Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area Chapter 12: Integrating Ecological and Social Science to Inform Land Management in the Area of the Northwest Forest Plan Thomas A. Spies, Jonathan W. Long, Peter Stine, Susan to reassess how well the goals and strategies of the Plan are Charnley, Lee Cerveny, Bruce G. Marcot, Gordon Reeves, positioned to address new issues. Paul F. Hessburg, Damon Lesmeister, Matthew J. Reilly, The NWFP was developed in 1993 through a political Martin G. Raphael, and Raymond J. Davis1 process involving scientists in an unusual and controversial role: assessing conditions and developing plan options “We are drowning in information, while starving directly for President Bill Clinton to consider with little for wisdom. The world henceforth will be run by involvement of senior Forest Service managers. The role of synthesizers, people able to put together the right Forest Service scientists in this planning effort is differ- information at the right time, think critically about ent—scientists are now limited to producing a state-of-the- it, and make important choices wisely.” science report in support of plan revision and management —E.O. Wilson, Consilience: The Unity of (USDA FS 2012a), and managers will conduct the assess- Knowledge (1988) ments and develop plan alternatives. Implementation of the NWFP was followed by moni- Introduction toring, research, and expectations for learning and adaptive Long-term monitoring programs and research related to management; however, little formal adaptive management Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP, or Plan) goals, strategies, actually occurred, and the program was defunded after a few and outcomes provide an unprecedented opportunity years. The goals of the NWFP were daunting and set within WRH[DPLQHKRZWKHVFLHQWL¿FEDVLVDQGVRFLRHFRORJLFDO the policy and ecological context of the time. President Clin- context of the Plan may have changed during the 23 years ton’s question to the Forest Ecosystem Management Assess- since its implementation. We also have a prime opportunity ment Team (FEMAT) was “How can we achieve a balanced and comprehensive policy that recognizes the importance of the forest and timber to the economy and jobs in this region, and how can we preserve our precious old-growth 1 Thomas A. Spies and Gordon Reeves are senior scientists, and Damon Lesmeister is a research wildlife biologist, U.S. Depart- forests, which are part of our national heritage and that, once PHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH)RUHVW6HUYLFH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW5HVHDUFK destroyed, can never be replaced?” (FEMAT 1993). The 1982 Station, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331; Jonathan W. Long is an ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest planning rule guided land management planning on National 6HUYLFH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW5HVHDUFK6WDWLRQ5HVHDUFK3DUN Drive, Davis, CA 95618; Peter Stine was director of partnerships Forest System lands, emphasizing conservation based in part and collaboration (retired), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest on maintaining population viability of native species. 6HUYLFH3DFL¿F6RXWKZHVW5HVHDUFK6WDWLRQ5HVHDUFK3DUN Drive, Davis, CA 95618; Susan Charnley is a research social Although many conservation concerns have not scientist and Bruce G. Marcot is a research wildlife biologist, 86'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH)RUHVW6HUYLFH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW changed, new science and challenges have emerged. For Research Station, 620 SW Main St., Suite 400, Portland, OR 97205; example, since the Plan was developed in the early 1990s, Lee Cerveny is a research social scientist, U.S. Department of Agri- FXOWXUH)RUHVW6HUYLFH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW5HVHDUFK6WDWLRQ the invasive barred owl (Strix varia) has become a major North 34th Street, Suite 201, Seattle, WA 98103; Paul F. Hessburg is a research landscape ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, threat to populations of the northern spotted owl (S. )RUHVW6HUYLFH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW5HVHDUFK6WDWLRQ1:HVWHUQ occidentalis caurina) (chapter 4), the number of Endangered Ave., Wenatchee, WA 98801; Matthew J. Reilly is a postdoctoral researcher, Humboldt State University, Department of Biological 6SHFLHV$FW (6$ OLVWHG¿VKVSHFLHVKDVJRQHIURPWR Sciences, 1 Harpst Street, Arcata, CA 95521; Martin G. Raphael is a senior scientist (retired), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest PRUHWKDQDQGWKHIUHTXHQF\DQGH[WHQWRIZLOG¿UHVLQ rd 6HUYLFH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW5HVHDUFK6WDWLRQ Ave. SW, dry forest portions of the Plan area have increased substan- Olympia, WA 98512; and Raymond J. Davis is a wildlife biologist, 86'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH)RUHVW6HUYLFH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW tially in response to climate warming (chapter 2) (Reilly et Region, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331. al. 2017a, Westerling et al. 2006). 919 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966 The policy context and social dimensions of the NWFP 2012 planning rule also emphasized that plans must provide have also changed. For example, the 2012 planning rule for “social, economic and ecological sustainability.” This (USDA FS 2012a) places more weight on managing for increased emphasis on integrating social and ecological HFRORJLFDOLQWHJULW\ DQHFRV\VWHPRUFRDUVH¿OWHUDSSURDFK aspects of forest planning coincides with the developing sci- and less weight on population viability of individual species ence of coupled human and natural systems or “social-eco- DVSHFLHVRU³¿QH¿OWHUDSSURDFK 6FKXOW]HWDO ORJLFDOV\VWHPV´ /LXHWDO ¿J than did the 1982 rule. The Plan’s evaluation of societal This socioecological perspective goes well beyond the LQÀXHQFHVGLGQRWDGGUHVVWKHHPHUJHQFHDQGH[SDQVLRQ ecosystem management framework that guided develop- of collaborative processes throughout the NWFP region ment of the NWFP by accounting for interactions between (Skillen 2015), and the FEMAT assessment itself (1994) social and ecological systems to help deal with system com- largely focused on commodity-based economic develop- SOH[LW\ ¿J VXUSULVHVDQGXQLQWHQGHGRXWFRPHVIURP ment and support for maintaining stability of local and policies (Spies et al. 2014). For example, the relationship of regional economies (Charnley 2006a). In addition, many but federal forests to community well-being has changed since QRWDOOORFDOHFRQRPLHVRIWKHUHJLRQKDYHGLYHUVL¿HGDZD\ initiation of the Plan. Many communities no longer depend from dependence on federal timber, and the forest products on the economic contributions of wood products as they industry has largely moved away from using and valuing once did (Charnley 2006a). There is growing recognition of large logs, favoring instead the use of small-diameter trees WKHHFRQRPLFEHQH¿WVRISXEOLFODQGVWRFRPPXQLWLHVIURP (Haynes 2009). recreation and tourism (White et al. 2016a) and nontimber Scientists in the Plan region also now more fully forest products (Alexander et al. 2011), and recognition that understand that the social and political context of the HFRV\VWHPVSURYLGHPDQ\EHQH¿WVWRKXPDQFRPPXQLWLHV 1:)3KDGDVWURQJLQÀXHQFHRQWKHVHWWLQJDQGDWWDLQLQJ beyond timber and nontimber resources. Many studies of the ecological goals of the Plan—opinions and debates indicate that the impact of humans on the environment about federal forest management in the region were as much in the NWFP area is much broader than the effects of DERXWVRFLDOYDOXHVDQGFRQÀLFWUHVROXWLRQDVWKH\ZHUH natural resource extraction. Furthermore, it is clear that the about science (Lange 2016, Spies and Duncan 2009). Given timber industry has also experienced changes throughout this context, it is important to have realistic expectations for the NWFP region, many of which are independent of how this science synthesis might contribute to the assess- PDQDJHPHQWGHFLVLRQVRQIHGHUDOODQGV HJÀXFWXDWLRQV ments and subsequent revision of individual forest plans in national and global markets for wood products, transfor- DQGIRUHVWPDQDJHPHQW6FLHQWL¿F¿QGLQJVDORQHZLOOQRW mations in how forest products companies are structured, resolve political debates about the use of natural resources. and adoption of new technologies for wood processing) 5HGXFLQJVFLHQWL¿FXQFHUWDLQW\ZLOOQRWQHFHVVDULO\UHGXFH (chapter 8). At the same time, researchers and managers political uncertainty; and politics will always outweigh better understand connections between the organizational science because “science does not compel action” (Pielke capacity of agencies, mill infrastructure, and business +RZHYHUSURYLGLQJWKHODWHVWVFLHQWL¿FLQIRUPDWLRQ capacity in the private sector (e.g., a skilled workforce) in DQGUHGXFLQJVFLHQWL¿FXQFHUWDLQW\DUHH[SHFWHGWROHDGWR achieving forest restoration goals (chapter 8). better management decisions within the context of social The fundamental assumption of the NWFP was that and political constraints. the breadth of the biological and socioeconomic strategies There is also an increased emphasis on the social would achieve its biodiversity conservation and socioeco- dimension of planning today compared to when the NWFP nomic goals, and that those goals were also compatible was developed. Federal managers increasingly use collab- with each other. Scientists and managers now have the oratives, stewardship contracts, and local participation in perspective afforded by 23 years of research, monitoring, decisionmaking (Leach 2006, Urgenson et al. 2017). The DQG¿HOGH[SHULHQFHWRVXJJHVWWKDWWKHVHDVVXPSWLRQVZHUH 920 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area Social Component Ecological Component Laws/policies Climate Social, cultural Economics values Ecosystem Species Management/use Social-Ecological System Altered Ecosystems