FIU Complexities and Uncertainties Small Pop Ulations Essay

User Generated

Furvxun

Science

Florida International University

Description

Your group should consider (2) complexities and uncertainties specifically relevant to small populations of concern. Develop a list of four or five possible problems and issues that could be faced in the coming years as a result of the complexities in and uncertainties of your scenario, specifically at your assigned level of focus. Can ad- vanced consideration and planning minimize or elim- inate the problems? How? Share your insights with the rest of the class.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Ecosystem Management About Island Press Island Press is the only nonprofit organization in the United States whose principal purpose is the publication of books on environmental issues and natural resource management. We provide solutions-oriented information to professionals, public officials, business and community leaders, and concerned citizens who are shaping responses to environmental problems. In 2002, Island Press celebrates its eighteenth anniversary as the leading provider of timely and practical books that take a multidisciplinary approach to critical environmental concerns. Our growing list of titles reflects our commitment to bringing the best of an expanding body of literature to the environmental community throughout North America and the world. Support for Island Press is provided by The Nathan Cummings Foundation, Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, Educational Foundation of America, The Charles Engelhard Foundation, The Ford Foundation, The George Gund Foundation, The Vira I. Heinz Endowment, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Henry Luce Foundation, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, The Moriah Fund, The Curtis and Edith Munson Foundation, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, The New-Land Foundation, Oak Foundation, The Overbrook Foundation, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, The Pew Charitable Trusts, The Rockefeller Foundation, The Winslow Foundation, and other generous donors. The opinions expressed in this book are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of these foundations. Ecosystem Management Adaptive, Community-Based Conservation GARY K. MEFFE LARRY A. NIELSEN RICHARD L. KNIGHT DENNIS A. SCHENBORN Washington • Covelo • London Copyright © 2002 Island Press All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher: Island Press, Suite 300, 1718 Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20009 ISLAND PRESS is a trademark of The Center for Resource Economics. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data. Ecosystem Management : adaptive, community-based conservation / by Gary K. Meffe ... [et al.]. p. cm. ISBN 1-55963-824-9 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Ecosystem management. I. Meffe, Gary K. QH75 .E327 2002 333.95—dc21 2002007408 British Cataloguing-in-Publication Data available. Printed on recycled, acid-free paper E Manufactured in the United States of America 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 To our wives— Nancy Meffe, Sharon Nielsen, Heather Knight, and Elaine Schenborn— for their love, patience, and support, and for reminding us of what is truly important in life. Contents PREFACE ABOUT THE AUTHORS ESSAY CONTRIBUTORS Introduction: New Approaches for a New Millennium xi xiii xv 1 The Appearance of Ecosystem Management 3 How to Use This Book 5 An Overview and the Flow of the Text 6 PART I: THE CONCEPTUAL TOOLBOX 1. The Landscape Scenarios 11 The ROLE Model 12 The ROLE Model Agreement 12 The Round Lake Ecosystem 14 The Social and Economic Setting 16 Special Resources 17 Special Interests and Issues 23 SnowPACT 25 2. Getting a Grip on Ecosystem Management 57 The Evolution of Natural Resource Management Toward Ecosystem Management 57 A Comparison of Traditional Management and Ecosystem Management 59 From Command and Control to Adaptive Ecosystem Management 60 The Pathology of Natural Resource Management 63 The Need for Resilience 65 A Model of Ecosystem Management 66 A Closer Look at Ecosystem Management 69 Common Misconceptions About Ecosystem Management 73 Information, Organizational Behavior, and Command and Control 74 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS 76 3. Incorporating Uncertainty and Complexity into Management 79 Sources of Complexity and Uncertainty in Natural Resource Management 80 The Snow River Ecosystem 27 The Social and Economic Setting 29 Category 1: Environmental Variation 80 People, Places, and Interests 31 Special Resources 38 Category 2: Biological Variation in Small Populations 82 42 Category 3: Nonindependence of Events and Interactions 83 Category 4: Uncertainties in the Human Realm 84 PDQ Revival The PDQ Ecosystem 43 The PDQ Region 45 PDQ Lands and Land Uses 47 Natural Resources and Issues 50 Dealing with Complexity and Uncertainty REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS 85 88 vii viii Contents Ecosystem Management in Policy and Practice, by STEVEN L.YAFFEE 89 4. Adaptive Management 95 Adaptive Management: Another Way to Learn 96 Active Adaptive Management 97 The Glen Canyon Dam Idaho Elk Management Passive Adaptive Management 100 101 103 The Northwest Forest Management Plan 103 The North American Waterfowl Plan 104 Adaptive Management as Documented Trial and Error 106 Conditions Necessary for Successful Adaptive Management 107 6. Issues Regarding Populations and Species 131 The Species 131 The Roles of Species in Science and Policy 134 Viewpoints on Species Connecting Populations and Species to Landscapes REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS 134 137 139 The Copper River Watershed Project, by RIKI OTT and KRISTIN SMITH 140 7. Populations and Communities at the Landscape Level 145 Single-Species Management 145 Ecological Conditions 108 Extinctions from Deterministic and Stochastic Forces 146 Socioeconomic Conditions 108 PVA and MVP 147 Institutional Conditions 109 Approaches to MVP Estimation 148 110 Some Thoughts on PVA and MVP Estimation 151 Metapopulations 151 Spatially Explicit Models 153 Information Needs for MVP, Metapopulation, and Spatially Explicit Models 154 Managing for Species Communities 156 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS PART II: THE BIOLOGICAL AND ECOLOGICAL BACKGROUND 5. Genetic Diversity in Ecosystem Management 115 What Is Genetic Diversity? 116 A Look at Heterozygosity How Is Genetic Diversity Lost? 116 120 The Loss of Genetic Diversity in Small Populations 120 Changes in Patterns of Genetic Diversity Among Populations 124 The Loss of Allelic Richness The Role of Genetics in Conservation and Ecosystem Management REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS 126 128 129 The Species Approach 157 The Ecological Process Approach 158 The Landscape Approach 158 The Role of Monitoring in Each Approach 159 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS The Winyah Bay Focus Area, by ROGER L. BANKS 162 163 ix Contents 8. Landscape-Level Conservation 169 PART III: THE HUMAN DIMENSIONS Habitat Fragmentation 170 10. Working in Human Communities 219 The Loss of Area 172 An Increase in Edge 174 Increased Isolation 181 Mosaic and Matrix 183 The Landscape Mosaic 183 The Landscape Matrix 184 Fragmentation and the Landscape Matrix 184 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Southern California Natural Community Conservation Planning, by MICHAEL O’CONNELL 9. Managing Biodiversity Across Landscapes: A Manager’s Dilemma 185 The Success Triangle 220 Stakeholder Identification and Assessment 222 Who Is a Stakeholder? 222 Principles of Stakeholder Involvement 223 Stakeholder Analysis 225 Levels of Involvement 227 Techniques for Stakeholder Involvement 230 Keys to Successful Collaboration 233 Three Little Words 238 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS 187 193 238 Collaborative Stewardship:Views from Both Sides Now, by MARK W. BRUNSON 240 11. Strategic Approaches to Ecosystem Management 245 Characteristics of Strategic Management 247 A Simple Strategic Management Model 249 Ecosystems or Species? Coarse-Filter and Fine-Filter Approaches 194 The Coarse-Filter Approach 195 The Inventory 249 The Fine-Filter Approach 196 Strategic Thinking 251 Blending Coarse-Filter and FineFilter Approaches Implementation 251 196 Evaluation 251 Landscape-Level Considerations That Protect Biodiversity and Ecosystems The Strategic-Thinking Step 196 Area, Shape, and Isolation 197 Movement Corridors 198 Working Across Administrative Boundaries 203 HCPs: Protecting Biodiversity While Promoting Cooperation 206 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS The Malpai Borderlands Group: Building the “Radical Center,” by WILLIAM MCDONALD 209 211 252 Mission and Mandate 252 Strategy 254 Goals 254 Objectives 256 Problems and Tactics 258 Projects 259 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS 262 If All It Took Was Money, Community-Based Conservation Would Be Easy, by HEATHER A. L. KNIGHT 263 x Contents 12. Evaluation 271 The Context for Evaluation 271 Formative Evaluation 274 Characteristics of Formative Evaluation Process Evaluation 275 Summative Evaluation Characteristics of Summative Evaluation REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS 280 282 285 Participation in Local Government Land-Use 286 Decisions, by GEORGE N.WALLACE 277 Assessing Progress 277 A Final Word 295 Making Adjustments 278 Characteristics of Process Evaluation 280 GLOSSARY INDEX 297 303 Preface The world is changing quickly, and our models of learning, communicating, and acting must change accordingly. Throughout society we must rethink basic notions of how we define and accomplish our goals in a complex and changing environment, including how we prepare ourselves for professional careers. This book is an effort in that direction for students in natural resource management. It is a response to some of the challenges we perceive students will face in the early twenty-first century, and it is a practice field on which they may begin to develop their skills. This is a different kind of textbook for a different kind of course. It is based on the proposition that college education in general, and education in the natural resources in particular, must be active and engage participants in the collaborative venture of learning. We’ve created a text consistent with that proposition, partly because we believe people learn more effectively in an active mode, but especially because it is necessary that all of us become more capable problem solvers in a complicated world. Hence, we like to think of the people using this text as participants rather than readers, as collaborators rather than students. Learning technical information is important, of course, to any field of endeavor, and it is the foundation upon which professionalism is built. Understanding the basic theories and empirical bases that constitute fields such as ecology, economics, fisheries and wildlife management, specialized taxonomic studies, physiology, genetics, sociology, and so forth is necessary to function as a professional— necessary, but not sufficient. It has been our experience that much more is needed to be a professional, and that individuals planning careers in natural resource management need more preparation in and experience with other skills and ideas beyond the technical aspects of our work. In particular, we need to understand that good scientific and technical knowledge is not enough, by itself, to succeed in natural resource management, because science is only one component of a complex world of decision making. Environmental policy and management decisions are set within a much larger socioeconomic and institutional context, one that can swamp and effectively neutralize the best scientific information if those who represent science do not know how to work effectively with decision makers and diverse stakeholders. This context can be a challenging place in which to work, but work within it we must if the science is to be used to guide environmental policy and management. We hope that this book, and our approach, helps make participants more effective within that arena. Our approach in this text is to engage participants early and often in active problem solving, using realistic and complex landscape scenarios. Although we cover the technical scientific information important to natural resource management ranging from genes to landscapes, the real progress will be made by integrating this information into the human context. We believe this approach will better prepare participants for the very complex and challenging world beyond the safe confines of a university. This book grew out of a training course we developed and have presented for 7 years for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through their National Conservation Training Center in Shepherdstown, West Virginia. In 20 offerings to more than 600 natural resource professionals, we learned a great deal about what is needed to function successfully at that level. Participants from numerous federal and state agencies, nongovernmental organizations, the U.S. military, and industry took our course and educated us about their worlds; to them we owe a great deal of gratitude. They have provided the xi xii Preface insights and wherewithal to help future practitioners in their profession travel a smoother road. We thank Rick Lemmon (Director of NCTC), Chris Horsch (Head of the Aquatic Resources Training Branch), and especially June McIlwain, the leader of our course, An Ecosystem Approach to Conservation. It has been a pleasure to work with and learn from such a fine group of professionals. The folks at Island Press have been outstanding to work with and very professional. We are indebted to Barbara Dean for encouraging us to attempt this book in the first place and for keeping the project moving along. Her insights, instincts, and intellect are something to behold. Barbara Youngblood, Cecilia González, Amelia Durand, and copyeditor Betsy Dilernia all performed their jobs with grace and determination. We thank our respective institutions for their logistic support throughout this process. James Gibbs, Steven Yaffee, and an anonymous reviewer provided excellent comments on an early draft, and even where we did not heed their advice we certainly appreciated and learned from it. GKM is in- debted to Margaret Flagg and Ellen Main of the editorial staff of Conservation Biology. Their professionalism, dedication, levels of excellence, and good humor not only made it possible to write this book on top of my “real job,” but they make it fun to go to work every day. RLK wishes to thank his colleagues and former students at CSU for expanding his thinking regarding natural resource management. Part of this work was written while on a sabbatical leave granted by Colorado State University. LAN would like to thank Danielle Young-Kocovsky, who assisted him in many ways. DAS wishes to thank the men and women of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for their dedication to resource management with their many stakeholders. “Res non verba”—deeds, not words. Finally, and most importantly, our families not only have shown infinite patience and much guidance, but have offered the greatest of gifts— understanding and a solid foundation of love and support from which to work and to believe in ourselves. We owe you one. About the Authors Gary K. Meffe is an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation at the University of Florida. He is senior author of the widely used college textbook Principles of Conservation Biology, coauthor of Biodiversity on Military Lands: A Handbook, and coeditor of Ecology and Evolution of Livebearing Fishes. Since 1997, he has served as Editor of the international journal Conservation Biology. Larry A. Nielsen is Dean of the College of Natural Resources at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. A fisheries biologist by training, he has been honored for his teaching while on the faculty at Virginia Tech and for enhancing diversity while at Pennsylvania State University. He is sought widely as a speaker on topics related to ecosystem management, the future of natural resources, and community-based conservation. Richard L. Knight is a Professor of wildlife conservation at Colorado State University. His interests deal with the interdependency of healthy human and natural communities. He has edited several books, including A New Century for Natural Resources Management, Stewardship Across Boundaries, and Aldo Leopold and the Ecological Conscience. Dennis A. Schenborn is Chief of Planning and Budget for the Bureau of Fisheries Management and Habitat Protection of the Wisconsin State Department of Natural Resources. For more than 25 years, he has organized, led, and taught public involvement and organizational management for natural resource management agencies throughout North America. He is past President of the Organization of Wildlife Planners and formerly served as a research biologist with the United States Antarctic Research Program on two Antarctic expeditions. xiii Essay Contributors Roger L. Banks is the Field Supervisor for the Ecological Services Field Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Charleston, S.C. He devoted most of his career to protecting wetlands and other important habitats through traditional regulatory means. For the past 10 years he has pursued private and public partnership efforts in South Carolina geared toward promoting proactive, longterm habitat protection on a landscape scale. Mark W. Brunson is an Associate Professor in the Department of Environment & Society at Utah State University. He studies social and psychological aspects of rangeland and forest management to better understand what makes people accept or take part in activities that contribute to environmental sustainability. Heather A. L. Knight, a native of Australia, is The Nature Conservancy Program Manager for the Phantom Canyon Preserve in the Laramie Foothills. This 300,000-acre site is one of the last remaining ranching communities along Colorado’s northern Front Range. and is a community-based conservation program supported by diverse public and private partners. Bill McDonald is a fifth-generation rancher on the Sycamore Ranch in southeastern Arizona. He is a long-time supervisor of the Whitewater Draw Natural Resource Conservation District and a past recipient of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission’s award for Outstanding Wildlife Habitat Stewardship. He helped form, and is the Executive Director of, the Malpai Borderlands Group, for which he was awarded a MacArthur Genius Fellowship in 1998. Michael O’Connell is Managing Director of the California South Coast Ecoregion for The Nature Conservancy. His involvement in conservation planning dates to the time when only four Habitat Conservation Plans existed; over 400 are now in preparation or are implemented. For 5 years, Mike directed The Nature Conservancy’s involvement in the Southern California NCCP program. Riki Ott has dedicated her academic training in marine biology and toxicology to help the public understand the effects of oil, mining, and timber industry activities on water quality and marine and aquatic ecosystems. She has helped citizens use this knowledge to redefine business practices and government accountability to improve the quality of life through environmental protection, social justice, and economic stability. Kristin Smith is Executive Director of the Copper River Watershed Project. For ten years she has worked in the public sector on low-income housing and community-development projects. She holds a Master of Public Policy degree from Harvard University. George N. Wallace is an Associate Professor at Colorado State University in the College of Natural Resources, where he teaches and does research in the areas of land use and protected area management. He also directs CSU’s Center for Protected Area Management, serves as a Larimer County Planning Commissioner, and owns and operates a farm that has won several stewardship awards. Steven L. Yaffee is a Professor of Natural Resource and Environmental Policy in the School of Natural Resources and Environment at the University of Michigan, where he directs the school’s Ecosystem Management Initiative, a center focused on imagining, evaluating, and promoting innovative approaches for sustainable natural resource management. Dr. Yaffee’s research focuses on collaboration and adaptive management in ecosystem management and public policies that affect biodiversity conservation. xv Introduction: New Approaches for a New Millennium Human activity over the past several hundred years has left a significant and growing footprint on planet Earth. In no period of human history has our species had a greater impact on the biophysical world. Ozone holes at the poles and microcontaminants in virtually every living organism attest to the far-reaching effects of human activities on every ecosystem. We build roads and log the hot zone of equatorial Africa and then carry emergent viruses across oceans. We burn neotropical rain forests to make way for grazing and farming on land that can sustain those practices for only a few short years. We mine ancient aquifers to make the deserts bloom, while other land-use practices expand the deserts of North Africa. We dam rivers for irrigation that wither the Caspian and Aral Seas. We harvest the world’s oceans until the catch is depleted and then move on to a new place or to another trophic level. We develop and use land with only the barest knowledge of the consequences of our actions on the complex food webs and the bioenergetics of oceanic and terrestrial systems too vast to under- stand, yet so vulnerable that we have altered them in irrevocable ways. In the United States, we reduce timber harvest on our public forests, while we increase our consumption of wood products and decry the cutting of boreal and tropical forests. We build cities in the desert and let them sprawl with far-flung subdivisions, while we ponder the politics and technology necessary to move water from the Great Lakes to the Southwest. We construct subdivisions over rich mesic farmlands of the Midwest, while building elaborate irrigation systems to grow crops in green circles on arid, short-grass prairie. We let chance plan our cities while we meticulously bioengineer transgenic crops and other species to solve problems we have created but do not understand. We cannot, however, effectively engineer what we do not understand, and what we largely do not understand is our impact on the ecosystems upon which we depend. During the twentieth century, we became detached from the land that supports us and often lost sight of its complexity. Although it is crucial that we consider the long-term consequences of 1 Figure I.1. Three examples of the application of ecosystem management principles in large landscapes. (a) (a) A Florida panther habitat in a mixture of agricultural fields and forests in Collier County, south Florida. (Photo by David Maehr.) (b) (b) The Malpai borderlands region of southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico, the site of innovative ecosystem approaches to sustaining ranching lifestyles and maintaining diverse and healthy native biota. (Photo by Charles Curtin.) (c) (c) Volunteers in the Chicago Wilderness initiative help maintain some 200,000 acres of forests, prairies, and wetlands in and around the heavily populated Chicago region. (Photo by Carol Freeman.) New Approaches for a New Millennium our actions on the ecological systems that support life on Earth, we typically fail to do so. Now, as we measure ozone holes at the poles, shrinking ice caps, rising seas, and the lack of fresh water, a growing knowledge about the impact of humans on the environment compels changes in our business-as-usual attitude. We are more than 6 billion people who have crossed into a new millennium, and we have a clear choice: to continue our destructive relationship with the ecological world or to diverge from the path taken for the last several hundred years. This book is about the application of the sciences of ecology and conservation biology to real-world problem solving. Emphasizing the complex ecological, socioeconomic, and institutional matrix in which natural resource management functions, it will illustrate how we can be more effective in that challenging arena. This book is also about people in communities of interest and communities of place— people who care so much about their quality of life today and in the future that they have chosen to work with others to improve the places where they live, work, and play, while restoring the land. It is about the interface of science, people, and their governments as they struggle to understand their collective impacts on ecosystems and change their approaches. It is about people who believe that, because their actions affect ecosystems in profound ways, they must learn to live more gently on the land. Here are a few examples (Figure I.1): • In south Florida, a coalition of public agencies, environmental groups, and private citizens are restoring and protecting critical habitat for the Florida panther and many other species on a million acres of private land. • A group of ecological and social scientists in China is trying to influence their government’s population control, emigration, and economic policies to better balance the needs of the local human community with the habitat needs of the last giant pandas living in the wild. • Amidst large pressures from development interests, nearly 1 million acres of native Arizona and New Mexican grasslands and forests are cooperatively managed by the Malpai Border- 3 lands Group to maintain ranching lifestyles and restore the natural processes that sustain a healthy, unfragmented landscape. • Along the Blackfoot River of Montana, ranchers and other private landowners are working together to restore the river while maintaining the rural working character of the landscape. They have restored 100 miles of the river, recreated 2100 acres of wetlands, and placed 45,000 acres in conservation easements. • More than 135 private and public organizations have created the Chicago Wilderness initiative to protect, restore, and manage native prairie, wetlands, and other natural communities in and around the city of Chicago. Their mission includes community outreach and education efforts. • In the Applegate Valley of Oregon, environmentalists, loggers, and government officials set aside their differences and found a common ground centered on managing for a healthy forest with natural and economic values. These and many other examples of communitybased approaches to ecosystem management affirm that we can, as Aldo Leopold wrote in 1938, “learn to live on a piece of land without spoiling it.” The people who are making progress toward resolving natural resource issues at the ecosystem level do so by avoiding prolonged court battles and win-lose situations. Success comes from rational discussion among groups with different viewpoints and the development of common goals. Sharing scientific information is, of course, essential to mutual understanding of the natural processes affected by human activity, but it is not, by itself, enough. The success stories come not only from understanding scientific information, but also from the motivations of various people and their ways of facilitating dialog and consensus to reach common goals. The Appearance of Ecosystem Management In the 1990s, natural resource management in the United States underwent a major change in philosophy and direction. As past efforts using top- 4 Introduction down, government-mandated, expert-driven approaches to managing natural resources failed or met with public resistance and resentment, new ideas came into play that took a different approach. For the first time in conservation history, shared decision making, cooperation rather than confrontation, and grass-roots, community-based involvement at the local level began to replace or supplement government-mandated programs imposed on landscapes from the outside. These efforts are also focusing on large natural systems (such as watersheds), rather than staying within artificial and ecologically meaningless straight lines on a map. Known variously as ecosystem management, community-based conservation, adaptive management, or landscape-level conservation, these efforts are not only working, but are sweeping through natural resource management agencies, nongovernmental organizations, the private sector, and even industry as a more reasonable way to conduct land and resource management. There is no going back at this point, and as we move further into the twenty-first century with an expanding human population and shrinking resource base, the demand for ecosystem management as an appropriate problem-solving mechanism will only increase. This book is intended to address this change in approach and to prepare you—today’s students of natural resource management and conservation— for the many challenges that await you as professionals. The book is based on three fundamental premises: 1. The effective and efficient use and management of Earth’s natural resources are critically important to both human welfare and the continuance of functional ecosystems and biological diversity on this planet. 2. The management of such use is an increasingly difficult challenge, as each year witnesses more people chasing fewer resources in a more contentious way. 3. Traditional university curricula may not fully prepare students in natural resource management programs for grappling with the extraordinarily complex, uncertain, multidimen- sional, and often contentious arena in which these challenges are played out. Our intention is to directly address the third premise: enabling you as students to more effectively deal with the second premise when you become professionals, so that the first premise can ultimately be achieved. But first we must ask whether these premises are true, or at least reasonable approximations. Let’s examine them in turn. First premise. Obviously, all of the resources humanity uses come from Earth, driven by the energy source of the sun. So in a trivial sense, at least, the first premise is true: We only have materials from Earth with which to prosper as a species. But in a less trivial vein, scientific evidence continues to show that functional ecosystems provide humanity with many and diverse services that we could not live without: oxygen production, purification of fresh water, erosion control, fertile soil production and retention, climate control and temperature amelioriation, food production, crop pollination, waste decomposition and detoxification, mitigation of floods and droughts, and so forth. And biologically diverse systems seem better than impoverished systems at providing these services. The loss of such functions cannot help but be harmful to humanity. At minimum, they are prohibitively costly to replace through technological means, and they obviously are harmful to the diversity of life on Earth. Second premise. Our experiences and those of other scientists and managers unequivocally indicate that natural resource management increasingly faces complex challenges. Special interests, ideologically driven politics, competition for limited space and resources by a growing human population, and an increasing disconnection from the land by Americans and others have combined to exploit natural systems in a degradative and unsustainable manner and offer challenging management dilemmas. Third premise. A trend in the second half of the twentieth century toward specialization and highly focused, disciplinary training in university curricula means that you may be ill-prepared to meet the challenges of a complex, contentious atmosphere that requires skills well beyond technical, scientific knowledge. We have repeatedly heard from natural New Approaches for a New Millennium resource professionals that their university training did not come close to preparing them for the nonscientific aspects of their jobs—the “people” parts of their work that often dominate their days. To better prepare you as professionals, we wish to introduce you to such a world in a “safe setting” where scenarios may be played out, experience gained, and new skills developed. This book is intended to actively engage you in problem solving by melding the scientific principles of conservation biology with the complex human dimensions that prevail in everyday life, with the goal of equipping you to address real issues in conservation and management. This problem-solving, inquiry-based mode of learning is, we think, more effective for professional development than the traditional lecture-and-listen mode, because conservation and resource management are dynamic activities that require active, engaged people able to adapt to changing circumstances. It is also vastly more exciting, as it enables you to grapple with problems and develop your own solutions through direct experience and participation, and apply your technical knowledge to real issues. Thus, this book and its accompanying course will likely be different from traditional classes you have had and books you have used. We note in particular that this is not a comprehensive textbook in conservation biology; there are other books that serve that purpose. Rather, we use basic principles of conservation biology, integrated with practical aspects of the human dimensions, to pursue and forge problem solving for real landscapes. How to Use This Book This book is structured around three main parts. Part I (Chapters 1–4) provides the conceptual toolbox of, and sets the stage for, ecosystem management. These chapters present the basic models and concepts that will be followed throughout. Part II (Chapters 5–9) provides the biological and ecological background necessary to conduct effective ecosystem management by discussing levels of biological organization from genes progressively up through landscapes. This will be a review for 5 many, and new material for others, and will get everyone on the same playing field. Part III (Chapters 10–12) uses the various human dimensions to implement the technical, ecological knowledge that you have within contemporary socioeconomic and institutional settings. In Chapters 2–12, problem-solving exercises directly engage you with the material at hand. These exercises are perhaps the most critical aspect of this approach, as they will challenge you to use the materials in an applied, hands-on manner and often will give you the opportunity to discuss the materials (sometimes in a heated fashion!) with your fellow students. In places, the material is also complemented with “boxes,” or supplementary material having some bearing on the subject at hand. These should also enrich your experiences and stimulate further thinking on the topic. There are eight essays—“Experiences in Ecosystem Management”—presented at the end of selected chapters. These are firsthand accounts of ecosystem management and community-based conservation, written by the people who were there and are trying to make this approach work on the ground in real places. Although the essays do not necessarily correspond to the specific contents of the chapters, they are good examples of the challenges that are occuring in many places of finding innovative ways to reduce conflict and live better upon the land. You should use these essays as guides to applying this approach to real-world situations. Each essay ends with several questions that offer fodder for further discussion on that particular ecosystem experience. These will prove very useful, as they derive from real situations that professionals have had to grapple with. What really sets this course apart from others, and, we think, makes it quite exciting, is that it is built around hypothetical but realistic and complex landscape scenarios that you will work with to make decisions and recommendations in an ecosystem management framework. Three scenarios are included in Chapter 1: one represents the northeastern or midwestern part of the United States (The ROLE Model); a second represents the intermountain west (SnowPACT); and a third reflects the humid, lowland southeast (PDQ 6 Introduction Revival). Individually and as a class you will become intimately familiar with one or more of these scenarios, including their geographic settings; ecological features (such as major habitat types, prevalent species, hydrology, climate, and management issues); and the human landscape, including the socioeconomic features, political scene, and major players. The scenarios will be used throughout the course to address natural resource management problems and issues that represent those likely to arise in such settings. We recommend that you address most of these problems and issues as interactive groups or an entire class and seek solutions collectively via discussion and careful planning. The problems and issues you will face are intentionally complex, sloppy, difficult—and maybe even frustrating at times. But they are realistic and reflect the problems that professionals in this field face nearly every day. The goal is to come to grips with the realities of the world so that you may be more competent as a professional to confront such challenges when it really counts. You will find that often there is no one correct solution—or many possible solutions—for a given problem. And you will not know whether the responses you develop will actually work. There are no patently right or wrong answers to most exercises, and no “answer guide” is provided to check your results. This approach reflects how the world actually operates; you must learn to deal with vagueness and uncertainty, and make decisions with incomplete information and conflicting pressures. You also must learn to work with people outside your profession who represent different value systems, hold perspectives that may be unfamiliar to you, and have the power to do things that you cannot do or cannot stop. The approach we lay out here will provide an important opportunity to experience a realistic professional setting before you find yourself in such a situation where you eventually work—when it really counts, and when the future of the natural and human communities may be at stake. Have fun with the scenarios! Embrace them— learn the players, begin to “inhabit” the places. Feel free to “think outside the box” to develop in- novative solutions to very complex problems. Use this as an opportunity to apply what you already know about science and human behavior, combined with new materials and skills you will need to learn and develop, to address very practical and applied issues. Do not feel bound by convention, though you will be bound by laws and community standards of behavior. Always remember to act with integrity, conviction, and attention to detail. Regardless of your personal feelings about an issue, they should not cloud your objectivity as a scientist or your ethical obligations as a citizen. You may find yourself making recommendations you are uncomfortable with or would prefer not to do. This again reflects the challenges that professionals must deal with every day. The scenarios, and the book as a whole, focus on the United States. We do this for two reasons: (1) Our collective experiences are in the U.S., and it is best to write what you know about; and (2) many of the ideas and approaches used here have been developed by and used in resource management in the U.S. Regardless, this approach and the ideas behind it fundamentally are without political boundaries. The scenarios are useful anywhere, or they can be modified to fit the special needs of any locality. AN OVERVIEW AND THE FLOW OF THE TEXT Our approach will be practical, will orient you toward active problem solving, and will center on realistic land management problems and issues. Chapter 1 provides the landscape scenarios that you will use to address management problems throughout the remainder of the book. Of course, this chapter should be read first (perhaps more than once) and the scenario information carefully absorbed. Chapter 2 formally defines ecosystem management and examines how successful action at an ecosystem scale requires the involvement and long-term commitment of ecological and social scientists, human communities, and government. Although they can produce short-term results, single-species oriented and unilateral, top-down approaches to managing natural resources often fail when applied to larger-scale systems or over New Approaches for a New Millennium longer time frames. Chapter 3 considers why uncertainty and variation dominate natural and human systems, pointing out how simple solutions focusing on only one or a few parameters do not take into account the complexity of most ecosystems. In Chapter 4, we see that natural resource policies and actions can be viewed as experiments that provide opportunities to learn about ecosystems, rather than prescriptions to be faithfully followed. The inherent complexity and uncertainty of ecosystems mandate the monitoring and evaluation of management actions, and modifications of our adaptive management approach as needed. Chapters 5–9 present advances in the fields of genetics, population ecology, and landscape ecology that have given us new concepts and scientific tools with which to better understand ecosystems. These chapters collectively form a “primer” of conservation biology. They may be a review for some students and new material for others; regardless, they will lay the foundation for bringing science onto a firm footing with socioeconomic and institutional considerations in good management. In Chapter 10, we discuss why natural resources cannot be managed effectively without public support. Court battles over ecosystem or environmental issues have not solved ecological problems. Lawsuits are time-consuming and expensive, and they produce losers as well as winners. Dialog between scientists and public interest groups can result in mutual goals that meet both ecological and human needs. People protect what they learn to value and fail to protect what they do not know how to value. Clearly, natural resources cannot be managed effectively without the application of ob- 7 jective, science-based ecological understanding, yet they also cannot be managed successfully without public support. The scale of ecosystem management necessitates cooperation across multiple government jurisdictions and on both public and private lands. Piecemeal actions do not work as well as coordinated actions that focus on common objectives. A systematic and explicit process is essential to sustaining action and evaluating progress. Chapters 11 and 12 are concerned with the process of strategic thinking: deciding what the objectives should be, how to achieve them, and how to measure success. You may notice that, contrary to many scientific textbooks, we generally do not include source citations for information within the text (other than to attribute direct quotes or ideas). Rather than break up the message with reference support for every point made, we conclude each chapter with appropriate references and suggested readings on that topic. We encourage you to pursue these writings as authoritative sources for the topics; they will provide more specialized information on each topic than we can offer here. Also, we move back and forth between metric and nonmetric measurements. Virtually all scientific work is done using metric units (meters, hectares, and so forth), but much conversation in the “real world” uses nonmetric measures (yards, acres, and so on). We retained both of these approaches to reflect the complexities of the world and to illustrate the flexibility needed by professionals to work within both scientific and nonscientific circles. Finally, note that terms in boldface are important enough to be formally defined in a glossary toward the back of the book. P A R T I The Conceptual Toolbox R T E C H A P 1 The Landscape Scenarios YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH THIS BOOK AND THE SUCCESS of this course largely will revolve around and depend upon the landscape scenarios. These are where you will work on many of the problems and questions embedded in the chapters, to help you work through and “experience” the materials presented. Get to know your scenario thoroughly in every aspect: ecologically, socioeconomically, politically, and geographically. Three landscape scenarios follow. All of them are equally challenging, and they all address the same basic problems. • The ROLE Model is set in a midwestern/ northeastern landscape of mixed industrial and agricultural land use. • SnowPACT is set in the intermountain West, with large private and public ownerships and associated conflicts of changing uses. • PDQ Revival is set in the humid Southeast, is influenced by a major military base, and cap- tures the changing sociopolitical climate of that region. Your instructor will inform you which scenario(s) to use. As you read the assigned scenario, begin to digest its richness and complexities. Study the maps, look at the photographs, and get a good feel for the landscape. Begin to “inhabit” the place and become part it. You will refer to the scenario throughout the course and use it as a reference source for detailed information. In the chapters that follow, you will use your growing scientific knowledge base, combined with processes and techniques we will cover, to address and explore many challenging questions and issues to be addressed in this place. Dive in and have fun! Note that each scenario contains names of individuals who play various roles in those systems. All names are fictitious, and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental. 11 12 PART I: The Conceptual Toolbox THE ROLE MODEL Just 6 months ago, an unprecedented event occurred in the area known as Round Lake (Figure 1.1). Representatives of communities, agencies, and interest groups stood together before a press conference and read the following statement: A n old adage says, “Today is the first day of the rest of your life.” We can paraphrase by saying today is the first day of the rest of the Round Lake Ecosystem’s life. We are here today to sign an agreement that dedicates the people, agencies, and resources of our area to a new style of managing our natural resources and environment. We pledge to work together to assure that the qualities we love and need—clean water, clean air, abundant and diverse wildlife and fish, healthy land, and productive farms and forests—will continue and prosper through time and space. We have chosen to call this initiative the Round Lake Ecosystem Model—or ROLE Model—because we believe this effort can truly be a model for ourselves and the rest of the nation. We know that the ways of the past, which have fragmented land and communities and have pitted neighbor against neigh- THE ROLE MODEL AGREEMENT The Round Lake Ecosystem Model Agreement is a simple document with profound implications. Most importantly, it establishes the Round Lake Ecosystem Team as a broadly based coalition of representatives of all groups that wish to join. It has an initial 10-year charter, with the expectation that it will be renewed continuously and become a leading focus for community planning and action. The state Department of Natural Resources (DNR), through its secretary, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, through its regional director, have committed their resources to provide the base operations for the team. Each agency has agreed to assign one professional to coordinate the team’s work for the next 5 years—commitments that were considered essential (and inspirational). In addi- bor, cannot continue. We all have too much to lose by those behaviors. And we have so much to gain by working together, using reason, and seeking win-win solutions to issues. We often talk about being role models. We know that our children will behave as they see us behave, so we try to be honest, just, and forgiving within our families. We know that as responsible members of the public community, we must establish rules and procedures that are fair, open, and respectful of others. To these roles and role models, today we add the necessity of treating the land and its resources with the same care and respect that we extend to other humans. We recognize that we depend on the health and productivity of our lands to provide us the essentials of life—air, water, soil, plants, and animals— and also the beauty and comfort that nurtures our character. Today we begin a long, difficult, and expensive journey, but a journey that we know will take us where we want to go. We are confident the people of the Round Lake ecosystem want to take this journey. We are proud that our citizens, businesses, agencies, and community groups are leading themselves and the nation in becoming the ROLE Model! tion, each agency has agreed to assign its most senior local staff person to serve on the team. These are the DNR’s District Director, Margaret Staples, and the Bingham National Wildlife Refuge manager, Oliver Adams. And, of course, these agencies have pledged the support of their staff and physical resources to help along the way. All signatories to the agreement are automatically members of the team, and a subset has been elected by the members to comprise the Steering Committee. The list is impressive (Steering Committee members are noted by an asterisk): ROLE Model Members Benson City Council* Bingham National Wildlife Refuge* CHAPTER 13 1: The Landscape Scenarios Truman National Forest La te ra lm ne ai or D Crawford State Forest er iv rR ee Northeast Power Company Dam 12 Crawford State Forest Crawford State Forest Lake City 12 Hydropower dams Mixed private forest and farm tracts Round Lake Be nt C r City of Benson Little Lake k ee Bingham National Wildlife Refuge Golf course ai Dr na ge n ca al Cranberry fields Current and former wetlands TLC La te l ra Row crops and dairy m ne ai or Figure 1.1. A map of the Round Lake ecosystem. Crawford County Planning Commission* Cranberry Growers’ Association* Cranberry Marsh Audubon Society Crawford County Grange* Department of Natural Resources* Friends of Round Lake Hardwood Lumber Manufacturers’ Association Hunters for Waterfowl* Lake City Council* League of Women Voters Little Lake Shoreline Association Mid-State Outdoor Writers Association Northeast Power Company* Penowa Indian Nation* Round Lake Area Chamber of Commerce* Round Lake Forest Landowners Association* Society for North American Plants (SNAP) Truman National Forest* Trust for Land Conservation (TLC)* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers* U.S. Natural Resource Conservation Service Walleyes for Tomorrow The agreement lists several core values the group chose as guidelines for their long-term operation: The ROLE Model’s Core Values We seek to create a place that meets the needs of ourselves and future residents. We seek to do this in a way that will be a model of civility, common sense, rationality, and efficiency. We pledge ourselves to be guided by the following principles: • We will be inclusive, rather than exclusive, inviting all people and viewpoints; but we will not tolerate attempts to delay or derail our efforts. 14 PART I: The Conceptual Toolbox • We will use all the expert knowledge we can get to help guide decisions, including that of scientists, economists, and sociologists; but we will not shrink from decisions or actions because of “insufficient data.” • We will supplement the maps of ownership and jurisdiction with maps of natural features and functions. • We will work with all decision-making groups, from county commissioners to national agencies, to bring the ideas and goodwill of our citizens forward. • We will find win-win situations, so that no individuals lose in decisions that bring gains to all of us. • We will seek voluntary cooperation rather than rules, regulations, and laws. • We will set our vision on the long-term and will be prepared to discuss openly the short-term costs of such a vision. • We will be realistic, recognizing that we start from here and that our first steps probably will be small. • We will succeed! THE ROUND LAKE ECOSYSTEM The Round Lake ecosystem is a large watershed that drains into the Great Lakes–St. Lawrence system. The major water system is the Little Lake– Bent Creek–Round Lake–Deer River drainage, which generally flows northeast. Most of the area was glaciated in the Wisconsinian era, but fingers of unglaciated lands intrude from the south. The elevation is about 800 feet, with flat to rolling terrain. The glaciated areas support rich farms and relatively productive forestlands in a mixed patchwork that reminds people of a calendar photograph (Figure 1.2). The Round Lake ecosystem is split into two primary physiographic regions by a lateral moraine that runs north to south just west of Round Lake (see Figure 1.1). The soils to the east of the moraine are a mix of silty loams overlaying a complex geology of glacial till that forms the flat outwash plain to the east. This creates a shallow aquifer with high transmissibility through the sand and gravel outwash with scattered clay lenses. Groundwater flows in a general northeastern direction, but flow varies from location to location because of the clay formations. West of the moraine, sandstone and limestone formations underlay the thinner soils of what once was contiguous forest. The area is dominated by Round Lake, a 40,000acre natural lake named for its nearly circular shape. Round Lake is relatively shallow (maximum depth 85 feet; average depth 30 feet) and has expansive littoral areas, some rocky and some silty; Figure 1.2. The Round Lake ecosystem has mixed land uses of field crops interspersed with deciduous forests and natural lakes. (Photo by Larry A. Nielsen.) CHAPTER 1: The Landscape Scenarios it stratifies in summer and is ice-covered in most winters. The lake is roughly divided into two basins, separated by a relatively shallow section that runs west-east across the lower third of the lake. The southern basin has relatively slow water turnover rates because the main flow of water through the lake occurs in the larger, northern basin. The lake holds a typical fauna of warm-water and cool-water fishes, including largemouth and smallmouth bass, various panfishes, walleyes, carp, and suckers; 33 fish species were recorded in the most recent biological surveys. Round Lake is used extensively for recreational boating, served by substantial marinas in the towns of Benson and Lake City. The southern shore of Round Lake was once connected to a wetland system almost as large as Round Lake itself. Much of the wetland area was drained for farming. Today most of the farms in the wetland region grow cranberries; the Round Lake region supplies about 30% of the nation’s industrial cranberries (i.e., those that go into food processing). A portion of the wetlands is protected via the Bingham National Wildlife Refuge, a 9000acre refuge created in the 1940s. The refuge is named after the nineteenth-century artist George Caleb Bingham, who did an extensive set of paintings depicting pioneer and Native American life along the southern shore (many of those paintings are on display in the Lake City Art Museum). Other parts of the wetland have been drained for golf course developments; other wetlands, especially those close to the lakeshore, are privately owned. Little Lake is a smaller version of Round Lake, about 10 miles upstream, linked to Round Lake via Bent Creek. Little Lake, 12,000 acres in area, has a similar limnological profile to Round Lake and a similar fauna. However, walleyes are uncommon in the lake, prohibited from upstream movements by the series of low-head power dams on Bent Creek. The land around Little Lake was once owned entirely by Howard Brown, who invented the movable carriage for the typewriter. Brown, who was somewhat eccentric, wanted to be able to stand on the shore of the lake and own everything he could see. He succeeded, but his family was not as fortunate financially, and after his death in 1944, they 15 sold off the land bit by bit. In the 1970s, the family regained its feet financially, realized that they had lost most of what had been a tremendous resource, and gave the remaining parcel, about 5000 acres and 1 mile of shoreline, to the Trust for Land Conservation (TLC). Truman National Forest, in the northwestern portion of the watershed, is named after President Harry Truman. The land had been in federal ownership since the 1920s, after it had been logged, farmed, and abandoned. Truman issued an executive order making it a National Forest in 1948, along with several others in the eastern U.S. It contains a largely even-aged forest, with most stands 80–100 years old. Major stands are white oak, red oak, sugar maple, hemlock, and white pine. Truman National Forest has been one of the very few national forests that conduct profitable timber sales, on approximately 200,000 of its 300,000 acres. Truman is a true multiple-use forest, with major recreational uses and extensive interests in developing old-growth forests from the 5000 acres of old growth remaining. The lands that fall within the Round Lake area include a mixture of mature forests and about half of the old-growth tracts. Managers at Truman National Forest have looked at their old growth in the Round Lake region and decided that they should develop a management plan that eventually will link their oldgrowth remnants into a continuous band. They are particularly interested in using this base for linking with other old-growth and mature forests on state and private lands. Crawford State Forest is a three-unit forest in the region. Just like the Truman, it has mostly mature stands of mixed hardwoods with occasional stands of hemlock. Each unit of the forest is about 5000 acres, the minimum size the state will accept or keep as state forest. The state forest is surrounded by mixed farmland and private forestland; most private tracts are small (averaging 55 acres), and the owners have other jobs that provide their major income. Real estate values are soaring anywhere near the Crawford and Truman forests. Larger tracks of private agricultural land are being divided into 3to-10-acre home sites and sold to people who 16 PART I: The Conceptual Toolbox want to be close to nature while remaining within commuting distance of Lake City. THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SETTING Lake City is a city of 100,000 residents on the northeastern shore of Round Lake (Figure 1.3). Like most cities of its size, it grew rapidly around 1900, spurred by the Industrial Revolution. It profited greatly from its proximity to larger midwestern cities. A rail line put Lake City on the path of agricultural products moving north and east and manufactured products moving south and west. Lake City developed a diversified economic base, which continues now. Always a civic-minded city, Lake City has built a reputation for being a good place to live. Annual surveys place it about halfway down the list of the “100 Best Places to Live in America.” Lake City’s long-time mayor, Tom Morning, is the perfect representative of the town. He is down-to-earth, action-oriented, trusting of people, suspicious of government, ambitious, and hard working. Although the mayor was slow to warm to the idea of the ROLE Model, once he became convinced that it could be the way to move Lake City up the list of the Best 100, he got behind it fully. Because of its civic character, Lake City is alive with groups that work on its behalf. The group known as Friends of Round Lake works constantly to keep the water clean and the lake accessible to Figure 1.3. Lake City is a prosperous community surrounding the outlet of Round Lake into the Deer River. (Photo by Larry A. Nielsen.) all citizens. They annually sponsor shoreline cleanups, coordinate boating safety classes, and sponsor an annual Aquatic Envirothon. They have pledged their membership to being active in the ROLE Model idea, suggesting especially that they would love to stage community events that would get people involved—and might generate money. A series of other similar organizations feel and act the same way, although they sometimes tend to be a bit more narrow in their interests. Friends of Round Lake has clearly become the leading environmental/civic group in the area. For example, the group’s part-time executive director, Chris Gallagher, has just been asked by the governor to become co-chairman of his new Commission for the 21st Century Environment. Benson is across Round Lake from Lake City, where Bent Creek enters the lake. Benson has 20,000 residents, down from its highest population of nearly 50,000. Benson has not been as fortunate as Lake City. It thrived on heavy industries, which were located along the rail-line in the town and down Bent Creek toward Little Lake. The rusting of the industries, starting in the early 1960s, took its toll on the economics of the community. When Interstate 12 was completed in 1967, continuing west from Lake City, rather than following the rail-line south, Benson went into an economic downturn. Many of the heavy industries closed up, leaving old facilities that have now become environmental problems. Long considered a rival of Lake City, the city of Benson has recently realized that it should look to Lake City as a partner. Nonetheless, Benson and its mayor, Nancy Lyons, remain fairly traditional. Although signatories to the ROLE Model Agreement, they enter the team fairly skeptical and certainly cautious. Benson has two bright spots economically. The leading citizens of Benson always lived on the south side of town, along the lakefront. In recent years, several residential developments have begun popping up on the south side of town and beyond. Folks from Lake City and surrounding areas have begun buying property on 5-to-10-acre sites, building upscale houses and generally raising the prestige of the area. Several major real estate investment trusts, searching for relatively cheap sites CHAPTER 1: The Landscape Scenarios for development in proximity of desirable communities, have taken options on tracts of several thousand acres each. The second bright spot has been the growth of golf in the region. Prominent Benson citizens funded and built a 9-hole country club golf course in the 1920s, south of the city and adjacent to the Bingham Wildlife Refuge. In the post-war boom time of the early 1950s, they expanded the course to 18 holes. The quality of the course, along with its beautiful setting (holes go from forest to wetland to lakeshore settings), attracted increasing interest. In conjunction with real estate developers, the club went semipublic in the 1970s, selling condominiums along the fairways. In 1990, a second golf course was built, along with a medium-sized conference hotel complex. Today, plans are under way for a major golf resort, with two 18-hole championship courses, 200 fairway condominiums, and a 200-room hotel; the resort will be called Sandhill at Bent Creek. The Round Lake region is also strongly linked to the Penowa People, a Native American tribe. The tribe lived around Round and Little Lakes when the first pioneers came to the area. They fished the lakes, gathered wild rice in the marsh of Round Lake, and eventually practiced some farming. They fished the spring runs of walleyes that came up Deer River and Bent Creek, spearing spawning walleyes. They smoked and dried the walleye meat. The Penowans chose the wrong side in the war of 1812, however, fighting with the British against the United States. After the war, they were convinced to cede their lands to the U.S. government, but they retained their rights to hunt, fish, and gather wild rice for both their own use and trade. Today about 1000 Penowans live in the Round Lake area. Tribal members have continued to gather wild rice through time and sell it through local outlets at a high price. Known for its large, meaty grains and earthy flavor, Penowan wild rice is considered a delicacy throughout the region and has been tapped by organic and health food restaurants in the East. The business thrives today. Tribal members also have been increasingly interested in the reestablishment of their walleye fishing traditions and the possibilities of developing a 17 highly profitable business along the lines of their wild rice ventures. They are increasingly interested in reestablishing runs of native walleyes, but only if legitimate stocks will be used. SPECIAL RESOURCES The following species illustrate some of the leading “players” in the biological and ecological issues that need to be addressed with the ROLE Model ecosystem. WALLEYES. The walleye population in Round Lake is quite vigorous, supported by a DNR walleye hatchery at the mouth of Bent Creek that annually catches and strips thousands of adults, raises the eggs to fry, and stocks them in the lake. Through time, the hatchery has supplemented its catches with eggs brought in from Lake Erie and the Ohio River. The walleye fishery is closely monitored by Walleyes for Tomorrow, a group whose members have many ideas for improving the fishery. Walleyes for Tomorrow employs their own biologist, Jacek Wajda, who reviews agency plans and participates in all technical and citizen task forces. The group is interested in stocking various strains. They also want a fishway around the Northeast Power Company Dam, to get back the walleye runs their grandparents talk about (Figure 1.4), and are pushing to introduce zander, the European equivalent of the walleye. (One reason they hired Wajda is his previous experience working with zander in Poland.) Walleyes in Little Lake are another story. Walleyes disappeared from Little Lake in the 1920s, when a series of low-head hydropower dams were built on Bent Creek; four dams still exist and still block upstream migration. In 1970, when the DNR unexpectedly caught 2 ripe females and 20 ripe males in routine spring netting in Little Lake, they immediately spawned them and kept them separately in the hatchery. They restocked the fry in Little Lake, and a small, unstable population has developed. The Little Lake walleye population has grown and shrunk repeatedly over time, but it has never grown to a size to support a fishery. Recently, Walleyes for Tomorrow has demanded 18 PART I: The Conceptual Toolbox Figure 1.4. The Northeast Power Company Dam is an aging hydroelectric facility on the Deer River downstream from Lake City. (Photo by Larry A. Nielsen.) that the DNR increase the stocking of walleyes in Round Lake in response to several weak year classes. The Penowan tribe, the DNR, and Walleyes for Tomorrow also have proposed developing Little Lake as a trophy-only walleye lake, using the walleye population already in that lake. They wish to develop a sport fishery to rival Lake Erie within 5 years. They also wish to directly compete for an annual booking on the North American Walleye Tournament that will bring more than $3 million to the local community if successful. THE SHINERS. Maps of the state distribution of fishes always show many dots for Little Lake. It has been an ichthyologist’s delight for a century. Early surveys by David Starr Jordan remarked about the unusual diversity of shiners. Later surveys confirmed the reality: Little Lake held an unusual diversity of cyprinids (minnows) and percids (darters and perch), including five species of a shiner genus known nowhere else except Little Lake and Lake Erie. The shiners are quite abundant within the lake, but are carefully watched because of their uniqueness. The shiners are particularly interesting because they are hosts for the glochidia (larval form) of a species of freshwater mussel, the radiant mussel, that lives along the shores of Little Lake and nowhere else. The radiant mussel is also unusual because it is a lake mussel, living on the rocky shoreline areas of Little Lake, which includes TLC property. The shiners also have a special significance to fishing-tackle buffs. They were the models for the original five colors and patterns used by the American Tackle Company for their “Looks-Alive lures” in the 1930s. BOG TURTLE. The wetlands south of Round Lake are home to the bog turtle, a widely spread but uncommon turtle found east of the Mississippi, from New York to South Carolina (Figure 1.5). The bog turtle lives in freshwater marshes and clear, slowmoving streams with muddy bottoms. It is a small turtle, seldom growing larger than 4 inches across. It is an omnivore, but dearly loves mussels and crayfish. It grows slowly and becomes sexually mature at 8 years. It is a secretive animal, except when it suns on rocks or logs. Rather like a sea turtle, it leaves the water to lay eggs (1–6 per nest) in June, moving to more upland areas as much as a half-mile away from water. Young turtles hatch in August or September and take the reverse route back to the water. The most successful reproduction occurs in three areas: the Bingham National Wildlife Refuge, CHAPTER Figure 1.5. Bog turtles are found in the southern regions of Round Lake and in the swamps and uplands adjacent to the lake. (Photo by R.G. Tuck, Jr.) the fringes of ponds on the back-nine of the original golf course, and in an undeveloped wetland just past the last cranberry field. From these areas, postreproductive and young turtles spread out to at least a dozen known habitat areas along the southern edge of Round Lake. Bog turtles have been declining gradually over time, partly due to illegal sales (a pair can sell for $2000 in Japan and Europe), but mostly for a suite of reasons that have not been clearly defined. Although not currently listed as a protected species, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is closely watching its decline, for a judgment of listing as threatened. Recent studies have also found another interesting fact: Bog turtles have high concentrations of heavy metals in their shells and pesticides in their soft tissues. A 1964 research report by a local herpetologist stated: “The seasonal flooding and natural summer draining of the wetlands that surround the upland nesting sites are necessary to the bog turtles’ survival. Either too much or too little water at the wrong time of year can suppress nesting success to near zero.” A recent census of the three known ROLE nesting areas (A, B, and C on Figure 1.6) found the following: A Number of nests/area Mean % of eggs hatched/nest Mean clutch size 19 1: The Landscape Scenarios Bingham C 18 6 31 80% 35% 70% 5 5 6 THE CERULEAN WARBLER AND OTHER NEOTROPICAL MIGRANTS. The cerulean warbler has declined by nearly 50% in the past decade in the area, as shown by annual breeding bird counts. The warbler lives in the highest branches of dominant and codominant trees in mature forests. It is found in relatively high densities in the southern area of Truman National Forest, but almost always in oldgrowth stands and the surrounding mature stands. It is especially fond of hemlock stands. The cerulean warbler is also found occasionally in private forestlands around the national forest, and in late summer, immature birds are often found in the three tracts of Crawford State Forest. Rarely, however, are nests of cerulean warblers found in the state forest; when nests are found, they are always in the largest, eastern tract. A college student recently analyzed the data from annual breeding bird surveys, from the late 1960s to the present, for the three tracts of Crawford State Forest. He found an interesting pattern of distribution and changes in abundance: Present in Latest Survey Species East Central West Cerulean warbler Acadian flycatcher Blackburnian warbler Olive-sided flycatcher Wood thrush Great crested flycatcher Eastern woodland peewee Hooded warbler Ovenbird Yellow-billed cuckoo Red-eyed vireo Ruby-throated hummingbird Scarlet tanager Yellow-throated vireo x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Decreasing Increasing Stable Decreasing Stable x Increasing Stable Increasing x x x x x x x Status Decreasing Stable Increasing Decreasing Decreasing Stable THE HEMLOCK WOOLLY ADELGID. The hemlock woolly adelgid is a small aphidlike insect that feeds on several species of hemlock. Infestations are recognizable by the white, woolly looking material that the insects produce. Native to Asia, the 20 PART I: The Conceptual Toolbox Round Lake C A B e ag ain r D ch dit Existing golf courses Cranberry fields Bingham National Wildlife Refuge Planned Sandhill at Bent Creek Bog turtle nesting sites Lily bush stands Sandhill crane nesting sites Migration route Figure 1.6. A detailed map of the southern shoreline of Round Lake. insect was introduced into the United States accidentally and has been spreading slowly across the country. It has been relatively harmless on hemlocks and other conifers in the western U.S., but has been very destructive on eastern hemlocks. It attacks the young branches of hemlock trees, sucking out the sap, destroying the tissue in the process, and killing an infected tree in 1–4 years. Serious infestations are now present about 100 miles east of the Round Lake watershed, moving westward about 10 miles per year. A large number of studies are being conducted to develop control methods, including mechanical removal, planting genetically engineered resistant species (using genes from western hemlocks), and pesticide control. Studies of two natural predators from Japan, the oribatid mite and the ladybird beetle, have indicated that biological control may be possible. A major agent of dispersal is contact with animals that move through the trees, including cerulean warblers, squirrels, porcupines, and deer. Clear-cutting of infested stands is often recommended for these reasons and for the effective salvaging of damaged trees. SANDHILL CRANES. Sandhill cranes return annually to the Round Lake area, taking up residence south of the lake (Figure 1.7). They nest in selected areas in the Bingham Wildlife Refuge, on the existing golf courses, and in the area where the new golf development is planned; they build nests in large mounds of grass or uprooted plants, usually on slightly elevated hills or drier ground. They feed in marshes or on prairielike abandoned and active farm fields. For as long as anyone can remember, bird watchers have come to the area to watch the CHAPTER 1: The Landscape Scenarios 21 They have hired a new part-time staff biologist to work on the property and its possibilities. Shondra Jefferson has taken the position as her first job, right out of Tuskegee University’s conservation biology program. Figure 1.7. Sandhill cranes are common and popular in the Round Lake ecosystem. (Photo by John and Karen Hollingsworth, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.) unusual and active courtship process of the sandhill cranes. The wild dancing and strutting is such a sight that PBS (the Public Broadcasting Service) has filmed the activities and featured them in several nature documentaries for television. Sandhills do not currently nest in the TLC property (which has yet to receive a name), but several sites appear to be ideal for nesting, with raised hillocks located at appropriate intervals near the edge of Little Lake. The TLC folks are eager to attract sandhills to their property, but they are at a loss as to how. They have suggested that trapping some adults and/or young from the refuge and transferring them to their property would be good, but they cannot seem to get by an imposing set of state and federal regulations. The Trust for Land Conservation is also interested in making their holding on Little Lake as significant as possible. Therefore, they are open to the idea of expanding their holdings, trading lands for other more significant lands, or operating within a larger context of adjoining lands that have various conservation measures (e.g., easements). FRESHWATER MUSSELS. In addition to the radiant mussel, which lives in Little Lake, Bent Creek holds a suite of freshwater mussels. Although beds once occupied the whole length of stream, now they are found only within the first half-mile or so below each of the low-head hydropower dams. As with most freshwater mussels, these populations seem to be troubled. Size distributions show that the populations are getting increasingly older, with few intermediate-aged individuals present. Concern has been growing because zebra mussels are moving up the Deer River from the Great Lakes; however, no zebra mussels have been found upstream of the Northeast Power Company Dam. LILY BUSH. Bingham Refuge contains several selfsustaining stands of the federally threatened lily bush, a medium-sized evergreen bush that grows in relatively open woodlands with well-drained soils. It is found on the refuge’s higher elevations, atop the glacial drumlins that dot the property, and in a few locations off the refuge along the edge of the lateral moraine. The plant is called the lily bush because it is usually associated with a complex of wildflowers from the lily family. Wildflower enthusiasts look for the distinctive patch of lily bush (a low shrub with dark bark and bright green, elongated leaves that flutter in the breeze) and know that they are also likely to find eastern troutlily, midland Camaslily, and wood lily. The complex also includes a characteristic set of other wildflowers from the lilyof-the-valley and iris families. Though generally hardy and relatively free from insect problems, the lily bush is susceptible to gypsy moths and particularly prone to overbrowsing by deer in late winter. Although not a preferred food item of deer, their late-winter browsing will kill whole stands of the shrub. Ecologists have estimated that deer densities in excess of 15 per square mile will jeopardize the lily bush. In addition to the known populations of the lily 22 PART I: The Conceptual Toolbox bush south of Round Lake, scattered stands are found along the moraine north of Interstate 14. A few stands have been mapped on drumlins in the Crawford State Forest. These stands have become increasingly isolated and surrounded by maturing timber stands in the forest. A 1935 botanical survey that helped establish the boundary of the federal forest reported that many species of the lily family can be found on the drumlins immediately south of the proposed forest boundary. It is likely that more stands exist on private lands surrounding Crawford. However, the drumlins that dot the private landholdings have not been surveyed recently. WHITE-TAILED DEER AND ELK. White-tailed deer are the basis of a thriving hunting industry—as well as having become the area’s biggest pest (Figure 1.8). According to the DNR, the carrying capacity for deer in the area is 22 per square mile; the current density is 31 per square mile. The consequence of deer overpopulation is the elimination of almost all forest regeneration, as well as the loss of most native wildflowers. Deer consume virtually everything that the timber industry likes (they leave striped maple, a low-value timber crop, and hay-scented ferns, which crowd out other vegetation). For successful forest regeneration, harvested areas must be fenced to keep out deer for 5 years after harvest. The mess is spilling over into other places as well, with deer and people coming into more contact via vehicle collisions, the eating of landscaping plants, depredating crops, and even roaming down city streets. Lyme disease is on the increase as well, with three cases reported last year, all in children on hikes with the county nature program. For a decade, the DNR has been trying to reduce the herd, and these efforts are working. In 1980, the density was 38 deer per square mile. Recently, however, the hunting lobby has been getting restless, because hunting is becoming more difficult. Deer hunters want the density to go back up. Deer on the Bingham Refuge also have become a problem. Cross-country skiing on the golf courses and snowmobile activity in and around Figure 1.8. White-tailed deer have become so abundant in the region that most people consider them pests. The problem is especially acute in the Bingham National Wildlife Refuge. (Photo by Larry A. Nielsen.) the Bingham Refuge have concentrated deer onto the refuge during much of the winter. Winter deer densities on the refuge are estimated at twice the region’s average. Human activities in the area around Bingham have made hunter access to the area increasingly difficult. Antihunting sentiment and demonstrations on the roadways leading to and from Bingham have made hunters uncomfortable. Fewer people hunt the refuge each year, and many have decided to hunt on the agricultural lands north of the interstate highway instead. The DNR also has another idea: to reintroduce elk. Elk were native in the watershed, but were eliminated during the 1850s. Sportsmen have learned of the successful establishment of elk herds in a number of places around the Midwest and East, and they want them back here as well. The Penowans like the idea, too. They are interested in leasing land to breed elk and slaughter them for sale in restaurants and specialty markets. Farmers are less excited, because elk are known to carry a variety of respiratory diseases that can be transmitted to cattle—and the area’s number 1 agricultural crop is milk. The forestry community is not happy either, because they see elk as large deer, capable of eating more and higher than even deer can. CHAPTER 1: The Landscape Scenarios SPECIAL INTERESTS AND ISSUES Several issues and special interests are and will be important drivers of decision making within the ROLE Model ecosystem. THE CRANBERRY INDUSTRY. The cranberry industry is growing at an annual rate of 8%, buoyed by the news that cranberry juice helps prevent kidney stones and bladder infections, an increasing concern of aging baby boomers. The industry wishes to expand its operations into the remaining unprotected wetlands, right up to the southern shore of Round Lake. Consequently, the Cranberry Growers’ Association, a national organization headquartered in Lake City, has hired a marketing firm to develop ideas and begin building local support for expansion in the region, as well as developing national markets for cranberries. The firm has assigned Marsha Kwan to the task, and she and a team are operating out of the Cranberry Growers’ Association’s offices. One of her first ideas has been to work with the Penowans to develop paired products centered around Penowan wild rice and Round Lake cranberries. However, expansion of cranberry farming in the region faces some obstacles because of toxic chemicals in fishes and turtles in Round Lake. The area south and east of Round Lake is a groundwater maze. Cranberry farmers claim that all their runoff flows north into their cooperative drainage ditch and then into a tributary of Deer River. Their soil and hydrologic consultant insists that there is an impervious clay lens that separates the commercial fields from the Bingham Refuge, so none of the environmental problems in the refuge or lake are of their doing. He also says that studies have shown no environmental damage from the chemical or management practices of the cranberry farmers, as long as they follow manufacturer’s label instructions and recognized Best Management Practices (BMPs)—which they do. THE ROUND-ABOUT TRAIL. The Lake City and Benson economic communities have recognized that they have a valuable tourism resource, and they have decided, based on a consultant’s report, to target cyclists. The mayors have proposed a bike- 23 way to go all the way around Round Lake (the Round-About Trail), which would have various stopping places where cyclists could view natural features of the ecosystem, visit cultural resources, and refresh themselves. The Crawford County Commissioners are excited about the idea, and they are considering modifications to their master plans to accommodate the bikeway. Around the southern end of the lake, they have proposed that the 12-foot-wide asphalt trail be elevated above the wetlands. The Round Lake Chamber of Commerce is very enthusiastic, and their director, Jesse Stern, has applied for and received a state tourism development grant to conduct an in-depth feasibility study. T OXIC C ONTAMINANTS IN THE R OUND L AKE ECOSYSTEM. Toxic sediments exist in Bent Creek below the second low-head hydropower dam. The sediments contain heavy metals and other early industrial chemicals. There is no identifiable responsible party for the toxic chemical—so it is everyone’s problem now. A major flood, or the removal of the dam, could cause the suspension of these toxicants in the water column and their transportation downstream to Round Lake and beyond. A recent public health series on the local PBS television station highlighted contaminants in soils and water and their accumulation in fish and wildlife. This prompted a local university study of fishes found in Round Lake and Deer River. Although still preliminary, the results show that walleyes in the lake and carp in the river have measurable amounts of mercury, halogenated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and pesticides. The local community is split between users who scoff at the potential health risk (notably Walleyes for Tomorrow) and those who think the fisheries should be shut down as a public health risk (including many members of Friends of Round Lake). The public health community continues to debate risk assessment and relative risks, arriving at no conclusion and everyone’s confusion. CANADA GEESE ON THE GOLF COURSES. The Bingham National Wildlife Refuge was established primarily to protect and enhance the habitat of ducks and geese. Efforts have been successful. The 24 PART I: The Conceptual Toolbox movement of waterfowl through the refuge each spring and fall is a sight to behold, and many people travel to watch the annual migrations. Along with the migratory waterfowl, the refuge has also attracted a large population of resident giant Canada geese. The geese are abundant on the refuge, but also on the adjacent golf courses. They interfere with golfers directly—and indirectly due to their droppings on the greens. This is a major topic of letters to the editor in the local paper. The Sandhill at Bent Creek developers are eager to work to avoid this problem on their resort. They are also eager to get some sandhill cranes onto the property. They are willing to talk about planning their golf course to attract cranes and avoid geese. They have learned that golf courses can now be certified by a national conservation organization, and they are interested in pursuing this opportunity. The Sandhill at Bent Creek project manager, Alice “Berty” Bertrand, wants to be active in the ROLE Model initiative. NORTHEAST POWER COMPANY DAM. The Northeast Power Company has petitioned the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to take over ownership of their nearly century-old dam before it fails. By agreements written when the dam was authorized in 1911, ownership of the dam reverts to the government if the dam is no longer used for power generation. The Northeast Power Company has found the cost of renovating the dam for modern hydropower generation to be too high, and they are planning to abandon it as a power-producing facility. The Corps has also received a petition from the Eastern States Boaters Coalition, located in Boston, to remove the old dam and open navigation downstream. With the dam removed, boats would have access to the Deer River and eventually the IntraCoastal Waterway. CHAPTER 1: The Landscape Scenarios 25 SNOWPACT Excitement grew as the first printing of The SnowPACT Way hit the mail. The people who received the first few copies could hardly believe what had happened in the past year. From a situation in which individuals and groups fought about everything related to natural resources in their community, they had come together to work collaboratively on their future. And a major symbol of their success was the publishing of their newsletter, The SnowPACT Way. The first issue of The SnowPACT Way carried a full-page description of the ideals of the group. It is reproduced here: THE SNOWPACT WAY INAUGURAL ISSUE, PAGE 1 Distributed quarterly to all Snow River residents without charge. Subscriptions available at cost outside the Snow River watershed. T he SnowPACT Way is the newsletter of the Snow River Ecosystem Compact, popularly known as SnowPACT. We formed SnowPACT as concerned citizens of the Snow River watershed, people who wanted to ensure that our economic prosperity and quality of life would continue forever. The kinds of ideas that we are developing have many labels in today’s world—ecosystem management, conservation biology, sustainable development, and community-based management. We don’t really worry about what these terms mean, because The inside of the newsletter documented the way that SnowPACT got started and how it works. Essentially, SnowPACT is a broadly based group of representatives of government agencies, private organizations, and citizens from throughout the Snow River watershed; any group can join, as long as they are committed to the statement of principles that guides the assemblage. The agreement it- we know what we mean, in our minds and our hearts. We mean that we want to live, work, play, and worship in this place—this wonderful place— harmoniously, with our families, our neighbors, the resources that inspire and support us, and the ecological systems that ensure our continued existence through time. We mean that we’ve watched the destructive arguing among ourselves—about how this acre will be used, about who has access and who doesn’t, about whose “rights” are being lost. And we’ve learned that such arguing gets us nowhere. It focuses on the wrong questions—how to divide a shrinking pie— rather than focusing on how we can make the pie bigger and better. We mean that we pledge to work together to make the present and the future better for all of us— and for each of us. We came here because it was a beautiful and prosperous place. We have invested heavily through time to make our people safe, healthy, and learned. To complete the journey, we are now also investing to make our use of our lands just as safe, healthy, and intelligent. Over the past year, as the members of SnowPACT have met and begun to chart our future, we’ve learned more than we ever imagined and have grown together in ways that have been extremely rewarding. We also know that more of us need to become involved in the land-use decisions being made in our county and communities. Today we invite everyone in the Snow River watershed to join this effort. And we don’t care what you want to call it—as long as you call it successful! —The SnowPACT Community Circle self is a simple document that pledges the member groups to work together for the benefit of the people and resources of the Snow River watershed. Although it does not constrain the members or the member organizations to certain decisions and actions within their organizations, it does commit them to “come to the table, over and over again” as a way of making the best of every situation. As 26 PART I: The Conceptual Toolbox such, it encourages group solutions, made voluntarily and consensually, rather than seeking administrative or judicial decisions among contending parties. The initial charter of the group is for 10 years, but the clear intent is that this will become a permanent organizing basis for community planning and action. 9. 10. 11. SnowPACT Principles of Intent and Operation We seek to create a place to live that meets the needs of ourselves and future residents. We seek to do this in a way that is based on community, civility, common sense, rationality, and efficiency. We pledge ourselves to be guided by the following principles: 1. We will be inclusive, rather than exclusive, inviting all people and viewpoints; but we will not tolerate attempts to delay, derail, or fractionate our efforts. 2. We will use all the expert knowledge we can get to help guide decisions, including that of natural scientists, social scientists, Native Americans, and experienced community members; but we will not shrink from plans, decisions, or actions because of “insufficient data.” 3. We will seek a sustainable level of economic and recreational activity, as part of a sustainable ecosystem that conserves biological diversity and ecosystem processes. 4. We will recognize and work with the natural cycles of events, such as fire, game population levels, and economic activity, rather than trying to control them. 5. We will emphasize maps of natural features and functions, rather than maps of ownership and jurisdiction; but we will respect and work with the legal authorities that have created property and jurisdictional lines. 6. We will recognize that ecosystem boundaries are vague and that the area of interest will vary depending on a specific resource, function, or use. 7. We will find win-win solutions, based on considering many options rather than just two sides, so that no individuals lose in decisions that bring gains to us collectively. 8. We will seek voluntary cooperation among our members rather than rules, regulations, and laws; 12. but we will respect the spirit and letter of those laws to which we are subject. We will set our vision on the long-term and will be prepared to discuss openly and accept the short-term costs of such a vision; and we will provide nonpartisan input to improve our local decision makers. We will be realistic, recognizing that we start from here and that our first steps may be small. We will be guided not only by the head, but also by the heart and soul of community and resource stewardship. We will succeed! The state governor, through the Green Government Council and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, through its regional director, have committed their resources to provide the base operations for SnowPACT. The governor’s Green Government Council has assigned one of its regional coordinators a primary task of ensuring easy access to all state government agencies and programs, directly through the governor’s office. The state DNR has assigned a planner from its central office half-time to facilitate activities of SnowPACT and has assigned a full-time biologist from its regional staff for the next 5 years to help with technical information and activities. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has assigned one professional resource manager from the Kachina Arch Resource Management Area, also for 5 years. In addition, all state and federal resource agencies with lands or other responsibilities in the watershed and region have pledged the support of their staff and physical resources to help along the way. The state’s senators and representatives from both parties have taken an intense interest in SnowPACT as a unique approach and a possible model for the entire nation. It is also supported by one independent representative, Bill Hamilton, who is in his third term and has run each time on the idea of community-based decisions as best for the country. During the past year, legislators have authorized $2,000,000 annually for the work of SnowPACT for 10 years and have funded the appropriation for the first year and pledge they will get it every year. Moreover, they made the work CHAPTER 1: The Landscape Scenarios of SnowPACT exempt from the rules of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and have assigned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as the lead agency for all federal resource management and environmental responsibilities in the watershed. Planning staff in Repose County, where most of the SnowPACT lands are located, have agreed to work with SnowPACT representatives via task forces that will be revising the county master plan. In addition, both Repose County and the town of Altavista have added SnowPACT to the entities asked to review subdivision, rezoning, and development applications. All signatories to the agreement are automatically members of the Snow River Ecosystem Compact, which entitles them to send a representative to all meetings as “speaking members” (Figure 1.9). They are also voting members, if the need arises to hold formal votes. The core work of SnowPACT is carried out by the Community Circle, a set of 10–15 representatives of member organizations who are endorsed by a majority of the signatories to the agreement. The Community Circle does the hard work of SnowPACT—organizing, overseeing, making decisions, seeking funds, and generally ensuring that the principles of the agreement are maintained and enhanced. Figure 1.9. Community collaboration, like that shown here, is a standard way for working on common interests in the Snow River ecosystem. (Photo by Larry A. Nielsen.) 27 SnowPACT Community Circle Altavista Mayor (Wayne Orr) Bluestone River Cattleman’s Association (Sam Henry III) Department of Natural Resources regional planner Green Government Council NCTC Bluff Canyon (Kristin Bagley) Red Cliff Association (Eleanor Sanchez) Repose County Commissioners (Dutch Markson) Representative Bill Hamilton ROCin’ (Jacques Moreau) Semak Council of Elders (Howard Two Feathers) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kachina Arch Resource Management Area Westfir CEO (Katherine Slater) THE SNOW RIVER ECOSYSTEM The Snow River ecosystem is a medium-sized watershed located in the U.S. intermountain West (Figure 1.10). The watershed is approximately 300,000 acres in extent and is well-defined by low mountains on the west and north, by undulating low ridges on the east, and by the Bluestone River on the south. Most of the watershed is drained by the Snow River, which flows generally southward. The Snow River enters the Bluestone River, flowing from west to east, in the middle of the town of Altavista. The Snow River has three main tributaries, called South, Middle, and North Creeks. The South and Middle Creeks both drain into Pine Lake, an impoundment on the Snow River, but North Creek enters the river below the impoundment. Smaller streams enter the Bluestone River throughout the watershed, but they carry relatively little water and are often dry in the summer and fall. The land south of the Bluestone River is a relatively narrow strip of undulating hills that end in a continuous ridge that parallels the river. The land on the south side of the river is 1–2 miles wide and is widest within the vicinity of Altavista. The watershed is bisected by a continuous escarpment, called Red Cliff, which runs northeast to southwest (Figure 1.11). Red Cliff varies in height from 50 to 300 feet at various places along its face. Private forestland Henry State Park Henry State Park Henry State Park Westfir KARMA d le Mid Cigueña Marsh ek Cre ar pm en t N R C ed e liff t or h Bluff Canyon (NCTC) k ee Cr BLM: EPMU Kachina Arch sc Ranchettes Pine Lake ek Cre uth o S Working ranches Working ranches Semak Reservation iver Snow R Bluestone River Altavista Capital City 26 26 Kingsville Figure 1.10. A map of the Snow River ecosystem. CHAPTER 1: The Landsca...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

View attached explanation and answer. Let me know if you have any questions.

1

Complexities and Uncertainties

Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliations
Course
Date

2
Complexities and Uncertainties
Possible Problems and Issues Facing Small Populations


Inbreeding is an issue that stands to get experienced in small populations in the coming
years. Going against the biological aim of mating can cause distinct disorders in the small
populations, which stipulate to result in the disposition of adopting attributes that get
defined by abnormal traits and other negative adaptations that result in more problems.
Inbreeding is an extreme path to causing the exti...

Related Tags