26
An Overview of Ecological Assessment Principles and Applications
ment include (1) continue existing management, (2)
manage for minimal disturbance, (3) manage for
historical disturbance processes, and (4) manage to
maximize outputs of goods and services (Lessard
et aI., 1999). To construct these scenarios, ecological modeling is required so that the processes (both
natural and anthropogenic) that influence landscape
patterns can be described at different spatial and
temporal scales. Displays of different landscape
patterns at different periods of time assist the description of ecological consequences and resource
outputs predicted for each management scenario.
Such scenario projections are useful in identifying
the desired future conditions for an assessment area
and can significantly reduce the number of alternatives that need to be addressed in detail in subsequent NEPA-based planning.
1.5 Conclusion
"If you look where you're going, you will certainly
end up where you're headed." This aphorism implies the need for an understanding of the landscape, as well as a sense of direction. Navigational
metaphors abound in the ecosystem management
and assessment literature; conceptual and analytical models may provide the maps, goal-directed
monitoring the compass, and institutional flexibility the gyroscopes necessary to reach particular
goals (Lee, 1993). At its best, an ecological assessment describes all these elements.
Change represents the most daunting challenge
to sustainable management. Even in the absence
of human influences, ecosystems are constantly
changing; human actions have added a new source
of complexity and unpredictability to natural
change processes. Our understanding of the ways
in which ecosystems function and humans affect
these functions is constantly changing. To add even
more complexity, our human expectations from
ecosystems constantly change as well. Our desires
are different from our parents and will be no less
different from those of our children. Obviously,
sustainability and the ecological assessments
needed to support it must not be viewed as an endpoint, but as an evolving process.
1.6 Recommended Reading
Boyce, M. S.; Haney, A. 1997. Ecosystem management:
applications for sustainable forest and wildlife resources. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Christensen, N. L.; Bartuska, A.; Brown, J. H.; Carpenter, S.; D' Antonion, C.; Francis, R; Franklin, J. F.;
MacMahon, J. A.; Noss, R. F.; Parsons, D. J.; Peterson, C. H.; Turner, M. G.; Woodmansee, R G. 1996.
The scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecological Applications 6:665-691.
Jensen, M. E.; Bourgeron, P. S., technical editors. 1994.
Volume II: ecosystem management: principles and applications. PNW-GTR-318. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station. 376 p.
Keystone Center. 1996. The keystone national policy dialogue on ecosystem management. Keystone, CO:
Keystone Center. 99 p.
Samson, F. B.; Knopf, F. L. 1996. Ecosystem management: selected readings. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Slocombe, D. S. 1993. Implementing ecosystem management. BioScience 43:612-622.
1.7 References
Agee, J. K; Johnson, D. R, editors. 1988. Ecosystem
management for parks and wilderness. Seattle, W A:
University of Washington Press.
Allen, T. F. H.; Starr, T. B. 1982. Hierarchy: perspectives for ecological complexity. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Allen, T. F. H.; Hoekstra, T. W.; O'Neill, R V. 1984.
Interlevel relations in ecological research and management: some working principles from hierarchy
theory. RM-GTR-11O. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Dept.
Agric., For. Serv., Rocky Mountain Res. Sta.
Bailey, R G.; Jensen, M. E.; Cleland, D. T.; Bourgeron,
P. S. 1994. Design and use of ecological mapping
units. In: Jensen, M. E.; Bourgeron, P. S., tech. eds.
Volume II: Ecosystem management: principles and
applications. PNW-GTR-318. Portland, OR: U.S.
Dept. Agric., For. Serv., Pacific Northw. Res. Sta.:
95-106.
Bak, P.; Chen, K 1991. Self-organized criticality. Sci.
Amer. 264: 46.
Baker, W. L. 1992. The landscape ecology of large disturbances in the design and management of nature reserves. Landscape Ecol. 7:181-194.
Beek, K J.; Bennema, J. 1972. Land evaluationforagricultural land use planning: an ecological methodology. Wageningen, Netherlands: Dept. Soil Sci. and
Geol., Agricultural Univ.
Bourgeron, P. S.; Jensen, M. E. 1994. An overview of
ecological principles for ecosystem management. In:
Jensen, M. E.; Bourgeron, P. S., tech. eds. Volume II:
Ecosystem management: principles and applications.
PNW-GTR-318. Portland, OR: U.S. Dept. Agric., For.
Serv., Pacific Northw. Res. Sta.: 45-57.
Boyce, M. S.; Haney, A. 1997. Ecosystem management:
applications for sustainable forest and wildlife resources. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Christensen, N. L. 1988. Succession and natural disturbance: paradigms, problems and preservation of natural ecosystems. In: Agee, J.; Johnson, D., eds.
An Overview of Ecological Assessment Principles and Applications
ment include (1) continue existing management, (2)
manage for minimal disturbance, (3) manage for
historical disturbance processes, and (4) manage to
maximize outputs of goods and services (Lessard
et aI., 1999). To construct these scenarios, ecological modeling is required so that the processes (both
natural and anthropogenic) that influence landscape
patterns can be described at different spatial and
temporal scales. Displays of different landscape
patterns at different periods of time assist the description of ecological consequences and resource
outputs predicted for each management scenario.
Such scenario projections are useful in identifying
the desired future conditions for an assessment area
and can significantly reduce the number of alternatives that need to be addressed in detail in subsequent NEPA-based planning.
1.5 Conclusion
"If you look where you're going, you will certainly
end up where you're headed." This aphorism implies the need for an understanding of the landscape, as well as a sense of direction. Navigational
metaphors abound in the ecosystem management
and assessment literature; conceptual and analytical models may provide the maps, goal-directed
monitoring the compass, and institutional flexibility the gyroscopes necessary to reach particular
goals (Lee, 1993). At its best, an ecological assessment describes all these elements.
Change represents the most daunting challenge
to sustainable management. Even in the absence
of human influences, ecosystems are constantly
changing; human actions have added a new source
of complexity and unpredictability to natural
change processes. Our understanding of the ways
in which ecosystems function and humans affect
these functions is constantly changing. To add even
more complexity, our human expectations from
ecosystems constantly change as well. Our desires
are different from our parents and will be no less
different from those of our children. Obviously,
sustainability and the ecological assessments
needed to support it must not be viewed as an endpoint, but as an evolving process.
1.6 Recommended Reading
Boyce, M. S.; Haney, A. 1997. Ecosystem management:
applications for sustainable forest and wildlife resources. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Christensen, N. L.; Bartuska, A.; Brown, J. H.; Carpenter, S.; D' Antonion, C.; Francis, R; Franklin, J. F.;
MacMahon, J. A.; Noss, R. F.; Parsons, D. J.; Peterson, C. H.; Turner, M. G.; Woodmansee, R G. 1996.
The scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecological Applications 6:665-691.
Jensen, M. E.; Bourgeron, P. S., technical editors. 1994.
Volume II: ecosystem management: principles and applications. PNW-GTR-318. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station. 376 p.
Keystone Center. 1996. The keystone national policy dialogue on ecosystem management. Keystone, CO:
Keystone Center. 99 p.
Samson, F. B.; Knopf, F. L. 1996. Ecosystem management: selected readings. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Slocombe, D. S. 1993. Implementing ecosystem management. BioScience 43:612-622.
1.7 References
Agee, J. K; Johnson, D. R, editors. 1988. Ecosystem
management for parks and wilderness. Seattle, W A:
University of Washington Press.
Allen, T. F. H.; Starr, T. B. 1982. Hierarchy: perspectives for ecological complexity. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Allen, T. F. H.; Hoekstra, T. W.; O'Neill, R V. 1984.
Interlevel relations in ecological research and management: some working principles from hierarchy
theory. RM-GTR-11O. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Dept.
Agric., For. Serv., Rocky Mountain Res. Sta.
Bailey, R G.; Jensen, M. E.; Cleland, D. T.; Bourgeron,
P. S. 1994. Design and use of ecological mapping
units. In: Jensen, M. E.; Bourgeron, P. S., tech. eds.
Volume II: Ecosystem management: principles and
applications. PNW-GTR-318. Portland, OR: U.S.
Dept. Agric., For. Serv., Pacific Northw. Res. Sta.:
95-106.
Bak, P.; Chen, K 1991. Self-organized criticality. Sci.
Amer. 264: 46.
Baker, W. L. 1992. The landscape ecology of large disturbances in the design and management of nature reserves. Landscape Ecol. 7:181-194.
Beek, K J.; Bennema, J. 1972. Land evaluationforagricultural land use planning: an ecological methodology. Wageningen, Netherlands: Dept. Soil Sci. and
Geol., Agricultural Univ.
Bourgeron, P. S.; Jensen, M. E. 1994. An overview of
ecological principles for ecosystem management. In:
Jensen, M. E.; Bourgeron, P. S., tech. eds. Volume II:
Ecosystem management: principles and applications.
PNW-GTR-318. Portland, OR: U.S. Dept. Agric., For.
Serv., Pacific Northw. Res. Sta.: 45-57.
Boyce, M. S.; Haney, A. 1997. Ecosystem management:
applications for sustainable forest and wildlife resources. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Christensen, N. L. 1988. Succession and natural disturbance: paradigms, problems and preservation of natural ecosystems. In: Agee, J.; Johnson, D., eds.