Ecosystem Management in the United States An Assessment of Current Experience Steven L. Yaffee Ali F. Phillips Irene C. Frentz Paul W. Hardy Sussanne M. Maleki Barbara E. Thorpe THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN ¨ THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES: AN ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT EXPERIENCE PROJECT DIRECTOR: Steven L. Yaffee TEAM LEADERS: Irene C. Frentz Ali F. Phillips TEAM MEMBERS: Paul W. Hardy Sussanne M. Maleki Barbara E. Thorpe November 15, 1995 SCHOOL OF NATURAL RESOURCES & ENVIRONMENT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN The research that led to this assessment was supported by funds provided by The Wilderness Society and The University of Michigan. We gratefully acknowledge this support, and note that the findings and conclusions in the assessment represent those of the authors and not necessarily those of these sponsors. Ecosystem Management in the United States: An Assessment of Current Experience The School of Natural Resources & Environment at The University of Michigan (SNRE) is a research- oriented professional school focusing on the development of policies and management programs that promote the conservation, protection and sustained use of natural resources, and on the training of practitioners and researchers that seek these ends. Research at SNRE focuses on five thematic areas. One of these areas, "Ecosystems: Conservation, Management, Restoration," includes work underway in topics ranging from landscape ecosystem classification and prairie restoration to endangered species policy and dispute resolution. Master's degree students at SNRE are required to complete a group project as their capstone experience. ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES: AN ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT EXPERIENCE began as a master's project, with five graduate students participating as a research team supervised by a faculty member. The master's project work catalogued and assessed the experience evident at 77 sites (subsequently expanded to 105 sites for this report). A master's project report was produced in June 1995. It contains a lengthy assessment of the experience at those sites. Copies of the report are available from SNRE at a cost of $25 (includes shipping). For more information about the master's project report or SNRE, or if you have comments or questions about the research, please contact Dr. Steven L. Yaffee, SNRE, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1115. Internet address: [email protected] The idea of developing a catalog and assessment of the current experience with ecosystem management originated through conversations with staff of The Wilderness Society (TWS). TWS subsequently funded a portion of the costs of both the master's project and the second phase of research expanding two electronic databases and the analyses. TWS staff also provided considerable guidance to the research team throughout the year-long project. Besides this inventory and assessment, the databases are avail- able through TWS: one contains a list of the 619 sites, including project name, location and contact information; the other contains an extensive matrix of information about the 105 catalogued sites. Both can be searched through interactive software. For more information about these databases, please contact Spencer Phillips at TWS, Resource Policy and Economics Department, 900 17th Street, Washington, D.C. 20006. * * * The research team wants to thank a variety of contributors to this effort. We greatly appreciate the advice and support of: Greg Aplet, Spencer Phillips and John Shepard from TWS; Arvid Thomsen and David Sumpter of HDR Engineering, Inc.; David Allan, Burton Barnes, Bob Grese, Rachel Kaplan, Wayne Say, and Julia Wondolleck from SNRE; and Mark Shaffer of The Nature Conservancy. In addition, a prior master's project report written by Sara Barth, Lynn Gooch, Jim Havard, David Mindell, Rachel Stevens, and Mark Zankel established a theoretical framework for ecosystem management that facilitated this work. Finally, we want to acknowledge the valuable assistance of the site contacts, whose experiences and observations form the heart of this assessment. Their enthusiasm for the on-the-ground efforts was unmistakable and contributed greatly to our sense of optimism about the future of ecosystem-based approaches to land management. ____________ ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ASSESSMENT 3 Introduction 7 What characterizes the ecosystem management project areas? 13 What are the characteristics of the projects? 21 Why were the projects started? 23 What have the projects produced? 27 What has helped the projects to move forward? 31 What obstacles have the projects faced? 35 What do these experiences suggest for future ecosystem management efforts? 39 Conclusions SUMMARY INFORMATION ON 105 SELECTED ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROJECTS 48 Map & index of projects 50 State-by-state listing of projects 52 Agencies, organizations, and individuals initiating projects 55 Age of projects 56 Land ownership patterns of project areas 57 Size of project areas 59 Significant anthropogenic stresses reported on project areas 62 Most significant outcomes of projects DESCRIPTIONS OF 105 SELECTED ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROJECTS 67 Project descriptions COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF 619 ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROJECTS 279 State-by-state listing of all projects 291 Project contact information APPENDICES 323 Resources guide 327 Abbrevations and glossary of commonly-used terms ____________ iii Ecosystem Management in the United States: An Assessment of Current Experience ã 1995 School of Natural Resources & Environment The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1115 and The Wilderness Society Washington, D.C. 20006 This publication may be cited as follows: Yaffee, Steven L., I.C. Frentz, P.W. Hardy, S.M. Maleki, A.F. Phillips, B.E. Thorpe, 1995. Ecosystem Management in the United States: An Assessment of Current Experience. School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, and The Wilderness Society, Washington, D.C. ____________ iv ASSESSMENT ____________ 1 Ecosystem Management in the United States: An Assessment of Current Experience ____________ 2 INTRODUCTION In the past two decades, increasing dissatisfaction with traditional resource management approaches coupled with the development of new scientific information about ecosystems has led to a search for new management strategies. Many people have argued that traditional approaches ignore important interconnections between geographic areas, such as when sedimentation or the introduction of invasive species on one land unit result in problems on an adjacent area. Land management approaches have often been overly focused on short-term goals such as commodity production at the expense of long-term ecological health, and have resulted in landscapes that are neither economically productive nor ecologically sound. Management activities have often been inefficient, as agencies and other groups operated in ignorance of each other's efforts. Sometimes this situation has resulted in efforts that are duplicative or conflicting; at other times, the benefits that can come from management partnerships have been lost. Traditional approaches have often neglected the diversity of human interests in the management of natural resources and have resulted in conflict-laden impasses, such as when interest groups and agencies battled to a standstill in the spotted owl dispute in the Pacific Northwest. Issues such as management of salmon stocks in the Northwest, the Everglades in the Southeast, and the Yellowstone region in the Rocky Mountains seem to cry out for a different approach. Ecosystem management has been proposed as a new approach to resource management, and a body of literature has developed describing various ideas about the appropriate goals and methods of such an approach.1 Most authors emphasize a land management approach that incorporates an understanding of ecological systems, considers extended time and spatial scales, and highlights the interconnections between landscapes, ecological processes, and humans and other organisms. Summarizing much of this literature, Edward Grumbine set forth a definition of ecosystem management: Ecosystem management integrates scientific knowledge of ecological relationships within a complex sociopolitical and value framework toward the general goal of protecting native ecosystem integrity over the long-term.2 Many government agencies have picked up on the evolving concept of ecosystem management and have developed definitions to guide their land management activities. For example, U.S. Forest Service Chief Jack Ward Thomas describes ecosystem management as: a holistic approach to natural resource management, moving beyond a compart- mentalized approach focusing on the individual parts of the forest. It is an approach that steps back from the forest stand and focuses on the forest landscape and its position in the larger environment in order to integrate the human, bio 1For citations to several key pieces of this literature, see the "Resources" section included with this document. 2R. Edward Grumbine, 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology 8(1):27-38. ____________ 3 Ecosystem Management in the United States: An Assessment of Current Experience logical and physical dimensions of natural resource management. Its purpose is to achieve sustainability of all resources.3 While there is an ongoing debate about the goals and practices of ecosystem man- agement, practitioners are actively testing new land management approaches.