Redistributed as a Service of the National Library for the Environment*
|
Redistributed as a Service of the National Library for the Environment* |
|
|
|
Ecosystem Management: Federal Agency Activities 94-339 ENR DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS The development, use, and protection of natural resources is essential to the identity, culture, and livelihood of Native Americans. Indian reservations are working examples of ecosystem management. Tribes have always pushed for the integrated management of Indian lands and have accomplished much in the way of ecosystem management long before the concept was recognized by the scientific community. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) views Integrated Resource Management Planning as the delivery mechanism for the expansion of ecosystem management to every reservation, village, rancheria, and individual Indian allotment throughout the United States. Native American ecosystem management is a proven tradition. ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES The BIA mission is to enhance the quality of life, promote economic opportunity, and carry out the Federal government's responsibility to protect and improve the trust assets of American Indians, Indian tribes, and Alaska Natives. The BIA is the lead trustee for over 500 recognized Indian tribes and Alaska Villages. Essential to the BIA's mission is the maintenance of government-to-government relationships with sovereign tribes and nations in fulfillment of Indian self-determination. Indian reservations should be viewed as ecosystem management in action. There are no other places in the United States where the development, use, and protection of natural resources is so fundamental to the identity, culture, and livelihood of the people who reside within them. The BIA does not have a working definition of ecosystem management, nor is that appropriate. Indian tribes are leaders in ecosystem management. The BIA looks to the Indian landowner to define the scope and depth of ecosystem management. As a result, one can expect the complexion of ecosystem management to vary throughout the country. The principles of ecosystem management existed long before the term was accepted and recognized by the scientific community. These principles can be expressed in simple terms. Food, clothing, shelter (3); water, spirit, culture (4); seven generations before us, seven generations after us (5); all things are connected (6). Indian lands are not public lands. As such, the BIA does not make resource management decisions. The Indian people do. The BIA's role is to provide technical assistance and funding for sound resource management decisions. To date, our efforts have fallen short of tribal needs. In the early 1980's, the BIA embraced what is now being called ecosystem management by adopting what was then being called Integrated Resource Management Planning. However, our early efforts stalled. Organizationally, the BIA was not prepared for this concept and remains segregated by program functions (e.g., timber, fish, wildlife, range, water). Funding for integrated resource planning never came about. Early efforts resulted in a layering of program-specific management plans, rather than the integration of resource management. Today, the BIA is reviving integrated resource management as a broad policy objective. Tribal culture demands it, some tribes have it, but most are waiting. Integrated Resource Management Planning is called for in the National Indian Forest Resources Management Act (P.L. 101-630), the American Indian Agricultural Resources Management Act (P.L. 103-177), and in bills for the Indian Fish and Wildlife Resource Management Act currently before the House and Senate (H.R. 2874 and S. 1526, respectively). The Indian people pushed for these laws and are demanding the type of management that treats their resources as one. At the program level the BIA established a nation-wide Geographic Data Services Center that provides leadership in geographic information systems (GIS) applications. Ready access to a common spatial database is building trust amongst resource disciplines, whether they be tribal or BIA in administration. The BIA leads all Federal land management agencies in a permanent continuous forest inventory of major forested reservations that allows for the historical analysis of the health and condition of Indian forests. The BIA's Office of Trust Responsibilities supports several ecosystem management initiatives in forestry, fish, wildlife, and recreation. Specific projects focus on issues of common concern to State, Federal, and tribal governments to ensure the continued exercise of treaty hunting, fishing, and gathering rights. Visit a reservation anywhere and you will find a working example of ecosystem management. You will also find accomplishment. The BIA cooperates with Indian tribes, Alaskan Villages, and individual Indian landowners throughout the United States. The BIA's budget system and reorganization effort, which is consistent with the recommendations in the Federal government's National Performance Review, allows tribes to set priorities through localized decision-making. Many tribes have developed their own staffs for resource programs through Indian self-determination (P.L. 93-638) contracts. Furthermore, the Federal government's Self-Governance demonstration has proved successful in enabling participating tribes to take full control over program and services with a minimum amount of Federal oversight. As a result, the BIA maintains unique government-to-government relationships with each Indian tribe and Alaska Village. These relationships can be loosely grouped into three broad categories and may differ by program within the purview of a single tribe: 1) on-site consultant (BIA Field Agencies), 2) administrator of P.L. 93-638 contracts (contract support for tribal programs), and 3) trust responsibility oversight (annual Trust Evaluations of Self-Governance compacts). None of these relationships preclude the implementation of ecosystem management activities on Indian lands. In all cases, the tribes are the resource managers and need continued Federal support through funding and technical assistance. The BIA's interaction with other Federal agencies is usually on behalf of Indian tribes affected by other agency decisions. For example, the BIA regularly cooperates with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on compliance matters pertaining to the Endangered Species Act. Interagency cooperation occurs regularly at the national level. Examples include the resource protection efforts of the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho, and the coordination of interagency Forest Pest Management and Forest Health Initiative projects on Indian lands. The level of interagency cooperation has increased with the adoption of ecosystem management policies by most Federal agencies. The best example is the level of cooperation initiated by the Bureau's Portland Area Office in conjunction with the pending implementation of President Clinton's Forest Plan on Federal lands within the range of the northern spotted owl. The Portland Area Office has assigned technical staff, part-time, to 17 of the 19 Interagency Implementation Team Work Groups. In addition, the Area Director has a full-time representative working for the interagency Regional Ecosystem Office, and has on temporary detail another individual who serves as Acting Director of this office. With respect to President Clinton's Forest Economic Readjustment Initiative, the Portland Area Office has staff serving on the Regional, Washington, and Oregon Community Economic Revitalization Teams (CERTS). Furthermore, several tribal and intertribal representatives are serving on the northern California, Oregon, and Washington CERTS. The BIA envisions greater tribal participation in watershed analyses and provincial planning once plan implementation is underway. Field Superintendents in the BIA have been designated as the line officials to serve on interagency provincial planning teams. Cooperation with State, local, and private landowners is usually initiated by individual tribes, or by intertribal consortia such as the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, the Intertribal Timber Council, the Intertribal Agriculture Council, the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, and the Chippewa-Ottawa Treaty Fishery Management Authority. Examples include the cooperation of several tribes in the State of Washington's Timber, Fish, and Wildlife Initiative for improving forest practices, enhancing streams, and restoring wildlife; and several initiatives in the Lake States which coordinate tribal fishing, hunting, and gathering rights with non-Indian activities and land use. The Interagency Ecosystem Management Coordination Team plays a key role in coordinating the BIA's ecosystem management activities at the national level. The BIA supports the team's mission to develop a long-range agenda for ecosystem management. It is only proper that the BIA showcase the many examples of ecosystem management on Indian reservations. In 1984, the BIA established the precursor of today's Geographic Data Service Center. Located in Lakewood, Colorado, the Geographic Data Service Center anchors the BIA's expertise in automated geographic analysis tools. The center's mission is to transfer automated geographic analysis tools to Indian tribes in support of tribal management of Indian resources. The center is divided into four major groups: administration, computer systems, remote sensing, and geographic information systems (GIS). In 1993, a total of 328 field users, including 144 tribal users (representing 57 tribes), performed over 33,000 hours of geographic data analysis through access to the Geographic Data Service Center. The administrative group is responsible for the daily management of the center, and for coordinating BIA conferences and training throughout the United States. Recent accomplishments include a Winter GIS Users Forum, and technical workshops on the SUN workstation (OS/UNZ operating system) and ARC/AML programming. The computer systems group maintains all computer hardware and develops software for system operability. The group manages data workspaces, operates the local area network, and is the liaison with commercial software developers. The remote sensing group is responsible for terrain data processing, satellite image mapping, watershed analysis, and land cover mapping (e.g., woodland, forest, range, agriculture). Recent projects include the Ft. Berthold Indian Reservation (North Dakota) watershed analysis, the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation (South Dakota) woodland mapping, the Winnebago and Omaha (Nebraska) Indian Reservations agricultural crop land mapping, and fire/fuels mapping for the Zunni, Ramah-Navajo, and Ute Mountain Reservations in the southwestern United States. The geographic information systems group coordinates data entry, database development, user support, and training specific to GIS applications. Readily accessible through modem, the Geographic Data Service Center's ARC/INFO GIS system is being increasingly used by tribal and Bureau personnel in the Lake States, Pacific Northwest, and Southwest regions of the United States. To date, over 170 Indian reservations have basic Overages for streams, roads, public land survey, physiographic features, and vegetation. A significant accomplishment was the successful transfer and quality control of over 35,000 coverages from the old Prime System to the SUN workstation. The GIS group supports a full time help desk to assist remote users. Just as important is the expansion and use of automated geographic analysis tools by individual tribes. Many larger Indian reservations (e.g., Yakama, Flathead, and Ft. Apache) have their own GIS systems. Others are working with private contractors to utilize satellite imagery data to develop forest cover type maps (e.g., Quinault Indian Reservation). Perhaps the biggest success is that these tools are breaking down barriers between resource disciplines as everyone's data becomes accessible and useable. The Bureau of Indian Affairs' Ecosystem Management display will highlight the use of GIS in the development of an Integrated Resource Management Plan by the Spokane Tribe of Indians (7). The BIA is not aware of any specific cooperative projects involving tribes or Indian lands in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Gap Analysis Program. However, local conservation groups are aware of the significant contributions to biodiversity that Indian lands provide, and that any assessment of the distribution and size of protected areas for plant communities and individual species should not overlook these contributions. Perhaps the biggest barrier in ensuring cooperation is in respecting the proprietary nature of reservation data and the sovereignty in tribal decision-making. The Haskell Indian Nations University (8) (in cooperation with the Department of Interior's National Training Center) would be a good starting place for coordinating the use of Native American high school and community college student participation in gap analyses. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) budget is not structured to accommodate ecosystem management. Rather, the BIA's budget is prioritized to deliver quality social and educational services to Indian tribes. Natural resource management is driven by the specific needs of Indian tribes, and in most cases the primary need is for sustainable economic development providing income for tribal programs and jobs for tribal members. Natural resource budget priorities are set to deliver particular commodity outputs, and as such, are not well suited for managing the land as a whole. Most environmental protection activities on Indian lands are made possible through viable commodity-oriented programs like timber, mining, range, commercial fisheries and agriculture. For example, a viable timber program provides the infrastructure and income to stabilize roads, conduct watershed analyses, manage wildlife habitat, survey cultural resources, as well as provide basic resource protection from fire, insects, and disease. Therefore, programs or staff that deal primarily with environmental protection are put at a budgetary disadvantage since they do not generate the income needed to pay for their services (e.g., archeology, cultural resources, environmental quality). Similarly, commodity programs are increasingly being asked to fund environmental protection services at the expense of meeting otherwise attainable and environmentally sound levels of production. The BIA is hesitant to restructure budget priorities to specifically accommodate ecosystem management. Rather, the BIA budget system allows tribes to set budget priorities to meet specific tribal needs. Tribes have the flexibility to move allocations around to fund programs that are needed most. In this type of budgetary environment, the key ingredient to successful ecosystem management on Indian lands is the completion of Integrated Resource Management Plans (IRMPs). Tribal decisions regarding how resources will be valued, protected, and used; and to what extent impacts to the environment will be acceptable, must be made in IRMPs. Ecosystem management, as defined by each tribe, can be accomplished if tribal budget priorities are required to reflect resource allocation and protection decisions made in IRMPs. Quality resource management can be assured if funding allocations are based on, and therefore require, IRMPs. Increasingly, tribal staff and operations are conducting resource management through P.L. 93-638 Indian Self-Determination contracts or Self-Governance compacts. The best available data in assessing contracting trends is from the BIA's Division of Forestry (9). Since 1984, tribal staff within the forestry program has increased over 226 percent through the use of P.L. 93-638 contracts and compacts. In fiscal year 1993, over 40 percent of the forestry program budget (net of contract support) went to self-determination contracts and compacts. Nearly 100 percent of allocated forest management deductions from stumpage receipts went back to tribal programs. In addition, tribes contributed over $2.7 million of their own funds to their forestry program (approximately 5 percent of the total budget). The BIA expects these trends to occur in all resource programs if new funds for ecosystem management become available. Most likely, implementation would occur through the expansion of tribal staffs through the use of P.L. 93-638 contracts and compacts. ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT LIMITS AND OPPORTUNITIES Ideally, the BIA would like to be in a position to unequivocally support Integrated Resource Management Planning on every reservation, village, rancheria, and individual allotment throughout the United States. This requires adequate funding, staffing, and organization. As an example, a recent independent scientific assessment of the Indian forestry program recommended a 182 percent budget increase to bring funding levels for the coordinated planning and management of Indian forest lands on par with that of the National Forests(10). In addition, the study identified the need for an additional $200 million for road system improvement and $150 million for forest development treatments (reforestation, fertilization, thinning). In doing so, the study identified the value of coordinated resource plans (i.e., integrated resource management) in directing investments to best meet tribal needs. If done properly, an Integrated Resource Management Plan (IRMP) will meet programmatic compliance needs for the National Environmental Policy Act, as well as programmatic compliance with specific tribal laws and Federal environmental mandates such as the Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. Furthermore, an IRMP will streamline the compliance process for specific projects implementing tribal resource programs pursuant to the goals and objectives in the plan. The advantage with an IRMP is that environmental compliance is assured through a single effort and assesses the combined environmental effects of all resource activities. Compliance is no longer a bureaucratic exercise, but rather serves the planning and monitoring needs for an entire reservation. To date, BIA organization and program funding has not been conducive to developing IRMPs. The BIA estimates an additional $42 million annual funding need to meet increasing demands for environmental compliance (over 20 Federal environmental mandates, and an additional 5-10 tribal mandates, have been identified) (11). Current limitations include a shortage of staff expertise to conduct the necessary field work and documentation for timely compliance to meet tribal program needs with the least amount of interruption. In addition, the BIA estimates an annual $10 million funding need for Integrated Resource Management Planning. This money is needed to develop the staff and program infrastructure for developing IRMPs. In total, an additional $50 million annual funding level would overcome financial limitations to ecosystem management on Indian lands. The BIA recognizes the fiscal austerity facing all Federal agencies. Current strategies do not hinge entirely on acquiring this new funding. Rather, the BIA will be looking to all Federal agencies to support the Federal government's trust responsibility to Indian tribes. As an example, the BIA is investigating whether Environmental Protection Agency General Assistance Grants can be used to fund Integrated Resource Management Planning programs. Furthermore, regulatory agencies must secure funding to alleviate the financial burden many environmental mandates place on Indian tribes. SUMMARY The Bureau of Indian Affairs will continue to identify the ecosystem management needs of American Indians, Indian tribes, and Alaska Natives. Since Native Americans are leaders in ecosystem management, we do not expect dramatic shifts in tribal resource policies. Instead, Indian tribes and Alaskan Villages have been waiting for Integrated Resource Management Planning to be accepted as the means to develop and implement their ecosystem management concepts. The BIA recognizes that successful Integrated Resource Management Planning will not occur without the cooperation and contributions of all Federal land and resource agencies. In the meantime, the BIA will continue its role of technical assistance in resource inventory, geographic analysis, and planning. Native American ecosystem management is a proven tradition. CONTACT Hank Kipp BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is responsible for the administration of 270 million acres of public lands representing a variety of ecosystems, from the sun-drenched deserts of the arid Southwest to the lush old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest, to the pristine Arctic tundra of Alaska. The BLM has adopted the principles of ecosystem management to guide its management of the public's lands and resources. The cumulative effects of past activities on public and private lands have often led to degraded aquatic and riparian systems; less productive rangeland conditions; fragmented plant, animal and fish habitats; and forest health problems. Human population growth, non native plants, historical overuse, and other factors, have also contributed to degradation of the public lands causing significant declines in the range and numbers of many native flora and fauna. Public lands are also the last refuges for many vanishing species. Over 191 Federally listed threatened and endangered plant and animal species, and over 1,100 candidate species, occur on BLM lands. BLM lands provide habitat for at least 109 salmon and steelhead stocks that are threatened with extinction. Communities whose economies depend on public lands are often the most seriously affected by ecological degradation. The declining timber and commercial and recreational fishing industries of the Pacific Northwest have seen the economic repercussions and social displacement accompanying ecosystem degradation. Conservation efforts on public lands make a critical difference to the viability of vulnerable plant and animal species, and the stability of local economies. Poor forest and rangeland health, degraded riparian areas, and inferior aquatic habitats threaten species' viability, resource productivity, and, ultimately, the overall sustainability of ecological systems on which humans depend. Since ecosystems cross jurisdictional boundaries, the BLM is encouraging partnerships, sharing management responsibilities, and establishing common management goals with other Federal, State, and private land managers, local communities, and other interested domestic and international parties. ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES For the BLM, ecosystem management is the integration of ecological, economic, and social principles to manage biological and physical systems in a manner safeguarding the long-term ecological sustainability, natural diversity, and productivity of the landscape. The primary goal of ecosystem management is to develop and implement management that conserves, restores, and maintains the ecological integrity, productivity, and biological diversity of public lands. Sustainable ecosystems provide many benefits for wildlife and humans such as habitat for fish and wildlife, clean drinking water for communities wood, fiber, forage, recreational, and economic opportunities. BLM management actions will be governed by the following principles: sustain the productivity and diversity of ecological systems; gather and use the best available scientific information as the cornerstone for resource allocations and other land management decisions; involve the public in the planning process and coordinate with other Federal, State, and private land owners; determine desired future ecosystem conditions based on historic, ecological, economic, and social considerations; minimize and repair impacts to the land; adopt an interdisciplinary approach to land management; plan and manage on long-term goals; reconnect isolated parts of the landscape; and practice adaptive management. While there are legal provisions Congress could enact to facilitate ecosystem management, the principles described above are consistent with the mission of the BLM. The BLM's mission of "multiple use" is described in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) (43 USC 1702(e)). The BLM is implementing numerous management efforts consistent with the principles of ecosystem management. Bring Back The Natives for example calls on a number of cooperators to help restore the health of entire riverine systems through watershed rehabilitation and responsible resource stewardship. During 1993, the BLM implemented 29 projects in 13 Western States benefiting a wide variety of aquatic species and wildlife, and contributing toward the recovery of targeted and threatened species. The BLM has also been actively involved in the Partners In Flight - Aves de las Americas. This international initiative seeks to stabilize declining populations and focuses on improving habitat and managing ecosystems for many neotropical bird species throughout their migratory routes, sometimes spanning 10,000 miles. In California, the BLM signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with other Federal, State, and county partners to develop a coordinated, State-wide biodiversity planning strategy. This effort is coordinating the actions of the principal land management agencies under the long-term goal of conserving the rich natural heritage of each major bioregion in California while maintaining economic growth and development. For the last few years, the BLM has been actively cooperating with other Federal and State agencies in managing the Nation's public lands. For example, Bring Back The Natives is supported and sponsored by the BLM, USDA Forest Service, and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Additionally, multiple private organizations, such as Trout Unlimited and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, are involved in site specific project implementation. Now in its third year, Bring Back The Natives involves 67 Federal, State, local, and private partners and implemented over 30 projects benefiting a wide variety of aquatic species and wildlife. During 1994, over 50 Bring Back The Natives projects will focus on restoring native species and watersheds in 14 Western States. The Partners In Flight initiative is a multifaceted coordinated management effort for neotropical migratory birds involving Canada, the United States, Mexico, the Caribbean, Central America, and South America. At the conclusion of 1993, 14 Federal agencies, 55 State and provincial fish and wildlife agencies, 34 nongovernmental organizations, and 14 private companies in the Western Hemisphere were actively involved in this unprecedented conservation effort. The BLM and USDA Forest Service are merging and expanding their respective Pacific anadromous fish habitat programs into an ecosystem approach for aquatic habitats and riparian area management. The effort, called PACFISH, will conserve and restore Pacific salmon and steelhead habitats and associated watersheds on Federal lands in the West. PACFISH stresses the integration of sound scientific information with on-the-ground management direction. PACFISH principles form the aquatic component of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) plan. The BLM is a member of the Steering Committee of the Interagency Ecosystem Management Coordination Group (IEMCG), which consists of 20 Federal agencies, and actively participates in many of the Group's Subcommittees. The BLM is assisting in drafting the Interagency Principles of Ecosystem Management. The BLM is a member of the Group's Outreach Committee and spearheaded the design, creation, and production of the Interagency exhibit and fact sheet for the poster session at the symposium sponsored by the Congressional Research Service. The BLM is a member of the Group's Training Committee. The BLM also assisted in drafting the IEMCG MOU which will state the primary role of the Group as ". . . fostering collaboration among diverse agencies to develop a long-range agenda for ecosystem management." The BLM's multiple use mission requires complex analyses of the potential impacts of alternative resource management decisions which range in scope from habitat improvements of one acre to environmental analyses for proposed pipeline rights-of-way extending up to 1,000 miles, to complex ecosystem analysis in the Pacific Northwest. The applications for geographic information systems (GIS) in the BLM are extensive both in terms of the land area being managed and the conflicts regarding the use of the land. The primary application of GIS in the past has been the analysis of data in support of Environmental Impact Statements and Land Use Planning. By implementing GIS capabilities throughout all the BLM offices, a vast data base will be accessible for subsequent decisions and for public inquiries. BLM management has committed to GIS development as a top priority of the agency, with the many associated activities guided through a Master Plan which will be regularly updated. After ensuring that the GIS concept guided the development of automated systems within the agency, the BLM defined as a priority the implementation of a data administration program to meet GIS goals and objectives. One of the first components of GIS to be implemented will be the Automated Land and Mineral Record System (ALMRS). When fully implemented, the GIS data base will include the land and mineral records data to provide information about land status and authorizations. Automated Resource Data (ARD) will include the resource values, management concerns, and characteristics of the land, as well as base data about topography. transportation, and basic cultural features. The automated Geographic Coordinate Data Base (GCDB) will build upon survey descriptions of legal land parcels, which are defined by the Public Land Survey System in most States. The BLM is preparing standards in cooperation with other Federal agencies, including the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Geological Survey. The BLM is also participating with other Federal agencies in developing standards for the exchange and sharing of data and for defining spatial data transfer standards. After land parcel data is automated, the BLM will use existing GIS technology to retrieve and display land status records, such as ownership and existing leases, or permits for use and other natural resource information. The BLM recognizes the tremendous benefits of GIS with its faster responses to public queries, the use of better quality data in many decisions, streamlining the processing of cases, and the flexibility in data analysis. Through GIS, the BLM will coordinate land use inventory, planning, and management activities with other Federal agencies, State and local governments, interest groups and industry, and the general public. The BLM is committed to effectively managing sustainable ecosystems in a constrained budget environment. The current budget structure is inflexible and does not facilitate an integrated or coordinated approach to resolving resource issues. The present budget process is also complex and costly to administer; not responsive enough to meet rapidly changing demands; has too many individual sources of funding; and focuses too much on individual programs. The BLM has proposed a new budget structure that will allow the Bureau to allocate funds on the basis of the BLM's mission rather than on a separate, often conflicting, program-by-program basis. The proposed structure is designed to improve efficiency and reduce costs associated with managing the public lands as well as provide needed flexibility. Fiscal accountability mechanisms and on-the-ground performance measures must be critical components of the new BLM budget structure. The BLM will not take any action to revise the current budget structure without appropriate Congressional review and approval. Congress will have the opportunity to consider this proposed budget as it considers the 1995 appropriation legislation. ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT LIMITS AND OPPORTUNITIES The ecosystem approach to management is supported by the BLM's enabling legislation. There are, however, several legal, administrative, and cultural obstacles that may impede implementation of ecosystem management. The principles of ecosystem management require Federal agencies to integrate management actions at various scales including landscape and watershed perspectives. The boundaries of the Forest Service forests' and BLM districts, however, were not drawn to facilitate the accomplishment of ecological objectives. The agencies have developed coordinating mechanisms to initiate interagency efforts such as PACFISH and rangeland reform. Yet, implementation of these efforts are often confounded by the two agencies differing missions. The BLM and the Forest Service are attempting to integrate administrative processes and planning regulations to streamline interagency coordination. In addition, the agencies are working to employ comparable data standards and resource classification systems to simplify the exchange of information. Federal agencies are rewarded for achieving targets based on the production of commodities. Other objectives, especially those that are non-consumptive, such as aesthetic and scenic values and some recreation, are sometimes neglected. Since the production of all goods and services is dependent on ecosystem health, BLM's overriding objective will be to maintain naturally diverse and sustainable ecological systems. Local BLM managers must be empowered to base resource allocation and land use decisions on site specific and landscape trends and capabilities. The ability of managers to practice adaptive management will safeguard the ecological integrity of the land and will allow for the long-term production of goods and services from the Nation's public lands. Implementing an ecosystem approach to managing Federal lands will require the agencies to place a greater emphasis on hiring and training employees proficient in assessing and predicting the effect of management activities on the landscape. The BLM does not presently have employees possessing requisite skills needed for such a task. Scarce skills specialists and experts who can provide the agencies, States, and interested publics with technical information are critical to the implementation of ecosystem management. The BLM will need to have aquatic, range, and forest ecologists; conservation biologists/population geneticists; hydrologists; and soil scientists/geomorphologists. Specialists with specific expertise may be required depending on regional issues. Other required professionals include economists, statisticians, computer scientists, and cultural resource specialists. The public's expectations and use of Federal lands grow daily. It is the challenge of the BLM to implement management that meets these expectations. The BLM must meet these expectations within the limits imposed by ecological systems and the need to conserve biological diversity and safeguard ecological sustainability. CONTACT Kniffy Hamilton Endnotes 3 James S. Hendrickson, Chairman, Grand Portage Reservation business committee. 1984. Letter to tribal members soliciting input on a new [circa 1984] Multiple-Use Natural Resources Management Plan. 4 Port Gamble S'klallam Tribe, Kingston, Washington. 1994. Presentation by Steve Moddemeyer Forest Management and Inventory Planning Meeting Portland Area Office bureau of Indian Affairs, March 1-3, Spokane Washington. 5 Ada E. Deer. Assistant secretary for Indian Affairs. 1994. Presentation to Northwest Watershed Restoration/Partnership Conference, February 16-17, Tacoma, Washington. 6 Ibid. Quoting Chief Seattle. 7 For more information contact the Honorable Bruce Wynn, Chairman, Spokane Tribe of Indians Post Office Box 100, Wellpinit Washington 99040 (Attention: Mary Verner, Director Natural Resources Planning). 8 Natural Resources Program, Haskell Indian Nations University (formerly, Haskell Indian Junior College) 155 Indian Avenue, Lawrence, Kansas, 66046. 9 Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Forestry. 1994. Forestry Program Funding and Position Analysis. FY [fiscal year] 1993. United States Department of the Interior, Washington D.C. [232 pages, non-conventional pagination]. 10 Indian Forest Management Assessment Team. 1993. An assessment of Indian Forests and Forest Management in the United States. Intertribal Timber Council, Portland, Oregon. [163 pages, non-conventional pagination]. 11 Bureau of Indian Affairs. 1993. Office of Trust Responsibilities Trust Resources -Environmental Mandates [FY Fiscal year] 1994-1998 Funding Needs Assessment. All Areas, Needs Estimate Report. Division of Forestry, Branch of Forest Resources Planning. DRAFT [database].
|
CRS Reports Home
|
||
 |
National Council for Science and the Environment 1725 K Street, Suite 212 - Washington, DC 20006 202-530-5810 - info@NCSEonline.org |
 |
