Download Ecosystem Management - Lecture Notes | ESP 172 and more Study notes Environmental Science in PDF only on Docsity!
Ecosystem Management
General Goals “Ecosystem management integrates scientific knowledge of ecological relationships within a complex sociopolitical and values frameworktoward the general goal of protecting native ecosystem integrity overthe long term.” (The greatest good, for the greatest number, for thelongest time?) Subgoals Viable populations of native species Represent ecosystem types Manage over long enough period of time to maintain evolutionarypotential Allow for human use and occupancy
Dominant Themes Hierarchical context: Cannot work on just one level (e.g., species,population, landscape) Ecological boundaries: Management must span administrative units Ecological integrity: Native species and ecological processes forbiodiversity (including natural disturbance regimes) Data collection: Habitat and species inventories; baselinecharacterizations Monitoring: Using data to track changes in key indicators over time. Adaptive Management: Decisions must allow learning from mistakes Interagency cooperation: Ecological boundaries requires integratinggoals and procedures Organizational change: Land management agencies need to changeprocedures and norms Humans embedded in nature: Humans have a fundamental influenceon ecological processes Values: Human values and resolving value conflict is a central task
Cooperation and Ecosystem Management
Factors that Could Support Cooperation
Perception of common problems
Trust between stakeholders
Quality scientific research
Perceptions of fairness
Ability to resolve conflict locally
Public entrepreneurs
Support from Federal/State governments
Belief in value of broad participation and ecologicalthinking
Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee II Goals of Vision for Future: Conserve sense of naturalness and maintain ecosystem integrity Encourage ecological and economic sustainability Improve coordination Critics Criticized for lack of membership in terms of other federal agencies(FWS) and environmental groups; over-weighted towards USFS Process vs. substance: Criticized for lack of cooperation frommultiple-use lands; all agencies oppose legislative mandate State governors were heavy critics; George Bush administrationsignificantly rewrote and weakened Vision
- 2005-2007: Averagesnowmobile entries is
Other basic findings: “Active” responses more frequent asnumber of vehicles increases; more likely for administrativegroups; elk in general more sensitive to all variables
Yellowstone is a Class I area under CAA: Non-degradation
3B is the “environmentally preferredalternative”
2006 Draft EIS
Case Study: Large Carnivore Conservation
Challenges Costly and extensive habitat requirements Habitat suitability requirements are poorly understood (e.g., Lynxreintroduction in CO; no snowshoe hares) Competition with humans (eating livestock, and sometimes people) Limited agency budgets focused on tangible benefits Conflicts between state and Federal government (ex. Montana statelegislature passing resolutions to stock Wash DC with wolves;adequacy of Wyoming wolf management plan with respect todelisting) Policy coordination Organization of participants into “advocacy coalitions” Carnivore conservation is surrogate for broader policy conflicts
Ursus arctos horrilibus
Okay, this isn’t a griz. But the guy inthe ranger hat is the 1932 YellowstonePark Superintendent
