THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH:
Healthy Ecosystems and Sustainable Economies
Volume III—Case Studies
REPORT OF THE
INTERAGENCY ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE
September 1996
-------
Copies of this report may be purchased from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS),
U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. Volume I: PB95-
265583; Volume II: PB95-265591; Volume III: PB95-265609; the three-volume set: PB95-
265575. The sales desk phone number is (703) 487-4650. The 24-hour FAX order number is
(703) 321-8547. Rush service number (overnight) is 1-800-553-NTIS. Internet order address is
orders@ntis.fedworld.gov.
-------
THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH:
Healthy Ecosystems and Sustainable Economies
Volume IE—Case Studies
REPORT OF THE
INTERAGENCY ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE
September 1996
-------
Copies of this report may be purchased from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS),
U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. Volume I: PB95-
265583; Volume II: PB95-265591; Volume III: PB95-265609; the three-volume set: PB95-
265575. The sales desk phone number is (703) 487-4650. The 24-hour FAX order number is
(703) 321-8547. Rush service number (overnight) is 1-800-553-NTIS. Internet order address is
orders@ntis.fedworld.gov.
-------
INTERAGENCY ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE
CHAIR
Council on Environmental Quality: Katie McGinty, Chair
MEMBERS
Department of Agriculture: James R. Lyons, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment
Department of the Army: John Zirschky, Assistant Secretary for Civil Works
Department of Commerce: Kate Kimball, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere
Department of Defense: Sherri W. Goodman, Deputy Under Secretary for Environmental Security
Department of Energy: Susan Tierney, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Planning, and Program Evaluation
Department of Housing and Urban Development: Andrew M. Cuomo. Assistant Secretary for Community
Planning and Development
Department of the Interior: Bonnie Cohen, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management, and Budget
Department of Justice: Lois Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General for Environment and Natural Resources
Department of Labor: Joseph A. Dear, Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health
Department of State: Elinor G. Constable, Assistant Secretary for Oceans and International Environmental and
Scientific Affairs
Department of Transportation: Frank Kruesi, Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy
Environmental Protection Agency: David Gardiner, Assistant Administrator for Policy, Planning, and
Evaluation
Office of Management and Budget: TJ. Glauthier, Associate Director for Natural Resources, Energy, and
Science
Office of Science and Technology Policy: Jack Gibbons, Director
INTERAGENCY ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT WORKING GROUP
CO-CHAIRS
Department of the Interior: James Pipkin, Counselor to the Secretary of the Interior
Department of Agriculture: Dr. Diane Gelburd, Regional Conservationist for the East, Natural Resources
Conservation Service
iii
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTERAGENCY ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE iii
LISTOF ABBREVIATIONS xv
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION 1
THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH 1
THE CASE STUDIES 1
Chapter 2: ANACOSTTA RIVER WATERSHED 5
BACKGROUND 5
Historical Ecosystem Setting 6
Current Ecosystem Setting - 8
The Watershed Restoration Initiative 9
ISSUES AND CONCERNS : 13
Federal Agency Role 13
Regulatory Programs and Permits .- 15
Army Corps of Engineers 15
Funding 17
Public Participation 17
Science and Information 22
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 24
Ecosystem Approach 24
Federal Agency Role 25
Regulatory Programs and Permits 25
Funding.; 25
Public Participation '. 26
Science and Information 26
Evaluating the Social and Economic Aspects of the Ecosystem Approach 27
-------
APPENDIX A—Selected Documents Reviewed 27
APPENDIX B—Principal Federal Programs and Authorities
Relevant to the Anacostia Initiative 28
Army Corps of Engineers •. 28
Environmental Protection Agency 29
Hsh and Wildlife Service 30
Forest Service 30
National Civilian Community Corps 31
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 31
National Park Service 31
Natural Resources Conservation Service 31
U.S. Department of Defense 32
U.S. Department of Transportation 32
Chapters: COASTALLOUJS1ANA 33
BACKGROUND 33
Value of the Ecosystem 33
Formation of Coastal Wetlands 34
Disruption of Wetland Formation 34
Strategies to Halt Loss of Coastal Wetlands 36
BUDGET ISSUES 38
Current Funding 38
«».. V.I.V —. »~.v~«^ ..............................................•>............•....•........>.......................I.,!,,.»,••,•••(••!•••,«••(.••••.....fe^u
Budget-Related Barriers to the Ecosystem Approach 40
Budget Alternatives 40
INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES 43
Louisiana's Context for the Ecosystem Approach 43
The CWPPRA Process 43
Regulatory Agencies 44
Trustee Agencies 44
vi
-------
Federal Management Programs 45
Institutional Alternatives • -45
LEGAL ISSUES 46
TheCWPPRA .... "«46
Section 404 Regulatory Program 47
National Environmental Policy Act 48
Federal Advisory Committee Act .-48
Federal Programs That Encourage Urban Development 49
Federal Programs That Affect Agricultural Development 49
Endangered Species Act ; 49
Pipeline Safety 50
State Law Issues 50
Legal Alternatives 50
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION • 50
Background 50
Interviewee Comments 51
Public Participation Alternatives 54
SCIENCE AND INFORMATION 55
State of the Science 56
Assessments 57
Role of Science in Decision Making 58
Monitoring 58
Information Systems 59
Science and Information Alternatives..: 60
OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 61
Program Support • • • 61
Establishing a Common Vision 62
vii
-------
Public Information and Involvement : 62
Interagency Coordination 63
Chapter 4: GREAT LAKES BASIN 65
BACKGROUND 65
Great Lakes Ecosystem 66
Perspectives on a Great Lakes Ecosystem Approach 68
Economy 69
Environment 70
Present Situation 73
BUDGETISSUES 74
Coordination 74
Flexibility 74
Funding Levels 75
INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES 75
Existing Institutions 76
Participants' Observations and Recommendations 76
LEGAL ISSUES 80
Specific Great Lakes Authorities 81
Mandates 82
Primary Legal Issues 82
Miscellaneous Legal Tools 84
Public Participation and Open Information 85
Bottom-Up Ecosystem Approach 85
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 86
Federal Involvement ....86
State Involvement 87
Nongovernmental Involvement 87
viii
-------
Participants' Suggestions 87
SCIENCE AND INFORMATION 88
Gaps and Limitations 88
Interaction of Scientists With Managers and the Public 89
OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 89
Observations 89
Recommendations , 90
Chapter 5: PACIFIC NORTHWEST FORESTS 93
BACKGROUND i 93
The Historic Ecosystem ^ • 93
Historic Forest Practices 94
Modification of Management 97
Protecting Regional Economies 99
Current Situation 100
BUDGET ISSUES : 102
Current Budget Agreements '. 102
Constraints 104
Federal Agency Coordination and Support 105
Interviewee Comments 105
INSTnunONAL ISSUES 106
Shared Vision 106
Federal Agency Processes 107
Constraints 108
LEGAL ISSUES 110
National Forest Management Act 110
National Environmental Policy Act Ill
Oregon and California Lands Act 111
ix
-------
Endangered Species Act : ; Ill
Involvement of State and Private Landowners 112
Involvement of Tribal Landowners 114
Federal Advisory Committee Act .-. 114
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 115
Overview of Public Involvement 115
Public Involvement Issues 116
Interviewee Comments 117
SCIENCE AND INFORMATION 118
Information Sharing and Management 118
Cooperation and Communication 119
Information Needs 120
Adaptive Management 121
RECOMMENDATIONS 122
Chapter 6: PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND 125
BACKGROUND 125
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill .'. 126
Trustee Council 126
Restoration Plan 128
BUDGET ISSUES : 128
Using Civil Settlement Funds 130
Federal Joint Funding 133
INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES 134
Trustee Council 135
Opportunities for the Ecosystem Approach 136
Constraints to the Ecosystem Approach 139
LEGAL ISSUES 141
-------
Exxon VcOdez Oil Spill Settlement 141
Legal Authorities • 143
Local Involvement in National Rulemaking 144
International Issues 144
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 145
Efforts to Involve the Public 145
Constraints to Public Involvement 148
Interviewee Suggestions 149
SCIENCE AND INFORMATION 151
Resource Information 151
Motivating Factors for Research , ; 152
Information Management 153
Constraints to Science and Information Sharing 154
RECOMMENDATIONS 156
APPENDIX—Selected Documents Reviewed 157
Chapta-7: SOUfflELORTOA ...159
BACKGROUND ; 159
The Historic Everglades Ecosystem 159
A Century of Change 160
Toward Restoration .....162
Present Situation 163
BUDGET ISSUES 164
Current Budget Management 164
Budget-Related Barriers to the Ecosystem Approach 165
Interviewee Suggestions 166
INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES 166
Leadership and Shared Vision 167
xi
-------
Communication 167
Agency Review Processes .....168
Intergovernmental Coordination . 168
LEGAL ISSUES 169
Federal Advisory Committee Act 169
Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Programs ...„ ; 169
Endangered Species Act 170
Clean Water Act '. 170
Federal Programs That Abet Environmentally Unsound Practices 173
National Environmental Policy Act 173
Internal Revenue Code ; 174
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act 175
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 175
Programs Underway 175
Opportunities and Constraints 178
Suggestions for Future Involvement ; 179
SCIENCE AND INFORMATION igo
Information Sharing 180
Cooperation and Communication i so
Information Needs 181
Adaptive Management 182
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 183
Copter 8: SOUTHERN APPALACHIANS . 137
BACKGROUND 187
Historical Patterns 188
Issues Raised by Regional Change 189
Man and the Biosphere Program 190
xii
-------
RoleofSAMAB 191
BUDGET ISSUES 191
Federal Agency Coordination and Support 191
Constraints 193
Interviewee Suggestions •• • 195
INSTITUTIONAL AND MANAGEMENT ISSUES 195
Vision and Strategy • 195
Interagency Coordination and Communication 196
Planning, Programming, and Budgeting Flexibility 197
Trainina . .. 198
xiauuug •
Environmental Baseline Data » 198
Adaptive Management 198
Opportunities for the Ecosystem Approach 199
LEGAL ISSUES > 199
Man and the Biosphere Program ....199
Information and Coordination Requirements 200
Federal Coordination With State and Local Counterparts 202
Barriers to the Ecosystem Approach , 203
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 206
Public Education Efforts 207
Opportunities 208
Constraints 208
SCIENCE AND INFORMATION 209
Coordination of Science and Information Activities 209
Opportunities 211
Constraints 212
Interviewee Suggestions — 213
xiii
-------
Outlook for the Rituie.... 214
RECOMMENDATIONS 214
REFERENCES 217
INTERAGENCY ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT WORKING GROUP 219
xiv
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ADED Advanced Identification of Disposal
Sites
AWRC Anacostia Watershed Restoration
Committee
BARC Beltsville Agriculture Research
Center (U.S. Department of
Agriculture)
BLM Bureau of Land Management (U.S.
Department of the Interior)
CENR Committee on Environment and
Natural Resources
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (U.S.
Department of Defense)
CWA Clean Water Act
CWPPRA Coastal Wetlands Planning,
Protection, and Restoration Act
DEP Department of Environmental
Protection
EA Environmental assessment
EIS Environmental impact statement
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act
FOIA Freedom of Information Act
FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S.
Department of the Interior)
FY Fiscal year
ICPRB Interstate Commission on the
Potomac River Basin
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NFMA National Forest Management Act
NGO Nongovernmental organization
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
(NOAA, U.S. Department of
Commerce)
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (U.S. Department of
Commerce)
NPDES National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System
NPFMC North Pacific Fisheries Management
Council
NFS National Park Service (U.S.
Department of the Interior)
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation
Service (U.S. Department of
Agriculture)
O&C Oregon and California
PGDER Prince Georges County Department of
Environmental Resources
RIEC Regional Interagency Executive
Committee
ROD Record of Decision
SAMAB Southern Appalachian Man and the
Biosphere Reserve
SFWMD South Florida Water Management
District
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
UNESCO United Nations Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organization
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
WRDA Water Resources Development Act
xv
-------
-------
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
Vice President Gore's National Performance
Review recommended that federal agencies adopt
"a proactive approach to ensuring a sustainable
economy and a sustainable environment through
ecosystem management." The link between a
healthy economy and a healthy environment has
highlighted the need to actively maintain our natu-
ral infrastructure before problems arise, as we do
with our highways and bridges. The Interagency
Ecosystem Management Task Force was estab-
lished to implement an ecosystem approach to
environmental management.
THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH
An ecosystem is an interconnected community of
living things, including humans and the physical
environment in which they interact. The goal of
the ecosystem approach is to restore and sustain
the health, productivity, and biological diversity of
ecosystems while supporting sustainable econo-
mies and communities. Many factors, such as
interagency conflicts, incompatible data bases, a
lack of research on ecosystem functioning, incon-
sistent planning and budgetary cycles, and differ-
ing agency organizational structures, have hamp-
ered development of a coordinated approach to
actively restoring or sustaining the health of the
ecosystems that are the cornerstones of viable
economies.
Because ecosystems do not follow administrative
boundaries, such as the borders of national parks
and forests or political jurisdictions, working to
restore or sustain ecosystem productivity involves
a perspective that crosses those artificial bound-
aries. This entails a shift from the federal govern-
ment's traditional focus on individual agency juris-
diction to a broader focus on the actions of multi-
ple agencies within larger ecological boundaries.
Just as collaboration is important, finding ways to
increase voluntary cooperation with state, tribal,
and local governments, as well as with non-
governmental organizations and the public, is key
to an effective ecosystem approach.
THE CASE STUDIES
Seven ecosystems were selected by the Task
Force for study, based on nine criteria:
(1) ongoing interagency and intergovernmental
management activities; (2) a mix of resource
management and infrastructure agency involve-
ment; (3) a mix of geographic scales and efforts at
various stages of development; (4) availability and
accessibility of data on the ecosystem;
(5) environmental importance of the area; (6) a
variety of environmental, economic, and social
issues; (7) public and private support of—and
interest in—the ecosystem; (8) interagency support
for the selection; and (9) geographic location.
There are many other ecosystems, in addition to
the seven, with large-scale, integrated manage-
ment projects that may also meet the above crite-
ria. The Task Force chose to focus the learning
process on a few areas that serve as case studies
for the ecosystem approach. Limiting the focus of
this learning process to the seven ecosystems does
not mean that these ecosystems are the only areas
in which the federal government will, or should,
pursue the ecosystem approach.
The Interagency Ecosystem Management Task
Force, acting through its Working Group, commis-
sioned interagency survey teams to conduct the
case studies in the summer and early fall of 1994.
Primarily through interviews with interested parties
in each ecosystem, teams identified opportunities
for—and constraints to—interagency coordination
of the ecosystem approach. Their focus was on
identifying barriers to the ecosystem approach, and
ways the federal government can help to overcome
these barriers. The lessons learned provide
guidance for natural resource managers as they
devise (or revise) the ecosystem approach for
these seven ecosystems and others across the
nation. The information presented in these sum-
maries was current as of early 1995. The findings
and conclusions are still valid, although specific
factual information may have changed.
Each survey team consisted of from six to eight
representatives of federal agencies. Agencies rep-
resented on one or more survey teams included the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Army General
Counsel, Council on Environmental Quality, Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Federal Aviation
Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Service, National Biological Service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Park Service, USDA Natural Resources Conserva-
tion Service (formerly Soil Conservation Service),
Office of Science and Technology Policy, U.S.
Department of Justice, and U.S. Department of the
Interior. Although agency representation varied
from team to team, it broadly reflected the makeup
of the Interagency Ecosystem Management Task
Force and its Working Group.
Environmental problems in all seven ecosystems
chosen for this study include habitat degradation,
loss of biodiversity, social and economic concerns,
and diminished natural resource uses. Interagency
efforts to implement the ecosystem approach are
underway in all seven ecosystems. These efforts
have a restoration focus or component, and most
involve nonfederal collaborators (state, local,
tribal, and nongovernmental entities) as essential
partners in the process.
• Anacostia River watershed. The Anacostia
River watershed, located in the District of
Columbia and Maryland, is an ecosystem of
tidal marshes, rivers and streams, upland
forests, and urban and rural environments.
To varying degrees, the rich natural
resources in this ecosystem have been
degraded or destroyed over the past three
centuries through the effects of agriculture
and urban development. Components of this
ecosystem are being restored through efforts
coordinated by the Anacostia Watershed
Restoration Committee (established in 1988
by state and local agencies), with federal
assistance.
• Coastal Louisiana. Each year, Coastal
Louisiana suffers alarming losses of rich
wetlands and barrier islands, primarily
because natural processes of wetland accre-
tion and replenishment have been disrupted
by efforts to control the Mississippi River.
Under the 1990 Coastal Wetland Planning,
Protection, and Restoration Act, a task force
involving federal agencies and the state of
Louisiana is implementing projects designed
to restore Louisiana's coastal wetlands.
• Great Lakes basin. The Great Lakes basin
contains the world's largest body of surface
freshwater, and supports a variety of habitats
in its waters, shoreline marshes, and
surrounding forests. The combined effects of
industrial pollution, urban development, and
habitat change have devastated many Great
Lakes resources. Through local initiatives
establishing remedial action plans for areas
of concern, and through lakewide manage-
ment plans, local communities are collabo-
rating with federal, state, and local agen-
cies, and with tribal and nongovernmental
organizations, to reverse the effects of pollu-
tion and habitat degradation in this ecosys-
tem. Instrumental to the effort is the Interna-
tional Joint Commission, which facilitates
coordination between Canada and the
United States in ecosystem approach initia-
tives.
• Pacific Northwest forests. In the Pacific
Northwest, logging of old-growth forests has
severely depleted critical habitat, affecting
a variety of species in this ecosystem, from
the northern spotted owl to anadromous
salmon. Based on the Clinton administra-
tion's 1993 Forest Plan for a Sustainable
Economy and a Sustainable Environment,
land management practices on federal lands
in the Pacific Northwest are being jointly
implemented by an interagency team, with
participation from state and local agencies
as well as tribal and nongovernmental orga-
nizations. The team is also coordinating an
interagency effort to secure the long-term
economic health of the region through fund-
ing for economic development.
Prince William Sound. In 1989, Alaska's
Prince William Sound was devastated by
the worst tanker oil spill in U.S. history when
the Exxon Valdez ran aground. A relatively
pristine ecosystem rich in fisheries and other
natural resources remains seriously threat-
ened in the aftermath of the disaster. A civil
settlement with Exxon has made funds
available for restoration. Funds are adminis-
tered by a joint state/federal Trustee Coun-
cil, with local, tribal, and community input.
South Florida. South Florida, renowned for
its subtropical Everglades, has suffered
steady declines in Everglades habitat, pri-
marily due to regional development, which
has led to water diversions and river chan-
nelizations that have disrupted the natural
waterflow. An agreement reached after
-------
Overview
lengthy litigation paved the way for restora-
tion efforts to begin, and the federal South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force
was established in 1993 to help coordinate
an effort involving federal, state, and local
agencies.
• Southern Appalachians. Southern
Appalachia, a mountain region extending
from Virginia to Alabama, provides a wide
variety of ecosystems, including high-eleva-
tion spruce-fir forests, forest wetlands in
mountain coves, and rich oak forests at
lower elevations. Regional problems, such
as severe water and air pollution as well as
forest fragmentation and degradation, are
primarily due to the effects of development
within the region and adjacent areas. Since
1988, through the Southern Appalachian
Man and the Biosphere regional network of
cooperators, federal, state, and local agen-
cies and organizations have conducted vari-
ous ecosystem management and restoration
activities that focus on voluntary action at
, the community level.
In each of these seven ecosystems, survey teams
assembled materials on the ecosystem and its his-
tory, as well as on economic development, intera-
gency restoration initiatives, and other efforts to
implement the ecosystem approach. Teams inter-
viewed dozens of interested parties representing a
broad array of stakeholders in the ecosystem.
Interviewees included federal, state, and local
officials, representatives of industry and agricul-
ture, landowners and developers, tribal representa-
tives, scientists and researchers of various
affiliations, and members of nongovernmental
organizations, resource management councils, and
other groups.
In their interviews, survey teams focused on key
issues in the ecosystem approach: budgets; institu-
tional structures; public participation; science and
information; and legal constraints and opportuni-
ties. Discussed at length in volume 2 of this series
(see Interagency Ecosystem,Management Task
Force 19.95), these issues are at the heart of recur-
ring problems that must be resolved for the most
benefits to accrue from an ecosystem approach.
Legal and budgetary obstacles must be removed,
activities must be based on sound science and
monitoring (in conjunction with adaptive manage-
ment), and the public must be involved and
informed at every stage. None of this is possible
without effective institutional teamwork at every
level through partnerships among federal, state,
and local agencies, in collaboration with tribal and
nongovernmental organizations and residents of
local communities.
Interviewees offered many observations on these
and other issues pertaining to ecosystems and to
efforts to manage and restore them. Their numer-
ous valuable comments and criticisms constitute
the bulk of this volume. At the close of each case
study, there are recommendations for improving
the ecosystem approach, both within the specific
ecosystem addressed and across the nation.
Largely based on suggestions from interviewees,
these recommendations are intended to facilitate a
broad discussion on improving the health of our
ecosystems to ensure our human health and the
economic prosperity of the nation as a whole.
-------
-------
Chapter 2: ANACOSTIA RIVER WATERSHED
The Anacostia River Watershed Restoration, an
urban river restoration initiative, illustrates a num-
ber of the components of an ecosystem initiative,
providing useful ideas and valuable lessons for
future ecosystem restoration and management. It
includes cooperative efforts across political and
jurisdictional boundaries, involving state, local,
and federal agencies, civic groups, and private
individuals. The restoration effort has been driven
primarily by state and local governments and the
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments,
although there has been some federal involvement
and use of federal grants, and a number of federal
programs and projects have affected or influenced
the initiative. An "Agreement of Federal Agencies
on Ecosystem Management in the Chesapeake
Bay" was signed on July 14, 1994, by several
agencies, agreeing to "give full support to the
Anacostia River Demonstration Project as an
opportunity to apply ecosystem management con-
cepts in an urban environment." Preliminary coor-
dination among the agencies has been established,
though details of federal support for the project had
yet to be worked out at the time of this study, and
funding had yet to be found.
The study focuses on federal contributions to the
Anacostia River Watershed Restoration initiative,
identifying areas where, in retrospect, "things
could have been done differently," or where fed-
eral involvement could be improved. Mention of
deficiencies or problems (primarily by inter-
viewees) is not intended to detract from accom-
plishments made through the various efforts.
Based on interviewee comments, the survey team
recommended ways of improving federal contribu-
tions to the Anacostia basin restoration initiative
and to the ecosystem approach in general. Rec-
ommendations are presented at the end of this
chapter.
The survey team interviewed representatives from
federal, state, and local government agencies,
government coordinating bodies, and nongovern-
mental organizations (NGOs) involved in the Ana-
costia restoration. The team conducted small-
group, large-group, and individual interviews, sup-
plemented by telephone interviews. The team also
reviewed documents containing background infor-
mation, results of studies, and recommendations.
Some of these documents are listed in appendix A
at the end of this chapter.
The survey team consisted of representatives from
the Interagency Ecosystem Management Initiative
issue subgroups (budget, institutional^ public par-
ticipation, science and information, legal, and pol-
icy). Team members were: Rosina Bierbaum,
Office of Science and Technology Policy; Ann
Hooker, Federal Aviation Administration; Joanne
Jones, Army General Counsel; Ron Lauster, U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural
Resources Conservation Service (formerly Soil
Conservation Service); Rob Mangold, USDA For-
est Service; Lynn Martin, U.S. Army.Corps of
Engineers; Mary O'Lone, Environmental Protection
Agency; and Robert Reichardt,' National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration.
BACKGROUND
The Anacostia River watershed is a 170-square-
mile subbasin of the Potomac River basin
(figure 1). The watershed has nine major sub-
basins, all lying in the District of Columbia and in
Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties in
Maryland (figure 2). Tidal influence extends about
9 miles above the confluence with the Potomac
River, which is a tributary of Chesapeake Bay.
The entire Anacostia River system is freshwater.
The river drains one of the most densely populated
sections of the Washington metropolitan area, with
a population of more than 800,000 in 1990. Devel-
opment activities have dramatically altered the
population and basin. Tributaries are prone to flash
flooding due to the steepness of stream valleys in
the upper portions of the watershed, to natural
imperviousness of the soils, and to imperviousness
resulting from development.* The tidal portion is
Imperviousness is a measure of how permeable or porous an area
is. Areas can be naturally impervious due to large amounts of
nonabsorbent soils, such as clay. Imperviousness increases when
development covers land with roads, sidewalks, rooftops, parking
lots, and other structures that water cannot permeate. Increased
imperviousness raises stormwater runoff and flow velocity, affecting
stream hydrology, groundwater recharge, water quality, and ecology.
Often there is a direct relationship between increases in
imperviousness and declining health of streams and rivers.
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
sluggish, and flushing time can range from 12 to
more than 90 days.
Historical Ecosystem Setting
The Anacostia River basin once supported signifi-
cant fish and wildlife habitat. In the early 1600s,
visitors to the basin described dense hardwood
forests with a great variety of wildlife, and wet-
lands supporting a wide range of fish, waterfowl,
and wading birds.
Wetlands. The Anacostia River basin once con-
tained extensive tidal and nontidal freshwater wet-
lands. From its mouth to the head of tide at
Bladensburg, Maryland, the river supported about
2,600 acres of emergent tidal wetlands, an integral
part of the watershed's self-cleansing system, pro-
viding key wildlife and waterfowl habitat. Wild
rice, saw grass, lily pads, and several other species
of marsh grasses covered the tidal flats. Tidal
creeks 3 to 6 feet deep
Figure 1.—Chesapeake Bay drainage. The
Potomac River basin is a massive network of
more than 100 rivers draining 14,670 square
miles of land. It provides the Chesapeake
Bay with almost 20 percent of its water supply.
The Anacostia River is a Potomac tributary
that drains 169.9 square miles of urban
landscape.
-------
and 10 to 20 feet wide intersected the marshes,
flooding them at high tide.
Aquatic resources. Approximately 100 species of
fish resided in or migrated up the Potomac and
Anacostia Rivers. Anadromous fish found exten-
sive spawning and juvenile rearing habitat
throughout the watershed. For centuries, fish such
as menhaden, yellow perch, herring, and striped
bass migrated annually from Chesapeake Bay into
nontidal freshwater tributaries of the Anacostia to
spawn.
Fish were so plentiful in the early 1600s, according
to a report by the Interstate Commission on the
Potomac River Basin (1988), that Captain John
Smith (the Chesapeake Bay's first explorer) and
his men reportedly tried to catch them with frying
pans. But commercial fisheries developed in the
mid-1700s, and fish became a
Figure 2.—The Anacostia River basin has
nine subbasins, all in the District of Columbia
or in Montgomery and Prince Georges
Counties in Maryland. (Piped tributaries in the
District of Columbia are not shown.) (Source:
Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments.)
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
supplemental food. "Concern about overfishing of
the Potomac and Anacostia was expressed as early
as 1817," according to the Commission's report.
"By the end of the century, a number of fisheries
began to decline. Overfishing in the Potomac was
the inevitable result of immense exhausting
sweeps of 1,600-fathom seines covering over
1,200 acres of bottom twice a day and the contin-
ual drifting of gillnets . . . and hundreds of pound-
nets."
Wildlife. Forests of oak, scrub pine, laurel, and
hickory extended beyond the marshes. Forests and
wetlands contained a great variety of birds and
mammals, including the long-billed marsh wren,
reed bird, red-winged blackbird, rail bird, marsh
hawk, osprey, bittern, least tern, woodcock, and a
variety of herons; and the squirrel, muskrat, otter,
mink, raccoon, shrew, mole, and field mouse,
among many others.
By the 1850s, as forests were cleared and agricul-
ture (tobacco, corn, and cotton cultivation) was
established, the Anacostia River basin was rapidly
changing. The Maryland port of Bladensburg was
silted in, and extensive mud flats formed in the
river.
Current Ecosystem Setting
Many of the current problems in the watershed can
be traced to high levels of imperviousness due to
development. Though spared the effects of heavy
industry, the Anacostia watershed has been sub-
jected to substantial nonpoint source* pollution
and stream degradation, typical of a watershed
with agricultural, suburban, and urban land uses.
Sediments, nutrients, toxic compounds, and water
with elevated temperatures flow into the Anacostia
and its tributaries, contributing to a number of
water quality problems. However, portions of the
upper reaches of some of the tributaries remain
relatively undisturbed and contain unique environ-
mental niches.
Sources of water pollution are often described as point or nonpoint.
Point source pollution flows from a single source, such as a sewage
system oulfall or an industrial discharge point. Nonpoint source
pollution does not flow from a single source. Examples of nonpoint
source pollution are most agricultural runoff and unchanneled
stormwater runoff. Technology to treat nonpoint source pollution is
not as developed as technology for point source pollution.
Wetlands. More than 98 percent of tidal wetlands
were lost to filling/dredging operations and seawall
construction, and nearly 75 percent of the water-
shed's freshwater wetlands have been destroyed by
agriculture and urbanization. Today it is estimated
that there are fewer than 100 acres of emergent
tidal wetlands left. The largest remaining emer-
gent tidal wetland is the newly restored Kenilworth
Marsh, located on the east bank of the Anacostia
River 6 miles upstream from its confluence with
the Potomac River. Additional small wetlands of
10 acres or less lie on or adjacent to the river, pri-
marily between Bladensburg and the East Capitol
Street bridge in Washington, DC.
Aquatic resources. Dozens of miles of stream
habitat have been severely degraded by uncon-
trolled stormwater runoff and past engineering pro-
jects. Urbanization has profoundly altered the
flow, shape, water quality, and ecology of streams,
leaving many with only a fraction of their original
biological diversity. More than 25 barriers con-
structed along the lower Anacostia impede the
annual migration of anadromous fish, eliminating
much of their spawning range. Degraded water
quality has reduced historical populations of fish
and other aquatic organisms.
Brown trout, chain pickerel, bullhead catfish,
largemouth bass, and four species of sunfish can
still be found in some parts of the river. For the
most part, however, their populations are sparse
due to poor water quality and lack of suitable habi-
tat. Fish have been contaminated with PCBs and
chlordane, and there is a fish consumption advisory
for bottom-feeding fish in the tidal area.
Water quality. Water quality varies greatly in the
basin. It ranges from good in the headwaters to
severely degraded in the tidal river, which has
some of the poorest water quality in the Chesa-
peake Bay system. There are few point source
discharges in the Anacostia River basin; pollution
comes from surface runoff after rainfall. Although
stormwater management has been required for new
development for 15 years, much of the Anacostia
basin was developed prior to stormwater
regulations.
Severe sedimentation and high bacteria levels are
common throughout the basin. Sources of sedi-
ment include streambank erosion, urban runoff,
sand and gravel operations, agriculture, and con-
struction sites. Many sediments contain
-------
Anacostia River
hydrocarbons, heavy metals and other toxic com-
pounds, and nutrients. Pollutant levels are 3 to
20 times higher during storms. Dissolved oxygen
levels frequently fall below water quality stand-
ards, particularly in tidal areas. Debris from
upstream is a serious problem.
Combined sewer overflows are a type of stormwa-
ter system found in many older cities on the east
coast. During some storms, stormwater mixes with
raw sewage and is discharged, untreated, into
rivers and streams. Combined sewer overflows .
serve about one-third of the District of Columbia
and drain directly into the Anacostia, exacerbating
pollution problems.
Social and economic issues. The Anacostia
River basin is very diverse socially and economi-
cally. The headwaters are in rural or suburban
areas of Maryland with relatively low population
densities but rapidly rising rates of development
and population growth. Economically, much of the
upper basin in Prince Georges and Montgomery
Counties is middle-income. Prince Georges
County is the nation's wealthiest county with an
African-American majority, while Montgomery
County is among the wealthiest counties in the
nation, and contains the state's largest and most
rapidly growing immigrant population.
The tidal region is a densely populated urban area
lying mostly in the District of Columbia, one of the
nation's largest cities with an African-American
majority. The lower Anacostia River flows through
some of the poorest neighborhoods in the District
of Columbia, neighborhoods that are predominantly
African-American. The lower Anacostia is consid-
ered by some to be one of the most polluted river
sections in the nation, and fish contamination is
considered a social issue because fish from the
river are regularly eaten in some of the region's
poorer neighborhoods. The Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) and the District of Columbia's
Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
have issued a health advisory on consumption of
bottom-feeding fish from the tidal portion of the
river, due to chlordane and PCB levels that exceed
Food and Drug Administration limits. Elsewhere in
the tributaries, recreational fishing is limited by
poor water quality and fish habitat. The degrada-
tion and pollution of the river, with their high
impact on low-income, minority communities and
growing immigrant populations, have raised
concerns about environmental justice, but this
study did not investigate the substance of these
concerns.
The Watershed Restoration Initiative
The Anacostia River Watershed Restoration was
conceived by representatives of state and local
jurisdictional areas over a period of several years,
facilitated by the Metropolitan Washington Coun-
cil of Governments. The Council is a regional
organization of local governments in the Washing-
ton metropolitan area, which includes the District
of Columbia and major counties and cities in sub-
urban Maryland and northern Virginia. The Coun-
cil provides a forum for cooperative resolution of
regional problems and a vehicle for strategic plan-
ning, coordination, and implementation. Working
closely with local governments, Council staff ana-
lyze regional needs and develop regionwide action
plans for community and economic development,
transportation, the environment, human services,
and public safety.
The Metropolitan Washington Council of Govern-
ments has been involved in efforts to understand
and improve conditions in the Anacostia River and
its tributaries for a number of years. In 1979, the
Council's Water Resources Planning Board identi-
fied the Anacostia as a priority watershed, critical
to planning efforts for the Potomac River basin. In
1984, jurisdictions in the watershed signed the
Anacostia Watershed Restoration Agreement, tar-
geting two major pollutants—raw sewage from
combined sewer overflows in the District of
Columbia, and sediment runoff and erosion from
Maryland. The agreement pulled together efforts
underway in various jurisdictions, formulating a
more comprehensive strategy. In 1987, a new
regional Anacostia Watershed Restoration Agree-
ment was signed, establishing goals for restoring
the Anacostia. To guide the restoration process,
the agreement called for formation of the Anacos-
tia Watershed Restoration Committee to develop a
restoration plan and coordinate implementation
with dozens of local, state, and federal agencies.
When first formed, the Anacostia Watershed
Restoration Committee consisted of six members
from the District of Columbia, the state of Mary-
land, and Prince Georges and Montgomery Coun-
ties. The agreement designated the Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments as lead
agency, providing technical and administrative
support to the Committee through its Department
of Environmental Programs Anacostia Restoration
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Team. The Interstate Commission on the Potomac
River Basin was designated to coordinate and
implement public education and participation
activities and to develop a living resources restora-
tion enhancement effort. In 1991, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) was invited to join the
Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee to
represent federal agencies.
The Metropolitan Washington Council of Govern-
ments serves as technical consultant to the Ana-
costia Watershed Restoration Committee, often
setting the agenda for discussions within the
Committee. Individual and multijurisdictional
issues are raised and deliberated by technical
staffs from the Council and the various jurisdic-
tions. Restoration goals are determined by consen-
sus within the Committee, with input from the
Council. The Council helps to prioritize recom-
mendations and to assign their implementation to
work groups or state, county, and other agencies.
Specific projects are recommended by the Com-
mittee, but funded and implemented by individual
jurisdictions, depending on budgetary constraints
and political support.
Important Dates In the History of the Anacostia Watershed initiative , „ • ,
"• *> ^ /^ * f. -^ * •> ^ •" "
There have been a number of efforts over the past SS years to evaluate the Arfaeostia River'basin and to determine how
agencies responsible for natural resources in the basin cOOIct best catty out their respective- Stewardship rotes, The,following is
a list of significant milestones and formal agency coordination an
-------
Anacostia River
restoration problems, strategies, and challenges
associated with achieving the following six goals:
• Dramatically reducing pollutant loads in the
tidal estuary to measurably improve water
quality conditions by the turn of the century.
• Restoring and .protecting the ecological
integrity of degraded urban Anacostia
streams to enhance aquatic diversity and
encourage a quality urban fishery.
• Restoring the spawning range of anadromous
fish to historical limits.
Increasing the natural filtering capacity of
the watershed by sharply increasing the
acreage and quality of tidal and nontidal
wetlands.
Expanding forest cover throughout the water-
shed and creating a contiguous corridor of
forest along the margins of streams and
rivers.
Making the public aware of its role in the
Anacostia cleanup and increasing public
participation in restoration activities.
Summary of Goals and Strategies for Restoring the Anaco^ia Bivef Basing , % .
GOAL*1* Dramatically reduce pollutant toads-lrl the ticJaJ estuary lo rpeasitrabiy Improve water quality conditions by the turn of<'
3tbe "century, STRATEGY; Sharply reduce the, number of s%wag6 overflow events "and stormwater pollutant loadings, FMaveftT
increased sterrnwatfr loadings from new development, Remove; trash and floatable debrtsjiow trapped In the estuary andji;s '
tributaries} present future fast and debrjs depository - - *' "I* , * V "''"• ,>° „, ° ." > -. » ;,v-
?|OAL>S: Restore and protect the ^ecological integrity' of degraded urban" Anaeosfa streams to enharjce. aquatic diversity and
encourage a quality «|ban ftsfeery; f TRATEGY: Apjity Stream restoraliojxtechnffcju'es to 1rrfproveJ?ab"ltatj'n the mostkdegr>ded
^stceaJnfe. "Apply land-use controls and stringent stormwater:artft sediment praetfcef at new-sfevelopraertt sites In sensitive *»• ,—
^watersheds', -*1 jr" »„ "s ^ ^ - " • vl t ^' \x'8'-° ,. - v, *' "" \",
%3AL 3: 'Bestbre^th^sp^wfning mrtge'of anadrorrio%s ffeh to iiT$toridal iifrtfe^TRAJBQY:' Retnpve key barrier to exparicl v ™;
.the-Available |pawnirig'f4n,g$ for anadromoa$flsfi." Improv^lhe*quality of IWe'wafershed's^sawnirig habitat Help anadro- ' ,
JidOAt 4? 'Increase the naturaf'rttering capaaily of irje.iwatersbea' by sheirpljrincreasrrtg tne^acreage and qqatity of tidai and ^
nontfdat wetlands. St(^Tg<3y; Accept lib 'fflrtf/er net loss pf wetlands ti the watershed, Restore ih^eqotogfoa! functfon'Of
existing degreTdettVetand-areas/- Create several hundred acres oinew.w^ands/ X4r .'< " ^ '
'GOA^^, Expand theVorestVover tiroifghoilftrte watershed and create a, contfguou's co'rrfdor of forest along1 the, margins of v
' its streams and rivers, STRATEGY? Reduce the loss of fordst «bve/ associated With new development and other- activities, by ,•
local Implementation of Maryland's 1991 forest C0fts"ervaMon Act, Reforest suftabla sites throughout Jif basin-, taking full* \ s
advantage of existing resources^ ''Reforest ten linear, tiparfen mifes'by 1994; ttf uWmate gdaljs an unbroken joreBt'Corfloojr'i, ;
'--•^ the tidal river fo,fhe uppermost naadwatensfrfams. ^ • ^ »* ^"" ^ ""' J *., *.* ^ x 1 <„ • . s,« -1"
Make tfje public aw^re-of its rofe ir^fte Ar^costia deanap'ahd^|riiere^s0 publie|iirticlpMon ipv resto,rafloo aotivitfes:
of wayslJncluding the impIemetrfaflQn.of srrtatl-scalfe habitat ImproV|atsent
Metropotjtari Washington Councifpf <3oYfmjrients
In 1992, the Anacostia Watershed Restoration
Committee drafted a Blueprint describing more
than 400 projects designed to implement the
Action Plan ("A Blueprint for the Restoration of
the Anacostia Watershed"). The Blueprint also
identifies other projects that would contribute to
restoring the Anacostia, including mine reclama-
tion, combined sewer overflow abatement, dredg-
ing, and floatable debris removal. Approximately
70 projects proposed in the Blueprint are located
on federal lands (although they are not necessarily
proposed or supported by corresponding federal
agencies). Blueprint proposals generally fall into ,
the following categories:
Stormwater control. Retrofitting stormwater
catchments and building new stormwater
retention basins to improve the quality of
urban runoff.
Stream restoration. Applying bioengineering
measures to stabilize eroding banks and
improve fish habitat.
Fish passage. Eliminating barriers to the
migration of anadromous and resident fish.
11
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Riparian reforestation. Reestablishing native
forests within 300 feet of urban streams and
the tidal river.
Wetland creation. Creating or restoring urban
wetlands in tidal or freshwater areas.
Small Habitat Improvement Projects.
Implementing small-scale environmental
restoration projects by citizens, such as stream
cleanups, stormdrain stenciling, wetland plant-
ing, and reforestation.
Public outreach. Developing a set of pro-
grams to inform and involve the public.
The Metropolitan Washington Council of Govern-
ments is currently assisting the Anacostia Water-
shed Restoration Committee in a study to refine
the goals of the Action Plan, to develop a means
to prioritize and budget for projects, and to mea-
sure restoration progress efforts. This study will
address the problem of combined sewer overflows
(not mentioned in the Committee's Blueprint) and
develop recommendations for long-term monitor-
ing, improving analytical tools, and identifying
indicators for measuring progress that can be used
to inform the public. Efforts are underway to
develop indicators of restoration success specific
to each subwatershed.
Protecting viable cold water habitat in the basin is
also one of the goals. Paint Branch, a tributary of
the Anacostia River, supports the only self-sustain-
ing trout population in the Washington area. But
trout habitat is deteriorating in the Good Hope
Tributary to Paint Branch, which accounts for more
than 75 percent of annual trout reproduction in the
watershed. At the request of the Anacostia Water-
shed Restoration Committee, an Upper Paint
Branch Work Group was formed to identify strate-
gies for protecting and restoring the watershed of
the Good Hope Tributary. With members from
local and state agencies as well as environmental
organizations, this group prepared a comprehensive
range of possible strategies to protect the trout and
other watershed resources. Areas addressed in the
group's report included watershed imperviousness
and land use, stormwater management and water
quality, erosion and sediment control, park acquisi-
tion and management, and resource management
and monitoring. Recommendations were offered
for consideration by local agencies during master
planning, capital improvement, environmental
impact assessment, and other processes of gov-
ernment.
The federal role. Anacostia watershed restora-
tion efforts are conceived and driven primarily on
the local level. However, the federal government
influences these efforts, along with any future
ecosystem approaches, in a number of ways. A
1994 Corps report on federal facilities contains a
preliminary assessment of federal activities in the
Anacostia River basin and describes ongoing or
planned environmental restoration initiatives on
federal lands (see appendix B at the end of this
chapter). In addition, a number of programs, poli-
cies, and projects predating the restoration initia-
tive or originally unrelated to. it affect it in some
way.
Programs and projects. The Corps has seven
flood control and navigation projects in the basin
and maintains a small fleet of boats on the river for
collecting and removing drift debris that jeopar-
dizes navigation. The Corps recently completed a
feasibility study recommending a number of envi-
ronmental projects, including wetland creation,
stormwater management pond retrofits, and stream
restoration at 13 sites in the basin. In addition, it
is implementing several environmental restoration
projects under authority of section 1135 of the
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of
1986, as amended. Construction will start in mid-
1995 for modification to fish blockages and aquatic
and terrestrial habitat improvements. As part of its
maintenance dredging program, the Corps partici-
pated with the National Park Service in the
restoration of Kenilworth Marsh. Under section
404 of the Clean Water Act, as amended, the
Corps' regulatory program governs discharges of
dredged or fill material into wetlands and other
waters in the basin. Section 114 of the WRDA of
1992 authorizes a feasibility study to identify and
recommend measures to eliminate adverse impacts
of federal facilities on the Anacostia watershed,
although the soonest this study could be funded is
in fiscal year (FY) 1996. Section 219(c)(l) of the
WRDA of 1992 authorizes technical, planning, and
design assistance for measures to alleviate the
adverse effects on water quality of stormwater dis-
charges from federal facilities in the Anacostia
watershed. Discussions have been initiated with
the District of Columbia, the state of Maryland,
and Prince Georges and Montgomery Counties
regarding this assistance.
12
-------
Anacostia River
Under the Clean Water Act, EPA regulates other
discharges into the river through the National Pol-
lution Discharge Elimination System of issuing
permits. EPA also provides many of the grants
used by local governments in restoration activities
and education efforts. Most of these grants are
under Clean Water Act authority or through EPA's
Chesapeake Bay Program. EPA and other federal
agencies, as well as the District of Columbia and
the states of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylva-
nia, are signatories to Chesapeake Bay Agree-
ments in 1983 and 1987 to plan and implement
restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. Much of the
work to restore the Anacostia River basin has
grown out of these agreements and the Chesapeake
Bay Program. In 1992, EPA submitted a report to
Congress assessing the extent to which Anacostia
pollution was harming the Bay's ecosystem, and
documenting current and future steps to restore the
Anacostia River through various agencies. EPA
has also funded many efforts, including planning
studies, citizens' education, and habitat
restoration.
Landholdings and facilities. The federal govern-
ment owns or operates facilities on 15 percent of
the land in the Anacostia basin and has a signifi-
cant impact on the health of the watershed. Most
public park land in the District of Columbia—
including the banks on both sides of the tidal Ana-
costia—is managed by the National Park Service,
giving the federal government an important stake
in restoration initiatives. Other federal agencies
that manage land or maintain facilities in the basin
include the USDA Beltsville Agriculture Research
Center and the U.S. Department of Defense. A
number of them have implemented environmental
restoration or enhancement efforts.
Technical expertise and program assistance.
Throughout the federal government, there is tech-
nical expertise and programmatic interest that can
be useful in restoration efforts, augmenting the
technical capabilities of state and local agencies.
Federal agencies that may be able to provide
technical expertise and assistance include the
Corps, Department of Defense, Forest Service,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Natural
Resources Conservation Service (formerly Soil
Conservation Service), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Other agencies that may be able to pro-
vide resources for specific types of projects include
the U.S. Department of Transportation and National
Civilian Conservation Corps.
The Federal Agencies Committee was established
in 1984 to assist federal agencies in complying
with the original Chesapeake Bay Agreement. It
consists primarily of representatives of federal
agencies with missions or activities affecting the
Bay, including EPA, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and various
agencies of the Departments of the Interior, Agri-
culture, and Transportation. The Federal Agencies
Committee provides a forum for information
exchange among federal agencies on programs that
affect the Bay.
ISSUES AND CONCERNS
Interviewees expressed a variety of concerns
regarding federal involvement in the Anacostia
restoration initiative. Although issues discussed
were interrelated, they can be organized into the
following general categories:
• Federal agency role
• Regulatory programs and permits
• Corps activities
• Funding
• Science and information
• Public participation
The first four categories of concerns related to a
range of budgetary, institutional, legal, and policy
issues.
Federal Agency Role
How federal agencies manage their lands and
facilities, and how they address restoration prob-
lems and opportunities, are viewed as measures of
federal commitment to the restoration of the Ana-
costia, and possibly to ecosystem restoration in
general.
Stewardship. Some feel that federal agencies
that manage land in the' watershed are not commit-
ted to stewardship responsibilities or restoration
goals. This perception is based on knowledge or
suspicion that federal facilities contribute to pollu-
tion or fail to fund efforts to clean it up. The
community reaction is, "If the federal government
doesn't care, why should we?" A lack of appropri-
ations to clean up pollution caused by federal
13
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
agencies is viewed as evidence that the federal
government does not view pollution as a serious
problem.
EPA, through the Chesapeake Bay Program, has
begun an assessment of nutrient management prob-
lems on federal facilities to help agencies identify
specific restoration needs and opportunities on
their lands. Having this information will help fed-
eral agencies understand the levels of effort
needed for restoration projects and provide them
with justifications for budgeting the needed funds.
In addition, the Chesapeake Bay Agreement
signed in July 1994 demonstrates a multiagency
commitment to restoring the Anacostia River
watershed, and the development of a biennial
workplan should help build confidence in the fed-
eral commitment to restoration efforts.
Vision. Key to a successful ecosystem approach
in the Anacostia watershed is a clear overall vision
shared among all stakeholders. Interviewees
commented that the Anacostia Watershed Restora-
tion Committee's Six-Point Action Plan provided a
good initial framework for action, but was not
comprehensive enough in terms of planning, coor-
dinating, monitoring, and evaluating to provide a
vision for restoring the watershed. Federal agency
participation on the Anacostia Watershed Restora-
tion Committee was not included until 1991; there-
fore, federal perspectives may not be adequately
represented in the Action Plan. Early federal,
state, and local agency participation in setting
goals is vital in getting agency managers and other
stakeholders to embrace a vision broad enough to
realize restoration. Long-term federal support,
however, may help maintain the momentum of
restoration despite changes in local
administrations.
Implementation of the vision is especially chal-
lenging when there is no jurisdiction or agency
with overall responsibility. Projects are imple-
mented by each jurisdiction independently, and
support for the overall vision is subject to changing
priorities of jurisdictional heads and administra-
tions. Therefore, institutional structures such as
the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee
and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Gov-
ernments are important in formulating and coordi-
nating regional plans. Comprehensive plans are
needed to steer local efforts so that a vision for the
watershed can be agreed upon and shared by all
leaders, jurisdictions, and agencies involved, as
well by those responsible for implementing
projects.
Missions. Differences of opinion were expressed
with regard to agency missions. To some, federal
agencies appeared too narrowly constrained by
their stated missions, ignoring opportunities to par-
ticipate in restoration efforts. For example, the
National Park Service was criticized for narrowly
focusing on recreation and resisting use of its land
to restore the Kenil worth Marsh. And the largest
federal owner of land in the basin, the Agriculture
Research Center in Beltsville, conducts agricul-
tural research on its 7,000 acres, but failed—in the
opinion of some interviewees—to practice the
ecosystem approach in a manner consistent with
basin restoration goals.
Coordination. Although federal programs and
activities were praised for supporting and facilitat-
ing basin restoration, there was repeated criticism
that federal restoration initiatives lacked coordina-
tion. The Corps, as federal representative on the
Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee, is
charged with coordinating federal involvement in
Committee restoration efforts. One interviewee
recommended that the Corps establish a commit-
tee for coordinating federal agencies to facilitate
broader federal input into restoration activities,
particularly from agencies with land in the basin.
Another recommended that a member of this
committee be assigned to the Metropolitan Wash-
ington Council of Governments part-time. The
Technical Oversight Committee of the Anacostia
Watershed Restoration Committee discussed giv-
ing federal agencies other than the Corps an
observer role on the Committee, but this proposal
was not adopted. The July 1994 Chesapeake Bay
Agreement reinforced the leadership role of the
Corps in coordinating federal agency efforts in
support of Anacostia restoration goals. Lack of
budget authority has severely limited the Corps'
ability to devote resources to coordination efforts.
After funding is received, the Corps can move for-
ward with this effort.
There appears to be a tension between, on the one
hand, the desire and need for coordinated federal
expertise, participation, and funding for the Ana-
costia restoration effort, and, on the other hand, a
fear that federal involvement could overwhelm or
derail local efforts. Some interviewees wanted
more federal agencies to participate in basin
restoration activities, but not to dominate the
14
-------
Anacostia River
Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee.
Although the Federal Agencies Committee has not
specifically been involved with the Anacostia
restoration initiative, it considers the river a prior-
ity tributary to the Bay, so in pursuing the Chesa-
peake Bay Program, it may be able to facilitate
improved federal input and coordination for Ana-
costia Watershed Restoration Committee
initiatives.
Regulatory Programs and Permits
Environmental restoration in the Anacostia basin
affects resources that are regulated for their protec-
tion by federal, state, and/or local government
agencies. An array of permits may be required for
implementation of a restoration project, including:
• Clean Water Act section 404 permits issued
by the Corps and the Maryland Department
of Natural Resources
• Local government wetland permits
• Clean Water Act section 401 Water Quality
Certifications
• Local grading,.stormwater management, and
sediment and erosion control permits
• Soil Conservation District 378 Small Pond
Approvals
• Waterway Construction Permits
• Forest Conservation Act Permits
• Maryland Historic Trust Reviews
• National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System Stormwater Permits
Several interviewees recommended that a clear-
inghouse of information on permits be created.
The potential for an automated, online system for
one-stop permit information, with appropriate "real
person" backup for complex situations, could be
explored. In addition, interviewees suggested
streamlining the permit process or delegating it to
local authorities.
Interviewees commented that regulators appeared
to be uninformed about restoration projects and
unfamiliar with the benefits to be gained from
them. For example, one local government agency
reportedly faced difficulty in obtaining section 404
permits from the Corps for discharges of fill mate-
rial into wetlands for the purpose of environmental
restoration. Interviewees called for regulatory per-
sonnel at all levels to better understand the pur-
pose and benefits of environmental restoration pro-
jects so that permitting does not conflict with
regional restoration.
In the District of Columbia, most open spaces are
federally owned, and usually not available for mit-
igation when development projects affect wetlands
such that compensatory mitigation is required.
Other urbanized areas likely experience similar
problems. However, in the Corps' Anacostia feasi-
bility study and the section 404 regulatory pro-
gram, planning efforts were coordinated and regu-
latory mitigation requirements were examined in
light of restoration objectives.
A cooperative planning and regulatory mechanism
might be developed to streamline permitting for
restoration efforts. Small restoration projects, such
as those in the upper drainage in Prince Georges
and Montgomery Counties, may not need the same
level of review as larger projects. In addition, pro-
jects that are more experimental could be given
special consideration and required to provide feed-
back for future projects.
Army Corps of Engineers
The Corps was commended by state and local
governments for identifying and coordinating
information on federal agency restoration initia-
tives. But it was also criticized for not doing more.
Role on the Anacostia Watershed Restoration
Committee. Several interviewees commented
that the Corps is restricted to activities that have
been specifically authorized and appropriated, and
was therefore slow to meet its obligations as fed-
eral representative on the Anacostia Watershed
Restoration Committee. Corps activities are pri-
marily funded by line item, and the relationship
between all activities and line items must be
accounted for. Interviewees thought that the Corps
was not able to adequately perform its federal
coordination and outreach functions because there
was no appropriation for them.
15
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
The 1994 Chesapeake Bay Agreement assigned
the Corps the lead in developing "a coordinated
biennial federal workplan beginning in FY 1995, in
concert with the Anacostia Watershed Restoration
Committee." This agreement states that federal
agencies agree to "give full support to the Anacos-
tia River Demonstration Project as an opportunity
to apply ecosystem management concepts in an
urban environment." Funding has been requested
in the FY 1995 Corps budget to meet Corps obliga-
tions under the agreement, specifically those per-
taining to the Anacostia restoration project. A
workshop was held in September 1994 to initiate
preliminary coordination under the agreement.
Planning duration and costs. Several inter-
viewees complained that the Corps takes too long
to plan and construct environmental restoration
projects, and that they cost too much. It took
4 years for the Corps and local sponsors to agree to
a cost-sharing arrangement and to conduct the
feasibility study for environmental restoration
efforts in the Anacostia River basin. It can take
almost as many years to obtain the congressional
authorization and appropriation needed to begin
construction. Furthermore, the restoration initi-
ative is a major project with significant shared
costs, and interviewees often had the impression
that the Corps put no more effort into large-scale
projects than into small-scale ones.
Policy requirements. Some interviewees com-
plained that the Corps will not approve a project
unless it provides monetary benefits, and that this
policy hinders environmental restoration. These
complaints point to confusion regarding Corps pol-
icy on environmental restoration projects. Unlike
plans in other benefit categories, plans for envi-
ronmental restoration projects are not required to
contribute to economic development under the
National Economic Development plan. Environ-
mental restoration projects are justified through
description and evaluation of net benefits from the
recommended plan, using monetary and nonmone-
tary units of measurement, as appropriate.
Although benefits from environmental restoration
projects are difficult to measure in monetary terms,
their cost-effectiveness must be evaluated and jus-
tification for them provided. Still, there is no
requirement that environmental benefits be ex-
pressed in dollars, or that a benefit-cost ratio be
used to justify environmental restoration projects.
Environmental mission. Distinctions between
Corps water resources planning and Corps regula-
tory roles in broader watershed restoration efforts
were confusing to interviewees. Some complained
that the Corps focuses its efforts on "individual
project studies, as opposed to applying its capabili-
ties to broader watershed restoration needs and
opportunities." The Corps water resources devel-
opment program (which includes environmental
restoration projects, such as those proposed in the
Corps Anacostia feasibility study) appeared to
interviewees to be totally separate from the section
404 regulatory program. Nonfederal interviewees
thought that there was no programmatic relation-
ship between decisions made on section 404 per-
mit applications and the Corps study and planning
process.
Several interviewees also complained that the
Corps environmental restoration mission is
restricted to habitat and requires linkage to exist-
ing projects. Although hydrology and water quality
are critical to habitat, the Corps has not used these
parameters in defining fish and wildlife habitat,
and in positing habitat restoration as a project pur-
pose. Moreover, the Corps requires a link between
environmental projects and existing flood control
and navigation projects, making it difficult for it to
participate in basinwide restoration studies.
Corps policy is evolving to allow participation in
environmental projects that are not linked to exist-
ing projects, and to allow greater participation in
basinwide restoration studies. In developing its
new policy, the Corps is taking an ecosystem
approach to restoration and management, as well
as to water resources development. In its environ-
mental restoration studies, the Corps will address
not only habitat, but also the structural components
of ecosystems (such as hydrologic functions and
water quality).
Section 22 authority. Interviewees commented
that alternative applications of the Corps authority
under section 22 of the Water Resources Devel-
opment Act of 1974 (comprehensive planning
cooperation and assistance to states) could be
explored to identify more opportunities for the
Corps to support efforts to implement the ecosys-
tem approach.
16
-------
Anacostia River
Funding
Interviewees expressed a variety of concerns about
funding the Anacostia restoration initiative, from
federal grant availability to interagency cost
sharing.
Grant availability. Several interviewees com-
mented that state and local governments are not
always able to take advantage of federal grants
because they are unaware of them. They recom-
mended establishing a federal clearinghouse to
inform state and local governments of federal
grants and other programs for environmental
restoration.
Grant scope. Grants tend to be too limited in
scope to address the restoration needs of regional
watersheds like the Anacostia. Typically, EPA
grants and other forms of financial assistance for
ecosystem restoration are tied to specific environ-
mental media, confounding the process of restoring
multiple components of ecosystems. Moreover,
grants are awarded to individual states, making it
difficult to plan regional restoration activities
unless all affected states receive grants for the
same purpose at the same time. Finally, grants for
site-specific restoration projects tend to address
symptoms rather than root causes. For example,
unregulated discharges, such as nonpoint source
runoff, pose recurring problems that cannot be
eliminated through site restoration efforts.
Matching fund requirements. A number of
local entities recommended the elimination of, the
matching fund requirement for many frequently
used grants, especially for ongoing projects.
Financially strapped communities may be forced
to terminate worthy restoration projects if they can
no longer match federal funds. This happened to
numerous projects identified as near-term priorities
in the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Commit-
tee's Blueprint for the Restoration of the Anacostia
Watershed. One interviewee suggested the possi-
bility of in-kind matching.
Project operation and maintenance. State and
local governments noted that even if they are able
to develop environmental restoration projects, they
often lack the funds to operate and maintain them.
For example, the District of Columbia has
26,000 stormwater catch basins designed to reduce
the amount of trash in the river. Unfortunately, the
District does not have the funds to keep them free
of floating debris and maintain them on a regular
basis. Moreover, because many restoration pro-
jects involve novel techniques, it is difficult to
forecast how much funding will be necessary to
maintain them.
Interagency cost sharing. The Chesapeake Bay
Program provides for interagency funding of
restoration projects throughout the region, includ-
ing the Anacostia River basin. However, few Ana-
costia projects have taken advantage of this. Sev-
eral reasons were given by those surveyed: federal
agencies have higher priority projects; federal
involvement in Anacostia restoration projects is
smaller than elsewhere; and there is a lack of
awareness of the need for interagency funding of
Anacostia projects.
District of Columbia special status. Under the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C.
§§ 1451 et seq., the Secretary of Commerce may
make annual grants to coastal states for the pur-
pose of developing and/or administering a man-
agement plan for the land and water resources in
their coastal zones. Because the District of
Columbia is not considered a state for purposes of
the Coastal Zone Management Act, the District is
not eligible for these grants. District representa-
tives identified this as an impediment to their envi-
ronmental restoration efforts.
Public Participation
Most public participation efforts are managed and
implemented by state and local governments, with
assistance from the Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments and the Interstate Com-
mission on the Potomac River Basin. Federal
agencies implementing projects in the basin, such
as the Corps or the National Park Service, have
also initiated public participation efforts in the
basin. EPA has, and continues to support, a num-
ber of public outreach ^efforts through grants and
other funds.
Types. Public participation associated with the
Anacostia watershed restoration falls into two gen-
eral categories: public education and outreach,
and public involvement.
Public education. A number of interviewees
commented that public education was crucial to
17
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Examples of Public Education and Outreach Techniques OsecJ In the Anacostia Watershed
General public education: *'-• ." \, ' *• < v • ,_ '- , ' -''
• The Interstate Commission on the Potomac Biver Basin (ICPRBV'sends a quarterly newsletter on the Anacostia restora-
tion initiative to more than 15,000 individuals, , ,', ' ,'•',,'%•.
» Subbasin coordinators for the ICPRB have been funded in'five of nine'subbasins in the watershed to help, people sot
involved in basin issues. Each coordinator lives in a'particular subbasirt and has explored most of'tis tijibutaries. Coordi-,
nators make contact with the public and report problems on a regular basis.
• The ICPRB has published special reports for particular subbasins for coordinators to usejn Informing the public.
* A directory of watershed groups was issued by the ICPR^r ^ ^ ' '„-" . ••
• Focus groups of local leaders help agencies take the community pulse. - i
• The Bayscapes Program, part of the Chesapeake Bay Progra'ny provides information and fact sheets on how to reduce
pollution through landscaping and yard care techniques, ."*.~" ' < ',''''
• Urban geology tours provide the public with a context for better" understanding the watershed.,
• A videotape developed by Prince Georges County on Artacostia River restoration activities has, been shown on PBS.
School-based programs: ,„'<>'
• In 1991, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation began an environmental-education'program on the tidal Anacostia and the
Chesapeake Bay that reaches several thousand District of Columbia students each year,' ,
• The District of Columbia opened the Aquatic Education Resource' CehfeY in 1991 in Anacostia Park, which conducts ,
aquatic education programs for students during summer and the school year.^
• The Chesapeake Bay Program is developing a speakers*-bureau targeted at urbarv schools.
• The Chesapeake Bay Program Office in the District of Columbians piloting Champions fdrjthe Chesapeake, a program to
strengthen students' math and science skills through classroom and field activities centered around environmental pro-
tection of the Anacostia watershed. Anacostia High School, fn eonjuncfi,ori,w|th the University of the. District of Columbia"
and the city government of the District of Columbia, has Been awarded a, grant through EPA's! Public Private Partner-
ships Program and the Chesapeake Bay Program Office to develop- a model 1essoi\plan and a 60-week summer enrich- '
ment program that can ultimately be transferred to other schools In.the Anmcostfa watershed.
* Montgomery County has developed a program for training teachers'and helping them incorporate Anacostia restoration
and other environmental material into various curricula in the county $choofs'($ueh as math, computers, and science).
* Through the Chesapeake Bay Program, EPA has provided grant )noney lor'"teacher institutes" designed to help leach- :
ers leam how to teach kids about the Anacostia and to "reach?parents oy reaching kids" who participate in the Students
Taking Action for Rivers Program, l '»'",*, ', ' ,
• The University of the District of Columbia, through Its Water Resources Center, recently entered into an agreement with'
the National Park Service for a stream gauge. With a computer modem; schools'can be hooked to it through the tele-
phone. Students can take readings, tracking the health of the river.'ano developing meaningful statistics on it This pro-
gram works to build a link between science and the public. ' < " " '
• The University of the District of Columbia is planning to use & recently closed high school as A new campus! Laborato-'
ries In the school will be used for field studies and as public teaming centers, The" university's Water Resources Center
also sponsors symposia and seminars. ,
restoration efforts because it generates a con-
stituency aware of and informed about resources
and projects. Cultivation of local support and
enthusiasm will go a long way toward maintaining
projects and ensuring funding, particularly in the
long term.
Public education and outreach programs in the
Anacostia watershed are numerous, with coopera-
tive and independent efforts undertaken by Prince
Georges County, Montgomery County, the state of
Maryland, the Interstate Commission on the
Potomac River Basin, and the District of
Columbia. These programs are designed to target
not only the general public, but also the legislators
and government agencies in the watershed.
Over the years, the focus of public outreach initia-
tives has changed with the priorities of restoration
programs. Many early restoration efforts in the
Chesapeake Bay Program focused on discharge
cleanup rather than prevention, and on agricultural
pollution sources. Currently, more emphasis is
placed on urban and suburban land use within the
watershed, and on lifestyle changes that comple-
ment restoration objectives. Public outreach
efforts in the Anacostia basin must address these
issues.
18
-------
Anacostia River
Public Involvement Activities in the Anacost!s Watershed" J: , ,l^\,
** « Small groups organise streahj restoration efforts, such as^eanups, tree planting^ and'stcaam wattes. 'Canoe, and boat
- '. rides on the AnacosttUcontrffinte-to puWtc ubrferste'n^fig arid appreciation of tHe river, " •
^ ' * Ł ! „ * o -X ^ ° N - \i
Criws from |he Maryland Conservation Qoips fcave/e;netfed°moŁe 1han 60 totis-of scrap metal and deorts from lower
Beaverdam Creek; arong with, more than 20 •> - , .» j ! ' * - . < "» "^
Under education guidelines established by the National Pollution Discharge gemination System* the-Montgoroery !
County -Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) .sponsor^a volunteer monitoring program that encourages moni-
tprtng of county->streams by'both ojtizenis aticischoo^anc! conducts a water quality education program for citizens*. >•>"'
School curricula are'betf^g cleveioped to connect envlrowj^rttal fiefl •aciJYities'^th school-based science, and students „
on Stream Teams whitor streams and participate in*restoration The DEP.coordina^s the Strea^m Teams -wtth the
AudKbort Naturalist SocteVs citizen jnrrapitoring program, Atl volunteer data is submitted annually to DIP in the°form of
watershed reports. Volunteers interact with and provide Input to the county's stream momtorinp program, \
A coalition calling"" itself the Lower BeatferdaBt task Force'has established the PalfnefPaTfrinitfative on Lower Beaver-
.dam Cree3Ł Monthly rneettngs produced the following keyjaccompllshmsnts In the first 2 years:.' - ^ • ^
— 'presentations and articles In'thi^aMrier Park Citizens' Association newsper, along with a phesapeake Bay Foun-
'•• dation boat tour,, were used to,, educate Palmer Park residents and government representaByes. * .» , , •
-" Besidents embraced the'profect The Pfinpe Georges County^epartment of^Enviro'nmentat Resources (PoGt?ER>
»' pasted sjgns'id,entifying PalmerHPark as 'a community that cares about the environment^ ' ^ «v . *
„ \tf survey"of Palmer Park residents was completed toy P<5Djeft.' Aimosl ^Olpercsnt oflresponde^ts satd they were "
"; „ willing to help improve their neighborhood, „ -^ !> ."„ ,° ^ ' *'*''-'. *^
«- * A service itatton was found that was willing to~aecept j'lMde'nts1' u§ed mbtpt oil, anArecycBng was-then.promoted.
t - Floating-trash-was feduced* through a>streani adoption program! a sfream cleanup, placement of trash" cans in Utter
„* Bot"spots,;and public education'about iflegaf-dumpinp. ^ „.- v"/,,v '. - , , ' * " ^° -> " ".
Public involvement. The public often takes an
active role in restoration efforts, either through
hands-on participation in projects (sometimes
called volunteer projects), or by providing input
into planning and decision-making processes.
Activities with public participation, including mon-
itoring, tree planting, trash cleanup, wetland
restoration, and small habitat improvement, are
sponsored by the Metropolitan Washington Council
of Governments, state and local governments, the
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River
Basin, and environmental and other NGOs. Public
involvement in the Anacostia initiative has ranged
from developing visions for local restoration proj-
ects to presentations on final project plans.
The Anacostia Watershed Restoration Commit-
tee's Six-Point Action Plan for restructuring the
Anacostia River watershed included public
education, outreach, and participation. But in May
1994, the Committee drafted a more detailed
"Strategic Plan Proposal for Anacostia Restoration
Outreach" to specifically address public education
and participation. The Plan called for:
• Increasing elected official participation and
developing a clearer understanding of the
key role of officials in Anacostia restoration
efforts.
• Increasing opportunities for citizen participa-
tion in Anacostia Watershed Restoration
Committee restoration activities.
• Increasing public awareness and understand-
ing of the Anacostia and its restoration.
• Establishing a formal mechanism for provid-
ing greater citizen input into Anacostia
Watershed Restoration Committee
activities.
Establishment of a citizens' council is planned, as
a formal mechanism for providing advice and
guidance to the Anacostia Watershed Restoration
Committee and to increase opportunities for
citizen involvement in, and stewardship of,
projects in the watershed.
Concerns. Interviewees raised various concerns
regarding public involvement in the Anacostia
restoration initiative and offered suggestions for
dealing with them.
19
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Public input. Although several programs involve
the public in restoration initiatives through volun-
teer efforts, public involvement in planning and
decision making appears to be less prevalent.
Some interviewees complained that agencies do
no more than inform the public of decisions made,
and do not seek public input into the decision-
making process from the outset. Presentations that
notify citizens of efforts planned or underway con-
stitute public information rather than public
involvement.
Federal interviewees reported that efforts to
involve the public in a study or process often meet
with an apparent lack of interest that they find frus-
trating, particularly when opposition then suddenly
arises late in the process. Agencies find it difficult
to know when to present information to the public
and how much to present, because seeking input at
early conceptual stages or for regional studies
often fails to stimulate public interest. Although
public input has been more vigorous on local proj-
ects, interest often remains relatively slight, yet
presentation of a fully developed project makes the
public feel left out of the process.
Interviewees complained that public participation
efforts were poorly conceived. For example, pub-
lic meetings are ineffective unless the audience
and information presented are appropriate; often,
insufficient effort is made to identify all stakehold-
ers and public interests and to include them in the
decision-making process. This requires consider-
able planning and research, which has not always
been forthcoming.
It was suggested that public forums be designed for
exchanging information and providing public input
to studies or analyses. Interviewees emphasized
that public participation must be institutionalized
in order to ensure that it is continuous rather than a
reaction to ad hoc proposals. Moreover, agencies
should determine what the public expects from
restoration efforts and be more specific as to what
they, for their part, expect from the public. Defin-
ing these roles and expectations can help in devel-
opment of consensus with regard to goals, objec-
tives, and strategies among the agencies, the pub-
lic, and stakeholders.
Low-income community involvement. Inter-
viewees reported that little effort was made to
involve the watershed's low-income communities
in the restoration effort. Newsletters from the
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River
Basin, for example, were viewed as designed for
more highly educated audiences. Interviewees
noted that the low-income, largely minority
neighborhoods in which many projects are located
face pressing problems of homelessness,
unemployment, and crime that compete with
environmental issues for the attention of
community members. According to a 1992 EPA
study, "Community policing in Prince Georges
County has revealed the degree of community
concern for the amount of litter in low-income
neighborhoods. Cleaner communities have been
linked to greater self-esteem, and this is likely
associated with environmental stewardship, a goal
of the Anacostia's restoration and protection
program."
Studies conducted over the past 15 years have
found that minority and low-income communities
have a disproportionate share of the nation's envi-
ronmental problems. In February 1994, President
Clinton signed Executive Order 12898 ("Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Popula-
tions") directing federal agencies to make envi-
ronmental justice a part of their missions. The
order was designed to focus federal attention on
environmental and human health conditions in
minority and low-income communities, and to
promote nondiscrimination in federal programs that
substantially affect human health and the environ-
ment. It was also intended to provide these com-
munities with access to public information on, and
an opportunity for public participation in, matters
relating to human health or the environment
(section 5-5 of Executive Order 12898).
A suggestion was made that agencies provide
employment to Anacostia watershed residents or
opportunities for local volunteers to participate in
restoration projects and other efforts. Because of
contracting constraints, the Corps did not follow
this suggestion in restoring Kenilworth Marsh. One
interviewee remarked that "the Corps missed an
opportunity not only to make the local community
feel like a stakeholder in the marsh, but also to
invest in people who live around the marsh, an
area of high unemployment."
Technical jargon. Several interviewees com-
mented that communities need help understanding
technical documents so that they can comment on
them. Complicated documents such as
20
-------
Anacostia River
Environmental Impact Studies are often complex
and contain technical jargon. "If agencies value
intelligent community feedback," one interviewee
said, "they should make an effort to translate such
documents into plain language." Agencies might
create forums to explain documents and provide
expert advice and counsel, perhaps through techni-
cal grant programs.
Program complexity. It is often difficult for the
public to understand the variety of programs and
agencies involved in restoration activities. More-
over, it is difficult for citizens to attend multiple
meetings that address small components of the
restoration effort (such as wetlands restoration or
tree planting). A more coordinated approach for
communicating with the public on projects involv-
ing interrelated programs would be helpful.
Local government representatives stated that clari-
fication of public outreach requirements for federal
programs and guidance on how to implement them
would be useful. Local governments are not sure
how to meet the requirements and would like sug-
gestions on how to do so.
Because ecosystem restoration efforts involve mul-
tiple agencies and jurisdictions, joint development
of public information tools and presentations cover-
ing a range of topical areas (e.g., basic science
and technical information, the impact of lifestyle
on the environment, and how citizens can help)
was recommended. Expenses could be shared
among agencies, and consistency of the materials
developed would be assured through a joint effort.
Interviewee suggestions. According to inter-
viewees, effective public participation depends on:
• Selecting appropriate messages and audi-
ences. The first information presented is
often key to sustaining public interest.
• Helping the community to conceptualize
and value restoration of the local stream,
river, or watershed and the changes it will
bring.
• Overcoming inertia or doubts regarding
working with government.
• Helping the community see that it,has an
influential role to play in restoration.
Helping people modify personal or house-
hold behavior detrimental to restoration
efforts.
Providing opportunities for public participa-
tion. Public involvement (e.g., monitoring or
participating in restoration projects) pro-
motes awareness of the impact of human
activities on ecological processes.
Providing a forum for public input into pro-
ject plans. Public involvement in decision
making can help head off conflict over pro-
ject implementation.
Assuring support for long-term public
participation.
Tailoring information and outreach efforts to
residents of low-income neighborhoods
where projects are located. Integrating
restoration efforts with needs in low-income
areas, such as relief from crime, would help
residents to better relate to the river and the
watershed.
Involving the Anacostia Watershed Restora-
tion Committee's proposed Citizen's Advi-
sory Committee in addressing problems in
low-income neighborhoods, in coordination
with the Citizen's Advisory Committee
established by the Mayor of the District of
Columbia. These committees could advise
and assist federal agencies in their public
outreach efforts in low-income communities.
Ensuring that the subbasin coordinator posi-
tions for the District of Columbia are filled
in the near future. Lack of funding has made
this a problem.
Using Anacostia watershed issues and efforts
as part of math, science, and other curricula
in local high schools, and involving students
in field activities dealing with watershed
restoration and protection (a concept being
pursued by individual jurisdictions).
1 Utilizing the technical expertise, talents,
and public education programs of local
universities.
21
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Science and Information
Interviewees identified various science-related
issues concerning the Anacostia basin restoration
initiative, ranging from information access to the
need for adaptive management.
Information access and management. The
Corps, EPA, Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA,
National Park Service, USD A, U.S. Department of
the Interior, and U.S. Geological Survey all have
responsibilities for developing science in areas that
could be relevant to the Anacostia restoration
effort. Often, relevant information is developed
across several agency programs. But many non-
federal interviewees complained that it was diffi-
cult to locate scientific and technical expertise in
federal agencies or academia. Interviewees from
technical groups feared having to "reinvent the
wheel" for lack of opportunities to learn from the
experience of other urban restoration and nonpoint
source pollution management efforts. Scientific
problems and technical difficulties encountered on
Anacostia restoration projects must be similar,
interviewees felt, to problems in other northeastern
urban watersheds. But they were unaware of any
centralized information on urban ecosystem1
restoration initiatives or any ready means to access
it.
Interviewe.es recommended establishing a central
location for information on restoration activities,
such as best management practices, technological
advances, resolution of conflicting issues, and suc-
cesses and failures in similar efforts by agencies
around the country. It was suggested that federal
agencies, such as the Corps and EPA, could facili-
tate sharing this information.
One interviewee suggested establishing a hotline
for information on restoration activities in the Ana-
costia watershed and how one can get involved.
Another suggested a hotline for reporting environ-
mental problems in the watershed.
Information and technology needs. The Techni-
cal Oversight Committee of the Anacostia Water-
shed Restoration Committee identified a lack of
technical information on effective riparian restora-
tion techniques, and a lack of design criteria for
stream restoration and stormwater retrofit projects.
The Technical Oversight Committee looks to :
federal agencies for help in some of these techni-
cal areas.
Information on how to properly deal with contami-
nated sediments and on the fate of contaminants
(from contaminated sediments) in the food chain is
also lacking. Technical expertise on whether and
• how the sediments can or should be cleaned up is
needed. Interviewees commented that federal
agencies have expertise in dealing with toxic sed-
iments and should be able to help with contami-
nants in the Anacostia. Assistance is needed in
quantifying the extent of the problem and identify-
ing "hot spots" and alternative solutions.
A better foundation for the science of the ecosys-
tem approach is needed. This basic research is
beyond most local government capabilities in the
basin and requires collaboration among agencies.
In addition, there is no complete inventory of flora
and fauna for the Anacostia watershed, and it was
suggested that perhaps federal agencies could
assist in developing an ecosystem-based inventory
for evaluating resources and assessing manage-
ment and restoration options. Ideally, this would
include systems information, such as hydrology,
geology, and meteorology. Several interviewees
commented that the many universities and col-
leges in the region could contribute to the basic
research and expertise needed in the Anacostia
restoration effort.
Not all areas of the Anacostia watershed are eco-
logically "equal." The identification of particular
areas of rich biodiversity, as well as highly threat-
ened areas, is needed to help in prioritizing and
evaluating restoration efforts.
Because human impacts on the ecosystem will
continue, technology to better mitigate the impacts
of land uses is needed. Green technologies (e.g.,
reuse of stormwater) and low-impact technologies
for development and other land uses are needed.
Technology is needed to control and manage non-
point source pollution, in particular the financing
of research and development of technology to
address combined sewer overflows. A comment
was made that local governments, especially the
east coast cities that have combined sewer over-
flows, cannot afford to remove and replace them.
Several interviewees representing local
22
-------
Anacostia River
jurisdictions requested that the EPA and other
federal agencies look into the possibility of
providing assistance.
The Anacostia Blueprint for the Restoration of the
Anacostia Watershed was described by some as a
scattered "shotgun" approach, although they
acknowledged that it was an essential first step in
developing a better understanding of the problems
in the basin and what it will take to clean them up.
Initially, most projects were approached as equally
important, with priorities set according to logisti-
cal, political, or institutional expediency rather
than on a purely scientific basis. However, with its
growing understanding that more information on
ecological relationships and processes is needed,
the Technical Oversight Committee acknowledges
a need for more prioritization—in terms of both
time and space.
One interviewee suggested that federal agencies
could form watershed "SWAT teams" to assist
local governments in developing ecosystem
approaches arid to provide information, technology,
and resources.
The development by the Technical Oversight
Committee of "ecological indicators" of ecosys-
tem improvement will help in assessing project
effectiveness and in setting priorities. Because
there is nq clear endpoint toward which ongoing
efforts are headed, it will be hard to know whether
they succeed (as many interviewees pointed out).
However, the development of indicators of water
quality, habitat, anadromous fish, wetlands, and
forest health provides important qualitative tools to
assist in monitoring the success of the Anacostia
restoration.
Several new federal efforts may help to address
deficiencies in information and technology for
ecosystem restoration. The President has recently
established a National Science and Technology
Council to coordinate the federal research effort.
Through two subcommittees of the Committee on
Environment and Natural Resources, research will
be coordinated on species sensitivity to environ-
mental change, on restoration and translocation
technology, arid on the design and effectiveness of
protective buffer zones. As part of these efforts,
agencies are inventorying, collecting, and assess-
ing existing data sets for a range of environmental
and natural resource issues. The working group of
the Committee on the Environment and Natural
Resources might consider using the Anacostia as a
regional pilot for aggregating such data and identi-
fying gaps. One interviewee suggested that the
Anacostia be identified as an urban watershed
restoration demonstration in the Chesapeake Bay
Program, for demonstrating technologies and
receiving increased support from the Chesapeake
Research Consortium to address scientific
problems. •
Analytical tools. Several interviewees com-
mented that the lack of a comprehensive water-
shed analysis or modeling effort for the Anacostia
has limited the broader understanding of .the scope,
priorities, and effectiveness of restoration in the
watershed. It was pointed out that both the
Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay cleanup
efforts benefited from early modeling exercises to
help identify and prioritize regional problems as
well as identify possible solutions. But it was also
emphasized that continued administrative and pub-
lic support for restoration initiatives requires the
visibility of "on-the-ground projects." There is
greater political and public appreciation for com-
pleted projects than for studies and computer mod-
els. If funding and time are limited, it may be best
to move toward implementation in order to help
assure continued interest and support. Surrogate
(or "quick and dirty") assessment techniques are
needed. „
Analytical techniques are needed to assess the
relationship between ecosystem structure and func-
tion, and to find ways to measure improvement and
the effectiveness of restoration projects. Specifi-
cally, improved understanding is needed of how
changes in hydrology relate to changes in water
quality and biology in order to better measure the
effectiveness of restoration projects.
Improved access to geographic information sys-
tems would be helpful in planning and decision
making. A geographic information system would
provide the ability to synthesize existing scientific
data with those currently being collected through-
out the basin. Data from an extensive monitoring
program for the watershed, the Coordinated Ana-
costia Monitoring Program, are used to develop
annual reports and to support planning, decision
making, and other research endeavors. This pro-
gram provides one type of information that could
be included in a geographic information system.
23
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Remote sensing data could prove useful to the
restoration effort by providing detailed information
about land cover, gradients, water turbidity, and
topography. Knowledge of the Landsat data sets
available as well as their scales and costs would
be helpful.
Adaptive management. Several interviewees
noted that because of the scientific and technolog-
ical uncertainties associated with ecosystem
restoration, many restoration efforts are based on
intuition. As more is learned about ecosystem
structure and processes and about the effectiveness
of restoration measures, adjustments to decisions
or projects need to be made, Changes in social
values and preferences may also demand that
future efforts be carried out differently.
Because the sum effect of individual restoration
projects is unknown, it is important to monitor the
effects of projects underway. In lieu of predictive
modeling, this kind of "learn as you go" approach
(known as "adaptive management") is seen as the
best way to implement an integrated ecosystem
approach.
Interviewees noted that it was difficult to obtain
monies required for long-term monitoring, although
monitoring is essential to measure the effective-
ness of project measures and rationale. Informa-
tion derived from monitoring can be used to make
midpoint corrections in accordance with adaptive
management.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on its study of the Anacostia restoration ini-
tiative, and on concerns raised and suggestions
made by interviewees, the study team developed
recommendations on the ecosystem approach in
general, and in areas of concern addressed by
interviewees: the role of federal agencies in the
Anacostia restoration initiative; regulatory pro-
grams and permits; funding; public participation;
and science and information.
Ecosystem Approach
The ecosystem approach is defined in volume 1 of
this series (Interagency Ecosystem Management
Task Force 1995) as "a method for sustaining or
restoring natural systems and their functions and
values. It is goal-driven, and it is based on a col-
laboratively developed vision of desired future
ecosystem conditions that integrates ecological,
economic, and social factors." The Anacostia
River Watershed Restoration initiative implements
several key components of the ecosystem
approach, including:
• A partnership of private interests (such as
businesses and NGOs) with federal, state,
and local public interest representatives to
carry out the initiative.
• A common set of goals refined into measur-
able objectives and used as a basis for
developing restoration and management
alternatives.
• Attempts to integrate management of human
and natural resources,, including all natural
media (waters, air, and living resources).
• Use of science to set goals and measure
progress.
• A signed agreement affirming commitments
of most parties to the goals.
• Cooperative programs to leverage resources
and mobilize the widest range of available
expertise.
• Efforts to inform and engage citizens and
elected officials in restoration efforts.
Other ecosystem approach initiatives should con-
sider incorporating these or similar elements into
their programs.
Integral to a successful ecosystem approach is a
vision shared among leaders of agencies and orga-
nizations involved in restoration efforts. For the
Anacostia initiative, the Anacostia Watershed
Restoration Committee's Six-Point Action Plan
serves this purpose, outlining a common vision.
Statements of vision must be living documents,
flexible enough to accommodate evolving priori-
ties and new scientific knowledge. In order to real-
ize the vision, all stakeholders must ascribe to
common goals, understanding and acknowledging
their respective responsibilities.
Goals of the ecosystem approach can be incorpo-
rated synergistically into local and regional
24
-------
Anacostia River
planning, taking advantage of the complementary
competencies and capabilities of agencies at each
level. In keeping with basinwide restoration goals,
one of the jurisdictions in the Anacostia watershed
created a development plan designed to buffer
streams. For the past 28 years, development has
progressed according to the plan: commercial,
industrial, and heavy residential land uses have
been confined to transportation corridors extending
outward from the metropolitan area. In addition,
measures for controlling stormwater from new
community development form the basis for protect-
ing the watershed from future urbanization.
A forum is essential for establishing goals, resolv-
ing differences, and deciding priorities. For the
Anacostia initiative, the Anacostia Watershed
Restoration Committee has this function on the
state and local level. An additional forum is
needed on the technical and working level to focus
and coordinate various study and implementation
efforts and concerns. For the Anacostia initiative,
the Metropolitan Washington Council of Govern-
ments plays this role, serving as technical arm of
the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee
and helping to coordinate efforts among various
jurisdictions that might otherwise be at odds. The
Council also helps to assure continuity and main-
tain momentum when there are changes in local
administrations.
Federal Agency Role
Many federal agencies have programs that affect
any given ecosystem, and an ecosystem approach
provides a means for integrating diverse federal
activities to ensure that they reinforce rather than
conflict with one another. Even agencies responsi-
ble for programs and facilities not specifically
related to natural resources (such as housing or
transportation) should develop and manage their
programs in a way consistent with sustainable
ecosystem objectives.
In observing their legislative mandates, federal
agencies should be flexible enough to contribute to
the ecosystem approach. Although agency mis-
sions are codified by federal statute, their interpre-
tation usually provides leeway for agencies to sup-
port other congressional and Administration priori-
ties and policies. Had federal agencies quickly
joined restoration efforts as stakeholders in the
Anacostia watershed initiative, playing a more
active role in developing the restoration vision,
there might have been less initial reluctance on
the part of federal staff to work with the Anacostia
Watershed Restoration Committee on restoration
projects on federal lands.
Restoring a site may not be worthwhile if its
degradation has not been eliminated or at least
curtailed: the source of the problem must be
addressed before a site-specific restoration project
gets underway. This makes it virtually impossible
for a single agency to solve all restoration prob-
lems. Interagency coordination is vital to the suc-
cess of almost any restoration effort.
Regulatory Programs and Permits
Regulatory programs should be tied more closely
to planning efforts for the Anacostia basin. Plan-
ning should take permitting concerns into account,
and permitting should reinforce planning goals.
This would improve the quality of permit decisions
and avoid regulatory conflict with basinwide goals.
Federal regulators should be more aware of, and
responsive to, broad planning goals established by
various jurisdictions in regions in which they are
active. In this way, permitting can help reinforce
and support objectives established during planning.
Implementation of restoration projects requires
flexibility and coordinated support from the regula-
tory community. Permit writers might assist in
restoration projects through mitigation, offset, or
waiver conditions. Mandated monitoring through
permits can contribute to the information base (by
providing information, for example, on specific
discharges from regulated facilities). Improved
information makes for better planning decisions,
which in turn can be used to establish more realis-
tic regulations.
Innovative means for satisfying compensatory mit-
igation requirements for urban areas should be
explored by the federal agencies most closely
involved with mitigation review and approval.
Federal agencies could make suggestions in this
regard, providing technical or procedural guidance.
Funding
A nationwide clearinghouse could be developed to
help states and local jurisdictions identify grants
and other funding available from federal agencies
for environmental restoration projects. The
25
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
clearinghouse could help state and local entities
find funding for specific types or combinations of
ecosystem approaches, watershed restoration, and
pollution cleanup, and it might help identify areas
where funding is lacking or redundant.
Block grants for broad restoration projects could be
proposed where appropriate. Recurring problems
that contribute to degradation but are difficult to
eliminate could be examined more closely, and
agencies responsible for regulating or otherwise
addressing these problems could take or recom-
mend appropriate action.
Where time and funding are constrained, local
entities have found it advantageous to implement
well-conceived projects rather than to wait for
finalization of a comprehensive plan or model.
Continued administrative and public support for the
Anacostia restoration initiative requires visible
results, particularly in view of stiff competition for
limited state and county resources. On the local
level, political and public appreciation is greater
for completed projects than for studies and com-
puter models. It may be similar for regional fed-
eral initiatives.
Public Participation
Public education, outreach, and participation are
vital to the success of restoration initiatives and
should be less ad hoc and intuitive. Instead, these
efforts should be thoughtfully planned, and federal,
state, and local agencies and entities should col-
laborate in developing a plan for them. Sugges-
tions made by interviewees for effective public
participation should be considered in developing
this program, and specialists with hands-on experi-
ence in dealing with public participation problems
and approaches should participate in its develop-
ment. At the same time, experts in other disci-
plines, such as scientists, engineers, and project
managers, should understand the need for an effec-
tive and productive public participation program,
and an awareness of what it takes to conduct one.
Agencies must allocate the resources needed to
develop and implement an effective public partici-
pation program, and because such programs take
time to develop and mature, long-term resources
must be committed. Public awareness and trust
built over the course of one project can serve as
the basis for an effective public participation pro-
gram for other projects in the same region.
Public meetings can be useful in providing public
input, but not every project manager is adept at
facilitating public meetings. A trained facilitator
should conduct such meetings, one who can focus
discussion and maintain continuity. Mailing,
phone, and contact lists must be maintained and
updated. Methods used to generate interest and
seek input should be tailored to the intended audi-
ence and the purposes of the outreach effort.
President Clinton's Executive Order 12898 on envi-
ronmental justice directs federal agencies to
ensure that "public documents, notices, and hear-
ings relating to human health or the environment
are concise, understandable, and readily accessi-
ble." Federal agencies are directed to translate
these documents "for limited-English-speaking
populations," where practicable and appropriate.
Accordingly, federal agencies should provide
minority and low-income populations in the Ana-
costia basin with readily accessible, understand-
able information about their environment, enabling
them to participate in shaping government policies
that affect the health of their communities.
Because the immigrant population in the Anacos-
tia basin is large and growing, translations of advi-
sories on fish consumption may be appropriate.
Science and Information
Technology is needed to minimize the impact of
human uses and lifestyles on the natural environ-
ment. Green and low-impact technologies are
being developed to recycle stormwater, for exam-
ple, or to reduce the environmental impact of con-
struction. Incentives to develop and use these
technologies and to make supporting lifestyle
changes could be provided by federal agencies.
The Anacostia restoration effort is applying suc-
cessful agricultural programs for nutrient manage-
ment to urban areas. This will benefit the Chesa-
peake Bay Program, and other urban areas may
profit by employing similar techniques.
Planning for ecosystem restoration projects should
incorporate principles of adaptive management.
Where appropriate, decision making should allow
for sequential adjustments in response to new
26
-------
Anacostia River
insights and scientific understanding. Obstacles to
adaptive management—such as budget processes
and management schedules that cannot accommo-
date adjustments based on new insights, or
technical uncertainties that make cost estimation
and project planning difficult—should be identified
and carefully examined.
Federal agencies could support locally driven
efforts to implement the ecosystem approach by
providing easier access to tools and information on
natural resources and activities. Agencies might
provide:
• Clearinghouses for information on monitor-
ing, analytical tools, best management prac-
tices, public participation techniques, urban
restoration initiatives, and other matters
related to the ecosystem approach.
• Access to information from programs such as
NOAA's habitat restoration program, the
Natural Resources Conservation Service's
erosion abatement programs, the Forest Ser-
vice's urban tree programs, and the Fish and
Wildlife Service's restoration programs, as
well as data from remote sensing systems,
the National Biological Service, National
Water Quality Assessments, and other moni-
toring initiatives.
Evaluating the Social and Economic
Aspects of the Ecosystem Approach
By definition, the ecosystem approach takes social
and economic factors into account, along with eco-
logical considerations. In retrospect, this study
was weak in assessing social and economic
aspects of the Anacostia restoration initiative.
Although some of these aspects were considered in
connection with programs overseen by elected
officials and with public participation and outreach
efforts, little in-depth analysis was done explicitly
on these issues. Future ecosystem evaluation ini-
tiatives might develop ways of assessing informa-
tion related to sustainable economic development
and other social and economic aspects of the
ecosystem approach.
Appendix A:
SELECTED DOCUMENTS
REVIEWED
African-American Environmentalist Association;
National Association of Neighborhoods; National
Wildlife Federation. June 1994. Our Unfair
Share: A Survey of Pollution Sources in Our
Nation's Capital.
Agreement of Federal Agencies on Ecosystem
Management in the Chesapeake Bay. 14 July
1994.
Anacostia Watershed Society, Robert Boone,
Director. 29 July 1994. Reinventing Ecosystem
Management in the Anacostia Watershed.
Chesapeake Bay Program. 9 July 1992. The
Restoration of the Anacostia River: The Report to
Congress.
District of Columbia Water Resources Research
Center; the University of the District of
Columbia. July 1994. "List of Professional
Papers on the Anacostia River, 1981-1994."
Interstate Commission on the Potomac Basin.
January 1988. Anacostia: The Other River.
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River
Basin. 27 May 1994. Report on the Potomac River
Watershed Visions Project (draft).
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River
Basin. No date. Restoring the Anacostia.
Information Packet.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments,
Department of Environmental Programs. August
1990. The State of the Anacostia. 1989 Status
Report. '
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments,
Anacostia Restoration Team, Department of
Environmental Programs. 1991. Watershed
Restoration Source Book.
27
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments,
Anacostia Restoration Team. November 1991. A
Commitment to Restore Our Home River: A Six-
Point Action Plan to Restore the Anacostia River.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments,
Department of Environmental Programs,
Anacostia Restoration Team. 1992. A Blueprint
for the Restoration of the Anacostia Watershed
(draft).
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
September 1993. Anacostia Watershed
Restoration Directory (1993).
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
17 December 1993. Status of Progress in Meeting
the Six Goals of the Action Plan.
Montgomery County Department of Environmental
Protection, Division of Water Resource
Management. No date. Montgomery County
Stream Teams. Information Packet.
National Park Service. July 1994. Chesapeake Bay
Action Agenda.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. February 1994.
Anacostia Federal Environmental Restoration
Report.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District.
May 1994. Anacostia Tributaries, District of
Columbia and Maryland, Integrated Feasibility
Study and Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District.
7 July 1994. "Fact Sheet on Corps Actions for
Environmental Restoration of the Anacostia
River Basin."
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District.
1994. Anacostia River Watershed. Overview
Paper.
Appendix B:
PRINCIPAL FEDERAL PROGRAMS
AND AUTHORITIES RELEVANT TO
THE ANACOSTIA INITIATIVE
Approximately 70 projects named in the Metropoli-
tan Washington Council of Governments'
"Blueprint for the Restoration of the Anacostia
Watershed" are located on federal lands. These
projects have been proposed by the Council for
implementation, although they are not necessarily
sponsored or supported by the affected federal
agencies. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
"Anacostia Federal Environmental Restoration
Report" of February 1994 contains a preliminary
assessment of these projects, summarized below
by federal agency.
Army Corps of Engineers
The Corps has been actively involved with local
sponsors in the study and construction of several
environmental restoration projects in the Anacostia
River basin. This involvement is made possible
through specific study authorities, section 1135 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986,
Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material, Support for
Others Program, and the Clean Water Act sec-
tion 404 regulatory program. Most of these authori-
ties require a nonfederal cost-share of 25 percent of
implementation costs. All operation and mainte-
nance costs are borne by the nonfederal sponsor.
Specific study authority. In 1988, Congress
directed the Corps to undertake a reconnaissance
study of the Anacostia watershed. The study was
designed (1) to review water-resource-related prob-
lems in the basin, (2) to develop and evaluate
plans to address these problems, (3) to demon-
strate whether there was a federal and nonfederal
interest in proceeding into a feasibility phase, and
(4) to estimate the cost of conducting the feasibil-
ity phase. Completed in December 1990, the study
identified ways to restore lost fish and wildlife
habitat, eliminate in-stream barriers to fish migra-
tion, restore and create wetlands, revegetate
streambanks, and modify stream channels.
A cost-shared feasibility study was initiated in
January 1992. The six nonfederal sponsors for the
study are: Prince Georges County; Montgomery
28
-------
Anacostia River
County; the District of Columbia; the Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments; the Interstate
Commission on the Potomac River Basin; and the
state of Maryland. Initially, 120 sites were consid-
ered for restoration. Through a preliminary site-
screening process, 13 sites were identified and
considered for formulation and evaluation of alter-
natives. The projects include, among other things,
wetland creation and restoration, stream restora-
tion, and stormwater retrofit construction. The
Corps plans to seek authorization for these 13 pro-
jects in the Water Resources Development Act of
1994. Construction of these projects is expected to
commence in 1997, and will proceed on a cost-
share basis (75 percent federal and 25 percent
nonfederal).
Section 1135. Section 1135 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended,
authorizes structural or operational modifications
to existing Corps projects for purposes of improving
the environment. Through the Continuing Authori-
ties Program, section 1135 provides yearly appro-
priations for a number of smaller scale environ-
mental efforts. In the Anacostia River basin, proj-
ects are cost shared (75 percent federal, 25 percent
nonfederal). Two modification reports have been
completed under this authority, recommending
removal of three fish passage barriers and habitat
restoration in the basin.
Beneficial use of dredged material. The mate-
rial collected by the Corps in normal maintenance
dredging operations can often be used beneficially.
The restoration of Kenilworth Marsh is one such
effort, identified during coordination of normal
dredging in 1992. The Corps, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and other
agencies discussed the opportunity for this restora-
tion. A comparative assessment of using the mate-
rial for Kenilworth Marsh versus depositing it at an
upland site concluded that the environmental bene-
fits of restoring 32 acres of wetlands and the
reduced costs of maintenance dredging justified
disposal of the dredged material at Kenilworth
Marsh. A formal authority for these efforts was
provided by section 204 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1994, which authorizes the
restoration or creation of wetlands in connection
with dredging for construction, operation, or main-
tenance of authorized navigation projects, provided
that the environmental, economic, and social ben-
efits of the project, both monetary and nonmone-
tary, justify the costs.
Support for Others Program. This program
allows the Corps to utilize its technical expertise
in accomplishing civil, military, or environmental
engineering projects for federal, state, and local
agencies outside of the U.S. Department of
Defense on a cost-reimbursable basis. Through this
program, the Corps and National Park Service
signed a Memorandum of Agreement to provide
technical support for the seawall rehabilitation
project in the District of Columbia. Under the
Memorandum, the Corps has accomplished investi-
gations of seawall foundation conditions and pre-
pared preliminary designs and plans for rehabili-
tating some portions of the seawall.
Section 404 regulatory program. Section 301 of
the Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of
dredged or fill material into U.S. waters. As part of
the section 404 program, the Corps reviews
applications for and issues permits for discharges
of dredged or fill material by other agencies and
the private sector into waters, including wetlands.
In evaluating applications, the Corps considers the
need for the activity as well as extent and duration
of its adverse effects, its extent and possible alter-
natives to it, and its impact on fish and wildlife,
water quality, flooding, recreation, historical and
cultural values, and other factors.
Federal agency ecosystem approach in the
Chesapeake Bay. On 17 July 1994, representa-
tives of federal agencies and state and local gov-
ernments signed an agreement to manage the
Chesapeake Bay watershed as a cohesive ecosys-
tem, and to work together to achieve the goals of
the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Signatories
agreed to support "the Anacostia River Demonstra-
tion Project as an opportunity to apply concepts
under the ecosystem approach concepts in an
urban environment, through a coordinated biennial
federal workplan beginning in FY 1995, in concert
with the Anacostia Watershed Restoration
Committee." The Corps was assigned the leading
role in this effort.
Environmental Protection Agency
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
various programs for funding and regulation of pol-
lution control in the Anacostia watershed.
National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System program. Under the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System program, EPA
29
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
develops permitting requirements for stormwater
discharges from industrial facilities and from sepa-
rate municipal storm sewers serving populations
greater than 100,000. All of the jurisdictions in the
Anacostia watershed are regulated under the pro-
gram as separate municipal stormwater systems.
Each municipality must submit a comprehensive,
two-part application that focuses on the develop-
ment of a systemwide stormwater management
program.
Section 319 grants. Section 319(h) of the Clean
Water Act provides for grants to states to assist in
the implementation of nonpoint source manage-
ment programs. A nonfederal match of at least
40 percent is required. These grants can also assist
states in carrying out groundwater quality protec-
tion activities that are part of the state's nonpoint
source pollution control program. Examples of
such activities include research, ground water
assessments, demonstration programs, enforce-
ment, technical assistance, education, and training
to prevent groundwater contamination from non-
point sources of pollution.
Section 106 grants. Section 106 of the Clean
Water Act provides for grants to states and inter-
state agencies to assist in the administration of
programs for preventing, reducing, and eliminating
pollution, as well as for enforcement.
Section 104(b) grants. Section 104(b) of the
Clean Water Act provides for grants to state water
pollution control agencies and other agencies or
individuals, including nonprofit private agencies,
for (among other things) conducting research,
investigations, training, and studies relating to the
causes, effects, prevention, and elimination of pol-
lution. The District of Columbia received a grant
under this section to implement programs for
floating-debris removal.
Section 117 grants. Section 117 of the Clean
Water Act provides for grants to states to imple-
ment management mechanisms in support of the
Chesapeake Bay Program's interstate management
plan. A 50-percent match is required.
Grants for public education. The Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments received an
EPA education grant to increase public awareness
of the potential environmental hazards created by
routine maintenance. This grant has a matching
requirement.
Chesapeake Bay Program. The Chesapeake Bay
Program operates with an annual budget of
$20 million. Of this, $10 million are set aside for
use by federal agencies, which can submit project
proposals each fall to the Federal Agencies Com-
mittee of the Chesapeake Bay Program. Projects
sponsored by several agencies are encouraged and
viewed more favorably by the Federal Agencies
Committee. Under this program, EPA was directed
to conduct a study of the Anacostia River to ana-
lyze the extent to which pollution in the Anacostia
River is harming the Chesapeake Bay's ecosys-
tem, the steps needed to restore the Anacostia's
water quality, a timeline for taking these steps,
potential roles for EPA and other federal agencies
in the Anacostia cleanup, and an inventory of
activities currently underway to restore the river.
Fish and Wildlife Service
The Fish and Wildlife Service provides technical
assistance for various activities. Recently, for
example, it conducted a joint study with the Dis-
trict of Columbia to collect fish and sediment from
the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers and to test
them for contamination. The agency has also
investigated problems associated with oil spills
within the basin, and has worked with the Corps
and National Park Service on the Kenilworth
Marsh restoration project. The Partners For
Wildlife Program restores and protects fish and
wildlife habitat on private lands through alliances
established by the agency with other organizations
and private landowners.
Forest Service
Several U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Forest Service programs have been utilized in
restoration efforts in the Anacostia basin. For
example, the Anacostia Riparian Reforestation
Program was implemented by the Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments and financed
with $50,000 from the Urban Forestry Special Proj-
ect funds. This program is designed to reforest
more than eight acres of riparian corridors in the
basin. EPA and the Forest Service signed an
interagency agreement to provide funding to the
local Cooperative Extension Service to implement
the Anacostia Watershed Community Reforesta-
tion Outreach Project. This project aims to reforest
inner city communities in the Washington
metropolitan area with public participation. Resi-
dents are provided with information, resources, and
30
-------
Anacostia River
technical assistance. In the District of Columbia
alone, proposed funding under the Urban Forestry
Five-Year Plan is $400,000 for FY 1994, and
$500,000 for FY 1995.
National Civilian Community Corps
Federal agencies managing land in the Anacostia
basin have proposed a number of projects to be
undertaken by volunteers of the National Civilian
Community Corps. These volunteers perform
1 year of service constructing environmental and
community improvement projects across the coun-
try. Currently, there are 250 National Civilian
Community Corps volunteers at Aberdeen Proving
Ground.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Programs developed by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provide
information, research, and management services
for the nation's ocean, coastal, and estuarine
resources. Technical assistance is available for
resource management restoration activities in the
Anacostia basin, particularly for those associated
with habitat restoration, fish passage, endangered
species, and fisheries management. Funding pro-
vided by NOAA usually involves the Coastal Zone
Management programs, Sea Grants, and the
Chesapeake Bay Program. For example, NOAA
contributions to the Chesapeake Bay Program in
1992 amounted to more than $12 million.
National Marine Fisheries Service. NOAA's
National Marine Fisheries Service is responsible
for protecting and managing the nation's living
marine resources, including anadromous fish (such
as striped bass and American shad) that histori-
cally spawned in the Anacostia.
National Park Service
The National Park Service is the second largest
landowner in the basin. Much of the land it man-
ages lies along the Anacostia and its tributaries
and is open for public visitation. The National
Park Service has employed volunteers to clean up
streams and install check dams, and it has been
actively involved with the Corps and other agen-
cies in the Kenilworth Marsh restoration project
and in the proposed project for Kingman Lake
(recommended as part of the Anacostia River and
Tributaries feasibility study). The agency is work-
ing in conjunction with several other agencies on
environmental restoration projects on park lands.
Streambank erosion caused by high stormwater
flows from developed areas, and large volumes of
sediment from stormwater outfalls along the Ana-
costia cause problems on park lands. The National
Park Service has also been involved in the design
and implementation one of the Metropolitan Wash-
ington Council of Governments's blueprint pro-
jects, although it is reluctant to provide park lands
for stormwater management to control flows origi-
nating outside park lands. The agency seems
likely to take an advisory and review rather than a
leading role in environmental restoration projects.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Ser-
vice (formerly Soil Conservation Service) has
authority to assist other agencies under the Water-
shed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (P.L.
83-566). This act authorizes the Natural
Resources Conservation Service to provide techni-
cal and financial assistance to local organizations
in planning and carrying out such watershed pro-
jects as preventing damage from erosion, floodwa-
ter, and sediment, furthering the conservation,
development, utilization, and disposal of water,
and conserving and properly using land. Upon
request from a local sponsor, the Natural
Resources Conservation Service develops a com-
prehensive plan to consider all natural resource
concerns in a watershed, formulating alternative
solutions to the problems identified. Typically, the
agency provides 100 percent of the technical
assistance and up to 50 percent of the construction
costs for such projects.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service also
provides technical assistance to individuals and
communities under its Conservation Operations,
Resource Conservation Development Program,
Urban Initiative, and other programs. Various con-
servation incentive programs are proved through
the USDA.. The USDA Beltsville Agriculture
Research Center, the largest landowner in the
basin, has embarked on a joint effort with the Nat-
ural Resources Conservation Service to produce a
Soil and Water Conservation Plan for the Agricul-
ture Research Center, and to implement a
demonstration project on Center land. This project
31
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
will demonstrate environmentally safe practices
involving field crops, ponds, woodlands, and
wetlands.
U.S. Department of Defense
The Department of Defense accounts for 2,190 of
the 15,860 acres of federally owned land in the
Anacostia River basin. Army installations include
the Adelphi Laboratory Center, Army Reserve
Center Riverdale, Fort McNair, Beltsville Agricul-
tural Reserve Site, and Laurel National Guard Site.
Navy installations include the Naval Surface War-
fare Center, Anacostia Naval Station, and the
Navy Yard. The Marine Barracks and part of
Boiling Air Force Base are also located in the
basin.
The Department of Defense Legacy Program, cre-
ated in 1991 by a Department of Defense Appro-
priations Act, was designed as a long-range pro-
gram for identifying, protecting, and maintaining
natural, cultural, and geophysical resources on all
lands under Defense Department jurisdiction or
influence in the United States. This program
enables the Department to take a critical and sus-
tained look at what it might take to better integrate
conservation of these resources with the
maintenance of national defense capability. The
Legacy Program has $50 million allocated for
various projects in FY 1994.
U.S. Department of Transportation
The Department of Transportation's Surface Trans-
portation Program, established by the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(P.L. 102-240), provides grants to states and
localities. Ten percent of the Surface Transporta-
tion Program funds apportioned to a state each
fiscal year must be used for transportation en-
hancement, such as landscaping and other scenic
beautification as well as mitigation of water pollu-
tion due to highway runoff. Typical projects that
could be funded with Program funds include storm-
water drainage improvements along roadways or
reforestation along a highway. Opportunities and
priorities are set by the individual state transporta-
tion departments. The federal share of project
costs is normally limited to 80 percent. The state
of Maryland's share of these funds is expected to
average $5 million per year from 1992 to 1997.
The Maryland Department of Transportation has
proposed constructing a biking/greenway trail
within the Anacostia River basin using Surface
Transportation Program funds.
32
-------
Chapter 3: COASTAL LOUISIANA
Coastal Louisiana is one of seven ecosystems
identified for study of the ecosystem approach
activities by the Interagency Ecosystem Manage-
ment Task Force. Coastal Louisiana was selected
in part because ongoing interagency activities
there may provide valuable lessons for broader
application in ecosystems elsewhere across the
country.
In August 1994, an interagency survey team from
Washington spent a week in Louisiana conducting
interviews with federal and nonfederal parties.
During the week, the survey team met with nearly
70 individuals representing federal and state agen-
cies, parish and levee governing bodies, academic
scientists, private land owners, environmental
groups, and other interests. The team consisted of
seven individuals from five federal agencies: Jeri
Berc from the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service
(formerly Soil Conservation Service), Val Cham-
bers from the USDA Forest Service, Roger Griffis
from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (U.S. Department of Commerce),
Joanne Jones from the U.S. Army (U.S. Department
of Defense), Doug Norton from the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Albert Sherk from the
National Biological Service (U.S. Department of
the Interior), and Molly Whitworth from EPA.
This report is based on interviews conducted,
phone calls made, and written material collected
by the survey team. It includes observations made
by interviewees organized by issue, and a set of
summary observations and recommendations from
the survey team.
BACKGROUND
Coastal Louisiana (figure 1) is one of the richest
regions of the world in wetlands, with 2.5 million
acres of fresh, intermediate, brackish, and saline
marshes, 637,400 acres of forested wetlands, and
about 40 percent of the coastal marshes in the
coterminous United States. Bordering the entire
Gulf of Mexico shoreline and extending inland in
some places for more than 60 miles, these coastal
wetlands form one of the most productive ecosys-
tems on earth.
Value of the Ecosystem
The productivity and structure of Louisiana's
coastal wetlands directly, and indirectly fuel the
region's economy. Louisiana's coastal wetlands
support a commercial harvest of fish and shellfish
comparable in volume to that of the entire Atlantic
seaboard, with a market value averaging almost
$1 billion annually. Recreation on Louisiana's
coastal wetlands amounts to more than 3 million
user days per year, valued at approximately
$50 million annually. Income in the region from
ecotourism exceeds $250 million per year. The
coastal wetlands and barrier islands protect one of
the nation's largest commercial-industrial com-
plexes of ports, shipping waterways, and natural
gas and petroleum refining facilities from losses
and destruction caused by storms from the Gulf of
Mexico. These facilities account for 25 percent of
domestic natural gas production. These commer-
cial and industrial activities represent a combined
capital investment of more than $100 billion within
the Louisiana coastal zone. The region also sup-
ports a unique culture and way of life molded by
interaction of local residents with their coastal
wetland environment during the past two centuries.
Today, the communities, physical structure, and
all of the productive functions of Louisiana's coast
are seriously threatened by rapid loss of the barrier
islands and coastal wetlands. Disturbing the natu-
ral equilibrium between wetland gain and loss,
human activity in the region currently produces a
net loss of 25-35 square miles of coast per year,
accounting for 80 percent of all coastal wetland
losses in the coterminous United States. Although
the deteriorating coastal ecosystem remains highly
productive today, the long-term prospect is for
catastrophic decline in economic and ecological
coastal values, and a shoreline moved far inland
from where it is today. At current rates, half of
Louisiana's coastal wetlands will disappear over
the next 100 years, with serious social, economic,
and ecological implications not only for the region,
but for the nation as a whole.
33
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Formation of Coastal Wetlands
Louisiana's coastal zone is made up of two phys-
iographic units: the Deltaic Plain on the east,
formed by sediments from the Mississippi and
Atchafalaya Rivers, and the Chenier Plain on the
west, formed from the westward movement of
reworked former delta sediments combined with
sediments from adjacent active Mississippi River
distributaries. The deltaic coastal wetlands were
formed from enormous amounts of sediment eroded
from the interior of North America and deposited in
deltaic lobes where the Mississippi River enters
the Gulf of Mexico.
Every thousand years or so, the river established a
new, more efficient route to the gulf after annual
floods helped carve new paths bypassing the
enlarged delta. As the new route developed, less
water and sediment passed down the old river
channel, and the old delta began to lose land
through subsidence and the effects of tides, waves,
and currents. Concurrently, a new delta began
growing at the mouth of the new river channel. For
the last several thousand years, these natural pro-
cesses were in approximate equilibrium, creating a
composite coastline made up of wetlands in all
stages of formation and devolution, and an ecosys-
tem of tremendous diversity and productivity.
Disruption of Wetland Formation
Human activity has severely impacted the natural
processes that create and sustain the coastal wet-
lands of Louisiana. When the commercial naviga-
tion and flooding potential of the rivers became
apparent in the 19th century, Congress authorized
actions to clear and maintain the Mississippi for
navigation, and to construct levees to keep the
river within its banks. In the 20th century, oil and
gas exploration, land reclamation, and construction
of ports and channels along Louisiana's coast fur-
ther developed the economic potential of
Louisiana at the expense of its coastal wetlands.
Flood control projects such as levees ensured that
most sediment bypassed the areas where it would
naturally build and nourish wetlands during flood
and nonflood periods.
As a result, sediment deposits no longer compen-
sate for the effects of natural coastal subsidence.
Coastal wetlands are increasingly flooded,
resulting in mortality of wetland plants and
changes in vegetation. These conditions are
compounded in many locales by infusions of
saltwater into normally fresh or brackish wetlands
through channels dredged for navigation or oil and
gas exploration. In other areas, urbanization,
highways, and spoil banks from channel dredging
disrupt natural drainage and sediment distribution.
The net result has been functional and physical
loss of hundreds of thousands of acres of wetlands
as the natural vegetation, stressed by changes in
hydrology or salinity, dies and sediment erodes
away. Even where there is no land loss, valuable
ecological functions are sacrificed whenever
changes in hydrology, salinity, and plant and
animal communities cause wetlands to disappear.
Peaking in the 1960s, erosion rates have since de-
clined to the current rate of 25-35 square miles per
year. Today, only a small fraction of annual wet-
land losses stems from new human activity in the
coastal zone. Actions taken by the state of Louisi-
ana, private landowners, and industry have slowed
the loss of coastal wetlands due to permitted de-
velopment from 3,000 acres per year in 1980 to
less than 200 acres per year today (Kemp 1993).
But land in the coastal zone continues to subside,
the barrier islands continue to erode, and the sea
continues to invade fragile wetlands at an alarming
rate. The vast majority of coastal wetland losses
result today from ongoing long-term effects of ac-
tions taken decades earlier that disrupted the natu-
ral hydrologic and sedimentological processes crit-
ical to sustaining and increasing Louisiana's coast-
al wetlands. Documented causes of wetland loss
(Governor's Office 1994; Bbesch 1994) include:
• Natural processes. Fires, storm-whipped
waves, wildlife grazing, and shifts in river
channels cause erosion of barrier islands and
loss of wetlands. Under natural conditions,
damage from these sources was often only
local or temporary, and it was offset by wet-
land growth elsewhere over time.
• Flood protection and navigation works.
Construction of flood protection levees and
navigation improvements along the
Mississippi River and its principal
distributaries have stopped overbank
flooding, the natural process for building
land and nourishing wetlands. Active
distributary channels, such as Bayou
Lafourche, were blocked at their confluence
with the Mississippi, cutting off vast
34
-------
Coastal Louis/ana
PONTCHARTRA1N
Louisiana Coastal
Zone Boundary
VERMILION
ATCHAFALAYA
.N
| ]
Saline Marshes
Fresh Marshes
Brackish Marshes
Intermediate Marshes
Nonmarsh Areas
TERREBONNE
G"tf of
10(5
MILES
50 100
KILOMETERS
MISSISSIPPI
RIVER
Figure 1.—Coastal zone of Louisiana,
showing the Mississippi Deltaic Plain, Chenier
Plain, nine hydrologic basins, and wetland
salinity zones, (Source: Adapted from
Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and
Restoration Task Force 1993.)
35
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
wetland areas of the Deltaic Plain from their
life-sustaining supply of freshwater and
transported sediment. Jetties and deep
navigation channels at the mouths of active
distributaries direct sediment into deeper
waters of the gulf, impeding deltaic growth.
• Reduction in transported sediment.
Changes in management of the river and its
tributaries have reduced the amount of
sediment transported by the Mississippi in
recent decades, slowing deltaic growth.
• Subsidence and sediment deficit. The
natural process of land sinking is not offset
by sediment deposition and land building
(aggradation). Inundation occurs and the
land reverts to open water.
• Marine tidal invasion. The combined result
of accelerated subsidence and an extensive
artificial canal network has been massive
wetland dieback, expansion of tidal channel
networks, and erosion of poorly consolidated
organic soils. Some scientists estimate that
together these factors account for a relative
sea level rise of as much as 1 cm per year.
Without aggressive action to reverse these trends,
the current rate of coastal wetland loss in
Louisiana is expected to continue, with serious
consequences for the region and the nation. If cur-
rent losses are not reduced, another 167,000 acres
of wetlands will disappear or be converted by the
year 2000 (U.S. Department of the Interior 1994).
According to predictions, these losses will push the
gulf shoreline inland as much as 33 miles in some
areas, jeopardizing public and private investments
and potentially shifting waters under state jurisdic-
tion to federal control as lands under them are
reclassified as outer continental shelf. By the
same token, private lands that are inundated may
fall under state control. Some 1,200 businesses,
residences, camps, schools, storage tanks, electric
power substations, water control structures, and
pumping stations will require protection or reloca-
tion (U.S. Department of the Interior 1994). The
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) estimates
that by the year 2040, without action to reverse
projected wetland losses, commercial fish and
shellfish harvests will decline by 30 percent. Con-
tinued loss of Louisiana's coastal wetlands could
produce major nonmonetary cultural and
ecological losses, and loss of income and assets
worth billions of dollars.
Strategies to Halt Loss of Coastal
Wetlands
More than 20 years ago, high rates of coastal ero-
sion and deterioration were noted, along with the
potentially serious consequences (Gagliano and
van Beek 1970, 1975). Basic management
approaches were developed for slowing and pre-
venting further losses on both barrier islands and
wetlands.
Curbing development. Initial responses to the
problem took the form of state and federal regula-
tory programs aimed at reducing wetland loss
resulting from new dredge and fill activities and
hydrological modification. These programs have
been moderately successful: the loss rate from
development has declined since peaking in the
1960s at 39-42 square miles per year.
Controlling coastal erosion. In the 1980s, the
Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana was estab-
lished to inform the public on wetland loss and to
solicit government action to address the crisis. In
1989, state legislation was enacted to provide for
wetland restoration, and Louisiana voters over-
whelmingly approved (by a 3-1 margin) a constitu-
tional amendment establishing a trust fund making
approximately $25 million per year available for
restoration activities.
The Coastal Wetland Planning, Protection, and
Restoration Act. In 1990, Congress passed the
Coastal Wetland Planning, Protection, and
Restoration Act (CWPPRA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 3951-
3956. The Act established a six-member Louisiana
Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration
Task Force with representatives from the state of
Louisiana and five federal agencies: the Corps;
EPA; the U.S. Department of the Interior's Fish and
Wildlife Service; the U.S. Department of Com-
merce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and National Marine
Fisheries Service; and the USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service, formerly Soil
Conservation Service. Charged with developing a
"comprehensive approach to restore and prevent
the loss of coastal wetlands in Louisiana," the
Task Force is responsible for developing and
implementing priority coastal wetland restoration
36
-------
Coastal Louisiana
projects. The CWPPRA is the primary federal
legal authority for facilitating a broad-based
approach to coastal wetland restoration in
Louisiana. In facilitating an interagency approach
to the problem of coastal restoration, it may serve
as a valuable model and/or nucleus for future
activities to implement the ecosystem approach.
Nevertheless, the current structure and process
contain impediments to a broader ecosystem
approach.
The CWPPRA authorizes funds for priority wet-
lands projects in Louisiana. In addition, the
CWPPRA provides both mechanisms and incen-
tives for comprehensive coastal wetland restoration
and management. It requires the Secretary of the
Army to convene the Task Force, which has pro-
vided a highly effective forum for dialogue among
federal agencies and the state of Louisiana on
developing a restoration plan. The CWPPRA pro-
cess immediately led to integration of the tradi-
tionally independent planning and execution of
budgets by federal agencies with natural resource
responsibilities in southern Louisiana. The usually
formidable obstacles to federal interagency and
federal-state coordination seem to have been
largely overcome.
Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Restoration Plan.
The Task Force used several technical committees
and groups to develop the Louisiana Coastal Wet-
lands Restoration Plan. Nine Interdisciplinary
Basin Teams reviewed individual proposals and
formulated plans for each of nine hydrologic units
in Coastal Louisiana. A Monitoring Work Group
developed plans and protocols for monitoring the
effectiveness of projects, and lists of priority proj-
ects were prepared. Although it is too soon to
judge the effectiveness of the CWPPRA, the Corps
has indicated that about 211,000 acres of wetlands
would be restored under the Restoration Plan, cor-
responding to about 70 percent of estimated wet-
land losses if the CWPPRA were not in effect.
Opportunities and constraints. The CWPPRA
provided substantial funds to the Task Force to
assist in restoring and conserving coastal wetlands.
Positive aspects of the legislation include:
• Time commitments for a coastal restoration
plan and for project development enforced
by law.
• Accountability to Congress.
• Appropriations in large enough sums to
accomplish larger scale restoration.
• Specific omission of traditional cost/benefit
analysis.
These components of the ecosystem approach
paradigm were recognized by all interviewees as
major breakthroughs, but were also recognized as
difficult to implement, given existing legal con-
straints—such as the Federal Advisory Committee
Act—and the level of expertise and traditional ori-
entation toward individual species of the federal
environmental agencies involved. Moreover,
CWPPRA legislation did not specifically include
socioeconomic or sustainability provisions as part
of its public involvement process, although
CWPPRA implementation is subject to these con-
siderations under the National Environmental Pol-
icy Act.
Several issues have impeded implementation of
restoration efforts in Coastal Louisiana. Property
rights issues before and after restoration form some
of the most common and serious legal barriers.
Eighty percent of the coast is privately owned, and
the state estimates that real-estate-related activi-
ties may amount to one-third of the effort required
before a project is implemented. Some projects
have involved more than 100 different landowners,
and legal questions have arisen regarding future
access to restored areas and mineral rights in them.
State and federal agencies are actively working to
resolve these issues. The Louisiana Department of
Natural Resources has recently delineated more
efficient ways of dealing with real estate issues.
An important step was creation of a Real Estate
Section with the ability to secure contractual sup-
port to speed up the process. The Department of
Natural Resources is also negotiating a settlement
with the Louisiana Land & Exploration Company
concerning mineral rights when new land is cre-
ated during restoration of the Isles Dernieres chain
of barrier islands. These and other changes are
part of a major very positive effort by the state of
Louisiana to refine administrative and other com-
ponents of its policies and activities for coastal
restoration. These changes are outlined in a white
paper titled, "The State of Louisiana's Policy for
Coastal Restoration Activities" (April 1995). Con-
stitutional amendments are currently before the
state legislature to resolve important land rights
and oyster lease issues.
37
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Restoration of Coastal Louisiana in general
depends on finding the money for the large-scale
projects needed. Several studies of the ecosystem
suggest that major freshwater diversions from the
Mississippi River are needed to restore the hydro-
logical processes that create productive, sustain-
able coastal wetlands. Equally important appears
to be restoration of the barrier island system.
Feasibility studies have been recommended under
the CWPPRA program to address the issues of
major river diversions and barrier island restoration.
Such feasibility studies could broaden restoration
planning under the current CWPPRA process to
include a much more comprehensive, longer term,
ecosystem approach. Broader perspectives have
been developed recently in several excellent
reports emphasizing river diversions over time
periods of more than 50 years (Governor's Office
1994, Templet 1994, Van Heerden 1994). By con-
trast, the CWPPRA Restoration Plan envisions a
20-year management program of individual proj-
ects at the hydrologic basin level.
BUDGET ISSUES
The success of the CWPPRA Restoration Plan
hinges on large projects (such as shoreline protec-
tion, major river diversions, barrier island restora-
tion, and navigation gate establishment). One of
the toughest challenges may be finding the
resources to fund these projects.
Current Funding
The CWPPRA authorizes an amount equal to
18 percent of total deposits in the Sport Fish
Restoration Fund, or of total receipts from small-
engine fuels excise taxes (whichever is greater), to
be allocated for wetlands planning and restoration.
Seventy percent of this amount is made available
by the Fish and Wildlife Service to the Corps
(through the Sport Fish Restoration Account of the
Aquatic Resources Trust Fund) for restoration of
Louisiana wetlands (funds are available until
expended). Each fiscal year since 1992, more than
$33 million in funds have been made available for
priority wetlands projects in Louisiana (table 1).
Projections made by the Fish and Wildlife Service
indicate that this level of funding will increase
slightly each year through fiscal year 1999
(table 1, figure 2).
Funds for implementing the Restoration Plan have
approached $40 million annually, with costs shared
by state and federal governments at the ratio of
25 to 75 percent. Without additional action, how-
ever, the state of Louisiana may soon be unable to
continue matching the federal contribution. Rec-
ognizing this, Louisiana has recently recommend-
ed a number of measures to generate additional
funds (in its April 1995 white paper review of state
wetland restoration policies). A constitutional
amendment is presently before the state legislature
to increase revenues to the Wetlands Trust Fund
by lowering Fund thresholds. This and other mea-
sures would make significant progress toward en-
suring continuation of restoration efforts. Changes
by constitutional amendment are subject to
approval by Louisiana voters.
Lists of priority projects have been prepared under
the CWPPRA Restoration Plan (table 2). Imple-
menting all projects in the plan across all basins
would cost approximately $1.284 billion (table 3).
The CWPPRA requires each project to be substan-
tially completed 5 years after placement on a pri-
ority project list. The Corps has interpreted this to
mean that the CWPPRA excludes projects that
cost more than about $5 million, which can take
up to decades to complete. Forty of the 279 proj-
ects in the Restoration Plan cost more than
$5 million, and 5 have estimated costs of more
than $20 million (table 4). Political pressures
forced initial project funding to be dispersed in all
nine basins. Accordingly, CWPPRA dollars
intended for wetland restoration were expended not
only in areas where land was being lost (Barataria/
Terrebonne), but also in areas where land was
accreting (Atchafalaya). The reality of project
costs and the urgent need for large-scale offensive
projects will probably force state and federal
planners to ask Congress for specific project-by-
project funding for large-scale projects with costs
in excess of $5 million. As suggested in the state's
white paper analysis of the situation, this will
require additional federal funding outside of the
CWPPRA program.
38
-------
Coastal Louisiana
e
M "(o
x -2-
u.
g -
u.
X 1
u.
tv
01 -^
Ł1
X t
u.
~t
^» (Q
u. v-
|:i
"*** -3
Sport Fish F
Restoration Account (
0 0
0 O
o o
o o
g §
ES 5
CM CM
SO
0
O O
o o
CM |v
CM CO
CO CO
CM CM
S Z
CM CM
O. O
8 8
o o
o o
CO CO
O CO
|v CM
CM CM
o o
o o
o o
0 0
in CM
CO CM
CM CM
8 8
0 0
o o
o o
in o
CO CO
CO CM
CM CM
rv t
s; s
tf CM
r- O
0 •*
tO CM
CM CM
CO O
in o
CO O
co in
r- cn
CM •*
CO T-
CO 1-
CM CM
CO CO
|v CO
in in
co in
r** rv
in in
CM CO
co ro
CM T-
rs
m M
ra $
||
"o uj
o o
0 0
0 O
o" o
o o
CM o.
CO CM
CO
o o
O 0
0 0
°~ o"
° °.
CO" CM
CO
o o
o o
0 0
o o
0 0
CO 0_
m" N
CO
8 8
o o
o" o
g 8
s l"
o o
0 0
0 0
o" o
o S
•*• °.
CM"
Ł
cn
» " & .
cn = o -a
Ł S o 3
si f 1 *
01 QJ 3 »_ "„
1 S § w «l
a. Amounts deposited during prec<
b. Estimated total motorboat fuels
c. Includes a $17.4 million adjustm
d. Under the provisions of the Coa
e. Authorization for transfer of fund
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sen
39
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
300
1992 1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Cumulative
Annual IjH
33.08
33.08
66.25
33.17
101.2
34.94
136.2
35.0
171.9
35.7
208.3
36.4
246.7
36.4
283.8
37.1
283.8
0.0
Fiscal year
Figure 2 .—Annual and cumulative federal
CWPPRA allocations for fiscal years 1992-
1994 (actual) and 1995-2000 (estimated).
Under provisions of the Coastal Wetlands Act,
funds will be available through fiscal year
1999. (Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Division of Federal Aid.)
Budget-Related Barriers to the Ecosystem
Approach
Although the CWPPRA seems to provide an effec-
tive mechanism for building consensus on restora-
tion issues and priority projects in southern Louisi-
ana, the lack of a single entity in charge of budget-
ing for the ecosystem approach is proving to be a
problem. Indeed, the Corps' navigation and flood
control projects are a major cause of the problems
facing the CWPPRA process.
Budget Alternatives
Interviewees offered several comments on bud-
getary issues:
The genius of the Restoration Plan lies in
budgeting for 20 years of monitoring. Infor-
mation gained should be enough to give the
state of Louisiana the opportunity to adjust
the system to make the plan work.
The alternative—no action and the loss of
25 square miles of wetlands per year—is
unacceptable.
Massive public works (such as restoring bar-
rier islands) may better be funded through
separate congressional appropriations, a pos-
sibility that should be investigated.
40
-------
Coastal Louisiana
Table 2a.—First-priority CWPPRA projects
Project number
BA-2
IN-D
XPO-52a
IN-O
TE-17, 18, ME-8
PMR-3
BA-19
TE-19
PPO-10
ME-9
TV-3
TE-20
BA-6
TE-17
AR-b
Total
Parish
Lafourche
Cameron
Orleans
Cameron
Terrebonne, Vermilion,
Cameron
Plaquemines
Jefferson
Terrebonne
St. Charles
Cameron
Vermilion
Terrebonne
Lafourche
Terrebonne <
Jefferson
Fully funded cost
(dollars)
8,142,000
502,000
1,105,000
4,844,000
848,000
8,517,000
1,625,000
1,254,000
4,327,000
1,111,000
1,523,000
6,345,000
4,538,000
6,109,000
4,427,000
55,217,000
Source: Boesch and others 1994; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District.
Table 2b.—Second-priority CWPPRA projects
Project number
PAT-2
ME-4, PME-21
PPO-52a
PC/S-27
BS-3a
PC/S-24
PBA-35
PTE-22/24
XAT-7
PC/S-25
PO-6
PT/V-18, T/V-9
C/S-9
PTE-27 .
PTE-15
Total
Parish
St. Mary
Vermilion
St. Bernard
Calcasieu
Plaquemines
Calcasieu
Jefferson
Terrebonne
St. Mary
Calcasieu
St. Tammany
Vermilion
Calcasieu
Terrebonne
Terrebonne
Fully funded cost
(dollars)
908,000
2,770,000
1,462,700
1,741,000
2,522,000
2,904,000
4,302,800
1,070,000
4,136,000
700,000
3,048,000
1,009,000
3,229,000
3,146,700
6,908,000
39,957,200
Source: Boesoh and others 1994; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District.
41
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Table 2c.—Third-priority CWPPRA projects
Project number Parish
Fully funded cost
(dollars)
XPO-71 St. Bernard 512,000
BA-4c Plaquemines 881,000
XMR-10 Plaquemines 808,000
TV-4 St. Mary 5,173,000
CS-4a Cameron 3,720,000
XBA-65a Jefferson 1,835,000
PMR-8/9a Plaquemines 2,858,000
XTE-67 Lafourche 2,047,000
XCS-47/48i/48j/48p Cameron 4,582,000
BS-4a Plaquemines 756,000
PTE-23/26a/33 Terrebonne 4,149,000
PTE-15W Terrebonne 4,844,000
PTE-26b Terrebonne 4,718,000
PO-9a St. Bernard 1,821,000
BA-15 St. Charles 1,445,000
PME-6 Vermilion/Cameron 126,000
XTE-43 Kaiser Aluminum, Gramercy 533,000
BS-5 Plaquemines 534,000
PTV-19 ' Vermilion 1,516,000
Total 42,858,000
Source: Boesch and others 1994; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District.
Table 3. — Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Restoration
Plan cost summary by basin
Basin
Pontchartrain
Breton Sound
Mississippi River Delta
Barataria
Terrebonne
Atchafalaya
Teche/Vermilion
Mermentau
Calcasleu/Sabine
Total
Area created, protected,
restored (acres) Area
16,900
5,200
85,900
23,100
32,300
8,500
4,800
9,900
24,800
211,400
benefited (acres) . Estimated cost (dollars)
36,500
9,600
89,200
51,200
106,400
16,500
9,800
20,900
91,800
431,900
132,738,000
11,367,000
452,630,000
114,658,000
309,809,000
19,388,000
34,039,000
72,929,000
136,460,000
1,284,018,000
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District.
Table 4. — Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Restoration
Plan project distribution by estimated cost
Estimated cost
(dollars)
0 < 100,000
100,000 < 1,000,000
1,000,000 < 5,000,000
5,000,000 < 20,000,000
20,000,000 <
Number of
projects
2
89
148
35
5
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District.
42
-------
Coastal Louisiana
INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
The construction of major levee systems along the
Mississippi River in the 1930s inaugurated a series
of landscape changes, many of which are still evi-
dent. By the 1950s, losses in marsh area were
apparent to hunters and fishermen, as well as to
some scientists and resource managers. By the
1980s, awareness and concern had become
widespread; today, the average Louisiana is much •
more aware of wetland issues than the average
American citizen, attuned to the problem by a
deeply rooted Acadian culture of hunting and fish-
ing in Coastal Louisiana.
Louisiana's Context for the Ecosystem
Approach
Although Louisiana citizens appreciate the obvious
benefits of navigation and flood controls on the
Mississippi, as stakeholders in Coastal Louisiana
they share an almost universal vision of restoring
damaged wetlands and finding a long-term solution
to the problem of the encroaching tide. Preserving
the coastal marshes of Louisiana is truly a grass-
roots effort.
The public support enjoyed by restoration efforts
represents a critical first step in the ecosystem
approach to managing Louisiana's coastal marshes.
Remaining controversies revolve around just how
the marshes can or should be restored. There is
widespread recognition that conservation and
restoration projects will necessarily be experimen-
tal in nature; managers are free to try various tech-
niques, using an adaptive style of environmental
management.
Adaptive management requires learning from the
past and refining management and restoration
efforts based on experience. Monitoring and eval-
uation of projects at appropriate intervals are
critical steps in this process, linking management
decisions to project results, in accordance with
adaptive management. However, several intervie-
wees expressed concern that the monitoring pro-
grams established for each project might not be
designed or carried out to effectively provide the
information necessary for evaluating project
success.
The CWPPRA Process
The Task Force follows procedures that are largely
determined by legislation. They provide for a great
deal of stakeholder input, and for implementation
of complex and costly restoration projects through
dedicated funds of sizable long-term amounts.
They also provide for long-term planning, and for
evaluating the effectiveness of projects after
implementation.
Task Force procedures were criticized for several
things, including:
• Overly lengthy deliberations. Too much
time and money are spent on meetings and
planning, according to some interviewees.
• Inadequate weighing of public input. Diffi-
culties are created by Federal Advisory
Committee Act requirements.
• The state's nonvoting status early in the
final project selection process.
• Inadequate consideration of landowner
issues early in the process.
• Poor record of implementation until recently.
What works in the CWPPRA process also seems
to make for problems. There is overall apprecia-
tion for the importance of long-term planning in
CWPPRA's mandate, but also frustration with the
complicated interagency deliberation process. The
legislative requirement that projects be imple-
mented under the CWPPRA within 6 months of the
Task Force's establishment also caused problems.
Designed to ensure swift action, this timeframe for
rapid project startup led many interested parties (in
the scientific community, for example, or among
landowners and environmental groups) to be left
out of early deliberations, and the actual Restora-
tion Plan was not fully developed until 2 years
later. These early missteps, however, seem to be
correcting themselves.
Despite the slow bureaucratic pace of the
CWPPRA process and the turf battles that are an
expected part of it, the CWPPRA enjoys virtually
43
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
universal acceptance as the right idea and a nec-
essary part of any real solution. Many inter-
viewees noted that individual agency interests
were being set aside specifically because of the
CWPPRA process, and that agency decision mak-
ers now felt more empowered to change course if
needed. Interviewees felt that procedural aspects
of the CWPPRA (such as decision making on a
majority basis rather than through unanimous con-
sent by Task Force members) were positive signs
that progress is being made.
A common restoration vision that enjoys
widespread grassroots support is a unique feature of
the CWPPRA process that may well assure its
long-term success. The rapid rate of marsh subsi-
dence and land loss and the corresponding sense of
crisis are key motivating factors in starting up a
large-scale ecosystem approach in Coastal
Louisiana.
Regulatory Agencies
Although federal funding of the massive projects
necessary in this kind of restoration effort was rec-
ognized as essential, interviewees expressed
resentment of federal agencies for regulating
resource use without a credible local presence.
Most complaints were about EPA for its failure to
maintain staff at even the state level, despite its
powerful influence on critical Clean Water Act
section 404 wetland dredge and fill permitting.
EPA's tendency to base its decisions on national
policies rather than on local conditions, coupled
with its lack of a field presence, created resent-
ment and hostility among many stakeholders.
However, EPA was congratulated for its sponsor-
ship of the Marsh Management Workshop and for
funding scientific investigations into innovative
management techniques. The overall mandate of
EPA to protect the environment as a whole (and
not just specific trustee components, such as fish
and wildlife or marine species) was considered
conducive to long-term ecosystem planning efforts.
The workshop attendance of high-level EPA man-
agement was regarded as a positive sign that EPA
was willing to listen to local concerns. But devel-
oping an EPA national policy on marsh manage-
ment was considered inappropriate.
Although the Corps holds a special place among
federal agencies in Louisiana, its interests are
perceived as too parochial. As Chair of the Task
Force, the Corps' District Engineer in New Orleans
is believed to hold a pivotal position in both
selecting projects and implementing virtually all
those selected by virtue of the Corps' permitting
authority. Actually, however, project implementa-
tion is the sole responsibility of the sponsoring fed-
eral agency. Interviewees expressed two major
frustrations: first, the short 2-year rotations of the
District Engineer necessitate continual reeduca-
tion; and second, the Corps has an inherent con-
flict of interest between exercising its national
mandates and allowing for local needs. The Corps,
interviewees complained, tends to give permitting
preference to actions associated with Corps-
approved or CWPPRA projects.
Some interviewees commented that the Natural .
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), because
of its long affiliation with local landowners, might
be a good federal agency for coordinating discus-
sion on CWPPRA mandates, goals, and ideas
between agencies and local stakeholders. Through
its local credibility and critical attention to local
needs, the NRCS may also be in a unique position
to take a leadership role in implementing jointly
developed plans, although the question of whether
the NRCS has the technical, administrative, or
policy experience to play an effective leadership
role was not discussed.
Trustee Agencies
The two major trustee federal agencies in Coastal
Louisiana are the Fish and Wildlife Service and
National Marine Fisheries Service. Both have a
substantial local presence and field staff, and both
therefore enjoy more credibility than the regulatory
agencies. One major criticism is that both agen-
cies purportedly favor measures to protect particu-
lar species under their jurisdictions.
Federal turf battles, although not as prevalent as
some had expected, still cost these agencies cred-
ibility. Several interviewees felt that the National
Marine Fisheries Service actually stood to benefit
from increases in open water and therefore acted to
thwart the CWPPRA process. The Fish and
Wildlife Service's handling of the black bear list-
ing under the Endangered Species Act angered
some interviewees: its announcement on critical
habitat was made without adequate prior
44
-------
Coastal Louis/ana
consultation with landowners, generating much
unnecessary fear and turmoil.
However, one federal agency representative saw
value in CWPPRA recognition of traditional
agency missions. Barring a major federal govern-
ment reorganization, maintaining traditional roles
could help to define centers of expertise, fostering
the esprit de corps necessary to retain valued em-
ployees, and developing the institutional knowl-
edge needed for long-term management. But it
was also pointed out that strong leadership in key
positions on ecosystem management task forces or
committees is essential to success, forcing com-
promise and consensus.
Federal Management Programs
The survey team solicited comments on three
large-scale federal management programs in
Coastal Louisiana: EPA's Gulf of Mexico Pro-
gram; the Coastal Zone Management Act; and the
Barataria/Terrebonne Estuary Program, part of the
EPA-funded National Estuary Program. Both EPA
programs received favorable review, and their
structures were often preferred to those of the
CWPPRA. The Gulf of Mexico Program was
praised for the following positive aspects:
• Citizens appointed by the state government
participate.
• All federal agencies are represented, located
in a single office.
• States feel that they can drive the process.
But the Gulf of Mexico Program was also criti-
cized for the following negative aspects:
• Mixing appropriations from various agencies
creates problems.
• Although $5 million in funds were needed,
only $3 million (including $2 million from
EPA) were secured.
• Federal agencies are not set up to deal with
ecosystems. There was a need to go to the
Office of Management and Budget with
regionwide appropriation plans.
• Variously scaled (nested) management
areas are difficult to assimilate into a single
plan.
Both the Barataria/Terrebonne National Estuary
Program and the Coastal Zone Management Act
were praised for their upfront involvement of the
public, for working out problems with the public,
and for their heavy involvement of state agencies
in the decision-making process. Decisions under
the National Estuary Program are made by consen-
sus, and the primary funding agency (EPA)
remains a nonvoting member of the Policy Com-
mittee, although EPA's Region 6 was described as
"having a hard time letting go" of the program. No
threat was seen of a veto of National Estuary Pro-
gram activities by EPA under Clean Water Act
section 404(c), although the opposite was true of
activities under the CWPPRA.
Both the National Estuary Program and the Gulf of
Mexico Program seem to coordinate successfully
with the CWPPRA because they have members
who are personally involved in the CWPPRA pro-
cess. Without these personal connections and
commitments, some said, institutions would not be
able to effectively coordinate activities.
Institutional Alternatives
Several suggestions were made for improving the
CWPPRA structure in accordance with goals of
the ecosystem approach. The CWPPRA's restora-
tion goals were perceived to be in potential con-
flict with the Corps goal of flood and navigational
control. Therefore, leadership of the CWPPRA
process by the Corps was seen as a potential con-
flict of interest, and a more neutral leadership was
called for. Alternatively, the Corps should accept
ownership of the CWPPRA plan and process.
But no specific examples of task forces with neu-
tral leadership were offered. Special commissions
(such as the W. Alton Jones Panel on scientific
issues pertaining to wetland loss, or the Jack Ward
Thomas Interagency Committee on strategies for
protecting the northern spotted owl) were widely
acknowledged for their invaluable service in
resolving interagency conflicts on scientific issues.
But these were not considered good examples of
commissions designed for planning and managing
ecosystems.
45
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
It was also suggested that architects of ecosystem
planning should have the perspective and training
of a planner, landscape ecologist, hydrologist, or
geographer, professions that provide the ability to
see the larger picture. Experts in these areas are
viewed as unencumbered by special interests.
Through its basinwide planning efforts, the
CWPPRA Task Force has made good progress
toward establishing a broader vision. Its chief dis-
advantage appears to be its perceived lack of
independence (by virtue of its domination by fed-
eral agencies). A nonvested leadership of restora-
tion efforts would be more effective.
One scientist whose involvement in marsh man-
agement issues spanned more than 40 years men-
tioned failure of institutional response as the rea-
son for the delay of more than 30 years in acting
on 1969 data showing dramatic wetland losses in
Louisiana. Institutional inaction could be over-
come, it was suggested, by uniting various agency
regulatory functions under a single agency (which
should not be the Corps).
One expert with international experience in marine
and coastal environmental management suggested
that keeping the CWPPRA Task Force involved in
all aspects of CWPPRA implementation was a
recipe for failure. He suggested a pyramidal struc-
ture for the ecosystem approach: planning should
involve the largest number of participants, with
fewer involved in project selection, fewer still in
implementation, and the smallest number in
implementation at the local level. This idea was
echoed by many survey participants.
Interviewees emphasized the need for a good
vision statement at the outset of the restoration
process (as exemplified by the CWPPRA), fol-
lowed by willingness to entrust responsibilities to a
single lead. Several examples were offered of
"ecosystem approach success stories" elsewhere in
the world, including two efforts in Australia, one to
develop a multiple-use zoning plan for the
2,000-mile Australian barrier reef, and the other to
devise a long-term (50- to 100-year) timber plan
for Australia's forests.
LEGAL ISSUES
The CWPPRA is the primary federal legal vehicle
for facilitating a broad-based approach to wetland
restoration in Coastal Louisiana. But despite the
interagency approach to restoration envisioned
under the CWPPRA, impediments to a purely
ecosystem approach remain. The primary obstacle
to the ecosystem approach appears to be the Fed-
eral Advisory Committee Act, although other
impediments were named as well in interviews
conducted by the survey team, including the
CWPPRA itself.
The CWPPRA
The CWPPRA process was criticized for several
reasons, including its narrow approach, lack of
continuous leadership, insufficient inclusion of
state and other interests, and planning constraints.
Project-driven approach. One complaint often
heard is that the CWPPRA is project-driven and
therefore fails to take an ecosystem approach to
coastal restoration. The CWPPRA requires the
Task Force to submit yearly priority lists that usu-
ally contain discrete restoration projects developed
by federal agencies, the state of Louisiana, or pri-
vate landowners. Several commentators identified
the need for a basinwide master plan to coordinate
all federal and state restoration projects within the
basin, including projects outside the CWPPRA
process. Other interviewees noted that CWPPRA
projects are often "bandaids" used to justify con-
tinued funding under the CWPPRA, even though
they will not solve the overall problem of coastal
deterioration in Louisiana.
Lack of continuous leadership. Under the
CWPPRA, the Corps' District Engineer in New
Orleans serves as Task Force Chair. Several inter-
viewees said that the primary problem with this is
lack of continuity. Because District Engineers
rotate every 2-3 years, the Task Force Chair must
be constantly reeducated. As a result, the role of
the Corps in the CWPPRA process is largely
defined by midlevel civilian Corps employees—
although interviewees did not characterize this as
either positive or negative.
Insufficient state representation. A complaint
often heard from state officials and the public was
that the state has no vote on the Task Force in
allocating funding—although by virtue of its cost-
share requirement, it exerts considerable influence
on the process. This provision was not written into
the CWPPRA by Congress, but rather mandated by
President Bush in his Statement on Signing the
46
-------
Coastal Louisiana
Bill on Wetland and Coastal Inland Waters Protec-
tion and Restoration (November 29, 1990), in
which he instructed the Task Force to "promulgate
its priorities list... 'by a majority of those Task
Force members who are present and voting,' and to
consider the state official to be a nonvoting mem-
ber of the Task Force for this purpose." The Presi-
dent justified this decision with the argument that
the funding decisions made by the Task Force are
"an exercise of significant authority that must be
undertaken by an officer of the United States,
appointed in accordance with the Appointments
Clause" of the United States Constitution,
Article II, §2, cl. 2.
Some state representatives also called for more
than one state representative on the Task Force.
However, legislation specifically enacting the
CWPPRA states that the Governor of Louisiana
shall serve as state representative on the
CWPPRA Task Force.
Insufficient representation of socioeconqmic
interests. A few commentators called for adding a
member to the Task Force to represent the socio-
economic interests of people affected by coastline
erosion and proposed restoration efforts. As one
interviewee noted, "People are a resource that
needs to be considered under the CWPPRA," just
as other resources (such as land, vegetation, and
wildlife) are considered.
Planning constraints. The authorizing legislation
enacting the CWPPRA contains built-in planning
constraints. Although these requirements have
facilitated communications and coordination, they
also affect the character ,of projects identified as
priority, their ultimate benefit in the grand scheme,
of coastal restoration, the time in which projects
must be identified and analyzed, and the level of
funding available for plan formulation and
development.
Some interviewees remarked that the most signifi-
cant constraints are deadlines for submitting prior-
ity project lists and the Restoration Plan, and limi-
tations on planning funds. The result is a domi-
nance of small projects in the Restoration Plan.
Under the CWPPRA, priority project lists must be
submitted to Congress no later than November 28
of each year for 5 years. Three such priority lists
have been submitted, containing 46 projects, and
the Restoration Plan was submitted on November
28, 1993. Funding for the preparation of plans is
not to exceed $5 million annually (although Task
Force members did not identify this as a problem).
Section 404 Regulatory Program
There were a number of complaints about the
Clean Water Act's section 404 program regulating
the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters
of the United States, Some complaints were
merely general criticisms of the regulatory pro-
gram, but others offered insight into potential bar-
riers to the ecosystem approach. Although only
2-3 percent of wetland loss in Coastal Louisiana is
due to fill, even this small percentage can be sig-
nificant, given the high rate of wetland loss.
Lack of timeliness and consistency. Many
commentators voiced the criticism that the section
404 regulatory permitting process takes too long,
and they stressed the need for federal agencies to
speak with one voice regarding permit applica-
tions. Under its section 404 authority, the Corps
affords other federal agencies (such as EPA, the
National Marine Fisheries Service, and Fish and
Wildlife Service) the opportunity to comment on
permit applications. Although the process of ensur-
ing adequate coordination with other federal agen-
cies takes time, it provides meaningful interagency
input into the decision-making process, allowing
the Corps to consider the effects of a permit appli-
cant's proposed activities on a wide variety of
resources. Critics of the program urged federal
agencies to submit comments on permit applica-
tions in a timely manner, and to work with the
applicant to help achieve permit objectives, rather
than "just saying no."
Mitigation sequencing. A local representative
called on the Corps and EPA to eliminate the
requirement for mitigation sequencing. Mitigation
sequencing is a national policy broadly embodied
in National Environmental Policy Act and in a
Memorandum of Agreement between the Army and
EPA on Clean Water Act section 404(b)(l) guide-
lines. The Memorandum provides that in reaching
permit decisions, the Corps and EPA must follow a
process of mitigation sequencing to determine
appropriate and practicable measures to offset
unavoidable impacts. This process entails a se-
quence of three requirements: (1) avoidance of
environmentally damaging actions if practicable in
terms of cost, existing technology, and logistics;
(2) minimization of adverse environmental im- ..
pacts that are unavoidable; and (3) compensation
47
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
for any remaining unavoidable adverse impacts
after all appropriate and practicable minimization
has been required. Stressing Louisiana's unique
nature, the parish representative noted that be-
cause wetlands are so widespread in Louisiana,
compensation is sometimes better than avoidance
because it does not unduly hinder development.
However, this view is not shared by all.
Double standard on permitting. Parish represen-
tatives and landowners charged that federal permit-
ting agencies are more amenable to restoration
projects sponsored by the state or other federal
agencies than to projects proposed by local gov-
ernments and private landowners. This perceived
double standard results in a smooth permitting pro-
cess for state and federal projects, whereas local
governments and landowners are unfairly con-
fronted with obstacles.
Delegation of permitting authority to the state.
The state of Louisiana (in particular the Louisiana
Department of Natural Resources) has expressed a
desire to assume authority for administering the
section 404 regulatory program. According to sev-
eral interviewees, the state is better able than fed-
eral agencies to address socioeconomic considera-
tions. EPA has provided grant assistance to the
state of Louisiana to explore the feasibility of a
state-run section 404 program, and the Louisiana
Department of Natural Resources has asked local
universities to study this issue. However, under
section 404(G) of the Clean Water Act, opportuni-
ties for the state to address socioeconomic consid-
erations in permitting actions would be limited to
nontidal wetlands (waters not influenced by tidal
actions). The state would therefore have little
influence on CWPPRA-related wetland permitting.
However, the state no longer wishes to assume
section 404 authority.
National Environmental Policy Act
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
42U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq., requires federal agencies
to consider the environmental effects of proposed
major federal actions. If the proposed action will
have a significant impact on the environment, the
federal agency must prepare an environmental
impact statement assessing that impact and
addressing alternatives. Under NEPA, the public
must be given sufficient time to comment on the
environmental impact statement.
In Coastal Louisiana, the Corps completed a pro-
grammatic environmental impact statement on the
Restoration Plan prior to its submission to Con-
gress. Most interviewees said they had sufficient
time to comment on the environmental impact
statement, and that they thought their comments
were given adequate consideration. As CWPPRA
projects are developed, the agency in charge of
each project may be required to prepare an
environmental assessment or an environmental
impact statement, depending on the project's envi-
ronmental impact. This requirement could delay
project completion, because both environmental
assessments and environmental impact statements
can be costly and time-consuming.
Federal Advisory Committee Act
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA),
5 U.S.C. App. 2, was identified .as the principal
federal legal obstacle to an ecosystem approach to
the restoration of Coastal Louisiana, primarily
because it limits opportunities for meaningful pub-
lic involvement and scientific input into the man-
agement and decision-making process. The FACA
imposes a number of requirements on committees
or similar groups established or utilized by the
President or by federal agencies for the purpose of
obtaining advice or recommendations (Public
Citizen v. United States Department of Justice, 491
U.S. 440 (1989)). In enacting FACA, Congress
hoped to "expose the advisory process to public
scrutiny and curb abuses of the advisory committee
process by public interest groups" (Center for Auto
Safety y. Federal Highway Administration, 1990
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13733 (1990)). A committee is
more likely to be characterized as an advisory
committee subject to FACA if it is established or
funded by the federal government, if the federal
government sets the agenda or appoints its mem-
bers, if it has members that are not federal em-
ployees, or if it gives advice or recommendations
about specific federal decisions.
Under FACA, an advisory committee must be
organized under a charter, balance its membership,
post notification of its meetings in the Federal
Register, hold open meetings, take minutes of
meetings, and (upon request) provide transcripts of
meetings (see 5 U.S.C. App. 2, §§ 5 and 9-10).
A Citizen Participation Group established by the
CWPPRA Task Force consists mainly of
48
-------
Coastal Louisiana
nonfederal interest groups. Designed to provide
recommendations to the Task Force (which
contains federal agencies), the Citizen Partici-
pation Group is subject to FACA requirements.
Therefore, it has languished, no longer used to
solicit ideas and recommendations, as originally
intended. Many interviewees deplored the ensuing
lack of public involvement in the CWPPRA pro-
cess and insisted that for the CWPPRA to work, it
needs the support of the people.
Louisiana's Sunshine Law could similarly hinder
the state's ability to solicit advice and recommen-
dations from the public.
Federal Programs That Encourage Urban
Development
Some federal programs contribute to urban sprawl
in Coastal Louisiana, to the detriment of wetland
preservation. The U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development provides assistance for low-
income housing mortgage insurance for homes.
The Veterans' Administration also provides mort-
gage insurance. The National Flood Insurance
Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4000 et seq., through the Na-
tional Flood Insurance Program, offers flood insur-
ance for private homeowners and other landowners
who develop lands in coastal areas (provided local
communities adopt land use and control measures
to minimize losses due to flooding).
These programs and others have encouraged urban
development in Coastal Louisiana. Following
floods, the federal government has then been
called upon to expend large sums of money on
disaster relief and to meet flood insurance claims.
Moreover, the public has appealed for expanded
federal hurricane protection to enclose former wet-
lands- converted to urban development.
One suggestion offered for alleviating problems
caused by urban development is to enforce Flood-
plain Management and Wetland Protection Execu-
tive Orders. These executive orders direct federal
agencies to avoid (to the extent possible) the
adverse effects of occupying and modifying flood-
plains and .wetlands. A second suggestion is to
deny federal subsidies to developments in flood-
plains and other wetland areas.
Federal Programs That Affect
Agricultural Development
Several federal tax incentives and USDA programs
have encouraged conversion of wetlands to crop-
lands in Coastal Louisiana. Under the Internal
Revenue Code, costs associated with wetland
alteration and development are tax deductible as
business expenditures. Programs sponsored by
USDA that contribute to wetland loss include dis-
aster payments for crop losses, low-interest loans
from the Fanners Home Administration, and price
supports for rice, soybeans, and other crops.
Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C.
§§ 1531 et seq., requires federal agencies to take
steps to protect species listed under the Act as
threatened or endangered, and to preserve their
habitats as: well. Recently, critical black bear
habitat in Coastal Louisiana was proposed for list-
ing. Local residents charged that the ESA process
failed to provide sufficient communication with the
public prior to listing, resulting in misperceptions
about the implications of the listing among farmers
and landowners in Louisiana. State officials sug-
gested that prior to any listing, the Department of
the Interior should meet with state and local repre-
sentatives to explain its ramifications and to say
who might be affected. If such meetings took
place prior to listing in the Federal Register, they
would serve to minimize possible misperceptions.
However, bear habitat does not appear to impede
the restoration effort in any way.
A second criticism of federal/ efforts to protect
endangered species arose in connection with
National Marine Fisheries Service measures to
protect sea turtles. A regulation finalized in
December 1992 requires shrimp trawlers to comply
with sea turtle conservation measures in all areas
throughout the year, including use of turtle
excluder devices or, in certain circumstances, lim-
ited tow times. Turtle excluder devices are
designed to prevent sea turtles from entering
shrimpers' trawl nets. One local representative
said that because there are no sea turtles off the
coast of Louisiana, these requirements should not
apply to Louisiana shrimpers, especially because
49
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
they are seriously damaging Louisiana's shrimping
industry. The representative offered this instance
to show that not all regulations should be codified
on a national level, and that agencies should be
flexible, delegating decision making to the lowest
levels.
Pipeline Safety
For safety reasons, federal law requires burial of
pipelines that lie offshore or cross navigable
waters. Under Tide 49 U.S.C. App. § 1672(h)(4),
the Secretary of Transportation is required to estab-
lish regulations requiring operators of offshore
pipeline facilities, and of any other pipeline facil-
ity posing a hazard to navigation or to public
safety because it crosses under, over, or through
navigable waters, to bury the pipelines at issue.
The deadline for compliance is 6 months after the
condition of the pipeline facility is reported to the
Secretary of Transportation, although the deadline
can be extended to ensure compliance. This law
was criticized for failing to take into account or to
provide a mechanism for assessing potential envi-
ronmental harm from burying pipelines.
State Law Issues
The major obstacle to CWPPRA projects is the
state land rights issue. Several CWPPRA projects
that are ready to be implemented are currently
being held up due to issues involving land rights
and public access. Private landowners say that
lands upon which CWPPRA projects are con-
structed with federal or state money would be
legally open to public access, and they object to
public access because of potential liability issues,
such as those stemming from injuries to the public
that might occur on these lands.
Another state land rights issue involves ownership
of lands built up by accretion. Many interviewees
noted that when land erodes, ownership of the
water bottom reverts to the state. But the reverse
is not the case, according to the state: when land
is subsequently built up as a result of a restoration
project, ownership remains with the state rather
than reverting back to the private landowner. Pri-
vate landowners dispute this rationale. Land rights
issues, including oyster leases, are currently being
addressed by the state as part of a major revision
of state policies and activities related to
restoration.
Oyster leases also pose a problem for restoration
projects on state and private land. When fresh
marshes erode and brackish water infiltrates the
marsh, the area becomes suitable oyster habitat.
The state and many private landowners have
leased such lands to oyster growers. But as the
marshes are restored, oyster leaseholders will lose
their livelihood and deserve to be compensated for
their loss, according to many interviewees. Some
pointed out, however, that oyster leases in the
more interior areas are often speculative, with lit-
tle expectation of profitable oyster harvesting.
Anticipation of profits from compensation, how-
ever, might be great.
Legal Alternatives
Interviewees had two main suggestions for improv-
ing the legal framework for future ecosystem
approach initiatives:
• Provide for a neutral entity to oversee the
restoration effort to ensure that ecosystem
concerns are taken into account when mak-
ing decisions on restoration projects.
• Amend FACA to ensure that the public can
play a meaningful role in the process of
deciding how the ecosystem that they live in
is managed.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The importance of continuous public involvement
beginning early in the restoration process was a
predominant theme of discussions with federal,
state, local, and nongovernment stakeholders in
Coastal Louisiana. Stakeholders also pointed to
the need for better coordination and communica-
tion among the federal agencies involved in the
CWPPRA as a prerequisite to good two-way com-
munication with the public.
Background
As lead Task Force agency, the Corps has overall
responsibility for public involvement, in coordina-
tion with other federal agencies and the state of
Louisiana. Many public involvement activities
have been carried out since passage of the
CWPPRA, including brainstorming sessions that
resulted in priority project lists of several hundred
50
-------
Coastal Louisiana
possible projects, and a series of public scoping,
basin planning, and Task Force meetings.
Although not required under the CWPPRA, a Citi-
zen Participation Group was convened to advise
the Task Force. The group comprised 16 members
representing landowners, industry, agriculture,
environmental groups, public advocacy groups, and
commercial and recreational fishermen. The Citi-
zen Participation Group received briefings on first-
priority list projects (table 2a) and on screening
methods for projects; the public also had the oppor-
tunity to review the draft project lists. After delib-
erating on the projects, the Citizen Participation
Group responded to the Task Force.
Although very active at first, the Citizen Participa-
tion Group has since become largely inactive, due
to conflicts with Federal Advisory Committee Act
requirements and other factors. Currently, it func-
tions as a stand-alone committee, without strong
links to the Task Force or federal agencies.
The Task Force has also established the Wetlands
Assessment Group, the Monitoring Group, and the
Research Committee. The first two groups consist
of one member from each Task Force agency. The
Research Committee was established under the
auspices of the Louisiana Universities Marine
Consortium, and contracts with the Corps to pro-
vide additional scientific input to the CWPPRA
process. The Committee is composed primarily of
academic scientists.
Active coalitions and organizations involved with
the CWPPRA include Save Our Wetlands, the
Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, and the
Coastal Parishes Coalition. The latter was founded
in 1992 by local governments, which felt out of the
loop and wanted to express their concerns to the
agencies in a concerted voice.
Beginning on January 11, 1991, about 30 public
meetings were held around the state to provide
input into the 3-year process of devising the Resto-
ration Plan. Other initiatives and programs, both
governmental and nongovernmental, have contribu-
ted to grassroots efforts in Coastal Louisiana. As a
result, there is a good deal of awareness of envi-
ronmental issues on the part of the average citizen.
Citizens are united behind the belief that the "no-
action alternative means we all lose." Although
such initiatives as the Gulf of Mexico Program and
the National Estuary Program have had little
funding, they have brought citizens together in
grassroots planning and futuring exercises.
Interviewee Comments
Some interviewees remarked that because the
CWPPRA "had come from the people," they had
expected the public to have more of a voice in the
process. The CWPPRA process is often perceived
to be run from the top down rather than from the
bottom up. According to many, no attempt was
made to develop an overall vision for each of the
nine basins before the Task Force went directly to
planning projects for the long-term Restoration
Plan. Partly due to the very short timefrarries for
developing priority project lists for each year,
many projects seem disjointed. Some also noted
that the CWPPRA is really designed for small
projects, not large-scale ones.
In some cases, projects with much lower priority
for the public were chosen for funding. According
to one interviewee, at the Houma public meeting,
people rejected the proposed project in favor of
other, much more critical ones. Many CWPPRA
projects do not seem to conform to state and local
goals, in spite of the project selection criterion that
a project "have public support." However, it was
pointed out that the Task Force has a legally man-
dated responsibility to select cost-effective pro-
jects; in some cases, projects with strong local
support may rank very low in terms of cost-
effectiveness.
The CWPPRA organization. Many interviewees
voiced frustration with the cumbersome CWPPRA
structure, and with the extra layer of bureaucracy
that has been added. Several complained that
there were too many places to go for project
approval, and that they knew of no single reposi-
tory of information or authority. By contrast, they
praised NOAA's Coastal Zone Management Pro-
gram for allowing the state to retain authority on
permitting and other matters.
Many interviewees complained of a lack of intera-
gency coordination: the different agency man-
dates, they said, can result in agencies working at
cross-purposes. This lack of coordination seems to
be a particular problem in the implementation and
monitoring phases. Little or no information gets
out to stakeholders and the public after the plan-
ning phase.
51
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Some interviewees noted the lack of a clear articu-
lation of federal procedure—they wanted to be told
upfront which agency they needed to work with.
According to some, the CWPPRA works to main-
tain the status quo: it avoids upsetting the mis-
sions of each agency, even when things would then
be done better. Others see a federal presence as
positive, providing the restoration process with the
power of federal law and the authority to arbitrate
among competing interests, to advance national
goals, and to curb any corrupt influences in the
State. Some federal interviewees said that the
public does not realize the enormity of the restora-
tion task, and that producing a Restoration Plan for
nine river basins was a considerable
accomplishment.
One interviewee suggested an alternative to the
current CWPPRA organization and process: all
stakeholders should get together at the very begin-
ning of the process, decide on a process, trim the
organization as work progresses to keep it from
growing cumbersome, and finally delegate the lead
on implementation to a small committee or a sin-
gle agency.
Human dimensions information. Issues and
values of primary public concern in restoration
efforts are usually those with human dimensions;
yet human dimensions information has been virtu-
ally absent from the decision-making process.
Social scientists and appropriate generalists (such
as geographers and landscape architects) were not
brought into CWPPRA science and technical work
groups, or into the Task Force. Public involvement
has focused on input into planning and process, not
on collecting human dimensions information from
the public. As a result, the environmental impact
statement for the Restoration Plan has not consid-
ered navigation issues, economic displacement,
and other critical factors in analyzing possible
alternatives. Government's failure to compensate
for land lost to the tax base has a substantial
impact on local communities. Failure to take this
impact into account greatly concerned some of the
parish representatives interviewed.
Federal agencies were called insensitive by some
for condemning, marsh management as a real tool,
without realizing the extent to which it is imbed-
ded in Coastal Louisiana culture. Landowners use
marsh management techniques to protect invest-
ments and limit risk, a human dimensions concern
that should be considered. In addition, the public
expects to have free access to lands where federal
dollars are spent on projects, such as lands of the
Louisiana Land and Exploration Corporation.
Agencies were suspected of aversion to the risk of
incorporating human dimensions information and
public opinion into what should be "application of
the best science available." Agencies, some
interviewees felt, suspected a hidden agenda on
the part of private industry, and were therefore
unresponsive to academics and private industry
representatives, despite the cutting-edge ideas they
might have to offer. Agencies were also charged
with relying too much on cost-benefit analysis in
the selection of projects, and with aversion to
using other valuation methods.
Some federal and nongovernmental organization
(NGO) interviewees said that scientists seemed
preoccupied with science and seemingly uncon-
cerned about human dimensions problems or
agency limitations. They raised questions about
what the appropriate science is for addressing
management issues.
Technology exists to save Coastal Louisiana, in
the opinion of some. But with 80 percent of
Coastal Louisiana in private hands, problems with
land title, private property rights, liability issues,
and other potential impediments to public accep-
tance of restoration measures should be resolved
before technology implementation can succeed.
Public education. The CWPPRA has had a
strong orientation toward project implementation,
with no funds authorized for public education.
According to one interviewee, the La Branch
project (the first completed under the CWPPRA)
has no interpretive materials for the public. One
interviewee said that public involvement has been
largely limited to inviting the public to project
dedication ceremonies.
According to many interviewees, community rela-
tions and public education efforts have not been
good. One interviewee observed that the percep-
tion on the street is that nothing has come of all
the CWPPRA dollars spent, and that federal agen-
cies are taking over what is largely a state respon-
sibility, usurping power from the citizens. Some in
the public reportedly believe that agencies like the
National Marine Fisheries Service would like to
see more wetlands lost to open water in order to
extend their jurisdiction.
52
-------
Coastal Louisiana
Several interviewees mentioned that there was lit-
tle or no public education prior to public meetings,
and that this made it difficult for the public to par-
ticipate in them. It seems that the concept of
tradeoffs has not been adequately explained to the
public: the policy of preventing net wetland loss
may have created the public expectation that
agencies can hold onto every existing acre of wet-
land. It should be explained that under the policy,
some wetlands will be lost, but that accretion in
other areas will make up for the loss. It is also
necessary to communicate such important con-
cepts as constant change and uncertainty. There is
no way to freeze current conditions, to predict with
great certainty even using very sophisticated com-
puter models, or to recreate exactly what people
remember as Coastal Louisiana.
The Marsh Management Workshop, held in mid-
August 1994, was cited by many interviewees as
an extremely productive meeting of private citi-
zens with state and federal representatives. People
were impressed that top EPA officials showed up
at the meeting, and that EPA seemed genuinely
interested in improving the situation in Coastal
Louisiana. The workshop seemed to change
somewhat the public perception that federal agen-
cies firmly oppose marsh management, a tech-
nique long used by landowners in Coastal
Louisiana. The National Estuary Program was also
praised by several interviewees for its outstanding
public education components.
Fairness. Public involvement efforts were criti-
cized by some local government and NGO inter-
viewees as inadequate and unfair. Others, special
interest groups that seemed to be key stakeholders
with the right contacts and experience in getting
information, expressed more satisfaction with the
public involvement process.
According to some, the public sees a double stan-
dard: federal agencies can get away with prac-
tices forbidden to state and private interests. For
example, according to one interviewee, the Corps
can get categorical exclusions for some of its pro-
jects, but landowners may have to wait years to
get their projects permitted.
Communication. Communication problems seem
to have plagued CWPPRA efforts from the begin-
ning, and there seems to be no overall plan for
communicating with the public. Some who had
wanted to attend Task Force meetings did not
know until the evening before where and when the
meetings would be. One major stakeholder said
that all her agency got was "a notice in the Fed-
eral Register."
A few interviewees observed that the public meet-
ings they attended were almost entirely informa-
tional (consisting of slide shows, presentations by
planners, and similar activities), with little time
for exchange of views. As for interagency commu-
nication, some interviewees said that the
CWPPRA has gotten some agencies together for
the first time, and that although there are prob-
lems, the agencies have made real headway in
working together. Purely state law issues were
brought up for the first time, as well.
Accountability. The problem of government fail-
ure to respond adequately to public concerns was
mentioned by a few interviewees. One asked
whether all the data gathered from the public dur-
ing the formation of the no-net-loss policy had
been forwarded to the new Clinton administration.
Others said that agencies seemed to disappear for
periods of time, failing to report back to the public
on how input was used in making a decision, or
even what the decision was. One interviewee
called for more followup efforts in communicating
with the public, and for better display of a partici-
patory attitude encouraging the public to "keep
working with us."
Access. Several interviewees mentioned the
inconvenience of meeting locations, saying that
they had to drive great distances to be meaning-
fully involved in Task Force or Citizen
Participation Group meetings. One interviewee
observed that attendance is a problem at regional
meetings, and that the only way to get to the pub-
lic is to go to locations where the public is present.
The CWPPRA agencies appear to have done a
good job of identifying and contacting stakehold-
ers. In some areas, however, the 30 public meet-
ings held during the restoration planning process
were insufficient, given the complexity of the
issues and the high level of interest on the part of
landowners. Public involvement efforts should be
resumed, and at a high level. Tribal rights might
become a bigger issue, particularly if the Depart-
ment of the Interior decides to officially recognize
the Houmas as an Indian tribe.
53
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Some interviewees, complaining of having to wade
through huge documents that they did not under-
stand, called for good summary documents. Scien-
tists, they said, "don't talk in plain English," and
sometimes appear arrogant at public meetings.
There is the added frustration of not having ex-
pected outcomes explained early enough in the
process, at least not in a way that average citizens
can understand.
Some scientists complained about being put off by
the agencies, which told them to "go away, we
haven't started monitoring yet." One scientist
complained about the narrow scope of feasibility
studies and the monitoring program, saying that
they should go beyond the project level to encom-
pass the entire basin or ecoregion. According to
some, scientists did not support the CWPPRA
because, in their opinion, many priority list proj-
ects that the public helped identify did not make
ecological sense.
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) was
mentioned repeatedly as a real obstacle to good
public involvement. After getting off to a good
start, the Citizen Participation Group had to be
abandoned because of FACA constraints; citizens
have come to the conclusion that it is no use com-
ing to meetings or trying to advise federal agen-
cies, because their input will not be used. Some
federal interviewees were equally frustrated, know-
ing that many public involvement activities (such
as charettes, Delphi techniques, regular meetings
with stakeholders, and others) run a real risk of
violating FACA.
Timeliness. Private property issues are particu-
larly hot in Louisiana. Several interviewees com-
plained that federal agencies failed to approach
landowners early in the process to get their opin-
ions or to obtain specific information, such as
where access to their holdings is needed for crude
oil extraction. According to many interviewees,
agencies tended to draw up their plans for projects,
then go to landowners for rubberstamping. One
interviewee said that if landowners had been
included earlier in the process, some of the infea-
sible projects would not have made the list.
Some complained that the process is too slow, and
that agencies are not responding quickly enough to
the loss of 25 square miles of coastline each year.
One interviewee said that "as we drive from the
Task Force meeting in New Orleans back to
Houma, we see the water lapping at the highway."
The "can-do" attitude and antiresearch bias of
some federal and state agencies were brought up
as real problems. Already treated with suspicion
by some government stakeholders, scientists were
brought in too late in the process, when frustration
was already high.
Leveling the playing field. Some interviewees
remarked that they did not have the background to
participate fully in the restoration process, and that
some kind of leveling was needed. They simply
felt overwhelmed by the "mega-agencies" and
their operations, and by the whole concept of the
ecosystem approach. The right people, they said,
were needed around the table to discuss one or two
issues—but not a hundred different issues. A few
interviewees said that "basin" or "watershed man-
agement" would be a much easier term for the
public to deal with than "ecosystem management."
Some interviewees said that the level of public
involvement was fine, but that corrective mecha-
nisms were needed to prevent recurring mistakes.
Some parishes and interests are very powerful and
well organized, they said, while others barely func-
tion. One key stakeholder noted that the public
can get involved if it wants to, although it takes
the patience to attend meetings and get informa-
tion, and also strong advocacy skills.
The NRCS was praised by many interviewees as a
federal agency that provides the correct balance of
exercising federal authority and promoting grass-
roots leadership. The Coastal Zone Management
Program was also praised for keeping power at the
state level through the establishment of a state
commission with permitting authority.
Public Participation Alternatives
Based on their comments and concerns, inter-
viewees offered the following suggestions for
improving public participation in the CWPPRA
process:
• Use facilitated negotiation and consensus-
building techniques to build upon current
efforts to develop visions for each basin and
to resolve conflicts among various interests.
54
-------
Coastal Louisiana
Provide a better mix of specialists on tech-
nical and science teams advising on the
CWPPRA. Include social scientists and
people who can see the big picture.
Continue and improve implementation of a
public involvement plan for the next phases
of the CWPPRA. Each project or basinwide
public involvement plan should conform to a
philosophical tier in a larger public involve-
ment plan (although implementation
specifics would vary widely), and should
complement other public involvement efforts
in Coastal Louisiana.
Recruit people capable of facilitating public
involvement and popularizing science. Pro-
vide agency personnel with training in how
to involve the public.
• Implement the monitoring plan for the over-
all process and for public involvement
efforts. Establish realistic indicators of suc-
cess, and use them to measure outcomes.
Use measurement results to correct any
problems with the process.
• Investigate the possibility of using public
involvement techniques that go beyond pub-
lic hearings and comment periods for envi-
ronmental impact statements. For example,
use the townhall approach and high-tech
tools where appropriate (such as radio, tele-
vision, satellite downlink, spatial imagery,
1-800 numbers, and Internet). Emphasize
getting out and talking to people (door-to-
door, or through surveys, booths at fairs, or
similar means).
• Resume public meetings and presentations
at local functions. Assemble divergent
views whenever possible so people can hear
alternatives. It is important to bring together
oil and gas industry workers, landowners,
oystermen, conservationists, representatives
from cultural and historical organization rep-
resentatives, and others in informal, non-
threatening settings with low-key agency
presence.
• Provide more technical assistance and
information to the public and to landowners,
utilizing existing programs where possible,
such as the Wetlands Reserve Program,
state coastal zone management programs,
the wetlands education program developed
by the state, and another marsh management
workshop.
• Add an education and outreach budget for
the next fiscal year. The Farm Bureau could
help in disseminating educational materials
to the public, and Louisiana State University
has a road show based on a report it pro-
duced (Van Heerden 1994). Environmental
education efforts should be conducted by
people who know Louisiana well. Provide
interpretive materials on completed
CWPPRA projects and projects-in-progress
so that people have more information about
what is going on.
• Coastal Louisiana is of nationwide and even
international concern. There is a need to
educate the national public and to facilitate
dialogue among stakeholders at the national
level—including those on Capitol Hill, the
National Association of Conservation Dis-
tricts, oil and gas associations, private prop-
erty rights groups, the National Audubon
Society, and others.
• Citizens have a good level of awareness and
are an important asset. Get a coastal
restoration campaign going in the schools
and among adults, and form partnerships
with corporations, tourism industry, schools,
landowners, and others.
• Locate federal offices in a single site to
improve communications among agency
personnel. Loosen up restrictions on borrow-
ing staff from other agencies.
SCIENCE AND INFORMATION
The role of science in defining problems, assessing
options, and designing solutions has been excep-
tionally prominent in Louisiana. Scientific data on
land loss, effectively presented, provided the
common focus that led to the CWPPRA. Ecologi-
cal restoration science and techniques will be
among the final determinants of CWPPRA suc-
cess. Scientific assessments have made several
key contributions to the CWPPRA process, and an
admirable commitment to short- and long-term
55
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
monitoring has been made. The public, too, ap-
pears well informed on the main scientific issues.
The prominence of science in the CWPPRA pro-
cess has led to close scrutiny of its role and to sub-
stantial debate surrounding it, among both scien-
tists and nonscientists. Debate is not about
whether the CWPPRA process uses (or should use)
science, but rather about how much, how well, and
specifically where it utilizes (or should utilize)
science and scientists. Among academicians,
agency scientists, and many others, our interviews
revealed intense interest and strong opinions about
the science that is (or should be) involved in
CWPPRA decisions. Opinions vary on the suffi-
ciency and certainty of the scientific basis for
some actions. Many respondents voiced the need
for more effective communication between scien-
tists and managers, more effective involvement of
independent scientists, and a need for research and
monitoring support to help evaluate restoration pro-
ject effectiveness.
The survey team attempted to determine prevailing
opinions on the role of science, scientific quality
and gaps in the science base, and the effectiveness
of information management and flow. We used
interviews as our main source of information, and
although we briefly reviewed several of the better-
known scientific reports and assessments, we did
not conduct a comprehensive literature review.
Findings are summarized below under six head-
ings: the state of scientific understanding; assess-
ments; the role of science in decision making;
monitoring; the state of information systems; and
how to improve science and information
management.
State of the Science
Opinions on the status of scientific understanding
varied widely, often aligning to some degree with
the profession of the respondent. For example,
many nonscientists appeared to be disinterested in
research, considering it unnecessary because there
was sufficient scientific basis for action. For their
part, some academic scientists deplored a per-
ceived reluctance to fund research that would
answer basic, still-unresolved questions. The bulk
of our interviews seemed to indicate that there is
enough understanding of the ecosystem's processes
and problems, as well as their causes and potential
solutions, to proceed with an adaptive manage-
ment approach that accepts the need for midcourse
corrections. Despite many pleas for research
addressing key gaps in understanding, no one sug-
gested delaying action until we have "enough"
science. The "no-action" alternative is clearly
inappropriate.
Under closer scrutiny, some uncertainty does
appear in many areas, including ecosystem com-
ponents and processes, ecosystem problems, possi-
ble causes of the problems, and restoration options.
Ecosystem components and processes. Some
components and processes of the ecosystem are
better understood than others. The basic ecosys-
tem characteristics and functions, including delta
dynamics and salt, brackish, and fresh tidal marsh
extent, patterns, and functions, are well understood
overall. Individual basins, however, were cited as
unique by some scientists, who argued that ecolog-
ical processes and predicted impacts in one basin
may not translate effectively to another. For
example, the degree to which different wetland
types require mineral sediment accretion and
organic soil formation, and in what proportion, is
not entirely resolved.
Ecosystem problems. Land loss is well docu-
mented, although studies of land loss rates by the
Corps and Fish and Wildlife Service arrived at dif-
ferent conclusions (25 and 35 square miles per
year, respectively). However, all agree on the
land loss trend. Wetland alteration, mainly con-
sisting of saltwater intrusion and attendant shifts in
vegetational composition in formerly fresh
marshes, is not well documented qualitatively or
quantitatively, partly because this impact is not as
amenable to rapid assessment through remote sens-
ing techniques (as is land loss). The dynamics of
fresh and brackish vegetation communities under
shifting salinity regimes and competition are not
entirely understood.
Causes of ecosystem problems. The most promi-
nent problems (land loss and wetland hydrol-
ogy/salinity alteration) are largely due to multiple
causes. Causes are well known, but relative con-
tributions to the total effect are somewhat uncer-
tain. There is strong evidence that the loss prob-
lem is linked much more to subsidence without
sediment replenishment than to erosion, filling, or
draining. Oil and gas withdrawal may increase
subsidence rates near shallow oil and gas fields,
but there is some debate as to whether the effects
are far reaching. Sea level rise relative to
56
-------
Coastal Louisiana
subsidence could be a significant factor if
episodic, but this is untested. Delta and channel
characteristics have a major influence on sediment
availability and fate. Levees physically prevent
overbank flooding that might replenish sediments
in many areas. The Mississippi delta is a birdfoot
type, with deep channels prone to shunting sedi-
- ment loads directly into the gulf instead of deposit-
ing them across a broad fan. Curtailment of
riverine sediment supply to the wetlands presents
the dominant long-range threat to their survival.
There appears to be a growing consensus that
reestablishing flow and sediment distribution by
the Mississippi River delta channels must be a
major part of the solution.
Restoration options. Predicting the results of
specific restoration techniques appears less well
understood and deserves more study. This is par-
ticularly critical to a successful ecosystem
approach in Louisiana: among the seven survey
sites discussed in this volume, the Louisiana coast
is uniquely dependent upon successful ecological
restoration rather than protection and management.
In this and other areas of some uncertainty, gaps in
understanding are for the most part already identi-
fied and can be addressed through specific, well-
focused research projects.
Valuatio'n of the different components and func-
tions of an ecosystem is often difficult, and there is
little consensus on methods. Values related to
ecological sustainability are poorly represented in
traditional economic analysis methods. Quantify-
ing wetland values was seen as particularly chal-
lenging. The Task Force uses the Wetland Values
Assessment to evaluate CWPPRA proposals and
projects in terms of average annual habitat units
created. However, Boesch and others (1994) found
the Wetland Values Assessment to be a very
restricted assessment method that discounts many
wetland attributes and functions beyond fish and
wildlife habitat. In general, more comprehensive
valuation methods (including consideration of eco-
nomic and social concerns) are needed to fully
represent the Louisiana coastal ecosystem in order
to improve the CWPPRA process and, in particu-
lar, to ensure that its project priority-setting sup-
ports a long-term, sustainable vision for the
Louisiana coastal ecosystem.
Finally, the restoration planning process could be
improved by gaining consensus on a set of indica-
tors of ecosystem health. The immediacy of
wetland loss has so dominated the CWPPRA'
process that reducing marshland loss rates appears
to be the only indicator of success—perhaps
justifiably so, for now. However, other potentially
appropriate indicators could include demographic
trends, sustainable resource harvests, economic
measures reflecting recreational use, various
physical, biological, and chemical measures of
health in the river and gulf, and other diverse but
highly relevant aspects of Louisiana coastal
ecology and culture. Whether under the CWPPRA
or a broader effort to implement the ecosystem
approach, a more comprehensive suite of
indicators could help define and guide the overall
vision of the future Louisiana coastal ecosystem.
Assessments
The term "assessment" is subject to different
interpretations; we considered an assessment any
study of broad scope that translates scientific
information into policy-relevant findings and
actions. At least three different types of assess-
ments have played very important roles in
Louisiana. The earliest and most important
assessments documented coastal land loss rates,
inspiring decisive action in the form of the
CWPPRA. A second type of assessment includes •
the several restoration planning and feasibility
studies that assess and help assign priority to dif-
ferent management options. A third type of
assessment used in Louisiana examines the envi-
ronmental management process, evaluating its sci-
entific soundness and results.
Several assessments and planning studies have
been completed. The 1993 Restoration Plan
developed by the Task Force under the CWPPRA
provides a basis for all restoration projects funded
by the CWPPRA. The "Scientific Assessment of
Coastal Wetland Loss, Restoration, and Manage-
ment in Louisiana" (Boesch and others 1994) was
sponsored by private foundation funding and
compiled by a panel of environmental scientists
experienced in studying the Louisiana coast, but
without active involvement in the research or
management activities underway in Louisiana. A
primary purpose of this assessment, published as a
special issue of the "Journal of Coastal Research,"
was to review and evaluate the Restoration Plan
and its related monitoring strategy. Many more
specific assessments have been completed, such
as the Atchafalaya Feasibility Study and the Mis-
sissippi River Gulf Outlet Bank Evaluation Study.
57
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
The CWPPRA Task Force also assesses individual
restoration proposals for priority ranking. The Gov-
ernor's Office (1994) has very recently issued an
economic and environmental blueprint for Coastal
Louisiana. This document may provide the broader
vision many interviewees described as insufficient
in the CWPPRA process, but it appeared to be too
new for many interviewees to express their opin-
ions on it.
The Boesch assessment, as an independent, scien-
tific review, contains several important insights on
where improvements can be made to the Restora-
tion Plan. One of this assessment's most valuable
contributions was to issue an unbiased, expert
judgment on scientific areas where consensus pre-
vailed and on those where uncertainty was signifi-
cant. Based on its evaluation, the independent
assessment panel offered many suggestions. The
assessment indicates that the Restoration Plan,
and the CWPPRA in general, are oriented toward
local and basinwide scales, and need a stronger,
clearer vision of overall ecosystem health to drive
individual project decisions and priorities. Many
scientists, both agency and private, echoed this
opinion in our interviews.
Role of Science in Decision Making
Scientific data have been very influential in many
management actions concerning the Louisiana
coast. But the importance of science in decision
making over the lifetime of the CWPPRA has
received mixed reviews. Competition between
government and nongovernment scientists seems
evident, with nonfederal scientists pointing to the
continued need for a CWPPRA mechanism to
engage the independent scientific community in a
comprehensive way.
Many scientists expressed dissatisfaction with the
current level of influence that scientific informa-
tion has on the CWPPRA process. They cited, for
example, limited peer review opportunities, defi-
ciencies in the role of scientists in project priority
ranking, inadequate monitoring protocols, and the
absence of a unifying, scientifically based vision
for a sustainable coastal ecosystem and its man-
agement. Some renowned wetland scientists were
reportedly alienated by the GWPPRA due to the
absence of opportunities for meaningful involve-
ment. Others, however, pointed with pride of
accomplishment to the influence of academic
scientists on early CWPPRA decisions and
activities. This suggests, at least in part, that the
role of scientists with different affiliations in the
CWPPRA process, as well as the role of scientific
information itself, are both somewhat controversial.
It appears that better collaboration among agency
scientists, academic scientists, and consultants
could address both problems, fully exploiting the
range of possible contributions from the scientific
community at large.
Monitoring
Monitoring is widely recognized as an integral part
of identifying the Louisiana coastal ecosystem's
problems and planning, and of tracking the ecosys-
tem's restoration. Retrospective monitoring of
time series of historical aerial photographs and
land loss rate calculations using geographic infor-
mation systems were instrumental in the passage
and funding of the CWPPRA. The CWPPRA now
requires monitoring on a site-specific scale as part
of each restoration project, with about 5-7 percent
of the project budget devoted to this requirement.
Many managers and scientists, and the law itself,
support the idea that monitoring the Louisiana
coastal ecosystem should be a commitment with a
timeframe of decades to be effective.
Despite consensus on the necessity of monitoring,
there are differences of opinion on how monitoring
should be carried out. Although most scientists
agreed that project-specific monitoring is appropri-
ate, some indicated the need for a coastwide
monitoring design to track and guide system
recovery on a broader scale. However, costs of
such a monitoring approach, it was pointed out,
would likely be considerable. Opportunities for
cost-effective collaboration on large-scale monitor-
ing may be possible if existing federal monitoring
programs, such as the USDA's National Resources
Inventory, NOAA's Coastal Change Analysis Pro-
gram, or EPA's Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program, will cooperate with the
CWPPRA Task Force and the state.
It was clear that federal and state agencies pre-
dominate in carrying out monitoring under the
CWPPRA. Although centralized design and over-
sight is appropriate, the CWPPRA may not be
using university programs and volunteer citizens'
monitoring potential to full advantage. The major
concerns have been quality control and
58
-------
Coastal Louisiana
maintaining consistency arid institutional memory
over the 20-year time- frame of CWPPRA's moni-
toring plans. Although these are valid concerns,
they are not insurmountable. Simple monitoring
protocols, training, and quality assurance audits
may be sufficient to enable the development of a
useful volunteer monitoring component. Through
negotiations with academic institutions, long-term
agreements can be designed that will not only
foster supervised involvement of graduates and
undergraduates in the monitoring process, but also
train a generation of monitoring professionals
capable of staffing agencies and organizations
involved in implementing the CWPPRA.
Whether on site-specific, basinwide, or coastwide
scales, monitoring is crucial to adaptive manage-
ment's ability to make midcourse corrections. The
most valuable monitoring is clearly and explicitly
linked to the primary objectives of the overall
management effort, as well as to that of the project
at hand. For example, one of the most important
needs for CWPPRA monitoring is to closely track
the rates of marshland accretion attributable to
each restoration technique. Several interviewees
called for improving the CWPPRA process through
clearer expression of its overall objectives, and
through strengthening the monitoring component
and its linkage to these objectives. For example,
marsh management practices differ, depending on
management or use objectives for the habitat:
managing wetlands for waterfowl may be very dif-
ferent than managing wetlands for other purposes,
such as maximum biodiversity.
Information Systems
Information management and data base issues
appear to be secondary to science issues. How-
ever, to the extent that information transfer, data
sharing, and communications are also information
management issues, they are critical to the
CWPPRA's success and show room for
improvement.
Although there are many types of data bases and
data management systems, the nature of the
Louisiana coast's problem is uniquely suited to
spatial data bases, and specifically geographic
information systems. Remote sensing and geo-
graphic-information-system-based techniques for
measuring land loss and change have been criti-
cally important in documenting the magnitude and
rate of coastal land loss. Projections of possible
coastal scenarios are effectively developed and
communicated to a broad audience through geo-
graphic information systems. Spatial data bases
are appropriate for tracking the multiple project
sites of the CWPPRA, individually and collec-
tively. Measuring and documenting land restora-
tion will continue to involve remote sensing and
use of geographic information systems during the
recovery process. Geographic information systems,
however, remain data-limited and do not serve all
purposes equally well; for example, the salinity
gradients that are important to fresh and brackish
marsh restoration have not yet been represented
well using geographic information systems.
The most outstanding geographic information sys-
tem data holdings, hardware capacity, and exper-
tise are in four locations: the National Biological
Service's Southern Science Center in Lafayette,
Louisiana; the Louisiana Department of Natural
Resources in Baton Rouge; Louisiana State Uni-
versity; and the Corps' New Orleans District
Office. Many other participants have smaller sys-
tems, but the proliferation of geographic informa-
tion system technology can be expected to involve
more and more stakeholders in the development
and exchange of geographic information system
data on .the coastal zone.
There is typically room for improvement in techni-
cal information transfer in any large science-based
program. The public and interested managers who
are not scientists are often isolated from key scien-
tific information, either through the complexity of
information systems design or the absence of trans-
lations into common English. There is consider-
able interest in scientific information concerning
the Louisiana coastal ecosystem, and a premium
should be placed on developing user-friendly mod-
ules for the CWPPRA's major data centers. Effec-
tive public information access can be achieved
through hotlines, computer bulletin boards,
newsletters, videos, and PC-based interactive pro-
grams. The benefits may be measured in terms of
grassroots support and easier communications
between managers and scientists concerning key
CWPPRA decisions.
59
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Science and Information Alternatives
Interviewees had the following suggestions for
improving science and information to facilitate the
CWPPRA process:
• Establish appropriate priorities. Ecological
restoration technology, together with moni-
toring to closely track and evaluate each
project's success, constitute the CWPPRA's
greatest scientific needs. New research
should focus on developing and/or testing
new and proposed restoration techniques,
and on verifying with certainty the effec-
tiveness of existing techniques. The highest
priority for monitoring should be verifying as
quickly as possible whether CWPPRA proj-
ects are achieving the expected degree of
success.
• Improve communications. Science and
communications issues are closely linked in
Coastal Louisiana. Even if science and
technology are adequate, problems with
communications may seriously limit
CWPPRA success. The Task Force should
convene a multidisciplinary working group
to review all issues concerning the involve-
ment and role of the scientific community in
the CWPPRA process and to develop an
appropriate coordination strategy.
• Keep the big picture in view. The process
that links identification of an ecosystem's
environmental problems and management
objectives with the actions eventually taken
is weakened when action taken at each step
does not clearly relate back to a common
vision. In Louisiana, many interviewees
pointed out the need for a better unifying
sense of purpose, or "the big picture," to
which all activities would ideally relate.
• Coastal Louisiana's cooperators should first
determine what the perceived absence of a
common vision means: should the planning
and implementation process itself be
improved, or is it communications about the
process that needs improvement? If the pro-
cess itself is flawed, cooperators should
concentrate on developing feedback loops to
assure that all activities and projects remain
relevant to the common vision for the
Louisiana coast. If communications need
improvement, then interactions of scientists
with landowners, managers, and the public
should be fostered to build understanding
and acceptance of a common vision.
• Improve interagency coordination. Many
interviewees recommended improving the
consistency of federal activities and poli-
cies. Cohesive coordination among agency
scientists and managers should be sought as
a primary component of the federal role in
the ecosystem approach.
• Fund critical research. Focused research
that will answer critically important ques-
tions should be funded. Policy-relevant
research with a clear relationship to achiev-
ing CWPPRA objectives must earn broader
acceptance as a necessary component of the
process.
• Develop new options. New options for
marshland restoration and creation should be
studied and carefully evaluated. For exam-
ple, an ecological risk assessment should be
conducted to evaluate the potential for using
the "red mud" byproduct of aluminum ex-
traction as a marsh substrate. Also, use of
dredged material as marsh substrate and its
transport through pipeline networks merit fur-
ther investigation, as do new structural de-
signs to help minimize impacts of marsh
management on estuarine fish and shellfish.
Evaluate marsh management techniques.
Marsh management, as a general type of
restoration-related activity, is controversial.
To the extent possible, individual marsh
management procedures (and not marsh
management as a whole) should be scientif-
ically evaluated to resolve debates about
what works, and where. Open dialogue
should continue among agencies and all par-
ties potentially affected.
Use universities in monitoring. Long-term
monitoring over more than 20 years presents
special difficulties in working with universi-
ties, because of high student turnover. How-
ever, the economic and academic benefits
of university involvement in monitoring can
be significant. A plan for a university role in
consistent, long-term monitoring, in confor-
mity with CWPPRA and graduate program
60
-------
Coastal Louisiana
requirements, should be developed jointly by
agencies and a consortium of local
universities.
• Explore the possibility of coastwide monitor-
ing. Despite agreement on the need for
monitoring, wide differences of opinion per-
sist on its purpose and design, and espe-
cially on whether it should be coastwide
rather than specific to the project site. Site-
specific monitoring appears needed in any
case; the potential costs and design compo-
nents of coastwide monitoring should be
investigated. Existing federal monitoring
programs, such as the EPA Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program's gulf
coast component, should be asked to assist
in this investigation.
• Develop volunteer monitoring. Because
access to remote sites for monitoring can be
difficult and costly, a premium should be
placed on volunteer monitoring. Appropriate
monitoring activities for volunteers should
be identified in the Louisiana coastal
ecosystem, supplemented by training and an
active quality assurance audit program.
Local public information programs should
then be developed to disseminate results.
• Translate scientific information into lay
terms. There is little incentive for scientists
to translate scientific information into lay
terms, yet public understanding is crucial to
the implementation of scientific findings.
The CWPPRA should fund an information
transfer network to perform this function. A
centralized group should work through and
with local educators and community leaders
to accomplish this objective.
OBSERVATIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
After careful deliberation on the results of its study
on the ecosystem approach activities in Coastal
Louisiana, the survey team has chosen the follow-
ing as its most important observations and recom-
mendations. Some pertain specifically to the
CWPPRA, but many draw from what was learned
in Louisiana to address the ecosystem approach in
general.
Program Support
1. Continue the CWPPRA process and
implementation of the Restoration Plan.
Despite imperfections, the CWPPRA is
working, providing a positive model of
restoration-based efforts to implement an
ecosystem approach to management. The
strength of the CWPPRA plan lies in its
budgeting for 20 years of monitoring, an
integral part of each restoration project.
This information should be enough to give
the state of Louisiana and the CWPPRA
Task Force the opportunity, through adap-
tive management, to make necessary
adjustments to methodology and planning
to ensure success of continuing restoration
work.
2. Sound monitoring science is critically
important for adaptive management and for
making the right ecosystem approach
decisions. Louisiana's monitoring program
needs to be very carefully tailored to reveal
the best restoration procedures, evaluate
progress, answer key management ques-
tions, and be responsive to coastal restora-
: tion timeframe requirements. To best
address these needs, decision makers and
environmental managers should work as
closely as possible with experts from all
parts of the scientific community (including
federal and state scientists, academics,
consultants, industry scientists, NGO
researchers, and others) in monitoring
design, execution, and revision.
3. Ecological restoration technology, paired
with monitoring to closely track and evalu-
ate each project's success, together consti-
tute CWPPRA's greatest scientific needs.
The highest priority for new research
appears to be developing and/or testing of
new and proposed restoration techniques
and verification of the effectiveness of all
existing techniques. The highest priority for
monitoring should be to verify as quickly as
possible whether every CWPPRA project is
achieving the expected degree of success,
and to facilitate modification of method-
ologies and plans based on monitoring
information.
61
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Establishing a Common Vision
4. In order to effectively plan and develop
future ecosystem approach initiatives, the
CWPPRA experience suggests that future
ecosystem management efforts might benefit
from establishment of an independent Task
Force or Committee to act as "ecosystem
approach architects." Members should be
able to visualize large-scale solutions and
see the big picture. Social scientists should
be included, along with planners, landscape
ecologists, hydrologists, or geographers.
The leadership of this group should be
selected to ensure neutrality, and member-
ship should be from a nonvested commu-
nity. It would be helpful for the group to be
appointed under separate authority, and
with special legal protections. One way of
handling decision making across multiple
jurisdictions is to establish an independent
authority, like the one used to build the
subway system for the Washington, DC,
metropolitan area (costing more than
$5 billion).
5. Although it does not contain all of the desired
elements, the CWPPRA Task Force has suc-
ceeded in developing a common vision
through its basinwide planning efforts.
6. The process that links identification of an
ecosystem's environmental problems and
management objectives with the actions
eventually taken is weakened when action
taken at each step does not clearly relate
back to a common vision. In Louisiana,
many interviewees pointed to the need for a
better unifying sense of purpose (or "big
picture") to which all activities would ide-
ally relate. Coastal Louisiana's cooperators
should periodically revisit their commonly
held vision to determine if their actions
conform to this vision, to make sure that
the vision remains acceptable to the public,
and to determine if improvements are
needed to public communications. If the
process needs improvement, cooperators
should concentrate on instating feedback
loops to assure all activities' and projects'
relevance to the common vision for the
Louisiana coast. The consensus process
established in the Delta Initiative was
recommended as an appropriate mechanism
for addressing "big picture" concerns.
7. With respect to communications, the interac-
tion of scientists with landowners, managers,
and the public should be fostered as the key
to establishing understanding and accep-
tance of a common vision.
8. Use facilitated negotiation and consensus-
' building techniques to establish a common
vision for the ecosystem in full, rather than
basin by basin, and to resolve conflicts
among various interests.
Public Information and Involvement
9. Amend FACA to ensure that the public can
play a meaningful role in the process of
deciding how the ecosystem in which they
live is managed. Public representatives
should have equal standing with other part-
ners in the early stages of developing the
vision and plan under the ecosystem ap-
proach. This role should be more than
merely advisory.
10. Bring in a team to work with agency officials
to prepare and implement a public involve-
ment plan for the next phases of the
CWPPRA. Each project or basinwide pub-
lic involvement plan should conform to a
tier in a larger public involvement plan
(although implementation specifics would
vary widely), and should complement other
public involvement efforts in Coastal
Louisiana. Monitoring of the overall
process and of public involvement efforts
should be required. Realistic indicators of
success should be established and progress
measured against them, with results used to
correct any problems in the process.
11. Recruit people who are skilled at involving
the public and can popularize science. Pro-
vide training in public involvement tech-
niques for agency personnel.
12. Investigate the possibility of using other pub-
lic involvement techniques besides public
hearings and comment periods on environ-
mental impact statements. The town hall
approach can be used, with high-tech tools
62
-------
Coastal Louisiana
where appropriate (such as radio, televi-
sion, satellite downlink, spatial imagery,
1-800 numbers, and Internet). Getting out
and talking with people should be empha-
sized, through door-to-door campaigns, sur-
veys, booths at fairs, and other techniques.
Public meetings should be resumed, along
with presentations at local functions.
Whenever possible, divergent views should
be presented so people can hear what oth-
ers have to say. It is important to bring
together landowners, oystermen, conserva-
tionists, oil and gas industry workers, repre-
sentatives of cultural and historical, organi-
zations, and others in informal, nonthreat-
ening settings with a low-key agency
presence.
13. Add an education and outreach budget to the
CWPPRA process for the next fiscal year.
The Farm Bureau could help in disseminat-
ing educational materials to the public, and
Louisiana State University has a road show
based on a report it produced (Van Heerden
1994). Environmental education efforts
should be conducted by people who know
Louisiana well. Interpretive materials on
completed CWPPRA projects and on pro-
jects underway should be provided so that
people have more information about what is
going on. In addition, there is a need to
educate and to facilitate dialogue among
stakeholders at the national level—includ-
ing those on Capitol Hill, the National
Association of Conservation Districts, oil
and gas associations, private property rights
groups, the National Audubon Society, and
others.
Interagency Coordination
14. Experience in the CWPPRA process, as well
as examples of large-scale planning else-
where, indicate that a pyramidal structure
may be a successful organizational model for
the ecosystem approach. Under this struc-
ture, the greatest number are involved in
establishing the vision and in planning
(including many federal agencies), fewer
are involved in project selection (perhaps
state, local, and federal permitting agen-
cies), and the fewest are involved at the
lowest levels or implementation stages.
This structure requires sharing a common
vision among all stakeholders and entrust-
ing to others implementation of the vision.
15. Collocate federal offices to improve commu-
nications among agency personnel active in
the region. It is recommended that all key
federal agencies involved in major ecosys-
tem approach initiatives maintain at least
one staff member at the local level, prefer-
ably located in an interagency office of all
federal agency staff.
16. Experience in Coastal Louisiana has shown
that early involvement of all stakeholders in
the ecosystem planning process—especially
before options are identified—defuses much
suspicion, frustration, and anger, particu-
larly on the pan of landowners and the pub-
lic. Future efforts should not only involve
all stakeholders early in the management
process, but also ensure that they have
opportunities to participate on an equal
footing in the planning stage, and are for-
mally included in approval of the plan and
development of the vision.
17. Science and communications issues are
closely linked in Coastal Louisiana. Even if
science and technology are adequate, poor
communication may seriously limit
CWPPRA success. The Task Force should
continue its established Academic Assis-
tance Subcommittee and its agreement
through the Louisiana Universities Marine
Consortium to assure involvement and
assistance of the scientific community.
63
-------
-------
Chapter 4: GREAT LAKES BASIN
The Great Lakes basin is one of seven ecosystems
identified by the Interagency Ecosystem Manage-
ment Task Force for study of activities to imple-
ment the ecosystem approach. The Great Lakes
ecosystem is an excellent choice, partly because it
comprises an enormous geographic area, encom-
passing subsystems on multiple scales—basinwide,
lakewide, and local. The multiple scales and the
numerous problems on the Great Lakes have gen-
erated interest on multiple levels—from govern-
ments, institutions, and citizens. Perhaps most
importantly, the Great Lakes community has been
promoting an ecosystem approach to managing
environmental problems at multiple scales since
the 1970s, when the United States and Canada
signed the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
governing Great Lakes protection and restoration
activities. This agreement serves as a model for
other efforts to implement the ecosystem approach.
An interagency survey team appointed by the
Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force
performed this study, based on several information
sources: interviews conducted in Chicago, Illinois,
and Ann Arbor, Michigan; telephone interviews;
and written materials provided by federal and state
officials, and by representatives of tribal organiza-
tions, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs),
academia, industry, and the International Joint
Commission. This study reflects what survey par-
ticipants said, or what was stated in materials pro-
vided by them. It does not reflect the views or
legal position of the team, except where explicitly
stated.
Most participants in this case study emphasized
that their idea of the ecosystem approach is based
on a place-based approach. It focuses on problems
locally—where people have pride of ownership of
their ecosystem—and is built on public participa-
tion. Interviewees stressed the need for a bottom-
up approach to ecosystem management: they want
guidance and support from the federal government,
not direction. Specifically, what they want from
the federal government is sustained commitment,
technical assistance, smooth interagency coordina-
tion, and policies that are consistent with local
goals.
BACKGROUND
Although a good ecosystem approach is based on a
bottom-up approach, early efforts were facilitated
at high levels. One forum for basinwide discussion
was already established under the International
Joint Commission, established by the Boundary
Waters Treaty of 1909, which is responsible for
overseeing U.S. and Canadian efforts under the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as
amended by protocol in 1987. This agreement
calls for efforts at multiple scales—for example,
Lakewide Management Plans for whole-lake prob-
lems and Remedial Action Plans for specific con-
cerns. Other discussion forums, such as the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission's Lake Committee
structure, have come to play increasingly impor-
tant roles in the basin. Another major element in
fostering an ecosystem approach was the science
base established by research programs already
underway. A third factor was the public's focus on
the endangered resource. The Great Lakes were
threatened by many highly visible crises, including
fish kills, eutrophication of Lake Erie, the burning
Cuyahoga River, and introduced species. In con-
trast to other ecosystems, restoration efforts were
not initiated primarily in response to litigation.
Even though the ecosystem approach in the Great
Lakes is a success story and model for similar
efforts elsewhere, many barriers remain to frustrate
its implementation, including: knowledge gaps
with respect to species, population, community,
and guild interactions within the Great Lakes
basin; failure to integrate basinwide planning
efforts from a multidisciplinary and multi-interest
perspective: a complex binational web of lack of
coordinated budgeting and planning on an ecosys-
tems basis among agencies; fiscal allocations
based on governmental appropriation cycles that
are years to decades shorter than the time scale 'of
problems being addressed; agency obligations to
commit personnel and other resources to existing
programs; lack of agency personnel resources and
commitment to provide expertise and support; and
national policies that are inconsistent with ecosys-
tem goals and objectives.
65
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Great Lakes Ecosystem
With an area of 95,000 square miles, the Great
Lakes system is the world's largest body of surface
freshwater. Reaching far into the continent, this .
natural resource has long supported essential habi-
tats for many of North America's plant and animal
species. Multitudes of birds pass through the Great
Lakes on their seasonal migrations. The Great
Lakes yield a rich bounty to fishermen. Thirty-five
million people live in the Great Lakes basin, and
millions of Americans and Canadians rely on the
Great Lakes for drinking water, economic vitality,
and recreation. Many U.S. and Canadian industries
rely on them as an important commercial
waterway.
In many ways, the five Great Lakes can be consid-
ered freshwater seas. They contain about
18 percent of the world's surface freshwater and
95 percent of the surface freshwater of the United
States. The Great Lakes basin includes parts of
eight states and the Province of Ontario (figure 1)
and a variety of ecoregions (figure 2).
The northern part of the region is heavily forested,
particularly by conifers. The soil is generally thin
and acidic, covering an ancient bedrock called the
Laurentian Shield. Principal industries are timber,
mining, and hydroelectric power. In the south,
soils are deeper and fertile, the temperatures are
warmer, and the population is much denser. Vast
wetlands and deciduous forests have generally
been replaced by agricultural, industrial, and resi-
dential landscapes.
Lake Superior has the largest surface area of any
freshwater lake in the world. It is the third largest
in volume, trailing only the immensely deep Lake
Baikal in Siberia and Lake Tanganyika in Africa.
Figure 1.—The Great Lakes basin covers
parts of eight states and the Province of
Ontario and is home to 35 million people. It
contains 187 percent of the world's surface
freshwater and 95 percent of the surface
freshwater of the United States.
66
-------
Great Lakes
Lake Superior holds just over one-half of the water
of the entire Great Lakes system. Lake Michigan
is the only Great Lake completely within the
United States. Lake Huron, the second largest in
surface area, is slightly larger than Lake Michigan.
Lake Erie is the southernmost of the Great Lakes.
Its waters are the warmest in summer and most
productive biologically, supporting abundant fish-
eries. Erie's watershed is the most agricultural,
most urban, and least forested of all the lakes.
Lake Ontario has the smallest surface area, but
contains more than three times Lake Erie's water
volume. The Canadian population within Lake
Ontario's watershed is about twice that of the
comparable U.S. population, and has increased
significantly during the 1970s and 1980s. Canada's
largest industrial region lies along the western and
northwestern shores of Lake Ontario.
An important characteristic of the Great Lakes is
their clarity. Before Europeans began to settle the
region around 1800, the Great Lakes contained lit-
tle phosphorus, were rich in oxygen, and were very
clear except in shallow waters. These conditions
existed because the shorelines were rimmed by
forests and wetlands, allowing little nutrient runoff
to stimulate production of floating algae. Exces-
sive nutrient loading results in excessive algal
growth and can cause rapid eutrophication of a
lake. Despite today's level of development, most
of Lakes Superior and Huron remain very clear, as
do parts of the northern basin of Lake Michigan.
Lakes Erie and Ontario, as well as Saginaw Bay in
Lake Huron and Green Bay in Lake Michigan,
were subjected to rapid eutrophication.
Ecoregions
Hi 49 - Northern Minnesota Wetlands
§| 50 - Northern Lakes and Forests
& 51 - North Central Hardwood Forests
Hi 52 - Drlttless Area
t^3 53 - Southeastern Wisconsin Till Plain
g| 54 - Central Corn Belt Plain
Kj 55 - Eastern Com Belt Plain
H 56 - Southern Michigan, Northern Indiana Till Plain
• 57 • Huron/Erie take Plain
g| 58' Northeastern Highlands
^ 60 - Northern Appalachian Plateau and Uplands
• 61 - Erie/Ontario Lake Plain
H 70 - Western Allegheny Plateau
60
Figure 2.—The multiple ecoregions in the
Great Lakes basin support essential habitats
for many of North America's plant, fish, and
animal species.
67
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
At the onset of the 20th century, the watershed had
a population of slightly more than 10 million. As
of the 1986 census, the region had 35 million resi-
dents—27.5 million U.S. citizens and 7.5 million
Canadians. The Lake Superior and Lake Huron
watersheds are sparsely inhabited. The southern
and southwestern shore of Lake Michigan, the
Canadian shore of Lake Ontario, and the U.S. side
of Lake Erie are heavily populated. The third and
sixth most populated U.S. metropolitan areas
(Chicago and Detroit) and the largest Canadian
metropolitan area (Toronto) are near the lakes.
Native American tribes also reside in the region,
with 5 reservations bordering the Great Lakes on
the U.S. side and 14 on the Canadian side.
Nonindigenous nuisance species, such as the sea
lamprey, zebra mussel, ruffe, spiny water flea,
purple loosestrife, and Phmgmites, continue to
threaten the indigenous living resources in the
Great Lakes. In addition to the threats that non-
indigenous nuisance species pose, water level reg-
ulations, channelization, hydropower dams, shore-
line structures, and filled wetlands challenge
indigenous species at various stages in their life
cycles.
Perspectives on a Great Lakes Ecosystem
Approach
The living resources in the Great Lakes must be
carefully managed to ensure maximum public ben-
efit while guaranteeing their perpetuation. The
goals and objectives of the international coopera-
tive efforts between the United States and Canada
will be realized as the health of fish and wildlife
resources improves. Restoration goals for the
Great Lakes basin will be met when viable and
productive stocks of indigenous and other desired
fish species are available, bald eagles successfully
reproduce and inhabit shorelines, mink and otter
reinhabit suitable shorelines throughout the basin,
chemical and other stress-induced deformities in
fish and wildlife are reduced to normal background
levels, and fish and wildlife can be consumed with
little or no risk to human health.
The complexity of the Great Lakes ecosystem is
matched by the complexity of the institutional
framework in place for Great Lakes management.
The Great Lakes system is managed at many lev-
els, from municipalities to national governments:
two federal governments, eight states, Native
American tribes, and two provinces share
responsibility in the system, along with
municipalities, county boards, and regional and
international bodies such as the Great Lakes
Fishery Commission, Great Lakes Commission,
and International Joint Commission. Adding to this
management complexity is the diversity of
interests represented by research institutes,
universities, citizen groups, businesses, and private
individuals within the Great Lakes basin.
Adoption of an ecosystem perspective in the stew-
ardship and rehabilitation of Great Lakes resources
is widely recognized as crucial for the future of the
system. Current resource assessments and research
and management tools alone are inadequate to
evaluate changes in large, complex ecosystems.
New tools must be developed, as an outgrowth of
partnership efforts to identify ecosystem impair-
ments, focus rehabilitation efforts, adaptively
manage resources, and monitor results.
Restoration of the Great Lakes is a complex pro-
cess requiring the cooperation of local, city,
county, state, provincial, Native American tribal,
and federal agencies in addition to many conserva-
tion and public interest groups. Within a govern-
mental agency, there can often be dramatic differ-
ences in how the resource management and envi-
ronmental sections within the agency approach
Great Lakes issues. In the future, environmental,
fish, and wildlife managers must overcome sub-
stantial challenges. Differences in mandate, per-
ception of priorities, and style of management cre-
ate major institutional impediments to systematic
and comprehensive coordination of ecosystem
management. Many of the current problems are, in
fact, the unintended consequences of uncoordi-
nated management of water quality, fisheries,
shipping, and human developments in the Great
Lakes basin. Concepts of responsible resource use
and management and biological conservation
should not be at odds, but should be integrated via
partnerships to meet future needs. Information
exchange and cross-program forums should be
established to encourage management and envi-
ronmental policies to be endorsed as one.
Although coordination of water quality and fish and
wildlife management is necessary for progress in
implementing ecosystem management, it is not
sufficient. Water quality and fish and wildlife
management issues are themselves imbedded in a
hierarchy of other management decision-making
and social and economic developments. It is
68
-------
Great Lakes
important to recognize that a systematic and com-
prehensive approach to the restoration of the
ecosystems of the Great Lakes requires joining
ecological restoration and human development at
spatial and temporal scales that are beyond human
experience. The integrity of the Great Lakes
ecosystems is affected by activities far outside the
basin.
Economy
During the past 300 years, various industries have
boomed in the Great Lakes region. Fur trapping
thrived from the last half of the 17th century until
the early 19th century. The Great Lakes and St.
Lawrence River were a pathway to the Atlantic
coast for canoes laden with animal pelts destined
for customers in Europe. Many early settlements
were fur-trading posts, including Chicago, Detroit,
Duluth, and Green Bay.
As the beaver fur industry declined with the ani-
mal's population, early settlers began harvesting
trees on a large scale. Commercial logging began
in the 1830s with the advent of steamships and the
opening of the Erie Canal, which provided access
to eastern markets. The heyday of lumbering was
from 1850 to 1900.
The Great Lakes lumber industry ran out of trees
early in the 20th century. Because climate and
soils of the North Woods and the Laurentian Shield
generally are not conducive to farming, little of the
cleared forest was converted to agriculture. Grad-
ually the forests returned to much of their former
domain in the northern half of the region, although
the trees are much younger and smaller than their
predecessors. Today, these woods are harvested
for paper. The paper industry, which started in the
1860s, is still important in both the United States
and Canada.
The mining industry grew concurrently with the
lumber industry and remains important today. In
1845, rich iron ore was found in the Marquette
Range of Michigan's upper peninsula. Additional
iron ranges were later discovered in Minnesota and
Wisconsin. In 1855, completion of the Sault Canal
opened Lake Superior to shipping of iron ore and
permitted these ranges to be mined. Iron ore from
the mineral-rich Lake Superior watershed helped to
make the Great Lakes region a center of iron mak-
ing, steel making, and heavy manufacturing.
Oil became another significant industry. The
world's first oil was tapped in the northwestern
Pennsylvania town of Titusville in 1859. Oil was
later found in three locations: Midland, Michigan;
Toledo, Ohio; and northeast of Lake St. Glair.
The automotive industry, born in the Michigan tri-
angle bounded by Lansing, Flint, and Detroit, sup-
planted the carriage industry that once thrived
there. Detroit's population, soared almost
400 percent between 1890 and 1920. Industries
associated with the automotive business, such as
tool and die making, machining, aluminum, and
rubber were drawn to the area. Proximity to the
steel industry attracted appliance and agricultural
equipment manufacturers. Proximity to industrial
customers and brine wells in southeastern Michi-
gan attracted chemical manufacturers.
During the 1970s and early 1980s, foreign competi-
tion and rising energy costs caused profit and job
losses in Great Lakes heavy industries, especially
in the United States. Demand increased for fuel-
efficient cars made of lighter materials, such as
plastics and aluminum, as alternatives to steel.
During the 1970s, Detroit lost 20 percent of its res-
idents. In the early 1980s, about 1 million manu-
facturing jobs disappeared in five Great Lakes
states. However, heavy industries such as mining,
steel, machine, tools, and cars remain important.
Today, manufacturing is still the economic main-
stay in most Great Lakes states and Ontario.
Agriculture is another productive element in the
regional economy. During the 19th century, cheap
land, ample top soil, flat terrain, and railroads that
brought crops to distant markets contributed to
extraordinary agricultural productivity in the Amer-
ican Midwest. Agricultural output within the U.S.
Great Lakes watershed has increased during the
last 40 years, although farm acreage has actually
decreased by one-third. Cropland accounts for
18 percent of the land in the U.S. counties of the
watershed, predominantly in the south. Corn is the
largest crop (42 percent of farm acreage), followed
by soybeans (24 percent) and small grains, espe-
cially wheat (17 percent). Dairy products, fruits,
vegetables, and tobacco are also farmed.
The Great Lakes are a source of drinking water to
millions. Industries use water to make products
and for cooling in manufacturing processes. Some
rivers are harnessed to generate electricity; up to
69
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
one-half of the Niagara River's natural flow is
diverted for this purpose.
Another large element of the Great Lakes economy
is recreation, including sightseeing, fishing, boat-
ing, camping, and hiking. The Great Lakes sustain
both sport and commercial fisheries, although
recreational fishing is more important today. As
the value of recreational fishing has increased,
some jurisdictions have established policies that
favor it. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
recently reported that participants in the fishing
industry in the U.S. portion of the Great Lakes gen-
erate about $2.22 billion in sales to local busi-
nesses and that the industry represents $4.4 billion
in annual economic activity. About 75,000 jobs
are supported by sport fisheries, and commercial
fisheries provide an additional 9,000 jobs and
$270 million annually. A small portion of the
commercial harvest is taken by tribal fisheries that
operate pursuant to treaties dating from 1836 and
1842 (see the "Great Lakes Fishery Resources
Restoration Study: Report to Congress," U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 1995).
Historically, the Great Lakes have provided many
economic benefits to citizens. The regional econ-
omy depends on a healthy natural environment.
When the Great Lakes ecosystem has not been
considered, economic disruptions have occurred;
and when environmental values have been fostered
and maintained, the economy has sustained the
region over many years.
Environment
The Great Lakes support a rich diversity of birds
and other wildlife. Among the most biologically
productive areas are Green Bay, Saginaw Bay,
western Lake Erie, St. Mary's rapids, and the
St. Clair delta.
Fish species of special interest include lake trout,
lake sturgeon, lake whitefish, walleye, Pacific
salmon, and landlocked Atlantic salmon and their
forage. Native mussels are being seriously impac-
ted by zebra mussels and are in danger of extirpa-
tion from the Great Lakes basin. The basin pro-
vides critical breeding, feeding, and resting areas
as well as migration corridors for waterfowl, colo-
nial nesting birds, nongame birds, and many other
species of migratory birds. Thirty-one species of
migratory nongame birds of management concern
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are found in
the Great Lakes ecosystem.
A recent survey of biological diversity in the basin
identified 130 globally rare or endangered plant
. and animal species or ecological communities.
The bald eagle, peregrine falcon, piping plover,
Mitchell's satyr blue butterfly, Indiana bat, gray
wolf, lake sturgeon, deepwater sculpin, and pug-
nose shiner are a few of the many threatened,
endangered, and candidate species that inhabit the
Great Lakes ecosystem.
An estimated three million waterfowl, following
the Atlantic and Mississippi flyways, migrate
through the Great Lakes each year, relying on the
lakes for food and shelter. Native animals include
deer, fox, moose, wolves, and fur-bearing mam-
mals such as beaver, mink, and muskrat. These
animals fueled the early development of the region
by European settlers.
By the start of the 20th century, the combined
effects of pollution, harvest, and habitat change
had devastated many of the prolific animal popula-
tions. Over the past 30 years, there have been
encouraging ecological successes in the region:
excessive algae in Lake Erie have been abated,
the detrimental effects of sea lamprey predation on
fish populations have been diminished, and oxygen
has been restored to the waters. Although certain
toxic contaminant levels have declined substan-
tially in some fish and wildlife species, many
species remain affected by persistent historical and
newly discovered toxic contaminants.
Its long retention time makes the Great Lakes
ecosystem especially sensitive to environmental
stresses. The Great Lakes food web remains con-
taminated by various bioaccumulative toxic sub-
stances that have reached unacceptable levels in
some fish and wildlife. Today, these levels are
much lower than in the early 1970s, but public
health advisories on fish consumption are still
issued. Problems persist throughout the food web,
as evidenced in toxic contaminants found in fish
and wildlife predators, such as lake trout, mink,
and bald eagles. Locations such as harbors and
rivers with highly contaminated bottom sediments
still have problems. Generally, contaminant levels
are highest in Lakes Michigan and Ontario, al-
though these lakes have also showed the greatest
declines in contaminant levels during the past two
decades.
70
-------
Great Lakes
More than 130 nonindigenous species have been
introduced into the Great Lakes since 1800, nearly
one-third carried by ships. Some introduced
species have profoundly affected native species.
A recent troublesome invader, the zebra mussel,
probably entered the Great Lakes in ballast water
discharged from an ocean-going vessel. The full
impacts of the mussel are not yet known, but eco-
nomic and environmental costs are expected to be
significant. A prolific breeder, it devours micro-
scopic plants at the foundation of the food web and
may create a food shortage for grazing fish. Ulti-
mately, this would threaten predator fishes, such as
walleye, salmon, and lake trout. River ruff, spiny
water flea, quagga mussel, tubenose goby, and
roundnose goby are other recent invaders. The
river ruffe has recently been documented in the
waters of Lake Huron and is expected to rapidly
expand its range, possibly even if immediate and
decisive actions are taken to contain it.
The increased introduction of foreign species over
the last 30 years is largely due to greater
transoceanic shipping traffic on the Great Lakes
since completion of the St. Lawrence Seaway in
1959. These species have made their way up
canals into the Great Lakes. Species formerly
barred by Niagara Falls were able to enter after the
Welland Canal was completed or enlarged. Fish
are among the most common of the introduced
species, but plants represent about 45 percent of
introduced species and algae 18 percent.
Some species have been introduced intentionally,
such as carp, brown trout, and a variety of Pacific
salmon. Since the 1960s, salmon have been regu-
larly stocked by the Great Lakes states and the
Province of Ontario to provide recreational fishing
and another predator to control smelt and alewife,
which are also introduced species. Salmon provide
an alternative to diminished lake trout for sport
fishing.
Population levels of many native fish species are
lower than they were two centuries ago. Damage
to once richly abundant native fish populations has
been profound. Lake herring was once the predom-
inant commercial species. Sturgeon exceeded
6 feet in length and weighed more than
100 pounds. Today, sturgeon and lake herring
populations are greatly depleted. Hatchery-reared
lake trout are stocked to maintain ecological
balance and to sustain sport and commercial
fisheries. Stocked, nonindigenous Pacific salmon
are the most abundant top predators, except in
western Lake Erie, where the top predator is
walleye.
The demand for harvestable fishery resources offers
an increasingly difficult challenge. Historically,
large numbers of lake trout, lake whitefish, lake
herring, walleye, blue pike, lake sturgeon, yellow
perch, and other fish populated the Great Lakes
and supported a major commercial fishing industry.
In Lake Ontario, Atlantic salmon were gone by
1900 and sturgeon were severely depleted. Popula-
tions of commercially valuable fish further
declined precipitously during the 1950s and 1960s
due to a combination of factors, including overfish-
ing, sea lamprey predation, competition with non-
indigenous nuisance species, and pollution.
Resource management agencies throughout the
Great Lakes region responded by implementing
aggressive long-term programs designed to restore
the fisheries, including the introduction of non-
indigenous hatchery-reared salmon, the stocking of
lake trout, and the control of sea lamprey. Ade-
quate and consistent funding is critical to the suc-
cessful implementation of these programs.
Bottom sediments that hold chemicals such as
PCBs and DDT are probably the principal cause of
the continuing contamination, of fish and wildlife.
The transfer of sediment-bound contaminants to the
base of the food web happens when bottom-
dwelling organisms accumulate contaminants, and
when phytoplankton absorbs contaminants that are
resuspended. These sediments are toxic to bottom-
dwelling organisms, killing them or impairing their
normal functions. Sublethal effects associated
with contaminated sediments include tumors in
bottom fish and bioaccumulation of persistent toxic
chemicals up the food chain.
The transport of contaminants by air is a major
problem for the Great Lakes. The aerial transport
of contaminants has introduced pollutants to the
Great Lakes that did not originate there. For
example, 76 to 89 percent of PCB loadings to
Lake Superior are estimated to come from air pol-
lution. Even small amounts of pollutants that
bioaccumulate can result in significant pollutant
burdens in fish. The aerial introduction of contam-
inants has also complicated the selection of
"pristine" sites as reference sites for scientific
research.
71
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Many of the wetlands of the Great Lakes water-
shed have been lost during the last two centuries.
The most extensive losses happened in the 19th
and early 20th centuries when many wetlands were
drained for agricultural use. Remaining wetlands
continue to be threatened by construction, harbor
and marina development, waste disposal, and min-
ing of sand. Ground water consumption has dimin-
ished recharge of certain wetlands. There are also
indications that wetlands have been disrupted by
nonnative plants, such as purple loosestrife, and by
fish, such as carp.
By the late 1960s, various areas of the Great Lakes
experienced thick algal blooms that imparted
unpleasant odors and taste to the water and
depleted dissolved oxygen. These eutrophic condi-
tions were most pronounced in Lake Erie, which is
the shallowest, warmest, and biologically most
productive lake, and the one most susceptible to
nuisance levels of algae. Lake Erie has also been
vulnerable because it receives more effluents from
sewage treatment plants and sediment from farm-
land in its watershed. Both effluents and sedi-
ments carry phosphorus to the lake, altering its
chemistry and creating algal blooms.
During the last two decades, the United States and
Canada have reduced phosphorus levels across the
Great Lakes by more than 50 percent. Lake Erie's
improvement has been visible and dramatic. The
Great Lakes states and Canada have passed laws
banning or limiting phosphorus content in house-
hold detergents, constructed more effective munic-
ipal sewage treatment plants, and reduced phos-
phorus from agricultural runoff. Phosphorus levels
have also declined in Saginaw Bay and Green
Bay, where eutrophication was a problem.
Over the last 25 years, there have been various
efforts to address the pollution problems of the
Great Lakes. Responsibility for correcting pollu-
tion of the Great Lakes rests with an alliance of
federal, state, tribal, and local agencies, as well as
NGOs and industry. This effort emphasizes preven-
tion, restoration, and remediation. It fosters public
involvement and stewardship and pursues innova-
tive solutions, including public-private
partnerships.
Much of the success in resolving pollution prob-
lems is the result of bilateral agreements between
the United States and Canada, in particular the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreements of 1972
and 1978, and the 1987 protocol that amended the
1978 agreement. Other influential documents go
back to the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty. Since
the 1987 protocol, the United States and Canada
have undertaken actions to reach the goals of the
1978 agreement. The Binational Executive Com-
mittee was created to identify binational products
and priorities required to implement the agree-
ment, to assign responsibilities, and to track the
progress of binational remediation activities. In
the United States, the Great Lakes Critical Pro-
grams Act of 1990, the Great Lakes Fish and
Wildlife Restoration Act of 1990, and the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990 have imposed spe-
cific requirements on U.S. parties, including sev-
eral statutory deadlines. In addition, the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System and the
construction grants program under the Clean Water
Act have significantly contributed to improving the
quality of Great Lakes waters.
Two processes for targeting ecological problems on
a geographic basis are Remedial Action Plans for
Areas of Concern and Lakewide Management
Plans. Including 5 shared with Canada, the United
States has 31 Areas of Concern in some of the
most ecologically degraded areas around the
lakes—usually harbors or river stretches. The Lake
Committee structure, supported by the Great Lakes
Fishery Commission, is the predominant process
for identifying fisheries-related ecosystem prob-
lems within the Great Lakes basin.
The Lakewide Management Plan process has the
advantage of focusing at the level of the lakes
rather than at jurisdictional levels, and this level of
coordination is probably the best approach. Both
the Lakewide Management Plans and the Lake
Committees are striving to put the ecosystem
approach into practice. A better understanding of
the interrelationships between fisheries communi-
ties and water quality management is necessary in
order to achieve a more integrated approach. Nei-
ther process can afford to work in isolation from
the other, and both are generally beginning to work
together at an informal level that has been slowly
evolving and is best represented in Lake Superior.
The Remedial Action Plan process defines ecolog-
ical problems, identifies appropriate solutions, and
measures progress toward ecological goals. States,
enlisting grassroots collaboration from local com-
munities, develop and implement the Remedial
Action Plans. These Plans are models of an
72
-------
Great Lakes
ecosystem-based, multimedia approach to address-
ing impaired uses. They exemplify grassroots
environmental democracy, stressing empowerment
of the affected public within Areas of Concern.
States approach Remedial Action Plans in differ-
ing ways. Some practice hands-on involvement,
while others delegate much of the decision making
to local groups or agencies within the Area of
Concern. The complementary application of fed-
eral statutes and authorities, in addition to techni-
cal and financial support at this ecosystem level,
is often necessary to attain goals in these areas.
The most successful Remedial Action Plans are
those that are community-driven, with active fed-
eral, state, and local involvement. The affected
community, which is closest to and most directly
affected by the resource, is empowered to create
and implement a future vision for the Area of
Concern.
Integrating the activities of all the subbasin pro-
jects on a given lake, where necessary, is the
responsibility of the Lakewide Management Com-
mittee. These committees, consisting of binational
managers of federal, state, provincial, tribal, and
.nongovernmental agencies, currently address
lakewide problems through the Lakewide Man-
agement Plan process. The situation is slightly dif-
ferent on Lake Michigan, where committee repre-
sentatives are all U.S. citizens. The focus of each
lake's Lakewide Management Plan is slightly dif-
ferent. Lakewide Management Plans are not yet
developed for all five lakes.
The goal of Lakewide Management Plans is to
restore and protect beneficial uses of the Great
Lakes from both existing and potential impair-
ments. Each Plan must address and manage a
whole lake, considering critical pollutant loadings
and other stressors in addressing beneficial-use
impairments. It is clear that the Lakewide Man-
agement Plan must be closely related to the vari-
ous Remedial Action Plans, the "Joint Strategic
Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries"
(Great Lakes Fishery Commission, 1980), the Fish
Community Goals and Objectives for each lake,
and other subbasin activities on a particular lake.
. Coordinating activities (such as monitoring, sam-
pling, biological inventories, and sharing of data)
mutually benefits each of these programs.
The Lakewide Management Plans markedly
increase the scale and complexity of carrying out
the ecosystem approach. Vehicles for public input
exist for all current lakewide planning efforts. For
some Lakewide Management Plans, there are
standing public forums of representatives selected
from identified nongovernmental stakeholder
groups (such as industry groups and environmental
organizations), which act as a two-way conduit of
information for the Lake Management Committee.
The forums poll their constituencies, gauge their
reactions, and inform the Lake Management
Committee. Most importantly, the forums seek to
articulate the public's shared vision for the lake,
which—as with the Remedial Action Plans—is
generated by the group that will be directly
affected by the decisions made. For Lakewide
Management Plans without standing public forums,
lakewide networks of existing committees fill the
role. The desired result is active and timely public
input on a lake-by-lake basis.
Present Situation
Two federal governments, eight U.S. states, two
Canadian provinces, numerous regional agencies,
thousands of substate/provincial governments,
many Native American authorities/First Nations,
and a multitude of other governmental entities
have some legal authority for matters pertaining to
the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence ecosystem. The
complexity and sophistication of the "institutional
ecosystem" for the region's governance have gar-
nered global recognition. Cooperative and collabo-
rative relations among these jurisdictions, in part-
nership with business and industry, citizen organi-
zations, and all other basin interests, are needed if
ecosystem integrity is to be achieved and
maintained.
The ecosystem approach extends back at least to
1978, when the Great Lakes Science Advisory
Board, in its report "The Ecosystem Approach,"
recommended to the International Joint Commis-
sion that such an approach be used for problem
identification, research, and management in the
Great Lakes basin.
An ecosystem approach to management is
embraced by many public sector, nongovernmen-
tal, and citizen-based institutions in the Great
Lakes basin because it is based on recognition that
environmental and economic attributes of the area
are fundamentally linked and interdependent, as
are goals for environmental protection and
economic development. It is also based on recog-
73
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
nition that sustainable development for the Great
Lakes depends on managing resources as dynamic,
interdependent communities and ecosystems,
rather than as separate, distinct elements. Practic-
ing the ecosystem approach means that all part-
ners—government and private sector alike—under-
stand the implications of their actions and strive to
avoid unintended adverse consequences.
An ecosystem approach to management, involving
rehabilitation and protection for ecological pro-
cesses and resources of the Great Lakes, has been
perceived as needed by the diverse governmental,
organizational, and private interests within the
basin. Over the past few decades, these interests
have independently evolved processes for identify-
ing and addressing problems. These processes are
now beginning to be integrated into an ecosystem
approach, which is based on the understanding that
human activities, natural resources, and ecological
processes are related parts of a unified whole. The
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
Great Lakes basin ecosystem can be achieved by
understanding, respecting, rehabilitating, and pro-
tecting the total environment and by identifying
and maintaining diverse plant and animal popula-
tions and their habitats.
BUDGET ISSUES
Survey participants focused on three main budget
issues affecting the ecosystem approach in the
Great Lakes basin—coordination, flexibility, and
funding levels.
Coordination
Participants were consistent and clear in their
message that federal agencies exhibit a lack of
coordination in program strategies and budgeting.
They expressed an urgent need for interagency
approaches to budgeting. Because each agency
has its own mission and agenda, there has been
lack of cohesion in program implementation from
an ecosystem perspective. If program activities
are coordinated across agencies, the concomitant
budgetary actions supporting them must be well
coordinated to ensure that "the left hand knows
what the right hand is doing." Participants main-
tained that a coordinated approach would enable
ecosystem managers to "leave their agency hats at
the door" when deciding how to spend dollars.
Another recommendation from many survey
respondents was to develop legal authorities that
would permit agencies to share funds. Fund shar-
ing is not widely practiced due to complicated
budget procedures within each agency. Because
activities to implement the ecosystem approach
are functionally crosscutting, many different fed-
eral agencies must be involved in field activities,
making coordination of budget activities essential.
Respondents felt that agencies should be more
willing to coordinate activities and the necessary
budgeting.
As an ecosystem, the Great Lakes region is unique
in how it relates to Congress in terms of its bud-
getary needs. Congress is informed by the North-
east—Midwest Institute (an NGO) on a wide vari-
ety of issues related to the Great Lakes—including
natural resource management and budgetary needs.
Accordingly, Congress gets a coherent and cross-
cutting analysis of ecosystem approach impera-
tives. However, this broad-based approach breaks
down when federal agency budgets are developed
in isolation from each other, and when these bud-
gets are reviewed piecemeal by different examin-
ers at the Office of Management and Budget and
by congressional committees. Several respondents
felt that this process gives the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget an incomplete understanding of
the Great Lakes region (and other ecosystems).
Flexibility
Inflexible federal budgetary rules and regulations
were a major concern to those surveyed. Several
interviewees felt that protocols and processes have
overwhelmed on-the-ground actions and have
severely hampered program execution. Nearly all
those questioned felt the rules should be simplified
to better serve the involved stakeholders.
Recommendations to increase flexibility included:
switching to a 2-year budget cycle; providing real
incentives to save dollars without jeopardizing the
amount of future allocations; and ensuring that car-
ryover funds stay with the unit that created the
carryover.
Another idea presented to the survey team was to
increase the ability of federal agencies to give
direct grants to NGOs. Some agencies, such as the
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service,
74
-------
Great Lakes
have direct grant authority through such vehicles
as the Forest Service's Challenge Cost-Share Pro-
gram. Eliminating the middleman (that is, state
governments) would permit greater flexibility and
shorten the timeline for grant delivery.
Allowing creativity in the budgeting process was
also suggested. In some cases, settlements in
legal disputes were hampered by restrictions on
how dollars could be awarded or spent. Some
respondents felt that more flexibility would allow
more creative solutions to litigation, reducing liti-
gation fees and presenting win-win solutions to
both sides. The survey team concurs.
Funding Levels
Specific numbers for the President's fiscal year
(FY) 1995 budget include about $280 million
across agencies for key national programs that
benefit the Great Lakes ecosystems, such as the
Clean Water Act section 319 program, and the
national Coastal Zone Management Act (not
including agricultural and drinking water programs
or the State Revolving Loan Fund for sewage
treatment construction)-—an increase of 3.4 percent
over FY 1994. Programs benefiting Great Lakes
environmental concerns, including the Environ-
mental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Great Lakes
National Program Office, the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission, and the International Joint Commis-
sion, totaled about $44 million (a decrease of
$6.6 million over 1994).
The Northeast-Midwest Institute issued funding
priorities for the Great Lakes that stressed:
increased funding for state nonpoint source pollu-
tion control grants under section 319 of the Clean
Water Act; more funding for exotic species man-
agement, including work on zebra mussel and sea
lamprey; added funding for the ecosystems pro-
grams of EPA's Great Lakes National Program
Office to support work in remediation of contami-
nated sediments, monitoring toxic loadings by air,
water mass-balance modeling, and technical assis-
tance to Remedial Action Plan planning commit-
tees; more research, especially on the effects of
consuming contaminated fish on human health; a
new effort focused on sustainable development in
cities around the Great Lakes (including
"brownfield" locations); new funds to develop
integrated pest management techniques for sea
lamprey control; new funds to adopt a basinwide
ecosystem approach, particularly regarding soil
erosion and sediment control; and more funds to
promote integrated research coordination.
Inadequate funding was a common thread in the
survey, although the survey team conveyed the
message that this was not the focus of its work.
However, we feel it is our responsibility as a team
to report that chronically low funding remains an
important issue to many interviewees. This is
especially critical, in their minds, because of the
long-term problems in the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Some of the waters in Lake Superior, for example,
take 199 years or more to cycle through to the
Atlantic Ocean. Quick improvements that coin-
cide with political agendas are not possible. Inter-
viewees maintained that interested parties, includ-
ing Congress, must devote long-term attention to
ensuring environmental improvement in the Great
Lakes. The survey team wholeheartedly agrees.
Sudden cutoff of funds was also cited as a problem.
Ecosystem restoration projects need ample lead
time, and they are implemented over several or
many years. Continued commitment by federal
agencies to these projects for periods longer than
the annual budget cycle is essential to a successful
ecosystem approach.
Respondents also pointed out that large amounts of
money were not always needed to fully implement
programs—only the seed money to get them
started. This coincides with the view that the fed-
eral government should play a catalytic role at the
local level, steering the boat rather than rowing it.
INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
The ecosystem approach was formally recognized
as a goal in the Great Lakes region in the 1987
amendments to the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement. The Great Lakes region has a rich and
multilevel institutional structure (or "institutional
ecology") that has developed around the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement and other basin-
wide agreements, such as the Boundary Waters
Treaty of 1909 and the Great Lakes Fishery Com-
pact of 1956. In general, those, surveyed felt that
there is no need to develop new institutions;
instead, commitments to existing institutions (in
terms of both participation and financial support)
should be renewed to make them work better.
75
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Existing Institutions
The two primary binational institutions are the
United States-Canada International Joint
Commission and the Great Lakes Fishery Commis-
sion. The International Joint Commission was
established by the Boundary Waters Treaty of
1909; among other responsibilities, it facilitates
cooperation on issues related to air and water
pollution and to regulation of water levels and
flows. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission was
established in 1955 pursuant to the United States-
Canada Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries,
partly as a response to declining fishery stocks in
the region.
On the governmental level, several U.S. agencies,
the Canadian Provinces of Ontario and Quebec,
and many counties and municipalities have juris-
dictions in the Great Lakes basin. There are sev-
eral regional mechanisms for management and
coordination, including: the Great Lakes Commis-
sion, which was created by compact among the
eight Great Lakes basin states in 1955; the Council
of Great Lakes Governors, a nonprofit entity for-
malized in 1982; the Council of Great Lakes
Research Managers; and the International Associa-
tion for Great Lakes Research.
Environmental issues in the region are nested at
multiple scales, from basinwide and lakewide
problems to contamination problems in harbors.
The institutions and management structures that
address these problems also address the several
geographic levels of ecosystems, nested within one
another. A basinwide perspective is provided by
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, sup-
ported by the International Joint Commission; the
Commission makes recommendations every
2 years, and tracks implementation of recommen-
dations approved by the governments. The
Lakewide Management Plans established under
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement serve as
vehicles to integrate subbasin activities and to
coordinate priority setting. The goal of Lakewide
Management Plans is to restore beneficial use
impairments as listed in the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement. On a local level, Remedial
Action Plans for 43 Areas of Concern identified by
the Canadian and U.S. governments are being
developed in coordination with citizens and other
stakeholder groups. Remedial Action Plans spec-
ify remediation of toxics, but many Plans are con-
sidering toxics within an ecosystem approach. For
example, while the Area of Concern may be lim-
ited geographically (such as the one encompassing
southern Green Bay), many Remedial Action
Plans assess activities within the watersheds
around the Area of Concern for remediation. Inter-
viewees said that the Remedial Action Plan pro-
cess has been a model cooperative management
and decision-making process in which govern-
ments, user groups, and organizations came
together to set common goals.
Other institutions active in the region include the
Council of Great Lakes Industry and Great Lakes
United (a coalition of citizens and environmental
groups).
Although most participants felt that there is no
need for new institutional infrastructure, there are
several proposed new coordinating mechanisms. In
some cases, these new mechanisms have been
developed out of frustration with existing institu-
tions; they may or may not address the problems of
those institutions.
Participants' Observations and
Recommendations
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement has
been an important organizing principle and tool
for driving policy. The Agreement's implementa-
tion was strengthened through the Great Lakes
Critical Programs Act (section 118 of the Clean
Water Act Amendments), which made certain
obligations under the agreement legally binding as
a matter of U.S. domestic law.
Federal agencies should consider local and
regional goals and priorities in their planning
mechanisms and activities. The goals of the
Lakewide Management Plans and Remedial
Action Plans could be implemented more easily,
according to interviewees, if federal activities
were consistent with and supported locally devel-
oped plans as much as possible. Participants felt
that Lakewide Management Plans and Remedial
Action Plans are good for identifying priorities and
common goals for local and regional areas; how-
ever, they were concerned that mechanisms for
transmitting these goals and priorities into state
and federal actions were weak. Acknowledging
that federal regulations are sometimes designed to
implement nationwide policy goals, interviewees
felt that if regional or local and federal planners
76
-------
Great Lakes
recognized each other's goals, areas of conflict
could be more easily resolved.
Some common goals to be recognized are the
14 beneficial use impairments (a degradation in
physical, chemical, or biological quality resulting
in such actions as beach closings, fish and wildlife
consumption restrictions, and so forth) identified in
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement with the
goal of restoring impaired uses. Individual
Lakewide Management Plans and Remedial
Action Plans set environmental quality goals for
these uses that should be recognized by federal
programs.
Institutions should foster connections with place,
including setting up public/stakeholder participa-
tion mechanisms to take advantage of local inter-
ests. Participants emphasized that the ecosystem
approach can amount to little more than abstract
issues and concepts unless tied to the concrete
needs of a particular place. Regional programs,
interagency budget coordination within regions,
legislation designed for regions, federal inter-
agency coordination offices, and mechanisms for
incorporating public participation and using grass-
roots energy were cited as ways of encouraging a
place-based focus. Several interviewees indicated
that those living in the Great Lakes region, includ-
ing its managers, scientists, citizens, industries,
and other stakeholders, are closest to the resource
and have a vested interest in maintaining it. They
contended that local participants should be em-
powered to make decisions'and implement solu-
tions; this can be achieved if federal agencies
cede some goal-setting authority, recognize re-
gional goals, and share responsibility to achieve
them with the region.
An impediment to place-oriented mentality is that
national programs are scattered all over the coun-
try, disconnecting local and regional problems
from the Washington, DC, offices that manage
those programs. Several participants felt that the
program-oriented mentality of federal agencies
must change to a place-oriented mentality: pro-
grams must be aligned with the ecosystem goals of
particular places.
Interagency decision making and priority setting
is needed, and may require building coalitions
among agencies to address common problems.
Agencies should establish common goals and pri-
orities for a region that recognize local and
regional priorities. One federal representative saw
federal acknowledgment of common agency goals
(such as those determined in Lakewide Manage-
ment Plans or Remedial Action Plans) as a way to
improve agency budget development, program
execution, and accountability. The representative
pointed out that after agencies have signed onto a
goal, it can be used to set performance measures
and establish accountability. Moreover, to the
extent that the public is involved in establishing
goals based on local or regional priorities (such as
those incorporated into Lakewide Management
Plans and Remedial Action Plans), these goals are
what citizens want their tax dollars to be spent on.
Interviewees recommended finding ways of using
resources to address common goals and programs.
The Lake Michigan Enhanced Monitoring Program
(part of the Lake Michigan Lakewide Management
Plan) was cited as a successful example in which
several state and federal agencies share responsi-
bilities for monitoring different variables or regions
of the Lake. In this case, funds are not actually
pooled; instead, agencies have agreed to fund aiid
implement monitoring activities related to their
missions and programs. EPA also funds other
agencies' monitoring activities specifically related
to this program.
However, a number of participants both within and
outside the federal government felt frustrated that
agency representatives at the working level cannot
commit to involvement on behalf of their agencies.
Goals should be acknowledged at all agency levels
so that they get appropriate budget and policy sup-
port. Better coordination could also be achieved in
the many federal programs designed to fund activi-
ties within states. For example, it was suggested
that states might obtain federal matching funds and
directing them toward common goals, regardless of
whether the federal fund programs are themselves
coordinated.
The Upper Mississippi River Plan and its imple-
mentation by the Upper Mississippi Basin Com-
mission were cited as a model of successful
agency goal coordination.' This effort involved the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and sev-
eral states. For other examples of organization on
an ecosystem basis, refer to the Recommendations
section of the "Great Lakes Fishery Resources
Restoration Study: Report to Congress" (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 1995).
77
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Implementation of programs should be flexible.
Many participants felt that agencies are motivated
more by rules than by missions, and should
become more flexible in addressing goals of envi-
ronmental quality, rather than insisting on strict
observance of rules. Areas where flexibility is
needed to achieve goals in the most cost-effective
manner include:
• Meeting Clean Water Act requirements. The
Clean Water Act allows little flexibility to
achieve desired water quality standards in
the most cost-effective way (such as by trad-
ing discharge allowances, or by using or
trading Best Management Practices for
sewage discharges).
• Handling contaminants. Some participants
felt that new solutions were needed for han-
dling organic contaminants, such as PCBs,
which are very expensive to manage prop-
erly as a hazardous waste; but thermal dis-
posal (burning) can involve Clean Air Act
problems.
• Spending Superfund monies. The statutory
requirement that Superfund monies be used
only for cleanup, and not for restoration, was
cited as an impediment to regaining benefi-
cial uses.
• Dealing with liability issues. Liabilities
under the Superfund may discourage new
owners from reusing or rebuilding on inner
city or old industrial sites, resulting in
development of previously undeveloped or
clean sites. Natural Resources Damage
Assessments are potentially good tools for
achieving restoration, but are underutilized.
More realistic performance and progress indica-
tors that focus on environmental outcomes are
needed. Participants suggested that performance
measures should be based on ecosystem goals, not
on numbers of permits issued, publications, or
meetings held. They also recommended including
ecological factors in economic indicators.
The Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan
work team and some Remedial Action Plans are
developing environmental indicators appropriate
for their ecosystems, based on stakeholder goals of
environmental quality. Although most participants
were not yet familiar with the 1993 Government
Performance and Results Act, they offered mile-
stones and benchmarks developed for Lakewide
Management Plans and Remedial Action Plans as
examples of performance indicators for environ-
mental quality programs. Milestones and bench-
marks included: government management actions;
remedial and preventive actions by sources;
changes in discharge quality; reduced contaminant
loadings; changes in ambient air/water/sediment
loadings; biological recovery and use restoration;
number of people participating in each Remedial
Action Plan process; and requests for input to other
programs. Although interviewees recognized that
some indicators are necessarily qualitative, they
felt that quantitative measures should be deter-
mined as much as possible.
Survey participants called for incentives for
employees and managers to work with other
agencies and stakeholders, to manage adaptively,
and to be innovative. Interviewees suggested that
agencies might require interactions with other
agencies and stakeholders, and might explicitly
include nontraditional activities in performance
plans (such as involvement in a public participa-
tion or interagency activity, or participation in
management conferences by scientists). Many
participants saw a need for a better reward system
for federal and state agency employees engaged in
ecosystem efforts. If time spent on ecosystem-
based approaches were treated as equal to that
spent on other programs, employees could be
rewarded. This would require that managers—from
the first line supervisor to the top of the chain of
command—acknowledge and value ecosystem-
oriented efforts. Rewards should go beyond stan-
dard cash bonuses to include increased funding for
successful programs, and public recognition for the
employee or manager.
New processes of conflict resolution are needed.
The active participation of many stakeholders in
planning processes in the Great Lakes region
means that many conflicts can be resolved during
discussions. Some interviewees said that federal
recognition of regional and local goals should help
to limit conflicts, allowing parties to work toward
each other's goals instead of against them.
Participants in the Green Bay Remedial Action
Plan said that the goal-setting process they under-
took avoided conflicts and litigation in determining
how to limit sewage discharges. Discharge limits
to achieve desired water quality goals (in this
78
-------
Great Lakes
case, biological oxygen demand) were set by con-
sensus among industries on the Lower Fox River,
not by litigation.
A framework for the ecosystem approach has
evolved. Several participants emphasized that
although the ecosystem approach is an evolving
process, a general framework has emerged. An
academic researcher who is involved in regional
and Remedial Action Plan processes outlined
10 steps for planning rehabilitation of large aquatic
ecosystems. Steps 1-6 are diagnostic tasks; steps
7-10 involve the framing of solutions (including
taking no action) by considering desired alterna-
tive states for the ecosystem. Echoed and supple-
mented by many others, the 10 steps are as
follows:
1. Bounding the ecosystem: theory versus
practicality. Boundaries of Areas of Con-
cern were originally small, then expanded
to include the larger watershed.
2. Delineating problems. Define stresses and
stressors. The Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement defined a need for mass balance
studies to determine the relative loads and
fates of contaminants and nutrients.
3. Coupling science with management. Get
both science and management involved,
and use them as guides, like the binational
agreement that specifies "restoring
integrity" as a guide to management prin-
ciples. For all of the Remedial Action
Plans, the 14 beneficial use impairments
are used as a guide.
4. Setting goals and objectives. Public partici-
pation is vital. In the case of Green Bay,
several public interest groups formed before
the Remedial Action Plan were important
in formulating goals for the Plan.
5. Developing models and targeting standards.
These should address the goals and objec-,
tives of ecosystem quality. Determine what
quantitative values address those goals
(whether they are, for example, PCBs, sus-
pended solids levels, nutrients, or light).
6. Assessing ecosystem risk. Assessment
should attach as much importance to eco-
logical risks as to human health risks. One
methodology developed assigns a risk value
(a relative ecosystem disturbance factor) to
each ecosystem stressor-impaired use pair,
such as exotic invasions and economic
costs, nutrient loading and aesthetic quali-
ties, and persistent organic chemicals and
human health. Risk values can also be
ranked from perspectives such as preven-
tion management or remediation
management.
7. Framing solutions. Frame solutions around
alternative desired future states for the
region. Envisioning these states must
involve significant public participation and
be consistent with ecological and environ-
mental sustainability principles. For exam-
ple, the Saginaw Bay Alliance has recog-
nized that its vision for a sound economy in
the region (based considerably on tourism)
is inconsistent with unchecked coastal
development. It has recommended coastal
zone planning based on sustainable devel-
opment principles. Many Remedial Action
Plans have developed and published a list
of key actions to restore beneficial uses,
used in this step.
8i Implementing change. For example, a local
Public Advisory Committee was estab-
lished for the Green Bay Remedial Action
Plan to initiate Plan implementation and to
evaluate options for long-term implementa-
tion. This committee has representatives
from state and local governments, the state
legislature, business, industry, environmen-
tal groups, and citizens from the Area of
Concern. The committee attempts to influ-
ence lead state and federal agencies to
take actions based on the Remedial Action
Plan's key actions and recommendations as
assigned to particular organizations (such
as regional planning commissions, munici-
pal wastewater treatment plants, and
county governments). Annual progress
reports are prepared, implementation priori-
ties are updated annually, and feedback is
provided to the lead agency contacts.
9. Monitoring change. Monitor change and
look for changes measured by quantitative
••' measures determined in step 5 (for exam-
ple, reduced sediment load and increased
light, addressing the goal of increased
79
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
submerged aquatic vegetation and fish).
The Lake Michigan Enhanced Monitoring
Program coordinated by the Lakewide
Management Plan program is a good model
of interagency cooperation for monitoring.
10. Assessing progress and implementing adap-
tive management. There are several annual
or periodic assessments of the state of the
basin, individual lakes, and Remedial
Action Plans. These progress reports pro-
vide feedback to participating agencies and
the public.
A process for evaluating progress is being devel-
oped by some Remedial Action Plans and
Lakewide Management Plans, based on Interna-
tional Joint Commission guidance on listing and
delisting areas for the 14 beneficial use impair-
ments identified in the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement. Quantitative objectives and targets
are established by some Remedial Action Plans to
evaluate their progress in addressing these guide-
lines for use restorations. Following are examples
for two use impairments:
Example 1:
Use impairment: Restrictions on fish and
wildlife consumption.
Listing/delisting guideline: Whether or not
contaminant levels in fish or wildlife popula-
tions exceed current standards, or when public
health advisories for human consumption are
in effect.
Quantitative objectives or targets: A short-
term target is based on the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration Action Level of 2 mg/kg PCBs
in the edible portion of fish; a long-term target
of 0.05 mg/kg in fish tissue was established to
protect human health through Rule 57 of the
Michigan Water Quality Standards.
Example 2:
Use impairment: Eutrophication or undesir-
able algae.
Listing/delisting guideline: Whether or not
there are persistent water quality problems
attributed to anthropogenic eutrophication.
Quantitative objectives or targets: In Sagi-
naw Bay, modeling of phosphorus loading has
led to establishment of a 15 mg/L total phos-
phorus target for the inner bay. This corre-
sponds to a loading target of 440 tons/year.
Land use or sewage treatment decisions can
be made based on this target.
LEGAL ISSUES
Survey participants did not raise legal issues when
discussing ecosystem-oriented efforts in the Great
Lakes basin. Instead, they focused on the various
institutions and interpersonal relationships that
emerged over the years, rather than on specific lit-
igation-forcing events. These institutions and rela-
tionships have provided what many interviewees
described as a much-needed forum for bringing
federal and nonfederal agencies, NGOs, and peo-
ple together. These forums, in turn, appear to have
focused efforts on ecosystems rather than on any
single-media concerns driven by a particular fed-
eral regulatory program.
Clearly, no single federal statute drives the ecosys-
tem process now underway in the Great Lakes
region. Instead, as one participant observed, there
is a rich mix of institutional arrangements struc-
tured around statutes specifically addressing the
region, and there are the general federal regulatory
programs that apply to activities in the region as
well. Regional activities are governed by a mix-
ture of international agreements, interstate com-
pacts, federal and state legislation, and treaties
with Native Americans. This umbrella of arrange-
ments and programs appears to have garnered a
consensus among participants that sufficient regu-
latory regimes are in place, if all the statutes are
looked to as tools in problem solving. Indeed, an
August 1994 report by the Northeast-Midwest Insti-
tute, "Progress in Great Lakes Environmental Pro-
tection: Priorities for the Fiscal 1995-1996 Federal
Budgets," noted that "congressionally authorized
programs such as the Pollution Prevention Act, the
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program
(section 319) of the Clean Water Act, the Great
Lakes Critical Programs Act, the Great Lakes Fish
and Wildlife Restoration Act, and the Nonindige-
nous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act
provide a comprehensive blueprint for the federal
government to build effective partnerships with
state and local efforts to address these pressing
environmental priorities."
80
-------
Great Lakes
Interviewees generally refrained from critical
comments on the effect of existing federal regula-
tory programs in implementing an ecosystem
approach. The notable exception is the amalgama-
tion of legal constraints now governing the budget
process. However, participants did voice concerns
about the Freedom of Information Act and Federal
Advisory Committee Act. Additionally, several
participants felt that the lack of any express con-
gressional mandate for federal agencies to partici-
pate in coordinated efforts limits the time federal
employees can commit to those efforts.
Specific Great Lakes Authorities
A variety of legal authorities that specifically
address the Great Lakes region have assisted an
ecosystem-based approach through interagency and
governmental-nongovernmental coordination. In
particular, the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 led
to the establishment of the International Joint
Commission between Canada and the United
States. The U.S. and Canadian governments, in
turn, entered into Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreements in 1972 and 1978, and amended the
1978 Agreement in 1983 and 1987. The purpose of
the Agreement "is to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem," a
formulation that parallels Clean Water Act lan-
guage. In 1990, Congress passed the Great Lakes
Critical Programs Act, which for the first time cre-
ated enforceable statutory deadlines for key
requirements of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement. According to various representatives,
these agreements were instrumental in establishing
a foundation for implementing an ecosystem
approach in the Great Lakes -region. A representa-
tive from the International Joint Commission noted
that the Commission had been following an
ecosystem approach since approximately 1978.
The 1987 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
expressly endorsed a coordinated and cooperative
effort to protect and restore the Great Lakes
ecosystem. Congress sanctioned these agreements
in section 118 of the Clean Water Act.
In addition to the International Joint Commission,
institutions concerned with Great Lakes, water
quality include the Great Lakes Fishery Commis-
sion, established by the Convention on Great
Lakes Fisheries between the United States and
Canada in 1954, and the congressionally ratified
interstate compact among the eight Great Lakes
basin states establishing the Great Lakes Commis-
sion.* For the most part, the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission focuses on controlling sea lamprey
and assisting in coordinated research efforts for the
restoration of fishery resources.** The Great Lakes
Commission embraces five general areas of
responsibility:
1. Promoting the orderly, integrated, and
comprehensive development, use, and con-
servation of the basin's water resources.
2. Planning the welfare and development of
water resources in the basin as a whole, as
well as in those areas that may have spe-
cial problems.
3. Making it possible for the basin's states and
their citizens to derive the maximum bene-
fit from the use of public works, in the form
of navigational aids or otherwise, that may
exist or be constructed from time to time.
4. Advising in securing and maintaining a
proper balance among industrial, commer-
cial, agricultural, water supply, residential,
recreational, and other legitimate uses of
basin water resources.
5. Establishing and maintaining an intergov-
ernmental agency to accomplish the pur-
poses of the compact more effectively.
In addition to the various Clean Water Act provi-
sions that address the Great Lakes ecosystem, sev-
eral federal statutes have furthered an ecosystem
Section 103 of the Clean Water Act expressly encourages
Interstate compacts or agreements such as those developed In the
Great Lakes region. In 1986, Governors in the region signed a
Great Lakes Toxic Substances Control Agreement to establish
common environmental objectives for the basin. In 1989, the states
committed $100 million to endow a Great Lakes Protection Fund
(according to one source, the fund is currently at $80 million).
** In 1980, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission adopted "A Joint
Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries." This is a
nonbinding agreement designed to facilitate coordinated and
cooperative efforts among the Great Lakes fishery agencies in
Canada and the United States. The plan identified five lake
committees composed of representatives from each of the fishery
management agencies with jurisdiction or treaty authority for a
particular lake. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission also serves
as arbitrator, upon request, when lake committees cannot reach a
consensus. In 1992, the Commission issued its "Strategic Vision
of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission for the Decade of the
1990s."
81
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
approach. The Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife
Restoration Act of 1990 authorized a comprehen-
sive Great Lakes Fishery Resources Restoration
Study and sought proposals for implementing rec-
ommendations from the study. It also sought to
assist various entities by encouraging cooperative
conservation, restoration, and management of the
fish and wildlife resources and their habitats in the
Great Lakes region. The Act also established a
centrally located Fish and Wildlife Service Great
Lakes Coordination Office and two other Great
Lakes Coordination Offices. Other relevant
statutes include the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nui-
sance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 and the
Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990.
Mandates
Congressional mandates, or the lack thereof, was a
common theme in survey interviews. The per-
ceived lack of any congressionally mandated
commitment toward an ecosystem approach was
viewed by, some as a potential impediment to
ecosystem efforts. Many federal agency employ-
ees engage in coordinated ecosystem-based efforts
with little or no reward, out of personal and profes-
sional interest. For instance, they squeeze in the
time for intra- and interagency meetings, when dis-
tance and/or their travel budget allows. However,
when the pressure of other programs becomes too
great, they must—albeit reluctantly—choose to
devote their limited time to specific, congression-
ally mandated programs. The unstated belief was
that an express congressional mandate might allow
these employees to continue their ecosystem-based
efforts without fear of recrimination.*
Conversely, one survey participant noted that cer-
tain deadlines in existing congressional mandates
can adversely affect an ecosystem-based approach.
The Great Lakes Critical Programs Act, according
to this participant, is a good example of the prob-
lem. In that case, Congress imposed severe dead-
lines for completion of the Lake Michigan
Lakewide Management Plan** and certain Reme-
dial Action Plans. Considerable effort went into
meeting the artificial deadline, yet the goal, in the
long run, was simply to complete the Plan, regard-
less of how well it was prepared. This fostered the
attitude that "if we don't have time to do it right,
then get it done and just do it over," which this
participant considered bad policy and potentially
disruptive. Such deadlines ignore the nature of the
project: these projects are iterative, involve public
participation, and are dependent upon scientific
judgments. The process must be adaptive, and
artificial deadlines hinder rather than help.
One federal participant noted that officials previ-
ously have been motivated too often by laws and
regulations. Now we need to ask different and new
questions about priorities and how we measure
progress, although such questions and priority
establishment may not fit neatly into the legal'
boxes constructed by various regulatory programs.
We must view our laws and regulations as impor-
tant tools for achieving broader ecosystem goals.
Similarly, a nonfederal representative commented
that the federal government is preoccupied by
laws, tending to forget the local people and the
needs of the ecosystem.
Primary Legal Issues
Survey participants mentioned specific laws or
programs affecting the ecosystem approach in the
Great Lakes basin, including the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Lia-
bility Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered
Species Act, and the Toxic Substances Control
Act.
Natural Resources Damage Assessments. The
Natural Resources Damage Assessment process
embraces an ecosystem approach to management.
In accordance with the Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, and the Clean
This concern Is related to what many participants believed is the
need for a better reward system for federal agency employees
engaged In ecosystem efforts. If ecosystem-based approaches
were treated as equal to time spent on other regulatory programs,
employees would also be rewarded for their efforts. This would
require that managers understand and reward such efforts, just as
they do activities that promote specific regulatory programs.
The Act required that a proposed Lakewide Management Plan be
published in the Federal Register within 2 years after enactment,
submitted to the International Joint Commission within 3 years, and
published in the Federal Register as final within 4 years.
82
-------
Great Lakes
Water Act, the Natural Resources Damage
Assessment process can be undertaken when there
is a release of hazardous substances or a discharge
of oil. The assessment can be conducted by tribal,
state, or federal agencies with trustee responsibili-
ties for affected natural resources, sometimes with
a lead trustee coordinating the efforts of cotrustees.
Natural resources can include fish, wildlife, biota,
habitat, sediments, soils, surface water, ground
water, and air. Trustees have responsibilities for
resources in their jurisdiction or management con-
trol, and can recover damages for costs of restora-
tion, as well as for injury, loss, or destruction of
natural resources resulting from the discharge. The
restoration process does not focus on a single
medium, but entails a cooperative effort to address
all natural resources.
Federal interviewees, among others, observed that
the Natural Resources Damage Assessment pro-
cess is an opportunity for input from all parties and
is on the cutting edge of multidisciplinary efforts.
It also addresses tough questions about responsibil-
ity for damages.
Some state and industry representatives disagreed,
maintaining that the Natural Resources Damage
Assessment process hampers cooperative efforts.
They cited Wisconsin as an example, where the
Fish and Wildlife Service is conducting an
assessment in the Fox River Area of Concern.
Both the state and industry were concerned that
the assessment process retarded their efforts to
develop a cooperative solution to the contaminant
problem in the Fox River Area of Concern. But
federal commentators pointed out that the
state/industry voluntary project, if implemented,
may not address the extent of contamination in the
entire river or in Green Bay, and may not deal with
remediation, restoration, and compensatio'n as set
forth in the Natural Resources Damage Assessment
process under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act. Interviewees
raised three issues concerning the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Lia-
bility Act (CERCLA). One state representative
observed that because proposed Superfund
cleanups do not adequately consider the needs of
the place or ecosystem, they may leave too many
contaminants in place, making it "tougher to come
in later and clean up the rest." An ancillary
concern expressed by both an NGO and a state
representative involved the need for more
flexibility in developing settlements under
CERCLA, although no specifics could be
provided.*
One representative commented that CERCLA's
liability structure may adversely affect remediation
efforts in urban areas. Prospective buyers fearful of
CERCLA liability often look for "greenfield" sites,
rather than contaminated "brownfield" sites. •
Reinvestment in "brownfield" sites, which often
are located in poor and minority communities, is
consequently constrained. This participant felt that
environmental health is connected with economic
health, and that because CERCLA's liability struc-
ture can discourage people's willingness to buy in
affected areas, it indirectly affects ecosystem
efforts in those areas. In light of these concerns,
and as part of a national Brownfields Economic ,
Development Initiative developed by EPA,
Region 5 of EPA is developing a proposed
"Brownfields Strategy" to encourage redevelop-
ment of abandoned and unused urban sites. This
strategy relies on four basic principles that include
encouraging participation in state voluntary clean-
up efforts and developing partnerships with
Region 5 states, local governments, and key
external stakeholders.
Clean Water Act. The point source and nonpoint
source programs under the Clean Water Act have
played a major role in ecosystem-based efforts in
the Great Lakes basin, and are responsible for
much of the improved environmental health of the
area. These programs, moreover, are supple- .
mented by additional pollution control efforts in
the basin, such as the International Joint Commis-
sion's zero-discharge recommendation for Lake
Superior. Aside from observing that these pro-
grams are important and must continue to be
funded, participants had very little to say about the
Clean Water Act. One participant contended that
contamination today is not generally caused by
Conversely, one survey participant has written that examples of
"effective use of existing tools include ... the U.S. Superfund
program to assess and remediate contaminated sediments in
Ashtabula River (Ohio) and Waukegan Harbor (Illinois):"
83
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
noncompliance with the Clean Water Act, except
in northwestern Indiana.*
One participant stated that the Clean Water Act
section 208 program had failed because it was
disconnected with local needs and did not conform
to a watershed approach, which is necessarily
place-based. While others supported a watershed
approach, some representatives commented that a
focus on "surface watershed" may be too narrow,
because it could exclude sediment transport and
acid deposition.
Endangered Species Act One survey participant
was frustrated with the decline of species not yet
protected by the Endangered Species Act, whether
as listed or candidate species. But according to
this interviewee, due to limited resources and bud-
get constraints, there is little that can be done;
available money and resources must be spent on
activities that take higher priority.** This partici-
pant maintained that when species are on the way
to endangered or threatened status, by the time
they are finally listed, efforts to protect them and
to help them recover are more costly and less
effective.
Toxic Substances Control Act. Some partici-
pants were frustrated that the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) is not used more effectively
as a tool for an ecosystem-based approach. Persis-
tent toxic substances continue to enter the Great
Lakes ecosystem, affecting the environment and
ultimately human health. Although the TSCA pro-
vides the legal authority to assist in controlling
toxic substance discharges into the Great Lakes,
interviewees said that it has not been utilized fully
to implement the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement goal of virtual elimination of dis-
charges of any or all persistent toxic substances.
According to one report, "though TSCA has been
used to prevent the entry into U.S. commerce of
many new substances, the Act has not been used
to control any existing substance other than PCB,
which was mandated under Section 6(e)."
It was suggested that the Act's effectiveness may
be limited because of its language. Pursuant to
section 6 of TSCA, "if the Administrator finds that
there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the
manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce,
use, or disposal of a chemical substance or
mixture, or that any combination of such activities,
presents or will present an unreasonable risk of
injury to health or the environment," then the
Administrator shall prohibit or regulate those activ-
ities. To prohibit or regulate these activities, how-
ever, the Administrator must use the "least burden-
some requirements." One interviewee felt that this
requirement limits the ability to regulate existing
persistent toxic substances under TSCA.
Unlikely partners in hydroelectric relicensing.
A governmental representative emphasized that an
ecosystem-based approach requires working with
"unlikely partners" (a point reiterated by an NGO
representative), possibly in nontraditional settings.
One example involved relicensing of
11 Consumers Power hydroelectric projects in
Michigan. There, federal and state agencies and
conservation groups worked with Consumers Power
to put together a settlement addressing "virtually
all resources" in the affected three river systems
(AuSable, Manistee, and Muskegon). A settle-
ment was worked out in Michigan by the parties
and then provided to the Federal Energy Regula-
tory Commission for inclusion in conditions of
Consumers Power's hydroelectric licenses.
Miscellaneous Legal Tools
Other federal statutory programs governing activi-
ties in the Great Lakes region were mentioned as
tools for implementing the ecosystem approach.
Unfortunately, aside from generalities, survey par-
ticipants could not provide any instances when
these programs either facilitated or hindered an
ecosystem approach. These programs include the
Army Corps of Engineers' section 404 program
under the Clean Water Act,* the Coastal Barrier
In northwest Indiana, according to this interviewee, recent Clean
Water Act violations were resolved through negotiated settlements,
with the offending parties remediating sediment contamination in lieu
ot paying fines alone. Some of these settlements apparently include
provisions to avoid future pollution.
This survey participant commented that court orders establishing
deadlines for reviewing candidate species limit an agency's ability
to devote resources to those species.
Some interviewees commented on the variety of ongoing wetlands
projects and programs (including cooperative efforts at mapping
under the National Wetlands Inventory project, restoration and/or
acquisition of wetland areas or conservation easements, and the
Green Bay advance wetland identification system). One federal
agency representative emphasized that the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan has served an important function in
implementing ecosystem management in the Great Lakes region.
The plan provides a framework for waterfowl and ecosystem
management and conservation efforts in the United States and
84
-------
Great Lakes
Resources Act, the Coastal Zone Management
Act, the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act of
1985, the Estuary Protection Act, the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act, and the Lacey Act. Additionally,
various representatives mentioned their scientific
efforts to relate acid deposition, an important
aspect of a holistic view of the basin, to water,
fish, and wildlife resource issues, but no opinions
were expressed on the nature of the Clean Air Act
program.
Public Participation and Open
Information
Several survey participants discussed federal
statutes—including the Federal Advisory Commit-
tee Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and
Freedom of Information Act—that may hinder or
aid public involvement in efforts to implement the
ecosystem approach, or that constrain the open
sharing of natural resource information that is key
to an ecosystem approach.
Federal Advisory Committee Act. Various par-
ticipants commented that the Federal Advisory
Committee Act presents a potential barrier to an
effective ecosystem approach, because it may hin-
der involvement by nonfederal officials. This is
particularly true in the Great Lakes region, where a
variety of institutional forums exist and where new
forums for public participation are being consid-
ered. However, no interviewees provided specific
instances when the Federal Advisory Committee
Act has obstructed their efforts.
National Environmental Policy Act. One federal
agency official emphasized that the National Envi-
ronmental Policy Act allows for public input. But
others expressed concern that the Act calls for
public input only when a federal agency has
proposed some action; it does not provide a forum
for public input into the process of assessing what
proposals to consider.
Freedom of Information Act. Several represen-
tatives stated that an ecosystem approach requires
a well-distributed data base without specific
Canada by establishing objectives for waterfowl population and
(perhaps more importantly) by relating these objectives to habitat
conservation needs in specific regions. This program has statutory
aspects, as set forth in the North American Wetlands Conservation
Act of 1989.
agency ownership. However, both a nongovern-
mental and a federal representative noted that the
Freedom of Information Act can hamper attempts
to facilitate such sharing of scientific tests. The
Act allows private parties to obtain scientific data
that could be used adversely in making develop-
ment decisions or altering aspects of a sensitive
ecosystem in advance of any application to a gov-
ernmental body.
This problem currently affects, for example, the
Natural Heritage program established by The
Nature Conservancy in partnership with state and
provincial governments. This program assembles
various inventories of biological resources, sup-
plements them with additional surveys, and then
analyzes the data. But if this data is then given to
EPA, it can become subject to the Freedom of
Information Act and provided to developers and
others in advance of development activities.
Someone with this information might alter envi-
ronmentally sensitive areas in advance of any
activity requiring state and/or federal approval.
Accordingly, EPA has not purchased the data yet
and apparently is now performing an advance con-
fidentiality data assessment to determine the con-
fidentiality of the data.
Bottom-Up Ecosystem Approach
The array of ecosystem efforts in the Great Lakes
basin was driven not by any regulatory structure,
but rather by place-based needs and by the institu-
tions that developed to address those needs. These
institutions, in turn, provided an arena for Canada,
federal and state agencies, NGOs, and private par-
ties to discuss and respond to constantly evolving
problems in the Great Lakes ecosystem. Although
Congress responded to the concerns that emerged
from this region by ratifying interstate compacts,
statutorily engrafting elements of the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement, and enacting specific
measures to foster research and control problems
identified in the region, actual ecosystem
approaches were crafted by the participants
themselves. No single statute or lawsuit can be
credited with initiating the ecosystem approaches
described for the Great Lakes basin.
This may explain why survey participants did not
view the ecosystem approach as a regulatory con-
cept driven by concern for a single medium (such
as air, water, or pesticides), but rather as a process
85
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
that necessarily leads to resource management
from a holistic perspective. According to almost
all participants, the ecosystem approach should be
based on an approach that considers the needs of a
particular ecosystem—a definite place—rather
than focusing on single media issues.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
For more than 15 years, the Great Lakes have been
considered an ecosystem and have enjoyed the
support of a wide array of agencies, organizations,
and individuals. Over the years, this coalition has
formed work groups and task forces to determine
the health of the Great Lakes ecosystem and the
status of its biological and physical features. The
public has helped to identify problem areas and
possible solutions for improving the health of the
Great Lakes ecosystem.
Federal and state agencies identified a variety of
ways to encourage public participation: involving
the public in the decision-making process; sharing
information with the public; and educating the pub-
lic. Questionnaires, public meetings, roundtable
discussions, speaking engagements, news releases,
computerized networks and tours of project areas
are used to get public input. Multimedia
approaches have often been found to be very effec-
tive in informing the public and getting feedback
on issues related to Great Lakes resources.
Federal Involvement
There is considerable federal involvement in
efforts to solicit public participation in ecosystem
approaches to the Great Lakes basin. Agencies
active in the region include EPA, the Fish and
Wildlife Service (part of the U.S. Department of
the Interior), the Forest Service, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA,
part of the U.S. Department of Commerce), and the
National Park Service (also part of the Interior
Department).
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA has
obtained input from the public through surveys, lis-
tening sessions, news releases, and other means of
involving the public in resolving problems and
determining outcomes. Both Lakewide Manage-
ment Plan and Remedial Action Plan processes
stress public participation. Moreover, public
forums have been created and are supported by
EPA and the states for each of the active
Lakewide Management Plans and for each Area of
Concern. Finally, EPA supports education pro-
grams through grants as well as specific activities
related to its research vessel.
Fish and Wildlife Service. The Fish and
Wildlife Service uses multimedia approaches to
inform the public of proposed actions. The various
agency offices located around the Great Lakes
hold periodic public meetings, usually in conjunc-
tion with other federal and state agencies.
Brochures and other written materials are often
provided to attendees. Public notices requesting
formal responses are published in the Federal Reg-
ister. In addition, the agency develops special
videos and short films for public education and
outreach.
Forest Service. The Forest Service has joined the
National Park Service and other federal agencies
in a series of meetings with nonfederal groups and
the public to discuss common concerns in the
region. The Forest Service has also used tradi-
tional methods of informing the public through
news releases, Federal Register notices, and
speaking engagements.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. NOAA's National Sea Grant
Program funds Sea Grant Advisory Service Agents
at universities in all the Great Lakes states, except
Pennsylvania. These agents provide a wealth of
information to citizens, industry, state agencies,
tribal groups, and other organizations. Citizens
serve on advisory committees. The Great Lakes
Environmental Research Laboratory participates in
these outreach activities and works closely with
public schools in mentoring and advising on sci-
ence curricula, and related activities.
National Park Service. In 1985, the Midwest
Region of the National Park Service, in coopera-
tion with other federal agencies, began sponsoring
a series of meetings with nonfederal groups and the
public. The purpose of these meetings has been to
gather together people and agencies with mutual
interests to discuss their common concerns. The
National Park Service also holds public meetings
to find out how the public feels about operations on
the national parks. Scoping sessions are held with
NGO representatives to solicit similar input. Rep-
resentatives from NGOs, Great Lakes states, and
local governments serve on advisory boards for the
agency.
86
-------
Great Lakes
State Involvement
Representatives from several state agencies made
observations and offered suggestions during meet-
ings with the team, including the following:
• Federal agencies should not interfere with
states' authorities, including species man-
agement, as implied by the designation of
ecosystem boundaries. States were con-
cerned about federal efforts to assert regula-
tory authority where, in the states' view, it
does not exist. Programs specifically cited
that cause problems in some states are listed
(endangered and threatened) species, exotic
species, contaminants, and fisheries
management.
• Communication breakdown between federal
agencies, states, and the public is a major
problem. According to state officials, the
general public feels that people in Washing-
ton, DC, are not in tune with local problems.
State officials see the need for communica-
tion as a "two-way street."
• Federal agencies working within an ecosys-
tem should pool their funds and make them
available to state agencies to carry out tasks
at the local level.
Nongovernmental Involvement
Nongovernmental organizations that play a role in
developing ecosystem approaches to the Great
Lakes basin include environmental organizations,
universities, industry, and tribal natural resource
organizations. Many national, regional, state, and
local NGOs participate in ecosystem activities,
and some fund research and other activities on the
Great Lakes. For example, the National Wildlife
Federation cited several studies funded on its own
initiative.
Observations from this diverse group were as var-
ied as one might expect. Comments and sugges-
tions included the following:
• Federal and state governments must cooper-
ate. But when they do, it is often in
secrecy, without involving the public.
• Public participation is often solicited on an
ad hoc basis. Scientists should participate
with policymakers before decisions are
made.
• The Federal Advisory Committee Act is
thought by some to be a barrier to public
input.
• Historically, federal agencies have not
sought tribal participation when planning the
ecosystem approach. As landowners and
managers, tribes want to participate fully in
ecosystem planning.
• Industry representatives stated that too much
attention is paid at meetings to representa-
tives from environmental organizations.
They felt that some interagency groups, like
the International Joint Commission and
Great Lakes Commission, allowed their
decisions to be swayed by the sheer numbers
of environmentalists at meetings.
Participants' Suggestions
Comments and suggestions from interviewees on
public participation in the ecosystem approach in
the Great Lakes basin included the following:
• Federal and state agencies must cooperate
and improve collaboration with tribal leaders
and the public in developing approaches to
and management plans for the Great Lakes
ecosystem.
• Federal agencies should develop common
ecosystem boundaries as a basis for working
together, but also for better cooperation with
states and the private sector. State and non-
governmental representatives expressed.
concern about the different ecosystem
boundaries that different agencies have.
One agency even has different boundaries
within itself.
• An information network is needed that is
understood by and available to all who
cooperate on management of the Great
Lakes basin. This recommendation focuses.
on improving communications among
87
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
agencies and having data systems that are
compatible and accessible to all
stakeholders.
• Agencies must agree as to which ones will
carry out which tasks within the Great Lakes
ecosystem. They must also make resources
available and share them among agencies.
It is important to avoid duplication and to
use resources more efficiently in these times
of scarcity.
• The Federal Advisory Committee Act should
be examined to determine whether it hinders
public participation.
• Federal agencies should encourage public
participation in the ecosystem approach.
Some nongovernmental representatives in
particular indicated that they have had lim-
ited opportunity to contribute to operation
and management plans.
In summary, members of the public feel a close
relationship to the resources of the Great Lakes
basin. They recognize a declining resource that
needs attention, and feel that too many issues are
not addressed by federal and state agencies. Due
to their interest in the resource and to low govern-
ment funding, some organizations have chosen to
fund projects that will answer their questions.
Some survey participants thought that public par-
ticipation needs to be improved. Some felt that
federal laws hinder meaningful public input, par-
ticularly the Federal Advisory Committee Act and
the National Environmental Policy Act. Others
have had to use the Freedom of Information Act to
get information on specific governmental decisions
and actions.
SCIENCE AND INFORMATION
According to interviewees, a scientific understand-
ing of how the system works is essential to the
ecosystem approach. Sustained, continuous scien-
tific analysis is important for long-term solutions.
Furthermore, a commitment to monitoring and
assessment is fundamental to the success of this
approach. For example, the Green Bay ecosystem
approach has facilitated long-term research and
monitoring oriented toward management
objectives, as well as to collaboration of multiple
agencies in the Green Bay Mass Balance Study.
It was also emphasized that the ecosystem
approach must be a multiple-scale effort that
addresses all media (including air, soils, and
water). Several interviewees asserted that each
location had a different ecosystem, with its own
set of problems and factors, and that different
stressors must be recognized at different locations.
Another participant put it this way: efforts must
focus on a particular set of stressors and on interac-
tions among them.
The Great Lakes scientific community, especially
through the International Joint Commission, has
advocated an ecosystem approach for more than
15 years; several reports on the subject date back
as far as 1978. The research community is large
and diverse: there are more than 300 organizations
doing research on the Great Lakes, with more than
900 projects recently catalogued.
Gaps and Limitations
In general, survey participants said they got their
science and information from multiple sources.
One state agency said it got scientific input by
convening a panel of experts. Tribes in particular
need research and expertise from the federal gov-
ernment. Like others, they get science from vari-
ous sources. Although interviewees said that sci-
ence and information are essential, no one indi-
cated that current lack of data or science was a
major stumbling block to the ecosystem approach.
Nevertheless, interviewees described several sci-
ence and information gaps and limitations. Two
types of scientific information were said to be
important: ecological patterns and ecological pro-
cesses. Linked to the first was recognition of the
need for landscape-level, geographically organized
information that is linked through models to eco-
logical, social, and economic factors. Another
theme was the need for information to be shared
and accessible. One participant warned that the
ecosystem approach is information-intensive—
more intensive than community- or population-
level information. Several interviewees empha-
sized the need to be able to measure progress (and
success).
88
-------
Great Lakes
A number of assertions were made about data, data
quality, and data sharing. Most interviewees'
organizations collect data, but are starting to real-
ize the need for data from other sources. Partici-
pants felt that data collected by volunteers can be
useful, although it must be carefully evaluated for
quality and accuracy. Still, they also felt a need
to understand the limitations of data they did not
collect themselves or that was collected for pur-
poses other than their own.
Some said that there is duplicated data collection
among various federal agencies. Many agreed
that, no matter what the source, data bases (that
is, data sets) must be standardized and shareable.
Other interviewees felt that there are too many sets
of information owned by single entities—all of the
stakeholders involved in an ecosystem, they main-
tained, should have a common set of information
with compatible data sets.
The Great Lakes community is a model for other
ecosystems in terms of data sharing and accessibil-
ity. The Great Lakes Information Network links
data, information, and individuals in the region
using the Internet. Linked information providers
include the Great Lakes Commission, Great Lakes
Environmental Research Laboratory/NOAA, Fed-
eral Reserve Bank of Chicago, Army Corps of
Engineers, U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes
Protection Fund, EPA Great Lakes National Pro-
gram Office, Great Lakes Sea Grant Network,
Michigan State University, Great Lakes Research
Consortium at State University of New York at
Syracuse, Canadian Center for Inland Waters, and
Universities Council on Water Resources. Sub-
jects include: the environment and natural
resources; commerce, industry, and the economy;
policy and legislation; human health; and educa-
tion. Available are fact sheets, calendars and cur-
rent events, newsletters, directories and bibliogra-
phies, and draft documents for review.
Interaction of Scientists With Managers
and the Public
Several survey participants stated that science is
not linked strongly enough to management. Many
felt that research projects intended to be useful to
managers must be designed with management
objectives in mind.
Some participants felt that scientists write only for
other scientists, and that they must learn to write
for the public as well.
OBSERVATIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on interviews and materials collected in the
Great Lakes basin, and after careful consideration,
the survey team developed a series of observations
about the ecosystem approach, and recommenda-
tions for its continued development in the Great
Lakes ecosystem and its broader application across
the nation.
Observations
After studying and discussing ecosystem
approaches in the Great Lakes basin, the survey
team drew the following conclusions:
1. The ecosystem approach is a process. It
begins by involving all stakeholders in
diagnosing problems. The middle phase
consists of selecting objectives and poten-
tial solutions. It concludes with another
process: adaptive management. Of course,
managing ecosystems is nearly impossible,
except for some water level and diversion
management, but we can manage human
interactions with ecosystems.
2. The ecosystem approach is place-based.
Pride of citizens in their ecosystem requires
involvement of all stakeholders from the
beginning. A place-based approach
requires flexible application of national
laws, policies, and regulations to allow
selection of remedies at the ecosystem
level. Furthermore, it requires flexibility in
and coordination among federal (and state
and local) agencies to support locally
derived goals and objectives consistent
with the national and international signifi-
cance of the ecosystem.
3. Ecosystems must be viewed in perspective.
Not all ecosystems are of equal value from
a natural resource perspective. An ecosys-
tem must be viewed both globally and
locally to determine its regional, national;
or even international significance.
89
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
4. The ecosystem approach must occur at mul-
tiple scales. The ecosystem approach must
address ecosystem processes, governments,
other institutions, industries, economies,
and societies that operate at nested and
overlapping scales. Similarly, decisions
are made at multiple scales. For example,
decisions and policies are made at the
national (and global) scale regarding cli-
mate change, water quality, coastal zone
management, air pollution, and protection
of areas of national or international signifi-
cance. At a regional, state, or watershed
scale, decisions are made about watershed
planning, resource allocation, and funding
for water supply, municipal sewage, and
ground water protection. At a local or indi-
vidual level, everyday decisions are made
by residents, communities, municipalities,
and individual industries or farms. Each
level above the local or individual level
must recognize the needs and constraints of
the level below it while still striving for a
level of protection appropriate for the
ecosystem in question.
5. The ecosystem approach is long term. Envi-
ronmental problems on the Great Lakes,
such as pollution, overfishing, and introduc-
tion of nonnative species, are decades old
or more. Short-term solutions should not be
expected. Monitoring change and the
results of management decisions is funda-
mental to adaptive management and to
assuring long-term solutions. Political sys-
tems, which change relatively frequently,
must recognize that persistence is needed
to solve some of these problems in the long
term.
6. The ecosystem approach is based on scien-
tific understanding. A scientific under-
standing of how the system works is essen-
tial. Without a scientific basis, decisions
on diagnosing problems, identifying objec-
tives, selecting solutions, and monitoring
change are likely to miss their targets,
cause frustration, and waste resources. Our
present knowledge and understanding of
ecosystem processes is good but not
adequate.
7. The ecosystem approach can be both aided
and hindered by federal law. Some features
of the Clean Water Act, the Great Lakes
Critical Programs Act, and others clearly
promote the ecosystem approach. But fea-
tures of other federal laws were cited by
survey participants as real or potential bar-
riers to the process. Some participants
stated that a clear congressional mandate
for the ecosystem approach would assist
federal workers and agencies in pursuing
the objectives and goals of the ecosystem
approach.
Recommendations
After careful deliberation based on observing
ecosystem approaches in the Great Lakes basin,
the survey team makes the following recommenda-
tions for federal agencies:
1. Develop interagency budgeting. The fed-
eral government should develop inter-
agency approaches to budgeting. A similar
recommendation is also appropriate for
state, local, and private interests. The fact
that each agency has its own mission and
agenda has led to a lack of cohesion in
program implementation from an ecosystem
perspective. A coordinated approach would
enable agencies to "leave their agency hats
at the door", when deciding how to spend
dollars. Furthermore, interagency teams
could coordinate budgetary actions affect-
ing large, bioregional ecosystems. At a
minimum, this would increase communica-
tion across agency boundaries and reduce
redundant programs. An interagency budget
team could also look for synergistic activi-
ties among agencies, which could be very
beneficial when financial resources are
scarce.
2. Take local and regional goals into account.
Federal agencies should consider local and
regional goals and priorities in their plan-
ning, as well as national goals.
3. Foster a place-oriented mentality. The fed-
eral government should instill a place-
oriented mentality into federal programs by
encouraging a regional focus and taking lo-
cal and regional goals into account during
goal setting, planning, budgeting, and
implementation.
90
-------
Great Lakes
4. Set common goals. The federal government
should establish common goals for agencies
with programs in a given region, ensuring
that these goals are consistent with regional
goals (the Great Lakes 5-Year Strategy is a
good example).
5. Be flexible in implementing programs. Fed-
eral agencies should be flexible and cre-
ative in applying environmental policies
and programs that address ecosystem goals
and objectives. In many cases, standard
interpretations of laws and regulations are
restrictive, whereas the laws and regula-
tions themselves may be interpreted to
allow flexible management.
6. Coordinate remediation and restoration
activities. Remediation (cleanup) activi-
ties should be addressed in a manner that
will be supportive of and complementary to
natural resource damage restoration. State,
Native American tribal, and federal trustees
should strive to coordinate Natural
Resource Damage Assessment activities
with remedial planning activities in order to
identify joint areas of concern that may be
addressed in an efficient manner by all
involved parties.
7. Establish incentives for employees and man-
agers. There should be incentives for fed-
eral employees and managers to work with
other agencies and stakeholders, to manage
adaptively, and to be innovative. The fed-
eral government should support interagency
cooperation and coordination by requiring
interactions with other agencies and stake-
holders and other nontraditional activities
in performance plans (such as explicitly
including involvement in a public participa-
tion or interagency activity, and
participation in management conferences
by scientists). A team approach that in-
cludes representatives from multiple agen-
cies could be an efficient and cost-effective
way of achieving true coordination. Re-
wards should go beyond standard agency
cash bonuses, and could include increasing
funds to continue or expand successful pro-
grams, and publicly recognizing the em-
ployee or manager.
8. Use realistic ecosystem indicators. More
realistic performance and progress indica-
tors should focus on environmental out-
comes. Performance measures should be
based on ecosystem goals and objectives,
not on numbers of permits issued, publica-
tions, or meetings held.
9. Encourage interagency research and moni-
toring. Federal employees must be moti-
vated to encourage interagency coordina-
tion and collaboration in research and mon-
itoring at both the project and program
level.
10. Fund ecosystemwide research, monitoring,
and data bases. Portions of multiple agency
budgets for research, monitoring, assess-
ment, and information management should
be organized on an ecosystemwide basis.
11. Improve public access to science and infor-
mation. Scientists who write for public
consumption should be rewarded.
12. Support sharing of information. Efforts such
as the Great Lakes Information Network
should be funded and encouraged in other
ecosystems. Geographically based data
collection, standardization, and distribution
should be encouraged and expanded.
91
-------
-------
Chapter 5: PACIFIC NORTHWEST FORESTS
The Pacific Northwest forests are one of seven
ecosystems chosen for further study by the Inter-
agency Ecosystem Management Task Force. In
August 1994, a survey team traveled to Oregon and
Washington to interview federal, state, and tribal
parties. The team focused on the management of
federal forest lands within the ecosystem, because
those lands were the subject of an interagency
effort based on a forest management plan jointly
adopted by the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior. The team did not review the relationship
of the Administration's Forest Plan to private land
management issues: the ecosystem-based man-
agement strategy for the Pacific Northwest is lim-
ited to federal lands and does not prescribe man-
agement practices for private lands. The survey
team consisted of Bob Szaro, Diane Gelburd, and
Susan Huke from the U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture (USDA); Jim Pipkin, Don Knowles, and
Harvey Doerksen from the U.S. Department of the
Interior; and Louise Milkman from the U.S.
Department of Justice.
From August 16 through 19, the team met with
representatives from the USDA Forest Service.,
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Na-
tional Park Service, National Marine Fisheries
Service, and Environmental Protection Agency;
staff in the Office of Forestry and Economic
Development and Regional Ecosystem Office;
state officials from California and Oregon; and
three tribal representatives.
The team also met or talked with George
Frampton, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for
Fish and Wildlife and Parks; Jack Ward Thomas,
Director of the Forest Service; and Mike
Dombeck, Acting Director of the Bureau of Land
Management.
It should be noted at the outset that this survey was
limited by pending litigation. In view of the nu-
merous lawsuits that were challenging the Clinton
administration's Forest Plan at the time of the
interviews, it was deemed inappropriate to meet
with any of the private parties or counties involved
in the litigation. Even with federal officials, it was
not considered appropriate to discuss issues under
litigation. For example, the team did not pursue
questions related to the scientific analysis underly-
ing the Administration's .decision on the Forest
Plan or the decision's compliance with all relevant
statutes and regulations.
BACKGROUND
The Pacific Northwest forest ecosystem refers gen-
erally to the extensive forests that are now consid-
ered to be the range of the northern spotted owl
(figure 1). The ecosystem extends from the coast
to the crest of the Cascade Mountains (including a
portion of the east side of the Cascades), from
southern British Columbia into northern California
almost to the San Francisco Bay. With the excep-
tion of the Puget Sound and the Willamette Valley
in Oregon, the region is mostly mountainous. Fig-
ure 2 shows physiographic provinces within the
range of the northern spotted owl.
The Historic Ecosystem
Throughout much of the region, wildfire and Native
American use of fire played a major role in shap-
ing the forests. Intensive timber harvesting since
World War II and intensive fire suppression efforts
over the past 60 years have caused several
changes in forest characteristics, such as increases
in fragmentation and fuel materials, and changes
in species mix.
Vegetation is generally of a mixed conifer forest
type, but varies among physiographic provinces. In
the Olympic Peninsula area, there are coniferous
rain forests on the western slopes of the Olympic
Mountains and relatively dry Douglas-fir forests in
the rain shadow on the eastern slopes.
There are lowlands, including coniferous forests,
deciduous forests, and native prairie grasslands,
throughout the Puget Sound and southwestern
Washington. The northern portions of the Cas-
cades region are characterized by Douglas-fir and
western hemlock at lower elevations, and moun-
tain hemlock and silver fir at higher elevations. To
the south in Oregon, Douglas-fir and western hem-
lock give way to mixed conifer forests of Douglas-
fir, grand fir, and incense cedar. In California, the
forests are dominated by mixed conifers or pon-
derosa pine. The Coast Range Mountains are
93
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
dominated by Douglas-fir, western hemlock, and
western redcedar in the north; redwood forests and
mixed forests of Douglas-fir and hardwoods domi-
nate the southern portion.
This ecosystem is characterized by relatively
higher precipitation than the area immediately east
of the Cascade divide. Precipitation is generally
in the form of winter storms. The higher elevations
receive mostly snow, whereas lower elevations get
rain. Condensation drip is an important source of
moisture at middle elevations and in the coastal
provinces. Precipitation increases over coastal
mountains and the Cascade Range, and decreases
sharply in the lee of the higher terrain. The south-
ern part of the region has a typical Mediterranean
climate of mild, wet winters with warm, dry sum-
mers, whereas the northernmost area has a much
wetter climate and cooler summers.
There are thousands of miles of rivers and streams
within the ecosystem. They include large systems
such as the Columbia, Skagit, Rogue, and
Klamath Rivers; small headwater streams originat-
ing from glaciers in the Cascade Range; coastal
streams influenced by rain; many lakes and ponds;
and wetlands associated with rivers, streams,
lakes, ponds, seeps, and springs. Aquatic condi-
tions in the Pacific Northwest provide suitable
habitat for salmonids, particularly anadromous
salmonids, which are present throughout the
ecosystem.
Historic Forest Practices
Timber harvesting in the extensive forests of the
Pacific Northwest began in the 1800s, when the
first non-Indian immigrants began to settle and
farm the interior valleys of western Oregon and the
Puget Sound region. Initially, the forests that cov-
ered much of the landscape were viewed as an
impediment to progress. They were systematically
cleared to make way for agriculture.
In the late 1800s and early 1900s, timber extrac-
tion for commercial purposes began to increase.
Lumber camps sprang up in the region, especially
in areas accessible by river or railroad. Lowland
areas close to population centers were logged first,
then less accessible areas in more mountainous
terrain. Logging in these early years frequently
consisted of a clearcut and burn approach in which
noncommercial species and many small-diameter
trees were wasted. There was little or no attention
to replanting after harvest.
Shortly after World War II, with increased demand
for housing, the invention of the gas-powered chain
saw, and improvements in transportation, logging
began in earnest on federal lands in the Pacific
Northwest. Gradually, methods of forest manage-
ment were adopted on most federal and private
lands that included clearcutting, removal of logs
and snags, slash burning, thinning, and planting of
single-species stands on cutover areas. It was
assumed that forests managed in this manner could
be cut and regrown in relatively short intervals of
perhaps 40-80 years without negatively affec.ting
other resources, such as water quality, fish, soils,
or terrestrial animals.
The emphasis on timber production is exemplified
by the Oregon and California (O&C) Lands Act of
1937 (43 U.S.C. §§ 1181a et seq.). This Act covers
Bureau of Land Management timber management
on revested O&C Railroad grant lands and recon-
veyed Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands in west-
ern Oregon. The Act specifies that lands
"classified as timberlands, and power-site lands
valuable for timber, shall be managed ... for per-
manent forest production, and the timber thereon
shall be sold, cut and removed in conformity with
the principle of sustained yield for the purpose of
providing a permanent source of timber supply,
protecting watersheds, regulating stream flow, and
contributing to the economic stability of local
communities and industries, and providing recre-
ational facilities."
Furthermore, the O&C Lands Act and the National
Forest Management Act of 1976, 16 U.S.C.
§§ 1604 et seq., create both a strong interdepen-
dency between local governments and the two
primary federal land management agencies, the
Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Ser-
vice, and an incentive to harvest timber. Counties
in which any part of the O&C lands are located
receive 50 percent of the revenues generated by
those lands. Counties receive 25 percent of
revenues generated from Forest Service lands.
After more than a century of logging and fire con-
trol, the Pacific Northwest forests are now a highly
fragmented mosaic of recent clearcuts, thinned
stands, and young plantations interspersed with
uncut natural stands. The remaining natural stands
94
-------
Pacific Northwest
SAN FRANCISCO
Figure 1.—Range of the northern spotted owl
in the United States. Boundaries of national
forests within the owl's range are shown.
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Eastern Washington Cascades
Olympic Peninsula
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
State Boundary
---- Physiographic Province Boundary
Owl Range
Figure 2.—Physiographic provinces within .the
range of the northern spotted owl.
range from forests that are at least 1,000 years old
to relatively young, even-aged stands that have
regenerated naturally after wildfires. Because
wildfires and windstorms often kill only part of
natural stands, they are frequently characterized by
uneven-aged mixtures of trees that survived catas-
trophes and younger trees that filled in the
understory afterwards.
Stands that still have many old 'trees in the over-
story are usually referred to as "old growth" or
"ancient forests." Where there are only scattered
individuals or patches of large old trees and a
majority of young or mature trees, the stands are
referred to as "mixed age" or even "young."
Mixed-age stands are particularly common in areas
such as the Oregon Coast Range, where there were
96
-------
Pacific Northwest
extensive fires in the 1800s. Mixed-age stands
defy categorization according to the significant
attributes of either "old growth" or "young" forests.
These mixed-age stands have been the center of
the debate over how much "old growth" or
"ancient forest" is left in the Pacific Northwest.
Modification of Management
Changes in public perceptions of and expectations
for federal land management in the Pacific North-
west and elsewhere have led to gradually in-
creased protection of unique ecosystems and
species, increased concern for riparian areas, and
experimentation with methods of "new forestry"
that are designed to produce timber while retaining
some of the structural features found in old forests,
thereby more closely imitating natural disturbance
regimes. Prior efforts to ensure permanent forest
production levels assumed that sustainable forest
harvest levels would sustain all forest processes
and functions. These changes have decreased the
volume of timber sold on federal lands, and have
generated considerable public controversy.
As studies on the ecology of late-successional, or
old-growth, forests began to proliferate in the. 1970s
and 1980s, it became apparent that forest man-
agement based primarily on high-yield, short-rota-
tion forestry would not adequately protect the con-
siderable biodiversity that was present in those
forests and their associated aquatic ecosystems.
Furthermore, new legislation, particularly the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
42 U.S.C. §§ 4231 et seq., the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq., and the
species viability requirements under the National
Forest Management Act of 1976 focused attention
on the ecological implications of timber harvest
practices.
Ultimately, the issue focused on the need to retain
the old-growth forest ecosystem in the Pacific
Northwest, and on methods for preserving it. Much
of the public debate centered on threatened and
endangered species, most notably the northern
spotted owl as an indicator species for this ecosys-
tem. Subsequent listings of the marbled murrelet
and certain runs of salmon have highlighted the
fate of specific species in the region.
Modification of timber management on federal
lands in response to apparent declines of the
northern spotted owl had already begun in the early
1980s, even before the owl was listed as threat-
ened. For example, on September 26, 1983, the
Bureau of Land Management and the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife signed an agree-
ment for "Spotted Owl Habitat Management on
Bureau of Land Management Lands in Western
Oregon" that stipulated the Bureau's obligation to
manage certain sites designated as spotted owl
habitat for a 5-year period and to maintain a popu-
lation of 90 pairs. The Bureau of Land Manage-
ment and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
were to cooperate on the development of habitat
management plans for these sites, which came to
be known as spotted owl management areas. By
1987, approximately 110 spotted owl management
areas were being monitored. On December 22,
1987, the parties extended their agreement for
3 years.
In October 1989, the Interagency Scientific Com-
mittee to Address the Conservation of the Northern
Spotted Owl was established by an interagency
agreement between the Forest Service, Bureau of
Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and
National Park Service. Its charter was subse-
quently incorporated into section 318 of the De-
partment of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1990
(P.L. 101-121), which required the Interagency
Scientific Committee to develop a scientifically
credible conservation strategy for the owl. The six-
member committee was chaired by .Jack Ward
Thomas, who was then Chief Research Wildlife
Biologist at the Forest Service's Pacific Northwest
Research Station in La Grande, Oregon. He was
assisted by advisors from states, interest groups,
and federal agencies.
The Interagency Scientific Committee's report
(commonly called the "Thomas Report" or the
"ISC Report"), which was published on April 2,
1990, recommended a strategy that included estab-
lishing reserves known as habitat conservation
areas. These areas, which were interspersed
among other lands referred to as the forest matrix,
were designed to support multiple owl pairs, and to
provide a basis for future dispersal and nesting.
The Interagency Scientific Committee established
standards and guides for the distribution, location,
size, spacing, and quality of habitat conservation
area lands and connectivity between them.
97
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
On June 26, 1990, the Fish and Wildlife Service
listed the northern spotted owl as threatened
throughout its range, effective July 23, 1990. On
January 15, 1992, 6.9 million acres of federally
owned land were designated by the agency as crit-
ical habitat for the owl. Deleted from earlier pro-
posed critical habitats were state and federal
acreage where the economic impacts of designa-
tion outweighed the potential benefits to the owl.
The Forest Service committed itself to managing
its lands in a manner "not inconsistent with" the
Interagency Scientific Committee strategy. In lieu
of following the Committee plan, the Bureau of
Land Management used the so-called Jamison
strategy in proposing timber sales, under which the
Bureau would offer reduced levels of timber sales
(reduced from the annual allowable harvest based
on the agency's 10-year harvest plan) in both fiscal
years (FY) 1991 and 1992, offer no timber sales in
habitat conservation areas or in spotted owl man-
agement areas delineated under the agreement
with Oregon, and consider the Interagency
Scientific Committee's standard for dispersal habi-
tat where possible. In addition, the Bureau pro-
posed to increase efforts, in cooperation with other
agencies, to study the owl and its needs as well as
associated topics in silviculture management. It
also proposed to include a management option
emphasizing owl and habitat protection that incor-
porated the Interagency Scientific Committee's
recommendations as an alternative for analysis in
the planning process, leading to new resource
management plans.
The Fish and Wildlife Service, in its final biologi-
cal opinion on the FY 1990 Bureau of Land Man-
agement timber sales program, concluded that
52 of the proposed 174 sales were likely to jeopar-
dize the existence of the northern spotted owl,
partly because the Bureau did not agree to strictly
follow Interagency Scientific Committee guidance
in many areas. The Bureau modified eight of the
sales to remove jeopardy, but sought exemption
from section 7 of the Endangered Species Act to
permit it to hold timber sales on the remaining
44 tracts in its FY 1991 timber sales program. In
its meeting of May 14, 1992, the Endangered
Species Committee exempted 13 of the 44 sales
and denied exemptions for the other 31. Never-
theless, the sales were the subject of litigation and
the 13 exempted tracts were not offered for sale.
Early in the Clinton administration, Interior
Secretary Babbitt withdrew the Bureau's request
for exemption, rendering moot the Endangered
Species Committee's decision.
In February 1991, then-Secretary of the Interior
Lujan appointed an interdisciplinary Northern
Spotted Owl Recovery Team with expertise in
biology, forestry, silviculture, and economics. The
team included federal employees from several
agencies, academic scientists, and representatives
from the Governors' offices in California, Oregon,
and Washington. The recovery team held monthly
open public meetings from March to Septem-
ber 1991, then met in closed session to develop
final options and recommendations in the form of a
draft recovery plan. Significantly, the draft plan
included an appendix devoted to analyzing the
effects of recovery efforts on all known plants and
animals associated with late successional old
growth ecosystems. This represented an initial
step away from species-by-species correction
efforts. The draft plan was released for public
review in January 1992, and public hearings were
held throughout the three states during the spring
of 1992. The proposed final recovery plan was
presented to Secretary Lujan in the final days of
the Bush administration, but action was deferred to
the Clinton administration. To date, no action has
been taken to accept the plan as final.
Shortly after the recovery team was convened, the
House Agriculture, Interior, and Merchant Marine
and Fisheries Committee and relevant subcommit-
tees formed the Scientific Panel on Late Succes-
sional Forest Ecosystems and assigned it the fol-
lowing tasks: to identify, map, and classify eco-
logically significant old growth forests on federal
lands; to develop management options for lands
outside of reserves; to develop alternatives for pro-
tecting old growth; and to quantify the effect on
sustainable harvest levels of each reserve system.
This effort specifically targeted the sustainability
of late successional old growth ecosystems, in
contrast to species-driven efforts. Referred to as
the "Gang of Four," the panel of experts consisted
of K. Norman Johnson of Oregon State University,
Jerry F. Franklin of the University of Washington,
Jack Ward Thomas of the Forest Service, and John
Gordon, Dean of the Forestry School of Yale Uni-
versity. The panel submitted its report to Congress
on October 8, 1991, but there has been no congres-
sional action on it.
Federal agency actions pertaining to Pacific
Northwest forests have been the subject of constant
98
-------
Pacific Northwest
litigation since the 1980s. An injunction against
the Forest Service following the Endangered
Species Committee decision to allow the 13 sales
to proceed led to creation of yet another scientific
group, the Scientific Analysis Team. This team
evaluated the effect of the Interagency Scientific
Committee strategy on all forest species known to
occur in the range of the northern spotted owl to
ensure that liability requirements under the Na-
tional Forest Management Act were not knowingly
violated. This represented another step away from
single-species protection of the northern spotted
owl and toward more multiple-resource manage-
ment of the ecosystem. The Forest Service's
attempt to implement Interagency Scientific
Committee's recommendations was stopped by
Judge William L. Dwyer based on the following
determinations: the 1992 Final Environmental Im-
pact Statement on Management for the Northern
Spotted Owl in the National Forests violated the
National Environmental Policy Act; the Forest
Service did not address whether its adoption of the
Interagency Scientific Committee's conservation .
strategy would cause extirpation of any of
32 species identified in the final environmental
impact statement as closely associated with late-
successional or old-growth forests, in addition to its
consideration of the owl; and the Forest Service
had not analyzed the effects of the Interagency
Scientific Committee's strategy on the 13 Bureau
of Land Management sales exempted by the
Endangered Species Committee.
The Scientific Analysis Team, led by Jack Ward
Thomas, was composed primarily of Forest Service
personnel, with only 1 of its 10 members from
another agency (the Fish and Wildlife Service).
The 13 experts recruited by the team to assist in its
work were all from the Forest Service. The team's
report, completed in March 1993, was later used as
a significant resource document by the Forest
Ecosystem Management Assessment Team and as
an appendix to the draft supplemental environmen-
tal impact statement that accompanied the Admin-
istration's Forest Plan.
Protecting Regional Economies
At the same time that agencies were taking ac-
tions to adjust to the new demands of public opin-
ion, to satisfy their legal obligations, and to meet
the needs of listed endangered species (particular-
ly those of the northern spotted owl), there were
other actions to mitigate economic losses incurred
from reduced timber harvests.
The Federal Timber Contract Payment Modifica-
tion Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-478) was intended to
address financial problems in the timber industry.
Timber purchasers had submitted high bids for
contracts in the late 1970s, based on their belief
that housing starts would remain high, demand for
forest products would increase, and inflation would
continue. But timber prices dropped drastically,
forcing holders of those contracts to absorb major
losses. The "Buy-Out Act" allowed purchasers to
pay fees in lieu of carrying out their contracts. In
1988, purchasers who still held contracts but had
been unable to take advantage of the Buy-Out Act
were allowed to defer certain portions of payments
for harvested timber under certain circumstances.
In response to judicial prohibitions on timber har-
vesting and a policy stalemate, section 318 of the
U.S. Department of the Interior Appropriations Act
(P.L. 101-121) required the Bureau of Land Man-
agement and Forest Service to offer an aggregate
total of 1.9 billion board feet for sale in FY 1989
and 1990, a reduction from approximately 3 billion
board feet. It also required the Bureau and Forest
Service to consider the recommendations made by
the Interagency Scientific Committee.
For FY 1991, 1992, and 1993, Congress passed
"safety net" legislation (P.L. 101-512, 102-154,
and 102-381) to protect O&C counties from de-
clining revenues due to reduced timber harvest.
The legislation provided that revenues to those
counties in FY 1991 would not be less than
90 percent of the average annual payment made to
them from O&C receipts during a 3-year baseline
period (FY 1988-1990); for 1992 and 1993, the
average of the 5-year baseline period of FY 1986-
1990 was used. In both cases, the years used for
averages were ones in which there had been par-
ticularly high payments to the counties. The
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
(P.L. 103-66) gives a new payment calculation for
FY 1994-2003 for O&C timber receipt sharing.
The payments for FY 1994-1998 will be equal to
the applicable percentage multiplied by the aver-
age of the revenues to each county during
FY 1986-1990. In FY 1999-2003, payments will
be the greater of the amount calculated by the new
formula or the amount calculated under the old
50-percent formula.
99
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Concurrently, both the Forest Service and Bureau
of Land Management were mired in litigation. By
the early 1990s, most federal agencies were pro-
hibited from offering additional timber sales west
of the Cascades. A White House press release on
September 14, 1994, during the Bush administra-
tion, echoed the increasing frustrations of the
Pacific Northwest region:
Environmental organizations have filed eleven
lawsuits seeking to lock up our public forest
lands and opposing Administration efforts to
implement spotted owl management plans.
These lawsuits exploit the conflicting mandates
of laws passed by Congress governing the
management of our federal forest lands. Laws
such as National Environmental Policy Act,
National Forest Management Act, and
Endangered Species Act were passed by
Congress without any review of how these
statutes, each with their own particular
congressional mandate, work together.
This avalanche of litigation regarding forest
management, heard by judges who have gone
far beyond simply interpreting the statutes, and
a Congress that has failed to pass legislation
necessary to appropriately change the law, has
resulted in stopping the federal timber harvest
program in the Northwest. As a result, hundreds
of mills have been shut down, and thousands of
timber workers have been thrown out of work,
reducing critical federal timber harvest
revenues to local communities for schools and
other services.
Current Situation
On April 2, 1993, consistent with his campaign
pledge, President Clinton convened the Forest
Conference in Portland, Oregon, to address the
human and environmental needs served by federal
forests of the Pacific Northwest and northern Cali-
fornia. The President, Vice-President, and many
Cabinet members spent an entire day listening to
all points of view and collecting information.
President Clinton directed his Cabinet to craft a
balanced, comprehensive, long-term policy for the
management of over 24 million acres of public
land. The President directed that the plan meet
the following five principles:
1. Where sound management policies can
preserve the health of forest lands, sales
should go forward. Where this requirement
cannot be met, we must do our best to offer
new economic opportunities for year-round,
high-wage, high-skill jobs.
2. The long-term health of our forests,
wildlife, and waterways should be
protected.
3. To the extent possible, efforts must be
scientifically sound, ecologically credible,
and legally responsible.
4. The plan should produce a predictable and
sustainable level of timber sales and non-
timber resources that will not degrade or
destroy the environment.
5. The federal government should be made to
work together and for the people to achieve
these goals.
An interagency, interdisciplinary team of expert
scientists, economists, sociologists, and others was
assembled and led by Jack Ward Thomas. After
3 months of intensive work, which included review
and evaluation of all fully developed proposals for
management of federal forests within the range of
the northern spotted owl, this Forest Ecosystem
Management Assessment Team produced a de-
tailed assessment of 10 options. A second team
developed options for dealing with economic dis-
location that could result from reduced timber har-
vests, while a third team reported on the required
interagency coordination for implementation of an
ecosystem-based approach to forest management.
On July 1, 1993, President Clinton announced his
proposed "Forest Plan for a Sustainable Economy
and a Sustainable Environment," containing com-
prehensive strategies for forest management, eco-
nomic development, and agency coordination. The
Administration's Forest Plan provides:
• A new forest management plan to enable
sustainable harvest, allowing: timber sales
and logging that are scientifically sound and
legally responsible; an innovative approach
to environmental protection that is focused
on key water supplies and valuable
100
-------
Pacific Northwest
old-growth forests and that bases forest man-
agement on science and a respect for exist-
ing law; and a comprehensive system of old
growth reserves to protect old growth
ecosystems.
• New economic assistance to local workers,
businesses, and communities in order to
strengthen the region's economy, create
family-wage jobs, offer new economic
opportunities, and ensure the region's long-
term economic health.
• New opportunities for people in the region to
participate in decision making, including
improved coordination among federal agen-
cies responsible for managing federal lands.
The forest management strategy was analyzed
in a draft supplemental environmental impact
statement issued in July 1993. More than
100,000 comments were received during the
3-month public comment period. The final
environmental impact statement was made
available to the public in February 1994.
There have been several actions aimed at imple-
menting the preferred alternative (Alternative 9) of
the final environmental impact statement. In a
Record of Decision, the Secretaries of Agriculture
and the Interior jointly amended the planning doc-
uments of 19 national forests and 7 Bureau of Land
Management districts. This comprehensive strat-
egy for an ecosystem approach to common admin-
istration of lands in the Pacific Northwest has
extensive standards and guidelines, including land
allocations. About 30 percent of the lands of these
two agencies have been set aside by Act of
Congress. Under the plan, the remaining
70 percent are allocated as follows: late-succes-
sional reserves (30 percent); adaptive management
areas (6 percent); managed late-successional areas
(1 percent); administratively withdrawn areas
(6 percent); riparian reserves (11 percent); and
matrix (16 percent). Although certain thinning and
salvage activities would be allowed in the re-
serves, programmed timber harvest could be con-
ducted only in the 22 percent designated as matrix
or adaptive management areas (rather than in the
full 70 percent formerly available for harvesting),
and only in compliance with standards and guide-
lines designed to achieve conservation objectives.
The implementation of this decision calls for a
high level of coordination and cooperation among
agencies in the long term. A Memorandum of
Understanding for Forest Ecosystem Management,
agreed to by the White House Office on Environ-
mental Policy, the Departments of the Interior,
Agriculture, and Commerce, and the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (EPA), established a formal
procedure for interagency coordination for an ini-
tial 5-year period. The memorandum also created
several coordinating groups, including the Inter-
agency Steering Committee, Regional Interagency
Executive Committee, and Regional Ecosystem
Office.
The Interagency Steering Committee establishes
overall policies governing the prompt, coordinated,
and effective implementation of the Forest Plan by
all relevant federal agencies, and addresses and
resolves issues referred by the Regional Inter-
agency Executive Committee. The Interagency
Steering Committee has representatives from the
offices of the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of
Agriculture, Administrator of EPA, and Under Sec-
retary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere,
and is led by the chair of the Council on Environ-
mental Quality. A White House-appointed
representative from the Committee serves as inter-
agency coordinator to provide general oversight
. and guidance of regional activities.
The Regional Interagency Executive Committee
(RIEC) consists of the Pacific Northwest regional
heads of the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Man-
agement, Fish and Wildlife Service, National
Marine Fisheries Service,;National Park Service,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, and EPA. In addition, the
RIEC receives public advice from the Intergov-
ernmental Advisory Committee, with representa-
tives from the agencies on the RIEC itself, three
tribal representatives, and representatives from
research arms of the Forest'Service, National Bio-
logical Service, and Natural Resources Conserva-
tion Service, and from the states of Washington,
Oregon, and California, and affected counties. The
RIEC is the senior regional entity charged with
assuring the prompt, coordinated, and successful
implementation of the standards and guidelines
outlined in the Record of Decision adopted by the
Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior. The
RIEC also implements the directives of the Inter-
agency Steering Committee, reports regularly on
101
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
implementation progress, and refers issues relating
to the policies or procedures for implementing the
standards and guidelines to the Interagency Steer-
ing Committee. Its policy and planning decisions
and recommendations are made collaboratively.
Individual land management and consultation
agencies retain the decision-making authority
vested in them by statute.
The Regional Ecosystem Office provides staff sup-
port to expedite RIEC decision making and prompt
interagency issue resolution for implementation of
standards and guidelines. This Office, which
reports to the RIEC, develops, evaluates, and
resolves consistency and implementation issues
related to specific topics. The Office also evalu-
ates major modifications that emerge from the
adaptive management process and coordinates the
formulation and implementation of data standards.
It does not have decision-making authority, but
makes recommendations to the RIEC. In late
September 1994, a new executive director of the
Office was appointed.
A Research and Monitoring Committee, composed
of full-time scientists in the Regional Ecosystem
Office and a standing group of agency liaison offi-
cers, makes recommendations to the RIEC on im-
plementation of standards and guidelines through
monitoring and research plans. The Interorganiza-
tional Resource Information Coordinating Council
is charged with addressing technical and policy
issues and recommendations for the utilization of
resource information, intergovernmental communi-
cations and data sharing, public access, data stan-
dards, data compatibility, geographic information
systems, and related technologies.
Province-level teams comprised of representatives
from federal agencies provide or coordinate analy-
ses at the province level as the basis for amend-
ments to forest and district plans. These teams
also prepare monitoring reports for provinces. Ad-
visory committees to each province-level team
include representatives from.states, tribes, affected
counties, the timber industry, and environmental
groups, as well as hunters, fishermen, and others.
On December 21, 1994, in his "Order on Motions
for Summary Judgment Re: 1994 Forest Plan"
(Seattle Audubon Society et al. v. James Lyons
et al.), Judge William L. Dwyer ruled that the fed-
eral agencies were acting within the bounds of the
law in implementing the Forest Plan. The judge
noted that for the first time in several years, the
forests that provide habitat for the northern spotted
owl will be managed by the responsible agencies
under a plan found lawful by the courts. In particu-
lar, the judge noted that agencies had previously
operated independently and sometimes in conflict,
and that "there is no way the agencies could com-
ply with the environmental laws without planning
on an ecosystem basis," given the current condi-
tion of the forests.
BUDGET ISSUES
The funds allocated by federal agencies to imple-
ment the Forest Plan are focused on two objec-
tives: an ecosystem approach to forest manage-
ment; and economic adjustment and community
assistance.
During the case study interviews, budget-related
discussions focused on activities to implement a
forest ecosystem approach and the management of
priority setting and funding of interagency offices
and activities. Interviewees remarked on the lack
of management flexibility under current budget
structures and processes, as well as on the difficul-
ties associated with implementing ecosystem-
based management during a period of stable or
decreasing budgets and agency downsizing.
Whereas expenditures for some activities with
well-defined outputs (such as stream restoration,
stocking fish, and production of elk habitat) have
well-established constituencies, equally effective
constituencies need to be developed for ecosys-
tem-based management initiatives, for which there
are less well-defined, longer term outputs and a
lower level of goods and services. Furthermore,
there is an increased need to coordinate agency
budgets for on-the-ground activities involving mul-
tiple agencies, such as Endangered Species Act
section 7 consultations on stream restoration or
timber sale projects. Multiagency budget coordi-
nation is difficult, because different agencies have
different reviewers from the Office of Management
and Budget and from the different appropriation
subcommittees that fund the major federal agen-
cies that manage federal lands in the Pacific
Northwest.
Current Budget Agreements
Current budget agreements include interagency
Memoranda of Understanding for economic ad-
justment and community assistance and for the
102
-------
Pacific Northwest
forest ecosystem approach pursuant to the Admin-
istration's Forest Plan. Although these Memoranda
provide a degree of funding for the interagency
ecosystem approach in the Pacific Northwest, con-
straints to effective interagency funding remain.
Economic adjustment and community assis-
tance and objectives. An Interagency Memoran-
dum of Understanding for Economic Adjustment
and Community Assistance was signed by the Sec-
retaries of the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce,
Labor, and Housing and Urban Development; the
Administrator of EPA; the Deputy Director of the
Office of Management and Budget; the Adminis-
trator of the Small Business Administration; the
Assistant to the President for Economic Policy; the
Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy; and
the Director of the Office on Environmental Policy.
The Memorandum committed funding to the com-
munity assistance program in the Pacific North-
west forest ecosystem.
The Forest Plan identified more than $270 million
in new funding for FY 1994—$1.2 billion over
5 years. It was estimated that the Plan would
directly affect approximately 6,000 jobs in 1994,
create more than 8,000 jobs, and fund 5,400 addi- ,
tional retraining opportunities. Key elements of
the Administration's Forest Plan for FY 1994
included:
• For workers and families, a 110-percent
increase in funding (from $20.2 million to
$42 million) for job search assistance,
retraining, and relocation under the Job
Training Partnership Act.
• A three-part strategy for business develop-
ment in the Pacific Northwest and northern
California, including improved access to
capital, expanded technical assistance, and
enhanced access to domestic and interna-
tional markets. Overall, this represented a
47-percent increase in funding (from
$163 million to $239.7 million).
• For communities, established levels of
financial assistance and a reliable schedule
of payments to timber counties to replace
the roller coaster of payments tied to timber
harvests and create a sound fiscal environ-
ment for county governments, businesses,
and financial institutions. This was designed
to strengthen community capacity to plan for
economic development and diversification,
and improve the infrastructure needed to
support such development through Commu-
nity Development Block Grant lending and
through the Rural .Development Administra-
tion's community facilities and water/
wastewater program. Overall, this represents
a 25-percent increase in funding (from
$298.6 million to $373.6 million).
• An overall 19-percent increase in funding
(from $438.2 million to $519.8 million)
allocated to protecting the environment,
creating jobs, investing in watershed mainte-
nance, restoring the ecosystem, and con-
ducting environmental research and monitor-
ing. Assistance in all of these areas was
designed to improve water, quality, increase
salmon stocks to avoid listing under the
Endangered Species Act, and enhance
commercial fishing. In addition, forest
stewardship was expanded to help small
landowners manage their forests.
• Support for the elimination of tax incentives
for the export of raw logs. In addition, the
President directed his Cabinet to study
effective ways to make it more difficult for
companies to avoid export limitations on
raw logs.
• Priority identification and implementation of
the best ways to strengthen small businesses
and secondary manufacturing in the wood
products industry, including a review of
ways to increase the supply of federal timber
set aside for small businesses and of ways to
provide possible preferences for bidders who
contract for domestic secondary processing.
The President directed the Cabinet to handle
this task, and to encourage improved and
effective community partnerships between
those with different perspectives on forest
management.
Memorandum of Understanding for Forest
Ecosystem Management. The Memorandum of
Understanding for Forest Ecosystem Management,
which was signed by the Director of the White
House Office on Environmental Policy, the Secre-
taries of the Interior and Agriculture, the Adminis-
trator of EPA, and the Under Secretary of Com-
merce for Oceans and Atmosphere, established a
framework for coordination of the ecosystem
103
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
approach. This agreement did not commit funds.
However, a cross-agency budget of $156.7 million
was developed to support forest the ecosystem
approach for FY 1995. Budgetary partners in-
cluded the Bureau of Land Management, Forest
Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, National Park Service, National
Marine Fisheries Service, and EPA.
Constraints
Agencies have found it difficult to set goals in an
interagency fashion, then to follow through with
the dollars needed to reach the goals. Many fed-
eral agency representatives consider the general
lack of budget flexibility a key constraint. Some
agencies have more restrictions than others.
Agency budget systems are usually structured to
track expenditures by counting outputs. For exam-
ple, it is easier to measure the volume of timber
sold and miles of boundary line surveyed than it is
to measure the water quality improvement in a
watershed. Ecosystem-based management goals
and objectives are not yet well-defined in the tradi-
tional financial benchmarks of counting and mea-
suring. It has been difficult to pinpoint the costs
and benefits of implementing certain aspects of the
plan.
In addition, some interviewees felt that the
FY 1994 appropriations language in the Adminis-
tration's Forest Plan was much more restrictive for
the Forest Service than it was for the Bureau of
Land Management. In the Conference Report for
H.R. 2520, "Making Appropriations for the De-
partment of the Interior and Related Agencies for
the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 1994"
(House Report 103-299, pages H8035-56), the
conferees agreed that the Bureau could reprogram
up to $17.3 million in funds from the O&C grant
lands account for watershed assessment and
restoration, without further restrictions. But
Amendment No. 71 of the Conference Report pro-
vided much more explicit instructions on how For-
est Service funds were to be transferred and used:
for example, securing key watersheds was speci-
fied as first priority; and rehabilitation projects
were to be undertaken only after watershed inven-
tory and analysis were complete.
Many agency representatives noted the problems
they had reorienting budgets in the middle of the
year, or when new priority workloads surfaced. For
example, EPA, the National Marine Fisheries Ser-
vice, and the Fish and Wildlife Service have fund-
ing and workload problems due to their budget cal-
culations based on permit, enforcement, and other
requirements not directly related to ecosystem
restoration. They cannot easily redirect staff away
from these permit and enforcement responsibilities;
EPA's budget in particular is driven by individual
resource concerns, such as water, air, enforcement,
waste, and research. It is difficult for these agen-
cies to work on a geographic basis, which further
complicates their participation in many assess-
ment, planning, and implementation activities.
In addition, funding sources for research activities
in the Pacific Northwest are disparate and uncoor-
dinated. The Forest Service, National Biological
Service, and EPA have several relatively au-
tonomous internal organizations, each with its own
ongoing research priorities.
Coordination of research funding and priorities
within any one agency is difficult; across multiple
agencies, it is much more complicated. This is
partly due to the long-term nature of some of the
research needed for sound ecosystem-based man-
agement. Stopping and starting research projects
is often inefficient and causes the loss of valuable
long-term projects. In addition, research and moni-
toring protocols are not fully developed for some
ecosystem functions, because the functions are not
fully described or understood.
Some agencies (such as the National Park Ser-
vice, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Indian
Affairs, and National Resources Conservation Ser-
vice) wanted to participate more in the ecosystem
effort, but were limited due to small budgets and
staff. Some agencies felt that involvement without
direct financial authorization and support posed a
problem.
Tribal representatives felt hampered because lim-
ited funds did not allow as much participation as
they wished in view of the many working groups
and committees. Budget constraints included staff
time, expert consultants, geographic information
systems and information management capabilities,
and travel to meetings.
104
-------
Pacific Northwest
Federal Agency Coordination and
Support
Each agency that signed the Memorandum of Un-
derstanding provides at least one full-time person
and pays certain expenses of the Regional Ecosys-
tem Office. Moreover, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers has agreed to equal participation in this
interagency forum. The three major federal re-
search agencies (the EPA, National Biological
Service, and Forest Service) also provide staffing
support to the Regional Ecosystem Office. The
Regional- Interagency Executive Committee has
authorized a state and a tribal position in the Re-
gional Ecosystem Office, but neither the states nor,
the tribes have committed funding to this effort.
Interviewee Comments
Interviewees offered the following observations:
• Tribes would like to see more cooperative
activities with joint funding. In addition to
the funding available through the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, they would like federal agen-
cies to provide them with direct financial
support for participation in meetings, plan-
ning activities, and the like. The Forest
Service's employment of a tribal coordinator
on the region's east side was considered a
very positive step toward establishing a truer
government-to-government relationship with
the tribes. All 51 tribes in the affected area
submitted an FY 1994 supplemental funding
request for $18 million, partly to support the
participation of one Or more employees in
this interagency ecosystem effort. No addi-
tional funding was provided. It was also
suggested that activities or programs should
be contracted together with appropriate ex-
pertise under Indian Self-Determination Act
(P.L. 93-638) contracts.
• It was suggested that agency directors give
clear direction to the region to establish pri-
orities and develop a cohesive cross-agency
budget package that will hold together
throughout the budgeting process.
• Some felt that funding should be by objec-
tives, with budget account consistency be-
tween agencies. Further work to define bud-
get categories and output measures for
ecosystem-based management will be nec-
essary before this can be fully implemented.
Several interviewees felt that financial
incentive programs to meet ecosystem
objectives are needed for tribal, state, and
private lands. These incentives may be in
the form of tax incentives, easement or
restoration payments, contracts, technical
assistance, or matching funds. Cooperative
programs can be used in conjunction with or
as substitutes for financial incentives. There
are many examples of partnership projects,
including the National Park Service's Eby's
Landing in Washington and City of Rocks in
Idaho. At Eby's Landing, the National Park
Service provides 50 percent of the funding,
and the state, county, and town provide
matching support and in-kind services.
Interviewees also gave examples of joint
visitor centers and other federal agency-
shared activities. At City of Rocks,
Coopville partially funds exhibits, an inter-
pretive brochure, and the salary of a town
planner, and the National Park Service has
overall management responsibility.
1 Some people suggested one line item appro-
priation for an ecosystem to a generic inter-
agency regional ecosystem office rather than
separate line items through separate
agencies. This would give more flexibility,
decrease reprogramming problems and ad-
verse effects on other areas, and more sup-
port for smaller agencies. This move would
make it necessary to address the realities of
agency turf-consciousness, current strategy
goals and directions, and the overall perva-
siveness of control and accountability re-
flected in the current budget structure and
process.
• Numerous comments supported more funds
for public involvement. A distinction must
be made between "more public involve-
ment" and "effective public involvement."
Generally, interviewees agreed that there
are numerous opportunities (through the
National Environmental Protection Act, for
example) for the public to comment on pro-
posed agency activities. Some interviewees
also noted, however, that efforts to reduce
public conflict or resolve public disputes are
105
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
generally not enhanced by current public
participation procedures. The perception
lingers that these processes are sterile and
nonsubstantive.
INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
This case study provided an opportunity to review
the Administration's approach to ecosystem-based
management in an area where interagency and
intergovernmental relationships had been strained
the most, and where the constant cycle of litiga-
tion meant that regional decision makers were un-
der constant pressure and scrutiny. Furthermore,
this is the only instance in which the President,
Vice-President, and several Cabinet officers have
directly participated.
The Pacific Northwest forests have, in combina-
tion, more agencies, more litigation history, more
individual species assessments (more than 1,100),
and more land area involved (50 million acres)
than any other ecosystem surveyed. The scale of
the landscape and other factors further complicate
the development of a consensus-based approach.
Moreover, a protracted history of interagency dis-
agreements, including political and legal battles
highlighted by media attention, have made it diffi-
cult to develop effective working relationships.
The Administration's Pacific Northwest Forest
Plan is intended to be a comprehensive approach
to institutional concerns, including those of a pol-
icy and programmatic nature. The Plan explicitly
recognizes that its success depends upon effective
communication and coordination among various
federal, state, tribal, and local entities, as well as
the private sector. These demands are already rig-
orous and will increase as specific policies, strate-
gies, and on-the-ground management actions are
developed and implemented. Accordingly, some
of the most noteworthy accomplishments in the ini-
tial Plan implementation are the establishment of:
• An interagency federal executive committee
to coordinate issues that cross agency
jurisdictions.
• Twelve provincial federal agency executive
committees.
• An intergovernmental advisory committee,
including 11 federal executives and
9 representatives of the tribal, state, and
local governments.
• Locally based advisory committees for each
province, including environmental and in-
dustry representatives in addition to federal,
state, local, and tribal governmental
representatives.
• A permanent interagency and interdisci-
plinary staff office to help address ecosys-
temwide issues. This office is also a report-
ing conduit for an interagency research and
monitoring committee and a resource infor-
mation council, including a comprehensive
geographic information system staff.
Shared Vision
Of all the issues covered in the interviews, the de-
velopment of a shared vision of the future was
mentioned most frequently as an essential ingredi-
ent to the success of ecosystem-based
management.
Prior to development of the President's plan, there
were many visions of the future, each competing
for primacy. These visions reflected the influence
of a variety of factors, each based on different per-
spectives. First, each agency's authorizing
legislation set forth explicit mandates and missions
(such as the Oregon and California Lands Act for
the Bureau of Land Management, the Multiple Use
and Sustained Yield Act and National Forest Man-
agement Act for the Forest Service, the Endan-
gered Species Act for the Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice and National Marine Fisheries Service, and
the Clean Water Act for EPA). These in turn pro-
vide the bases for the diverse, unique "corporate
cultures" in each of the agencies, that is reflected
in how agency personnel identify themselves. Al-
though unique agency cultures are beneficial in
many respects, they often result in inconsistent
management approaches that lead to conflict, con-
frontation, chaos, and public confusion.
Furthermore, personal experience and training
influenced how the region was viewed previously.
Experts from different disciplines can look at the
same plot of ground and see substantially different
features. Indeed, each has a different understand-
ing of what constitutes "sustainability." In the
absence of an explicit, publicly developed shared
106
-------
Pacific Northwest
vision for the ecosystem, there have been conflicts
over the existing hierarchy of multiple uses. The
long-term emphasis on commodity production, re-
inforced by devices such as timber volume targets,
ingrained management practices tailored to timber
production, and lack of overall incentives for a
broader vision, did not reflect the public's increas-
ing concern about the protection of the environ-
ment and species. The remedy was not to discard
the management philosophy of multiple use, but to
reorder and reinvigorate it to mirror new realities.
The development of a shared vision has been im-
peded by other factors. The increasing amount,
sophistication, and evolving nature of information
relevant to managing affected ecosystems have
challenged agency capabilities. These factors
have further complicated the already complex and
process-dependent nature of agency land use
planning.
Taken as a whole, these factors created an incom-
plete, inconsistent, and fragmented perspective
that was infeasible to implement. Any effort to
choose among these competing visions was bound
to fail, since it would ignore various key compo-
nents of a successful total ecosystem approach.
The Administration's Forest Plan addressed this
problem in a comprehensive manner with its three
main elements: an ecosystem-based management
plan for the 25 million acres of federal land in the
region; an economic assistance plan; and a
blueprint for improved agency coordination. The
land management aspects of the Plan were devel-
oped through the public notice and comment pro-
cess under the National Environmental Protection
Act. The framework for a shared vision and an
adaptive management process has been prescribed
as the course for future change.
Despite the shared vision, many interviewees still
had numerous implementation questions. The de-
velopment of the Forest Plan represents the first
and most essential step, but there is still much to
be done. The options developed for Presidential
review were, of necessity, not site-specific plans,
but rather broad frameworks. Furthermore, most of
the options were developed and assessed by a
team primarily composed of scientists, not people
experienced in translating concepts into on-the-
ground actions. As implementation by managers
and field staff proceeds, a substantial effort is re-
quired to assure that standards and guidelines are
interpreted into consistent, workable direction for
field personnel in a timely manner, and that site-
specific information is appropriately reflected in
implementation actions.
It is apparent that a key test of ecosystem-based
management in the Pacific Northwest will be to
maintain the values of the plan as it is translated
into explicit on-the-ground actions. This will de-
termine whether the President's vision can be im-
plemented as the shared vision for federal man-
agers in the Pacific Northwest.
Federal Agency Processes
Each federal agency is subject to varied statutory
and regulatory requirements, although some man-
dates (such as the National Environmental Policy
Act) apply to all agencies. These requirements
influence major federal agency processes, some of
which are discussed below.
Forest Service planning. The Forest Service
manages 19.4 million acres within the range of the
northern spotted owl. Under the National Forest
Management Act, the agency is required to de-
velop 10-year plans for its national forests. Na-
tional forests with approved forest plans within the
range of the spotted owl include the Gifford Pin-
chot, Mount Baker-Snoqualmie, Mount Hood,
Olympic, Rogue River, Siuslaw, Siskiyou,
Umpqua, and Willamette. National Forests with
approved plans partially within the range include
the Deschutes, Okanogan, Wenatchee, Winema,
Lassen, and Modoc. National forests without cur-
rent plans within the spotted owl's range are the
Klamath, Shasta-Trinity, Mendocino, and Six
Rivers.
Bureau of Land Management resource man-
agement planning. The Bureau of Land Man-
agement manages 2.7 million acres within the
range of the northern spotted owl. Under the Fed-
eral Land Management and Policy Act, the Bureau
is required to develop 10-year plans for these lands.
Bureau lands within the range of the owl that have
approved resource management plans include the
Redding Resource Area, the Arcata Resource
Area, and the King Range National Conservation
Area, all within the Ukiah District of California.
Bureau districts without approved resource man-
agement plans are the Coos Bay, Eugene, Med-
ford, Roseburg, and Salem Districts, and the
Klamath Resource Area of the Lakeview District.
107
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Draft resource management plans were published
in the fall of 1992 for these districts; final plans
were released in the fall of 1994, and will comply
with the Forest Plan. Under the National Environ-
mental Policy Act, these plans must go through a
public notice and comment process.
Fish and Wildlife Service/National Marine
Fisheries Service consultation. Under section 7
of the Endangered Species Act, agencies must
consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service and/or
National Marine Fisheries Service to determine
whether their actions will jeopardize listed species.
Currently, consultation may occur regarding ac-
tions as discrete as individual construction proj-
ects, or may encompass broader actions such as
combining timber sales or management plans.
Constraints
Interviewees raised several issues regarding the
land management planning and consultation pro-
cesses, and their relationships to each other. They
also noted challenges to interagency coordination,
work force development, adaptive management,
and data coordination. These clearly illustrate the
complexities associated with the transition to an
ecosystem-based approach.
• The Bureau of Land Management and Forest
Service not only have different management
outlooks and operating practices, but also
use different terminologies, data standards,
and data bases. These longstanding differ-
ences affect the field levels at which on-the-
ground activities are managed, and even
inhibit coordination on adjacent or com-
mingled agency lands.
• Conflicts arise frequently during the Endan-
gered Species Act section 7 consultation
process, and agency perspectives differ
sharply as to their nature and preferred reso-
lution. Land management agency personnel
assert that considerable effort is required to
develop proposals for specific actions such
as Umber sales, but that the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) or National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) often renders
judgment late in the process, at which point
a "jeopardy" ruling halts the effort. They
also argue that proposed actions are devel-
oped based on an understanding from FWS
or NMFS of what is needed to avoid a jeop-
ardy determination, but that late reviews by
those agencies often reflect a different per-
spective. For their part, FWS and NMFS
personnel maintain that land management
agencies have a long history of delaying
consultation until late in the planning pro-
cess, in the belief that the FWS or NMFS
will then be unable or unwilling to force
significant changes.
1 Planning and consultation processes are so
lengthy that when new information appears,
they often seem to engage a continuous "do
loop" of analysis and reanalysis (including
new studies, scientific information, new
species listed, and critical habitat
designation).
1 Planning requirements for individual agen-
cies are not only susceptible to legal chal-
lenge, they are also intricate and complex,
and vary considerably among agencies. This
makes process more important than sub-
stance, and discourages joint planning activ-
ities that are critical to the ultimate success
of the Forest Plan.
Agency budget and appropriations processes
reflect a long history of rewarding
commodity production rather than conserva-
tion activities. Also, the "balkanized" struc-
ture of agency budgets creates artificial yet
imposing barriers to integrated resource
management and coordination, both within
and among agencies.
Joint planning is inhibited by the statutory,
philosophical, budgetary, and planning con-
cerns noted above, which in turn discourage
agency cooperation with tribes, nonfederal
governmental entities, and the private sec-
tor. Given the scale of the coverage, it is
imperative to address the challenge of deal-
ing with many jurisdictions. Although a
single set of policies is needed to articulate
a shared vision, it is also apparent that a
"top-down" approach will not effect change
as much as efforts that involve all stake-
holders. Administration action to effect reg-
ulatory changes could make the planning
process more efficient and responsive. In
addition, statutory barriers (notably in the
108
-------
Pacific Northwest
National Forest Management Act, Federal
Land Policy and Management Act, and
O&C Lands Act) to joint, provincially based
planning and related adaptive management
activities require examination. The existing
limitations to these more comprehensive
approaches have raised an interim need for
interagency cooperation in the preparation of
site-specific activity plans that give com-
prehensive direction for on-the-ground activi-
ties and for complying with section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act and with the Na-
tional Environmental Policy Act and other
requirements.
Agency skill mixes do not necessarily re-
flect the requirements for a work force that
must implement an ecosystem-based ap-
proach in the Pacific Northwest. It is appar-
ent that certain technical (e.g., geographic
information system) and scientific capabili-
ties must be increased. Also, adaptable
generalists who can apply interdisciplinary
approaches are required. These changes in
skill mixes must take place despite decreas-
ing budgets, which places a premium on
efforts to share resources and personnel, em-
ploy them more efficiently, and improve
technical assistance and training strategies.
Performance incentives that are oriented to-
ward commodity production also have
discouraged personnel from placing appro-
priate emphasis on ecosystem-based
approaches.
The recent fire season has highlighted a sig-
nificant, increasing need for an ecosystem-
based approach to firefighting issues. Con-
tinued recreational and residential develop-
ment in the private land/public land inter-
face encourages land management agencies
to suppress otherwise desirable wildfires,
and raises difficult issues of firefighting re-
sponsibility and distribution of firefighting
costs. The current status of logistical and
technical integration of firefighting capabil-
ity has seemingly outstripped our ability to
sort through the associated roles and respon-
sibilities. However, the Bureau of Land
Management and Forest Service have re-
cently merged their firefighting staffs, and
the potential for future improvements has
never been better.
The Intergovernmental Personnel Act of
1970 authorizes the temporary reassignment
of federal, state, and local government em-
ployees to offices in other levels of govern-
ment (as well as tribal governments and
universities) to work on areas of mutual
concern to the organizations involved. The
Act is an extremely useful tool for the
ecosystem approach because it is a statutory
mechanism for different levels of governr
ment to transfer and share expertise. State
and federal resource managers in the Pacific
Northwest have taken advantage of the Act
to facilitate implementation of the Forest
Plan. For example, an official from the
Washington State Department of Wildlife is
currently on detail to the Fish and Wildlife
Service to work on Habitat Conservation
Plans. Actions taken pursuant to the Forest
Plan have increased private interest in such
Plans. This detail benefits both the state
and the agency, ensuring close coordination
between governments, because the state
official involved has a longstanding relation-
ship with other state employees and agen-
cies, and a good working relationship with
many tribal representatives. To implement
successful Habitat Conservation Plans and
work with private companies, the Fish and
Wildlife Service must more often coordinate
closely and form partnerships with other
government entities, particularly the states.
Continued litigation has discouraged many
agency personnel from making innovations
in the decision-making process. This in-
cludes scientists who must defend the scien-
tific credibility of data and assumptions,
regulatory agencies that must defend their
decisions, and land management agencies
that are still focusing appeals and protests
on the great majority of individual timber
sales.
The effective compilation, accessibility,
use, and adaptation of data is critical to the
success of Forest Plan implementation. In
particular, the Forest Ecosystem Manage-
ment Assessment Team effort underscored
the need to identify data requirements, prior-
ities, and standards for a comprehensive
geographic information system. Other data
sets required for specific activities such as
109
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
watershed analysis, monitoring, and adap-
tive management also need to be outlined.
"Some interviewees pointed out the tension
between the need for a well-maintained,
centralized data base, and local access to
data (e.g., via Internet) for planning and
other on-the-ground implementation activi-
ties. Others noted the need for confidential-
ity with respect to certain information
(e.g., nest sites).
• The concept of adaptive management has
support, but many noted that it faces chal-
lenges comparable to those facing the plan-
ning process with which it must interface.
The design of adaptive management efforts
that will be scientifically credible requires
planning that can be evaluated against clear
benchmarks. There are widely differing
views among agencies and within specific
disciplines as to which benchmarks are
appropriate, how to assure effective and reli-
able measurement, and what related moni-
toring needs are. Agency professionals real-
ize that major issues require considerable
accountability as well as agreement on a
plan or strategy that must be strictly adhered
to over a long time. Adaptive management
is impeded by the long timeframe required
to implement activities, and the difficulty of
explaining the importance of certain bench-
marks to the public or to elected officials.
The interagency and intergovernmental coordina-
tion mechanisms described here are providing ini-
tial momentum for Forest Plan implementation. In
addition, specific agencies are carrying out Plan
recommendations. Individual agencies and their
regional federal heads are committed (some
through performance contracts) to implementing
the Plan, and to resume an active timber sale pro-
gram. The Regional Ecosystem Office continues
to report to the Regional Interagency Executive
Committee. The Office is addressing what may be
generically described as a broad range of "consis-
tency" issues, ranging from data and analytical
requirements (including monitoring methodologies)
to consultation concerns. The Research and Moni-
toring Committee, which also reports to the Re-
gional Intergovernmental Executive Committee, is
determining key research and monitoring priorities
and developing ways to translate their results into
planning efforts and on-the-ground practices. Fur-
thermore, the Intergovernmental Resource
Information Coordinating Council has initiated
efforts to assure greater data base coordination and
compatibility. The results of interagency
coordination are encouraging thus far, given the
fact that implementation is in its early stage. In
addition, agencies are in various stages of revising
budget structures to assure their compatibility, or
at least comparability, with ecosystem-based
approaches, which will encourage more rapid
implementation of the Forest Plan.
LEGAL ISSUES
Several land management statutes and related
mandates apply to the Pacific Northwest forests.
The National Environmental Policy Act, with its
emphasis on comprehensive analyses of the effects
of federal activities on the environment, and the
National Forest Management Act, with its provi-
sions for multiple use, assist the ecosystem
approach by allowing the government to consider a
broad range of interests when it plans the man-
agement of natural resources, and by granting sub-
stantial flexibility in land management decisions.
Perhaps because of the wide range of choices they
allow, the statutes have been the basis for chal-
lenges to the Forest Plan's approach and results.
In some instances, citizen plaintiffs and industry
plaintiffs have used identical provisions of
National Environmental Policy Act and National
Forest Management Act to argue for opposing
results.
National Forest Management Act
The National Forest Management Act (NFMA)
requires the Forest Service to develop a plan for
the management of each national forest. Each
plan must comply with the Multiple Use and Sus-
tained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. §§ 528 etseq.)
and "provide for multiple use and sustained yield
of the products and services'* of the forest, includ-
ing outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed,
wildlife and fish, and wilderness resources. Allow-
able sale quantity and sustained yield must be
determined for each national forest. Planning regu-
lations promulgated pursuant to NFMA call for the
Forest Service to (among other things) "maintain
viable populations of existing native and desired
non-native vertebrate species in the planning area"
(36 CFR § 219.19). Plans for each of the 19 na-
tional forests encompassed by the Administration's
Forest Plan either have been developed or are un-
der development in accordance with NFMA.
110
-------
Pacific Northwest
The government believes that the ecosystem ap-
proach reflected in the Forest Plan is authorized
by, contemplated in, and consistent with the agen-
cies' existing planning framework. However, cur-
rent plaintiffs have used NFMA statutory and regu-
latory provisions as bases to challenge the Plan.
For example, environmental plaintiffs claim that
the Plan does not provide habitat to assure the
maintenance of viable populations of the northern
spotted owl and other species associated with late
successional and old growth forests. On the other
hand, industry plaintiffs claim that the regulatory
viability provision violates NFMA on its face and
that, in any event, seeking,to provide habitat to
maintain the viability of invertebrate species that
exist in the planning area—an underlying objective
of the plan—is outside the agency's authority.
Industry plaintiffs also claim that the Plan violates
NFMA because it reflects comprehensive man-
agement guidance for federal lands within the
range of the northern spotted owl rather than
piecemeal planning for individual national forests
or Bureau of Land Management districts. In addi-
tion, they allege that the Plan fails to permit suffi-
cient timber harvest because it does not determine
an allowable sale quantity for any of the
19 national forests it governs, and substitutes a
"probable sale quantity" standard for the allowable
sale quantity standard. They also claim that the
Plan's development failed to follow requisite statu-
tory and regulatory procedures.
National Environmental Policy Act
The National Environmental Protection Act
(NEPA) requires agencies to consider the envi-
ronmental consequences of "major federal actions
significantly affecting the human environment."
Specifically, the Act requires agencies to prepare
an environmental impact statement before imple-
menting any major federal action that will signifi-
cantly affect the human environment. The envi-
ronmental impact statement informs the public
about agency decisions, and fosters public input
into the decision-making process. Under the
National Forest Management Act, forest planning
must be in accordance with NEPA.
In the Pacific Northwest, a supplemental environ-
mental impact statement in accordance with a
court order was the foundation for the Forest Plan
and Record of Decision.
The NEPA, like the National Forest Management
Act, has been cited as a basis on which to chal-
lenge the Forest Plan. Environmental plaintiffs
allege that the government's NEPA documentation
fails to disclose all of the effects on the spotted
owl and other resources in the affected area, and
does not consider the cumulative impacts of log-
ging on private and state lands. Industry plaintiffs
allege that the government violated NEPA insofar
as it failed to consider a reasonable range of alter-
natives, all of the Plan's social and economic im-
pacts, and competing scientific theories and infor-
mation applicable to forest management.
Oregon and California Lands Act
The Oregon and California (O&C) Lands Act gov-
erns administration of certain Bureau of Land
Management lands in Oregon and California. As
noted in the introductory section, the Act states,
among other things, that O&C lands "shall be
managed for permanent forest production" and
requires establishment of annual timber production
rates. Based on these and other provisions, indus-
try plaintiffs claim that the Forest Plan violates the
Act by establishing late successional and riparian
reserves, by failing to meet the Act's requirement
to sell a minimum of 500 million board feet of
timber per year, and by establishing so-called
wildlife habitat reserves. The plaintiffs' position is
that there should not to be any such reserves be-
cause they will hinder the Bureau of Land Man-
agement's ability to meet board feet requirements,
and that the lands at issue must be available for
timber production in order to support local
economies.
Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act requires agencies to
"seek to conserve endangered species and threat-
ened species and utilize their authorities in fur-
therance of [the Act]." Section 3 of the Endan-
gered Species Act acknowledges as a primary pur-
pose the need to "provide a means whereby the
ecosystems upon which endangered species and
threatened species depend may be conserved."
Although the Act's implementation and administra-
tive processes have historically emphasized the
conservation of individual species, recent Fish and
Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries
Service administrative initiatives have attempted
111
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
to enhance the opportunities for ecosystem-based
management approaches.
Involvement of State and Private
Landowners
Although premised on principles of the ecosystem
approach, the Forest Plan governs management on
federal lands only. Several legal authorities allow
government interaction with state and private
landowners in a way that both facilitates an even
broader ecosystem approach to conservation and
retains landowner control and rights over private
land.
Endangered Species Act. Section 10 of the En-
dangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. § 1539) autho-
rizes the Secretary of the Interior to enter into
agreements with private landowners under which
the Secretary permits "incidental take" of listed
species, and landowners agree to develop long-
term, private conservation programs to protect
those species. These Habitat Conservation Plans
generally constitute four documents: a "planning
document" that is primarily a biological opinion; a
contract implementing the agreement; an
environmental assessment or impact statement;
and a section 10 incidental take permit.
Following issuance of the Forest Plan, private and
state landowners in the Pacific Northwest have
shown a strong interest in becoming parties to
Habitat Conservation Plans, and the Fish and
Wildlife Service is working closely with these
landowners to develop agreements. Agreements
with timber industry landowners (one in California,
one in Oregon, and one in Washington) have been
completed. Several others are in preparation with
timber companies in Oregon and Washington, and
with the states of Oregon and Washington. Federal
officials have found the Habitat Conservation Plan
process to be especially beneficial, because it
allows private and government scientists to join
forces to gather necessary scientific data, and be-
cause scientists, like the agencies, have taken a
multispecies approach to assessing the proper
method of conservation.
Tribal representatives expressed unease with the
Habitat Conservation Plan process, noting that it
does not sufficiently consider their concerns. One
concern is that the tribes are not involved in re-
viewing the specifics of a Habitat Conservation
Plan. Although the Plans are generally developed
through the National Environmental Policy Act and
have a public review and comment process, tribal
representatives point out that the tribes are not
simply members of the public and are entitled to a
specific and direct review and comment role. This
would allow them to identify any number of poten-
tial conflicts, including impacts on off-reservation
hunting or fishing rights, or on sacred burial or vil-
lage sites.
Several other issues have arisen in Habitat Con-
servation Plan negotiations. One is the legal issue
of whether landowner obligations in contracts con-
stitute covenants running with the land. Some
private landowners resist such an interpretation,
but the federal government generally has insisted
upon it. Another issue is the length of time Habitat
Conservation Plan contracts should remain in
effect. The government's policy generally ensures
that contracts remain in effect long enough to mit-
igate the effects of the take of the listed species.
Finally, landowners have been reluctant to enter
into agreements without some assurance that the
government will not subject landowners to more
restrictions if a nonlisted species on their land is
subsequently listed and requires additional protec-
tion. Secretary Babbitt's recent policy on this has
gone far towards addressing this concern. In 1994,
the Secretary issued a policy that authorized long-
term certainty for approved Habitat Conservation
Plans. The policy gives private sector interests
confidence that their activities will not be dis-
rupted if they meet their obligations under the
Plan, even if previously unknown species-related
concerns emerge.
Although the trend towards increasing reliance on
Habitat Conservation Plans is positive, another
concern is that current statutes allow these Plans
to be ecosystem-based (for example, focused on
multiple species), but do not require it. There is
also a general perception that cumulative effects
may not, or will not, be adequately considered.
Natural Resources Conservation Service pro-
grams. The Natural Resources Conservation
Service's programs primarily focus on providing
technical and financial assistance to private
landowners, and on encouraging voluntary prac-
tices that result in conservation. As authorized in
several laws, including the Soil Conservation and
Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 590g
etseq.), the Food Security Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 3811
112
-------
Pacific Northwest
etseq.), the 1985 and 1990 Farm Bills, and the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act
(P.L. 83-566), the Natural Resources Conservation
Service provides assistance to and advises private
landowners on a wide range of natural resource
planning and conservation issues. They include
flood protection, water quality improvement, water
supply, wildlife habitat, pasture, range and crop
management, local land use planning law, and
soils and erosion control. The agency also con-
ducts national resource inventories, soil survey, in-
vestigations, wetland identification and protection,
and conservation demonstration projects, and dis-
seminates its findings to landowners.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service views
its role as beneficial, because its nonregulatory
approach ensures that private landowners control
activities on their lands, and are consequently will-
ing to engage in practices that assure sustainability
of natural resources. In the Pacific Northwest, the
agency increasingly is using an ecosystem-based
approach to assistance. This involves natural re-
source conservation planning and assistance to
private landowners, including improving riparian
habitat on a watershed basis, coordination between
different disciplines within the agency, and coordi-
nation with other agencies such as the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
EPA's watershed approach. The Clean Water
Act, 33 U.S.C. §§1251 et seq., authorizes EPA to
permit, enforce, and fund activities to achieve the
Act's objective of restoring and maintaining the
"chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
Nation's waters." In its Region 10 (which includes
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Alaska), EPA has
taken a watershed approach to carrying out these
authorities. This approach involves a comprehen-
sive look at environmental problems in the water-
shed and further allocation of agency resources to
addressing those problems. The Agency has identi-
fied approximately 35 watersheds in the region and
has prioritized them according to ecological
importance.
In high-priority watersheds, EPA appoints a full-
time coordinator and assembles a team of agency
specialists to focus on the watershed. The Agency
works with other federal agencies, as well as state,
local, and tribal governments and interested pri-
vate parties, to address problems in the watershed.
For example, the Mid-Snake River watershed in
Idaho was given high-priority because of excessive
nutrient releases into the river that rendered it use-
less for most purposes, including recreation. EPA
appointed a watershed coordinator and a team that
included a National Pollution Discharge Elimina-
tion System permit specialist, a water modeler,
and an enforcement official. Clean Water Act ini-
tiatives in the area include more inspections of
potential nutrient sources, increased administrative
enforcement, and development of a total maximum
daily load plan that limits discharges of all rele-
vant point sources. In addition, local point source
dischargers were able to convince dischargers of
nonpoint sources (not currently covered under the
Act) to implement best management practices to
reduce nutrient runoff. This will assure that state
water quality standards (promulgated under the
Act) are met.
EPA has also addressed the water quantity issue in
the Mid-Snake by assessing the impact of five pro-
posed diversion dams on oxygen and nitrogen lev-
els in the watershed. Because the Endangered
Species Act listed species are involved, this effort
has required coordination between EPA and the
Fish and Wildlife Service.
State forest practices acts. State forest practices
acts in Washington, Oregon, and California govern
forest practices on state and private lands, includ-
ing reforestation, water protection, and vegetation
retention. Generally, standards are set by state
forestry boards, whose membership is usually a
combination of private landowners and interested
parties. In some states, the standards are less
stringent than Endangered Species Act standards,
requiring the federal government to enforce the Act
on state or private land.
According to federal officials, the National Marine
Fisheries Service and Fish and Wildlife Service
are attempting to get involved early in the state-
run process for setting state standards to ensure
that state standards meet Endangered Species Act
standards. After they do, the federal government
can defer to the states on the issue of what prac-
tices are compatible for complying with those
standards and on enforcement of the standards.
This arrangement is viewed as more desirable be-
cause it will allow local control over forestry prac-
tices and decrease federal presence on state and
private lands.
113
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Involvement of Tribal Landowners
Three legal doctrines place Indian tribes in a posi-
tion different from that of the general public with
respect to interaction with the federal government
on natural resource issues. First, according to
longstanding administrative policy and case law,
the federal government has a special "trust respon-
sibility" to tribes. Second, under treaties between
the federal government and tribes, tribes have spe-
cial access and use rights to natural resources. In
the Pacific Northwest, several treaties signed in
the mid-1800s preserve tribal rights to fish in the
Columbia River, its tributaries, and the Puget
Sound Watershed, and to hunt on off-reservation
federal lands. Third, as a result of the treaties with
the tribes, it has been longstanding government
policy to treat tribes as sovereigns within a
sovereign rather than as subunits of the federal
government or members of the public.
Although representatives of three tribal commis-
sions are formally involved in the Intergovernmen-
tal Advisory Committee, facilitating implementa-
tion of the Forest Plan, several others who were
interviewed asserted that tribal interests have not
been sufficiently considered in accordance with
the above principles. For example, they felt their
role in the development of the Administration's
Forest Plan did not fulfill government-to-govern-
ment consultation responsibilities early on in the
decision-making process. Representatives also ar-
gued that the government treats tribes as members
of the public rather than as sovereigns or as groups
with whom the government has a trust relationship,
and that the government's planning and implemen-
tation processes do not adequately consider treaty
rights to fishing and off-reservation hunting.
Federal Advisory Committee Act
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA),
5 U.S.C. App. 2, restricts the ability of federal
agencies to solicit and receive collective advice
from nonfederal parties. Among other things, an
"advisory committee," as defined by FACA, must
be organized under a charter, balance its member-
ship, publicize its meetings in the Federal Regis-
ter, hold open meetings, take minutes of meetings,
provide transcripts of meetings upon request, and
make available any documents used by the
committee.
Experience in the Pacific Northwest has demon-
strated that FACA presents significant challenges
to the involvement of nonfederal officials and citi-
zens in the process of implementing the ecosystem
approach. A federal court has held that the Forest
Ecosystem Management Assessment Team Report
was prepared in violation of FACA (Northwest
Forest Resource Council v. Espy (D.D.C. March 21,
1994)) because the Assessment Team was an
advisory committee subject to FACA but was not
chartered in accordance with it, and otherwise did
not comply with the Act (for example, it included
nonfederal officials or employees). The Northwest
Forest Resource Council decision illustrates how
difficult it can be for agencies to operate in an
arena where little legal precedent exists.
Industry plaintiffs in current litigation argued that
because of the Northwest Forest Resource Council
holding, the government's reliance on the Forest
Ecosystem Management Assessment Team Report
was unlawful. Plaintiffs also argued that the Re-
gional Interagency Executive Committee and Pro-
visional Interagency Executive Committees were
operating in violation of FACA. Those groups are
currently being chartered in accordance with
FACA.
In addition, many interviewees commented that
FACA has complicated the ecosystem approach in
the Pacific Northwest because it imposes time-
consuming, costly, and burdensome procedural
requirements on the federal agencies that wish to
have open, ongoing discussions with outside par-
ties. Most significantly, FACA has been construed
by some to prohibit many kinds of participation by
nonfederal parties in groups that are not FACA-
chartered. But participation in FACA-chartered
groups is not satisfactory to some nonfederal par-
ties. For example, state and tribal representatives
seriously object to having only an advisory role.
Tribal representatives in particular claimed that
FACA has been an obstacle to necessary federal-
tribal communications. In their view, the
sovereign-to-sovereign relationship that the federal
government has with the tribes means that FACA
does not apply to their communications. In con-
nection with the issue of treaty rights in the
Columbia River, federal officials have met alone
with tribes in an attempt to settle an ongoing
Endangered Species Act lawsuit involving treaty
114
-------
Pacific Northwest
rights on the Columbia River and to discuss federal
and tribal activities to be taken pursuant to the En-
dangered Species Act. But industry representa-
tives have sued the government, claiming that
these meetings violated FACA.
Many of those interviewed commented that FACA
should be amended to make clear that it does not
apply to meetings between the federal government
and state or tribal governments.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The importance of public education and participa-
tion in decision making was a major theme in the
interviews. Early public participation at all stages
is a key element in the successful management of
ecosystems and is frequently a measure of the pub-
lic's acceptance of agency policy. The public can
also participate in the design and implementation
of processes that seek public comment on proposed
agency actions and efforts to explain agency pro-
posals to the general public, special interest groups
such as states, tribes, other government entities,
and the press. Participation by an educated public
is critical to the success of ecosystem-based
management.
Overview of Public Involvement
In the Pacific Northwest, discussions of public in-
volvement have focused on the Interagency Com-
munications Plan, outreach activities by individual
agencies, supplemental efforts by the Office of
Forestry and Economic Development, and plans for
future public involvement in forest plan activities.
Discussions of public involvement that predate the
Administration's Forest Plan (in the Applegate
Partnership, for example) increased the team's
knowledge of the positive results of efforts pertain-
ing to this issue.
Interagency Communications Plan. The four
federal signatories to the Forest Plan (the U.S. De-
partment of Agriculture, U.S. Department of the
Interior, U.S. Department of Commerce, and EPA)
formed an Interagency Communications Group dur-
ing the summer of 1993 to devise a communica-
tions plan for the Pacific Northwest. The Intera-
gency Communications Plan addressed four issues
identified by the Group:
1. Employee understanding
2. Public understanding
3. Public involvement
4. Multilevel, multiagency coordination
The Plan focused on activities for the following
year, all of which have been completed. These in-
cluded: interagency employee briefings on the
draft supplemental environmental impact state-
ment, the Administration's preferred alternative,
and the interagency ecosystem approach in gen-
eral; a slide presentation on the Forest Plan;
employee information packets; facilitating media
outreach at the field level; arranging for senior
managers to conduct a series of editorial board
meetings for newspapers; and the conduct of vari-
ous public outreach activities including formal
hearings on the draft supplemental environmental
impact statement.
The Interagency Communications Group holds
weekly conference calls and is reexamining its
role to see if it needs to expand its communica-
tions to a broader range of issues.
Office of Forestry and Economic Development
outreach. The Office of Forestry and Economic
Development has engaged a full-time public affairs
specialist to advise on effective means of commu-
nicating with the public, including the preparation
of press releases about accomplishments under the
Forest Plan for public understanding. The special-
ist also provides information directly to Congress,
to the offices of the Governors of Washington, ,
Oregon, and California, and to outside interest
groups. In addition, the Office distributes informa-
tion to federal agencies to increase support for the
Forest Plan.
Plans for public involvement under the Admin-
istration's Forest Plan. The Regional Ecosystem
Office is developing plans for public participation
in the implementation of the Administration's For-
est Plan. These plans include establishing a public
Intergovernmental Advisory Committee to the Re-
gional Interagency Executive Committee and
organizing advisory committees to the Provincial
Interagency Executive Committees.
The Intergovernmental Advisory Committee will
have representatives from federal agency members
of the Regional Interagency Executive Committee
and designated representatives from the Natural
115
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Resources Conservation Service, Forest Service
Research, National Biological Service, EPA Re-
search, the states of Washington, Oregon, and Cal-
ifornia, tribes, and counties. Chartered under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, the committee
will provide advice and recommendations to the
Regional Interagency Executive Committee re-
garding the coordinated implementation of the
Record of Decision and will promote better inte-
gration of forest management activities among
federal and nonfederal government entities. Gen-
erally, meetings will be open to the public.
The Provincial Interagency Executive Committee
advisory committees will have representatives of
federal agencies that are members of the Regional
Interagency Executive Committee, as well as des-
ignated representatives of the tribes, states, and
counties. There will also be representatives from
environmental, forest products, recreation, tourism,
and other interested groups, and up to three repre-
sentatives from other federal agencies.
Each Provincial Interagency Executive Committee
advisory committee will have no more than
29 members. The committees will encourage
public participation by opening most meetings to
the public, notifying key contacts about meetings,
and gathering information from the public through
subcommittees.
Effective public involvement. The Applegate
Partnership has been widely noted as an example
of strong public participation in land management.
It offers many lessons about the formation and
maintenance of partnerships between the federal
government and nonfederal parties. According to
the Partnership's Forest Service liaison, the Part-
nership's success is attributable to:
• The personalities of the people involved and
their abilities to focus on the common good.
• The fact that the agency representatives
were "risk-takers" who knew how to listen
and were able to admit that their agencies
had made mistakes in the past.
• The involvement of industry representatives
who were creative, bright, visionary, and
good communicators.
• *A unique set of forest issues, exacerbated by
drought and disease, that threatened the
entire community.
• An initial lack of polarization.
• A commitment to following through on
commitments, which fostered a sense of
shared responsibility and a shared vision.
• Technical support from the Forest Service
(especially geographic information systems)
that facilitated group decision making.
• The voluntary evolution of the relationship,
without force or threat of legal action.
One interviewee who worked closely with the
Partnership felt that the idea could be used in other
areas, although no two partnerships will ever be
alike. The key is to take small steps and to assure
community ownership/membership in the process.
Many factors (such as the issues at hand, the per-
sonalities of those involved, and a community's
history, values, and people) can dramatically in-
fluence the dynamics of a partnership.
One interviewee noted that the Little River Adap-
tive Management Unit provides examples of diffi-
culties found in forming partnerships. When fed-
eral agencies attempted to replicate an Applegate-
type partnership, community members saw this as
an attempt to increase federal control over private
lands and were not interested in participating.
Public Involvement Issues
Issues related to public participation in efforts to
implement the ecosystem approach in the Pacific
Northwest include weak communication between
tribal governments and federal agencies, con-
straints to public input under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, and public mistrust of the ecosys-
tem approach.
Weak communications between tribal govern-
ments and federal agencies. The Bureau of In-
dian Affairs and representatives of tribal govern-
ments indicated that they have been dissatisfied
with the degree and format of communications
between tribal governments and federal agencies,
116
-------
Pacific Northwest
and that the tribes generally mistrust the federal
agencies. They feel that tribal governments have
not been adequately involved in decisions about
the management of federal lands in the Pacific
Northwest. Federal agencies have solicited input
from the tribes in the same way they solicit it from
the general public. Interviewees stated that, be-
cause of the trust relationship between tribal and
federal governments, tribes should contribute to
decisions, instead of being limited to commenting
on proposed plans and decisions. Federal agencies
and the tribes should operate on a government-to-
government basis, without being required to com-
ply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Tribal representatives feel they are often given
insufficient materials and information on which to
base a decision when they are invited to comment
on proposed plans. Most tribal entities also lack
the resources and personnel necessary to follow the
activities of federally organized working groups,
collect information, and provide informed advice
to tribal leadership.
Interviewees perceive federal agency staffs as of-
ten insensitive to differences in cultural values.
They feel that because of this, federal agency
staffs do not attempt to get their input in ways that
recognize tribal priorities for land management
(which may be different from those of the federal
government) and the various decision-making pro-
cesses traditionally utilized by tribal governments.
Federal land managers generally supported the
need for better relationships with tribes, both in
terms of process and especially in developing ef-
fective personal relationships that can overcome
procedural restrictions. At the same time, many
treaty rights in the Pacific Northwest are being
litigated, so their nature and scope are currently
unresolved. Additionally, the tribal goal of co-
management is perceived as a threat to federal
land managers. The current lack of clear, concise
agreements on what is required of federal land
managers under their "trust responsibility" or under
the policy of government to government makes for
a stressful relationship between tribal leaders and
federal land managers.
FACA restrictions on public involvement.
Interviewees from all sectors indicated that public
participation in the Forest Plan's implementation
was severely curtailed when federal agencies be-
gan to revise public involvement strategies in order
to comply with the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (FACA). Some working groups with combined
federal and nonfederal membership ceased to func-
tion; others either excluded all nonfederal entities
or allowed only minimal or unsatisfactory in-
volvement by nonfederal parties. Although there
are plans for most of these groups to become oper-
ational again after they comply with FACA, it will
take some time to develop the previous level of
trust and commitment.
Discussions regarding the Applegate Partnership
indicated that applying FACA to grassroots-initi-
ated activities could have a negative impact. By
making its involvement in such activities contin-
gent upon the imposition of FACA procedures, the
federal government may, in effect, be shifting the
dynamics from "bottom-up" to "top-down."
Public mistrust of the ecosystem approach.
Several interviewees referred to the public's mis-
trust of the ecosystem approach, particularly on the
part of private landowners. Perceptions are a key
issue to be dealt with during plan implementation.
For example, private landowners see watershed
analysis as a potential federal restriction on private
land use.
Interviewee Comments
Interviewees had several suggestions for strength-
ening federal-tribal government relationships:
• Tribal representatives should be members of
forest planning teams, so that they can help
develop these plans.
• Federal agency employees at all levels
should receive training in tribal treaty rights
and the general relationship between the
federal and tribal governments. At a mini-
mum, federal representatives who work with
tribal governments should receive such
training.
• The Federal Advisory Committee Act should
be revised to allow direct government-to-
government cooperation.
• Tribes should be given adequate information
and time to make decisions, when asked for
them. Insufficient time and information
often preclude informed input.
117
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
• In addition to the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
federal agencies should directly fund tribal
participation (e.g., consultant fees, staff
time, and travel) in federal activities to
implement the ecosystem approach.
The importance of involving the public at the ear-
liest stages of implementing the ecosystem ap-
proach was stressed by many interviewees. It is
also important to clearly delineate the roles that
federal agencies expect nonfederal entities to play,
and vice versa. This often takes a lot of time, but
investing resources early in the process could
avoid problems later, saving time and resources
over the long run.
Keeping the public effectively informed and in-
volved throughout the process is essential. As one
interviewee said, "There are always public rela-
tionships; you can either choose to manage them
or not." There are numerous effective public in-
volvement theories and models.
Quick feedback to criticisms, comments, and sug-
gestions by the public affects public interest.
Some interviewees stated that the public perceives
the government as a "black hole"—the govern-
ment makes suggestions but does not await a
response. People will lose interest if they do not
receive feedback. Federal agencies must follow
through on commitments in a timely, effective
manner.
Involvement mechanisms should be tailored to the
needs and lifestyle of the community. Electronic
bulletin boards would give the public access to
information at any time in some communities, and
potluck dinner meetings that are open to all family
members can save time for busy people in other
communities.
Interviewees generally indicated that federal out-
reach capabilities were inadequate. All federal
employees who interact with the public should be
trained in public involvement techniques and
communications. Also, public affairs specialists
should be retrained or reoriented to take a more
proactive approach. Traditionally, public affairs
offices have been primarily reactive: they have
responded to concerns rather than initiating dia-
logue and educating the public and interest groups
on agency activities.
Technical and research information must be pack-
aged so various sectors of the public can be better
informed about the issues and better understand
government recommendations for land
management.
The term "the ecosystem approach" means differ-
ent things to different people, increasing confusion
and conflict. There would be; better cooperation
among the various interest groups if a common def-
inition and common goals were developed at the
regional and local levels. Federal agencies should
involve the public in developing guidelines for
monitoring the implementation of the ecosystem
approach and criteria for determining whether it
was successful.
SCIENCE AND INFORMATION
Many interviewees recognized that inadequate
data exchange between federal managers and regu-
lators and between other federal and nonfederal
entities inhibits effective and creative evaluation
of problems and the development of possible solu-
tions. They emphasized the greater need for stan-
dardization, the establishment of common techni-
cal standards and data sets, and the collection of
information on broader spatial and temporal scales.
Information Sharing and Management
Lack of consistency and compatibility in data col-
lection and storage is a major problem. Differ-
ences in data, analysis methods, and historic
records make comparisons difficult. Key ecologi-
cal indicator elements must be supported by con-
sistent information retrieval systems, particularly
geographic information systems and spatial layers.
Geographic information systems and other informa-
tion management systems must be designed to
support indicators and also protect sensitive infor-
mation, such as specific locations of cultural
resources and threatened or endangered species. In
many cases, the data is good but needs to be orga-
nized and converted to electronic form to meet
new needs.
Consequently, there is broad support for the In-
terorganizational Resource Information Coordinat-
ing Council, which has been established to address
technical and policy issues and to make
118
-------
' Pacific Northwest
recommendations to the regional executives about
the use of resource information, intergovernmental
communications and data sharing, public access,
standards, data compatibility, geographic informa-
tion systems (GISs), and related technologies.
Supported by the GIS core team and GIS admin-
istrator in the Regional Ecosystem Office, the
Council handles all activities associated with the
collection, management, and use of resource in-
formation and data, including inventories, nonspa-
tial and spatial data, analysis methodologies, and
applications. Specific responsibilities include:
• Analysis. Performing and/or coordinating
analyses of a regional or subregional scope
involving multiple agencies for issues
related to an ecosystem-based approach.
• Providing a clearinghouse. Indexing and
cataloging available information to assist in
locating existing geographic data and to
give general guidelines and assistance to
those wishing to develop systems.
• Support. Providing support to identify inter-
agency needs in developing information
standards under the ecosystem approach.
The Council coordinates the development of
information and data standards for metadata,
data accuracy, data attributes, geodetic con-
trol, data transfer, and transactional data
base updating and revision.
• Development and acquisition. Facilitating
the development and coordinating the acqui-
sition of interagency data sets.
Interviewees expressed the need for an effective
electronic communication system that breaks
many of the institutional barriers to linking data
bases across agencies. The lack of Forest Service
access to Internet is seen as a serious impediment
to progress. Security concerns pose unneeded bar-
riers to information sharing.
Cooperation and Communication
Ultimately, scientific information plays a powerful
role in decision making by federal land managers.
Over the past few years, however, the courts have
concluded that agency trends and directions were
not consistent with the legal requirements to con-
sider and to respond to overall ecological
conditions. Interviewees commented that
information management needs are not met simply
by developing monitoring and research agendas
and protocols but must extend to include the
decision-making process of land managers. It is
felt that just as the ongoing research program
needs to be sharpened and focused to meet new
and emerging ecosystem needs, how managers use
the information needs to be sharpened and focused.
Good research that does not get incorporated into
management decisions is not timely and may not
be useful. Underlying this comment was a
recognition of the tension between science and
policy, an inadvertent but nevertheless very real
struggle over the power to guide future agency
actions.
Cooperation and coordination both within and
between agencies and state and local governments
and other interest groups was recognized early in
the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment
Team process. Unfortunately, litigation has dra-
matically impacted the development of many of
these critical relationships (particularly since the
heightened concerns over the Federal Advisory
Committee Act). Several coordinating mecha-
nisms for scientific and information management
have been set up during the implementation of the
Forest Plan, including the Regional Ecosystem
Office and Research and Monitoring Committee.
Regional Ecosystem Office. The Regional
Ecosystem Office is a focal point for scientific and
technical expertise that supports implementation of
the forest management plan. It evaluates major
modifications that arise from the adaptive man-
agement process and coordinates the formulation
and implementation of data standards. The Office
develops, evaluates, and resolves consistency and
implementation issues regarding topics that in-
clude, but are not limited to, geographic informa-
tion systems, prototype watershed analyses,
restoration guidelines, other Record of Decision
and Standards and Guidelines interpretation issues,
and support of agencies to meet Endangered
Species Act obligations.
Research and Monitoring Committee. The
Research and Monitoring Committee is composed
of research scientists and managers from various
agencies and disciplines who advise the Regional
Interagency Executive Committee on science
issues related to implementation of the Forest
Plan, including the adaptive management process
and watershed assessments. The Research and
119
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Monitoring Committee will review and evaluate
ongoing research, develop a research plan to
address critical natural resource commodity and
noncommodity questions, and address biological,
social, economic, and adaptive management re-
search questions. It will also develop scientifically
credible, cost-efficient monitoring plans.
The tribes emphasized the need for close govern-
ment-to-government cooperation and coordination
with federal agencies. They were concerned about
how management activities on federal lands would
affect their off-reservation treaty rights. They felt
that they had excellent technical staffs, but that
their views, concerns, and information were heav-
ily discounted by the government scientists who
developed the Forest Plan effort. Until this lack of
trust is bridged, coordination will be difficult.
Information Needs
The role of research under the Record of Decision
is to provide scientific oversight, monitoring assis-
tance, and research on guidance, direction, and
process. Recognizing that resources are limited,
many interviewees stressed the need to set
priorities by identifying critical information gaps
and determining what information will actually be
needed first in order to implement the Forest Plan.
There are obviously many more questions than
answers for implementing an ecological approach
to management. Highest priority needs identified
by the Regional Ecosystem Assessment Project
were (1) research on historic and current distur-
bance processes (particularly fire) to better under-
stand ecological linkages especially at larger spa-
tial scales, and (2) the validation of key ecosys-
tem health indicator elements as monitoring
criteria. In order to be successful in these efforts,
agencies must free resources to fill in the gaps as
well as cooperate more with each other by sharing
resources and results, and funding projects jointly.
Consistency is essential in peer review, planning,
monitoring, and protocols. Standardization of indi-
cator definitions, monitoring methods, and collec-
tion methods will increase trust between agencies
using each other's data. Interviewees felt that
implementation of the ecosystem approach is often
hindered by lack of clear environmental goals at
both the national and regional levels. Given the
current state of knowledge, it is often difficult to
develop a clear, concise statement about desired
future conditions. Stability in management pre-
scriptions is critical to effective implementation of
the ecosystem approach, as we will be learning for
a long time. It will also take time to bridge be-
tween agencies and ownerships. There are infor-
mation voids and science needs, but the basic
knowledge is there to design ecosystem approach
systems with monitoring as an integral component
and with adequate safeguards.
Multiagency support is planned to provide research
and technology needed for implementation of the
ecosystem approach in the Pacific Northwest.
Recommendations included the formation of an
interagency and interdisciplinary technical team
(composed of scientists, technical specialists, and
managers) as a base from which to draw and pro-
vide a floor of understanding. Decisions need to be
defended in a diversified arena—the technical
team should create options that allow decision
makers to insert themselves into the process. The
assistance and information land managers need
from research include:
• Technical assistance and training, such as:
- Assistance with the watershed analysis
process designed to custom build riparian
and stream management and protection
plans.
— Assistance with the interpretation of
standards and guides or other direction
selected for implementation and provid-
ing scientific assessment of proposed
actions.
— Assistance in developing multiagency
management, planning, and information
systems.
— Assistance in developing activities on
adaptive management areas, or similar
innovative alternatives to traditional re-
source management activities.
• Technology development and testing, such
as:
— Research and development plans that ad-
dress long-term support needs and fill
critical information gaps.
120
-------
Pacific Northwest
- More appropriate and effective mecha-
nisms that permit the public to become
directly involved in resource planning,
management, and regulation.
- Values and benefits to society within the
existing framework of legal, economic,
social, and biological limits.
- Procedures for conducting watershed
analysis that evaluate geomorphic and
ecological processes operating in specific
watersheds.
• Research to fill gaps in such areas as:
- Restoration of damaged ecosystems and
components.
- Regional information systems and data
bases, and tools for regional-level
analysis.
- Measures and indicators of success
(including indices of resource condition).
- Species viability assessments.
- Aquatic and riparian habitats.
- Ecosystem processes and their implica-
tion for the ecosystem approach.
Because states and private landowners do not have
the resources to do research on every species, they
rely on government research programs for much of
their information. States also want the federal
government to make a commitment to monitor and
develop methodologies and standards that are ac-
ceptable and easily understood. Monitoring pro-
grams for wide-ranging species, such as the north-
ern spotted owl, must be coordinated with state,
tribal, and private landowners to be cost-efficient.
Developing the technical aspects of the monitoring
program is difficult, but overcoming the distrust
and fear of government is an even more difficult
task.
Adaptive Management
Adaptive management is conceptually simple but
pragmatically complex. It proposes to treat
ecosystem policy as a series of experiments whose
nature must be decided in political forums. It also
proposes to collect information so that policy exe-
cution can help reduce or eliminate surprises,
improve operations, and gauge the policy's success
while it is implemented.
Adaptive management has large implications for
the resource planning process. Management activ-
ities must be designed so that everything can be
evaluated. There are no current examples of an
adaptive management approach on the scale rec-
ommended in the Forest Plan.
In the Administration's Forest Plan, adaptive man-
agement provides a structure through which re-
searchers, management, and cooperators can
achieve the Plan's general objectives. The Plan
proposes 10 Adaptive Management Areas as oppor-
tunities for government officials at all levels, in-
dustry, communities, environmental organizations,
tribes, and others to collaborate on developing in-
novative management approaches. The Applegate
and Douglas Projects in Oregon and the Hayfork
Adaptive Management Area in northern California
are examples of the approach. The adaptive man-
agement approach allows intense experimentation
and demonstration of new ways to achieve ecolog-
ical, economic, and social objectives, and allows
local involvement in defining the future. A rigor-
ous monitoring and research program would ensure
development and analysis of scientific data to as-
sess the effectiveness and impact of this approach.
Two important ingredients in this effort are scien-
tifically credible experiments, including replicated
experiments of major silvicultural systems, and
development and testing of the major monitoring
programs important to an adaptive management
approach. Their overarching objective is to im-
prove our knowledge of how to implement the
ecosystem approach by using refined strategies
that are closely monitored over time. Credible im-
plementation or compliance monitoring programs
are essential to the increased management flexibil-
ity envisioned for the Adaptive Management
Areas. Without them, interviewees conclude that
management initiatives will not pass a court
challenge.
Researchers should be heavily involved in the
monitoring program by helping to develop protocol
and implementation for the plans, developing in-
formation storing systems, and providing systems
for synthesizing and evaluating information as it is
collected by land management staff. Research can
define the sideboards of what is possible so
121
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
managers will know the limits to their decisions.
Monitoring programs should be developed carefully
to ensure that they are legally and scientifically
defensible and have adequate long-term funding.
There are many questions about the links between
current agency planning processes and the pro-
posed adaptive management process. In adaptive
management, plan elements should have no fixed
tenure; the focus should be on endpoints and de-
veloping a set of working principles. These should
be milestones to assess progress to these endpoints.
Resource monitoring should answer the questions
we want answered and those that deal with com-
pliance issues.
Adaptive management requires that scientists and
land managers jointly assess risks that will deter-
mine the limits of uncertainty used for triggering
actions that reach threshold levels. A scientific
working group has developed the adaptive man-
agement process to the point that it is ready for
prototype testing on simple watersheds.
RECOMMENDATIONS
After careful consideration of efforts to implement
the ecosystem approach in the Pacific Northwest
forests, and after discussing all concerns raised by
interviewees, the survey team made the following
recommendations:
1. Amend the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA) specifically to exempt tribes and
states, or establish streamlined procedures
specific to the participatory needs of the
ecosystem approach.
2. Educate federal managers about FACA
requirements, procedures, and limits, and on
contacts permissible with states, tribes, and
other publics that will not invoke advisory •
committee procedures under FACA.
3. Establish provisions that allow coordination
with tribes on a government-to-government
basis, so that they are not treated as mem-
bers of the public. One possible mechanism
for active involvement of the tribes is con-
tracting of certain forest or resource man-
agement activities under P.L. 93-638.
4. Educate federal agency employees at all
levels in tribal treaty rights, federal gov-
ernment trust responsibilities to the tribes,
and the government-to-government relation-
ship between federal agencies and tribal
governments.
5. Encourage more use of multiple-species
Habitat Conservation Plans on private lands.
6. Encourage agencies to use Natural Re-
sources Conservation Service assistance in
providing information on the ecosystem
approach to private landowners. This
agency has ecosystem professionals, county
watershed-level offices, and an extensive
communication network with private and
nonfederal landowners.
7. Encourage personnel exchanges under the
Intergovernmental Personnel Act to achieve
a broad base of experience and perspective
for activities to implement the ecosystem ap-
proach and to enhance the skill mix needed
for their effectiveness. This program com-
bines some of the best aspects of perma-
nent employee stability and personnel
flexibility.
8. Encourage the use of collective actions on
project, geographic, and agency levels (such
as groupings of timber sales or management
plans) for Endangered Species Act section 7
consultations, rather than a series of sepa-
rate consultations on narrowly focused pro-
jects or plans. In many cases, this would
reduce the number of consultations needed,
expand the geographic area considered, and
increase the number of available
alternatives.
9. As early as possible, begin and maximize the
communication and information flow be-
tween federal agencies proposing actions
subject to Endangered Species Act section 7
consultation and the consulting agency (Fish
and Wildlife Service or National Marine
Fisheries Service).
122
-------
Pacific Northwest
10. Broaden employee performance appraisal
standards that emphasize narrow agency
missions with ones that recognize and re-
ward federal managers on the basis of the
key elements of the ecosystem approach,
such as consultation, cooperation, and par-
ticipation in interagency planning activities.
Provide that future regional heads of federal
agencies embrace ecosystem approaches.
11. Encourage and reward the scientists who are
working on joint information management
systems, including geographic information
systems, that link the geographic data and
mapping efforts of the federal land manage-
ment agencies.
12. Place priority on making the computer-based
technologies of the Forest Service, Bureau
of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice, and National Marine Fisheries Service
compatible. One short-term step may be to
link the Forest Service system to Internet.
13. Develop ecosystem-based management goals
and performance measures by which to moni-
tor the cost-effectiveness of the Forest Plan.
14. Fund tribal participation in advisory commit-
tees, working groups, and committees
associated with the Forest Plan. This could
involve proportional contributions from the
member federal agencies, as well as in-
creased support from the Bureau of Indian
Affairs.
15. Establish an ethic among the managers of
federal agencies that the ecosystem ap-
proach is a way of doing business in natural
resources management. Too frequently,
managers expressed the notion that there is
a dichotomy between activities to imple-
ment the ecosystem approach and "regular
work."
16. Consider some form of budget crosscut to
identify the specific roles of each federal
agency, the funding each would provide to
the overall effort, and the accomplishments
to be achieved by each agency's contribu-
tion to achieving the Forest Plan's overall
ecosystem goals.
17. Among agencies, develop standard indica-
tors of the desired future condition of the
forest ecosystem, and establish monitoring
systems to assess the status and trends of the
forest in relation to the desired conditions.
18. Implement a training program in public
involvement skills for federal employees
involved in the effort to implement the
ecosystem approach.
19. Identify and implement effective public
involvement mechanisms tailored to the
needs and lifestyles of the community,
including such state-of-the-art techniques as
electronic bulletin boards for both informa-
tion and public comment, as well as more
traditional approaches.
20. Continue near-term and midterm support for
the Regional Ecosystem Office. This office
provides interagency staff support to the
Regional Interagency Executive Committee
and provides the Committee with a staff-
level forum for raising and resolving many
interagency issues.
123
-------
-------
Chapter 6: PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND
In March 1989, when the Exxon Valdez ran aground
in Alaska's Prince William Sound, an enormous
ecosystem was devastated by the largest tanker oil
spill in U.S. history. Until then, the region had
been relatively pristine, minimally influenced by
human activities. A joint state/federal council
with substantial resources was charged with its
renewal. Prince William Sound offered optimal
conditions for a case study in the ecosystem ap-
proach, providing valuable lessons for broader ap-
plication. Accordingly, it was selected for study
by the Interagency Ecosystem Management Task
Force.
Any study on the ecosystem approach must first
define the boundaries of the ecosystem and the
limits of agency and stakeholder involvement. For
purposes of this study (as is often the case),
ecosystem boundaries were based not on interrela-
tionships among natural, social, and/or economic
resources, but rather on the area affected by a
regional catastrophe, in this case the Exxon Valdez
disaster. This study focused on activities designed
to implement the ecosystem approach throughout
the region affected by the spill, including Prince
William Sound.
Efforts to implement the ecosystem approach in
Prince William Sound are complicated by the fact
that the major impetus for them was a catastrophic
event, followed by a response and cleanup effort,
then by damage assessment, and finally by restora-
tion. The 1989 oil spill was one of the largest en-
vironmental disasters in North American history,,
and the settlement reached for damages to public
natural resources was the largest ever. There was
no model for managing a restoration effort on this
scale, and the spill's effects generated—and con-
tinue to generate—intense public emotion. Ac-
cordingly, the ecosystem approach in the area
affected by the spill provides a case study in man-
agement of a major restoration effort that continues
to be precedent-setting, evolutionary, and emo-
tionally charged.
The Natural Resources Damage Assessment pro-
cess following the oil spill set in motion a flurry of
restoration, monitoring, and research activity in-
volving federal, state, native, and nongovernmen-
tal representatives. Coordinated by the
state/federal council charged with restoring the
region's ecosystem, most of this activity was not
necessarily designed with the ecosystem approach
in mind, but rather as part of the Natural Resources
Damage Assessment process. Accordingly, many
comments recorded in this study specifically relate
to the Natural Resources Damage Assessment
process, and not to the broader concept of the eco-
system approach defined by the Interagency Eco-
system Management Task Force.
In August 1994, an interagency survey team spent
a week in Alaska collecting information and meet-
ing with representatives of federal and nonfederal
agencies and organizations. The team consisted of
Sean Furniss from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice, Diane Gelburd from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conserva-
tion Service (formerly Soil Conservation Service),
Roger Griffis from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Susan Huke from the
USDA Forest Service, Louise Milkman from the
U.S. Department of Justice's Environment and
Natural Resource Division, Jim Pipkin from the
U.S. Department of the Interior, and Andrea Ray
from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
Over 4 days (August 2-5), the team interviewed
nearly 60 individuals from federal and state agen-
cies, native groups, fishery management councils,
local communities, the scientific community, and
environmental and other interest groups. This
chapter, based on interviews, phone calls, and
written material collected by the survey team (see
appendix at the end of this chapter for titles of
selected materials), records the experiences, ob-
servations, conclusions, and recommendations of
the interviewees. It includes a set of summary
observations and recommendations from the team
and a list of selected references.
BACKGROUND
The coastal ecosystems of the Gulf of Alaska are
among the most productive to be found in the
world's high-latitude regions. Glaciers that helped
form the rugged coastlines still lie above the
fjords, rain forests, and coastal deltas of the low-
lands. This vast area includes Prince William
125
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Sound, lower Cook Inlet and Kenai Peninsula, the
Kodiak Archipelago, and portions of the Alaska
Peninsula. Salmon, crabs, halibut, shrimp, and
pollack are just a few of the important commercial
members of the diverse and productive marine
intertidal and shelf communities in the region. An
estimated 100,000 marine mammals, including sea
otters, sea lions, and harbor seals, live in or visit
the area annually. The region has historically
abundant populations of more than 100 species of
migratory and nonmigratory birds, along with a
diverse coastal terrestrial community. Indigenous
peoples thrived around Prince William Sound for
more than 5,000 years, and on the Alaska and
Kenai Peninsulas for perhaps as long as
10,000 years.
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
On March 24, 1989, when the Exxon Valdez ran
aground, about 11 million gallons of North Slope
crude oil spilled into Prince William Sound. The
Exxon Valdez oil spill eventually contaminated
1,500 miles of coastline, affecting a surface area
of approximately 75,000 square miles extending
throughout southwestern Prince William Sound and
along the western coast of the Gulf of Alaska
(figure 1).
In spring and summer 1989, thousands were em-
ployed to contain and clean up the spill and to res-
cue oiled wildlife. Shoreline cleanup techniques
included removing oil sediments, scrubbing oiled
rocks by hand, scouring the shore with high-pres-
sure hot water, and using fertilizer to encourage
the growth of oil-eating microbes (bioremediation).
Much of this cleanup activity resulted in additional
damage to the marine and coastal environment.
The 68 small, relatively isolated communities in
the oil spill area depend on local fish and wildlife
for subsistence and cash income. Contamination,
real or perceived, has greatly disrupted subsistence
harvests from the area. The spill has affected local
economies as well as the traditional lifestyles that
have developed over 10,000 years of human habi-
tation in the area. The spill and resulting activities
during cleanup—including vandalism—have dam-
aged many archeological and historic sites. More-
over, increased awareness of the location of these
archeological sites threatens their future.
Prince William Sound's wilderness setting offers
tremendous opportunities for hiking, hunting,
fishing, boating, and sightseeing, and there are a
number of federal and state conservation units in
the area. Although most recreational areas were
not directly damaged by the spill, disruption of the
ecosystem has reduced the quality of recreation in
the area.
Trustee Council
Following the disaster in 1989, agencies in the
region immediately initiated massive response and
cleanup efforts, followed by Natural Resources
Damage Assessment activities under the authority
of the federal Clean Water Act. On October 8,
1991, the U.S. District Court for Alaska approved
an agreement to settle the claims of the United
States and the state of Alaska against Exxon Cor-
poration and the Exxon Shipping Company for var-
ious criminal violations and for recovery of civil
damages to the public's natural resources resulting
from the oil spill.
According to the civil consent decree, Exxon must
make 10 annual payments totaling $900 million for
damages to natural resources and services, for
restoration of natural resources, and for reimburse-
ment of cleanup expenses. The first payment was
made in December 1991, and the final payment is
due in September 2001.
The Exxon Corporation also paid federal and state
governments $50 million each in restitution as part
of the criminal settlement. Both governments are
separately spending these funds in the spill-
affected area.
The current Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council
was established to administer the civil trust funds.
A formal state-federal Memorandum of Agreement
defines the Trustee Council management structure
and the rules for allocating the civil settlement
funds.
Civil settlement funds are designated to restore
spill-affected resources and services, and the
Trustee Council allocates funds to projects through
a deliberative proposal process. The Council uses
guidelines and evaluation criteria, taking into
account such factors as the degree to which a pro-
posed project is linked to the Exxon Valdez oil spill
and the recovery status of affected resources. The
public has the opportunity to comment on propos-
als, and in many cases is actively involved in de-
veloping them. Proposals also undergo outside
126
-------
Prince William Sound
Index Mao of Oil Solll A
THE EXXON VALDEZ
OIL SPILL AREA
Soufhcentral Alaska
General Land Status
Federal Lands (Including
National Parks, Forests, Wildlife
Refuges, BUM Lands)
Exxon VaWaz
Oil Spill Area
&«• tad owiwrahip (rem AD«(, Und
Motion, I/BE; FMird MX! ANC8A owiMtaNp
from iuTMM of LMid tyttnumKit, 1V94.
i Mnttd: AugiMt IB, 18B6
PreduMd by: Atariw D^ivtmant of fMunl RMOWOM, Und Ftooord* Infonnitlon Swrion
Figure 1.—T/?e Exxon Valdez oil spill area is
the area enclosed by the maximum extent of
oiled shorelines, severely affected communi-
ties and their immediate human-use areas,
and adjacent uplands to the watershed divide.
Affected lands include national forests, parks,
and wildlife refuges. (Source: Alaska
Department of Natural Resources, Land
Records Information Section.)
technical peer review under the guidance of the
Trustee Council's chief scientist.
The six trustees can take action only by unanimous
agreement. Trustees are:
• The Administrator of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
U.S. Department of Commerce (represented
by the National Marine Fisheries Service
Regional Director)
The Secretary of the Interior (represented by
the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife
and Parks)
The Secretary of Agriculture (represented by
the Regional Forester of the Forest Service)
The Commissioner of the Alaska Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation
127
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
• The Commissioner of the Alaska Depart-
ment of Fish and Game
• The State Attorney General
Except for the Alaska Attorney General, trustees
represented agencies with management responsi-
bilities for resources damaged by the spill. The
Trustee Council structure includes a Public Advi-
sory Group and interdisciplinary working groups
that form part of an independent scientific peer
review process (figure 2). A planning structure and
adaptive management process were established
(figures 3 and 4), and reviewers were retained to
provide independent scientific review of current
and planned studies and to assist in the synthesis
of results.
In summer 1989, scientists initiated studies to
determine the nature and extent of damage to the
area's natural resources. In 1989, researchers con-
ducted 72 studies in 10 natural resource and re-
lated service areas. Since 1989, the number of
studies in progress has declined, although research
continues on the effects of residual oil in the
ecosystem, on the natural recovery process, and on
restoration techniques.
Scientists using available ecosystem data and
models have yet to explain the wide fluctuations in
fisheries stocks that occurred following the oil
spill. These changes in fish populations have
affected the human and wildlife communities that
depend on fish for survival. There is also evidence
of continuing decline in some seabird and marine
mammal populations. Understanding these popula-
tion dynamics is the first objective in managing
the aquatic ecosystem. There is also concern
about the effects of upland timber harvesting on
ecosystem health in the Exxon Valdez oil spill area.
Restoration Plan
In 1990, the Trustee Council began developing a
Restoration Plan that outlines how settlement
funds will be spent to restore the area affected by
the oil spill, including Prince William Sound. De-
veloped in consultation with the Trustee Council's
Public Advisory Group chartered under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, a draft of the plan was
completed in November 1993 and submitted for
public comment. Pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act, the plan is accompa-
nied by a draft environmental impact statement,
completed in June 1994. The final environmental
impact statement was issued in September 1994,
and the Restoration Plan was adopted by the
Trustee Council and published in November 1994.
To assist in setting priorities, the plan includes a
list of injured resources, noting which ones are not
recovering. Roughly 40 percent of the settlement
funds will be used for land acquisitions or purchase
of conservation easements for habitat protection.
The remaining 60 percent is devoted primarily to
research, monitoring, and general restoration activ-
ities. About half of this amount will be spent dur-
ing the annual workplan process, and another third
was used to reimburse the state and federal gov-
ernments for cleanup, response, and damage
assessment immediately following the oil spill.
The remaining funds are being set aside in a
Restoration Reserve account to address long-term
restoration needs after the final payment from
Exxon Corporation in 2001. '
The Trustee Council has decided that more infor-
mation is needed on the ecosystem dynamics in
the oil spill area to help guide and monitor restora-
tion efforts and to refine resource management.
Accordingly, the Trustee Council is now funding
(beginning in 1994) several ecosystem research
programs to gain a better understanding of ecosys-
tem processes and productivity.
BUDGET ISSUES
As an ecosystem in need of restoration, Prince
William Sound is uniquely privileged: the settle-
ment with Exxon Corporation provides unusually
large amounts of funding. Budget-related questions
posed by the survey team during its interviews
addressed both the settlement fund allocation and
spending needs for ecosystem activities. Questions
were designed to solicit information and sugges-
tions on interagency budget coordination, bud-
getary priority-setting, and budget needs, em-
phases, and constraints. Many interviewees
remarked that the need to address the Exxon Valdez
oil spill crisis has induced agencies and people to
work together, establishing a structure for general
collaboration and cross-agency funding in the
future.
128
-------
Prince William Sound
Trustee Council
Public Advisory
Group
and public input
Executive Director
Restoration
workforce
Chief Scientist
Core reviewers
Coordinating Committee-
/• f T
Monitoring • Research • General Restoration
Figure 2.—Management and science plan-
ning organizational diagram for the Exxon
Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. The Council's
structure is designed to ensure public input
through the Public Advisory Group into plan-
ning and management of monitoring,
research, and general restoration through five
interdisciplinary coordinating committees.
(Source: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee
Council 1994b.)
129
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Solicit
ideas and
projects
Distribute
draft
workplan
Approve
workplan and
funding
Figure 3.—Stages in the adaptive manage-
ment cycle for the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
Trustee Council.
Using Civil Settlement Funds
By September 1994, a total of $410 million in pay-
ments was received from the $900 million civil
settlement with Exxon, and a total of about
$309 million, approximately one-third of the civil
settlement, was spent or budgeted. Of that
amount, about $150 million was reimbursed to
state and federal governments for oil spill-related
expenditures from 1989 through 1992. In addition,
about $40 million was credited to Exxon for clean-
up expenses during 1991 and 1992, and approxi-
mately $119 million was spent or approved for
annual restoration work.
Past and future uses of civil settlement funds as of
June 1995 are shown in table 1.
About half of the annual work funds have been
allocated for habitat protection (primarily through
land acquisition). Monitoring, research, and gen-
eral restoration projects have received another
36 percent. Twelve percent went toward public
information and administration. In 1992-1993, a
small proportion of annual work funds was spent on
damage assessment studies.
In addition, a Restoration Reserve has been estab-
lished as a set-aside for long-term restoration and
research activities. Past authorizations for the Re-
serve amount to $24 million, with estimated future
authorizations of $12 million per year through
FY 2002, for a total of $84 million in anticipated
funds. Altogether, authorized and anticipated
funds for the Reserve amount to $108 million
(Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 1994b).
Constraints. Many interviewees noted the diffi-
culty of dealing with a sudden influx of money.
Although the goal was to restore the spill-affected
area, it was initially unclear how to use the funds
to maximum effect. Moreover, the requirement
that all six trustees unanimously agree on spending
caused difficulties, according to interviewees, in
developing a process for quickly determining prior-
ities and beginning to allocate funds.
130
-------
Prince Wiliiam Sound
Develop initial
strategies for
ecosystem
approach
«
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Table 1.—Past and estimated future uses of civil settlement funds as of June 1995
Use Dollars allocated (millions )
Research, monitoring, and general restoration 218-248
Past authorizations 110.3
1992 Workplan 19.2
1993 Workplan 15.5
1994 Workplan 25.8
1995 Workplan 24.8
Alaska Sealife Center 25.0
Future authorizations 108-1381
Restoration Reserve 108 plus interest
Past authorizations 24.0
Future authorizations 84.0 2
Habitat protection 342-372
Past actions 98.1
Inholdings in Kachemak Bay State Park 7.5
Seal Bay on Afognak Island 39.6
For purchase 38.7
Estimated interest 0.9
Timber rights at Orca Narrows 3.65
AKI lands within Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 36.0
Old Harbor lands within Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 11.3
Future authorizations 244-274
Reimbursements 1773
Past 150.4
Future (estimated) 26.3
Adjustments 23.04
Total goo
1 Estimated future workplan authorizations are calculated as the residual of $900 million less past and estimated future
authorizations for other restoration purposes.
2 Anticipated ($12 million per year through FY 2002).
For reimbursements to federal and state governments for past damage assessment, cleanup, response, restoration, and
litigation expenses.
"•includes $39.9 million deducted by Exxon from the 1992 payment for the costs of cleanup completed after January 1,
1991, plus court fees, minus credits for interest earned and funds not expended by agencies.
All of those interviewed expressed frustration with
the fund allocation early on in the process. Be-
cause of the difference in state and federal fiscal
years, funds were initially allocated for only 6 to
8 months at a time. Although the period was later
raised to 12 months, researchers complained that
they spent 10-30 percent of their project time de-
vising proposals, recalculating budgets, and writing
accomplishment reports due to the unrealistically
short timeframe. For most ecosystem research and
monitoring, they pointed out, 6 to 12 months are
not enough time to produce meaningful results.
Delays and uncertainties in continued funding be-
yond 6-month or 1-year timeframes caused prob-
lems for applicants in managing their projects,
retaining qualified personnel, and maintaining proj-
ect continuity and efficiency. Such problems are
particularly acute for scientists, who have trouble
retaining expert research personnel and continuing
long-term data collection without assured funding.
With a field season of only a few months, startup
(including personnel recruitment and logistics
planning) for some projects had to occur almost
overnight after funding was approved.
There were differing opinions on legitimate use of
settlement funds under applicable consent decrees.
Federal and state lawyers had much to say on
which projects were funded early in the process.
Both state and Native corporation representatives
stated that the federal definition of what consti-
tutes subsistence resources was too limited and not
take into account damage to cultural resources.
Interviewees expressed general concerns regarding
the large expenditure of funds for restoration and
research without an adequate adaptive manage-
ment or evaluative process. Specific concerns
were expressed about problems caused by some
cleanup efforts and the need to identify such prob-
lems quickly. Many interviewees applauded the
Restoration Reserve fund for its ability to facilitate
adaptive management by allowing money to be set
aside for future use without requiring a
132
-------
Prince William Sound
determination now about how the money should be
spent.
In November 1994, the Trustee Council adopted a
Restoration Plan that sets the framework for allo-
cating future use of Exxon Valdez oil spill funds.
The Restoration Plan includes a mission state-
ment, goals, objectives and strategies, and a set of
guiding policies.
Interviewee suggestions. Most interviewees ex-
pressed the need for long-term funding of research
and such related projects as damage assessment
and monitoring. Damage assessment, for example,
is based on 3- to 5-year planning, but funding is
currently assured for no more than 1 year at a time.
Many involved in research and monitoring sug-
gested extending grant periods from the current
12 months to 2-5 years, subject (of course) to
funding availability and continued progress on the
project. Lengthening funding terms would increase
project efficiency by decreasing project adminis-
tration. Moreover, developing comprehensive
long-range funding plans for research would foster
more collaborative and integrative approaches.
Trustee Council representatives said that when the
Restoration Plan was complete, they would be
able to fund longer term projects and will establish
a process for multiyear funding. Since our inter-
views, the Trustee Council has adopted a Restora-
tion Plan and begun a planning process for the next
3-5 years of restoration efforts. This is intended to
foster more collaborative and integrative ap-
proaches, and to increase project efficiency.
More efficient and direct funding mechanisms are
needed. One researcher, for example, complained
of having to submit budget proposals to both the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the Uni-
versity of Alaska, rather than directly to the
Trustee Council. Funding of state and federal proj-
ects is accomplished fairly easily. However,
getting funds to the private sector has proven very
difficult. Many researchers have recommended a
National Science Foundation model of funding,
with named recipients for grants. However, the
Trustee Council has no authority to give out grants,
and must rely on either sole-source contracts or
competitive bidding processes. The difficulty of
getting funds to private, nonagency entities has
discouraged many in the private sector from partic-
ipating in this process.
The Trustee Council has begun using a federal
competitive process called the Broad Agency An-
nouncement for research and monitoring projects.
This permits agencies and private groups to com-
pete on the basis of their proposals' merit, and then
allows for direct, negotiated contracts upon Coun-
cil approval. However, this method cannot be used
for direct restoration projects, many of which are
proposals by village councils to restore subsistence
resources. Some interviewees specifically identi-
fied the need for more federal matching grants to
encourage more state, local, and private sector
involvement and support.
Interviewees suggested placing more emphasis on
funding for communication efforts. Funding should
be provided to the Public Advisory Group, for ex-
ample, for communication with the entities it rep-
resents. Funding should also be provided for a
user-friendly information system on research results
and natural resources information of interest to the
communities affected by the Exxon Valdez oil spill
and to the general public. These suggestions have
already been followed up on by the Trustee Coun-
cil, and as of July 1995, efforts to implement them
were underway.
When asked about funding priorities, most people
emphasized the importance of funding land acqui-
sition, public information and education, and re-
search on why so many marine species (including
fish, birds, and mammals) are experiencing popu-
lation crashes. Some interviewees also felt that
funds were needed for restoration efforts on private
lands, in addition to land acquisition.
Federal Joint Funding
Prior to the Exxon Valdez oil spill, federal agencies
in Prince William Sound collaborated relatively
little on projects and funding activities. Now,
however, a number of very positive joint activities
are underway.
Collaboration. The National Biological Service,
National Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife
Service are working together on projects related to
the oil spill and ecosystem. They are transferring
funds and people between agencies to facilitate
coordination.
The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Manage-
ment are collaborating on a geographic information
133
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
system project. They are sharing staff, expertise,
and data, but are not transferring funds for data
collection.
In 1994, the National Biological Service initiated
a 3-year Greater Prince William Sound Ecosystem
Initiative, one of 12 such agency projects nation-
wide (another is in Glacier Bay, Alaska). After
the National Biological Service develops its ap-
proach, it will collaborate with other agencies to
integrate scientific information and to close any
gaps in knowledge. One reason the agency se-
lected Prince William Sound as a project site is
the potential availability of Exxon Valdez oil spill
settlement funding to augment its own resources.
Constraints. Experience with the damage as-
sessment process following the Exxon Valdez oil
spill disaster indicated a need to improve ways to
obtain funding in emergencies. Because the oil
spill occurred in the middle of the fiscal year, no
funds were available to address the emergency;
agencies had to go to Congress to request addi-
tional funds. This created administrative problems
and left portions of the overall assessment plan
unfunded. Moreover, agencies faced the problem
of deciding who funded what, and it took time for
them to develop a common direction.
Without assured additional funding, federal agen-
cies found it difficult to redirect staff to address the
emergency. Because additional staff could not be
hired, redirecting staff meant that their regular pro-
gram activities were neglected.
Most federal agencies are limited to spending
appropriations on lands and resources they man-
age, discouraging them from taking a broader
ecosystem approach. For example, the Forest Ser-
vice needs more research on land-sea ecosystem
relations, but it is allowed to fund research only on
national forest lands.
Each agency has separate procedures for data col-
lection, budget review, report review, and other
processes, which inhibits collaboration with other
agencies, universities, and organizations. A true
ecosystem approach requires collaboration with
Canada, because watersheds and international
parks straddle international boundaries. But col-
laborating on projects with Canada is impeded by
the difficulty of transferring funds to Canadian
agencies for collaborative research and monitoring.
It is easier to collaborate with Russia, because
Area 5 agreements provide for funding of Russian
entities. Similar agreements are needed with
Canada.
Interviewee suggestions. Interviewees felt that it
should be made easier to transfer funds among
agencies and organizations, perhaps through Mem-
oranda of Agreement or eliminating the need for
special interagency agreements. Broader, more
credible ways of carrying out monitoring and other
tasks will reduce costs, as would use of volunteers.
A special agreement to exchange funds with
Canada would help to facilitate an ecosystem ap-
proach across international boundaries.
Incentives for collaboration would help to optimize
use of scarce resources and to mitigate competi-
tion for them. Collaborative work could be made a
selection criterion for grants.
More support should be given to establishing base-
line data before a crisis occurs, to facilitate analy-
sis of disaster effects and to help measure restora-
tion accomplishments. The assessment should be
conducted collaboratively and with joint funding
from all involved.
More funding is needed for research, monitoring,
and restoration, and particularly for education and
communication. An electronic bulletin board or
data base of research reports and other information
might be established. There should also be more
emphasis on technological tools, such as geo-
graphic information systems, perhaps with the help
of the U.S. Department of Defense.
INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
In spite of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Prince
William Sound is still relatively pristine, with
little contamination •from other sources (such as
nutrients or heavy metals), and with significant
natural resources for extraction and tourism. The
region is sparsely populated compared to other
survey team study sites, such as South Florida or
the Great Lakes basin (see corresponding chapters
in this volume). Still, a variety of federal, state,
and native institutions have long been active in the
region, responsible for managing its rich natural
resources. Before the disaster, there was no major
interagency coordinating institution, even though
agencies collaborated on various projects. The
Exxon Valdez oil spill provided the impetus for the
region's first concerted interagency coordination,
134
-------
Prince William Sound
although declines in fisheries beginning in the
1980s also demanded interagency action, accord-
ing to some interviewees.
Institutional representatives in the region—and the
general public—are convinced of the need to avoid
the problems and conflicts over multiple resource
use that have plagued other regions. Survey partic-
ipants foresee continued problems in coordinating
the region's diverse institutions, and they are anx-
ious to learn from other regions how to change the
culture of institutional interaction and to design
effective processes for institutional coordination.
Trustee Council
The major coordinating institution in the region is
the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, cre-
ated in 1989 immediately following the spill.
Before its official inauguration in October 1991
(under formal agreement between state and federal
governments), the Council coordinated activity to
clean up the oil spill and to assess the extent of
damage in preparation for a formal Natural Re-
sources Damage Assessment. Survey participants
voiced considerable criticism of the Natural Re-
sources Damage Assessment process and of the
poorly coordinated response to the spill, which
they attributed to lack of clear leadership by any
single state or federal agency.
Trustee Council authority. One problem is that
the Prince William Sound ecosystem—in both
scientific and institutional terms—is larger than
the Exxon Valdez oil spill boundaries defined by
the Trustee Council. Exxon Valdez oil spill bound-
aries contain a mosaic of native, state, and federal
lands (such as national forests and state parks)
with different purposes and trust managers. Al-
though the Trustee Council includes members from
these agencies, it lacks direct management author-
ity. Therefore, it must depend on the cooperation
of agencies and nongovernmental entities in the
region. The challenge of getting various manage-
ment entities to coordinate their diverse mandates
and to work toward common goals has proven
daunting, according to many participants.
The rule that Trustee Council decisions must be
based on unanimous consent was considered an
obstacle to restoration efforts by some participants,
because it (in effect) gives veto power to any
Council member. However, others felt that it
provided an opportunity to build consensus.
Council representatives considered it a major
accomplishment to get agencies in the region to
agree to the goals and objectives for research,
monitoring, and restoration outlined in its
Restoration Plan.
Ecosystem approach. The Trustee Council was
not set up to implement the ecosystem approach,
but rather to allocate Exxon Valdez oil spill civil
settlement funds. But in its policy declarations
and programmatic decisions, the Council has em-
braced the ecosystem approach. To address criti-
cisms, it has evolved in important ways in both
structure and process, partly by seeking to learn
lessons from other regions. Trustee Council repre-
sentatives specifically noted studying the structure
of the U.S.-Canada International Joint Commission
for the Great Lakes and how it has worked to im-
plement the ecosystem approach.
In November 1993, the Trustee Council made sev-
eral changes to improve the efficiency of its plan-
ning process and to address the issue of the ecosys-
tem approach. An executive director was hired to
develop a comprehensive ecosystem-based ap-
proach to restoring Prince William Sound. In addi-
tion, the Council established a position for a direc-
tor of operations. Because these staff members,
along with the chief scientist (a position created in
1990), are independent of any trustee agency, they
are able to take a broader view, helping to facili-
tate consensus on the Council. Moreover, they are
able to focus on planning and setting goals for
restoration and management activities, and to work
with agencies on implementing plans.
In its Restoration Plan, the Trustee Council estab-
lished the ecosystem approach as a primary policy.
In addition, the plan incorporated ecosystem and
restoration goals and objectives that were devel-
oped during a series of workshops attended by
involved scientists and members of the public. A
group of core reviewers was identified, who pro-
vide individual advice to the chief scientist on the
program in its entirety. Because the Trustee
Council provides the major funding for ecosystem
research in Prince William Sound, it is becoming
the leading catalyst for a. broader ecosystem
approach to resource management in the area.
The Trustee Council's appraisal process for land
acquisition is designed to facilitate the ecosystem
approach. Land parcels considered for acquisition
are evaluated in terms of their resource value and
135
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
the degree of their linkage to resources affected by
the oil spill. The Council considers the synergistic
value of acquisitions, assigning priority to groups
of parcels that, taken together, will contribute to
restoration over a larger area.
Opportunities for the Ecosystem
Approach
Most agencies and institutions in the region ex-
pressed clear support for the ecosystem approach.
Few examples were given of agency barriers to the
ecosystem approach; most survey participants were
positive about agency efforts to change the way
they do business, in accordance with the ecosys-
tem approach. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
A-95 wetlands permits were cited as one example,
although no specifics were given. A number of
management and planning processes in the region
could be adapted to ecosystem goals, including
forest management plans and recovery plans for
endangered species, which should be considered in
an ecosystem context. One participant called
these "protoecosystem management" mechanisms,
and many suggested that incorporating goals of the
ecosystem approach into these processes would be
a major step forward.
Interviewees offered several examples of what
agencies are doing outside the Trustee Council
process to incorporate adaptive management
(feedback processes) and to take an ecosystem
approach through coordination and cooperation
with other agencies, incorporation of regional
goals, and other means.
State of Alaska. The state of Alaska has a number
of coordinating mechanisms, including the Alaska
Water Directive, an administrative order by the
Governor that is designed to avoid duplication of
effort among state and federal agencies by defining
and consolidating responsibilities. Implementation
of the directive is assisted by the Water Manage-
ment Council, which has quarterly meetings of
28 state and federal water management and
research entities to discuss water issues. Alaska
also has Public Information Centers distributed
throughout the state to provide all the necessary
information to planners and developers on permits
(primarily issued by the state and Army Corps of
Engineers); both state officials and members of the
public urged the federal government to provide this
type of "one-stop shopping" for other kinds of
permits and regulatory processes.
Department of Defense. Although the survey
team did not speak with officials from the Depart-
ment of Defense, several interviewees mentioned
the potential of military technology for environ-
mental applications, especially remote sensing
tools, in situ observing systems, and data man-
agement expertise.
Fish and Wildlife Service/National Park Ser-
vice. The Fish and Wildlife Service and National
Park Service manage the Alaska Peninsula, Ko-
diak, Kenai, and Becharof National Wildlife
Refuges and the Katmai and Lake Clark National
Parks, which surround much of the western oil spill
area. Representatives from both agencies stated
that they are working to define goals of the ecosys-
tem approach.
Forest Service. The Forest Service is evolving a
new mode of planning and decision making for its
forest management plans, currently under revision
for both the Chugach and Tongass National
Forests. Forest management plans are an impor-
tant part of the process for shaping future condi-
tions in the Prince William Sound ecosystem,
given the large tracts of public lands surrounding
the Exxon Valdez oil spill area. The Forest Service
recognizes that there are strong qualitative and
quantitative links between forest cutting and
salmon, wildlife, and water quality. To address
these links, the agency is initiating ecosystem
planning for both the Chugach National Forest,
which surrounds much of Prince William Sound,
and the Tongass National Forest. The Forest Ser-
vice defines ecosystem planning using an interdis-
ciplinary team to brings more people and issues
into the forest planning process. However, the
complex system of multiple owners and interests
involved on most federal lands is a challenge to
the process: on the Chugach National Forest, for
example, there are three Alaska boroughs and
three federal agencies involved, along with several
Native corporations and state agencies, and the
Copper River drainage basin extends into Canada.
In 1989, the Forest Service established the Copper
River Delta Institute in Cordova to provide in-
creased ecological research and public interpreta-
tion on the Copper River Delta and Forest Service
lands.
National Biological Service. The National Bio-
logical Service's Prince William Sound-Copper
River Ecosystem Partnership, begun in 1994, is
designed to facilitate ecosystem-based approaches
136
-------
Prince William Sound
to resource management through partnerships be-
tween the National Biological Service and other
agencies and organizations in the Prince William
Sound drainage basin. The agency's strategy is to
identify and fill in gaps in what the Trustee Coun-
cil is able to do and fund under its mandate-for
restoration.
One of 12 such National Biological Service efforts
nationwide, the Prince William Sound-Copper
River Ecosystem Partnership looks beyond re-
sources and species damaged in the Exxon Valdez
oil spill. The Initiative focuses on declining popu-
lations of harbor seals and sea lions in the Gulf of
Alaska, on terrestrial systems and old growth
forests, and on parts of the Prince William Sound
ecosystem that lie beyond oil spill boundaries
(such as the Copper River basin and the Wrangell-
St. Elias wilderness). Specific areas to be ad-
dressed include developing an information man-
agement system and a functional linkage model of
the whole ecosystem to guide future science ef-
forts. Information developed in partnership with
other agencies will be used to influence decisions
on land use, timber harvesting, oil and gas leasing,
and other natural resource management issues.
The National Biological Service holds workshops
and synthesis conferences in the region to define
emerging and critical issues.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion. NOAA has several programs that contribute
to, or are opportunities for, an ecosystem approach.
Under the Coastal Zone Management Act, NOAA
works with the Alaska Coastal Management
Program to help protect coastal resources and pro-
mote sustainable development through federal
grants, program review, and technical assistance.
The Alaska Coastal Zone Management Program
received federal approval in 1979 and has since
completed 34 of 36 locally developed district
coastal management programs. The Sea Grant
Marine Advisory Service is another of NOAA's
educational and community involvement tools,
with agents in communities in all coastal states,
including Alaska. Its job is to get information and
technology on coastal resources into the hands of
people who can use them. The Marine Advisory
Program is a grassroots effort, with agents located
in eight communities along Alaska's 55,000 miles
of coast.
NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) supports multidisciplinary research on
fisheries oceanography. Cited by survey partici-
pants as an example of good interdisciplinary
work, this research, provides information important
to broader management of marine resources in the
region. Current studies focus on the influence of
coastal eddy currents and other oceanographic fea-
tures on the survival and maturation of larval and
juvenile pollock in the Shelikov Straits and Bering
Sea. Research involves models coupling biologi-
cal and physical factors, and results are now being
used by the North Pacific Fisheries Management
Council in stock assessments. NOAA has man-
agement responsibility for living marine resources
beyond 3 miles, whereas the state has primary
responsibility for fisheries within the 3-mile zone,
including coastal salmon.
The NMFS was praised for its research efforts, but
criticized for continuing to take a single-species
approach rather than expanding its scope to in-
clude broader factors such as predator/prey rela-
tionships, physical processes, and habitat. NMFS
employees stated that they have not been able to
adequately address habitat issues because the
Auke Bay laboratory has not received funding for
habitat-related work. Most such work is supported
from outside the agency (by Shell Oil, the Fish
and Wildlife Service, and the Army Corps of Engi-
neers), limiting the ability to apply resources to
habitat-related priorities set by the NMFS. Due to
budget constraints, the NMFS is faced with diffi-
cult decisions on whether to allocate resources to
such management efforts as habitat protection or to
meet short- and long-term research needs.
North Pacific Fishery Management Council.
The North Pacific Fisheries Management Council
(NPFMC) is one of eight U.S. Regional Fishery
Management Councils created under the Magnu-
, son Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
The NPFMC advises the U.S. Secretary of Com-
merce and the state of Alaska by assessing and
developing regional fisheries management plans
for several species (such as salmon, king and tan-
ner crab, pollack, herring, and squid). The major
regional coordination and management institution
prior to the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the NPFMC is
moving towards an ecosystem approach by support-
ing studies of target predator and prey species in
the trophic chain of target species, issues relating
to hatchery salmon and wild salmon, and predic-
tive fishery models. It has also funded research
aimed at developing information for specific man-
agement plans. The NPFMC has an executive
137
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
director and staff who are not federal or state
employees, a scientific and statistical panel that
advises on scientific and technical matters, and an
advisory panel with members representing major
segments of the fishing industry, including catch-
ing and processing, subsistence fishing, consump-
tion, and sport fishing.
The NPFMC provides fishery management plans to
the Department of Commerce's National Marine
Fisheries Service. In accordance with adaptive
management, after a plan is developed, it can be
amended during an annual revision cycle, based on
new scientific information collected by the scien-
tific and technical committee, NPFMC staff, and
special advisors. Emergency provisions allow for
relatively rapid responses. The NPFMC takes an
ecosystem approach to setting maximum sustain-
able yields and optimum yields, recognizing that
in order for fish stocks to be sustained, the ecosys-
tem as a whole must be understood. Research is
being funded by the NPFMC on trophic interac-
tions related to fish, such as marine mammal feed-
ing habits. Representatives of the NPFMC feel
that the industry advisory panel has generally been
interested in getting the best scientific advice and
in heeding it during plan preparation.
Prince William Sound Science Center. The
Prince William Sound Science Center in Cordova
is a private, nonprofit corporation founded by a
group of local researchers, fishermen, and public
officials. The Center also administers a federally
funded entity, the Prince Wiljiam Sound Oil Spill
Recovery Institute, mandated by the Oil Pollution
Act of 1990. The Center is supported by a combi-
nation of state and federal contracts and private
foundation grants, including federal appropriations
from fiscal years (FY) 1991-94 to support the Oil
Spill Recovery Institute, a 3-year grant from the
MJ. Murdoch Charitable Trust to increase public
involvement in sustainable resource use planning,
and a major contract for the Trustee Council to
conduct ecosystem monitoring in Prince William
Sound. The Oil Spill Recovery Institute has de-
veloped a Research and Development plan for oil
spill prevention and response and, in conjunction
with the Science Center, developed an ecosystem
research plan for the greater Prince William Sound
region.
Prince William Sound Fisheries Ecosystem
Research Planning Group. The Prince William
Sound Science Center worked with fishery
organizations and others based in Cordova to bring
together commercial and recreational fishermen,
native and environmental representatives, other
users, scientists, and resource managers into the
bioregional Prince William Sound Fisheries
Ecosystem Research Planning Group. The Plan-
ning Group includes Cordova District Fishermen
United, the Cordova Aquatic Marketing Associa-
tion, Prince William Sound Aquaculture Corpora-
tion, the Prince William Sound Science Center,
the University of Alaska at Fairbanks, Eyak Corpo-
ration, Prince William Sound Conservation Al-
liance, and local staff of the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game.
The Planning Group has developed an ecosystem
research plan with a broad-based, long-term, re-
gional perspective: research is designed to address
ecosystem goals based on local priorities (such as
maintaining a sustainable fishery and a resource
for tourism). The plan, called the Sound Ecosys-
tem Assessment, proposes long-term bioregional
research and monitoring of the Prince William
Sound fishery ecosystem. The Planning Group
hopes that agencies will consider these goals for
research and monitoring in their program planning.
The Sound Ecosystem Assessment deals with the
difficulty of studying a whole ecosystem by con-
centrating on two species of concern—the pink
salmon and Pacific herring—as key to understand-
ing Prince William Sound ecosystem dynamics. In
April 1994, the Sound Ecosystem Assessment be-
gan collecting data on these two species, their
predators and prey at several stages in their life
cycles, and the nutrient and physical regimes that
influence their biology. Funded in FY 1994 by the
Trustee Council, the Sound Ecosystem Assessment
is one of three multi-investigator ecosystem re-
search programs being considered for continued
funding.
Organizers said that the impetus for forming the
Prince William Sound Fisheries Ecosystem Re-
search Planning Group was local concern about the
Prince William Sound ecosystem, coupled with
frustration over the lack of organization provided
by the Trustee Council and agencies in the region
early after the settlement, and the lack of interest
on the part of these entities in drawing on local
knowledge. Members in the Planning Group were
also concerned that monitoring and research being
done in the area (in which many of them were
involved) was for oil spill litigation before the
settlement, and not to formulate any coherent
138
-------
Prince William Sound
science plan. They were also motivated by the
need to understand why returns of pink salmon
were so aberrant in 1991-1993, and why Pacific
herring stocks failed in 1993.
Based on its experience with the ecosystem ap-
proach, the Planning Group stated that the ecosys-
tem approach must be multidisciplinary (not just
concerned with multiple species) and multiorgani-
zational, involving nongovernmental entities and
industry, must involve and empower local groups
and knowledge, and must be desired by the local-
ity or region.. The ecosystem approach, according
to Planning Group representatives, can be facili-
tated in several ways:
• Provide top-down approval and support from
agencies with a documented process for
coordination, such as cooperative agree-
ments or Memoranda of Agreement.
• Develop two-way communication of infor-
mation and ideas (bottom-up and top-down),
empowering middle and lower levels.
• Limit decisions made outside the region by
people removed from the issues and local
priorities, because external decision making
undercuts local and regional efforts and
makes public participation meaningless.
* Make regulations and guidelines flexible to
allow for innovative solutions and site-spe-
cific implementation. For example, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
requires grinding of waste from fish-process-
ing plants, but in Cordova some scientists
feel that dumping waste in larger pieces is
environmentally better.
• Make funding sources available to support
multidisciplinary and multiorganizational
work, and recognize that coordination and
integration require travel and synthesis con-
ferences and funding for these activities.
• In accordance with the steps above, de-
crease the centralized power of individual
agencies (by increasing shared information
and decision making) in order to empower
people and managers in the locality. Resis-
tance to power sharing in agency culture
must change if the ecosystem approach is to
be implemented.
Constraints to the Ecosystem Approach
The oil spill forged unity among groups based on
an immediate common goal and short-term vision:
cleanup and restoration. But most survey partici-
pants saw no shared vision for the future of Prince
William Sound. The goals defined in the Trustee
Council's Restoration Plan are specific about
restoring the ecosystem and intentionally narrow in
focusing on resources injured by the oil spill.
There are important resource issues that are not
included in the Exxon Valdez oil spill plans, such
as upland and old growth forest issues, the Copper
River and the Wrangell-St. Elias ecosystems
(outside the defined Exxon Valdez oil spill area),
and marine species in the Gulf of Alaska.
Establishing common goals. Interviewees often
pointed to a major roadblock in restoring and
managing Prince William Sound: the difficulty of
obtaining agreement among multiple agencies on
the nature and implementation of a common set of
goals. Commonly formulated goals do exist, in-
cluding the goals of the Restoration Plan, the
research and monitoring goals of the Sound
Ecosystem Assessment, and the goals of other
ecosystem plans supported by the Trustee Council.
But it is still uncertain whether agencies will actu-
ally integrate their programs and plans with
Restoration Plan goals, or how they will be able to
direct their resources toward these regional goals.
Many interviewees wonder whether—and to what
extent—-agencies will actually implement common
program priorities. Many believe that these priori-
ties will'remain on paper only, and that they will
fail to be funded through budget allocations and
put into practice.
Although the Trustee Council may help to define
the goals of the ecosystem approach, it is not re-
sponsible for management actions (except through
funding restoration efforts), nor can it do more than
encourage agencies to integrate their strategies
and programs with those of the Council itself. In-
terviewees did not see management authority for
the Trustee Council as a way of solving the prob-
lem, nor did they see lack of integration as solely
a problem of the Council. Instead, they felt that
agencies should take the initiative in integrating
their programs with the regional goals set by the
Trustee Council and other entities.
Some survey participants suggested naming a
"lead" agency for programs or for restoration or
139
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
cleanup efforts because it is difficult to work with
six or more federal and state agencies without a
lead. Both the new executive director of the
Trustee Council and the National Biological Ser-
vice ecosystem initiative were cited as potentially
addressing this problem through the Trustee Coun-
cil process.
Participants called for more collaborative devel-
opment of policies and programs. Frequently, one
agency develops a plan or set of priorities, then
tries to "sell" it to other federal and state agencies
and entities. Although the Exxon Valdez oil spill
strategic restoration planning process (see figure 3)
is developing goals for the ecosystem approach for
the area, there is concern that narrowly interpreted
agency mandates will stand in the way of their
implementation. The Trustee Council will have to
work diligently to see that the strategic plan is
accepted and implemented by many agencies.
Currently, species management is controlled by a
number of different agencies:
• Hunting seasons are set by the state, but
hunting access is regulated or affected by
Native corporations or by federal policies
under the Endangered Species Act and forest
management plans.
• Hunting seasons for migratory birds are set
by the state within a federal framework.
• Fishing seasons and harvests are set by the
state and the National Marine Fisheries Ser-
vice; although the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council has only an advisory
capacity, it is politically difficult to ignore.
• Approvals for land acquisitions by the
Trustee Council are managed by the Forest
Service, state, or Fish and Wildlife Service.
• The Trustee Council has been asked to fund
hatcheries, which have drawn state funding
in the past. Insufficient attention is paid,
according to interviewees, to the ecosystem
implications of hatchery stocks, despite
problems in the Pacific Northwest. The
Council has not funded any hatcheries to
date.
• The timber resource is managed by multiple
entities, including the Forest Service, Na-
tive corporations, and the state of Alaska,
with little coordination.
Both state officials and members of the public
urged the federal government to provide "one-stop
shopping" for information on regulations, on vari-
ous planning documents (such as forest and other
land use plans), and on permits and regulatory pro-
cesses. They felt that having this information
available would facilitate coordination and clarify
established goals.
Native corporations and communities. Consid-
erable land in the Exxon Valdez oil spill area is
owned and managed by Native corporations
(including the Chenega, Tatitlek, Eyak, and
Chugach corporations in Prince William Sound).
There was a general feeling among interviewees
that native groups and their perspectives and inter-
ests are not as well integrated into agency activi-
ties as they should be, but few specifics were
given. Three key points were made:
• Because native lands are privately owned,
one interviewee said, the National Environ-
mental Policy Act does not apply to them,
and thus native populations do not benefit
from its provisions.
• Native groups have not had some of the
same tools and background as others in ap-
plying for funding from the Trustee Council.
They need assistance in writing proposals
that will be given equal weight by the
Trustee Council.
• Native corporations are clearcutting, mining,
and drilling on lands that are not being man-
aged sustainably or in a manner consistent
with traditional hunting, fishing, or gathering
practices. This may negatively affect re-
sources and efforts in the region as a whole.
In the past year, Trustee Council staff have initi-
ated a major outreach effort to Native organiza-
tions and communities1 in the spill area. Although
the issues listed above are still of concern, a much
larger number of Native concerns are being ad-
dressed in projects that are now being funded by
the Trustee Council.
Advisory committees. Several academic survey
participants complained that procedures for bring-
ing in experts from outside a federal resource
140
-------
Prince William Sound
agency are weak, and that integration of research
expertise from universities has therefore been lim-
ited. One impediment is the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, which prohibits advice from out-
side scientists unless advisory committees are for-
mally constituted. For this reason, the Trustee
Council is using an informal group of nationally
recognized scientists to assist the Chief Scientist
in his review of proposed restoration efforts.
Federal contracting regulations. Federal con-
tracting regulations do not allow for open competi-
tion for research, restoration, and other projects.
Before an agency solicits bids for research assis-
tance, it must determine whether the process will
be sole-source (within the agency, for example) or
open-bid. If sole-source, universities and private
entities are excluded from competition. If open-
bid, federal scientists are precluded from compet-
ing. The result is that research is not always per-
formed by the most appropriate scientists, as
determined by open competition and peer review.
Frequently, university and federal scientists col-
laborate through cooperative agreements, but with-
out such agreements, collaboration is difficult. For
example, in past years academic researchers had
difficulty obtaining funding from Exxon Valdez oil
spill settlement monies unless they were at an
institution covered by one of these agreements and
had a federal collaborator. Recently, the Trustee
Council attempted to address this problem by issu-
ing a separate Broad Area Announcement
available to academic researchers. Council staff
continue to experiment with Broad Area An-
nouncements for research and monitoring projects.
This contracting process appears to hold much
promise, allowing for a more openly competitive
process.
Although scientists felt that cooperative agree-
ments and units help facilitate collaboration, the
real solution to this problem, they said, is to ease
federal contracting regulations to allow for free and
open competition for all research and restoration
funds using a National Science Foundation model.
Opening the process would help to solve the prob-
lem of locating those best suited, in terms of skills,
expertise, and resources, to work on a particular
project. This problem is particularly acute in re-
gions where the number of experts in any given
scientific area is small.
Other ecosystems at risk. Several survey partic-
ipants called for taking a proactive stance on the
likelihood of future disasters, perhaps by establish-
ing strategic environmental baselines for other
areas vulnerable to similar oil spills and contami-
nation. Cook Inlet was one area of concern, be-
cause it receives considerable ship traffic with a
variety of oil, fuel, and other cargoes. The Pribilof
Islands were another area where harbor and airstrip
development may lead to oil spills, disruption of
rookeries, and pollution from fish processing.
Participants recommended baseline ecosystem
surveys before major problems occur (or before
degradation mounts), and they called for imple-
menting disaster prevention and ecosystem man-
agement goals. Interviewees maintained that funds
from agency budgets were inadequate for other
areas at risk, and that the Exxon Valdez oil spill
experience has shown how difficult it is to respond
without adequate background information.
LEGAL ISSUES
Interviewees raised a variety of legal issues sur-
rounding Exxon Valdez oil spill litigation, the set-
tlement agreement, and laws pertaining to restora-
tion activities and the ecosystem approach in the
area-around Prince William Sound.
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Settlement
Many current activities in Prince William Sound
had their genesis in litigation, after the federal and
state governments prepared civil and criminal law-
suits against Exxon and the Alyeska Pipeline
Company under the Clean Water Act and other
statutes. As a result of the settlement, the restora-
tion of Prince William Sound is funded largely by
monies from Exxon. Their expenditure must con-
form to the consent decree governing settlement
and to the Memorandum of Agreement between
the United States and Alaska, over which a federal
judge retains jurisdiction. A formal structure (the
Trustee Council and its Public Advisory Group)
was established to ensure that all expenditures
conform to these documents.
Effects of litigation. Many of those interviewed
said that litigation had detrimental effects on
ecosystem restoration and management, primarily
in two ways. First, because data collection was
designed from the outset to meet litigation needs,
most studies focused on the extent of oil spill
141
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
damage rather than on prospects for restoration.
Studies that scientists considered important were
sometimes discontinued after legal review, be-
cause they were not necessary to prove the case.
Lawyers directed that studies be done and informa-
tion gathered on issues that would be of particular
interest or understandable to a jury, rather than on
issues that would provide the best information for
restoration purposes. However, lawyers often felt
that agencies were doing research according to
their own priorities without giving sufficient con-
sideration to litigation or restoration needs.
Second, because the issue of damage to resources
was in litigation, researchers were directed to keep
all studies and information on the subject confiden-
tial. This kept information from being shared,
sometimes even within agencies. It also created a
hardship for scientists, whose career success de-
pends on sharing and discussing their research with
other scientists and on publishing the results.
Even after the end of litigation, research remained
undirected and disorganized, according to many
interviewees. This was partly because no plan was
in effect at the time the Exxon Valdez oil spill
occurred. Some scientists wanted to continue their
work, regardless of whether it was relevant to the
spill. Some studies were duplicated because
agencies could not agree on who should do them.
Finally, agencies could not agree on who had
responsibility for restoring or conducting research
on particular resources. The fundamental problem
was that it was often unclear what agency priori-
ties were and who was in charge of the process.
No single independent agency or person was in
charge of the overall process, a problem finally
addressed when an executive director was ap-
pointed to the Trustee Council (an approach that
has proven successful in other interagency Natural
Resources Damage Assessment and restoration
planning efforts around the country).
Some interviewees recommended that the govern-
ment prepare for future catastrophes by devising
restoration contingency plans, akin to the response
contingency plans now prepared pursuant to the Oil
Pollution Act. Plans would specify such things as
what short- and long-term research should be done
and who would be responsible for it, where agen-
cies should work together, how to prepare baseline
information in advance and to use that information
for restoration, and what research equipment would
be available. Many of these suggestions are
addressed in the proposed Natural Resource
Damage Assessment regulations under the Oil
Pollution Act. It was noted that such planning
would demand extensive resources, and that the
most important action would be to put one person
in charge of damage assessment and restoration.
immediately after a spill occurs.
Use of settlement funds. The Trustee Council
met with mixed reviews in its administration of
Exxon Valdez oil spill settlement funds. Some
praised the Trustee Council for bringing diverse
state and federal parties to the table to exchange
information and resolve restoration issues, and for
giving the public a chance to see how the trustee
leadership works. But many criticized the unani-
mous consent requirement for slowing the decision-
making process and eliminating individual ac-
countability. The funding cycle was also criticized
for being too short and for subjecting funding ap-
plicants to burdensome procedural requirements.
There is not enough money in the settlement to
conduct all the restoration activities desired.
However, the Trustee Council's Restoration Plan
has developed a comprehensive, balanced ap-
proach to restoration that includes funding for all
the various kinds of restoration activities. Many of
the criticisms heard earlier in the process have
now been addressed.
Trustee Council decisions are subject to legal re-
view to verify that settlement fund expenditures
are in compliance with the consent decree. Inter-
viewees complained that legal opinions are slow in
coming, sometimes in conflict with each other,
and often at odds with the reality of the local situa-
tion. Moreover, not all parties affected by the
Exxon Valdez oil spill feel that they have had ade-
quate access to settlement funds. Representatives
of the Chenega Bay Corporation, for example,
complained that they had no assistance in writing
funding proposals that will conform to the require-
ments of the consent decree and Memorandum of
Agreement.
In its Restoration Plan, the Trustee Council estab-
lished the ecosystem approach as a primary policy
to help guide use of settlement funds. Several pro-
posed or approved projects funded by settlement
funds were praised as facilitating the ecosystem
approach. For example, a long-term reserve con-
taining funds for future research facilitates adap-
tive management by setting aside money for future
142
-------
Prince William Sound
use without stipulating now how it should be spent.
The appraisal process for land acquisition also
facilitates the ecosystem approach. Land parcels
considered for acquisition are prioritized in terms
of resource value and linkage to affected resources.
Priority is given to groupings of parcels that, taken
together, will enhance restoration over the largest
area possible. In general, both research and moni-
toring are moving away from a species-by-species
approach and towards an ecosystem approach.
Legal Authorities
Many complex legal issues in other regions dis-
cussed in this volume—involving the National
Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species
Act, and land management statutes—are of lesser
concern in the Exxon Valdez oil spill area. This
may be because the area around Prince William
Sound, which includes large tracts of federal land,'
is still relatively isolated and undeveloped. The
multiple sources of contamination found in more
populated areas are largely absent here, and the
environmental problems and land management
conflicts resulting from heavy resource extraction
are far less (with the notable exception of the
Exxon Valdez oil spill). But these problems may
become more prevalent in the future as logging,
fishing, and other extractive activities increase.
Statutes and regulations relating to the Exxon
Valdez oil spill and to the ecosystem approach in
Prince William Sound include the Oil Pollution
Act, Federal Advisory Committee Act, Alaska Na-
tive Claims Settlement Act, and federal contract- '
ing regulations.
Oil Pollution Act. The Oil Pollution Act,
33 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq., which was passed by
Congress in the wake of the Exxon Valdez oil spill
in 1990, contains many provisions that facilitate
interagency cooperation and an ecosystem
response. The Act allows funds recovered in a
natural resource damage lawsuit against an oil
spiller to be used for restoration in the damaged
area, providing a fund of money for restoration
after a lawsuit is settled or otherwise resolved.
This beneficial arrangement is unusual, because
funds recovered by the United States in an envi-
ronmental lawsuit are ordinarily deposited into the
federal Treasury and cannot be used to restore the
damaged resource.
Section 1006 of the Act (which provides for natural
resource damage assessments), along with its
legislative history, encourages interagency
cooperation and federal, state, and native
coordination in damage assessments and studies.
The Act directs agencies to exercise joint
management or control of shared resources, and it
makes up to $50 million immediately available for
damage assessments and emergency removal work.
Title V of the Act creates and funds regional
citizen advisory groups as well as the Oil Spill
Recovery Institute in Cordova, associated with the
Prince William Sound Science Center.
The NOAA has published proposed regulations for
Natural Resources Damage Assessments under the
Oil Pollution Act (59 Fed. Reg. 1062, 7 January
1994). Among other things, the regulations would
encourage natural resource trustees to "coordinate
among themselves, the response agencies, the pub-
lic, and any potential responsible parties interested
in developing contingency plans for a damage as-
sessment." They would allow agencies to .combine
funds recovered in several natural resource damage
cases in a region, so that the money recovered can
fund a larger long-term "Regional Restoration
Plan," and they would authorize state and federal
trustees to establish "joint trustee accounts" to
share funds recovered as a result of an oil spill.
Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2,
restricts the ability of-federal agencies to solicit
and receive collective advice from nonfederal
parties. An advisory committee, as defined by
FACA, must be organized under a charter, balance
its membership, post notification of its meetings in
the Federal Register, hold open meetings, take
minutes of meetings, provide transcripts of meet-
ings upon request, and make available any docu-
ments relied upon by the committee, among other
things.
In the Exxon Valdez oil spill process, the Public
Advisory Group was chartered under FACA, and
has begun to work quite well. But agencies are
concerned about FACA constraints in more rou-
tine, informal situations, where state or other out-
side parties would be brought in to discuss discrete
issues on a short-term basis. In such cases, the
time and resources required to comply with FACA
may outweigh the benefits of nonfederal participa-
tion. Agencies are also concerned that groups
chartered under FACA might often be too large to
work efficiently and productively. Support was
143
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
expressed for a legislative exemption from FACA
for meetings with state officials.
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 43 U.S.C.
§§ 1601 et seq., was passed in 1971. In return for
almost $1 billion and 40 million acres of land in
fee simple, native claims to aboriginal lands were
extinguished. The Act provided for the formation
of native regional and village corporations (char-
tered under state law) as a prerequisite to receipt
of lands or benefits. Twenty-two million acres
were selected by village corporations, primarily
from available land in the vicinity of the villages.
Remaining lands were to be distributed to regional
corporations arid then allocated on an equitable
basis among native villages within regions. Corpo-
rations hold title to the land, control subsurface
and timber rights, and administer settlement
benefits.
Tribal government functions are usually vested in a
village council, which is separate from the village
corporation under the Alaska Native Claims Set-
tlement Act. Corporation leadership and village
council leadership do not always coincide or oper-
ate consistently. For example, a village or re-
gional corporation may manage natural resources
in a way that the village council, and the people
who elected it, disagree with.
Many Native corporations have not been profitable.
In recent years, many in the Prince William Sound
area have intensified resource extraction, including
clearcutting of timber. These activities were criti-
cized by some native and nonnative interviewees.
Members of native villages expressed concern that
there is no forum for public debate or input on
environmental issues (such as a counterpart to the
National Environmental Policy Act),* and that de-
cisions are made unilaterally by elected corpora-
tion boards. Nonnative people dependent on fish-
eries complained that native resource extraction
has detrimental effects on other resources in the
Sound.
However, the National Environmental Policy Act sometimes does
apply to decisions with environmental Implications on Native
American reservations elsewhere in the country. This is because a
major federal action could occur when the Secretary of the Interior,
pursuant to the trust responsibility of Interior Department agencies,
Is Involved In natural resource decisions on federal lands.
Federal contracting regulations. See discussion
under Budget Issues.
Local Involvement in National
Rulemaking
Many interviewees suggested that interested local
parties be given more of a voice in the ecosystem
approach. One important role for local groups
might be to ensure that federal or state laws or
regulations apply properly to the ecosystem at
issue, or to facilities within it. Where a federal
regulatory requirement does not properly apply to a
given ecosystem or facility, those affected by the
requirement should be able to make their views
known.
For example, for some facilities in the Prince
William Sound area, compliance with a certain
EPA regulation governing disposal of fish waste is
neither necessary nor environmentally beneficial,
according to local scientists. But local fish pro-
cessors and others in the area did not find accep-
tance for this view in public hearings, and they had
no other way to get EPA to consider it. A more
powerful, recognized local "spokesgroup" for the
ecosystem would be more effective in making fed-
eral regulators understand local features of the
ecosystem, and in bringing local knowledge to
bear on permitting decisions based on nationally
applicable regulations.
International Issues
Ecosystems cross national as well as state bound-
aries, and efforts are underway to join with Canada
and other countries to protect such ecosystems.
But agency officials noted that many international
agreements involving resource protection hinder
coordinated bilateral efforts. For example, the
United States and Canada have signed a treaty to
protect the Porcupine River caribou herd, which
lives in both countries. But the treaty provides no
easy mechanism for joint expenditure or transfer of
funds. Accordingly, when the United States wants
to take a survey, it cannot charter a Canadian
plane without going through time-consuming pro-
cedures involving nongovernmental parties. One
solution to this problem might be along the lines of
the bilateral agreement establishing the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission, under which funds for
expenditures go to the Commission itself. Another
useful model is the Area 5 agreement between the
144
-------
Prince William Sound
United States and Russia, which allows for bilat-
eral exchanges of scientists working on environ-
mental matters.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The importance of two-way communication be-
tween the public and government was a prevalent
theme of discussion during interviews for this case
study. Spokespersons from federal, state, and local
agencies and from nongovernment organizations
all said that public input was key to a successful
ecosystem approach. They also referred to the dif-
ficulty of communicating with a public as dis-
persed and ideologically diverse as in Alaska.
Efforts to Involve the Public
Numerous groups have solicited public input on the
government response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill
and on other efforts related to the ecosystem ap-
proach in Prince William Sound. These groups in-
clude the Trustee Council and its Public Advisory
Group, the Alaska Department of Community and
Regional Affairs, the Alaska Division of Govern-
mental Coordination, the USDA Forest Service,
the Joint Pipeline Office, the NOAA, the North
Pacific Fisheries Management Council, the Prince
William Sound Science Center, and the Prince
William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory
Council.
The Trustee Council. The Trustee Council has
encouraged public input in various ways,
including:
• Holding public hearings and public review of
key documents. Meetings have been held
on a regular basis in communities within the
oil spill area.
• Opening all Trustee Council meetings .
(except executive sessions) to the public,
and ensuring that members of the public
attend and are key players in all council
activities.
• Producing a bimonthly newsletter, an annual
report, and other written reports to the
public.
• Improving access to Trustee Council-funded
reports and information through an Internet
connection at the Oil Spill Public Informa-
tion Center.
• Utilizing teleconferencing to encourage
involvement of local communities in public
meetings.
• Surveying the public regularly on how Exxon
Valdez oil spill civil settlement funds paid
by Exxon should be spent.
• Funding a number of projects that foster
community involvement and participation.
The results of the survey on spending Exxon Valdez
oil spill funds had a significant impact on the
Trustee Council, causing it to shift funding
priorities.
The Trustee Council was required by a Memoran-
dum of Agreement between me United States and
the state of Alaska to create "procedures providing
for meaningful public participation in the jury
assessment and restoration process, which shall
include establishment of a public advisory group to
advise the Trustees." The Public Advisory Group,
chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee
Act in 1992, was to provide advice on "all deci-
sions relating to injury assessment, restoration
activities, or other use of the natural resource
damage recoveries obtained by the governments,
including all decisions regarding the planning,
evaluation, and allocation of available funds."
The Public Advisory Group, which meets
4—5 times a year, has 12 members representing a
wide array of interest groups, and an additional
5 members representing the public at large. One of
its primary services to the Trustee Council has
been to make Council members aware of diverse
points of view. According to members of the
group, it has taken about 2 years for it to become
productive. Two factors have contributed to its
growing effectiveness:
• Increased clarity on the role of the Public
Advisory Group and its degree of influence
in decision making. Members of the Public
Advisory Group originally assumed that their
role was to reach out to the public, providing
the Trustee Council with a public perspec-
tive on cleanup and restoration issues. The
Trustee Council saw the Public Advisory
145
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Group more as a sounding board than as a
means of facilitating wider public involve-
ment. But over time, the Trustee Council
and Public Advisory Group reached a better
understanding of how to work together. Nu-
merous Public Advisory Group members
stated that this was due to the strong leader-
ship of Jim Ayers, who assumed the position
of Trustee Council Executive Director in fall
1993.
• Identification of common goals. One Public
Advisory Group member mentioned that
when the group was newly formed, each
individual focused primarily on supporting
and lobbying for his or her own interest
group. But as the group has evolved, mem-
bers have increasingly sought to identify
common goals and to work towards them
together.
Department of Community and Regional
Affairs. The primary role of the state of Alaska's
Department of Community arid Regional Affairs is
to advise and assist local governments. A
spokesperson for the Department described two
processes used to enhance public involvement in
local government activities. Although they have
not yet been applied to the ecosystem approach in
Alaska, these processes serve to illustrate possible
tools for involving Alaska's small communities in
government attempts to address environmental
problems.
First, after finding that the traditional system of
public hearings was not useful, the Department
began using an alternative model involving three
phases of meetings with communities when seek-
ing input on a particular issue. During the first
phase, the community was informed about the
issue; during the second, the issue was discussed
and questions were answered; and during the third,
the community was asked how it would like to see
the issue addressed. Depending upon the complex-
ity of the issue and the level of community inter-
est, the total number of meetings held could be
two, three, or more.
Second, the Department is working with other state
agencies to coordinate and strengthen methods for
initiating capital investments in Alaska's local
communities. It is using a strategy recommended
by a local employee of the USDA Agricultural
Extension Service (based at the University of
Alaska) that involves bottom-up decision making,
allowing communities to define their development
goals and thereby to influence agency decision
making. The program is being initiated in eight
Alaska communities, each with a population of
less than a thousand. State agencies meet to dis-
cuss and coordinate respective plans for each
community, and then meet several times with each
community to develop a common vision. Next,
they work with the community on action planning,
identifying the roles of each agency involved and
those of the community. A key factor in the suc-
cess of these efforts is the ability of communities
to pay staff to coordinate the effort.
Division of Governmental Coordination.
Alaska's Division of Governmental Coordination
works directly under the Governor, providing
information on permit applications. Citizens can
quickly get the information on federal, state, and
local permit requirements for any development
activities. Representatives of the Public Advisory
Group said that Alaskans greatly appreciated this
office, and they suggested that it be used as a
model for similar offices in other states.
Forest Service. The Forest Service disseminates
public information and solicits public input on
ecosystem-related issues in Prince William Sound
through its Copper River Delta Institute and activi-
ties on the Chugach National Forest.
Copper River Delta Institute. The Copper River
Delta Institute was established in 1989 by the For-
est Service Pacific Northwest Research Station
and Alaska Regional Office to provide increased
research and public interpretation on the Copper
River Delta. Its mission is to improve the under-
standing, use, and management of natural re-
sources in the Copper River ecosystem through
basic and applied research and through education
and interpretation. Research is now underway on
migratory shorebirds, trumpeter swans, gray
wolves, moose habitat and nutrition, plant classifi-
cation and succession, nutrient cycling and pri-
mary production, nitrogen fixation, and the long-
term social effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
The Institute's education and interpretation pro-
gram for adults and children emphasizes wetland
ecology, ecosystem research, and natural resource
stewardship. The Institute initiated and sponsored
the annual Copper River Delta Workshop with the
Cordova Ranger District. In 1993, the workshop
146
-------
Prince William Sound
expanded into a 5-day community-sponsored spring
shorebird festival. Other educational activities
have included contribution to, a science lecture
series and numerous public and school events. The
Institute has formed partnerships with many federal
and state agencies, Native corporations, local gov-
ernment entities, educational organizations, and ,
environmental and natural resource interest groups.
Among them are the Canadian Wildlife Service,
the Chugach Alaska Corporation, the city of Cor-
dova, Ducks Unlimited, the Eyak Corporation, the
Fish and Wildlife, Service, the Prince William
Sound Science Center, Wrangell-St. Elias National
Park and Preserve, and a variety of educational in-
stitutions, including Prince William Sound Com-
munity College, Yale University, and the Universi-
ties of Alaska, Idaho, Minnesota, and South
Alabama.
Chugach National Forest. Most of Prince
William Sound is surrounded by the Chugach Na-
tional Forest, an important source of public infor-
mation. Ranger District offices are located in
Seward, Girdwood, and Cordova, and the Super-
visor's Office is in Anchorage. In 1994, the
Cordova Ranger District opened an information
and education site in Valdez at the request of the
community. Additional Forest Service information
sites may be opened in Portage or Whittier.
Joint Pipeline Office. The Joint Pipeline Office
was established by state and federal natural
resource agencies. Activities pertinent to public
involvement include a newsletter and hotline for
citizen safety concerns.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion. The NOAA conducts Mussel Watch, a re-
search and monitoring project involving collection
of mussel samples by local communities. Com-
munity members and schoolchildren are taught
simple collection procedures, and then samples
they collect are periodically retrieved by NOAA
scientists. The project is designed to save tax-
payer money on specimen collection, and to in-
crease community awareness of some of the
research going on in the area.
North Pacific Fishery Management Council.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council
(NPFMC) is one of eight U.S. Regional Fishery
Management Councils created in response to the
Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management
Act. Designed to provide local and regional input
into fisheries management, the NPFMC and its
advisory groups are made up of people from the
region. Its primary role is to determine optimum
fisheries yields and to prepare and implement re-
gional fisheries plans. In an effort to involve the
public in its activities, the NPFMC conducts pub-
lic hearings to gather information in developing
and amending fisheries management plans, review-
ing permit applications, and conducting the rest of
its business, submits estimated harvest levels for
public review, and makes all of its meetings open
to the public.
Prince William Sound Science Center. The
Prince William Sound Science Center was estab-
lished in Cordova shortly after the Exxon Valdez oil
spill. Its mission is to contribute to better scien-
tific understanding of Prince William Sound
ecosystems and to encourage local participation in
natural resources stewardship. The Center is de-
veloping a program to share research and informa-
tion from geographic information systems with the
local community, thereby promoting local in-
volvement in decision making.
In addition to its research activities, the Center has
developed a cooperative education program with
state and federal agencies and the local school
district. Through a grant from the Pew Charitable
Trust, and through funds received from the Forest
Service Copper River Delta Institute and other
public and private organizations, the Center has
carried out a number of educational activities,
including:
• A conference for scientists and the general
public under the title, "Research for the
1990s in Prince William Sound and the
Copper River Delta."
• A conference for a similar audience under
the title, "Critical Forest Habitats and Long-
term Planning in the Greater Prince William
Sound."
• Preparation of a document under the title,
"Prince William Sound/Copper River/North
Gulf Ecosystem."
• Development of the Alaska Oil Spill Cur-
riculum, a teaching guide for preschool
through 12th grade, distributed to school
systems throughout Alaska and other parts of
the United States. The curriculum focuses
147
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
on daily energy conservation as well as on
oil spill prevention and the effects of oil
spills. According to the Center's "Multi-
Year Report," the curriculum has been well
received, particularly in coastal communi-
ties across the United States.
The Prince William Sound Science Center has an
active and expanding science education program
based in Cordova, which, according to the "Multi-
Year Report," could provide a model for use by
other Prince William Sound communities. Com-
ponents of the program include: Science Club ac-
tivities for schoolchildren; a Discovery Resources
and Reading Room located in the community
college; and monthly programs organized by the
Center's education coordinator and Forest Service
staff for Cordova pupils in grade school and home
schooling. Outreach workshops are also held in
Chenega Bay, Tatitlek, and Whittier.
The Center had a role in coordinating development
of the Sound Ecosystem Assessment, based on
extensive discussions with local scientists, fisher-
men, and other members of the Cordova commu-
nity. Discussion focused on assessing the current
state of knowledge about fisheries resources in
Prince William Sound, identifying information
gaps, and planning for research to fill the gaps.
Regional Citizens Advisory Council. The Re-
gional Citizens Advisory Council of Prince
William Sound is an independent nonprofit organi-
zation established in 1989 to communicate with
the public on oil industry decisions. The Council
is financed by the Alyeska Pipeline Company
through a contract specifying its autonomy. Its
stated goals include:
• Providing a voice for local communities.
• Advising the Alyeska Pipeline Company and
the public on oil spill prevention and re-
sponse, and on ways to mitigate the envi-
ronmental impact of terminal and tanker
operations.
• Monitoring terminal and tanker operations
and implementing oil spill prevention and
response plans.
• Increasing public awareness of Alyeska's
current capabilities in oil spill prevention
and response.
Members of the Regional Citizens Advisory Coun-
cil are ex-officio members of the Trustee Council's
Public Advisory Group. Within the last year, the
Council has signed Memoranda of Agreement with
EPA and the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation to facilitate information exchange
with these agencies.
Constraints to Public Involvement
There are several opportunities for strengthening
public involvement in the Prince William Sound
area. The various public involvement activities
taking place in the area (albeit with varying
degrees of success) could be strengthened and/or
serve as models for other efforts. The dramatic
impact of the Exxon Valdez oil spill has served to
intensify public awareness and interest in the man-
agement of the Prince William Sound ecosystem.
Nevertheless, interviewees mentioned a number of
constraints to effective public participation in the
ecosystem approach.
Public advisory groups. Discussions about the
Trustee Council's Public Advisory Group and the
Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory
Council revealed problems associated with such
groups. It is difficult to put together a group small
enough to be efficient, yet large enough to repre-
sent the diverse sectors of the public. Decision
making is hampered by members who do not fully
participate and, more often than not, some mem-
bers participate fully while others merely "take up
space."
Groups with members selected from above, rather
than elected by the constituencies they represent,
do not necessarily represent their constituents,
according to one outside observer. Therefore, it
was noted, the Public Advisory Group does not
truly represent the public, despite its value in ar-
ticulating a wide variety of interests.
Several concerns about the Trustee Council's Pub-
lic Advisory Group were raised by outside ob-
servers, including nonprovision of funds for orga-
nizing and travel to meetings, and a perceived
lack of impact of advice from the Public Advisory
Group on Trustee Council decisions. Interviewees
noted that the Memorandum of Agreement calling
for the Public Advisory Group's formation failed to
spell out the role of the Group and its relationship
to the Trustee Council. This lack of clarity seems
to have been a major deterrent to the Public
148
-------
Prince William Sound
Advisory Group's effective functioning, but
fortunately the problem is now being addressed by
the Trustee Council.
Suspicion of ecosystem management. Some
view the ecosystem approach with suspicion,
seeing in it an effort by the federal government to
extend jurisdiction over state and private lands,
and/or a form of resource management that ignores
the needs of people. This attitude, also found in
Southern Appalachia, deters public participation in
the ecosystem approach.
Unavailability of research results. Several in-
terviewees were frustrated by lack of public access
to research and monitoring results, sometimes due
to litigation. Cordova's local scientists com-
plained that outside scientists who conducted re-
search in Prince William Sound generally failed to
provide their results to the community after their
projects were completed.
Lack of confidence in the federal government.
Although representatives of the community of
Cordova indicated that the federal government
had, in various ways, provided support for local
efforts to implement the ecosystem approach,
tensions were apparent. Until a year ago, local
spokespersons said, when fishermen blocked the
entrance to Valdez to prevent oil tanker access to
the Alyeska Oil Terminal, no Exxon Valdez oil spill
settlement monies paid by Exxon to the federal
government had gone to benefit them, even though
the Prince William Sound fisheries on which they
depend had been severely depleted by the Exxon
Valdez oil spill. Several interviewees complained
that the federal government spends too much time
telling the public what to do, and little or no time
asking for input.
Little funding for native proposals. The Public
Advisory Group representative for native communi-
ties indicated that few proposals submitted to the
Trustee Council on behalf of native groups were
being funded. Further discussions with him and
with Trustee Council members revealed that this
was primarily because the proposals did not meet
criteria outlined by the Council. The native repre-
sentative indicated that Native corporations and
communities do not have the personnel or financial
resources necessary to write proposals and lobby
for projects. Therefore, he said, organizations with
such resources were more likely to get proposals
funded.
The Trustee Council has funded subsistence plan-
ning outreach efforts in the past 2 years, and much
progress has been made in funding Native-spon-
sored proposals.
Interviewee Suggestions
Interviewees made several recommendations for
increasing and strengthening the federal govern-
ment's capabilities for involving the public in
ecosystem restoration activities in the Prince
William Sound area and elsewhere.
• Foster public involvement from the outset.
Get the public involved from the very begin-
ning of the damage assessment and restora-
tion process. The public should be involved
at the earliest stages of planning activities
that will affect the natural resources on
which it depends. Lack of sufficient public
involvement immediately after the Exxon
Valdez oil spill significantly impeded a
successful response. Public participation in
the process could be fostered through (1) a
survey of public views on ecosystem man-
agement needs, and (2) simple, easy-to-do
projects, such as the mussel collection
program sponsored by the NOAA and Prince
William Sound Science Center.
• Foster local control. Address the need for
local control in implementing the ecosystem
approach. Control should be neither entirely
local nor exercised entirely by external au-
thorities. In a meeting with the survey team,
local scientists and interested individuals,
along with representatives of Cordova's lo-
cal fisheries and nongovernmental organiza-
tions, all stressed the need for local control
over any future ecosystem management
efforts in the Prince William Sound area.
There seemed to be a strong consensus
within the group that when local issues are
elevated to higher levels (especially within
state and federal agencies), there is a real ,
loss of commitment, energy, and logic in the
process, and efforts become too bureaucratic
and less oriented toward production.
• Prepare a plan. Prepare a written plan for
public involvement, and possibly make it
available to the public. Such a plan would
include (1) criteria for decision making by
government agencies, (2) goals and
149
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
objectives in the overall ecosystem man-
agement effort and for its public participa-
tion component, and (3) mechanisms for
ensuring a two-way flow of communication
between local communities and the federal
government. Trustee Council staff have
worked closely with the Public Advisory
Group and others to develop a communica-
tions plan.
Accommodate local schedules. Ensure that
any public involvement process accommo-
date the work and holiday schedules of local
communities. For Alaska fishermen, for
example, meetings should be scheduled
during the off-season (between October and
April). And to accommodate the Russian
Orthodox sector, meetings should not be
held on Russian Orthodox holidays (one
year, a public meeting was apparently held
in a village that was primarily Russian Or-
thodox on the eve of the Russian Orthodox
Christmas).
Increase public access to information. In-
terviewees from all sectors recommended
that the federal government facilitate public
access to information. Several called for
information that was easy to understand and
that met the needs of different public sec-
tors. One suggested reorganizing the Oil
Spill Public Information Center in Anchor-
age to make information more accessible.
Others recommended translating research
results into forms more accessible and
meaningful to nonscientists. All of these
suggestions are being implemented.
Demystify the federal role. Lack of trans-
parency in federal decision making was
named by many interviewees as a barrier to
public involvement in federal land manage-
ment and Exxon Valdez oil spill response
efforts. Often cited as an example was the
seemingly closed nature of decision making
in allocating settlement funds paid by Exxon
to the government. Under its new leader-
ship, the Trustee Council is addressing this
problem, according to several interviewees.
The federal government must do a better job
of communicating the impact that its poli-
cies will have and the rationale for them.
Use successful models. Find good exam-
ples of strong public involvement in other
parts of Alaska. An interviewee from a state
land management agency suggested that
those involved in coordinating the Exxon
Valdez oil spill response study public in-
volvement methods used elsewhere in
Alaska, taking good examples and using
them to strengthen involvement in Prince
William Sound. One example given was the
Eskimo Whaling Commission.
Test a model of the ecosystem approach.
Identify an Alaskan ecosystem where a
model approach to ecosystem management
can be tested. This suggestion was made by
an official from a state land management
agency. Such an approach should be based
on cooperation between state and local gov-
ernment and the private sector.
Publicize the Exxon Valdez oil spill expe-
rience. Publish an overview of the Exxon
Valdez oil spill response experience. Al-
though a number of books and publications
have been written about the spill, several
survey participants felt that agency docu-
ments on the cleanup, it's coordination and
deficiencies, and how problems were han-
dled should be pulled together into a single
"how-to" handbook. Such a publication
should include discussions of what occurred,
problems and opportunities encountered, and
lessons learned. It could be used to help
people facing similar problems in other
ecosystems.
Build ties to native groups. Strengthen
coordination with native groups, perhaps
through Trustee Council funding for a liaispn
to natives, a suggestion made by the presi-
dent of the Chenega Corporation. This liai-
son would be responsible for ensuring a two-
way flow of communication between the
Trustee Council and Native corporations and
communities, and for helping communities
prepare proposals and secure funding for ac-
tivities within the scope of the Memorandum
of Agreement between Alaska and the
United States. State representatives and
other interviewees also recommended that
the federal government generally be more
150
-------
Prince William Sound
proactive in encouraging the participation of
native peoples in restoration efforts, and that
the public comment process be revised to be
more consistent with native cultures. The
Trustee Council has funded a Community
Involvement Project, which in FY 1996 will
include a Native regional facilitator to help
foster two-way communication between
villages and the Council.
• Strengthen public advisory groups.
Strengthen the role of public advisory groups
in Prince William Sound and elsewhere by
implementing the following suggestions:
- Keep them small, ideally with not more
than 10 people.
- Clearly define their role from the
beginning.
- Ensure their ability to influence decision
making by giving them some level of
authority over how funds are spent by the
body they are advising.
- Provide them with at least one full-time
staff member to ensure their smooth, effi-
cient functioning.
- Provide them with sufficient funds to get
the job done (do not rely on
volunteerism).
- Allow the constituents they represent to
elect or otherwise select members (do
not use a top-down approach). The
Alaska Coastal Management Board was
cited as a good example: it has nine
locally elected and eight state agency
representatives (the local vote can out-
weigh the agency vote).
SCIENCE AND INFORMATION
Prior to the Exxon Valdez oil spill, research in
Prince William Sound was generally unconnected,
limited in scope, and focused on single species
rather than multiple interactions. The exception
was the Bureau of Land Management's Outer Con-
tinental Shelf Environmental Assessment in the
1970s, which included considerable research in
Prince William Sound and the northern Gulf of
Alaska. After the Exxon Valdez oil spill, most
research in Prince William Sound grew out of the
Natural Resources Damage Assessment process,
focusing on marine environments and resources not
directly under federal control. Many interviewees
commented that the Natural Resources Damage
Assessment encouraged studies designed to support
litigation efforts, with little or no bearing on
ecosystem needs. Not until early 1994 was there a
series of work sessions specifically designed to
discuss an ecosystem approach to restoration
activities.
Resource Information
Information about the resources in the Prince
William Sound ecosystem varies greatly in quan-
tity, quality, and consistency, depending on when
the information was collected and the purpose of
its collection. A variety of information is available
on intertidal and subtidal communities, selected
populations of shellfish, fish, birds, and mammals,
archeological and cultural resources, forest insects
and diseases, and the economic value of fish and
shellfish species. In many cases, however, there
are few prespill data on either plant or animal
communities. Without adequate prespill data, it is
difficult to make definitive statements about the
long-term impact of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on
the environment.
Marine communities. Marbled murrelet popula-
tions have been declining since the 1970s, report-
edly by as much as 40 percent, perhaps in response
to declining stocks of small fish, although the
cause is still unknown. Scientists and resource
managers think that little can be done directly to
improve recovery of seabirds in Prince William
Sound.
Sea otter studies from the 1970s and 1980s did not
involve repeated population surveys, and recent
health indicators for sea otters have been inconclu-
sive. No specific responses to the Exxon Valdez oil
spill can be made to help sea otters recover. Long-
term habitat protection is viewed as the only sig-
nificant way to protect Prince William Sound's sea
otters.
Harbor seal populations were showing signs of de-
cline prior to the Exxon Valdez oil spill, for reasons
not yet understood. Declines in harbor seal
numbers may be related to declining fish stocks,
151
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
predation by killer whales, or even harvest by
humans.
Many crab species had low populations prior to the
Exxon Valdez oil spill. Poor Pacific herring returns
are believed to be due to natural causes, or to a
combination of natural causes and oil spill effects.
In 1992-1993, pink salmon runs were low, for rea-
sons unknown. Many fish species in Prince
William Sound appear to have cyclical trends in
production that are poorly understood. There is a
limited understanding of these and other depressed
fisheries resources in the Exxon Valdez oil spill
area. The only reasonable restoration means
available is manipulation of human use through
recreational and commercial fisheries
management.
Upland communities. There is less information
about upland areas than on the aquatic components
of Prince William Sound, and most of it pertains to
the health and economic value of the region's
forests. The impact of insects on forest health and
survival has been documented. Since the mid-
1970s, no timber has been harvested on the
Chugach National Forest in the area around Prince
William Sound, and no harvests are currently
planned. However, clearcutting on Native corpora-
tion lands has accelerated. The long-term impact
of this general lack of planned, coordinated forest
management cannot be adequately determined at
this time.
Motivating Factors for Research
Underlying current research interest in Prince
William Sound are two basic issues: the Exxon
Valdez oil spill, and declines in populations of var-
ious species with economic value and of public
interest. Research has shown that the Exxon
Valdez oil spill had a significant adverse impact on
the ecosystem, but that population declines in
species of concern are not due solely to the oil
spill. In fact, most research reports indicate an
inability to explain specifically what is happening
to key species.
The Trustee Council's 1994 and 1995 requests for
research proposals specify that research and moni-
toring should focus on systemwide interactions.
Although some resource-specific projects are
funded, the Trustee Council recognizes that this
approach is not always adequate, and that an
ecosystem approach is needed. In response,
several groups are developing coordinated
ecosystem plans. Most research funded by the
Trustee Council is coordinated by five interdis-
ciplinary research groups (see figure 3), which
focus on the following problems:
• The failure of the Pacific herring and pink
salmon runs, and the factors that control
their production.
• The long-term decline in marine mammals
and seabirds, with emphasis on whether har-
vest of food resources limits recovery of
damaged resources.
• Recovery problems in nearshore ecosystems,
including whether toxic effects still con-
strain recovery of some resources.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game, NOAA,
National Biological Service, and academic institu-
tions are major participants in these research ef-
forts. The Trustee Council will sponsor research
coordination meetings where all researchers can
report their results and share information.
Natural Resources Damage Assessment. Some
interviewees noted that immediately following the
spill, most research in Prince William Sound ini-
tially focused on the Natural Resources Damage
Assessment rather than on the need to provide
information for a broad ecosystem approach. This
limited focus and lack of integration stemmed
partly from the narrow, traditional topical bound-
aries maintained by agencies in choosing their re-
search and designing projects. Reactive process-
ing is driven by the legal system and limitations on
use of funds. The availability of Natural Resources
Damage Assessment funding and litigation issues,
not the need to understand the component parts of
the ecosystem, were probably the biggest factors
governing .the conduct of studies in Prince William
Sound.
Large disasters such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill
force agencies to step out of their traditional roles.
The immediacy of the need to respond to the oil
spill forced agencies to get things done. There was
no time for arguments, discussions, or team devel-
opment issues. The people involved came in with
an attitude that made it work, were not involved in
protecting turf, and were not concerned with what
might go wrong. It was only after the crisis that
152
-------
Prince William Sound
role delegation and team interaction become
issues.
Population declines in key species. The serious
fish population declines in 1992 and 1993 focused
public attention on the need to understand how this
large and productive coastal environment func-
tioned to support marine resources of immense
sport, commercial, and subsistence value. In 1993,
the Sound Ecosystem Assessment presented a pro-
posal for an ecosystem-based approach for future
research and restoration in Prince William Sound.
The Assessment proposed a research program that
"will encompass an ecosystem-level perspective to
identify and analyze both physical and biological
processes within the Sound that act to limit the
production of the target species."
Instead of focusing on the ecosystem as a whole,
monitoring plans are being developed for individ-
ual species. The current emphasis is on particular
species of interest, plus their predators and prey—a
set of species on a single trophic level, rather than
across the entire ecosystem. Researchers argued
that programs should have ecosystemwide monitor-
ing, rather than the narrow monitoring of particular
species envisioned under current plans.
Issues affecting research and monitoring. Vari-
ous interviewees maintained that a clear definition
of the ecosystem, or area of concern, was impor-
tant in providing focus to research and manage-
ment efforts. Without basic planning documents,
they argued, it was difficult for agencies to show
where their efforts were headed. Despite much
talk about ecosystem research, they noted, not
much was being done to translate results into
meaningful management actions.
Some felt that interagency collaboration in Exxon
Valdez oil spill studies was minimal, with much
more cooperation on the ground than at upper lev-
els of management. Several said that upper-level
managers were often an impediment to getting the
job done well. Relationships at the local level are
being limited by managers at higher levels who do
not have an adequate understanding of what is go-
ing on at the local level. Interviewees suggested
that coordinating committees made up of man-
agers, scientists, and advisory group members
. might be used to reduce conflict and improve
communications.
Interviewees called for outside review of proposed
monitoring studies, and for peer and public review
of research. Currently, there is no procedure for
providing briefings or summaries of proposed moni- .
toring and research studies. Because proposed
research and monitoring projects are all submitted
at once, there is insufficient time for review and
meaningful commentary. A nontechnical summary
of proposals was called for. The Trustee Council
has implemented an annual restoration workshop,
open to the public, which provides the opportunity
for researchers to share results, be peer reviewed in
open session, and discuss ecosystem effects and
opportunities. In addition, all proposals since the
early days after the spill have been subject to
independent scientific and technical review.
Information Management
Many interviewees perceived a lack of effective
communication among the many agencies and
other entities working in Prince William Sound.
There was a general feeling that much work had
been done in a vacuum. Members of the public
maintained that effective communication was
needed in order to provide some understanding of
what needs to be done and why.
The six trustee agencies reportedly have six ways
of collecting and storing data. Some interviewees
noted that more attention should be paid to infor-
mation management, because the six trustees act
like six lead agencies. There seems to be a need,
they said, for the six agencies to make someone .
responsible for coordinating and directing informa-
tion flow, from collection to dissemination.
Some Alaska state representatives charged that the
National Marine Fisheries Service and Fish and
Wildlife Service are not sharing data outside of the
Exxon Valdez oil spill process. They noted a lack
of federal reciprocity in data sharing. "You can
put it in," they said, "but you can't get it out!"
Data sharing. In general, there has been no cohe-
sive structure for sharing data or reports. Although
there were specific requirements for reporting data
collected during the Natural Resources Damage
Assessment process, there was no way of integrat-
ing information being collected outside of the
Exxon Valdez oil spill process. Some called for
153
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
establishing the information system earlier in the
data gathering process.
Data sharing problems start with the basic issue of
how to define things to ensure consistency among
users, including researchers, managers, decision
makers, and the public. The amount of information
coming in is so vast that it is impossible to assess
and use efficiently without standards. Agencies
generally do not have data collecting protocols
like the Exxon Valdez oil spill process to facilitate
information sharing.
Neither agency representatives nor members of the
public were satisfied with the information man-
agement process. Most federal and state agencies
do not have an effective information management
process and are overly protective of information,
according to some. Agencies, it was generally
felt, were willing to share information only to get
more money for projects. Part of the problem,
some maintained, was that agencies do not have
information management and sharing requirements
built into their research, monitoring, and informa-
tion collection programs. However, the NOAA's
oceanographic data reporting system was praised
for providing ready access to shared information.
Timely data availability. Agencies are reportedly
reluctant to release their data unless they are in
absolute final format; yet agency data never seem
to be final, interviewees complained. It was felt
that information obtained from studies should be
widely and promptly shared so that it can be ap-
plied to management practices and used for
decision making, both inside and outside the
federal government.
Data synthesis. Several groups called for making
information about Exxon Valdez oil spill studies
and reports available in varying forms so that sci-
entists, managers, decision makers, and the gen-
eral public can understand them. Information
synthesis is needed to cope with the overwhelming
volume of available data. A general level of
information is especially needed; many requested
readable, nontechnical information in a user-
friendly system easily accessible at local libraries
or on personal computers.
Centralized data distribution. Since September
1990, the Oil Spill Public Information Center has
collected information and materials on Exxon
Valdez oil spill cleanup, damage assessment, and
restoration efforts. The Alaska Department of Fish
and Game, in charge of roughly half the research
and restoration projects, also has a person devoted
to gathering these materials on a lesser scale.
Both the Sound Ecosystem Assessment project and
the Trustee Council are initiating major electronic
information sharing projects. The Council's efforts
are focused on making information more easily
accessible to the public, including the general sci-
entific community, and on facilitating information
transfer between researchers and resource man-
agers as well as within the greater scientific
community.
Constraints to Science and Information
Sharing
Interviewees mentioned several obstacles encoun-
tered in gathering and sharing scientific informa-
tion on the Exxon Valdez oil spill area.
Litigation. A major obstacle was litigation. Dur-
ing the legal process relating to the Exxon Valdez
oil spill, information sharing outside of the trustee
agencies was highly limited. Litigation issues kept
them at arm's length from the public, blocking
effective and timely communications about study
results and plans.
Lack of direction. Efforts to restore the Exxon
Valdez oil spill area have sometimes failed for
lack of a clear focus or unified sense of direction.
Independent leadership is needed to guide
restoration activities. Interviewees observed that
federal legal advisors never functioned as a team
or showed any leadership. Instead, they reportedly
conformed to narrow agency perspectives, offering
a variety of conflicting legal viewpoints that
caused continuing problems. Agencies were lim-
ited by management mandates and differing mis-
sions (for example, the Fish and Wildlife Service
is responsible for marine birds but not for fisheries,
and the National Marine Fisheries Service is re-
sponsible for fisheries but not for birds), preventing
effective teamwork.
Interviewees noted that many agencies have tradi-
tional, fixed points of view that govern their han-
dling of specific issues. They presume the right to
lead in dealing with certain specific issues (such
as forage fish), expecting others to follow, rather
than developing a consensus based on a broader
ecosystem approach. Researchers, managers, and
154
-------
Prince Wiiiiam Sound
public groups should all be involved, interviewees
urged, in dealing with specific issues.
Limited approaches. Researchers should exam-
ine key component species of ecosystems rather
than focusing on single species, according to inter-
viewees. Scientists should not do research just
because it is interesting and informative; instead,
they should pursue research that lends itself to
applied science, to develop information that will
help managers make better decisions. The focus
should be on impacts to key species, the resources
they depend upon, and the resources that depend
upon them. The ecosystem approach should be in-
terdisciplinary, involving industry and local com-
munities. Good science is needed to provide a
sound framework for natural resources management
and decision making.
Ecosystem issues. One scientist noted that many
fall into the trap of trying to figure out what the
ecosystem is, rather than addressing the issues and
missions it entails. This issue has organizational
as well as scientific implications: several agency
officials noted that there are no natural resource
management objectives for ecosystems. Many
tend to get bogged down in the details of defining
an ecosystem in fixed terms.
Although each agency has responsibilities for cer-
tain species, it is not always clear who has respon-
sibility in specific cases. Many agencies have
been so focused on the biology of individual
species or on actions within the boundaries of their
jurisdictions that the larger picture escapes them.
No agency has responsibility for the ecosystem
approach.
Some Alaska officials observed that ecosystem
designations by the Fish and Wildlife Service do
not reflect state needs or priorities, but rather seem
designed to extend federal agency jurisdiction.
Federal agencies, they maintained, should work
with the states to identify objectives for the
ecosystem approach; existing land classifications,
such as those defined in Alaska by the Federal
State Land Use Council, should be used as the
starting point for updating land classifications.
States would object, they stressed, to any federally
imposed management directives.
Interviewees identified several key items as neces-
sary to any successful ecosystem response:
• A source of substantial long-term funding.
• Clearly identified objectives.
• Involvement of all potential partners early in
the process.
• A meaningful plan with measurable
milestones.
• A data and information management
program.
Most potential partners prefer involvement during
early stages of program design. Those on the
ground need to buy into the ecosystem approach;
they should be made to feel that they have con-
tributed to the process by providing direction.
People need to talk about what works and what
does not, what can be done, what things can be
resolved, how processes can be integrated, and
what can be done to improve things. The Natural
Resources Damage Assessment process does not
allow for any of this.
Funding issues. Key to a successful ecosystem
response, interviewees noted, was a source of sub-
stantial long-term funding—the overwhelming
costs of the ecosystem approach prevent its more
frequent use. The funding process, they urged,
should involve local people and communities, with
decision making delegated down to the local level.
Some of these issues may be addressed through the
long-term planning efforts of the Trustee Council's
staff. In addition, creation of the Restoration Re-
serve will likely ensure that funds are available in
the long term for future research needs.
Due to the Natural Resources Damage Assessment
and litigation settlement, research in Prince
William Sound is unusually well funded, at least
temporarily; but there is no commitment to (or
funding for) the long-term monitoring that virtually
every scientist considers crucial. This causes seri-
ous problems for study programs, because those
involved are constantly preoccupied with the
search for more funding or longer term positions.
Researchers expressed great frustration with the
uncertainty of funding. Long-term continuity is
needed to enable more cooperative research based
on research completed before.
155
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Some interviewees complained that agencies get
into turf battles over limited funds, refusing to col-
laborate for fear of having to.share limited re-
sources. Agencies use civil settlement money,
some claimed, to pay staff salaries so that appro-
priated funds can be used for other things.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on interviews conducted and materials
gathered on the Exxon Valdez oil spill and ecosys-
tem restoration in the oil spill area, the survey
team developed recommendations to address prob-
lems it found facing the ecosystem approach in the
region. It should be noted that these recommenda-
tions have been implemented by the Trustee
Council, although there is always room for continu-
ing improvement.
1. Provide for interagency funding. Establish
a framework for sharing funds across agen-
cies to facilitate coordination on projects
related to the ecosystem approach.
2. Provide for multidisciplinary and multiorga-
nizational funding. Make funding sources
available to support work across disciplines
and organizations (including nonfederal
entities), and recognize that coordination
and integration require travel and synthesis
conferences, and funding for these
activities.
3. Extend grant periods. Research, damage
assessment, and monitoring require
extended funding of 2-5 years to be effi-
cient and effective. Extended grant periods
should be subject (of course) to funding
availability and project progress.
4. Allocate long-term research funding. Pro-
vide long-term agency funding allocations
for research and such related projects as
damage assessment and monitoring.
5. Open the federal research contract bidding
process to all researchers. A federal re-
search contract bidding process open to all
researchers—including those from other
agencies—would attract the talents of key
experts, no matter what institution they are
with, and to foster interagency
collaboration.
6. Establish a Restoration Reserve fund. The
Restoration Reserve fund under considera-
tion by the Trustee Council would facilitate
adaptive management by allowing money
to be set aside for future use as needed.
7. Facilitate interagency coordination. Pro-
vide top-down approval and support from
agencies with a documented process for
coordination, such as cooperative agree-
ments or Memoranda of Agreement.
8. Improve communication within organiza-
tions. Develop two-way communication of
information and ideas, empowering middle
and lower levels.
9. Facilitate regional decision making. Limit
decisions made outside the region by peo-
ple removed from the issues and local prior-
ities. External decision making undercuts
local and regional efforts and makes public
participation meaningless.
10. Make regulations and guidelines more flexi-
ble. Allow for innovative solutions to prob-
lems and their site-specific implementation
rather than insisting on adherence to federal
regulations.
11. Decentralize decision making. Decrease the
centralized power of individual agencies,
and increase the sharing of information and
decision making with people and managers
at local levels. The agency culture of
resistance to power sharing must be over-
come if the ecosystem approach is to be
implemented.
12. Instruct managers to implement the ecosys-
tem approach. Through directives or other
means, top federal leadership should
require federal resource managers to
accept, understand, and implement the
principles of the ecosystem approach.
State administrators should direct state
resource managers to do the same.
13. Encourage public involvement from the start
of a project. The public should be involved
at the earliest stages of planning activities
that will affect the natural resources on
156
-------
Prince William Sound
which it depends. Prepare written plans for
informing and involving the public.
14. Accommodate local schedules. Ensure that
any public involvement process accommo-
date the work and holiday schedules of
local communities.
15. Increase public access to information. Pro-
vide information that is easy to understand
and meets diverse needs.
16. Build ties to native groups. Strengthen co-
ordination with native groups, perhaps by
providing assistance to communities in
preparing proposals and securing funding for
restoration activities.
17. Strengthen public advisory groups.
Strengthen the role of public advisory
groups in Prince William Sound and else-
where by clearly defining their role and
ensuring their ability to function effectively
and to influence decision making.
Appendix:
SELECTED DOCUMENTS
REVIEWED*
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. April 1994.
Proceedings of the Workshop: Science for the
Restoration Process; 13-15 April 1994;
Anchorage, AK.
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. September
1994. Annual Restoration Work Allocation.
Anchorage, AK.
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. September
1994. Final Environmental Impact Statement for
the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Plan.
Anchorage, AK.
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. November
1994. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Plan.
Anchorage, AK.
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. March
1995. 7995 Status Report. Anchorage, AK.
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. March
1995. Invitation To Submit Restoration Projects
for Federal Fiscal Year 1996 and Draft
Restoration Program: FY96 and Beyond.
Anchorage, AK.
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. June 1995.
Draft Fiscal Year 1996 Work Plan. Anchorage,
•AK.
*For more information or copies of Exxon Va/ctezOil Spill Trustee
Council publications, contact: Exxon 1/a/dezOil Spill Trustee
Council, 645 G Street, Anchorage, AK 99501, toll-free tel. 1-800-
283-7745.
157
-------
-------
Chapter?: SOUTH FLORIDA
South Florida is one of seven ecosystems identi-
fied for further study by the Interagency Ecosystem
Management Task Force. In June 1994, a survey
team traveled to Florida to conduct a series of
interviews with federal and nonfederal parties. The
team consisted of Diane Gelburd and Susan Huke
from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),
Roger Griffis from the U.S. Department of Com-
merce, Jim Pipkin and Mike Sweeney from the
U.S. Department of the Interior, and Louise Milk-
' man from the U.S. Department of Justice.
Over 4 days (June 13-16), the team met with fed-
eral representatives (including the U.S. Attorney
and officials from the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers (Corps), National Park Service, and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service), state officials (includ-
ing the Lieutenant Governor, the Governor's advi-
sor on environmental matters, representatives of
the Florida Department of Environmental Protec-
tion, and the chairman and other representatives of
the South Florida Water Management District),
and the chairman of the Governor's Commission
for a Sustainable South Florida.
The team also met with a wide variety of other in-
terested parties: officials from Dade and Broward
Counties; federal, state, and private scientists;
environmental organizations; a sugar industry rep--
resentative; representatives of the Miccosukee
Tribe; and a real estate developer. Subsequently,
the team met with the chairman of the federal
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force
and conducted numerous followup conversations
with people it had interviewed in Florida and with
others, including officials.of the Environmental
Protection Agency and the head of the National
Marine Sanctuaries Program of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The case study presented in this chapter is based
on those interviews and telephone calls, as well as
on written material collected by the survey team.
The team focused on federal contributions to the
South Florida ecosystem restoration effort, identi-
fying areas where federal involvement might be
improved. Based on interviewee comments and
suggestions, the team developed recommendations
for improving the ecosystem approach in South
Florida, which are presented at the end of this
chapter.
BACKGROUND
One of South Florida's best known features is the
Everglades (figure 1). Technically, the term
"Everglades" refers to the vast and once uninter-
rupted freshwater marsh stretching from the south-
ern shores of Lake Okeechobee to the tip of the
Florida peninsula. The historic ecosystem that
encompassed the Everglades, however, was a
watershed comprising a variety of environments
beginning at the headwaters of the Kissimmee
River and spilling out into Florida Bay.
The Historic Everglades Ecosystem
The historic ecosystem of South Florida, the only
subtropical climate in the continental United
States, had a wide variety of subsystems, includ-
ing: freshwater marshes; wetland "tree islands;"
pond apple swamp (now extinct); cypress swamps;
tropical hardwood hammocks; pinelands; mangrove
swamps and islands; coastal saline flats, prairies,
and forests; tidal creeks and bays; and shallow
coastal marine waters. Water predominantly from
the Kissimmee River flowed into Lake Okee-
chobee and then into the pond apple swamp along
the lake's southern boundary. Beyond lay a vast
sheet of water flowing gently through Everglades
saw grass marsh and various other communities,
and dropping 20 feet over the 100 miles to Florida
Bay.
Average water depth in the Everglades varied with
the season; during the rainy season, depths could
reach up to 4-6 feet. Rain is the principal source
of water in the ecosystem, with an annual average
of 50-60 inches, depending on season and cycle,
with most falling during the wet season (from May
to October). Fire played a historically important
role, maintaining open marshes and releasing nu-
trients into the ecosystem. Florida Bay, at the end
of the system, contains coral reefs and habitat for
more than 500 species of fish, more than 450 spe-
cies of seaweed and seagrass, and thousands of
other species.
159
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
A Century of Change
Water flowing from the Kissimmee River to
Florida Bay today traverses an ecosystem shaped
and reshaped over the past 100 years to accommo-
date the ever-growing needs of the population of
South Florida. Changes began in 1882 with the
channelization of the Caloosahatchee River and its
connection to Lake Okeechobee, resulting in a
westward outflow from the lake. Subsequently,
four canals were cut from the lake southeast
through the Everglades to the Atlantic Ocean. In
1916, a fifth canal was constructed from the lake
due east to the ocean, and the southern rim of the
lake was diked and leveed to make possible what
was to become the Everglades Agricultural Area.
Over the ensuing decades, this infrastructure
proved flawed for various reasons not considered
during its construction: uncontrolled drainage
threatening what was considered an infinite fresh-
water supply; inadequate flood control in wet
years; huge muck fires in dry glades; and saltwater
intrusion. This led Congress to authorize the Cen-
tral and Southern Florida Project in 1948, major
features of which were completed by the mid-
1960s. This project was designed to construct a
100-mile-long levee to protect lands to the east of
the Everglades from flooding and saltwater intru-
sion, and to create the Everglades Agricultural
Area and three Water Conservation Areas sepa-
rated by levees and regulated by canals and pump
stations. Water Conservation Area-1 became the
Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife
Refuge. The Water Conservation Areas deliver
water to Everglades National Park, authorized in
1934 and established in 1947.
In the 1960s, the Kissimmee River was channel-
ized by the Corps as part of the Central and South-
ern Florida Project. This project reduced the
river's 103 miles of meanders through 35,000 acres
of floodplain wetlands to a canal 56 miles long,
30 feet deep, and up to 300 feet wide, now known
as the C-38 canal. Transportation projects over
the years, such as construction of Alligator Alley
and the Tamiami Trail across the Everglades, have
had a tremendous impact on the ecosystem, serv-
ing essentially as dams to the southward sheet
flow.
One of the most dramatic effects of the reconfigu-
ration of the Everglades and the diversion of great
volumes of water has been the precipitous decline
in wading bird populations since the 1950s. By
some estimates, the great rookeries in the southern
Everglades may have supported as many as
2.5 million birds prior to the disruption of natural
hydroperiods. The rookeries are now virtually
abandoned. Far smaller, less stable rookeries have
been established in some areas of the Water Con-
servation Areas. Overall, the wading bird popula-
tion is estimated to have fallen by as much as
90 percent since the turn of the century. As for
other wildlife, South Florida is now home to
56 federally listed endangered and threatened
species and 29 candidate species.
Cumulative modifications to the area's hydrology
have led to a severe water quality problem result-
ing from agricultural practices that have
discharged nutrient-laden water into a naturally
nutrient-poor ecosystem. Native vegetation in
many areas has given way to dense stands of
cattails, resulting in further decreases in popula-
tions of local wading birds and other native
species.
According to some scientists, over the past
20 years the impacts of hydrological changes and
agricultural discharges in South Florida have be-
gun to manifest themselves in Florida Bay, where
massive seagrass die-offs, algal blooms, and
declines in populations of fish, mangroves, and
other species have been documented. Explana-
tions range from hypersalinity (due to diverted
freshwater flows) and pollution to the natural
impacts of hurricanes and drought.
One of the more confounding mysteries of Ever-
glades ecology has been the increased concentra-
tion of mercury in the food chain. Bioaccumula-
tion renders predators, such as Florida panthers,
most susceptible. One theory attributes the mer-
cury to airborne pollution; another holds that mer-
cury occurs naturally in the soils and is released by
a chemical reaction induced by drainage or the
presence of nutrient pollutants.
Problems unrelated to modifications of the sys-
tem's natural hydrology include introduced
species, specimen collecting, and the effects of
off-road vehicles. Exotic plant species, primarily
Australian melaleuca and Brazilian pepper, are
proving to be by far the most formidable long-term
challenge. Melaleuca was introduced intentionally
for its ability to "dry up" marshes, and both it and
160
-------
ORIANDO
Jacksonville
liami
Figure 1.—South Florida ecosystem.
161
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Brazilian pepper tend to form dense stands that
crowd out native species. Research is now focused
on the possibility of introducing predators to com-
bat these species. Many exotic species of fish
have also been introduced in South Florida.
Toward Restoration
In 1983, Governor Bob Graham began the "Save
our Everglades" campaign by committing the state'
to ecosystem restoration and the following six
objectives: (1) restoring the Kissimmee River;
(2) protecting Lake Okeechobee; (3) protecting
the Water Conservation Areas; (4) protecting Big
Cypress Swamp; (5) restoring Everglades National
Park; and (6) protecting the Florida panther.
Restoring the Kissimmee River. Efforts to
restore the Kissimmee River began in the 1970s
and led to a study and restoration plan by the
South Florida Water Management District, which
was adopted in 1990 by the state of Florida. This
plan would restore 40 square miles of the original
ecosystem, 43 miles of river, and 26,500 acres of
wetlands. (In 1992, Congress authorized the Corps
to enter into a 50/50 cost-share arrangement with
the state to begin work on the project, the total
cost of which is approximately $400 million.
Construction of the initial test fill began in
April 1994.
Protecting Lake Okeechobee. In 1979, the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
took action to prevent any pumping of agricultural
water from the Everglades Agricultural Area into
Lake Okeechobee, except in emergencies, be-
cause the lake was suffering from an overabun-
dance of nutrients from runoff produced by agricul-
tural and dairy activities. (This resulted in
increased discharge into the Water Conservation
Areas and, thus, into the refuge and the park.)
Since 1983, efforts have been focused on reducing
dairy farming on lands draining into the lake and
on instituting best management practices on
remaining farms to improve the quality of water
from agricultural discharges. In 1989, the South
Florida Water Management District put into effect
a Surface Water Improvement and Management
plan to reduce phosphorus in the lake. Since 1983,
approximately $45 million has been spent by the
state, the water district, and the federal govern-
ment to restore the lake.
Protecting the Water Conservation Areas. Ef-
forts to restore the hydrology and water quality of
the Water Conservation Areas have largely con-
centrated on regulation and treatment of agricul-
tural surface water discharges and on land acquisi-
tion in the Areas themselves and in the adjacent
Holey Land and Rotenberger tracts. Due to the
vulnerability of deer in the Water Conservation
Areas to heavy flooding and rapidly changing
water levels, changes were made to stop rapid
flooding, and deer herds have been reduced to a
more sustainable size. In addition, construction of
the Everglades Nutrient Removal Project, a filtra-
tion marsh for approximately one-third of the agri-
cultural runoff into the Loxahatchee National
Wildlife Refuge, has been completed.
Protecting Big Cypress National Preserve. Ex-
tensive federal, state, and local land acquisitions
in the area have been supplemented by improve-
ments in hydrology and wildlife habitat in conjunc-
tion with conversion of Alligator Alley into an
interstate highway (1-75), completed in January
1993. Design improvements included bridges,
culverts, and wildlife underpasses.
Restoring Everglades National Park. The
restoration of natural waterflows to Everglades
National Park involves increasing water delivery to
Taylor Slough, Shark River Slough, the C-lll
basin, Florida Bay, and the Ten Thousand Islands.
Because much of the park's water originally came
from what is now the Big Cypress National Pre-
serve, increased flow between the Water Con-
servation Areas and the preserve has also been
important. Legislation in 1989 (amended in 1993)
expanded the boundaries of the park to allow for
acquisition and flooding of adjacent lands to the
east to feed Shark River Slough and Taylor Slough
with water. In addition, actions have been taken to
divert more water from the C-l 11 to the park and
Florida Bay.
Protecting the Florida panther. About
150,000 acres of panther habitat have been ac-
quired, including Florida Panther National Wildlife
Refuge. Nighttime speed limits have been lowered
and warning signs placed along 1-75 and other
roads. Hunting has been curtailed in Big Cypress
National Preserve to preserve the panther's food
supply. In addition, a captive breeding program
and extensive research and monitoring are
162
-------
South Florida
underway. Mercury poisoning remains a serious
problem.
Present Situation
The principal federal agencies now engaged in
ecosystem approach and restoration activities in
South Florida include the Corps, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), National Biological
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), National Park Service,
Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Geological
Survey. Principal state agencies include the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
and South Florida Water Management District
(SFWMD). The current boundaries of the
SFWMD are commonly considered to be the
hydrological boundaries of the ecosystem.
In 1988, in the face of mounting evidence of dam-,
age to Everglades National Park and the Loxa-
hatchee National Wildlife Refuge from agricultural
pollution (specifically phosphorus), the federal
government sued the state of Florida for failing to
enforce its 6wn water quality laws. The state,
under the leadership of Governor Lawton Chiles,
settled the litigation in 1991 and agreed on a plan
aimed at removing 80 percent of the phosphorus
flowing from the Everglades Agricultural Area by
improving agricultural practices and by construct-
ing -filtration marshes called Stormwater Treatment
Areas. The settlement agreement also required
expanded research and monitoring, compliance by
2002 with all water quality standards in water.
delivered to the park and refuge, adoption of strict
phosphorus limits for water in the park and refuge,
and a new water delivery schedule aimed at main-
taining the flora and fauna of the park and refuge.
In 1992, the settlement was adopted by the federal
court as a consent decree, which was subsequently
tied up by 36 federal and state lawsuits, mostly
brought by agricultural interests.
In April 1993, government parties to the lawsuits
agreed to a proposal from agricultural challengers
to stay litigation in order to pursue mediated set-
tlement negotiations. Negotiations spanned the
next 9 months, involving officials from the Corps,
EPA, and U.S. Departments of Agriculture, the
Interior, and Justice. In July 1993, the parties
reached an agreement in principle to fund a Medi-
ated Technical Plan, which was developed with
the participation of federal and state agencies as
well as the agricultural and environmental
communities. The basic agreement, known as the
Statement of Principles, involves a $465 million
treatment system of Stormwater Treatment Areas
(about 35,000 acres of filtration marshes to cleanse
great volumes of water and to provide additional
benefits for the Everglades in terms of water quan-
tity, distribution, and timing) and onfarm best
management practices.
Key features of the Statement of Principles were
adopted in the Everglades Forever Act passed by
the Florida Legislature in April 1994. The Act
gives the Water Conservation Areas the same kind
of protection afforded the park and refuge in the
settlement agreement. The state is required to pay
approximately 42 percent of the cost of the plan,
farmers will pay 50 percent, and the federal gov-
ernment will pay 8 percent. The state is to
construct five Stormwater Treatment Areas by
2003, and the Corps must build one by 2002.
Stormwater Treatment Areas are to be permitted
and regulated by the.Florida Department of Envi-
ronmental Protection, Corps, and EPA. Agricul-
tural discharge is to be regulated by the South
Florida Water Management District through per-
mits that will impose best management practices
to reduce phosphorus loads. In addition, the state
is required to conduct an extensive research and
monitoring program to evaluate the ecological and
hydrological needs of the Everglades and to de-
velop technology and best management practices
designed to improve water quality.
In 1992, the Corps was directed by Congress to be-
gin the Central and Southern Florida Comprehen-
sive Review Study to determine whether and how
to best modify the Central and Southern Florida
Project in light of threats to the ecology and water
supply of South Florida. The reconnaissance phase
of the review study, which identifies problems and
develops and evaluates alternatives, is fully funded
by the federal government and was completed in
November 1994. This will be followed by a series
of 3-year feasibility studies, which will require
50-percent funding from a local sponsor and will
develop the most promising alternatives and make
recommendations for congressional authorization.
In June 1993, the South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration Task Force was convened by the De-
partment of the Interior. The Task Force is com-
posed of the six assistant secretaries who together
are responsible for the Corps, EPA, NOAA, Na-
tional Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service,
163
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
National Biological Service, U.S. Geological Sur-
vey, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of
Justice, and USDA Natural Resources Conserva-
tion Service (formerly Soil Conservation Service).
Until now, Task Force membership has been lim-
ited to federal agencies. The goal of the Task
Force is to ensure that the ecosystem restoration
effort is conducted in as organized and coordinated
a manner as possible through consistent policies,
strategies, plans, and priorities for addressing envi-
ronmental concerns in the ecosystem. Specifi-
cally, the Task Force will: (1) agree on federal,
objectives for ecosystem restoration to be incorpo-
rated into the Corps reconnaissance study for re-
design of the Central and Southern Florida Project;
(2) promote the establishment of an ecosystem-
based science program that utilizes the strengths of
public and private entities and includes research,
inventory, monitoring, and modeling; (3) support
the development of appropriate multispecies re-
covery plans for threatened and endangered spe-
cies and candidate species; and (4) encourage
expedited implementation of projects, programs,
and activities included in coordinated restoration
plans.
The Task Force created a Working Group, which
established three subgroups (for science, infrastruc-
ture, and management and coordination) to tackle
the development of a comprehensive restoration
plan within 12 months. In November 1993, the
science subgroup prepared a draft report on alterna-
tives for South Florida ecosystem restoration as a
contribution to the Central and Southern Florida
Project workshops held in December. In March
1994, Governor Chiles established the Commission
for a Sustainable South Florida. It was charged
with working to "improve coordination among and
within the private and public sectors regarding
activities impacting the Everglades ecosystem,
examine the effects of continued development and
agriculture on the natural resources within the
Everglades ecosystem, recommend actions for the
restoration, management, preservation, and protec-
tion of these resources, recommend strategies for
ensuring that the South Florida economy is based
on sustainable economic activities that can coexist
with a healthy Everglades ecosystem, and assist in
promoting and monitoring the implementation of
its recommendations." The Commission is made
up of 35 representatives from state and local
government as well as business and public-interest
groups, along with 4 nonvoting representatives
from the federal government. A final report and
recommendations are due to the Governor by
July 1, 1995. Several members of the federal
Working Group were appointed to the Commission,
providing a potential link between the Task Force
and nonfederal entities.
In the meantime, South Florida's rapid population
growth is likely to continue, placing strains on the
natural environment. By the year 2000, according
to current predictions, Florida will have the third
largest population in the country, with the vast
majority of it residing in South Florida.
BUDGET ISSUES
Although federal agencies are taking tentative
steps toward joint project planning in South
Florida, projects are still funded separately. Many
interviewees saw this lack of budget coordination
as a major impediment to ecosystem restoration,
and they offered suggestions on how to surmount
this and other budgetary barriers to the ecosystem
approach.
Current Budget Management
Federal agencies in South Florida have tradition-
ally planned and executed their budgets indepen-
dently: each agency funded separate ecosystem-
related projects. None of the projects shown in
table 1, for example, are funded by more than one
agency (although the Corps uses Department of the
Interior funding to implement the East Everglades
Modified Water Delivery Project). However, the
Corps and National Park Service have been work-
ing together on the design of some of the projects
shown, and the Fish and Wildlife Service has
received Corps funds for Coordination Act reports.
Moreover, the National Park. Service and Fish and
Wildlife Service have coordinated closely in plan-
ning to address water quality issues. In addition,
the new federal South Florida Ecosystem Restora-
tion Task Force is beginning to discuss interagency
funding priorities on an ecosystemwide basis, in
hopes of moving from budget "crosscuts" and
accounting exercises to truly integrated budgeting.
164
-------
South Florida
Table 1.—South Florida projects (millions of dollars)
Project
Kissimmee River Restoration
Modified Water Delivery
(East Everglades)
Southern Glades Management Area
G-111 General Reevaluation Report
Everglades Forever Act (Stormwater
Treatment Areas)
U.S. Highway 1 Expansion
Big Cypress Land Acquisition
East Everglades Land Acquisition
Model Lands Acquisition
Total
Percentage
Interior
Dept.
—
107
-
13
-
-
55
46
-
221
13
Federal
Corps of
Engineers
208
-
-
59
-
-
-
-
-
267
15
Other
-
-
-
-
87
61
-
-
-
148
g
State/
SFWMD County Private
208 - -
_ — —
7
50
381 - 232
100
28
32
30 30
836 30 232
48 2 13
Total
416
107
7
122
700
161
83
78
60
1,734
100
Of note is the high level of state involvement in all
projects shown in table 1: state funding accounts
for $836 million, or 48 percent of the total. State
funds for the Everglades Construction Project
outlined in the Everglades Forever Act will be
largely drawn from taxes on agricultural operations
in the Everglades Agricultural Area. Such taxes
are designed to generate an annual minimum net
of $11,625,000, for a total contribution over a
20-year period of $233 to $322 million. The Ever-
glades Forever Act also provides Everglades Agri-
culture Area-wide and individual incentive credits
for onsite phosphorus reductions.
Budget-Related Barriers to the Ecosystem
Approach
Of the many budget-related barriers to the ecosys-
tem approach cited by interviewees, lack of inter-
agency cooperation in budget planning was most
often mentioned. This deficiency was seen as an
impediment to an integrated plan to implement the
ecosystem approach that would allocate funds
based on the priority needs of the ecosystem. Re-
lated to this is another perceived barrier, the fact
that no federal agency has been assigned to coor-
dinate the ecosystem approach for the region. Ide-
ally, such an agency would plan cross-jurisdic-
tional landscape activities, request funds for such
activities, and ensure that all necessary compo-
nents of a coherent, comprehensive ecosystem
.restoration program are funded adequately and in
appropriate sequence.
Not shown in table 1 are the different congres-
sional committee jurisdictions that address agency
programs. The agencies now beginning to work
together in a more concerted way in South Florida
receive their authorizations and appropriations
from several different committees. Lack of com-
munication between these committees was cited
as a barrier .to the ecosystem approach.
Lengthy discussion with the Corps revealed a
number of budget-related barriers to the ecosystem
approach. Agency personnel ceilings were said to
limit the ability of the Corps and National Park
Service to implement projects using adaptive
management, which requires changes in project
implementation based on new information. Due to
low personnel ceilings, much Corps work is con-
tracted out, and federal contracting guidelines
make it difficult to contract for work such that
tasks can be reoriented based on new information.
Reorienting contracted work can require lengthy
administrative procedures, making it difficult to
quickly shift the direction of project implementa-
tion. Additional problems associated with contract
work include increased difficulty in coordinating
project activities (it is easier to coordinate in-
house activities than contracted work), and the
heavy staff workload required to manage con-
tracted projects (staff time is used more efficiently
when work is carried out in-house.)
The Corps also pointed to barriers associated with
Water Resources Council Principles and
165
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Guidelines, an important tool for evaluating poten-
tial project options. Because the Principles and
Guidelines heavily emphasize the National Econo-
mic Development Account, the screening criteria
for project options are largely based on, potential
economic benefits. According to some, insuffi-
cient emphasis is placed on environmental and
social benefits that are difficult or impossible to
quantify in economic terms. Noting the current
federal funding emphasis on public works, some
state officials and environmental organizations
suggested that the federal government deempha-
size infrastructure development and take instead a
more broad-based approach, including a wider
range of options aimed at achieving ecosystem
sustainability.
Moreover, many interviewees, including both sci-
entists and managers, indicated that funding for re-
search, inventories, and monitoring is inadequate.
A major research-related problem indicated by
federal agencies, especially land managers, is
limited funding for environmental trend analyses.
Instead, funding tends to go toward solving critical
problems that could have been avoided if trend
analyses had been conducted. But others dis-
counted the claim that more money is needed for
research, arguing that more effective (i.e., inte-
grated and interdisciplinary) research could make
better use of the money already being spent on
research in South Florida.
Citing the exotic plants that are disrupting the
Everglades ecosystem, managers called for more
funding for research on exotic species and tech-
niques for their control. Funding for ecosystem
modeling, a critical component of the ecosystem
approach, was also called inadequate.
National Park Service staff highlighted a signifi-
cant barrier to the funding of long-term research,
an essential component of the ecosystem ap-
proach: funds for research cannot be carried over
from one year to the next. Because research fund-
ing is part of the park operations budget—an
annual appropriation—any funds not spent must be
returned at the end of the fiscal year.
A final budget-related barrier to the ecosystem ap-
proach noted by interviewees from various sectors
involves the general difficulty of securing funds for
large-scale restoration efforts. Costs of restoration
arc high, potential impacts on economic
development are significant, and results are often
delayed. Moreover, no approach to large-scale
ecosystem restoration is generally accepted as
correct.
Interviewee Suggestions
Interviewees from many sectors suggested that a
federal budget be prepared for the entire South
Florida ecosystem. A joint budget should reflect
funding priorities established jointly by all federal
agencies, and/or it should indicate how each agen-
cy's budget requests relate to federal management
objectives for the entire ecosystem. Interviewees
also suggested that assistant secretaries from each
agency involved in the ecosystem show their sup-
port for the entire South Florida budget package by
meeting with the four congressional appropriations
subcommittees responsible for funding their
agencies.
Some suggested that all federal restoration projects
require local cost-sharing and use local fiscal com-
mitment as a priority-ranking criterion. However,
such a measure might have an adverse impact on
low-income areas. It was also suggested that the
Water Resources Council Principles and Guide-
lines be revised to better account for environmen-
tal quality and other social effects, and to de-
emphasize the National Economic Development
Account. Establishment of an entrepreneurial fund
for integrated interagency activities was recom-
mended, with funds earmarked for such under-
funded activities as research, planning, and resto-
ration. A competitive process could be used and
extra credit given for involvement in ecosystem
restoration initiatives by state and local govern-
ment. Finally, federal agencies were urged to
make full use of adaptive management techniques
to determine if management solutions will work on
a small scale before major public investments are
made to implement large-scale management
practices.
INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
Interviewees named a number of institutional ob-
stacles to ecosystem restoration in South Florida.
Doubts were expressed about federal leadership
and vision in ecosystem management, communica-
tion between and within federal agencies, timeli-
ness of project review and approval, and
166
-------
South Florida
intergovernmental coordination during project
planning and implementation.
Leadership and Shared Vision
Many of those interviewed observed that no One
federal agency has jurisdiction over an entire
ecosystem or a broad mission of implementing the
ecosystem approach. The agencies that do have
(broadly interpreted) missions in accordance with
the ecosystem approach may not have the funding
required or the socioeconomic perspective needed
to provide leadership,on an ecosystem basis. De-
spite the large number of individual projects and
major monetary investments in South Florida,
there has been no overarching vision, process, or
institutional leadership for management on an
ecosystem scale.
Many interviewees called for a shared vision for
the ecosystem in order to begin planning how to
reach the desired state and what different partici-
pants in the ecosystem can do to move toward the
goal. Interviewees stressed the importance of
acknowledging the cost of restoration, and that the
vision should include a shared sense of where fund-
ing will come from. It was suggested that a lead
agency be named to facilitate organization and to
dispense discretionary funding for travel, mailings,
support staff, publications, and other logistics re-
quired for interagency efforts.
Different agencies have different missions and dif-
ferent definitions and perspectives on the ecosys-
tem approach. Some interviewees pointed to the
need for a shared understanding of the principles of
the ecosystem approach, as well as a shared set of
goals for the ecosystem. Although the federal
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force,
the Corps' Central and Southern Florida Compre-
hensive Review Study, and the Governor's Com-
mission for a Sustainable South Florida all repre-
sent efforts to develop a broader vision, it is not
clear that any one of them provides a total solution
to the problem.
Communication
Communication within and between organizations
was the subject of much discussion. Interviewees
pointed out that monthly or even weekly meetings
between agency staffs did not adequately afford
the kind of joint planning and decision making
necessary for the ecosystem approach. Interagency
personnel exchanges were praised for bringing to-
gether people of different backgrounds and
producing effective full-time interagency teams to
address multidisciplinary problems. For example,
the Corps has made 1-year transfer appointments
from other agencies to form interagency teams as
part of its Central and Southern Florida Compre-
hensive Review Study. Sharing expertise and
agency perspectives opens communication and
moves the planning process beyond the traditional
monthly meetings and coordination letters. More
full-time interagency personnel exchanges were
called for to overcome lack of communication
between agencies during planning processes.
Some observed that there is a need for common
language and clear definitions within and between
agencies. Key terms such as "ecosystem man-
agement" and "sustainable development," and
terms used in agency planning and study docu-
ments, must all be plainly understood. Differences
in usage may result in miscommunication and
unanticipated products: for example, differences
in how groups define the word "objectives" may
have led the science subgroup of the South Florida
Ecosystem Restoration Task Force to present a
broader set of restoration alternatives in its
November 1993 report than the Corps and others
had expected.
The need was expressed for clear leadership and
support for the ecosystem approach at every level,
from the Department to the field. Unless field staff
know what assistant secretaries consider important,
they will not make interagency coordination a
priority. It was mentioned, for example, that the
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service did
not actively participate in the science subgroup, in
part because USDA leadership did not show the
interest necessary to inspire agency researchers
and others to become more actively involved. This
may reflect internal barriers to communication:
departmental leadership may assume that field
staff are actively engaged in a project, whereas
regional leadership may not be conveying the
appropriate signals to staff. The problem may lie
partly within agencies themselves: inadequate
definition of priorities, poor intra-agency commu-
nication of them, and a general lack of leadership
on issues pertaining to the ecosystem approach.
Interviewees recommended use of new technolo-
gies, such as electronic mail and the Internet, to
facilitate communication.
167
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Agency Review Processes
Interviewees expressed concerns regarding Corps
project approval, concerns that may pertain to
other agencies as well. Some were also disturbed
by the slow pace of reviewing documents for
publication.
Corps project approval process. The main con-
cern was the time it takes to complete the process
of selecting and approving a project for the Corps.
After lengthy review by the Corps, project propos-
als must go before Congress, and any new informa-
tion can mean that the entire process must start
over. The need for congressional approval, it was
noted, may limit the flexibility of a project: the
approval process may take so long that the project
is no longer as pertinent to local conditions once
finally approved. Interviewees maintained that
changes made in 1986 to the Corps' review process
had succeeded in reforming and streamlining the
process to make it more timely, efficient, and
responsive to needs. Now that the Corps can
continue with general project planning and evalua-
tion while waiting for congressional and other
reviews, time to project completion has dropped
from an average of 26 years to as little as 7 years
or less.
Coordination and review of Corps projects involve
numerous evaluations and consultations on project
benefits, costs, and impacts. Much of the evalua-
tion process follows Water Resources Council
Principles and Guidelines to selecting a project op-
tion. Some expressed concern that the Principles
and Guidelines may require the plan to optimize
economic benefits, thereby limiting the kind of
plan that can be chosen. It was pointed out that
basing project selection on assessments of eco-
nomic benefits and costs may fail to take into ac-
count the value of noncommercial natural re-
sources. Questions were raised about differences
between using criteria from the Principles and
Guidelines to select projects and using National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) criteria or other
evaluations of costs, benefits, impacts, and
alternatives. Interviewees emphasized the need to
foster an ethic among project designers and
planners of evaluating environmental costs and
benefits and selecting projects that produce a net
environmental gain.
Communication between agencies is especially
critical early in the project evaluation process. By
distributing scoping letters as well as pre-environ-
mental impact statement and draft-environmental
impact statement information to interested parties
early in the NEPA process, agencies can initiate
and facilitate dialogue and coordinate diverse
interests. Early discussions and material review
often make later evaluations of NEPA alternatives
much easier.
Authorship and publications review. For docu-
ments that list agency researchers as authors,
many agencies require an internal review prior to
publication, and this review can be very time-
consuming, according to interviewees. A slow
review process may hinder planning efforts, delay
dissemination of information, and decrease the
willingness or feasibility of collaborative research
and publication among agency researchers. Faced
with publication delays, researchers may be less
willing to participate in cooperative interagency
projects that may provide more efficient ap-
proaches to common research problems. The U.S.
Geological Survey was named as an agency with
an especially long and complex review process for
reports. It was noted that some researchers elect to
be listed as collaborators rather than as authors on
reports in order to avoid triggering the usual review
process, despite the fact that authorship of publica-
tions is commonly used to evaluate researcher
productivity. In addition to its timeliness, the sub-
stance of the review process may pose a problem:
one interviewee called for a special review proce-
dure for work that might disagree with or contradict
existing management.
Intergovernmental Coordination
Interviewees observed that formation of the federal
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force
was a positive step toward interagency coordina-
tion. But the Task Force does not include nonfed-
eral governmental parties; despite good relations
between federal and county agencies at the staff
level, some interviewees noted, local governments
have been largely left out of the ecosystem restora-
tion planning process.
Some interviewees felt that the Task Force should
include a broader spectrum of federal agencies.
Particularly needed, they agreed, are representa-
tives from agencies that deal with socioeconomic
factors such as development and education. Most
notably absent is the U.S. Department of
Transportation.
168
-------
South Florida
Several interviewees observed a need for greater
interdisciplinary communication and exchange of
ideas for a more efficient and effective ecosystem
approach. Interviewees noted that more ecologists
need to be involved in management efforts, and
that ecological work should be better integrated
with the work of engineers.
LEGAL ISSUES
Applicable legal authorities both impede and
facilitate the ecosystem approach. Two major
federal statutes or programs, the Federal Advisory
Committee Act and the Corps' Civil Works project
authorities, were widely cited as impediments to
the ecosystem approach. Two other major authori-
ties, the Endangered Species Act and the Corps'
regulatory program pursuant to section 404 of the
Clean Water Act, present certain constraints, but
in other ways facilitate the ecosystem approach.
In addition, several other authorities present im-
pediments, opportunities, or both.
Federal Advisory Committee Act
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA),
5 U.S.C. App. 2, places restrictions on the ability of
federal agencies to solicit and receive collective
advice from nonfederal parties. For example,
FACA stipulates that an advisory committee must
be organized under a charter, balance its member-
ship, post notification of its meetings in the Fed-
eral Register, hold open meetings, take minutes of
meetings, and (upon request) provide transcripts of
meetings.
The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task
Force convened by the Department of the Interior
has no nonfederal members; and, to date, it has
had no ongoing, systematic contact or discussions
with nonfederal governmental parties with respon-
sibilities affecting ecosystems. This lack of con-
tact is largely due to FACA: any nonfederal
committee established to advise federal decision
makers must comply with FACA, and if nonfederal
persons were part of the Task Force, FACA would
apply to the Task Force itself. If the Task Force
were not required to comply with the FACA's
requirements, it would institute contacts with
nonfederal parties, particularly state agencies and
other government entities. But if the Task Force
were to institute such contacts, it would either be
hindered by FACA's restrictive and
time-consuming requirements or be constrained to
act in such a way that FACA is not implicated.
Although the concept of a federal Task Force was
generally praised by those interviewed, the com-
.ment was frequently made (particularly by state
officials) that lack of regular consultation with
relevant state parties has limited the Task Force's
effectiveness. The federal government cannot
achieve its goals without integrating its activities
with other key governmental players in the ecosys-
tem. Coordination is also critical to information
sharing and joint scientific research. Some people
suggested that the lack of regular, formalized
communication between federal and nonfederal
governmental parties was one of the biggest barri-
ers to efficient restoration and management of the
South Florida ecosystem.
One creative step toward resolving this dilemma in
South Florida is the evolving informal connection
between the Governor's Commission for a Sustain-
' able South Florida and the Working Group of the
Task Force. Some of the federal agencies repre-
sented on the Task Force are also on the Gover-
nor's Commission, and recent meetings of the two
groups were scheduled on consecutive days in the
same location to facilitate informal interaction
within the constraints of the law.
Federal interviewees indicated that an amendment
to FACA allowing federal agencies to consult with
state, local, and tribal officials without having to
go through the FACA chartering process would
make the task of implementing the ecosystem
approach much easier.
Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works
Programs
Federal regulations and environmental laws require
the Corps to employ a lengthy and complex pro-
cess whenever it considers a water resources de-
velopment project. The -Corps must complete a
two-phase study that routinely takes up to 5 years
and requires congressional approval of each phase.
Significant changes in a project require the Corps
to return to Congress for new authorization. Proj-
ects proceed through several sequential phases of
planning, design, construction and operation, and
they must meet the requirements of the Water
Resources Council Principles and Guidelines,
National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered
169
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Species Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act,
and other statutes. In addition, projects depend on
cost-sharing partnerships between the Corps and
local sponsors that must be formalized in a binding
legal document negotiated by the parties and
reviewed for legal adequacy by the Office of the
Army General Counsel.
The Corps' civil works process was criticized by
some as detrimental to structural aspects of an
ecosystem approach because it is so rigid and
time-consuming. In addition, the Water Resources
Council Principles and Guidelines, which allow
projects to proceed only if economic benefits out-
weigh costs, make it difficult to assess environ-
mental benefits, which are hard to quantify. The
Corps is currently undergoing major agencywide
restructuring to improve efficiency and timeliness
in developing regulations to assist in identifying
and recommending projects with strong environ-
mental benefits.
Endangered Species Act
The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA),
16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 etseq., requires, among other
things, that federal agencies take measures to pro-
tect both species and the habitat of species that
are listed as threatened or endangered under the
Act. Because it is the listing of a single species
that triggers the principal ESA obligations, the im-.
plementation of the Act has traditionally focused
on protecting single species rather than ecosys-
tems. However, the Act does allow for an ecosys-
tem approach and, in some respects, has been the
primary means of moving toward ecosystem pro-
tection. For example, the Act requires federal
agencies to assess their actions in order to prevent
adverse effects to listed species and their critical
habitats. A logical furtherance of the ESA is to
ensure that agencies act to prevent future listings
so as to obviate the need to assist later in the
delisting. At the same time, the habitat of some
wide-ranging listed species (such as the northern
spotted owl) is so widespread that protection of the
single species results in the protection of hundreds
of other species that are also dependent on the
same habitat.
In South Florida, it is sometimes difficult to pro-
tect a single species and also restore an ecosys-
tem. For example, the snail kite (a listed species)
now lives in altered habitat. In order to restore the
ecosystem, that habitat should be restored to a
more natural, drier state. While that action will be
beneficial for most species, it may not be best for
the snail kite, which is entitled to special protec-
tion under the Act. Similarly, during the section 7
consultation process (in which federal agencies
consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service on the
effects of proposed agency activities on listed
species), analysis is often focused on the activity's
effects on a single listed species without regard to
the overall effects on the ecosystem. For example,
removal of a certain causeway that hinders the
natural flow of water might pose a threat to mana-
tees and American crocodiles because it could ex-
pose them to jetskiing and other human activities.
One of the goals of the federal South Florida
Ecosystem Restoration Task Force is to support the
development of multispecies recovery plans. A
change in focus will be encouraged by the Admin-
istration's recently issued "Policy for an Ecosys-
tem Approach to Implementation of the Endan-
gered Species Act." The Policy recognizes that
"most species will be conserved best not by a
species-by-species approach but by an ecosystem
conservation strategy that transcends individual
species," and directs the Fish and Wildlife Service
and the National Marine Fisheries Service to
implement an ecosystem approach by, among
other things, making group listing decisions where
possible, developing partnerships with other gov-
ernmental and private agencies, and developing
recovery plans for whole communities or ecosys-
tems. Nevertheless, difficult choices must still be
made.
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344, may
constrain some ecosystem restoration efforts in
South Florida while promoting others through a
variety of regulatory provisions.
Section 404 permitting. Section 301 of the Clean
Water Act requires a permit issued under sec-
tion 404 of the Act for the discharge of dredged or
filled material into waters of the United States.
The 404 regulatory program, jointly administered
by the Corps and EPA, is important to South
Florida, where a high percentage of the land is
wetland that falls under the legal definition of
"waters of the United States."
170
-------
South Florida
The Corps and EPA have used their 404 authority
to develop watershed-based programs that'facili-
tate the ecosystem approach. Both agencies en-
courage "mitigation banking"—the creation,
restoration, or enhancement ,of wetlands to com-
pensate for unavoidable wetland losses due to
planned development. Units of restored or created
wetland count as "credits" that can offset "debits"
incurred at development sites. Recently, federal
agencies collaborated in publishing national miti-
gation banking guidance.
In a related program, the Corps encourages offsite
mitigation projects in compensation for section 404
violations. Such projects create or improve wet-
lands in the same watershed as the area affected
by the violation, and often they are required in
consent decrees between the government and
defendants in section 404 cases. Similarly, the
Corps works with section 404 permittees or viola-
tors to offset negative impacts to wetlands by
conveying perpetual conservation easements on
important parcels of land to water management
districts or conservation organizations.
Finally, the Corps and EPA have instituted the
Advanced Identification of Disposal Sites (ADID)
Program, which fosters advance planning for entire
watersheds, focusing on those where there is signif-
icant development pressure. Areas are designated
as suitable and unsuitable for dredge and fill activ-
ities, and prioritized within a watershed for wet- ,
land purposes. This program helps property owners
and prospective buyers determine the likelihood of
receiving wetland permits in specific areas. The
Corps and EPA work closely together in both per-
mitting and enforcement.
Some of those interviewed stated that the ADID
Program is currently of limited value for several
reasons: it is cumbersome; it does not take into
account such factors as the socioeconomic impact
of wetland determinations; it does not allow for
stays of permit applications while comprehensive
analyses are underway; and it requires more re-
sources than the Corps and EPA are able to devote.
Although a full-blown ADID does take a consider-
able amount of time to complete, EPA has been
discussing means to expedite the process by using
more existing data, or, in some cases, by reducing
its scale. With respect to staying permits pending
ADID analysis, depending on the facts of the case,
a party may raise a temporary takings claim.
The Corps is trying to follow the modelof The
Nature Conservancy's watershed approach to the
Reedy Creek/Lake Marion Creek area (which lies
outside the South Florida ecosystem). The Nature
Conservancy has developed what the Corps con-
siders a highly successful comprehensive
"watershed conservation plan." The plan includes
an assessment of the watershed and strategies for
growth management, species habitat protection,
and management of water quality, quantity, and
flow.
The Corps identified an impediment to the ecosys-
tem approach relating to lawsuits against violators
of section 404. The civil penalty collected cannot
be used for environmental purposes in the area of
the violation, but must instead be deposited in the
federal Treasury. Specifically, under applicable
law, civil penalties ordered by the court must go to
the Treasury, and the U.S. Department of Justice
applies EPA's "supplemental environmental proj-
ect" policy to require that all settlements contain
some penalty payable to the Treasury. The De-
partment of Justice also has other statutory con-
straints limiting its flexibility with respect to
assessed penalties.
Delegation of 404 programs. There is some
debate in South Florida over whether 404 regu-
latory authority should be turned over to state or
local agencies! Although the Corps and EPA are
currently responsible for operating the 404 program
in Florida, the state is working with them under a
limited State Programmatic General Permit
(SPGP) under section 404, allowing it to issue
permits for certain classes of activities on wetlands
in four, counties in northeastern Florida. This pilot
permitting program may lead to other types of
SPGPs in the future. However, no SPGP is
pending for fills of any size.
In order to assume the entire 404 regulatory
authority, the state must develop a program that
covers all of its territory and is at least as stringent
as the federal program. But the state encountered
a problem when the Florida legislature passed its
own version of a delineation manual that left out
certain types of federally regulated wetlands,
rendering the state's program less stringent.
The state may be able to subdelegate its general
permit responsibilities to counties or water man-
agement districts. But enforcement authority is not
171
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
typically subdelegated; and, according to EPA, the
intention to subdelegate enforcement authority
would have to be a condition of the State Pro-
grammatic General Permit (which has never been
the case before) in order for it to occur. According
to interviewees, delegating 404 authority to state
and local officials would have advantages as well
as disadvantages. Fewer permitting levels would
mean more consistency, more efficiency, and less
burden on the permit applicant. However, the
federal government has a better grasp of the "big
picture," is able to do more comprehensive plan-
ning, and is less subject to local political pres-
sures. Although we were told by county commis-
sioners that local requirements tend to be more
stringent than state and federal requirements, envi-
ronmental groups contradicted these claims, assert-
ing that local requirements tend to be less stringent
and more influenced by the orientation of some
county managers in favor of development. For
purposes of the ecosystem approach, the number of
permitting layers required may be less critical than
the amount of coordination there is between differ-
ent layers of government. Currently, the Corps and
the state use a joint wetlands permit application to
simplify the process.
NPDES permitting of Stormwater Treatment
Areas. The Clean Water Act requires a National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit for all "point sources" defined by the Act
(33 U.S.C. §§ 1311, 1342, 1344, and 1362). EPA is
the federal agency vested with authority to issue
permits, except where it has approved a state per-
mit program.
Although EPA provided technical expertise in
support of the Everglades litigation, and although
the agency attended earlier settlement meetings,
its role remained marginal. During the technical
mediation settlement discussions, the U.S. Attor-
ney's office was asked by one of the parties to
inquire of EPA whether Stormwater Treatment
Areas needed NPDES permits. Based on the facts
presented, EPA determined that there would be
point source discharges of pollutants into waters of
the United States, and that therefore permits were
required. Although Stormwater Treatment Areas
are designed to purify the water flowing through
them, EPA was and is concerned that water
discharged from them could fail to meet water
quality standards. There are two primary concerns:
that residual pesticides from the days when
Stormwater Treatment Areas were in agricultural
use could leach into the water, and that biological
and chemical changes could occur in the Areas,
resulting in increased concentrations of some
chemicals.
EPA issued a permit (effective June 15, 1994) for
the Everglades Nutrient Removal Project, but the
permit has been stayed pending requests for an
evidentiary hearing filed by several parties, includ-
ing Friends of the Everglades, the Miccosukee
Tribe, and the Sugar Growers Cooperative. For the
most part, permit requirements involve monitoring
rather than numerical standards.
The determination by EPA that an NPDES permit
would be required for the Everglades Nutrient
Removal Project troubled some of the parties
involved in mediation, particularly the state and
water management district. Some found it disturb-
ing that facilities created to treat agricultural
discharges should be subject to NPDES permit
requirements under the Clean Water Act from
which the discharges themselves were specifically
exempted by the Act. In the state's view, this
anomaly created a substantial disincentive for
agencies interested in cleaning up water sources.
Moreover, there was concern that the permitting
process would cause the mediated plan to fail.
EPA has worked hard to make the permitting pro-
cess as smooth as possible, but certain problems
persist. The Agency has stayed operation of the
permit pending review of the challenges, and with-
out an effective permit, even emergency dis-'
charges are not allowed. In the state's view,
disallowing these discharges could affect the
usefulness of the experimental Everglades Nutrient
Removal Project. In the meantime, the South
Florida Water Management District, with the
support of EPA, filed a pending motion to receive
interim authorization for discharges while eviden-
tiary hearings are underway. On August 8, 1994,
permission was granted, and the Everglades Nutri-
ent Removal Project began discharging within
1 month of its originally anticipated discharge
date—that is, without significant delay.
Role of state water quality standards. Because
the Clean Water Act exempts agriculture from its
usual discharge prohibitions, the federal govern-
ment has looked to state law to address water
quality standards in South Florida. In 1988, it
brought suit against state agencies for failing to
comply with state laws requiring delivery of unpol-
luted water to the Everglades. The procedures and
172
-------
South Florida
provisions of Florida water law thus became cen-
tral to resolution of the ensuing litigation and to
ecological restoration in South Florida generally.
Under the consent decree agreed to by federal and
state governments, the state was required to adopt
a Surface Water Improvement and Management
plan to address water quality problems caused by
agricultural practices. But adoption of the plan
involved a lengthy public process, and the plan
was challenged in 36 separate lawsuits, primarily
by the sugar industry. The resulting delay in the
plan threatened to continue for years; had passage
of the Everglades Forever Act not ended the
dispute, the plan would still be in litigation today,
at enormous cost to ecosystem restoration. Had it
been possible, direct action under federal law
against the polluters would have led to quicker
relief, providing fewer opportunities for collateral
challenge.
Federal Programs That Abet
Environmentally Unsound Practices
Representatives of the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection noted that federal
programs (such as agricultural support programs
and flood insurance) encourage practices by
private landowners that may be detrimental to
ecosystem management because they can be
environmentally unsound.
Agricultural support programs. Sugar produc-
ers in South Florida benefit from such USDA
programs as price supports and import quotas,
which artificially assure the profitability of sugar.
According to some interviewees, such programs
encourage agricultural practices that may put
pressure on natural resources. For example, low-
interest loans offered by the Farmers Home Admin-
istration and crop insurance provided by the Fed-
eral Crop Insurance Corporation encourage agricul-
tural conversion of flood-prone wetlands that might
otherwise not be profitable.
Flood insurance. The National Flood Insurance
Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4000 et seq., provides federal
flood insurance to private homeowners and other
landowners who develop in floodplains, on coast-
lines, and in other areas where eventual damage to
both buildings and the environment is likely.
According to the Florida Department of Environ-
mental Protection, the vast majority of people
living on Florida's coasts would not be there were
it not for federal flood insurance. Such programs
contribute to the urban development that has been
blamed for many environmental problems, includ-
ing erosion and loss of endangered species habitat.
Agency mandates. Congress has never declared
that a particular federal agency has the ecosystem
approach as its sole, or even primary, mission.
Each agency has specific mandates governing the
lands it manages and the environmental media
(such as air and water) or development projects it
regulates. Although statutes such as the National
Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species
Act require coordination among agencies, no
agency has a mission of integrating its activities
with those of another agency for the sake of more
effective long-term land, resource, and socioeco-
nomic planning.
Consequently, agencies rarely apply for congres-
sional funding to promote the ecosystem approach
as such; instead, funding is sought for discrete
agency functions that may or may not encourage
the ecosystem approach. Moreover, no one federal
agency is charged with promoting the concept of
the ecosystem approach to Congress. Some view
this as an impediment to adequate funding of
ecosystem projects. Others believe that the prob-
lem can be resolved through interagency coordina-
tion and forceful agency leadership that embraces
the ecosystem approach.
National Environmental Policy Act
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq., requires agencies to con-
sider the environmental consequences of "major
federal actions significantly affecting the human
environment." Specifically, the Act requires
agencies to prepare an environmental document
which could include an environmental impact
statement (EIS), a Finding of No Significant
Impact, or an environmental assessment (EA)
before proceeding with implementation of any
major federal action that will significantly affect
the human environment. In addition to requiring
the development and consideration of alternatives
and consequences, the NEPA process serves as a
means of informing the public about agency deci-
sions and facilitates public input into the decision-
making process. All federal agencies must comply
with NEPA at many phases of design, planning,
and construction.
173
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
NEPA was viewed as both useful for the ecosystem
approach and an impediment to it. It is useful
because it forces agencies to consider all of the
environmental impacts of their actions, and to re-
frain from moving too quickly, before conse-
quences are sufficiently analyzed.
However, it was felt that NEPA may make adap-
tive management difficult. As an agency increas-
ingly employs an adaptive management approach,
its approach is to plan in incremental steps and to
undertake several short-term projects, rather than
to plan a comprehensive long-term project and
follow through with it without modification. As a
result, NEPA analysis has to be done at each step
of the process, because each step represents a new
federal action. The time required to prepare an
EIS (including substantial public comment periods
and analysis of alternatives) is often almost as
long as the project itself. Moreover, because the
NEPA analysis is done piecemeal, it is difficult to
determine cumulative effects over time and the
long-term costs of a comprehensive effort. How-
ever, it was noted that NEPA's flexibility depends
on how it is implemented. There are means, such
as programmatic EISs, generic EISs, subject-
specific EAs, or supplemental EAs, that can help
move a process along.
For example, the Corps is .currently making exper-
imental water deliveries to Everglades National
Park. Each experimental test lasts 2 years, after
which data are evaluated and the next test is de-
signed. The NEPA is an impediment here, be-
cause the EIS process itself can take almost
2 years, and a separate environmental impact
statement must be prepared in connection with
each test. The process has also resulted in criti-
cism of the Corps for not considering the cumula-
tive effects of the tests. Another example involves
construction of the C-l 11 canal. The recently
completed EIS lists several options for future
structural modifications. Each time one or more
options are chosen, the Corps will have to engage
in NEPA analysis. If the complete project were
decided upon at the outset, NEPA analysis would
have only been required once, but the ability to
adjust to new information would be limited.
Another requirement NEPA imposes is coordina-
tion among federal agencies, where, as part of an
ecosystem approach, several major actions are
undertaken by different agencies or different parts
of one agency. This issue has arisen as a result of
the Everglades Forever Act, which mandates
several actions that may require NEPA analysis,
namely: construction of the C-51 flood control
project; Clean Water Act section 404 permitting
associated with dredging and filling in the Ever-
glades Agricultural Area, Water Conservation
Areas, and some canal structures; and modification
of the federal water management system. In
addition, EPA will need to issue National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits
for the Stormwater Treatment Areas, which could
be accompanied by NEPA analysis, although this
is not mandatory in this case and the state may by
then have been delegated NPDES permitting
authority.
One suggested approach would be to prepare one
NEPA document for all of these projects, but un-
der current Corps practice, a different Corps offi-
cial would sign the Record of Decision (ROD) for
each project. For example, the ROD for the C-51
flood control project would have to be signed by
the Secretary of the Army. If the Secretary were to
sign the RODs for all Corps projects, the 404 per-
mitting actions could be unnecessarily delayed
(normally the District Engineer would sign the
ROD for the permitting action). Separate EISs and
RODs for each project would consume signifi-
cantly more agency resources than a joint NEPA
document because of extensive public involvement
that NEPA would require for each document.
However, EPA suggested the possibility of
combining NEPA analysis for separate kinds of
projects, such as the Storm Treatment Areas.
Internal Revenue Code
In 1992, the Corps received direction from
Congress to do a reconnaissance study of the
Central and Southern Florida Project. The project
will take 18 months, and the Corps is drawing em-
ployees from other federal agencies on temporary
duty assignments to address specific issues. For
example, in order to ensure that wildlife concerns
are raised or addressed at all phases, the Corps has
appointed a specialist from the Fish and Wildlife
Service to work on the project full-time, an
approach the Corps hopes to continue in the future.
However, the process has been made more difficult
by recent amendments to the Internal Revenue
Code (26 U.S.C. § 162 (a); Revenue ruling 93-86).
The code now holds that any term of employment
away from the employee's home in excess of
174
-------
South Florida
1 year is permanent rather than temporary. Reim-
bursement for expenses (such as per diem pay-
ments) are considered taxable income for which
the employee is liable, and expenses incurred
during employment are nondeductible. Because of
this new rule, the Corps was recently forced to cut
short an 18-month temporary duty assignment on a
Florida reconnaissance study: two employees from
Washington, DC, hired for their expertise in public
involvement and restoration issues (and their abil-
ity to provide a broader perspective), had to leave
Jacksonville, Florida, after 12 months (before
study completion) in order to avoid tax liability for
reimbursement of per diem expenses. Agencies
engaged in the ecosystem approach are increasing-
ly willing to "cross-breed" employees for inter-
agency assignments, but the Internal Revenue
Service rule places considerable constraints on this
practice, limiting it to local employee exchanges
for assignments that exceed 12 months.
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
and Protection Act
The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary,
which includes all of the Florida Keys, was
designated by Congress on November 16, 1990.
Funded and managed primarily by the NOAA, with
major assistance from EPA and considerable man-
agement input from the state, the Sanctuary has
been cited as a model of the ecosystem approach
for including a wide array of interests in planning
and decision making. From the beginning, a part-
nership of federal, state, and local agencies was
created for planning and management, and repre-
sentatives of local interests (citizens, scientists,
environmentalists, and business leaders) have been
invited to participate. For example, a Citizens'
Advisory Committee reviews major documents
produced by government agencies, including
NOAA's Comprehensive Management Plan and
the Water Quality Protection Program developed
by EPA and the state.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Efforts to involve the public in South Florida
ecosystem restoration include environmental
education programs and activities designed to
obtain public input into the decision-making
process. Despite a wide array of federal, state, and
local educational programs and initiatives, many
South Florida residents—especially those in urban
areas—remain uninvolved, according to inter-
viewees. Because public support is critical to the
success of efforts to restore the Everglades, federal
agencies face the challenge of raising public
awareness of how restoration will affect local
residents and what they can do to influence the
process.
Programs Underway
Efforts are underway at the federal, state, and local
levels to include the public in a variety of activi-
ties related to environmental education and
ecosystem restoration.
Federal level. At the federal level, the Corps, the
NOAA and EPA (through NOAA's National Marine
Sanctuaries Program), and the National Park Ser-
vice all have programs to educate the public on
the Everglades ecosystem and to solicit public
feedback and encourage public involvement in
restoration efforts.
Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps conducts
various educational programs around Lake Okee-
chobee. In addition, it has traditionally held public
meetings to gain input into the planning and
execution of public works projects. Because these
meetings did not always adequately engage the
public, the Corps is experimenting with a new
approach in its Central and Southern Florida Com-
prehensive Review Study. A public involvement
specialist was appointed to work with Corps staff
in developing a public involvement process. Its
goals were to gather information from and develop
relationships with public sectors interested in,
and/or potentially affected by, Corps plans for the
ecosystem. The process consisted of three rounds
of workshops, during which participants were in-
vited to: (1) identify ecosystem-related problems
and opportunities; (2) identify possible solutions in
problem areas; and (3) provide feedback on pro-
posed plans addressing each problem area.
Participants at the first round of workshops were
given a worksheet with the following questions:
• What are the important resources in the
South Florida ecosystem?
• What are the problems and opportunities in
the ecosystem?
175
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
• How does one recognize successful restora-
tion of the ecosystem?
Based on participant responses, the Corps devel-
oped lists of important resources in the ecosystem,
along with problems and opportunities. Next began
a technical analysis of the problems, in order to
corroborate and support public concerns (and to
identify any other problems and opportunities).
Problem areas analyzed included water quality,
water supply, flood control, recreation, and eco-
nomic and social configurations. The analyses will
serve as a basis for the development of alternative
plans based on concrete public concerns.
A second round of workshops was held to provide
feedback on the first round and to get input into
potential solutions to problems identified. This led
to development of alternative conceptual plans,
which were presented in a third round of public
workshops.
National Marine Sanctuaries Program. Through
its National Marine Sanctuaries Program, the
NOAA has conducted extensive public outreach
activities on Key Largo (103 square nautical
miles) and Looe Key (5.3 square nautical miles),
both sanctuaries in South Florida. Its activities are
now expanding throughout the Florida Keys Na-
tional Marine Sanctuary.
Outreach was initially focused on site interpreta-
tion and educational programs for the two smaller
sanctuaries. However, with awareness growing
over the past decade of the deleterious effects of
outside forces on the sanctuaries (such as nutrient
pollution, fresh water diversion, and damage to
corals from marine traffic), this effort has been
strengthened and broadened. The public outreach
program now includes the following activities:
• Each year, the Coral Reef Classroom Pro-
gram brings 400-450 local middle-school
students to the sanctuaries for snorkeling,
water quality sampling, and lessons in reef
ecology and understanding threats to the
reefs.
• The National Marine Sanctuaries Program
works closely with the Monroe County
School System's Environmental Education
Advisory Council.
1 In cooperation with the Florida Institute of
Oceanography, the Florida Keys National
Marine Sanctuary provides onsite education
about the coral reef community of the Keys
to about 120 marine science teachers a year
from across the state.
The National Marine Sanctuaries Program
sponsors a series of lectures throughout
South Florida, and, the staff gives slide
presentations to various groups on request.
Radio and television outreach are major
components of the effort. In cooperation
with EPA, the National Marine Sanctuaries
Program has a local cable-access program in
the Keys called "Sounding Line," which
seeks to educate area residents about envi-
ronmental problems in the Keys and about
decisions being made to address the prob-
lems. Through a segment of the program
devoted to live call-ins, area residents can
provide input into the decision-making pro-
cess. This program will soon be available
on cable throughout South Florida, and the
National Marine Sanctuaries Program has
just hired someone to work on improving it.
The National Park Service has expressed
great interest in cohosting the show.
Printed materials are made available as part
of the public outreach effort. The National
Marine Sanctuaries Program has just hired
two public outreach specialists to focus on
providing the public with information
through a newsletter (with a monthly circu-
lation of more than 3,000), news columns,
and radio talk shows. Because there is no
"front entrance" to the sanctuaries, local
law enforcement officers distribute informa-
tion on the water, and brochures are made
available in dive shops, boat rental shops,
and other places where users can be
reached. In addition, the National Marine
Sanctuaries Program intends to train "reef
rangers" (initially volunteers) to conduct
interpretation sessions on the water.
The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctu-
ary has a volunteer coordinator (a position
jointly funded by NOAA and The Nature
Conservancy) who has generated a great
deal of volunteer support.
176
-------
South Florida
National Park Service. The National Park Service
conducts activities designed to teach the impor-
tance of maintaining healthy ecosystems and to
increase awareness of the impact that activities
around the Everglades National Park have on the
health and viability of the park itself. Activities at
Everglades National Park include guided hikes,
canoe rides, bike tours, campfire programs, teacher
workshops, day .visits, 3-day camping programs for
schoolchildren, and tours for college and university
groups.
Interviewees hypothesized that so much attention
has been focused on the ecological degradation of
the Everglades that many South Florida residents
may have concluded that not much of the ecosys-
tem remains left to see. This may help to explain
declining numbers of visitors to Everglades
National Park. If true, this could pose a serious
challenge to those seeking more public involve-
ment in ecosystem restoration efforts.
State level. Public education and public involve-
ment in decision making are given high priority by
the Florida Department of Environmental Protec-
tion. The Department's action plan for developing
an ecosystem approach implementation strategy
cites "an ethic within the citizenry of shared
responsibility and participation in protection of the
environment" as one of its three primary goals.
Objectives for achieving this include:
• Revitalizing and enhancing the Depart-
ment's environmental education program.
• Promoting the ecosystem approach through
environmental education.
• Increasing citizen participation in agency
decision making.
• Continuing and expanding use of citizen
volunteers to accomplish resource manage-
ment projects on public lands.
• Developing a new partnership with private
landowners in managing natural systems.
• Promoting increased voluntary pollution
prevention activities within the regulated
community.
f Encouraging development of grassroots,
citizen-based activities to implement the
ecosystem approach.
Twelve committees recently formed to carry out
the action plan all have responsibility for at least
one of these objectives. Florida's experience in
pursuing these objectives could provide useful
lessons for similar efforts in other ecosystems.
The Florida Advisory Council on Environmental
Education was created by the legislature in 1989
through an amendment to the Florida Environmen-
tal Education Act. Its mission is threefold: to fa-
cilitate comprehensive, coordinated environmental
education for all residents and visitors to the state;
to improve understanding of natural systems; and
to promote natural resources management and con-
servation actions. The Council accomplishes its
mission largely through contract agreements with
government agencies, private-sector organizations,
and universities. The agreements are funded
through the Save Our State Environmental Educa-
tion Trust Fund, which has offices in the Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection and is financed
through sales from manatee and panther license
plates. The Council works closely with the De-
partment of Environmental Protection in selecting
and managing the activities it funds. Traditionally,
it has focused its attention on the public schools,
but it will now orient its educational activities
more toward adults, because 75 percent of Florida
households have no children.
The South Florida Water Management District
(SFWMD) is engaged in numerous public educa-
tion and outreach activities named in its annual
report, including:
• Developing environmental education cur-
riculum materials oriented toward water
resource use for 180,000 students.
• Hosting teacher training workshops for about
500 teachers.
• Financing a Florida ecosystem exhibit.
• Supporting additional educational projects
through cost-share programs.
177
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
• Participating in a mass media water conser-
vation campaign that included setting up a
special hotline to take calls from the public.
• Supporting, with community involvement, a
broad new "Hispanic Awareness" campaign
to promote awareness of water resource
issues within the Hispanic community in
Dade County.
In addition to these activities (designed primarily
to inform the public), the SFWMD provides oppor-
tunities for public input through the following
forums:
• Monthly meetings of the Governing Board
(which are public, as required by the Florida
Sunshine Law).
• Public hearings on the development of
SFWMD rules and regulations.
• Public workshops to obtain input on
SFWMD construction plans or permits, or to
inform the public on SFWMD regulations
(such as uses of SFWMD-managed green-
ways and linear parks).
Such meetings are usually attended not by the
average citizen, but rather by interest groups,
citizens with considerable technical knowledge,
and/or land users most directly affected by a
proposed rule. Indirectly, the SFWMD interacts
with average citizens through the 134 local govern-
ing groups serviced by the water management dis-
trict. District staff are responsible for communicat-
ing directly with each major city and with the
farming community through farm districts, coopera-
tives, and an Agricultural Advisory Committee
formed by the Governing Board.
Local level. Interviewees mentioned various
public education efforts carried out at the local
level by local governments and nongovernmental
organizations. Dade County, for example, supports
environmental education efforts by local commu-
nity organizations and hosts an English/Spanish
hotline. The National Audubon Society has pro-
duced informational materials, such as "Water for
People and Wildlife: Principles for Restoring the
Endangered Everglades System." In cooperation
with Motorola Company, the National Audubon
Society also hosts educational activities in South
Florida's public schools. Clean Water Action
canvasses urban areas.
Opportunities and Constraints
The tremendous variety of public education
activities at the federal, state,, and local levels
provide opportunities for public involvement in
South Florida's ecosystem restoration. But when
asked about opportunities for public participation
and about constraints to public involvement that
might exist, most of those interviewed focused on
the following constraints: inadequate communica-
tion; urban disinterest; deficient public involve-
ment in rulemaking; lack of public access to
information; insufficient emphasis on adult educa-
tion; distrust of government; and language barriers.
Inadequate communication. According to
interviewees, public officials are not adequately
conveying the importance of environmental prob-
lems. While some interviewees suggested that this
may be due to official reluctance to convey nega-
tive messages to the public, others suggested that
public officials and decision makers may not be
well enough informed on the issues.
Lack of urban interest or awareness. Many
interviewees highlighted urban disinterest in South
Florida's environmental problems as a major bar-
rier to public involvement. Interest rises somewhat
during perceived crises, such as hurricanes or peri-
ods of water rationing, and it will most likely in-
crease in the future as greater demands are placed
on the resource and as water prices increase. At
present, however, the average east coast resident
in South Florida does not consider ecosystem
restoration particularly important or personally
relevant.
Little public involvement in rulemaking. The
average citizen does not attend public hearings or
meetings, the usual forums for providing input to
rulemaking. Even for large construction projects or
projects involving a change in land use, the public
generally withholds comment until permits are
issued or construction begins. At this point, it is
often too late to introduce substantive changes.
Lack of public access to information. Informa-
tion on the ecosystem approach and/or related fed-
eral government activities is not easily accessible
to the general public. There is no one point of
contact for information about federal activities.
178
-------
South Florida
Insufficient emphasis on adult education.
Although 75 percent of Florida's households do not
have children, most state and federal educational
efforts are targeted at schoolchildren.
Distrust of government. A number of inter-
viewees said that distrust of government on the
part of industry, landowners, and the urban public
is a substantial barrier to public participation in
ecosystem restoration, undermining government
efforts to educate and involve the public.
Language barriers. Most educational materials
are in English. Lack of translations prevents out-
reach to Hispanics and other nonnative-English-
speakers who reside in South Florida.
Suggestions for Future Involvement
When asked about public education and involve-
ment, most respondents called for much greater
public education efforts and better coordination at
state and federal levels. Interviewees offered a
variety of suggestions, including: identifying
needs and opportunities for federal support; circu-
lating information on federal activities; increasing
the availability of information to the general pub-
lic; getting the urban sector more involved; and
working closely with counties and municipalities.
Needs and opportunities for federal support.
The federal government should assess the present
level of public education activities and their
impact, identify priority needs, and determine the
needs it can best address.
Information on federal activities. The South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force should
keep 'the public and other agencies and organiza-
tions informed of its goals, objectives, and
(especially) progress. Interviewees offered several
suggestions for doing so, including:
• Adding a subcommittee on public participa-
tion to the Task Force.
• Informing nonfederal groups when decisions
will be made, who will make them, and how
they will be made.
• Hiring an aggressive public relations staff
that understands the federal position and can
convey it to the media.
Availability of public information. Interviewees
made several suggestions for improving the avail-
ability and accessibility of information for the
general public, including:
• Producing and distributing public education
materials on the South Florida ecosystem,
including educational materials on each of
its components (such as the Kissimmee
River, Lake Okeechobee, and the Biscayne
aquifer) and a comprehensive layperson's
book on the Everglades.
• Designating a single point of contact able to
provide the general public with comprehen-
sive information on efforts to implement the
ecosystem approach.
• Organizing regular public forums where
people can learn about the activities of the
Task Force.
Urban sector involvement. Suggestions for get-
ting the urban sector more involved in ecosystem
restoration efforts included:
• Producing educational materials in Spanish
and Creole, in addition to English.
• Focusing efforts on community leaders.
They have more time and resources than the
average citizen, and often command the
respect and attention of others.
• Working through focus groups.
• Organizing classes to educate the public by
providing a balanced view of the issues
(perhaps through panels representing differ-
ent views).
• Having more public forums at hours and
locations that are convenient to urban
communities.
Coordination with counties and municipalities.
There are large gaps between federal and state
regulations and planning processes used by coun-
ties and municipalities. According to some inter-
viewees, federal agencies (and perhaps the federal
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force)
need to work more closely with local government
to ensure greater coordination.
179
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
SCIENCE AND INFORMATION
Interviewees raised a number of issues related to
science and information. Until recently, litigation
underway impeded the sharing of information
among scientists in South Florida. Although litiga-
tion has ended, a variety of information needs
remain to be addressed if ecosystem restoration ef-
forts are to succeed. But cooperation and commu-
nication among scientists—vital to successful
adaptive management—are improving.
Information Sharing
Scientists, planners, and managers agreed that
data exchange and information sharing are crucial
to successful discussions within the scientific
community. Inadequate exchange fosters distrust
and inhibits effective, creative evaluation of prob-
lems, information needs, and possible solutions.
Problems result if research is conducted in isola-
tion and used to support differing viewpoints:
arguments begin to focus on data validity instead
of the issues. More collaborative research might
address this problem.
Cooperation and Communication
In South Florida, the past few years have been
dominated by litigation surrounding efforts to pro-
tect and restore the ecosystem. Litigation issues
have provided science with both opportunities and
impediments. Because litigation focused on water
quality and phosphorus pollution, more work was
done on those issues than would otherwise have
been the case. Moreover, as key witnesses in
litigation, scientists played a central role in policy
development. However, litigation objectives often
focused research disproportionately on certain
aspects of problems in the ecosystem, and re-
searchers were often preoccupied with trying to
prove partisan points. Litigation also constrained
data sharing and information flow. The develop-
ment of the Mediated Technical Plan designed to
resolve the legal impasse was viewed as success-
ful because it used scientific collaboration in a
focused way to help educate both lawyers and pol-
icymakers. Indeed, agreement by most scientists
on a Mediated Technical Plan was key to
resolving the controversy through state legislation.
Interviewees praised the science subgroup of the
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force
for including midlevel science experts with open
minds from all interested parties (including agri-
culture). Broad membership was key to the
group's success in collecting information, evaluat-
ing problems, and developing consensus solutions.
Face-to-face meetings within the scientific com-
munity are important in developing the relation-
ships and discussion necessary for problem solving.
The group has been successful in "leaving agency
hats at the door" and focusing on solving the
problems at hand. Interviewees urged agencies to
institutionalize cooperation with staff from other
agencies and organizations, and to require that
staff display a nonterritorial attitude.
Some interviewees considered the science sub-
group inadequate because it did not involve the
majority of scientists working on ecosystem issues
in South Florida, and because those included in
the group were not necessarily the ones who had
been working on these issues for the 6 years since
the federal lawsuit began. Scientists and managers
agreed that more ecologists should be involved in
management efforts if the ecosystem approach is
to succeed.
Some cited disagreement between managers and
scientists on the kind of information required for
ecosystem restoration. Managers were blamed for
misusing science to justify their actions, and scien-
tists were criticized for their frequent inability to
give definite answers, resulting in an overly cau-
tious management that accomplished too little too
late. Trust was considered the key to improving
the relationship between scientists and managers.
Some scientists interviewed held that one cannot
make a nonscientist into a scientist; and many
interviewees agreed that as the debate over the
future of an ecosystem heats up, science becomes
a minor issue and a political tool.
Because of their important role in ecosystem anal-
ysis, scientists are sometimes accused of usurping
policymaking authority. The line between science
and policy is not always clear, particularly when
scientists are asked to develop solutions to prob-
lems. However, if a scientific analysis is to be
respected, policymakers must clearly define what
scientists are asked to do, and assumptions must
be clearly labeled as such.
Interviewees emphasized that the work of
scientists should be more integrated into the work
of engineers. Although ecologists often think that
180
-------
South Florida
engineers do not understand ecosystems, this is
starting to change.
Planners and managers offered several other
suggestions:
• Federal land managers should allow more
research by outside scientists.
• Scientists from the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, South Florida
Water Management District, and federal
agencies should work together at the
technical level to expedite the process.
• Nonfederal scientists should be provided
with easier access to federal lands. Accord-
ing to one state official, it is currently diffi-
cult for nonfederal scientists to obtain per-
mission to conduct research on federal lands.
Finally, two forums for interaction among scien-
tists should be acknowledged. EPA and the state,
in consultation with the NOAA's National Marine
Sanctuaries Program, are developing a Water
Quality Protection Program for the Florida Keys.
This program has a 28-member technical advisory
committee of federal and private scientists to help
integrate the work, affording university scientists
an opportunity to use the sanctuaries as leverage to
secure research funding. In addition, last year the
federal Florida Bay Scientific Review Panel con-
vened under sponsorship of the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation and National Park Service to
• begin assessing research needs of the ecosystem.
This forum provided federal scientists with an
opportunity to discuss their work.
Information Needs
A surging population in South Florida has raised
deep concern regarding water availability. During
interviews, the following questions surfaced re-
peatedly:
• How much water will the South Florida
Water Management District make available
to urban communities and others in the
future?
• What are the possibilities for reuse?
• What is the carrying capacity of the ecosys-
tem? How much pollution, water diversion,
and other forms of degradation can it toler-
ate before collapsing?
• What is the range of possible water sources?
• When might South Florida reach the point
where the South Florida Water Management
District cannot meet water needs?
• What are the alternatives if this point is ever
reached?
• How should water charges be adjusted
among user groups in order to facilitate
sustainable development?
• What alternatives are available to reduce
the increasing discharge of freshwater
eastward into tidewater?
• What alternatives are available for
increasing water storage capacity and
delivery to the Everglades system to reduce
the need for freshwater discharge into
tidewater?
Members of the scientific community expressed a
strong need for greater understanding of how the
ecosystem functions, and for long-term trend
analyses and ecosystem modeling. Research is
needed in both basic and applied science, and
more funding is needed for both. Much research
initiated during litigation has since ground to a
halt; the need was cited for an inventory of avail-
able inventories. Scientists suggested asking the
agricultural industry for permission to use its unfin-
ished research.
Scientists noted that politicians and others fre-
quently ask the unanswerable question, "Do we
have enough of the ecosystem left?" This ques-
tion, they said, was wrong: one cannot know the
minimum requirements of an ecosystem until it has
collapsed, and we should not be asking at this
stage in South Florida how much more we can
sacrifice.
In September 1994, the science subgroup of the
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force
released its draft report on the ecosystem's scien-
tific information needs. According to the report,
scientific studies are currently underway to:
(1) characterize the original (predrainage) eco-
system and compare it to the present system,
181
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
particularly hydrologically; (2) determine key
characteristics of the original hydrologic system;
(3) design structural and operational modifications
of the Central and Southern Florida Project in
order to recreate characteristics of the original
hydrologic system; (4) assess the hydrologic and
ecological results of these modifications through
pre- and postmodification monitoring; and
(5) modify the design to make improvements.
The science subgroup report named the following
science and information problems and deficiencies
in South Florida:
• Existing or planned monitoring activities are
not completely coordinated and integrated
into the South Florida ecosystem restoration
effort. Gaps in coverage exist.
• Models currently existing or under devel-
opment are not broad enough in geographic
scope to meet regionwide needs under the
ecosystem approach. This is true of the wa-
ter management model, the natural systems
model, the landscape model, and the wading
bird models. These models should be ex-
panded to provide a regionwide perspective.
• Restoration using the adaptive management
approach will heavily depend on simulations
from models, particularly hydrologic models.
But nobody experienced with the most suit-
able current hydrologic models has been
assigned to make simulations specifically
for the interagency restoration effort.
• Systems of nested models are needed, in
which finer resolution can be provided to
address some questions and coarser resolu-
tion to address others.
• Modeling and special studies are most
effective when used complementarity, but
modeling is not well integrated with present
research, and funds for modeling do not
usually include sufficient funds for special
supporting studies, including verifications.
• Use of models as technical tools in the
restoration effort requires buy-in by all
parties. An objective process is needed for
evaluating existing models and ensuring that
necessary improvements are made, and for
protecting useful models against partisan
attacks on their credibility. The availability
of useful, credible models should not
preclude the development of new models for
addressing problems of resolution, scope,
and flexibility.
• Certain key species or communities that
might be suitable ecological indicators
because of their important roles in the
ecosystem or their sensitivity to anthropo-
genic changes are so poorly studied that
they cannot now be used. Lack of knowl-
edge about the response of these species or
communities to hydrologic variables may
seriously handicap the restoration effort.
• Flexible and sustained resources are
essential to an effective, comprehensive
restoration effort, but there is no single
funding source for South Florida ecosystem
restoration. Instead, the various agencies
involved have unique and complex funding
strategies, and critical activities needed at
early stages in the restoration process are
being neglected or lack of directed
resources.
• Critical linkages between subregions are not
being adequately addressed within agencies.
For instance, Florida Bay is perceived to be
in crisis, demanding immediate attention; its
decline is largely attributed to changes in its
freshwater intake. Yet the models, mea-
surements, and studies needed to estimate
freshwater flow into Florida Bay are not
being given high priority.
Adaptive Management
It is easy to get caught in a loop of indecision,
postponing action indefinitely while awaiting more
complete information. According to both scientists
and managers, agencies must make the best deci-
sions possible based on available information.
Progress can then be evaluated, and activities
modified if necessary based on new information
that emerges as the consequences of current
activity become clear. This process of "adaptive
management" underscores the importance of mak-
ing data and science information applicable to
problems at hand and in a form useful to managers
and decision makers at multiple levels.
182
-------
South Florida
Two of the most important tools for adaptive man-
agement, as described in the September 1994
report of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
Task Force science subgroup, are modeling and
monitoring. These are critical means of using
ecological and other indicators measured against
baseline conditions to continuously update
information, evaluate change, and translate new
data into management" strategies.
Agricultural industry representatives noted that the
Mediated Technical Plan and the Everglades
Forever Act may not provide enough flexibility for
successful adaptive management. They pointed
out that the agricultural industry is always manag-
ing in an adaptive fashion and is conducting many
onfarm experiments.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Flexibility, communication, cooperation, leader-
ship: these are the four main themes to emerge
from this case study. Whether the subject was
budgets, institutions, laws, public outreach, or sci-
ence, the survey team found a consensus among
interviewees that the ecosystem approach gener-
ally—and specifically in South Florida—requires
leadership. Only good leadership can foster coop-
eration, enhance communication, and encourage
the flexibility needed for a successful ecosystem
approach.
This section goes beyond situational specifics to
discuss the issues with the greatest potential im-
pact on the process of implementing the ecosystem
approach, and with the broadest potential applica-
bility to ecosystems in other parts of the country..
The survey team's conclusions and recommenda-
tions are as follows:
1. The Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA) imposes restrictive and time-con-
suming requirements, constraining efforts to
coordinate federal activities with state pro-
grams in South Florida. Time and again,
communication, inclusiveness, cooperation,
and consensus were cited as vital to the
success of restoration efforts in the Ever-
glades, and FACA constraints in this regard
were universally acknowledged. The
survey team therefore recommends that
FACA be amended to exclude state and
other nonfederal governmental entities from
the scope of its advisory committee
requirements.
Such an amendment would, among other
things, allow the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection and the South
Florida Water Management District to sit
on the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
Task Force and to work more closely with
federal agencies involved in restoring the
Everglades. The lack of routine, formal
communication between federal and non-.
federal agencies was regarded by most
interviewees as one of the biggest barriers
to efficient restoration and management of
the South Florida ecosystem. Amending
FACA would remove this barrier.
A South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
Task Force that includes state and local
governments would be able to provide
greater leadership, both in terms of actual
restoration work and in terms of outreach to
a public that some interviewees believed to
be confused by the seeming profusion of
parties working at cross purposes (see rec-
ommendation below on involving the pub-
lic). The Task Force would also provide an
excellent forum for building long-term trust,
partnerships, and communication links
among all the agencies involved.
Perhaps most importantly, however, unless
the Task Force can expand to include state
and local governments, it will have no di-
rect authority to address a host of overriding
issues. For example, the population of
South Florida is expected to increase sev-
eralfold in future decades, especially (if
present trends continue) along the lower
east and southwest coasts. Within 20 to
30 years, an additional 1 million people are
expected to live in what is now agricultural
land immediately east of Everglades Na-
tional Park. Accompanying this incremen-
tal development will be an increased need
for flood control from the Central and
Southern Florida Project, further lowering
of the water table, less ground water
recharge, increased urban water demand,
more freshwater discharge into tidewater,
and more pulling of ground water from the
Everglades to urban wellfields. Because
water supply consumptive use permitting
183
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
has been delegated to the South Florida
Water Management District, water issues
cannot be directly addressed unless the
District is part of the Task Force. Without
appropriate planning involving state and
local authorities, these events may under-
mine the success of such restoration efforts
as increasing water supply to the Ever-
glades, Shark Slough, Taylor Slough, and
Florida Bay.
2. The Corps' Civil Works Program was the
focus of much discussion during the survey
team's interviews. The laws and regula-
tions that govern the Corps' initiation and
completion of a water resources develop-
ment project, such as the Central and
Southern Florida Comprehensive Review
Study, result in a lengthy, rigid, and com-
plicated process that often makes the proj-
ect susceptible to derailment, delays it
until it is no longer feasible, or makes it
extremely difficult to modify after comple-
tion. Legislative or regulatory changes to
this process are needed to make it more
efficient and streamlined. The Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works has
begun a restructuring initiative for the
Corps that is intended to streamline this
process.
In addition, the Water Resources Council
Principles and Guidelines make environ-
mental projects difficult to advance. Rules
requiring selection of the alternative that
provides the greatest economic develop-
ment benefit make it difficult to address
environmental values. The Principles and
Guidelines should be modified to place
adequate value on noncommercial project
purposes. The Office of Management and
Budget is in the process of reviewing the
Principles and Guidelines.
3. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is one of
an array of laws, including the National
Environmental Policy Act and Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, that together
provide a legal authority for the ecosystem
approach. The purposes of the ESA "are to
provide a means whereby the ecosystems
upon which endangered species and threat-
ened species depend may be conserved"
and "to provide a program for the
conservation of such endangered species
and threatened species." Thus, with the
ESA comes a question of focus, because
the statute emphasizes both the protection
of ecosystems and of individual species,
although the administration of the ESA has
been focused heavily on individual species.
This has led to an occasion in South
Florida where the protection of a single
species, the snail kite, which has moved
into an artificially maintained habitat, has
impeded attempts to take a broader
approach to protect the entire ecosystem.
This amounts to a question of whether, in
the rare instances where this pertains, it is
worth risking the loss of an individual
species in an effort to save the larger
ecosystem on which it depends.
The current emphasis on the ecosystem
approach and on multispecies recovery
plans as the most effective venues for the
implementation of the ESA will have to be
reconciled with cases like that of the snail
kite in South Florida, where the concurrent
legal impetus to protect individual species
also obtains.
4. A State Programmatic General Permit has
been conveyed to the state of Florida by
the Corps under section 404 of the Clean
. Water Act for permitting certain activities
on wetlands in four counties in northeastern
Florida. There is a question as to whether
states can further delegate this authority to
agencies such as the South Florida Water
Management District.
There seems to be no final and consistent
answer to the question of whether state or
local government entities have more strin-
gent environmental standards. Delegation
of authority may streamline the regulatory
process by reducing permitting layers.
However, the more regulatory authority is
delegated, the more perspective is lost on
the cumulative impact of activities across
ecosystems. This loss of perspective seems
inimical to the ecosystem approach.
5. Federal agricultural support and flood
insurance programs were cited as major
contributors to the ecological problems
faced in South Florida. Agricultural support
184
-------
South Florida
programs, such as low-interest loans, price
supports, crop insurance, and import quotas^
encourage agricultural expansion where it
otherwise would not be profitable and
where it results in significant negative im-
pacts on the integrity of the Everglades
ecosystem. Flood insurance provided by
the National Flood Insurance Act has
proved an incentive to development in
flood-prone areas such as South Florida,
where urbanization continues to advance on
the borders of what remains of the Ever-
glades. These programs and the statutes
that authorize them should be reviewed
with consideration for their environmental
impacts and for long-term ecological sus-
tainability, because they are among the
driving forces behind the problems currently
besetting the ecosystem of South Florida.
6. Integrated budget planning on the part of
federal agencies and state and local gov-
ernments is fundamental to any meaningful
degree of cooperation in the ecosystem
approach.. The level of communication,
joint planning, and prioritization required
must go far beyond the current practice of
packaging independently planned agency
budgets (which amounts to little more than
an accounting exercise). Integrated budget-
ing will minimize duplicative activities and
maximize the funds being directed toward
projects in a given ecosystem.
The ecosystem approach calls not only for
a new way of preparing budgets, but also
for strong leadership in bringing agencies
together and securing funding commit-
ments. In South Florida, leadership is pro-
vided by the South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration Task Force created by the
Secretary of the Interior. The President's
budget emphasizes ecosystem restoration in
South Florida—an Administration priority,
not the initiative of a single agency. The
Task Force is attempting to address the
need for a shared vision of the Everglades'
future, and it is imperative that this vision
be translated into a truly integrated budget
that spans levels of government (see rec-
ommendation above on amending FACA).
Moreover, the need for communication and
cooperation in budget planning applies
equally to the various congressional
committees with jurisdiction over the
federal agencies involved. Agency
collaboration cannot succeed without the
involvement of the congressional
authorizations and appropriations
committees.
7. Adaptive management is a planning ap-
proach that is key to ensuring that progress
can be made despite (for example) a lack
of complete scientific information that
otherwise might hinder action indefinitely.
Adaptive management ensures flexibility in
the face of changing circumstances by
requiring incremental planning and making
progress despite the fact of some degree of
scientific uncertainty. It provides the po-
tential for changing course should better or
more appropriate policies or practices be
needed, but it also takes a broader and
longer term perspective on the organization
and functioning of an agency as it relates to
its capacity to accommodate such change.
Agencies should explore the applications of
the adaptive management concept in their
organizations and programs (see recom-
mendation above on the Corps' Civil Works
Program). Many elements of adaptive
management are addressed in the Report of
the National Performance Review.
8. Science and research clearly play a central
role in the ecosystem approach. Still, they
have the self-nullifying potential of becom-
ing all things to all people when different
research is used by opposing sides to pro-
mote their respective agendas. The best
science available must be the shared point
of departure for any endeavor under the
ecosystem approach, recognizing that
science often cannot provide the certainty
that managers and others would like (see
recommendation above on implementing
adaptive management). Information ex-
change and joint research between parties
involved in the ecosystem approach—in-
cluding federal, state, and local agencies,
as well as industry and other private par-
ties—are necessary in order to avoid mak-
ing science itself the focus and substance
of debate. Amending FACA (see recom-
mendation above) would enable more
cooperative research and exchange of
185
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
information by permitting federal and state
agencies to collaborate.
9. Public participation and outreach can be
pivotal in achieving success and ensuring
that public concerns are appropriately
addressed, no matter what the scale of an
initiative to implement the ecosystem
approach. One of the greatest dangers in
South Florida, according to many of those
interviewed, is the potential for not suffi-
ciently involving the area's growing popula-
tion in Everglades restoration, and for not
adequately educating people about the
needs of the ecosystem and what effect the
restoration will have on them—for
example, in terms of the availability of
water at current rates. All parties involved
in the restoration need to work early on to
ensure that the public does not tune out in
the face of the complicated scientific,
legal, political, and economic issues being
addressed in South Florida. Noting the
decreased visitation to Everglades National
Park by residents of South Florida, some of
those interviewed suggested that many
residents, having been besieged with
negative stories about the health of the
ecosystem, may have given up on the
Everglades. The South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration Task Force should integrate
public outreach and participation into its
efforts.
186
-------
Chapter 8: SOUTHERN APPALACHIANS
The Southern Appalachians, particularly that area
of the southern Appalachian Mountains that forms
part of the Southern Appalachian Man and the
Biosphere (SAMAB) Reserve zone of cooperation,
are one of seven ecosystems selected for further
study by the Interagency Ecosystem Management
Task Force. In July 1994, a case study team trav-
eled to the area to interview federal and nonfederal
parties involved in the SAMAB effort or operating
in the SAMAB area.
Team members included Ted Boling from the
Department of Justice, Ray Clark from the Council
on Environmental Quality, John Dennis from the
National Park Service, and Susan Huke, Bill
Sexton, and Terry West from the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. Diane
Gelburd from the USDA Natural Resources Con-
servation Service (formerly Soil Conservation Ser-
vice), who is Co-chair of the Interagency Ecosys-
tem Management Working Group, attended the
first day.
From July 11—15, the team met with representa-
tives from federal and state agencies, including the
Economic Development Administration, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Extension Service, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, U.S.
Geological Survey, National Biological Service,
National Park Service, Natural Resources Con-
servation Service, USDA Office of General Coun-
sel, U.S. Department of the Interior Solicitor,
Georgia Environmental Protection Division, Geor-
gia Forestry Division, and Georgia Pollution
Prevention Assistance Program, Georgia Wildlife
Resources Division, and North Carolina Depart-
ment of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources.
The team also met with numerous other interested
parties, including representatives from the Chat-
tooga River Ecosystem Demonstration Project,
Chattooga River Watershed Coalition, Chevron
Corporation, Clemson University, Clemson Univer-
sity Extension Service, Coalition for Clean Air in
the Southeast, Cradle of Forestry, Duke Power,
Duke University, Georgia Conservancy, Georgia
Power, Georgia Wildlife Federation, Land-of-Sky
Regional Council, Little Tennessee River Water-
shed Group, National Parks and Conservation
Association, The Nature Conservancy, North Car-
olina Arboretum, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
Sierra Club, Southern Appalachian Lumber Manu-
facturers Association, Tennessee Valley Authority,
University of Georgia, University of North Carolina
at Asheville, Western North Carolina Development
Association, and The Wilderness Society.
Meetings were held in several cities and at other
sites, including: Atlanta, Georgia; Asheville and
Franklin, North Carolina; the Coweeta Watershed
Hydrologic Laboratory, Otto, North Carolina;
Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina; and
Knoxville, Tennessee. In order to meet the largest
numbers of parties, the survey team frequently split
into two groups of three people each to conduct
interviews.
BACKGROUND
The Southern Appalachian region, located in the
Southeastern United States, extends from northern
Alabama into Virginia, enveloping parts of Geor-
gia, North Carolina, Kentucky, South Carolina,
West Virginia, and Tennessee. A dominant feature
of the region is the southern Appalachian Moun-
tains, one of the oldest mountain ranges in the
United States, which have supported some species
continually for the past 50 million years. For this
reason, the Southern Appalachians are widely rec-
ognized as one of the most important biologically
diverse regions in the United States. They provide
habitats ranging from high-elevation treeless
"balds" to spruce-fir forests to forest wetlands and
extraordinarily rich oak forests. Arctic lichens can
be found on summits more than 6,500 feet high,
and tropical ferns grow in the warm, moist coves at
lower elevations. The mountains and surrounding
areas are home to 2,245 known plant species,
including 159 trees and 1,200 flowering plants—
more than half the botanical species on the North
American continent. In addition, 690 vertebrate
species are known to inhabit the region, including
200 resident and migratory species of birds.
This area, a recognizable "bioregion," is also a
distinct ecological, social, and economic unit of
the United States. It is extremely popular with
recreational users: hiking, white-water rafting,
horseback riding, summer vacationing, scenic
187
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
driving, and golf are a few of the many activities
available within a day's drive of more than half of
the nation's population. Resorts abound in the
region, as do recreational cabins and second
homes or retirement homes. Visitors and area
residents alike value the quality and variety of the
natural surroundings and associated activities.
Historical Patterns
The general area retained a sparsely populated,
nonindustrial, rural character throughout the 1800s
and most of the 1900s. General settlement and
subsequent development were limited during most
of that time. After the mid-18th century, westward-
moving European settlers established widely scat-
tered clusters of small farmsteads, first along the
wider river bottoms, then later in coves and up the
ridges. The few towns were small and scattered,
frequently connected only by narrow, rutted roads
or trails. Of necessity, most settlers were self-suf-
ficient; the region's many parallel ridge systems
isolated them from each other and the outside
world.
Prior to the 1880s, resources were used mostly to
meet local needs such as farming, grazing, timber
harvesting, and mining. Large industry, educa-
tional institutions, and large urban centers were not
prominent in the region. Following the spread of
the railroad into many mountain areas during the
1880s, the extensive commercial development of
coalfields, hardwood forests, and other resources
dramatically altered the region's environment and
population makeup. By 1900, many "outsiders"
had discovered and publicized the region, drawing
developers, businesses, scientists, journalists,
tourists, investors, and industrialists. Landowner-
ship began to reflect these new interests, bringing
a major shift in regional lifestyles. Many rural
residents were forced to resettle in small towns
within and adjacent to the large tracts now con-
trolled by absentee landowners and large business
interests.
By the early 1900s, new roads and a growing popu-
lation had significantly altered the largely rural,
forested landscape, all of which was privately
owned. In March 1911, Congress passed the
Weeks Act authorizing federal purchase of
forested, cutover, or denuded lands. In 1924, the
Clarke-MacNary Act gave the federal government
additional flexibility in purchasing forest lands.
The federal government has since added more than
5 million acres in the Southern Appalachians to
the public domain.
During the Great Depression of the 1930s, the fed-
eral government enlarged its holdings by acquiring
hundreds of small tracts from impoverished fanners
for as little as $3 per acre. The Great Smoky
Mountain National Park and the Blue Ridge Park-
way were established during this period through
land purchases and condemnation.
Forests in the South total nearly 200 million acres,
about 55 percent of the total land area. About
90 percent of the area's timberlands are in private
hands. Significant amounts of forest land in the
area were converted to agricultural and urban use
from the late 1880s through the 1920s. Since then,
many marginal farmlands have been reconverted to
forests, increasing the total forest acreage. In
recent decades, increasing interest in the Southern
Appalachians for recreation, retirement, summer
homes, and escape from deteriorating urban envi-
ronments has led to the construction of extensive
road systems and housing developments across this
forested landscape. Improved transportation and
communication have made the area considerably
more available and attractive to middle classes
from adjacent urban areas.
Beginning in the 1960s, a variety of legislative
measures and related programs focused on devel-
oping the Southern Appalachians. Improved trans-
portation, recreation, and infrastructure fostered
greater opportunities in the area, resulting in more
immigration and rising land values.
During the last 5 to 10 years, the harvest of forest
products in the United States has shifted. Harvests
in the western United States have declined by
about 10 percent, but have increased by about the
same amount in the South. In 1991, for the first
time since the early 1950s, the removal of soft-
woods from the area exceeded their growth: as
late as 1976, softwood growth had exceeded
removal of forest products by 42 percent. The
increasing value of forest products has renewed
interest in forestry throughout the southeastern
United States, especially in Southern Appalachia.
Historically rural in nature, the environment, cul-
tures, and economies of the region have changed
with the gradual influx of people and related
development. Although most towns in the
Southern Appalachians remain small (only
188
-------
Southern Appalachians
Asheville, North Carolina, and Roanoke, Virginia,
have populations exceeding 50,000), the histori-
cally sparse population has increased dramatically
during recent decades. Urban refugees, seasonal
visitors and residents, and those seeking a different
lifestyle for retirement have left their mark on the
landscape. A widening range of social, cultural,
and economic interests are apparent throughout the
region, including several established, well-respec-
ted colleges and universities, and a variety of
major industries drawing on the local workforce.
Population growth has given rise to new road
systems, new homes in previously forested areas,
new resort complexes, rapidly expanding rural
communities, and accompanying infrastructure,
including water and sewage treatment facilities.
Tourism, service industry, and recreation have
replaced agriculture and forestry as mainstays of
the area's economy.
Issues Raised by Regional Change
Growing population, extensive development, and
other changes in the Southern Appalachians have
created a series of environmental problems in the
region. Many ownerships, economic sectors, so-
cial classes, institutions, governmental jurisdic-
tions, and interest groups either caused these prob-
lems or arose in response to them, according to
those interviewed. Although many of the major
problems affected the entire Southern Appalachian
region, the authority or ability to deal with them is
often widely dispersed among governments and
institutions. Problems include:
• Extensive water pollution. Extensive
erosion from road construction and lot
clearing, widespread use of septic tanks, and
increased use of pesticides, herbicides,
fertilizers, and other chemicals throughout
the area are causing problems with water
quality. Declining water quantity and
quality are degrading aquatic habitats.
• Regional degradation of air quality. Acid
deposition caused by automobile, industrial,
municipal, and residential pollution is dam-
aging plants, soil, and related ecological
processes. Particulates have damaged visi-
bility, and rising ozone levels have
adversely affected several species and
habitats.
Introduction of exotic species. Introduced
species, including plants, animals, insects,
and diseases, are changing the landscapes of
native communities. In some cases, exotic
species limit the ranges of native species or
cause their extirpation, triggering implemen-
tation of measures under the Endangered
Species Act. Native biological diversity is
lost, and species become established that
did not evolve with the region's original
ecosystems.
Extensive forest fragmentation. Commu-
nity and infrastructure expansion, resort and
service facility development,, and extensive
road and housing construction in forest envi-
ronments have caused widespread forest
fragmentation. These changes have de-
graded terrestrial and wetland habitats, en-
dangering or threatening species.
Degradation and loss of archeological sites.
Archeologically significant structures, sites,
and areas are being lost or damaged by
expanding development.
Poor planning, zoning, and regulation.
Planning, zoning, and regulatory oversight
for developments have been inconsistent and
uncomprehensive. Laws and regulations
governing-development vary among jurisdic-
tions and across different levels of govern-
ment. Diverse capabilities to enforce rele-
vant legislation, coupled with inconsistent
approaches and oversight, make regional
efforts to control development very difficult.
Poor coordination and conflicting efforts.
Existing government programs and activities
are not well coordinated among levels and
agencies, often resulting in ill-conceived
and conflicting actions. For example: fund-
ing and support is provided for highway ac-
cess to areas already plagued with extensive
development and with air and water quality
problems; tax and financial incentives are
offered for development in areas without
adequate controls on erosion or widespread
use of septic tanks; and existing statutes and
controls have different levels of enforce-
ment. Agency programs, activities, and
types of support often work at cross purposes
with the many federal, state, county, and
189
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
local efforts designed to address key envi-
ronmental issues, thereby complicating the
problem.
• Loss of traditional rural lifestyles and cul-
tures. As the region's economy and inhabi-
tants are reoriented towards recreation, tour-
ism, and service industries, historic patterns
of living and human landscapes are signifi-
cantly altered. The centuries-old culture of
subsistence and related skills engendered on
small family farms is rapidly disappearing in
the face of modernization and commerciali-
zation. Accompanying increases in land
values and tax rates create an economic
incentive for small fanners and woodlot
owners to sell properties for development.
• Loss of agricultural and forested lands to
development. Bottomlands that typically
have been the area's most agriculturally
productive sites have become victims of
overdevelopment, and water quality has suf-
fered due to use of drainage ways. Access
roads and dwellings are being built in
forested areas, fragmenting landscapes and
altering forest systems. This effectively re-
moves areas from many forest management
activities, including prescribed burning for
wildlife, reestablishment of natural fire
cycles, forest insect and disease control, and
species and stocking manipulation.
• Decline in general forest health. Lack of
historic fire regimes and related landscape
patterns have altered historic forest pro-
cesses. Established patterns of fire and land
use have greatly modified the region for
more than 200 years. The effects of long-
term changes in burning cycles and patterns,
farming and grazing activities, and wood
product harvesting have created a forest
ecosystem under considerable human-
induced stress.
Interviewees addressed these issues in a variety of
ways. Regional issues were well documented in
publications, issues papers, and problem statement
documents available to the survey team before its
arrival in the region. Interviewees' comments were
used to further define and describe individual
perceptions of these issues, and to expand on the
general information available in written materials.
Most important issues in the SAMAB area have
environmental, cultural, social and economic
aspects. Most affect large geographic areas with
many ownerships and jurisdictions. Because
possible solutions to environmental problems affect
and involve various levels of government, issues
become even more complex. Many natural
resource features are also affected.
Man and the Biosphere Program
In 1971, the United Nations created the Man and
the Biosphere program. The program emerged
from the concept of a coordinated worldwide
network of parks, biological reserves, and other
protected areas serving conservation, research, and
education needs. It brought together various
agencies and organizations with ties to or respon-
sibilities for natural resource management and
economic development. It was believed that this
closer cooperation between institutions would
improve handling of common large-scale problems,
such as air and water pollution, resource conserva-
tion, biological diversity, and sustainable eco-
nomic growth.
This global concept was applied in local communi-
ties and areas by establishing national Man and
the Biosphere organizations internationally.
National organizations chartered regional organiza-
tions to work directly with area institutions and
communities to complete the global network. At
the heart of each regional Man and the Biosphere
program are one or more biosphere reserve units
designated by the United Nations Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
Each reserve represents a unique resource that is
largely shielded from the detrimental effects of sur-
rounding development, and that provides a proving
ground for ecological research and monitoring.
Lessons learned from reserves are extended out-
ward to a surrounding zone of cooperation. This is
accomplished through voluntary, cooperative
community and area projects.
Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere
Cooperative. The SAMAB area was established
in August 1988 with the formation of the SAMAB
Cooperative. Members include: the Economic
Development Administration, Atlanta Office;
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4;
USDA Forest Service, Southern Region and
Southeast Forest Experiment Station; U.S.
190
-------
Southern Appalachians
Geological Survey, Water Resources Division,
Southeast Region; National Park Service, South-
east Region; U.S. Department of Energy, Environ-
mental Services Division, Oak Ridge National
Laboratories; Tennessee Valley Authority, Re-
sources Group; state of Georgia, Department of
Natural Resources; state of North Carolina, Depart-
ment of Environment, Health, and Natural Resour-
ces; and National Biological Service (joined
April 1994). .
The zone of cooperation (figure 1) encompasses
five biosphere reserve units: the Great Smoky
Mountains National Park; the Oak Ridge National
Environmental Research Park; the Forest Service
Coweeta Watershed Hydrologic Laboratory; Mount
Mitchell State Park; and Grandfather Mountain, a
privately operated environmental park in North
Carolina.
SAMAB Foundation. The private-sector link was
created by establishing the nonprofit SAMAB
Foundation, a means for many nonfederal organi-
zations to share funds, projects, and information
with other SAMAB partners. Members include
private corporations, universities, interest groups,
and community organizations. There are also local
chapters.
The Cooperative and Foundation together define
the SAMAB organization, a network of groups,
businesses, and institutions across the zone of
cooperation. It forms a basis for developing part-
nerships, sharing information, supporting cooper-
ative planning and study efforts, and defining
issues and potential strategies.
Role of SAMAB
SAMAB provides a forum for cooperation between
groups, organizations, and institutions with re-
source management and economic development
concerns for an area of the Southern Appalachians
that covers more than 50,000 square miles in seven
states. The organization operates in various situa-
tions and capacities. Cooperators have organized
joint efforts in environmental monitoring and
assessment, community planning for sustainable
development, evaluating and protecting biological
diversity, implementing ecosystem approach
activities, conducting environmental education and
training, protecting and enhancing endangered
species, holding conferences and workshops,
raising awareness about protecting cultural
resources, and focusing efforts on air and water
quality problems.
SAMAB continues to adjust to changing circum-
stances and interests. It is and always has been a
purely voluntary effort. Cooperating agencies
provide funds for basic operations, redirecting them
from other activities as they become available, but
no "new" funds have been directed to SAMAB.
Agencies and groups continue to pool funds for
joint projects and to support SAMAB efforts with
in-kind services.
In June 1992, SAMAB was the vehicle used to
create the Southern Appalachian Mountains Initia-
tive, a separate initiative established to bring
together business, industry, environmental groups,
government agencies, policymakers, and the
public to address a single issue: air quality in the
Southern Appalachians. Regional participation
expanded to include West Virginia, Kentucky, and
parties interested in the air quality issue. SAMAB
partners focus on other regional issues, leaving the
problem of air quality up to the Southern Ap-
palachian Mountains Initiative.
BUDGET ISSUES
In its interviews, the survey team focused on in-
creasing its understanding of the following budget-
related issues: current interagency coordination of
budget planning and execution, and the extent to
which agency, budget structures and procedures
promote the ecosystem approach; budget-related
constraints to—and opportunities for-—interagency
coordination and support for the ecosystem ap-
proach; and ways of strengthening budget pro-
cesses to better support the ecosystem approach.
Federal Agency Coordination and
Support
Numerous projects in the SAMAB area have
received financial support from two or more federal
agencies. Some have been facilitated by the
SAMAB Cooperative and Foundation, and others
have been supported independently of SAMAB.
Cooperation through SAMAB. Since the
SAMAB Cooperative's inception in 1988, federal
support for its activities has increased substan-
tially. In 1989, support was limited primarily to
191
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Southern Appalachian Biosphere Reserve
General Zone of Cooperation
Groat Smoky Mountains National Park Unit
Coweeta Hydrologte Laboratory Unit
National Environmental Research Park Unit
Mount Mitchell State Park
Grandfather Mountain
•«• Blue Ridge Parkway
Figure 1.—Southern Appalachian Biosphere
Reserve (zone of cooperation).
the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA's) contri-
bution of a part-time director and the National Park
Service's contribution of office space. By 1994,
the director's position was fully funded through
contributions from the Fish and Wildlife Service,
Forest Service, U.S. Geological Survey, National
Park Service, TVA, and Department of Energy.
Many of these agencies also contribute funds and
in-kind resources to SAMAB-imtiated projects.
SAMAB estimates that funding from fiscal years
(FY) 1989 to 1993 totaled $377,000 for coordinat-
ing office support, and $711,000 for project ex-
penses. None of this has been "new" money. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been
a primary contributor of project activity support.
Nine of the SAMAB projects implemented be-
tween 1989 and 1993 have been supported by two
or more agencies, and seven have received single-
agency funding. This has been accomplished
through pooling funds, direct expenditures, and/or
transferring funds. The Forest Service and
National Park Service, for example, transfer funds
through TVA to SAMAB for air quality monitoring.
Forest Service and National Park Service oversight
authority is specified in the corresponding con-
tracts. In-kind contributions from federal agencies
to the SAMAB Cooperative have amounted to
approximately $540,000 in value.
In an effort to encourage joint agency budgeting,
the SAMAB Cooperative organized a workshop to
develop a framework for interagency activities.
Once finalized, this framework will be the basis for
an interagency proposal for ecosystem approach
activities. Funds requested in this proposal will be
new; members of the cooperative feel that it is not
realistic to expect agencies to redirect existing
funds for this purpose.
192
-------
Southern Appalachians
The nonprofit SAMAB Foundation was created in
1990 to attract additional funds for the region from
the private sector, but so far its success has been
limited. To date, its primary role has been to facil-
itate workshops and conferences. One federal in-
terviewee said that a possible reason for its limited
success is that the private sector views SAMAB as
a government effort and has little interest in giving
more funds to the government. Private funds that
have been received include a grant of $30,000
from the Georgia Power Foundation, small finan-
cial contributions (of around $1,000 each) from
Chevron and others, and in-kind contributions, such
as printing of brochures, duplication of educational
videos, and donation of paper for educational
materials.
The SAMAB Foundation recently submitted a
proposal to the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Subcommittee for $1.5 million, to
be included in the Appalachian Regional Commis-
sion appropriation. According to the SAMAB
Cooperative's Director, the foundation would like
to use this as seed money to attract private support
for and interest in activities generated by the
foundation.
Interagency cooperation outside SAMAB. In-
terviewees gave several examples of interagency
coordination on budget planning and execution that
did not involve SAMAB.
Transfer of funds. Interviewees from the Oak
Ridge National Laboratories indicated that approx-
imately 22 percent of Oak Ridge National Labora-
tories funds are transferred from other agencies
requesting their services. The U.S. Geological Sur-
vey routinely carries out work for other agencies,
including TVA, EPA, and the Department of En-
ergy; mechanisms have been established within .
those agencies to facilitate the transfer of funds. A
Geological Survey representative mentioned that
the U.S. Department of Defense has an MIPR,
which is a special funding mechanism that facili-
tates transfer of funds to other agencies for services
provided. The Geological Survey has been reim-
bursed through this mechanism for toxic-waste-
related work on Department of Defense bases.
Pooling funds. The Forest Service has allocated
$365,000 to its Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory for
ecosystem research over a 5-year period. Other
federal and nonfederal entities (such as the De-
partment of Energy, Desert Research Institute,
Electrical Power Institute, EPA, U.S. Geological
Survey, and Oak Ridge National Laboratories)
have provided an additional $1.3 million for this
purpose, mostly directed toward the SAMAB area.
Tennessee Valley Initiative. The Tennessee
Valley Regional Soil and Water Conservation
Initiative has provided a mechanism for the USD A,
EPA, TVA, and Tennessee Valley states to con-
duct joint programs in the 201 TVA power service
counties of the Tennessee Valley region. Coopera-
tion is focused on key watersheds, several in the
SAMAB area. Traditionally, cooperation has
aimed at reducing soil erosion and upstream flood
damage, and maintaining or increasing farm in-
come, but aims are expanding to include improv-
ing water quality. Participating agencies annually
allocate staff and funding in close accordance with
their budget cycles. Plans are underway to jointly
fund a coordinator from EPA or the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, who will be
located in TVA offices.
Federal support for state efforts. Federal support
for the Southern Appalachian Mountains Initia-
tive's efforts to address air quality issues includes
a $600,000 contribution from EPA, and additional
contributions from the Forest Service, National
Park Service, and TVA- These funds are disbursed
to the Initiative through the SAMAB Cooperative.
Reorienting agency budgets. Discussions with
federal representatives indicated that most agency
budgets have not been adapted to respond to the
needs of the ecosystem approach. The Forest
Service Research budget is an exception. A recent
strategic plan for Forest Service Research called
for the formation of research core teams to facili-
tate an interdisciplinary approach. This in turn led
to the establishment of budget structures better
poised to support the ecosystem approach.
Constraints
When asked about budget-related opportunities,
interviewees frequently mentioned the SAMAB
Cooperative as an opportunity for further collabora-
tion. A couple of interviewees also viewed the
Natural Resources Conservation Service's capabil-
ity to transfer funds to the private sector as a
chance to increase financial support for local
efforts to implement the ecosystem approach. But
most interviewees focused primarily on budgetary
constraints to the ecosystem approach.
193
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Difficulties in transferring funds. Interviewees
most often mentioned the problems they had trans-
ferring funds between agencies. Even though funds
have been transferred from one agency to the
other, there seem to be numerous administrative
and legal barriers to this process, the importance of
which varies significantly within and between
agencies. For example:
• It often takes 3 to 6 months to receive funds
from other agencies, according to the Oak
Ridge National Laboratories.
• The Forest Service and EPA are more able
than agencies in the U.S. Department of the
Interior to transfer funds to other agencies.
• In order for the Forest Service to receive
reimbursement for work performed for the
Fish and Wildlife Service, funds must be
sent through a state agency.
• It is easier for agencies within the Depart-
ment of the Interior to transfer funds to each
other than to outside agencies.
• Forest Service Research units can transfer
funds through cooperative agreements, but
units in the Forest Service's National Forest
System cannot do so as easily. Some
restrictions are administrative, and others
are financial.
Agencies also have trouble using funds for projects
that may greatly benefit the ecosystem, but do not
fall specifically within agency mandates. One
example is the difficulty the Forest Service has
transferring funds to other federal agencies, such as
the National Resources Conservation Service, for
work focused on private lands, even though such
work could eventually benefit the national forests.
The overhead charged by one agency for adminis-
tering the funds of another also impedes fund trans-
fers. As a result, an agency may decide to use its
own less skilled staff for a particular project
instead of more experienced personnel from
another agency.
Inflexible budget structures. Numerous inter-
viewees highlighted inflexible budget structures as
a major obstacle to the ecosystem approach. Even
within one agency, it is difficult to combine funds
from line items managed by different divisions,
due to miscommunication and varying levels of
ability and interest in implementing the ecosystem
approach. Interviewees estimated that this prob-
lem only worsens as overall budgets decrease.
One mentioned that it seems to be easier to use
funds for interdisciplinary planning than for inter-
disciplinary management.
Another difficulty is concern in Congress and
among interest groups that their ability to control
or monitor expenditures would be limited if budget
structures were more flexible. Increased budget
flexibility must be accompanied by strong ac-
countability mechanisms.
Hindrances to jointly funded proposals. If one
or more agencies included in a proposal do not re-
ceive the funds necessary to accomplish a cooper-
ative project, the viability of the entire proposal
can be jeopardized. Some interviewees stated that
when agency staff see projects fail in this way,
they are discouraged from spending the extra time
and energy needed to develop joint proposals in
the future.
There are numerous issues associated with the
timing of the budget process. For example, not all
federal agencies use the same timeframe for
planning budgets. This seems to be more of a
problem when jointly planning budgets with state
agencies than within the federal government,
because some states use a different fiscal calendar
than the federal government.
Other problems arise from the need to plan budgets
several fiscal years in advance. In the interval,
priorities often shift. Also, many agency budgets
are not approved until much of the fiscal year has
already passed, leaving insufficient time for effec-
tive implementation of project activities.
Differences in regional boundaries. "Why can't
we all use the same regional boundaries?" asked
one interviewee. The use of different regional
boundaries increases difficulties associated with
interagency budgeting. The administrative bound-
aries of many agencies divide ecosystems, thus
creating barriers to a unified approach, even within
those agencies.
Lack of information on sources of federal
funds. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)
indicated that they have experience, interest, and
expertise, but need more information on where and
194
-------
Southern Appalachians
how to apply for financial support, and on how to
cooperate with federal agencies in the ecosystem
approach.
Obstacles to long-term research. Discussions
with scientists revealed budgetary constraints to
effective long-term research. Research priorities
tend to change as quickly as staff turnovers, and
the National Park Service's 2-year funding cycle
for research exacerbates this problem. Another
problem is that the focus of research is often
determined more by the availability of funds for a
particular area than by priorities.
Interviewee Suggestions
There is a need for much more cooperation in
budget planning, both within and between federal
agencies, but there were few suggestions on how to
accomplish this. Several interviewees mentioned
the possibility of using the SAMAB Cooperative
and/or Foundation.as a vehicle for increased
coordination.
Many interviewees recommended increases in
funding flexibility and greater authority for field-
level staff to shift funds quickly from one area to
another. It was also suggested that federal agen-
cies waive overhead charges when receiving trans-
ferred funds, whether within a single agency or
across agencies. However, there was a consensus
among federal and nonfederal interviewees that
any increase in budget flexibility should be ac-
companied by strong reporting and accountability
requirements.
Interviewees also suggested that agencies support
each other during the budget process. For exam-
ple, agencies participating in the Tennessee
Valley Regional Soil and Water Conservation
initiative appear at each others' appropriations
hearings. According to a spokesperson for this
initiative, it is an exemplary case of agencies
striving to coordinate budget planning.
INSTITUTIONAL AND
MANAGEMENT ISSUES
Throughout the Southern Appalachians, the survey
team heard that the lack of institutional capacity is
one of the biggest obstacles to the ecosystem
approach. The region has been developing institu-
tions that support the ecosystem approach for
several years. Although these institutions are not
fully mature, they offer good insight into the
strengths and weaknesses of different management
approaches. The greatest needs, according to
several regional organizations, appear to be better
interagency coordination and communication,
greater flexibility in planning, programming and
budgeting, development and sharing of baseline
environmental data, education and training, and
closer coordination with regional political struc-
tures. A regional body may be the missing link
that could coordinate all of these needs.
Vision and Strategy
There is great confusion in the region about the
meaning of the ecosystem approach. Several indi-
viduals thought that it excludes humans. One
person said that ecosystem management has "very
scary ramifications." One farmer said that if the
ecosystem approach treats agriculture as the prob-
lem, making farmers suffer more financially, she
will sell her land to developers, causing damage to
the land that will be far greater and harder to con-
trol. She said that she equated ecosystem man-
agement with returning the land to wilderness.
Even those who were very supportive of ecosystem
management when the term was defined in their
own way were often unclear about the federal gov-
ernment's definition.
Although no one wanted the federal government to
issue a definitive decree on the ecosystem ap-
proach, one representative from an NGO com-
mented that there is no federal environmental
strategy in the region. Survey participants through-
out the region told the team that a federal vision of
the ecosystem approach must be developed co-
operatively, with full local public participation,
and should not be completely technically driven.
The federal government must also allay the fear
that the federal government is out to gain control
over natural resources. One way to ensure this is
to empower the region to achieve its own goals.
One group stated that federal land use plans have
become "zoning" documents that allow, prescribe,
or proscribe certain activities, without sufficient
consideration of the flexibility needed to achieve
management goals and directives.
Interviewees also stated that federal managers do
not get any feedback on progress toward federal
goals. One federal official said that if the
195
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
ecosystem approach is to work, there must be a
clear set of goals issued at the Assistant Secretary
level in Washington, DC, to catalyze regional
goal-setting. Another said that the different signals
that various agencies are getting from Washington
show the need for consistent policy-level guidance.
Both NGOs and federal agencies agree that
without a strategy that includes institutions and
provides mechanisms for taking the entire Southern
Appalachian ecosystem (including private lands)
into account, the vision will remain unfulfilled.
One reason why private lands are an essential part
of this strategy is the need for sediment control:
although the Forest Service does a good job of
sediment control, state and local institutions do not
effectively control sediment from private lands.
For example, on the Southern Plateau, there is a
problem of mine drainage from private onto federal
lands, causing pollution.
Another reason to include private lands in the
strategy is the management of ecosystem values.
One important value is the view from the Blue
Ridge Parkway, and management of the view is in
the hands of private landowners. According to
several interviewees, regulations against using
federal dollars to directly benefit private lands are
an obstacle to the ecosystem approach.
Several interviewees noted that a dramatic reduc-
tion of timber sales on Forest Service lands will
increase the value of timber on private lands.
Preservation of rural culture is important in South-
ern Appalachia. Federal agencies must account
for both direct and indirect effects on rural life.
One family farmer stated that she would not be
able to continue farming without some tax relief.
Many agencies and NGOs in the region stated that
the National Environmental Policy Act process
helps agency decision makers evaluate alterna-
tives and that it involves the public in federal de-
cision making and benefits the overall ecosystem
approach. However, the National Environmental
Policy Act has not been used to its full potential
for strategic decisions that cut across agencies.
Several NGOs stated that agencies with responsi-
bilities for species protection, such as the Fish and
Wildlife Service, need to be more involved in For-
est Service environmental impact statements at an
earlier stage.
Interagency Coordination and
Communication
According to NGOs and state and local agencies,
federal agencies traditionally have not coordinated
well with one another. Most federal agencies
agreed with this assessment. At times, agencies
spend resources on projects that conflict with one
another. For example, the Chattooga watershed is
managed by three ranger districts, each on a dif-
ferent forest in a different state. The three forest
plans, developed independently, only partially
match in management area boundaries or direction.
Within the region, there are agencies with a com-
modities production mission, agencies with a
protective mission, and agencies with an economic
stimulus mission. One environmental NGO repre-
sentative commented that the Fish and Wildlife
Service and National Park Service need to be
more actively involved in Forest Service planning.
A state government official stated that there ap-
peared to be a lack of cooperative relationships
between the state and the Forest Service, except
in the case of gypsy moth control.
Numerous interviewees observed that if regional
sustainability is to be realized, federal agencies
need to seek easier ways to develop partnerships
with each other and with state and local agencies,
private business and landowners, and NGOs.
Several groups said that the federal government
produces good information and that agency staffs
know about the ecology of the region, but that
programs are complicated, public information is
difficult for the layman to understand, and agency
staffs do not communicate well with one another or
with the public.
Throughout the area, the survey team heard the
need for involvement of all sectors of the regional
economy and all agencies. Many ad hoc groups
are already engaged in worthwhile projects that are
restoring or protecting important components of the
ecosystem. One bank actually held courses for
developers to show them how to grade land while
minimizing sedimentation.
SAMAB has the best coordination link in the
region. Its members have agreed to cooperate in
promoting knowledge and understanding of the
region's natural resources, encouraging wise use of
196
-------
Southern Appalachians
those resources, and fostering associated research,
education, and training. One of SAMAB's major
objectives is to develop and maintain a dynamic
regional model of cooperative integrated resource
management.
SAMAB helps agencies develop public/private
partnerships on any scale, and it helps to bring
together agencies with similar interests, but dif-
ferent overall missions. Importantly, SAMAB acts
at the request of local stakeholders (including
NGOs, businesses, and federal and state agencies)
and receives full agency support. It is not seen as
an advocacy group (which lends it more credibil-
ity, according to several agencies), nor is it seen
to be usurping agency decision making. Instead, it
is perceived as a coordinating body for willing
players, and has been described as a "catalyst or-
ganization with flexibility."
The status of the SAMAB Foundation under Tax
Code section 501(c)(3) allows projects to be un-
dertaken that could not be implemented by agen-
cies. The team was frequently told that this is one
of the most creative ways to influence land use,
without the burdensome command-and-control
structure that is opposed by landowners and in-
creasingly by the courts.
The executive committee of SAMAB is strong and
includes most of the regional federal agency lead-
ers. Although the SAMAB Cooperative has
worked hard to incorporate federal agencies in the
region (even those that are not land managers,
such as the Economic Development Administra-
tion, which pumps more than $100 million into the
region each year), the Cooperative is not fully ma-
ture because all federal players in the ecosystem
are not fully engaged. Those to some degree
absent include the Department of Defense, Na-
tional Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Internal Revenue Service, and Federal Highway
Administration. Significantly, the Appalachian
Regional Commission and the Natural Resources
Conservation Service have not yet agreed to
cooperate with SAMAB (although the Commission
has indicated an intent to join the SAMAB
Cooperative). Another weakness is that the board
does not include traditionally nonempowered
people, including Native American tribes, ethnic
minorities, and rural populations.
Agencies throughout the region value SAMAB and
are increasingly calling upon it as a facilitator.
SAMAB also helps agencies to coordinate more
efficiently. For example, plans under the National
Forest Management Act usually take 5 years to
complete, but SAMAB has brought about joint
agency planning and reduced the time it takes by
easing the exchange of information and data. The
Southern Appalachian Mountains initiative grew
out of SAMAB as a way of dealing with regional
air quality issues that individual states or agencies
were unable to address effectively. The develop-
ment of the Initiative as a problem solver high-
lights the evolving regional perspective.
It is clear, however, that SAMAB cannot be suc-
cessful without additional funding. Although
agencies have received no new funding as a result
of their SAMAB activities, most are sending funds
to SAMAB and making in-kind contributions to
keep it operating. Without this effort, SAMAB
would not be as effective and the region would not
have advanced ecosystem approach objectives as
far as it has.
Planning, Programming, and Budgeting
Flexibility
Throughout the region, agencies and other groups
told the survey team that federal agencies were
hampered by their planning and budgeting cycles,
which do not permit flexible use of resources.
Several worthwhile nonfederal projects requiring
about $1,000 each in funding would have directly
benefited federal government efforts to implement
the ecosystem approach. But agencies could not
use their appropriations to fund them, either
because they were not federal or because transac-
tion costs associated with small projects were too
high.
Several interviewees saw an opportunity for the
40 to 50 regional land trusts to play an important
role in the ecosystem approach, because they can
react more quickly to land acquisition opportuni-
ties than can the government. They are effective
and flexible, and have grassroots support. One
land trust organization reported that it needs fed-
eral leverage through challenge grants. Another
noted that the Land and Water Conservation Trust
Fund may provide opportunities to acquire head-
waters, but that more flexibility in its use is
required.
197
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Training
One state agency suggested that educating the
public on the concept of the ecosystem approach
may be the first priority. Although the Southern
Appalachians are relatively poor (inhabitants earn
about 75 percent of the national per capita in-
come), they have a wealth of scientific institu-
tional capability, and skills in implementing the
ecosystem approach abound throughout the region.
Despite the tools to effect change and to leverage
resources that exist throughout the region, there
has been no concerted effort to educate and train
local communities. SAMAB helps agencies and
private organizations to harness resources, but one
untapped resource are Historically Black Colleges
and Universities. These and other higher institu-
tions of learning that serve local rural communities
provide perfect opportunities for developing local
populations trained and educated in principles of
the ecosystem approach.
Environmental Baseline Data
Almost every agency in the region cited the lack
of environmental baseline data. At present, data
bases are not subject to standard formats and qual-
ity assurance. They are aggregated on signifi-
cantly different scales because they are generated
for specific purposes. One agency stated that the
development of an environmental baseline data
base is the foundation for interagency coordination.
Many agencies are contributing to EPA's Regional
Environmental Assessment. Several agencies
suggested that federal agencies in the region
should develop an environmental data base similar
to The Nature Conservancy's Heritage Program.
The National Biological Service is helping to
develop such a data base; one of its employees
will begin work at SAMAB in August. One official
commented that other data bases have been
created, but are not useful because they have not
been maintained. Many agencies have developed
their own environmental data bases (TVA has an
exceptional water quality data base) that are rarely
accessible by other federal agencies.
Adaptive Management
Many groups in the region are trying to understand
what adaptive management means. Operating
regulations for many agencies do not permit
midcourse changes to adapt to changed conditions.
One of the greatest barriers to adaptive manage-
ment is the inability of agencies to quickly transfer
funds to where they are needed most. When dog-
wood anthracnose (a tree disease) quickly spread
throughout the entire region, it was difficult to
focus money and people on the problem, because
administrative procedures made it difficult to trans-
fer money to a single lead agency. However,
agencies formed an ad hoc committee that cooper-
atively divided up the tasks, readily shared data
and information, and continues to deal with the
disease.
Several nonfederal interviewees gave varying
marks to the ability of agencies to adapt their
management to changing conditions; managers
along the Blue Ridge Parkway received high
marks. Some agencies said they needed to be able
to make more decisions at the field level, and that
national headquarters in Washington, DC, would
guide them in this.
Agencies and several NGOs said that managers
who use the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) process as a management tool were more
agile, more adaptable, and more apt to consider
the public's goals and objectives in their decisions.
One agency reported that the NEPA process has
ensured adaptations to sound environmental man-
agement, citing as proof an environmental impact
statement for the development of a military instal-
lation. This environmental impact statement al-
lowed interagency coordination, dispute resolution,
and the ability to monitor environmental commit-
ments and to adapt when necessary. As one person
put it, "NEPA adapts and improves the projects
within the region." However, agencies are con-
cerned about taking actions that were not been
considered in their environmental impact analysis,
and NEPA analyses that address only the environ-
mental impact of an activity on lands within fed-
eral administrative boundaries are unlikely to fully
consider how proposed actions affect ecosystems.
Environmental impact statements should focus on
entire ecosystems, taking regional goals and objec-
tives into account, in order to provide accurate
scientific information to policymakers, who must
make the necessary tradeoffs.
Working through SAMAB, the Economic Devel-
opment Administration is using the NEPA process
to foster the ecosystem approach. The agency is
doing this by requiring subdivision regulations and
198
-------
Southern Appalachians
land use planning as conditions for providing eco-
nomic development funds. However, agencies
such as the Economic Development Administration
(and perhaps the Internal Revenue Service) do not
traditionally view themselves as having an envi-
ronmental mission. Until they do, adaptive man-
agement under the ecosystem approach will not be
fully realized. In the South, the Economic Devel-
opment Administration appears to be a prototype
for additional study. Adaptive management should
include helping agencies like the Economic
Development Administration to direct their
energies strategically.
Opportunities for the Ecosystem
Approach
In Southern Appalachia, it is clear that the ecosys-
tem approach is the catalyst for improved commu-
nication and cooperation among agencies and the
local population. The institutionalization of the
ecosystem approach as a goal of all federal agen-
cies will empower the officials who are closest to
the daily problems facing the ecosystem. It may
revitalize and change the way in which govern-
ment interacts with the people in the region.
For example, red wolves were reintroduced to the
region at little inconvenience to residents, and
without inflicting long-term damage to domestic
animals. Significant land use restrictions were not
necessary, and the hunting and trapping regulations
for the Appalachian Region National Wildlife
Refuge remain unchanged.
The Southern Appalachians have strong institu-
tional and management structures that can be mo-
bilized through federal empowerment. The federal
government can help further by promoting a shared
vision for the future of the region, helping the in-
habitants develop their own goals and objectives,
and finding ways to fund small, worthwhile proj-
ects that contribute to the sustainability of the re-
gion. Information and public education about the
nature of the ecosystem and what needs to be
accomplished would also be appreciated.
Better use should be made of untapped resources,
such as churches, Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, small rural universities, and the large
population'of retirees. All of these groups have in-
dividuals who are concerned about their environ-
ment and would be willing to disseminate
information and help restore damaged parts of the
ecosystem.
LEGAL ISSUES
The legal framework in the Southern Appalachians
contains numerous provisions for information man-
agement, federal administration, and coordination
of state and local authorities with their federal
counterparts. These provide opportunities to ad-
dress the region's.environmental problems, but also
constraints to a coordinated ecosystem approach to
natural resource management.
Man and the Biosphere Program
The Man and the Biosphere program is a unique
experiment in international environmental law that
focuses international scientific attention on areas
that are significant to biodiversity conservation and
sustainable development. The biosphere reserve
program associated with Man and the Biosphere
uses protected areas and their surrounding land-
scapes as "landscape[s] for learning and a biore-
gional focus for cooperation among protected area
administrators, scientists, economic interests, and
local people in conserving biological diversity by
finding solutions for interrelated environmental,
land use, and socioecqnomic problems." Designa-
tion of an area as part of the Man and the Bio-
sphere program does not require new legal restric-
tions on development there. Several countries
have adopted special legislation to protect their
bioreserve sites. However, the Man and the
Biosphere program requires only that the agency
responsible for administering a country's biosphere
reserve program agree to promote Man and the
Biosphere's fundamental goals of allowing re-
search and conservation within the reserve, and
participation in the international biosphere reserve
netw.ork. States also sign a "moral commitment"
to implement the Action Plan for Biosphere Re-
serves, which was adopted by the UNESCO Gen-
eral Conference in 1985. (UNESCO's Second
International Conference on Biosphere Reserves
will meet in March 1995 to evaluate the Action
Plan and to discuss a draft statutory framework that
would give Man and the Biosphere some legal
authority to address Action Plan failures.
The SAMAB program was established by an
interagency cooperative agreement between six
federal agencies with land management
199
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
responsibilities. That agreement formed the
governmental portion of SAMAB, known as the
SAMAB Cooperative. The SAMAB Reserve was
endorsed by the U.S. Man and the Biosphere in
1988 and formally adopted by UNESCO as part of
the Man and the Biosphere network in December
of that year. In support of Man and the Biosphere's
goals, SAMAB acts as an information facilitator
among federal agencies operating in the area and
between these agencies and state or local coun-
terparts and NGOs. The program is governed by
the Cooperative's executive committee, which has
representatives from each of the member agencies.
Six operating committees, staffed by technical
experts from member agencies, do most of
SAMAB's work. The structure of the SAMAB
program allows these staff-level committees to
identify issues to be addressed by the executive
committee, which establishes priorities. The
executive director of SAMAB is the only person
working full-time on the SAMAB program. No
permanent, regular legal counsel for SAMAB has
been established.
In March 1992, SAMAB sponsored a forum on air
quality to address chronic air quality problems in
the region. Under the aegis of SAMAB, state air
quality agencies organized a regional partnership,
the Southern Appalachian Mountain Initiative, to
study air quality impacts and solutions. The
organization operates under a governing body
composed of state agency members and nonvoting
representatives from the Forest Service, EPA,
National Park Service, industry, and public interest
groups. To address the issue comprehensively, the
Initiative's regional scope extends beyond SAMAB
boundaries to include the states of West Virginia
and Kentucky and other parties interested in air
quality.
The SAMAB Foundation was chartered in
Tennessee in 1990 to complement the work of the
SAMAB Cooperative by involving private industry,
universities, and other nonprofit organizations and
special interest groups. As a nongovernmental,
tax-exempt organization under section 501(c)(3) of
the Tax Code, the Foundation can undertake activ-
ities that federal agencies cannot, including accep-
tance of donations and financing of projects that go
beyond an agency's budget or legal authorities.
The Foundation directly supports the work of agen-
cies in the Cooperative through public involve-
ment, education, and the solicitation of support for
agency projects and priorities.
Currently, the Foundation operates as a group of
volunteers. The Foundation and Cooperative work
together to identify important natural resource and
economic development issues, and the means for
addressing them. Both groups recognize the need
for an integrated assessment of agency authorities
and issues, but have not had funding for such a
project. Foundation members anticipate that the
Foundation will become the principal coordinating
and administrative arm of the SAMAB program.
Information and Coordination
Requirements
Much of the agency participation in the SAMAB
Cooperative and associated efforts under the
ecosystem approach are attributable to the infor-
mation and coordination requirements of various
federal statutes, including the National Environ-
mental Policy Act, National Forest Management
Act, and Clean Air Act. Participation at this level
is intended to meet the requirements of law effi-
ciently and effectively. These information re-
quirements are also the legal basis for evaluation
of ecosystem impacts that are beyond the capacity
of any one agency to control.
The National Environmental Policy Act. The
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
42U.S.C. §§ 4321 etseq., gives all federal agen-
cies authority to evaluate their activities on an
ecosystem basis. Under NEPA, all proposals for
"major federal actions significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment" must include a
detailed statement of the environmental impact of
the proposed action and an evaluation of alterna-
tives (42 U.S.C. § 4322(2)(C)). Ecosystem im-
pacts are specifically included in the range of
environmental impacts considered under NEPA
(42 U.S.C. § 4322(2)(H); 40 CFR 1508.8).
In addition to evaluating the direct and indirect
effects of the proposed action, the environmental
impact statement must disclose possible conflicts
with "federal, regional, state, and local . . . land
use plans, policies and controls for the area con-
cerned" (40 CFR 1502.16(c)). Coordination with
other governmental entities is also required in
order to evaluate "cumulative impact," which is
defined as the "incremental impact of the action
when added to other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions regardless of what
agency (federal or nonfederal) or person under-
takes such other actions" (40 CFR 1508.7). At a
200
-------
Southern Appalachians
minimum, the draft environmental impact state-
ment must be circulated for comment by any fed-
eral agency with "jurisdiction by law or special
expertise with respect to any environmental impact
involved," and to federal, state, and local agencies
that are authorized to develop and enforce envi-
ronmental standards (40 CFR 1502.19).
Interviewees generally supported 3STEPA, describing
it as a means to improve both information flow
between agencies and (indirectly) project design.
Some noted that federal agencies may learn of a
significant impact of a planned activity on federal
resources only through NEPA compliance by other
agencies. For example, public interest groups
heard through the NEPA process about a dam to be
financed by the USDA Farmers Home Administra-
tion upstream from what is classified as a Wild
and Scenic River. These groups informed the Na-
tional Park Service. After hearing National Park
Service comments on the proposal, the Farmers
Home Administration decided that a full environ-
mental impact statement was necessary to evalu-
ate the project's impacts.
In other cases, agencies have used NEPA as a
general planning authority, employing the pro-
grammatic environmental impact statement as
their management plan. The TVA, a government
corporation with multiple mandates and a variety
of authorities, used NEPA to guide its Sound River
Management strategy for operating its reservoir
and navigation system and for environmental
restoration in the Tennessee River watershed. The
TVA has no direct environmental regulatory au-
thority over the impairment of water in the Ten-
nessee River watershed, but it uses its water qual-
ity monitoring programs and public involvement
through the NEPA process to find solutions to point
and nonpoint source pollution.
Most survey participants noted that NEPA coordi-
nation should be improved. The chief complaint
was that agency administrative requirements are
often time-consuming and cumbersome. Some
agencies require that decisions and their associ-
ated NEPA documents be reviewed by several
layers of supervisory management before final
authorization by someone not associated with
those who will be responsible for administering the
decision. For example, the National Park Service
requires any decisions involving NEPA documenta-
tion to be made by Regional Directors, not by Park
Superintendents. By contrast, the Forest Service
places most decision-making responsibility on the
District Ranger or Forest Supervisor, both local
line officers.
Others claimed that NEPA was poorly tailored to
relevant decision making, arguing that NEPA doc-
umentation of statutory planning decisions that
have no direct impact on the environment merely
provided opportunities for litigation. They main-
tained that public participation and environmental
analysis are better focused when NEPA is used for
decisions that have concrete consequences. Al-
though statutory evaluations of ecosystem health or
agency plans are considered more costly than they
are worth, these critics noted that programmatic
NEPA processes would be more useful for coordi-
nation if they were not subject to litigation.
The National Forest Management Act The Na-
tional Forest Management Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1600
et seq., requires the Forest Service to develop
"land and resource management plans for [national
forests], coordinated with the land and resource
management planning processes of state and local
governments and other federal agencies"
(16 U.S.C. § 1604(a)). The development of these
forest plans must be based on a "detailed inven-
tory" of national forest resources and an "integrat-
ed consideration of physical, biological, economic,
and other sciences" (16 U.S.C. §§ 1603, 1604(b)).
SAMAB is considered the best avenue for sharing
data on these resources. It is expected that na-
tional forest planning can be done significantly
faster through interagency coordination to identify
issues and share data on impacts.
The Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 7401 et seq., requires consultation over air pol-
lution control measures and consistency between
them. Members of the SAMAB Cooperative noted
that information collected and pooled among
agencies (through efforts like the Forest Service's
Forest Inventory Assessment and EPA's EMAP)
can be used by federal land managers in providing
information under the Clean Air Act and in plan-
ning their individual land management activities.
From the perspective of federal land managers in
the Southern Appalachians, the most significant
provision of the Clean Air Act affecting them is
the requirement to protect values related to air
quality in certain national park and wilderness
areas, defined as Class I areas (42 U.S.C.
§ 7472(a)). Major stationary sources of air pollu-
tion cannot be located or modified near a Class I
201
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
area if they will adversely impact values related to
air quality in the area. With their power to define
these values in an area and to object to specific
permits (42 U.S.C. § 7475(d)), federal land man-
agers have a significant opportunity to influence
the air quality debate.
Beginning in 1990, federal land managers in Great
Smoky Mountains National Park and other Class I
areas made several adverse-impact determinations
in their review of several proposed permits under
the Clean Air Act. Participants in the Southern
Appalachian Mountains Initiative noted that these
adverse-impact determinations brought states in
the Initiative together to study the effects of air
pollution on the Southern Appalachian highlands.
However, because federal land managers do not
have an absolute veto over these decisions, this
provision in the Clean Air Act functions—in
effect—as an information requirement. (The
burden of proof for demonstrating the presence or
absence of adverse impacts on values related to air
quality depends on whether the proposed permit
would violate Class I standards. If there is no
violation, the federal land manager has the burden
of proving the adverse impact on air-quality-related
values.)
The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(D))
also requires states to adopt State Implementation
Plans to ensure that in-state emissions will not
contribute to an area's "nonattainment" of Nation-
al Ambient Air Quality Standards, cause signifi-
cant deterioration where these standards are met,
or interfere with the air quality of another state.
These provisions motivate states to consult with
each other regarding the effects of emissions on
specific ecosystems. Related requirements of the
Clean Air Act and the Intermodal Surface Trans-
portation Efficiency Act are also seen as a major
catalyst for bringing state and federal transporta-
tion agencies into the SAMAB program. Sec-
tion 134 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (23 U.S.C. § 134) requires trans-
portation plans for metropolitan areas (defined to
encompass certain Clean Air Act nonattainment
areas) and prohibits federal funding of highway
projects that will significantly increase traffic,
unless a project is part of an approved plan.
Federal Coordination With State and
Local Counterparts
Several survey participants asserted that efforts of
federal agencies to implement the ecosystem ap-
proach should not be limited to specific federal
programs, but should be coordinated with related
state and local efforts that address common con-
cerns. Some suggested that federal land manage-
ment agencies should act in their capacities as
landowners to enforce state and local laws regard-
ing ecosystem impacts from neighboring lands.
Others see these agencies more as advocates for
the enforcement of state laws and local ordinances.
Most states in the region have enacted laws to
address ecosystem impacts not dealt with under
federal law, but federal authorities generally have
not taken advantage of them. For example, partic-
ipants noted that strong laws in some states gov-
erning soil erosion and stream sedimentation are
not enforced locally. Enforcement of these laws is
generally delegated to local governments that do
not have the resources to ensure compliance with
required soil management plans. It was suggested
that federal agencies could address these problems
by assisting in law enforcement, by reporting viola-
tions to the authorities and the public, and through
general education of local authorities and the
public.
In addition to state sedimentation laws, there are
various federal authorities and programs that could
be coordinated to complement state and local
efforts. Although the Clean Water Act does not
directly regulate nonpoint source pollution (as it
does pollution from point sources), EPA has au-
thority to provide grants and technical assistance
to all agencies under section 319 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1329). Many participants
noted that the Natural Resources Conservation
Service has an extensive network of personnel and
a mixture of funding and regulatory authorities.
However, the agency's programs focus on agricul-
tural sources of pollution to the exclusion of non-
agricultural sources that are increasingly
significant, such as construction sites and low-
standard roads. Participants encouraged the
Natural Resources Conservation Service to address
all aspects of soil conservation and to balance its
202
-------
Southern Appalachians
regulatory and consultative roles, Regulatory ,
programs, such as enforcement of the wetlands
protections of Clean Water Act section 404, must
be conducted judiciously to ensure that coopera-
tive efforts with citizens are not jeopardized.
Statutes must be consistently enforced against
significant offenders and coordinated with a
program to inform and assist the general public in
compliance with the law.
Barriers to the Ecosystem Approach
Federal agencies face legal barriers to an effective
ecosystem approach in the Southern Appalachians
and to coordination with federal and nonfederal
agencies and organizations. Agency activities are
restricted in ways that constrain the ecosystem
approach by agency mandates and by federal
administrative laws.
Agency mandates. Under their mandates, federal
agencies may be restricted from taking a compre-
hensive approach to adverse impacts on
ecosystems.
Limited focus. Agencies address only some aspects
of ecosystem impacts, lacking the legal mechanisms
to address impacts comprehensively. Representa-
tives from agencies that must meet specific statu-
tory demands noted that the statutory focus of their
agencies impedes their participation in the ecosys-
tem approach. For example, the Fish and Wildlife
Service administers the Endangered Species Act,
16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq. Statutory requirements
related to conservation of listed species, combined
with limits on budget and personnel resources,
make it difficult for the agency to participate in
large-scale interagency efforts. Other agencies use
the services of the Fish and Wildlife Service
primarily when required under Endangered Species
Act section 7 (16 U.S.C. § 1536) to consult with
the agency on adverse impacts that their activities
might have on specific species at a specific site.
Survey participants stated that this approach is
often frustrating for both the Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice and the consulting agency, because resources
are already committed or options already limited
by the time an agency action has reached the
stage that consultation is required. The Fish and
Wildlife Service has found that participation in
SAMAB has allowed it better to inform agencies
outside the formal consultation process.
Participants noted that EPA has significant
resources and authorities to address many impacts
on ecosystems. But its priorities, they said, are
generally influenced by media-specific statutes
that focus on particular risks to human health,
often neglecting wider public welfare concerns
regarding impacts on ecosystems. For example,
air quality impacts on forest health are of particu-
lar concern in the Southern Appalachians. How-
ever, the requirements of the Clean Air Act focus •
EPA's attention on more substantially degraded
airsheds that do not meet the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for the protection of public
health, drawing resources from areas where the
Clean Air Act requires only "prevention of signifi-
cant deterioration." This is partly attributable to
the standard-setting mechanisms of the Clean Air
Act, which set deadlines for achieving primary
National Ambient Air Quality Standards based on
human health considerations, but set no firm dead-
lines for meeting secondary National Ambient Air
Quality Standards designed to protect public wel-
fare (42 U.S.C. § 7502).
Moreover, the Clean Air Act's requirement that
national standards be uniform does not afford the
flexibility needed to address regional differences in
pollutant sources and ecosystem sensitivity. Sur-
vey participants from the Southern Appalachian
Mountains Initiative noted that national standards
for ozone pollution are based on studies of the Los
Angeles airshed, an urban and desert environment
where control of anthropogenic volatile organic
compound emissions was identified as the primary
means for controlling the creation of tropospheric
ozone. However, in the Southern Appalachians,
the abundant vegetation and forest cover contribute
significantly to the atmosphere's ambient volatile
organic compound level. Therefore, the Southern
Appalachian Mountains Initiative is searching for
ways to control the other component of ozone
pollution, nitrogen emissions. Such controls are
not required by the Clean Air Act and would have
to be adopted voluntarily by member states in the
Initiative.
203
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Permit criteria. Pollution permit criteria do not
take ecosystems or the perspective of federal land
managers into account. Several survey participants
noted that there is no mandate to consider the per-
spective of federal agencies or land managers in
many environmental laws. For example, although
the Clean Air Act requires federal land managers
to comment on proposed permits, the Clean Water
Act contains no requirement that they be consis-
tently involved in state stream water quality
designations or National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System permit decisions. Similarly,
information about listed and candidate threatened
or endangered species is not obtained from the
Fish and Wildlife Service because state permitting
agencies do not consider themselves subject to the
consultation requirements of the Endangered
Species Act (16 U.S.C. § 1536).
Many of these gaps could be closed by regulation
under existing authority. For example, in devising
solid waste management plans, states are not cur-
rently required to consider how federal land man-
agers view the impact of local solid waste man-
agement decisions on biological resources. This .
proved to be a serious problem when a county
decided to locate a landfill near the area used by
Great Smoky Mountains National Park for relocat-
ing black bears. Under the Solid Waste Disposal
Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4002, EPA is authorized to estab-
lish standards for locating landfills that take eco-
system impacts into account, using the same
authority under which EPA has established other
location standards (see 40 CFR 258.10-258.16,
citing restrictions for floodplains, wetlands, and
geologically unstable areas). EPA could add eco-
logical considerations to these criteria. None of
these statutes appear to prohibit interagency coor-
dination, so agencies should be able to address
these concerns through memorandum agreements.
Requirements for planning and decision making.
Requirements for planning and decision making take
up agency resources that could be used for coordi-
nation and organization on an ecosystemwide or re-
gional basis. Statutes and regulations that micro-
manage agency planning decisions were generally
criticized as requiring an inefficient use of admin-
istrative resources and creating opportunities for
litigation. Notably, planning requirements under
the National Forest Management Act take up
agency resources that could be allocated to ad-
dress issues that are more directly relevant to the
ecosystem approach.
For example, the National Forest Management Act
and its regulations require planning to determine
the suitability of forest lands for timber production,
allowable sale quantity, and timber sale schedules
(16 U.S.C. §§ 1604(f)(2), (k), (m); 1611;
36 CFR 219.3). The resulting forest plan is in-
tended to function like a zoning ordinance for the
forest, describing for a 10- to 15-year period what
activities are and are not permissible by specifying
different "management areas" defined in terms of
resource emphasis. All management activities and
uses of the forest must conform to the standards
and guidelines of the forest plan. The forest plan
also indicates the desired future condition of the
forest and identifies management activities neces-
sary to achieve that goal. However, the plan is not
self-executing and does not constitute a mandate
to undertake any of the activities that it describes.
Subsequent analysis or new information may show
that another strategy is needed for a particular
area. A separate decision-making process is re-
quired, involving a separate environmental as-
sessment based on the forest plan, before there is
any ground-disturbing activity, such as a timber
sale. Nevertheless, these forest plans have been
the subject of intense litigation.
Participants also argue that National Forest Man-
agement Act planning is conducted on a temporal
and geographic scale that is not adapted to ecosys-
tems. The Act requires forest plans for each na-
tional forest, the boundaries of which are deter-
mined by congressional designation and adjacent
private lands (16 U.S.C. § 1604(f)(l);
36 CFR 219.4(b)(3)). Unlike forest planning area
boundaries, ecosystem boundaries do not respect
such borders. The scope of the ecosystem may
change according to the characteristics that are
considered relevant. Also, forest plans under the
National Forest Management Act are revised every
10 to 15 years (16 U.S.C. § 1604(f)(5)). Signifi-
cant new information about an ecosystem that is
broad in geographic scope or substantially affects
commodity production may require significant
changes to the forest plan (16 U.S.C. § 1604(f)(4)).
Both revision and significant amendments require
an intensive planning process and allow adminis-
trative appeal and litigation opportunities.
Because agency decisions and analysis under the
National Environmental Policy Act must be based
on sound, current science, statutory planning tools
such as forest plans are now only a part of overall
planning and management efforts. Forest Service
204
-------
Southern Appalachians
representatives noted that where a forest plan be-
comes outdated, documents used in specific proj-
ect decisions can no longer be "tiered" to the for-
est plan analysis, but must incorporate their own
evaluation of impacts. This increases the adminis-
trative burden on project decisions. Moreover,
because forest plans may not address ecosystem
characteristics on a scale that is useful for project
decision making, additional levels of analysis are ,
needed. For example, the Chattooga River
Ecosystem Project area generally follows the-out-
lines of the planning unit used by the Forest Ser-
vice prior to enactment of the National Forest
Management Act. The Act may actually allow the
Forest Service to plan on an ecosystem scale.
Some participants noted that this flexibility exists
because the National Forest Management Act does
not require a separate forest plan for each national
forest, but rather speaks in terms of "plans" that
"form one integrated plan for each unit of the Na-
tional Forest System" and may be one document
or a set of documents (16 U.S.C. § 1604(f)(l)).
Administrative laws. The ability of federal
agencies to coordinate activities and information
with nonfederal agencies and organizations in a
way conducive to the ecosystem approach is
hampered by two federal laws, the Freedom of
Information Act and the Federal Advisory Commit-
tee Act.
Freedom of Information Act. The Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, states that
any person has a right, enforceable in court, to
obtain federal records, except those specifically
protected from disclosure under FOIA's nine ex-
emptions or three law enforcement record exclu-
sions. The FOIA exempts from disclosure intera-
gency and intra-agency memoranda and other
documents that are part of a government delibera-
tive process (5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5)). However, this
exemption does not generally apply to purely fac-
tual information, or to factual portions of delibera-
tive documents.
The FOIA is regarded as a significant threat to any
agency that collects information about the location
of sensitive or overexploited species. Depending
on how it is used, this information may be consid-
ered purely factual and not be protected from
public disclosure under FOIA. For example, the
National Park Service may not be able to protect
information about the location of wild ginseng, a
plant that grows in the Great Smoky Mountains
National Park and is widely poached for its valu-
able root. And the National Biological Service has
found that private landowners (such as timber
companies) are reluctant to allow it to survey their
lands, because public access to the information
may encourage trespassing to take species. More-
over, data shared with or among government scien-
tists could be used by outside scientists before
originators can publish findings for professional
credit. Among scientists, the sharing of data de-
pends on trust, easily destroyed by even the threat
of public disclosure.
Survey participants declared that legislative action
is probably necessary to address this problem ef-
fectively. Under exemption 3 of the FOIA
(5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3)), factual or other information
that must be withheld under another statute is ex-
empted from disclosure. A model for such legisla-
tion is provided by the Archeological Resources
Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 470aa et seq. This
Act requires federal land managers to withhold
information concerning the nature and location of
archeological resources, unless that information is
needed to protect a site from destruction, or unless
disclosure would not create a risk of harm to the
resources (16 U.S.C. § 470hh).
Federal Advisory Committee Act. Congress
enacted the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA) to control the growth and operation of the
"numerous committees, boards, commissions,
councils, and similar groups which have been
established to advise officers and agencies in the
executive branch of the Federal Government"
(5 U.S.C. App. 2 § 2(a)). An "advisory commit-
tee" is defined as "any committee, board, com-
mission, council, conference, panel, task force, or
other similar group, or any subcommittee or other
subgroup thereof that is "established or utilized"
by the President or an agency "in the interest of
.obtaining advice or recommendations for the
President or one or more agencies or officers of the
Federal Government" (5 U.S.C. App. 2 § 3(2)).
FACA places a number of procedural restrictions
on bodies that constitute "advisory committees."
Every advisory committee must file a charter
(5 U.S.C. App. 2 §§ 9(c), 10(a)(2)); its meetings
must be open to the public (id. § 10(a)(l)); it must
keep "[d]etailed minutes" of its meetings
(id. § 10(c)); and it must generally permit
"[interested persons ... to attend, appear before,
or file statements" with it (id. § 10(a)(3)), unless a
205
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
decision is made to close the meeting
(id, § 10(d)). In addition to governing how the
group functions, FACA also requires an advisory
committee to make publicly available "the
records, reports, transcripts, minutes, appendixes,
working papers, drafts, studies, agenda, or other
documents which were made available to or pre-
pared for or by [the] advisory committee"
(id. § 10(b)). This obligation exists only "until the
advisory committee ceases to exist" and is no
longer subject to the provisions of the Freedom of
Information Act.
FACA also imposes a number of requirements on
federal officials regarding creation and use of advi-
sory committees. A committee must specifically
be authorized (either by statute or by the Presi-
dent), or be determined by an agency head to be in
the public interest (id. § 9(a)); it must be "fairly
balanced in terms of the points of view represented
and the functions to be performed" (id. § 5(b)(2));
and precautions must be taken to assure that an
advisory committee is not "inappropriately
influenced by the appointing authority or by any
special interest" (id. § 5(b)(3)).
FACA is generally regarded as a hindrance to
agencies' efforts to obtain information from the
scientific community and stakeholders. Several
survey participants argued that it should be
amended to specifically exclude ad hoc agency
efforts to obtain information from the public, state
or local authorities, and scientists. They main-
tained that FACA should be limited to situations
where an agency seeks the opinion of an advisory
committee as an authoritative, expert source,
consistent with the original intent of Congress.
Budgetary restrictions. Section 611 of the
Treasury Postal Appropriations Act for FY 1994,
P.L. 103-123, prohibits interagency financing of
"boards, commissions, councils, committees, or
similar groups (whether or not they are interagency
entities) which do not have a prior and specific
statutory approval to receive financial support from
more than one agency or instrumentality"
(107 Stat. 1261). This requirement could be a sig-
nificant impediment to agency coordination and
cooperation, because it requires each agency
either to find a statutory basis for work that is gen-
erally accepted to be within the agency's scope, or
to coordinate with other agencies by some other
means. Statutory authority must be enacted to
allow money to be pooled for projects that meet
the needs of more than one agency.
Many agencies are required to fund projects based
on statutory criteria that do not consider the wider
ecosystem implications of those projects. The
Office of Surface Mining, for example, funds the
abatement of acid mine drainage at coal mining
sites, an important water quality impact in the
Southern Appalachians. The Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act, which provides for this funding,
requires treatment of sites with human health
implications before sites where the only impact is
ecological (30 U.S.C. § 1233(a)). Under these
restrictions, the Office of Surface Mining may be
able to coordinate its use of funds with other
agencies, but it has not yet participated in any
SAMAB-sponsored effort.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Team members surveyed participants on the effec-
tiveness of current regional public involvement
efforts. The focus of survey findings are on
SAMAB because of its role in coordinating re-
gional interagency cooperation and its designation
as a regional demonstration model for other
biosphere reserves.
The primary response from every federal agency
consulted in the study was that there is a need for
greater public involvement. The most common
reason cited for limited current efforts is the lack
of specialized staff able to devote full time to the
work. Typically, public involvement work is a
secondary assignment for a staff member with
expertise in natural resource management, not
education. The result is that public education
and/or involvement is often limited to one or two
standard media, such as brochures, videos, or
blurbs in internal newsletters.
Cooperative partners in ad hoc environmental proj-
ects often hold conferences related to the projects,
which attract interested parties and publish pro-
ceedings that primarily interest scientists and
specialized audiences. The general public is
seldom a target for education by these partners,
whether they are NGOs or federal and state agen-
cies. Agency officials, however, recognize that
public affairs work (such as marketing or opinion
surveys) is important for getting the public's in-
formed consent for projects.
206
-------
Southern Appalachians
Public Education Efforts
Efforts to educate the public on environmental
issues in the Southern Appalachians range from
individual initiatives by NGOs or federal agencies
to joint programs under the SAMAB umbrella.
SAMAB programs. In SAMAB's original 1988
charter, the cooperative agreement work plan calls
for "developing and implementing a voluntary
environmental education program with the public
school systems of the region and with other inter-
ested organizations." The organizational chart of
SAMAB includes public affairs as one of six stand-
ing committees, and a proposal is being considered
to add a marketing committee that would "promote
the organization within the region and pursue link-
ages with major national initiatives." In its May
1994 newsletter, SAMAB identifies "insufficient
public education" as a cultural issue that "merits
attention and resources." Apparently, there is a
necessity for more effort in this area to meet
SAMAB's objectives.
SAMAB sponsors videos and publications designed
to educate the public. Its most recent successful
effort was an Emmy Award-winning video titled
"Front Runner," about the reintroduction of the red
wolf on the Great Smoky Mountain National Park.
SAMAB prepared an accompanying teacher's
guide and a highly popular poster. A SAMAB-
sponsored publication on the demise of the dog-
wood was so successful that the Izaac Walton
League reprinted 250,000 copies. The 1993 video
"Downstream from the Mountains to the Ocean"
has been popular at public meetings because it
illustrates the concept of a watershed ecosystem
by tracing a raindrop's path from a mountain
stream to the sea.
But SAMAB's primary outreach efforts and
strength lie in the conferences and workshops that
it sponsors. In March 1992, for example, a
SAMAB-sponsored forum on air quality held in
Gatlinburg, Tennessee, drew attendees from a wide
array of stakeholder groups, including citizens'
associations, academic institutions, private indus-
tries, and federal and state agencies. Due to its
nonpartisan reputation, SAMAB was able to bring
to the table groups that had not been cooperative
in the past, resulting in the formation of the South-
ern Appalachian Mountains Initiative.
Publications and proceedings from these gatherings
help develop a data base as the foundation ,for a
regional program under the ecosystem approach
that coordinates the efforts of federal and state
agencies, private industry, environmental groups,
and interested citizens. But one limitation of such
workshops and conferences is that the specialists
there usually talk among themselves. Science
must be translated so it can guide policy decision
making and be integrated into educational materi-
als for the public.
Federal agencies. The Oak Ridge National Labo-
ratories are aware of the need to gather socioeco-
nomic data in order to include public opinion in
plans related to the ecosystem approach. Toward
that end, the Laboratories are conducting an EPA-
funded collaborative research project. Called
"Relating Ecological Indicators to Societal Val-
ues," the project involves researchers from the
Institute for Public Policy Studies at Vanderbilt
University. A similar study that considers area
political economy as it relates to national forests
in the region is "The Living Landscape, Charting a
New Course: National Forests in the Southern
Appalachians" (Wilderness Society 1994). The
impact on TVA of proposals to reinvent the gov-
ernment is reported in "Sound River Management:
Fiscal Year 1994 Pilot Program Plan." Narrower
in scope are articles such as "What's Killing All
the Fir Trees?" and "Fungal Disease Kills Park
Dogwoods" in the National Park Service newslet-
ter "Smokies Guide." A Great Smoky Mountains
National Park employee mentioned that other gen-
eral public education is in the hands of park inter-
preters. The Fish and Wildlife Service educates
the public about endangered species through in-
formation sheets prepared in its Asheville, North
Carolina, office. Although outreach efforts are var-
ied overall, most are in the form of a specialized
publication that reaches a limited audience. How-
ever, it was reported that NGOs receive environ-
mental information from federal agencies very
quickly.
Nongovernmental organizations. At the local
level, NGOs offer interested residents a chance to
participate in meetings on specific topics of im-
mediate concern. The Little Tennessee Watershed
Group, based in Franklin, North Carolina, is one
such group. A chapter of the Western North Car-
olina Alliance motivated many local residents to
207
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
work together with city officials on river cleanup
projects. The partnership is largely successful
because the leader of the local chapter is an active
facilitator.
Opportunities
Several opportunities and suggestions for public
outreach on environmental problems and initiatives
in the region were brought out during interviews
and are summarized below, in no particular order.
• A positive characteristic of the region is that
different groups have not become as
polarized over environmental issues as in
some other areas. The success of SAMAB
in promoting cooperation among so many
diverse groups can serve as a model for the
future.
• The recent Executive Order on Environmen-
tal Justice provides an broad opportunity that
has yet to be more narrowly specified for the
region. Increased public awareness of its
significance for low-income communities
may help foster local efforts to retain
historic land use patterns and ways of life.
• The National Environmental Policy Act
continues to promote public participation by
federal land management agencies. The
compliance process ensures the public the
opportunity to comment on proposed proj-
ects. The role of the National Environmen-
tal Policy Act could be more fully publi-
cized to provide even more opportunities for
public involvement, especially to those who
have not understood this opportunity.
• One-stop information centers could be estab-
lished in rural areas to allow local residents
to channel their information needs. Federal
agencies could coordinate this activity and
staff it with people trained to respond to
diverse questions on natural resource issues
as they apply to local landowners. Related
to this would be technology transfer and/or
translation of environmental publications.
Organizations such as the Forest Service,
SAMAB, and TVA publish excellent re-
search papers on topics of concern in natural
resources, such as soil erosion, but the jar-
gon of these scientific works limits their
readability. In addition, readers remain
unclear as to hpw their actions might help
mitigate the problem identified, be it air
pollution or solid waste disposal. People
want to do what is best, but sometimes
require clear, easy-to-follow directions that
are applicable to their own daily routines.
County extension and/or Natural Resources
Conservation Service offices and staff are
ideal candidates for providing such services.
• SAMAB could fund a "circuit rider" public
affairs specialist who would travel on a
scheduled basis to rural areas in the region.
This person would perform an agency
outreach role through talks at civic forums
and in schools and other public arenas.
• SAMAB could sponsor a study of land use
planning for the tristate area of Georgia,
North Carolina, and Tennessee that currently
takes the brunt of urban flight. The counties
in question desperately need an overview of
the challenges they face and the decisions
they must make to implement zoning for the
future. A coordinated interagency task force
should be established to assist counties or
towns in devising an action plan. The re-
gion's biggest problem is its lack of estab-
lished education on land use planning for
local officials. Such a system might be
modeled on the planning outreach done by
Oregon's Department of Environmental
Quality in the 1970s.
Constraints
Constraints to public outreach efforts on environ-
mental issues in Southern Appalachia are embed-
ded in the region's history and the fundamental
socioeconomic changes currently underway.
Rapid transformation in the Southern Appalachi-
ans' political economy has created an urgent need
to educate the public about the need for a healthy
natural resource base as the key to preserving qual-
ity of life. Local economies are swiftly changing
from farming to tourism and recreation, a change
brought on by the region's major new highways,
which are bringing an influx of tourists, seasonal
residents, and retirees, who now have easier ac-
cess to the region. In addition, the traditional
absence of opportunities to generate income from
manufacturing remains.
208
-------
Southern Appalachians
As a result, local officials tend to view subdivi-
sions as another source of growth, ignoring the lim-
ited ability of rural ecosystems to support unregu-
lated development. In order to build consensus
between feuding developers and environmentalists,
both sides must be persuaded that there cannot be
a long-term stable economic base without strong
measures to natural resources, and that the envi-
ronment cannot be protected without a strong
economy.
Communication is most needed at the county
level, where federal and state land use policy and
programs are not always enforced. The desire of
local officials to boost the area's economy by
fostering urban-rural migration, the need for cash
by traditional landowners whose children no longer
view farming as a viable occupation, and a tradi-
tion of independence among rural residents who
believe strongly in private property rights con-
tribute to this problem.
Attitudes do vary, of course, resulting in different
kinds of development, ranging from the extreme
strip commercialism found in Pigeon Ford and
Gatlinburg, Tennessee, to the nearby planned
community of Pittman Center. Community plan-
ning or zoning is still rare in the region, but educa-
tion may induce people to endorse planned devel-
opment, as long as it is perceived as originating
locally and not imposed by government regulation.
Government regulation is strongly resisted in this
region. The private sector fears the idea of ecosys-
tem management, but is receptive to the concept
of sustained-use stewardship. Property owners are
sometimes reluctant to permit biological surveys
on their lands, fearing that if federally listed
threatened and endangered species are found, their
property rights will be restricted. As a result,
SAMAB has focused on federal lands, leaving an
information gap in the natural history record. This
issue poses problems for the National Biological
Service, as well. Any public education in the
region must consider the views of local landowners
and stress cooperative stewardship.
Many people in the region distrust ecosystem
management because they think it puts the inter-
ests of wild species ahead of those of people. If all
federal agencies (including those that support eco-
nomic development, social services, and similar
programs) were involved in a coordinated effort to
address ecological principles as they apply to
human needs (such as affordable housing and
transportation), ecosystem management could be
made more inclusive. This could make the ecosys-
tem approach seem more people-friendly—more
favorable to economic interests—and resistance to
ecosystem management in the region might be
overcome.
SCIENCE AND INFORMATION
During its interviews, the survey team focused on
increasing its understanding of how interorganiza-
tional coordination of science and information
benefits current practices under the ecosystem
approach, and what opportunities for—and con-
straints to—the ecosystem approach emerge from
interorganizational coordination of science and
information. In addition, the survey team elicited
suggestions from participants on improving science
and information contributions to the ecosystem
approach.
Coordination of Science and Information
Activities
The survey team learned that there is a wealth of
regional scientific information that is being shared
with nonscientists throughout the region. Research
and monitoring examples come primarily from Oak
Ridge National Laboratories and Forest Service
researchers. Interviews revealed that common
resource problems, such those affecting bears and
neotropical migratory birds, have helped to bring
the Forest Service, National Park Service, and
states together on research projects. Threatened
and endangered species and opportunities for the
ecosystem approach have motivated agencies to
cooperate on larger scales than found in any single
land management unit.
The team learned that research at Oak Ridge
National Laboratories is driven more by science
issues than by policy needs, focuses on national
issues, does not have a specific regional interest in
Southern Appalachia, and does not focus its re-
sources solely within the region. When its re-
. search interests do coincide with those of others in
the region, the Oak Ridge National Laboratories
cooperate and become very much involved. Scien-
tists from the Laboratories do not rely extensively
on SAMAB to coordinate research or to provide
advice or consent, and they have not yet been
brought through the National Biological Service to
work extensively with researchers on Great Smoky
209
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Mountains National Park. Similarly, Great Smoky
Mountains National Park cannot usually postpone
park work to release people for interagency re-
search work.
The Forest Service Coweeta Research Station
supports interdisciplinary watershed research
through a terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem man-
agement research program that started in 1990.
This program involves forest supervisors in its
planning stages, and facilitates information sharing
through semiannual meetings. The Coweeta
Station also sponsors research on ecological clas-
sification systems. It gets guidance from the
SAMAB research and monitoring committee and
through its partnership with the Oak Ridge Nation-
al Laboratories and Great Smoky Mountains Na-
tional Park in the interorganizational neotropical
migratory bird program Partners In Flight. Rather
than seeking competitive funding on its own, the
Coweeta Station works through SAMAB to secure
cooperative and leveraged funding relationships. It
contributes to a nationally focused interdisciplinary
project that relates economic and social factors to
land use and landscape patterns and to their effects
on regional sustainability in Southern Appalachia
and on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington. The
Forest Service also participates in air quality proj-
ects and in a research-oriented regional forest
health monitoring program. However, the Coweeta
research program has a somewhat limited interac-
tion with Great Smoky Mountains National Park,
even though some of its research is of direct value
to park management.
In their programs, the Oak Ridge National Labora-
tories and Coweeta Station work together and with
other federal and state agencies as well as NGOs.
Federal partners include the Department of Energy,
EPA, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Global Change
Research Program, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, National Oceanic and At-
mospheric Administration, National Park Service,
National Science Foundation, and TVA. State
partners include Tennessee and Georgia. The
Coweeta Station and Oak Ridge National Labora-
tories also maintain relationships with a host of
NGOs, including the Electric Power Research
Institute, The Nature Conservancy, and many
universities.
There is much more research that is focused on
specific areas and contributes to the ecosystem
approach in the region. The Nature Conservancy
conducts aquatic mussel surveys and relies on
SAMAB to provide necessary extensive contacts
with landowners throughout the area. The state of
Georgia coordinates trout management studies with
the Forest Service and works with SAMAB to
study and monitor dogwood anthracnose and forest
health. The National Biological Service is devel-
oping a monitoring program for Great Smoky
Mountains National Park and the Blue Ridge
Parkway, and it relies on SAMAB to help integrate
park information into a larger monitoring program.
Research information is exchanged throughout the
region among scientists, between scientists and
managers, and between scientists and citizens. In-
formation sharing among scientists is continual and
generally operates on trust because of individual
interests in the SAMAB region. The sharing of
data ownership among scientists is less open.
General information is shared through several
mechanisms, including: annual research symposia
focused either on research topics sponsored by the
Oak Ridge National Laboratories, or on SAMAB-
sponsored research sites within Southern Ap-
palachia; annual meetings attended by federal,
state, and university scientists; science education
programs provided by the Oak Ridge National
Laboratories onsite to students from elementary
through high school and through a high school
honors program; Great Smoky Mountain National
Park science meetings; newspaper stories; and
hiker education by researchers on park trails.
In other cases, research information is dissemi-
nated through the Natural Resources Conservation
Service or state forestry programs. The Forest
Service also disseminates technical information
through its Cradle of Forestry Center, which
focuses on environmental education, forestry in
transition, the ecosystem approach, and species
and environmental relationships. The Center's
programs teach the teacher, relate to the North
Carolina school curriculum, and function as part of
a group of environmental education sites that
. include the Bent Creek Demonstration Forest,
North Carolina Arboretum, Blue Ridge Parkway,
and North Carolina State Fish Hatchery.
Efforts aimed at synthesizing information and
assessing the region's current condition include:
• EPA-sponsored workshops to encourage
information exchange, involving all inter-
ested parties.
210
-------
Southern Appalachians
• Cooperation of five organizations in assess-
ing global change and ecosystem vulnerabil-
ity (to include SAMAB as part of a broader
effort throughout the Southeast).
• Forest Service establishment of three phys-
iographic teams for the entire Southeast to
bring research and forest management
together.
• The work of nine organizations to advance
direct and regular interaction among man-
agers and scientists during assessments at
three scales: the Clinch-Powell watershed,
the SAMAB region, and the SAMAB and
mid-Atlantic highlands regions taken
together.
• The maintenance of a summary of all
published documents about Great Smoky
Mountains National Park, by the National
Biological Service unit at the University of
Tennessee in Knoxville.
The state of North Carolina, with support from the
U.S. Department of Transportation, is developing a
geographic information system with land use clas-
sifications that will improve the capability to
conduct assessments within the region. However,
existing classification systems used by at least five
organizations in the region may be different from
one another. North Carolina state personnel main-
tain that the existing scientific information base is
adequate for assessing the effects of land use
changes on the regional forest industry.
The purpose of SAMAB is to promote the sharing
of scientific and management information and to
increase environmental awareness in both natural
and cultural resource arenas. The organization
fulfills its purpose through its extensive regional
network and through its easy mechanism for trans-
ferring research funds among partners. In fulfilling
its purpose, SAMAB conducts or coordinates re-
search communication, environmental monitoring
and assessment, air and water quality monitoring,
environmental education and training, and data
management. To date, SAMAB has focused
primarily on natural resources and has not directed
any measurable effort to sustainable development
or economic issues.
Opportunities
The geographic breadth and diversity of the
SAMAB Cooperative give organizations in South-
ern Appalachia a real opportunity to expand coop-
eration in science and information dissemination.
SAMAB presents this opportunity because it is
viewed as a resource and a facilitator, not as a
threat. It is accepted as a translator of technology
and can motivate agencies to refocus their efforts
on joint projects, rather than on independent
operations. It can address issues without additional
bureaucracy and can make a difference with
meager resources, guiding land trusts to become
effective partners. It demonstrates that federal
science and education organizations can work with
other federal, state, and private organizations.
Overall, it helps to coalesce the many separate
mandates of participating groups. It advances
science by increasing awareness about what other
agencies are doing, helping to eliminate duplica-
tion of effort and to encourage software compatibil-
ity for data sharing.
The SAMAB Foundation brings together federal
and nonfederal funds to support regional activities,
to fund worthy projects outside the domain of fed-
eral members, and to stimulate public involvement
and partnership in projects. Because it is viewed
as a facilitator, SAMAB keeps research and
scientific facts and discussions from becoming
embroiled in political debate. Moreover, SAMAB
activities complement the capabilities that TVA
brings to the region. Because TVA is both a
federal agency and a utility, it can cooperate in
research with other federal organizations and with
the utility industry.
The Forest Service assessment of regional forests
will go beyond individual forest boundaries. This
ecosystemwide approach affords several opportuni-
ties: to make the assessment interagency and to
focus on all relevant scales; to do better invento-
ries; to use existing data from cooperators rather
than to collect new data; to speed up application
of data to planning; and, by providing analysis
results for all forests at the same time rather than
piecemeal, to place forest planning into a broader
context.
211
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
Constraints
Problems related to science and information in the
Southern Appalachians originate both within the
region and outside of it. Following are examples:
• Most federal organizations active in the
region have other responsibilities that divert
attention from the region. For example, the
TVA Land and Water 201 initiative focuses
on the 201 counties in which TVA works,
involving the National Park Service, Forest
Service, and others in eliminating nonpoint
source pollution. However, not all SAMAB
agencies are involved, and the initiative po-
tentially competes with SAMAB programs;
Moreover, because it does not include wa-
tersheds that drain into the Atlantic Ocean,
it excludes part of the SAMAB area, focus-
ing primarily on specific aquatic systems
rather than on the entire ecosystem.
• Although EPA is an active member of
SAMAB, its research capability at the Re-
search Triangle Park in North Carolina does
not yet fully address the research needs of
Southern Appalachia.
• Some federal research agencies use Re-
search Grade Evaluation procedures to
reward their scientists for efforts to transfer
information from individual research results,
but not from the general body of technical
knowledge that underlies those results. As a
result, the evaluation process does not moti-
vate scientists to provide technical exten-
sion assistance to managers and others.
• Data management constraints are felt
throughout the region. The size of the region
and the voluminous amount of available
information require extensive computer
management of data, which is hard to
achieve. Although the National Biological
Service has agreed to assign a data man-
agement specialist to the region to help deal
with the workload, more attention to this is
needed. Similarly, although research can
develop predictively useful models, they are
not very useful for management predictions
when the models' users do not collect the
data necessary to run them.
Long-term maintenance of data bases is a
real problem, largely due to a lack of dedi-
cated funds. In one case where a research
agency committed 10 percent of the re-
search budget to data management, it
received good results. Lack of consistent
data standards and data sets impedes the
ability to create common data bases and
share data.
Use of global positioning systems is compli-
cated by the current practice of scrambling
the information, causing locational informa-
tion to be up to 100 meters in error.
Scrambling characteristics change daily,
and information from the global positioning
system base station is not shared very often.
Because SAMAB is focused on providing
technical expertise and not on enforcing
regulations, efforts to induce information
sharing can be jeopardized if potential par-
ticipants believe that such efforts will utilize
information obtained through SAMAB.
Local conservation districts can receive
federal funds to v/ork with private landown-
ers. However, provisions of the 1985 Farm
Bill have reduced private landowner accep-
tance of conservation districts, impeding
communication between them. In addition,
proposed reductions in the number of field
offices will reduce opportunities for transfer-
ring technical information to private
landowners in the region.
Great Smoky Mountains National Park has
exotic tree species that threaten survival of
native species. Despite the danger, the park
does not have a large interpretive program
on threats to native tree species.
Several agencies are planning large regional
assessments. Due to differences in purpose
among them, they are not exactly compara-
ble, although agencies are expected to
cooperate on data bases and analytical tools
used for these assessments. There is no
current proposal for total assessment of the
entire Southern Appalachian ecosystem to
determine what system of protected lands is
needed to sustain ecosystem values and
functions.
212
-------
Southern Appalachians
• Private landowners vary in their willingness
to permit inventory and monitoring activities
on their lands. Many fear that information
about their property could become public
against their will, and that remote sensing
could be used to survey their lands without
their knowledge or consent. Lack of infor-
mation about private lands could hamper
cumulative effects analyses that are impor-
tant for effective decision making under the
ecosystem approach.
Interviewee Suggestions
Many interviewees offered suggestions on how to
make their research and information transfer efforts
more productive, including:
• Use SAMAB to facilitate broader planning.
Where agency management plans for indi-
vidual units do not relate to the larger
landscape, SAMAB could help broaden the
focus by encouraging data sharing and
interagency cooperation that would lead to
broader planning.
• Integrate research with policymaking. One
key lesson of the Southern Appalachian
Mountains Initiative is that policy making
and research are interdependent: each must
contribute to the other to be successful.
Researchers must learn from policymakers
what information is needed, how certain it
must be, and when it is required. If they
know what is needed, many researchers are
willing to work on policy-oriented studies.
By the same token, policymakers must learn
from researchers what information is already
available, where gaps exist, how soon these
gaps can be filled, and how much the effort
is likely to cost. For both parties, working
together builds common vocabularies, trust,
and ability to compromise, all necessary to
communication and achieving consensus.
• Foster interagency cooperation in research.
Cooperation in research programs is best
developed when program partners identify
mutual questions derived from similar scien-
tific interests. Interagency cooperation
means identifying common interests, estab-
lishing agency liaison personnel (possibly
through personnel exchanges), and making
enough time and staff available to move
beyond day-to-day concerns to foster
cooperation.
Establish a regional preserve. Partners in
the Southern Appalachians should consider
establishing a regional genetic preservation
area with interagency support. The preserve
would shelter endangered and threatened
native species until threats in their native
habitats can be neutralized or eliminated.
Seek special designation for the region.
Partners in the Southern Appalachians
should seek designated-area legislation to
permit interagency cooperation. In this way,
the individual missions of federal agencies
in the region would not hinder effective
cooperation.
Develop regional indicators of environmental
change. The scientific community should
develop systems to identify when environ-
mental changes significantly exceed what is
accepted as normal variability. Developing
these systems would require interagency and
interdisciplinary workshops, literature and
data review, model building, peer review,
and model testing. It would include examin-
ing what little is known about declines and
extinctions of such regional species as the
passenger pigeon, American chestnut, Eraser
fir, snail darter and other fish, and freshwater
mussels.
Develop commodity activities. Science has
a role in the design of commodity activities
to mimic natural processes. Use of com-
modity activities as a resource management
tool increases their potential contributions to
both environmental and economic
sustainability.
Educate the public on the relationship be-
tween air quality and land use. People in the
SAMAB area generally do not understand
the connection between air quality deteriora-
tion and land use, so it is necessary to
demonstrate the effects of land uses on air
quality throughout the region. Educating
residents about this relationship will help
them to understand how changing land use
and its regulation by state or local govern-
ment can determine the quality of the re-
gion's air.
213
-------
The Ecosystem Approach: Case Studies
• Share data with all users. Information on
common environmental baseline data, hu-
man dimensions data, syntheses, gap analy-
ses, and assessments should be equally
available to public and private users.
• Encourage sustainable development.
SAMAB should broaden its focus to include
projects involving sustainable development
and economic issues.
Outlook for the Future
The wealth of research, information transfer, and
awareness of common management problems that
has developed in the Southern Appalachians has
generated a climate of interagency coordination
that was influential in the formation of SAMAB
and continues to make it effective. The long-
standing cooperative spirit among agencies was
partly stimulated by the TVA and the Oak Ridge
National Laboratories. The system-oriented aware-
ness of TVA in particular, with its interdisciplinary
watershed focus, helped pave the way for SAMAB.
Because TVA is a single agency with multiple
responsibilities over a single watershed and a mis-
sion focused on the interrelationship of people with
their environment, it has played an important role
in creating the climate of cooperation and informa-
tion sharing that makes SAMAB so effective.
Although SAMAB was created through the Man
and the Biosphere program, the regional character-
istics that contributed to its development may exist
in other regions as well, whether or not they have a
connections with the Man and the Biosphere pro-
gram. Several regional characteristics helped to
stimulate formation of SAMAB, including: a
strong, diverse research base; common resource
management problems shared by several land
management organizations; widespread mecha-
nisms to share research information; a recognition
that voluntary cooperation can achieve greater
results; and individuals in several agencies who
promote cooperation.
Public and private organizations in Southern
Appalachia that conduct research and monitoring,
take inventory, and transfer information have
generated a great deal of data. Still, the region is
so large such activities currently do not meet all
identified needs. Planned ecosystem assessments
and data administration systems will improve the
management of existing data and their utility for
public information, and will guide decisions on
where additional research, monitoring, baseline
data collection, and information transfer are
needed.
RECOMMENDATIONS
After conducting the complete series of surveys
and interviews, the team has developed the follow-
ing recommendations, based on themes that re-
curred throughout the region.
1. Compile and maintain an ecosystem data
base. Developing and providing baseline in-
formation that is useful to everyone active
in and around the ecosystem appears to be
critical to any coordinated effort to imple-
ment the ecosystem approach. An inter-
agency data base would facilitate agency
evaluations of ecosystem impacts (in-
cluding evaluations required by the
National Environmental Policy Act and
other statutes) and coordination of various
agency programs. An integrated ecosystem
data base would require each agency to
provide data in a format usable by all, to
broaden collection to include data needed
by others, and to help provide funding to
maintain the data base.
2. Encourage ongoing public involvement. To
be effective, agencies must take public
perceptions of ecosystem health and the
effects of agency programs into account. In
turn, agencies should educate the public
about environmental problems and about
agency efforts to address them. Trust and
voluntary cooperation by citizens, particu-
larly private landowners, is essential to
comprehensive protection of ecosystem
values. Existing authorities for public in-
volvement in ecosystem assessments
should be exploited. If necessary, informal
agency efforts to exchange information with
members of the public, nonfederal govern-
mental bodies, and groups of scientists
should be exempted from Federal Advisory
Committee Act requirements.
3. Coordinate with federal, state, and local
regulatory authorities. Agency regulatory
efforts should be formally separate from the
214
-------
Southern Appalachians
programs of any interagency ecosystem
coordinator or facilitator, and should be
employed judiciously to avoid undermining
coordinated ecosystem programs that
depend on public involvement and support.
Federal regulatory agencies should also
recognize that they can only address par-
ticular aspects of ecosystem impacts unless
their regulatory programs are coordinated
between agencies and with state and local
counterparts. Greater coordination could
better focus agency resources on critical
ecosystem impacts so that they comple-
ment other regulatory or nonregulatory
programs.
4. Build and execute budgets around ecosystem
needs. Interagency plans for the ecosystem
approach must be accompanied by coordi-
nated budget planning and execution.
Agencies should, at a minimum, compare
budgets and adjust them based on their
respective plans (to avoid duplication of
efforts and to decrease the likelihood of no
funding in needed areas). Ideally, agencies
would go much further, appointing an inter-
agency budget team to formulate a budget
based on a strategic plan for the ecosystem.
Such a budget would be developed in tan-
dem with jointly organized meetings with
key congressional committees and sub-
committees to garner their support.
5. Because transferring funds is a key con-
straint to cooperation for some agencies, an
interagency study should be conducted at the
national level to identify legal and ad-
ministrative barriers to interagency
transfers of funds and to develop ways to
overcome them.
6. Establish a federal regional coordinating
council. The coordination of federal ac-
tivities within ecosystems is essential. A
regional coordinating council should be
established to facilitate and focus federal
actions on advancing the ecosystem
approach. Such a council would act as a
coordinator, not a regulator, and would
promote communication among agencies,
seek public input, and keep the public
apprised of all federal activity within the
ecosystem. The council would ensure that
appropriate environmental baseline data is
developed and shared, and that it is not
duplicated. The council would annually
assess ecosystem needs and make them
known to agencies during budget develop-
ment. It would advance cooperation and
partnerships between agencies and state,
local, community, and private organiza-
tions. If the recommendation for removing
barriers to interagency transfer of funds is
accepted, the council would develop inter-
nal control mechanisms to ensure account-
ability of resources. The council would
host federal agency meetings to coordinate
future federal proposals so that analysts
could address the cumulative environmen-
tal effects of such proposals in all NEPA •
analyses prepared within the region.
215
-------
-------
REFERENCES
Boesch, D.F., M.N. Josselyn, A.J. Mehta, J.T.
Morris, W.K. Nuttle, C.A. Minenstad, and DJ.P.
Swift. 1994. "Scientific assessment of coastal
wetland loss, restoration, and management in
Louisiana." Journal of Coastal Research, Special
Issue No. 20.
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. 1994a.
Annual Restoration Work Allocation. Anchorage,
AK.
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. 1994b.
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Plan.
Anchorage, AK.
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. 1994c.
Proceedings of the Workshop: Science for the
Restoration Process; 13-15 April 1994;
Anchorage, AK.
Gagliano, S.M., and J.L. van Beek. 1970.
Geological and Geomorphic Aspects of Deltaic
Processes, Mississippi Delta System. Hydrologic
and Geologic Studies of Coastal Louisiana,
Report 1. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State
University, Center for Wetland Resources.
Gagliano, S.M., and J.L. van Beek. 1975. "An
approach to multiuse management in the
Mississippi Delta system." In: Deltas: Models
for Exploration, ed. M.L. Broussard, pages 223-
238. Houston, TX: Houston Geological Society.
Gagliano, S.M., and J.L. van Beek. 1993. A Long-
Term Plan for Louisiana's Coastal Wetlands.
Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana Department of
Natural Resources, Office of Coastal Restoration
and Management.
Governor's Office of Coastal Activities, Science
Advisory Panel Workshop. 1994. An
Environmental-Economic Blueprint for Restoring
the Louisiana Coastal Zone: the State Plan. Prep.
S.M. Gagliano. Baton Rouge, LA.
Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force.
1995. The Ecosystem Approach: Healthy
Ecosystems and Sustainable Economies. Vol. 1:
Overview. Washington, DC: Government
Printing Office.
Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force.
1995. The Ecosystem Approach: Healthy
Ecosystems and Sustainable Economies. Vol. 2:
Implementation Issues. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of the Interior.
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River
Basin. January 1988. Anacostia: The Other
River. Washington, DC.
Kemp, P. 1993. Testimony Before the Panel on
Scientific Principles of Coastal Wetland Loss,
Restoration, and Creation in Louisiana.
27 October 1993. Baton Rouge, LA.
Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and
Restoration Task Force. 1993. Coastal Wetlands
Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act:
Louisiana Coastal Wetland Restoration Plan.
Main Report and Environmental Impact
Statement. Ten Appendices.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments,
Anacostia Restoration Team. November 1991.
A Commitment to Restore Our Home River: A Six-
Point Action Plan to Restore the Anacostia River.
Washington, DC.
Templet, P.H. 1994. "Innovative solutions to
Louisiana's wetland losses." In: An
Environmental-Economic Blueprint for Restoring
the Louisiana Coastal Zone: the State Plan.
Appendix: Recommendation Reports. Report of
the Governor's Office of Coastal Activities,
Science Advisory Panel Workshop. Baton
Rouge, LA.
U.S. Department of the Interior. March 1994. The
Impact of Federal Programs on Wetlands. Vol. 2.
A Report for Congress by the Secretary of the
Interior. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
the Interior.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. September 1995.
Great Lakes Fishery Resources Restoration
Study: Report to Congress. Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office.
217
-------
Van Heerden, I.L. 1994. A Long-Term,
Comprehensive Management Plan for Coastal
Louisiana to Ensure Sustainable Biological
Productivity, Economic Growth, and the
Continued Existence of Its Unique Culture and
Heritage. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State
University, Center for Coastal, Energy, and
Environmental Resources.
The Wilderness Society. 1994. The Living
Landscape, Charting a New Course: National
Forests and the Southern Appalachians. Morton.
218
_
-------
INTERAGENCY ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT WORKING GROUP
Co-Chairs
James Pipkin, Counselor to the Secretary of the Interior
Diane Gelburd, Regional Conservationist for the East, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Department of
Agriculture
Members
Peter Boice
Joseph Canny
Ray Clark
Terry D'Addio
Michael Davis
Harvey Doerksen
Richard Hayes
Gary Larson
Science and Information
Robert Szaro, Chair
Jeri Berc
Scott Cameron
Public Participation
Val Chambers, Co-Chair
Jim Serfis, Co-Chair
Richard Alexander
Elisabeth Blaug
Legal Authorities
Louise Milkman, Chair
Reid Alsop
Elisabeth Blaug
Ted Boling
David Dickman
Policy Issues
Roger Griffis, Chair
Thomas Gunther
Maurice LeFranc
Bruce Long
Louise Milkman
Dave Moses
Mary O'Lone
Morgan Rees
Mark Schaefer
Issue Group Members
Steve Cordle
Mike Crosby
Lynn Martin
Bill Breed
Paul Jones
Sari Kiraly
Carol Sanders
David Gehlert
Roger Griffis
Jane Hannuksela
Steve Hoffman
Jim Havard
Ann Hooker
James Omans
Michael Sweeney
Robert Szaro
John VanDerwalker
Donna Wieting
Brooks Yeager
Susan Huke, Coordinator
Doug Norton
Robin O'Malley
Greg Ruark
Bruce Umminger
Rich Whitley
Mary Anne Young
Steve Young
Joanne Jones
Sam Kalen
Tom Marshall
Ron Mulach
Philip Thompson
Peter Smith
Molly Whitworth
219
-------
Institutional Issues
Ann Bartuska, Chair
Richard Alexander
Ted Doling
Budget Process Issues
Bruce Long, Co-Chair
Susan Huke, Co-Chair
Bill Breed
Scott Cameron
Harvey Doerksen
Mike Donohue
Anacostia River Watershed
Lynn Martin, Co-Chair
Rosina Bierbaum
Ann Hooker
Bill Breed
Roger Griffis
Kniffy Hamilton
Owen Lee
Darrell McElhaney
Jane McNeil
Pete Nessen
Roger Normand
Survey Team Members
Joanne Jones
Ron Lauster
Rob Mangold
Douglas Lawrence
Rob Mangold
Steve Young
Alan Perrin
Al Sherk
Claudia Tornblom
Richard Ullrich
Chris Wood
Mary O'Lone
Robert Reichardt
Coastal Louisiana
(Maurice Le Franc, Coordinator; Roger Zimmerman and Russel Rhodes, Local Coordinators)
Roger Griffis, Co-Chair
Molly Whitworth, Co-Chair
Jeri Berc
Val Chambers
Joanne Jones
Doug Norton
Al Sherk
Great Lakes Basin
(Maurice Le France, Coordinator; Christopher Grundler, Romy Myszka, and Al Beeton, Local Coordinators)
Steve Cordle, Chair
Sam Kalen
Pacific Northwest Forests
James Pipkin, Co-Chair
Robert Szaro, Co-Chair
Harvey Doerksen
Prince William Sound
(Steve Pennoyer, Local Coordinator)
Roger Griffis, Chair
Sean Furniss
Diane Gelburd
Rob Mangold
Andrea Ray
Diane Gelburd
Susan Huke
Larry Shannon
Charles Terrell
Don Knowles
Louise Milkman
Susan Huke
Louise Milkman
James Pipkin
Andrea Ray
220
-------
South Florida
(Colonel Terrence Salt and Richard Ring, Local Coordinators)
James Pipkin, Chair
Diane Gelburd
Southern Appalachians
Susan Huke, Co-Chair
Bill Sexton, Co-Chair
Roger Griffis
Susan Huke
Ted Boling
Ray Clark
Louise Milkman
Mike Sweeney
John Dennis
Terry West
221
-------
------- |