Ecosystem Management in California - Local and Regional Initiatives to Ensure Sustainable Ecosystems

State of California; May 1994

Background

This provides an important context in which to view federal efforts promoting natural resources policy innovation and ecosystem management At the Forest Conference in Portland, Oregon, on April 2, 1993, President Clinton began a process to break the gridlock over federal forest policy issues in the Pacific Northwest and northwestern California. Secretary of the Interior Babbitt has initiated several projects, including the National Biological Survey, designed to avoid the "train wrecks" caused by the collision of interests over the administration of Endangered Species Act, particularly in California. Congress has requested a comprehensive study of the Sierra Nevada ecoregion as a means to make important policy decisions on the future of the region. To be successful each of these efforts is dependent upon the support and participation of citizen groups, private landowners, private sector organizations, and multiple agencies within California.

The interagency agreement on conservation planning is not meant to take the place of individual agency programs. The framework does, however, provide a means for communication and negotiation through which important partnerships are being developed. As a result, collaborative efforts involving various California Resources Agency departments-Forestry and Fire Protection, Fish and Game, Water Resources; federal agencies-U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management; and local government-San Diego Association of Governments-are emerging throughout California.

Initiatives

• Regional Projects
  • California Executive Council on Biological Diversity
  • California Environmental Resources Evaluation System (CERES)
  • Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP)
  • Natural Communities Conservation Planning Program (NCCP)
• Local Projects
  • Quincy Library Group
  • Trinity County Bio-Region
  • Sierra Planning Organization
  • Mattole Restoration Council
  • Oakhurst Cooperative Fuels Management Program

Principles and Issues

1. Socially defined goals The rationale for the movement to an ecosystem management approach is the desire to improve the political and institutional environment for natural resources planning and problem solving. Therefore, ecosystem management should be a socially defined process.
   • Statements of desired future conditions need to incorporate economic and social as well as ecological objectives and be arrived at through an open decisionmaking process.
   • Local communities themselves must become an important participant in the design of programs that target long-term community sustainability.
   • Resource-based employment should remain an important element in rural economies including those in transition to a more diversified economic base.

2. Collaborative institutions Institutional processes must be managed to ensure broad public participation, rebuild trust, and incorporate collaborative management planning models. State, federal, and local policy development should be coordinated to streamline administrative procedures, promote cooperative management, and ensure ecosystem protection across ownership boundaries. Private property rights must be respected.
   • Implementation of federal programs need to be implemented through existing state partnerships and local organizations where feasible.
   • Option 9's Adaptive Management Area program should be implemented on a priority basis.
   • Incentives should be developed to compensate private landowners for actions taken that contribute to multi-ownership objectives.
   • Watershed and landscape management plans need to be built from the bottom up.

3. Adaptable decisionmaking Ecosystem management must ultimately be an evolving process rather than a set of static prescriptions. Decisionmaking processes need to be flexible in order that they can be adaptive to changes in environmental conditions, social values, available data, and knowledge.
   • All agencies should share in the development of information technologies that benefit broader governmental and private sector interests.
   • Resource programs should move away from use of land zoning towards a more dynamic landscape management approach.
   • Scientifically designed monitoring must be a recognized and supported part of adaptive management programs.

4. Broad spatial and temporal scales In general ecosystem management requires management on larger spatial and longer temporal scales than has been the norm in the past. As a consequence, multiple watershed and ownership issues and the dynamic role of disturbance regimes should be a key consideration in planning.
   • Ecosystem management issues must include the recognition that ecological functions and the structures they create cross administrative and ownership boundaries.
   • Fire and other disturbance regimes must be considered as part of dynamic ecosystem processes.
   • Human intervention to correct the negative effects of past management actions must be supported, including active fuels management programs.

5. Integrated, holistic science The role of science and scientists in management planning is an important requirement. Multiple disciplinary perspectives-including social, political, economic, biological, and physical sciences-need be represented in planning programs and monitoring.
   • Research projects need to represent the full range of disciplinary expertise required by a systems approach to management.
   • Research findings must be made available in a timely fashion and shared widely through new communication networks.

6. Adequate funding and accountability The move to ecosystem management will have significant costs and requires ongoing review and accountability. While the opportunities presented by a better coordinated and more anticipatory management strategy appear substantial, realistic assessments of the costs and benefits of new programs must be made.
   • Costs to local and state governments resulting from shifts in federal policy must be identified and addressed by the federal government. Results of administrative programs should be widely communicated.

| Biodiversity Homepage | Natural Resources | State of California |