watershed management1 - lakehead university · watershed management1 robert j. naiman, peter a....

Watershed Management1Robert J. Naiman, Peter A. Bison, Robert G. Lee, and Monica G. Turner

Overview

l Management at the watershed scale is amajor challenge facing present and futuregenerations. Watershed management requiresintegrating scientific knowledge of ecologicalrelationships within a complex framework ofcultural values and traditions to provide socio-environmental integrity. This implies thatsocioenvironmentai integrity can operate forthe long term and over large spatial! scales-especially within hydrologically identifiableboundaries.

l Development of a watershed managementperspective incorporates variability in time andspace, takes a holistic approach toward the per-sistence of ecological features, treats humancultures and institutions as inherent features,and addresses system connectivity anduncertainty.

l Several approaches are presented forimplementing watershed management thatrelate to public stewardship (monitoring andeducation), accepting and dealing withrisk, addressing, uncertainty, formulating ashared vision, quantitatively analyzing socio-environmental conditions, and structuringinstitutional organization.

‘This chapter is an expanded version of the originalchapter in Kohm, K.A., and J.F. Franklin (editors).1997. Creating a forestry for the 21st century: Thescience of ecosystem management. Island Press,Washington, DC.

642

l Although there is no set methodologyfor achieving effective watershed management,fundamental principles related to cooperation,balance, fairness, integration, trust, responsibil-ity, communication, and adaptability are essen-tial for guiding the process.

Introduction

Fresh water, and freshwater ecosystems, arethe most basic components of watershedmanagement (Naiman et al. 1995a,b). Freshwa-ter issues, more than ever, embody the com-plexity that characterizes natural resourcemanagement. Changes in human demography,resource consumption, cultural values, institu-tional processes, technological applications,and information all contribute to the increasingcomplexity. Despite attempts to managechange, changes continue to occur and theconsequences remain difficult to predict atscales commensurate with the changesthemselves (Naiman 1992, Lee 1993). Under-standing the abilities and limits of freshwaterecosystems to respond to human-generatedpressures is central to long-term social stabilityas well as ecological vitality. Yet, even thoughhuman actions and cultural values drive theenvironmental issues, few holistic approachesfor watershed management offer effectiveresolution.

In the current debate over the scopeof watershed (and ecosystem) manage-ment (Grumbine 1994, U.S. MAI 1994;

26. Watershed Management

Montgomery et al. 1995). it is widely recognizedthat there are significant technical and culturalconstraints to effective implementation. Theseconstraints are related to such important issuesas identifying appropriate spatial and temporalscales. monitoring and assessment. developing-In adaptive management process. :lnd devel-oping cultural values and philosophies thatallow watershed management to be successful(Levin 1993. Grumbine 1994. Harwell et al.1996). Nonetheless. the ability of a rapidlyincreasing human population to dramaticallyimpact local. regional. and global ecosystemsmakes it essential to incorporate an ecologi-cal perspective into watershed management ifthere is to be a healthy resource base for futuregenerations.

The tirst part of this chapter suggests severalfeatures which are fundamental to contempo-rary watershed management. The second partthen presents several practical approaches forimplementing effective watershed managementprograms.

Fundamental Elements ofWatershed Management

Initially, it is important to recognize that thereare four watershed-scale features which pro-vide the foundation for effective management:variability in time and space, persistence and

643

invasiveness of species, system connectivityand uncertainties, and the role of human cul-tures and institutions. These features areclosely related to specific goals frequentlyendorsed as being fundamental to ecosystemmanagement (Grumbine 1994. U.S. MAB 1994:Tabiz ‘6.1).

The Natural System: Variability inTime and Space

Natural processes (i.e.. climate. soil formation,geological disturbances, and so forth) structurethe diversity, productivity. and availability ofnatural resources on which human societiesdepend. The challenge is to understand hownaturally variable systems operate and topredict the environmental consequences ofhuman activities in these systems (Naiman et al.1995a.b).

The vitality of natural ecosystems is createdand maintained by substantial variation intime and space (Reice et al. 1990, Reice 1994).Natural systems are constantly changing in acomplex mosaic of time periods and spatialdimensions (Turner 1990). For example. theecological characteristics of riparian forests arestructured by a complex array of dynamic andspatially variable hydrological processes thaterode and deposit materials, deliver nutrients.and remove waste products (Gregory et al.1991; Figure 26.1). Variability in time and space

TABLE 26.1 Principles for management at the watershed scale.

l Use an ecological approach that would recover and maintain the biological diversity, ecological Function, anddefining characteristics of natural ecosystems.

l Recognize that humans are part of ecosystems-they shape and are shaped by the natural systems: the sustainabilityof ecological and societal systems are mutually dependent.

l Adopt a management approach that recognizes ecosystems and institutions are characteristically heterogeneous intime and space.

l Integrate sustained economic and community activity into the management of ecosystems.l Develop a shared vision of desired human and environmental conditions.l Provide for ecosystem governance at appropriate ecological and institutional scales.l Use adaptive management as the mechanism for achievin g both desued outcomes and new understandings regarding

ecosystem conditions.l Integrate the best science available into the decision-making process. while continuing scientitic research to reduce

uncertainties.l Implement ecosystem management principles through coordinated government and non-government plans and

activities.

Modified from U.S. MIIXB 1994.

644 R.J. Naiman et al.

.1 I

l

1001 I A, d-:2

I I I I I1 o-3 10-l 100 10' 102 103

Space (km or km*)

FIGURE 26.1. Illustration of the diversity o(I spatialand temporal scales influencing the creation andmaintenance of riparian forests in the coastal tem-perate rainforest of North America. Colonizationsurfaces created by flooding (A), colonization sur-

results in the biological diversity and produc-tivity characteristically found in riparian envi-ronments (Fetherston et al. 1995, Naiman andD&amps 1997). A key managerial challengeis balancing human needs with variations inphysical and chemical characteristics so thatsignificant declines or losses of species and eco-logical attributes (i.e., biodiversity, productiv-ity, resilience) do not occur.

A Holistic Perspective: Persistenceand InvasivenessThe persistence of ecological attributes for thelong term (i.e., decades to centuries) requiresmaintaining a naturally variable environmentalregime as well as isolation from invading organ-isms that can alter the natural regime. Whenthe natural environmental regime is altered,adjustments occur within the ecosystem (i.e.,relative abundance of species or biogeochemi-cal processes) producing new combinations ofbiophysical environments susceptible to the in-vasion of exotic organisms and the establish-ment of non-native ecological processes andstructures (Drake et al. 1989). Understanding

faces created by debris flow (B), seedling germina-tion and establishment (C), longevity and size ofspecies patches (D), perisistence and movement ofdead wood in channel (E), and impact of herbivores(0

and quantifying persistence and invasivenessof species (and their ecological processes) areimportant for watershed management becausethese components are sensitive to change, inte-grate change over broad spatial and temporalscales, and can be used as measures of change.There is often a cultural identity with manyspecies, and, in addition, the ecological pro-cesses are essential for sustaining human popu-lations (Botkin 1990). There are a variety ofquantitative approaches and technical toolsthat already exist for analyzing persistence andinvasiveness at the watershed scale, and manyother techniques are in the design and test-ing stages (see later). Existing techniquesinclude new approaches to statistical analyses,patch and boundary analyses, modeling cumu-lative effects, indices of biotic integrity, andknowledge-based land-use analysis systems(Karr 1991, Risser 1993, Fortin and Drapeu1995, Turner et al. 1996). These techniques areespecially useful tools for setting goals relatedto desired future conditions and for preliminaryexaminations of the long term effects of new oranticipated institutional regulations and policy(Turner et al. 1996, Wear et al. 1996).

26. Watershed blanagement

Connectivity and Uncertainty

The goal of watershed management is to letall components of the human and nonhumancommunities exist in a relative but dynamicstate of balance (Naiman 1992, c’.S. MAB1994). This goal explicitly recognizes strongconnections between the social and environ-mental components at multiple scales. Thismeans managing for connectivity betweencomponents, as well as managing the com-ponents themselves. For example, consider-ation must be given to water, fish. soils. forests,education, resource extraction, and culturalvalues, as well as to the strong interactionswhich occur between them (Stanford and Ward1992).

Unfortunately, quantitative approaches formanaging connectivity are not well formulated.

b45

There remains considerable uncertainty amongscientists and decision makers as to how toproceed, while the magnitude of currentsocioenvironmental issues requires decisionsnow. This means accepting risk since actionscannot wait until all the information is avail-able. How can this be accomplished at thewatershed scale? There is no definitive answeror one right way. However. from a wide rangeof empirical studies from many scientific disci-plines. it is known that major advances oftencome at the interfaces between human, nat-ural, and management sciences (Figure 26.2).Following is a discussion of approaches usedby small organizations addressing risk, groupshelping to define social and environmentalviewpoints for future conditions, and research-ers and managers struggling to monitor andassess change at regional scales.

‘I Human Sciences \Economics, sociology, geography,

political science, anthropology\

1,

Natural Sciences

geology, meterorology, zoology

TECH/NOtOGY‘\ee,‘TRANSFER\e/“’

vDecision Making

FIGURE 26.2. Advances in watershed management come at the interfaces between natural, human, andmanagement sciences (from Naiman et al. lYY5a, with permission).

646

Human Cultures and InstitutionsIn human-dominated watersheds, the landmosaic (i.e., patches and boundaries) is createdby a mixture of cultural practices, tradi-tions, myths, and institutions (Lee et al. 1992,D&amps et al. 1998). The spatial extent andtemporal duration of each patch and boundarytype are ultimately determined by laws, regula-tions, taxation, technologies, cultural valuesand beliefs, and traditional land use prac-tices that pertain to the utilization of naturalresources (Turner 1990).

Developing an integrated socialenviron-mental system means confronting and resolvingimportant issues related to social and ecologicalliteracy, the role and accommodation of chang-ing cultural values, the increasing migration ofpeoples away from traditional homelands andcultures (i.e., cultural mixing), balancingconsumption rates and population growth,weathering political change, and esta.blishingknowledge-based cooperative institutions (Lee1993). These issues are closely interrelated andcannot be resolved separately. How to imple-ment an integrated program that addressesthese and related issues may not be immedi-ately apparent since each watershed has aunique set of issues to resolve. There are, how-ever, basic principles and practical approachesto guide the development of effective water-shed management.

Practical Approaches forImplementing WatershedManagement

Quantitative AnalysesAttempts to manage watersheds with morethan one demand on the principal resourceshave been ineffective for the most part. Well-known examples include the Columbia River,the Sacramento-San Joaquin rivers, and theColorado River watersheds. An inability toidentify appropriate spatial and temporalscales for management, cumulative effects frommultiple users, conflicting management goals,lack of accepted statistical or realistic modeling

R.J. Naiman et al.

approaches, and a dearth of indices for eval-uating a dynamic socioenvironmental systemall contributed to the difficulties (Lee 1993,Volkman and Lee 1994). Fortunately, as publicawareness of watershed-level issues has im-proved, so has the array of quantitative ap-proaches for assessing complex issues thathave several causes and competitive solutions.Watershed analysis techniques, quantita-tive measures, assessing risk with integratedsocioenvironmental models, and developmentof socioenvironmental indices are but a few ofthe empirical approaches available. Table 26.2summarizes the’available empirical approachesand their advantages and disadvantages. Whilethe availability of quantitative tools may im-prove the ability to address watershed manage-ment issues, past failures cannot be totallyattributed to the absence of such tools. More-over, quantitative tools alone will not solvecurrent or future problems.

Watershed Analysis

Quantitative approaches to document the sta-tus and dynamics of entire watersheds are stillin the early stages of development (Montgom-ery et al. 1995). Most of the techniques devel-oped have been concentrated in western statesheavily impacted by forest management (Table26.2) but there are notable exceptions such asSouth Florida (Harwell et al. 1996). The intentof watershed analysis is to provide a scientifi-cally based understanding of the environmen-tal processes and their interactions occurringwithin a watershed (U.S. Government 1994,Washington Forest Practices Board 1994).This understanding, which focuses on specificissues, values, and uses within the watershed,is essential for making sound management de-cisions. The fundamental steps involved inwatershed analysis and some of the basic prod-ucts to be expected from the process are sum-marized in Table 26.3. Protecting beneficialuses, such as those identified by state andfederal environmental laws (e.g., Clean WaterAct and Endangered Species Act), is a funda-mental objective for watershed analysis. Water-shed analysis encompasses the entire watershedbecause of the strong fluvial linkages among

16. Watershed Management 647

TABLE 26.2. Summary of empirical approaches for watershed management. applicability. and advantagesand disadvantages OF selected approaches and relevant case studies.

,Ipproach Description Xpplicability Advantages Disadvantages Case studies

1. Watershed,malysis

2. Quantitativemeasures

3. Integratedsocioenvironmentalmodels

4. Indices ofsocioenvironmentalconditions

Provides asctentttically basedunderstanding ofenvironmentalprocesses andtheir interactions

Inventory of theabundance andspatialarrangement ofvegetatton landcover. or habitatcharacteristics

Models explicitI>combining thesocial. economic.and environmentalfactors mftuencingwatershedcharacteristics

Componentscontributing tothe long-termvitality of ansocial+conomic-environmentalsystem

L.ugely limitedto forestedwatersheds ofI+500 km.‘.although it canbe adapted toother situations

All watersheds

St111 in anexperimentalstage: bestapplied towatersheds withfete. directhuman influenceson resources

Watersheds witha stgnificanthumanpopulation

Provides aspatially explicitdescription ofresources,hazards.environmentalvariation, andpotentials. as wellas potentialconficts overresource use: isadaptable to newtechnologicalmethodologies

Provides aresourceinventory forestablishingspatial andtemporal trends:takes advantageof existing GISdatabases: acts tocentralize storageof information:requirespersonnel withonly moderatelevels of training

Allows a holistic(and morerealistic)perspective to bedeveloped wherehuman activitiesand values are acentralcomponent of theecosystem: allowsa wide range ofsocial choices tobe evaluated

Provides aregular report tothe citizens:improves literacyabout watershed-scale issues;developsstewardship forthe long-term:easily maintained

Requires highlytrained. inter-disciplinaryteams. famtliarwith the terrain:assumesdemonstrablelinkages betweenphysical patchesand biologicalprocesses

WashmgtonForest PracticesBoard. 1994:Montgomery etal.. 1995

Often requtres 3substantialinvestment indatabasedevelopment:data availabilityis oftenincomplete:requires long-term monitoringand analyses tobe useful

Turner andGardner. 1991:Turner et al..1995. 1996

Databasedevelopment isexpensive andtime consuming;essential data areoften incomplete;requires amoderate-to-highlevel of technicalexpertise

Le Maitre et al.1993: Warwicket al. 1993:Berry et al.1996: Wear etal. 1996

Requires regularmonitoring andanalysis of data,some of whichmay be difficultto obtain

Willapa Allianceand Ecotrust1995


TABLE 26.3. Fundamental steps and basic productsexpected from watershed analysis.

Steps

1. Identify issues. describe desired conditions, andformulate key questions.

2. Identify key processes. functions, and conditions.3. Stratify the watershed.4. Assemble analytic information needed to address the

key questions.5. Describe past and current conditions.6. Describe condition trends and predict effects of future

land management.7. Integrate. interpret, and present findings,8. Manage, monitor, and revise information.

Products

1. A description of the watershed including its naturaland cultural features.

2. A description of the beneficial uses and valuesassociated with the watershed and,

3. when supporting data allow, statements aboutcompliance with water quality standards.

4. A description of the distribution, type, and relativeimportance of environmental process.

5. A description of the watershed’s present conditionrelative to it’s associated values and uses.

6. A map of interim conservation areas.

headwater areas, valley floors, and downstreamusers.

Watershed analysis requires a hig;h level ofexpertise (Montgomery et al. 1995). However,earlier attempts such as the California checklistfor cumulative effects required little technicalexpertise, were largely ineffective, and are nolonger used (Chapter 19). The current water-shed analysis procedure (Table 263) is de-signed to be carried out by an interdisciplinaryteam of resource professionals who are alreadyexperts in their fields, and who are familiar withthe area to be evaluated. Different methodsapply to different areas, and teams must usetheir professional judgment to select or designappropriate methods. Watershed analysis isalso an iterative and evolving process, Analyti-cal methods improve or are replaced as experi-ence and knowledge grow.

The results of watershed analysis may in-clude a description of resource needs, capabili-ties, and opportunities; the range of natural

variation; spatially explicit information that willfacilitate environmental and cumulative effectsanalyses for the National Environmental PolicyAct (NEPA) regulations; and a description ofprocesses and functions operating within thewatershed (Montgomery et al. 1995; Table26.3). Watershed analysis also identifies poten-tially conflicting objectives and uses withinwatersheds. However, watershed analysis is nota decision-making process per se; it is a processthat derives information to assist in decisionmaking. Watershed analysis is, nevertheless, asubstantial advancement over managementapproaches used in the past because it bringsfactual information to the decision-makingprocess.

Watershed analysis assumes there are de-monstrable linkages between physical patchesand biological processes and that human valuesand perspectives do not change. These areflawed assumptions that contradict the laterdiscussion on risk. Despite the promise water-shed analysis brings to management, there areimpediments to its application. Local and re-gional political influences, nonbinding agree-ments, the lack of long-term accountability forinstitutions, decision makers, and land manag-ers, and the avoidance of an interactive synthe-sis of information are potentially fatal flaws inthe concept. Further, to date there has been noscientific validation of the approach, whichwas developed primarily by physical scien-tists, and there is little understanding of howbiological attributes (i.e., community composi-tion and so forth) modify physical-biologicalrelationships.

Despite these flaws, watershed analysis isnow a part of the regulatory framework formanaging state and privately owned commer-cial forests in Washington (Washington ForestPractices Board 1994). The WashingtonDepartment of Natural Resources, the agencycharged with implementing watershed analysis,has identified a number of forested subbasins(5th-6th order river systems) termed Water-shed Analysis Units (WAUs) within whichwatershed analysis forms a basis for local forestpractice decisions. The first WAU to be ana-lyzed was the Tolt River drainage, located inthe Puget Sound basin of western Washington.

56. Watershed iManagement

The Tolt River watershed includes mixed own-ership dominated by private forest land, but thedrainage also includes a reservoir that supplieswater to Seattle. Because the Tolt River con-tains valuable fishery resources (salmon, troutand steelhead) as well as an important drinkingwater supply, many interest groups participatedin the watershed analysis process.

The Tolt watershed analysis procedure iden-tified areas where salmonid habitat featuressuch as stream temperature and large woodydebris abundance were degraded, as well asareas where delivery of sediment to streamswould be likely from unpaved logging roadsand geologically unstable slopes. Prescriptionsfor preventing or mitigating these problems(Tolt Watershed Analysis Prescriptions 1993)were developed by a team that included sixforesters representing the Washington De-partment of Natural Resources and theWeyerhaeuser Company, a forest road engi-neer, a tree physiologist, an environmentalanalyst from the Washington Departmentof Ecology, two aquatic biologists from theTulalip Indian tribe, and a forest hydrologist..The prescriptions for future forestry operationsare not voluntary: the land owners must complyor be subject to civil and criminal prosecution.

Over 40 people officially participated in theTolt watershed analysis in addition to the 12members of the prescription team. The five-month process itself was at times contentious.This was perhaps to be expected given thediversity of interests. Nonetheless, membersof the watershed analysis team generallyagreed that the process of working together wasat least as important as the process of usingavailable data to guide management decisions.

Quantitative Measures

Watersheds can be characterized by a varietyof quantitative measures when digital data areavailable. Most simply, the total area andproportion of the watershed occupied by eachcover type (i.e., vegetation or habitat) can beidentified and its area and perimeter recorded.Analyses of the total number of patches, arith-metic mean patch size, standard deviation ofmean patch size, size of the largest patch,

649

weighted average patch size, amount of interiorhabitat, total edge, and mean patch shape areeasily computed (Table 26.2). In addition tometrics describing individual cover types, edgesbetween habitats, which are sensitive measuresof habitat fragmentation, can be tabulatedas the length of edge between each pair ofland cover classes (e.g., forest-grassy, forest-unvegetated, grassy-unvegetated) or as edge-to-area ratios.

While the development of quantitative mea-sures of watershed condition has proceededrapidly, empirical studies that test for signifi-cant relationships between watershed metricsand ecological condition (e.g., presence orabundance of species, water quality) are stillfew in number (Johnston et al. 1990). There is aclear need to identify the most importantwatershed metrics to monitor as well as thelevels beyond which socioenvironmental condi-tions change significantly. In addition, it is es-sential to be aware of the assumptions andconstraints that are implicit in the metrics. Forexample, the selection of the land cover catego-ries to be used in the analysis in part determinesthe results, and the spatial scale of the data-both the total extent of the area and the resolu-tion, or grid cell size-can strongly influencethe numerical results (Turner et al. 1989a,b).

Integrated Socioenvironmental Models

The risk of undesirable future conditionscan be assessed by using integrated socio-environmental models to explore alternativeland management scenarios (Le Maitre et al.1993, Warwick et al. 1993, Flamm and Turner,1994a, b). An example of such a model is theLand-Use Change and Analysis System(LUCAS) (Berry et al. 1996, Wear et al. 1996).LUCAS is a spatial simulation model at thewatershed scale in which the probability of landbeing converted from one land cover type toanother depends on a variety of social, eco-nomic, and ecological factors (Figure 26.3).Conditional transition probabilities are esti-mated empirically by comparing land cover atdifferent times (e.g., from decade to decade)and then used to simulate potential futureconditions (Turner et al. 1996).

650

LUCAS INTEGRATION MODULES

R.J. Naiman et al.

mode, mod”,eyLandscape-change

Impactsmodel module

FIGURE 26.3. Integration of social, economic, and Change Analysis System (LUCAS), a modeling en-environmental aspects of watershed management vironment (Berry et al. 1996, with permission 0 1996can be accomplished with the use of the L.and Use IEEE).

Simulations begin with an initial map of landcover, and equations are used to generate atransition probability for each grid cell in thewatershed map based on ownership type, eleva-tion, slope, aspect, distance to road, distance tomarket, and population density (Flamm andTurner 1994a, b, Wear et al. 1996). An inte-grated modeling approach permits the effectsof a wide range of alternatives to be evaluated.For example, the effects of residential develop-ment in different locations within the basin orthe effects of moving a large parcel of land intoor out of intensive timber production can beexamined. Linking projected land cover mapswith effects on ecological indicators (such asspecies persistence or water quality) allows thepotential long-term implications of alternativehuman decisions to be compared.

Indices of Socioenvironmental Conditions

Components of a socioenvironmental indexare chosen to reflect the unique characteristicsof the watershed. For example, in the WillapaBay watershed of western Washington, shell-fish aquaculture, timber production, fishing,and agriculture are important in maintainingthe local economy and culture. The WillapaAlliance, a consortium of concerned citizens_-J _______ -_ _.-_-- 1.-- 1--~~1- 1 . .anu resvurct: users, nas aevelopea an maex i

Methods for separately examining the status based on indicators of environmental quality,and trends of environmental, social, and economic vitality, and community health

i

economic factors are wel l established (Table 26.4). Environmental quality is indi- 1I3

(Finstenbusch and Wolf 1981, Burch andDeLuca 1984, Karr 1991). However, watershedmanagement requires integrated socioenviron-mental indices that provide a holistic under-standing of watershed condition (Table 26.2).In a broad sense, a socioenvironmental index isa report to citizens, resource users, and govern-ment agencies on the vitality of a space theyhold in common. Ideally, a socioenvironmen-tal index should provide usable information onthe important aspects of a watershed’s environ-ment, economy, and communities.


cated by oyster condition that reflects waterquality. by changes in vegetation cover whichreflects terrestrial condition, by escapement ofwild and hatchery salmon (Oncorhynchw spp.)which reflect ecological conditions in the riversand streams, and by counts of wetland andriparian birds which reflect habitat condition.Economic conditions are gauged by annual fin-fish, shellfish. and timber harvests (i.e., resourceproduction), income distribution, local un-employment rates, and bank loans per capita(i.e.. credit and local investment). Communityhealth is measured by the percentage of healthybirthweight babies, high school graduationrates. and voter turnout in county elections(i.e., participation). Each category has alternatecandidates that can be used in developing thesocioenvironmental index. Adult literacy ratescould replace high school graduation rates, veg-etative biodiversity could replace bird abun-dance, and so forth. Nevertheless. the pointis that citizens and resource users within thewatershed have an integrated socioeconomicindex that can be used to develop a holisticunderstanding about the watershed and tocreate the stewardship necessary for long-termsustainability (The Willapa Alliance andEcotrust 1995).

T ABLE 26.4. Socioenvironmental index developedfor the Willapa River watershed. Washington.

Natural resource-based industries Shellfish harvest,timber production,fishing, andagriculture

Socioenvironmental indexEnvironmental quality Oyster condition

Vegetation coverSalmon escapementBird abundance

Economic conditions Finfish. shellfish, andtimber harvest

Income distributionUnemployment ratesBank loans per capita

Community health Birthweight ofhealthy babies

Rates high schoolgraduation

Voter turnout

The Willapa Alliance and Ecotrust lYY5.

651

Accepting Risk and AddressingUncertainty

Attempts to make decisions by identifying,evaluating, and formulating managementstrategies for risks associated with watershedmanagement need to include a broad socio-environmental perspective, recognition ofspatial scales ranging from sites to global eco-logical and social processes. and an explicit con-sideration of the temporal transfers of risks.especially those involving decisions that maytransfer risks to future generations or imposeunacceptable rates of change on currentgenerations.

Risk is a product of the probability of a nega-tive (unwanted) event and the consequences ofthat event (Campbell 1969, Slavic 1984. Suter1992). Estimating risks involves identificationand evaluation (Schrader-Frechette 1991). Riskmanagement is also part of the process of sub-jecting unwanted events to rational interpreta-tions because it involves selection of the mosteffective and efficient means of reducing harm.A comprehensive discussion of risk assessmentis beyond the scope of this chapter, but is pro-vided by Fava et al. (1991), Bartell (1992),Harwell and Gentile (1992), and U.S. EPA(1993).

Competing risks are often a basic cause forconflict. Decisions about allocation of land orresources involve judgments about the extentto which the risk should be placed on environ-mental features or on human well-being. Scien-tists are poorly prepared for making thesejudgments, because decisions on how to bal-ance risks involve political and ethical con-siderations for which scientists are seldomadequately trained and generally unauthorized.Scientists are often best at identifying prob-lems, not resolving them (Ludwig et al. 1993).

The scientific role is to identify what may beat risk, discover what causes risks to increase ordecrease (risk attribution), estimate the rela-tive importance of causes (risk assessment), useknowledge to suggest options for reducing risks(risk management), and design effective moni-toring programs that facilitate learning. Scien-tists are most useful to the decision-makingprocess if risk attribution is framed by hypoth-


Null hypothesis is:

True

1

Accepted Rejected

Correct decision Type I error

False Type II error Correct decision

FIGURE 26.4. Type I and Type II errors in decision making arise according to inherent philosophies andtraining of specific disciplines (modified from Sokal and Rohlf 1981).

eses linking causes to effects (i.e., using If-Thenstatements).

Risk assessment requires explicit statementsabout the degree of confidence scientists andmanagers have in cause-and-effect relation-ships. Statements involving statistical confi-dence limits are generally required but rarelyavailable for large systems. However, theymay be approximated by the “best judgment”of knowledgeable experts. Opporttmities forrisk management improve with knowledge ofcause-and-effect relationships, often permit-ting scientists to suggest management strategiesthat sufficiently mimic natural structure or pro-cesses to allow resource use without imposingunacceptable risks on species, natural pro-cesses, or society.

Unfortunately, it remains difficult to framedecisions based on the allocation of risk be-cause scientists are trained to avoid makingType I errors (rejecting a null hypothesis whenit is true) while paying less attention to Type IIerrors (failing to reject the null hypothesiswhen it is false; Figure 26.4). Scientists aregenerally concerned about avoiding false-positives because the professional mission is tocontribute accurate information for buildingan understanding of fundamental processes(Schrader-Frechette 1991). When contributingto risk assessment, it is far more importantto avoid overlooking important cause-and-effect relationships that are true (avoid TypeII error) which could, for example, result in lossof a species or the disintegration of a humancommunity. The appropriate scientific role is,of course, to pay attention to both types oferror.

Addressing Type I and Type II errors be-comes especially complex when there are com-peting risks. Concern about losing a species or

causing unnecessary human suffering oftenleads to placing emphasis on avoiding a Type IIerrors while minimizing Type I errors. Forexample, mistakenly accepting the hypothesisthat sustaining coho salmon (Oncorhynchuskisutch) requires preservation of all remainingancient forests and unregulated rivers, couldcause unnecessary human suffering and eco-nomic losses. Similarly, mistakenly acceptingthe hypothesis that timber harvest reductionswill cause a large increase in rural povertycould place the survival of certain animal spe-cies at risk. Hence, extra effort needs to be paidto minimizing both Type I and Type II errorsthrough better interdisciplinary communica-tion. It is a natural tendency to ignore risks thatare not well understood. This is especially trueif the implications of research conclusions allowscientists to externalize Type II errors on sub-jects understood better by other disciplines.

How Can Organizations Dealwith Risk?

Formal organizations, especially those thathave persisted for a long time, tend to conservetheir mission and structure (Selznick 1966,Meyer and Scott 1983). Organizational missionand structure are threatened by an uncertainenvironment, especially one that imposes risks.For example, natural disturbances such as fires,insect outbreaks, floods, and windstorms oftenexceed the capacity of land management orga-nizations to cope with the disruption. Similarly,the emergence of new and powerful politicalclients bring risks of diminished political sup-port and stability.

Organizations tend to limit actions that willthreaten organization structure and mission,even when those actions might better position


the organization to deal with emerging risks(Meyer and Scott 1983, Bella 1987). These ten-dencies are related to the statistical concepts ofType I and Type II error discussed previously(Figure 26.4). Organizations, like individualscientists, are usually concerned with minimiz-ing the risk of making a Type I error. Likewise,organization members are worried about false-positives (asserting an effect where none exists)because they do not want to needlessly upsetorganizational relationships and purposes uponwhich they depend for security. rewards, andidentity (Schrader-Frechette 1991).

Consumers or clients depending on the orga-nization for service or protection are, by con-trast, concerned with minimizing Type IIerrors. They are more concerned about thesocial acceptability or environmental safety oftechnologies or organization practices. Hence,they do not want to allow an organization toincrease the risk of public injuries or losses(Schrader-Frechette 1991).

As in statistics, there is an inverse relation-ship between these two types of error-thesetwo sources of risk. Customers or the publicmight be hurt by decreasing risk to the organi-zation, and the organization might be hurt bydecreasing the risk to customers or public.These inverse relationships are well illustratedin land management organizations responsiblefor implementing watershed managementplans.

Federal land management organizations areplaced at risk by dramatically changing man-agement practices (such as timber harvest, fish-ing or grazing) to avoid the risk of losingspecies valued by society. Normal routines aredisrupted, changes in work force are imple-mented, insecurity becomes contagious, andthe identity provided by organizational cul-ture becomes confused by drastic institutionalchange. The very existence of an organizationcan be threatened by sudden change in organi-zation and mission. A frantic search for newmission, or paradigm, generally accompaniesthese periods of unrest and insecurity, with sta-bility returning if the organization is successfulin finding a new mission and a structure forimplementation. Watershed management andecosystem management are now part of such a

653

search for a new mission by many of the large,material resource-based industries and the pro-vincial, state, and federal agencies in Canadaand the United States.

Adaptive organizations avoid risks accompa-nying such turmoil by continually striving tomaintain a balance between Type I and Type IIerrors. Large industrial organizations, such asthose responsible for managing forested lands,have sought to manage internal and market orregulatory risks that accompany increasing un-certainty by reorganizing their structure anddiversifying their mission. Horizontal, team-based management with accountability toattain performance objectives is replacing thecentralized and homogeneous mission charac-teristic of traditional, bureaucratic command-and-control structures (Reich 1991). This oftenincludes product diversification and relative in-dependence of production units. Greater flex-ibility and efficiency are gained by down-sizingsalaried staff and contracting for services suchas roadbuilding, resource extraction, inventory,and environmental assessment. These innova-tions have enabled large formal organizationsto capture some of the advantages of flexibilitycharacteristic of market systems that have alarge number of independent producers.

Large public organizations seldom have theopportunity to develop decentralized struc-tures suitable for adapting to an uncertain envi-ronment. Government, as opposed to markets,centralizes power and defines organizationalmission and structure from the top down. Oneof the greatest challenges (and opportunities)facing public land management organizationsin North America is to develop permissibleways of diversifying organizational mission anddeveloping a structure capable of responding todiverse and dynamic social, political, and geo-graphic concerns and conditions. Successfulimplementation of watershed managementmay depend on how well public organizationsmeet these challenges.

Addressing Institutional Organizationand the Paradox of ScaleWatershed-scale activities must ultimately beintegrated across a larger region, including the

654

landscapes that make up that region. The chal-lenge of integration involves a paradox of scale:in some cases large-scale (regional) ecologi-cal systems can be most effectively regulatedby small-scale (local) social organizations (Leeand Stankey 1992). Since peoples’ interests,commitments, and knowledge are, generallylocalized, bottom-up approaches that aggregatethe local initiatives of citizens may be the mostlikely to succeed in achieving regional goals(Dryzek 1987). Experience throughout theworld has shown that regional ecological stabil-ity is more likely to be achieved by permittinggreater variability in land use practices and,within limits of critical biological thresholds,allowing and encouraging localized fluctuationsin management practices (Korten 1987, Ostrom1990, Wheatley 1993).

The paradox of scale is a general principlefound to apply to systems as diverse as businessorganizations, chemical and physical processes,and ecological systems (Wheatley 1993). Stabil-ity in larger-scale processes arises when thesmaller-scale processes are allowed freedom tooperate. This is illustrated by business organi-zations when individual and small-group initia-tives respond to prices or other incentives bydeveloping resources within the limits set bylarger-scale organizations.

Maintenance of local initiatives, commit-ments, and knowledge also helps promotesustainability by insulating the managementof ecological processes from the politicalcycles that affect large-scale organizations.National- and state- or provincial-level policiesfor regulating ecological systems are generallyaffected by the policies and preferences ofpolitical elites currently in power. Since politi-cal elites cycle in and out of power, especially indemocratic systems, top-down control becomesa source of substantial instability. Hence,ecological regulations that rely on top-downcontrol become highly unstable, and resultin levels of unpredictability that discouragelocal initiatives requiring long-term commit-ments and investments of time and money.Sustainable watershed management requiresthe social and political stability oftenassociated with local initiatives (also see Firey1960).

R.J. Naiman et al.

The continuity of commitments and knowl-edge embodied in small-scale local orga-nizations also helps foster effective adaptivemanagement (Lee 1993, Pinkerton 1993). Po-litical cycles in top-down administrations makeit difficult to sustain long-term data-gatheringand monitoring. But even more difficult forlarge-scale organizations are commitmentsto take experimental actions for purposes ofmonitoring results. When commitments to ex-periments are made, they often lack the diver-sity of trials necessary for eliminating multiplerival hypotheses about the operation of com-plex systems. Local initiatives, when supportedby the generalized commitment of large-scale organizations, can be far more effectivein implementing adaptive management (Lee1993). Experimental practices are insulatedfrom the influence of political elites, fosteringcommitments to undertake experiments, andensuring that a diversity of trials will be put inplace (McLain and Lee 1996).

Formulating SharedSocioenvironmental Visions

The paradox in many environmental and socialapproaches is that they have not proven to beeffective over the long-term (>lOyr). The evi-dence is clear: loss of species, destruction ofhabitat, declining productivity, unstable socialsystems, and the disintegration of cultures areoccurring on regional to global scales. Howmight these trends be reversed? Can it be ac-complished by accepting risk at individual toinstitutional scales? One approach is to developa shared socioenvironmental vision of futureconditions (Figure 26.5). In an ideal sense, thismay prove to be a nearly impossible task,although the process of trying to identifysocioenvironmental endpoints for the short-and long-term is an exercise that aids communi-cation and acts as an effective form ofeducation about the diverse cultural beliefs andvalues embedded in a watershed. For example,environmental endpoints may be related to theextent and condition of riparian forests, to a&ceptable levels of water quality and aquatichabitat, or the persistence of viable populationsof ecologically or culturally valuable plants and


l Environmental endpoints- Riparian forest condition- Species persistence-Water and habitat quality

l Social endpoints- Literacy- Adaptive institutions- Partnerships- Stewardship and responsibility

l Long-term commitmentsby leadership

l Empowerment of citizens

l Communication of vision

l Education about valueof vision

l Active monitoring

l Continued learning

Shared socioenvironmental vision

FIGURE 26.5. Components of a shared socioenviromental vision for watersheds.

animals. Social endpoints may relate to thelevel of literacy about the structure and func-tioning of the socioenvironmental system, thedevelopment of flexible (or adaptive) institu-tions that are able to respond to new and as yetunforeseen issues, the formulation of uniquepartnerships between private industry, citizens,academia, tribes, and government. and the real-ization of levels of personal stewardship andresponsibility that allow for the long-termmaintenance of a balanced socioenvironmentalsystem.

Successful examples of the development ofshared socioenvironmental visions, and thevarious methods used to attain those visions,can be found for British Columbia (FraserRiver), Florida (Kissismee River), NewEngland (Connecticut River). Northern Cali-fornia (Metolius River). western Washington(Willapa Bay), and many other watershedswhere citizens share a common concern abouttheir future. However, there are two funda-mental aspects inherent in the successful at-

65.5

tempts: long-term commitment by the citizenswho initially provide much of the vision andleadership, and empowerment of citizens withthe responsibility for their own future (Lee1993).

Public Stewardship in WatershedManagementConcerned and educated citizens are fun-damental to watershed management. Theyrepresent an essential reservoir of human re-sources whose involvement can benefit man-agement organizations and increase the overalllevel of awareness of socioenvironmentalconditions. Watershed management requiresthoughtful stewardship that cannot be attainedsolely by government regulations or technicalspecialists. Citizens can play an importantrole in monitoring socioenvironmental con-ditions, but they require continuing educationto keep abreast of scientific and culturaladvances.

656

Monitoring

Public involvement in coordinated monitoringactivities instills a sense of ownership. Citizenstaking an active interest in changes within thewatershed provide inputs to decision makersbased on firsthand, objective observations. Thisis a learning opportunity for those se:tting policyas well as those seeking to influence watershedmanagement decisions.

There are unique advantages to includingcitizens in monitoring programs. First, withlimited institutional budgets and staff availabil-ity, funds for collecting information aboutwatershed features are usually directed to sitesbelieved to be severely degraded. Many water-sheds in need of monitoring are ignored unlessvolunteer efforts are undertaken. Thus, moni-toring by volunteer groups or networks ofindividuals provides valuable information onwatershed condition that may not be high onpolitical priority lists. Second, public involve-ment in monitoring projects helps ensure datacontinuity. Staff turnover and job transferswithin public agencies and large lanldowner or-ganizations often occur at rates less than theduration of monitoring programs, resulting indiscontinuities in data collection or undocu-mented changes in techniques. Local citizensworking with public and private organizationsfill gaps inevitably created when Imonitoringstaffs change, and provide insight to new staffmembers that might not be otherwise obtainedwithin existing organizational structures. Third,the sheer numbers of citizens available to assistwith monitoring make it possible to conductlarge-scale adaptive management experimentsthat would otherwise be impossible with lim-ited agency or landowner resources. However,there are some disadvantages which include thechallenge of maintaining interest over longperiods of time and potential inconsistency indata collection (Ralph et al. 1994).

Understanding changes in watershed con-ditions requires distinguishing between local-ized and large-scale effects, assessing systemresponses that separate human-related impactsfrom uncontrolled environmental factors,and having institutional agreements, that pro-vide for decades-long measuremen& (Walters

R.J. Naiman et al.

and Holling 1990). These requirements gener-ally go beyond the capabilities of individualorganizations; thus, cooperative monitoringprograms must become the rule instead of theexception.

Expectations of the abilities of citizens totake samples and perform routine scientifictests must be tempered by a general lack ofadvanced technical training. Therefore, moni-toring tasks need to focus, in most cases, onmeasurements readily understandable and notrequiring specialized skills. Often this pre-cludes the collection of biological samples.However, there are a number of monitoringactivities well within the abilities of averagecitizens, including:

Photographs-The importance of time-seriesphotographs cannot be overstated. Some of themost valuable information about historicalconditions is derived from photographs, par-ticularly those where locations can be clearlyidentified. In addition, reference photopointswithin watersheds are helpful in tracking long-term trends in vegetative structure and streamconditions. Reference photopoints can also beused to display the effects of seasonal changesand large disturbances such as floods and fires.Important photographs often exist in familyalbums or businesses, and public involvementcan bring these historical records to light.

Water Samples-Long-term trends in waterquality require regularly scheduled sampling,but the number of sites that can be routinelymonitored by agencies is limited by the avail-ability of automated sampling equipment andstaff time. For example, the U.S. GeologicalSurvey (USGS) monitored water quality pa-rameters in many watersheds after passage offederal water laws in the 1960s and 1970s butwas forced to abandon many sites in the late1970s when funding for monitoring programsexpired. A network of water sampling locationsestablished within a watershed, with periodicsamples obtained by local volunteers, is an es-pecially effective means of monitoring easilyobserved parameters such as suspended sedi-ment. Monitoring programs can be coordinatedby appropriate regulatory agencies, whichwould supply sample bottles and instructionsfor handling and process samples. Likewise,


maximum-minimum thermometers placedthroughout the watershed and checked at regu-lar intervals by citizen’s groups or individuallandowners provide an indication of changesin temperature fluctuations over time. Easilymeasured parameters such as sediment andtemperature have immediate, significant effectson aquatic ecosystems. They also provide im-portant information about erosion and up-stream riparian conditions.

Habitat Meastlrements-Stream morphologyis an integrative measurement of overall water-shed condition, and pools are very sensitive tochange. Pools are important habitat for certaintypes of aquatic organisms, including many fishspecies. Citizen participation in simple habitatmeasures such as counting the number oflarge pools increases the area of a watershedfor which inventory information is available.Sportsman’s clubs and conservation organiza-tions (including adopt-a-stream groups) areespecially suited to this type of project. Forexample, in the Willapa Basin seasonally unem-ployed fisherman collect fish habitat informa-tion throughout the watershed. Training isprovided by the Willapa Alliance, who alsooversee and coordinate the field effort andcompile and analyze the data. Funding is pro-vided by a federal program.

Riparian Forest Surveys-Riparian forestsare critical to watershed health. yet insufficientattention is paid to their condition. Riparianplots where surveyors periodically identify andcount the number of trees within the bound-aries, measure changes in species compositionand growth, and note causes of mortality pro-vide integrated long-term information aboutwatershed characteristics. Plots do not have tobe revisited every year, as long as their loca-tions are well documented; they can be resur-veyed by the same group or rotated amongseveral groups over longer periods. Infor-mation generated by these surveys is usefulfor verifying remote sensing data, providingriparian vegetation information for watershedanalysis, and teaching citizens about the dy-namic nature of watershed processes.

Socioeconomic Conditions-Socioeconomicconditions are already well monitored, but dataare seldom given for conditions within water-

657

shed boundaries. Annually based socioeco-nomic indices may include such factors asannual capital investment, resource exports,unemployment, high school literacy, healthybirths and so forth, which provide essential in-formation about human conditions in a largercommunity including a watershed (Table 26.4).Commitments to maintain and enhance thebiological and physical conditions of water-sheds are most likely to arise when local eco-nomies and societies are healthy and thepopulation is well informed.

Public Outreach

Effective watershed management requires thatscientists and managers provide knowledgeabout watershed processes and managementtechniques to citizens on a regular basis. Al-though citizens and local groups usually actwith good intentions, they do not always havethe benefit of current professional insightsinto human and environmental processes. Theresult may be that restoration and enhance-ment projects fail to achieve their objectives,or worse, that they actually impair socio-environmental functions. For example, streamcleaning projects have largely been discontin-ued by public agencies, but are occasionallysponsored by citizen groups. When asked whythese projects have been undertaken, many citi-zens continue to be unaware of the ecologicalfunctions of woody debris or to regard thesefunctions as secondary in importance to theneed to provide unimpeded fish passage (evenwoody debris removal diminishes fish produc-tion in the long term).

How can the educational and scientific com-munities maintain socioenvironmental literacyand instill a sense of stewardship among citi-zens? First, scientists need to explain the im-portance of watershed connectivity, the role ofnatural disturbances in maintaining productiv-ity, the need to view watershed management interms of large landscape units, and how socialand environmental components work as an in-tegrated system. Agricultural and forestry ex-tension services, where citizens turn for advicefrom local specialists familiar with the region,serve as models for the establishment of an in-

658

tegrated watershed extension service. Water-shed extension specialists, serving as localsources of the latest information, can act asliaisons between small and large landowners,natural resource consumers, and managementagencies.

Second. colleges and universities must domore to educate citizens about i.mportantwatershed management issues. Although edu-cational institutions sponsor many meetings,the presentations are often too technical forcitizens. Weekend or evening workshops aimedat communicating applied watershed science toa general audience are needed to fac,ilitate in-creased public understanding of managementoptions. Workshops featuring a combination ofuniversity faculty, research scientists, resourcemanagers, citizens, and environmental policymakers are essential if we are to develop effec-tive watershed management based on an inte-grated socioenvironmental perspective.

Fundamental Principles

Watershed management is an ongoing experi-ment guided by fundamental principles and acommon vision of the future, and utilizes amultitude of approaches to achieve an inte-grated and balanced socioenvironmentalsystem (Naiman 1992, Lee 1993). There is nouniversal methodology for achieving effectivewatershed management. However, fundamen-tal principles related to cooperation, balance,fairness, integration, communication, andadaptability can help guide the process:

1. Recognize that watershed managementdemands unparalleled cooperation amongcitizens, industry, governmental agencies,private institutions, and academic organiza-tions. In most situations, the complexity ofinformation processing and the scope ofsocioenvironmental change exceeds the capac-ity of any single group to manage a watershedeffectively.

2. Balance technical solutions (e.g., fishhatcheries, waste management, and s,o forth)to specific human-generated problems with thewide-scale maintenance of appropria.te envi-

R.J. Naiman et al.

ronmental components that provide similarecological services.

3. Minimize decisions based only on con-ceptualization and perception; data-drivenpolicy and management decisions need tobecome the standard for resolving issues.

4. Apply regulations guiding the structureand behavior of the socioenvironmental systemevenly and fairly throughout the watershed.For example, basic regulations (such as riparianprotection and chemical applications) shouldnot differ across forestry, agricultural, andurban areas but should encourage citizen ini-tiatives and landowner incentives that resultin greater protection and reduced chemicalapplications.

5. Accept human activities as fundamentalelements of the watershed along with the struc-ture and dynamics of the environmental com-ponents. Both have inherent rights to exist forthe long term.

These principles, when combined with ap-proaches outlined in this chapter, provide onlythe initial steps in achieving effective watershedmanagement. Cultural values, social behavior,and environmental characteristics will continueto evolve. Unfortunately, a critical evaluationof the approaches for watershed managementoutlined here will not be possible for severaldecades. Will the evaluation be positive? If so,it will be because citizens, regulators, educa-tors, and industries shared a common long-term vision and adapted to change by imple-menting appropriate approaches to meet thatvision.

Literature CitedBartell, S., R.H. Gardner, and R.V. O’Neil. 1992.

Ecological risk estimations. Lewis, Chelsea,Michigan, USA.

Bella, D.A. 1987. Organizations and systematic dis-tortion of information. Journal of ProfessionalIssues in Engineering 113:360-370.

Berry, M., R. Flamm, B. Hazen, and R. Macintyre.1996. LUCAS: A system for modeling land-use change. IEEE Computational Science andEngineering 3:24-35.

Botkin, D.B. 1990. Discordant harmonies: A newecology for the 21st century. Oxford UniversityPress, New York, New York, USA.


Burch, W.R., and D.R. DeLuca. 1984. Measuring thesocial impact of natural resource policies. Univer-sity of New Mexico Press. Albuquerque, NewMexico. USA.

Campbell. D.T. 1969. Reforms as experiments.American Psychologist 24:409-42Y.

D&amps, H., R.J. Naiman. and J.C. Lefeuvre. 1998.Landscape ecology and regional development. InM. Hadley, ed. Integrating conservation. develop-ment. and research. UNESCO, Paris. France. (Inpress).

Drake, J.A., H.A. Mooney, R. dicastri. R.H.Groves. F.J. Kruger. M. Rejmanek. et al. eds.1989. Biological invasions: A global perspective.SCOPE 37. John Wiley & Sons. New York, NewYork. USA.

Dryzek, J.S. 1987. Rational ecology: Environmentand political choice. Basil Blackwell. Oxford, UK.

Fava, J., L. Barnthouse. J. Falco. M. Harwell, and K.Reckhow. 1991. Peer review workshop report on aframework for ecological risk assessment. USEPA Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC,USA.

Fetherston. K.L., R.J. Naiman, and R.E. Bilby. 1995.Large woody debris. physical process. and riparianforest development in montane river networksof the Pacific Northwest. Geomorphology 13:133-144.

Finstenbusch, K.. and C.P. Wolf. 1981. Methodologyof social impact assessment. Hutchinson and Ross.Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. USA.

Firey, W.A. 1960. Man. mind, and land: A theoryof resource use. Free Press, Glencoe, Illinois.USA:

Flamm, R.O.. and M.G. Turner. 1994a.Multidisciplinary modeling and GIS for landscapemanagement. Pages 201-212 in V.A. Sample, ed.Forest ecosystem management at the landscapelevel: The role of remote sensing and integratedGIS in resource management planning, analysisand decision making. Island Press. Washington,DC and Covelo, California, USA.

Flamm, R.O., and M.G. Turner. 1994b. Alternativemodel formulations of a stochastic model of land-scape change. Landscape Ecology 9:37-46.

Fortin, M.J. and P. Drapeu. 1995. Delineation ofecological boundaries: Comparison of approachesand signiticance tests. Oikos: A Journal of Ecology72:323.

Gregory, S.V., F.J. Swanson, and W.A. McKee. 1991.An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones.Bioscience 40:540-551.

Grumbine, R.E. 1994. What is ecosystem manage-ment‘? Conservation Biology 8:27-38.

659

Harwell, M.A., and J. Gentile. 1992. Report onthe ecological risk assessment guidelines strategicplanning workshop. US EPA Risk AssessmentForum, Washington, DC, USA.

Harwell. M., J.F. Long, A. Bartuska, J.H. Gentile.C.C. Harwell. V. Meyers. and J.C. Ogden. 1996.Ecosystem management to achieve ecologicalsustainability: The case of south Florida. Environ-mental Management 20:497-522.

Johnston, C.A., N.E. Detenbeck, and G.J. Niemi.1990. The cumulative effect of wetlands on streamwater quality and quantity: A landscape approach.Biogeochemistry 10:105-141.

Karr, J.R. 1991. Biological integrity: A long-neglected aspect of water resource management.Ecological Applications 1:66-84.

Korten, D. 1987. Community management: Asianexperience and perspectives. Kumaian Press. WestHartford, Connecticut, USA.

Le Maitre, D.C., B.W. van Wilgen, and D.M.Richardson. 1993. A computer system forcatchment management: Background, concepts,and development. Journal of EnvironmentalManagement 39:121-142.

Lee, K.N. 1993. Compass and gyroscope: Integratingscience and politics for the environment. IslandPress. Washington, DC and Covelo, California.USA.

Lee, R.G., R.O. Flamm, M.G. Turner, C. Bledsoe. P.Chandler, C.M. DeFerrari, et al. 1992. Integratingsustainable development and environmental vital-ity: A landscape ecology approach. Pages 499-521 in R.J. Naiman, ed. Watershed management:Balancing sustainability and environmentalchange. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York,USA.

Lee, R.G., and G.S. Stankey. 1992. Major issuesassociated with managing watershed resources.Pages 30-37 in P.W. Adams and W.A. Atkinson,eds. Balancing environmental, social political,and economic factors in managing watershedresources. Oregon State University, Corvallis.Oregon, USA.

Levin, S.A., ed. 1993. Science and sustainability.Ecological Applications 3:550-589.

Ludwig, D., R. Hilborn, and C. Walters. 1993. Un-certainty, resource exploitation, and conservation:Lessons from history. Science 260:17-36.

McLain, R.J., and R.J. Lee. 1996. Adaptive manage-ment: Promises and pitfalls. Journal of Environ-mental Management 20:437448.

Meyer, J.W., and R.W. Scott, eds. 1983. Organiza-tional environments: Ritual and rationality. Sage,Beverly Hills, California, USA.


Montgomery, D.R., G.E. Grant, and K. Sullivan.1995. Watershed analysis as a framework forimplementing ecosystem management. WaterResources Bulletin 31:1-18.

Naiman, R.J., ed. 1992. Watershed management:Balancing sustainability and environmentalchange. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York,USA.

Naiman, R.J., and H. D&amps. 1997. The ecology ofinterfaces - Riparian zones. Annual Review ofEcology and Systematics Z&621-658.

Naiman, R.J., J.J. Magnuson, D.M. McKnight, andJ.A. Stanford. 1995a. The freshwater imperative:A research agenda. Island Press, Washington, DC,USA.

Naiman, R.J., J.J. Magnuson, D.M. McKnight, J.A.Stanford, and J.R. Karr. 1995b. Freshwater eco-systems and management: A national initiative.Science 270584-585.

Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: Theevolution of institutions for collective action.Cambridge University Press, New York, NewYork, USA.

Pinkerton, E.W. 1993. Co-management efforts associal movements. Alternatives 1934-38.

Ralph, S.C., G.C. Poole, L.L. Conquest, and R.J.Naiman. 1994. Stream channel condition andin-stream habitat in logged and unlogged basinsof western Washington. Canadian Journal ofFisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51:37-51.

Reice, S.R. 1994. Nonequilibrium determinantsof biological community structure. A.mericanScientist 82:424-435.

Reice S.R., R.C. Wissmar, and R.J. Naiman. 1990.Disturbance regimes, resilience, and recovery ofanimal communities and habitats in lotic ecosys-tems. Environmental Management 14:647-659.

Reich, R. 1991. The work of nations: Preparing our-selves for 21st century capitalism. AA Knopf, NewYork, New York, USA.

Risser, P.G. 1993. Ecotones. Ecological Applications3:367-368.

Schrader-Frechette, K.S. 1991. Risk and rationality:Philosophical foundations for popular reforms.University of California Press, Berkeley,California, USA.

Selznick, P. 1966. TVA and the grassroots: A studyon the sociology of formal organizations. Harper& Row. New York, New York, USA.

Slavic P. 1984. Low-probability/high consequencerisk analysis and the public. Pages 505-508 in R.A.Waller and V.T. Covello, eds. Low-probabilityhigh-consequence risk analysis. Plenum, NewYork, New York, USA.

Sokal, R.R., and R.J. Rohlf. 1981. Biometry.W.H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco, California,USA.

Stanford, J.A., and J.V. Ward. 1992. Management ofaquatic resources in large catchments: Recogniz-ing interactions between ecosystem connectivityand environmental disturbance. Pages 91-124 inR.J. Naiman, ed. Watershed management: Balanc-ing sustainability and environmental change.Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.

Suter, II G.W. 1992. Ecological risk assessment.Lewis, Boca Raton, Louisiana, USA.

Tolt Watershed Analysis Prescriptions. 1993.Weyerhaeuser, Tacoma, Washington USA.

Turner, M.G. 1990. Spatial and temporal analysis oflandscape patterns. Landscape Ecology 4:21-30.

Turner, M.G., V.H. Dale, and R.H. Gardner. 1989a.Predicting across scales: Theory development andtesting. Landscape Ecology 3:245-252.

Turner, M.G., R.V. O’Neill, R.H. Gardner and B.T.Milne. 1989b. Effects of changing spatial scaleon the analysis of landscape pattern. LandscapeEcology 3153-162.

Turner, M.G. and R.H. Gardner, eds. 1991. Quanti-tative methods in landscape ecology. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.

Turner, M.G., G.J. Arthaud, R.T. Engstrom, S.J.Hejl, J. Liu, S. Loeb, et al. 1995. Usefulness ofspatially explicit animal models in land manage-ment. Ecological Applications 5:12-16.

Turner, M.G., D.N. Wear, and R.O. Flamm. 1996.Land ownership and land-cover change in thesouthern Appalachian Highlands and theOlympic Peninsula. Ecological Applications6:1150-1172.

US EPA. 1993. A framework for ecological riskassessments. US EPA Risk Assessment Forum,Washington, DC, USA.

US Government. 1994. A federal agency guidefor pilot watershed analysis. Version 1.2, PacificNorthwest Research Station, US Forest Service,Portland, Oregon, USA.

US MAB. 1994. Isle au Haut principles: Ecosystemmanagement and the case of south Florida. Manand the Biosphere Program, US Department ofState, Washington, DC, USA.

Volkman, J.M., and K.N. Lee. 1994. The owl andMinerva: Ecosystem lessons from the Columbia.Journal of Forestry 92:48-52.

Walters, C.J., and C.S. Holling. 1990. Large-scalemanagement experiments and learning by doing.Ecology 71:2060-2068.

Warwick, C.J., J.D. Mumford, and G.A. Norton.1993. Environmental management expert systems.

watershed. Ecological Applications 6:1173-1188.

The Willapa Alliance and Ecotrust. 1995. Willapaindicators for a sustainable community. Unpub-lished report. South Bend. Washington, USA.

Wheatley, M.J. 1993. Leadership and the newScience: Learning about organization from anorderly universe. Barrett-Koehler, San Francisco,California. USA.

Journal of Environmental Management. 39:251-270.

Washington Forest Practices Board. 1991. Standardmethodology for conducting watershed analysis.Version 2.1. Washington Department of NaturalResources. Olympia. Washington. USA.

Wear. D.N.. M.G. Turner, and R.O. Flamm. 1996.Ecosystem management with multiple owners:Landscape dynamics in southern Appalachian


watershed management1 - lakehead university · watershed management1 robert j. naiman, peter a....

Documents