r/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington DC 20460
EPA/600/R-95/069
May 1995
Ecosystem Management
Research in the
Pacific Northwest
Five-Year Research Strategy
Region
Watershed/
Ecoregion
Local
-------
EPA/600/R-95/069
May 1995
ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST
FIVE-YEAR RESEARCH STRATEGY
Joan P. Baker, Dixon H. Landers, Henry Lee II, Paul L. Ringold,
Richard R. Sumner, P.J. Wigington, Jr., Richard S. Bennett,
Eric M. Preston, Walter E. Frick, Anne C. Sigleo,
David T. Specht, and David R. Young
Western Ecology Division
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, Oregon 97333
Development of this research strategy was funded by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. This document has been subjected to the Agency's peer and
administrative review and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ^ Printed on Recycled Paper
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We wish to acknowledge and thank the many people who contributed to development of this research
strategy:
Thomas A. Murphy at the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL)
in Corvallis and Ron Kreizenbeck, Charles Findley, Robert Courson, Anita Frankel, Gretchen Hayslip,
Pat Cirone, and Michael Rylko at EPA Region 10 helped shape the scope and direction of the Pacific
Northwest research program.
Susan Christie, independent consultant in Corvallis, Oregon, edited and produced the final document.
Francie Faure, with Ogden Corporation, provided Geographic Information System support and
designed the front cover.
John Van Sickle and Dean Carpenter, with ManTech Environmental Services, Inc., provided technical
assistance.
Donald Boesch (University of Maryland), William Cooper (Michigan State University), Kenneth
Dickson (University of North Texas), C.S. Holling (University of Florida), Thomas Waddell (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency), and Sarah Ann Woodin (University of South Carolina) reviewed
the draft strategy and provided many thoughtful comments and suggestions that improved this
document.
The authors responsible for individual sections of this report are as follows:
• Sections 1-3: Joan Baker
• Section 4 (Regional Biodiversity): Paul Ringold, Rick Bennett, and Eric Preston
• Section 5 (Watershed/Ecoregion): Dixon Landers and Joan Baker
• Section 6 (Riparian Areas): Jim Wigington
• Section 7 (Coastal Estuaries): Henry Lee, Walter Frick, Anne Sigleo, David Specht, and Dave
Young
• Section 8 (Integrated Monitoring): Paul Ringold
• Section 9 (Ecological-Socioeconomic Linkages): Joan Baker
• Section 10 (Technology Transfer): Rich Sumner
The lead authors for each of these sections are the prime contacts for further information on individual
research components within the Pacific Northwest research program.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
List of Figures vi
List of Tables ix
List of Boxes xi
Acronyms xii
Executive Summary xv
1. BACKGROUND 1
1.1 Ecosystem Management 1
1.2 EPA's Role in Ecosystem Management 6
1.3 Ecosystem Management in the Pacific Northwest 11
2. SCOPE, OBJECTIVES, AND ORGANIZATION OF THE PNW RESEARCH PROGRAM 21
2.1 Program Scope and Guiding Principles 21
2.2 Program Objectives 24
2.3 Program Organization and Major Components 27
2.4 Coordination with Other Agencies and Research Programs 33
2.5 Budget and Funding Mechanisms 36
2.6 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 38
2.6.1 PNW Quality Assurance Program Plan 39
2.6.2 Individual QA Project Plans 40
3. APPROACH TO ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 41
3.1 Key Features of Assessments to Support Ecosystem Management 41
3.2 Ecological Concepts and Terms 49
3.2.1 General Conceptual Model of Ecosystems and Landscapes 49
3.2.2 Spatial Framework for Ecological Assessments 56
3.3 Ecological Assessment Process 65
3.3.1 Assessment Questions 65
3.3.2 Assessment Framework 67
3.3.3 Implementation of the Assessment Framework 76
4. REGIONAL BIODIVERSITY 85
4.1 Background 85
4.2 Objectives 90
4.3 Approach 90
4.3.1 Phase 1 Research: Regional Assessment of Species Diversity 91
4.3.2 Phase 2 Research 98
4.4 Major Contributions 102
5. WATERSHED/ECOREGION 103
5.1 Background 103
5.2 Objectives 107
5.3 Approach 108
5.3.1 Case Study Areas 111
5.3.2 Integrated Ecological Evaluations: Assessments 116
in
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
5.3.3 Current Ecological Conditions and Diagnosis 120
5.3.4 Attainable Ecological Goals 122
5.3.5 Targeting Geographic Areas 125
5.3.6 Models and Decision Support Systems 128
5.3.7 Spatial Framework 132
5.3.8 Extrapolation 133
5.3.9 Targeted Ecological Research 137
5.4 Major Contributions 138
6. RIPARIAN AREAS 139
6.1 Background 139
6.1.1 Ecological Importance 139
6.1.2 The Pacific Northwest 143
6.2 Objectives 144
6.3 Approach 144
6.3.1 Landscape Evaluation of Riparian Complexes 148
6.3.2 Water Quality Relations of Riparian Areas 150
6.3.3 Habitat Function/Restoration of Riparian Areas 153
6.3.4 Riparian Area Condition and Restoration in Mixed Landuse Watersheds 155
6.3.5 Riparian Eco-Opportunities 157
6.4 Major Contributions 158
7. COASTAL ESTUARIES 159
7.1 Background 159
7.1.1 Characteristics of Pacific Northwest Coastal Estuaries 160
7.1.2 Priority Stressors 162
7.2 Objectives 167
7.3 Approach 168
7.3.1 Site Selection 171
7.3.2 Predictive Relationships Between Physical Habitat and Estuary
Structure/Functions 179
7.3.3 Extent, Causes, and Effects of Sedimentation and Associated Parameters 186
7.3.4 Extent, Causes, and Effects of Biological Stressors and Potential Control
Measures 193
7.3.5 Willapa Bay Case Study Assessment and Data Synthesis 197
7.4 Major Contributions 200
8. INTEGRATED MONITORING 203
8.1 Background 203
8.2 Objectives 205
8.3 Approach 206
8.3.1 Assessment Questions That Require Ecological Monitoring 209
8.3.2 Integrated Monitoring Design 213
8.3.3 Monitoring Demonstration 217
8.3.4 Broad Involvement 217
8.4 Major Contributions 218
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
9. ECOLOGICAL-SOCIOECONOMIC LINKAGES 219
9.1 Background 219
9.2 Objectives 220
9.3 Approach 221
9.4 Major Contributions 222
10. TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER 223
10.1 Background 223
10.2 Objectives 223
10.3 Approach 224
10.3.1 Communication 224
10.3.2 Collaborative Research Projects 225
10.3.3 Dissemination of Research Results 226
10.4 Major Contributions .- 226
11. EXPECTED OUTPUTS AND SCHEDULE 227
12. REFERENCES 229
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1-1 Ecosystem sustainability: The degree of overlap between what is ecologically
possible and what the current generation desires for itself and future generations 3
1-2 An iterative decision process for any geographic area and scale to "lace" together
societal values and the ecological capacity of the ecosystem 5
1-3 Information flow in the multi-scale ecosystem management model 7
1-4 Adaptive management process 8
1-5 Elements of EPA's Watershed Protection Approach, developed by the Office
of Water 9
1-6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regions 12
1-7 U.S. Geological Survey Hydrological Units in the Pacific Northwest 13
1-8 Ecoregions, as defined by Omernik (1987), in the Pacific Northwest 15
1-9 Physiographic provinces within the area covered by the Pacific Northwest Forest
Ecosystem Management Plan 17
2-1 Four program-level objectives for the PNW research program 25
2-2 Major research components of the PNW research program, organized by program-level
objective and spatial scale 28
3-1 a Hypothetical ecological benefits profile for old growth forest, comparing two manage-
ment strategies: (a) preservation of old growth forests and (b) forest harvests
through clearcutting 44
3-1 b Hypothetical ecological benefits profile for old growth forest, comparing two manage-
ment strategies: (a) preservation of old growth forests and (b) forest harvests
through clearcutting 45
3-2 The benefits of an ecological assessment, measured in terms of the accuracy of the
results as a function of the assessment costs 48
3-3 Conceptual presentations of ecosystem response to disturbance: (a) Stylized definitions
of the terms resistance and resilience, (b) Graphs showing that ecosystems are dynamic 52
3-4 Example hypothetical stressor-response curves, illustrating potential relationships
between ecosystem function and increasing levels of some stressor or multiple
stressors 54
3-5 Example hypothetical relationships between ecosystem function and increasing levels
of stressor and increasing restoration activity, illustrating that ecosystem responses
to restoration (or stressor reduction) may not mimic the initial ecosystem response
to increased stressor 55
VI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
3-6 Spatial and temporal scales for (a) example disturbances and (b) biotic responses 56
3-7 Proximate and ultimate controlling factors in determining stream characteristics
and their relation to spatial and temporal scales 59
3-8 Omernik's ecoregions of the United States 62
3-9 Omernik's subecoregions within the Coastal Ecoregion of Washington 63
3-10 Risk Assessment Forum's framework for ecological risk assessment 68
3-11 Iterative process through basic assessment questions 71
3-12 Problem formulation phase of ecological assessments for ecosystem management 72
3-13 Ranges of subnominal, marginal, and nominal conditions and estimated proportion
of total resource in each category : 75
3-14 Ecological assessment framework for adaptive, ecosystem management 77
3-15 Linkages across spatial scales: Ecological assessment process at each scale
follows the basic framework outlined in Figure 3-14 81
4-1 Spatial framework for Biodiversity Research Consortium analyses 93
4-2 Biodiversity Research Consortium analysis strategy 94
5-1 U.S. Geologic Survey national map of hydrologic units 104
5-2 Map of the Willamette Hydrologic Unit (i.e., Willamette River watershed) showing the
major river catchments of which it is composed 105
5-3 Conceptual approach to achieving the watershed/ecoregion-scale assessment
and research objectives 109
5-4 Willamette River watershed, showing the subecoregions it contains 113
5-5 Landuse map of the Washington Coastal Ecoregion 114
5-6 Map of the Willapa Bay watershed showing the subecoregions it contains 118
5-7 Map of the EMAP Pacific Northwest Pilot Study Area showing stream sites sampled
as part of the Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
(Regional EMAP) in 1994 123
5-8 Three approaches to developing a taxonomic key, based on site-specific indicator
characteristics, for landscape classification 136
6-1 Relationships among geomorphic processes, terrestrial plant succession, and aquatic
ecosystems in riparian zones 140
VII
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
6-2 Typical patterns of riparian plant communities associated with different geomorphic
surfaces of river valleys in the Pacific Northwest 142
7-1 Coastal Estuaries in the Pacific Northwest 161
7-2 Map of Willapa Bay, Washington 173
7-3 Map of Yaquina Bay, Oregon 174
7-4 Map of Tillamook Bay, Oregon 175
7-5 Map of South Slough of Coos Bay, Oregon 177
VIII
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2-1 Assumed Annual Budget, by Research Component, for the PNW Research Program 37
3-1 Examples of Ecosystem Functions 50
3-2 Examples of Assessment Endpoints and Indicators (or Measurement Endpoints)
for Selected Ecosystem Functions 69
4-1 Taxonomic Comparison of Listed and Proposed Threatened and Endangered
Species 87
4-2 Anticipated Distribution of Resources for the Regional Biodiversity Research
Component for FY95 through FY99 91
5-1 Estimated Budget for Each Watershed/Ecoregion Project Area by Fiscal Year 110
5-2 Major Management Concerns for the Washington Coastal Ecoregion Identified by the
State of Washington 117
5-3 Example Models for Ecosystem Processes and Components Relevant in the Pacific
Northwest 129
6-1 Major Riparian Research Objectives and Ecological Functions Addressed by Riparian
Research Projects 146
6-2 Distribution of Riparian Funding by Project During the Five-Year Study Period 147
6-3 Time of Initiation for Components of Research Experimental Design 152
7-1 High-Priority Ultimate Stressors On Pacific Northwest Estuarine Ecosystems 164
7-2 Approximate Resource Allocations for Coastal Estuaries and Watersheds Research
Component 169
7-3 Lower Priority Topics and Topics Outside the Scope of the Coastal Estuaries
and Watersheds PNW Research Program 170
7-4 Summary of Physical/Chemical Characteristics of Target Estuaries 178
7-5 Potential Parameters Used To Characterize Habitats 182
7-6 Juvenile Fish: Occurrence and Relative Abundance by Month in Yaquina,
Tillamook, and Willapa Bays 185
7-7 Methods of Estimating Sedimentation Rates 188
7-8 Candidate Circulation, Sedimentation, and Transport Model Prototypes 194
8-1 List of Objectives (Projects) and Associated Tasks Proposed for the Integrated
Monitoring Component of the PNW Research Program 207
IX
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
8-2 Allocation of Extramural Funding for the PNW Integrated Monitoring Research
Component by Objective and Fiscal Year 208
8-3 The Nature and Magnitude of Resources Allocated to the Ten Monitoring Tasks
over the Five-Year Research Strategy 208
-------
LIST OF BOXES
Box Page
1-A Ecosystem Sustainability 3
1-B The Pacific Northwest 16
2-A Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) 35
2-B Planned and Ongoing Research by Other Federal Agencies Related to Ecosystem
Management in the Pacific Northwest 36
3-A Ecological Benefits Assessment 43
3-B Structured Use of Expert Judgment 47
3-C Examples of Specific Assessment Questions Defined for a Given Management
Question 80
4-A Overview of Biodiversity Research Consortium Analysis Approach 95
8-A Requirements for Monitoring in the Record of Decision for the President's Forest
Plan 210
XI
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AREM
ARS
BLM
BRC
CLAMS
CTD
CV
DQO
EMAP
EPA
ERL
FEMAT
FTE
GAP
GIS
ha
IAG
IRICC
km
LMER
m
MOU
MSS
NASA
NAWQA
NBS
NEPA
NOAA
NPDES
NRC
NRCS
OEPER
OPPE
ORD
Avian Richness Evaluation Method
Agricultural Research Service
Bureau of Land Management
Biodiversity Research Consortium
Coastal Landscape Analysis and Modeling Study
Conductivity-Temperature-Depth recorder
Contingent Valuation
Data Quality Objective
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team
Full-Time Equivalent
Gap Analysis Program
Geographic Information System
hectare
Interagency Agreement
Interagency Resource Information Coordination Council
kilometers
Land-Margin Ecosystem Research
meter
Memorandum of Understanding
Multispectral Scanner
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Water-Quality Assessment
National Biological Survey
National Environmental Policy Act
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
National Research Council
National Resource Conservation Service
Office of Ecological Processes and Effects Research
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Office of Research and Development
XII
-------
osu
OTA
OTTER
PNW
QA/QC
RAF
RMC
SAB
SCS
SWMG
TEV
TM
USDA
USFS
USFWS
USGS
UV
WRP
Oregon State University
Office of Technology Assessment
Oregon Transect Ecosystem Research
Pacific Northwest
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Risk Assessment Forum
Research and Monitoring Committee
Science Advisory Board
Soil Conservation Service
Strategic Water Management Group
Total Economic Value
Thematic Mapper
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Forest Service
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
United States Geological Service
Ultraviolet
Wetlands Research Program
XIII
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT RESEARCH IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST
FIVE-YEAR RESEARCH STRATEGY
IMPETUS FOR THIS RESEARCH
In 1993, President Clinton convened the Pacific Northwest Forest Conference to deal with the conflict in
the region between protection of endangered species and timber production on federal lands. To resolve
the conflict, the President created several interagency workgroups, charged with evaluating management
alternatives using an "ecosystem approach to forest management." The President also formed an
Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force to implement ecosystem management throughout the
federal government, defined by the Task Force as follows:
"Ecosystem management is a goal-driven approach to restoring and sustaining healthy
ecosystems and their functions using the best science available. It entails working collaboratively
with state, tribal, and local governments, community groups, private landowners, and other
interested parties to develop a vision of desired future ecosystem conditions. This vision
integrates ecological, economic, and social factors affecting the management unit defined by
ecological, not political boundaries."
A key feature of ecosystem management is the shift away from piecemeal agency or program mandates
toward management of ecological systems within a geographic area as an integrated whole.
This research program is part of the follow-up to the President's Forest Conference in the Pacific North-
west. Ecosystem management must be based on sound science and accurate information. The role of
research is to improve that science base. Therefore, as part of an interagency Memorandum of Under-
standing, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) committed to a five-year research program on
ecological risk assessment research in the Pacific Northwest, which we refer to as the Pacific Northwest
(PNW) research program. The research will be conducted by EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) and led by the ORD Environmental Research Laboratories in Corvallis (ERL-Corvallis) and
Newport (ERL-Newport), Oregon, in partnership with EPA Region 10. Region 10 is contributing its insight
into priority management questions that we should address, as well as facilitating our interactions with
other environmental managers at federal, state, tribal, and local levels.
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
The goal of the PNW research program is to contribute to the ecological understanding and approaches
that federal, state, tribal, and local governments will need if they are to implement ecosystem management
xv
-------
effectively in the Pacific Northwest. Although focused in the Pacific Northwest, our intent is to develop
information and approaches that will also have broader applicability. Our challenge is to provide an
improved scientific basis for a management approach that is only now being defined. The next five years
will be a learning, adaptive process, both for the ecosystem management approach and for ecosystem
management research.
We define four program-level objectives, which we believe represent the four general ecological research
areas required to support ecosystem management (Figure 1):
1. Develop and demonstrate an overall ecological assessment process, along with the associated
analytical tools, dealing with multiple endpoints1 and multiple stressors2 across multiple spatial
scales, that will allow managers to:
Define realistic environmental goals.
Assess current ecological conditions relative to those goals and identify major environmental
problems.
Evaluate and compare the ecological consequences of alternative management strategies.
• Target geographic areas for protection, restoration, or other management action.
2. Advance the understanding of ecosystems, ecosystem dynamics, and ecosystem responses to
human activities to reduce uncertainties in ecological assessments and improve confidence in
ecosystem management decision making.
3. Develop and demonstrate a spatial framework that provides a common, effective basis for
ecological assessments at multiple spatial scales, environmental goal setting, and extrapolation of
research results.
4. Develop and demonstrate ecological monitoring designs that meet the needs of adaptive
ecosystem management and are integrated across ecosystem types, spatial scales, and
monitoring programs in different agencies.
STRATEGIC APPROACH
Our goal and objectives are broad and ambitious. We believe they can be achieved by adopting the
following strategic approach.
1 An endpoint is an ecosystem good, service, or societal >/alue selected to serve as the focal point for
management decisions and assessments. Examples include sustainable fishery yields and biological
diversity.
2 A stressor is any chemical, physical, or biological entity or activity that can induce an ecological effect.
A stressor may be natural or it may result from human activity.
XVI
-------
Ecological Assessment
Spatial
Framework
Integrated
Monitoring
Ecological Understanding
Figure 1. Four program-level objectives for the PNW research program.
Focus on selected case study examples. Within these case studies, we will address real-world, priority
management questions identified by environmental managers and stakeholders within the region. The
case study approach allows us, first, to concentrate our resources on a subset of issues and/or
geographic areas (a cost-effective research approach), and second, to test and refine our approaches
while also providing information needed by decision makers.
Develop transferable approaches that can be applied by others with reasonable effort. The case
studies will neither address all management questions nor provide all the information needed by environ-
mental managers in the region. Our approach is to use the case studies to develop, test, and demon-
strate ecological approaches and analytical "tools" that could be applied to diverse management issues.
We will consider our research successful only if these approaches are adopted and widely used by others
(e.g., EPA Region 10, states, local governments), in which case the information generated as a result of
the research program will extend beyond the specific analyses funded by the program.
Concentrate on integration and coordination with other researchers. EPA is unique among federal
agencies, in that its legislative mandates cover both private and public lands; physical, chemical, and
biological components of ecosystems; the atmosphere as well as terrestrial and aquatic resources; and
estuarine and marine systems as well as freshwaters. EPA also has a history of interactions with state,
tribal, and local governments and with private organizations. This broad spectrum of responsibilities and
contacts provides EPA with a special role in ecosystem management—as integrator, or at least facilitator
XVII
-------
of this integration—across different ecosystem types, landuses, land ownership, and agencies. We also
see integration as an important role of this research program. Thus, we will attempt to achieve our
research objectives, in part, by working cooperatively with other ecological researchers in the area to
synthesize and integrate existing knowledge, information, and approaches.
"In all areas of ecology, and in science in general, the convergence and integration of information
from different points of view, different disciplines, and different approaches are what lead to major
advances and breakthroughs in understanding." (Gene E. Likens, 1992)
The case studies, and the example management questions addressed in these case studies, provide the
focal point for this interdisciplinary integration. We are working with the interagency Research and
Monitoring Committee, established to coordinate federal agency activities within the region, and we also
will involve other interested researchers within the Pacific Northwest.
Leverage existing research programs and approaches. A number of other ongoing research pro-
grams have similar, or overlapping, research objectives and have developed approaches of direct utility
for ecosystem management. By encouraging these programs to work within our case studies, and by
providing supplemental funding as needed, we can achieve much more than would otherwise be possible
for the funding allocated for this specific research program. The demonstration of the full capabilities and
complementary nature of these various approaches in an integrated case study is of benefit both to our
research program and to these others. Examples of research programs with which we have specific plans
for cooperative research include the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), the
interagency Biodiversity Research Consortium (BRC), the National Biological Survey's (NBS) Gap
Analysis Program (GAP), EPA's Wetlands Research Program and ecoregion approach (developed by
James Omernik and others at ERL-Corvallis), and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Coastal Landscape
Analysis and Modeling Study.
Target research to key knowledge and research gaps. The process outlined in the foregoing para-
graphs—of coordinating, leveraging, and integrating research within selected case studies—will facilitate
the identification of remaining knowledge and information gaps. The identification of these gaps, and the
initiation of appropriate research, will be an ongoing process throughout the five-year period. The
President's Forest Ecosystem Management Plan has focused substantial federal research on forested
lands. Thus, we view research on nonforested areas and on the interactions among forested and non-
forested landscapes as general "research gaps" that we can fill. Some projects within the research
program deal specifically with agricultural and other nonforested lands; others emphasize the integration
of information across landuses.
XVIII
-------
SEVEN RESEARCH COMPONENTS
1. Regional Biodiversity
2. Watershed/Ecoregion
3. Riparian Areas
4. Coastal Estuaries
5. Integrated Monitoring
6. Ecological-Socioeconomic Linkages
7. Technology Transfer
A basic premise of ecosystem management is that management must occur at multiple spatial scales
(Figure 2). Long-term goals, priorities, and general guidelines are established at a large, regional scale.
These regional goals and guidelines provide the starting point for more detailed analyses of trade-offs and
specific management approaches at the intermediate spatial scale, which we refer to as the water-
shed/ecoregion scale. The objective of management at this intermediate scale is to determine the most
efficient way—ecologically, economically, and socially—to achieve desired resource uses and environ-
mental goals within the guidelines and constraints prescribed by the regional plan. The intermediate-scale
planning document then provides context for management decisions, both at the local level and by public
and private landowners on individual parcels of land. Local conditions and considerations can require
adjustments to larger scale plans. Thus, ecosystem management involves a balance between top-down
(large-scale) planning and bottom-up (small-scale) decision making.
To match this multi-scale management approach, the PNW research program includes major research
components at regional and watershed/ecoregion scales (numbers 1 and 2 in the box above). Although
specific to the spatial scale, the goals of these two research components match those of the overall
research program: to conduct selected case study ecological assessments and associated ecological
research at regional and watershed/ecoregion scales in order to improve the scientific basis for
implementing ecosystem management.
The next two research components (numbers 3 and 4 in the box at the top of the page) deal with two
important ecosystem types, which we believe represent key knowledge gaps in the Pacific Northwest:
(1) riparian areas in agricultural settings and mixed landuse watersheds and (2) coastal estuaries and
watersheds (excluding Puget Sound and the Columbia River estuary). We selected these systems for
focused research because they are important ecologically and economically, yet ecosystem-level infor-
mation is sparse relative to management needs. Riparian areas occur at the interface between terrestrial
and aquatic environments and play important roles in improving water quality and serving as habitat for
terrestrial and aquatic biota. Estuaries are sources of important ecological resources (e.g., oysters,
salmon) that contribute significantly to the local and regional economy and are subject to a variety of
XIX
-------
Spatial Scale
x
x
Watershed/
Ecoregion
Management Issues
Regional goals and priorities
Long-term planning
General guidelines and criteria
Geographic targeting
Ecoiogicai Assessment
Trade-off analyses
Comparisons among
management scenarios
Geographic targeting
Site-specific projects
Implementation of management
actions
Context
Constraints
t
t
Cumulative Effects
More Detailed Analyses
t
Context
Constraints
Cumulative Effects
i
Local Knowledge
Figure 2. Linkages across multiple spatial scales: management issues and associated ecological assessments. The ecological
assessment process at each scale, shown diagrammatically here, is explained further in Section 3 and in Figures 3-11, 3-12,
and 3-14.
-------
perturbations. The primary goal of these research components is to improve our understanding of riparian
and estuary ecosystems and ecosystem responses to stressors and management actions.
The final major research component (number 5 in the box on page xviii) consists of designing and demon-
strating an integrated ecological monitoring system. Ecosystem management within the Pacific Northwest
includes the concept of adaptive management: monitoring ecosystem responses, evaluating the success
or failure of management actions, and modifying management programs accordingly. Although we spend
substantial effort and funds on monitoring, the monitoring data provided are not adequate for implementing
an adaptive management approach. The goal of PNW monitoring research is to contribute to the design
of an integrated monitoring system—integrated across ecosystem types, spatial and temporal scales, and
organizations (federal, state, local, and private)—that will provide improved monitoring information at a
cost equal to or less than the cost of current monitoring.
These five major PNW research components (regional biodiversity, watershed/ecoregion, riparian area,
coastal estuaries, and integrated monitoring) are all interrelated. For example, monitoring demonstrations
will be conducted, to the degree possible, in the PNW case study areas and will contribute to both regional
and watershed/ecoregion case study assessments (and vice versa). Riparian and estuary research will
contribute directly to the watershed/ecoregion case studies and to the selection of indicators for
ecosystem monitoring. Relationships among research components, program-level objectives, and spatial
scales are illustrated in Figure 3.
The PNW research program includes two additional components: ecological-socioeconomic linkages and
technology transfer (numbers 6 and 7 in the box on page xviii). Both serve program outreach functions: to
the economists and social scientists also involved in ecosystem management research and to the broad
group of users of our ecological approaches and information, respectively.
The following paragraphs briefly describe the objectives and general approach for each of these seven
research components. Testable hypotheses, which are central to the scientific method, are more appro-
priately defined at the project rather than the program level and, therefore, are not presented in this pro-
gram strategy document. Eventually, detailed research plans will be prepared and peer-reviewed for
individual projects funded under the PNW research program. These research plans will describe project-
specific hypotheses, designs, and methods.
XXI
-------
Research
Objective
Spatial
Framework
Assessment
Ecological
Understanding
Monitoring
Spatial Scale
Regional Watershed/Ecoregion Site
Regional
Biodiversity
w
E
atersh
coregi
ed/
on
Riparian Areas
Coastal Estuaries
Monitoring
r__
Linkages
to Others
Socioeconomic
Linkages
Technology
Transfer
Figure 3. Major research components of the PNW research program, organized by program-level
objective and spatial scale.
XXII
-------
Regional Biodiversity Research
For the regional-scale case study, we will focus on regional analyses of biodiversity. We selected bio-
diversity as an example of an important assessment endpoint that must be addressed at a regional scale.
Biodiversity, and threatened and endangered species, also are the focal point of regional analyses for the
President's Forest Ecosystem Management Plan.
The major objectives of this research component are as follows:
• Develop and refine methods for integrating and interpreting data on biodiversity at a regional
scale.
Develop and demonstrate the ecological assessment process at a regional scale to support
development of regional conservation strategies based on the best science available and
stakeholder input.
Conduct research targeted at testing the accuracy of assessment outputs, evaluating key
assumptions, and addressing major knowledge gaps and uncertainties about regional ecosystems
identified during the assessment process.
We propose a two-phase strategic approach to research on regional biodiversity. Phase 1 is to conduct a
regional assessment based on existing data and knowledge, building on substantial efforts already
ongoing in the NBS GAP and the interagency BRC. We will work directly with state agencies, BRC, and
GAP to complete a consistent regional assessment of biodiversity for the Pacific Northwest as a whole
(Washington, Oregon, Idaho). Our analyses will use the best available spatially explicit databases to esti-
mate distributions of species, species assemblages, terrestrial habitats, and species richness, and to
describe how these relate to spatial patterns of stressors and various levels of management protection.
The assessment will identify areas rich in species and subject to (or likely to experience) significant
stressors, making them high priority for management attention and further study.
Results from this assessment, including sensitivity analyses to identify key assumptions and uncertainties,
will form the basis for prioritizing and designing subsequent research in phase 2. We will concentrate in
1995 and 1996 on the phase 1 assessment. Phase 2 research will begin in 1996 and expand in 1997 and
beyond. The phase 1 assessment will represent, in essence, a set of hypotheses about regional
biodiversity and factors that affect regional biodiversity, components of which will be tested in phase 2.
Furthermore, the phase 1 assessment will provide a structure for (1) identifying the additional research
and information most needed to increase our confidence in future assessments about regional biodiversity
and (2) integrating this information, once obtained, into a format for decision makers.
XXIII
-------
Specific objectives and projects for phase 2 have not yet been selected, but will be a direct outcome of
phase 1 research. Potential candidates, however, include the following:
Field sampling in selected areas to evaluate the accuracy of regional distributions of species
richness and habitat characteristics estimated in the phase 1 assessment.
• Collection of additional data and additional analyses for taxa not well represented in existing data-
bases. To date, most of the effort has focused on terrestrial vertebrates, because of (1) the
greater availability of species occurrence records for these organisms and (2) our ability to use
remote sensing to characterize habitat (i.e., remote sensing estimates of vegetation type). The
BRC conducts "sweep analyses" to evaluate the degree to which regional analyses based on data
for terrestrial vertebrates adequately account for other terrestrial and aquatic groups. It is likely,
however, that regional conservation strategies based strictly on data for terrestrial vertebrates will
not be adequate for all other taxa. Thus, further data collection and analyses for other groups
may be warranted.
Process-related field studies or experiments. Strategies to sustain biodiversity cannot be based
solely on analyses of spatial patterns of habitat and species distributions and their associations.
They must also be based on a sound understanding of the ecosystem properties (processes,
structure, components) required to sustain biodiversity and of ecosystem dynamics over time. An
example of such an issue is the role of habitat corridors, which have been proposed as a means
for extending the apparent size and effectiveness of individual habitat patches. Many questions
remain, however, about the importance of corridors and increased habitat connectivity for species
dispersal and maintenance of viable populations.
Watershed/Ecoregion Research
Watershed/ecoregion research will be conducted in two case study areas (Figure 4): (1) the Willamette
River Basin and (2) the Washington Coastal Ecoregion. These areas were selected by EPA Region 10
and the States of Oregon and Washington as high-priority areas for ecosystem management research. In
each case study area, we will conduct an integrated ecological assessment and associated research,
addressing specific policy and management questions identified as high priority for that study area by
managers and stakeholders. The strategic approach is similar to that for regional biodiversity. We will
begin with an initial, qualitative assessment in 1995-96, using available data, followed by about 3 years of
targeted research to fill the most important gaps in our understanding and data. We will conclude, in year
5, with a quantitative assessment that will address selected policy and management questions and also
integrate and compare the approaches and analytical tools developed.
The objectives of the Watershed/Ecoregion research component are as follows:
Conduct an initial assessment to determine the data and information available for the selected
study areas; determine research needs based, partially, on information gaps.
Demonstrate and evaluate methods for characterizing current ecological conditions at multiple
spatial scales, cooperatively with research on monitoring designs.
XXIV
-------
PNW Watershed/Ecoregion Case Study Areas
Washington Coastal
Ecoregion
Willamette
River Basin
Enlarged Area
Scale 1:7,500,000
Afcers Equal Area Projection
0 100
Figure 4. Watershed/ecoregion case study areas: Willamette River Basin and Washington
Coastal Ecoregion.
XXV
-------
Select and test approaches for defining attainable ecological goals through the use of reference
sites, ecological indicators, and other methods.
Refine and demonstrate methods for targeting high-priority areas within a watershed/ecoregion for
protection, restoration, or other management action, or for further study and/or monitoring.
Construct simple watershed-scale interactive models to evaluate, project, and compare the
consequences of alternative management strategies on key ecological endpoints.
Compare the attributes of different spatial frameworks for summarizing information on ecological
condition, setting attainable ecological goals, and organizing ecological research at the water-
shed/ecoregion scale.
Evaluate techniques for extrapolating site-specific ecological information to other sites and spatial
units at the watershed/ecoregion scale.
Conduct a final integrated ecological assessment combining existing data and the results of the
research conducted in this program to determine the best approaches for assessing management
trade-offs in the study areas.
Major research activities will include the following:
Cooperative efforts with EMAP to identify indicators of ecosystem condition appropriate for the
region and to characterize current conditions, using an intensified EMAP sampling grid in the case
study areas.
• Application and evaluation of Omernik's ecoregion approach, and comparison to other region-
alization approaches, to delineate subregions with similar ecological potential and identify
reference sites for setting attainable ecological goals. In particular, we will evaluate quantitative
approaches to ecoregion delineation; extend Omernik's approach to riparian and terrestrial
habitats as well as freshwaters; and evaluate the ecoregion approach using the EMAP field data.
Development of spatially explicit models and decision support systems that can be applied at
watershed/ecoregion scales with reasonable effort to evaluate the ecological consequences and
trade-offs among various management options, including specific scenarios proposed by man-
agers for ecosystem protection, restoration, pollution controls, and changes in land use and land
and resource management practices.
Development of landscape criteria for identifying high-priority sites within a watershed/ecoregion
for protection, restoration, or other management action.
Development and testing of landscape classification systems that can be used to extrapolate
information from studied sites to other similar sites and to organize information about ecosystem
functions, sensitivity to stressors, restoration potential, and best management practices and make
it accessible to environmental managers.
XXVI
-------
Riparian Area Research
Research on riparian areas will address riparian area condition, restoration approaches, and "eco-oppor-
tunities" at both site and watershed scales (see Figure 3), with the following major objectives:
Define reference conditions for riparian areas in agricultural settings.
Establish indicators of riparian area condition in agricultural settings.
Develop approaches for evaluating riparian area condition in mixed landuse watersheds.
Develop approaches and performance criteria for restoring degraded riparian areas in agricultural
settings.
Develop approaches to locate promising areas for riparian restoration and to evaluate the
attainable quality and restoration potential of riparian areas within mixed landuse watersheds.
Evaluate practices that are ecologically and economically promising for managing riparian areas
in agricultural settings.
We will assess the condition and restoration potential of riparian areas relative to three major riparian
functions: (1) improvement of water quality, (2) habitat for aquatic biota, and (3) habitat for terrestrial
biota.
Site-specific research will take place in agricultural settings, because of the relative lack of information on
riparian areas in nonforested areas west of the Cascades. Study sites will include intact, fully functioning
riparian areas, degraded systems, and restored riparian areas. One study, which began in fall 1994, is a
cooperative research project with the Agricultural Research Service (ARS). By cooperating with the ARS,
we take advantage of both their expertise in agricultural systems and their access to private farmlands.
We hope to develop similar cooperative relationships with the ARS or others for the remaining riparian
area projects, to begin in 1995 and later years.
Most of the study sites, as well as the watershed-scale riparian research, will lie within the two case study
watershed/ecoregions identified in the discussion on the Watershed/Ecoregion research component (see
Figure 4). Thus, information on riparian areas generated in this research component will contribute
directly to the watershed/ecoregion case study assessments. In addition to carrying out site-specific
studies, research activities will include (1) characterizing the occurrence and conditions of riparian areas in
the landscape through the interpretation of satellite imagery, videography, or aerial photography (with
appropriate groundtruthing), (2) using coupled geographic information system (GlS)-hydrologic models to
develop indicators of riparian area performance and to evaluate promising locations for riparian area
restoration, and (3) doing historical reconstructions of riparian areas prior to major hydrologic modifica-
XXVII
-------
tions. Additional approaches for watershed-scale analyses will be identified in workshops with agency,
private, and university researchers, and field tested in the case study areas. We will also review, and
possibly evaluate in the field, riparian management practices that have the potential both to maintain
valued ecological functions and to provide financial return to landowners.
Research on riparian areas is taking place in close cooperation with similar research on wetland condition
and restoration approaches within the Wetlands Research Program at ERL-Corvallis.
Coastal Estuaries Research
Research on coastal estuaries and their associated watersheds will address two of the program-level
objectives: (1) developing and demonstrating assessment approaches and (2) improving our under-
standing of ecosystems and ecosystem responses to stressors and management activities. The assess-
ment research will be conducted jointly with the Watershed/Ecoregion research component and will focus
on an integrated ecological assessment for a single estuarine watershed, Willapa Bay, Washington. The
Willapa Bay watershed is one of three watersheds within the Washington Coastal Ecoregion case study
area (see Figure 4). The objectives and approach for the estuarine-watershed assessment are the same
as those outlined for watershed/ecoregion assessments, although they focus on endpoints within the
estuarine system.
Process-oriented research, to improve our understanding of estuarine ecosystems, will focus on two major
stressors within Pacific Northwest coastal estuaries: sedimentation and biological stressors. The major
objectives are as follows:
Develop predictive relationships between ecosystem structure and habitat characteristics.
Improve our understanding of the extent, loading, causes, and effects of sedimentation and
associated parameters (such as nutrients) in Pacific Northwest coastal estuaries.
Improve our understanding of the extent, causes, and effects of biological stressors (in particular,
expansions of Spartina) and the effects of potential control strategies.
Although most of the process-oriented research will be conducted in Willapa Bay, Washington, certain
questions can be addressed more effectively at other sites or through a comparative approach. Thus, we
anticipate conducting some process-oriented research in selected Oregon estuaries, in particular Yaquina
Bay, Tillamook Bay, and possibly in the South Slough of Coos Bay. Approaches developed in Oregon
estuaries will be tested and integrated within the Willapa Bay case study assessment. Research activities
proposed for each objective include the following:
XXVIII
-------
Predictive relationships between ecosystem structure/functions and habitat characteristics
Development and testing of cost-effective sampling techniques for characterizing salient
physical/chemical habitat characteristics and key indicators of benthic and fish community
structure/functions at a level of resolution sufficient to differentiate between major habitat types
and stressed versus nonstressed systems.
Evaluation of associations between habitat and benthic/fish indicators, and the application of
these relationships to map benthic and fish communities in Willapa Bay.
Sedimentation and Associated Parameters
Estimation of current and historical rates of sedimentation, using historical records, sediment
cores, and sediment traps; and the relative contributions of marine and terrestrial sediments from
the watershed, based on stable isotope ratios and other approaches.
Evaluation of the association between historical sedimentation rates and watershed character-
istics and events (e.g., major forest fires, clear-cutting).
Development of hybrid models to predict sediment and nutrient loadings to Pacific Northwest
coastal estuaries as a function of watershed characteristics and upland management practices.
Development of approaches and models to predict changes in estuary circulation, and associated
changes in temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and other variables, as a function of sedi-
mentation and runoff in Pacific Northwest coastal estuaries.
Biological Stressors and Potential Control Measures
Field studies and laboratory/field experimentation conducted to evaluate the direct and indirect
effects of Spartina on the Willapa Bay ecosystem; also the relative effects of Spartina versus
chemical measures used to control or reduce Spartina.
Results from these studies will be combined with additional baseline data to identify the major stressors
and evaluate alternative management scenarios in Willapa Bay as part of the case study estuarine-
watershed assessment.
Integrated Monitoring Design
The major objectives of this research component are as follows:
Identify the priority assessment questions for the Pacific Northwest that require monitoring
information, and the ecological, spatial, and temporal scales at which each question must be
addressed.
Design elements of a fully integrated multi-scale ecological monitoring program for the Pacific
Northwest.
XXIX
-------
Demonstrate this integrated multi-scale ecological monitoring design in the Pacific Northwest (by
leveraging other programs).
Involve authorities with the mandate and resources to implement a monitoring program during all
stages of the monitoring design effort.
The last objective is especially critical. The PNW research program has no long-term responsibilities for
monitoring, nor does it have enough funding to conduct extensive field testing or demonstration studies.
To achieve any of these objectives, and to develop a design that will eventually be adopted and used by
others, we must work cooperatively with organizations that implement monitoring in the region, at federal,
state, and local levels. Coordination with other federal agencies will be through the interagency Research
and Monitoring Committee, through other organizations, and by direct contacts.
Near-term activities will include (1) compiling information on the administrative, management, and eco-
logical needs for monitoring information in the region (federal, state, local, and other), (2) developing a
consolidated list of assessment endpoints, and (3) reviewing existing monitoring programs in the region.
This information will provide the basis for selecting measurement endpoints (indicators) and developing an
integrated monitoring design.
Key issues in the monitoring design include how to (1) integrate information across ecosystem types
(streams, forests, etc.) to evaluate the condition of the landscape, watershed, or ecoregion as a whole, (2)
link data collected at different spatial and temporal scales (e.g., use regional-scale data to provide context
for site-specific monitoring and more intensive site-specific monitoring to help interpret regional patterns
and trends), and (3) combine the diverse monitoring needs (from compliance monitoring to assessment of
ecosystem status and trends) and existing monitoring programs into an integrated monitoring system. We
expect that monitoring will always be conducted by many different agencies and organizations (federal,
state, tribal, local, and private). Thus, an important part of the monitoring design will be to develop an
information management system that will allow data collected by different groups to be easily accessed,
combined, and analyzed.
EMAP's objectives also include the design and demonstration of ecological monitoring, and a regional-
scale EMAP initiative for the Pacific Northwest is currently being discussed, to begin in 1996. If this
proceeds, the PNW Integrated Monitoring research component and EMAP will be closely coordinated. We
will target resources within the PNW research program to supplement and enhance EMAP research, and
rely heavily on EMAP and others for field demonstrations. A particular role for the PNW research
program is to foster improved coordination among federal, state, and other monitoring programs in the
region and to organize jointly funded, integrated pilot and demonstration studies. The interagency
XXX
-------
Research and Monitoring Committee is coordinating an integrated monitoring program among federal
agencies for the President's Forest Plan, with a regional demonstration scheduled for 1997. We hope to
extend this effort to incorporate interested state, tribal, local, and private organizations.
Ecological-Socioeconomic Linkages
The goal of ecosystem management is to maintain both healthy sustainable ecosystems and healthy
sustainable economies and local communities. Economic and social, as well as ecological, concerns
must all be considered in management decisions. Our research program will contribute ecological infor-
mation to aid decision makers. To be of maximum use, this ecological information must be in a form that
integrates well with matching social and economic analyses. The objectives of this component of the
PNW research program are not to conduct economic or social science research, but rather to do the
following:
Participate in developing an assessment framework and process that integrates ecological,
economic, and social information into a form useful for decision makers.
Ensure that the ecological research we conduct provides the types of ecological information
needed for economic and social assessments in the Pacific Northwest.
Our primary mechanism for achieving these objectives will be through the National Research Council
(NRC) Associateship Program. We plan to fund several economists or sociologists to work on site with
ecologists at ERL-Corvallis or ERL-Newport for periods of 1-3 years each. Joint projects will be con-
ducted using the ecological information we collect as part of an economic or social assessment within one
or more of our ecological case studies. The exact nature of the economic/social research will depend on
the expertise and interests of the NRC Associates.
Technology Transfer
Technology Transfer is a strategy integral to all components of the PNW research program. The major
objectives are as follows:
Ensure through feedback from managers that PNW research is relevant to policy and manage-
ment needs.
Ensure that the innovations, information, and approaches we develop are adopted and widely
used by environmental managers at regional, state, and local levels.
XXXI
-------
Our approach is twofold: (1) involve a regional liaison directly in the research program, whose primary
responsibility is to foster communication between PNW researchers and groups of environmental man-
agers working in local governments, states, and EPA regional offices and (2) conduct collaborative
projects, in which environmental managers work directly with PNW researchers. The regional liaison will
work with EPA Region 10 to select collaborative projects that are relevant to the PNW research objectives
and that will also serve the immediate needs of region, state, or other management groups.
SUMMARY
This document outlines our strategic approach for ecological research in the Pacific Northwest, the goal of
which is to improve the scientific basis for implementing ecosystem management at multiple spatial
scales. We are in the formative stages of a five-year research effort that will require extensive interaction
and coordination with other researchers and with environmental managers in the region. This is not a
detailed research plan, but rather an overview of the major program objectives, components, and general
approach. Project-specific hypotheses and designs will be developed and peer reviewed before initiation
of each project. In addition, we anticipate conducting program-level peer reviews every other year, to
summarize progress to date and identify future research directions.
Our proposed research is technically diverse, but geographically focused. A primary benefit will be
demonstration of how a variety of ecological concepts and approaches can be combined and integrated to
address important management questions and needs, in selected case study assessments at regional and
watershed/ecoregion scales.
XXXII
-------
1. BACKGROUND
This document outlines a five-year strategy for ecosystem management research in the Pacific Northwest,
funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Research and Development (ORD),
and led by the Environmental Research Laboratory in Corvallis (ERL-Corvallis). It presents the objectives
of the research program and the strategic approach for achieving those objectives over the next five
years. It is not a detailed research plan and does not describe specific hypotheses and technical
approaches for individual research projects. Testable hypotheses are central to the scientific method, but
it is more appropriate to define them at the project level rather than the program level. Research plans,
which describe these project-level hypotheses and approaches, will be prepared and reviewed separately
for each project funded as part of the research program. In addition, the entire program will be peer
reviewed every two years to evaluate relationships among projects and progress towards the program-
level objectives.
The goal of the research program is to contribute to the ecological understanding and approaches needed
to implement ecosystem management effectively in the Pacific Northwest. Although focused on the
Pacific Northwest, the research results should also have broader applicability, beyond the region. Section
1.1 discusses the concepts and goals of ecosystem management; Section 1.2 explains EPA's role in
ecosystem management. Section 1.3 describes efforts to implement ecosystem management in the
Pacific Northwest. Subsequent sections discuss our proposed research: the scope, objectives, and
organization of the research program (Section 2); our approach to ecological assessment (Section 3); the
specific objectives and research strategy for each major component of the research program (Sections 4
to 10); and summary of the program schedule and expected outputs (Section 11). References cited are
listed in Section 12.
1.1 ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT
The more we learn from EPA's pollution control efforts, the more we realize that piecemeal approaches do
not adequately protect our ecological resources. While pollutant-specific and site-specific management
programs have resulted in a substantially cleaner environment, we still have not achieved societal
expectations. We may clean up the water, but not save the fish, if there is continuing loss of streamside
habitat or diversion of water flow. We may preserve wetlands, but not maintain duck populations, if
surrounding agricultural practices increase the number of duck predators. We may reduce toxic waste
discharges into the Great Lakes, but still not be able to eat the fish, if they are contaminated by toxic air
pollutants transported from afar. Comparable issues face other government agencies. Under the
Endangered Species Act, heroic and often socially disruptive efforts are made to save individual species
1
-------
that are approaching the brink of extinction; broader approaches are needed to prevent rather than react
to such "train wrecks" (cf. Franklin 1993).
Problems such as these have led to increased interest in the concept of ecosystem management—dealing
with ecological systems as a whole, rather than as an assemblage of parts, and as they are organized by
nature rather than along political or program boundaries. The Interagency Ecosystem Management Task
Force (1994), established by the Clinton Administration, defines ecosystem management .as follows:
"Ecosystem management is a goal-driven approach to restoring and sustaining healthy ecosystems
and their functions and values using the best science available. It entails working collaboratively with
state, tribal, and local governments, community groups, private landowners, and other interested
parties to develop a vision of desired future ecosystem conditions. This vision integrates ecological,
economic, and social factors affecting the management unit defined by ecological, not political
boundaries." The goal is "to restore and maintain the health of ecosystems while supporting
sustainable economies and communities."
Vice President Gore's National Performance Review recommended that an "ecosystem-based approach"
be adopted across the federal government.
Different groups have used different terms—ecosystem management, ecosystem approach, ecosystem
protection, watershed protection approach, integrated environmental management, sustainable
development (World Committee on Environment and Development 1987, Cairns and Crawford 1991, U.S.
EPA 1991, 1994a,b, Slocombe 1993, Allen etal. 1993, Bormann etal. 1994). Most, however, have the
same basic themes:
• The need to balance ecological, economic, and social concerns.
• Stakeholder involvement. All parties with a stake (something to lose or gain) in a decision should
be involved in analysis of the problem, goal setting, and development of the solution.
• Coordinated, integrated actions by federal, state, tribal, and local agencies, between government
and private enterprises, and between government and local communities.
• Holistic assessments that consider the full range of goods, services, and values that ecosystems
provide and the full spectrum of human activities that affect ecosystems.
• Management for the long term, designed to provide the set of multiple uses1 of ecological
resources that society now desires without undermining the system's capacity to provide these
and other uses in the future (Box 1-A, Figure 1-1).
1 We use the term use broadly to include both consumptive uses, such as fisheries and forest harvesting,
and nonconsumptive uses or values, such as the value some people assign to maintaining pristine
ecosystems.
-------
Box1-A, Ecosystem Sustainability
"A 'sustainabie biosphere' can be envisioned in whfeh the diversity of ilfe on earth persists, where the
biosphere supports the current generation of humans white leaving aft equitable share/ of resources for
future generations. This concept of intergenerationat equity is the backbone of sustaifiabjity1" (Meyer and
"Sustainabittty is a goal, like liberty or equality: not a fixed endpoint to be reached but a direction that
guides a constructive change"; (lee 1993, p. §63), !
What
the current
generation
desires for
itself and
for future
generations
What is
biologically
and
physically
possible in
the long term
Sustainable ecosystems
Figure 1-1. Ecosystem sustainability: The degree of overlap between what is ecologically
possible (i.e., the ecological capacity) and what the current generation desires for
itself and future generations. Desires of the future generation must be protected by
"maintaining options for unexpected future ecosystem goods, services, and states"
(Source: Bormann et al. 1994, p. 3).
-------
We chose the term ecosystem management rather than ecosystem protection because we consider
management more comprehensive than protection. To protect is to "cover or shield from danger or injury"
(Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language 1971). Management includes the option to
protect, but also the option to restore and other approaches (e.g., landuse zoning) to influence human
activities and their impact on ecosystems. We chose ecosystem rather than watershed (as in watershed
protection approach; U.S. EPA 1991) to avoid preconceived notions about the best spatial unit for
analysis. An "ecosystem" is a "spatially explicit unit of the Earth that includes all organisms, along with all
components of the abiotic environment within its boundaries" (Likens 1992, p. 9). An ecosystem has no
fixed size, but it might be "the entire planet Earth, a lake or a single rock in the desert" (Likens 1992, p. 9),
the size and boundaries are selected to match the problems or questions being addressed.
The use of a specific term is less important than the concepts behind the term. Our research strategy
assumes the following:
• Ecosystem management is "place-based." It is driven by the key environmental problems that
occur in particular geographic areas. Places are defined along ecological boundaries, rather than
political or administrative structures. For any given area, ecosystem management involves
identifying the major problems, working with stakeholders to set measurable environmental goals,
and developing and implementing management strategies to achieve those goals (U.S. EPA
1994a,b).
• Ecosystem management is holistic rather than fragmentary. Ecosystems have multiple,
interacting components and processes that are affected by multiple, interacting stressors.2
Ecosystem management must consider all relevant ecological endpoints3 and stressors.
• Ecosystem management is driven by public values. Ecosystems include people; social,
economic, and ecological well-being are inextricably linked (Figure 1-2). Ecosystems do not have
a single "natural" state. They provide multiple and often competing uses. Not all ecological
changes are "bad" and there is no single, scientifically derived endpoint for ecosystem
management.
• Ecosystem management must occur at multiple spatial scales. Large-scale, long-term
planning provides context and general guidelines for management decisions at smaller spatial
scales. Yet, micromanagement strictly from the top is likely to be inefficient, because it does not
take advantage of local knowledge about local conditions (Johnson 1992). Bormann et al. (1994)
propose an iterative process between "top-down" (large-scale) planning and "bottom-up"
2 A stressor is any chemical, physical, or biological entity or activity that can induce an ecological effect.
Ecological effects encompass a variety of responses, ranging from mortality of an individual organism to
a loss of ecosystem function (U.S. EPA 1992). A stressor may be natural or it may result from human
activities.
3 We use the term ecological endpoint to refer to an ecosystem good, service, or other value selected to
serve as the focal point for management decisions and assessments. Example endpoints are
sustainable fishery yields, biological diversity, water quality, and aesthetics. Types of endpoints are
discussed further in Section 3.
-------
Societal values Ecological capacity
Figure 1-2. An iterative decision process for any geographic area and scale to "lace" together
societal values and the ecological capacity of the ecosystem (i.e., what is possible
biologically and physically in the long term). Success in this process will produce
sustainable ecosystems as shown in Figure 1-1 (Source: Bormann et al. 1994).
-------
(small-scale) decision making so that "the correct balance between what is desired, what is
achievable, and what are the costs, benefits, and trade-offs can be made" (p. 40) (Figure 1-3).
Ecosystem management also frequently incorporates the concept of adaptive management (Walters
1986, Hilborn 1987), which explicitly recognizes that uncertainties will occur in management decisions and
that mistakes will be made. Thus, we must monitor ecosystem responses and constantly re-assess the
success or failure of management actions and the feasibility of management goals (Figure 1-4). We learn
from past mistakes and adapt management programs accordingly. The concept of adaptive management
can be extended to "management by experiment," in which the manager purposely implements a diverse
array of management practices to increase learning opportunities (Walters and Moiling 1990).
Finally, ecosystem management must be based on sound science and information. The role of research
is to improve that science base. Major research needs derive from the holistic nature of ecosystem
management: the need to (1) consider multiple endpoints, multiple stressors, and their interactions and
trade-offs at multiple spatial and temporal scales, (2) synthesize information from many scientific
disciplines, and (3) present scientific information in a user-friendly format useful for decision making and
understandable to the wide array of stakeholders. Section 2 elaborates further on our view of the major
research needs for ecosystem management.
The success of ecosystem management is not a given. Similar approaches (e.g., multiple-use resource
management) have been attempted in the past with varying degrees of success. While the basic
concepts are sound, the difficulty is in implementing the approach efficiently and effectively. Our
challenge is to develop and implement a research program that serves the needs of a management
approach that is only now being defined. The next five years will be a learning, adaptive process both for
the ecosystem management approach and for ecosystem management research.
1.2 ERA'S ROLE IN ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT
EPA's legislative mandates, for the most part, are media or problem specific—the Clean Water Act, the
Clean Air Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, etc.—and past efforts at environmental management "have
been as fragmented as our authorizing statutes" (U.S. EPA 1994a, p. 1). As part of the Agency's
commitment to implementing ecosystem management, EPA's Ecosystem Management Task Force
recommends "changing the unit of work from piecemeal piogram mandates to the imperatives of a specific
place. ... For any given place, EPA would establish a process for determining long-term
-------
External context of the management system
Figure 1-3. Information flow in the multi-scale ecosystem management model. Context for
management decisions involves information from both larger and smaller geographic
scales in an iterative process. The two shaded circles in each scale represent
societal values and ecological capacity as shown in Figure 1-2 (Source: Bormann et
al. 1994).
-------
goals knowledge technology inventory
I
Plan
New knowledge
Revised goals \ /
Adaptive
Evaluate (f Management " Act
Inventory / x
New technology
Monitor
Figure 1-4. Adaptive management process (Source: Forest Ecosystem Management
Assessment Team 1993).
ecological, economic, and social needs and would orient its work to meet those needs" (U.S. EPA 1994a,
pp. 2, 3). The specifics of how this reorientation will be achieved are only now being developed.
National air and water quality criteria and discharge limits, EPA's primary management tools to date, have
a role, but cannot be the sole or even the major mechanism for achieving the goals of ecosystem
management. Thus, EPA is in the process of a cultural change, shifting from primarily a regulatory
approach to a balance between regulations and incentives. Mechanisms include offering grants to
support self-initiated community, tribal, and state efforts; actively convening and leading interagency
collaborative efforts; and developing the process and guidelines for implementing ecosystem manage-
ment, which can serve as a model. The Office of Water has aggressively promoted the watershed
protection approach (Figure 1-5) since 1990 through financial support and active participation in numerous
watershed partnerships (U.S. EPA 1991, 1993a).
-------
Elements of the Watershed Protection Approach
Potential participants in watershed
protection projects include:
State environmental, public health, agricultural,
and natural resources agencies
Local/regional boards, commissions, and
agencies
EPA water and other programs
Other federal agencies
Indian tribes
Public representatives
Private wildlife and conservation organizations
Industry sector representatives
Academic community
Risk-Based Geographic
Targeting
Both human-derived pollution
and natural processes pose
risks to human health or the
environment, or both, in many
water body systems. The water-
sheds at highest risk are identified
and one or more are selected for
cooperative, integrated assess-
ment and protection
Problems that may pose health
or ecological risks in a water-
shed include:
Industrial wastewater discharges
Municipal wastewater, stormwater, and
combined sewer overflows
Waste dumping and injection
Nonpoint source runoff or seepage
Accidental leaks and spills of toxic
substances
Atmospheric deposition
Habitat alteration,, including wetlands loss
Flow variations
Stakeholder
Involvement
Working as a task force,
stakeholders reach consensus
on goals and approaches for
addressing a watershed's
problems, the specific
actions to be taken, and how
they will be coordinated and
evaluated
Integrated
Solutions
The selected tools are
applied to the watershed's
problems, according to the
plans and roles established
through stakeholder
consensus. Progress is
evaluated periodically via
ecological indicators and
other measures
Coordinated action may be taken in areas such as:
Voluntary source reduction programs
(e.g., waste minimization, BMPs)
Permit issuance and enforcement programs
Standard setting and enforcement programs
(nonpermitting)
Direct financing
Economic incentives
Education and information dissemination
Technical assistance
Remediation of contaminated soil or water
Emergency response to accidental leaks or spills
Figure 1-5. Elements of EPA's Watershed Protection Approach, developed by the Office of
Water (U.S. EPA 1991).
-------
EPA's legislative mandates cover (uniquely among federal agencies) both private and public lands;
physical, chemical, and biological components of ecosystems; the atmosphere, as well as terrestrial and
aquatic resources; and estuarine and marine systems, as well as freshwaters. EPA also has a history of
interactions with state, tribal, and local governments, as well as private enterprises. This broad spectrum
of responsibilities and contacts may provide EPA with a relatively unique role in ecosystem manage-
ment—as integrator, or at least facilitator of this integration—across different agencies, public and private
lands, different landuses, and different resource types (aquatic, terrestrial, marine, wetlands, etc.).
Ecosystem management involves a balanced evaluation of ecological, economic, and social concerns.
The goal is to achieve both ecosystem health4 and economic stability. We should note, however, that
EPA's primary mandate is environmental protection. Other agencies have missions that focus on
economic and (human) community stability. The essence of ecosystem management is that these two
missions should be combined, changing adversarial relationships to coordination and cooperation as a
more effective way to make the government "work better and cost less" (Interagency Ecosystem
Management Task Force 1994, p. 1). Still, EPA's primary role within ecosystem management is as an
advocate for ecosystem health, which may explain the preference for the term ecosystem protection within
EPA documents as opposed to ecosystem management. The goal of EPA's ecosystem protection
approach, as defined by the Ecosystem Management Task Force established by Administrator Browner,
is "to help improve the Agency's ability to protect, maintain, and restore the ecological integrity5 of the
nation's lands and waters (which includes the health of humans, as well as plant and animal species) by
moving toward a place-driven focus" (U.S. EPA 1994a, pp. 1-2). The Task Force goes on to note that the
approach will "integrate environmental management with human needs" and "highlight the positive
correlations between economic prosperity and environmental well-being" (U.S. EPA 1994a, p. 2). Thus,
EPA must balance its roles as enabler and integrator for the overall process of ecosystem management
with its role as advocate for environmental protection.
4 The meaning of the term ecosystem health is widely debated. We believe the health of an ecosystem
must be defined in relation to a specific objective or societal value. Pristine ecosystems are healthy if
the objective is to maintain ecosystems in their natural state but are not necessarily healthy if the
primary objective is to achieve a sustainable forestry industry and diverse recreational opportunities.
Because of the difficulty in defining the term, in general we avoid using it in this document. We use it
here only to make direct reference back to the goal of ecosystem management as defined by the
Interagency Task Force in Section 1.1.
5 EPA's Ecosystem Management Task Force defines ecological integrity as "the interaction of the physi-
cal, chemical, and biological elements of an ecosystem in a manner that ensures the long-term health
and sustainability of the ecosystem. Ecological integrity can be evaluated by measuring organism
health, population viability, species and community diversity, and functions of an ecosystem (i.e.,
nutrient cycling, hydrology, biomass production). Historic ecosystem composition, structure, and func-
tion is a useful reference point, though not a recipe, for ecological integrity" (U.S. EPA 1994a, p. 1).
10
-------
Another important role for EPA is to contribute technical support and scientific information (U.S. EPA
1994a,b). Effective ecosystem management requires information on ecosystem status and trends and an
understanding of how ecosystems operate and respond to human activities and management approaches.
This is the role that this research program attempts to fill. The Pacific Northwest research program
described here is part of an overall ORD effort to restructure its research to better serve the needs of
EPA's ecosystem management/protection approach.
EPA obviously is not the sole source of scientific information supporting ecosystem management. As in
other aspects of ecosystem management, coordination and cooperation among agencies are critical.
Efforts to fill knowledge gaps and participate in and encourage collaborative research projects are an
important part of our research strategy, as described in later sections.
1.3 ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST
Our study area is the Pacific Northwest. This section defines what we mean by the Pacific Northwest,
provides basic descriptive information for the region, explains why the region was selected, and discusses
ongoing efforts to implement ecosystem management in the area.
How do we define the Pacific Northwest? What are the boundaries of our study region? The appropriate
spatial scale and boundaries for any study depend on the questions being addressed. Because we will be
addressing a wide range of questions, we prefer not to select one, rigid definition of the study region.
Within EPA, our major client for this research is Region 10, the regional office responsible for Washington,
Oregon, Idaho, and Alaska (Figure 1-6). Administrator Browner, in her 24 May memorandum to EPA's
Ecosystem Management Task Force, noted that the EPA regions were key to EPA's implementation of
ecosystem management, because of their close ties with state, local, and tribal governments We
consider the research program to be a partnership between ORD and Region 10. The role of Region 10
is to provide the connection to the broader group of stakeholders, government agencies, and private
organizations dealing with environmental management issues in the area; to encourage and facilitate the
adoption of an ecosystem management approach; and to help incorporate the research results into the
ecosystem management process.
Thus, we consider our core study area to be the three states served by Region 10, Washington, Oregon,
and Idaho, excluding Alaska. State boundaries are rarely appropriate, however, for ecological analyses.
Therefore, the actual boundaries used for any given analysis or research project will be tailored as
needed. For example, hydrological units (Figure 1-7) are more appropriate for analyses of water quality.
11
-------
Figure 1-6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regions.
-------
The Pacific Northwest Defined by Hydrological Units
EnUugad ATM
Source: USGS 1:2,000,000 Hydrological Units
Scale = 1:10,000,000
0 100
Miles
Albert Equal Area Projection
Figure 1-7. U.S. Geological Survey Hydrological Units in the Pacific Northwest.
13
-------
Ecologically defined regions (e.g., Figure 1-8) may be more appropriate for analyses of terrestrial
biodiversity or similar issues. In the remainder of this document, we use the term Pacific Northwest to
refer to our core study area—Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, an area of about 650,000 km2. Box 1 -B
provides basic descriptive information for the region.
Why was the Pacific Northwest selected as the study area for a major ORD research effort on ecosystem
management? The impetus was the so-called gridlock or "train wreck" in the region between timber jobs
and protection of endangered and threatened species on federal lands, in particular the northern spotted
owl, popularly characterized as "owls versus jobs."
By 1993, a series of court orders had brought timber harvesting on federal lands to a virtual halt within the
range of the northern spotted owl (in western Oregon and Washington and northern California; see Figure
1-9). Federal courts ruled that the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
had failed to produce plans satisfying the requirements of several laws, including the National Forest
Management Act of 1976, the Endangered Species Act of 1979, and the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team, FEMAT 1993). Regulations issued for
the USFS under the National Forest Management Act require that "fish and wildlife habitat shall be man-
aged to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the
planning area" (36 CFR Ch. II; 7-1-91 Edition 219.19) and require provision "for diversity of plant and
animal communities and tree species" (id., 219.26 and 27). The Endangered Species Act protects all
species formally listed as endangered or threatened.
Legal battles focused initially on the northern spotted owl, listed as threatened by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Northern spotted owls are closely associated with habitat found most often in old-growth
forests, that is, forest stands where many old, large trees remain in the overstory. Gradually, the debate
shifted from dealing with one species, the northern spotted owl, to considering all species associated with
old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest.
Historically, timber harvests from federal lands accounted for about one-third of total timber sales in
western Oregon and Washington and northern California (FEMAT 1993). Loss of these timber harvests
resulted in severe economic disruption, particularly in small communities heavily dependent on timber
from federal lands for jobs. In response to this problem, President Clinton convened a day-long confer-
ence on 2 April 1993 in Portland, Oregon. He posed the following question, "How can we achieve a
balanced and comprehensive policy that recognizes the importance of the forests and timber to the
economy and jobs in this region, and how can we preserve our precious old-growth forests, which are part
of our national heritage and that, once destroyed, can never be replaced?"
14
-------
C3 Blue Mountains
Coast Range (1)
Puge< Lowland (2)
C3 Willamette Valley (3)
C3 Cascades (4)
Sierra Nevada (5)
0 Northern Bas,n and Range (13
•I Soumem Basin and Range (1S)
D Montana
C3 M.ddle
» Central Camom,. Valley (7>
C3 Eastern Cascades S.OP.S
Columbia Plateau (10)
.._„ --—rrr:»
^r^^^^^^-
Figure 1-8-
Ecoregtons, as
15
-------
Box 1"8. f be Pacific Northwest i
The Pacific Northwest can best be described by tie dichotomy created by one of ils major features, the
Cascade Mountain range. This string af volcanic ipeaks funs north-s
-------
Pacific Northwest FEMAT Areas
Eastern Washington Cascades
Olympic Penisula
Western Washington Lowlands
Western Washington Cascades
Oregon Coast Range
Willamette Valley
Eastern Oregon Cascades
Western Oregon Cascades
Oregon Klamath
California Cascades
California Klamath —
California Coast
76
MikM
Source: Forest Ecosystem Management An Ecological, Economic, and Social
Assessment Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team pg. 11-27
Figure 1-9. Physiographic provinces within the area covered by the Pacific Northwest Forest
Ecosystem Management Plan (FEMAT 1993).
17
-------
Following the conference, President Clinton created three interagency working groups: the Forest
Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT), the Labor and Community Assessment Team, and
the Agency Coordination Team. The charge to these interagency working groups was "to identify
management alternatives that attain the greatest economic and social contribution from the forests of the
region and meet the requirements of the applicable laws and regulations... Your assessment should take
an ecosystem approach to forest management..." (FEMAT 1993). The FEMAT report was published in
July 1993 (FEMAT 1993). It outlines a series of management options and an approach for implementing
these options at four spatial scales:
• Region: Development of regional conservation strategies to protect valued ecosystems, habitats,
species and species assemblages, and biodiversity.
• Physiographic Provinces or River Basins: Identification of beneficial uses and ecosystem
values for large river basins or physiographic provinces in the region (see Figure 1-9).
• Watersheds: Analyses of the most efficient ways—ecologically, economically, and socially— to
achieve desired uses of natural resources while providing the ecosystem protection prescribed by
the Regional Conservation Strategy.
• Site-Specific: Specific actions to be taken by public and private landowners and resource
managers to achieve watershed ecological protection and restoration objectives.
The interagency working groups established by President Clinton represent the start of ecosystem
management in the Pacific Northwest. The President emphasized that agencies of the federal govern-
ment must work together. "We will insist on collaboration not confrontation" (FEMAT 1993, p. ii). EPA,
both Region 10 and ORD, are active participants on the FEMAT, as well as on subsequent interagency
task groups and committees responsible for implementing FEMAT recommendations, including the
interagency Regional Ecosystems Office and interagency Research and Monitoring Committee. Funding
for this research program is listed within a FEMAT-related interagency memorandum of understanding
signed by, among others, EPA Administrator Browner.
The Forest Conference, FEMAT, and follow-up implementation efforts still have a relatively narrow
focus—management of federally owned forests, in particular old growth forests, to preserve both biological
diversity and sustainable timber harvests, along with associated timber jobs. This effort is viewed as the
pilot test for federal interagency coordination within the region. The intent of ecosystem management,
however, is to go beyond politically defined boundaries (all lands versus just federal lands) and to consider
the system as a whole, not just forested lands and one resource conflict.
18
-------
Thus, our research program is not limited to the original "owls versus jobs" controversy and old growth
forests. In fact, because most of the effort to date has focused on forested lands, parts of our research
program purposely concentrate on nonforested lands, to provide balance to the federal research effort.
Consistent with the discussion in Section 1.2 on EPA's role in ecosystem management, we view our role
in ecosystem management research in the Pacific Northwest as (1) encompassing private as well as
public lands, and .multiple landuses and ecosystem types, (2) enabling the integration of scientific infor-
mation and coordination of research efforts across federal agencies and other research organizations, and
(3) serving the needs of ecosystem managers within federal, state, tribal, and local governments, as well
as private landowners, across the entire Pacific Northwest. We are building on the impetus and ideas
provided by FEMAT, and extending these concepts to other parts of the region and other environmental
problems. Section 2 provides further information on the scope of the research program.
19
-------
2. SCOPE, OBJECTIVES, AND ORGANIZATION
OF THE PNW RESEARCH PROGRAM
This section provides an overview of ORD's research program on ecosystem management in the Pacific
Northwest, which we refer to subsequently as the PNW research program. Section 2.1 defines the
program scope and guiding principles. Section 2.2 presents the major, program-level objectives.
Sections 4-10 provide more detailed research objectives for each component of the program. These
components and the program organization are explained in Section 2.3. Section 2.4 describes efforts to
coordinate with other research programs and agencies. Section 2.5 discusses program budgets and
funding mechanisms. The section ends (Section 2.6) with a discussion of our approach to quality
assurance and quality control.
2.1 PROGRAM SCOPE AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES
We begin by defining the boundaries of the research program, in terms of the types of research
considered within and beyond our scope. This discussion also identifies several important principles that
guide the design of the research program.
ERL-Corvallis is a research laboratory within ORD's Office of Ecological Processes and Effects Research
(OEPER). Our expertise is ecology, and ecological research is the primary means by which we can con-
tribute to ecosystem management. Thus, the research program we propose is ecological. It deals with
research on ecosystems (i.e., spatially explicit units of the Earth that include all organisms and all compo-
nents of the abiotic environment within the boundaries of the unit; Likens 1992) and the responses of
ecosystems to human activities, planned and unplanned. Humans are a part of ecosystems. However,
research on human health is beyond the scope of this program. Likewise, ecosystem management
requires information on economics, sociology, and human values, as well as ecology. However, with the
exception of attempts to link ecological and socioeconomic analyses described in Section 9, research on
these other topics is outside our scope.
The research program will be highly applied and assessment driven. We define assessment as the
rigorous interpretation of scientific information to address specific policy and management questions. Our
role is to improve the scientific basis for assessments related to ecosystem management, in two ways:
(1) by improving our understanding of ecosystems and ecosystem dynamics, and of the ways ecosystems
respond to management options, and (2) by improving approaches for synthesizing and integrating
ecological information in a format useful for decision makers, that is, by improving the assessment
process and associated analytical tools. Within the scope of this research program, we will not be able to
21
-------
resolve all knowledge gaps and research needs. Our basic strategy is to select important example
assessment questions to serve as the focal point for our research. These case study assessments will
drive our research priorities and design. Assessment questions will be selected, based on two criteria, in
consultation with Region 10 and other ecosystem managers in the area:
Questions considered high priority by managers and stakeholders in the area that will contribute
significantly to improved decision making.
Questions unique to the ecosystem management approach (e.g., involving trade-offs among
multiple endpoints and comparisons among management approaches) that will allow us to test
and improve our overall assessment approach.
Many of the issues we must deal with will require long-term, fundamental research to significantly improve,
for example, our ability to predict how ecosystems will respond to various management options. Thus, the
research program includes a balance between short-term incremental improvements—applying, adapting,
and expanding existing understanding and methods—and longer-term fundamental research needed to
make quantum improvements in our understanding, methods, and, ultimately, decision making for
ecosystem management.
The focus of the research program is the Pacific Northwest and particular case study areas within the
Pacific Northwest (see Sections 5-7). However, we cannot afford to conduct research in individual locales
that is applicable only to those locales. Plans for transferring research results to other areas and other
regions must be built into the research program. This transferability can be direct—in terms of data and
understanding used directly to make inferences about other areas (through statistical or other techniques
for extrapolating research results)—or it can take place via the transfer of methods or models developed in
one area that, once developed, can be readily applied (with appropriate testing or calibration) in other
areas. Thus, the research design and priorities balance efforts to provide region-specific information (or
specific to a given case study area) with the development of basic ecological understanding and methods
that are broadly applicable and readily transferable. Given that our goal is to develop approaches that
others will eventually use, the emphasis is on usable methods that can be applied with reasonable effort
and data.
The scope of the research program is limited to ecological systems, but it is comprehensive in terms of the
types of ecosystems studied. To serve the needs of ecosystem management, the research encompasses
all ecosystem types and all landuses: forests, agricultural and urban lands, wetlands, surface waters,
estuaries, etc. In particular, the focus is on the integration and interactions among these systems within
the landscape.
22
-------
A diversity of stressors affects the ecological resources within a given area. Key questions in ecosystem
management include: What are the relative merits of alternative management options—including
ecosystem protection, ecological restoration, changes in landuse and land and resource management
practices, and controls on specific pollutants? Where, in what geographic areas or sites, should we focus
our efforts to produce the greatest net gain in ecological benefits? Thus, the research program also
emphasizes spatially explicit analyses, interactions among multiple stressors, and comparisons among
management options.
"...(E)cological research is needed at scales commensurate with restoration and management of entire
natural systems" (Lubchenco et al. 1991, p. 393). Ecosystem management occurs at multiple spatial
scales (Section 1.1); thus research supporting ecosystem management must also occur at multiple spatial
scales. Furthermore, different ecological processes operate at different scales. We gain insight into how
ecosystems operate and respond by examining them at different spatial, as well as temporal, scales
(O'Neill et al. 1986, Wiens 1989). "For any level of aggregation, it is necessary to look both to larger
scales to understand the context and to smaller scales to understand mechanisms; anything else would
be incomplete" (Allen and Hoekstra 1992, p. 8).
Our research must be cost effective in terms of the net gain in ecological knowledge and improved
methods. Ours is not the only research program studying ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest. Thus, our
research priorities and projects must be designed to provide the greatest value added relative to the
existing knowledge base and other ongoing research.
There is no one best research approach. Consistent with the recommendations of Likens (1992) and
Moiling (1993), we will attack the diversity of research issues we face using multiple sources of evidence
and a variety of research approaches. Our emphasis, however, will be on research methods that provide
insight into system-level interactions and moderate- to large-scale ecosystem responses. Examples
include (1) comparative ecosystem studies that compare, for example, systems exposed to stressors of
different types and magnitudes or different management actions (Steele et al. 1989, Cole et al. 1991),
(2) field experiments of appropriate spatial scale, intensity, and duration, commensurate with ecosystem
management questions (Schindler 1990, Mooney etal. 1991), (3) retrospective analyses based on time-
series data or paleoecology, especially when the system experienced a known, distinct perturbation in the
past (Likens 1985, Smol et al. 1986), (4) empirical observations of patterns and relationships over space
and time (Baker et al. 1990, Sinclair et al. 1990, Newell 1993), (5) computer modeling, to integrate and
evaluate process-level formulations in an ecosystem context (Shugart 1989, Turner and Gardner 1991),
and (6) quantification of system-level responses to planned and unplanned interventions (Walters 1986).
Sections 4-10 describe the approaches proposed for each research component in more detail.
23
-------
A final guiding principle for the research program is integration. As noted in Section 1.2, an important role
for EPA is to facilitate integration—working with other researchers in the area to integrate and synthesize
data from different studies, across disciplines, across ecosystem types, and across spatial and temporal
scales.
"Ecosystem management requires information from a multitude of disciplines; to be useful, that
information must be integrated" (Bormann et al. 1994, p. 21).
"In all areas of ecology, and in science in general, the convergence and integration of information from
different points of view, different disciplines, and different approaches are what lead to major
advances and breakthroughs in understanding" (Likens 1992, p. 24).
"It is this science of integration and synthesis that has been ill served by funding agencies and
universities. It is where the priority should lie for investments in research and education" (Moiling
1993, p. 554).
2.2 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
The fundamental policy question for ecosystem management is:
How should we manage the ecological resources, and human activities affecting those resources,
within a given area to provide the set of multiple uses (and non-use values) that society now desires
without undermining the system's capacity to provide these and other uses in the future?
The goal of this research program is to improve the scientific, ecological basis required to answer this
question and implement ecosystem management effectively—most specifically in the Pacific Northwest,
but in other regions as well.
The four program-level objectives are as follows (see Figure 2-1):
1. Develop and demonstrate an overall ecological assessment process, and associated analytical tools,
dealing with multiple endpoints and multiple stressors across multiple spatial scales that will allow
managers to:
Define realistic environmental goals.
• Assess current ecological conditions relative to those goals and identify major environmental
problems.
Evaluate and compare the ecological consequencss of alternative management strategies.
Target geographic areas for protection, restoration, or other management action.
24
-------
Ecological Assessment
Spatial
Framework
Integrated
Monitoring
Ecological Understanding
Figure 2-1. Four program-level objectives for the PNW research program.
2. Advance the understanding of ecosystems, ecosystem dynamics, and ecosystem responses to
human activities to reduce uncertainties in ecological assessments and improve confidence in
ecosystem management decision making.
3. Develop and demonstrate a spatial framework that provides a common, effective basis for ecological
assessments at multiple spatial scales and extrapolation of research results.
4. Develop and demonstrate ecological monitoring designs that meet the needs of adaptive, ecosystem
management and are integrated across ecosystem types, spatial scales, and monitoring programs in
different government agencies.
For each objective, the major program-level research questions are as follows:
Assessment
What types of management questions and ecological endpoints are best addressed at each
spatial scale?
How can regional-scale ecosystem sustainability requirements be translated into geographically
specific guidelines or constraints for actions at smaller spatial scales?
How can we conduct useful assessments where data are limited? What do we gain from more
data and more effort-intensive analyses?
25
-------
Ecological Understanding
• What are the fundamental ecosystem properties (processes, structure, components, scale) that
must be maintained in order to ensure ecosystem sustainability?
• What are the linkages and trade-offs among alternative resource uses and environmental goals?
How will ecosystems respond to natural and anthropogenic stressors and alternative management
actions?
How do multiple stressors interact to affect ecosystems?
How can we alter an ecosystem's resilience or recovery rate through specific management
actions, such as ecological restoration?
Spatial Framework
What are the natural ecological linkages and boundaries that define ecological systems?
What ecological units are appropriate for analysis at various scales?
Is a nested, hierarchical framework desirable and feasible?
Can a uniform spatial framework be developed for general use, or is it necessary to have multiple,
overlapping frameworks for different purposes?
• At what spatial scale are ecological systems no longer unique, so that they can be categorized
and dealt with by category rather than individually?
How can we group ecological units into classes, so that the characteristics of any one unit can be
inferred from prior studies of other units in the same class?
How can we select and use reference sites to define attainable ecological goals?
Monitoring
What monitoring objectives and questions are best addressed through monitoring at each spatial
scale?
How can we measure ecological condition? What are appropriate indicators of ecological
condition? Do they vary with spatial scale?
What survey and sampling designs are efficient at each spatial scale to address the priority
monitoring objectives and questions in the Pacific Northwest?
How can we identify causes of observed trends in ecological condition, through diagnostic
indicators or analyses?
How do we design monitoring networks so that the data collected at each spatial scale are
complementary and linked? For example, what designs would relate site-specific monitoring to a
26
-------
broader, regional context, or how could we use more intensive monitoring at individual sites to
enhance the value of regional-scale monitoring?
These broad, program-level objectives and questions provide the foundation for the more specific
research objectives and questions defined for each research component in Sections 4-10. Research
priorities discussed in each of these sections, and the potential for value-added research, determine the
relative weighting given to the various program-level objectives and questions within each component.
2.3 PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND MAJOR COMPONENTS
The PNW research program is organized into seven major components (Figure 2-2):
1. Regional Biodiversity
2. Watershed/Ecoregion
3. Riparian Areas
4. Coastal Estuaries
5. Integrated Monitoring
6. Ecological -Socioeconomic Linkages
7. Technology Transfer
None of these components is independent; coordination and information exchanges among all
components are essential.
As noted in Section 2.1, selected case study assessments will serve as the focal point for PNW research.
We will use these assessments to:
Develop and demonstrate the ecological assessment process and analytical tools.
Identify critical knowledge gaps and uncertainties in our ecological understanding in order to set
priorities for research on ecosystems, ecosystem dynamics, and ecosystem responses to human
activities and management actions.
Evaluate and demonstrate the application of monitoring data and the spatial frameworks within the
assessment process, and help set priorities for research on improved approaches for monitoring .
and extrapolation.
27
-------
Research
Objective
Spatial
Framework
Assessment
Ecological
Understanding
Monitoring
Regional
Spatial Scale
Watershed/Ecoregion Site
Regional
Biodiversity
W
E
atersh
coregi
ed/
on
Riparian Areas
Coastal Estuaries
Monitoring
1
Linkages
to Others
Socioeconomic
Linkages
Technology
Transfer
Figure 2-2. Major research components of the PNW research program, organized by program-
level objective and spatial scale.
28
-------
Case study assessments will be conducted at two spatial scales, region and watershed/ecoregion, and will
provide the focal point for research within the Regional Biodiversity and Watershed/Ecoregion research
components, respectively.
Consistent with the framework developed by FEMAT, the emphasis of regional-scale research (Section 4)
is to develop a scientific, ecological basis for regional conservation strategies that will protect valued
ecosystems, habitats, species and species assemblages, and biodiversity. Thus the major objectives of
the Regional Biodiversity research component are as follows:
Develop and refine methods for integrating and interpreting data on biodiversity at a regional
scale.
Develop and demonstrate the ecological assessment process at a regional scale to support
development of regional conservation strategies based on the best science available and on
stakeholder input.
• Conduct research targeted at testing the accuracy of assessment outputs, evaluating key
assumptions, and addressing major knowledge gaps and uncertainties about regional ecosystems
identified during the assessment process.
The watershed/ecoregion scale is the intermediate spatial scale for ecosystem management. At this
spatial scale, trade-offs among specific management options are considered and decisions are made
about the most efficient ways—ecologically, economically, and socially—to achieve the desired uses of
ecological resources while still providing the level of ecosystem protection prescribed by the regional
conservation strategy (see Section 1.3). The major objectives of the Watershed/Ecoregion research
component are as follows:
Conduct an initial assessment to determine the data and information available for the selected
study areas; determine research needs based, partially, on information gaps.
Demonstrate and evaluate methods for characterizing current ecological condition at multiple
spatial scales, cooperatively with research on monitoring designs.
Select and test approaches for defining attainable ecological goals through the use of reference
sites, ecological indicators, and other methods.
Refine and demonstrate methods for targeting high-priority areas within a watershed/ecoregion for
protection, restoration, or other management action, or for further study and/or monitoring.
Construct simple watershed-scale interactive models to evaluate, project, and compare the
consequences of alternative management strategies on key ecological endpoints.
Compare the attributes of different spatial frameworks for summarizing information on ecological
condition, setting attainable ecological goals, and organizing ecological research at the
watershed/ecoregion scale.
29
-------
Evaluate techniques for extrapolating site-specific ecological information to other sites and spatial
units at the watershed/ecoregion scale.
Conduct a final integrated ecological assessment combining existing data and the results of the
research conducted in this program to determine the best approaches for assessing management
trade-offs in the study areas.
The next two research components, Riparian Areas and Coastal Estuaries, deal with specific high-interest
ecosystem types. We selected these ecosystem types for concentrated study because they have
important functions in Pacific Northwest landscapes, yet there are major uncertainties about how stressors
and management actions affect these functions. Research objectives are twofold: (1) improve our
understanding of ecosystem functions, processes, and responses and (2) generate information and
analyses that will feed directly into the case study assessments, particularly case study assessments at
the watershed/ecoregion scale.
Riparian areas are major hydrological source areas for stream flow, they exert a strong influence on the
quality of stream environments (even when other parts of the landscape are intensively managed for
timber or agricultural products), and they provide important habitat for many terrestrial and aquatic
species. Unfortunately, the ecological functions of riparian areas are easily impaired by landuse activities,
and have been impaired in a significant part of the Pacific Northwest. Establishment of ecologically sound
ways to manage riparian areas was identified by EPA Region 10 as a key issue facing ecosystem
managers in the region. For these reasons, we include a research component focused specifically on
riparian area ecosystems (Section 6). Research will be conducted both at individual sites and at the
watershed-scale (Figure 2-2). Information on riparian area condition and restoration approaches collected
at individual research sites will result in improved watershed-scale assessments. Watershed-scale
riparian research will be closely coordinated with and feed directly into assessment research conducted as
part of the Watershed/Ecoregion research component. The major objectives of the Riparian Area
research component are as follows:
Define reference conditions for riparian areas in agricultural settings.
Establish indicators of riparian area condition in agricultural settings.
Develop approaches for evaluating riparian area condition in mixed landuse watersheds.
Develop approaches and performance criteria for restoring degraded riparian areas in agricultural
settings.
Develop approaches to locate promising areas for riparian restoration and to evaluate the
attainable quality and restoration potential of riparian areas within mixed landuse watersheds.
Evaluate practices that are ecologically and economically promising for managing riparian areas
in agricultural settings.
30
-------
Estuaries are frequently centers for human population growth, are sources of important resources (e.g.,
oysters, salmon, shrimp, Dungeness crab) that contribute significantly to local and regional economies,
and are subject to a variety of perturbations. As in the Riparian Areas component, this research compo-
nent includes both assessment research and research conducted to improve ecological understanding;
and both site-specific and watershed-scale research (see Figure 2-2). The focus is on the effects of
multiple stressors, ecosystem-level responses to individual stressors, and the linkages between upland
watersheds and estuaries. Assessment research on estuarine watersheds will be conducted coopera-
tively with the Watershed/Ecoregion research component. The major objectives of the Coastal Estuaries
research component are as follows:
Develop predictive relationships between ecosystem structure and habitat characteristics.
Improve our understanding of the extent, loading, causes, and effects of sedimentation and
associated parameters, such as nutrients, in Pacific Northwest coastal estuaries.
Improve our understanding of the extent, causes, and effects of biological stressors (in particular,
expansions of Spartina) and the effects of potential control strategies.
Integrated monitoring research (Section 8) cuts across all spatial scales and ecosystem types (Figure
2-2), consistent with the program-level objective of developing monitoring designs that integrate infor-
mation from multiple spatial scales, multiple ecosystem types, and multiple agencies. We decided that
these cross-scale and cross-ecosystem linkages were so important that a single, coordinated monitoring
design component was essential. Interactions between monitoring research and the other components of
the research program are extensive and important, however. In particular, the Integrated Monitoring
research component does not include adequate funding for extensive testing and demonstration of
monitoring designs (see Section 2.5). Research and field sampling conducted as part of the Regional
Biodiversity, Watershed/Ecoregion, Riparian Areas, and Coastal Estuaries research components will
contribute, in part, to testing and demonstrating aspects of the monitoring design. However, the primary
means for testing and demonstrating the proposed design will be through cooperative efforts with those
organizations ultimately responsible for implementing long-term monitoring in the region (federal, state,
and tribal agencies, and private landowners). The development of an integrated monitoring design will be
a joint effort with these other organizations. The major objectives of the Integrated Monitoring research
component are as follows:
Identify the priority assessment questions for the Pacific Northwest that require monitoring
information, and the ecological, spatial, and temporal scales at which each question must be
addressed.
Design elements of a fully integrated multi-scale ecological monitoring program for the Pacific
Northwest.
31
-------
Demonstrate this integrated multi-scale ecological monitoring design in the Pacific Northwest.
• Involve authorities with the mandate and resources to implement a monitoring program during all
stages of this monitoring design effort.
The remaining two program components deal with interfaces between our research program and other
groups (see Figure 2-2). The Ecological-Socioeconomic Linkages component (Section 9) involves joint
research with economists and/or sociologists. The ultimate goal is to develop a comprehensive assess-
ment process for ecosystem management that incorporates ecological, social, and economic information.
We hope to achieve this by developing closer working relationships with these other experts and a better
understanding of the terms, approaches, and information needs of their fields.
The goals of Technology Transfer (Section 10), the final component of the program, are twofold: (1) to
ensure through feedback from managers that PNW research is relevant to policy and management needs
and (2) to ensure that the innovations, information, and approaches we develop are adopted and widely
used by environmental managers at regional, state, and local levels. The principal activity will be col-
laborative research projects, in which we work directly with regional, state, tribal, and local managers to
apply our techniques to real-world concerns and problems. Collaborative projects, and technical infor-
mation transfer in general, are an integral part of the PNW research program.
A senior EPA scientist has been designated as lead scientist for each of the seven research components
just discussed. All but the Coastal Estuaries research component are directed by scientists at ERL-
Corvallis. The ORD Environmental Research Laboratory at Newport, Oregon, also within OEPER, has the
lead for Coastal Estuaries research. The lead scientist is responsible for designing and implementing the
technical approach, coordinating projects within that research component, conducting active research on
one or more projects, overseeing project-level quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC), and integrating
results across projects for the research component.
Coordination among these seven components is the responsibility of the EPA program coordinator for the
PNW research program at ERL-Corvallis. The program coordinator will maintain control of the budget,
review all research plans and research products, and manage program-level QA/QC. Through these
functions, the program coordinator will ensure that the cross-component linkages and cooperative
research efforts outlined above (and in Figure 2-2) occur, that research approaches are generally
consistent among projects and with the overall assessment process outlined in Section 3, and that the
program-level goal and objectives are achieved.
32
-------
2.4 COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES AND RESEARCH PROGRAMS
The purpose of this section is to emphasize the importance we place on coordinating our efforts with other
agencies and other research programs. Here we discuss the overall strategy for coordination and the key
groups important at the program level. Sections 4-10 describe coordination and cooperative research
efforts at the project level for each research component. We consider two types of coordination: with
ecosystem managers and with other researchers. Both occur at all phases of our research—planning,
implementation, and production of the final products.
Interactions with ecosystem managers help us define our research priorities, given that our goal is to
provide an improved scientific basis for implementing ecosystem management in the region. In particular,
as noted in Section 2.1, managers within each study area will propose high-priority policy and
management questions to address as part of assessment demonstrations. We will continue to interact
during project implementation, in order to keep managers apprised of interim findings, make mid-course
corrections as needed, and vest the manager in the project's success. We believe that by making
selected managers partners in our research efforts, we increase the likelihood that we will produce useful
products and that these products will be widely adopted.
Our major management-oriented partner in this research effort is EPA Region 10. In addition to giving us
guidance on its perspective of research needs and priorities, Region 10 has agreed to act as our conduit
to other ecosystem managers at the federal, state, tribal, and local level. In cooperation with Region 10,
the states of Washington and Oregon organized meetings in spring 1994 involving interested federal and
state agencies and tribes within each state. At those meetings, we outlined our research strategy and
invited input on high-priority geographic areas for study. The case study areas selected for research at
the watershed/ecoregion scale (Section 5) resulted directly from those meetings. Each state is in the
process of organizing second-tier meetings for interested managers for each case study area, which will
probably involve representatives from local governments and major private landowners, as well as from
federal and state agencies and tribes. We anticipate similar meetings with representatives from Idaho,
beginning in 1995 or 1996. We plan to meet regularly with these groups of interested managers through-
out the course of the five-year research program. Additional interactions with managers occur as part of
the collaborative projects funded under Technology Transfer (Section 10).
Two important guiding principles for our research program dictate that we expend considerable effort
coordinating with other researchers: our desire to conduct value-added research and our emphasis on
integration (Section 2.1). Specific ecological research projects will be selected to fill major knowledge and
information gaps not currently being addressed by other researchers in the area. Furthermore, during
33
-------
assessment demonstrations at the regional and watershed/ecoregion scales, we propose to synthesize
and integrate information collected by a diversity of investigators, research programs, and agencies. We
hope to accomplish this, not by taking data from others, but by involving these other researchers and
research organizations in the assessment process, particularly major research organizations/programs,
such as the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) (see Box 2-A), the USFS Pacific
Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, the National Biological Survey cooperative research
programs in the Pacific Northwest, the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) [formerly the Soil
Conservation Service (SCS)], the U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA)
Program, state agencies of environmental quality, and others.' Box 2-B outlines ongoing and planned
research in other federal agencies related to ecosystem management.
A first step toward achieving this technical coordination is to determine who's doing what research and
where, relative to each major research component. We completed general reviews of this nature as part
of preparing this research strategy. More detailed surveys, specifically for our case study areas, are
ongoing. The resulting databases—summaries of current and past (within 15 years) research, research
objectives, available data and analyses, findings, and research planned for each area—will be made
available to all interested parties (through the Internet) and updated regularly. These databases are our
first step towards coordination. The second will be a series of technical coordination meetings involving
researchers with similar interests or common data needs. These meetings, and the interactions that
follow, will provide a basis for identifying and pursuing productive collaborative research relationships.
At the federal level, several formal organizations have been established to facilitate interagency
coordination, as part of the follow-up to the President's Forest Conference (see Section 1.3). The
interagency Research and Monitoring Committee, with a permanent staff of three senior scientists, is
responsible for developing plans and guidelines to coordinate research and monitoring activities among
federal agencies and to encourage information sharing and improved communication. Inter-agency
province teams coordinate management activities on federal lands within the range of the spotted owl (see
Figure 1-9). Whenever possible, we will work through these existing groups and procedures for
interagency coordination.
A common procedure for conducting collaborative research is through joint funding. Section 2.5 discusses
the use of interagency agreements, and associated memoranda of understanding, to encourage the
coordination of federal research within the region.
34
-------
Box 2-A. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) (Source: Thornton et al.
1993J, • '•.'. ".... ; ."• ' ! .
BiJAP is an interdisciplinary, interagency program designed and initialed by QRD within iPA OslAPs
objectives are as follows: \ '.
* Ss&tiate ftte current status, trends, and changes in serected indicators of the Nation's ecological
* estimate trte geographic coverage and extent of the Nation's ecological resources with Known
* Seek associations between selected indicators of naturaf and anthropogenic stresses and indicators..
* Provide annual sistisSeal summaries arid periodic assessments of the Naliort's! ecological resources,
Four major aeiySSes within SMW* arts {1 ) indicator envelopment $} sampling cfesignt (|};re|otj!ree
monitoring, and {4} assessmertt. tnttteatars are defined as "any characteristic c^f fie envirarirneni that can
provide cjaan^alVe mibnnslion on tie oons!8»»> of eootogicai re8ci^^^;j^d&:-i@|^.
a biological cor«ponsnt to stress, or the amount of change in oondiiloif :. (tl^t^-etai, 1Wl,.p..
uses a probability-based sampling design to quanSfy Ihe status ;ahd trends in selected ecoiogica!
indicators. Samples are spatially dlstribyled wslng a systematic hexagon grid superimposed over the
United States. Host sites are sampled once every four years, with about oft&~$uarter of Allies/ sampled
each year* E&IAP rrtonitors all major calegorJes of resources; agroecosystemst arid e^Iystems,
estearies, forests, tie <3reat Lakes, surface waters, and wetlands. In addition, the liandseape Ecology
group racmitors landscape pa^erns and EfHAP-ymcfsoape Characteri^aionypnjvides iarsdusefland
coveted: and estimates the geographic coverage and extent of ecoiogica! resources usiifg Satellite
TT^nstte Mapper images arwf ofo infeimaiorf- Monitonng res«lte are inlejpreteil in perMic
assessments to address policy-relevant questions about the condition of the Nation's eocpogioai resources
Hetationsfoip to ^RW Rewarcli Prograrr>< The PNW research prog:ram::ha$ rnugn to gairt..from working
eocf erafiva^ wi8j EMAR EMAP researdhi on Indicators and sampling designs wi corttrilsute directly to
tie PNW Integrated Monitofins research compon^it EMAP assessment approacoea.developed to
evaluate curre«tecologieai cusndiSofi, trends, asd diagrtostics are equally valid for PNW.assess^nents at
t»e regional and watershed/ecoregior* scale Beginning in 199S, EMAF will inilate rigior|a|;suiveys in ^he
Pacflc Northwest ttat will provide information of direct use for all aspects of the PlWtf research program.
Current plans m» to implement sampling of wadeabte streamy foresls, and estuaries, is; well aj......
landscape eharacterisaikm Proposed a^pllcatots of EMAP data and approaches are discussed in.each.
secfion (4-«>, We fcellew *hat«» research we undertake wi also be beneficial to E&fAP, in paifcuiar by
35
-------
...: .. .. .
Box 2-B, Planned and Ongoing Research byCrther F« Its principal «i^sj8ve is "lo
provide trie unbiased1 infdrmatiort and dati needed by rrianage|yient and *$pdaid$y agendes fear
successfully managing aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems* and for balancing economic concerns in tie
Columbia River Basin* (USGS 1&94, p. 1). The 0.3. Bureau of Mines Is examining toih ecosystem-based,
reguiaSons and ihe minerals indsslry, and has established a reseaFcr* progirarn "to foer«ase*Ke
urtcterstardlng of tie reiationtsriips bes^een ecosystem health and fynclions and econolrtic at^vity
focusing oii tm minerals sector {Bureau of Mines |^ikp» 1), SPA, tie U+S* Fish ar«f V^dt^e ^service
(USFWS), and the National Marine Fisheries Service signed an irttefagency memoranducn of
understanding "creating »rtewiecological partnership for &e Pacific Northwest," incfudir»i re$eardi
coordination, the coordination and integration of iftise aetfriifes will be a major efrallennav much of wnich
wilt be handled through tf»e interagency Research and Monitoring Committee estebJsfced within the
Regional Ecosystems Offlce al part &f $m fofeay-^p to &e :FEMAT report and Jr«p1eaiiente>iiQn.
In cooperation with other agencies, EPA is engaged in several other large-scale ecosystem management
initiatives, with associated research programs. Examples of these programs include the Chesapeake Bay
Program, the Great Lakes Program, the South Florida Initiative, and the National Estuaries Program. The
National Science Foundation also supports integrated research programs, e.g., the Land-Margin
Ecosystem Research (LMER) program. We have much to gain from exchanging ideas and information
with these programs. Although no formal mechanisms exist for such exchanges, we will actively pursue
opportunities for communication and sharing of ideas and research results.
2.5 BUDGETS AND FUNDING MECHANISMS
It is difficult, if not impossible, to design a research strategy without some idea of the amount of time,
effort, and funding available to get the job done. EPA budgets, however, are decided annually and it is
likely that the budget allocated for the research program will fluctuate over the course of the next five
years. For this strategy document we assume constant funding of $3593K per year (the level of funding in
FY95) over the next five years through FY99. Table 2-1 shows the proposed distribution of this budget
among research components. If funding is reduced, components of the research program will be reduced
or eliminated.
36
-------
Table 2-1. Assumed Annual Budget, by Research Component, for the PNW Research Program.
Research Component
Annual Budget
(in thousands of dollars)3
Regional Biodiversity
Watershed/Ecoregion
Riparian Areas
Coastal Estuaries
Integrated Monitoring
Ecological-Socioeconomic Linkages
Technology Transfer
TOTAL
$650K
$865K
$865K
$650K
$260K
$88K
$215K
$3593K
a These budget numbers do not include costs for EPA salaries and associated expenses. They represent
dollars available for extramural funding. Our current plans are to maintain approximately level funding in
each component of the research program over the five years.
We also must have some idea of the how the work will or can get done. Some research will be done in-
house, by EPA scientists. As noted in Section 2.3, EPA researchers serve as program coordinator and
lead scientists for each research component. Other EPA personnel include the QA coordinator (see
Section 2.6) and the administrative staff. An additional five EPA research scientists will work on the
Coastal Estuaries research component at ERL-Newport.
The largest part of the research, however, will be done by non-EPA scientists, funded extramurally. Three
major types of funding mechanism are available: interagency agreement (with other federal agencies),
cooperative agreement (with universities, states, and other nonprofit research organizations), and contract
(used for procuring goods and services of direct benefit to the federal government). Our approach is to
use all three of these funding mechanisms, in approximate balance, to provide the diversity of research
assistance required.
At present, we have two interagency agreements (IAG) to support the PNW research program: (1) a five-
year agreement with the USFS Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station and (2) a three-
year agreement with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Research Service (ARS).
The USFS agreement covers all aspects of the PNW research program; the ARS agreement is specific to
research on riparian areas. Additional lAGs may be initiated in the future, as other opportunities for
37
-------
collaborative research arise. Joint funding of research, through an IAG, serves to formally coordinate
federal research. We also have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOD, signed 14 April 1994) with the
USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Services that calls for, among other things, coordinated research
and environmental programs to protect Pacific Northwest ecosystems. A broader MOU, to coordinate all
federal research in the Pacific Northwest relating to the President's Forest Plan, is currently being drafted
under the auspices of the interagency Research and Monitoring Committee.
Cooperative agreements, as their name suggests, allow for cooperative research between EPA scientists
and scientists in universities, states, or other nonprofit organizations. We envision two types of coopera-
tive agreement: (1) small, project-specific agreements and (2) a larger, 5-year cooperative agreement
with a consortium of universities and other research institutions designed to provide support for the overall
PNW research effort. We believe the latter agreement is essential for integration among projects and
across disciplines, a priority within our research program. For this reason, the majority of cooperative
research will be conducted through this larger, single cooperative agreement, which includes specific
requirements for incorporating efforts from the broad ecological research community. All cooperative
agreements will be awarded competitively, through open national competition.
Contracts provide greater control by the government over the specific products produced; they can be
used for research purposes if the objectives and expected outputs from the research are clearly defined.
ERL-Corvallis and ERL-Newport have several major on-site and off-site contracts, which were awarded
competitively. These contract mechanisms will provide support in the areas of computing, information
management, geographic information system (CIS), and data analysis, as well as a means for conducting
specific research tasks (e.g., development of models).
A fourth funding mechanism that deserves mention is the National Research Council (NRC) Research
Associateship Program. This program allows us to bring post-doctoral and senior research associates on
site to work on specific research projects for periods of 1 to 3 years. We anticipate providing a number of
such positions during the course of this program. In particular, the NRC will be the major funding
mechanism used for the Ecological-Socioeconomic Linkages research component, to bring experts in
economic or sociological research to ERL-Corvallis to work jointly with ERL-Corvallis and ERL-Newport
ecologists (see Section 9).
2.6 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
Policies initiated by the EPA Administrator in memoranda dated 30 May and 14 June 1979 require that all
EPA laboratories, program offices, and regional offices participate in a centrally managed QA program.
This policy extends to all monitoring and measurement efforts supported or mandated through contracts,
38
-------
cooperative agreements, lAGs, and other formal agreements. The intent is to develop a unified approach
to QA that ensures the collection of data that are scientifically sound, legally defensible, and of known and
documented quality.
The PNW program coordinator will be responsible for program-level QA, assisted by an EPA scientist
assigned full time as QA coordinator for the PNW research program. Key elements of the PNW QA
program, and all QA programs, include the following:
Data Quality Objectives (DQOs): DQOs will be developed as part of the planning process for
each project before data collection. They are intended to help guide the design of sampling and
analytical protocols and to ensure that data collected are adequate for the proposed use. They
also will provide an objective basis for evaluating the quality of data actually collected.
QA Project Plan: QA project plans will be based on the project-specific DQO requirements and
will include QA and QC procedures. Resources needed to accomplish project objectives will also
be specified.
• Audits: Audits will be conducted to evaluate conformance of data collection, analysis, and
management to the DQOs and QA project plan.
Reporting: All data must be reported at a quality level adequate for its intended use. Journal
articles and reports developed as products must include QC information supporting the data.
To comply with the QA policies of EPA and of the participating ORD laboratories (ERL-Corvallis and ERL-
Newport), the PNW research program will address QA at two different levels:
1. A QA program plan will be prepared that describes the Program's overall QA philosophy and
approach.
2. Individual QA project plans will be developed as part of the detailed work plans prepared for each
study.
Both of these QA planning documents will be revised as needed.
2.6.1 PNW Quality Assurance Program Plan
The PNW QA coordinator will prepare the QA program plan, in consultation with the PNW program
coordinator, project lead scientists, and QA staff from ERL-Corvallis and ERL-Newport. This document
will provide overall guidance on QA activities that is consistent with the QA policies of the Agency and of
each laboratory. The document will define the QA goals, outline methods for achieving those goals, and
describe QA responsibilities within the Program. The QA program plan will be updated and revised
annually, or as needed, as experience is gained through implementation and as program objectives
39
-------
change. The QA program plan also will identify existing approved QA project plans and future planned
research that will require QA project plans.
PNW research activities will be diverse, involving sampling in different media (water, land, air), in different
ecosystem types, and at different spatial scales. Chemical, physical, biological, and landscape data will
be measured (in the field and through remote sensing), sampled, collected, and analyzed, both by EPA
personnel and by cooperators and contractors. The QA program plan will address QA issues with respect
to each of the kinds of data to be collected, as well as data management.
2.6.2 Individual QA Project Plans
Individual QA project plans will be prepared for each study as part of the detailed work plan developed for
that research. These individual QA project plans will follow the QA requirements specified in the docu-
ment, "Interim Guidelines and Specifications for Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans" (U.S. EPA
1980). The QA project plan will define specific DQOs for the study, along with the research design,
sample collection procedures, analytical protocols, and data analysis methods. These plans will ensure
that data quality is adequate for the use intended. To assure that PNW studies meet the QA requirements
of the Agency and of each Laboratory, QA project plans will be reviewed by the PNW QA coordinator and
by the appropriate laboratory QA staff. These plans must be approved by the laboratory EPA QA Officer
prior to collection of any project data.
40
-------
3. APPROACH TO ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
One of the major objectives of the PNW research program is to develop and demonstrate an ecological
assessment approach useful for ecosystem management. The concepts, terms, and major steps of this
assessment process are introduced here, because they provide context for all components of the
research program. Assessment questions drive the research priorities and design. Sensitivity analyses
can help identify key uncertainties and assumptions that warrant further research. Assessment outputs,
themselves, represent a form of hypothesis (i.e., they reflect current understanding and information),
which can be tested in subsequent research projects. We use assessments to focus and integrate our
research. Assessments also represent the final step in the delivery of research results to ecosystem
managers.
Our assessment process builds on other approaches that have been proposed (Streets 1989, Hunsaker et
al. 1990, U.S. EPA 1992, 1994c, Bartell et al. 1992, Leibowitz et al. 1992a, Suter 1993), but emphasizes
those aspects most relevant to ecosystem management. Because our program involves primarily
ecological research, we limit this discussion to ecological assessments, that is, assessments that interpret
ecological knowledge for a policy or management purpose. Ecosystem management requires information
on the ecological, human health, economic, and social consequences of management options. Section 9,
which describes plans to link our ecological research to comparable socio-economic research, discusses
assessments in this broader context.
Section 3.1 reiterates key features of ecosystem management and, thus, of ecological assessments in
support of ecosystem management. Section 3.2 discusses important underlying ecological concepts and
terms. Section 3.3 presents the basic assessment framework and process.
3.1 KEY FEATURES OF ASSESSMENTS SUPPORTING ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT
Section 1.1 presents important features of ecosystem management. These same features, with a few
additions, describe the essential characteristics of assessments in support of ecosystem management:
Place-Based. The focal point of an assessment is a specific geographic area, e.g., agricultural
field, small watershed, or entire region, rather than a specific stressor. The spatial unit of analysis
(size and boundaries) should be tailored to the questions being asked.
Multiple, Linked Spatial Scales. Full implementation of ecosystem management requires
management decisions at multiple spatial scales: global, national, regional, subregional, and
41
-------
local. Ecological assessments are needed to support management decisions at each spatial
scale. Analyses at each scale must be linked, and the process (of both management and
assessment) iterates back and forth across scales.
Restoration as Well as Risk Reduction. EPA's Risk Assessment Forum (RAF) defines
ecological risk assessment as "a process that evaluates the likelihood that adverse ecological
effects may occur or are occurring as a result of exposure to one or more stressors" (U.S. EPA
1992, p. 2). EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB 1988, 1990) recommended that the Agency
target its environmental protection efforts on those stressors likely to result in the "greatest risk
reduction." Both statements focus on stressor reductions as the primary management tool.
Ecosystem management considers the full range of management options, some of which would
not normally be considered under the headers stressor or risk reduction, including ecological
restoration as well as ecosystem protection, pollutant control, and changes in landuse and land
and resource management practices.
Benefits as Well as Adverse Effects. As just noted, risk assessments estimate the likelihood of
adverse ecological effects (U.S. EPA 1992). This concept presumes that we can define a priori
an adverse effect. A basic assumption of ecosystem management is that ecological resources
have multiple, often conflicting, uses, as well as intrinsic values. Thus, adverse is a matter of
perspective. There is no one consensus definition of a healthy ecosystem (i.e., a single state for
an ecosystem that is socially desirable and has integrity). Rather, ecological systems can have
multiple states of health, and the choice among these states is determined by societal desires.
The traditional risk assessment approach generally deals with one or a few assessment endpoints
and asks how far we should go towards protecting or restoring that endpoint at what cost (i.e.,
what level of stressor reduction is needed and worthwhile?). In contrast, ecosystem management
is more a matter of social trade-offs among multiple, alternative endpoints. Principe (1994) refers
to this alternative perspective as ecological benefits assessment (see Box 3-A; Figure 3-1 a,b).
Long and Short Term. We must account for not only current uses and societal desires, but also
desires and potential uses of future generations. Ecological assessments must provide informa-
tion on both the short- and long-term ecological consequences of management actions, and
evaluate management approaches that maintain options for the future (often referred to as
bequest values).
42
-------
Box3-A Ecological Benefits Assessment J
Principe (19&4) identifies four groups, or types, of ecological benefits (also see We&tman 1S77):
• Market benefits, such as lumber, commercial; fisherfes, water use tor irrigation, and gracing, for which
markets exist that can be; used to estimate their value*
* Nenmarket use benefits, isuch as recreation^I fishing, hiking, and tourism, for whtcH there are no
markets.
• Nonmarket, non-use benefits, which include existence values (the benefit associated with maintaining
the option to use the resource in the future even though the resource is not currently being used),
bequest values {tfte satisfaction derived from preserving the resource -tot future generations), Intrinsic
values (the value assigned by some to the intrinsic right of ecosystems lo exist apart from their utility
to humans), historical, heritage, cultural, spiritual, and other similar values,
• Neglected benefits, such as climate modification, pollution sequestration, and genetic diversity for
future biotechnology applications, which are seldom JncludecHn benefit analyses because they are so
dificuit to characterize, both physically and monetarily. ;
Thus, the:term ecotogicat benefits refers to the full complement of goods, services, and values that
humans derive from ecosystems, Economists often use the term 6^/?ef#to refer specifically to a
monetized valuation of an economic good or service. However, we us© the term to refer to all goods,
services, and values whether or not a monetary Value can be assigned or estimated.
Principe (;1994} defines an ecological benefits assessment as comparison of tine ecological benefits profile
among alternative management scenarios, as illustrated in figure 3-4 (a and *>};•• Benefits are presented In
relative, physical terms (e.g,t;smallor large amount of available fishing or small or large contribution to
flood control), not as monetary values. One limitation of this.approach is that the visual1 impact of the
figure is influenced by the degree of aggregation: among benefits {&$>, how many individual benefits are
listed within a given category) and the criteria used to define high arid low.
Comparisons Among Management Strategies. A major thrust of ecological assessments for
ecosystem management is to evaluate and compare the ecological consequences of alternative
management strategies. What management actions are likely to yield the greatest return, in terms
of reduced risks or increased ecological benefits? Analyses are not limited to management
actions that fall within the domain (legislative mandates) of any one agency, but encompass all
reasonable options.
Geographic Targeting. A second important question for ecosystem management is, "Where—in
what areas and at what sites—will management efforts make the greatest difference?" What are
the highest priority sites for restoration or other management action, which will result in the
greatest net gain in ecological benefits or reduction in risks? We may also target geographic
43
-------
a)
Old Growth Forest - Forest Intact
(for illustrative purposes only, points shown are not data)
Figure 3-1 a. Hypothetical ecological benefits profile for old growth forest, comparing two
management strategies: (a) preservation of old growth forests and (b) forest
harvests through clearcutting. These figures are for illustration only; they are not
based on real data. Also, the visual impact of each figure is affected greatly by the
degree of aggregation among benefit types and the criteria used to assign high and
low values (Source: Principe 1994).
44
-------
b)
Old Growth Forest - Forest Clear-Cut
(for illustrative purposes only, points shown are not data)
Figure 3-1 b. Hypothetical ecological benefits profile for old growth forest, comparing two
management strategies: (a) preservation of old growth forests and (b) forest
harvests through clearcutting. These figures are for illustration only; they are not
based on real data. Also, the visual impact of each figure is affected greatly by the
degree of aggregation among benefit types and the criteria used to assign high and
low values (Source: Principe 1994).
45
-------
areas for further study. High-priority areas for management attention are often high-priority areas
for further data collection and more intensive analyses to support decision making.
Structured Use of Expert Judgment. Thus, ecological assessments must deal with multiple
endpoints, multiple stressors, interactions, and trade-offs. The emphasis is on system-level
integration and policy relevance. To achieve this, we must, at times, sacrifice analytical rigor and
proceed despite data gaps and uncertainties. Some information, although uncertain, is better than
no information. It is not acceptable to omit key components from an assessment (e.g., endpoints
or stressor interactions) simply because "sufficient data are not available." Rather, where data
and quantitative analyses are lacking, we propose to proceed through the structured use of expert
judgment. Given the current state of assessment science, we can achieve the holistic
assessments required to support ecosystem management only by using expert judgment to fill
data gaps and missing links. We use the term structured use of expert judgment to refer to
techniques that produce repeatable results and convey the variability among experts. Box 3-B
provides further discussion of the use of expert judgment in assessments.
Iterative Process. Figure 1-4 emphasizes the iterative nature of ecosystem management and of
ecological assessments supporting ecosystem management. Managers define questions,
assessments provide best available answers, decisions are made and management actions
implemented, monitoring provides information on the success or failure of the management
program, additional research is conducted to address major uncertainties, managers refine the
questions, assessments are redone or updated, and additional decisions are made and manage-
ment programs modified accordingly, consistent with the adaptive management concept. Even
within a given assessment cycle, the assessment process will often be implemented iteratively,
increasing the level of effort at each stage and continually focusing on those aspects that will
contribute the most to reducing uncertainties and decreasing the chance of making an erroneous
management decision. An initial assessment based solely on expert judgment may be conducted.
Depending on the results and desired level of confidence, it may or may not be necessary to
proceed with more quantitative analyses. The next iteration, if needed, may rely on data that
already exist or are readily obtainable. At each iteration, additional data collection activities or
more intensive analyses would focus on those issues, endpoints, stressors, or geographic areas
expected to result in the greatest net contribution to improved decision making. Ultimately, the
objective is to select the appropriate level of effon required to achieve the desired level of confi-
dence in management decisions at reasonable cost (Figure 3-2; Leibowitz et al. 1992a). Spatially
hierarchical implementation of assessments is fundamental to ecosystem management. Large-
scale analyses, which are often more qualitative, provide a basis for identifying smaller subareas
46
-------
Box3-B. Structured Use of Expert Judgment "/.-• ;
The formal eiicitation of expert judgment has played an important role in decision analysis .for years '{e$«
Raiffa 1968f Speteler and Stael von HoJsteln 1§?S) and irt a wide range of risk artalyses
' "
"The question is not wfce&er we. should useejgjert.Jydgrnent b
as., in prep.). Wlnkler et at. {irt prep,}, Keeney and von vvlnterfeidt (is&1), an:|:irt popuJations In lakes in the Adirondack Region of Hew
York, faasejd solely on expert Judgment, Warren-Nicks {1^90} presents a similar model, br predicBng the
effects of acidification on brook trout using Bayesjan statistics, to combine laboratory bioassay and Held
survey data. The third variation, combining data and judgment, would also have been feasible using the
same basic statistical model ' . j :: •':•• [
We propose to develop and evaluate (1) systema^c meUKKJs fer obtaining ari^using exjpert judgment thai
result in representative, repeatabie, an4.defertspe ou^utsand (2) meth^sfQrcomyrrfnsi:data-based
and expert Judgment analyses to take maximurfj ^advantage of each* We will also demops^ate the «se>
and value ; of these techniques in the overall ecological assessment process (see Section 3.3).
that are high priority for more intensive analysis, as just discussed in the paragraph on geographic
targeting.
Extensive Interactions with Stakeholders. "People will not support what they do not
understand and cannot understand that in which they are not involved ... The process of planning
is often more important than the plan itself (FEMAT 1993, pp. 11-80-81). The assessment process
must be open and understandable to those who will use the assessment results. Assessments
are science-based, but require input from stakeholders (managers as well as interested citizens)
at several points (e.g., setting analysis priorities and selecting realistic management scenarios for
evaluation). Interactions between stakeholders and assessors are discussed further in Section
3.3.
47
-------
Less Than
^Adequate
Useful Information
Redundancy
Minimum
Threshold
High
Analysis Cost
Figure 3-2. The benefits of an ecological assessment, measured in terms of the accuracy of
the results as a function of the assessment costs. At the very minimum, the
assessment must provide results that are better than chance alone, e.g., greater
than 50:50 for binary decisions (Source: Leibowitz et al. 1992a).
Explicit Recognition of Uncertainties and Assumptions. Assessments must provide eco-
system mangers with better information than is currently available, but they rarely provide perfect
information. Furthermore, ecosystems are inherently variable and unpredictable. Even with
perfect knowledge, we cannot predict the future with certainty. "Effective policies are possible
under conditions of uncertainty, but they must take uncertainty into account" (Ludwig et al. 1993,
p. 38). Uncertainties and assumptions must be clearly communicated to decision makers, not just
as a list or a "±" estimate, but in a form that allows decision makers to understand the implications
of these uncertainties and assumptions for various management options. Ludwig et al. (1993)
48
-------
and Hilborn and Ludwig (1993) outline several basic principles for decision making in the face of
uncertainty that provide insight into the types of information that assessments must provide:
- Favor actions that are robust to uncertainties.
- Consider a variety of plausible hypotheses and a variety of possible strategies. Select
management actions based on their aggregated performance under a variety of plausible
hypotheses.
- Favor actions that are reversible.
- Hedge (e.g., include safety factors to avoid irreversible results if errors are made).
- Favor actions that are informative; probe and experiment; monitor results; update
assessments; and modify policy accordingly.
3.2 ECOLOGICAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS
In any assessment, an important first step is to develop a conceptual model of how the system operates—
the major components, how they interact, and how they are affected by external factors (U.S. EPA 1992,
1994c). This section presents a general conceptual model of ecosystems within landscapes1 (Section
3.2.1), which allows us to define basic ecological concepts and terms used in subsequent sections.
Section 3.2.2 discusses ecological concepts relevant to developing an appropriate spatial framework for
ecological assessments.
3.2.1 General Conceptual Model of Ecosystems and Landscapes2
Most assessments begin by asking what people value about ecosystems (U.S. EPA 1992, 1994c).
Leibowitz et al. (1992a) and Principe (1994) expand this by asking, "What functions do ecosystems play in
the landscape?" Ecosystem functions combine what people value with other, often overlooked but
important roles of ecological systems, such as the role of ecosystems in flood control, climate
1 Forman and Godron (1986, p. 11) define landscape as "a heterogeneous land area composed of a
cluster of interacting ecosystems that is repeated in similar form throughout." Neither ecosystems nor
landscapes have an inherent size, e.g., both regional ecosystems and regional landscapes are valid
concepts. Thus, we distinguish between landscape and ecosystems not on the basis of size, or on
which contains which, but rather on the basis of primary focus. For ecosystems, the primary interest is
interactions among and between the biotic and abiotic components; for landscapes the focus is on
spatial structure. This distinction is consistent with Allen and Hoekstra (1992): "Landscape ecology
investigates the consequences of spatial structure ... Landscapes become the spatial matrix in which
organisms, populations, communities, ecosystems, and the like are set" (p. 56).
2 Much of the information in this section was summarized from Leibowitz et al. (1992a,b), prepared as
part of the Wetlands Research Program at ERL-Corvallis.
49
-------
modification, or attenuation of pollutants. Ecosystem functions can be derived from both ecosystem
structure (the combination of biotic and abiotic components that make up the ecosystem) and ecosystem
processes (the transformation of energy and matter within the ecosystem). Westman (1977) uses the
term "ecological goods and services." Principe (1994) uses the term ecological benefits (see Box 3-A).
We prefer the broader, less value-laden term ecosystem functions. Example ecosystem functions are
listed in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1. Examples of Ecosystem Functions.
Production of harvestable products, such as timber, sport and commercial fish, hunted wildlife (e.g.,
deer, waterfowl)
Water supply for municipalities, irrigation, hydropower generation
Source of genetic materials for applications in medicine, agriculture, or biotechnology
Habitat for rare, threatened, and endangered species
Habitat for aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity
Habitat for human recreation (e.g., hiking, boating) and aesthetic enjoyment
Habitat for livestock grazing
Improvement of water quality, for example, through sediment trapping and the absorption and
breakdown of nutrients and toxic pollutants
Climate modification, for example, by affecting rates of evapotranspiration, air movements, and carbon
sequestration
Flood control
Erosion control
Cultural and spiritual values
Intrinsic value of maintaining pristine, undisturbed ecosystems apart from any human-related function
Many ecosystem functions depend not only on the characteristics of the system but also its position in the
landscape. For example, a riparian areas may have the capacity to remove sediments from runoff. It
functions as a sediment trap (or sink), however, only if there is an upstream sediment source (i.e., its
water quality improvement function depends both on its capacity and on landscape inputs). Likewise, a
riparian area may have the capacity to serve as habitat for certain terrestrial species, but it will function as
terrestrial habitat only if the surrounding landscape matrix is also suitable (e.g., if the riparian area is
connected via corridors to source areas for the species or to areas suitable for breeding and
reproduction).
50
-------
Leibowitz et al. (1992a,b) present a general conceptual model for landscapes that considers individual
ecosystems as sources or sinks of materials3 linked within the landscape. The function of any individual
ecosystem depends on three factors: (1) the magnitude of the ecosystem as a source or sink, (2) the
transport mechanism for the material (e.g., gravity, channelized flow, or migration), and (3) the spatial
relationship between the sources and sinks in the landscape.4 An ecosystem that serves as neither a
source nor a sink can still play important roles as a conduit or barrier (Forman and Godron 1986). A
conduit is "an ecosystem that assists movement of materials through different parts of the landscape"
(e.g., habitat corridors for animal movements). A barrier is "an ecosystem that inhibits material move-
ment." For example, streams act as barriers to organisms that are unable to swim or fly (Leibowitz et al.
1992b, p. 74).
A stressor, or environmental disturbance,5 can alter both the magnitude and type of ecosystem functions.
Declines in function are referred to as functional loss. Functional loss can result from a change in a
forcing function (i.e., an external driving factor)—for example, a hydrologic diversion that affects the
transport of water to and from the ecosystem—or a direct impact on ecosystem structure (e.g., harvesting
of timber) or processes (e.g., nutrient enrichment). It is also possible that certain stressors, or inter-
mediate levels of a stressor, might actually increase certain ecosystem functions. For example, in some
systems intermediate levels of habitat disturbance can increase habitat diversity and species richness.
Because natural disturbances are common, most ecosystems have some ability to resist or adapt to
anthropogenic disturbance. An ecosystem's response to disturbance depends on its resistance (ability to
resist disturbance) and its resilience (ability to return to its previous state) (Figure 3-3) (Forman and
Godron 1986, Odum et al. 1987, Leibowitz et al. 1992b). The system is said to recover if it returns to its
previous state or, more appropriately, its previous range of behavior (see Figure 3-3).
3 Material is defined broadly to include both biotic and abiotic materials. In the case of biological
materials, an ecosystem would be a sink if emigration were less than immigration, which would occur if
the death rate exceeded the birth rate. The model also recognizes neutral ecosystems, which neither
add nor remove the particular material.
4 Leibowitz et al. (1992a,b) use the term landscape function to refer to ecological functions that depend
on the interactions between ecosystems. These larger scale functions could just as well be viewed as
functions associated with a larger, more encompassing ecosystem (see footnote 1). For this reason,
we use just one term—ecosystem function.
5 Some authors use the term disturbance to refer only to natural factors that affect ecosystems and
sfressor for human-caused stress. We use the terms interchangeably. Both terms include both natural
and anthropogenic causes.
51
-------
Full Recovery
(b)
Time-
»
0)
o
o
LU
Time'
State
Figure 3-3. Conceptual presentations of ecosystem response to disturbance: (a) Stylized
definitions of the terms resistance and resilience. The solid line illustrates a system
with greater resistance (less change in response to the disturbance) but lower
resilience (longer recovery period) compared to the dashed line, (b) Graphs showing
that ecosystems are dynamic. An undisturbed system exhibits time-varying states
within some nominal range of behavior (solid lines). The disturbed system (dashed
lines) likewise shows some range of response. [Sources: (a) Leibowitz et al. 1992b,
(b) Bartell et al. 1992].
52
-------
Catastrophic disturbances or long-term chronic disturbances may alter an ecosystem so drastically that it
never recovers (at least in human terms of recovery), but instead shifts to a new, alternate state or range
of behavior (Allen et al. 1977, Phillips 1993). O'Neill et al. (1989) speculated that increased system
variability combined with increased times for system recovery may be indicators of an imminent change in
system state. Chaos theory suggests that even in the absence of a disturbance, a system can exhibit
temporal behavior that not only departs from the normal behavior range, but also becomes aperiodic and
unpredictable, or chaotic (Prigogine 1967, 1982). Ecosystems are fundamentally dynamic in time and
space (e.g., Walker 1981).
Different ecosystems respond differently to a given disturbance or stressor (Figure 3-4). The nature of an
ecosystem's stressor-response curve provides one basis for identifying systems where' management
actions might provide the greatest net return. Systems with a high risk of functional loss are those that
(1) have a high probability of being exposed to a stressor and (2) are on the area of the curve with maxi-
mum slope, where a given unit increase in a stressor will result in the greatest decline in ecosystem
function.
An ecosystem's recovery curve may not be the exact reverse of its stressor-response curve (Figure 3-5).
Restoration potential refers to the ability to recover ecosystem function through stressor reduction or
specific restoration activities. An ecosystem with high restoration potential is one for which a given unit of
management action would result in the greatest net increase in ecosystem function (i.e., it is on the area
of the recovery curve with maximum slope). Restoration ecology applies ecological principles to the man-
agement of ecosystems to accelerate the recovery process (Cairns 1993). In many cases, ecological
restoration requires restoring both the ecosystem's capacity and the landscape matrix (i.e., other ecosys-
tems that serve as important sources, sinks, conduits, or barriers for the restored ecosystem). For
example, re-establishment of locally extinct populations in a restored ecosystem will occur only if there are
nearby sources and appropriate conduits for the movement of those organisms into the restored
ecosystem.
Disturbances occur at different spatial and temporal scales (Figure 3-6). The term cumulative impacts
refers to disturbances that overlap either in space or in time (Beansland et al. 1986). Time-crowded
disturbances are those that are so frequent in time that the ecosystem does not have a chance to recover
between disturbances; space-crowded disturbances are those so close in space that their effects overlap.
Delineation of conceptual models is an important step in the design and conduct of a research project.
The conceptual model represents the researcher's hypothesis about how the ecosystem operates and
responds to stressors. It is the visual representation of the specific hypothesis to be tested. We present
53
-------
(a)
(b)
fie
o
LLJ
§
E §
I*
(/>
8
LJLJ
Stressor(s)
Stressor(s)
(c)
CO
.
-ts
II
w
o
o
LLJ
Stressor(s)
Figure 3-4. Example hypothetical stressor-response curves, illustrating potential relationships
between ecosystem function (e.g., biodiversity or overall water quality improvement)
and increasing levels of some stressor or multiple stressors (e.g., hydrologic
modification, toxic contaminants). In curve (a) ecosystem function declines sharply
even with low levels of stressor; curves (b) and (c) suggest that, because of the
system's resistance, it can initially absorb some level of stressor without a measur-
able loss of function. The portion of the curve with the greatest slope can be used to
identify those ecosystems where the greatest return (increase in function) could be
achieved per unit of ecosystem protection (reduction of stressor) (Source: Leibowitz
etal. 1992a).
54
-------
100
13
LL
-------
109-
-
«
S
(A
2
o
QLi
H
10°-
a)
t
ENVIRONMENTAL J.
DISTURBANCE Terries
REGIMES
e
-*-
-« Hi
-« Rr
- Pat
* Disturbance E\
Soil Devel
— Climac
man Acth
i Regime
rogenOu
rents
IGlacial-
Interglacial
Climatic Cycles
Dpment 1— •-
|1
:ic Fluctuations »•
break ^
109-
"w1
4)
ra
o
2
o
t 103-
0)
10°
b)
t
BIOTIC
t
RESPONSES Evolution of
the Biota
I
1
t
Ecosystem Change
Speclation
Extinction
, Species Migration
Secondary '
Succession
Gap-phase f
Replacement
I
Competition
I
Productivity
|
I
I 1 1
1 I I I I i i I I i
10° 104 108 1012
Spatial Scale (m2)
10° 104 10s in12
101
Spatial Scale (m2)
Figure 3-6. Spatial and temporal scales for (a) example disturbances and (b) biotic responses.
(Source: Leibowitz et al. 1992b, adapted from Delcourt et al. 1983).
3.2.2 Spatial Framework for Ecological Assessments
A major objective of the PNW research program is to develop and demonstrate a spatial framework that
provides an effective basis for making ecological assessments at multiple spatial scales, setting environ-
mental goals, and extrapolating research results (Section 2.2). This section reviews several related con-
cepts: hierarchy theory, classification, regionalization, and extrapolation from smaller to larger scales.
3.2.2.1 Hierarchy Theory
Hierarchy theory suggests that ecological systems are, or at least appear to be, hierarchical in their
organization (Allen and Starr 1982, O'Neill et al. 1986, Allen and Hoekstra 1992). Complex systems are
viewed as a hierarchy of embedded subsystems at different scales or levels of organization. At any given
level, a system is composed of interacting components and is itself a component of a larger system. The
classical hierarchy in ecology (from small to large) is cells, organisms, populations, communities, ecosys-
tems, landscape, biome, and biosphere. Many other hierarchical organizations are possible, however,
depending on the frame of reference, and these other organizations often provide more useful ways of
organizing our understanding of ecological systems.
56
-------
Of particular interest are organizational frameworks based on multiple levels of temporal and spatial
scales. The term scale pertains to "size in both time and space; size is a matter of measurement, so scale
does not exist independent of scientists' measuring scheme" (Allen and Hoekstra" 1992). Scale is
determined by the grain (limit of resolving power of individual measurements) and the extent (spatio-
temporal extent of the data) required to see the entities that characterize the level.
Perceiving something at large scale requires observations over relatively long periods of time or across
large parcels of space, or both. Theoretically, we could study large-scale systems at a fine-grain level of
resolution, but besides being impractical and expensive, often the detail obscures the overall pattern.
"Landscapes are analogous to pointillistic paintings. If the viewer is too close (too fine a resolution),
the objects of interest cannot be seen. If the viewer is too far away (at too coarse a resolution), again,
the objects of interest cannot be seen" (Hunsaker et al. 1990, p. 330).
Scale-dependent attributes or processes are those that differ qualitatively, depending on the scale used to
observe them. For example, two species may be negatively associated when studied within small
geographic areas, if they compete for the same resource, but positively associated when examined over
large areas, where common patterns of habitat selection dominate (Wiens et al. 1986, Carpenter and
Kitchell 1987, Sherry and Holmes 1988). Meentemeyer (1984) observed that differences in litter decom-
position at the local scale were explained by properties of the litter and decomposers, whereas at broad
regional scales climatic variables accounted for most of the variation.
The levels of organization in a hierarchy are interrelated; Allen and Hoekstra (1992, p. 10) define hierarchy
theory as "a formal approach to the relationship between upper level control over lower level possibilities."
Larger scales (spatial and temporal) provide context, role, and significance. Smaller scales provide insight
into explanatory mechanisms, as the component subsystems that make up the larger whole. Therefore, to
adequately understand any one scale, we must study at least three: the level of interest and the levels
immediately above and below it.
3.2.2.2 Classification
Bailey et al. (1978, p. 650) refer to classification as "ordering or arranging objects into groups or sets on
the basis of their similarities or relationships. The product of this process is a classification system, and
the subsequent placement of objects into the system is called 'identification' (Sokol 1974)." Gilmour
(1951) states that, "Classification is a prerequisite of all conceptual thought, whatever the subject matter of
that thought. The primary function of classification is to construct classes about which we can make
inductive generalizations."
57
-------
Our primary interest is classification of landscape units (i.e., areas of land and their associated ecosys-
tems), which we refer to as landscape classification. We may also wish to classify specific ecosystem
components [e.g., soil classification; USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) 1975] or ecosystem types
(e.g., a stream or wetland classification; Naiman et al. 1992, Brinson 1993a). In all cases, the objective is
to group the units into classes with similar characteristics. The characteristics of the class, or any indi-
vidual unit within the class, can then be inferred from studies of other representative6 members of the
same class. A classification system thus provides a basis for extrapolating research findings from studies
at one or a few sites (or landscape units) to other similar sites within the same class.
Examples of classifications abound. Some were developed for particular purposes. For example, Hamlett
et al. (1992) classified 104 watersheds within Pennsylvania according to their agricultural pollution
potential, based on four variables: a runoff index, a sediment production index, an animal loading index,
and a chemical-use index. Huang and Ferng (1990) subdivided the Tanshui River Basin in Taiwan into
250 m x 250 m grids and then classified each grid unit into one of four classes of sensitivity to landuse
activities and potential contribution to nonpoint source pollution, based on data on surface runoff, surface
erosion, and distance to the nearest stream. The Gap Analysis Program (e.g., Scott et al. 1991) and
related Biodiversity Research Consortium (Kiester et al. 1993) classify land areas according to their
potential contribution to regional terrestrial biodiversity, based largely on vegetation type (estimated using
remote sensing), the relationship between vegetation type and species distributions, and available data on
species occurrences.
Classification systems may also be developed for broad, general use. Obviously, general-purpose
classifications provide less precise results than single-purpose classifications when applied for that
particular purpose. On the other hand, the common use of a single classification system can facilitate
data sharing and communication (USFS 1993a). Many of the regionalization approaches to classification
discussed later in this section are general, multi-purpose classifications. Naiman et al. (1992) outline a
system for classifying streams according to their conservation potential, defined broadly as a stream's
ecological potential and sensitivity to natural and human disturbance. The classification approach relies
on the full range of small- and large-scale factors that influence stream characteristics (Figure 3-7).
6 In general usage, the term representative refers to a typical example. A rigorous definition of the term
requires a statistical probability sample to assure that a subset of class members is truly representative.
58
-------
Long
Temporal
scale
Ultimate
Climate
Geology
Zoogeography
Mass wasting
Sediment transport
Organic debris
Competition
Predation
Proximate
Short Small
• Spatial scale •
Large
Figure 3-7. Proximate and ultimate controlling factors in determining stream characteristics and
their relation to spatial and temporal scales (Source: Naiman et al. 1992).
Classifications may be single-level (such as the Pennsylvania watershed classification already mentioned
in this section) or multiple-level (e.g., the SCS soil classification). Multi-level classifications may or may
not be hierarchical (with each higher level an aggregation of the classes, and only those classes, at the
next lower level of classification). The fixed relationship among levels in a hierarchical classification can
be advantageous, but also reduces flexibility.
3.2.2.3 Regionalization
Regionalization is a type of landscape classification. Bailey et al. (1978) describe two approaches to
landscape classification: taxonomy and regionalization. Taxonomic approaches begin with predefined,
generally small landscape units (e.g., small watersheds or the 250 x 250 m grids used by Huang and
Ferng (1990). These units are then grouped into classes based on similarities in important characteristics.
Regionalization, on the other hand, begins with the whole land area (e.g., a continent), which is then
subdivided into smaller and smaller units, termed regions.
"A region is a more or less homogeneous area that differs from other areas. To use a more
contemporary jargon, within-region variance is less than between-region variance" (Hart 1982).
59
-------
An ecoregion is a region of relative homogeneity in ecological characteristics or in relationships between
organisms and their environments (Bailey 1976, Omernik 1987, Gallant et al. 1989). Like taxonomic
classifications, ecoregions can be delineated at any spatial scale and customized to fit any particular
purpose—single purpose or general, multi-purpose classifications. Regionalization systems can be
single- or multiple-level and hierarchical or nonhierarchical, although multiple-scale hierarchical systems
are most common.
Regions can be delineated using either qualitative or quantitative techniques or a combination of the two
(Gallant et al. 1989):
Qualitative delineation employs continual, interactive expert judgment to select, analyze, and
classify data and differentiate regions. Judgments are based on the quality and quantity of data
and on relationships among environmental factors. The qualitative approach allows the expert to
account for difficult-to-quantify variations in the quality and resolution of data and among-region
variations in associations among environmental variables (Omernik et al. 1988, Gallant et al.
1989).
Quantitative delineation uses statistical comparisons (e.g., spatial concordance) among data
layers to identify regions of relative homogeneity. Advantages of the quantitative approach are
that the systematic methodology can be reproduced, boundaries among regions can be readily
revised as new data become available, the process of delineation requires explicit choices among
important variables, and transition zones between regions can be quantified (Bernert et al. 1993).
Qualitative regionalization approaches have been applied more widely than quantitative approaches, in
part because of the limited amount of consistent, high-quality regional data available. In a review of EPA's
ecoregion approach, the SAB (1991) recommended further exploration of quantitative approaches.
Commonly used examples of general, ecologically based regionalizations in the United States include the
following:
Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas (USDA 1981), developed largely from
soils maps to provide a geographic basis for managing agricultural concerns.
Bailey's Ecoregions (Bailey 1976, 1989a,b), developed initially to provide a spatial framework for
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory, but now expanded to
include continental and global applications.
Omernik's Ecoregions (Omernik 1987, Gallant et al. 1989), developed initially to classify streams
for water resource management, derived from those factors considered most important in
controlling water quality in a given area, most notably land-surface form, potential natural
vegetation, soils, and landuse. Omernik's ecoregion approach has been applied at a national
scale (1:7,500,000 resolution, Figure 3-8; Omernik 1987), smaller scales (1:250,000) for state-
level management concerns (Figure 3-9; Gallant et al. 1989, Thiele et al. 1993), and, recently, at a
landscape or basin scale (1:100,000; Thiele 1992).
60
-------
ECOMAP, the USFS National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units (USFS 1993a),
developed to provide a consistent framework for the implementation of ecosystem management
by the USFS at the national, regional, and forest planning levels. "The primary purpose is...to
identify land and water areas at different levels of resolution that have similar capabilities and
potentials for management" (USFS 1993, p. 3). The map units are differentiated by multiple
factors, including climate, physiography, geology, soils, water, and potential natural communities.
At large scales, abiotic factors dominate, whereas both abiotic and biotic factors are important at
smaller scales.
Ecoregions, areas of relative ecological homogeneity, represent an important component of a spatial
framework for assessments—as spatial units for organizing and presenting information, setting
environmental goals, and extrapolating to other units. As with taxonomic approaches to classification,
research findings from studies at one or a few sites should be generally applicable to other sites in the
same class, or ecoregion. Omernik and associates (Hughes et al. 1986, Gallant et al. 1989) use regional
reference sites to define regionally attainable stream quality:
"... attainable quality can be approximated by measuring physical, chemical, and biological quality of
streams draining watersheds that are representative of the natural environmental characteristics
typifying the region and subject to the least possible amount of human influence" (Gallant et al.
1989, p. 5).
Hydrologic units (regions defined based on topographic drainage divides) are another commonly used
spatial unit (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, USGS 1982). Analyses for which hydrologic movements are a
major forcing function are best done within hydrologic units. In general, however, a given river basin or
watershed includes a diversity of ecological characteristics, from the steeper, often more forested head-
waters to the broader, generally more highly developed lower valleys. Hydrologic units include multiple
ecoregions, and a given ecoregion may cross several hydrologic units. Both types of units are needed in
a spatial framework for assessments, for different purposes (see Omernik and Griffith 1991). It is for this
reason that we refer to our intermediate scale of analysis as watershed/ecoregion (Section 5).
3.2.2.4 Extrapolation from Smaller to Larger Scales
The final topic reviewed deals with extrapolating from smaller to larger scales. Most ecological studies,
particularly process-related research, are conducted at relatively small spatial and temporal scales,
because of the intense effort involved and the greater ease of controlled experimentation. To what degree
can information obtained at small scales be used to estimate conditions and ecosystem responses at
larger scales? For example, can studies of individual trees, and leaves on those trees, be used to predict
the response of the entire forest? Can ecosystem responses observed over a period of one to two years
be used to predict long-term ecosystem dynamics?
61
-------
ECOREGIONS OF THE UNITED STATES
Scale 1:23,500,000
Albere Equal Area Projection
1
2.
3.
4
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13
14.
15.
16.
17
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28
29
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38
COAST RANGE
PUGET LOWLANDS
WILLAMETTE VALLEY
CASCADE
SIERRA NEVADA
SOUTH. AND CENT CALIF PLAINS AND HILLS
CENTRAL CALIF. VALLEY
S. CALIF. MOUNTAINS
EASTERN CASCADES SLOPES AND FOOTHILLS
COLUMBIA PLATEAU
BLUE MOUNTAINS
SNAKE RIVER BASIN/HIGH DESERT
NORTHERN BASIN AND RANGE
SOUTHERN BASIN AND RANGE
NORTHERN ROCKIES
MONTANA VALLEY AND FOOTHILL PRAIRIES
MIDDLE ROCKIES
WYOMING BASIN
WASATCH AND UINTA MOUNTAINS
COLORADO PLATEAU
SOUTHERN ROCKIES
ARIZONA/NEW MEXICO PLATEAU
ARIZONA/NEW MEXICO MOUNTAINS
SOUTHERN DESERT
WESTERN HIGH PLAINS
SOUTHWESTERN TABLELANDS
CENTRAL GREAT PLAINS
FLINT HILLS
CENTRAL OKLAHOMAflTEXAS PLAINS
EDWARDS PLATEAU
SOUTHERN TEXAS PLAINS
TEXAS BLACKLAND PRAIRIES
EAST CENTRAL TEXAS PLAINS
WESTERN GULF COASTAL PLAIN
SOUTH CENTRAL PLAINS
OUACHITA MOUNTAINS
ARKANSAS VALLEY
BOSTON MOUNTAINS
70.
71.
72.
73
74.
75.
76.
OZARK HIGHLANDS
CENTRAL IRREGULAR PLAINS
NORTHERN MONTANA GLACIATED PLAINS
NORTHWESTERN GLACIATED PLAINS
NORTHWESTERN GREAT PLAINS
NEBRASKA SAND HILLS
NORTHEASTERN GREAT PLAINS
NORTHERN GLACIATED PLAINS
WESTERN CORN BELT PLAINS
RED RIVER VALLEY
NORTHERN MINNESOTA WETLANDS
NORTHERN LAKES AND FORESTS
NORTH CENTRAL HARDWOOD FORESTS
DRIFTLESS AREA
SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN TILL PLAINS
CENTRAL CORN BELT PLAINS
EASTERN CORN BELT PLAINS
S.MICHIGAN/N.INDIANA TILL PLAINS
HURON/ERIE LAKE PLAIN
NORTHEASTERN HIGHLANDS
NORTHEASTERN COASTAL ZONE
NORTHERN APPALACHIAN PLATEAU AND UPLANDS
ERIE/ONTARIO LAKE PLAIN
NORTH CENTRAL APPALACHIANS
MIDDLE ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN
NORTHERN PIEDMONT
SOUTHEASTERN PLAINS
BLUE RIDGE MOUNTAINS
CENTRAL APPALACHIAN RIDGES AND VALLEYS
SOUTHWESTERN APPALACHIANS
CENTRAL APPALACHIANS
WESTERN ALLEGHENY PLATEAU
INTERIOR PLATEAU
INTERIOR RIVER LOWLAND
MISSISSIPPI ALLUVIAL PLAIN
MISSISSIPPI VALLEY LOESS PLAINS
SOUTHERN COASTAL PLAIN
SOUTHERN FLORIDA COASTAL PLAIN
Figure 3-8. Omernik's ecoregions of the United States (Source: Omernik 1987).
62
-------
Washington Coastal Subecoregionsf*^*
Coastal Lowlands (1a)
Coastal Uplands (1b)
Coast Range Foothills (1d)
Volcanics (1g)
CH3 Willapa Hills (1h)
Low Olympics (1k)
Outwash (11)
Puget Lowland (2)
Cascades/High Olympics (4)
Scale 1 1,500,000
0 20
MllK
Albert Equal Area Projection
Source Omernik, J M 1987 Ecoregions of the
conterminous United States. Map (scale 1 7,500,000).
Annals of the Association of the American Geographers
77(1) 118-125
Figure 3-9. Omernik's subecoregions within the Coastal Ecoregion of Washington (Source:
Thieleetal. 1993).
63
-------
Scale-dependent properties and emergent properties cannot be directly estimated from studies at smaller
scales. For example, the term meta-population refers to the total, combined populations of a species in an
area inhabiting habitat patches that are connected by movements of individuals among patches
(Henderson et al. 1985, Merriam and Wegner 1992). The influence of landscape features, such as habitat
patch size and distance between patches, on the dynamics of a meta-population is an emergent property
and cannot be predicted based solely on studies of population dynamics within individual habitat patches.
Other examples of scale-dependent properties are presented in Section 3.2.2.1 (Hierarchy Theory).
Process-based models are commonly used to apply fine-grain knowledge obtained at small scales (e.g.,
individual leaves and trees) to predict coarse-grain, large-scale ecosystem properties (e.g., forest
responses to stressors). Because of the impracticality of handling large numbers of small-scale compo-
nents individually (e.g., all leaves or all trees), individual components typically are lumped and treated
collectively (Zeigler 1976,1979). The aggregation process itself can introduce errors, because of variation
among the aggregated components, although mathematical techniques have been proposed to reduce
these errors (Gardner et al. 1982, Rastetter et al. 1992). As important, or more so, is the assumption of
scale independence of the basic processes, an assumption that has rarely been rigorously tested because
of the lack of appropriate data at large scales.
Hunsaker et al. (1990) note that some large-scale stressors can be viewed as an aggregation of local
effects, while others cannot. For example, regional estimates of the effects of acidic deposition on lakes in
the United States were estimated through statistical aggregation of effects on individual lakes (Landers et
al. 1988, Church et al. 1989). Each lake responded to acidic deposition relatively independently, and
individual lakes sampled were selected randomly from a defined population of lakes so that the sample
was truly representative. In contrast, the combined effects of sewage discharges on river basin water
quality cannot be treated as an aggregate of local problems and analyses, because of the importance of
hydrologic connections and interactions. Likewise, the effects of habitat alteration on meta-populations of
birds in agricultural landscapes (e.g., Freemark and Merriam 1986) cannot be estimated by evaluating the
effects on individual local habitats, because of the importance of population interactions among habitat
patches.
The appropriate scales for analysis and approach depend on the nature of the stressors and of the
ecosystem functions of interest. Improper scale selection can lead to serious errors in assessments (Allen
and Starr 1982). Issues relating to extrapolating from smaller to larger scales remain major challenges for
ecological research and assessment.
64
-------
3.3 ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS
The RAF within EPA is a standing committee of EPA scientists and managers charged with developing
risk assessment guidance for Agency-wide use. In 1992, they published their framework for ecological
risk assessments (U.S. EPA 1992). This framework report describes terms, starting principles, and the
basic elements and structure for "evaluating scientific information on the adverse effects of physical and
chemical stressors on the environment" (U.S. EPA 1992, p. ix). A variety of case study applications are
underway to test and refine the framework. Based on results from these studies, more detailed guidance
on conducting ecological risk assessments will eventually be published.
The RAF assessment framework, and framework report, also provide a sound starting point for ecological
assessments supporting ecosystem management. We have adopted their basic framework and terms,
although we emphasize certain aspects and expand on others as needed, to achieve the key features of
ecosystem management assessments outlined in Section 3.1. We begin this section by outlining a set of
basic assessment questions that would be addressed in a typical ecosystem management assessment
(Section 3.3.1). We then relate these questions to the RAF framework in Section 3.3.2. Finally, in Section
3.3.3, we discuss implementation of the framework in a manner consistent with the principles outlined in
Sections.!
3.3.1 Assessment Questions
Ecological assessments for ecosystem management are place-based. For a given geographic area, the
following questions constitute a typical set of basic (first-order) questions that would be addressed in an
assessment:
1. Ecosystem Functions: What functions do ecosystems play in this area and how do these
functions interrelate?
2. Societal and Ecological Values: Which of these functions are most important?
3. Attainable Goals: What are realistic attainable goals for each of these valued ecosystem
functions?
4. Current Conditions: How do current ecological conditions compare to these goals?
5. Major Stressors and Problems: What factors (natural and anthropogenic) play the greatest
roles in observed differences between current conditions and attainable goals?
6. Risks of Functional Loss: What will happen in the future (e.g., extent and magnitude of future,
additional functional loss) if current trends continue?
65
-------
7. Risk Reduction and Restoration Potential: What management options are available to reduce
the risk of functional loss and restore ecosystem functions? What are the likely ecological
consequences of each of these management options on the full suite of valued ecosystem
functions?
8. Comparisons Among Management Scenarios: How do these management options compare?
Which management scenario is likely to result in the greatest net reduction in risk and/or gain in
valued ecosystem functions?
9. Geographic Targeting: In what geographic areas and sites should management actions
concentrate to achieve the greatest net reduction in risk and/or gain in valued ecosystem
functions per unit of management effort?
10. Uncertainties: How robust are answers to each of the above to major uncertainties and
assumptions made during the analysis?
The weight given to each question and the level of resolution required for each answer will vary among
assessments, and by spatial scale (see Section 3.3.3). Note that input from stakeholders and managers
is needed particularly for questions 2 (selecting the subset of most important functions) and 7 (selecting
feasible management scenarios).
Steinitz (1990) presents an equally valid set of assessment questions, covering the same set of issues
although using slightly different terms and organization. He refers to these as the six "levels of inquiry,"
each of which has an associated modeling type:
I. How should the landscape be described (in terms of content, boundaries, space, and time)?
(representation models)
II. How does the landscape operate? What are the structural and functional relationships among its
elements? (process models)
III. Is the landscape working well? How does one judge whether the current state of the landscape is
working well? What are the metrics of judgment? (evaluation models)
IV. How might the landscape be altered: what, where, when? How might the landscape be changed
by current trends? How might the landscape be changed through management intervention and
action? (change models)
V. What differences might the changes cause? (impact models)
VI. Should the landscape be changed? How is the decision to be made? How is a comparative
evaluation to be made among alternative courses of action? (decision models)
Choosing between these two lists, or others, is personal; the wording and order are not as critical as the
concepts. Both lists have their strengths. For example, Steinitz (1990) makes explicit the need to
understand how the system operates (Question II). Such an understanding is only implicit in the first list,
but clearly essential to answering questions about trade-offs among ecosystem functions (Question 1),
66
-------
ecosystem responses to stressors (Questions 5 and 7), and most of the other questions presented. In
general, we use the first list of questions as our basic set of assessment questions, because it is more
consistent with the conceptual model and terms described in Section 3.2.
3.3.2 Assessment Framework
The RAF risk assessment framework consists of three major phases: problem formulation, analysis, and
risk characterization (Figure 3-10). Problem formulation emphasizes the need to carefully frame, plan,
and define the assessment objectives before beginning detailed analyses. As described by the RAF, the
problem formulation phase involves a preliminary characterization of stressors, the ecosystem potentially
at risk,.and ecological effects, which leads to the selection of assessment and measurement endpoints
and development of a conceptual model. Endpoint is defined (after Suter 1990) as "a characteristic of an
ecological component (e.g., increased mortality offish) that may be affected by exposure to a stressor"
(U.S. EPA 1992, p. 12). Assessment endpoints are "explicit expressions of the actual environmental value
that is to be protected" (e.g., sport fishing yields) (U.S. EPA 1992, p. 12). Often, assessment endpoints
cannot be measured or assessed directly. In these instances, the assessor also identifies measurement
endpoints, which are measurable responses to a stressor related, qualitatively or quantitatively, to the
assessment endpoint. The conceptual model represents a series of working hypotheses regarding how
stressors might affect ecological components of the natural environment (NRC 1986), describes the
ecosystem potentially at risk, and delineates relationships between assessment and measurement
endpoints.
We agree wholeheartedly with the need for careful attention to problem formulation. Ecosystem manage-
ment, by definition, is all encompassing. It is not possible, however, to study in detail all endpoints,
stressors, areas, issues, etc. An important task during problem formulation is to identify those endpoints,
stressors, areas, and issues that will contribute the most to improved decision making and, thus, on which
subsequent analyses should focus. Assessment endpoints, in our terminology, are explicit expressions of
the valued ecosystem functions (question 2, Section 3.3.1), that is, the subset of all ecosystem functions
considered most important for the purposes of a given assessment. Measurement endpoints, or
indicators, are measurable or observable attributes that can be related to the assessment endpoints and
thus used to approximate the level of ecosystem function. Examples are presented in Table 3-2.
Conceptual models are an important part of problem formulation. Often, multiple models are needed, to
provide different levels of detail or to represent different plausible hypotheses about system interactions.
Of particular interest for ecosystem management are conceptual models that define relationships among
67
-------
Discussion
between
Risk Assessor
and
Risk Manager
(Planning)
Ecological Risk Assessment
Characterization, Characterization
of i of
Exposure ' Ecological
Effects
Discussion between
Risk Assessor and Risk Manager
(Results)
Risk Management
Figure 3-10. Risk Assessment Forum's framework for ecological risk assessment (Source: U.S.
EPA 1992).
68
-------
Table 3-2. Examples of Assessment Endpoints and Indicators (or Measurement Endpoints) for
Selected Ecosystem Functions (see Table 3-1).
Valued Ecosystem Function
Assessment Endpoints
Indicators
Production of fish for
commercial harvest
Sustainable salmon yields
Weight of salmon harvest/year
Number of migrating adults
Abundance of juveniles
Water temperatures and flow during
migration
Suitable spawning habitat (well
oxygenated, clean gravel)
Habitat for rare, threatened,
and endangered species
Sustainable meta-population
of spotted owl
Occurrence of spotted owl
Reproduction rate3 death rate
Extent of old growth forests (OGF)
Maximum patch size of OGF
Connectivity of OGF patches
Habitat for aquatic biodiversity
Stream ecological integrity
Species richness
Index of Biotic Integrity (Karr et al.
1986)
Habitat variables (temperature,
oxygen, substrate, etc.,) within natural
range
Water quality improvement
Riparian area extent and
condition
Extent of riparian area
Location relative to pollutant sources
(landscape inputs)
Width and other indicators of riparian
area capacity to retain sediments and
pollutants
Habitat for human recreation
Aesthetics
Visual diversity of landscape
Extent of visible human disturbances
Abundance of litter
Extent of pristine or relatively
undisturbed ecosystems
Ease of access
Frequency of human contact
69
-------
ecosystem functions and among stressors, which provide a basis for evaluating potential trade-offs among
conflicting ecosystem uses and the relative merits of alternative management strategies, respectively.
Another important task during problem formulation is delineating appropriate spatial and temporal
boundaries and levels of resolution (see Section 3.2.2). What are the most appropriate spatial units of
analysis, given the types of questions being addressed, the priority assessment endpoints, major
stressors, and conceptual models? How does this assessment relate to other assessments and manage-
ment decisions at larger and smaller spatial scales? What spatial and temporal resolution is appropriate?
How far into the future should ecosystem responses be projected?
Which of the assessment questions listed in Section 3.3.1 are addressed during problem formulation?
Our answer is all of them. Steinitz (1990) proposes that the first step in any assessment should be to
cycle once, forward and backward, through the full set of assessment questions (Figure 3-11), to help set
priorities and context and then select methods for subsequent analyses. The justification for proceeding
backwards, as well as forwards, is that answers to later questions (e.g., IV., How might the landscape be
altered?) often provide insights that lead to better answers to earlier questions (e.g., I., How should the
landscape be described?). During problem formulation, answers to the assessment questions are largely
qualitative and based on best professional judgment.
Thus, problem formulation represents the first iteration of the overall iterative approach to assessments
described in Section 3.1 (Figure 3-12). Furthermore, the results from problem formulation are not static.
The conceptual models, spatial and temporal boundaries, and priority endpoints and stressors should be
continually re-visited and refined during subsequent iterations.
Extensive interactions occur between the assessors (those conducting the assessment) and stakeholders
during problem formulation (see Figure 3-12). Ecological knowledge is required to identify the full suite of
functions that ecosystems provide (question 1 in Section 3.3.1).
Prioritization of those functions (question 2, Section 3.3.1) requires input from stakeholders and
ecologists. Those functions valued most highly by society are likely to play the greatest role in decision
making and thus are of high priority. However, societal values are often based on incomplete information;
stakeholders may undervalue important ecosystem functions. Because of this uncertainty, both societal
values and technical information are considered in the prioritization process. The dialogue between
technical experts and stakeholders during this phase may also lead to greater recognition by decision
makers of these undervalued, yet important functions.
70
-------
Perform Study
Ecosystem Functions
Valued Ecosystem Functions
Attainable Goals
Current Status
Major Problems, Stressors
Risk of Functional Loss
Risk Reduction,
Restoration Potential
Comparisons Among
Management Strategies
Geographic Targeting
Uncertainties, Assumptions
Specify Mel
Time
>
Re-Assess
Figure 3-11. Iterative process through basic assessment questions (after Steinitz 1990).
71
-------
Problem Formulation
Analysis
Interpretation and Communication
Problem Formulation
i
N
p
u
T
F
R
O
M
S
T
A
K
E
H
O
L
E
R
S
&
M
A
N
A
G
E
R
S
Specify
Methods
How should ecosystem be described?
How does the ecosystem operate?
Spatial, Temporal Framework
• Scale
• Boundaries
• Resolution
I
Endpoint Selection
• Assessment
• Measurement
Conceptual Model(s)
Analysis
D
A
T
A
A
C
Q
U
I
S
I
T
I
O
N
R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H
M
O
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
Figure 3-12. Problem formulation phase of ecological assessments for ecosystem management.
Figure 3-11 provides further details on the assessment questions.
72
-------
Stakeholders and managers also have significant input to questions 6 through 9 during problem formu-
lation, to define (1) constraints on management options, (2) realistic projections .of future trends in human
population growth and development, and (3) reasonable alternative management strategies to evaluate in
questions 7-9.
The second major phase of the RAF framework is analysis, which consists of two activities (Figure 3-10):
(1) characterization of exposure (spatial and temporal distribution of stressors and their eo-occurrence
with ecological components of concern) and (2) characterization of ecological effects (stressor-response
relationships). In the third and final phase of the RAF framework, risk characterization (Figure 3-10),
information on the exposure profile and stressor-response relationships is combined to estimate the likeli-
hood of adverse effects occurring as a result of specific stressor or management scenarios. Uncertainties,
strengths, and weaknesses of the assessment also are summarized and communicated to the risk
manager.
We agree with the two step process, which highlights the distinction between analysis and communication
of the analysis results to decision makers. The latter phase, which we prefer to call interpretation and
communication, emphasizes the importance of presenting results in a format that is understandable and
most directly useful for management decisions. In particular, information should be conveyed on the
implications of uncertainties, as outlined in Section 3.1.
The RAF's separation of analyses of exposure and effects during the analysis phase is problematic,
however. One reason is that in ecosystem management the distinction between exposure and effect
blurs. For example, tree harvesting is the exposure responsible for effects on the spotted owl. Yet, the
loss of trees is itself an endpoint of interest, ecologically as well as aesthetically. Thus, a change in forest
pattern is both an exposure and an effect. Removal of water for irrigation of agricultural lands is a desired
resource use, and thus a valued ecosystem function. Yet, the same water removal is also a stressor for
in-stream biota that may be adversely affected by reduced stream flows.
Our approach is to include in the analysis phase all technical analyses of data, expert judgment, or
analytical models required to address each question listed in Section 3.1. All these analyses rely on the
conceptual models defined during problem formulation, which hypothesize effects pathways for each
endpoint of interest as well as interactions among endpoints and stressors. Examples of the types of
analysis that may be involved for each of the basic assessment questions outlined in Section 3.3.1 are as
follows:
73
-------
Ecosystem Functions (question 1): Statistical associations among indicators of ecosystem
function, to help define and quantify linkages and potential trade-offs among valued ecosystem
functions.
Societal and Ecological Values (question 2): Spatial association between the locations of
ecosystems (e.g., wetlands) that have the potential to reduce flood peaks and downstream human
population densities and property values, as one component of assessing the societal value of
ecosystem functions.
Attainable Goals (question 3): Retrospective analyses of indicators of valued ecosystem
functions and statistical summaries (median, variability) of indicator data for minimally impacted
reference sites (see Section 3.2.3), to define attainable ecological goals. U.S. EPA (1993) and
(1994c) provide more detailed descriptions of approaches for quantifying attainable goals. EMAP
uses the terms nominal and subnominal. Nominal conditions mean "the societal value (e.g.,
desired use) is being achieved compared with specific criteria" (U.S. EPA 1994c, p. 33), and thus
are one form of an attainable ecological goal.
Current Conditions (question 4): Statistical summaries of monitoring data for indicators of
valued ecosystem functions, to characterize current conditions. U.S. EPA (1994c) outlines
methods for analyzing EMAP data to characterize current conditions; one output is the estimated
percentages of the total resource in a geographic area with nominal and subnominal conditions
(Figure 3-13).
Major Stressors and Problems (question 5): Statistical associations (over space and time)
between indicators of ecosystem functions and stressors, weight of evidence, and process of
elimination approaches, to identify the stressors and factors most likely to be responsible for
subnominal conditions. U.S. EPA (1994c) outlines approaches for such diagnostic analyses,
which they and the NRC (1991) refer to as environmental epidemiology. Other statistical
approaches include (1) Bayesian statistics (Berger 1985) to calculate the likelihood of obtaining
the observed data for a given set of alternative hypotheses and (2) path analysis (Hayduk 1987,
Johnson et al. 1991) to calculate the strength of associations among multiple potential pathways
of effects, both direct and indirect.
Risks of Functional Loss (question 6): Projected future trends in indicators of ecosystem
condition assuming current trends continue, estimated by (1) direct extrapolation of measured
past trends or (2) projected future trends in stressors (e.g., projected trends in human population
growth and development in the area, obtained from local managers) and estimates or analytical
models of stressor-response relationships. Section 5.3 discusses our approach to ecosystem
modeling.
Risk Reduction and Restoration Potential (question 7): Application of analytical models to
predict the ecological consequences of specific management strategies, or simpler classification
approaches based on the concepts discussed in Section 3.2 (e.g., Figures 3-4 and 3-5).
Comparisons Among Management Scenarios (question 8): Evaluation of the relative
effectiveness of different management approaches, based on comparison of results from question
7 for different management strategies.
Geographic Targeting (question 9): Geographic Information System (CIS) overlays of
geographic patterns of indicators of ecosystem functions, landscape characteristics, and
stressors, to identify areas at risk of functional loss and thus high priority for management
attention. Spatially explicit modeling (which combines CIS and modeling) can also help target
management actions to specific areas and sites.
74
-------
a)
Extinct,
Depleted
Pristine,
Flourishing
Range of Possible Resource Conditions
Subnominal
Conditions
Marginal
Conditions
Nominal
Conditions
Range at Upper Limit of
" ubnominal Conditions
Range at Lower Limit
'of Nominal Conditions
Ecological Indicator Score
b)
Ecological Indicator Score
Figure 3-13. Ranges of subnominal, marginal, and nominal conditions (upper figure) and
estimated proportion of total resource in each category (lower figure) Source:
U.S. EPA 1994c).
75
-------
Uncertainties (question 10): Comparisons among different analytical approaches (e.g., different
models) evaluating the same management scenario, in particular when different approaches
reflect different plausible assumptions regarding, for example, stressor-response relationships.
Dovers and Handmer (1993) outline what they refer to as an "analytical framework for ignorance
auditing."
The above list is illustrative only and by no means exhaustive. It is beyond the scope of this document to
outline the wide array of analytical approaches useful for assessments. Sections 4.3 and 5.3 provide
additional examples of relevant analyses. The appropriate analytical technique depends, to a large
degree, on the types of data available and the desired level of spatial and temporal resolution,
quantification, precision, and accuracy (see Section 3.1).
The analysis phase is the second iteration through the basic assessment questions (Figure 3-14). The
results for each question are then conveyed to interested stakeholders and managers in the third phase
(interpretation and communication), which is the third iteration through the questions (Figure 3-14).
Discussions between assessors and stakeholders/managers at this phase frequently identify additional
information needs—for example, requests for more detailed analyses for specific subareas, specific
stressors, or certain management scenarios. Thus, the iteration continues, back to problem formulation
(to revisit the conceptual models, selected endpoints, spatial boundaries, etc.), analysis, and finally
interpretation and communication (Figure 3-14). In some cases, more detailed analyses may require
additional data collection, but others involve simply more effort-intensive analysis or modeling of existing
data. Thus, assessments are viewed as an ongoing process of frequent and continual interactions
between assessors and managers, consistent with the adaptive management approach (Figure 1-4).
3.3.3 Implementation of the Assessment Framework
Rarely does a manager request, "Tell me all the ecological information I need to know to manage this
geographic area better." In general, the basic assessment questions outlined in Section 3.3.1 will be
addressed within the context of more specific management questions. These specific management
questions may reflect major environmental problems as perceived by the public (e.g., public concern
about the potential extinction of spotted owls in the Pacific Northwest) or particular management
opportunities (e.g., the influx of federal dollars to fund ecological restoration as part of the economic
assistance to the region following the President's Forest Conference). The goal within ecosystem
management is to consider even specific management questions within a broader context. A few
examples follow:
76
-------
Management Questions •<~
i
N
P
U
T
F
R
O
M
S
T
A
K
E
H
O
L
E
R
S
M
A
N
A
G
E
R
S
Ecological Assessment
Interpretation
and
Communication
Yes
D
A
T
A
A
C
Q
U
1
S
1
1
T
I
1
O
N
R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H
M
0
N
1
T
0
R
1
N
G
l\
>
Manage-
ment
Actions
J
Management Decisions
Figure 3-14. Ecological assessment framework for adaptive, ecosystem management.
77
-------
Timber harvests were halted on federal lands in the Pacific Northwest because the courts ruled
that the USFS and BLM had not developed adequate plans to protect the spotted owl (see Section
1.3). Thus, the initial management question was, "How should we manage timber harvests on
federal lands to protect a specific threatened species?" FEMAT expanded this question to
evaluate the effects of alternative forest management approaches, not only on spotted owls, but
on other endangered, threatened, and at risk species and stocks (e.g., salmon) and on the
maintenance of old growth forests and associated biodiversity overall. The final plan (FEMAT
1993) included regional-scale guidance, as well as procedures for more detailed analyses and
decision-making on a watershed and local scale.
How should we allocate available federal funds for ecological restoration? Public attention
focuses on salmon and the need for jobs. Potential benefits to salmon and local jobs are
important considerations, but they should not be the sole basis for decisions. Restoration
activities can also benefit other aquatic and terrestrial species (e.g., through the restoration of
riparian areas) and reduce downstream sediment loads to lakes and estuaries. Ongoing efforts to
develop a comprehensive strategy for allocating restoration dollars include large-scale (statewide)
planning efforts to identify high-priority basins, more detailed analyses within high-priority basins
to identify high-priority watersheds, and more detailed analyses within high-priority watersheds to
select specific sites and restoration techniques.
The State of Oregon is considering recertifying the operation of dams on the Willamette River.
Thus, the management question is, "How should we operate these dams in order to provide an
appropriate balance among water uses while still maintaining adequate flood control?" Initial
concerns focused on trade-offs between using water for irrigated agriculture and for municipal
water supplies. Our approach would be to simultaneously consider potential effects on in-stream
water quality and biota (including migratory salmon) and on the restoration potential of riparian
areas. These riparian areas provide, in turn, habitat for terrestrial and aquatic biota, and also
contribute to flood control. Changes in landuse patterns also will influence potential future flood
regimes, and could be factored into analyses of alternative options for dam operation.
Spartina, an aquatic plant common in southern and eastern estuaries, is invading Willapa Bay,
Washington. Thick growths of Spartina can eliminate habitat for oysters. Thus, concerns over
reduced oyster harvests have prompted local managers to begin herbicide applications to limit
Spartina growth. Should herbicides be applied and, if so, how much? A classical assessment
might ask how effective the herbicide applications are at reducing Spartina growths and what
other estuarine organisms may be adversely affected? We would expand the analysis to also
78
-------
ask, "Do some valued ecosystem functions benefit from Spartina growths? For example, does
Spartina serve as habitat for young salmon or add to the carbon budget and overall productivity of
the Bay? If Spartina growths are reduced through herbicide applications, will oyster harvests
improve, or are other factors currently limiting oyster productivity (e.g., high rates of
sedimentation)? If high rates of sedimentation are also a problem, would it be more effective to
reduce sediment loads, through restoration activities within the watershed, or to apply herbicides
to Spartina? What other ecosystem functions would benefit from reduced sediment loads?"
For each management question (or set of questions), we proceed iteratively through problem formulation,
analysis, and interpretation and communication, through as many cycles as are needed to reach the level
of resolution desired by the manager, at reasonable cost and within resource and time constraints (Figure
3-2). During each cycle, management questions are refined and analyses focus on the subset of
endpoints, stressors, areas, issues, and types of analyses expected to contribute the most to improved
decision making. Within each phase (problem formulation, analysis, and interpretation and
communication), we iterate once through the basic assessment questions presented in Section 3.3.1 as
they relate to the specific management questions. For each basic question, more specific assessment
questions are defined to reflect the specific issues of interest (Box 3-C). In some cases, only a subset of
the basic assessment questions will apply, or some questions may be given more weight than others. For
example, an assessment dealing with the allocation of restoration funding might focus on geographic
targeting (question 9), whereas comparisons among different management scenarios (question 8) would
be a major focus of assessments related to dam operations or Spartina control.
A final issue in implementation is relationships across spatial scales. The basic management approach is
as follows (Figure 3-15):
Long-term goals, priorities, and general guidelines are established at a regional scale. For
example, in FEMAT (1993), regional analyses were used to subdivide the area of interest (Figure
1-9) into seven categories or zones. Within each category, standard management guidelines
apply (e.g., specified width of riparian reserve where tree harvesting is prohibited), unless addi-
tional analyses at the watershed scale demonstrate that the standard guidelines are unnecessarily
prohibitive. Selected key watersheds were identified as high priority for further study and
protection.
79
-------
Box 3*C. Examples of Specific Assessment Questions Defined fora &ivert Management Question.
As.$e$*tnef>t& t are most important
Whrefe are vateed most highly fey local artd regional stakeholders? Assumed answer (selected assessment.
ertdpoints): water uses for irrigation and municipalities;; id-stream How for acjyalic ecosystem integrity and
sa&noh; r iisarjan area condition: a«d re^»gttion m Nbftat «or aqiaaSo a«d ler*es{)&i otadlv^sl^ and. as a
corttri&«tor46 flood oonfroi and irsproved water *nua8b?,
3. Attainable Goafs. What levefe of aquatic ecosystem integrity and satmon production are realistically attainable
: :
Qrtdicators and value* or ras$e$^ vy&%t If^ of ^arian area cbftd*art are: tep^icauy attainable and how
should they fee stressed? ; . ' • | ' i "
4. Current Conditions. How do current levels of aquafe ecosystem integrity, salmon production, and riparian area
condition cowaretoaaairiaWeieveis^ : - I .i ;
5, Major Stressors and Probleps, What are fee roafpr reasons why cunent levels are below reasonably attainable
levels? In particular, what rites do trt-sfream flows, water diversions, and dam operations play, relative to other
stressors that may adversely affect these endpoints? What other stressors, unrelated to darn operations and
water Aversions Jtmit curmnt cohdition level$? ; ; ;
3. Risk of Functional Loss, If current tends and existing management plans continue unaltered , what changes will
occur in valued ecosystem functions? If dam operations artd water diversions renaain unchanged, will the
condition of actuaifc eeo$y$tem$t satwon, at»d *ipji)|an are«$ dedSae1? (i?r improve?). How miich are water
diversions for agriculture; expected to increase (iri:p«tfrorrt inanagei*)? : What effejet:w6eW fliisfc increased
diversions have on other valued ecosystem functions? ;
7. Risk Reduction and Restoration Potential . How many acres, and where, of riparian area couid be restored If
en0m$ wo»W ripa*lg«n area fesioratton have
in terms of increased aquatlcand terrestrial biodiversity, flood control and water qualitytroprpyenjent? How
couid land management plains for the Valley be changed to reduce the damages associated with major floods?
9, Comparison Amonf hlana^jement $cenafio$,, $ l|*+$tream 8ow$ are incireased by otiangjng dam operations, will
s&lmon populations increase, or will olher stressors prevent or limit file: r»$t benefits to safffloo? V^at •
combination of water allocations, and associated dam operations, provides fne greatest total: net increase in
ecosystera functions? i : i ; !
9. <3eogfaphj& Targeting, vwid* aroa$ and $tte$. a&rtg t(?e vwiamette have ?h& g?oate$t .poteftfJai tor riparian
restoration, i,e,, where cart tbegrea^^ncr^
agement cost/effort? V\ftiicfi dams have the greatest Influence on stream flow as they relate to effects on
aquatic integrity, §almoht and ripajtan area c^ftlon? In what locales Jri fae watersheds would weftand$ or land
floods;? • :.- I.,'. . . ; , . /.. :: ;::. :-. .....L.
10. Uncertainties, Hew robust a*e answers to each ^ major
80
-------
oo
Spatial Scale
Watershed/
Ecoregion
Management Issues
Regional goals and priorities
Long-term planning
General guidelines and criteria
Geographic targeting
Trade-off analyses
Comparisons among
management scenarios
Geographic targeting
Site-specific projects
Implementation of management
actions
Ecological Assessment
Context
Constraints
I
T
Cumulative Effects
i
More Detailed Analyses
Context
Constraints
_*_
T
Cumulative Effects
i
Local Knowledge
Figure 3-15. Linkages across spatial scales: Ecological assessment process at each scale follows the basic framework outlined in
Figure 3-14.
-------
Regional goals and guidelines provide the starting point for more detailed analyses of trade-offs
and specific management approaches at intermediate spatial scales (e.g., ecoregion or water-
shed) based on information on conditions within that area. The objective of these intermediate-
scale analyses is to determine the most efficient way—ecologically, economically, and socially—to
achieve desired resource uses within the guidelines and constraints prescribed by the regional
plan. The output is a more detailed, spatially explicit planning document that sets more specific
objectives, guidelines, and procedures for the area of concern.
• The intermediate-scale planning documents provide a basis for decisions and actions at the local
scale and by public and private landowners on individual parcels of land. Site-specific character-
istics, as well as feasibility and economic considerations, however, influence the specific actions
implemented. Local conditions and considerations can require adjustments to larger scale plans
and guidelines; ecosystem management involves a balance between top-down (large-scale)
planning and bottom-up (small-scale) decision making (see Section 1.3).
• The combined, cumulative effects of actions taken at individual sites must be assessed to deter-
mine if the goals set at intermediate and regional scales are being achieved. Information derived
from studies at smaller scales may lead to modification of regional- and intermediate-scale plans,
which in turn affects local management decisions.
The activities and decisions at all scales are linked, and the process iterates back and forth across scales.
Strategies developed at large scales provide context for and guide implementation at smaller scales, while
information from smaller scales provides feedback on assumptions and decisions made at larger scales.
Ecological assessments provide the scientific information that facilitates and informs management
decisions at each of these spatial scales. The basic approach to assessment is the same, although the
types of questions vary to match the management approach and goals at each scale (Figure 3-15). At
regional scales, analyses are generally of coarser scale (larger grain). A major focus is geographic
targeting of subareas considered high priority for further study or management attention. Comprehensive
assessments (involving detailed analyses of all 10 assessment questions) occur most often at the
intermediate spatial scale, where decisions are made about the relative merits of different management
strategies and trade-offs among endpoints. Site-specific assessments often focus on individual, locally
important stressors, the potential effects of a specific proposed project, or alternative implementation
designs (e.g., for restoration projects). An assessment at any given scale may also require analyses at
larger and smaller scales to provide context and mechanistic information, respectively, as well as to
address scale-dependent and emergent properties as discussed in Section 3.2.2.
82
-------
By no means have we resolved all the details and difficulties of conducting ecological assessments for
ecosystem management. This section simply outlines our general approach and starting point. Like the
RAF (and in cooperation with the RAF), our next step is to further develop and refine the assessment
approach through case study applications, described in Sections 4-7. These case studies should also
contribute to Agency-wide efforts under the RAF to develop ecological assessment protocols.
83
-------
4. REGIONAL BIODIVERSITY
This section describes proposed research at a regional scale. Section 4.1 provides background informa-
tion on regional assessments and biodiversity, Section 4.2 presents the research objectives, Section 4.3
describes the strategic approach, and Section 4.4 lists the major contributions of this work. We will focus
on developing and improving approaches for conducting regional assessments, as well as on supporting
the advancement of ecological information, analyses, and understanding. The assumed budget is $650K
per year over five years (see Table 2-1).
4.1 BACKGROUND
Ecological assessments are necessary at a regional scale for issues that have broad geographical extent
and need integration and coordination across a large regional area. Depending on the policy needs to be
addressed and the availability of information, regional assessments can take several forms, including
(1) retrospective assessments of the status and trends of regional resources, (2) geographic targeting of
high-priority subareas that deserve further study or focused management attention, (3) comparative risk/
benefit assessments of alternative management options, and (4) evaluations of the effectiveness of
previous management actions. The outcomes of these regional assessments can lead to development or
modification of strategy plans that include regional goals and planning targets. Consequently, they
represent a source of guidance for decision makers from local to regional scales and a feedback mech-
anism on the success or failure of the combined environmental management actions at regional, state,
and local levels (see Figure 3-15). Regional assessments can also provide a forum for bringing diverse
stakeholders together before an action is taken to identify the many issues and their implications and to
combine wise management of ecological resources and societal expectations into an integrated plan.
Most regulatory and land management decisions are made within the context or constraints of the mission
or legislative authority of an individual organization. There may be little attempt to factor in the
implications of the decision over larger spatial or temporal scales or in the context of other, often con-
flicting management concerns. In many cases, a larger contextual framework may not even exist to be
considered in the decision making. A common, unstated assumption is that if the decision is acceptable at
the scale (or within the context) being considered, it is acceptable at all scales [and contexts; see Knopf
and Samson (1994) for example]. There is a need to inform and coordinate these many individual
decisions around an information base and a plan that represent the best available science, with consider-
ation of the various scales affected and input from stakeholders.
85
-------
Regional assessments supporting development of these regional plans or strategies will roughly follow the
assessment framework of EPA's Risk Assessment Forum (RAF) (U.S. EPA 1992), as discussed in
Section 3. However, regional assessments have features that require an extension and expansion of the
RAF framework. Probably the greatest need for expansion comes in the problem formulation phase, due
to the magnitude of the problem. Although the RAF framework document was intended to guide the
development of ecological assessments for one or multiple stressors at any spatial scale, it does not
provide sufficient guidance for regional-scale assessments where several environmental stressors interact
across the jurisdiction of a multitude of government organizations involving a variety of public and private
stakeholders. Problem formulation involving communication with decision makers and scientists within an
organization is now recognized as essential, but communication involving decision makers and scientists
from a variety of organizations with differing missions, legislative authorities, and philosophies is perhaps
the greatest challenge for implementing ecosystem management.
Risk assessments of any type provide information of value in supporting management decisions that
combine managers' perceptions of environmental goals with the best available scientific information, help
managers understand the nature of the tradeoffs associated with different management options, and
increase the likelihood that goals will be achieved effectively and efficiently. The process of risk assess-
ment at the regional scale, although more complex in many ways than assessments at smaller spatial
scales, is even more important because of the diversity of decision makers and stakeholders involved.
The assessment process can help make the scientific issues and tradeoffs more transparent, thereby
facilitating the dialogue over the most central issues affecting decisions.
As part of establishing the scope and content of a regional assessment, it is important to evaluate what
ecological endpoints and/or functions may be at risk at the regional level. What environmental issues are
beyond the purview of local and state governments and require a broader perspective or context for sus-
tainable management? It is also important to recognize that many resources require management on
scales larger than the region (e.g., migratory bird populations, anadromous fish). In such cases, regional
assessments must consider the region's contribution to the overall management of the resource (e.g., as
laid out in a multi-national agreement).
We could consider a great many issues at a regional scale, but one of the endpoints of high priority for
regional assessments is biodiversity. In the United States, 2954 species have been listed by the federal
government as threatened or endangered or are under consideration for such listing (Table 4-1). Four
percent of the 1556 bird and mammal species and 12% of the 20,000 plant species are listed as threat-
ened. In 1990, the SAB issued "Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental
Protection," which ranked the greatest environmental risks according to a panel of experts (SAB 1990).
86
-------
Table 4-1. Taxonomic Comparison of Listed and Proposed Threatened and Endangered Species
(Source: Flatheretal. 1994).
Taxon
Mammals
Birds
Reptiles
Amphibians
Fish
Snails
Clams
Crustaceans
Insects
Arachnids
Plants
Otherd
TOTAL
Federally Listed3
65
85
34
11
91
13
42
10
23
3
351
0
728
Category 1b
7
5
1
4
15
27
2
2
9
1
526
0
597
Category 2C
202
54
54
50
118
143
59
91
584
27
1572
14
2954
a As of 31 August 1992.
k As of 1989-1990. Category 1 includes those species for which sufficient biological evidence exists to
support official listing, but proposed rules have not yet been listed.
c As of 1989-1990. Category 2 includes species for which some evidence indicates that listing may be
appropriate, but conclusive biological evidence to support issuing proposed rules is lacking.
d Includes sponges, hydroids, flatworms, earthworms, and millipedes.
87
-------
"Species extinction and overall loss of biodiversity" and "habitat alteration and destruction" were listed as
two of the top four high-risk issues. Similarly, the Ecological Society of America identified the ecology
and conservation of biological diversity as a critical element of its "The Sustainable Biosphere Initiative:
An Ecological Research Agenda for the Nineties" (Lubchenco et al. 1991). Because of the integrative
nature of biodiversity and its importance as a regional-scale assessment endpoint, we selected bio-
diversity as an initial focus for regional-scale research within the PNW research program.
What is biodiversity? Biodiversity is a complex quality that goes beyond the notion of species diversity. It
includes both the number and relative frequency of biological entities from genes through populations,
species, communities, and ecosystems. It represents "the variety of life, and its processes; including the
variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the communities and ecosystems in
which they occur" (Keystone Center 1991). Society recognizes a large variety of aesthetic, economic,
conservational, and educational values associated with biodiversity. All of these depend on the following
"first principles." Biodiversity is a manifestation of genetic diversity. It is the primary raw material that is
filtered by natural selection, resulting in evolutionary and ecological adaptation of biota and their associ-
ated ecosystems to environmental conditions. Minimizing additional loss of biodiversity will provide the
best assurance that biota will adapt to environmental change.
Of the approximately 10 million species (total) on the Earth, the majority exist in human-managed eco-
systems (Pimentel et al. 1992) and many exist only on privately owned land. Several attempts have been
made to use measures of biodiversity (usually species richness or distributions of rare or unprotected
species) in landuse planning and for decisions on protecting biodiversity. In Australia, for example, plant
and animal distributions have been used in spatially explicit analyses for selection of reserve areas
(Margules and Nicholls 1987, Margules et al. 1988, Pressey and Nicholls 1989, 1991, Nicholls and
Margules 1993). These analyses have shown that many combinations of reserves can be selected to
achieve complete coverage of all or most species. Some species may occur in very limited ranges,
making those areas essential to conservation strategies. However, many species are more widely
distributed and many combinations of reserves may exist that include those species.
Within the United States, the objective of the National Biological Survey (NBS) Gap Analysis Program
(GAP) is to identify gaps in the current system of land management for protecting biodiversity, that is,
areas of high biodiversity that are not currently in protected areas (Scott et al. 1993). Spatially explicit
data on the known occurrence of terrestrial species are combined with information on species-habitat
associations and distributions of vegetation types to estimate regional species distributions.
88
-------
To date, GAP has relied primarily on data for terrestrial vertebrates, because of the relative lack of infor-
mation for other biological groups. Given the unequal completeness of abundance and distribution data
across taxa, an important question is, "To what degree do areas of high biodiversity for one taxa coincide
with those of other taxa?" Prendergast et al. (1993) found that in Great Britain, areas species-rich for one
taxa were not predictive of areas species-rich for other taxa. Also, many of the rare species in this anal-
ysis did not occur in the most species-rich areas. Thus, efforts to conserve biodiversity using available but
limited databases may not be adequate; at least they should be handled cautiously with regard to the
extent to which they include species not covered in the data set.
The long-term management of biodiversity will require more than a system of habitat reserves (Franklin
1993). Although a well-designed system of protected habitats is important, and probably essential for
some species, it is equally important to recognize that the human-managed landscape matrix is a critical
component of biodiversity management and may greatly affect the success of the reserve system. The
landscape matrix is critical to the conservation of biodiversity for (1) providing habitat at smaller spatial
scales, (2) increasing the effectiveness of reserve areas, and (3) providing connectivity in the landscape
(Franklin 1993). Much of the focus on connectivity has been on the use of habitat corridors, although
there is considerable debate as to their effectiveness (Simberloff and Cox 1987, Simberloff et al. 1992,
Hess 1994).
Strategies for sustaining biodiversity cannot be based solely on analyses of spatial patterns of habitat and
species distributions. They must also be based on a sound understanding of the ecosystem properties
(processes, structure, components, scale) required to sustain biodiversity and of ecosystem dynamics
over time. Two areas can have similar levels of biodiversity, even though the actual assemblages and
processes that shape them may be fundamentally different. Low species diversity can reflect, for
example, competitive exclusion, a period of isolation from a larger pool of species (e.g., on remote
islands), or high pollution loads. Under some circumstances, the highest levels of biodiversity can occur
at intermediate levels of disturbance, rather than in pristine habitats. Biodiversity analyses and manage-
ment plans must also account for long-term variations in climate, succession, stochastic variation, and the
many natural factors that make local extinctions and reinvasion a frequent occurrence.
Given the integrative nature of biodiversity as a measure of anthropogenic changes in the environment,
there is a need to continue the development of methods for using biodiversity-related data in scientifically
defensible regional conservation strategies. As defined by FEMAT (1993; see Section 1.3), the purpose
of a regional conservation strategy is to protect valued ecosystems, habitats, species and species
assemblages, and biodiversity. We propose to focus our research on regional-scale methods, analyses,
and ecological assessments of biodiversity to support development of regional conservation strategies, as
89
-------
one example of a management issue that must be addressed at a large spatial scale. This case study
assessment will also provide the focal point for more process-related research, designed specifically to
test key assumptions and address major uncertainties in our understanding of regional ecosystems
identified in the assessment process. Consistent with the approach outlined in Section 2.1, the assess-
ment process will be used both to prioritize research needs and as a framework for integrating research
results in a format useful for decision makers.
4.2 OBJECTIVES
Thus, the major objectives of the Regional Biodiversity research component are as follows:
Develop and refine methods for integrating and interpreting information on biodiversity at a
regional scale.
Develop and demonstrate the ecological assessment process at a regional scale to support
development of regional conservation strategies based on best available science and stakeholder
input.
Conduct research targeted at testing the accuracy of assessment outputs, evaluating key
assumptions, and addressing major knowledge gaps and uncertainties about regional ecosystems
identified during the assessment process.
4.3 APPROACH
We propose a two-phase strategic approach to research on regional biodiversity. In phase 1, we propose
to conduct a regional assessment based on existing data and knowledge, building on substantial efforts
already ongoing through GAP and the interagency Biodiversity Research Consortium (BRC). Results
from this assessment, including sensitivity analyses performed to identify key assumptions and uncertain-
ties, will form the basis for prioritizing and designing subsequent research in phase 2. We believe this
approach offers the most effective means of advancing our understanding of regional biodiversity and will
provide sound science to support ecosystem management decisions at a regional scale. Decisions about
phase 2 will be made following one or more workshops in which our state of knowledge on regional
biodiversity will be critically summarized and evaluated and then contrasted with regional management
needs for information on biodiversity. We will concentrate in FY95 and FY96 on the initial assessment.
Phase 2 research will begin in FY96 and expand in FY97 and beyond. Approximate budgets per year for
these two activities are presented in Table 4-2.
90
-------
Table 4-2. Anticipated Distribution of Resources for the Regional Biodiversity Research
Component for FY95 through FY99 (in Thousands of Dollars).
Project
Phase 1: Initial Regional
Assessments of Species
Diversity
Phase 2: Targeted Research on
Biodiversity
TOTAL
FY95
$650K
0
$650K
FY96
$400K
$250K
$650K
FY97
$250K
$400K
$650K
FY98
-0-
$650K
$650K
FY99
-0-
$650K
$650K
4.3.1 Regional Assessment of Species Diversity
This project will integrate and supplement, as needed, ongoing species diversity analyses in the region in
order to provide the best possible regional-scale assessment of species diversity. Application of the tools
and information generated in this project will help to determine (1) what species and communities are
unprotected or poorly protected and need consideration in the face of current and possible future
stressors, (2) what technical options exist for conserving biodiversity on a regional scale, and (3) what
research is most needed to increase our confidence in future assessments and policy decisions. We will
also work with state and federal managers and other stakeholders within the region to facilitate the inte-
gration of this scientific information on species diversity with related social and economic concerns in
order to support development of a regional conservation strategy.
Proiect-Level Objectives
Enhance methods for determining species-rich areas that are high priority for further study and
management attention.
Develop a multi-scale regional assessment of species diversity, including the threats to species
diversity and options for its conservation.
Identify major knowledge gaps and research needs for improved regional-scale assessments of
biodiversity.
91
-------
Approach
This project builds directly on the approaches and databases currently being used by GAP and the BRC.
Proposed research activities are designed to supplement and expand ongoing activities as needed, to
provide a uniform database, consistent approach, and regional-scale assessment for the Pacific
Northwest.
The USFWS (now NBS) initiated GAP to map species distributions and identify priority areas containing
species not now represented in areas managed for their natural values (Scott et al. 1990). Vegetation
maps are constructed from Landsat imagery, generally thematic mapper (TM) imagery, but sometimes
multi-spectral scanner (MSS) (Jennings 1993). For each species of terrestrial vertebrate in an area, a
habitat association model is used to identify polygons on the vegetation map considered suitable habitat.
Known occurrences of each species are compiled by county, from published literature and museum
records. Range maps for the species are then estimated as those polygons with vegetation classes
considered suitable habitat that lie in counties with known species occurrence.
GAP is organized, for the most part, at the state level, as a cooperative effort of the NBS and other public
and private organizations with expertise and data on biodiversity. For example, in Oregon the NBS,
through the Idaho Cooperative Wildlife Unit, is working cooperatively with the Oregon Department of Fish
and.Wildlife, The Nature Conservancy, and Defenders of Wildlife. Initial GAP analyses were completed
recently for Idaho and are underway in Oregon and Washington.
The BRC is an interagency consortium that includes the NBS (and GAP), the EPA, the U.S. Forest
Service (USFS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the
Department of Defense (DoD), and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) (Kiester et al. 1993). The BRC was
established in 1993 to enhance GAP by extending the analysis to examine additional data layers and
methods of analysis, and also to encourage data sharing and consistency among federal agencies. The
geographic units for the various databases are standardized to correspond to the EMAP hexagon grid
(see Box 2-A; Figure 4-1). Spatial patterns of species richness, generally using databases the same as or
similar to those of GAP, are being compared to databases on land ownership and anthropogenic
stressors, to determine areas of high biodiversity that need additional investigation and possible protection
or management consideration. Databases on habitat fragmentation, pollution, exotic species intro-
ductions, and nonanthropogenic stressors, such as climatic variables and topography, are included in the
analyses so that their association with and influence on regional patterns of species diversity can be
evaluated. Figure 4-2 and Box 4-A provide an overview of the BRC analysis approach.
92
-------
Co
'«•*.
-------
Analysis Strategy
Species occurrence data
For each vertebrate species
(mammals, birds, reptiles,
amphibians, fish):
• taxonomy
• biological description
• conservation status
• economic attributes
• spatial distribution
• migration attributes
• habitat characteristics
• food habits
• phenology
Compute metrics:
• species richness
• functional diversity
• genetic diversity
• fragmentation
• conservation
Analyze spatial patterns:
• maps by region
• aggregate hexagons
• contour maps
Landscape type data
For each AVHRR land type:
• vegetation type
• land cover type
• greenness attributes
• climate attributes
• terrain attributes
• Omernik ecoregion
Compute metrics:
• composition
• dominance
• contagion
• fragmentation
Analyze spatial patterns:
• maps by region
• aggregate hexagons
• contour maps
Stressor data
Areal and point data:
• water quality
• toxics
• ag chemicals
• mining & forestry
• development
Evaluate and allocate
to hexagons or larger
units as appropriate
Analyze spatial patterns
Analyze joint patterns:
• classification
• ordination
• regression
Identify and prioritize
areas erf concern
Figure 4-2. Biodiversity Research Consortium analysis strategy (Source: Kiester et al. 1993).
-------
Box 4-A, Overview of Biodiversity Research Consortium Analysis Approach. J
The Biodiversity Research Consortium s or land covers {environmental diversity) atso incorporate
aft or nearly aft species (specif i diver^p; (g|.|iow ^eil areas in which species diversity is well represented
also represent environmental.'||i^^?^:^l^riii^S-»«5» in which threatened and endangered
vertebrates are represented also^pjfeseni ;total species diversity. Finally, a GAP analysis will determine the
degree to which species are already represented in; areas managed for their natural values.
Natural factors Affecting Biodiversity. Matty natural factors affect regional patterns of biodiversity. The
B8C includes anajyfes'.ctspaial associations ftefes^entjlodiversity and:various natural factors, in part, to
better de^^t effects Iron! aTtp$$enfe stre$sors>. Variables included in these analyses were selected based
ortlwp. $&ffi^^m$$hm neural fa.etor*.affect a'nd cortfrol biodiversity, The frst suggests that a greater
anJ^i-^l^Bi^^^lftlvw measurecf%^»e totef photosynthetic capture of carbon) results in a
greii^ef;|^u;|s|.of biodiveiiiiiy ^ffgnlt.!.^, CJurne N991). Thus, BRC analyses inblude variables that predict
piitetiteyl^i^^^^ various weather and climate variables (e.g., temperature,
rainfall}, Tne second tneory is that there is a relationship between structural complexity and diversity
{Ma^Af^iiii* f965.t Wlliams 1971 Bell.et:aL 1891) at various scales. This theory leads to the; inclusion of
variab$4s Indicative of topographic diversity at the largest scale. Data for selected variables are summarized by
Many BRC arjialyses and date collection efforts are built around these two hypotheses;
Anthropogenic Stressons. The retationshtp between biodiversity losses and human activities is very
{^mpiek. It is unlikely that direct causal linkages dan be demonstrated, especially on a regional scale,
because of the incommensurate nature of biodiversity and stressor data;. Thus, BRC analyses focus on broad-
based: Indicators of rsajor slreMors and variables iiftety to predict potenfal future losses of biodiversity.
$J3f eifieallyA a|ialyses include: indicators of human Copulation growth ratje and the level of human activity as
eyjdeoced |>y|||road density and di?*ntju|ont (^) intensity of agriculture, $) intensity of grazing, and (4)
Stressor indicators are computed for each EWAf> hexagon using a variety of
"
Associations Between Biodiversity and Stressors and Hexagon Prk>ritization. information on stressors is
useat may lead to eventual btadiversity losses, _ '
95
-------
Pilot BRC studies are ongoing in Oregon and Pennsylvania, as is methods development work in several
other states in other areas of the country (including Idaho). In Oregon, all data layers (i.e., species, land-
scape diversity, and stressors) have been compiled and initial analyses have been completed to identify
areas within Oregon (i.e., the subset of hexagons) in which the state's species diversity is completely or
nearly completely represented. Associations between species diversity, environmental factors, and
stressors (see Box 4-A) will be examined over the next year.
EMAP will provide additional information on regional landscape characteristics. Working with the NBS,
USGS, and others, EMAP is in the process of acquiring and classifying Landsat TM imagery for the entire
United States. Classification of the Pacific Northwest is likely to occur in 1995 or early 1996.
Both GAP and BRC use existing data on species occurrences, remote sensing imagery, and information
on species-habitat associations to estimate regional distributions.of species and species richness. To
date, most of the effort has focused on terrestrial vertebrates, because of the greater availability of species
occurrence records for these organisms, along with our ability to use remote sensing to characterize
habitat (i.e., remote sensing estimates of vegetation type). Thus, regional assessments based on GAP
and the BRC will also be biased toward terrestrial vertebrates, with significantly greater uncertainty for
other terrestrial and aquatic groups. Within Oregon, BRC biodiversity data layers include information on
mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, butterflies and skippers, fish, freshwater mussels, and trees.
We propose to expand on the work of GAP and the BRC to complete consistent, state-of-the-art (given
currently available data and tools) regional analyses of species diversity for the Pacific Northwest
(Oregon, Washington, and Idaho). This effort will require standardizing data sets for species, habitats,
and stressors for the three states to the EMAP hexagon grid. Also, BRC analyses will be expanded by (1)
identifying habitats at risk by examining the size frequency distribution for each habitat type and evaluating
the extent to which habitat types are included in areas currently managed for their natural values, (2)
conducting richness and sweep analyses (see Box 4-A) for threatened, endangered, and candidate plant
species, (3) conducting analyses by taxonomic group, (4) conducting analyses by ecologically defined
regions (e.g., vegetation polygons or subecoregions) rather than EMAP hexagons, and (5) evaluating the
influence of spatial scale and level of resolution on the selection of priority areas.
We do not expect to be able to develop quantitative stressor-response relationships that could be applied
at a regional scale. Rather, the goal is to develop a compendium or synthesis of information adequate to
identify the most significant stressors within a given area, to develop a qualitative profile of the potential
effects from various stressors, and to assist in relative assessments of the costs and benefits of various
96
-------
management scenarios. Options for these more refined analyses will be considered as part of the
synthesis workshop to be held in 1997.
These technical analyses will provide a basis for an integrated regional assessment of species diversity.
The assessment will follow the basic assessment framework and approach outlined in Section 3. Inter-
actions with stakeholders will be organized through EPA Region 10 and state agencies. Initial steps will
include (1) developing a conceptual model, (2) delineating linkages between species diversity and regional
stressors, and between species diversity and other assessment endpoints of interest, (3) clearly defining
the assessment questions and objectives within the context of biodiversity, and (4) identifying
management goals and constraints. The assessment will describe the current status of species diversity
in the region, identify the most important anthropogenic stressors on species diversity, and suggest alter-
native approaches for conserving species diversity in the face of current and future stressors. Various
combinations of areas rich in species diversity will emerge that, as a synthesis of the above analyses,
represent scientifically defensible sets of areas in which biodiversity conservation goals might be reached.
The emphasis will be on targeting areas considered high priority for further study and management
attention. The assessment will consider the entire region—areas managed for their natural values as well
as the human-managed matrix and its role in an overall conservation strategy.
We will also work with EPA Region 10 and the states to demonstrate how this scientific assessment could
be used in the formulation of a regional or statewide conservation strategy. In particular, management
options identified or evaluated in the assessment will be evaluated and revised in a forum consisting of
technical experts, regional decision makers, and other stakeholders. We will participate in, and partially
fund, state efforts to combine our technical analyses with matching information on social and economic
concerns, at regional, state, and local levels. Local-scale analyses will be conducted for selected areas
identified as high priority in the regional assessment. These local-scale analyses will serve two purposes:
(1) to groundtruth regional-scale estimates of species diversity and stressors and (2) to test and
demonstrate, at a smaller spatial scale, the cross-scale linkages between regional plans and management
decisions and supporting technical analyses. In the selected areas, finer scale information on landuse,
vegetation, and terrestrial vertebrate species will be compiled (and new data collected as needed) and
compared to regional-scale estimates. Working with local stakeholders and decision makers, we will
define a series of alternative future scenarios that consider various levels of human population increases
and existing and proposed landuse plans, and expected effects on species diversity in the specific area
and region. In addition to providing a test of the larger scale assessments, these local-level analyses will
identify information gaps and other technical issues that need to be considered in the state and regional
assessments and in the future design and implementation of regional conservation strategies.
97
-------
Clearly, the existing data and analysis approaches have limitations, recognized by both GAP and BRC
researchers. Both programs are working actively to address these limitations within the constraints of
their available resources. Some of the limitations result from the quality and availability of data for the
types of analyses described above. There are also significant uncertainties in our understanding of the
ecological processes and associations involved in maintaining functional ecosystems. These uncertain-
ties and limitations must be clearly conveyed to decision makers.
Timeline
We believe it is essential to involve state agencies directly in the regional assessment of species diversity,
and in subsequent efforts to translate this scientific information into regional or state conservation
strategies. For this reason, cooperative agreements with appropriate state agencies will be a major
(although not the only) funding mechanism. Analyses in Oregon will begin in 1995; similar efforts in
Washington and Idaho will begin in 1996. Analyses for each state will be a two-year effort. Combining of
these state analyses into a regionwide assessment will begin in 1996 and continue to expand as additional
information becomes available.
4.3.2 Phase 2 Research
We.can view the phase 1 assessment as a hypothesis or set of hypotheses about the distribution of
species diversity in the Pacific Northwest and the environmental factors that affect species diversity,
based on current understanding and information. In phase 2, we propose to test this hypothesis, that is, to
evaluate key components of the assessment output, underlying assumptions, and uncertainties. Clearly,
we cannot test the assessment in toto, because of the large spatial scales and long time frames involved.
We believe, however, that field studies and experiments can be designed to evaluate selected, important
components or aspects of the assessment. For example, the simplest (although not necessarily the most
important) would be to evaluate the accuracy of estimated regional patterns of species diversity. More
difficult would be testing the validity of stressor-response relationships derived from observed spatial
associations between species diversity and environmental factors, or testing the basic assumptions about
important processes responsible for observed patterns.
Project-Level Objectives
We have not selected specific objectives for projects to be implemented in phase 2. Rather, project
objectives (and testable hypotheses) will be derived directly from the regional analyses and assessment
process described in Section 4.3.1. Decisions about phase 2 will be structured following one or more
98
-------
workshops in which our state of knowledge on regional species diversity will be critically summarized and
evaluated, and then contrasted with regional management needs for information on biodiversity.
The overall objective of phase 2 research is as follows:
Conduct research to test the accuracy of assessment outputs, evaluate key assumptions, and
address major knowledge gaps and uncertainties about regional ecosystems identified during the
assessment process in a manner relevant to the formulation of regional policy.
Approach
High-priority research for phase 2 will be selected based on (1) sensitivity analyses conducted as part of
the regional assessment in Section 4.3.1 and (2) synthesis and evaluation workshops planned for 1996
and 1997. The workshops will involve external scientists, not involved in the PNW research program, as
well as scientists actively engaged in PNW research, and current and potential users of this information.
The purpose will be twofold: (1) to identify the major weak links in the regional biodiversity assessment
that are amenable to further research, based on a review of the assessment results (including sensitivity
analyses) and the overall conceptual model for regional biodiversity, and (2) to identify issues whose
resolution would contribute to current and future management decisions.
Examples of the types of research envisioned include gathering improved information on biodiversity as a
whole, rather then emphasizing terrestrial vertebrates species, and analyzing more rigorously the land-
scape patterns and processes that control biodiversity. Examples of the latter include studies of the roles
connectivity and the human-managed landscape matrix play in the conservation of biodiversity and (2) an
expanded analysis of anthropogenic stressors, to develop a more detailed framework for evaluating and
prioritizing potential effects of stressors on biodiversity. The fundamental goal is to improve our
understanding of the basic ecosystem properties (structure, processes, dynamics) required to sustain and
manage biodiversity. Brief discussions of these research areas are provided in the paragraphs that follow.
Specific research plans will be developed as a result of the synthesis and evaluation workshops. These
plans will be subject to external peer review before implementation.
Biodiversity. Phase 1 analyses will consider all taxa for which adequate data exist to estimate regional
distributions. Because of data limitations, however, these analyses will be most thorough, certain and
consistent for species of terrestrial vertebrates. Terrestrial vertebrates represent only one component of
species diversity. It is unlikely that strategies designed to manage this component of biodiversity would
effectively or efficiently contribute to the management of other taxa (see Prendergast et al. 1993). Thus,
in phase 2, we may decide that additional research is warranted on other components of biodiversity. This
99
-------
research could address other taxa or other levels of biodiversity, such as populations within species, gene
pools, or communities.
Aquatic biota represent an important component of species diversity. More than one-third of the animals
listed by the federal government as endangered or threatened are aquatic (see Table 4-1) and these
animals are directly affected by one of EPA's key statutes, the Clean Water Act. Thus, a high priority may
be given to additional work on aquatic biodiversity in particular. Data collection activities would be fully
coordinated with EMAP and with other interagency efforts, such as FEMAT, that may collect data on
aquatic species. Data would be acquired to characterize both the regional patterns of aquatic biodiversity
and the natural and anthropogenic stressors most likely to affect aquatic biodiversity. Analysis of existing
and new data could identify gaps in management efforts to protect aquatic species, as well as in
understanding and information.
Process Studies. The goal of this research is to identify the features, processes, and properties of the
landscape that are most important in sustaining regional biodiversity and, therefore, to inform decisions
about regional biodiversity management. Two potential general research areas (landscape patterns and
stressors) are discussed as examples. Research activities may include field studies, field experiments,
modeling, and more refined analyses of spatial patterns, in a mode of hypothesis testing rather than an
exploratory mode.
A. Landscape patterns. Regional conservation strategies must consider not only establishment of
habitat reserves, but also sound management of the entire landscape matrix. Habitat fragmenta-
tion has been implicated as a major cause of biodiversity declines (Forman 1990, Saunders and
Hobbs 1991, Flather et al. 1992, Soule et al. 1992, Van der Zee et al. 1992). Habitat linkages or
corridors have been proposed as a means of extending the apparent size and effectiveness of
individual habitat patches (Noss 1987, 1992, Csuti 1991, Saunders and Hobbs 1991). Many
questions remain, however, about the importance of connectivity and role and effectiveness of
habitat corridors (Simberloff and Cox 1987, Simberloff et al. 1992, Hess 1994). Other issues
include the role that basic patterns of clumping and distributing habitat may have on the viability of
species (e.g., Wilson and Bossert 1971, Andrewartha1972, MacArthur 1972, Lamberson et al.
1992, 1994). Furthermore, ecosystems are dynamic; the characteristics and configurations of
ecosystems within the landscape are likely to change over time, independent of any regional
management plan, due to long-term environmental trends, both natural (e.g., long-term climate
trends, natural patterns of forest growth and succession) and anthropogenic (e.g., global climate
change, expanding human population). All of these factors must be considered in designing a
regional conservation strategy.
100
-------
We will derive priority questions and hypotheses to be tested in future research, to a large degree,
directly from the regional analyses and biodiversity assessment described in Section 4.3.1. For
example, we expect observed spatial patterns of species diversity to lead to questions about the
value of, and need for, connectivity among specific protected areas and the species that could
benefit most by inclusion of habitat corridors in a Pacific Northwest conservation strategy.
Questions and proposed studies will be prioritized for funding based on their feasibility and
potential for significantly reducing uncertainties in regional assessments. Spatially explicit
simulation models may be used (or developed) to test hypotheses about the role of connectivity
using existing information. Large-scale field studies may be required to test hypotheses about
species dispersal and species' utilization of habitat corridors. Whenever possible, field studies on
the ecological contribution of habitat corridors will be conducted as extensions of other ongoing
field studies on the movement and dispersal of species and species assemblages in relation to
habitat parameters.
B. Stressors. The ecological literature is rich in descriptions of how diverse stressors can affect
individual organisms, species, and communities based on laboratory tests, field observations,
and a very few ecosystem-level manipulations, especially associated with a particular stressor or
a single source. It is much rarer to find examples of studies that start with patterns of species
diversity and seek to explain them. As described in Box 4-A, the BRC (and the approaches that
will be implemented in phase 1 of this program) uses existing data on stressors, both as part of
the prioritization process and to examine potential associations between patterns of biodiversity
and patterns of anthropogenic stressors (and also natural factors that may influence biodiversity).
We will fund additional work of this nature as part of the phase 1 regional analyses and assess-
ments. To date, however, BRC analyses have emphasized habitat-related stressors, because
they are likely to affect biodiversity over larger scales and because databases suitable for CIS
analysis are available. Many other stressors can affect biodiversity, but data are inadequate for
the correlative analyses conducted by the BRC or the stressors may act at different scales than
those used in the BRC analyses. Thus, we expect additional research on stressors to be
warranted, targeted specifically to major uncertainties and gaps identified in the BRC database
and analyses. As a complement to this extension, we may identify a series of well-defined
laboratory or field tests designed to evaluate mechanisms that may be responsible for observed
patterns of species distributions.
101
-------
Timeline
Phase 2 research will begin in 1996 and expand in 1997. We will conduct workshops in both years to
synthesize and evaluate results from regional assessments and to provide the basis for identifying high-
priority research questions to be addressed in phase 2.
4.4 MAJOR CONTRIBUTIONS
The major contributions expected to result from the phase 1 research outlined in Section 4.3.1 are as
follows:
Enhancement of methods for assessing the status and spatial patterns of biodiversity and for
identifying species not represented in areas managed for their natural values.
• Integration of biodiversity data from several state efforts for a broader Pacific Northwest regional
assessment.
Demonstration of biodiversity methods at local levels to refine data needs and approaches for
regional assessments.
Development of a regional assessment of the threats to some elements of biodiversity, including
options for reducing or mitigating stressors to regional biodiversity.
• Synthesis and evaluation of existing information and management needs to focus longer term
research.
102
-------
5. WATERSHED/ECOREGION
This section describes research proposed for the watershed/ecoregion scale. Research goals are to
provide the ecological understanding and evaluate the assessment approaches needed to implement
ecosystem management effectively at the watershed/ecoregion scale in the Pacific Northwest and else-
where. Section 5.1 provides background information, including a definition of the watershed/ecoregion
scale and examples of the types of management questions being addressed at this scale in the Pacific
Northwest. Section 5.2 presents research objectives, and Section 5.3 describes the approach we plan for
achieving those objectives. Section 5.4 summarizes the major contributions expected from this com-
ponent of the research program.
5.1 BACKGROUND
We use the term watershed/ecoregion to refer generally to the intermediate spatial scale at which eco-
system management will actually be practiced. Candidate spatial units of analysis at this scale include
USGS hydrological accounting units (Figure 5-1), smaller watersheds nested within these larger basins
(Figure 5-2), and ecologically defined areas, such as Omernik's ecoregions (Figure 3-8) and subeco-
regions (Figure 3-9). All of these units are potentially useful for analysis, depending on the question and
level of resolution required. As noted in Section 5.2, an important objective of our research is to demon-
strate how these different units can be used in combination to address the types of management ques-
tions being asked concerning ecosystem management in the Pacific Northwest.
Applied environmental research historically has taken a single stressor, single endpoint approach to
addressing environmental problems. For example, the effect of treated sewage effluent on water quality
might be the focus of research on the mainstem of a small river in a watershed. In this same watershed, a
study might be conducted to determine the effect of siltation from logging operations on aquatic life,
including salmon reproduction. Although valuable information could be gained from both studies, by
combining these studies with other information to form an integrated watershed perspective, much more
information of considerably greater value to watershed management could be obtained. A properly
designed integrated study could evaluate the cumulative impacts of these unrelated activities and examine
the trade-offs that would be faced by the management entity. Scientists and managers are recognizing
that an integrated approach to watershed management is required to address the conflicting current and
projected future demands being placed on the Nation's natural resources:
103
-------
USGS Hydrological Units
Pacific Northwest hydrological units
Willamette River Basin
Hydrological unit boundary
•ok 130.70I.CIOI>
Man Equd Ant Pn**»on
Figure 5-1. U.S. Geologic Survey national map of hydrologic units.
104
-------
Willamette River Basin Catchments
Catchment area indicated in square kilometers
- USGS 1:250,000 Streams
USGS 1:2,000,000 Catalog
Unit Boundaries
Albers Equal Area Projection
Enlarged area
: -Lr' 1 1 .-•- v
-— T 7
-A; f.r
Figure 5-2. Map of the Willamette Hydrologic Unit (i.e., Willamette River watershed) showing
the major river catchments of which it is composed. Catchment areas are shown in
km2.
105
-------
"Resolution of these conflicts requires new perspectives that combine social, economic, and
environmental concerns with an approach to watershed management where forest, range,
agricultural, wetland, and urban parcels are treated in an integrated manner" (Naiman 1992, p. 3).
Much of the focus in the Pacific Northwest is on forest management practices widely perceived to have
failed. New tools for assessment and management are needed:
"In actuality, the clear failure of traditional intensive forest practices to maintain many forest organisms
and values provides the strongest evidence supporting the need for alternative or new silvicultural
practices. While we may not know precisely the effectiveness of some of the new techniques, we do
know that traditional approaches are not working well for many values, and are no longer socially
acceptable" (Franklin 1992, p. 60).
The basic management objective at the watershed/ecoregion scale is to determine the most efficient
way—ecologically, economically, and socially—to achieve desired uses of ecological resources while still
providing the level of protection prescribed by regional guidelines, e.g., a regional conservation strategy
(Section 4). It is at this scale that trade-off analyses become most important—analyses that assess the
relative advantages and disadvantages of alternative management approaches—and that the assessment
process outlined in Section 3 is implemented most completely.
Recognizing the need for planning based on natural boundaries and conducted at an intermediate scale,
watershed councils have formed throughout the Pacific Northwest. Generally, these councils are
organized voluntarily by local communities. Their operation is based on a process of cooperation and
partnerships, rather than government authority. Their influence results from their knowledge of local
concerns, public interest and support, and, most importantly, the opportunity to reconcile local resource
and management conflicts. Watershed councils in Oregon are formerly endorsed and encouraged by
state legislation and coordinated through Oregon's Strategic Water Management Group (Oregon SWMG
1992).
Examples of the types of issues being addressed by watershed councils, and other similar organizations,
include the following:
McKenzie Watershed Program (OR). Initiated in 1992 to "establish an integrated, compre-
hensive watershed management program that includes governmental and citizen participation."
Competing demands on watershed resources identified in the program's scoping document
include domestic water supply, hydropower, agriculture, scenic values, wildlife and fisheries
habitat, recreation, public access, private property rights, forestry, and sand and gravel operations
(Lane Council of Governments 1992).
• John Day River Basin Council (OR). Established initially in the 1980s as an advisory group to
the State of Oregon for the John Day Basin Plan, the Council has continued and "serves as a
forum for balancing objectives of different groups." Major problems addressed include declining
106
-------
fisheries, high winter flows, low summer flows, and high temperatures in the river and major
tributaries. Activities have included development of a water optimization plan, a stream restora-
tion program, and numerous demonstration projects (e.g., methods for managing beaver and
juniper in the watershed) (Oregon Watershed Forum 1992).
• Tillamook Bay National Estuary Project (OR). A joint local/state/federal effort, funded by EPA,
this project was established to evaluate environmental problems in the Tillamook Bay watershed
and develop a comprehensive management plan. Three major problems identified are sedimen-
tation, contamination from dairy operations, and habitat degradation.
• Willapa Alliance (WA). This nonprofit organization, composed of local residents, landowners,
and members of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe, has the following goal: "To enhance the
diversity, productivity, and health of Willapa's unique environment, to promote sustainable
economic development, and to expand the choices available to the people who live there" (Wolf
1993, p. 46). Willapa Bay produces one of every six oysters consumed in the United States and
supports major fisheries for Pacific salmon, other fish, Dungeness crab, and shellfish. Nearly two-
thirds of the watershed is commercial forestland. Thus, Willapa's economy is largely ecosystem-
based. For this reason, the Alliance was formed to encourage cooperative problem-solving at the
local level and environmentally-sound, sustainable resource use.
Mid-Snake River Planning Group (ID). Organized in 1990 by the four counties in the middle
Snake area to develop a comprehensive plan that addresses priority environmental problems
while sustaining the economic activity of the region. Major problems are competing water uses,
for irrigation, hydropower, and maintenance of in-stream flows for fisheries; sedimentation; and
excess nutrient loading from point and nonpoint sources.
FEMAT Province Teams. FEMAT teams are responsible for implementing the President's Forest
Plan (Section 1.3) and ecosystem management on federal lands within physiographic provinces
(see Figure 1-9. Key issues identified include distribution of threatened and endangered species
• or stocks, patterns of historical and current resource use, water quality, identification of (human)
communities at risk, and management of multiple reserve systems. The FEMAT province teams
also prioritize smaller watersheds for further study (FEMAT 1993).
The purpose of our research is to facilitate and improve management decisions made at the watershed/
ecoregion scale by producing relevant ecological information and tested methods concerning the most
pressing questions and promising approaches for implementing watershed management.
5.2 OBJECTIVES
The major objectives of this research component mirror three of the four objectives of the overall program
(Section 2.2): (1) develop and test large-scale assessment approaches, (2) evaluate spatial frameworks,
and (3) improve ecological understanding. More specific objectives are as follows:
• Conduct an initial assessment to determine the data and information available for the selected
study areas; determine research needs based, partially, on information gaps.
Demonstrate and evaluate assessment methods for characterizing current ecological condition at
multiple spatial scales, cooperatively with research on monitoring designs (Section 8).
107
-------
• Select and test approaches for defining attainable ecological goals through the use of reference
sites, ecological indicators, and other methods.
Refine and demonstrate methods for targeting high-priority areas within a watershed/ecoregion for
protection, restoration, or other management action, or for further study and/or monitoring.
• Construct simple watershed-scale interactive models to evaluate, project, and compare the
consequences of alternative management strategies on key ecological endpoints.
Compare the attributes of different spatial frameworks for summarizing information on ecological
condition, setting attainable ecological goals, and organizing ecological research at the
watershed/ecoregion scale.
• Evaluate techniques for extrapolating site-specific ecological information to other sites and spatial
units at the watershed/ecoregion scale.
Conduct a final integrated ecological assessment, combining existing data and the results of the
research conducted in this program, to determine the best approaches for assessing manage-
ment trade-offs in the study areas.
5.3 APPROACH
Our proposed approach is represented in Figure 5-3. We plan to begin with an initial assessment in the
first year, followed by about three years of targeted research to fill the most important gaps in our under-
standing, and concluding with an assessment in the final year that would integrate and compare tools and
approaches. Proposed research activities at the watershed/ecoregion scale are described in the following
sections. Section 5.3.1 discusses the selection and use of case study areas. Subsequent sections
describe our approaches to achieve each objective. Tentative budgets by project are presented in Table
5-1. We assume an annual budget of $865K for research at the watershed/ecoregion scale. An addi-
tional $200K is designated for research on an estuarine watershed, to be conducted jointly with the
Coastal Estuaries research component (and appears for accounting purposes in the Coastal Estuaries
budget, Section 7).
Ongoing research at ERL-Corvallis and elsewhere provides useful approaches that can contribute to
watershed/ecoregion assessments. We plan to draw on these programs as appropriate and possible.
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) (Paulsen et al. 1991, Thornton et al.
1993), the Wetlands Research Program (Leibowitz et al. 1992a,b), and the ecoregion approach developed
by Omernik and others (Hughes et al. 1986, Omernik 1987, Gallant et al. 1989) are three such programs
with which we hope to coordinate. In the absence of any one program, we will develop alternative
approaches for meeting our objectives or modify the objectives if alternatives are not satisfactory.
108
-------
Watershed/Ecoregion Scale Approaches
Initial Assessment
AVAILABLE DATA
1995-1996
1995-1998
1998-1999
Figure 5-3. Conceptual approach to achieving the watershed/ecoregion-scale assessment and
research objectives.
109
-------
Table 5-1. Estimated Budget for Each Watershed/Ecoregion Project Area by Fiscal Year (FY)
(in Thousands of Dollars).
ACTIVITY
FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99
Integration3
Current conditions, diagnostics
Attainable conditions
Geographic targeting
Spatial framework
Development models and decision
support systems
Extrapolation
Ecological research
TOTAL
200 200 150
150 150 200
50
115
100 150 150
865 865 865 865
865
Initial Assessment
Targeted Research
Final Assessment
a Includes the compilation and evaluation of existing data and analyses. Also includes among-method
comparisons to evaluate the value of more effort- and data-intensive analyses.
110
-------
One of our major contributions is to demonstrate how inferential (EMAP) and extrapolation (ecoregion)
approaches can be used together, and linked to one another, as elements of an integrated ecological
assessment. In addition to developing and testing applications for integrating and refining existing
elements to create new approaches, we propose other research activities. We plan to develop models
and decision support systems for ecosystem management (Section 5.3.6). We will evaluate approaches
for regionalizing research findings from studies at a few sites to other similar spatial localities, as well as
among local, watershed/ecoregional and regional scales (Section 5.3:8).
5.3.1 Case Study Areas
The research needs for ecosystem management are many and varied and it will not be possible to
accomplish all objectives for every area of interest. For example, it will not be possible to answer all
important management questions for all areas of the Pacific Northwest. We could distribute our
watershed/ecoregion research across the region, addressing different types of questions and doing
different types of research in different areas. That approach would perhaps be most equitable in terms of
the number of stakeholders and managers that would benefit directly from the information produced.
However, it also would critically dilute our effort in any specific area and we do not believe that this
approach to ecosystem management research will ultimately lead to the greatest net increase in our
knowledge base.
Instead, we have chosen to concentrate our research in a few selected case study areas, for two major
reasons. First, the development and testing of assessment approaches is an important objective of the
research program. We must determine if simpler methods yield results consistent with those from more
data- and effort-intensive analyses that would not be practical to apply routinely. We will make compari-
sons by developing, demonstrating, and evaluating multiple methods applied by independent researchers
in the same areas. Second is our emphasis on integration and holistic assessments. We want to deal
with multiple endpoints and multiple stressors, and the interactions and trade-offs among them. We want
to demonstrate the value of integrating data from different disciplines, different media, and different
ecosystem types. To do so, we need information and research on many of these aspects from the same
basic geographic area—e.g., forested, agricultural, and urban areas; surface waters; wetlands; and
terrestrial ecosystems—all within the same watershed/ecoregion.
We have selected two watershed/ecoregions for initiation of watershed/ecoregion research in 1995.
These case study areas were selected for use as intensified "demonstration" areas, and we will focus our
research efforts within them. We used the following five criteria to select the two initial case study areas:
111
-------
1. West of the Cascades. Because our research funds were allocated as part of the FEMAT effort (see
Section 1.3), our initial case study watersheds/ecoregions are restricted to the FEMAT study area—
the Cascades and west. In future years (post-1999), we hope to add a third case study watershed/
ecoregion east of the Cascades to incorporate irrigation and grazing stressors into our research.
Although serious environmental concerns exist both west and east of the Cascades, western areas
have the highest human population densities, a particularly high rate of population growth and urban
development, and a wide range of landuses and land ownership patterns (see Box 1-B).
2. Diversity of stressors, ecosystem types, landuses, and valued ecosystem functions. We seek
to conduct research in areas that provide good prototypes for ecosystem management and the types
of multi-stressor, multi-endpoint analyses required to support ecosystem management. In particular,
we sought watersheds/ecoregions with significant amounts of agricultural and/or urban lands, in
addition to forested land. Much of the ecosystem management research done by other federal
agencies under FEMAT focuses on forested lands. Thus, we view agricultural and urban lands, by
comparison, as a knowledge gap.
3. Significant amount of nonfederal lands (multiple-use, multiple-ownership lands). FEMAT efforts
have focused on federally owned lands. As noted in Section 1.3, an important role for EPA is to
extend the FEMAT concepts, and ecosystem management in general, to nonfederal lands with
multiple owners. At the same time, we want to integrate FEMAT analyses on federal lands into our
larger watershed/ecoregion assessment. Thus, a related criteria is that the case study areas include
some of the upland, forested watersheds on which FEMAT analyses are ongoing or planned.
4. Need for scientific input to management decisions. Because of our interest in working actively
with ecosystem managers, we prefer areas currently impacted by multiple stressors and at high risk of
losing valued ecosystem functions, where managers feel that scientific input is critically needed and
will contribute to improved decisions over the next five or so years.
5. Sufficient existing information. Enough information on ecological conditions and stressors must be
available for preliminary assessments to be completed within 1-2 years.
Together with EPA Region 10, we presented these criteria to groups of environmental managers organ-
ized by the states of Washington and Oregon. The groups included representatives from federal agencies
and tribes, as well as from state agencies. Based on our criteria, and their management needs, these
groups selected the Willamette River Basin in Oregon (Figure 5-4) and the lower part of the Washington
Coastal Ecoregion (Figure 5-5) as our two initial case study areas.
5.3.1.1 The Willamette River Basin
The Willamette River Basin in Oregon falls between the Coast Range and the Cascade Mountains. It is
approximately 29,400 km2 in area, 240 km long by 120 km wide, and has a 3000-m elevation range from
the valley floor to the top of the Cascades. The river basin has 21,216 km of streams [EPA RF-3
geographic information system (CIS) database], with as many as 14 impoundments on the mainstem of
the Willamette and its tributaries. The valley has a moderate marine climate with an average annual
precipitation of about 100 cm over an average of 150 days. Summers tend to be hot and dry; winters are
cool and wet with minimal snowfall on the valley floor (Tetra Tech 1992).
112
-------
C3 Coastal Lowlands (1) I
0 Coastal Uplands (2)
C3 coastal Volcanics (3)
Coast Range Volcanics (A)
Willapa Hills (5)
Mid-Coast Sedimentary (6)
Coast Range Foothills (7)
Foothill Volcanics (8)
Willamette Plains (9)
Cascade Foothills (10)
i western Cascades (11)
High Cascades (12)
Eastern Cascades (13)
Figure 5-4-
Willamette River wai
.ershed.showingthesubeccreg-.ons
it contains.
113
-------
Washington Coastal Ecoregion Landuse/Landcover
Urban or built-up land [~~] Forest
Agricultural | | Water, wetlands
KB Rangeland | | Tundra, perennial snow or ice
Source: USGSGIRAS 1:250,000 landuse/landcover database
20
Albers Equal Area Projection
Figure 5-5. Landuse map of the Washington Coastal Ecoregion.
114
-------
The major landuses in the Willamette Basin are forestry (69% of the total basin), agriculture (20%), and
urban areas (4%). The remaining areas are either grass/brushlands or water bodies (Oregon GAP
Vegetation CIS coverage). Logging contributes to sediment production in the river network, particularly
along slopes greater than 12% and during seasonal rain and snow events (Tetra Tech 1992). Irrigated
croplands are also major contributors to soil erosion and the transport of nutrients and pesticides to the
river system. There are over 91,058 irrigated ha in the Willamette Valley, out of a total of 728,460 ha of
cropland. Gross sales from agriculture in the valley exceed $1 billion annually, accounting for over 50% of
Oregon's total farm crop sales (Tetra Tech 1992). Urban areas contribute the most intense nonpoint
source pollution to the Willamette River. Pollutants include nutrients, organic matter, bacteria, pesticides,
and toxic compounds (Tetra Tech 1992). There are 87 major and minor National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit sites within the Willamette River Basin (EPA Region 10 CIS NPDES
digital coverage). In addition, four sites in the basin are designated as part of EPA's Superfund cleanup
program, and numerous other sites are under investigation (Oregon Environmental Atlas 1988).
Air quality is also a problem in the valley, both currently and historically. Mountainous terrain, calm winds,
and temperature inversions all contribute to poor ventilation in the valley part of the river basin. In addition
to car and industrial sources, massive field and slash burning are major sources of air pollutants (Oregon
Environmental Atlas 1988).
5.3.-1.2 Washington Coastal Ecoregion
The lower part of the Washington Coastal Ecoregion encompasses 10,476 km2 in the western
Washington lowlands, including the Quinault, Chehalis, and Willapa watersheds (Figure 5-5). It was
selected by the state of Washington as an area of active economic transition, from a forest-based
economy to an "as yet unknown future."
"Communities, industry, and government are now making decisions that will affect this region for many
years. Having quality research available as these decisions are made will significantly improve the
future of the people, resources, and industries of this area" (Letter from Jennifer M. Belcher,
Washington Commissioner of Public Lands, and Harry Thomas, State Director for Governor Mike
Lowry, to Tom Murphy, Director ERL-Corvallis, 13 April 1994).
The area is mostly privately owned, with about 15 major landowners and many small holdings. Three
Native American reservations occur within the case study area: the Chehalis, Quinault, and Shoalwater
tribes. Forests in the area have been intensively managed and harvested for many years; logging activity
occurs in most watersheds. Seven to eight percent of the land is classified as agricultural, which includes
dairy operations, grazing, cranberry growing, and row crop production. Less than 5% of the area is urban,
although major areas of urban and commercial development pressures are nearby, including the I-5
115
-------
corridor and the cities of Portland and Seattle. Anadromous fish and shellfish resources from the area are
of national significance (e.g., Willapa Bay is the largest producer of oysters in the Nation) and of major
importance to the local economy. Water quality problems periodically result in closure of the shellfish
industry. Declining salmon stocks have severely limited returns from salmon fisheries. Threatened and
endangered species occur in upland, wetland, and coastal areas as a result of habitat fragmentation, loss,
and changes. Table 5-2 summarizes major management issues in the area, identified by the State of
Washington.
We will focus part of our research in the Washington Coastal Ecoregion on Willapa Bay and its associated
watershed (Figure 5-6). Intensive estuarine studies will be conducted in the Bay (see Section 7), and
some research will be conducted in the watershed. The focus for this work will be on developing linkages
between the upland parts of the watershed and the estuary. Sediment generation, transport, and
deposition are likely to be paramount issues. We also propose to conduct research in other areas of the
Washington Coastal Ecoregion. Work is underway to develop a cooperative research effort with the
Quinault Indian Nation, to assist them in developing an integrated management strategy that combines
concerns over fish, wildlife, and forest resources. This work will focus on the main river, its tributaries,
Quinault Lake, and associated riparian zones. Approaches developed in one watershed will be region-
alized within the Washington Coastal Ecoregion using spatial frameworks such as ecoregions. The
usefulness of such extrapolation approaches will be quantitatively evaluated.
Most of the research described in subsequent sections will be conducted in the two case study areas.
There will be significant spatial and technical overlap between research on watersheds/ecoregions and
research on riparian areas (Section 6), estuaries (Section 7), and monitoring (Section 8). Where possible,
sites at which data will be collected to meet different objectives will be co-located in the case study areas
to facilitate integration of results.
5.3.2 Integrated Ecological Evaluations: Assessments
Project-Level Objectives
• Conduct an initial assessment to determine the data and information available for the selected
study areas; determine research needs based, partially, on information gaps.
• Conduct an integrated ecological assessment at the end of the research period, combining
existing data and results of research conducted in this program to determine the best approaches
for assessing management trade-offs in the study areas.
116
-------
Table 5-2. Major Management Concerns for the Washington Coastal Ecoregion Identified by the
State of Washington.
Environmental Issues (partial list):
Spartina encroachment and control in Willapa Bay
Water quality in Chehalis River
Ghost shrimp in Willapa Bay
Dredging impacts on crabs in Grays Harbor
Erosion of shorelines in Willapa Bay and at Westport
Forest Practices:
Road construction
Road maintenance
Timber harvest and/or management
Riparian area protection
Agricultural Practices:
Dairy waste
Riparian area protection
On-Site Sewage Disposal:
Failing or inadequate septic tanks
Septic inspections
Development-Related Storm Water and Erosion:
Contaminated stormwater runoff
Groundwater contamination
Other Nonpoint Sources:
Sedimentation
Fish and Wildlife:
Shellfish harvest
Shellfish bed contamination
Maintaining habitat for spotted owl and marbled murrelet
Loss of wetlands to industrial and urban development
117
-------
Subecoregions of the Washington Coastai Ecoregion
Coastal Lowlands (1a) • Low Olympics (1k)
Coastal Uplands (1b) EH Outwash (11)
Coast Range Foothills (1d) EH Puget Lowland (2)
Volcanics (1g) EH Cascades/High Olympics (4)
EU Willapa Hills (1h)
Source: Theile, S.A., C.W. Kiilsgaard andJ.M. Omemik 1992. The Subdivision
of the Coast Range Ecoregion of Oregon and Washington.
0 10
Miles
Albers Equal Area Projection
Shaded area enlarged
Figure 5-6. Map of the Willapa Bay watershed showing the subecoregions it contains.
118
-------
Evaluate the relative advantages—in terms of increased confidence in and utility of assessment
results—of applying analytical tools that require greater levels of effort and data compared to
simpler, less data- and effort-intensive assessment methods.
Approach
An important goal of this research is to test, refine, and demonstrate an integrated assessment process at
the watershed/ecoregion scale. Assessments are important because they provide managers with a clear
view of the competing factors within a watershed/ecoregion and identify the possible approaches
managers can use to evaluate the consequences of various management actions or inaction. To achieve
the goal just stated, we will conduct initial and final assessments in each of the case study areas. The
initial assessment will be conducted with existing data and will focus on determining what is known about
the watershed/ecoregion with regard to stressors, condition of ecological systems, and managerial issues.
It will be conducted at the watershed/ecoregion scale and will be organized so that it spatially represents
the available information. The primary result of the initial assessment effort will be identification of the
critical data that will have to be obtained via targeted research.
We anticipate that the availability and quality of assessment information will vary widely and will, in all
probability, fall short of the requirements for a thorough integrated assessment. Based on the initial
assessment results, appropriate aquatic, estuarine, and terrestrial endpoints will be identified for the case
study areas, along with approaches for defining linkages among these components. The watershed/
ecoregion scale research will be designed and conducted (see Sections 5.3.3-5.3.9) to fill the most
inportant information gaps, so that a successful final assessment can be conducted that includes the most
important ecological components of the watershed (Figure 5-3). The final assessment will occur during
the final two years of the program and will incorporate all targeted research components and other data
sources, including EMAP, FEMAT, and the initial assessment.
Both initial and final assessments will address real-world management questions relevant to the
ecosystem management approach, similar to the examples presented in Section 3.3, and will follow the
basic assessment approach outlined in Section 3. The states of Washington and Oregon are in the
process of organizing a group of selected state, tribal, and local managers to serve as our primary
management contacts for each case study area. These groups will identify their high-priority management
questions for the Willamette River Basin and the Washington Coastal Ecoregion. These policy questions
will serve as a basis for formulating our specific research objectives for the case study areas. The final
assessment will address these issues directly, using a combination of existing data and the targeted
research conducted as part of this program. The final assessment will focus particularly on trade-offs
among conflicting resource uses and among alternative management approaches. It will address a set of
119
-------
watershed management questions that will demonstrate the full range of concerns of interest and the
diversity of assessment analyses.
An additional objective of the final assessments is to evaluate the benefits of more effort- and data-
intensive analyses in ecological assessments. To be worth the added effort, such analyses must provide
outputs of more direct use to decision makers (e.g., outputs that are more spatially explicit or that are
tailored for specific management issues) and/or outputs that are more accurate or precise, or in which we
generally have greater confidence. Our general approach to achieving this objective will include:
(1) identifying specific science objectives that require different levels of effort, and assessment methods
that require different types of data (see in particular Sections 5.3.5 and 5.3.6), (2) applying these different
approaches within the same case study area to address the same or similar management questions, and
(3) comparing the results for consistency, usefulness to managers, and relative precision and level of
confidence.
From the perspective of ecosystem management, the most useful aspect of this approach will probably be
the identification of trade-offs among competing ecological uses. The integrated or holistic approach we
intend to follow will make these tradeoffs explicit, including quantifying them where possible.
Timeline
The initial assessment will be conducted in 1995-1996, the final assessment in 1998-1999.
5.3.3 Current Ecological Conditions and Diagnosis
Project-Level Objective
The objective is to demonstrate and evaluate assessment methods for characterizing current ecological
conditions at multiple spatial scales, cooperatively with research on monitoring designs (Section 8).
Approach
The initial assessment will rely on evaluating existing data regarding current conditions and stressors for
each case study watershed/ecoregion. We will compile, analyze, and summarize relevant existing data
sets. To the degree possible, these analyses will be conducted cooperatively with the agencies or inves-
tigators responsible for the original data collection. Part of this effort will be directed toward developing a
120
-------
conceptual model of the case study area and identifying dominant ecological processes expected to be
impacted most negatively by human activities (e.g., sediment transport and deposition).
We plan to collect new data on ecological condition cooperatively with EMAP (see Box 2-A) and the
federal interagency Research and Monitoring Committee (RMC). In current plans for EMAP, that program
focuses on the Pacific Northwest as one of three study areas in the United States. If EMAP plans change,
alternative approaches will be explored. As discussed in Section 8, the Monitoring Workgroup of the RMC
plans to conduct ecological monitoring demonstrations, beginning in FY96-FY97, on federal lands in one
or more of the FEMAT provinces (see Figure 1-9), which may overlap with our case study areas. Our
case study areas also include several of the smaller, upland watersheds in which FEMAT watershed
analyses are underway or planned. Information from these and other FEMAT-related activities will provide
useful information on ecological conditions that will be incorporated into our watershed/ecoregion final
assessment.
EMAP has invested considerable effort into developing probability-based sampling methods to charac-
terize ecological conditions, quantitatively, over large spatial scales for major resource groups (surface
waters, estuaries, forests, agroecosystems, etc.). We anticipate applying and testing some of the EMAP
methodologies at the watershed/ecoregion scale, using a spatially intensified probability sampling
approach appropriate for the management questions being raised at that scale. We intend to make the
linkage to the regional-scale EMAP activities explicit and to coordinate activities from both EMAP and
PNW perspectives (see Section 8) to demonstrate the utility of this quantitative approach within the overall
assessment process. The most important aspect of this linkage is regionalizing site- and
watershed/ecoregion-scale studies to the next larger scale, the region.
EMAP plans to develop sampling approaches and indicators in the Pacific Northwest over the next several
years. EMAP-Landscape Characterization plans to analyze thematic mapper (TM) remote sensing data
for the entire region, including the case study areas. EMAP-Surface Waters, Forests, and Estuaries may
also conduct field sampling to assess the condition of streams, forests, and possibly estuaries,
respectively. Although some of the EMAP probability sites are scheduled to fall within the case study
areas, the number of sites will not be large enough to adequately characterize ecological conditions at the
resolution required for watershed/ecoregion-scale assessments. Thus, the PNW research program
intends to support sampling at additional sites, selected by intensifying the EMAP grid within the case
study areas. Current plans call for sampling design, logistics, and QA/QC to be handled by EMAP. We
will decide what additional EMAP-type sampling or other research activities to fund depending on (1) the
quality and types of existing data, (2) results from the initial assessment, and (3) distribution and number
of sites to be sampled as part of the EMAP regional demonstrations. Ongoing surveys of streams in the
121
-------
Washington Coastal Ecoregion, as part of Regional EMAP (a cooperative program between EMAP and
EPA regional offices), may provide adequate resolution on stream condition in that area (Figure 5-7).
One of the fundamental uses planned for the EMAP data is to provide a probability framework with which
to relate the intensively studied sites in the case study areas to other areas in the Pacific Northwest. The
EMAP quantitative probability-based sampling frame, landscape characterization data, and indicator data
will provide us with a rigorous framework with which to evaluate various approaches for extrapolating site-
or watershed-specific data to other similar landscapes within the region. After this work is completed, the
results will stand as a spatial hypothesis until the projections can be confirmed via additional EMAP
sampling on a subset of these units at a scale similar to that performed on the case study watersheds.
Section 5.3.8 provides more information on the issue of extrapolation.
The Integrated Monitoring research component, described in Section 8, has primary responsibility for
evaluating EMAP and other monitoring designs relative to the needs of ecosystem management. The
data collection and analysis activities described here will contribute both to watershed/ecoregion research
and to the development of monitoring designs, and thus will be designed jointly by these two research
components.
Timeline
Work on assessment of current ecological conditions will take place during the years 1995-1998.
5.3.4 Attainable Ecological Goals
Project-Level Objective
The objective of work in this area is to select and test approaches for defining attainable ecological goals
through the use of reference sites, ecological indicators, and other methods.
Approach
Defining attainable ecological goals within the case study areas is a necessary early step in the assess-
ment process (see Figure 3-11) and is required for comparing current conditions to those that could be
attained, if desired. Three types of information can help to define attainable ecological conditions:
(1) historical reconstructions, (2) reference sites, and (3) modeling approaches.
122
-------
REMAP Intensified Stream Sites
Pacific Northwest Pilot, 1994
Yakima
Sites
Coast
Sites
Rang
1:530,000
EflL-C J. By 6/94
Figure 5-7. Map of the EMAP Pacific Northwest Pilot Study Area, showing stream sites sampled
as part of the Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
(Regional EMAP) in 1994.
123
-------
Historical Reconstructions. Historical conditions (before modern human disturbances or when human
disturbances were less intense) provide one basis for comparison to present-day conditions. Historical
reconstructions also can provide information on major natural forcing functions, such as hydrologic and
fire regimes. For example, the USFS and others have extensively analyzed historical patterns of the
frequency, extent, and distribution of fires in the Pacific Northwest (Spies and Franklin 1988, Morrison and
Swanson 1990, Teensma et al. 1991, USFS 1993b) to gain a better understanding of the natural dynamics
of forest systems and the relationship between these natural dynamics and biodiversity. Analyses of
sediment cores in lakes have been used to evaluate historical trends in trophic state (Frey 1969),
sedimentation rates (Robbins 1978, Gubala et al. 1990), contaminant loadings (Charles and Norton 1986),
acidity (Charles et al. 1987, Ford 1990), and vegetation community composition in surrounding areas
(Davis 1983, Spear 1989).
It is well established that the Willamette River has undergone tremendous hydrologic modification and loss
of riparian areas in the last two hundred years (Sedell and Froggatt 1984). As part of initiating the PNW
research program, in 1994 we funded a comprehensive historical reconstruction of hydrological conditions
in the Willamette River mainstem and lower tributaries, based on extensive records available from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and others dating back to the late 1800s (Gregory et al. 1994; see Section 6).
This information, on hydrological forcing functions in the Willamette, is essential to assessing the
restoration potential of riparian areas along the Willamette.
The Riparian Area and Coastal Estuaries research components (Sections 6 and 7) propose specific plans
for some historical reconstructions—the hydrological reconstruction of the Willamette mentioned above for
riparian areas and analyses of historical sedimentation rates for estuaries. Both studies also will
contribute to the watershed/ecoregion assessments, in the Willamette and Washington Coastal Ecoregion,
respectively. We will evaluate the need for further reconstructions based on results from the initial
assessments. Research will be conducted as required to determine the historical environmental
conditions and the magnitude of changes that have occurred in the two study areas.
Reference Sites. In some instances, historical conditions may no longer be attainable, if human activities
have caused irreversible changes in the environment. It is unrealistic to assume that sites which are now
important agricultural or urban lands will be converted to their historical, pre-disturbance state. Moreover,
it is likely that the presence of agricultural and urban activities within a watershed parcel affects conditions
outside of their direct geographic location. For example, anadromous fish and migrating birds may be
exposed to high doses of contaminants, high temperatures, etc., as they move through such areas. In
these cases, we want to define realistically attainable conditions within or with relation to agricultural or
urban settings.
124
-------
We use the term reference site to refer to a minimally impacted site within a similar environmental setting
used to define a realistically attainable ecological goals. The concept of reference sites is well developed
for streams (see Section 3.2.2; Hughes et al. 1986) and has been applied as the basis for stream bio-
logical criteria in Ohio (Rankin et al. 1992). Leibowitz et al. (1992a) extend the concept to wetlands, using
reference sites to define performance criteria for wetland restoration projects. Regional EMAP projects, in
the Coastal Ecoregion and in Yakima Basin in the Pacific Northwest and in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands, will
further evaluate the reference site approach by comparing ecological conditions at hand-picked reference
sites in streams to regional distributions generated from EMAP probability samples of streams. This will
be a powerful approach to defining the efficacy of hand-picked sites vs. those at the upper end of a
cumulative frequency distribution.
We believe that reference sites, used to define attainable ecological conditions, are a key component of
ecological assessment and monitoring programs. As part of the PNW research program, we will demon-
strate the definition and use of reference sites in watershed/ecoregion assessments and evaluate the
utility of the reference site concept for other ecosystem types. Research on reference conditions for
riparian areas is described in Section 6. As part of the Watershed/Ecoregion component, we will conduct
research to evaluate the feasibility and usefulness of applying this approach to more upland areas
(grasslands and forested systems).
Modeling. A third approach to setting attainable ecological conditions is through ecological models. By
simulating the responses of systems to various management scenarios, we gain insight into the possible
range of end results and conditions. Section 5.3.6 discusses proposed modeling activities in greater
detail.
Timeline
Work on determining attainable ecological goals will take place during the years 1995-1999.
5.3.5 Targeting Geographic Areas
Project-Level Objective
The objective of this effort is to refine and demonstrate methods for targeting high-priority areas within a
watershed/ecoregion for protection, restoration, or other management action, or for further study and/or
monitoring.
125
-------
Approach
In what geographic areas and at what specific sites should we concentrate our management efforts (or
research and monitoring activities) to get the most value for the time and money invested? Spatially
explicit modeling, as described in Section 5.3.6, is one way to answer these questions. This section
describes nonmodeling techniques that may be simpler and less costly to apply. Modeling and non-
modeling approaches will be compared in the final assessment, as discussed in Section 5.3.2.
Our proposed approaches draw heavily on methods developed initially for evaluating the role of wetlands
in the landscape, as part of the Wetlands Research Program at ERL-Corvallis (Leibowitz et al. 1992a).
Here we discuss two approaches: synoptic assessment and general landscape criteria.
Synoptic Approach. The synoptic approach is a method for ranking spatial subunits within a larger area of
concern (e.g., the case study watershed/ecoregion) according to various environmental factors that
influence their priority for management action or further study. The approach was designed specifically to
provide a broad, qualitative understanding of the environment in situations where more detailed assess-
ments are impractical because of limited time or resources. It identifies target areas (e.g., priority water-
sheds or ecological units within a larger basin), not specific sites.
The synoptic approach, in its entirety, is a mini-assessment, beginning with defining management
questions and objectives and developing a conceptual landscape model for the study area. In our case,
these steps will be followed as part of the initial assessment process described in Section 5.3.2. From
that point, the synoptic approach uses best professional judgment and available data to select the best
available synoptic indicators of current condition, past impacts, current stressor levels, risk of functional
loss, and restoration potential. Available data for each indicator are summarized by spatial subunit, and
subunits are ranked accordingly. Subunits may be ranked, for example, according to the estimated
percent of wetlands lost, calculated from the estimated original wetland area, assumed equal to the area
of hydric soils, minus the estimated current wetland area (from USGS landuse/land cover maps) divided
by the estimated original area (Abbruzzese et al. 1990). Areas with a high historical loss rate are consid-
ered higher priority for management attention and further study. Areas with a very low historical loss rate
may be considered candidate areas for conservation and preservation. Leibowitz et al. (1992b) describe
the synoptic approach in greater detail.
We will apply the synoptic approach during the initial assessment for each case study watershed/
ecoregion based on existing data. To evaluate the accuracy of the initial assessment, results from this
initial analysis will be compared to results from modeling (Section 5.3.6) and to results from an updated
126
-------
synoptic analysis (based on additional data) conducted for the final assessment. Both watersheds and
ecoregions will be evaluated (and compared) as analysis subunits, consistent with the spatial framework
approach discussed in Section 5.3.7.
General Landscape Criteria. Leibowitz et al. (1992a) also propose the use of general landscape criteria
for targeting areas for management and/or further study. They limit the analysis to structural landscape
features, such as patch size, connectivity, and porosity (Forman and Gordon 1986). We expand the
concept to include any indicator of the relative contribution of specific areas or sites to important land-
scape functions, the risk of functional loss, or restoration potential. Thus, the approach is similar, con-
ceptually, to the synoptic approach, but results are summarized according to natural landscape features
(by overlaying GIS data layers) rather than by spatial subunit. For example, FEMAT (1993) identified
areas at high risk for landslides and debris flow in streams, based on slope steepness (from a 30-m
resolution digital elevation model) and rock type. Gosselink et al. (1990) identified high-priority areas for
protection in the Tensas Basin, Louisiana, based on a criterion of maximizing the patch size of remaining
bottomland hardwoods, considered important habitat for black bears in the area.
Selection of the landscape indicators is critical, and must be based firmly in the conceptual landscape
model developed for each case study area. Two concepts discussed in Section 3.2.1 are particularly
relevant:
• The generic model of landscape processes. The influence of any individual ecosystem com-
ponent on overall landscape functions depends on three factors: (1) the degree to which the
ecosystem acts as a source or sink, (2) the transport mechanism for the material (e.g., gravity,
channelized flow, migration), and (3) the spatial relationship between the sources, sinks, and
transport mechanisms in the landscape.
• The nature of the stressor-response relationship (Figure 3-4). An understanding of the shape of
the stressor-response, or recovery, curve can help identify categories of ecosystems where
management actions will result in the greatest net gain (i.e., area of the curve with maximum
slope).
Data on current conditions, discussed in Section 5.3.3 (including remote sensing and field data), will be
used to identify high-priority areas for management or further study based on the selected landscape
criteria.
Timeline
Targeting high-priority areas for management action or further study will occur in 1996-1998.
127
-------
5.3.6 Models and Decision Support Systems
Project-Level Objective
The objective of this work is to construct simple, watershed-scale interactive models for evaluating,
projecting, and comparing the ecological consequences of alternative management strategies on key
ecological endpoints.
Approach
A model is a simplified, formal representation of the real world. For our purposes, models express
relationships among ecosystem components, functions, stressors, and management options. The
relationships may take the form of maps, graphs, tables, equations, and/or algorithms, and are often
implemented in computer programs. In assessments, models are used to explore "what if questions. For
example, if urbanization continues as currently projected, what will be the long-term consequences on
water quality, terrestrial habitat, and biodiversity? Models can also be used for goal-based analyses,
where a management objective is specified and the system searches for management options (e.g.,
landuse/stressor combinations) that will achieve that objective (e.g., geographic areas that must be
protected or restored to achieve water quality criteria and sustain biodiversity given current projected
increases in human population growth and urbanization and our understanding of ecosystem functions
and response to stressors).
Many existing simulation models describe specific components or types of ecosystems (e.g., in-stream
aquatic systems) or specific stressor-response relationships. Examples are presented in Table 5-3. Our
primary interest for ecosystem management, however, is models that have the following characteristics:
Incorporate multiple ecological endpoints, both aquatic and terrestrial, and linkages among these
endpoints.
• Allow the user to evaluate the ecological consequences of and trade-offs among alternative
management options, for example, ecosystem protection, restoration, pollution controls, and
changes in landuse and land and resource management practices.
• Are spatially explicit, to allow for geographic targeting of management efforts, and appropriate for
applications at relatively large spatial scales.
• Can be applied with reasonable effort and reasonably attainable data.
128
-------
Table 5-3. Example Models for Ecosystem Processes and Components Relevant in the Pacific Northwest.
Model
SLOSS and
PHOSPH
Erosion
Productivity
Impact Calculator
(EPIC)
Woody debris
loading model
Sockeye salmon
recruitment model
Forest fire model
Forest succession
models
Duck population
management
model
Wildlife response
to habitat
Precipitation-
runoff model
Purpose
Estimate watershed sediment
and phosphorus yield based
on topography and soil
characteristics
Cropland simulator. Includes
crop growth, nutrient cycling,
soil erosion.
Estimate natural rates of
woody debris input to stream
channels.
Estimate smolt survival and
spawning returns in large
river system
Project evolution of a fire's
size and shape, based on
percolation theory.
A large class of models for
simulating stand growth and
succession
Simulate effects of habitat
modification on mallard
population density.
Project population density
response to habitat loss.
Applied to deer, SE Alaska.
Simulate streamflow as
function of precipitation, soils,
vegetative cover, topography.
Advantages
Few parameters. Uses
existing mapped data.
Widely used in agricultural
research, at field to regional
scales.
Few parameters.
Physically-based.
Incorporates predation,
migration, density-
dependent mortality,
Stochastic contagion model
is widely applicable.
Widely used for long-term
projections. Validation
possible via space-for-time
substitution.
Empirical components use
available survey data.
Bioeconomic model.
Simple, few parameters.
Process-based.
Incorporates snow melt,
vegetative cover.
Disadvantages
Difficult to validate. Designed
for small-scale calibration
(multiple land cells per
watershed)
Requires extensive input data
and parameter estimation.
Designed for field scale.
Requires rare-event
probabilities, so parameter
estimation is difficult.
Requires long annual time
series of smolt and spawner
densities. Valid for unregulated
river.
Model is theoretical. No
parameter estimation methods
available.
Parameterized at small spatial
scale (one or a few trees).
Validation difficult. Designed
for prairie wetland habitats.
For breeding success only.
Theoretical. Parameter
estimation and validation
difficult.
Small space/time scales, many
parameters.
Source
Tim etal. (1992)
Williams and Renard
(1985), Sharpley and
Williams (1990)
Van Sickle and
Gregory (1990)
Crittenden(1994)
von Niessen and
Blumen (1988)
Shugart and West
(1980)
Cowardin et al.
(1988)
Fagen(1988)
Wigmosta et al.
(1994)
NJ
CD
-------
Few, if any, existing models meet these criteria. Our objective is to develop such models, using the
watershed/ecoregion assessments as pilots. Thus, our focus will be on relatively simple models that will
address the management questions and needs of the case study assessments discussed in Section 5.3.2.
At the same time, however, we will be successful only if these models have broader applicability and can
be readily adapted and applied in other areas and for other, related management issues.
The first step is to better define the modeling objectives and desired model features (e.g., types of output,
level of precision, flexibility). Input will be received from the management groups for the case study areas
(see Section 5.3.1), as well as from managers (potential model users) outside these areas, facilitated
through the Technology Transfer component of the program (Section 10). This information will be
synthesized to identify the management questions of highest priority for each study area. Scientists will
then define the problems to be addressed by modeling along with the assumptions, scope, available tools,
available data, etc. At this point, available models will be evaluated; for models identified for further
consideration, analyses will be performed to determine which ones best fit the modeling objectives and
desired features. Table 5-3 identifies some of the advantages and limitations of some example models.
Based on this review, we will propose specific models and modeling approaches, structures, and
procedures to be pursued.
We anticipate developing or adapting a number of models that address different types of management
questions and require different levels of effort, data, and technical sophistication to apply. Levins et al.
(1989) identify three properties of models—realism of function, generality of application, and precision of
representation—which they argue are mutually exclusive. The relative importance of these three
properties depends on the intended model use. Our measure of model success is whether the model
provides information of direct use to decision makers at effective cost. Higher costs for model calibration
and application are justified only if the return is an equivalent increase in assessment accuracy (see
Figure 3-2) or in management's acceptance of results.
Clearly, then, we want parsimonious models, i.e., models that are no more complicated, data-intensive, or
effort-intensive than is necessary to achieve the desired types of outputs and levels of precision and
accuracy. An essential ingredient of selecting or developing a parsimonious model is to define the data
quality needs and the required precision and accuracy of the intended models early in the process. One
approach to developing parsimonious models is to simplify complex models: begin with detailed, process-
based models and then use statistical and other techniques (e.g., Monte Carlo sampling) to identify
components and processes that can be eliminated or aggregated without seriously affecting model
performance (e.g., Bartell et al. 1988, Rastetter et al. 1992). Our bias, however, is to begin with simple
models and simple modeling approaches, and add complexity or pursue more complex approaches only
130
-------
as needed to achieve our modeling objectives. Modeling approaches that we will explore include (but are
not limited to) cartographic models (Burrough 1986, Remillard and Welch 1993) and Bayesian modeling
techniques that combine expert judgment and data (Reckhow 1988).
A related objective is to develop models that can be applied with readily attainable data, in particular data
available through remote sensing. The Oregon Transect Ecosystem Research (OTTER) project is an
example of a large-scale application of an ecosystem simulation model (in this case, a model of carbon,
nitrogen, and water fluxes in forested systems) using remotely sensed data (Peterson and Waring 1994).
The OTTER project included research on both improved methods to collect and analyze remote sensing
information, by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and extensive groundtruthing
of remotely sensed data and model predictions. Similar efforts are planned as part of this research
program, to evaluate the feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and accuracy of using various forms of remote
sensing information as input to assessment models.
Models represent, in essence, our assumptions about how a system operates. Uncertainties about these
assumptions are a major source of modeling uncertainty and uncertainty in decision making. Hilborn and
Ludwig (1993) propose that management actions should be chosen based on their "aggregated perform-
ance under a variety of plausible hypotheses" (p. 552) (see Section 3.1). Bayes' theorem provides a tool
for quantifying probability distributions for various hypotheses and incorporating these uncertainties into a
modeling and decision analysis framework. We will consider modeling approaches that allow us to
incorporate, explore, and compare multiple assumptions about ecosystem processes and responses.
We also include in this objective the development of decision support systems. We view decision support
systems simply as methods (computer-based systems or guidance manuals) that facilitate the application
of assessment tools (models as well as other assessment methods). Development of these decision
support systems must go hand-in-hand with development of the assessment approaches, not as an
afterthought. The application of these decision support systems to problems associated with ecosystem
management will add relevance to this research.
Our approach to developing decision support systems is similar to that for model development. First, we
will interact extensively with managers (in the case study areas and elsewhere) to establish the system
design objectives and desired features. We will then review the characteristics, software requirements,
and utility of existing decision support systems relative to our design criteria. Following this review, we will
propose our specific approaches (which will be peer reviewed at that time). Several ongoing efforts are
developing decision support systems for large-scale management applications, including the multi-agency
131
-------
TERRA program (Terrestrial Ecosystems Regional Research and Analysis; DeCoursey et al. 1993).
Cooperative research will be considered, whenever appropriate.
Eventually, we plan to develop and demonstrate decision support systems that incorporate the full range
of analytical tools available for watershed/ecoregion assessments. The system will be designed to guide
the user to refine the questions and endpoints of interest, select the most appropriate methodology for
addressing questions at the desired level of precision and quantification, and identify data requirements.
The outputs will be presented in a user-friendly format and will include qualitative and, to the degree
possible, quantitative characterizations of uncertainties.
Timeline
Development of models and decision support systems will take place during 1995-1999.
5.3.7 Spatial Framework
Project-Level Objective
The objective of this effort is to compare the attributes and relative merits of different spatial frameworks
for summarizing or synthesizing information regarding ecological condition, setting attainable ecological
goals, and organizing ecological information and research at the watershed/ecoregion scale. Research on
regionalization also relates directly to the definition and use of spatial frameworks, but is discussed in
Section 5.3.8.
Approach
Spatial framework refers to the delineation of spatial units at multiple spatial scales to organize sampling
and analysis activities for assessing or connecting landscapes. ORD's Integrated Ecosystem Protection
Research Program includes research on spatial frameworks at a national scale. Our objective is to test,
refine, and demonstrate the use of these techniques (see Section 3.2.2) in addressing questions relevant
to ecosystem management in the Pacific Northwest.
Three basic types of spatial frameworks are potentially of use: political, hydrologic, and ecological. Man-
agement decisions are generally made within the context of a political framework (e.g., cities, counties,
states, nation). We cannot ignore the political framework; we must formulate our results in a manner that
132
-------
is useful in that context (e.g., development of statewide conservation strategies in Section 4). However,
we will not use political units as primary spatial units for analysis.
Our consideration and selection of spatial scales is grounded in two assumptions, stated here as
hypotheses:
1. Both hydrological and ecological units are needed for ecological assessments; these two types of
units serve different, but complementary purposes.
2. Omernik's ecoregion approach (Omernik 1987, Gallant et al. 1989) provides an adequate eco-
logically based spatial scheme for ecological assessments at the regional and watershed/
ecoregion scale.
We will evaluate these hypotheses as we conduct the overall integrated final assessment discussed in
Section 5.3.2. Examples of specific questions of interest include the following: Do we need both hydro-
logical and ecological units to conduct our analyses and summarize our results (e.g., hydrologic units for
water quantity and possibly water quality modeling; ecological regions for defining attainable ecological
goals)? Do Omernik's ecoregions provide a useful ecologically based spatial unit, for defining attainable
ecological goals, extrapolating site-specific information, summarizing monitoring data, and conducting
other analyses? Within the case study watershed/ecoregions, how can we apply, and how important are,
subecoregions and landscape-level ecoregions in assessments? To what extent are ecological indicators
spatially characterized by ecoregions or subecoregions? Is there a significant difference in the utility of
ecoregions defined using qualitative, best-professional-judgment techniques vs units defined based on
quantitative techniques, which may be more easily automated and replicated? What are the relative
merits (compared to Omernik's ecoregion approach) of other approaches to regionalization that have been
proposed for the Pacific Northwest (e.g., the FEMAT physiographic provinces; Figure 1-9).
5.3.8 Extrapolation
Project-Level Objective
The objective of extrapolation work is to evaluate techniques for extrapolating site-specific ecological
information to other sites and spatial units at the watershed/ecoregion scale.
Approach
The problem of extrapolation is a central issue in ecological research (Lubchenco et al. 1991). It is not
possible to study every organism, every locale, or every individual pollutant or environmental problem.
133
-------
We must devise ways of extending or extrapolating what we learn from a given study or set of studies to
other organisms, locales, and/or problems. There are many different forms of extrapolation. For example,
a major issue frequently discussed in ecological risk assessment, especially assessments of chemical
pollutants, is how we extrapolate from bioassays to infer -isks to populations or communities outside the
context of the bioassay environment (e.g., laboratory bench or field mesocosm). Projecting future trends
through time is another form of extrapolation. The most important aspect of extrapolation in
watershed/ecoregion-scale research, however, is spatial extrapolation, that is, "How can we extrapolate
research findings from studies at one or a few sites to infer characteristics or responses at other sites
within a specific watershed/ecoregion or to other locations within other watersheds/ecoregions?"
We have two long-term extrapolation objectives: (1) developing methods for (spatial) extrapolation that
can be broadly applied and (2) testing these methods within the case study areas to extrapolate site-
specific studies to broader areas. We use the second objective as a pilot test for the first objective. In this
five-year research program, we will consider our research successful if we satisfy the second objective in
a manner that permits us to select extrapolation approaches for further study in other areas and provides
a solid foundation for achieving the first objective in later years.
There are three general approaches to spatial extrapolation: statistical (empirical) modeling, process-
based (mechanistic) modeling, and nonmodeling or classification approaches. These categories are not
distinct, and often a given extrapolation approach draws upon aspects of all three. In this section, we
focus on nonmodeling, classification approaches. Section 3.2.2 provides background information on
landscape classification and regionalization.
We propose to develop a process-based taxonomic approach to classification, that is, a classification
system based on our understanding of important physical, chemical, and biological processes and how
these processes relate to the classification endpoints of interest. We will classify landscape units (i.e.,
areas of land and their associated ecosystems) according to characteristics that interest ecosystem
managers and that address the needs of the assessments discussed in Section 5.3.2. Examples include
classification systems that group landscape units according to their (1) contributions to important eco-
system functions (e.g., water quality improvement or as habitat to support biodiversity), (2) sensitivity or
responsiveness to specific stressors or management actions, (3) expected best management practices, or
(4) restoration potential.
Major research questions include the following:
Can a small number of classification systems be developed that would be adequate for most
management applications, or is it necessary to develop a separate classification for each end-
134
-------
point? We do not believe that a single classification system will be adequate. At the same time, it
may be impractical and unnecessary to develop a separate classification for each endpoint, even
though special purpose classification can provide more accurate results.
At what spatial scale are landscape units no longer unique, so that they can be categorized and
dealt with by category rather than individually?
How should we define the landscape units to be classified? Options include arbitrary units, such
as pixels or hexagons, and natural units, including small watersheds or landscape-level
ecoregions.
Should we use one set of units for all classifications (i.e., all classification endpoints) or should we
tailor the unit to fit the objective of the classification? The first approach is simpler; we work with
the same set of units and simply regroup them as needed, depending on the classification
objective. The second approach would probably lead to more accurate classifications.
What are the best approaches to grouping ecological units into classes, so that the characteristics
of any one unit can be inferred from prior/current studies of other units in the same class? As
already discussed, we propose a process-based classification, in which classes are defined
based on those physical, chemical, or biological processes considered most important in
determining the characteristics of a unit, or the responses of that unit to some stressor or
management action. Thus, for each classification endpoint of interest, we will develop a
conceptual model of landscape processes and the relationship of these processes to the
endpoint, based on literature reviews and a series of workshops. This conceptual model will
provide the basis for the proposed classification systems.
What is the relationship between the process-based classification and attributes that can be
observed or measured? To be usable, the process-based classification must be Keyed to
observable and measurable attributes, that is, characteristics or indicators that can be observed
or measured to determine in what class a specific landscape unit belongs. We refer to this as the
taxonomic key.
Development of the taxonomic key is one of the most difficult tasks in landscape classification. We
propose three parallel activities (Figure 5-8). As part of the literature review and workshops on the
process-based classification, likely indicators of and surrogates for important processes will be identified
and a preliminary key defined based on current scientific understanding. Second, existing intensively
studied sites in the region will be grouped into classes based on previous research at the sites. Multi-
variate discriminant analyses, and other appropriate statistical analyses, will then be used to identify
attributes useful for distinguishing among classes, and associated classification error rates. The third
approach begins with spatially extensive data sets, such as remote sensing data and the field data that
will be collected by EMAP in the region and case study areas. Statistical analyses (e.g., cluster analysis)
of these data will be conducted to identify groups of landscape units with similar indicator characteristics.
The relationship between these clusters and the process-based classes will then be evaluated through
more intensive sampling at representative sites within each cluster. Studies at these sites may involve
field measurements of process-related variables, calibration and application of process-based models
(e.g., to evaluate the sensitivity of the landscape unit to stressors or restoration activities), and, at a small
135
-------
CO
O)
PROCESSED-BASED TAXONOMIC CLASSIFICATION
Intensive Classification
(Bottom-UD Approach)
Intensively Studied Sites
Taxonomic Key
(Indicator Based)
Spatially Extensive Sites
(Top-down Approach)
Scientific
Understandin
(Workshops)
Figure 5-8. Three approaches to developing a taxonomic key, based on site-specific indicator characteristics, for landscape
classification.
-------
number of sites, whole-system manipulations, in cooperation with local managers (i.e., management
experiments).
To the degree possible, taxonomic keys will emphasize attributes (i.e., indicators) that are relatively easy
to observe or measure, so that the key and classification system can be applied readily and cost effec-
tively by ecosystem managers. Strong preference will be given to attributes available from existing maps
or through remote sensing. We propose, however, to develop several keys, or a single key with multiple
levels, for each classification, such that the more data available for a given landscape unit, the more
precisely and accurately the user will be able to identify the class within which the landscape unit belongs.
Landscape classification provides a bridge between intensive, site-specific research and extensive
surveys and a basis for extrapolating findings from studies at one site to other similar sites in the same
class (see Section 3.2.2 for examples). It is a method for organizing information about ecosystem
processes, functions, responses to stressors, restoration potential, and best management practices so
that technical information is more readily available to managers. The characteristics of a given landscape
unit can be inferred from prior studies of other landscape units in the same class. Spatial units within the
case study watershed/ecoregions will be classified and characterized, using the landscape classification
approach, based on site-specific research both in the case study areas as well as at other similar sites in
the region as a whole. We will compare the results from and utility of the bottom-up classification
approach to the top-down classification approach used to define the spatial framework (Section 5.3.7).
5.3.9 Targeted Ecological Research
As a final objective of the watershed/ecoregion component, we leave open the option to conduct eco-
logical research targeted specifically at major unknowns and uncertainties relative to our understanding of
ecosystems and how ecosystems respond to stressors and management actions. Sections 6 and 7
discuss major research projects designed to improve our understanding of riparian systems and estuaries,
which will contribute to watershed/ecoregion assessments. We expect additional research needs to be
identified during the initial assessments for the case study areas. From one to several small projects, with
budgets of $200K or less, can be accommodated within the existing research strategy (see Table 5-1).
Larger projects, to address critical research needs not addressed in Sections 5.3.2-5.3.9, 6, or 7, would
require restructuring and reprioritization of the research program.
137
-------
5.4 MAJOR CONTRIBUTIONS
The major contributions of Watershed/Ecoregion research to the PNW research program and EPA Region
10, state, and local priorities will include the following:
An ecological assessment process, and associated analytical tools, appropriate for addressing
ecosystem management questions at a watershed/ecoregion scale.
Models and decision support systems that will allow managers to assess the ecological conse-
quences and trade-offs among alternative management strategies that can be applied with
reasonable effort and data.
Landscape classification systems for (1) extrapolating site-specific research findings to other
similar sites and areas and (2) organizing information about landscape functions, responses to
stressors, and restoration potential in a manner that makes it readily accessible to managers.
Ecological information and analyses that address specific questions of interest to managers in the
two case study watersheds/ecoregions in the Pacific Northwest.
Major program deliverables for the Watershed/Ecoregion research component are listed in Section 11.
138
-------
6. RIPARIAN AREAS
In this section, we present the Riparian Area research component. The riparian research will be closely
coordinated with Watershed/Ecoregion research efforts (Section 5). Section 6.1 provides an overview of
the ecological significance of riparian areas in general and in the Pacific Northwest. Section 6.2 identifies
the riparian research major objectives. Section 6.3 describes the riparian strategic approach and includes
a discussion of the ecological functions on which the riparian research will focus and a description of
specific research projects (Sections 6.3.1-6.3.5).
6.1 BACKGROUND
Riparian areas are critically important interfaces between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. They are
major hydrologic source areas for stream flow (Hewlett and Hibbert 1967, Dunne et al. 1975), exert a
strong influence on the quality of stream environments (Karrand Schlosser 1978, Decamps 1993), have
diverse plant communities (Gregory et al. 1991), and are important habitat for a large number of terrestrial
animal species (Naiman et al. 1993). Furthermore, riparian areas are one of the most dynamic parts of
the landscape (Swanson et al. 1988). Unfortunately, riparian areas, especially riparian woodlands, are
among this country's most heavily modified natural vegetation types (Swift 1984). In some regions of the
United States, the extent of riparian forests has been reduced by as much as 80%.
6.1.1 Ecological Importance
Gregory et al. (1991) present a ecosystem-based conceptual model that is helpful in understanding the
form and function of riparian areas. In this model, they define riparian areas as three-dimensional zones
or areas of direct interaction between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. The boundaries of riparian
areas extend outward to the limits of flooding and upward into the canopy of streamside vegetation. The
size of the zone of influence for a specific ecological process or function is determined by the unique
spatial patterns and temporal dynamics of each process or function. Spatial and temporal variance of
hydrologic and geomorphic processes, terrestrial plant succession, and the nature of adjacent aquatic
ecosystems define the attributes of riparian areas (Figure 6-1). The model of Gregory et al. (1991) is
based on the assumption that geomorphic processes create a mosaic of stream channels and floodplains
within the valley floor, which in turn provides a physical template for the development of riparian plant
communities. Valley floor landforms and associated riparian vegetation create the array of physical
habitats within the active channels and floodplains. Within the context of these habitats, streamside plant
communities act as major controls of the flux and quality of nutrients to stream ecosystems.
139
-------
Valley Floor
Landforms
Plant
Successional
Processes
Geomorphic
& Hydrologic
Processes
Riparian
Vegetation
Channel
Structure
Retention
Nutritional
Resources
Physical
Habitat
Aquatic
Biota
Figure 6-1. Relationships among geomorphic processes, terrestrial plant succession, and
aquatic ecosystems in riparian zones. Directions of arrows indicate predominant
influences of geomorphic and biological components (rectangles) and physical and
ecological processes (circles) (Source: Gregory etal. 1991).
140
-------
Riparian areas should not be considered solely in the context of a single stream reach or landscape
position. Brinson (1993b) describes how riparian areas in the headwaters of a watershed are related to
and can effect riparian and aquatic ecosystems of the higher order streams. Decamps (1993), while
discussing the water quality improvement aspects of riparian areas, noted that this riparian function
evolves in response to hydrological variability and to patch dynamics. Therefore, managing the
buffering/retention function of riparian areas is possible only if the shifting patchiness of the entire river
basin is managed. Decamps (1993) concluded that a riparian ecosystem management approach should
be used both at the floodplain scale itself and at the hydrologic network level. Naiman et al. (1993) con-
cluded that consideration must be given to maintaining hydrologic connectivity and variability of riparian
corridors from the headwaters to the sea. This means that riparian corridor management strategies must
include headwater stream reaches as well as broad floodplains downstream.
Although riparian areas are interconnected within a watershed or river basin, riparian areas typically have
different attributes depending on their location within a watershed (Gregory et al. 1991). Figure 6-2
illustrates typical patterns of natural plant community occurrence within Northwest riparian areas. In con-
strained stream reaches, common in low-order streams of the Northwest mountains, flood plain zones are
small and consequently riparian plant communities are narrow and closely resemble those of upslope
forests. In unconstrained reaches, common in large valleys, flood plain zones are much larger and
riparian plant communities are typically complex, heterogeneous patches of different successional stages,
including herbs and grasses, deciduous trees, and coniferous stands of many ages. This difference in
plant communities reflects the sharp geomorphic differences in the two landscape settings. Furthermore,
the geomorphic and plant community differences are commonly reflected in the other ecological
processes and functions in the riparian areas.
Where forested riparian areas are located adjacent to land that is being intensively used for agriculture,
urban development, or silviculture, the riparian areas can dramatically improve the quality of water
draining from a watershed to a stream (Karr and Schlosser 1978, Peterjohn and Correll 1983, Lowrance et
al. 1984, 1985). Sedimentation deposition, denitrification, and nutrient uptake are some of the processes
in riparian areas that have been observed to improve water quality. For riparian areas to be effective at
removing pollutants from agricultural or other lands, a major portion of the water from the upslope part of
the watershed must pass through the biologically active rooting zone of the riparian area. Phillips et al.
(1993), working in the Delmarva Peninsula, found that denitrification occurs in forested wetlands (riparian
areas) in which water moves through an anaerobic rooting zone. In other settings, nitrate-rich
groundwaters had deep flowpaths and were discharged into the stream without significant contact with the
riparian area.
141
-------
Figure 6-2. Typical patterns of riparian plant communities associated with different geomorphic
surfaces of river valleys in the Pacific Northwest. Scattered patches of grasses and
herbs occur on exposed parts of the active channel (AC). Litter terrestrial vegetation
is found within the low-flow wetted channel (WC). Floodplains (FP) include mosaics
of herbs, shrubs, and deciduous trees. Conifers are scattered along floodplains and
dominate older surfaces. The overstory species in riparian forests on lower
hillslopes (S) consist primarily of conifers (Source: Gregory et al. 1991).
142
-------
Riparian areas have a profound effect on the physical, biological and chemical characteristics of streams
(Figure 6-1). Gregory et al. (1991) state that the structure and processes of streams, more than other
ecosystems, are determined by their interface with adjacent ecosystems. Narrow, ribbon-like networks of
streams intricately dissect the landscape, accentuating the interaction between aquatic ecosystems and
surrounding terrestrial ecosystems. As previously described, streamside plant communities act as major
controls of the flux and quality of nutrients to stream ecosystems (Gregory et al. 1991). Schlosser (1991)
noted that, because the various life stages and species offish in streams require different kinds of physi-
cal habitats, spatial heterogeneity and the maintenance of connectivity between habitat patches is critical
for fish reproduction and survival. The terrestrial-aquatic interface in upstream areas, or at the stream
margin or floodplain, provides environmental conditions combining high spatial heterogeneity, a large
supply of organic matter, and shallow habitats with relatively few aquatic piscivores. Consequently, they
are critical areas of the landscape where most fish reproduction occurs.
Riparian areas are also important as habitat for terrestrial animals . Riparian vegetation occupies one of
the most dynamic areas of the landscape. Vegetation communities reflect both fluvial disturbance from
floods and nonfluvial disturbance regimes of adjacent upland areas, such as fire, wind, plant disease, and
insect outbreaks (Gregory et al. 1991). Consequently, riparian areas are the most diverse, dynamic and
complex biophysical habitats on the terrestrial part of the Earth (Naiman et al. 1993), and a wide variety of
bird, mammal, reptile, and amphibian species depend on riparian areas for habitat (Stauffer 1980,
Hawkins et al. 1983, Croonquist and Brooks 1991, Keller et al. 1993, Mitsch and Gosselink 1993).
6.1.2 The Pacific Northwest
In both the moist landscapes west of the Cascade Mountains and the arid landscapes east of the
Cascades, riparian areas perform essential ecological functions (Elmore and Beschta 1987, Gregory et al.
1991). Unfortunately, the ecological functions of riparian areas are easily impaired by a myriad landuse
activities, and have been impaired in a significant part of the Pacific Northwest. During the past few years,
issues regarding the management of riparian areas in forests have been key elements of the policy debate
about forest management in the Northwest (FEMAT 1993). Establishment of ecologically sound ways to
manage and protect riparian areas is one of the key issues facing federal land management agencies,
EPA, and private landowners.
Riparian research efforts in the Pacific Northwest during the last decade have focused largely on forests
and the relationship between forest riparian areas and habitat for salmonids, and are essential to learning
how to manage riparian ecosystems responsibly. However, there are still significant knowledge gaps
about riparian areas that hamper effective management of these ecosystems. Although a number of
143
-------
riparian research projects have been conducted in rangelands of the Pacific Northwest (Van Deventer
1990), important questions related to ecosystem management remain. Very little is known about the
status and ecological role of riparian systems in agricultural landscapes of western Oregon and
Washington or in urban settings (Van Deventer 1990). Further work is also needed on development of
indicators of riparian condition in all landuse settings. Furthermore, as ecosystem management plans and
strategies are developed and implemented, sound approaches for establishing restoration locations,
performance criteria, and attainable quality will be needed (Kusler and Kentula 1990). As discussed in
Section 6.1.1, recent papers by Gregory et al. (1991), Naiman et al. (1993), and Decamps (1993) empha-
size the importance of the integrated role of riparian systems within entire drainage networks. However,
little progress has been made in this area of riparian investigation/management.
6.2 OBJECTIVES
The research needs identified in Section 6.1.2 lead us to establish three major classes of objectives to be
addressed by EPA riparian research.
1. Evaluation and assessment of riparian area condition:
A. Define reference conditions for riparian areas in agricultural settings.
B. Establish indicators of riparian area condition in agricultural settings.
C. Develop approaches for evaluating riparian area condition in mixed landuse watersheds.
2. Restoration of riparian areas:
A. Develop approaches and performance criteria for restoring degraded riparian areas in agricultural
settings.
B. Develop approaches to locate promising areas for riparian restoration and to evaluate the
attainable quality and restoration potential of riparian areas within mixed landuse watersheds.
3. Economic/Ecological Opportunities (Eco-opportunities):
A. Evaluate practices that are ecologically and economically promising for managing riparian areas
in agricultural settings.
6.3 APPROACH
Because the PNW research program is supported by FEMAT-related funding, initial activities will be
conducted in western Oregon and Washington (Section 5.3.1). We have chosen to focus our initial site-
scale riparian research (objectives 1A, 1B, 2A, and 3A) on agricultural lands, because of the need for
information about riparian areas in agricultural lands west of the Cascades and because the USFS and
144
-------
other federal agencies conduct the majority of their riparian research in this area on forested landscapes.
Watershed-scale research (objectives 1C and 2B) will be conducted in the same case study areas
selected for the Watershed/Ecoregion component of the research program: the Willamette River Basin
and the Washington Coastal Ecoregion (Section 5.3.1). Watershed-scale riparian research will contribute
directly to the watershed/ecoregion-scale assessments described in Section 5. We will also concentrate
site-specific research in the case study areas, although some site-specific research may occur in other
areas of western Washington and Oregon to evaluate riparian areas in other settings and to take advan-
tage of sites well suited to accomplishing project objectives (e.g., existing riparian restoration activities). If
the PNW research program extends beyond the first five-year study period, we will expand our efforts to
include riparian areas in arid landscapes of the Pacific Northwest. These arid land investigations will allow
concepts and approaches developed in the early part of the program to be evaluated in the dramatically
different landscapes that occupy a significant part of the Northwest.
An important part of our research strategy is to evaluate major risks to high-priority ecological functions of
riparian ecosystems (see Section 6.1.1). The riparian functions on which we will focus during this five-
year study are as follows:
• Water quality improvement: the ability of forested riparian areas to control and frequently
improve the quality of water draining from watersheds into streams.
• Aquatic habitat: the influence that riparian vegetation exerts on physical habitat, for fish and
other aquatic organisms, in adjacent streams.
• Terrestrial habitat: the provision of habitat for terrestrial plants and animals within riparian areas.
In each of the projects described in Sections 6.3.1-6.3.4, we will develop and test specific hypotheses to
address project objectives. The hypotheses will center on the processes associated with our key riparian
functions. Examples of site-level hypotheses that will be tested as part of the riparian water quality study
(Section 6.3.2) include:
• Grass seed agricultural lands with adjoining naturally vegetated riparian areas export water of
higher quality to streams than do grass seed fields without naturally vegetated riparian areas.
Grass seed agriculture/riparian complexes with predominantly shallow hydrologic flowpaths, which
ensure transport of subsurface water through rooting zones in riparian areas, export water to
streams with lower concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus, and Diuron than do complexes with
deep flowpaths.
During wet seasons, riparian area soils have low Eh values (reducing condition) which result in
the decrease of shallow groundwater nitrogen concentrations through the process of
denitrification.
145
-------
Riparian areas reduce the transport of sediment, phosphorus, and Diuron from grass seed
agricultural fields to streams by trapping and storing sediment in overland flow moving from grass
fields across riparian areas to streams.
We have developed five projects to address our major research objectives for the three priority riparian
functions just identified. Table 6-1 summarizes the major objectives and riparian functions that each
project addresses. Sections 6.3.1-6.3.5 describe the rationale, specific project-level objectives, and
approach for each project.
Table 6-1. Major Riparian Research Objectives and Ecological Functions Addressed by Riparian
Research Projects.
Project
Landscape Evaluation of Riparian Complexes
(Section 6.3.1)
Water Quality Relations of Riparian Areas
(Section 6.3.2)
Habitat Function/Restoration of Riparian Areas
(Section 6.3.3)
Riparian Area Condition and Restoration in
Mixed Landuse Watersheds (Section 6.3.4)
Riparian Eco-Opportunities (Section 6.3.5)
Major Objectives3
1A
WQb
AH/TH
WQ
AH
TH
1B
WQ
AH/TH
WQ
AH
TH
1C
WQ
AH/TH
WQ
AH
2A
WQ
AH
TH
2B
WQ
AH/TH
WQ
AH
3A
WQ
AH
a Numbers and letters are keyed to the list of major objectives in Section 6.2.
b Function definitions: WQ = water quality; AH = aquatic habitat; TH = terrestrial habitat.
146
-------
The riparian research described in Sections 6.3.1-6.3.5 is based on a funding assumption of approxi-
mately $865K per year. Table 6-2 presents the expected distribution of riparian funding by project for the
five-year period covered by this strategy document. Most funding categories remain fairly constant over
the five years. One exception is the Riparian Eco-Opportunities Project. We envision that there will be a
relatively intensive initial effort to ascertain promising riparian management practices that have the poten-
tial to maintain or enhance ecological functions and also to provide economic returns to landowners (see
Section 6.3.5). After the initial work, a lower level of activity will be maintained during the remainder of the
five-year study period.
Table 6-2. Distribution of Riparian Funding ($K) by Project During the Five-Year Study Period.
Project
Landscape Evaluation of Riparian Complexes
Water Quality Relations of Riparian Areas
Habitat Function/Restoration of Riparian Areas
Riparian Area Condition/Restoration in Mixed
Landuse Watersheds
Riparian Eco-Opportunities
Fiscal Year
FY95
100
220
450
45
50
FY96
175
190
375
100
25
FY97
175
175
375
115
25
FY98
175
150
400
115
25
FY99
175
150
400
115
25
Cooperation and integration with other PNW research components and with EPA's EMAP will be essential
to a successful riparian research effort. The Regional Biodiversity research component (Section 4) will
examine issues related to the use and design of habitat corridors as landscape linkages for the
conservation of biodiversity. The Riparian Habitat Project (Section 6.3.3) will be closely coordinated with
this effort. The Watershed/Ecoregion component will develop integrated watershed assessment
approaches, and riparian considerations will be important assessment issues. The Riparian Mixed
Landuse Watersheds Project (Section 6.3.4) will contribute critical riparian information for these
watershed-level assessments. EMAP-Surface Waters is developing indicators of stream and riparian
147
-------
condition for use in upcoming systematic stream surveys in the Pacific Northwest. As each of the PNW
riparian projects is developed, we will take advantage of opportunities for cooperative efforts with EMAP
whenever feasible.
We also recognize that EPA alone cannot accomplish its PNW objectives. Cooperation with other federal
agencies, state agencies, universities, and other groups will be necessary for significant progress to be
made. An important component of our research strategy is based on good communication and coopera-
tion with appropriate public and private organizations.
Riparian research in the Pacific Northwest is a partnership between EPA's PNW research program and
EPA's Wetlands Research Program (WRP) (Leibowitz et al. 1992a). The PNW research program
provides the leadership and most of the funding for riparian research in the Pacific Northwest. The WRP
provides the leadership and most of the funding for EPA's wetlands research nationwide. Both programs
consider research on riparian systems a priority. The PNW research program is studying riparian areas
only in the Pacific Northwest, but the WRP has studies of riparian systems in several regions, including
the West. Therefore, a good opportunity exists for cooperative research and for placing the Pacific
Northwest results in a national context. The cooperation will avoid duplication and ensure the efficient use
of funds.
6.3.1 Landscape Evaluation Of Riparian Complexes
As we stated in Section 6.1.2, there is a general lack of information about riparian ecosystems in agri-
cultural settings in western Oregon and Washington. Informal assessments by scientists involved in
riparian research in the Pacific Northwest invariably support the notion that agricultural riparian systems
have been dramatically altered by land management practices. However, we do not know much, quanti-
tatively, about the landscape interactions between agriculture and riparian areas within watersheds. An
overall picture of current stressor/riparian relationships in agricultural landscapes is needed to establish
the context for site-scale research and to supply information for developing mixed landuse watershed-
scale riparian evaluation techniques (Section 6.3.4). Similar needs also exist for rangelands in arid
landscapes east of the Cascades.
Project-Level Objectives.
Quantify, at a landscape scale, the occurrence of and landuse stressors to riparian areas.
Develop relationships between agricultural stressors and riparian area condition.
148
-------
Approach
We will characterize the occurrence and characteristics of riparian areas in agricultural settings in the two
watershed/ecoregion case study areas, the Willamette River Basin and the Washington Coastal Eco-
region, by interpreting satellite imagery, videography, or aerial photography. Some groundtruthing may be
required to confirm riparian vegetation characteristics interpreted from remote sensing techniques. We
will seek to determine the types of agricultural-riparian or rangeland-riparian complexes that occur in major
landscape settings. In other words, we will quantify the areal extent to which major crops adjoin riparian
systems. We will also quantify and classify riparian resources with regard to watershed/ ecoregion
attributes, such as stream order and geomorphic position. In this way, we can determine the types of
riparian systems most influenced by agriculture in the case study areas.
To complement these analyses, we will evaluate the major stressors, other than habitat modification, that
major agricultural systems are likely to exert on riparian systems. Our main data sources will be pub-
lished summaries of pesticide usage, erosion rates, and related information for the major agricultural
systems in the case study areas. Information on habitat modification will be obtained from our remote
sensing activities, described in the previous paragraph, in the Riparian Habitat Project (Section 6.3.3), and
in the Riparian Mixed Landuse Watersheds Project (Section 6.3.4).
To the extent possible, and in cooperation with other riparian projects, we will test relationships between
attributes of the landscape complexes and riparian condition. We will also seek to identify candidate
reference sites for use in other riparian research projects. The relationships that we develop will also
serve as useful background information for site-level and watershed-level efforts to develop and evaluate
restoration approaches (Sections 6.3.3 and 6.3.4).
In addition, we will coordinate research activities with other groups in the Northwest using remote sensing
data and CIS approaches. We will seek to fill in gaps of data coverages and analyses from the work of
other agencies. We also hope to contribute any imagery or data that we acquire to the collection of data
available to all agencies and groups working on ecosystem management in the Pacific Northwest.
Timeline
As discussed above, the project will focus on agricultural lands in the two case study areas west of the
Cascades during the five-year study. After that time, if possible, we will expand our efforts to include arid
landscapes east of the Cascades.
149
-------
6.3.2 Water Quality Relations Of Riparian Areas
Water quality is an important watershed management issue in the Pacific Northwest because of concerns
about the status of numerous salmonid species and other aquatic organisms, and about water supply for
recreation and domestic use. Throughout the United States, agriculture is a major source of nonpoint
source pollution (U.S. EPA 1988).
Grass seed production is the predominant cropping system west of the Cascades in the interior valleys of
Oregon and Washington. Grass seed cropping systems in this region account for more than 90% of the
domestic forage and turf grass seed production and typically occur in poorly drained soils bordered by a
diverse array of landscapes, including riparian ecosystems. The Willamette Valley of Oregon is a typical
example and accounts for 180,000 ha of grass seed production annually (CH2M Hill and Oregon State
University 1991). Intensive activity in grass seed production coincides with the rainy season in the North-
west, with rainfalls in excess of 115 cm/yr. The soils under grass seed production are therefore suscep-
tible to surface water runoff and soil erosion. This is of concern because grass seed cropping systems
are amended with fertilizers and are highly managed with pesticides to control weeds, diseases, and
insect pests. Grass seed fields typically receive in excess of 200 kg of nitrogen per hectare per year.
Diuron (3-(3,4-dichloropheny!)-1,1-dimethylurea) is a common pesticide for the control of weeds in grass
cropping systems and is typically applied at a rate of 0.9 to 2.6 kg/ha. Sediment loading to surface waters
diminishes water quality and acts as a vector for pesticide transport.
As discussed in Section 6.1.1, forested riparian areas can dramatically improve the quality of water
draining from agricultural lands to streams. Nutrient and pesticide removal by plant uptake, gaseous loss,
metabolism, and stabilization into soil organic matter pools are mechanisms by which riparian areas can
alleviate nonpoint sources of pollutants. The uptake of nitrogen and other nutrients is highly dependent on
riparian zone vegetation type and age and soil characteristics (Hicks and Frank 1984). Nutrient and
pesticide uptake is maximal in young vegetation and during certain phenological events, such as time of
flower and fruit production (Kozlowski et al. 1991). Denitrification potentials in riparian zone surface soils
near the border of agricultural lands may remove nitrogen from shallow ground water (Lowrance 1992,
Jordan et al. 1993). These soils are characterized by strong reducing conditions, Eh less than -90 mV,
which are capable of supporting significant amounts of denitrification. Pesticide degradation may be
diminished, however, under low oxygen soil conditions compared to fully oxygenated conditions. Riparian
zone vegetation and litter accomplish sediment removal by impeding surface water flow and may play a
crucial role in stabilizing phosphorus and pesticides in surface water runoff (Cooper and Gilliam 1987,
Cooper etal. 1987, Lowrance et al. 1988).
150
-------
Most of the published data about the water quality functions of forested riparian areas is for the eastern
United States. Virtually no quantitative information has been published regarding the ro'e of forested
riparian areas in controlling water quality from agricultural lands in western Oregon and Washington.
Project-Level Objectives
The purpose of this project is to gain a better understanding of the function of riparian ecosystems in
maintaining water quality in intensively managed agricultural landscapes. To address this goal, we
propose the following specific research objectives:
Determine the spatial and temporal distribution of nutrients, pesticides, and sediments within
riparian zones and in adjacent agricultural soils.
Determine the dominant biological, chemical, and transport processes responsible for reductions
in nutrient, pesticide, and sediment concentrations and transport to surface and ground waters.
Approach
During the first three years of this project, we will utilize a simple study design to establish water quality
relationships between forested riparian areas and adjoining grass seed agricultural fields. We will
evaluate these water quality relationships at two sites in the Willamette Valley of western Oregon. One
site will be on poorly drained soils and one site will be on moderately drained soils (Table 6-3). The
conditions at these two sites will bound the hydrologic conditions common to grass seed agriculture in the
western interior valleys of Oregon and Washington. In fact, the soil types to be studied represent landuse
areas typical of nearly 50% of the total cropping systems area in the Willamette Valley. In addition, this
project will provide excellent information with which to establish water quality reference conditions for
riparian areas in agricultural settings and performance criteria for riparian restoration projects. Each site
will have two research subunits, one subunit with a well-established, forested riparian area and one
subunit with a narrow riparian area with no woody vegetation.
The selection of specific sites will take into account information from established experiments investigating
the effects of agronomic practices and pesticide use histories. In addition, we are working closely with
grass seed commodity groups to assist in the location of sites, which will be on private farmland, and to
define typical practices for grass seed agriculture in the Willamette Valley. We expect site selection to be
complete in summer 1995.
151
-------
Table 6-3. Time of Initiation for Components of Research Experimental Design.
Riparian Forest Condition
Well established
Nonexistent/minimal
Intermediate
Soil Drainage Class
Poorly drained
YeaM
YeaM
*
Moderately drained
Year 2
Year 2
*
To be determined after first three years.
During the first year of the study, we will instrument the poorly drained site (both mature vegetation
riparian and minimal riparian subunits) to collect shallow groundwater and overland flow using a combina-
tion of automated and passive wells and sampling devices (Table 6-3). Continuous measurements will
also be made of soil, water and air temperature, and precipitation. A hillslope segment, consisting of an
agricultural field and riparian zone, will be the basic experimental unit. Groundwater wells will be placed to
track nutrient and pesticide movement and transformations from agricultural fields through riparian zones
to streams. Water samples will be analyzed for sediment, nitrogen, phosphorus, and Diuron.
During the second year of the study, we will instrument the moderately drained study site. The experience
gained during the first year at the poorly drained site, which is more difficult to instrument because of the
presence of standing water during the wet season, will allow instrumentation and monitoring to occur more
efficiently at the moderately drained site. We may also include additional instrumentation (e.g., soil
lysimeters), based on the first year experience. In total, monitoring will occur for three years at the poorly
drained site and two years at the moderately drained site. We believe that we will have sufficient data at
both sites, assuming cooperative climatic conditions, to allow quantitative definition of the spatial and
temporal distribution of nutrients, pesticides, and sediment in agricultural fields and riparian zones. Using
our study design, we will also be able to explicitly test the hypothesis that riparian areas actively reduce
transport and concentrations of nutrients, pesticides, and sediments from agricultural land to receiving
waters. Coincident with the groundwater and surface water monitoring, we will also conduct plot-level
studies to elucidate processes controlling nutrient flux from the riparian areas. Process studies may be
added to quantify processes controlling the movement of Diuron, depending on observed levels of this
pesticide exported to streams.
152
-------
Our research dealing with grass seed agricultural systems of the Willamette Valley will be a cooperative
effort between EPA and the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS), National Forage Seed Grass
Production Research Center. Both EPA and ARS are contributing scientific personnel and funding for the
project. After the initial three years of study, we anticipate extending the water quality riparian research to
include other agricultural settings, or rangelands, or to further quantify relationships between riparian zone
attributes (e.g., width, vegetation species composition) and water quality. As the project is expanded
during years four and five, additional research groups are likely to be involved.
Timeline
As noted in the foregoing discussion, during years 1-3, we will focus on the field study of agricultural-
riparian interactions in the Willamette Valley. During years 4 and 5, we will extend our research efforts to
include other agricultural settings or to further quantify relationships between riparian zone attributes and
water quality.
6.3.3 Habitat Function/Restoration of Riparian Areas
As shown in Section 6.1.1, natural riparian areas have diverse plant communities that serve as rich
terrestrial habitats and have a profound influence on aquatic habitats. In agricultural and rangeland
landscapes, these plant communities and associated habitats have been degraded. There is need for
information on how to manage and restore agricultural and rangeland areas to provide or increase this
habitat function.
Project-Level Objectives
• Define terrestrial and aquatic habitat reference conditions for riparian areas in agricultural settings.
• Establish indicators of riparian area habitat condition in agricultural settings.
Develop approaches and performance criteria for restoration of degraded riparian habitat in
agricultural settings.
Approach
To accomplish these objectives, we will conduct a five-year field research effort that will be initiated in
FY95. In the Pacific Northwest, there is a large pool of researchers who have many years of excellent
experience dealing with riparian habitat issues. We plan to accomplish most of the riparian habitat
research through cooperative agreements with universities. Through the solicitation process, researchers
153
-------
will have the opportunity to determine the best field approaches and study designs for addressing the
project objectives. Specific project research plans will be peer reviewed before implementation. The
following discussion provides an overview of the type of habitat research that is likely to emerge from this
process.
An important first step will be to select the specific riparian aquatic and terrestrial habitat functions on
which to focus (e.g., habitat for which species). Cooperating scientists, working with EPA scientists, will
perform a risk analysis to determine which species are dependent on riparian habitats in agricultural
settings and have been or are likely to be affected by agricultural practices. Amphibians and salmonids
are two groups that will be included in this analysis.
Working cooperatively with other federal agencies, such as the ARS and the Soil Conservation Service,
we will select several agricultural landuses to be included in the study. Preliminary output from the
Riparian Landscape Project (Section 6.3.1) will be important information for this process. Tilled cropland,
such as grass seed agriculture, and pastureland are two likely choices.
To evaluate reference conditions and indicators of riparian area condition, we envision establishing a
series of 15 to 30 riparian study sites in agricultural lands west of the Cascades. The sites will be selected
to include the priority classes of agricultural lands and to allow a range of riparian conditions to be
evaluated. Agricultural sites with intact, fully functional riparian areas will allow quantification of reference
conditions. More degraded sites will be included to allow evaluation of indicators of riparian ecological
functions across a range of conditions.
To evaluate the effectiveness of restoration practices in improving aquatic and terrestrial habitat, we
anticipate conducting site-level research at perhaps 15 to 30 additional sites, where riparian restoration
has occurred. As much as possible, we will evaluate riparian restoration efforts that previously have been
performed. Re-establishment of riparian vegetation and associated riverine landforms are likely to be the
primary restoration activities evaluated. To supplement existing sites, we will evaluate new restoration
approaches that we implement as part of this study. These restoration studies will build on the reference
site and indicator field research described in the previous paragraph. Restoration studies will provide
needed information about restoration techniques, criteria for determining restoration potential of riparian
systems, and criteria for the prioritization of restoration efforts.
EPA's WRP is conducting a study that is (1) characterizing avian use of riparian habitats in the Willamette
Valley Plains Ecoregion and (2) evaluating the accuracy of the Avian Richness Evaluation Method
(AREM) in predicting avian composition and richness (Adamus 1993). This research will add to the
154
-------
information base about the habitat value of riparian areas, and will develop a rapid assessment method
that has potential for use throughout the Pacific Northwest. We will explore opportunities for incorporation
and expansion of the WRP avian habitat research to better address our project objectives.
Timeline
One or more cooperative agreements will be funded during FY95 to establish a habitat research group.
Field work will begin during 1996 and continue for four years. If possible, we will expand our efforts to
include riparian areas in rangelands east of the Cascades after the first five-year study. AREM field work
is beginning during winter 1995; we will be working with the Wetlands Research Program in early 1995 to
determine if expanded, collaborative efforts are possible.
6.3.4 Riparian Area Condition and Restoration In Mixed Landuse Watersheds
The ecological functions of riparian areas cannot be considered in an isolated fashion at the site scale
(see Section 6.1.1). Riparian management needs to consider the interconnectedness of riparian systems
along all the stream reaches within watersheds or basins. Given that resources to restore or to protect
riparian areas are always likely to be limited, it is essential to develop approaches to identify high-priority
areas for riparian restoration or protection within watersheds.
Project-Level Objectives
Develop approaches to evaluate riparian area condition in mixed landuse watersheds/basins.
Develop approaches to locate the most promising areas for riparian restoration and to evaluate
the attainable quality and restoration potential of riparian areas within mixed landuse water-
sheds/basins.
Approach
Based on results from the site-specific work in other riparian projects, published literature, and research
results from other agencies, we will develop approaches to evaluating riparian area condition, restoration
potential and attainable quality of riparian areas, and priority locations for riparian restoration activities
within mixed landuse (e.g., forests, agriculture, urban) watersheds in the Pacific Northwest. Assessment
endpoints will be water quality (e.g., sediment, nutrients, agricultural chemicals) and habitat (aquatic and
terrestrial).
155
-------
Several types of activities are envisioned. One approach will be to use coupled GIS-hydrologic models to
develop indicators of riparian area performance and to evaluate promising locations for riparian area
restoration (Phillips 1989,1990). Other landscape/watershed approaches also may be employed. We are
currently in the process of recruiting a National Research Council post-doctoral research associate to
undertake this work.
We have established a cooperative agreement with Dr. Stanley Gregory at Oregon State University1 to
examine riparian area condition and restoration opportunities for the Willamette River. Research tasks
include (1) historical reconstruction of the Willamette River channel, floodplain, and riverine forests and (2)
analysis from remote sensing of the riparian forests and floodplains of the river using aerial photography
and satellite images. Dr. Gregory and his colleagues will be working to establish a landscape perspective
for ecological restoration of the Willamette River and to create alternative scenarios for future conditions of
the Willamette Valley ecosystem.
The Wetlands Research Program has sponsored three projects in the West that examined watershed-
level approaches to prioritizing riparian restoration. Dr. Richard Harris' group at the University of
California, Berkeley, used existing, readily available mapped information and field studies to evaluate
riparian areas in the San Luis Rey watershed of southern California. Dr. Charles Hawkins' group at Utah
State University used aerial videography and GIS modeling approaches to prioritize restoration of riparian
areas in the San Luis Rey watershed. Dr. Tom O'Neill's group at Utah State University used aerial
videography and GIS modeling approaches to prioritize riparian restoration in the upper Arkansas River of
Colorado. As part of the PNW riparian research effort, we will evaluate results of these three projects for
use in the PNW study areas.
We will convene a workshop of agency, private, and university researchers to address the topic of how to
evaluate riparian area condition and restoration potential at the watershed scale. Assessment approaches
developed at the workshop will then be tested and refined in the field. The first field evaluation will be
conducted in a watershed in one of the case study areas west of the Cascades (see Section 5.3.1). A
second field test will be conducted when a case study watershed is selected east of the Cascades. After
the field tests are completed, a final workshop will be held to finalize operational riparian assessment
approaches for use by agencies in the region. Our desire is for this project to serve as one way of
integrating the efforts of agencies (e.g., USFS) and investigators working on riparian areas in forested
lands with those of EPA and other groups working in other parts of the landscape.
1 The cooperative agreement with Dr. Gregory was selected based on peer review of proposals received
in response to a competitive, open solicitation conducted in spring/summer 1994.
156
-------
Timeline
Watershed-scale modeling activities and the Gregory et al. study in the Willamette will begin in late 1994
or early 1995 and continue for two to three years. The watershed-scale riparian workshop will occur in
1995. The first field evaluation will begin in 1996. Operational watershed-level riparian assessment
approaches will be available in 1999.
6.3.5 Riparian Eco-Opportunities
Agricultural lands and associated riparian areas in most regions, including western Oregon and
Washington, are typically in private ownership, which makes the implementation of sound agricultural
riparian area management more complicated than on public lands. Landowners need incentives to alter
the ways in which they manage riparian areas. Ideally, these incentives should not have to take the form
of government subsidy programs or regulations. Instead, we hope to find ways in which agricultural areas
can be managed that would maintain or enhance riparian ecological functions and also provide financial
return to the landowner.
Project-Level Objective
The.objective of this work is to evaluate ecologically and economically promising practices for the
management of riparian areas in agricultural settings.
Approach
During the first year of the project, we will identify riparian management practices with potential for both
ecological and economic value to landowners. Literature reviews and interviews with researchers, agency
personnel, conservation groups, and landowners will be the main part of this effort. Based on established
ecological and economic principles, we will evaluate identified practices for ecological soundness and for
the potential to provide financial return to landowners. Also, we will identify field locations where
promising practices are being implemented.
Based on the first-year results, we will decide whether or not field evaluation of one or more promising
practices would be useful. If promising practices are identified, field evaluation of the practices could
begin during the second year of the project and last for one to three years. Any field testing would be
conducted as part of the Riparian Habitat Project (Section 6.3.3). Whether or not field studies are con-
ducted, a low-level effort to identify new practices will continue throughout the five-year period of study.
157
-------
Timeline
The survey of promising riparian management practices will be completed in 1995. Decisions regarding
the need for field studies will be made in late 1995. If field studies are implemented, they will be initiated
during 1996 at the earliest.
6.4 MAJOR CONTRIBUTIONS
The major contributions of the Riparian Area research component will be as follows:
• Characterization of the extent, condition, and stressors of riparian areas in agricultural and
rangeland landscapes of the case study areas.
Evaluation of landscape-level relationships between agriculture and riparian area condition.
• Quantification of the influence of riparian areas on improving water quality in grass seed
agricultural lands.
Determination of major processes controlling water quality in grass seed agriculture/riparian area
complexes.
Indicators of aquatic and terrestrial riparian habitat condition in agricultural and rangeland settings.
Reference conditions, approaches, and performance criteria for restoration of degraded riparian
areas in agricultural and rangeland settings.
Approaches to evaluate riparian area condition, restoration potential, attainable quality, and
priority restoration locations within mixed landuse watersheds.
• Summary of promising eco-opportunities for riparian areas in the Pacific Northwest.
158
-------
7. COASTAL ESTUARIES
This section describes proposed research on estuaries and their associated watersheds. Research
efforts will address two of the program-level objectives presented in Section 2.2: (1) the development and
demonstration of assessment approaches and (2) an improved understanding of ecosystems and
ecosystem responses to stressors and management actions. Conducted jointly with the Watershed/
Ecoregion research component (Section 5), assessment research will involve an integrated assessment
for a single estuarine watershed, Willapa Bay, Washington. We will conduct process-oriented research in
Willapa Bay and selected Oregon estuaries. We have selected specific research topics to help improve
our understanding of (1) estuarine ecosystem-level responses to major stressors, (2) the effects of multi-
ple stressors on estuaries, and (3) watershed-estuary linkages, in particular the effects of watershed
alterations, such as logging, on estuaries. Process-oriented research will also contribute to the develop-
ment of estuarine indicators, useful for monitoring (Section 8). For the research described in this section,
we view watersheds as a forcing function on estuaries and our goal is to understand how watershed
management practices affect estuaries, rather than evaluate watershed management practices directly.
Our estuarine research strategy assumes an extramural budget of $650K per year for five years, in addi-
tion to in-house research conducted by five senior-level EPA scientists at ERL-Newport. Approximately
$300-450K of the extramural budget will be used for the process-oriented research and $200-350K for
the integrated assessment in Willapa Bay, depending on the stage of the project.
7.1 BACKGROUND
Several reasons led us to choose estuaries and coastal watersheds as a focus for EPA research. The
first was management priorities. As discussed in Section 5, the State of Washington identified coastal
watersheds as its area of highest priority for ecological research in support of ecosystem management.
Most of the small communities along the coasts of Washington and Oregon have similar economic bases,
relying historically on the harvesting and processing of timber, salmonids, coastal bottom-fish, shrimp,
oysters, and/or Dungeness crab; dairy farming; and shipping of raw and processed commodities. Reduc-
tions in timber harvests from federal lands, combined with recent declines in salmon and other fisheries,
have caused severe economic hardships. Managers have requested assistance and improved ecological
information to aid in evaluating future ecosystem management options.
The second reason was a relative lack of information. Our ability to predict how estuarine ecosystems will
respond to single and multiple stressors is at a rudimentary level, because of deficiencies in our basic
knowledge about estuaries and the lack of appropriate ecosystem-level approaches. During the last two
159
-------
decades, there have been major advances in methods of evaluating point-source pollutant discharges to
coastal systems. Many of these methods are based on toxic effects or bioaccumulation by a few labora-
tory bioassay species (e.g., Swartz 1987, Lee et al. 1993). Although the use of toxicity/bioaccumulation to
surrogate species has proven useful in regulating individual chemicals, toxic pollutants appear to play a
fairly minor role in most Pacific Northwest coastal estuaries.1 In addition, the classical approaches devel-
oped for single pollutants are generally inadequate to determine the effects of nonchemical stressors, the
impact of multiple interacting stressors, the cumulative effects of habitat alteration, overall system
response, or the linkages between the management of coastal watersheds and estuarine ecosystems.
We have little quantitative information on the effects of watershed alteration and resultant loadings of
estuaries by a variety of potential stressors, such as sediments, nutrients, and toxic substances. Our
knowledge of circulation, sedimentation, and runoff in Pacific Northwest coastal estuaries is also
rudimentary, making it impossible to predict direct physical effects on biota or the physical transport of
particulate-associated or dissolved stressors, such as nutrients. Similarly, quantitative relationships
between the loss of specific habitats, or the application of certain biocides, and changes in estuarine
structure and functions generally are lacking. If federal, state, and local governments are to effectively
manage this region, existing knowledge must be synthesized and analyzed from an ecosystem
perspective, and critical data gaps must be filled.
The final reason was a practical one. Including an estuarine research component allows us to take
advantage of the in-house EPA expertise at ERL-Newport. Five senior scientists at ERL-Newport will
work full-time on this effort, significantly enhancing the value of relatively modest extramural funding.
7.1.1 Characteristics of Pacific Northwest Coastal Estuaries
There are several major and a number of smaller estuaries along the coasts of Washington and Oregon
(Figure 7-1), all of which have important features in common. The entire coastal region has a moderate
climate, with very wet winters and dry summers (see Box 1-B). Watersheds tend to be heavily forested,
dominated by conifers such as Douglas fir, alder in disturbed areas, and dense undergrowth, including
salal and blackberry (see Schultz 1990 for review). Estuaries in the region also tend to have similar ben-
thic and fish communities, although the relative importance of species varies among systems (for over-
views see Kozloff 1983, 1987, USDA 1985, Emmett et al. 1991). In general, Pacific Northwest coastal
estuaries are fairly shallow with extensive intertidal zones, which can exceed 50% of the area of the estu-
ary. As a result, benthic primary and secondary production contribute a substantial part of total system
productivity, while phytoplankton contribute a relatively smaller amount. For example, phytoplankton
1 The term coastal estuaries excludes Puget Sound. As discussed in Section 7.3.1, we do not propose to
conduct research in Puget Sound or in the Columbia River estuary.
160
-------
Oregon-Washington Estuaries
Nehalem
Tillamook
Figure 7-1. Coastal estuaries in the Pacific Northwest.
161
-------
production constitutes 10-25% of the total productivity in Grays Harbor (Thorn 1981) vs. about 50% in a
North Carolina estuary (Peterson and Peterson 1979).
Differences among systems largely appear to be variations in scale or extent, rather than qualitative
differences in processes or stressors. Main differences include the relative magnitude of tidal flushing vs.
river runoff, the history and extent of logging and associated effects on sedimentation and runoff, extent of
dairy farming and agriculture in the watershed, and the type and extent of introduced (non-native)
estuarine species.
7.1.2 Priority Stressors
Pacific Northwest coastal estuaries appear to be relatively clean in terms of classic toxic pollutants, such
as DDT and cadmium (e.g., see Lee et al. 1993,1994 for sediment concentrations in Yaquina Bay).
Nonetheless, these systems have undergone and continue to undergo major ecological changes. Indi-
cators of these basic changes include declines in commercial levels of shellfish production, precipitously
declining levels of salmonid recruitment, saturation harvesting of bottom-fish stocks, expanding popula-
tions of non-native species, and the loss of coastal habitats. Based on the scarcity of discharges of toxic
pollutants by coastal industries and the long history of exploitation of natural resources in the Pacific
Northwest, the direct and indirect effects of resource utilization and development, rather than chemical
contamination, appear to be the major causes for these changes. This is not to state that chemical
pollutants are not having any impact and, as described in Section 7.3.4, part of the research will be to
evaluate the relative impacts of chemical vs. nonchemical stressors.
Over-harvesting of estuarine-associated fishes and shellfish has been a classic problem in the Pacific
Northwest going back to the 1850s (Pagan 1885). By the turn of the century, it had become necessary to
refurbish depleted oyster beds by transplanting east coast oysters (McGuire 1895-6, Moore 1897,
Washburn 1901). This overexploitation has contributed to declining stocks of many commercial species.
Overharvesting also has indirect effects, including increased sensitivity of populations to other anthro-
pogenic and natural disturbances, introductions of exotic species with the stocking of east coast oysters,
and the need for extreme management techniques in some instances (e.g., spraying of pesticides to
maintain oyster production, salmon hatcheries).
Besides overexploitation of target resources, conflicts occur among resource uses. Classic examples are
the increased sedimentation that can occur from clear-cutting of timber and agriculture, which in turn can
lead to reduced shellfish production and increased dredging costs. Other problems result from the
continued expansion and development of coastal (human) communities. The increase in population,
162
-------
housing, commercial development, and attendant infrastructure has resulted in extensive loss or
modification of estuarine habitat, as well as of habitats in surrounding watersheds. Besides the direct
impacts on habitat, increased development has resulted in further pressure on ever scarcer supplies of
water, increased disposal of sewerage, and increased pollutant discharges.
Table 7-1 summarizes the major stressors affecting Pacific Northwest estuaries, including their sources,
spatial scale, and types of ecological effects. All of these stressors will be considered in literature reviews,
the case study assessment for Willapa Bay, and conceptual models. However, process-oriented research
will concentrate on two broad types of stressors: (1) sedimentation and associated changes in habitat,
salinity, temperature, and nutrients and (2) biological stressors. We selected sedimentation and its
associated parameters because of its potentially widespread effect in Pacific Northwest estuaries and
because of the role of watershed activities as a major cause of increased sediment loads and habitat
changes. Biological stressors are of particular concern in Willapa Bay, where recent expansions of
introduced cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) and population explosions of mud shrimp (Upogebia
pugettensis and Callianassa califoniensis) are resulting in major habitat alterations and in the application
of pesticides as control measures. These priorities may evolve as the program progresses. Brief
background reviews for these stressors are provided in the following sections.
7.1.2.1 Sedimentation and Associated Parameters
Sedimentation is a natural process, but excess sedimentation is a serious and common problem in
estuaries. Siltation is reported as one cause for nonsupport of designated uses of 12% of the Nation's
estuaries (U.S. EPA 1994d). Excess nutrient loading, which is often related to sedimentation and runoff,
adversely affects 55% of estuaries (U.S. EPA 1994d). Sedimentation problems are especially acute in the
Pacific Northwest because of the steep coastal watersheds, high rainfall, timber harvesting, and dairy
farming immediately adjacent to estuaries. In Willapa, invasion by Spartina is also resulting in enhanced
sedimentation. The potential extent of changes due to sedimentation is illustrated in Tillamook Estuary,
where it has been estimated that the volume and average depth have declined by -60% since the 1930s,
as a result of high sediment loads caused by major forest fires in the watershed (referred to as the
Tillamook Burn) and subsequent salvage logging and road building (James 1970).
Erosion in drainage basins in coastal areas has been accelerating since the advent of large-scale timber
harvest in the 1850s (e.g., Shotwell 1977). Feeder streams to riverine systems were indiscriminately
yarded with harvested logs; splash dams were routinely used to sluice literally millions of logs down to the
estuaries, scouring the entire length of the drainage of any obstruction (Maserand Sedell 1994). This
indifference to multiple uses of the drainage basin led to the obliteration of structures within the
163
-------
Table 7-1. High-Priority Ultimate Stressors On Pacific Northwest Estuarine Ecosystems.
Stressor
Siltation and
sedimentation
Habitat loss
Temperature
increases
Changes In
salinity
UV-B radiation
Nutrient inputs,
organic loading,
reduced DO
Increased
predation
Increased
competition,
decreased food
availability
Neutral organics
(chlorinated,
PAHs, and high
Kow)
Low Kow
herbicides and
pesticides
Sources
Dredging, clear cutting, development,
Spartina, mudshrimp
Dredging, development, filling, siltation,
sea level change, water diversion,
introduced species (Spartina)
Reduction in water flow, increase in inter-
tidal area, global warming
Water diversion, drought, channelization,
flooding, changes In estuary morphology
Stratospheric ozone depletion
Dairy farms, runoff from logging, septic
tanks, sewage, fisheries wastes,
sediment regeneration
Protection of marine mammals, intro-
duced species
Introduced species, El Nino, toxic algal
blooms, hatchery releases (salmon)
Sewage and industrial discharges, in-
place sediments, nonpoint runoff, boating
and shipping (PAHs)
Nonpoint run-off, sewage and industrial
discharges, in-place sediments, direct
application (carbaryl, glyphosate)
Spatial Scales
Localized to
watershed
Localized to
global
Localized to
global
Estuary to
regional
Global
Localized to
watershed
Estuary to
regional
Estuary to
global
Localized to
watershed
Localized to
watershed
Potential Vulnerabilities
SAV, salmon, benthos, oysters,
Species with specialized habitat
requirements, salmon, intertidal
benthos
Mean temperature, maximum
temperature in summer
Stenohaline species
Surface and intertidal organisms,
smaller organisms
Fish more sensitive than most
benthos to reduced DO, SAV, phyto-
plankton
Salmon (seals), Sea urchins (otters)
Salmon, infaunal benthos to intro-
duced species, SAV to introduced
Spartina, phytoplankton to El Nino
Sediments act as sink, some
chlorinated compounds biomagnify
Sediments act as sink but less so
than for high Kow
Potential Effects
Reduced depth range of SAV,
smothered filter-feeders, reduced
primary productivity, altered benthic
communities
Reduced populations, localized
extinction
Changes in species composition,
benthic and fish dte-offs
Changes in species composition and
distribution
Reduced primary production, effects
on food webs, direct effects on fish
larvae
Changes in dominant primary pro-
ducer (macroalgae rather than SAV),
promotion of toxic blooming, fish and
benthic kills due to low DO
Changes in species composition and
distribution, reduced prey populations
Changes in species composition,
change in ecosystem from pelagic to
benthic, decreased 2° production
Direct effects at moderate to high
concentrations, wildlife and human
health at low to moderate
concentrations
Direct effects at moderate to high
concentrations on SAV and phyto-
plankton (glyphosate), crustaceans
(carbaryl)
Localized - Operates over a small part (<25%) of an estuary. Estuary - Operates over a high proportion (>25%) to all of an estuary. Watershed - Operates
over most or all of the estuary and the stressor is related to alterations of the watershed. Regional - Operates over several estuaries or watersheds in a
biogeographic region. Global - Operates over several biogeographic regions encompassing a major portion of the globe.
SAV - Submerged aquatic vegetation; DO - dissolved oxygen.
-------
streambeds that sorted and retained the normal flux of sediment. The destruction of riparian vegetation
and scouring of the landform in harvested areas led to widespread mass wasting on many steep, now
unprotected slopes. In addition to logging, habitat alteration, coastal development, and farming can also
increase sedimentation and runoff to estuaries.
Direct effects of sedimentation in estuaries include reductions in light penetration in the water column and
associated reductions in primary productivity and contraction of depth distributions for submerged aquatic
vegetation; covering of hard substrates, which can suffocate oysters and other filter feeders or hinder their
settlement; and changes in grain size and sediment organic content with concomitant changes in benthic
communities. The direct, adverse effects of excessive sedimentation were recognized early on, as
exemplified in this statement by Fasten (1931) about Yaquina Bay, Oregon: "The eastern oysters were
planted in a bad region, which received large quantities of silt, mud and sand, burying the oysters, killing
many of them off and preventing spat from settling on their shells..."
Increased sediment loads, sedimentation, and runoff have a number of indirect effects, which may be as
important, or more so, than the direct effects. As mentioned, sedimentation has reduced Tillamook Bay's
depth and volume, thereby reducing the biotic potential of the Bay. One potential result of significant
shallowing of estuaries is a concomitant increase in temperature, as intertidal areas act as heat sinks. The
inability to survive rapid (evolutionary speaking) temperature change is a potential threat to a number of
native amphipod species, which constitute important prey species for salmonids. Temperature fluxes are
critical as spawning signals for numerous fish and invertebrates, and sediment-related changes in the
temperature regime may interrupt life cycles. Increased erosion may also increase nutrient loadings,
which may change the composition of the phytoplankton and/or the relative extent of primary production
by benthic (e.g., macroalgae) vs. pelagic primary producers. In extreme cases, erosion, especially from
agricultural land, can result in eutrophication, though eutrophication does not appear to have occurred to
the same extent in the Pacific Northwest as in some east coast estuaries. There also may be substantial
anthropogenic inputs of nutrients without substantial increases in sedimentation, such as from dairy
farming, sewage discharges, or septic systems. Nutrients are considered under sedimentation in this
section for convenience, but the research described under sedimentation (7.3.3) and the case study
(7.3.5) will assess inputs not related to sediments (e.g., septic systems, marine inputs) as appropriate.
7.1.2.2 Biological Stressors
Estuarine ecosystems can be subjected to biological stressors resulting from invasions by nonindigenous
species and population explosions of native species. These biological agents can have substantial
impacts on individual populations (Race 1982), community structure (Nichols et al. 1990), ecosystem
165
-------
functions, (Nichols 1985), and harvesting of shellfish (Bernard 1969). The total economic impact is
impossible to quantify, but the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) estimated that the cumulative
economic losses from just six nonindigenous fish and aquatic invertebrates was more than
$1,500,000,000 from 1906 to 1991 (OTA 1993).
The three predominant biological stressors in Pacific Northwest estuaries are the invasion by Spartina
alterniflora (smooth cordgrass), population explosions of the native mud shrimp, and the increasing
number and severity of toxic algal blooms. Because of their importance in Willapa Bay, our process-
oriented research will focus on Spartina primarily and mud shrimp secondarily. Toxic algal blooms, which
appear to be increasing globally (Hallegraeff 1993) as well as regionally, will be treated as a response
rather than a stressor. There are many other non-native species in the Pacific Northwest besides
Spartina; for example, it has been estimated that at least 30% of the benthic species in Yaquina Bay are
introduced (J. Chapman, Oregon State University, pers. comm.). But because of resource limitations,
research on introduced species will focus on Spartina, although it might be expanded to include other
species in later years, either as part of benthic mapping (Section 7.3.2) or the case study (Section 7.3.5).
The invasive growth of the introduced Spartina alterniflora has been documented in several Pacific
Northwest estuaries, including Willapa Bay, Grays Harbor, Puget Sound, and Siuslaw Estuary in Oregon
(Mumford et al. 1991). The problem is especially acute in Willapa Bay, however, where over 9.7 km2 of
intertidal mudflat were covered in 1989. It is projected that without control, up to half of the Bay's flats will
be converted into elevated saltmarsh over the next 20 years (Wolf 1993). Once established, Spartina has
numerous direct and indirect impacts (Mumford et al. 1991). It can displace native plants, such as Zostera
marina, a vital marine resource in the Pacific Northwest (Wyllie et al. 1994). Benthic microflora and
invertebrates are greatly reduced within Spartina beds, which may disrupt food chains. Given sufficient
invasion, Spartina could alter the food web throughout the Bay by reducing nutrient availability for
phytoplankton while at the same time augmenting the detrital food web. Besides the direct biological
effects, Spartina traps sediments, which can convert tidal flats to nontidal land, resulting in a loss of habitat
equivalent to that caused by diking. While increasing sedimentation in one area, Spartina is removing
sediment from others, potentially resulting in both erosion and deposition.
Because of concerns about ecological and commercial impacts, efforts are being made to control or
eradicate Spartina, including the application of herbicides (glyphosate). It is possible that thousands of
acres of intertidal area could be sprayed. Although it is obvious that Spartina has a dramatic local impact,
it is not possible to predict, with any accuracy, its impacts on the ecosystem level, the factors promoting its
success, or the relative ecological impacts of control measures. Such information is required, if we wish to
conduct a quantitative comparative risk of various management options, ranging from widespread, long-
166
-------
term herbicide application to a laissez-faire approach, in which the infected bays are allowed to reach new
ecological states.
Mud shrimp (Upogebia pugettensis and Callianassa califoniensis) have undergone population explosions
in Willapa Bay. Both species create deep burrows and process massive amounts of water and sediment.
As the major bioturbators in Pacific Northwest estuaries, mud shrimp can affect many ecosystem
processes (see Lee and Swartz 1980), including nutrient regeneration, sediment deposition and transport,
and water quality. By reducing sediment stability, they degrade habitat quality for oyster production and
change the benthic community. In an attempt to control mud shrimp, hundreds of acres in Willapa Bay are
sprayed with carbaryl annually, on a rotating basis. Although spraying is illegal in Oregon, there have
been reports of midnight spraying in Tillamook Bay.
7.2. OBJECTIVES
The overall goal of the Coastal Estuaries research component is to evaluate and predict the effects of
major ecosystem stressors on the productivity, diversity, and stability of coastal estuaries in the Pacific
Northwest, with sufficient resolution to allow ecologically sound management at the ecosystem/watershed
level. Productivity is used in a broad sense, and includes the production of key species, as well as the
primary and secondary production of the system. Also used in a broad sense, diversity includes habitat
diversity, species diversity, and diversity of ecosystem functions. Stability refers to maintaining patterns
(temporal and spatial) of ecosystem structure, processes, and functions that would exist in the absence of
anthropogenic stressors—including sustainability of resources, such as oysters. Diversity, productivity,
and stability were chosen as overall endpoints because they are generally recognized indicators of eco-
system integrity.
We mention resolution explicitly because it is important to recognize that there will be considerable
uncertainty in at least some of the ecosystem-level methods and predictions. This uncertainty results both
from scientific uncertainty, because of the infancy of ecosystem research, and management "uncertainty"
about how to weight multiple conflicting goals. Some of the uncertainty also relates to the inherent
variability at this scale. Uncertainty analysis will be incorporated into the research, especially the case
study
The major objectives of estuarine process-oriented research are as follows:
Develop predictive relationships between ecosystem structure and habitat characteristics.
167
-------
Improve our understanding of the extent, loading, causes, and effects of sedimentation and
associated parameters, such as nutrients, in Pacific Northwest coastal estuaries.
Improve our understanding of the extent, causes, and effects of biological stressors (in particular,
expansions of Spartina) and the effects of potential control strategies.
The objective of the Willapa case study assessment, conducted jointly with the Watershed/Ecoregion
research component (Section 5), is to develop and demonstrate assessment approaches that help
managers:
• Set attainable ecological goals for the estuary and watershed.
Characterize current ecological conditions relative to those goals.
Identify major problems and the relative importance of stressors affecting valued estuary
ecosystem functions.
Identify linkages among stressors, including estuarine responses to watershed alterations.
Determine whether the integrated effects of stressors result in unacceptable alterations to the
estuarine system, even if the stressor does not violate regulatory criteria at any individual site.
Evaluate the ecological consequences of, and trade-offs among, alternative management
strategies.
• Target areas for protection, restoration, or other management action.
Table 7-2 lists the broad research topics that will be addressed; Table 7-3 outlines research topics not
included, or given low priority, for the PNW research program. It is important to note that, although
targeted salmon studies perse are not included within the Coastal Estuaries research component, the
research will generate information directly relevant to salmon management. For example, predicting the
effects of sedimentation on benthic communities will generate information on how upland management
practices affect the density of salmon prey species.
7.3 APPROACH
Four projects are proposed:
1. Predictive relationships between physical habitat characteristics and estuary structure/functions.
2. Extent, causes, and effects of sedimentation and related parameters.
3. Extent, causes, and effects of biological stressors and effects of chemical control measures.
4. Willapa estuary/watershed case study assessment and data synthesis.
168
-------
Table 7-2. Approximate Resource Allocations for Coastal Estuaries Research Component (Top, $K; Bottom, EPA FTE).
Research Topic and (Section)
Predict Ecological Functions (7.3.2)
Sedimentation and Associated
Variables (7.3.3)
Biological Stressors (7.3.4)
Case Study: Baseline Information
(7.3.5)
Case Study: Ecosystem Model and
Data Synthesis (7.3.5)
Total $K
Total FTE
FY95
125
2.2
215
1.7
75
0.5
235
0.6
0
0
650
5
FY96
150
2
215
1.7
75
0.8
210
0.5
0
0
650
5
FY97
160
2
215
1.4
75
0.6
200
0.5
0
0.5 _,
650
5
FY98
160
1.5
185
1.3
75
0.7
200
0.5
30
1.0
650
5
FY99
75
0.5
150
0.8
75
0.7
200
0.5
150
2.5
650
5
Total
670
8.2
980
6.9
375
3.3
1045
2.6
180
4
25
Location
Willapa Bay and Yaquina Bay
Willapa Bay and ERL-Newport for sediment trap work
and some chemical analysis
Willapa Bay
ERL-Newport for some lab experiments
Willapa Bay
ERL-Newport for some chemical analysis
Willapa Bay
Synthesis covers all PNW coastal estuaries
o>
CO
-------
Table 7-3. Lower Priority Topics and Topics Outside the Scope of the Coastal Estuaries PNW Research Program.
Topic
Studies in Puget Sound
Assessing effects of stressors
on salmon stocks and other
fisheries stocks
Bacterial/viral contamination
Effects of ultraviolet-B
radiation
Regional-scale monitoring of
coastal estuaries
Development of socioeconom-
ic models or analyses of dif-
ferent management practices
Studies in the Columbia River
Open ocean near coastal
systems (e.g., rocky intertidal,
ocean beaches, dunes)
Marine mammals
Mechanistic understanding of
the effects of individual
stressors or how multiple
stressors interact
Localized stressors, even if
locally severe
DevelopingAesting restoration
methods
Status
Outside
program
Outside
program
Outside
program
Outside
program
Outside
program
Outside
program
Lower
priority
Lower
priority
Lower
priority
Lower
priority
Lower
priority
Lower
priority
Rationale
1 . Other state and federal agencies have large ongoing
programs
2. Lower priority for State of Washington
1 . Other state and federal agencies have large ongoing
programs
2. Assessing fish stocks is not mandate of EPA
1. Human health rather than ecological concern
1 . Covered under EPA's Marine Stratozone Program, which
is at ERL-Newport
2. Origin of stress (UV-B) not related to coastal watershed
Covered by EMAP and REMAP
1 . Not ecological questions
2. Not EPA expertise
1 . Other state and federal agencies have large ongoing
programs
2. Lower priority for State of Washington
1 . Not at as great a risk as estuarine ecosystems
2. Not as tightly linked to watershed management practices
as estuarine ecosystems
1 . Many of the stresses related to fisheries management
rather than ecosystem stresses
2. More marine rather than estuarine
1 . Because of complexity of problem, best to start with
"grosser" scale models and then develop mechanistic
understanding
1 . Program focus on stressors that have an effect on a wide
spatial area and/or multiple components of the ecosystem
2. Severe localized stressors usually studied/regulated
under water quality or sediment quality criteria
1 . Except for wetlands, which are covered under another
program, our understanding is too preliminary to initiate
restoration
2. Expensive
Potential Interactions
Some research, especially ecological functions
of various habitat types, should apply.
Some research, especially ecological functions
of various habitat types, should apply.
Will take samples for other agencies, if feasible.
UV-B and ecosystem research will be closely
coordinated and may involve joint research.
When possible EMAP sampling methods will be
used.
Ecological results and models will be made
available for economic models.
Some research, especially ecological functions
of various habitat types, should apply.
Development of upland GIS and/or runoff
models could relate to predicting effects on
open beaches in the future.
Some research, especially ecological functions
of various habitat types, should apply. To extent
marine mammals impact ecosystem
structure/function, they will be included.
Research will identify the key stressors/
receptors requiring mechanistic study.
• Research will help rank the importance of
stressors in terms of their ecosystem impact.
Research will help identify which habitats need
restoration and range of variability expected.
-------
Although listed as separate projects, all of these activities will be highly interdependent, with extensive
data sharing and feedbacks. For example, the predictive relationships between physical habitat and
ecosystem functions, from project 1, will contribute directly to evaluating the effects of sedimentation and
the associated habitat loss/alteration in project 2. The case study assessment, project 4, will integrate
results from process-oriented research in projects 1-3. Much of the process-oriented research will be
conducted in Willapa Bay, the site for the case study, allowing for comparisons among stressors.
Although not called out explicitly, inherent in each project is research that will contribute to the identifica-
tion of estuary indicators and the development of ecosystem-level sampling and analysis methods.
There will be interactions between the proposed research program and efforts by other federal, state,
local, and tribal agencies, as well as by universities. The purposes of these interactions include obtaining
required expertise, determining stakeholder interests, developing coordinated programs without overlap,
and obtaining assistance in conducting the research and monitoring. Partnerships will probably range
from simply sharing data to augmenting existing efforts and funding new research efforts.
Table 7-2 presents the proposed budget, the EPA FTEs (full-time equivalents), and the locations for each
project. The budget is based upon the assumption that in many cases PNW resources will be used to
leverage other programs and/or that several of the research topics will be closely coordinated for a cost
savings (e.g., sharing boat time). In addition, we plan to involve local volunteer organizations in collecting
routine environmental data, especially in Willapa Bay. EPA has already successfully used volunteers to
collect data (see U.S. EPA 1993c), and volunteer groups exist in Willapa Bay. Without these cost-saving
measures, it is likely that the scope of the program would have to be reduced. Further details on each
project are provided in Sections 7.3.2-7.3.5. The selection of study sites is discussed in Section 7.3.1.
7.3.1 Site Selection
The program will focus on coastal estuaries and watersheds of Oregon and Washington, excluding the
Columbia River. This area was chosen because it is important ecologically and economically, because
there is a paucity of integrated studies, and because the major stressors appear to be ecosystem-level
ones (e.g., multiple stressors or stressors linked to watersheds), rather than classic pollutant problems.
The Columbia River and Puget Sound are excluded because of the number of previous, ongoing, and
planned large-scale studies conducted on these systems, including the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring
Program, EMAP in Puget Sound in FY95 or FY96, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) Columbia River Estuary Program, the Columbia River Bi-State Water Quality Program, and the
USGS National Water Quality Assessment Program of the Columbia watershed.
171
-------
Section 5 describes the criteria and process used to select the southern part of the Washington Coastal
Ecoregion as one of two watershed/ecoregion case study areas. Because of the interest expressed by
the State of Washington in coastal watersheds, we decided to select one estuarine watershed within that
area for the integrated case study assessment, to be conducted jointly with the Watershed/Ecoregion
research component.
Factors used to select specific estuaries and watersheds to study, for both the assessment and the
process-oriented research, include the following:
• Availability of ecological and historical information on the estuarine system and on watershed and
upland management.
Extent and nature of ongoing research and whether the PNW research program could
substantially augment or leverage ongoing activities.
System subjected to ecosystem-level stressors.
Sites appropriate for testing a specific hypothesis or conducting certain types of study.
Political/Economic interests of the states of Washington and Oregon and local organizations.
Similarity to other estuaries and watersheds within the region, so that research findings will be as
broadly applicable as possible.
Geographic proximity to the EPA's ERL-Newport (for research to be conducted by EPA
scientists).
Based on these criteria, Willapa Bay, Washington (Figure 7-2) was selected for the case study assess-
ment; certain process-oriented research will also be conducted at Willapa Bay (see Table 7-2). Major
reasons for selecting Willapa Bay, rather than Gray's Harbor or the Quinault River Estuary (the other two
coastal estuaries within the Washington study area), are its size (second only to the Columbia River
Estuary), local interests in ecosystem management on the part of the Willapa Alliance and other organi-
zations, and the occurrence of major biological stressors.
Although most of the work will focus on Willapa Bay, certain process-oriented questions can be addressed
more effectively at other sites or through a comparative approach. The primary Oregon estuary selected
for process-oriented research is Yaquina Bay (Figure 7-3), primarily because of its proximity to state-of-
the-science research facilities at ERL-Newport, its extensive historical biological and physical/chemical
databases, and its more manageable size, compared to Willapa Bay. The work in Yaquina Bay will focus
on developing relationships or models that can be directly extrapolated to other estuaries and on con-
ducting controlled laboratory experiments. Another priority site is Tillamook Bay (Figure 7-4), which is part
of the National Estuary Program. The goal of the National Estuary Program in Tillamook Bay is to
172
-------
LEGEND
Mean Lower Low Water
2 3 MILES
-
PETERSON STATION S.
i:
Figure 7-2. Map of Willapa Bay, Washington. Cross-hatched areas show eelgrass distribution
(Source: Hedgepeth and Obreski 1981).
173
-------
YAQUINA BAY
Estuarine Management Units
& Shoreland Zoning
Depot
Slough
Toledo
Ollala
Slough
Figure 7-3. Map of Yaquina Bay, Oregon.
-------
TILLAMOOK
BAY
Estuarme Management
Units & Shoreland Zoning
Figure 7-4. Map of Tillamook Bay, Oregon.
175
-------
develop a comprehensive management plan for the estuary and associated watershed. Thus, research
on Tillamook Bay provides a unique opportunity to contribute directly to an active watershed-scale
planning effort. Because of budget limitations, the initial interactions in Tillamook Bay will take place
largely through participation in the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee of the Tillamook Bay
National Estuary Program and in collaborating in defining the key questions and approaches related to
ecosystem management. In later years, Tillamook Bay may be the best site for testing specific
hypotheses related to sedimentation (because of the extensive sedimentation from the Tillamook Burn) or
to nutrient loading (because of the extensive coastal dairy farming). The next priority site is the South
Slough (Figure 7-5), which is part of NOAA's National Estuarine Sanctuary Program (Munson et al. 1984).
As with Tillamook, South Slough may be a site for targeted research in later years of the project,
depending upon the budget and the specific question. For all three Oregon estuaries, existing information
will be adequate to allow comparisons among estuaries for a number of basic ecosystem parameters
(e.g., temporal variation in salinity), though not full-scale ecosystem comparisons.
The four study estuaries range in size from fairly small (South Slough, about 2 km2) to large (Willapa Bay,
320 km2) (Table 7-4). Willapa Bay is second in size only to the lower Columbia among Pacific Northwest
coastal estuaries. The only large estuary not included is Gray's Harbor in Washington. Very small
systems, where rivers or streams enter almost directly into the ocean, were not considered for intensive
study because of their lesser importance, both economically and ecologically. These four estuaries
represent a good cross section of the types of estuarine watershed systems in the Pacific Northwest, in
terms of the relative importance of river vs. tidal influence, types of stressors, history of watershed pertur-
bations, and importance of introduced species. Given the similarities in climate, biological communities,
ecological processes, and economic base in the Pacific Northwest coastal ecoregion (Section 7.1.1), it
should be possible to extrapolate the basic ecological principles and ecosystem assessment methods
developed at one site to other Pacific Northwest coastal estuaries and watersheds. Results from certain
process-oriented research, such as relating benthic functions to physical characteristics, should be directly
applicable across Oregon and Washington coastal estuaries. Other process-oriented conceptual or
computer models, such as runoff or circulation models, would have to be parameterized to the particular
type or scale of system, although the general approach and type of ecological response should be
applicable to other sites.
176
-------
1500 0 1500 3000 4500
=•
Feet
Figure 7-5. Map of South Slough of Coos Bay, Oregon.
177
-------
Table 7-4. Summary of Physical/Chemical Characteristics of Target Estuaries.
Parameter Willapa Bay 1'8'9 Tillamook Bay2'3 Yaquina Bay2-3 South Slough4-6
Area, km2, @MHW
MLW Area, km2
Intertidal area, km2
(% of total)
% Intertidal area filled, km2
Wetland area, km2
Wetland area filled or diked, km2
(% of total)
Number of main tributaries
Drainage basin area, km2
Average depth, m
Mean flow and
range, rr^/s;
Per day as % bay volume
Est. sediment rate (tons/yr);
(tons/yr/km2)
Mixing classification
Major stressors;
(approximate areas affected)
Main commercial activities
Hydraulic modifications
3201 3568 2389
~1601 -1668
-1601 1668
(-50%) (-47%)
~30%1
-50.51 548
25.61 27.28
(-50%) (50.3%)
3
1.8651 2,4288 2,8499
~1 m tidal flats1
-9-1 5 m in channels1 3.2 m9
132.91 1679
>45,3121
0.004% of bay vol.1
-
Vertically homogeneous
Spartina (-1 1 km2), mud and ghost
shrimp (-88 km2); pesticides for con-
trol; sediment; development; nutrients
Shipping Oysters
Fishing Logging
Jetties
Dredging
35.9
15.1
20.8
-58%
0.45
-
—
5
1,398
~2m
-108
0.00023%
of tidal prism
135,000
(ca.1973)
3,760/km2
Well Nov-May,
Partial June-Oct
Sediment
Diking wetlands
Eutrophication
Oysters Fishing
Dairy Recr/Tour
Logging
Jetties
Dredging
17.1
11.1
6.0
-35%
1.13
-
—
2
655
- 3 m
30.5
0.0001 3% Of Tidal
Prism
30,000
(ca.1974)
1,754/km2
Well Nov-May,
Partial Jun-Oct
Sediment
Diking wetlands
Shipping Fishing
Fish Proc Recr/Tour
Logging •
Jetties
Dredging
-2.0
-0.125
-1.875
(?)
-1.2
(?)
1
-4.2
-1 m (?)
-177
1-39
No accurate estimate
available
Well Nov-May,
Partial Jun-Oct
Diking wetlands
Estuarine sanctuary
Comm. oystering
Some diking
•-J
00
1. In or recalculated from Hedgepeth and Obreski (1981); 2. Percy et al. (1974); 3. Shirzad et al. (1988); 4. Munson et al. (1984); 5. Harris (1979);
6. Oregon South Slough Estuarine Sanctuary Management Commission (1978); 7. Estimated from Munson et al. (1984); 8. Wolf (1993); 9. In or recalculated
fromNOAA(1985).
-------
7.3.2 Predictive Relationships Between Physical Habitat and Estuary Structure/Functions
A basic tenet of ecology is that there is a predictable relationship between the natural physical/chemical
environment within a biogeographic region and ecosystem structure/functions.2 Many stressors, including
sedimentation, habitat loss/alteration, and, to some degree, biological stressors, affect ecosystem end-
points by changing the physical/chemical characteristics of estuaries (e.g., substrate type, salinity, tem-
perature). Thus, to predict effects from these stressors, we must first gain a better understanding of the
relationships between estuary ecosystem structure/functions and physical/chemical habitat features. Then
it will be possible to do the following, based upon information on historical and present habitat char-
acteristics (derived from the projects described in Sections 7.3.3-7.3.5):
Hindcast the types of ecosystem structure/functions that have changed over time.
• Assess the status of the existing system compared to its minimally disturbed state.
Predict changes in ecosystem structure/functions that will occur as a result of management
practices.
Project-Level Objective
The goal of this research is to establish predictive relationships between readily measured habitat charac-
teristics and indicators of important ecosystem structure/functions in Pacific Northwest coastal estuaries.
Approach
Predictive relationships will be developed both for aggregate, community-level indicators of estuary
structure/functions and for species-specific indicators for selected economically important or key species.
Key species are those that have a disproportionate effect on the structure and function of estuarine eco-
systems (e.g., bioturbators, such as mud shrimp, or preferred prey species). It is likely that aggregate
indicators will be predicted with greater confidence than species-specific indicators. Predictive relation-
ships will be developed for both benthos and fish. Although discussed separately, the water quality data
for developing these relationships for benthos and fish will be closely coupled with the baseline assess-
ment of Willapa Bay, as discussed under the case study in Section 7.3.5. Development of similar predic-
tive relationships between phytoplankton and water column chemical/physical parameters is also
discussed in Section 7.3.5.
2 Biotic interactions may modify these relationships, but still physical and chemical characteristics are
major determinants of habitat suitability and of the types of biological communities and level of
productivity likely to occur at a given site.
179
-------
With fixed resources, the three parameters that need to be optimized in a sampling strategy are the
number of samples per habitat, the number of habitats sampled, and the resolution per sample. Reso-
lution, or information per sample, includes factors such as level of taxonomic identification and number of
pollutants quantified. Classic studies of a site usually include many samples per habitat with high resolu-
tion, but few, or only one, habitats sampled. In general, EMAP samples from several to many habitats and
uses moderate to high resolution, but very low sampling density per habitat. We believe that for deriving
ecosystem relationships, it is important to have an adequate sample density throughout the estuary, both
to capture the majority of the habitats and to have enough precision within habitat types to assess spatial
and temporal trends. Therefore, the approach we will use is to maximize the number of samples per site
and number of habitats, but use lower resolution measures when possible. Specifics are given in the
discussion on benthos.
We will use EMAP's probability-based sampling strategy for much of the sampling, which will assure
unbiased estimates of the spatial extent of habitats, populations, and degraded environments. In some
cases, however, it may be more fruitful to sample along a defined gradient to develop relationships
between an ecosystem characteristic and a specific environmental parameter. The estuary chosen for
such gradient sampling would depend upon the specific question, and could include one of the Oregon
estuaries. We will use probability sampling to test the accuracy of relationships developed from sampling
along a gradient. To the extent appropriate, we will use EMAP sampling techniques for the benthos, fish,
and water quality parameters (see Schimmel 1994). In addition to the field sampling, we may conduct
laboratory or field experimentation in later years to quantify specific ecosystem functions. For example, in
situ chambers could be used to determine benthic nutrient regeneration by benthic habitat type so as to
allow predictions of how increased sedimentation could indirectly impact nutrient concentrations.
The influence of temporal variations in ecosystem parameters will be approached in four ways. First,
probability-based sampling of many of the parameters will be repeated for 3-5 years, and statistical
approaches will be used to separate spatial from temporal variation. Second, several permanent sites will
be established and resampled. Determining the number and location of these permanent sites will be part
of the research program. Third, historical records (e.g., World War II photos) and measurements of
sedimentation records (e.g., 210Pb or pollen) can generate insight into the temporal fluctuations of a few
parameters, in particular changes in sea grasses and sedimentation rates (see Sections 7.3.3.1 and
7.3.4). The first and second approaches quantify the variation associated with short time scales, whereas
the third approach generates more limited information but on medium to long time scales. The fourth and
most satisfying approach is the development of mechanistic models on an ecosystem level. The
mechanistic approach should work best for biotic characteristics that are closely coupled to basic
180
-------
estuarine conditions (e.g., salinity effect on submerged aquatics) rather than on oceanic or watershed
conditions (e.g., salmon) or chaotic events (e.g., introduction of exotic species).
Benthos. As discussed in Section 7.1.1, benthic communities constitute key ecosystem elements in
Pacific Northwest estuaries, in part because of their extensive intertidal zones. Benthic community
structure and function are frequently used as indicators of effects from both chemical (e.g., Lee et al.
1994) and nonpollutant (e.g., Rhoads et al. 1978, Swartz et al. 1980) stressors, as well as integrative
measures of ecosystem status (Scott 1990). For example, long-term changes in benthic density were
significantly coupled with indices of phytoplankton abundance (Buchanan 1993), whereas temporal
patterns in coastal benthic biomass were correlated with changes in freshwater runoff, which presumably
increased nutrient inputs and phytoplankton production (Josefson 1990). Therefore, assessing benthic
structure/function will be a powerful tool in determining the present status of an ecosystem. Developing
empirical or mechanistic models to relate benthic structure/function to habitat characteristics, and coupling
these with GIS maps of habitat types, will help us to predict the system-wide effects of stressors. The
indicators of benthic ecosystem functions that we will attempt to predict from the physical/chemical
environment include (1) structure and integrity of the benthic community, (2) range of primary and secon-
dary production, (3) nutrient regeneration, (4) density of prey items for salmon and other key predators,
and (5) suitability of habitat for oyster and/or clam production.
The first step is to integrate cost-effective methods of characterizing the salient physical/chemical habitat
characteristics—of the sediment, water column, and biological habitats (e.g., aquatic plant beds)—into
cost-effective sampling strategies for characterizing important ecosystem structures/functions. Proposed
water quality and habitat measures are given in Table 7-5.
A key question is, "What level of resolution and sampling density are required for ecosystem analysis?"
We suggest that, for ecosystem analysis, the appropriate sampling density is somewhere between those
used by a site-specific study and by EMAP. The number of sites depends on the question, but it could be
up to 500-1000 sites for an estuary the size of Willapa Bay. To obtain this sampling density, it will be
necessary to use inexpensive measures ($10-100/site) at many of the sites, with more detailed but
expensive measures at a limited number of sites. To test this approach, we will use readily measured
(rapid assessment) indicators of the physical/chemical environment and benthic structure/function at all
sites, and more costly measures (e.g., species diversity) at a limited subset of the sites (see Table 7-5).
Evaluation of this approach will require oversampling, at least initially, to allow an appraisal of different
sampling strategies. Some of the general questions that can be addressed include:
181
-------
Table 7-5. Potential Parameters Used to Characterize Habitats (Page 1 of 2).
Parameter
Water Quality
Salinity
Temperature
Dissolved oxygen
PH
Turbidity and suspended solids
Nutrient concentrations
Phytoplankton production /Standing stock
Phytoplankton composition
Chlorophyll a and other pigments
Oyster growth/condition
Toxicity to Phytoplankton or zooplankton
Pollutant concentrations
Habitat Characteristics
Tidal height
Grain size - visually
% silt-clay
TOG
Softness of sediment
Submerged aquatic vegetation cover
Macroalgal cover
Microalqal cover (visual estimate)
Range Seasonally
High
Low-mod subtidal
Mod-high intertidal
High
Low-moderate
Moderate-high
Moderate-high
Hiqh
Moderate-high
High
Moderate-high
Uncertain
Low (?)
Low-moderate
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low-moderate
High
Hiqh
Range Tidally
High
Low subtidal
Mod-high
intertidal
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
NA
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Sampling Frequency3
All
All
Frequent
Frequent in lower
salinity
Periodic
Periodic
Infrequent
Infrequent
Frequent
Experimental
Infrequent
Experimental
Infrequent-depends
upon toxicity
All
All
Periodic
Periodic
All
All
All
All
Used to Estimate13
Habitat type
Habitat type
Habitat type
Input of organic matter
Habitat type
Primary production
Sediment inputs
Primary production
Inputs from watershed
Primary production
Food availability, toxic tides
Primary production
Condition of phytoplankton
Dominant taxa
Integrative measure food and
water quality
Presence of unknown toxicants
Quantifies known toxicants
Habitat type
Habitat type
Habitat type
Habitat type
Organic inputs
Habitat type
Oyster production
Habitat type
Primary production
Habitat type
Primary production
Primary production
oo
NJ
-------
Table 7-5. Potential Parameters Used to Characterize Habitats (Page 2 of 2).
Parameter
Sediment chlorophyll
Proximity to stream/marsh
Known disturbances
Pesticides in bird eggs and/or seal blood
Benthic Parameters
Total infaunal density & biomass
Density "key" benthic species
(abundant and/or large)
Density of burrows
Infaunal diversity
Amphipod toxicity
Sediment pollutant concentrations
Tissue residues in bivalves
Benthic profiler (camera)
Range Seasonally
High
Low
Low (?)
Low-moderate
Moderate-high
Moderate-high
Moderate
Low-moderate
Low
Low for chlorinated
Moderate-high for
lower Kow biocides
w/seasonal use
Low for chlorinated
Moderate-high for
lower Kow biocides
w/seasonal use
Low-moderate
Range Tidally
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Sampling Frequency8
Periodic
All
Estimate for locale
Experimental
Periodic
Frequent
All
Infrequent
Infrequent
1 nf requent-depends
upon toxicity & inputs
Infrequent-depends
upon toxicity & inputs
Experimental
Used to Estimate15
Primary production
Terrestrial inputs
Impacts not related to measured
parameters
Integrative measure of pollutant
loading
Community structure
Prey availability
Secondary production
Prey availability
Nutrient regeneration
Clam production
Habitat type
Bioturbation
Oyster production
Community structure
Presence of unknown toxicants
Quantifies known toxicants
Quantifies known toxicants
Habitat type
oo
w
a Part of the research problem is to determine the optimal sampling schedule for these parameters. The frequencies mentioned here represent a
first-cut plan. All = at all sites where meaningful (e.g., no intertidal measures for subtidal sites). Frequent = at most stations (may not be
repeated for adjoining stations sampled at the same time, such as during an intertidal transect). Periodic = at about 10-25% of the sites.
Infrequent = at less than 10% of the sites. Experimental = to be evaluated as to usefulness.
b Predictive relationships will be developed relating habitat type to key ecosystem functions, such as nutrient regeneration, so estimation of
functions is not limited to those explicitly identified. Production will be estimated from standing stocks based on a general knowledge of the life
histories of the key species and their size distributions.
-------
• What level of resolution is required to capture the ecosystem-level functions important to the
management of the system?
• What is the optimum sampling strategy for assessing these ecosystem-level functions?
• What is the optimum sampling strategy for assessing the sources of ecosystem-level stressors?
• Does the EMAP sampling strategy adequately describe the status of the bay?
• Can a cost-effective tiered approach be developed for monitoring ecosystem functions?
For the rapid assessment methods, taxonomic identifications will focus on the genus or family level, rather
than the species level, which should greatly reduce processing costs but still generate sufficient
information (see Ferraro and Cole 1990,1992). This assumes that the key species and ecosystem
structures/functions can be determined from the numerically dominant taxa and/or from the larger taxa
that modify habitat (e.g., macroalgal mats, major bioturbators) or major predators. We also assume (and
will test) that semi-quantitative (e.g., photos of density of mud shrimp burrows) or qualitative (e.g., visual
descriptions of habitat type) can generate information predictive of ecosystem functions. This approach
maximizes the areal extent sampled, but sacrifices information on less common species and smaller
organisms, including juvenile stages, as well as indices based on species richness.
The data (i.e., benthic mapping) for Willapa Bay will serve to quantify the existing condition of the system,
as a benchmark for future assessments, and to provide a basis for quantifying spatial associations
between physical/chemical habitat characteristics and indicators of ecosystem structure/functions. The
final step is to test how site specific these relationships are by applying them to other Pacific Northwest
estuaries. The extent of this field validation at independent sites will depend upon resources. No large-
scale validation will be attempted until the later part of the project, though smaller scale comparisons may
be undertaken synoptically with the Willapa case study.
Fish and Megabenthos. For fish, we want to quantify, by time and habitat type, the use of estuarine
habitats by major fish species, especially anadromous salmonids, commercially important flatfish and
herring, and other species of fish that spawn in estuaries, are known prey for salmonids, or represent a
large biomass. This research will also include the megabenthos, the larger epifaunal invertebrates
sampled by trawls rather than by benthic grabs. The most important types of megabenthos are shrimp
and crabs, especially the commercially important Dungeness crab. The habitat utilization study will
examine benthic and vegetation types, salinity, temperature, life stage, feeding habits, and correlations
with seasonal and tidal patterns. Potentially important fish species, their distributions within estuaries, and
their seasonal abundance are given in Table 7-6.
184
-------
Table 7-6. Juvenile Fish: Occurrence and Relative Abundance by Month in Yaquina, Tillamook,
and Willapa Bays (Source: Monaco et al. 1990).
Species
Herring (MS)b
Anchovy (MS)
Surf smelt (MS)
Topsmelt (MS)
Stickleback (IMS)
Staghorn (IMS)
Sand lance (S)
Cutthroat trout (IMS)
Steelhead (IMS)
Coho salmon (IMS)
Chinook salmon (TMS)
Chum salmon (TMS)
English sole (MS)
Starry founder (TMS)
Yaquina
JFMAMJJASOND3
AMJJASON
MJJASON
JFMAMJJASOND
MAMJJASOND
JF MJJASOND
JFMAMJJASOND
AMJJA
AMJJASO
AMJ
AMJJASO
AMJJASOND
FMAM
JFMAMJJASOND
JFMAMJJASOND
Tillamook
JFMAMJJASOND3
AMJJASO
MJJASO
JFMAMJJASOND
JJASOND
JFMAMJJASOND
MAMJJAS
MAMJJASO
MAMJ
MAMJJAS
JFMAMJJASOND
FMAMJJ
JFMAMJJASOND
JFMAMJJASOND
Willapa
JFMAMJJASOND3
JFMAMJJASOND
JFMAMJJASOND
JFMAMJJASOND
JASOND
JFMAMJJASOND
JFMAMJJASOND
MAMJ
MAMJ
AMJ
JFMAMJJASOND
FMAMJJ
JFMAMJJASOND
JFMAMJJASOND
3 Presence by month (e.g., MJJA = May, June, July, August).
Abundance (e.g., MA MJ JAS = common March-September, abundant April-July; highly abundant
May-June).
b Location: T = tidal fresh; M = mixing; S = seawater
185
-------
We will begin by identifying general presence/absence/density trends, by time and habitat type, and prey
preferences from published information. Based upon these data, we will formulate and conduct a detailed
sampling study for one or more estuaries to determine (1) fish and megabenthos population sizes by
habitat type, (2) diel, tidal, and annual patterns in presence, distribution, and activities by habitat type, and
(3) feeding preferences by habitat type.
Location
Most of the sampling conducted to develop these relationships will take place in Willapa Bay, although
specific sampling along gradients may occur in other estuaries as appropriate.
Timeline
Because of the ecological importance of benthic systems in Pacific Northwest estuaries, this project will be
given high priority and will begin in FY95. Field components for fish must await development of the
estuarine benthic habitat target map for the subject estuaries. Thus sampling for fish will not begin before
the second year of the project.
7.3.3 Extent, Causes, and Effects of Sedimentation and Associated Parameters
We propose to conduct three interrelated activities to evaluate the extent, causes, and effects of sedi-
mentation and associated parameters in Pacific Northwest coastal estuaries: (1) estimates of current and
historical sedimentation rates in relation to estuary and watershed type and history, (2) application of
watershed models to simulate precipitation, runoff, and associated sediment and nutrient loadings as a
function of watershed characteristics and activities, and (3) development or application of models to pre-
dict the effects of sedimentation on circulation, temperature, nutrients, and other key physical/ chemical
parameters. Results from these studies can then be coupled with the benthos and fish habitat-ecosystem
relationships described in Section 7.3.2 or the phytoplankton relationships described in Section 7.3.5 to
predict biotic effects. We describe each of these activities (subprojects) in the following sections.
7.3.3.1 Estimating Sedimentation Rates and Estuary History
To determine the current status of estuaries, it is necessary to estimate the extent of net sedimentation
that has occurred over the historical past. To model the relationship between sedimentation and
watershed history and management practices, we need to determine whether the sediment is terrestrial or
marine in origin and, if possible, to relate the sedimentation to specific natural or anthropogenic activities.
186
-------
Project-Level Objectives
Estimate current and historical sedimentation rates in the target estuaries.
Identify the relative contributions of different sediment sources.
Develop conceptual or statistical models relating estuary sedimentation rates to natural or
anthropogenic watershed characteristics and events.
Develop approaches for estimating sedimentation that can be applied in other estuaries.
Approach
Because of the complexity of estuary-watershed linkages and because of the spatial/temporal variations in
sedimentation, a variety of methods, each with its own advantages and disadvantages, will be considered
with regard to information gained and cost-effectiveness for estimating sedimentation and sources of
sedimentation (Table 7-7). Estimating sedimentation from changes in bathymetry from historical records
is a relatively rapid method of estimating net deposition over wide areas. Bathymetric records and photo-
graphs taken over the last 150 years will be obtained from a variety of sources, such as the Navy, Coast
Guard, USGS, NOAA, NASA, state agencies, and historical societies. These data will be entered into CIS
systems and compared to present bathymetry to determine net changes over the historical past. As
needed, present intertidal bathymetry will be estimated from photographs taken throughout a tidal cycle
and subtidal bathymetry extracted from sounding records. Several studies are ongoing in Pacific North-
west estuaries, in particular, the remote sensing of intertidal areas to monitor Spartina expansion in
Willapa Bay by Washington's Department of Natural Resources (T. Mumford pers. comm.) and the
historical reconstructions being put together for Tillamook Bay under the National Estuary Program.
Because of these ongoing studies, the major role of this project will be to collate the data into a single
repository, fill in any spatial or conceptual gaps, and/or use the data to address ecosystem-level problems
that may not have been the focus of the original study.
Within-sediment tracers, which can be expensive, require undisturbed, layered sediment. However, they
can generate information on temporal variations in sedimentation rates and on the history of the site. In
the target estuaries, we will collect cores from undisturbed depositional sites. Initial dating of the cores will
be conducted using 210Pb geochronology (Huh et al. 1990). Samples of sediment from periods of interest
will be analyzed for (1) geological indices such as grain size, mineralogy, and weathering characteristics
and (2) chemical indices such as total organic carbon (TOC) and nitrogen (TON); petrogenic and pyro-
genic polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) that could signature specific oil spills or forest fires
(Readman et al. 1987); and nuclear bomb residues (e.g., 137Cs) that can provide useful sediment
187
-------
Table 7-7. Methods of Estimating Sedimentation Rates.
Method Interval Features Advantages Costs ($)
Sediment trap
Bathymetric maps
Sediment profile
imaging
t37Cs
2t°Pb
14C
1-2 days
0-1 00 years
Major events
0-30 years
10-1 00 years
500-9000 years
1 . Diel cycle integration
2. Water column data
1 . Broad scale change
1 . Visual markers
1 . Discrete sites
2. Sedimentary record
3. Single horizon (ca. 1963)
1 . Discrete sites
2. Sedimentary record
1 . Discrete sites
2. Sedimentary record
1 . Real-time rate
2. Fresh sample collected
1 . Entire bay
2. Relative rate
1 . Sediment types mapped
2. Rapid, inexpensive
1 . Net rate
1 . Net rate
2. Temporal resolution
1 . Absolute dates pre-1950
1.5K/trap
>5K/bay
100/sample
1K/core
1-2K/core
1-2K/core
00
oo
-------
horizons. We also may analyze for persistent pollutants at certain sites, either as temporal tracers (e.g.,
DDT) or as a history of past stressors. Inexpensive biotic indicators of sedimentation or changes in
communities, such as buried oyster shells, will be examined at several sites; at selected sites, biological
indices (Whitlock 1992) of both watershed flora (e.g., pollen from forest vs. grassland taxa) will be
examined if appropriate. Though potentially expensive, pollen analyses provide climate and vegetation
data for the watershed within a given stratum and can be used to identify major shifts in the watershed
that may be related to changes in sedimentation (e.g., increases in grass pollen may correspond to
increased sedimentation due to fire).
For present-day sediment processes, sediment traps provide a direct measurement of the rate of deposi-
tion as well as a method of determining the flux of carbon and other natural and anthropogenic materials
to the benthos. For an area with highly variable deposition rates, monthly trap deployments over a 3-year
period should provide a realistic average rate, based on work in other estuaries (e.g., Sigleo and Shultz
1993). Sediment traps can be used both to determine present undisturbed sediment flux, and the effects
of specific watershed alterations when the traps are deployed during a disturbance (e.g., clear-cutting).
Sediment traps will be used to establish parameters and/or conduct field validation for runoff models and
probably will not be deployed until later in the project.
Determining the source of historical or present sedimentary material is still an art and often is based on
circumstantial evidence. However, it should be possible to separate marine sands in the mouth of the
estuary from terrestrial sediments transported from the watershed. Also, ratios of stable isotopes, par-
ticularly those of nitrogen (14 and 15), carbon (12 and 13), and oxygen can be used to determine environ-
mental source (Rau et al. 1981, Peterson et al. 1985, Sigleo and Macko 1985). However, stable isotopes
also can indicate certain processes (e.g., nitrification vs. denitrification) and should be used with caution.
The results will be used to develop empirical models furthering the understanding and predictive capability
of the effects of specific watershed events (e.g., major fires or storms, disease, infestation, logging,
agriculture, urbanization) on the types and rates of sedimentation in target estuaries of the Pacific
Northwest. The data can also be used to estimate the relative contributions from marine vs. watershed
inputs, as well as to evaluate various runoff models, as discussed in Section 7.3.3.2.
Location
Willapa Bay will be the focus for the analysis of historical bathymetry. The project also will interact with
the Tillamook National Estuary Program in its historical reconstructions, both to fill research and/or CIS
189
-------
gaps and to learn its procedures for using the historical reconstructions. Evaluation of some within-
sediment methods requires undisturbed sediments, so sites of opportunity will be used initially.
Timeline
Historical records of bathymetry for Tillamook Bay will be compiled in FY95 or FY96 by the National
Estuary Program; analyses should be complete in FY96. Analysis of historical records in Willapa should
be completed by FY97. Sampling for within-sediment techniques and sediment trap deployment will begin
in FY95 or FY96 and expand to other estuaries in later years. Development of empirical models will begin
in FY96 or FY97.
7.3.3.2 Predicting Runoff and Inputs from Coastal Watersheds
Runoff from streams and rivers, with the associated sediments, nutrients, and pollutants, transported into
the estuary constitutes an important, if not the most important, link between coastal watersheds and
estuarine ecosystems. The overall goal of the estuarine research is to predict the extent to which these
watershed inputs affect estuarine ecosystems. Therefore, we must be able to predict how watersheds
respond (e.g., changes in outputs) to major natural and anthropogenic alterations. This project calls for a
mechanistic understanding of the watersheds.
Project-Level Objectives
Develop or apply hybrid models to predict sediment and nutrient loads to Pacific Northwest
coastal estuaries as a function of watershed characteristics and upland management practices.
Collect the minimum data set required for these models and apply and test the models for Willapa
Bay.
Approach
We propose to use existing (or modified) watershed and runoff models as the basis for predicting inputs
into the estuary. The first step will be to assess the utility and data requirements of watershed runoff
models relative to the Program's needs (desired resolution) and resources. A likely candidate is EPA's
Hydrological Simulation Program Fortran (HSPF; Bicknell stal. 1993), which can predict flow rate, sedi-
ment load, and nutrient and pollutant concentrations based on watershed and climatic characteristics.
Other potential candidates include the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Watershed Model
TR-20 (McCuen 1989) and the HEC-2 (Hydrologic Engineering Center 1982). If the data requirements for
HSPF or similar models prove to be beyond the scope of the project, empirical (e.g., regression) models
190
-------
will be used. If greater accuracy is needed, and is within the budget, more mechanistic models (e.g.,
Wigmosta et al. 1994) will be considered.
We will obtain land use data for the models from GIS databases, and the Willapa Alliance is deriving data
for the Willapa watershed. We will obtain hydrographic data from USGS gaging stations, which are avail-
able in Willapa, by placing in situ monitors in main tributaries, and from local groups collecting runoff
samples, especially during periods of peak runoff. For the baseline assessment of Willapa Bay, as
described in Section 7.3.5, we will position stations near the mouths of the rivers draining into Willapa Bay,
which will provide additional data on inputs of sediments and nutrients. Existing data on runoff, sediment,
and nutrient loading for coastal streams, such as data from USFS/OSU Forestry reports (D. Shults, pers.
comm.), will also be used for model calibration or testing. Estimates of current and historical
sedimentation rates, as described in Section 7.3.3.1, will be useful for evaluating model predictions.
In addition to runoff from the adjoining watershed, the influx of marine waters through the mouth of the
estuary is a potential source of sediment, nutrients, and pollutants. Potential inputs from nearshore
coastal waters, possibly including Columbia River water (see Ebbesmeyer and Tangborn 1992), will be
evaluated in Willapa Bay. The importance of marine inputs will be evaluated through reviewing the litera-
ture, determining sources of sediments, and studying circulation patterns within the Bay (Section 7.3.3.3).
Location
Because of the close linkages between the data needed to set parameters and/or validate the runoff
models and the data collected under the baseline assessment of water quality, Willapa Bay will be the
focus of this research. To the extent that the National Estuary Program generates databases suitable for
analysis, the models will be used to simulate conditions in Tillamook Bay.
Timeline
The review of existing runoff models will be completed in FY95. Data collection and/or model develop-
ment for Willapa Bay should begin in FY96.
7.3.3.3 Effects on Circulation and Associated Parameters
Circulation models are essential to predicting which areas within an estuary will be directly impacted by
sedimentation. Circulation models are also important tools for predicting (1) the nature and extent of
191
-------
indirect effects of sedimentation on bathymetry, temperature, nutrient loading, and transport of pollutants
from the watershed and (2) the fate of biocides applied directly to the estuary.
Project-Level Objectives
Collect the circulation data required to adequately describe the currents in Willapa Bay, and other
target estuaries as feasible.
Develop, modify, and verify approaches and models for predicting present circulation and
changes in circulation as a function of sedimentation and runoff in Pacific Northwest coastal
estuaries.
• Couple circulation models with other models to predict temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen,
suspended solids, nutrients, stratification, and other parameters of interest.
Approach
We will determine the seasonal circulation patterns of Willapa Bay by deploying a set of moored current
meters—adequate to help separate inputs from oceanic water vs. river runoff. The current meters will also
help to determine the fate of biocides applied to Spartina and mud shrimp beds, the movement of Spartina
detritus and seeds, and the movement of sediment.
Circulation data will be used to develop and validate circulation models. At least two types of circulation
models will be considered: (1) models that rigorously and directly address sedimentation and circulation
and (2) simpler models that can be used as everyday conceptual tools by researchers or managers. If
successful, the complex models may result in detailed maps of sedimentation 20 years into the future.
The simpler models will tend to address more general but immediate concerns, such as predicting the tidal
height and velocity at a specific point and time. The circulation models will be coupled with other models
to predict temperature, salinity, suspended solids, nutrients, and stratification. In areas affected by
agriculture, particularly dairy farming, it may be necessary to predict organic loading and corresponding
spatial and temporal changes in dissolved oxygen. The objective will be to provide researchers and
managers with a "numerical bottle of water" anywhere in the aquatic domain from which the ecosystem
structure and function can be predicted.
Candidate circulation models (Table 7-8) will be assessed for their basic usefulness and those chosen will
be adapted as appropriate. Verification data (e.g., currents) and required information (e.g., bathymetry)
will be collected in Willapa Bay and extracted from the literature for other sites. Some effort will support
the development of sophisticated primitive equation, finite element/difference, dynamical models for
Willapa Bay. These models can generate high-resolution answers, but are often site specific and may be
192
-------
difficult to develop and run. Consequently, a concurrent effort will develop models, relatively simple, but
still powerful, for predicting tides and basic current patterns, using, at a minimum, mass conservation
principles (i.e., tide model in Table 7-8). Such a model might provide (1) boundary conditions for more
sophisticated models (e.g., tidal heights) and (2) in a short time frame, a multi-purpose model capable of
providing predictions accurate enough for many management decisions. The circulation models will be
coupled with other models to predict various indirect effects. For example, predicting temperature
changes would require the development of a simple heat budget for the intertidal zone.
The needs of end users will be factored into model development. Considered in this context will be
emerging tools, such as Object Oriented Programming (C++) and the Windows operating system.
Location
The tide model will be developed initially for Yaquina Bay and then for Willapa Bay. The dynamic circula-
tion models will be developed initially for Willapa Bay.
Timeline
We will begin collecting current data in Willapa Bay in the first year, and continue into the second year.
Model development will begin in year 1. This research will be coordinated through Sea Grant. We antici-
pate that first-generation tidal models can be developed for all the target estuaries within two years.
7.3.4 Extent, Causes, and Effects of Biological Stressors and Potential Control Measures
This project will consider two major biological stressors in Willapa Bay: the invasion and expansion of
Spartina and recent population explosions of mud shrimp. The expansion of Spartina is considered to
have the greater ecological impact and will be given higher priority.
Project-Level Objectives
Determine the direct and indirect effects of Spartina and mud shrimp on the estuary ecosystem.
• Evaluate the relative effects of Spartina and mud shrimp, vs. control measures for these
organisms, on the estuary ecosystem.
• Identify likely linkages of Spartina expansions and increases in mud shrimp populations with water
quality parameters and watershed management.
193
-------
Table 7-8. Candidate Circulation, Sedimentation, and Transport Model Prototypes.
MODEL
DYNHYD
5
Reflux
SEDDEP
Tide
model
POM
Koutitas
DECAL
Type
Dynamic
Dispersion
Stratified
Mass
conserved
Sediment
PVD
Stokes settling
Harmonic
Mass conservation
Finite
Element
2.5 D
Sediment
Coag/Floc
Output
Currents
Pollutants
Currents
Residence times
Sediment
Distribution
Current
Tides
Boundary conditions
Current
Dispersion
Stratification
Current
Sediment
Distribution
Resources
Labor Equip
Med-High
Med-Low
Med
Med-Low
High
??
Med-Low
PC
PC
PC
PC
mini
PC
PC
Flexible
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Med-High
Variable
High
Low
Power
High
Med
Med-Low
Med
High
High
Med-Low
Control
Med-
Low
Med-
High
Med-
Low
High
Low
??
Low
Status
EPA
On hand
EPA
EPA
Public
domain
??
EPA
Notes
In
debugging
In develop-
ment
Reflux: Puget Sound Reflux Model (Coketet and Stewart 1985).
PVD: Progressive Vector Diagram approach.
POM: Princeton Ocean Model (Blumberg and Mellor 1987).
Flexibility estimates the potential for modifying the program.
Power estimates scientific rigor and the ability to include relevant mechanisms.
Control estimates user confidence and dominion.
-------
Approach
The specific questions addressed regarding Spartina depend in part upon pending Washington State
management decisions and court cases about the extent to which Rodeo will be used to control Spartina.
If it is decided to control Spartina with herbicides, then the key questions relate to the toxicity, the recovery
potential of different habitats, and the short- and long-term effects of killing Spartina. If the decision is not
to control Spartina, or if the decision is delayed because of a lack of information, then the key questions
relate to ecosystem effects of Spartina, both positive and negative. The Washington Department of
Ecology has conducted extensive data reviews of Spartina and the impacts of chemical and nonchemical
control strategies, and the Washington Department of Natural Resources has done field research on the
fate and effects of glyphosate and surfactants in Willapa Bay (Simenstad et al. 1993), plus remote sensing
of intertidal areas. Therefore, the roles of this project are to fill specific key data gaps, determine the
relationship between Spartina expansion and water quality conditions and/or watershed management, and
assess present and predicted effects at an ecosystem scale. Defining specific testable hypotheses will
constitute the first step in the research. The research perspective will be at the ecosystem level, rather
than localized impacts alone.
Although setting out a detailed research agenda for Spartina would be premature, it is possible to define
potential research issues assuming no herbicide control. One key issue is the effect Spartina has had,
and will continue to have, on habitat loss through increased sedimentation or changes in circulation.
Habitat losses or changes can be documented by the remote sensing data collected by the Washington
Department of Natural Resources. The habitat-environment relationships developed in Section 7.3.2 can
be used to determine the ecological consequences of specific habitat alterations. Another broad issue is
determining the effects on other communities and populations, either directly or indirectly. For example,
there is a question about the fate of the considerable Spartina detritus and whether it fuels local detrital
food webs. This issue could be addressed by examining various signatures (e.g., delta carbon ratios) and
by constructing a food web through literature reviews, field studies, and the use of Cs/K ratios (Young et
al. 1987). Another example is Spartina's impact on the native submerged aquatic, Zostera marina, which
could be determined through field monitoring; the mechanisms of interactions could be determined by
means of laboratory/field experiments and biomarkers of plant health. Other potential issues include the
effects of Spartina on juvenile fish, benthos (especially salmon prey species), migratory birds, and
phytoplankton production through alteration of nutrient budgets.
If the decision is made to control Spartina through widespread application of herbicides, the questions
relate to the indirect impacts of killing large masses of Spartina and the potential for recovery. Would
there be a rapid release of nutrients and would this indirectly cause any adverse impacts? How quickly
195
-------
will the Spartina root mass decay? Will the accreted sediment erode, thus returning the site to its previous
habitat type? To what extent and at what rate will the biotic communities recover, and how does recovery
vary with environmental parameters such as current speed or salinity? Additional questions relate to
ecosystem-level effects of herbicide application. As mentioned, there appears to be considerable
information on toxicity. Any research in this area will focus on relating localized toxic effects to ecosystem
integrity and/or conducting a comparative risk assessment for the Bay.
Another potential research area is determining the linkages between Spartina expansion and watershed
management. Quantifying the linkages may be important, to identify potential control measures and/or to
help predict the rate of expansion under different watershed management scenarios. This question can
be addressed by relating Spartina past and present distributions and present health to various indices of
the environment (e.g., nutrients) and/or historical watershed practices. Alternate possibilities, which will
also be explored, are that there is no strong linkage to watersheds, and the expansion is a simple expo-
nential growth or is related to large-scale weather patterns (e.g., El Nifto).
Mud shrimp are native to Willapa Bay and thus their expansion differs qualitatively from that of Spartina.
From a management perspective, the key ecological issue is the effect of mud shrimp relative to that of
carbaryl (the chemical control measure). Considerable data on toxicity have been reviewed (Washington
Department of Fisheries and Washington Department of Ecology 1992), thus little or no work on direct
toxicity will be conducted, unless specific data gaps are identified. However, the total ecological impact
also includes the indirect effects of a reduction in mud shrimp populations and an increase in oysters.
Potential indirect effects of a reduction in mud shrimp also include a reduction in filtration of the water
column with concomitant changes in water quality (the volume irrigated by shrimp may approach the
summer river flow), drastic changes in the benthic community, and changes in prey availability. The
nature and extent of these changes can be determined through literature reviews, field studies, and
laboratory/field experimentation. As with Spartina, it will then be necessary to develop ecological
approaches to evaluate the net effects of the pesticide application vs. the mud shrimp's natural expansion.
If these results indicate a potential adverse ecosystem effect from current management practices, the
linkages between mud shrimp populations and watershed inputs and/or reduced predation will be
examined.
Location
This research will be carried out at Willapa Bay. Some of the laboratory experimental research on the
direct and indirect effects of mud shrimp or Spartina may be conducted at ERL-Newport.
196
-------
Timeline
Research on the ecosystem effects of Spartina and/or the reasons for its expansion will begin in the first
year. Limited research on mud shrimp will begin in year 2 or 3, and will be expanded in the third and
fourth years, if the results indicate substantial indirect effects.
7.3.5 Willapa Bay Case Study Assessment and Data Synthesis
The final research projects are the case study in Willapa Bay and the data synthesis. These projects will
be conducted jointly with the Watershed/Ecoregion research component. The major objectives and
approach were outlined in Section 5.3.2. We do not repeat that information here, but we supplement it by
(1) describing proposed data collection activities specific to the Willapa estuary-watershed assessment
and (2) discussing the relationship between this project and the process-oriented research in Sections
7.3.2-7.3.4.
The case study assessment for Willapa Bay is the focus of the Coastal Estuaries research component.
An important goal of the case study is to evaluate the technical methods/approaches developed by the
process-oriented research and to integrate research findings from this and other PNW research projects
for a real world application. In addition, integrated case studies help to identify conceptual bottlenecks and
data gaps, and conversely, instances of oversampling or collection of research data at a higher resolution
than required for assessment applications. Of particular importance to the assessment will be approaches
for evaluating the relative importance of various stressors and the ways in which different components of
the estuary and watersheds interact. Although implicit in the projects described in Sections 7.3.2-7.3.4,
these objectives and needs become explicit in an integrated estuary-watershed assessment.
"Willapa Bay is notable as one of the five largest oyster producing regions in the world and the cleanest
large estuary in the continental U.S." (Colby 1992). However, as pointed out by Wolf (1993), declines in
log diameters, average size of oysters, and number of salmon all indicate a system under increasing
stress. The major stressors in Willapa Bay that appear to be having or could have the greatest impact on
the ecosystem are (1) introduced cordgrass, Spartina alterniflora, and the application of glyphosate to
control its spread, (2) population explosions of mud shrimp and the application of carbaryl to control them,
(3) sedimentation, (4) nutrient and organic loading from logging, agriculture, and development, and
(5) habitat loss. Except for the two pesticides being directly applied, toxic pollutants do not appear to be
having a major impact on the ecosystem, although this assumption will be evaluated during the study.
197
-------
These stressors potentially overlap spatially and vary temporally, resulting in a complex suite of multiple
stresses on single habitats. There may also be complex ecological linkages among stressors, such as an
increase in the expansion of Spartina through nutrient inputs because of logging. There is considerable
controversy over how best to manage Willapa Bay, and the complex nature of the stressors suggests that
effective management will require trade-offs among resources. In that sense, Willapa Bay is a fitting
location to conduct a prototype ecosystem management assessment.
Project-Level Objectives
• Conduct an integrated assessment for Willapa Bay, Washington, that provides ecological
information in a format useful for addressing real-world management questions about the Bay and
the stressors and management strategies that affect the Bay.
• Develop and validate sound, cost-effective, scientific approaches to ecosystem assessment for
the management of estuarine systems.
Approach
Besides integrating the process-oriented research, the case study will require site-specific data not
collected as part of process-oriented research in the Bay. Acceptable ecosystem-level predictions require
a reasonably detailed understanding of water chemistry and circulation patterns. This information can be
used to (1) distinguish sources (e.g., nutrient inputs from dairy farming vs. Columbia River water), (2)
predict the habitats at risk (e.g., of increased sedimentation from logging or pesticide spraying), (3) assess
the present status or condition, and (4) determine short-term alterations by quantifying changes over the
duration of the program and long-term alterations by making comparisons with historical data. Besides
being major determinants of types of biotic community, water quality parameters such as salinity and
nutrients change rapidly in response to changes in watershed and marine inputs. This rapid response
makes them excellent parameters for monitoring the effects of watershed alterations (e.g., logging) or
climatic conditions (e.g., rain storm). Therefore, one of the initial tasks (after establishing the assessment
questions and overall assessment design; see Section 5.3) will be to collect information on temperature,
salinity, nutrients, dissolved oxygen, turbidity and other basic water quality parameters in Willapa Bay.
Phytoplankton production and composition will be measured because of their importance to oyster
production and, as mentioned in Section 7.3.2, to benthic community structure. Monitoring the dominant
phytoplankton species will also generate insight into the frequency and timing of the presence of toxic
algae species. Assessment of glyphosate, carbaryl, and other toxic pollutants in water, sediment, and
tissues will also be included in this research area if data reviews or monitoring indicate that these
pollutants are important ecosystem stressors. Data for parameterization and validation of circulation
models, as discussed in Section 7.3.3.3, will be collected. As mentioned, the collection of the water
198
-------
quality data will be closely coordinated with, or in some cases part of, the habitat-ecosystem relationships
developed under Section 7.3.2.
The sampling program will be designed to have enough stations and sampling periods to map out the
general spatial and temporal patterns of the water quality parameters and to differentiate inputs from the
major potential sources. Because of the importance of continuous records, conductivity-temperature-
depth (CTD) recorders will be used to collect time-series data at permanent stations. As discussed in
Section 7.3.3.3, current meters will be deployed throughout the Bay to collect the data needed to develop
an empirical understanding of circulation and to parameterize the circulation models.
The strategy will be to work with and leverage existing programs, in particular the Washington Department
of Ecology's monthly sampling under its Ambient Monitoring Program, which began in 1967. To the extent
feasible, EMAP techniques and QA/QC requirements will be used. The greatest problems with the CTDs
and current meters are likely to be the loss of units and the need for relatively frequent recalibration, which
suggests the need for forming local partnerships. For cost effectiveness, and for assuring integration of
the physical and chemical data, current meters and CTDs will be deployed jointly. The results from the
sedimentation/runoff models will be coupled with these results to determine linkages to the watershed.
Secondary goals of the case study in Willapa Bay are (1) field validation of the ecosystem-level tools and
approaches (including EMAP) developed in other estuaries, (2) development of centralized databases and
CIS systems for future research and/or management, and (3) synthesis of the information from all the
Pacific Northwest estuaries into a format useful to managers.
Because ecosystem assessment and management are in their infancy, the data synthesis and develop-
ment of ecosystem assessment paradigms are considered a separate research project, rather than just a
report exercise. Section 3, as well as Section 5.3, outline the basic approach to conducting ecological
assessments for ecosystem management. We will apply, test, and refine this approach for estuarine
systems. One important component of this effort is the synthesis of ecological understanding into an
overall conceptual/management model for the study area, parts or all of which may be expressed in a
computer model. These models (both conceptual and computerized) will provide information for man-
agers on major stressors and will predict for single or multiple stressors: (1) habitat and resources at risk,
(2) nature of potential or actual ecosystem alterations, (3) extent of potential or actual ecosystem altera-
tions, (4) time frame for ecosystem alterations, (5) linkages among estuarine and watershed ecosystem
components and the ways alterations on one component affect other components, and (6) ranking of the
relative importance of stressors to different parts of the estuarine ecosystem.
199
-------
At this stage of the science, it is likely that there will be order-of-magnitude uncertainty associated with
several, if not many, of the predictions. Development of practical ecosystem-level management models
must incorporate this uncertainty into the decision making process. Therefore, an output of the case study
will be to characterize the significance of these errors and identify the most efficient approach to reducing
critical uncertainties (e.g., increasing replication vs. filling data gaps vs. developing a more complete
conceptual model).
As discussed in Section 3, a successful assessment will require close coordination with stakeholders to
define local, tribal, regional, and national concerns and priorities. "Strawman" management goals, devel-
oped in coordination with the stakeholders, will be established to facilitate the conducting of sensitivity
analyses. Goals of the sensitivity analyses will include determining whether ecosystem management
addresses problems not possible to address through simpler regulatory approaches and how to compare
effects on different ecosystem components to allow trade-offs among these components (e.g., oyster yield
vs. biotic diversity vs. direct effects of pesticides).
Location
We will conduct this work at Willapa Bay. It is possible that a more limited case study assessment may be
conducted, if adequate information and resources are available, through the National Estuary Program in
Tillamook Bay in later years of the program.
Timeline
As discussed in Section 5.3, an initial assessment using existing data will be conducted in year 1, to
establish specific assessment and research questions and identify major data gaps and research
priorities. Resources will be devoted to obtaining the necessary CTDs and current meters in the first and
second years and baseline data collection will occur over the full five years. The final assessment for
Willapa Bay and the data synthesis will occur in years 4 and 5.
7.4 MAJOR CONTRIBUTIONS
The major contributions of the Coastal Estuaries research component will be as follows:
Models to predict changes in the function of benthic communities and key fish populations as a
consequence of sedimentation and other habitat alterations.
Estimates of net sedimentation in the target estuaries and models to predict sedimentation in
estuaries as a function of watershed type and disturbance.
200
-------
Models to predict runoff and loadings of sediment and associated parameters, such as nutrients,
as a function of watershed type and disturbance.
Evaluation of the ecological effects of Spartina and mud shrimp vs. those of the chemical control
measures.
Baseline information on water quality and circulation in Willapa Bay.
Case study assessment to support effective implementation of ecosystem management in Willapa
Bay, which will include identifying the key stressors and development of an ecosystem
management paradigm for estuarine ecosystems.
201
-------
8. INTEGRATED MONITORING
This section discusses the research we propose for contributing to the development of an integrated1
monitoring program for adaptive ecosystem management in the Pacific Northwest. It is not within the
scope of the PNW research program to implement long-term monitoring. Federal land management
agencies, the states, EPA Region 10, and others have monitoring responsibilities. Thus, we believe that
our major contribution is to assist with monitoring design and coordination. Within ORD, EMAP has
committed substantial resources to the design and demonstration of regional monitoring programs (see
Box 2-A). Our role is to serve as a focal point for EMAP and interagency activities in the Pacific Northwest
and to extend these efforts as needed to develop an integrated monitoring design that satisfies the diverse
users of monitoring information within the region.
8.1 BACKGROUND
The impetus for federal interagency coordination within the region came from the President's Forest
Conference, FEMAT (1993), and the final implementation plan, "President's Plan for the Management of
Habitat for Late Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Spotted
Owl" (USFS and BLM 1994a) (see Section 1.3). USFS et al. (1994) outline the monitoring requirements of
this plan and a framework for federal interagency monitoring coordination. EPA (Region 10 and the PNW
research program) participate in this effort through the Federal Interagency Research and Monitoring
Committee (RMC) and the Monitoring Workgroup established under the RMC. The primary goal of the
Monitoring Workgroup is to develop a coordinated interagency plan for monitoring in the Pacific Northwest
in support of the President's Plan. A component of the research proposed in this section is in direct
support of the RMC and the Monitoring Group.
Monitoring needs for ecosystem management extend beyond federal lands and the range of the spotted
owl. Among federal agencies, an important task for EPA is to ensure the establishment of sound scientific
foundations for a region-wide monitoring database that includes both federal and nonfederal lands and
supports management decisions affecting ecological resources within the entire region in an integrated
fashion over the long term. These efforts will require interactions with state, county, and municipal
governments, tribes (Ward 1991), industry, and other organizations, in addition to federal agencies
(Grayson et al. 1994, Smith 1994). Coordination with these nonfederal groups will take place through the
1 The term integrated is used throughout this document. Its meaning within the context of a monitoring
program is described in Section 8.3.3.
203
-------
RMC as well as in direct discussions.2 The development of a monitoring design that incorporates federal
and nonfederal lands, and forested and nonforested lands, is also a major component of our effort.
The long-term goal of this effort (beyond the temporal scope of this five-year strategy) is to implement an
integrated monitoring program within the Pacific Northwest. This program would combine the efforts of all
organizations with a responsibility for ecological monitoring into a common integrated monitoring system.
We expect that such a coordinated, integrated monitoring system would provide more and better
information at less cost than is currently expended on monitoring within the region (Hicks and Brydges
1994). We will contribute to this goal by catalyzing an inter-organizational design effort that will proceed
through demonstration and implementation phases.
The President's Plan requires monitoring not only of ecosystems, but also of social systems and adminis-
trative processes (see USFS et al. 1994). As do other parts of the PNW research program, the research
described in this section focuses on ecological issues, specifically on improved approaches to monitoring
ecosystems. We will not contribute directly to elements of an interagency plan to monitor social systems
or administrative processes, except to the degree that ecological monitoring must account for these needs
in its design.
Federal agencies, including EPA, have committed themselves to managing ecological resources of the
Pacific Northwest using the adaptive management process (FEMAT 1993, USFS and BLM 1994a,b). This
process is not new (Walters and Hilborn 1976, Grayson et al. 1994), although it has not been widely
applied in this country. It is:
"a process of action-based planning, monitoring, researching, evaluating, and adjusting with the
objective of improving the implementation and achieving goals of the selected alternative ... The
concept of adaptive management acknowledges the need to manage resources under circumstances
that contain varying degrees of uncertainty, and the need to adjust to new information... Essential
requirements for adaptive management include: clear goals, clear standards and guidelines, a
process for changing standards and guidelines or goals, a monitoring and/or research program aimed
at adaptive management questions" (USFS and BLM 1994a, p. E-13 -14).
2 The scope of the RMC and the Ecosystem Monitoring Workgroup have not yet been finalized (as of 20
February 1995), in particular the degree to which the interagency monitoring plan will consider non-
federal lands and monitoring for purposes other than those strictly defined in the President's Plan. The
original intent was to include all stakeholders, including states, tribes, and other interested parties, in all
major aspects of implementation of the President's Plan. However, given recent legal interpretations of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Northwest Forest Resource Council vs. Espy 21 March 1994), the
only tractable solution is to limit current coordination activities to federal agencies. We expect that
some mechanism will eventually be established to allow for broader participation, but the specifics of
this process are not yet clear.
204
-------
Figure 1-4 underscores the central role that monitoring plays in the overall scheme of adaptive manage-
ment. The needs of the adaptive management process are a major driving factor in the design of a cost-
effective, policy-relevant monitoring program.
The policy community increasingly is recognizing that the questions they pose require information at
multiple spatial scales (see Figure 3-15 and accompanying discussion). Although the specific manage-
ment questions may change over time, the types of questions of interest can be categorized according to
the temporal, spatial, and ecological scale at which they must be addressed. Issues of scale definition
and role are not limited to monitoring. Ecologists and assessment analysts have concluded that the
appropriate scale for analysis is tied to the question being asked and that there is no single proper scale of
analysis for addressing all questions (Hirvonen 1992, Milne 1992). There is a continuum of temporal and
spatial scales that could be relevant, depending on the question. FEMAT and the RMC use four: region,
province, watershed, and site (see Section 1.3). For organizational purposes, we collapse this into three
(region, watershed/ecoregion, and local/site), although research can occur at different scales within these
three broad categories.
Both adaptive management and the nature of policy questions have important consequences for the
design of a monitoring program. The monitoring program must consider the ecosystem management
goals, recognize that they are subject to change over time, as policy and management questions change,
and understand that monitoring information is needed at multiple temporal and spatial scales. The appro-
priate response is to define a set of relatively robust measurement endpoints, or indicators of ecosystem
structure and functions at multiple scales, which provide insights relevant to a broad range of policy ques-
tions. This challenge is imposing. The monitoring program design (including information management
and QA) must be robust and flexible enough to provide the information necessary to respond to current
questions, while also envisioning and accommodating future policy and management questions.
8.2 OBJECTIVES
The major objectives of this research component are as follows:
Identify the priority assessment questions for the Pacific Northwest that require monitoring infor-
mation. Identify the ecological, spatial, and temporal scales at which each question must be
addressed.
Design elements of a fully integrated multi-scale ecological monitoring program for the Pacific
Northwest.
Demonstrate this integrated multi-scale ecological monitoring design in the Pacific Northwest.
Involve authorities with the mandate and resources to implement a monitoring program during all
stages of this monitoring design effort.
205
-------
8.3 APPROACH
This section describes the approach we propose for achieving these objectives. We have organized our
effort into four projects, which match the four objectives above, and a series of tasks under each project
(Table 8-1). These projects and tasks may appear to be sequential, but this is not at all the case. For
example, because the ultimate goal is to transfer the monitoring design to other organizations responsible
for implementing monitoring, it is essential that these organizations be involved from the outset in devel-
oping the monitoring design (objective 4). Further, as discussed in Section 8.1, it is likely that the priority
policy/management questions will change over time, necessitating additions to or alterations in the moni-
toring program. Thus, some attention must be given to designing a program that has flexibility, not only in
the design stages, but also in the implementation stages.
Within the PNW research program, the assumed extramural budget for the Integrated Monitoring research
component is $260K per year over five years (Table 2-1). Table 8-2 presents the proposed distribution of
this extramural budget, by year, among the four projects/objectives. This table, however, does not fully
describe the total effort that ORD will devote to these activities, including internal resources (e.g., travel
and effort of federal personnel) as well as resources from other ORD programs, such as EMAP. Our
approach will be to use the PNW budget to leverage, to the degree possible, the larger resources in EMAP
and other monitoring programs, such as the USFS Forest Inventory Assessment Program and the
National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) National Resources Inventory. This is particularly true
for objectives 3 and 4. Objective 4 (involvement of others) will require relatively little extramural funding,
but substantial effort on the part of federal personnel assigned to the project. To accomplish objective 3
(monitoring demonstration), we will need to rely heavily on those programs that will eventually be
responsible for monitoring implementation. The Integrated Monitoring component within the PNW
research program is primarily a design effort, which will leverage the resources of other programs for
some of its design activities and almost all of its demonstration activities. We discuss leverage
opportunities we plan to explore in the subsections that follow on each project. Table 8-3 illustrates the
diversity and relative magnitude of resources assumed by task and year.
Given this approach, coordination with other programs and organizations is essential for our success.
Coordination with other federal agencies will occur through the RMC and its Monitoring Workgroup. Most
of the activities proposed in this section are listed in the draft of the Monitoring Workgroup charter (RMC
1994). The Monitoring Workgroup will serve not only as a forum for coordinating projects already
designed, but also as an information resource that will allow us to refine or redirect projects to fill important
gaps left by others.
206
-------
Table 8-1. List of Objectives (Projects) and Associated Tasks Proposed for the Integrated
Monitoring Component of the PNW Research Program.
Objective/Project 1: Identify priority assessment questions and endpoints for the Pacific Northwest that
require ecological monitoring.
Task 1: Summarize the monitoring requirements of the existing FEMAT administrative record.
Task 2: Establish a process to document users' and managers' needs for ecological information for the
region now and as they evolve.
Task 3: Support and participate in considering the ecological theory underlying ecosystem management
and the requirements that these considerations impose on design of an integrated monitoring program.
Task 4: Synthesize the previous tasks into a consolidated list of assessment endpoints, and specify the
temporal and spatial scale relevant to each endpoint.
Objective/Project 2: Design elements of a fully integrated multi-scale ecological monitoring program for
the Pacific Northwest.
Task 5: Evaluate options for measurement endpoints.
Task 6: Evaluate the merits of existing ecological monitoring programs within the region.
Task 7A: Determine the requirements for an information management system and how these
requirements influence the monitoring design.
Task 7B: Determine requirements and formats for reporting monitoring results.
Task 8: Develop options for the integrated monitoring design.
Objective/Project 3: Demonstrate and evaluate the proposed integrated monitoring design.
Task 9: Conduct a monitoring demonstration project in one ecoregion in the Pacific Northwest.
Objective/Project 4: Involve other agencies and authorities at all stages.
Task 10: Involve authorities with the mandate and resources to implement a monitoring program at all
stages of the monitoring design and demonstration.
207
-------
Table 8-2. Allocation of Extramural Funding for the PNW Integrated Monitoring Research
Component by Objective and Fiscal Year (in Thousands of Dollars).
Objective
1 . Question definition
2. Monitoring designs
3. Monitoring demonstration
4. Involvement of others
Total
Fiscal Year
95
105K
155K
0
0
260K
96
90K
170K
0
0
260K n
97
80K
180K
0
0
260K
98
50K
210K
0
0
260K
99
50K
210K
0
0
260K
Table 8-3. The Nature and Magnitude of Resources Allocated to the Ten Monitoring Tasks over
the Five-Year Research Strategy.
Objective
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
Task
1
2
3
4
5-8
9
10
Fiscal Year
95
$
$
$
$
X
P
96
$
$
$
$
X
P
97
$
$
$
X
P
98
$
$
$
X
P
99
$
$
$
X
P
Legend:
$
$
P
X
(Blank)
PNW extramural resources < $50K plus PNW personnel
PNW extramural resources > $50K plus PNW personnel
PNW personnel as a higher priority without extramural funding
Non-PNW extramural resources assumed along with PNW personnel
No significant amounts of personnel or extramural resources
208
-------
The following subsections describe the nature and rationale for each project. More detail is provided for
those tasks and projects that will be implemented earlier, because later tasks/projects depend on the
outcomes of earlier tasks and projects.
8.3.1 Assessment Questions That Require Ecological Monitoring
Project-Level Objectives
Summarize and categorize the monitoring requirements under FEMAT (task 1).
Establish a process to document user and manager needs for large-scale, long-term ecological
monitoring information in the Pacific Northwest, now and as they evolve (task 2).
Participate in efforts to better define the ecological theory underlying adaptive ecosystem
management, and the requirements that this management approach imposes on design of an
integrated monitoring program (task 3).
Develop a consolidated list of assessment endpoints that require ecological monitoring
information, and the temporal and spatial scales relevant to each endpoint (task 4).
Approach
A monitoring program can be effectively designed only if the questions that it is to address are well defined
(e.g. Landres 1992, Grayson et al. 1994, Hicks and Brydges 1994). Three inter-related types of
information feed into delineating these questions and the approaches to addressing them: administrative
requirements for monitoring, management issues and needs, and the scientific foundation for sound
ecological monitoring. Tasks 1-3 address these three information sources. This information will then be
synthesized into a consolidated list of priority assessment endpoints in task 4.
One important source of administrative requirements is the President's Forest Plan and the supporting
documentation. The Record of Decision for the President's Plan is quite clear about the need for moni-
toring (see Box 8-A). The recent judicial ruling on the Forest Plan is equally clear about the need for
monitoring:
"The plan includes monitoring for implementation, verification as to results, and validation as to the
underlying assumptions. The monitoring program is described above [in the Judges' ruling] in section
V. As written it is legally sufficient. It remains, of course, to be carried out. Monitoring is essential to
the plan's validity. If it is not funded, or not done for any reason, the plan will have to be
reconsidered." (Dwyer1994).
209
-------
Box 8-A. Requirements for Monitoring IB the Record of Decision for the President's Forest f»Iaa.
Section IX.G, of the Record of Decision (pages 5? and 58} is the Section on Implementation of Monitoring,
"Monitoring is an essential component of the selected alternative, it ensures that management actions
meet the prescribed standards and guidelines and lhat ihey comply with applicable laws and policies.
Monitoring witl provide information to determine if the standards and guidelines are being foliowed.,,verify
if they are achieving the desired results..,, and determine if underlying assumptions are sound,..
Information obtained through monitoring, together with research and other new information, will provide a
basis of adaptive management changes to the selected alternative, deluding changes to the Standards
and Guidelines, ;Jn addition, the monitoring plan itseif wilt not remain static, but wilt be evaluated period ic-
alty to ascertain whether the monitoring questions and standards remain relevant, anet will be adjusted as
appropriate.
Monitoring wiJI be conducted at multiple levels and scales, ranging from site-specific projects to the ptan-
ning area or region to allow localized information to be compiled and considered in a regional context.
The monitoring pian provides standards that monitoring; at any scale should meet in order to achieve this
goat. Monitoring wilt be coordinate^ among agencies and organizations to enhance the effectiveness
and usefulness of monitoring result^. ; i
Monitoring under the selected alternative will build On present monitoring efforts. Current monitoring
efforts will continue where appropriate. Specific new monitoring protocolsjcriteria, goafs, and reporting
formats will also ibe developed.* i ; I
Identifying the specific monitoring requirements is no small task, however, because of the extensive suite
of documents appended to or referenced in that decision (e.g., appended Standard and Guidelines, USFS
and BLM 1994a). The task is further complicated by the fact that many of the discussions of monitoring
requirements are imprecise and require additional consideration before they can serve as the foundation
for designing a monitoring program. Thus, task 1 (see Table 8-1) will be to summarize and categorize the
requirements and mandates for monitoring in the FEMAT documents. This activity will be fully coordinated
with and largely implemented through the RMC, which lists development of such a document in the current
draft of the charter for the Monitoring Workgroup (RMC 1994).
While the FEMAT process that resulted in the President's Plan was an intensive one, its boundaries were
defined more narrowly than a regional-scale monitoring program should have to accommodate. The
FEMAT process was restricted to federal lands within the range of the northern spotted owl and focuses
on the need for habitat to sustain the northern spotted owl. Although FEMAT documents contain exten-
sive discussion of other elements of the ecosystem, including aquatic ecosystems, and a list of over 400
plant and animal species whose sustained viability is uncertain, these elements are not as well developed.
Ecosystems on federal and nonfederal lands in the region interact to provide valued ecosystem functions.
210
-------
Thus, monitoring in support of ecosystem management within the Pacific Northwest (even just on federal
lands) must account for and reflect ecosystems in the region as a whole. In addition, FEMAT documents
represent the conclusions of one important set of resource managers and stakeholders at one point in
time. Information must also be collected in a formal way on how these (and other) users' needs are
changing and how users think their needs may change (e.g., Smith 1994) over the next decade and
century, so that a monitoring program can attempt to anticipate and support these long-term needs.
Task 2 establishes a process that queries managers and other monitoring data users on their needs for,
or decisions requiring, ecological monitoring information for the region as a whole. We will begin by identi-
fying and classifying potential users and decision makers. Their views will be sought through direct inter-
views. Consistent with the geographic focus of other elements of this research program, this effort will
focus on collecting information on monitoring needs in the two case study areas. To add another
perspective to these findings and to provide some validation of responses, the survey will contain a
retrospective element asking decision makers and decision influencers how they have used information
from monitoring programs in past decisions. Both of these components (the prospective part dealing with
future decisions and the retrospective part dealing with past decisions) will query potential users of
monitoring information with respect to the value of a range of reporting approaches.
Thus, tasks 1 and 2 collectively summarize the user needs for information that can be provided by a
monitoring program. Task 1 summarizes the needs of the existing FEMAT administrative record. Task 2
expands this to a broader user group and includes both administrative needs of this group as well as more
general information needs that should lead to improved management decision making.
A clear statement of user needs is critical, but it is not the only foundation for a monitoring program. The
monitoring design must also be based on sound ecological principles and an understanding of ecosys-
tems and the scientific foundation of ecosystem management (White et al. 1989, Slocombe 1992, Barber
1994). Other components of the PNW research program will contribute to this science base. In addition,
several broad-based and respected organizations (e.g., National Research Council 1994, Sustainable
Biosphere Initiative 1994) have initiated theoretically based inquiries into the science of ecosystem
management and how best to monitor ecosystems within a region. Connections to these theoretical
inquiries can help ensure that the PNW monitoring design reflects current ecological thinking and that
there is an appropriate level of communication between the application requirements of the monitoring
program and theoretical advances in ecological science.
Thus, we propose in task 3 to participate in and provide support for broad theoretical considerations of
ecosystem management, particularly the role of monitoring and design of integrated monitoring programs.
211
-------
Several issues fall under this heading. For example, what constitutes a regionally integrated monitoring
system and how should we design it? Large-scale ecological monitoring programs (e.g., EMAP, USFS
National Forest Inventory Assessment, NOAA's Coastal Watch Program) have tended to concentrate on
individual ecosystem types rather than regional or landscape issues. They are designed to assess the
status of a single ecosystem type rather than the status of ecosystems and ecological resources in a
region as a whole. While differences between these two approaches may be subtle, ecosystem-specific
monitoring may not adequately address questions for which connectivity among ecosystem types is
important. For example, an important question for estuaries is the amount of sediment loading from the
upland watershed. An estuarine program can monitor the sediment content of waters flowing into the
estuary. However, without some explicit consideration of regional and landscape issues, it is unlikely that
a terrestrial monitoring program would monitor soils and other watershed features in a manner that would
be helpful in an assessment of estuarine status. This is more than an issue of measuring parameters in
one ecosystem or component of the landscape that might be relevant to other ecosystems or compo-
nents. Some multi-ecosystem landscape features are important to ecological functions of the region and
can only be observed or measured at a larger spatial scale than that examined in most ecosystem-specific
monitoring programs (e.g., Omerniketal. 1981, Hansen etal. 1991, Gosz etal. 1992, Hirvonen 1992,
Hunsacker et al. 1992, O'Neill et al. 1992, Pulliam et al. 1992, Slocombe 1992). In this task we intend to
define issues such as this from a broad theoretical perspective.
Task 3 will be implemented by sponsoring the development of a series of white papers prepared by
ecologists whose research has emphasized theoretical issues. These papers will be presented and
discussed at a workshop attended by ecologists having both theoretical and applied interests. The
authors will be provided with information on the broad nature of the issues in the Pacific Northwest and
asked to focus their papers on this region, but not to the exclusion of considering multi-scale ecological
monitoring in general.
Tasks 1-3 will provide the foundation for designing an integrated monitoring program that is responsive to
the requirements of FEMAT, consistent with ecological theory, and tied to user and management needs of
the region as a whole, now and in the future. Task 4 will integrate the information from tasks 1-3 into a
common set of priority assessment questions and design constraints for the region. We will consolidate
the information from tasks 1-3, identify the ecological spatial and temporal scales at which each assess-
ment question must be addressed, and evaluate how robust the collection of assessment endpoints is
likely to be in the face of changes in policy and management issues over time. The assessment questions
and input from users must be specific enough to guide the monitoring design. For example, how confident
and precise must answers and monitoring information be to satisfy the requirements of users and
management decision makers? The product from task 4 will be realistic, ecologically meaningful, policy-
212
-------
relevant, quantitative statements that can serve as a foundation for rigorous design of a monitoring
program.
8.3.2 Integrated Monitoring Design
The purpose of this project is to work with other organizations to design an overall integrated monitoring
program and to design key elements of the program.
Project-Level Objective
Contribute to the design elements of an integrated ecological monitoring program, including:
Measurement endpoint evaluation (task 5).
Evaluations of existing monitoring programs (task 6).
Consideration of the methods of data management and reporting (task 7).
Integrated design (task 8).
Approach
Development of an integrated monitoring design will be an iterative, collaborative process, as follows:
(1) collaborate with other agencies and organizations to define an overall strategy for an integrated
design, (2) identify pieces of this design for which we will take responsibility, and (3) return, on an
incremental basis, to the interagency process to ensure that the pieces that we and others design are
consistent with the continued evolution of the overall design. Interagency cooperation on the overall
design strategy is essential to ensure common, consistent, and interactive methods and protocols and to
provide a mechanism for coordinating not only the design but also field investigations, demonstrations,
and eventually implementation. In this section, we discuss four specific tasks (5-8), all of which are
important. However, the exact role and level of effort we will apply to any of these tasks will reflect the
results of our participation in this interagency forum.
Outputs from tasks 1-4 set the design requirements for an integrated monitoring program by identifying
the assessment questions and endpoints that ecological monitoring in the region must address. However,
as discussed in Section 3, assessment endpoints are not necessarily the features of an ecosystem we
would be wisest to measure, either because they cannot be measured directly or because other endpoints
provide a more tractable or cost-effective approach. Thus, the objective of task 5 is to identify options for
measurement endpoints (i.e., ecological indicators) for each assessment endpoint.
213
-------
As part of this activity, we must define the relationship between measurement and assessment endpoints
and how each measurement endpoint, or set of measurement endpoints, will be used to evaluate an
assessment endpoint. Water temperature is an appropriate measurement endpoint related to habitat
quality for salmonids. However, what do we need to know about water temperature to assess habitat
quality? For example, should we know the annual average temperature, temperatures during a particular
season, maximum or minimum temperatures? How accurately and precisely must temperature be
measured? Should we measure it within ±0.1° C or ±1.0° C, or just determine whether it is above or
below some threshold temperature? Answers to these simple questions have considerable bearing on the
cost and feasibility of the monitoring program, as well as on the use of the data. For each measurement
endpoint, we must establish data quality objectives that reflect the needs of the ultimate users of the
monitoring results (see Section 8.3.1).
The identification of measurement endpoints may be trivially easy in some cases. In other cases, it may
be quite difficult, requiring pilot studies to develop or evaluate the merits of alternative measurement
endpoints. The PNW research program will work with other parts of ORD, especially EMAP, and with
other agencies to partition the effort required to identify and evaluate the available options. The types of
activities that may be involved include analyses of existing indicator data and sampling efforts; evaluation
of the use, classification, and accuracy (through groundtruthing) of remote sensing data; short-term field
projects; studies evaluating the use of volunteers for field sampling; and statistical or sampling methods
development projects. EMAP has spent considerable effort on designing a process to identify, consider,
test, and select indicators (Hunsacker and Carpenter 1990, Hunsacker 1991, Barber 1994). We intend to
build on this expertise and work closely with EMAP on this effort.
For any ecosystem and assessment endpoint, there are numerous individual candidate measurement
endpoints or indicators. Criteria for evaluating individual endpoints include: linkage to the ecosystem
conceptual model or ecosystem functions, variability, uncertainty, usability, cost-effectiveness, respon-
siveness to stressors, the possibility for measurement through time, public value and clarity, scientific
credibility, technical feasibility, temporal linkage to stressors, spatial representation, environmental impact
associated with sampling, and identifiable threshold levels (White et al. 1989, Bruns et al. 1992, Hirvonen
1992, Landres 1992, Barber 1994).
FEMAT commitments, as well as common sense, require that new federal monitoring programs be built,
to the degree possible, on existing programs (see Box 8-A, paragraph 4). The objective of task 6,
therefore, is to review the characteristics of existing monitoring programs relative to the assessment
questions, endpoints, and design criteria developed in tasks 1-5. The RMC has commissioned an initial
214
-------
effort in this direction, for monitoring activities on federal lands. A parallel effort is needed for monitoring
on nonfederal lands. The purpose is not to criticize any one program, but instead to identify (1) any
current monitoring objectives, (2) the magnitude of the resources currently engaged in monitoring in the
region, (3) duplications and inefficiencies in the combined monitoring activities, which, if eliminated, could
lead to cost savings, (4) gaps, that is, monitoring information needs identified in tasks 1-4 that are not
currently being filled by existing monitoring programs, and (5) monitoring designs used in existing pro-
grams that may be particularly effective as part of an overall integrated ecological monitoring system.
The database and monitoring reports are usually considered end products of a monitoring program. We
believe, however, that these products need to be given careful consideration early on during the design
phase. Thus, tasks 7A and 7B define the requirements for an information management system and
effective reporting, respectively.
One lesson of the FEMAT process is that data must be widely available to all interested parties. Monitor-
ing data must be accessible in a user-friendly and documented information management system. This is
an especially challenging task, because monitoring data will be collected by a large number of different
organizations. The intent is to develop a region-wide information management system through which the
user can access, relate, and analyze all relevant ecological monitoring data for the Pacific Northwest. As
part of FEMAT, the Interagency Resource Information Coordination Council (IRICC) was established and
has begun evaluating methods for coordinating, linking, and sharing data among federal agencies. EMAP
also has substantial experience in the design of complex information management systems. We will draw
on the IRICC, EMAP, and others to establish appropriate requirements for an information management
system for a multi-scale, multi-organization, integrated, ecological monitoring system. The IRICC will also
be involved, in some manner, in the design and implementation of the information management system. It
is not yet clear, however, to what degree IRICC will provide information management support for region-
wide ecosystem information beyond that specific to implementing the President's Plan.
Full monitoring reports will not occur within the five-year time frame of this document, but some attention
must be given to long-term reporting formats and requirements to ensure that the monitoring program and
information management system will effectively support these outputs. Initiation of this task (7B) must
await identification of the assessment questions and endpoints in task 4 and measurement endpoints in
task 5. However, elements of task 2 will provide significant, although preliminary, insight into task 7B.
Task 8, then, will develop design options for an integrated monitoring program based on the information
generated from all prior tasks. A key issue is integration. In what ways will the monitoring program be
215
-------
integrated? We propose four types of integration: spatial, temporal, ecological, and organizational.3
Spatial integration refers to integration across multiple spatial scales; in FEMATJt means relating the
monitoring data collected (and types of data typically collected) at a regional scale, at the province or
basin level, within a given watershed, and at individual sites. The monitoring design must also incorporate
and integrate monitoring data of varying temporal frequency and duration. Temporal and spatial scales
are often correlated. Site-specific monitoring may involve relatively frequent measurements (e.g.,
seasonal) but for a limited duration, to address a specific management question, such as the effectiveness
of a restoration project. Regional monitoring, in contrast, may be done annually or once every 5-10 years
to detect long-term trends. Ecological integration reflects the need to understand interactions among
ecosystem components (e.g., between forests and estuaries or forests and the atmosphere); ecosystem
management explicitly recognizes these interdependencies and the linkages and trade-offs among
ecosystem components (Section 1.1). Finally, organizational integration refers to the fact that monitoring
in the Pacific Northwest will be conducted by a number of different agencies and organizations, each with
its own objectives and methods. We want to integrate these efforts, and the monitoring data, into a usable
region-wide system (Hicks and Brydges 1994, Ward 1991).
Each level within the spatial, temporal, ecological, and organizational framework for monitoring has its own
set of assessment questions. For example, some important assessment questions deal with the status of
an individual water body at a particular location monitored by a municipality under its NPDES permit
issued by the state and overseen by the EPA regional office. Other important assessment questions
concern regional patterns and trends. A major challenge for the monitoring design is to develop ways in
which site- and issue-specific monitoring can contribute to evaluation of regional patterns and trends, and
vice versa. In an integrated design, each component builds on the others.
We envision that development of these design options will be a collaborative effort involving a number of
federal and state agencies along with outside experts in ecosystems, ecological monitoring, and statistical
sampling design. The EMAP Statistics and Design Program is managed at ERL-Corvallis, which will
facilitate interaction with individuals working on similar issues within EMAP. Statistical analyses will be
conducted to evaluate the temporal and spatial requirements and scales of candidate measurement end-
points. Besides integrating across spatial, temporal, ecological, and organizational elements, the design
must also provide monitoring data and results that are of known quality and responsive to the user needs
and data quality objectives defined in tasks 1-5.
3 The ecological component itself must further be nested or integrated within a system that accommodates
other disciplines such as the social sciences (Ward 1991). As noted earlier, however, EPA/ORD will
limit itself to ensuring that the linkages and integration are possible. We do not have the resources or
the mandate to develop these areas.
216
-------
8.3.3 Monitoring Demonstration
Project-Level Objective
Demonstrate and evaluate the integrated monitoring design (task 9).
Approach
In task 9, we will demonstrate the integrated, multi-scale ecological monitoring design in one ecoregion in
the Pacific Northwest. Criteria to be considered in selection of this ecoregion will include (1) diversity of
land ownership, cover, and use, (2) existing information and monitoring programs in the area, and (3)
management needs for the data generated from the demonstration. Our preference is to conduct the
monitoring demonstration in one of the two watershed/ecoregion case study areas selected for the PNW
research program (Section 5), to contribute to assessment demonstrations proposed for those areas.
This demonstration will be executed in partnership with other research and monitoring organizations, both
in and out of the federal government. The current draft of the charter for the RMC Monitoring Workgroup
indicates that a fully integrated monitoring demonstration is slated for FY97. While the work of this group
is oriented towards implementing the President's Plan, this schedule is also appropriate for demonstrating
a fully integrated monitoring program for the issues and lands of the region as a whole. The results of the
demonstration activity will be used to modify the monitoring design, that is, to revisit task 8 based on
experiences in the demonstration study.
The PNW research program does not have the resources to conduct this demonstration. We expect that
EMAP resources will be available for this demonstration, as well as resources from other organizations
with monitoring responsibilities. EMAP sampling is scheduled for this region in FY95 and beyond. The
extent to which current plans for EMAP sampling would need to be modified to meet the needs of the
PNW monitoring demonstration is not yet clear, but will become evident as tasks 1-8 progress.
8.3.4 Broad Involvement
Project-Level Objective
Involve those authorities and organizations with the mandate and resources to implement
monitoring at all stages of the program design and demonstration (task 10).
217
-------
Approach
The ultimate objective of this entire effort is to transfer the knowledge gained in these projects to
authorities with the mandate and resources to implement an integrated monitoring program. Thus,
involving them at all stages is more a guiding principle then a specific project or task. These authorities
include states, counties, municipalities, and tribes within the Pacific Northwest; the operational arms (as
opposed to the research arms) of federal agencies, such as USFS, BLM, National Park Service, NOAA's
National Ocean Service (particularly the Office of Coastal Zone Management), National Marine Fisheries
Service, EPA Region 10, and others. This liaison must start at the outset of the research program to
ensure that we fully account for the capabilities and interests of these authorities. Task 2 is designed to
identify the needs of these groups and to help substantively involve them in the monitoring design and
demonstration. The activities and collaborative projects proposed under Technology Transfer (Section 10)
may also encourage greater and sustained involvement.
8.4 MAJOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Proposed research under the Integrated Monitoring component of the PNW research program will provide
the following, selected major contributions:
Summary of the monitoring requirements of the President's Forest Plan.
Analysis of the theoretical need for and character of ecological monitoring within the context of
ecosystem management and its specific implications for monitoring in the Pacific Northwest.
Synthesis of user needs for ecological monitoring in the Pacific Northwest.
Proposal for elements of a fully integrated multi-scale ecological monitoring program in the Pacific
Northwest; contributions to the overall design.
Results from demonstration of a fully integrated multi-scale ecological monitoring program in an
ecoregion of the Pacific Northwest, that will contribute to addressing priority assessment
questions for that area.
218
-------
9. ECOLOGICAL-SOCIOECONOMIC LINKAGES
As discussed in Section 1, the goal of ecosystem management is to maintain both healthy, sustainable
ecosystems and healthy, sustainable economies and local communities (Interagency Ecosystem
Management Task Force 1994). Social, economic, and ecological factors all must be considered in
management decisions. Our research program will contribute ecological information to aid decision
makers. To be of maximum use, this ecological information must be in a form that integrates well with
matching information on social and economic concerns. This section outlines our proposed approach to
make those linkages. The assumed budget for this effort is approximately $88K per year.
9.1 BACKGROUND
The traditional approach to combining ecological and economic information for decision makers is cost-
benefit analysis; economic and ecosystem values are compared by expressing them in a common unit,
namely dollars. Research efforts have focused on estimating the total economic value (TEV) of environ-
mental assets, in particular the dollar value associated with nonmarket and non-use ecosystem values,
such as recreation, aesthetics, cultural values, existence values, and bequest values (Peterson and Sorg
1987, Randall 1991). Methods commonly used include indirect approaches, which rely on observed
behavior to infer values (e.g., the travel cost model and hedonic pricing methods), and direct approaches,
which use surveys to directly elicit information on "willingness-to-pay" or "willingness-to-accept"
compensation (Braden and Kolstad 1991). The most common direct approach is contingent valuation
(CV), which has been widely applied but remains controversial, especially CV estimates of non-use values
(Bishop and Welsh 1992, Edwards 1992, Kopp 1992, Rosenthal and Nelson 1992, Arrow et al. 1993,
Hausman 1993). Examples of ecosystem valuation studies conducted in the Pacific Northwest, for both
nonmarket use and non-use values, include Johnson and Adams (1989), Donnelly et al. (1990), Johnson
et al. (1990), Morey et al. (1991), Rubin et al. (1991), Hagen et al. (1992), Olsen et al. (1992), Berrens et
al. (1993), and Fried (1993).
It is clear that information on how society values ecosystems is critical to ecosystem management
decisions. EPA's Science Advisory Board recommended that "EPA should develop improved methods to
value natural resources and to account for long-term environmental effects in its economic analysis" (SAB
1990). In response, the EPA Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (OPPE) formed the Ecosystem
Valuation Forum to advance the state of art of ecosystem valuation (Bingham et al. 1995). Based on the
Forum's recommendations, OPPE has initiated a series of case studies on ecosystem valuation and
economic-ecological interactions.
219
-------
Cost-benefit analysis, however, is a very simplified approach to combining ecological and economic
information. It is unrealistic to assume that social choices can be expressed as neatly as a ratio of total
costs to total benefits, especially given the large uncertainty and controversy associated with dollar
estimates of ecosystem values.
"...[T]hose social values for which our ability to define and measure is poorest are the very ones that
appear to be of increasing importance in our society" (FEMAT 1993, p. II-64).
Thus, while ecosystem valuation is an interesting and important area of research, it is by no means the
only research need.
Ecological economics is a relatively new field of study that focuses on the interactions between ecological
and economic systems (Costanza 1992). Its basic premise is that ecosystems and the economy cannot
and should not be analyzed and managed as separate systems. Ecological research, as proposed in the
PNW research program, evaluates the effects of human activities (stressors and management actions) on
ecosystems. Ecological economics considers not only how ecosystems respond to human activities, but
also how ecosystems (and ecosystem conditions) affect human behavior and welfare, and the inter-
dependence of long-term economic health and ecosystem health. In addition to ecosystem valuation,
areas of research include integrated ecological-economic models (Russell 1993, Bockstael et al. 1994)
and the concept of minimum natural capital stock (the minimum biological and physical conditions that
describe a sustainable ecological path) and its application in economic analyses (Pearce and Turner
1990, Common and Perrings 1992).
To succeed, a management program must be not only ecologically sustainable and economically feasible,
but also socially acceptable (Firey 1960). Social assessments consider public perceptions of risks, as well
as expected effects on the broad concept of social well-being. For example, FEMAT (1993) discusses the
potential effects of forest management options on the social fabric of local communities, social continuity,
and cultural heritage. Like economic analyses, social analyses often evaluate the relative value society
places on various ecosystem functions, although these analyses use public opinion surveys (e.g., Dunlop
1991) rather than attempting to quantify social values in dollars using CV or other similar techniques.
9.2 OBJECTIVES
Our objectives are relatively modest:
• Participate in developing an assessment framework and process that integrates ecological,
economic, and social information into a form useful for decision makers.
220
-------
Ensure that the ecological research we conduct provides the types of ecological information
needed for economic and social assessments in the Pacific Northwest.
9.3 APPROACH
We are not experts in social or economic sciences and we do not propose to conduct or fund social or
economic research per se. Rather, our approach emphasizes education, communication, and
interdisciplinary projects.
We want to conduct ecological research that provides the types of ecological information needed for
economic and social analyses. To do so, we must better understand economic and social assessment
approaches. We believe that the best way to achieve this is through joint projects, in which we work
closely with one or more economists or social scientists who use our ecological data for their economic or
social research or assessment. We also believe it is important for this research to occur on site, at ERL-
Corvallis or ERL-Newport, to increase the interactions and communication between PNW research
ecologists and economists and social scientists. In this case, the interactive research process itself is as
important, or more so, than the research results.
Thus, we propose to use the National Research Council (NRC) Associateship Program to fund
economists or social scientists to work at ERL-Corvallis or ERL-Newport for periods of one to two years.
Positions will be announced and competed nationally. The NRC associate (post-doctoral or senior
associate) will be required to conduct innovative economic or social research that uses our ecological data
and contributes directly to one or more of the case study assessments described in Sections 4 and 5. The
exact nature of the economic and social research, and the technical approach, will depend on the
expertise and interests of the NRC associate. By funding several NRC associates over the next five
years, we will be exposed to a variety of economic and social assessment approaches.
In addition to their own research interests, NRC associates (together with ecologists in the PNW research
program) will participate in developing an overall assessment framework to integrate ecological, eco-
nomic, and social information for decision makers. This effort will be conducted jointly with the EPA
Ecosystem Valuation Forum or another relevant, existing work group. We anticipate funding seminars
and several workshops or symposia on the topic, plus associated journal papers. Participation of NRC
associates, and other interested economists and social scientists, in the assessment demonstrations
discussed in Sections 4 and 5 will provide one means of evaluating and refining the proposed assessment
approach.
221
-------
Assessments are designed to help decision makers. Thus, another research area of interest is policy and
decision analysis. By working closely with experts in policy or decision analysis, we may improve our
ability to provide ecological information of the type and format most useful for management decisions.
Thus, we will also consider funding one or more policy or decision analysts through the NRC
Associateship Program to work at ERL-Corvallis or ERL-Newport for one to two years. We are particularly
interested in policy and decision analysts with experience at state and local levels. The objectives will be
to improve our assessment approach, the presentation and communication of assessment results, and the
decision support systems discussed in Section 5.3.
9.4 MAJOR CONTRIBUTIONS
The major contributions expected to result from this research component are as follows:
• Assessment framework for synthesizing and integrating ecological, economic, and social
information for decision makers.
• Two or more joint ecological-socioeconomic projects, in which the ecological data generated by
the PNW research program are used to address economic and social issues relevant to
ecosystem management in the Pacific Northwest.
• Improved ability to communicate useful results from ecological assessments to policy makers and
managers.
222
-------
10. TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
This section describes Technology Transfer, the final component of the PNW research program. The
principles of technology transfer are integral to all components of the program, but will be organized and
enhanced by the activities outlined here. The assumed budget for projects targeted specifically at
technology transfer is $215K per year over five years.
10.1 BACKGROUND
Technical information transfer does not occur automatically, but requires, or at least benefits from, focused
effort and approaches. Technical information will spread only if it is first transmitted from its innovator to a
receptive expert within an identified user group (Muth and Hendee 1980). Traditional approaches to
technology transfer, such as publications and symposia, can successfully generate awareness and
interest, but often they do not lead to the trial and adoption of technical innovations. Only by actively
involving environmental managers in the process of research planning and demonstration can we
significantly increase the likelihood that information and approaches we develop will become widely used.
Our approach to technology transfer is modeled after a similar effort within the Wetlands Research
Program at ERL-Corvallis (see Leibowitz et al. 1992a). Since 1988, the procedures outlined here have
resulted in the successful transfer of wetland evaluation and restoration approaches to both EPA regional
offices and state agencies. For the PNW research program, we propose to extend this outreach to include
local organizations, such as watershed councils and county/tribal governments, as well as EPA regions
and states. Local outreach efforts will concentrate in, but not be limited to, the watershed/ecoregion case
study areas (Willamette River Basin and Washington Coastal Ecoregion). The development of local
working partnerships is an operational theme of both EPA's watershed protection approach and
ecosystem management.
10.2 OBJECTIVES
We have two major objectives:
• Ensure through feedback from managers that PNW research is relevant to policy and
management needs.
• Ensure that the innovations, information, and approaches we develop are adopted and widely
used by environmental managers at regional, state, and local levels.
223
-------
10.3 APPROACH
Sections 10.3.1-10.3.2 discuss the three key components of our strategy for technology transfer:
effective communication, collaborative research projects, and dissemination of research results.
10.3.1 Communication
The first key component of technology transfer is two-way communication. Environmental managers must
tell us their objectives, needs, and constraints. We must communicate our findings back to these
managers in a form that they can readily understand and use. As described in Sections 2, 3, and 5, we
anticipate having regular meetings and information exchanges with interested environmental managers
working directly with us on our case study assessments.
We have also enlisted the help of a regional liaison to foster more direct communication between PNW
researchers and environmental managers. A regional liaison is an EPA regional manager assigned to an
ORD research laboratory. Specifically, the regional liaison assigned to ERL-Corvallis in 1988 to work with
the Wetlands Research Program will now serve in the same capacity for the PNW research program. The
responsibilities of the PNW regional liaison include the following:
Help identify the technical needs of EPA Region 10, the states (Oregon, Washington, and Idaho),
tribes, and local governments that are consistent with the goal and objectives of the PNW
research program.
Work to ensure that PNW projects address these priority technical needs to the degree possible
within the constraints of the mandate and budget of the PNW research program.
Encourage and coordinate the implementation of collaborative projects, involving shared expertise
from both the PNW research program and EPA region, state, tribal, or local organizations.
Involve EPA Region 10 staff from the beginning of the research process to the end, to ensure
ownership and to further technology transfer through direct participation in the research process.
Keep other EPA regional offices apprised of the results of PNW research and its applicability to
their parts of the country.
Identify state, tribal, and local organizations who are interested in innovations and piloting
research.
Distribute information on PNW projects and results to interested agencies, organizations, and
individuals.
224
-------
10.3.2 Collaborative Research Projects
Collaborative research projects, in which environmental managers work directly with PNW researchers,
will be an important feature of the PNW strategy for technology transfer. Thus, one of the primary
responsibilities of the regional liaison is to identify and act upon opportunities for PNW researchers to
conduct studies that are relevant to the research program and that also support the more immediate
needs of state, tribal, and local environmental managers. Our operating premise is that science is best
introduced to environmental managers in the form of simple protocols, logic flows, and rules of thumb
(Hirsch 1988).
Besides providing technical consultation to environmental managers, collaborative projects will be
designed to serve two other important purposes. First, collaborative efforts will provide a forum for PNW
researchers to receive feedback on the relevance of their proposed research, in particular the feasibility of
proposed approaches, given the time and information demands typically associated with decision making
in the public interest. Second, collaborative projects will directly involve environmental managers in the
development of new science and innovations. The collaboration cultivates a sense of partnership, thereby
increasing the likelihood that new innovations will be adopted and used in other situations and by other
managers.
One or more collaborative projects will be funded in each year of the research program. A plan for
selecting and implementing these projects is currently being developed by the regional liaison, in
cooperation with EPA Region 10. The plan will include provisions for (1) establishing an EPA regional
research committee, (2) developing collaborative project selection criteria, (3) soliciting proposals for
collaborative projects, and (4) ranking, selecting, and implementing these studies.
The regional liaison will have an annual budget of about $215,000. These funds will be used as an
incentive for PNW participation in scientific studies that directly advance the concepts of ecosystem
management. Technology Transfer projects will build upon the research described in Sections 4-9, which
deal more directly with the fundamental scientific objectives of the Program. For example, a collaborative
project may be tiered onto a research project funded by the Riparian Area research component to
specifically address a locally identified management question. Or, a collaborative study may address the
extrapolation of PNW findings and approaches to management questions in other areas of the Pacific
Northwest or even elsewhere in the country.
The actual allocation of funds for collaborative studies will usually be based upon a competitive solicitation
of project proposals. The solicitation will be developed for a study within a particular geographical area.
Its objectives will reflect the desires of EPA Region 10 staff and their colleagues within the states,
225
-------
consistent with the PNW Research Strategy. Proposals received from the solicitation will be evaluated
based upon the respondents' local knowledge of ecological resources and their past experience in
successfully working with local authorities and interest groups on related issues.
10.3.3 Dissemination of Research Results
The dissemination of our research results to a broad audience of managers and other interested parties is
another important component of technology transfer. A major mechanism for this communication will be
an informal PNW research update, distributed once or twice a year. This report will provide a brief
overview of ongoing PNW research activities, the names of project scientists, conclusions from recently
completed studies, and a list of recent publications available upon request. Interested representatives
from EPA regions and program offices, other federal agencies, states, tribes, local governments, private
organizations, and individuals will be included on the mailing list. Copies of all PNW research reports and
publications also will be transmitted by the regional liaison to EPA Region 10 and appropriate state
representatives.
No formal training programs are planned at this time. However, the regional liaison will organize periodic
informal workshops within the region to discuss the research program, research findings, and future
directions.
It is also important that the PNW research program provide visible and highly credible information to other
researchers in the scientific community. PNW research results will be published regularly in peer-
reviewed scientific journals and presented at regional and national symposia. Previous sections discuss
plans for involvement in interagency coordinating committees and cooperative research with other
agencies and research programs.
10.4 MAJOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Major contributions of the Technology Transfer component of the PNW research program will include the
following:
Research updates distributed annually or twice a year to all interested agencies, organizations,
and individuals.
Results from collaborative research projects that (1) demonstrate the application of PNW
approaches to a variety of real-world management questions and (2) address more immediate
management needs in the region.
Guidance manuals, as appropriate, that describe procedures for applying PNW approaches in a
format that facilitates their broad use.
226
-------
11. EXPECTED OUTPUTS AND SCHEDULE
Sections 4-10 discuss expected timelines and contributions for each component of the PNW research
program. We do not repeat that detail here, but instead provide a summary of the major deliverables
planned and the expected year of completion. Each of these deliverables will be supported by numerous
scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals. Deliverables are organized by year, with the
responsible research component noted in parentheses:
1995:
• Characterization of the extent, condition, and stressors of riparian areas in agricultural landscapes
of the case study areas (Riparian Area)
• Summary of promising "eco-opportunities" for riparian areas in the Pacific Northwest (Riparian
Area)
• Review of toxic algal blooms in the Pacific Northwest (Coastal Estuaries)
• Tidal-based circulation models for target estuaries (Coastal Estuaries)
1996:
• Biodiversity atlas for Oregon (Regional Biodiversity)
• Initial assessment of primary concerns and research needs for Willamette Watershed and
Washington Coastal Ecoregion (Watershed/Ecoregion)
• Determination of landscape-level relationships between agriculture and riparian area condition
(Riparian Area)
• Assessment of historic sedimentation rates in target estuaries (Coastal Estuaries)
• Synthesis of user needs and science requirements for ecological monitoring in the Pacific
Northwest (Monitoring)
1997:
• Multi-scale biodiversity conservation: A prototype process for Oregon (Regional Biodiversity)
• Comprehensive evaluation of regional biodiversity analyses to date with recommendations on
more promising future research directions (Regional Biodiversity)
• Quantification of the influence of riparian areas on improving water quality in grass seed agri-
cultural lands (Riparian Area)
• Determination of major processes controlling water quality in grass seed agriculture-riparian area
complexes (Riparian Area)
• Indicators of aquatic and terrestrial riparian habitat condition in agricultural settings (Riparian
Area)
• Reference conditions, approaches, and performance criteria for restoration of degraded riparian
areas in agricultural settings (Riparian Area)
227
-------
• Models predicting estuary benthic ecosystem functions from cost-effective habitat sampling
methods (Coastal Estuaries)
• Proposal for a fully integrated multi-scale ecological monitoring program in the Pacific Northwest
(Monitoring)
1998:
• Biodiversity pattern assessment for Washington (Regional Biodiversity)
• Biodiversity pattern assessment for Idaho (Regional Biodiversity)
• Assessment of the relative ecosystem impacts of the expansion of introduced Spartina in Willapa
Bay versus chemical control measures (Coastal Estuaries)
1999:
Assessment of the loadings and nutrients from watershed and marine inputs into Willapa Bay and
ecosystem effects on key ecosystem functions (Coastal Estuaries)
Models and decision support systems that can be applied with reasonable effort and data to
evaluate the ecological consequences and trade-offs among management strategies (Water-
shed/Ecoregion)
Landscape classification systems for extrapolating site-specific research findings to other similar
sites and for organizing information about landscape functions, responses to stressors, and
restoration potential, in a manner that makes it readily accessible to managers (Watershed/Eco-
region)
Integrated assessment of the Willamette Watershed and Washington Coastal Ecoregion that
defines tools and their application for uses in watershed/ecoregion assessments (Watershed/
Ecoregion)
Approaches to evaluate riparian area condition, restoration potential, attainable quality, and
priority restoration locations within mixed landuse watersheds (Riparian Area)
Integrated ecosystem assessment of Willapa Bay (Coastal Estuaries)
Results from demonstration of a fully integrated multi-scale ecological monitoring program in an
ecoregion of the Pacific Northwest, which will contribute to addressing priority assessment
questions for that area (Monitoring)
228
-------
12. REFERENCES
Abbruzzese, B., S.G. Leibowitz, and R. Sumner. 1990. Application of the Synoptic Approach to Wetland
Designation: A Case Study in Washington. EPA/600/3-90/072. U.S. EPA Environmental Research
Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.
Adamus, P.R. 1993. User's Manual: Avian Richness Evaluation Method (AREM) for Lowland Wetlands
of the Colorado Plateau. EPA/600/R-93/240. U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis,
OR.
Allen, T.F.H. and T.W. Hoekstra. 1992. Toward a Unified Ecology. Columbia University Press, New York.
Allen, T.F H. and T.B. Starr. 1982. Hierarchy: Perspectives for Ecological Complexity. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Allen, T.F.H., S.M. Bartell, and J.F. Koonce. 1977. Multiple stable configurations in ordination of
phytoplankton community change rates. Ecology 58:1076-1084.
Allen, T.F.H., B.L. Bandurski, and A.W. King. 1993. The Ecosystem Approach: Theory and Ecosystem
Integrity. ISBN 1-895085-78-0. Report to the Great Lakes Science Advisory Board, International Joint
Commission, United States and Canada.
Andrewartha, H.G. 1972. Introduction to the Study of Animal Populations (2nd Ed.). The University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Arrow, K., R. Solow, P. Portney, E. Learner, R. Radner, and H. Schuman. 1993. Report of the NOAA
Panel on Contingent Valuation. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
Bailey, R.G. 1976. Ecoregions of the United States [map]. U.S. Forest Service, Intermountaln Region,
Ogden, UT.
Bailey, R.G. 1989a. Ecoregions of the continents [map]. U.S. Forest Service, Washington, DC.
Bailey, R.G. 1989b. Explanatory supplement to the ecoregions map of the continents. Environ. Conserv.
15:307-309.
Bailey, R G., R.D. Pfister, and J.A. Henderson. 1978. Nature of land and resource classification. J.
Forestry 76(10):650-654.
Baker, L.A., P.R. Kaufmann, AT. Herlihy, and J.M. Eilers. 1990. Current Status of Surface Water Acid-
Base Chemistry, State-of-Science and Technology Report 9. National Acid Precipitation Assessment
Program, Washington, DC.
Barber, C. 1994. Synopsis of EMAP Environmental Values, Assessment Questions and Indicator
Development. Draft Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Bartell, S.M., W.G. Gale, R.V. O'Neill, and R.H. Gardner. 1988. Aggregation error: Research objectives
and relevant model structure. Ecol. Model. 41:157-168.
Bartell, S.M., R.H. Gardner, and R.V. O'Neill. 1992. Ecological Risk Estimation. Lewis Publishers, Ann
Arbor, Ml.
229
-------
Beansland, G.E., W.J. Erckmann, G.H. Orians, J. O'Riordan, D. Policansky, M.H. Sadar, and B. Sadler,
eds. 1986. Cumulative Environmental Effects: A Binational Perspective. Canadian Environmental
Assessment Research Council, Ottawa, Canada and U.S. National Research Council, National Academy
of Sciences, Washington, DC.
Bell, S.S., E.D. McCoy, and H.R. Mushinsky, eds. 1991. Habitat Structure. Chapman and Hall, London,
England.
Berger, J.O. 1985. Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Bernard, F.R. 1969. The parasitic copepod in Mytilicola orientalis in British Columbia bivalves. J. Fish.
Res. Bd. Can. 26:190-191.
Bernert, J.A., J.M. Eilers, W.J. Ripple, and K.E. Freemark. 1993. Regionalization of the Western Corn
Belt Plains Ecoregion. EPA 600/R-94/037. U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.
Berrens, R., O. Bergland, and R.M. Adams. 1993. Valuation issues in an urban recreational fishery:
Spring Chinook salmon in Portland, Oregon. J. Leisure Res. 25(1):70-83.
Bicknell, B.R., J.C. Imoff, J.L. Kittle, A.S. Donigian, and R.C. Johanson. 1993. Hydrological Simulation
Program—Fortran User's Manual for Release 10. EPA/600/R-93/174. U.S. EPA, Office of Research and
Development, Washington, D.C.
Bingham, G. et al. 1995. Issues in ecosystem valuation: Improving information for decision making.
Ecological Economics, in press.
Bishop, R.C. and M.P. Welsh. 1992. Existence values in benefit-cost analysis and damage assessments.
Land Economics 68(4):405-417.
Blumberg, A.F. and G.L. Mellor. 1987. A description of a three-dimensional coastal model. Coastal and
Estuarine Sci. 4:1-16.
Bockstael, N., R. Costanza, I. Strand, W. Boynton, K. Bell, and L. Wainger. 1994. Ecological Economic
Modeling and Valuation of Ecosystems. Research Program Report to U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency from the University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
Bormann, B.T., M.H. Brookes, E.D. Ford, A.R. Kiester, C.D. Oliver, and J.F. Weigand. 1994. A
Framework for Sustainable Ecosystem Management. Volume V, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-
331. U.S. Forest Service, Washington, DC.
Braden, J.B. and C.D. Kolstad, eds. 1991. Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality. Elsevier
Science Publishers, New York.
Bradshaw, G.A. and S. Garman. Detecting fine-scale in forested ecosystems as measured by large-scale
patterns. In: S. Stafford, W. Mitchener, and J. Brunt, eds., Environmental Information Systems Analysis.
Taylor and Francis, Hants, U.K., in press.
Breiman, L., J.H. Friedman, R.A. Olshen, and C.J. Stone. 1993. Classification and Regression Trees.
Chapman and Hall, New York.
Brinson, M.M. 1993a. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Technical Report WRP-DE-4.
Waterways Experiment Station, Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS.
230
-------
Brinson, M.M. 1993b. Changes in the functioning of wetlands along environmental gradients. Wetlands
13:65-74.
Bruns, D.A., G.B. Wiersma, and G.W. Minshall. 1992. Evaluation of community and ecosystem
monitoring parameters at a high-elevation, Rocky Mountain study site. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.
11:459-472.
Buchanan, J.B. 1993. Evidence of benthic pelagic coupling at a station off the Northumberland coast. J.
Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 172:1-10.
Burrough, P.A. 1986. Principles of Geographical Information Systems for Land Resources Assessment.
Claredon Press, Oxford, England.
Cairns, J., Jr. 1993. The balance of ecological destruction and repair. Environ. Health Perspect.
101:206.
Cairns, J., Jr. and T.V. Crawford, eds. 1991. Integrated Environmental Management. Lewis Publishers,
Chelsea, Ml.
Carpenter, S.R. and J.F. Kitchell. 1987. The temporal scale of variance in limnetic primary production.
American Naturalist 129:417-433.
CH2M Hill and Oregon State University. 1991. Opportunities in Grass Straw Utilization. CH2M Hill
Publishers, Corvallis, OR.
Charles, D.F., and S.A. Norton. 1986. Paleolimnological evidence for trends in atmospheric deposition of
acids and metals, pp. 335-506. In: Acid Deposition: Long Term Trends. National Research Council,
Committee on Monitoring and Assessment of Trends in Acid Deposition, National Academy Press,
Washington, DC.
Charles, D.F., D.R. Whitehead, D.R. Engstrom, B.D. Fry, R.A. Hites, S.A. Norton, J. Owen, L.A. Roll, S.
Schindler, J.P. Smol, A.J. Uutala, J.R. White and R.J. Wise. 1987. Paleolimnological evidence for recent
acidification of Big Moose Lake, Adirondack Mountains, N.Y. (USA). Biogeochem. 3:267-296.
Church, M.R., K.W. Thornton, P.W. Shaffer, D.L. Stevens, B.P. Rochelle, G.R. Holdren, M.G. Johnson,
J.J. Lee, R.S. Turner, D.L. Cassell, D.A. Lammers, W.G. Campbell, C.I. Liff, C.C. Brandt, L.H. Liegel,
G.D. Bishop, D.C. Mortenson, S.M. Pierson, and D.D. Schmoyer. 1989. Future Effects of Long-Term
Sulfur Deposition on Surface Water Chemistry in the Northeast and Southern Blue Ridge Province
(Results of the DDRP). EPA/600/3-89/061. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Cokelet, E.D. and R.J. Stewart. 1985. The exchange of water in fjords: The efflux/reflux theory of
advective reaches separated by mixing zones. J. Geophys. Res. 90:7287-7306.
Colby, M.E. 1992. Willapa Resources Report, 1991-92. Eco-Development Association, Arlington, VA,
and The Willapa Alliance, South Bend, WA.
Cole, J., S. Findlay, and G. Lovett, eds. 1991. Comparative Analyses of Ecosystems: Patterns,
Mechanisms, and Theories. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Common, M. and C. Perrings. 1992. Towards an ecological economics of sustainability. Ecol.
Economics 4(6):7-34.
Cooper, J.R. and J.W. Gilliam. 1987. Phosphorus redistribution from cultivated fields into riparian areas.
Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 51:1600-1604.
231
-------
Cooper, J.R., J.W. Gilliam, R.B. Daniels and W.P. Robarge. 1987. Riparian areas as filters for
agricultural sediment. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 51:416-420.
Costanza, R., ed. 1992. Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability.
Columbia University Press, New York.
Cowardin, L.M., D.H. Johnson, T.L. Shaffer, and D.W. Sparling. 1988. Applications of a simulation model
to decisions in mallard management. Fish and Wildlife Tech. Report 17. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, DC.
Crittenden, R.N. 1994. A model for the processes regulating recruitment for a sockeye salmon stock.
Ecol. Modell. 71:85-106.
Croonquist, M.J. and R.P. Brooks. 1991. Use of avian and mammalian guilds as indicators of cumulative
impacts in riparian-wetland areas. Environ. Manage. 15:701-714.
Csuti, B. 1991. Conservation corridors: Countering habitat fragmentation, pp. 81-90.'In: W.E. Hudson,
ed., Landscape Linkages and Biodiversity. Defenders of Wildlife, Island Press, Washington, DC.
Currie, D.J. 1991. Energy and large-scale patterns of animal and plant species richness. Am. Nat.
137(1):27-49.
Davis, M.B. 1983. Holocene vegetational history of the eastern United States, pp. 166-181. In: H.E.
Wright, Jr., ed., Late Quaternary Environments of the United States, Volume 2, The Holocene. University
of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.
Decamps, H. 1993. River margins and environmental change. Ecol. Appl. 3:441-445.
DeCoursey, D.G., D.G. Fox, R.D. Watts, R.G.Woodmansee, B.C. Faber, and W.W. Wallace. 1993.
Terrestrial Ecosystems Regional Research and Analysis: An Interagency Laboratory, pp. 61-??. In:
S.S.Y. Wand, ed., Advances in Hydro-Science and Engineering, Volume I, ISBN 0-937099-02-3.
Delcourt, H.R., P.A.Delcourt, and T. Webb, III. 1983. Dynamic plant ecology: The spectrum of
vegetational change in space and time. Quaternary Sci. Rev. 1:153-175.
Donnelly, D.M., C. Sorg-Swanson, J.B. Loomis, and L.J. Nelson. 1990. Net economic value of hunting
and fishing in Idaho. In: J. Vining, ed., Social Science and Natural Resource Recreation Management.
Westview Press, San Francisco, CA.
Dovers, S.R. and J.W. Handmer. 1993. Ignorance and the precautionary principle: Towards an
analytical framework. Precautionary Principle Conference, Institute of Environmental Studies, University
of New South Wales, Australia.
Dunlop, R.E. 1991. Trends in public opinion toward environmental issues: 1965-1990. Soc. Nat. Resour
4:285-312.
Dunne, T., T.R. Moore, and C.H. Taylor. 1975. Recognition and prediction of runoff-producing zones in
humid regions. Hydrol. Sci. Bull. 20:305-327.
Dwyer, W.L. 1994. Seattle Audobon Society, et al., v. James Lyons, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, et
al. (Order on Motions for Summary Judgment Re 1994 Forest Plan No. U.S. District Court, Western
District of Washington at Seattle.
232
-------
Ebbesmeyer, C.C. and W. Tangborn. 1992. Linkage of reservoir, coast, and strait dynamics, 1936-1990:
Columbia River Basin, Washington Coast, and Juan de Fuca Strait. In: M.E. Jones and A. Laenen, eds.,
Interdisciplinary Approaches in Hydrology and Hydrogeology. American Institute of Hydrology, pp. 288-
299.
Edwards, S.F. 1992. Rethinking existence values. Land Econ. 68(1): 120-122.
Electric Power Research Institute. 1986. Seismic Hazard Methodology for the Central and Eastern
United States, Volume 1, Methodology. NP-4/26, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA.
Elmore, W. and R.L. Beschta. 1987. Riparian areas: Perceptions in management. Rangelands
9:260-265.
Emmett, R.L., S.L. Stone, S.A. Hinton, and M.E. Monaco. 1991. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes
and Invertebrates in West Coast Estuaries, Volume II, Species Life History Summaries. ELMR Rep. No.
8, Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Rockville, MD.
Fagan, D.D. 1885. History of Benton County, Oregon. David D. Fagan, Portland.
Fagen, R. 1988. Population effects of habitat change. A quantitative assessment. J. Wildl. Manage.
52:41-46.
Fasten, N. 1931. The Yaquina Oyster Beds of Oregon. Am. Nat. LXV(700):434-468.
Felstiner, P., G. Chen, and K. Burnett. Elk River Fisheries Research: A Summarized Compendium.
Publication of U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Siskiyou National Forest, Powers Ranger
District, in press.
Ferraro, S. and F.A. Cole. 1990. Taxonomic level and sample size sufficient for assessing pollution
impacts on the Southern California Bight macrobenthos. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 67:251-262.
Ferraro, S. and F.A. Cole. 1992. Taxonomic level sufficient for assessing a moderate impact on
macrobenthic communities in Puget Sound, Washington, USA. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49:1184-1188.
Firey, W. 1960. Man, Mind, and Land. The Free Press, Glencoe, IL.
Flather, C.H., S.J. Brady, and D.B. Inkley. 1992. Regional habitat appraisals of wildlife communities: A
landscape-level evaluation of a resource planning model using avian distribution data. Landscape Ecol.
7:137-147.
Flather, C.H., L.A. Joyce, and C.A. Bloomgarden. 1994. Species Endangerment Patterns in the United
States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-241. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.
Ford, M.S. (J). 1990. A 10,000 year history of natural ecosystem acidification. Ecol. Monog. 60:57-89.
Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management:
An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment. U.S. Forest Service, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
233
-------
Forman, R.T.T. 1990. Ecologically sustainable landscapes: The role of spatial configuration. In: I.S.
Zonnefeld and R.T.T. Forman, eds., Changing Landscapes: An Ecological Perspective. Springer-Verlag,
New York.
Forman, R.T. and M. Gordon. 1986. Landscape Ecol. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Franklin, J.F. 1992. Scientific basis for new perspectives in forests and streams, pp. 25-72. In: R.J.
Naiman, ed., Watershed Management. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Franklin, J.F. 1993. Preserving biodiversity: Species, ecosystems, or landscapes? Ecol. Appl.
3:202-205.
Freemark, K.E. and H.G. Merriam. 1986. Importance of area and habitat heterogeneity to bird
assemblages in temperate forest fragments. Biol. Conserv. 36:115-141.
Frey, D.G. 1969. Evidence for eutrophication from remains of organisms in sediments, pp. 594-613. In:
Eutrophication: Causes, Consequences, Correctives. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.
Fried, B. 1993. Using Valuation Functions to Measure Quality Changes in Elk Hunting on the Starkley
Research Forest. M.S. Thesis, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Oregon State
University, Corvallis, OR.
Gallant, A.L., T.R. Whittier, D.P. Larsen, J.M. Omernik, and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Regionalization as a
Tool for Managing Environmental Resources. EPA/600/3-89/060. U.S. EPA Environmental Research
Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.
Gardner, R.H., W.G. Gale, and R.V. O'Neill. 1982. Robust analysis of aggregation error. Ecology
63:1771-1779.
Gilmour, J.S.L. 1951. The development of taxonomic theory since 1851. Nature 168:400-402.
Gosselink, J.G., G.P. Shaffer, L.C. Lee, D.M. Burdick, D.L. Childers, N.C. Leibowitz, S.C. Hamilton, R.
Boumans, D. Cushman, S. Fields, M. Koch, and J.M. Visser. 1990. Landscape conservation in a forested
wetland watershed: Can we manage cumulative impacts? BioScience 40(8):588-600.
Gosz, J.R., R.R. Parmenter, and D. Marshall. 1992. Ecological indicators in a desert/grassland
transition, pp. 739-763. In: D.H. McKenzie, D. E. Hyatt, and V.J. McDonald, eds., Ecological
Indicators: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ecological Indicators. Elsevier Scientific
Publishers, New York.
Grayson, R.B., J.M. Doolan, and T. Blake. 1994. Application of AEAM (Adaptive Environmental
Assessment and Management) to water quality in the Latrobe River catchment. J. Environ. Manage.
41:245-258.
Gregory, S.V., F.J. Swanson, W.A. McKee and K.W. Cummins. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of
riparian zones. BioScience 41:540-551.
Gregory, S.V., J. Sedell, and R. Hughes. 1994. Analysis of Past, Present, and Future Stresses on the
Ecological Resources of the Mid-Willamette Valley, Oregon, Cooperative Agreement Proposal from
Oregon State University to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR.
Grumbine, R.E. 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conserv. Biol. 8(1 ):27-38.
234
-------
Gubala, C.P., J.R. White, and D.R. Engstrom. 1990. The effects of iron cycling on the accuracy of 210Pb
sediment dating. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 47:1821-1829.
Hagen, D.A., J.W. Vincent, and P.G. Welle. 1992. Benefits of preserving old-growth forests and spotted
owl. Contemporary Policy Issues 10:13-26.
Hallegraeff, G.M. 1993. Phycological reviews 13: A review of harmful algal blooms and the apparent
global increase. Phycologia 32:79-99.
Hamlett, J.M., D.A. Miller, R.L. Day, G.W. Peterson, G.M. Baumer, and J. Russo. 1992. Statewide CIS-
ranking of watersheds for agricultural pollution prevention. J. Soil Water Conserv. 47(5): 399-404.
Hansen, A.J., T.A. Spies, F.J. Swanson, and J.L. Ohman. 1991. Conserving biodiversity in managed
forests. BioScience 41(6).382-392.
Harris, D.W. 1979. Hydrologic Study for South Slough Estuarine Sanctuary, Coos Bay, Oregon. Water
Resources Research Institute, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
Hart, J.F. 1982. The highest form of the geographer's art. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 72:1-29.
Hausman, J.A., ed. 1993. Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Hawkins, C.P, M.L. Murphy, N.H. Anderson, and M.A. Wilzbach. 1983. Density offish and salamanders
in relation to riparian canopy and physical habitat in streams of the northwestern United States. Can. J.
Fish. Aquat. Sci. 40:1173-1185.
Hayduk, L.A. 1987. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL. The John Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore, MD.
Hedgepeth, J.W and S. Obreski. 1981. Willapa Bay: A Historical Perspective and a Rationale for
Research. FWS/OBS-81/03, Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,
DC.
Henderson, M., G. Merriam, and J. Wegner. 1985. Patchy environment and species survival: Chipmunks
in an agricultural mosaic. Biol. Conserv. 31:95-105.
Hess, G.R. 1994. Conservation corridors and contagious disease: A cautionary note. Conserv. Biol.
8:256-262.
Hewlett, J.D. and A.R. Hibbert. 1967. Factors affecting the response of small watersheds to precipitation
in humid areas, pp. 275-290. In: W.S. Sopperand H.W. Lull, eds., International Symposium on Forest
Hydrology, Pergamon Press, New York.
Hicks, B.B. and T.G. Brydges. 1994. Forum: A strategy for integrated monitoring. Environ. Manage.
Hicks, R.R., Jr. and P.S. Frank, Jr. 1984. Relationship of aspect to soil nutrients, species importance
and biomass in a forested watershed in West Virginia. Forest Ecol. Manage. 8:28-291 .
Hilborn, R. 1987. Living with uncertainty in resource management. North Am. J. Fish. Manage. 7:1-5.
Hilborn, R. and D. Ludwig. 1993. The limits of applied ecological research. Ecol. Appl. 3: 550-552.
235
-------
Hirsch, A. 1988. Regulatory context for cumulative impact research. Environ. Manage. 12(5):715-723.
Hirvonen, H. 1992. The development of regional scale ecological indicators: A Canadian approach, pp.
901-915. In: D.H. McKenzie, D.E. Hyatt, and V.J. McDonald, eds. Ecological Indicators: Proceedings of
the International Symposium on Ecological Indicators. Elsevier Scientific Publishers, New York.
Moiling, C.S. 1993. Investing in research for sustainability. Ecol. Appl. 3:552-555.
Huang, S.L. and J-J. Ferng. 1990. Applied land classification for surface water quality management: II.
Land process classification. J. Environ. Manage. 31:127-141.
Hughes, R.M., D.P. Larsen, and J.M. Omernik. 1986. Regional reference sites: A method for assessing
stream potentials. Environ. Manage. 10: 629-635.
Huh, C., L.F. Small, S. Niemnil, B.P. Finney, B.M. Hickey, N.B. Kachel, D.S. Gorsline, and P.M. Williams.
1990. Sedimentation dynamics in the Santa Monica-San Pedro Basin off Los Angeles: Radiochemical,
sediment trap and transmissometer studies. Continental Shelf Research 10(2): 137-164.
Hunsacker, C.T. 1991. EMAP Indicator Database. An Initial Skeleton. Attachment to a memo from
Hunsacker to EMAP Indicator Leads, EMAP Management, and EMAP Indicator Coordination Staff, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Hunsacker, C.T. and D. Carpenter. 1990. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program Ecological
Indicators. EPA/600/3-90/060. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Hunsaker, C.T., R.L. Graham, G.W. Suter II, R.V. O'Neill, L.W. Barnthouse, and R.H. Gardner. 1990.
Assessing ecological risk on a regional scale. Environ. Manage. 14(3):325-332.
Hunsacker, C.T., D.A. Levine, S.P. Timmins, B.L. Jackson, and R.V. O'Neill. 1992. Landscape
characterization for assessing regional water quality, pp. 997-1006. In: D.H. McKenzie, D.E. Hyatt, and
V.J. McDonald, eds., Ecological Indicators: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ecological
Indicators. Elsevier Scientific Publishers, New York.
Hydrologic Engineering Center. 1982. HEC-2: Water Surface Profiles, Users Manual. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Davis, CA.
Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force. 1994. Questions and Answers on the Interagency
Ecosystem Management Initiative, memorandum from W. Stelle, White House Office on Environmental
Policy, dated 4 May 1994.
James, W. 1970. A Photographic Analysis of Oregon's Estuaries. Dept. Civil Engineering, Oregon
State University, Corvallis, OR.
Jennings, M.D. 1993. Natural Terrestrial Cover Classification: Assumptions and Definitions. GAP
Analysis Technical Bulletin 2. Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Moscow, ID.
Johnson, K.N. 1992. Consideration of watersheds in long-term forest planning models: The case of
FORPLAN and its use on the National Forests, pp. 347-360. In: R.J. Naiman, ed., Watershed
Management: Balancing Sustainability and Environmental Change. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Johnson, M.L., D.G. Huggins, and F. deNoyelles. 1991. Ecosystem modeling with LISREL. Ecol. Applic.
1:383-398.
236
-------
Johnson, N. and R.M. Adams. 1989. On the marginal value of a fish: Some evidence from a steelhead
fishery. Mar. Resour. Econ. 6:43-55.
Johnson, R.L., S. Bregenzer, and B. Shelby. 1990. Dichotomous choice versus open-ended contingent
valuation. In: R.L. Johnson and G.V. Johnson, eds., Economic Valuation of Natural Resources.
Westview Press, San Francisco, CA.
Jordan, I.E., D.L. Correll and D.E. Weller. 1993. Nutrient interception by riparian forest receiving inputs
from adjacent cropland. J. Environ. Qual. 22:467-473.
Josefson, A. 1990. Increase in benthic biomass in the Skaggerrak-Kattegat during the 1970's and
1980's—effects of organic enrichment? Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 66:117-130.
Karr, J.R. and I.J. Schlosser. 1978. Water resources and the land-water interface. Science 201:229-234.
Karr, J.R., D.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing Biological
Integrity in Running Waters: A Method and Its Rationale. Special Publication 5, Illinois Natural History
Survey, Champaign, IL.
Keeney, R.L. and D. von Winterfeldt. 1989. On the uses of expert judgment on complex technical
problems. IEEE Trans. Engin. Manage. 36:83-86.
Keeney, R.L. and D. von Winterfeldt. 1991. Eliciting probabilities from experts in complex technical
problems. IEEE Trans. Engin. Manage. 38:191-201.
Keller, C.M.E., C.S. Robins, and J.S. Hatfield. 1993. Avian communities in riparian forests of different
widths in Maryland and Delaware. Wetlands 13:137-144.
Keystone Center. 1991. Final Consensus Report of the Keystone Policy Dialogue on Biological Diversity
on Federal Lands. Keystone, CO.
Kiester, A.R., D. White, E.M. Preston, L.L. Master, T.R. Loveland, D.F. Bradford, B.A. Csuti, R.J.
O'Connor, F.W. Davis, and D.M. Stoms. 1993. Research Plan for Pilot Studies of the Biodiversity
Research Consortium, U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.
Knopf, F.L. and F.B. Samson. 1994. Scale perspectives on avian diversity in western riparian
ecosystems. Conserv. Biol. 8(3):669-676.
Kopp, R.J. 1992. Why existence values should be used in cost-benefit analysis. J. Policy Analysis
Manage. 11(1):123-130.
Kozloff, E.N. 1983. Seashore Life of the Northern Pacific Coast. University of Washington Press,
Seattle, WA.
Kozloff, E.N. 1987. Marine Invertebrates of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press,
Seattle, WA.
Kozlowski, T.T., P.J. Krammerand S.G. Pallardy. 1991. The Physiological Ecology of Woody Plants.
Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Kusler, J.A., and M.E. Kentula, eds. 1990. Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science.
Island Press, Washington, DC.
237
-------
Lamberson, R.H., K.S.. McKelvey, B.R. Noon, and C. Voss. 1992. A dynamic analysis of northern
spotted owl viability in a fragmented forest landscape. Conserv. Biol. 6(4):505-512.
Lamberson, R.H., B.R. Noon, C. Voss, and K.S. McKelvey. 1994. Reserve design for territorial species:
The effects of patch size and spacing on the viability of the northern spotted owl. Conserv. Biol. 8(1): 185-
195.
Landers, D.H., W.S. Overton, RA Linthurst, and D.F. Brakke. 1988. Eastern Lake Survey: Regional
estimates of lake chemistry. Environ. Sci. Technol. 22:128-135.
Landres, P.B. 1992. Ecological indicators: Panacea or liability? pp. 1295-1318. In: D.H. McKenzie,
D.E. Hyatt, and V.J. McDonald, eds., Ecological Indicators: Proceedings of the International Symposium
on Ecological Indicators. Elsevier Scientific Publishers, New York.
Lane Council of Governments. 1992. Scoping Report for an Integrated McKenzie Watershed Program.
Report Prepared for Eugene Water and Electric Board and Lane County, OR.
Lee, H. and R.C. Swartz. 1980. Biological Processes Affecting the Distribution of Pollutants in Biological
Sediments. Part II. Biodeposition and Bioturbation, pp. 555-606. In: R.A. Baker, ed., Contaminants and
Sediments, Volume 2. Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Ml.
Lee, H., B. Boese, J. Pelletier, M. Winsor, D. Specht, and R. Randall. 1993. Guidance Manual: Bedded
Sediment Bioaccumulation Tests. EPA/600/R-93/183. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
Lee et al. 1994. Ecological Risk Assessment of the Marine Sediments at the United Heckathorn
Superfund Site. EPA-600/X-94/029. Final Report to Region IX. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC
Lee, K.N. 1993. Greed, scale mismatch, and learning. Ecol. Applic. 3: 560-564.
Leibowitz, S.G., E.M. Preston, L.Y. Arnaut, N.E. Detenbeck, C.A. Hagley, M.E. Kentula, R.K. Olson, W.D.
Sanville, R.R. Sumner. 1992a. Wetlands Research Plan FY92-96: An Integrated Risk-Based Approach.
EPA/600/R-92/060. U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.
Leibowitz, S.G., B. Abbruzzese, P.R. Adamus, L.E. Hughes, and J.T. Irish. 1992b. A Synoptic Approach
to Cumulative Impact Assessment: A Proposed Methodology. EPA/600/R-92/167. U.S. EPA
Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.
Levins, S.A., M.A. Harwell, J.R. Kelly, and K.D. Kimball, eds. 1989. Ecotoxicology: Problems and
Approaches. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Likens, G.E. 1985. An experimental approach for the study of ecosystems. J. Ecol. 73:381-396.
Likens, G.E. 1992. The Ecosystem Approach: Its Use and Abuse. Ecological Institute, W-2124
Oldendorf/Luhe, Germany.
Lowrance, R. 1992. Groundwater nitrate and denitrification in a coastal plain riparian forest. J. Environ.
Qual. 21:401-405.
Lowrance, R., R. Leonard, and J. Sheridan. 1985. Managing riparian ecosystems to control nonpoint
pollution. J. Soil Water Conserv. 40:87-91.
238
-------
Lowrance, R., R.L. Todd, J. Fail, Jr., O. Hendrickson, Jr., R. Leonard, and L. Asmussen. 1984. Riparian
forests as nutrient filters in agricultural watersheds. BioScience 34:374-377.
Lowrance, R., S. Mclntyre and C. Lance. 1988. Erosion and deposition in a field/forest system estimated
using cesium-137 activity. J. Soil Water Conserv. 43:195-199.
Lubchenco, J., A.M. Olson, L.B. Brubaker, S.R. Carpenter, M.M. Holland, S.P. Hubbell, S.A. Levin, J.A.
MacMahon, P.A. Matson, J.M. Melillo, H.A. Mooney, C.H. Peterson, H.R. Pulliam, L.A. Real, P.J. Regal,
and P.G. Risser. 1991. The sustainable biosphere initiative: An ecological research agenda. Ecology
72:371-412.
Ludwig, D., R. Hilborn, and C. Walters. 1993. Uncertainty, resource exploitation, and conservation:
Lessons from history. Science 260:17, 36.
MacArthur, R.H. 1965. Patterns of species diversity. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical
Society 40:510-533.
MacArthur, R.H. 1972. Geogoraphical Ecology: Patterns in the Distribution of Species (1st Ed.). Harper
and Row, New York.
Margules, C.R. and A.O. Nicholls. 1987. Assessing the conservation value of remnant habitat 'islands':
mallee patches on the Western Eyre Peninsula, South Australia, pp. 89-102. In: D.A. Saunders, G.W.
Arnold, A.A. Burbridge, and A. J.M. Hopkins, eds. Nature Conservation: The Role of Remnants of Native
Vegetation. Surrey Beatty and Sons, in association with CSIRO and CLAM, Syndey, Australia.
Margules, C.R., A.O. Nicholls and R.L. Pressey. 1988. Selecting networks of reserves to maximize
biological diversity. Biol. Conserv. 43:63-76.
Maser, C. and J.R. Sedell. 1994. From the Forest to the Sea: The Ecology of Wood in Streams, Rivers,
Estuaries, and Oceans. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL.
McCuen, R.H. 1989. Hydrologic Analysis and Design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
McGuire, H.D. 1895-6. Third and Fourth Annual Reports of the State Fish and Game Protector of
Oregon.
Meentemeyer, V. 1984. The geography of organic decomposition rates. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 74:
551-560.
Merriam, G. and J. Wegner. 1992. Local extinctions, habitat fragmentation, and ecotones, pp. 150-169.
In: A.J. Hansen and F. di Castri, eds. Landscape Boundaries: Consequences for Biotic Diversity and
Ecological Flows. Ecological Studies, Volume 92. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Meyer, J.L. and G.S. Helfman. 1993. The ecological basis of sustainability. Ecol. Applic. 3:569-571.
Milne, B.T. 1992. Indications of landscape condition at many scales, pp. 883-895. In: D.H. McKenzie,
D.E. Hyatt, and V.J. McDonald, eds., Ecological Indicators: Proceedings of the International Symposium
on Ecological Indicators, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, New York.
Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. Second Edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Monaco, M.E., D.M. Nelson, R.L. Emmett, and S.A. Hinton. 1990. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes
and Invertebrates in West Coast Estuaries, Volume I. Data Summaries. ELMR Report No. 4, Strategic
Assessment Branch, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Rockville, MD.
239
-------
Mooney, H.A., E. Medina, D.W. Schindler, E.-D. Schulze, and B.W. Walker, eds. 1991. Ecosystems
Experiments. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, England.
Moore, H.F. 1897. Some Factors in the Oyster Problem. Bull. E. S. Fish Commission.
Morey, E., W.D. Shaw, R.D. Rowe. 1991. A discrete-choice model of recreational participation, site
choice, and activity valuation when complete trip data are not available. J. Environ. Econ. Manage.
20:181-201.
Morgan, M.G. and M. Henrion. 1990. Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative
Risk and Policy Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
Morrison, P.M. and F. Swanson. 1990. Fire History and Pattern in a Cascade Range Landscape.
General Technical Report PNW-254, U.S. Forest Service.
Mumford, T.F., P. Peyton, J. Sayce, and S. Harbell. 1991. Spartina Workshop Record. Record of
Spartina Workshop in Seattle, WA., Nov. 14-15, 1990. Sponsored by Pacific County Dept. Planning,
Washington Department of Natural Resources and Washington Sea Grant Program.
Munson, D., P.A. Fishman and E. Zajonc. 1984. South Slough National Estuarine Sanctuary
Management Plan. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and State of Oregon.
Muth, R.M. and J.C. Hendee. 1980. Technology transfer and human behavior. J. Forestry
78(3):141-144.
Naiman, R.J. 1992. New Perspectives for watershed management: balancing long-term sustainability
with cumulative environmental change, pp. 3-11. In: R.J. Naiman, ed., Watershed Management.
Springer-Verlag, New York.
Naiman, R.J., D.G. Lonzarich, T.J. Beechie, and S.C. Ralph. 1992. General principles of classification
and the assessment of conservation potential in rivers, pp. 93-123. In: P.J. Boon, P. Calow, and G.E.
Petts, eds. River Conservation and Management. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Naiman, R.J., H. Decamps, and M. Pollock. 1993. The role of riparian corridors in maintaining regional
biodiversity. Ecol. Applic. 3:209-212.
National Research Council (NRC). 1986. Ecological Knowledge and Environmental Problem Solving:
Concepts and Case Studies. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
National Research Council (NRC). 1991. Environmental Epidemiology: Public Health and Hazardous
Wastes, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
National Research Council (NRC). 1994. Draft Summary of Planning Meeting on the Scientific Basis of
Ecosystem Management. Commission on Life Sciences, Board on Biology, Board on Environmental
Studies and Toxicology, Washington, DC.
Newell, A., ed. 1993. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Long-Term Monitoring Project. Water Air
Soil Pollut. 67:247-468.
Nicholls, A.O. and C.R. Margules. 1993. An upgraded reserve selection algorithm. Biol. Conserv.
64:165-169.
240
-------
Nichols, F.H. 1985. Increased benthic grazing: An alternative explanation for low phytoplankton biomass
in northern San Francisco Bay during the 1976-1977 drought. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 21:379-388.
Nichols, F.H., J.K. Thompson, and L.E. Schemel. 1990. Remarkable invasion of San Francisco Bay
(California, USA) by the Asian clam Potamocorbula amurensis. II. Displacement of a former community.
Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 66:95-101.
NOAA. 1985. National Estuarine Inventory. Data Atlas. Physical and Hydrologic Characteristics. Office
of Oceanography and Marine Assessment, National Ocean Service, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Washington, D.C.
Noss, R.F. 1987. Protecting natural areas in fragmented landscapes. Nat. Areas J. 7:2-13.
Noss, R.F. 1992. Wildlife corridors. In: D. Smith and P. Hellmund, eds., Ecology of Greenways.
University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1989. Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks
in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG 75/014. NRC, Washington, DC.
Odum, W.E., T.J. Smith, III, and R. Dolan. 1987. Suppression of natural disturbance: Long-term
ecological change on the outer banks of North Carolina, pp. 123-135. In: M.G. Turner, ed., Landscape
Heterogeneity and Disturbance. Ecological Studies, Volume 64, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). 1993. Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States.
ISBN 0-16-042075-X. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Olsen, D., J. Richards, and R.D. Scott. 1992. Existence and sport values for doubling the size of the
Columbia River Basin salmon and steelhead runs. Rivers 2(1):44-56.
Omernik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr.
77:118-125.
Omernik, J.M. and G.E. Griffith. 1991. Ecological regions vs. hydrologic units: Frameworks for managing
water quality. J. Soil Water Conserv. 46:334-340.
Omernik, J.M., A.R. Abernathy, and L.M. Male. 1981. Stream nutrient levels and proximity of agricultural
and forest lands to streams: Some relationships. J. Soil, Water Conserv. 36 (4):227-231.
Omernik, J.M., C.M. Rohm, S.E. Clarke, and D.P. Larsen. 1988. Summer total phosphorus in lakes: A
map of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Environ. Manage. 12:815-825.
O'Neill, R.V., D.L. DeAngelis, J.B. Waide, and T.F.N. Allen. 1986. A Hierarchical Concept of Ecosystems.
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
O'Neill, R.V., A.R. Johnson, and A.W. King. 1989. A hierarchical framework for the analysis of scale.
Landscape Ecol. 3: 193-205.
O'Neill, R.V., C.T. Hunsacker, and D.A. Levine. 1992. Monitoring challenges and innovative ideas, pp.
1443-1460. In: D.H. McKenzie, D.E. Hyatt, and V.J. McDonald, eds., Ecological Indicators: Proceedings
of the International Symposium on Ecological Indicators. Elsevier Scientific Publishers, New York.
Oregon Environmental Atlas. 1988. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Carolyn Young,
Project Manager and Editor.
241
-------
Oregon South Slough Estuarine Sanctuary Management Commission. 1978. State of Oregon Estuary
Program, 1978. South Slough Estuarine Sanctuary Management Commission, Charleston, OR.
Oregon Strategic Water Management Group (SWMG). 1992. Proposal: A Watershed Management
Strategy for Oregon. Final Report and Recommendations of the SWMG Policy Work Group, State of
Oregon.
Oregon Watershed Forum. 1992. Improving Local Efforts to Resolve Watershed Management Problems.
State of Oregon, March 1992.
Otway, H. and D. von Winterfeldt. 1992. Expert judgment in risk analysis and management: Process,
context, and pitfalls. Risk Analysis 12:83-93.
Paulsen, S.G., D.P. Larsen, P.R. Kaufmann, T.R. Whittier, J.R. Baker, D.V. Peck, J. McGue, R.M.
Hughes, D. McMullen, D. Stevens, J.L. Stoddard, J. Lazorchak, W. Kinney, A.R. Selle, and R. Hjort.
1991. EMAP-Surface Waters Monitoring and Research Strategy Fiscal Year 1991. EPA/600/3-91/022.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC.
Pearce, D.W. and K. Turner. 1990. Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment. John
Hopkins Press, Baltimore, MD.
Percy, K.L., D.A. Bella, C. Sutterlin and P.C. Klingeman. 1974. Descriptions and Information Sources for
Oregon Estuaries. Sea Grant College, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
Peterjohn, W.T. and D.L. Correll. 1983. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed: Observations of
the role of a riparian forest. Ecology 65:1466-1475.
Peterson, B.J., R.W. Howarth, and R.H. Garritt. 1985. Multiple stable isotopes used to trace the flow of
organic matter in estuarine food webs. Science 227:1361-1363.
Peterson, C.H. and N.M. Peterson. 1979. The Ecology of Intertidal Flats of North Carolina: A Community
Profile. FWS/OBS-79/39. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services Program.
Peterson, D.L. and R.H. Waring. 1994. Overview of the Oregon Transect Ecosystem Research (OTTER)
project. Ecol. Appl. 4(2):211-225.
Peterson, G.L. and C.L. Sorg. 1987. Toward the measurement of total economic value. General
Technical Report RM-148, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service.
Phillips, J.D. 1989. Nonpoint source pollution control effectiveness of riparian forests along a coastal
plain river. J. Hydrol. 110:221-237.
Phillips, J.D. 1990. A saturation-based model of relative wetness for wetland identification. Water Res.
Bull. 26:333-342.
Phillips, J.D. 1993. Biophysical feedbacks and the risks of desertification. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr.
83:630-640.
Phillips, P.J., J.M. Denver, R.J. Shedlock, and P.A. Hamilton. 1993. Effect of forested wetlands on nitrate
concentrations in ground water and surface water on the Delmarva Peninsula. Wetlands 13:75-83.
242
-------
Pimentel, D., U. Stachow, D.A. Takacs, H.W. Brubaker, A.R. Dumas, J.J. Meany, J.A.S. O'Neil, D.E. Onsi,
and D.B. Corzilius. 1992. Conserving biological diversity in agricultural/forestry systems. BioScience
42:354-362.
Prendergast, J.R., R.M. Quinn, J.H. Lawton, B.C. Eversham and D.W. Gibbons. 1993. Rare species, the
coincidence of diversity hotspots and conservation strategies. Nature 365:335-337.
Pressey, R.L. and A.O. Nicholls. 1989. Application of a numerical algorithm to the selection of reserves in
semi-arid New South Wales. Biol. Conserv. 50:263-278.
Pressey, R.L. and A.O. Nicholls. 1991. Reserve selection in the Western Division of New South Wales:
Development of a procedure based on land system mapping, pp. 98-105. In: C.R. Margules and M.P.
Austin, eds., Nature Conservation: Cost Effective Biological Surveys and Analysis. CSIRO Publications,
East Melbourne, Australia.
Prigogine, I. 1967. Introduction to Thermodynamics of Irreversible Processes, 3rd ed., Wiley
Interscience, New York.
Prigogine, I. 1982. Order out of chaos, pp. 13-32. In: W.J. Mitsch, R.K. Ragade, R.W. Bosserman, and
J.A. Dillon, Jr., eds., Energetics and Systems. Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Ml.
Principe, P.P. 1994. Future analytical framework, pp. 32-39. In: A Clean Air Act Exposure and Effects
Assessment 1993-1994: A Prototype Biennial Ecological Assessment. EPA/600/X-94/020. U.S.
Environmentai Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Pulliam, H.R., J.B. Dunning, and J. Liu. 1992. Population dynamics in complex landscapes: A case
study. Ecol.Appl. 2:165-177.
Race, M. 1982. Competitive displacement and predation between introduced and native snails.
Oecologia 54:337-334.
Raiffa, H. 1968. Decision Analysis. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Randall, A. 1991. Total and nonuse values. In: J.B. Braden and C.D. Kolstad, eds., Measuring the
Demand for Environmental Quality. Elsevier Science Publishers, New York.
Rankin, E.T., C.O. Yoder, and D. Mishne. 1992. Ohio Water Resource Inventory. Volume I. Summary,
Status, and Trends. Division of Water Quality Planning and Assessment, Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency, Columbus, OH.
Rastetter, E.B., A.W. King, B.J. Cosby, G.M. Hornberger, R.V. O'Neill, and J.E. Hobbie. 1992.
Aggregating fine-scale ecological knowledge to model coarser-scale attributes of ecosystems. Ecol. Appl.
2:55-70.
Rau, G.H., R.E. Sweeny, I.R. Kaplan, A.J. Mearns, and D.R. Young. 1981. Differences in animal C14,
15N, and D abundance between a polluted and unpolluted coastal site: Likely indicators of sewage uptake
by a marine food web. Estuar. Coastal Shelf Sci. 13:701-707.
Readman, J.W., R.F.C. Mantoura, and M.M. Rhead. 1987. A record of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
(PAH) pollution obtained from accreting sediments of the Tamar Estuary, U.K.: Evidence for non-
equilibrium behavior of PAH. Sci. Total Environ. 66:73-94.
243
-------
Reckhow, K.H. 1988. A comparison of robust Bayes and classical estimators for regional lake models of
fish response to acidification. Water Resour. Res. 24:1061-1068.
Reeves.G.H., F.H. Everest, and J.R. Sedell. 1993. Diversity of juvenile anadromous salmonid
assemblages in basins in coastal Oregon, USA, with different levels of timber harvest. Trans. Am. Fish.
Soc. 122:309-317.
Remillard, M.M. and R.A. Welch. 1993. CIS technologies for aquatic macrophyte studies: Modeling
applications. Landscape Ecol. 8(3): 163-175.
Research and Monitoring Committee (RMC). 1994. Draft Charter Monitoring Work Group, Interagency
Regional Ecosystems Office, Portland, OR.
Rhoads, D.C., P.L. McCall, and J.Y. Yingst. 1978. Disturbance and production on the estuarine seafloor.
Am. Sci. 66:577-586.
Robbins, J.A. 1978. Geochemical and geophysical applications of radioactive lead, pp. 285-393. In:
J.O. Nriagu, ed., Biogeochemistry of Lead in the Environment. Elsevier, Holland.
Rosenthal, D.H. and R.H. Nelson. 1992. Why existence values should not be used in cost-benefit
analysis. J. Policy Anal. Manage. 11(1):116-122.
Rubin, J., G. Helfand, and J. Loomis. 1991. A benefit-cost analysis of the northern spotted owl: Results
from a contingent valuation survey. J. Forestry 89(12):25-29.
Russell, C.S. 1993. Old Lessons and New Contexts in Economic-Ecological Modeling. Resource Policy
Consortium, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Saunders, D.A. and R.J. Hobbs, eds. 1991. The Role of Corridors. Surrey Beatty, Chipping Norton, New
South Wales, Australia.
Schimmel, S.C., B.D. Melzian, D.E. Campbell, C.J. Strobel, S.J. Benyi, J.S. Rosen, and H.W. Buffum.
1994. Statistical Summary: EMAP-Estuaries Virginian Province-1991. EPA/620/R-94/005. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Narragansett, Rl.
Schlosser, I.J. 1991. Stream ecology: A landscape perspective. BioScience 41:704-712.
Schultz, ST. 1990. The Northwest Coast: A Natural History. Timber Press, Portland, OR.
Science Advisory Board (SAB). 1988. Future Risk: Research Strategies of the 1990's. SAB-EC-88-040.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Science Advisory Board (SAB). 1990. Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental
Protection. SAB-EC-90-021. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Science Advisory Board (SAB). 1991. Evaluation of the Ecoregion Concept. EPA-SAB-EPEC-91-003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Science and Policy Associates. 1994. Development of Prototype Decision Process for Forest Ecosystem
Management. Report to U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.
Scott, J.M., F. Davis, B. Csuti, B. Butterfield, R. Noss, S. Caicco, H. Anderson, J. Ulliman, F. D'Erchia, and
C. Groves. 1990. Gap Analysis: Protecting Biodiversity Using Geographic Information Systems. Idaho
Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID.
244
-------
Scott, J.M., B. Csuti, and S. Caicco. 1991. Gap analysis: Assessing protection needs, pp. 15-26. In:
W.E. Hudson, ed., Landscape Linkages and Biodiversity, Island Press, Washington, DC.
Scott, J.M., F. Davis, B. Csuti, R. Noss, B. Butterfield, C. Groves, H. Anderson, S. Caicco, F. D'Erchia,
T.C. Edwards, Jr., J. Ulliman, and R.G. Wright. 1993. Gap analysis: a geographic approach to protection
of biological diversity. Wildlife Monographs No. 123:1-41.
Scott, K.J. 1990. Sections: Indicator Strategy for Near-Coastal Water, pp. 3-1 to 3-18. In: C.T.
Hunsakerand D.E. Carpenter, eds., Ecological Indicators for the Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program. EPA/600/3-90/060. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Sedell, J.R. and J.L. Froggatt. 1984. Importance of streamside forests to large rivers: The isolation of the
Willamette River, Oregon, U.S.A., from its flood plain by snagging and streamside forest removal. Verh.
Internat. Verein. Limnol. 22:1828-1834.
Sharpley, A.M. and J.R. Williams. 1990. EPIC - Erosion Productivity Impact Calculator: 1. Model
Documentation. USDATech. Bull. No. 1768. Temple, TX.
Sherry, T.W. and R.T. Holmes. 1988. Habitat selection by breeding American Redstarts in response to a
dominant competitor, the Least Flycatcher. The Auk 105:350-364.
Schindler, D.W. 1990. Experimental perturbations of whole lakes as tests of hypotheses concerning
ecosystem structure and function. Oikos 57:25-41.
Shirzad, F.F., S.P. Orlando, C.J. Klein, S.E. Holliday, M.A. Warren and M.E. Monaco. 1988. Physical and
Hydrologic Characteristics. The Oregon Estuaries. National Estuarine Inventory: Supplement 1.
Strategic Assessment Board, Ocean Assessment Division, Office of Oceanography and Marine
Assessment, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Rockville, MD.
Shotwell, J.A. 1977. The Willapa Estuary: Background Studies for the Preparation of a Management
Plan. Department of Public Works, Pacific County, Washington.
Shugart, H.H. 1989. The role of ecological models in long-term ecological studies, pp. 90-109. In. G.E.
Likens, ed., Long-Term Studies in Ecology. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Shugart, H.H., Jr. and J. West. 1980. Forest succession models. Bioscience 30:308-313.
Sigleo, A.C. and S.A. Macko. 1985. Stable isotope and amino acid composition of estuarine dissolved
colloidal material. In: A.C. Sigleo and A. Hattori, eds., Marine and Estuarine Geochemistry, Lewis
Publishers, Ann Arbor, Ml.
Sigleo, A.C. and D.J. Shultz. 1993. Amino acid composition of suspended particles, sediment-trap
material, and benthic sediment in the Potomac Estuary. Estuaries 16:405-415.
Simberloff, D. and J. Cox. 1987. Consequences and costs of conservation corridors. Conserv. Biol.
1:63-71.
Simberloff, D., J.A. Farr, J. Cox, and D.W. Mehlman. 1992. Movement corridors: Conservation bargains
or poor investments? Conserv. Biol. 6:493-503.
Simenstad, C.A., J.R. Cordell, and L.M. Tear. 1993. Effects of Glyphosate (Rodeo®) and Surfactant
(AAPOE, Valent X-77® Spreader) on a Mudflat Community in Willapa Bay, Washington: Results of an
245
-------
Experiment to Evaluate the Effects of Herbicide Control of Spart/na a/tern/flora. FRI-UW-93XX. Fisheries
Research Institute, School of Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle WA (draft report).
Sinclair, A.R.E., P.O. Olsen, and T.D. Redhead. 1990. Can predators regulate small mammal
populations? Evidence from house mouse outbreaks in Australia. Oikos 59:382-392.
Sleeper, J.D. 1993. Seasonal changes in distribution and abundance of salmonids and habitat availability
in a coastal basin. M.S. Thesis. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis,
OR.
Slocombe, D.S. 1992. Environmental monitoring for protected areas: Review and prospects. Environ.
Monit. Assess. 21:49-78.
Slocombe, D.S. 1993. Implementing ecosystem-based management: Development of theory, practice,
and research for planning and managing a region. BioScience 43(9):612-622.
Smith, C.L. 1994. Connecting cultural and biological diversity in restoring Northwest salmon. Fisheries
19(2):20-26.
Smol, J.P., R.W. Battarbee, R.B. Davis, and J. Merlainen, eds. 1986. Diatoms and Lake Acidity. Dr. W.
Junk, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Sokol, R.R. 1974. Classification: Purposes, principles, progress, prospects. Science 185:1115-1123.
Soule, M.E., A.C. Alberts, and D.T. Bolger. 1992. The effects of habitat fragmentation on chaparral plants
and vertebrates. Oikos 63:39-47.
Spear, R.W. 1989. Late-Quaternary history of high-elevation vegetation in the White Mountains of New
Hampshire. Ecol. Monogr. 59:125-151.
Spetzler, C.S. and C.-A.S. Stael von Holstein. 1975. Probability encoding in decision analysis. Manage.
Science 22:340-352.
Spies, T.A. and J.F. Franklin. 1988. Old growth and forest dynamics in the Douglas-fir region of western
Oregon and Washington. Nat. Areas J. 8:190-201.
Stauffer, D.F. 1980. Habitat selection by birds of riparian communities: Evaluating effects of habitat
alterations. J. Wildlife Manage. 44:1-15.
Steele, J., S. Carpenter, J. Cohen, P. Dayton, and R. Rickefs. 1989. Comparison of terrestrial and
marine ecological systems. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA.
Steinitz, C. 1990. A framework for theory applicable to the education of landscape architects (and other
environmental design professionals). Landscape J. 9(2):136-143.
Streets, D.G. 1989. Integrated assessment: Missing link in the acid rain debate? Environ. Manage.
13(4):393-399.
Sustainable Biosphere Initiative. February 18, 1994. Letter from Jane Lubchenco, Paul Risser, and
Duncan Patten to Joann Roskoski and Appendix I (Accomplishments of the Project Office for the
Sustainable Biosphere Initiative 1992 -1993), Appendix II (Policy on Relationship of the Sustainable
Biosphere Initiative Project Office to the Organizational Structure of the Ecological Society of America),
and Appendix III (Sustainable Biosphere Initiative Work Plan 1994-1995).
246
-------
Suterll, G.W. 1990. Endpoints for regional ecological assessments. Environ. Manage. 14(1):19-23.
Suterll, G.W. 1993. Ecological Risk Assessment. Lewis Publishers. Ann Arbor, Ml.
Swanson, F.J., T.K. Kratz, N. Caine, and R.G. Woodmansee. 1988. Landform effects on ecosystem
patterns and processes. BioScience 38:92-98.
Swartz, R.C. 1987. Toxicological methods for determining the effects of contaminated sediment on
marine organisms, pp. 183-198. In: K.L. Dickson, A.W. Maki, and W.A. Brungs, eds., Fate and Effects of
Sediment Bound Chemicals in Aquatic Systems.
Swartz, R.C., W.A. DeBen, F.A. Cole, and L.C. Bentsen. 1980. Recovery of the macrobenthos at a
dredge site in Yaquina Bay, Oregon, pp. 391-408. In: R.A. Baker, ed., Contaminants and Sediments,
Volume 2. Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Ml.
Swift, B.L 1984. Status of riparian ecosystems in the United States. Water Res. Bull. 20:223-228.
Teensma, P.O., J.T. Rienstra, and M.A. Yeiter. 1991. Preliminary reconstruction and analysis of change
in forest stand age classes of the Oregon Coast Range from 1850 to 1940. Technical Note OR-9, Bureau
of Land Management, Portland, OR.
Tetra Tech (in association with E&S Environmental Chemistry Inc.). 1992. Willamette River Basin Water
Quality Study 1992. Component 8: Literature Review and Summary of Nonpoint Source Pollution in the
Willamette River Basin. Report to Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Salem, OR.
Thiele, S.A. 1992. Basin Level Ecological Regions of the Upper Grande Ronde River. M.S. Thesis,
Geosciences Department, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
Thiele, S.A., C.W. Kilsgaard, and J.M. Omernik. 1993. The Subdivision of the Coast Range Ecoregion of
Oregon and Washington. U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.
Thorn, R. 1981. Primary Productivity and Carbon Input to Grays Harbor Estuary, Washington. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. Seattle District, WA.
Thornton, K.W., D.E. Hyatt, and C.B. Chapman, eds. 1993. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program Guide. EPA/620/R-93/012. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, EMAP Research and Assessment Center, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Tim, U.S., S. Mostaghimi, and V.O. Shanholtz. 1992. Identification of critical nonpoint pollution source
areas using Geographic Information Systems and water quality modeling. Water Res. Bull. 28:877-887.
Turner, M.G. and R.H. Gardner, eds. 1991. Quantitative Methods for Analyzing Landscape Pattern.
Springer-Verlag, New York.
U.S. Bureau of Mines. 1994. Ecosystems-Based Regulations and the Minerals Industry: Program
Description. Minerals Availability Field Office, Denver, CO.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1981. Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas
of the United States. Agriculture Handbook 296. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1985. Management of Wildlife and Fish Habitats in Forests of
Western Oregon and Washington. Part 2 - Appendices. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.
247
-------
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1975. Soil Taxonomy: A
Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. Agriculture Handbook 436,
Soil Survey Staff, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1980. Interim Guidelines and Specifications for Preparing
Quality Assurance Project Plans. Office of Monitoring Systems and Quality Assurance, Quality Assurance
Management Staff, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1988. Nonpoint Source Pollution in the U.S.: Report to
Congress. Office of Water, Criteria and Standards Division, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1991. The Watershed Protection Approach: An Overview
EPA/503/9-92/002, Office of Water (WH-556F), Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment.
EPA/630/R-92/001. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993a. The Watershed Protection Approach Annual
Report 1992. EPA840-S-93-001. Office of Water (WH-556F), Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993b. Biological Criteria: Technical Guidance for
Streams and Small Rivers. Draft Report. Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993c. Volunteer Estuary Monitoring: A Methods Manual.
EPA/842/B-93/004. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1994a. Toward a Place-driven Approach: The Edgewater
Consensus on an EPA Strategy for Ecosystem Protection. Working draft prepared by the EPA Ecosystem
Protection Workgroup distributed with a memorandum from C.M. Browner, 24 May 1994, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1994b. A note from Bob Wayland, Director of EPA's Office
of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, pp. 1 and 12, in Watershed Events, EPA 840-N-94-001, Spring
1994, Office of Water (4501F), Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1994c. The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program Assessment Framework, EMAP Center, Research Triangle Park, NC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1994d. National Water Quality Inventory: 1992 Report to
Congress. EPA 841-R-94-001. Washington, DC.
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 1993a. National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units. ECOMAP.
Washington, DC.
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 1993b. Snapshot in time: Repeat Photography on the Boise National
Forest, 1870-1992, Boise National Forest, Region 1.
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 1994. Forest Service Research Support for Implementing Ecosystem
Management on Public Lands of the Pacific Northwest. FY 1994 and FY 1995. Pacific Southwest and
Pacific Northwest Research Stations.
U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1994a. Record of Decision for
Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range
of the Northern Spotted Owl and Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-
Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.
248
-------
U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1994b. Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest
Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.
U.S. Forest Service (USFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, Oregon, and California. 1994. Interagency Framework for
Monitoring the President's Forest Ecosystem Management Plan.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1982. Hydrologic Unit Map of the United States. Map (scale
1:7,500,000). U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1994. Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Initiative. Water Resources
Division, Pacific Northwest Area, Portland, OR.
Van Der Zee, F.F., J. Wiertz, C.J.F. Ter Braak, R.C. Van Apeldoorn, and J. Vink. 1992. Landscape
change as a possible cause of the badger Metes metes L. decline in the Netherlands. Biol. Conserv.
61:17-22.
Van Deventer, J.S. 1990. A Bibliography of Riparian Research and Management. Idaho Riparian
Cooperative, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID.
Van Sickle, J. and S.V. Gregory. 1990. Modeling inputs of large woody debris to streams from falling
trees. Can. J. For. Res. 20:1593-1601.
von Neissen, W. and A. Blumen. 1988. Dynamic simulation of forest fires. Can. J. For. Res. 18:805-812.
Walker, B.H. 1981. Is succession a viable concept in African savanna ecosystems? pp. 431-447. In:
D.C. West, H.H. Shugart, and D.B. Botkin, eds., Forest Succession: Concepts and Application. Springer-
Verlag, New York.
Walters, C.H. and R. Hilborn. 1976. Adaptive control of fishing systems. J. Fish. Res. Board Can.
33(1):145-159.
Walters, C.J. 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Walters, C.J. and C.S. Holling. 1990. Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing.
Ecology 71:2060-2068.
Ward, J.C. 1991. Integrated Environmental Monitoring. Information Paper No. 37. Centre for Resource
Management, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand.
Warren-Hicks, W.J. 1990. Estimating Fish Population Response to Acidification: Using Bayesian
Reference to Combine Laboratory and Field Data. P.O. Thesis, School of Forestry and Environmental
Studies, Duke University, Durham, NC.
Washburn, F.L. 1901. Present Condition of the Eastern Oyster Experiment and the Native Oyster
Industry, Appendix C. First Biennial Report of the State Biologist of the State of Oregon.
Washington Department of Ecology. 1993. Marine Water Column Ambient Monitoring Program:
Wateryear 1992 Data Report. Publication #93-41. Olympia, WA.
249
-------
Washington Department of Fisheries and Washington Department of Ecology. 1992. Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement: Use of the Insecticide Carbaryl to Control Ghost and Mud Shrimp in the
Oyster Beds of Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor. Olympia, WA.
Webster Encyclopedia Dictionary of the English Language. 1971. Consolidated Book Publishers,
Chicago, IL.
Westman, W.E. 1977. How much are nature's services worth? Science 197:960-964.
White, G.J., G.A. Baker, M.E. Harmon, G.B. Wiersma, and D.A. Bruns. 1989. Use of Forest Ecosystem
Process Measurements in an Integrated Environmental Monitoring Program in the Wind River Range,
Wyoming, pp. 214-222. In: W.C. Schmidt and K.J. McDonald, eds., Proceedings - Symposium on
Whitebark Pine Ecosystems: Ecology and Management of a High-Mountain Resource. Bozeman, MT
March 29-31. Sponsored by: U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, Montana State University, and
Society of American Foresters.
Whitfield, R.G., T.S. Wallsten, R.L. Winkler, H.M. Richmond, S.R. Hayes, and A.S. Rosenbaum. 1991.
Assessing the Risk of Chronic Lung Injury Attributable to Ozone Exposure. Argonne National Laboratory
Report No. ANL/EAIS-2, Chicago, IL.
Whitlock, C. 1992. Vegetational and climatic history of the Pacific Northwest during the last 20,000 years:
Implication for understanding present-day biodiversity. Northwest Environ. J. 8:5-28.
Wiens, J.A. 1989. Spatial scale in ecology. Functional Ecol. 3:385-397.
Wiens, J.A., J.T. Rodenberry, and B. Home. 1986. A lesson in the limitations of field experiments:
Shrub-steppe birds and habitat alteration. Ecology 67:365-376.
Wigmosta, M.S., L.W. Vail, and D.P. Lettenmaier. 1994. A distributed hydrology-vegetation model for
complex terrain. Water Resour. Res. 30:1665-1679.
Williams, E.E. 1972. The origin of faunas: Evolution of lizard congeners in a complex island fauna: A
trial analysis. Evol. Biol. 6:47-89.
Williams, J.R. and K.G. Renard. 1985. Assessment of soil erosion and crop production with process
models (EPIC), pp. 67-103. In: R.F. Follettand B.A. Stewart, eds., Soil Erosion and Crop Productivity.
Am. Soc. Agronomy/Crop Sci. Soc. Am./Soil Sci. Soc. Am., Madison Wl.
Wilson, E.O. and W.H. Bossert. 1971. A Primer of Population Biology (1st Ed.). Sinauer, Stamford, CT.
Winkler, R.L., T.S. Wallsten, R.G. Whitfield, H.M. Richmond, S.R. Hayes, and A.S. Rosenbaum. An
assessment of the risk of chronic lung injury attributable to long-term ozone exposure, in preparation.
Wolf, E.G. 1993. A TideWater Place: Portrait of the Willapa Ecosystem. ISBN 0-89886-400-3, The
Willapa Alliance, Long Beach, WA.
World Committee on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future (The Brundtland
Report). Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.
Wright, D.H. 1989. Human impacts on energy flow through natural ecosystems, and implications for
species endangerment. Ambio 19:189-194.
250
-------
Wyllie, S., A. Olson, and M. Hershman, eds. 1994. Seagrass Science and Policy in the Pacific
Northwest: Proceedings of a Seminar Series. (SMA94-1). EPA910/R-94-004. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington DC.
Young, D.R., A.J. Mearns, and T.K. Jan. 1987. The cesium:potassium index of food web structure and
biomagnification of trace elements in a polluted harbor of Southern California, pp. 74-76. In: S.E.
Lindberg and T.C. Hutchinson, eds., Heavy Metals in the Environment, Volume 2. CDP Consultants, Ltd.,
Edinburgh, U.K.
Zeigler, B.P. 1976. The aggregation problem, pp. 299-311. In: B.C. Patten, ed., Systems Analysis and
Simulation in Ecology. Volume IV. Academic Press, New York.
Zeigler, B.P. 1979. Multilevel multiformalism modeling: An ecosystem example, pp. 17-54. In: E. Halfon,
ed., Theoretical Systems Ecology. Academic Press, New York.
251 * U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1995 - 650-006/22076
------- |