This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
A Planning and Analysis Process for
Including Social and Biophysical
Considerations in Sustainable Ecosystem
Management
•
I
B. L. Driver, Brian Kent, and John G. Hof1
This paper describes a land management planning and analysis
process that can guide implementation of the policy of "sustainable
ecosystem~ management" recently adopted by several federal agencies
including the USDA Forest Service. This process builds on and expands
considerably the planning process used recently by the USDA Forest
Service to develop plans for the National Forests and Grasslands. It
identifies and describes the types of analyses and social and bio-physical
information for sustainable ecosystem management that is responsive to
human needs for the variety of goods and services that are produced on
natural ecosystems.
Abstract -
BACKGROUND
4.
" Strive for Balance, Equity, and Harmony Between
People and the Land" ... (Robertson, 1992).
Since the announcement of this new philosophy of
management by the Forest Service, other federal agencies (e.g.,
the Bureau of Land Management) have adopted and annoWlCed
an ecosystems approach to management. These new directions,
especially the goal of sustaining natural ecosystems, have
created much dialogue and study within these agencies, as
evidenced by the creation of many national and regional task
folCeS to explore various facets of what this new approach to
management really means and how it can best be implemented.
The above quotes from Robertson's June 4th letter make
explicit that sustainable ecosystem management (SEM) means
continuation of multiple-use management to meet the
land-dependent needs of people. Nevertheless, this new approach
to management has stimulated much debate about how these
human needs can be met and still sustain the natural ecosystems
which must provide the goods and services required to meet
those needs? This is a pertinent question to which this paper is
addressed. The paper develops and explains a resource planning
and analysis process that incorporates the types of social and
bio-physical information needed for SEM.
A planning and analysis framewOlk of the type presented in
this paper is particularly timely given the need to revise existing
plans that were brought on line before the policy of SEM was
adopted. Our information is that about 70 of the National Forest
plans would have been scheduled for revision within the next
In a June 4, 1992 letter to the Regional Foresters and
Experiment Station Directors of the USDA Forest Service, Dale
Robertson, Chief of that agency, announced" ...that the Forest
Service is committed to using an ecological approach in the
future management of the National Forests and Grasslands. By
ecosystems management, we mean that an ecological approach
will be used to achieve the multiple-use management of the
National Forests and Grasslands. It means that we must blend
the needs of people and environmental values in such a way
that the National Forests and Grasslands represent diverse,
productive, and sustainable ecosystems." Robertson went on to
list the four "basic principles" that "will apply to the future
management of the National Forests and Grasslands:
1. "Take Care of the Land" ....
2. "Take Care of the People and Their Cultural
Diversity" by meeting the basic needs of people
and communities who depend on the land for food,
fuel, shelter, livelihood, recreation, and spiritual
renewal.
3. "Use Resources Wisely and Efficiently to Improve
Economic Prosperity" ...
1 The authors are Research Forester, Project Leader, and Chief
Economist, respectively, with the USDA Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest And Range Experiment Station in Fort Col/ins,
Colorado
281
8.
Evaluate Biophysical Conditions and Requirements of
the Ecological Units
9. Evaluate Capabilities and Suitabilities of the
Ecological Units to Supply Goods and SelVices.
[Analysis of Management Situation]
10. Define Range of Desired Future Conditions of the
Ecological Units
11. Develop Alternative Plans. [Formulation of
Alternatives]
12. Visualization of Consequences of Alternative Plans
with Public Education About Pros and Cons of
Each Plan ~valuation of Alternatives]
13. Prevent, Mediate, and/or Resolve Conflicts
14. Select the Plan to be Recommended for
Implementation [Draft Forest Plan and EIS]
15. Public Review of the Recommended Plan
16. Develop and Propose The Plan That Will be
Implemented [Final Forest Plan and EIS]
17. Implement Plan
18. Monitor and Evaluate Plan Implementation Results
The reader familiar with the steps of national forest land
management planning that are described in "the Regs" (Federal
Register, 1982) can see that we have kept all of those steps, as
indicated by the selected titles of some of' them in brackets
above. The following section shows that we also expanded
and/or emphasized the activities required in those "old reg"
steps, especially the ones concerned with public involvement
and participation In addition, we have added new Steps Nos.
3, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 13 with the purposes of those additions being
to: assure better involvement of all "stakeholders" and
prevention and early resolution of conflicts; better public
understanding of the planning process and the feasible
alternative plans; incorporation of the goal of achieving SEM;
and better integration of the human dimensions of SEM into the
process. These modifications and additions will be clarified in
the following section.
five years in order to comply with the NFMA planning
regulations (Federal Register 1982) even if the new policy of
SEM had not been adopted. It is important, therefore, that any
new process complement and supplement the existing
framewotk used in the USDA Forest SelVice rather than take a
shmp departure. For that reason the planning and analysis
process presented here builds on planning approaches currently
being used by the Forest SelVice, including the NFMA
regulations, while incorporating the new requirements for SEM.
To identify and define social informationlvariables that
needed to be considered in SEM, we relied heavily on the USDA
Forest SelVice's National and Southwestern Region (Region 3
headquartered in Albuquerque, New Mexico) task forces on
Integrating Human Dimensions. into Ecosystems Management,
a Special Scientific Advisory Committee on Ecosystems
Management created by Region 3, and other sources.
THE PIiOCESS
The sequential steps of the SEM planning process we
developed will first be listed as actions that must be taken to
effectively, responsively, and efficiently, integrate social values
into SEM. We will then elaborate the major activities that need
to be undertaken at each step. These usually analytical or
evaluative activities will defme most of the types of infonnation
from the social and bio-physical sciences that are needed to
complete each step.
The process we describe is based on the idea that specific
analytical/evaluative requirements should determine which
types, what amounts, and the quality of the data that should be
collected and analyzed during the SEM planning process. It is
inefficient to collect data if they contribute only marginally to
the accuracy and reliability of the result of any quantitative
analyses or the overall quality of the plan.
Steps of the Process
Elaboration of Activities Required at Each Step
To present a comprehensive oveIView of our SEM planning
and analysis process, we frrst list each step without elaboration
Most of those steps are self-explanatOlY. Where they are not,
the purposes of each step should become clear in the next section
where the activities needed to be undertaken at each step are
elaborated.
1. Identify Need for Plan Revision [Purpose and Need]
2. Identify Constraints on Planning Process [Define
Planning Criteria]
3. Identify and Organize Groups That Will Be Involved
in The Planning Process
4. State General Planning Goals Within SEM Framework
5. Evaluate the Planning Agency's Institutional Setting
and Modus Operandi
6. Evaluate the Local Social Context
7. Define and Evaluate Goods and SelVices
In this section activities that comprise each step of the process
are elaborated.
1. Identify Needs for Plan Revision
This step is identical to Step(b) of the National Forest
planning process that is described on page 43044 of the Federal
Register (1982). The major tasks are to identify and defme the
needs (i.e., issues, concerns and opportunities) that drive the
planning process. Those needs include those that are identified
by the public as well as those identified by professional land
managers. Effective identification and defmition of public needs
depends on efforts by the planning agency to involve all
"stakeholders" in the planning and management of the public
282
4. State General Planning Goals within SEM
Framework
lands through the creation and nurturing of what has been called
"collaborative partnerships" (Bruner, 1991), where trust and
mutual respect must be established. This should be an on-going
process of "public involvement" rather than attempting to get
"public input" at the time of plan revision These commitments
and efforts are necessruy not only to assure comprehensive and
explicit identification of the needs for planning analyses but to
help prevent and resolve conflicts-ruld costly litigation-early
in that process. Along this line of reasOning, Wondolleck (1988)
suggests these five ways to help prevent conflicts: build trust,
build understanding, incorporate conflicting values, provide
opportunities for joint fact fmding, -and encourage cooperation
and collaboration On-going collaboration with all stakeholders
will help accomplish these five way.s of preventing conflicts.
2. Identity Constraints on
P~anning
This step calls for cooperative work on the part of all
interested parties to arrive at a general set of planning goals.
Following terminology adopted for Forest Service land
management planning "a goal is a concise statement that
descnbes a desired condition to be achieved in the future. It is
nonnally expressed in broad, general and nonquantitative tenns
that are timeless in that there is no specific date by which the
goal is to be achieved. They may be specified on a forest-wide
basis, for sub-forest ~ or on a local planning area basis."
As an example, one important goal is to achieve SEM. Another
might be to preserve the land-dependent lifestyles of local
indigenous sub-cultures-to the extent possible. These goals
should be limited in number and relate directly to issues,
concerns and opportunities identified previously.
Process
..
This step requires an evaluation of the constraints that will
establish bounds for the planning activity and analyses. Included
are legislative and administrative directives such as the Forest
Service's legal and administrative directives to help maintain
and improve the stability of rural resource-dependent
communities or protect sacred sites of American Indians.
Particular concern should be given to the planning units' current
and future likely fiscal resources; the plans should be realistic
and not recommend actions for which adequate funding is
unlikely. This step should also address the institutional and other
constraints on practicing SEM; for example, does the planning
agency administer the land areas that comprise particular
ecological units or only portions of them? If so, can cooperative
arrangements with the other owners facilitate SEM or not? Any
constraining effects of agreements with other parties must also
be considered. Criteria for identifying data requirements and
analysis methodologies are also developed in this step.
5. Evaluate the Planning Agency's Institutional
Setting and Modus Operandi
This clearly new step was added to assure that both the
agency personnel and members of the public inVolved in the
planning effort clearly understand the institutional context within
which the planning and analysis will be conducted, especially
the resources available to do the planning. This process should
examine questions such as the following:
• Does the planning unit use the latest technology
and modern management science including
planning and optimization techniques?
• Has the planning unit been active, innovative, and
successful in public involvement activities?
• What are the agency's polices and practices
regarding maintaining and promoting rural
community stability and development, eco- and
heritage tourism, and maintenance of
resource-dependent lifestyles of local residents
such as subsistence users of the public lands?
• Does the planning unit actively promote
partnerships and the use of volunteers?
• Is the planning unit active and successful in
negotiating interagency agreements?
• Has past management and use emphasized
commodity or amenity uses or both?
• Have adequate fiscal resources been made
available?
• Has the planning unit been the subject of much
litigation?
• Are the local people and interest groups generally
supportive or adversial?
• Does the agency have a good reputation, and is it
respected locally?
• Has the planning unit had "good press" ?
3. 10 and Organize Groups That Will Be Involved
in the Planning Process
This step is the first opportunity to bring outside interest
groups into the process in a meaningful way. It involves setting
up the planning team, with clear assignment of responsibilities,
and creation of one or more vehicles to facilitate public
involvement such as a citizens' advisory group. The planning
team should include representatives of different disciplineslland
uses. An advisory group should include members that represent
different interests and perspectives, including people/groups who
do not always agree with the planning agency's policies and
practices. It is essential to use this step to bring all interested
parties into the process early and begin work to develop their
"ownership" in the planning effort and its results.
283
7.
• Does the planning unit emphasize efficiency of its
operation?
• Does the agency and/or the planning unit endorse
an explicitly stated land management ethic?
• What is the planning unit's commitment to, and
record, on civil rights and equal employment
opportunities?
Answers to these questions should reflect actual conditions
and not good intentions.
6.
Define and Evaluate Goods and Services
The "needs" assessment called for here is one of the most
important, albeit difficult, activities of the process. As mentioned
above, the most complex part of SEM is delivery of as wide a
spectrum of goods and selVices from the natural ecosystems as
is feasibly and economically efficiently possible while assuring
that the ecosystems maintain their health, evolutionary physical
integrity and capacity to deliver goods and seIVices to meet
human needs over the long run This complexity cannot be
understood and addressed unless an accurate and reliable needs
assessment is made for all of the planning unit-dependent goods
and seIVices. The list of those needs includes those for the
so-called commodities and amenities. Examples include
traditional subsistence uses as well as public desires and
expectations for: recreation opportunities including the setting
attributes, facilities, and managerial programs, that facilitate
particular types of recreation activity~ both eco- and
heritage-tourism accommodations and sites~ scenic resources and
scenic by-ways; interpretative, educational selVices, and health
and safety related selVices; and opportunities to hunt and fish
and to learn and do scientific research Included too are requests
from local communities for help in maintaining their stability
and economic vitality and for a wide variety of special uses.
Some of these are difficult to define much less quantity. They
include uses related to spiritual, religious, and other
hard-to-define human values such as maintenance of a particular
lifestyle or sub-cultural tradition At times, limited infonnation
will not pennit accurate assessment of some types of uses that
must be considered. In those cases, recourse must be made to
professional judgment. While we encourage use of accurate and
reliable data, we caution against very expensive swveys that
only marginally increase the accuracy and validity of the data.
Evaluate the Local Social Context
Similar to Step 5, the pwpose of this new step here is to
gather contextual infonnation necessaty for the planning unit to
understand and work effectively with its local constituents. The
social context posses questions about both the historic and
present social conditions of the local area that will be impacted
by the plan being developed. Historic information includes
identification of any Traditional Cultural Properties of the
American Indians and of national and local heritage sites,
understanding of historic cultural uses by all sub-cultures, and
being familiar with the past history of the planning agency's
management of the area and the land use hiStOlY of that area
including the history of settlement and significant changes in
land use.
Questions directed toward understanding the existing social
context include
• What are the important local institutions and the
nature of the local social infrastructure?
• Are there highly resource-dependent local
communities?
• What is the industrial mix or economic diversity
of the region?
• What are the market areas for the goods and
services demanded from the planning area?
• What are the spatial locations of local major
sub-cultures?
• Are there local tourist destination areas, and how
significant are they to the local economy?
• What are the "demographics" of the local area
regarding age structures and trends in population
growth?
• What are the key local economic indicators
regarding the economic structure/industrial
diversity, employment and unemployment levels,
income levels and distributions and economic
trends?
• Is there local community cohesion (unity and
cooperation) and stability (ability to absotb and
manage change)?
8. Evaluate Biophysical Conditions and
Requirements of the Ecological Units
The pwpose of this step is to gather the data necessary to
define the biophysical states, requirements, and conditions of the
natural ecosystems that will be impacted by the plan. We offer
the following recommendations which are derived largely from
personal conversations with ecologists in the Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station and in the Regional Office
of the Southwestern Region (Region 3) of the Forest SeIVice.
• Referent bio-physical conditions must be
established that will establish clear criteria of the
desired structure and functioning of the ecological
units. These criteria must establish at least broad
ecological objectives for specific ecosystems or
related sets of ecosystems. These criteria and
ecological objectives will be used as tests of
ecosystems sustainability ..
284
susceptible to human-caused wildfires), the accessibility
challenge levels under different amenity uses; the locations and
scope of structures made by humans; Recreation Opportunity
Spectrum and VISual Quality Objective classifications; special
classifications (e.g., designated wilderness, scenic or recreation
areas); and unique land forms and recreation sites. The new
Forest SelVice Handbook on Scenety Management (now in draft
but to be published soon) provides excellent guidance for these
landscape assessments.
• Once the biophysical-based referent criteria and
objectives have been established, inventories and
evaluations must be made to determine which
ecosystems and subsystems meet those criteria,
which do not~r likely will not in the near
future-and what actions are needed to meet the
criteria if and when they are not met.
• Only biophysical data that is clearly needed should
be collected. In line with this reasoning, we
endorse the recommendation in the preliminary
report of the Forest Service's Region 3 Committee
of Scientists that two types of biophysical
"ecosystems needs assessment" be made in
sequence 1. The first, a "course filter analysis" will
be made to identify areas needing more in depth
analyses. Then a "fine filter analysis" will be made
for those critical or sensitive areas where problems
(e.g., threatened or endangered species) exist or are
likely to exist regarding the sustainability of the
ecosystem because of those problems. The report
of the R-3 Committee of Scientists states that the
Nature Conservatory has estimated that 85-90
percent of all species can be protected by the
course filter analyses (Hunter 1991), which is much
less costly to conduct than the fine filter analyses.
10. Define Range ,of Possible Desired Future
Conditions of the Ecological Unit
This step is central to SEM because it uses public
participation to integrate the results of Steps 7 (Needs
Assessment), 8 (Biophysical Evaluation) and 9 (The Capability
and Suitability Analyses) to develop general future scenarios for
the ecological units. An important consequence of this will be
the establishment of broad guidelines about what types of
management actions can be taken within each ecological unit or
related set of units. These guidelines have corne to be called
"desired future conditions" (DFCs). While this is a useful
concept at some level of generalizability, we emphasize that
OFCs cannot specify future ecological conditions that will in
fact exist over considerable time; we do not have that knowledge
about complex ecological processes. Therefore, OFCs can only
target general conditions for the near future.
In general, the set of management actions that will be
acceptable under these OFCs will be more restricted than the
list considered in Step 9. Here, the needs assessed in Step 7
must be screened through the set of biophysical criteria
established in Step 8 to assure sustainability of the natural
ecosystems on which the targeted goods and selVices would be
provided. The needs so screened will include those related to
production of outputs such as timber, forage, etc, maintenance
of desired lifestyles, maintenance of local community stability
and economic vitality, and all other needs assessed in Step 7.
While achieving SEM is a clear underlying goal of the
planning process being proposed, there might be instances where
some desired future conditions will represent compromises
between some measure of desired ecosystem sustainability and
meeting of societal needs. For example, it is quite possible that
not all ecosystems will be managed to preselVe all species of
flom or fauna so long as enough ecosystems are maintained to
do so. Or some short-te1ll\ undesirable ecological impacts might
be tolemted to sustain a particular societal need.
9. Evaluate Capabilities and Suitabilities of the
Ecological Units to Supply Goods and Services
This step is similar to Step(e) (" Analyses of the Management
Situation" ) of the National Forest planning process as described
on page 43044 of the "Federal Register" (1982). As stated there,
the purpose" ... is to determine the ability of the planning area... to
supply goods and services in response to society's demands ... to
provide a bases for formulating a broad range of reasonable
alternatives." Optimization modeling will play a key role in
making these determinations. These evaluations will include
documentation of the current level of goods and services
provided and whether the desired and projected levels of goods
and selVices can be provided in the future. While ecosystem
sustainability must be kept in mind, the primaIy orientation in
this step is to determine whether the resowce base is physically
capable of and suitable for such production Thus, a full range
of management alternatives for each ecological unit will be
considered in this step, with the issue of sustainability being the
focus of Steps 10 and 11. This analysis will include broad scale
landscape assessments that will identify landscapes that are
unusually sensitive to use, the visual qualities of the landscapes,
landscapes with risk factors (e.g., flood plains, those highly
Personal communication with Dr. Merrill Kaufmann,
of that committee.
1
11. Develop Alternative Plans
In many ways, the preceding steps are preparatoty for this
step. Here (as in Step 9) optimization techniques from modem
management science will be applied to help develop a set of
planning area-wide alternative management plans which will
a member
285
optimization analysis software has been ported to
microcomputers (Kent et al., 1992), and much supplementaIy
software exists on these computers to further facilitate the
process of characterizing alternatives. See Ager et al. (1991) for
examples of how this was done in Region 6 of the USDA Forest
Service during the frrst round of forest planning. Much of this
information can be used to further supplement the visualization
process.
An important part of this step is public education, not only
about the consequences of each plan but the technical and other
(e.g., political) reasons why each management action was
proposed. This ~ become increasingly important in our society
for which the latest national census of the population shows that
at least 80% of the people reside in essentially utban areas.
Although national and regional opinion polls show that the levels
of environmental concerns of these citizens remain high and are
increasing, research has also documented a negative correlation
between population of place of residence and amount of
objective knowledge about principles of resource management.
For example, people in laIger cities, on the average, have
responded that hunting, not loss of habitat, is the major cause
of decline in populations of wildlife. Put simply, although
subjective concern is high, objective knowledge of the public is
not always at a level that facilitates objective discourse about
alternative natural resource management actions. All public land
management agencies face this important educational
challenge-one which will require more than public education
about proposed management plans and include off-site education
and possibly more wOIk with the elementaIy and secondaIy
school systems.
allocate each ecological unit within the planning area to one or
more types of management. Infonnation from previous steps is
utilized to define sets of possible management actions for each
ecological unit. While these sets of options may vruy from
alternative to alternative on any given unit, they always must
be consistent with the objectives of SEM as represented by legal
requirements and standards and guidelines. They also should be
consistent with long-term goals as defined by the desired future
condition scenarios developed in Step 10.
In some ways, this step functions much as it did in the first
round of National Forest planning under NFMA, where linear
programming models were developed using the FORPLAN
system (Kent et al., 1991). However, major criticisms of these
early efforts related to their inability to properly account for
ecological concerns such as the spatial arrangement of
management treatments on the ground or species biodiversity.
Recent developments (Hof and Joyce, 1992, In Press; Hof et
al., In Press) demonstrnte the ~easibility of incorporating these
ecological considerations in A<Optimization analyses. These
improved capabilities are being incorporated in a new
optimization system being developed at the Forest Service's
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station When
development is complete, this system will pennit the formulation
of optimization models that incorporate wildlife species
dispersal, habitat fragmentation, edge effects and ecologically
based objective functions such as those measuring biodiversity.
Linear programming, mixed integer programming and
multi-objective function formulations also will be incorporated.
12. Visualization of Consequences of Alternative
Plans
13. Prevent, Mediate, AndlOr Resolve Conflict
This is a public involvement and public education step
oriented toward achieving a clear understanding of the
consequences of each of the alternative plans developed in Step
11. Basically the purpose is to help the public, and the agency
professionals, obtain a clear image of what the visual and other
conditions of the ecological units will be at future dates if each
alternative plan were implemented. This should enhance the
rationality of the process of selecting a preferred plan and help
prevent conflicts among individuals and groups that hold
different values. While new techniques must be developed to
facilitate better visualization of the consequences of possible
alternative management actions, much progress has been made
recently in that teclmology, which goes beyond the conventional
use of maps, pictures, and narrative statements. These include
use of digitized photographs and video tapes in which proposed
developments have been dubbed in, use of game and other
simulation techniques, of computer-based learning techniques,
and of visual representations of the impacts of the proposed
actions that have been implemented elsewhere.
An advantage of the use of optimization modeling as
described in Step 11, is that it provides much information
characterizing the effects of each alternative generated. Recently,
Much of the tasks inherent in the title of this step should be
accomplished during the previous steps, especially the
prevention of conflicts and their mediation if and as they arise.
Steps 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15 and 18 each provide
opportunities for" conflict management" with Steps 3, 4, 10,
12, 13, 15 and 18 explicitly oriented toward it. When conflicts
remain after all of these efforts, we recommend that professional
mediators be hired rather than attempt to resolve the conflicts
using mediators without adequate skills in mediation. For
example, much progress has been made recently in
social-psychology on persuasive communication and attitude
change, but most professional resource managers do not have
the training-or even the dispositions-to be effective in using
this information. The costs of hiring consultants with this
tIaining generally is likely many orders of magnitude less than
the dollar costs of litigation and the other social costs of
unresolved conflicts. During this process of conflict
management, it is quite likely that some compromised changes
must be made in the desired future conditions established for
each ecological unit in Step 10.
286
14. Select the Plan To Be Recommended For
1m plementation
18. Monitor and Evaluate Plan Implementation
Results
This step follows logically from the previous analyses and
consists of incorporating information obtained in Steps 11, 12
and 13 into development of a recommended plan These efforts
frequently require additional quantitative evaluation such as
sensitivity analyses and the development of additional alternative
plans. The final product of this step will be the draft plan and
appropriate NEPA document.
The concept of adaptive management, where the results of
plan implementation are continuously monitored and evaluated,
is a key component of SEM. These activities are necessary to
ascertain the health of the ecosystems being managed and
identify if management direction needs to be changed by
amending or revising the forest plan. Because monitoring and
evaluation for the first round of forest plans was not carried out
with SEM in mind, much wotk needs to be accomplished to
identify what really needs to be monitored to assess the
compliance of management with SEM. Certainly, the referent
bio-physical criteria (Step 8) and broad desired future conditions
(Step 10) will provide useful guidelines for monitoring to
achieve SEM.
I
15. Public Review of the Recommended Plan
This step seems self-explanatory, but opportunities should be
taken here for conflict prevention and resolution Also, if new
issues arise after Step 13 was completed, they may be addressed
during this step. The amount of effort needed here should be
inversely proportional to the degree to which Wondolleck's
(1988) five steps of conflict prevention were followed previously
in the planning process.
Process Summary
While our expanded planning and analysis process seems
complex and arduous, it really should help simplify that process
in some ways by making explicit which types of analyses and
data are needed for each step. The process shows which types
of social and bio-physical data are needed and where they are
needed.
16. Develop and Prepare The Plan That Will Be
Implemented
This step involves making changes in the recommended plan
that are needed because of the Step 15 public review. As with
Step 14, additional alternative plans may need to be developed
to respond to input received during Step 15. The fmal product
of this step will be the fmal plan and appropriate NEPA
document.
INFORMATION/ANALYSIS STRUCTURE
OF A DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM
FOR SEM
In the foregoing discussion, we have made numerous
references to the need to utilize da~ infonnation and a varlety
of analysis tools to support SEM. In this section, we group key
infonnation and analysis components of a decision support
system (DSS) designed to support SEM, briefly discuss those
groups, and relationships between them Our premise here is
that while a key component of SEM is participatory decision
making with each stakeholder having equal representation in the
process, so much infonnation needs to be obtained, managed,
and analyzed to provide a context for decision making that the
variety and scope of those data requirements becomes practically
incomprehenstble without some type of systematic organization
Our purpose here is to offer such an organization
Figure 1 shows an organization for such a system with 6
major components identified in boxes and infonnation flows or
linkages identified by arrows. Three of the components,
Resource Production Models, Information Systems and GIS
relate to data and infonnation The Analytical Engine is the heart
of the DSS and relies primarily on optimization techniques to
conduct trade-off analyses that incorporate interactions between
ecosystems, the resources they produce and the management of
them. The Participatory Decision Making component utilizes
17. Implement Plan
Plan implementation is a complex process and the way it is
carried out will determine the degree to which SEM principles
are incorporated into actual management. We discuss this further
in a later section of the paper.
An important part of plan implementation is project-level
planning and implementation While the Forest Service has a
detailed system (Le., Integrated Resource Management) for
guiding project-level planning, that system was developed before
the policy of SEM was adopted. Therefore, to help assure that
project-level planning does result in SEM, the ecological filters
referred to in Step 8 need to be applied in project-level planning
to determine the impacts of the proposed project on the
biophysical requirements and conditions of the ecosystems in
which the project is located. Also, the impacts of each proposed
project on the desired future conditions, established in Step 10,
must be evaluated, and these impacts might cause these projects
to be revised.
287
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
Monitoring/Evaluation
PARTICIPATORY
DECISION MAKING
I
Visualization (Landscape Level
Picture)
Conflict Resolution
\
ANALYTICAL ENGINE
· Trade off Analysis
· Analysis of Management Situation
• Formulation of Alternatives
· Estimated Effects of AIternatiyt's
· Project Planning Analyses
(Landscape Scale Analyses)
...-.:.-_ _,.--_---l
i
I
I
f,
!/
\/
INFORMATION
SYSTEMS
GIS
....
--.
--
(Non· Spatial Data)
(Spatial Data)
'I'
\
RESOURCE PRODUCTION
-
Figure 1. -
MODELS
Information/Analysis components for an ecosystem management based decision support system.
288
portions of many large and complex ecosystems, this
infonnation is often unknown and must, where possible, be
estimated. A variety of statistical techniques and computer
simulation models have been developed to provide this
infonnation and much of the non-spatial data mentioned above
is produced by these models. Unfortunately there are many
implications of human management of ecosystems for which no
derived or estimated production functions exist; these knowledge
gaps increase the difficulty of conducting tradeoff analyses that
are ecologically sensitive.
Three major data and infonnation problems exist, the frrst
being that many of the linkages between the Infonnation
Systems and GIS co.nents shown in figure 1 still need to
be developed. The second is that while the hardware and
software technology needed for the infonnation components
exists, no standardized computing platforms and software have
been selected and made available agency-wide within the USDA
Forest Service. The third is that our knowledge of resource
production models is incomplet~, with much additional wolk
being needed in their development and testing. While progress
is being made on all of these fronts, it will be several years
before a corporate infonnation management system is fully in
place.
infonnation from the analytical engine and elsewhere to provide
input to all interested parties. The Adaptive Management
component incorporates the monitoring and evaluation activities.
Data and Information
Reliable infonnation of many kinds, is essential to effective
SEM. The collection and storage of accurate data about
ecosystem conditions and trends are essential to sensible
decision making (Steps 1,2,4, 7, 8, 9) and support all the other
components of the DSS system. For.our purposes, we categorize
data as either non-spatial or spatial. Examples of non-spatial data
include resource output levels .under different forms of
management and environmental and economic accounting
infonnation Under ideal conditions, non-spatial data would
reside on one or more relational data bases designed for
consistent data storage fonnats across the agency and for easy
access by other modules in the DSS. Unfortunately, in reality
the situation in the Forest Service talls far short both in terms
of data reliability issues and in terms of data base software
issues.
Spatial data (sometimes referred to as mappable data) includes
all infonnation that has a spatial context. Examples include land
area by vegetation type, slope, soils or other attributes; location
of road networks, ownership boundaries or other linear features;
and water bodies, mineral deposit sizes and locations.
Geographic Infonnation System (GIS) software systems are
designed to link to a relational data base that is used to store
spatial data in much the same way that non-spatial data are
stored. GIS can also be used for certain types of data analyses,
especially those that facilitate landscape scale and spatially
oriented analyses. Examples include calculation of areas of
suitable habitat for selected wildlife species, and amount of
habitat edge (boundary between different habitat types), that
would result from different management scenarios.
Unfortunately many of the data quality problems that exist for
non-spatial data exist for spatial data as well.
Interrelating these non-spatial and spatial data in meaningful
ways will simplify the complex decisions that SEM implies. As
noted above, past efforts at planning analysis within the Forest
Service have been criticized for their inability to address the
spatial implications of management; i.e. the implication for
wildlife, water quality, sediment production, and many other
issues of how various management actions such as timber
harvesting and minerals extraction are located on the ground.
Most of the earlier efforts did not utilize GIS, consequently the
incorporation of this technology, along with improved
fonnulation of optimization models as discussed below, offers
considerable promise.
To conduct tradeoff analyses, infonnation on resource output
levels resulting from management practices is necessruy. Ideally,
the most reliable infonnation of this type should come from
Resource Production Models, the component identified at the
bottom of figure 1. Because the USDA Forest Service manages
Analytical Engine
Connecting the components in figure 1 into an overall DSS
system should make it possible to trace and quantify indirect
cause of change. However, the number and complexity of such
indirect linkages easily ovenvhelms one's perceptual capacities,
requiring the use of systematic analytical techniques to conduct
the trade-off analyses that provide decision makers with the
infonnation they need. The analytical engine identified in figure
1 is the most important component of the DSS. Infonnation
from the three information components feed the system
incorporated in the engine. Systems in the engine utilize this
infonnation in conjunction with infonnation on management
activities, constraints and ecological or other objectives to
fonnulate alternative plans (Steps 9, 11, 14, 16).
Past plan alternative development efforts in land management
planning h~ve relied primarily on linear programming
optimization modeling using the FORPLAN system (Kent et al.,
1991). A$ noted above, criticisms of these efforts related to the
inability to properly account for spatial interactions and the
utilization of purely economic objectives. Recent wolk (Hof and
Joyce 1992, In Press; Hof et al., In Press) suggests that mixed
integer fonnulations offer considerable promise for incorporating
spatial issues in optimization-based tradeoff analyses. Other
wolk (Hof and Raphael, In Press) demonstrates the feasibility
of incorporating ecological metrics such as measures of
biodiversity into these analyses, thus increasing their utility as
tools to support ecosystems management. Collectively, this wolk
289
SUMMARY
and other, ongoing efforts offer great promise for future
optimization modeling to look at resource tradeoffs within the
context of SEM.
Infonnation obtained from optimization analysis results can
be used to estimate effects of alternative plans. This effort can
be further augmented through the use of other analysis
techniques such as Input/Output modeling (Taylor et al., 1993).
The increased ability to incorporate spatial realities using
mixed integer models will enable the analysis of tradeoffs
resulting from different locations on the ground for resource
production activities such as minernls extraction and timber
harvesting. Past efforts to do this took place externally to the
optimization analysis. However, there is a tradeoff due to the
greater difficulty in solving mix~ integer models as opposed to
solving LPs, and due to the inability of humans to make sense
of spatial analyses over parcels of land larger than, say, a
watershed or viewscape. This suggest that spatial optimization
analyses may be conducted for portions of national forests mther
than for entire forests (which typically comprise 1-3 million
acres) as was typically done With FORPLAN genemted LP
models. If so, these analyses will be used to support plan
implementation (Step 17).
The planning and analysis process developed to help assure
sustainable ecosystem management expands the planning
process used by the USDA Forest SeIVice to develop plans for
the National Forests and Gmsslands. Those expansions focus on
four areas.
1. Better public involvement, especially the on-going
fonnation and nurturance of "collabomtive
partnerships" with all stakeholders to assure
representation of their interests and ideas in the
planning process, to make these stakeholders feel
they have reat ownership in the process, and to
prevent conflicts.
2. Better incorporation of social and economic
information into the SEM planning process.
3. Explicit consideration of variables and types of
analyses needed to help implement the new
"ecosystems management" policy of the USDA
Forest SelVice. These include establishment of
referent bio-physical criteria, ecological objectives,
broad desired future conditions developed with
public involvement, and application of course and
fine filter ecological assessments.
4. Development and use of improved techniques to
inform and educate the public about the nature,
scope, and consequences of alternative management
actions that can be taken. Particular attention here
was given to needs to facilitate better visualization
of the likely consequences of alternative plans both
by the public and the planning agency's personnel.
We identified the various types of information and analyses
needed for SEM, and we categorized the types of information
and analyses needed for SEM and the relationships between
them (figure 1).
We did not make specific recommendations about the types
of professional skills needed for the analyses called for in our
process. Our discussion of that process does make explicit the
need for highly developed skills from a variety of disciplines
especially the quantitative, managerial, and other social sciences
including the social-psychology of conflict prevention and
management. While schools of forestry are trying to change
undetgraduate and graduate curriculum to meet these needs,
considerably more change is needed if SEM is to be pmcticed
in a way that adequately integrates social and bio-physical
infonnation
PartiCipatory Decision Making
In the Participatory Decision Making component, data and
infonnation would be utilized in the earlier steps of our process
(Steps 4, 7, 8) to assist in setting planning goals and in
developing desired future conditions. The results of these efforts
are transferred in the form of constraints and objectives to the
optimization models developed using the Analytical Engine.
Thus, they selVe as inputs to the optimization analysis in order
to help define the plan alternatives that are developed (Steps 9,
11, 14, 16). Visualization techniques can be utilized here to help
in the evaluation of alternatives and in conflict resolution
activities (Steps 3, 12, 13).
Adaptive Management
Adoptive management is widely recognized as a key
component of SEM (Wondolleck 1988). Within the context of
both our planning process and the NFMA regulations process,
monitoring and evaluation (Step 18) is the adoptive management
step. Annual monitoring and evaluation reports are required by
agency planning directives, and are intended to provide a basis
for assessing annually, the need to amend or revise the forest
plan. To be consistent with SEM, increased attention will need
to be devoted to monitoring ecosystem states (health) in addition
to stocks and flows.
LITERATURE CITED
Ager, Alan; Kent, Brian; Merzenich, James; and Phillips,
Richard. 1991. Application of Rocky Mountain Station
microcomputer FORPLAN on National Forests in the Pacific
Northwest Region. pp. 247-249. In: M. Buford (Tech. Coord).
Proceedings of the 1991 Symposium on Systems Analysis in
290
Hunter, M.L. Jr. 1991. Coping with ignorance: The course-futer
strategy for maintaining biodiversity. pp. 266-281. In: K.A.
Kohn (ed.), Balancing on the Brink of Extinction: The
Endangered Species Act and Lessons for the Future. Island
Press. Covelo, CA.
Kent, Brian; Sleavin, Katherine; Ager, Alan; Baltic, Tony; and
Merzenich, James. 1992. Operations guide for FORPLAN on
microcomputers (Release 13). USDA Forest SelVice. Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. General
Technical Report. RM-219. 67 pp.
Kent, Brian; Bare, B. Bruce; Field, Richard c.; and Bradley,
Gordan A. 1991. liatural resource taro management plarming
using large scale lirear programs: the USDA Forest SelVice
experien:e with FORPLAN. Operations Research 39(1): 13-27.
Taylor, Carol; Winter, Susan; Alward, Greg; and Siverts, Eric.
1993. Micro IMPLAN user's guide. United States Department
of Agriculture, Land Management Planning Group. Fort
Collins, CO.
Wondolleck, Julia M. 1988. Publjc lands conflict and resolution:
Managing National forest disputes. New Yorlc Plenum Press.
Forest Resources. Charleston, SC, March 3-6, 1991. USDA
Forest Service General Technical Report SE-74.
Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, NC.
Federal Register. 1982. 36 CFR Part 219. Vol. 47. No. 190.
September 30. U. S. Government Printing Office.
Washington, D. C.
Hof, John; Bevers, Michael; Joyce, Linda; and Kent, Brian.
In Press. An integer programming approach for spatially
and temporally optimizing wildlife populations. Forest
Science.
Hof, John; and Joyce, Linda. In Press. A mixed integer linear
programming approach for spatially optimizing wildlife
and timber in managed forest ecosystems. Forest Science.
Hof, John; and Raphael, Martin. In Press. Optimizing timber
age class distributions to meet multi-species wildlife
population objectives. Canadian Journal of Forest
Research.
Hof, John; and Joyce, Linda. 1992. Spatial optimization for
wildlife and timber in manage~ forest ecosystems. Forest
Science. 38(3): 489-508.
291