Search

Search Results

• 1891. [Image] Integrated scientific assessment for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins

  	Abstract Quigley, Thomas M.; Haynes, Richard W.; Graham, Russell T., tech. eds. 1996. Integrated scientific assessment for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Integrated scientific assessment for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins Year: 1996, 2005, 2000 Abstract Quigley, Thomas M.; Haynes, Richard W.; Graham, Russell T., tech. eds. 1996. Integrated scientific assessment for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-382. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 303 p. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed. The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific Assessment.) The Integrated Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem Management for the Interior Columbia Basin links landscape, aquatic, terrestrial, social, and economic characterizations to describe biophysical and social systems. Integration was achieved through a framework built around six goals for ecosystem management and three different views of the future. These goals are: maintain evolutionary and ecological processes; manage for multiple ecological domains and evolutionary timeframes; maintain viable populations of native and desired non-native species; encourage social and economic resiliency; manage for places with definable values; and, manage to maintain a variety of ecosystem goods, services, and conditions that society wants. Ratings of relative ecological integrity and socioeconomic resiliency were used to make broad statements about ecosystem conditions in the Basin. Currently in the Basin high integrity and resiliency are found on 16 and 20 percent of the area, respectively. Low integrity and resiliency are found on 60 and 68 percent of the area. Different approaches to management can alter the risks to the assets of people living in the Basin and to the ecosystem itself. Continuation of current management leads to increasing risks while management approaches focusing on reserves or restoration result in trends that mostly stabilize or reduce risks. Even where ecological integrity is projected to improve with the application of active management, population increases and the pressures of expanding demands on resources may cause increasing trends in risk. Keywords: Ecosystem assessment, management and goals; ecological integrity; socio-economic resiliency; risk management Title: Integrated scientific assessment for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins Year: 1996, 2005, 2000 Abstract Quigley, Thomas M.; Haynes, Richard W.; Graham, Russell T., tech. eds. 1996. Integrated scientific assessment for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-382. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 303 p. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed. The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific Assessment.) The Integrated Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem Management for the Interior Columbia Basin links landscape, aquatic, terrestrial, social, and economic characterizations to describe biophysical and social systems. Integration was achieved through a framework built around six goals for ecosystem management and three different views of the future. These goals are: maintain evolutionary and ecological processes; manage for multiple ecological domains and evolutionary timeframes; maintain viable populations of native and desired non-native species; encourage social and economic resiliency; manage for places with definable values; and, manage to maintain a variety of ecosystem goods, services, and conditions that society wants. Ratings of relative ecological integrity and socioeconomic resiliency were used to make broad statements about ecosystem conditions in the Basin. Currently in the Basin high integrity and resiliency are found on 16 and 20 percent of the area, respectively. Low integrity and resiliency are found on 60 and 68 percent of the area. Different approaches to management can alter the risks to the assets of people living in the Basin and to the ecosystem itself. Continuation of current management leads to increasing risks while management approaches focusing on reserves or restoration result in trends that mostly stabilize or reduce risks. Even where ecological integrity is projected to improve with the application of active management, population increases and the pressures of expanding demands on resources may cause increasing trends in risk. Keywords: Ecosystem assessment, management and goals; ecological integrity; socio-economic resiliency; risk management Close

• 1892. [Image] A framework for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins

  	Haynes, Richard W.; Graham, Russell T.; Quigley, Thomas M., tech. eds. 1996. A framework for ecosystem management in the Interior Columbia Basin including portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: A framework for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins Year: 1996, 2005 Haynes, Richard W.; Graham, Russell T.; Quigley, Thomas M., tech. eds. 1996. A framework for ecosystem management in the Interior Columbia Basin including portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-374. Portland, OR; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 66 p. A framework for ecosystem management is proposed. This framework assumes the purpose of ecosystem management is to maintain the integrity of ecosystems over time and space. It is based on four ecosystem principles: ecosystems are dynamic, can be viewed as hierarchies with temporal and spatial dimensions, have limits, and are relatively unpredictable. This approach recognizes that people are part of ecosystems and that stewardship must be able to resolve tough challenges including how to meet multiple demands with finite resources. The framework describes a general planning model for ecosystem management that has four iterative steps: monitoring, assessment, decision-making, and implementation. Since ecosystems cross jurisdictional lines, the implementation of the framework depends on partnerships among land managers, the scientific community, and stakeholders. It proposes that decision-making be based on information provided by the best available science and the most appropriate technologies for land management. Keywords: Ecosystem assessment, ecosystem principles, ecosystem management, planning models, management goals, risk analysis. Title: A framework for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins Year: 1996, 2005 Haynes, Richard W.; Graham, Russell T.; Quigley, Thomas M., tech. eds. 1996. A framework for ecosystem management in the Interior Columbia Basin including portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-374. Portland, OR; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 66 p. A framework for ecosystem management is proposed. This framework assumes the purpose of ecosystem management is to maintain the integrity of ecosystems over time and space. It is based on four ecosystem principles: ecosystems are dynamic, can be viewed as hierarchies with temporal and spatial dimensions, have limits, and are relatively unpredictable. This approach recognizes that people are part of ecosystems and that stewardship must be able to resolve tough challenges including how to meet multiple demands with finite resources. The framework describes a general planning model for ecosystem management that has four iterative steps: monitoring, assessment, decision-making, and implementation. Since ecosystems cross jurisdictional lines, the implementation of the framework depends on partnerships among land managers, the scientific community, and stakeholders. It proposes that decision-making be based on information provided by the best available science and the most appropriate technologies for land management. Keywords: Ecosystem assessment, ecosystem principles, ecosystem management, planning models, management goals, risk analysis. Close

• 1893. [Image] Implementation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Report to the House Committee on Resources)

  	I. Executive Summary There is increasing recognition from most quarters that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) needs to be improved. Exactly what those improvements should be is less uniform. ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Implementation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Report to the House Committee on Resources) Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Resources Year: 2005, 2007 I. Executive Summary There is increasing recognition from most quarters that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) needs to be improved. Exactly what those improvements should be is less uniform. This report examines the implementation of selected aspects of the endangered species program relying predominately on information provided by the primary implementing agencies, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and offers some recommendations for possible improvements to the program. Debate over the ESA has traditionally been highly polarized. For example, compensating landowners for takings or reductions in property value has been opposed by some who argue updating the law to address this is not necessary. While consensus on other issues such as the need for increasing conservation incentives and the role states play in endangered species conservation has begun to emerge, one of the most debated aspects of ESA implementation continues to be whether the ESA is effectively conserving endangered and threatened species. While there have been significant strides in conserving individual species such as the whooping crane, red-cockaded woodpecker and gray wolf, few species have been delisted (removed from the endangered list) or downlisted (changed in status from endangered to threatened) because of successful ESA conservation efforts. Some argue that the number of recovered species is an unfair measure, asserting that the three decades the ESA has been in existence is an insufficient amount of time for the lengthy process of species recovery and point to listed species that have not gone extinct as evidence the ESA 'saves' species. From the opposing perspective, while recovery to the point of delisting may require a substantial amount of time for many species, after three decades more progress should be demonstrable through species that have recovered and been delisted. Even if a species has increased in numbers or distribution or the threats facing the species have been reduced, if it has not been delisted on the basis of recovery, the ESA's prohibitions and regulations remain applicable and the ESA should not be a 'one way street.' Of 40 total species removed from the list, 10 domestic species were delisted because of "recovery". Of 33 reclassified species, 10 domestic downlistings (a change from endangered to threatened status) reflected a reduced threat assessment which also allowed more flexibility in management. The FWS's most recent report to Congress (Fiscal years 2001-2002) shows that 77 percent of listed species fall in the 0 to 25 percent recovery achieved bracket and 2 percent fall in the 76 to 100 percent recovery achieved bracket. 39 percent of the FWS managed species are of uncertain status. Of those with an assessed trend, at one end of the spectrum are 3 percent possibly extinct, 1 percent occurring only in captivity and 21 percent declining and at the other end are 30 percent stable and 6 percent improving. These assessments however are subjective. Additionally, the assessment that a species is improving or stable may reflect, for example, a reduction in perceived threats or corrections to inaccurate threat assessments that stemmed from erroneous data rather than actual changes in species' trends that are demonstrated by improved numbers, distribution or other such measurements. Consequently, a meaningful assessment of conservation trends under the ESA using these data is not possible. The data used to list a number of species has been subsequently determined to be erroneous and species that likely do not merit classification as endangered or threatened remain listed. This can consume resources that could be directed to species that do merit listing. The assignment of recovery priorities appears highly skewed and the recovery priority for some species seems questionable. A meaningful distinction between endangered status and threatened status has been blurred as has been the framework for the mechanism of critical habitat. Expenditure reporting has improved but presents an incomplete picture of financial resources dedicated to endangered species. Workloads for litigation regarding activities such as consultation and listing under the ESA's complex structure compete for resources that could otherwise be directed at recovery efforts. The demands associated with ESA Section 4 determinations in combination with the pace of species listings and delistings, the number of possible future additions to the list and the economic impact of listings likely indicate that the current program is not sustainable. Title: Implementation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Report to the House Committee on Resources) Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Resources Year: 2005, 2007 I. Executive Summary There is increasing recognition from most quarters that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) needs to be improved. Exactly what those improvements should be is less uniform. This report examines the implementation of selected aspects of the endangered species program relying predominately on information provided by the primary implementing agencies, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and offers some recommendations for possible improvements to the program. Debate over the ESA has traditionally been highly polarized. For example, compensating landowners for takings or reductions in property value has been opposed by some who argue updating the law to address this is not necessary. While consensus on other issues such as the need for increasing conservation incentives and the role states play in endangered species conservation has begun to emerge, one of the most debated aspects of ESA implementation continues to be whether the ESA is effectively conserving endangered and threatened species. While there have been significant strides in conserving individual species such as the whooping crane, red-cockaded woodpecker and gray wolf, few species have been delisted (removed from the endangered list) or downlisted (changed in status from endangered to threatened) because of successful ESA conservation efforts. Some argue that the number of recovered species is an unfair measure, asserting that the three decades the ESA has been in existence is an insufficient amount of time for the lengthy process of species recovery and point to listed species that have not gone extinct as evidence the ESA 'saves' species. From the opposing perspective, while recovery to the point of delisting may require a substantial amount of time for many species, after three decades more progress should be demonstrable through species that have recovered and been delisted. Even if a species has increased in numbers or distribution or the threats facing the species have been reduced, if it has not been delisted on the basis of recovery, the ESA's prohibitions and regulations remain applicable and the ESA should not be a 'one way street.' Of 40 total species removed from the list, 10 domestic species were delisted because of "recovery". Of 33 reclassified species, 10 domestic downlistings (a change from endangered to threatened status) reflected a reduced threat assessment which also allowed more flexibility in management. The FWS's most recent report to Congress (Fiscal years 2001-2002) shows that 77 percent of listed species fall in the 0 to 25 percent recovery achieved bracket and 2 percent fall in the 76 to 100 percent recovery achieved bracket. 39 percent of the FWS managed species are of uncertain status. Of those with an assessed trend, at one end of the spectrum are 3 percent possibly extinct, 1 percent occurring only in captivity and 21 percent declining and at the other end are 30 percent stable and 6 percent improving. These assessments however are subjective. Additionally, the assessment that a species is improving or stable may reflect, for example, a reduction in perceived threats or corrections to inaccurate threat assessments that stemmed from erroneous data rather than actual changes in species' trends that are demonstrated by improved numbers, distribution or other such measurements. Consequently, a meaningful assessment of conservation trends under the ESA using these data is not possible. The data used to list a number of species has been subsequently determined to be erroneous and species that likely do not merit classification as endangered or threatened remain listed. This can consume resources that could be directed to species that do merit listing. The assignment of recovery priorities appears highly skewed and the recovery priority for some species seems questionable. A meaningful distinction between endangered status and threatened status has been blurred as has been the framework for the mechanism of critical habitat. Expenditure reporting has improved but presents an incomplete picture of financial resources dedicated to endangered species. Workloads for litigation regarding activities such as consultation and listing under the ESA's complex structure compete for resources that could otherwise be directed at recovery efforts. The demands associated with ESA Section 4 determinations in combination with the pace of species listings and delistings, the number of possible future additions to the list and the economic impact of listings likely indicate that the current program is not sustainable. Close