Facilitator: Cindy Chojnacky, FS
Recorder: Dixie Bounds, NBS and U of AZ
Participants:
Steve Cinnamon (author), NPS, Nebraska (402) 221-3437
John Payne, BLM, Alaska (907) 271-3431
Patricia Giorgi, NPS, Midwest Region (420) 221-3352
Jill Baron, NBS, CO State Uni. (970) 491-1968
John Mosesso, NBS, Washington DC (202) 482-3774
George Martinez, FS, Regional Office Albuquerque (505) 842-3229
Steve invited other folks to join the author team if they wish to because the author team is small.
Let's look at not only unsuccessful attempts, but also successful or promising too.
1. KEY QUESTIONS
a. What are the patterns and future trends in resource use and consumption?
**A main issue is politics, influences all management actions**
The NPS standard is the visitor use, demographic characteristics of visitors are changing, getting an older population. The continual wear and tear on archeological sites is occuring. Our products depend on the international market. Ex. Logging going on lands adjacent to NPS units certainly impacts the NPS units.
NPS is getting lots of international visitors too.
Flip Chart: We must consider local, regional and global uses and influences on public uses.
Our waste products get exported.
There are global climate changes that affect our natural resources.
2. SCOPE
We must consider the international aspects and how this can affect natural resources. We can no longer just limit our view to local influences.
Flip Chart: Can't be limited to local
-local focus but consider adjacent ownerships, regional, international trends, uses, effects.
We have a much larger urban population now than rural based. People from urban based areas have different values.
These demographic changes influence how lands are used.
Economic trends are influencing land use. Recreational uses are increasing and traditional uses are decreasing.
People who locate outside NPS boundaries are there for a reason. How do we involve them in the decision-making process.
NPS may be almost entirely preservation in some areas. NPS in Alaska is visitor management.
Federal agencies have had the attitude in the past that the land is ours and we have been autocratic about land use. We've also discounted what the environmental community has had to say and they have responded with legal actions.
Flip chart: BARRIERS:
1. autocratic agency attitudes
2. public distrust (people feel disenfranchised)
3. By creating a park, or wilderness areas we attract more people and the resource is less protected.
4. US political system
5. Social values and expectations
6. Special interests influencing Congress
7. Distinterested public
8. Creativity exists in agencies but anti-controversy culture stifles it
9. Reorganization has closed more doors to leadership
EXAMPLES
1. We need to get away from single species management.
When we created spotted owl management areas we created a false environment, other areas are more intensively managed. We create our own problems by trying to manage for single species with a narrow focus.
2. Congressional Mandates may ignore
-local preferences
-setting harvest levels
Congress sets levels of "continuous supply"
Ex. National change from 4 billion board feet to 12 billion board feet
Is there a better way for the public to have input on decisions affecting natural resources in their area.
Congress created a false economy by agreeing to supply some commodities to other countries Ex. So many million board feet of lumber to other countries.
By falsing creating economies to use the lumber on FS lands, this leads to boom and bust local economies. Then the spotted owl issue comes up and the economies go bust.
Political forces dictate crisis situations.
**Ecosystem management (in FS) is trying to manage 400 year old systems on 80-100 year rotations.
FS has a deeply entrenched culture and might need a house-cleaning.
3. NBS - political trauma before it established protocols and got itself together to do its job.
NBS folks - what about inventory and monitoring. Did what Babbit attempt with trying to put all research across all agencies in one place.
**A fair characterization is that there were political processes that came into play that prevented us from really doing this. Political processes got in the way so we have not been able to do much. NBS fell into a trap. NBS did not do their homework before hand such as getting the right people on our side before creating NBS. We went ahead without contacting the State resource people and the University people and we ended up losing their support. If you don't build a broad constituency (which NBS didn't) you'll fail.
NBS affected 7 agencies, people didn't know what to expect and people do not like change anyway. This is part of the reason NBS failed.
NBS is an example of shifting values. We brought in people that recognized that the values of the public is changing. We tried to bring an unbiased way to collect data and deliver information to all the agencies in the same way.
Why weren't these people involved in the creation of NBS?
The kinds of leaders and managers we select need to care about people and about resources. Without this we cannot implement change.
4. Oil and Gas demands for areas adjacent to park and wilderness areas (has local and global implications)
Theodore Roosevelt wilderness area in SD is surrounded by oil companies interested in mineral rights, the companies have plunked in many oil wells around the NPS area. This has biological consequences (OIL SPILLS), it is ugly to look at for visitors.
**Unsuccessful management is to allow such development around natural areas.
5. One of the biggest failures is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (has one of the biggest reserves of oil)
**Perhaps the federal government is unable to take care of natural resources for the greater good of the public.
*Public needs shift over time
Bear policy in Yellowstone in the 1960s was mismanagement
6.*Grazing on public lands is mismanagement
*some managers use a "get along" policy than setting limits and working with people.
Goal of the future to have high water quality, high recreational use, etc., but politics has served as a barrier to this.
7. County movements demand for federal land
-by product of shifting
Examples of failures continued:
8. Power plant adjacent to Shenadoah NP (contact Dave Haskell)
-air quality issues
VA Power and Light Co. wanted to build a power plant that would impact Shenadoah NP. There was overwhelming interest in the power and due to the economics of this situation NPS lost. (Ask Dave Haskell, former resource manager at the park)
Attitudes change fast, but values may be generation oriented. People of a certain generation tend to have certain values.
9. Colubia River dams and salmon
10. Failure of Consensus
The creativity has always existed within natural resource agencies to do what was right, but we were often constrained by politics, or may have been prevented from emerging into management positions. Reorganization has closed more doors to creative leadership.
But opportunity for different approaches, line disinterest/ buy in a problem in some agencies.
The demographics of the people attending this conference are predominantly middle-aged white males. Under reorganization and budget cuts agencies tend to cut from the bottom and that usually cuts out the diversity and may limit creativity.
Break: 3:30pm
Let's chose 3 examples to elaborate on in the matrix:
Take different scales for examples: local, regional, national, international
3. NBS: political trauma before, did not ask interested parties before proceeding; did not build constituencies, gigantic impact on 7 different agencies, opposition from uncertain employees.
4. Oil and gas demand for areas adjacent to park and wilderness agencies. Ex. Theodore Roosevelt NP (affected by local and global players)
5. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
6. Grazing policy (FS and BLM)
7. County movement and demand for federal land
-by product of shifting human use/demands
population growth and migration to West
- locals looking for empty space on Federal lands
8. Power plant adjacent to Shenadoah NP
9. Columbia National River
3. SELECTION OF UNSUCCESSFUL MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
Voted on the top 3 issues:
1. Single species management
2. Congressional mandates
3. Oil and gas leases near natural areas (NPS units, Refuges, Wilderness Areas)
4. DISCUSSION OF UNSUCCESSFUL MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
I. Description:
1. Single species management
Ex. Spotted owl (NW), desert tortoise (SW)
Scale: both of these are regional issues.
Ex. Anadramous fish, whaling are global in scale.
There are published reports on spotted owls the authors can draw from to get details.
There are lots of social costs related to spotted owl. It's difficult to count all the costs associated with spotted owl. Time is a major factor for spotted owl.
Key factors that prevented success with the spotted owl: lack of the agency to listen to biologists early on = institutional ignorance, lack of communication with all interested parties, Congress influenced process by concerns of trying to get re-elected. Congressionally mandated harvest targets to go from 4 to 12 billion board feet.
II. FACTORS:
Single species management has never been successful anywhere. The ESA was an attempt to get away from single species management and try to manage for species before they became critical. You could have 2 sensitive species occupying the same area and if you manage for 1 species the other species may deteriorate.
We need to move to an approach of how to protect the area/environment of the species and this will protect habitat for multiple species.
Lots of studies have been done on single species and almost always that species is lost. When that species is lost about 25 other species are also lost.
Ecological Society of America published a paper on this very issue last year (contact Jill to get a copy).
III. TOOLS AND APPROACHES:
Data on spotted owl was originally collected differently and was part of the failure. Secretary Babbit found this a major problem because different scientists had different databases with different results. This is part of the reason Babbit created National Biological Service.
BARRIERS: The media frenzy feeding on the impacts on the logging community = a bias that tainted the public's views. The media gave the public an attitude of jobs vs owls.
There is an internal apathy to bringing people in the community into the process. Attitude of we can't do anything.
Tradition became a big issue, generations had been loggers and did not want their way of life to change. Same way with ranchers, their families have always done this and they do not want to change.
You must beat your political foes while the iron is hot. People get worn out after trying for a long time. There is pressure to make decisions over night. The political process makes rational management difficult.
TOPIC 2 (same as topic 1)-see above
EXAMPLE 2
I. DESCRIPTION:
This was declared a refuge in 1980 with the knowledge that the oil existed on those lands. There was no outlet for exploration of oil resources when refuge was created.
II. FACTORS:
The aging AK pipeline and the signing of the Alaska Export Bill will put more pressure to use that oil. Now AK oil can be exported to other countries, it could not before. Alaskans pushed for that law because trade in AK is with ASIA not with the lower 48 states. The public perceives this area as one of the last pristine areas in N. America, they perceive that the largest caribou herds are there, wolves, etc.
Economics and commercialism is driving this whole issue. There are people's preceived values vs economic needs.
National and State values are quite different here. Native Americans want self-determination (1/2) and the other half want traditional uses.
III. TOOLS AND APPROACHES
See Jim Kurthomyr (Refuge Manager of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) for what has been done.
He's at this meeting.
IV. LINKAGES: (see page 12 for other topics this is linked too)
20, 21, 22, 25
V. EVALUATION: Often people's perceptions define failure or success. If your Nat' Forest goes through a planning effort and it is just put on a shelf, then its a failure. This is hard to measure because it is not quantitative.
VI. BARRIERS:
The general population is against drilling.
Congress may try to mandate us to reopen the refuge to oil exploration
We don't address problems until they become crises or before the sides become polarized. Problems need to be dealt with before they reach that stage.
Both topics 1,2, and 4 all lack leaders who are visionary. Politics is reactionary and attempts to solve the problem often come too late.
Babbit had great intentions with NBS, but he failed to bring the people along and as a result he failed. Consesus building is an on-going process, you must keep the finger on the pulse to make sure things don't fail after decisions are made.
Americans like final decisions, dislike change, often prefer the status quo so change is difficult to achieve - this is cultural bias. We may need to be more flexible and dynamic.