Develop Cross-Agency Ecosystem Planning and Management

Develop Cross-Agency Ecosystem Planning and Management Background

Our nation's diverse ecological systems, or ecosystems, provide us with
food, energy, clean water, scientific information, recreational
opportunities, and useful materials, like wood.  Maintaining healthy
ecosystems sustains their productivity and is vital to ensuring a high
quality of life for future generations of Americans. To date, the
economic development made possible by our country's abundant natural
resources has often come with a high ecological price tag. Land
development, infrastructure construction, resource extraction, and
energy use have resulted in habitat loss, watershed degradation, and
deforestation, all of which diminish the health and value of our
ecosystems.

The President's recent "Forest Plan for a Sustainable Economy and a
Sustainable Environment" (Forest Plan) exemplifies a proactive approach
to federal environmental policy known as ecosystem management. In
ecosystem management, land and resource managers consider both natural
processes and human activities in a given geographic region. Managing
ecosystems requires defining resource use and conservation goals for
specific ecosystems within geographic regions. Monitoring and assessment
are also important components of ecosystem management. They provide
necessary information so that management goals and plans respond to new
information and changing conditions. In the Forest Plan, ecosystem
management planning levels included ecological regions, smaller
physiographic provinces, and individual watersheds.  Understanding how
people and natural processes affect each other at various scales within
a region improves managers' (e.g., federal, state, or local officials or
private landowners) ability to efficiently and practically meet short-
and long-term human needs and expectations.

Federal Agencies and Activities.

The federal government's broad responsibilities make it an important
participant and leader in this approach to managing our nation's natural
resources. The federal government owns approximately one third of the
nation's land. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages more than 60
percent of the nation's federal lands for multiple uses, including
grazing, mineral extraction, wilderness areas, and recreation. The
Forest Service manages our National Forests, including wilderness areas,
for multiple uses, including timber production and wildlife
conservation. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), among other things,
manages our diverse National Wildlife Refuge System. The National Park
Service oversees the National Parks and Grasslands for recreation and
preservation. In the major statutes governing all land management
agencies except the National Park Service, Congress has basically set a
goal to manage federal lands and resources to meet the present and
future needs of Americans while striking a balance between resource
development and conservation.[1]

Land management agencies, however, are only part of the federal
environmental picture. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
responsible for waste management along with implementing federal laws to
regulate the nation's air and water quality. The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) manages our coastal zones and living
marine resources. Numerous other agencies, such as the Department of
Energy, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Federal Highway Administration,
the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Bonneville Power Administration
run programs with significant impacts on the environment. The Department
of Defense has vast land holdings for its military installations and the
Army Corps of Engineers has substantial land and water management
responsibilities as well.[2] These agencies can also make important
contributions to sustaining healthy ecosystems.  Agencies and programs
previously not associated with ecosystems, such as the Department of
Housing and Urban Development and the economic development programs in
the Department of Commerce, also affect ecosystem management positively
or negatively.

To date, many factors --inconsistent statutory missions, demands of
special interests, incompatible data, distinct agency cultures,
inconsistent planning and budgeting cycles, and differing agency
organizational structures -- have hampered development of coordinated
ecosystem management approaches to pursue common goals. To take the
simplest example, federal agencies usually have a headquarters office in
Washington, D.C., and a number of regional offices. In most cases,
regional boundaries differ between agencies, which can further fragment
federal management within a given area. Even within the same agency the
relative independence of internal organizations or regional offices can
present problems by creating significant intra-agency conflicts or
inconsistencies.

Within the past two years, two agencies -- the Forest Service and BLM --
have drawn up ecosystem management statements to articulate the future
direction of the agency on this issue.  However, each was created and
operates without the full participation and collaboration of other
important agencies.  Moreover, the initiatives focus on agency-specific
approaches rather than on a consistent federal approach. Other agencies,
even offices within agencies, have developed different views on how
ecosystem management should be carried out. As a result, federal
agencies, even those with similar mandates, are managing the same
ecosystems differently, often at cross-purposes.

Recent Ecosystem Management Initiatives

Recognition of the importance of governmental management organized
around ecosystems rather than political jurisdictions is not new.


** Eight state and federal agencies recently signed a Memorandum of
Understanding to develop a coordinated state-wide biodiversity planning
strategy for ecologically similar regions throughout California. This
initiative organizes the principal land management agencies in the state
under the long-term goal of conserving the natural heritage of each
major region in California while sustaining economic growth and
development.

** The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is directing an
integrated approach to maintain biodiversity based on watersheds,
landscapes, and regions involving federal agencies, state and local
governments, and the private sector. The management focus will shift
from jurisdictional entities, such as state forests, to ecological land
units. An example within this program is the Prairie Stewardship
Partnership, which seeks to encourage environmentally sustainable
economic development while protecting the health and diversity of
ecosystems in the northern tallgrass prairie.[3]

In the mid-1980s, the National Park Service and the Forest Service
initiated a process to develop a region-wide ecosystem management policy
in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, which includes parts of Wyoming,
Idaho, and Montana. More than 28 federal, state, and local governments
share responsibility for managing parts of the ecosystem.[4] Federal
agency policies and programs in the ecosystem were not coordinated and
were often conflicting. As elsewhere, agencies had to consider the needs
of thousands of private landowners, businesses, interest groups, and
users of public lands.

Notwithstanding, certain interest groups successfully lobbied to keep
the original plan from being implemented, with little resistance from
higher levels of the federal government. This early federal experience
with ecosystem management points to the importance of high-level support
to ensure the success of new initiatives.

Need for Change

The announcement of the President's Forest Plan stated that "for too
long, contradictory policies from feuding agencies have blocked
progress, creating uncertainty, confusion, controversy, and pain
throughout the region."  It is self-evident that the federal government
should do its utmost to ensure the sustainability of our human
communities and the ecological systems upon which we depend. Yet, often,
the federal government itself has contributed to the degradation of
ecosystems -- even those with obviously high value. A large part of the
problem has been an absence of the necessary political will to address
decisions needed to ensure the long-term health of the environment and a
sustainable economy. In closing remarks at the Forest Conference,
President Clinton announced that tough decisions will now be made and
that the administration will try to end the gridlock within the federal
government by insisting on collaboration, not confrontation.[5]

The Importance of Environmental Health to Economic Health.  The
situation in the forests of the Pacific Northwest is not unique.  For
example, 80 percent of the coastal wetland loss in the United States
has occurred in just one state, Louisiana. One cause of this loss has
been the management of the Mississippi River for competing purposes --
flood control and navigation at the expense of the ecological functions
of the river. Continued loss of wetlands in the Mississippi delta region
may have substantial economic and social costs. The fishing industry in
Louisiana, which is directly affected, accounts for approximately $1
billion per year in revenues and jobs.[6] The San Francisco Bay/Delta
is the most human-altered estuary on the west coast of North and South
America. A complex array of federal, state, and local agencies, plans,
and laws govern activities in the estuary. A one-mile stretch of
shoreline may be affected by decisions of over 400 government
agencies.[7] Federal water management policies have allowed severe
disruptions of the natural hydrology of the Bay and Delta. Among other
things, removal upstream of large amounts of freshwater that would
otherwise enter the estuary has led to saltwater intrusions which
impair the ecosystem's value and natural processes.  Additionally,
wetlands destruction has been authorized through the granting of federal
permits. Eighty-two percent of tidal wetlands, 90 percent of Delta
wetlands, and 75 percent of seasonal wetlands have been lost.[8] As a
partial result, valuable salmon, striped bass, and oyster fishing
industries have collapsed.

The traditional approach to managing ecosystems and the resources
contained within them has been piecemeal.  Responsibility has been
fragmented across numerous federal and non-federal agencies and
jurisdictions..An improved federal approach to ecosystem management
would be based on ecological, not political, boundaries. It would then
seek and consider input from all stakeholders affected by federal
responsibilities in the area. Within such a framework, federal agencies,
state, local, and tribal governments, businesses, public interest
groups, citizens, and Congress could work in collaboration to develop
specific strategies, refocus current programs and resources, and better
ensure the long-term ecological and economic health of the country.

Inclusion of people and their economic needs is a fundamental part of an
ecosystem management vision. Resource problems are in a sense not
environmental problems but human problems created under a variety of
political, social, and economic conditions.[9] Ecosystem management
should bring potential conflicts between human activity and a
sustainable environment to light much sooner, when there are more
options available to avoid conflicts and satisfy all involved.

Cross References to Other NPR Accompanying Reports

Mission-Driven, Results-Oriented Budgeting, BGT06:  Streamline Budget
Development.

Department of the Interior, DOI06: Rationalize Federal Land Ownership.

Endnotes

1. See The Multiple-Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960; The Forest and
Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended by Public
Law 94-588; The National Forest Management Act of 1976; and The Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. See also U.S. General Accounting
Office, National Direction Required For Effective Management of
America's Fish and Wildlife, RCED-81-107 (Washington, D.C., U.S.
General Accounting Office, 1981).

2. The Department of Defense manages approximately 25 million acres on
its military installations and the Army Corps of Engineers has
responsibility for an additional 12 million acres.

3. Council on Environmental Quality, "Incorporating Biodiversity
Considerations into Environmental Impact Analysis Under the National
Environmental Policy Act," Washington, D.C., 1993, p.  9.

4. Clark, T.W., et al., "Policy and Programs for Ecosystem Management in
the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem," Conservation Biology, 5 (3):412-422
(1991).

5. President William J. Clinton, "Closing Remarks: The Forest
Conference," April 2, 1993.

6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation, Long-Term Ecological Sustainability and Economic Viability
of the Gulf of Mexico Coastal Wetlands and Fisheries: Recommendations
for the Mississippi Delta Region (1993). (Unpublished report.)

7. The San Francisco Estuary Project, "Who Manages the Bay and Delta?,"
June 1991, p. 1. (Information sheet.)

8. Ibid.

9. Ludwig, et al, "Uncertainty, Resource Exploitation, and
Conservation: Lessons from History," Science, vol. 260, no. 5104
(1993), pp. 17, 36.