SECTION V SNEP Case Studies CONSTANCE I. MILLAR Institute of Forest Genetics U.S. Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station Albany, California 50 The Mammoth-June Ecosystem Management Project, Inyo National Forest ABSTRACT Public involvement in the MJEMP was at first low to moderate, but built to strong participation and interest. However, a segment of the The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) case-study assess- local public expressed dissatisfaction with the general USFS approach ment of the Mammoth-June Ecosystem Management Project to landscape analysis and the specific implementation in the Mam- (MJEMP) was undertaken to review and analyze the efficacy of a moth-June area, and began to mount legal action against it. The main local landscape analysis in achieving ecosystem-management ob- concern of this group is that the landscape analysis is actually a de- jectives in the Sierra Nevada. Of primary interest to SNEP was appli- cision process, yet it has been considered exempt from (or outside cation of the new U.S. Forest Service (USFS) regional process for of) National Environmental Policy Act procedures. The outcome of landscape analysis, especially use of historic and natural range of these discussions could have implications for landscape analysis on variability. An underlying assumption in current USFS approaches is national forests throughout the Sierra Nevada. that managing lands within historical and natural ranges of variability will promote ecological sustainability. Another assumption of interest to SNEP is that social goals can be incorporated into ecological goals to arrive at integrated management objectives. Success in describ- ing historical condition varied considerably by ecological indicator. A INTRODUCTION few quantitative measures were developed for short- (decade) to medium-term (several centuries) periods, but many descriptions were The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) is primarily an qualitative, highly inferential, and based on very short-term studies. assessment study. In addition to assessing ecological and so- If the intent were to develop desired conditions from scientifically ciological conditions and trends in the Sierra Nevada, SNEP defensible, quantitative descriptions of historical variabilities, the is charged with assessing relevant methods, approaches, and MJEMP analyses would be inadequate; the team found that it was policies. This direction includes both methods that SNEP it- difficult to take a science-based approach when there was not time, self uses and also policies and approaches to ecosystem man- budget, or qualifications to do the science. For the MJEMP team, agement potentially or actually employed by others in the however, the value of historic data was not to develop a desired con- Sierra Nevada. For this reason, five SNEP case studies were dition that mimicked past structural conditions, but to be informed chosen as ongoing examples of ecosystem management in the about natural processes and how they can be severely disrupted by Sierra Nevada. human activities (present and past). Thus, the information obtained The case studies illustrate diverse conditions in the Sierra by the MJEMP was useful for describing the status, trends, and ap- Nevada and do not parallel one another in intent, histories, parent changes in successional pathways caused by humans. With- magnitude, funding, or other attributes. Each exemplifies a out detailed information about historic ranges of conditions, however, particular approach to common institutional problems en- the team had difficulty describing desired future conditions, finding it countered in ecosystem management of the Sierra Nevada. oversimplified to say they wanted to maintain natural or current con- Collectively they sample many significant situations encoun- ditions. tered in ecosystem management. SNEP will evaluate the effi- Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress, vol. II, Assessments and scientific basis for management options. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, 1996. 1273 1274 VOLUME II, CHAPTER 50 cacy of these approaches to the physical and biological com- • competing and conflicting desires for management of munities each represents, to the human communities in- parts of the area volved, for value to SNEP in its analyses, and for their value • active public involvement in wider application of these approaches in the Sierra Nevada. • relatively strong scientific information base Case-Study Objectives • Applies new U.S. Forest Service (USFS) guidelines for eco- system management, both national policy (Forest Plan Each of the three SNEP assessment questions pertains to analy- Implementation, USFS 1992a), and Pacific Southwest re- sis of SNEP case studies. In addition, because most have gional approach (Manley et al. 1995). These guidelines con- involved some form of projecting and evaluating land- tain the conceptual thinking and procedural models that management alternatives, they also represent approaches to are to be adopted by and guide land-management plan- SNEP’s questions about policy scenarios. These issues are ning on the national forests across the country and through- woven into five questions that pertain directly to each case out the Sierra Nevada in the future. study: • Relies on comparisons of current conditions to inferred his- 1. What conditions does this case study represent for ecosys- torical conditions (especially natural ranges of variability tem management in the Sierra Nevada? Conditions of in- and ecological indicators) to arrive at ecological manage- terest include natural and social environment, ment goals. It assumes (explicit in Manley et al. 1995) that land-ownership patterns, current land-management objec- landscapes managed within relevant natural range of vari- tive, historical use and policies, nature of public involve- abilities are sustainable. ment, and policy context. • Assumes that social desires can be accommodated by modi- 2. What are the specific ecosystem management methods, fying ecological goals to arrive at integrated management approaches, or policies being applied? These include in- objectives for the landscape (desired conditions). tended, planned, actual, and implemented methods, as well as biological and social aspects. 3. How effective have these specific methods been in reach- ing goals? Effectiveness is assessed relative to the natural (physical conditions, biodiversity) and social (local com- METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS munities, interest groups, common good) environments. SNEP’s approach to assessing the MJEMP was primarily ob- 4. How representative of other situations in the Sierra Ne- servation by participation, interview, and review of second- vada is the case study? ary sources. SNEP scientists involved have ongoing experience independent of SNEP in the eastern Sierra, the Inyo National 5. What can be learned from the case study? Specifically, what Forest, and especially the Owens River headwaters region. Each are the implications for local conditions (both the local has a history of research and management interest in the area natural environment and local human communities), for and has participated to some degree in management processes SNEP, and for broader application in the Sierra Nevada? for the area in recent years. By participating in the meetings and field trips of the MJEMP team, through interviews and Mammoth-June Case-Study Objectives informal discussion with team members and members of the public, and through working in residence in the eastern Si- The Mammoth-June Ecosystem Management Project (MJEMP) erra, SNEP scientists were directly involved (although to vary- of the Inyo National Forest was selected by SNEP because it ing degrees) from the beginning of the current Mammoth-June meets the preceeding conditions and exemplifies a set of rep- project. resentative issues in Sierra Nevada ecosystem management. Several explicit assumptions are accepted: The MJEMP 1. MJEMP reflects general approaches (e.g., Grumbine 1994) • Represents eastern Sierra landscape and management con- being taken in land management. ditions in 2. MJEMP is a serious attempt to adopt the specific steps • patterns of land ownership (almost exclusively federal) outlined in the national Forest Plan Implementation (USFS • focus on recreation and habitat protection with diverse 1992a) and the new regional ecosystem management but low intensity commodity values manual (Manley et al. 1995) and thus reflects a process that may be repeated commonly throughout Sierra Ne- • forest structure and composition with associated physi- vada national forests. cal and biotic environment 1275 The Mammoth-June Ecosystem Management Project, Inyo National Forest 3. MJEMP is one of the first landscape analyses in the Sierra Ecosystem management is the current theme guiding USFS Nevada to implement these specific national and regional land management. In June 1992, the chief of the USFS insti- guidelines at the landscape or watershed scale. tuted ecosystem management throughout the national forests of the United States and defined it as “the skillful, integrated 4. The conditions local to the Mammoth-June landscape are use of ecological knowledge at various scales to produce de- not unique nor so unusual as to limit application of les- sired resource values, products, services, and conditions in sons learned there for landscape analyses elsewhere in the ways that also sustain the diversity and productivity of eco- Sierra Nevada. systems”