interest Groups. and Values. B.S. Steel (ed.). Westport: Praeger Publishers; pp. 17-32.
Stephenson, N. L. 1996. "Ecology and Management of Giant Sequoia Groves" In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress. Volume II, Section V, Chapter 51. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources; pp. 143 1-1467.
1994. "Long-term Dynarnics of Giant Sequoia Populations: Implications for Managing a Pioneer Species" In Proceedings of the Symposium on Gianr Sequoias: Their Place in the Ecosystern and Sociey. PSW-GTR-151. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service; pp. 56-63.
Stewart, R.E. 1992. Interna1 memorandum to Region 5 forest supervisors and staff directors. File Code: 2470. Dated June 19, 1992.
Stewart, R.E., Key, S.N., Waldron, B.A., and R.R. Rogers 1994. "Giant Sequoia Management in the National Forests of California" In Proceedings of the Symposium on Giant Sequoias: Their Place in the Ecosystem and Sociev. PSW-GTR-151. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service; pp. 152-158.
Stone, E.C. and J.I. Cavallaro 1989. Yes! Restoration ecology in our National Parks does require vegetation targets. Presented at the First Annual Meeting of the Society for Ecological Restoration and Management. Oakland, CA; January 1989.
Swanson, F.J., Jones, J.A. and G.E. Grant 1997. "The Physical Environment as a Basis for Mariaging Ecosystem" In Creating a Forestry for the 21" Century. K.A. Kohm and J.F. Franklin (eds.). Washington, D.C.: Island Press; pp.229-238.
Swetnam, T.W. 1993. "Fire History and CIimate Change in Giant Sequoia Groves" Science 262: 885- 889.
Thomas, J.W. 1996. "Forest Service Perspective on Ecosystem Management" Ecological Applications 6(3): 703-705.
Thomas, J.W. and S. Huke 1996. "The Forest Service Approach to Healthy Ecosystems" Journal of Forestry 94 (August): pp. 14- 18.
Tweed, W. 1994. "Public Perceptions of Giant Sequoia Over Time" In Proceedings of the Symposium on Giant Sequoias: Their Place in the Ecosystern and Society. PSW-GTR-15 1. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service; pp. 5-7.
Unger, D.G. 1994. Speech on the "USDA Forest Service Perspective on Ecosystem Management". At the Symposium on Ecosystem Management and Northeastern Area Association of State Foresters Meeting. Burhgton, Vermont. July 18, 1994. U.S. Congress, Senate Cornmittee on Interior and Insular Affairs 1970. A University View of the Forest Service, Senate Document No. 9 1- ll5. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
USDA Forest Service (USFS) 1998a. Giant Sequoia groves: Acres by ownership. spreadsheet. Dated 6/11/98. (unpublished document).
1998b. "Conservation Activities in the Sierra Nevada" In Bn'ef. Dated May 8, 1998. San Francisco, CA: Pacific Southwest Region, USDA Forest Service.
1998~.Wildland Fire Management Policy: Implementation Procedures Reference Guide. Draft copy. Boise, Idaho: National Interagency Fire Center.
1997a. Giant Sequoia Grove Mapping Progress Data sheet. Dated l2/30/97. (unpublished document).
- 1997b. Issue Briefing: Giant Sequoia Management-- Amendment to Forest Plan. Sequoia National Forest, Pacific Southwest Region, USDA Forest Service. (unpublished document).
1997~.Integration of Wildland Fire Management Into Land Management Planning: A Desk Guide. Dated September 1997. Fire and Aviation Management Staff: USDA Forest Service.
1994a. A National Framauork: Eco~ysternManagement. Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service.
1994b. Proceedings of the Symposium on Giant Sequoia: Their Place in the Ecosystem and Society, June 23-25, 1992, Visalia, California. PSW-GTR- 15 1. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service.
1993. Decision Notice an Findittg of No Significant Impact for California Spotted Owl Sierran Province Interim Guidelines. Pacific Southwest Region 5, San Francisco, CA: USDA Forest Service.
1986. Proceedings of the Workshop on Management of Giant Sequoia, May 24-25, 1985, Reedley, California. PSW-GTR-95. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service.
1958- Giant Sequoia (Sequoia gigantea). Useful Trees of the United States- No. 16. Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service.
USDA Forest Semice (USFS), USDI National Park Service (NPS), USDI National Biological Service (NBS), California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) and University of California (UC) 1996. Memorandum of Understanding: Agreement on Leadership in Applied Research on the Ecology of Giant Sequoia-Mixed Conifer Forests; Giant Sequoia Ecology Cooperative. hblished in cooperation by USFS, NPS, NBS, CDF and UC.
U.S. Office of Technology Assessrnent (US.OTA) 1992. Forest Service Planning: Accommodating Uses, Producing Outputs, and Sustaining Ecosystems. OTA F-505, Washington, D.C: Government Publishing Office. Vale, T.R. 1987. Vegetation Change and park purposes in the bigh elevations of Yosemite National Park, Cal ifomia. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77: 1 - 18.
Walker, D. 1997. Deer Creek Grove Silvicultural Prescription. Hot Springs Ranger District, SQF. (unpublished document)
Walther, P. 1987. "Against idedistic beliefs in the problem solving capacities of integrated resource management" Environmental Management 1 l(4):439-446.
Weatherspoon, C.P. 1986. "Silvics of Giant Sequoia" In Proceedings of the Workshop on Management of Giant Sequoia, May 24-25, 1985, Reedley, CA. PS W-GTR-95. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service; pp.4-10.
Weatherspoon, C.P. 1990. "Sequoiadendron giganteum (Lindl.) Buchholz / Giant Sequoia" In Silivics of North America Volume 1: ConSfers. Agricultural Handbook 654. Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service.
Weatherspoon, C.P. and C.N. Skinner 1996. "Landscape-level strategies for forest fuel management" In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Reporr tu Congress. Volume II. Section VI, Chapter 56. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and WildIand Resources; pp. 147 1-1492.
Weigand, J.F. and R.W. Haynes 1996. "From Rhetoric to Reality: The Role of Restoration in the Shift to Ecosystem Management in National Forests" In The Role of Restoration in Ecosystem Management. D.L. Pearson and C.V. Klirnas (eds). Madison, WI: Society for Ecological Restoration; pp. 175-182.
Wester, D. 1997. "hrsuing Collaborative Stewardship" American Forests 103 (Summer): pp. 30.
Whelan, R.J. 1995. The Ecology of Fire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
WilIard, D. 1995. Giant Sequoia Groves of the Sierra Nevada: A Reference Guide. Berkeley, CA: self- published.
1994. "Selected Perspectives on the Giant Sequoia Groves" In Proceedings of the Symposium on Giant Sequoias: Their Place in the Ecosystem and Society. PSW-GTR-15 1. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service; pp. 15-27.
Williams, T. 1995. "Only You Can Postpone Forest Fires" Sierra July/August: pp. 36-43+.
Wondolleck, J.M. 1988. Public Lands Conflict and Resolution: Managing National Forest Disputes. New York: Plenum Press.
World Bank 1996. The World Bank Participation Sourcebook, Washington: World Bank, ESD.
Wright, H.A. and Bailey, A.W. 1982. Fire Ecology: United Stases and Soutlzem Canada. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Yaffee, S. and J. Wondolleck 1997. "Building Bridges Across Agency Boundaries" In Creating a Forestry for the 21" Centuiy: The Science of Ecosystern Management. K.A. Kohm and J.F. Franklin (eds). Washington, D.C.:Island Press; pp. 381-396. YafTee, S.L., Phillips, A. F., Frentz LC., Hardy, P.W., Maleki, S.M. and Thorpe, B.E. 1996. Ecosystem Management in the United States: An Assessrnent of Current Erperience. Washington. D.C.: Island Press.
Young, R.A. and R.L. Giese (eds.) 1990. Introduction to Forest Science. New York: Wiley.
Zinser, C.I. 1995. Outdoor Recreation: United States National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Internet References: h~p://www.fs.fed.us/research/ USDA Forest Service Research and Development Homepage. http://www.psw.fs.fed.us/ USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station Homepage. APPENDICES Appendix 1. SAMPLE OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Ecological Processes and Systems Management
Q 1. Are multiple spatial and temporal scaies being considered in grove management strategies? How are the groves being rnapped? How are grove boundaries detemiined spatially? (connect the dots vs. considering landscape features) a 1s there an al!owance for shifting boundaries? 1s there temporal variation in fire regimes being considered inter-grove? (fire regimes may Vary significantly) a Are previous sites being identified? a Are potentiai future sites being identified?
42. Are the groves being rnapped according to ecologicai boundaries? As the soi1 water content is believed to be the limiting feature for sequoia growth, are hydrological boundaries (watersheds) being considered? Are naturai fire regimes being taken into consideration?
43.1s the USFS using ecological modeling to develop a greater understanding of grove dynarnics?
Adaptive Scientific Management
44. Are there clear, operationai goals with respect to the management of giant sequoia groves? 0 Do managers have a clear sense of what they should be aiming for and how to get there? What is SQFs policy regarding sequoia groves? What are the steps to "preserving" the groves? What are the steps to "protecting" the groves? What are the steps to "restonng" the groves?
Q5. How comprehensive is the data collected to date? 1s it adequate for the management strategies currently employed? What ecological information is available? What still needs to be collected? What obstacles prevent collection?
46. Are al1 activities being monitored? Isthereacontrol? In which groves are activities occuning? (are al1 being monitored and if not, why not?) Why are activities taking place in some groves and not others?
47.1s information coIIected being reintegrated back into the process? If so, how? What experiments have been deerned successful? What conclusions did they draw? Ls this information being reintegrated into the process? To what extent is the information denved from the ecological mode1 (if it exists) being appIied? 1s it useful?
Q8. Are managers encouraged to experiment? How and to what extent do they have the freedom to direct management activities? 0 What are the limiting factors to experimentation? How can these be removed?
O Q9. To what degree does flexibiIity exist in the process? Once a plan has been started are changes and redirection possible? How do you measure flexibility? 0 How many times has a plan changed midway? (examples)
Cooperation and Collaboration
Q10. What has the Giant Sequoia Ecology Cooperative done since its inception? 9 What is the perception of the USFS on the cooperative? O What is the perception of Academics? O What is the perception of Activists? O What is the perception of the MPS? O What is the perception of the Forest Industry?
9 Q 1 1. Who are the stakeholders and how have they been invohed? - How many meetings have occurred? O How have ideas been integrated into pIans? (examples) O Minutes of meetings; design of meetings; changes since meetings - 1s there a superior forum by which stakeholders cm express there views? How can stakeholder involvement be improved? Are the USFS cornmitted to improvement? O How can stakeholder invohement be improved? O Does the USFS aclaiowledge there is a problem with trust? - Do they have a contingency plan? How can the matter of trust be resolved Do the USFS consider the MSA a success? (summary of MSA results in SNEP) r QI2. What evidence exists that supports the fact that SQF are responsive to public involvement? What are some examples of collaborative decision making? - What communication has there been between the signatories post-MSA? - Are the USFS satisfied with communication levels? Are interest groups? 413. There exists a long history of dictating decisions without justification. Are there any organizational changes to speak of to facilitate inter-agency, intra-agency and public private communication? - What communication exists between SQF, Sierra NF, Stanislaus NF, and Tahoe NF? What communication exists between the NPS and USFS? - Especially relating to fire policies - What communication exists between interest groups? Does the USFS need to act as the mediator? Was a mediator in the MSA process useful and effective? 1s there a greater level of understanding between these groups as a result of the MSA process?
414. What are the primary sources of conflict between SQF and the interest groups? What potential exists for conflict resolution?
Integration of Social and Environmental Values into Resource Management
415. What are the values and expectations of each of the stakeholders? Try to find mission statementlvalue statement from each of the interest groups
QI6. How are social values being integrated into grove management decisions? What does society value in the groves? What does the generd public want from the USFS as grove managers? 1s the USFS recognizing public values in management decisions? Are managers influenced by public opinion?
417. What plans are in place with regards to education for the public, scientists and managers? 1s the educational CD-ROM initiated by SNEP completed? What other programs serve to educate the public? Are they designed to be interactive? How can each of these groups gain a greater understanding of the limitations of each of the others? How can they educate each other? 1998 FIELD RESEARCH SCEEDULE
June 10 Arrive in San Francisco Bay Area, Cdifornia, U.S.A.
June 11 Visit USFS Region 5 Headquarters in San Francisco and speak with ecosystem conservation staff; Visit Sierra Club San Francisco Head Office
June 12 Contact potential interviewees
June 13-14 Arrange rental vehicle and accommodation in Porterville, Cdifornia (SQF headquarters)
June 15 Drive to Porterville, California
June 16-2 1 Work in SQF Supervisor's Office (SO); Identify relevant documents; Speak with agency personne1
June 22 Meeting with Forest Supervisor Art Gaffrey
June 23 Meeting with Carla Cloer, Sierra Club Representative
June 24 Hike through Packsaddie Grove and Long Meadow Grove, SQF, with USFS hydrologist Cindy Jeffries; Drive to Tehachapi, Cdifornia, for meeting with Joe Fontaine (Former President of the Sierra Club)
June 25-27 Meeting with Joe Fontaine at his home in Tehachapi, California
June 28-29 Meeting with Carla Cloer and hike through Wheel Meadow Grove and Belknap Camp Grove, SQF
June 30 Work in SO
July 1 Meeting with Kent Duysen, Sierra Forest Products
JuIy 2 Trip and hike through Deer Creek Grove, SQF, with Bob Rogers (SQF Giant Sequoia Specialist), Doug Piirto (Professor of Forestry, California Polytechnic State University), and Lew Jump (SQF Geographic Information Systems Specialist)
July 3 Drive back to San Francisco Bay Area
July 4-5 Organize information in cornputer file
July 6 Meeting with Ed Grumbine (UC Santa Cruz) in Santa Cruz, California
July 7 Meeting with Debbie Elliott-Fisk (UC Davis) in Davis, California
July 8 Phone Interview with Louis Blumberg, Wilderness Society Representative July 9 Data entry and organization of coilected information
July 10 Meeting with Hal Salwasser, Pacific Southwest Research Station Director in AIbany, California
July 11-12 Arrange rentd vehicle and prepare to return to Porterville. California
July 13 Drive back to Porterville, California
JuIy 14 Work in SO
July 15 Meeting with Mary ChisIock-Bethke, SQF Giant Sequoia Program Manager
July 16 Meeting with Nate Stephenson (USGS Research Scientist) and Jeff Maniey (Supervisory Natural Resources Management Specialist at Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks(SEKI)); visit Giant Forest and Redwood Mountain Grove, SEKI, to view prescribed burning activity.
July 17 Meeting with David Dulitz, Forest Manager of Mountain Home Dernonstration State Forest; survey effects of logging activities on giant sequoia regeneration
July 18-19 Review and read collected documents from the SO
JuIy 20 Meeting with Julie Allen, SQF Land Management Planner
JuIy 21 Work in SO
July 22 Drive and hike through Belknap Camp Grove, Black Mountain Grove, Red HiIl Grove, Peyrone Grove and Long Meadow Grove, SQF with Joe Fontaine
July 23 Meeting with Larry Duysen and tour of Sierra Forest Products Mill, Terra Bella, CaIifornia; Meeting with Aaron Gelobter, SQF Fire Management Officer
July 24 Drive back to San Francisco Bay Area; Phone interview with Kate Anderton, Save-the-Redwoods League
July 25 Meeting with Dwight WiIlard in Berkeley, California
July 27 Return to Canada Appendix 3. List of Intemewees
Arthur Gaffrey (SQF- Forest Supervisor) Mary Chislock-Bethke (SQF- Sequoia Program Manager and PubIic Affairs Manager) Julie Allen (SQF- Land Management Planning) Robert Rogers (SQF- Giant Sequoia Specialist) Lewis Jump (SQF- Geographic Information Systems) Aaron Gelobter (SQF- Fire Management) Hal Salwasser (Director of the USFS Pacific Southwest Research Station) Nathan Stephenson (United States GeologicaI Survey, Biological Resources Division- Research Ecologist) Jeff Manley (National Park Service, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park- Supervisory Natural Resources Management Specialist) David Dulitz (Mountain Home Demonstration State Forest- Forest Manager) Douglas Piirto (California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo- Professor of Forestry) Debbie Elliott-Fisk (University of California at Davis- Head of SNEP Giant Sequoia Task Force) Edward Grumbine (University of California at Santa Barbara- Ecosystem Management Analyst) Joe Fontaine (Former President of the Sierra Club / Chair of the Sierra Nevada Ecoregion Taskforce / SQF Coordinator for the Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign) Carla Cloer (Chair of Sequoia Task Force / Sierra Club Representative / Tule River Conservancy) Louis Blumberg (Wilderness Society) Kate Anderton (Save-the-Redwoods League) Kent and Larry Duysen (Sierra Forest Products) Dwight Willard (lawyer and author) Appendix 4. POLICY LANDMARKS IN USFS HISTORY
Organic Act of 1897
In 1891, President Benjamin Harrison was authorized by Congress to set aside forest reserves in public lands. Reserves were established to "improve and protect the forest within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of the citizens of the United States" (Clary 1986, 2). The reserves were primarily established to protect watersheds as well as to secure against a potential "timber famine" in the future (Clary 1986, 3-4). Under these conditions, the Generd Land Office in the Department of the Interior and a staff of forest experts in the growing Bureau of Forestry (within the Department of Agriculture) were charged with the administration of the newly created national forest lands. Six years later, Congress appropriated funds to regulate use of forest reserves and offered broad directions for forest management in the 1897 Organic Act (Clary 1986). The Organic Act authorized timber production for sale on the forest reserves. At the tum of the century, the Bureau found itself caught between government policy and an indifferent industry. Political pressure to become self-sufficient through timber sales receipts was intended to encourage timber production, but demand for national forest timber was low due to the relative abundance of private forested properties (Hirt 1994; Clary 1986). Furthemore, the demand for public services other than timber production was increasing. Notably, this conflict between Congress and constituencies was to define resource management direction for the next century.
Creation of the United States Forest Service
In 1905, the Bureau of Forestry was transferred to the Department of Agriculture and renamed the United States Forest Service by Congress. This was Iargely the result of Bureau Chief Gifford Pinchot, and his desire to experiment in forest management within the boundaries of national forest reserves (Hirt 1994; Clary 1986) . Two years later, forest reserves were renamed "national forests," traced back to Pinchot's conviction that resources were to be used, not locked away (Clary 1986, 6). Pinchot believed that "use" was not contrary to conservation and that "ai1 land is to be devoted to the most productive use for the permanent good of the whole people ... where conflicting interests must be reconciled, the question will always be decided from the standpoint of the greatest good of the greatest number in the long run" (Clary 1986, 22). This principle would remain the cornerstone of USFS policy for the next century.
Sustained Yield Forest Management Act of 1944
Through the early part of the century, the agency's cornmitment to maximizing cornmerciai use and, specifically, timber production, becarne increasingly evident. Furthemore, timber management was (conveniently) requinng more attention and funding due to the depletion of private forest reserves. The Sustained Yietd Forest Management Act of 1944 outlined the necessary conditions for managing national forests for timber production. The Act adopted the definition of "sustained yield" as proposed by forester David T. Mason: "the achievement of full, long terrn productive capacity [of forest resources]" (Hirt 1994, 40). Thus the goal to achieve maximum potential yield deterrnined that national forests should be managed according to a theoretical calcuiation of capacity rather than adopting a more empirical approach to forest management (Hirt 1994). The lasting importance of the Sustained Yield Forest Management Act rests on the interpretation of sustained yield as primarily an econornic concept focused on maintainhg land productivity, and achieving maximum yields in perpetzdy. This represents a significant shift in conventional resource management philosophy. At the advent of the century sustained yield was considered but one aspect of a greater resource ethic directed at (relatively) responsible resource stewardship. The conclusion of the Second World War and increased demand for timber products, however, had a resounding impact on the sustained yield philosophy that had traditionally guided the USFS.
Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960
The role of the USFS as responsible resource managers became increasingly contentious in the years following the second World War. Previously, foresters viewed themselves as custodians of public resources, charged with guarding and protecting natural inventories against the inevitability of increased demand (Clary 1986). The post war boom represented a significant shift in the role of the USFS as resource managers. The demand for forest products increased exponentially during this period, thereby enabling the USFS to becorne important players in lucrative business of resource production. The Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 authorized the USFS to manage national forests for five distinct purposes: timber, recreation, fish and wildlife, watersheds and rangelands. Although MUSY brtladened the purposes outlined in the Organic Act of 1897, outspoken timber interests insisted that MUSY was to be considered a supplement to and not separate from the original act which had identified tirnber and water as the prirnq "uses" of national forests (Hirt 1994; Loornis 1993). The challenge inherent in MUSY was the notion of balancing competing uses in relation to their relative values. The concept of "sustained yield" production was also outlined in MUSY and (defined by the USFS, not D.T. Mason) was recognized as the "achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high level annual or regular periodic output of various renewable resources of the national forests without impairment of the productivity of the land" (Loomis 1993, 34). The USFS were to manage the national forests by these guidelines which, notably, left the specifics of management decisions to the discretion of the agency, thereby allowing them to determine the "value" and "productiveness" of respective uses.
Wilderness Act of 1964
The application of MUSY quickly demonstrated the general enthusiasm for maximum commercial resource production by the USFS. Thus, in an effort to legitirnize the value of wiIderness, lobbyists for the increasingly powerful environmental community pushed for the zoning of nationd public lands to restrict USFS activities within certain areas of the national forests. The resulting Wildemess Act of 1964 was significant in that it declared wilderness preservation a national policy, provided legislative protection for agency designated wilderness areas, and established the means by which further wildemess areas could be protected (Hirt 1994). The act passed despite opposition from the USFS and the timber industry who argued that wilderness would henceforth be considered a "single use" classification thereby precluding the agency's multiple use mandate. In an effort to abate those concerns, the govemment provided a number of developmental loopholes. Ultimately, aIlowances for restricted Iivestock grazing, water development, mining and recreational activities were included. Despite these modifications, the agency did not permit any form of timber production in designated wilderness areas. 1969 National Environmental Policy Act
The primary intent of the 1970 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is to ensure that environmental issues are adequately considered in USFS management decisions. In particular, NEPA expands the role of public participation in decision making; for exarnple, the process of "public scoping" provides the general public, private industry, local govemments, the environmental community and other public agencies the opportunity to comment on proposed management actions (Loomis 1993). Depending on the scale and intensity of the proposed action, the USFS are required to produce one of three documents: (1) an Environmental Assessrnent (EA), (2) an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), or (3) a statement of Tategorical Exclusion" (CE) and supporting rationale for that decision (R. Rogers, pers. comm.). The difference between an EA and EIS is the detail and scope of the analysis (an EIS is more detailed and comprehensive than an EA); a CE, on the other hand, requires no additional research or analysis. If an EA or EIS is deemed necessary, the USFS must respond to public comments and concems raised during the scoping process in the preparation of the finai document. The NEPA process is the backbone of USFS management planning. It requires the agency to consider multiple factors in the decision making process and develop various alternatives for the irnplementation of a proposed activity. The alternative that best reflects the desire of the public and the goals of the agency is ultimately selected after full NEPA analysis (see also Appendix 6.).
Endangered Species Act of 1973
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 and subsequent arnendments in 1978 directed attention to the issue of species extinction and habitat preservation. The act is considered the "world's foremost law protecting species faced with extinction" with penalties for harming endangered animals, strict regulations for federal agencies, and guidelines for the listing of species eligible for protection (Zinser 1995). In particular, federal agencies were directed to take al1 measures necessary to restore threatened and endangered species and their habitats, and included the designation of critical habitats in which management of endangered species would take precedent over other concerns. Most recently, the efforts to preserve spotted owl habitat (listed as a threatened specirs) from California to Washington has received significant attention. Notably, concerns regarding the costs of preservation and the effects of restricting land available for commercial production on nationd forest lands have been voiced in opposition to the Endangered Species Act.
1974 Resources Planning Act
By 1974, the USFS realized that long-term national forest resource management planning was necessary. The opportunity to tie long-term resource objectives to five year budgets (thereby ensuring stable funding) served as the irnpetus for the 1974 Resources Planning Act (RPA). The three key feanires of the act are (1) the preparation of a national assessrnent of the demand for and supply of resources (every ten years), (2) a program for general management direction of National Forests (including budgetary estimates) to be developed every five years, and (3) an annual report indicating agency success at meeting RPA program objectives (Loornis 1993, 37; Hirt 1994, 259). Furchermore, the RPA established a budget reform mechanism which allowed for the USFS to make full funding requests for multiple use sustained yieid development purposes (Hirt 1994). The act is dso significant for what it did not state however- no specific resource allocations were included for fear of opposition by competing interest groups. National Forest Management Act of 1976
Due to the impacts of modern technology on the landscape and the increasing geographic marginality of productive timber resources in the early 1970's, the "forest management as timber management" mentality was receiving more attention and criticism. The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) was, much Iike the RPA, the result of a compromise between those who supponed latitude in forest practices and forces who pushed for detailed legislation regarding forest management policy. In essence, NFMA reaffirmed the multiple use sustained yield approach to forest management. The act emphasized land management planning, timber management actions and public participation in decision making. While superficially more inclusive and specific, NFMA granted the USFS the continued freedom to manage forest resource according to their own professionai discretion. There were, however, sorne indications in NFMA that the USFS were broadening its conception of "forest resources" beyond simply timber production. NFMA established the concept of "viable populations" of forest species and directed resource management to "meet changing demands and societal values of forest resources" (Loomis 1993, 221). In addition, NF'MA expiicitly requires the agency to perform interdisciplinary planning (biological. physical and social sciences) when analyzing proposed management activities and selecting preferred alternatives. In conjunction with NEPA, NFMA provides the policy and process framework necessary to design and implement management activities on national forest lands. . Appendix 5. Presidential Proclamation
Giant Sequoia National Forests
A Proclamation
For centuries. groves of the Giant Sequola have rtImulated the hterest and wonder of thoie who behold them. The Ciant Sequoia is e tres that inspires emotion iike no other and hae mystically entered the hearte of humanity everywhere. Anceetors of Giant Sequofa tress have existed on Earth for more than 20 miilfon yeare. Naturally occurring old-growth Ciant Sequoia groves Iocated in the Sequoia, Sierra, and Tahoe National Foreets in hlifoda are unfque national treasuree that ere being managed for biodivereity. perpetuation of the epeciee, public inspuatioa and epiritual. aeethetfc, recrestional, ecological, and sdentific value. This Nation's Giant Sequoia groves are Iegacies that deeerve epedal attention and pMtection for Future generationr. It fs my hope that theee natural gifts wiU continue to pmvide aesîhetic value and inspiration for our chlldren, grandchildren, and generations yet to corne. So as to promote greater appreciation and awarenees of our Giant Sequoia groves, such grovea in the Sequoia, Sierra, and Tahoe NaUonal Foresb ehould continue to be managed by the Secretary of Agriculture as unique objecta of beauty and antiquity for the benefit and inspiration of ail people. NOW, THEE(EF0RFi. 1, GEORGE BUSH. President of lhe United States of America, do hereby proclaim that naturally occurring old-growth Giant Sequoia groves within the Sequoia, Sierra. and Tahoe National Forenta In the State of CaUfornia ahali be maneged. protected and matored by the'secretery of Agriculture, acting through the Forest Service, to aesure the perpetuation of the grovee for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. The Secretary of Agriculture te directed to delineate the location of such Giant Sequoia grovea, as set forth in the Sequoia National Forest Mediated Settlement Agreement. and subsequent- ly to provide the Secretary of the interfor with a Uet of the designated groves and with a description of the boundariee of each of the grovee. The Secretary of the Interior 1s hereby directed to the maximum extent permltted by law, Co segregate fmmediately and aubsequentiy to withdraw the designated grovee hmal1 fonne of location and entry under the general mining laws, and hmany dieposition under the mineral and geotherrnal leasing lawe and lawcl pertafning to the diepoeal of mineral materid eubject to valid exiating rights. The designated Giant Sequoia grovee ahail not be managed for timber production and ahall not be hcluded in the [and baee used to eatablish the allowable sale quantities for the affected national foreste. The desipated Giant Sequoia groves shall be pmtected ae natural areas with mlnimal development Consietent with the beat ecientific information avaflable, the Secretary of Agriculture shall assure that any pmpoeed development shall provide for aesthetic, recreational, ecological, end edentffic value. NoNthetanding the foregoing, the Converae Basin Grove shall be managed se set forth in the Sequoia National Forest Mediated Settiement Agreement. This proclamation ie not intended to create any right or benefit. eubetantive or procedural, enforceable by a party againet the United States, lts agenciee or inatnunentaiities. ib officeni or employees. or any other person. IN WWSWHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand Chie 14 day of July, in îhe year of our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety-two, and of the independence of the United States of Arnerica the two hundred and eeventeenth. Appendix 6. NEPA Triangle FOREST PLAN IMPLEMENTATION FOREST PLAN PROPOSED ACTION1 CONSISTENCY PURPOSE & NEED
ISSUE IDENTIFICATION ALTERNATIVES
NFMA PINDINGS CONDITIONS SIGNIFICANCE CONDITIONS PARTICIPATION NOTIFICATION FOREST PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
ADJUSTMENT EVALUATION MONITORING
Source: USFS 1997a. Appendix 7. Summary of Ecosystein Management in Sequoia National Dominant Ecosys tem Themes of Characteristics of Thcme SQF Management Activities Ecosystem Management Management Achieved? multiple spatial and temporal scalesl incorporating giant sequoia groves were mapped arbitrarily without NO ecological boundaries into management activities considering multiple spatial and temporal scales Ecological the definitions of a "giant sequoia grove" or "giant Approach to seauoia ecosvstem" are not scientificallv substantiated - -- Systems understanding complexity and interconnectediiess/ a there is no comprehensive ecological inventory of any Management creating integrated ecological inventories giant sequoia grove in SQF PARTIAL Piirto and Rogers (1998) ideiitify key environmental elements and indicators in giant sequoia ecosystems --- ...... interactive, spütialiy explicit models to conceptualize no ecological mode1 is utilized by SQF to improve the dyn;iinic character of ecosystems knowledge of grove ecosystem processes and complex interactions
clear operationai goals r there are no specific guidelines, objectives and standards 1 \TA for management action in giant sequoia groves I 1IV Adaptivc continuous data collection, researcli, surveys and data collection is restricted to information on species PARTIAL Scientific assessment composition, understory vegetation and fuel loads Management biological, ecological, sccial and economic monitoring limi ted manitoring of groves affected by logging activities in the early 1980s no social or economic monitoring 1 NO an aiitincipatory, flexible research and planning limited flexibility and ability to experiment due to process regdations and fear of leml action public pnrticipat ion and collaborat ive decision mininial confidence and trust between stnkeholders and Cooperation and makingl power shnring SQF 1 No Collaboration delayed and limited response to workshops and 1 PARTIAL clear and effective cornniunication miscoininunication is pervasive both intemal and external to SOF - interagency cooperation interagency cooperative (GSEC) is inactive NO consideration of general trends in social and SQF has difficulty defining "the public" and respective environinental values in defining inanagement "value systems" PARTIAL Integration of direction Social Values education of the relationship between Iiuinans and the SQF hns developed limited educational campaigris and environment/ Iiuinans as a part of ecosystein processes interactive programs to comrnunicate ecological PARTIAL ralher thaii separate frorn tliein knowled~eand value svstems