- Email: [email protected]
Ecosystem management policies in state government of the USA
Landscape and Urban Planning 48 (2000) 57±64
Ecosystem management policies in state government of the USA Charles R. Malone* Nuclear Waste Project Of®ce, Capitol Complex, Carson City, NV 89701, USA Received 14 October 1999; accepted 7 January 2000
Abstract In the U.S., some state governments are beginning to adopt policies based on ecosystem management for conserving natural resources. Implicit or explicit in the policies usually is the concept of sustainable development that embodies achieving sustainable economies through the use of ecosystem management. State-level ecosystem management programs in the western U.S. often are in response to the Federal Ecosystem Management Initiative established by the White House in 1995 for federal land management agencies to apply to public lands. The intent of the policies in the western states, under the arising Enlibra doctrine of the Western Governors' Association (WGA), may or may not compliment the activities of federal agencies. Consequently, the idea for the new western doctrine, already formally embraced by the WGA, is viewed with skepticism by some aside from those involved in developing it. Midwestern and eastern states with emerging ecosystem management policies and programs are discussed and compared in this paper along with the programs arising in the western states under the emerging Enlibra doctrine. # 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Ecosystem management; Natural resources; State programs; Enlibra doctrine
1. Introduction The current U.S. Federal Ecosystem Management Initiative began developing during the late 1980s out of the spotted owl con¯ict in the Paci®c Northwest (Szaro et al., 1998; Yaffee, 1994). The resulting federal policy and practices have brought about signi®cant changes in how renewable natural resources are managed on the nation's public lands. National ecosystem management policy arose out of the
* Tel.: 1-775-687-3744. E-mail address: [email protected] (C.R. Malone)
0169-2046/00/$20.00 # 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 1 6 9 - 2 0 4 6 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 4 3 - 8
National Performance Review, in which Vice President Al Gore (Gore, 1993) called for federal land management agencies to adopt ``a proactive approach to ensuring a sustainable economy and a sustainable environment through ecosystem management.'' Following this action, the U.S. White House Of®ce of Environmental Policy (OEP) established the Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force which issued a report titled `The Ecosystem Approach: Healthy Ecosystems and Sustainable Economies' (IEMTF, 1995). In response to the recommendations of the task force, the OEP (1995) executed its `Memorandum of Understanding to Foster the Ecosystem Approach'. This action led to adoption of the White
58
C.R. Malone / Landscape and Urban Planning 48 (2000) 57±64
House's ecosystem management policy throughout the federal government. By the time that ecosystem management had become U.S. policy, agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service (FS) and those of the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) had already adopted such policies (Szaro et al., 1998). Other agencies soon followed suit and enacted their own ecosystem management policies (Malone, 1998a, b). The signi®cance of the Federal Ecosystem Management Initiative is re¯ected in the fact that together, the FS and the DOI manage about 700 million acres of public land, more than onefourth of the U.S. This is especially important in the western U.S. where the majority of public lands are located. A consequence of the federal initiative has been that some economic interests in the west, e.g. timber, livestock, and ®shery industries, have been curtailed on public lands. Under these pressures, western states have acted through the Western Governors' Association to adopt the Enlibra doctrine (Malone, 1999; WGA, 1999). Enlibra is an emerging effort at the state level to give various interests within states greater in¯uence in federal ecosystem management activities. Oregon and Washington, in particular, have ecosystem management programs underway that involve timber, ®shery, economic and environmental interests. These activities come from compromises reached through collaboration between state and federal agencies and other stakeholders. California also is involved in ecosystem management activities, perhaps even to a greater extent than are Oregon and Washington. However, the policies and programs involved in California are less conspicuous and politically purposeful than in the other two coastal states. Several states in the eastern half of the U.S. are also adopting policies and practices based on ecosystem management. Notable among them are Florida, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. As ecosystem-based management of renewable natural resources takes hold, other states are likely to adopt similar stewardship policies to foster sustainable development. Thus, ecosystem management is replacing traditional commodityoriented management of renewable resources, such as forests, grazing lands, ®sh, and water. With ecosystem management policies having infused the federal government, it is natural that
attention is turning to state government. Discussed here are the highlights of the ecosystem management concept and the emerging nature of state policies and programs based on the concept. This perspective is important because of the controversies associated with ecosystem management in much of the western U.S. and in some other regions as well. These have been discussed elsewhere (Malone, 1998a; TKC, 1996). Ecosystem management also involves the relative roles and rights of federal and state governments in managing public natural resources. 2. The nature of ecosystem management Ecologists and land-use planners and managers increasingly are challenged by the need to develop landscapes that contribute to the quality of human life, restore ecological processes and biodiversity, and sustain native natural resources. The pressures of population growth and economic development will continue to alter ecosystem and landscape processes and patterns. Thus, it is timely that ecosystem-based management strategies be adopted in place of traditional resource management by governments at various levels in the U.S. Ecosystem management, or the ecosystem-based approach, differs from traditional commodity-focused or regulatory-focused resources management by integrating various disciplines and embodying a broad mix of goals that re¯ects different interests. Facets of concept and its application have been discussed by Szaro et al. (1998) and Vogt et al. (1997). A summary of the de®ning principles and characteristics of the approach appear in Table 1. Among the differences between ecosystem-based resources and traditional resources management is the integrated and interdisciplinary nature of the former. Ecosystem management encompasses ecosystem science, sociology, economics, political science and institutional arrangements, and stakeholder participation according to democratic principles. Further, ecosystem management is practised according to natural boundaries rather than being con®ned by arti®cial borders. Also, subjective judgment is avoided in making decisions and, instead, science, objectivity, and sound data and information are used. Traditional multiple resources management is commodity-oriented, favors economic development, and
C.R. Malone / Landscape and Urban Planning 48 (2000) 57±64
59
Table 1 Principles and characteristics of ecosystem management ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±
Integrates state-of-the-art science and other disciplines into an interdisciplinary approach Ecosystem and biodiversity are managed in the context of natural (spatial) boundaries Considers the different time horizons across which ecosystems constantly change Recognizes that ecosystem components are interconnected and that altering one will have effect on others Includes humans as components of ecosystems Uses sound scientific information instead of subjectivity for policy making Management strategies and techniques are adapted as new information becomes available Acknowledges that uncertainties exist in measuring and evaluating ecosystem characteristics Institutions become adaptable to new approaches and to cooperation Partnerships are formed among stakeholders for collaborative democratic decision making and sharing resource costs and benefits Uses conflict management to resolve differences among stakeholders Seeks to achieve economic and the environmental sustainability
fails to integrate humans as parts of ecosystems (Davis, 1997; Cortner and Moote, 1999). Regulatory-based approaches also often characterize the failed paradigm, and weakening this adverse trait is a particular goal of the western Enlibra doctrine (Malone, 1999). This issue bears watching, as relaxing regulatory constraints could increase resource harvesting, if not balanced by an increase in resource stewardship. Ecosystem management is meant to foster both sides of sustainable development, i.e. to successfully sustain economies and natural resources across human generations (IEMTF, 1995; Malone, 1998a, b). States that wish to pursue sustainable development through ecosystem management are faced with overcoming the long-standing dominance of economic growth over resource sustainability. 3. State ecosystem management programs Environmentally aware states naturally are aware of the bene®ts promised by ecosystem-based management (Vogt et al., 1997). Additionally, ecosystem management is of interest in western states because of the emerging Enlibra doctrine (WGA, 1999). Enlibra has yet to develop a template or offer guidance regarding the concept and practice of ecosystem management. A current survey of state ecosystem management programs, such as this, will provide insight into where both western and eastern states stand in that respect. Such at effort was carried out in 1996 by the Council of State Governments (Brown and Marshall, 1996), but much has changed since then. Similarly, state biodiversity programs were surveyed
in the mid-1990s by the non-pro®t group Defenders of Wildlife (Schlickeisen and Musgrave, 1996). Biodiversity programs are signi®cant to ecosystem management, but they have more substance when practised in the more comprehensive and interdisciplinary context of ecosystem management. The survey reported here was performed in the fall of 1999 by searching state programs that embody elements of ecosystem-based management. Programs were surveyed on the Wide World Web by searching states' home pages. In Appendix A, following the published literature referenced, a bibliography is provided of the URL addresses taken from the Wide World Web. The merits of the programs thus accessed were judged relative to their contributions as building blocks for ecosystem-based approaches for managing natural resources and protecting the environment (TKC, 1996; Malone, 1998a). The criteria used for this task are given in Table 2 and they re¯ect the attributes of ecosystem management (Table 1). Additionally, the criteria represent what is important in political and administrative contexts within state government (Malone, 1998a, b, 1999; Cortner and Moote, 1999). Among the 50 states of the U.S., those having obvious elements of ecosystem management and biodiversity stewardship programs are listed in Table 3. The 14 states identi®ed and addressed thus have at least three ecosystem-based program elements that would serve as components of ecosystem-based programs. As such, the components merit consideration as potential models for other states to examine with respect of progressing toward ecosystem management on a par with the Federal Ecosystem Management
60
C.R. Malone / Landscape and Urban Planning 48 (2000) 57±64
Table 2 Criteria used to judge the merits of states' programs relative to supporting the conceptual practice of ecosystem managementa 1. Interdisciplinary approach based on state-of-the-art ecosystem science, socio-economics, and institutional arrangement 2. Adaptable institutions capable of cooperative and coordinated actions 3. Realistic appreciation of the two aspects of sustainable development 4. Capable of forming partnerships with interested stakeholders and the public and carrying out democratic decision-making 5. Combined administration for managing renewable natural resources and protecting other components of the environment 6. Appreciation of the role of environmental education, ethics, and biodiversity stewardship in ecosystem management 7. Academic support from in-state universities capable of advising and training within the interdisciplinary context of ecosystem management a
The criteria were developed from Table 1 to re¯ect what was found in ecosystem-based programs of state governments.
latory and planning programs. The DEP is carrying out the legislative mandate through programs that are consistent with the features in Tables 1±3 here. Public and stakeholder participation is a hallmark of the program in that decisions are not made by experts alone. The Florida DEP has an Of®ce of Ecosystem Management (OEM) consisting of units organized along functional lines, such as planning, land acquisition, environmental education, regulation, and pollution prevention. These are integrated to maintain, protect, and improve the state's natural, managed, and human communities in accordance with the concept and
Initiative. States were arranged in three tiers, from high to low, based on arbitrary scoring. 3.1. First tier Florida stands alone in the ®rst tier of states on the basis of the state's 1993 Environmental Reorganization Act. The act merged functions of environmental regulation and natural resources management. Another key requirement of the act was that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is to protect ecosystem functions by enhanced coordination of public land acquisition and regu-
Table 3 States that meet the evaluative criteria in Table 2 well enough to compliment the objectives of ecosystem managementa State
TIER 1 Florida TIER 2 Illinois N. Carolina Oregon California New York Washington Wisconsin TIER 3 Minnesota Georgia Maryland Michigan Missouri Tennessee
Criteria
Score #s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Interdisc.
Instits.
Sus. Dev.
Partici.
Integr.
Ethics
Support
14
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
9 9 9 7 7 7 7
ÿ ÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
ÿ ÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿ
ÿ ÿ
6 5 5 4 3 3
a Arranged in alphabetical order. States are arranged in three tiers according their scores, i.e. the number of pluses within each row of criteria.
C.R. Malone / Landscape and Urban Planning 48 (2000) 57±64
principles of ecosystem management. This is well illustrated by OEM's Of®ce of Environmental Education and Publication which has a large amount of information on ecosystem management and the state's activities in this respect. Another indication that ecosystem management is taken seriously by the Florida state government is that the OEM's programs have in¯uenced the academic programs of the University of Florida's College of Resources and Environment. This raises the issue of the role of higher education in fostering ecosystem management within state government, e.g. by providing trained professional for staffing state government programs. 3.2. Second tier While Florida clearly is ahead of other states regarding ecosystem management, several states are well along in developing programs that include aspects such as resources stewardship, environmental education programs, and interaction with state universities. The states most developed in this respect are California, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin. The three Paci®c Coast states have recently undertaken visible ecosystem-based management programs for salmon ®sheries and timber resources. The programs follow from the spotted owl controversy (Yaffee, 1994) and appear to be biased toward present-generation economic interests and lacking in a more balanced approach to sustaining natural resources, such as that of the Federal Ecosystem Management Initiative. The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, approved and funded in 1997 by the state legislature, seems to be an umbrella that superimposes itself over a traditional framework. It crosses the administrative lines of state agencies involved and includes institutional levels from federal programs down to the levels of communities and citizens. The essential elements of the plan are coordinated agency programs, community-based action, monitoring status and achievements, and taking corrective measures. Of the Paci®c Coast states, only Oregon appears to have arrangements for collaborative decision-making for managing natural resources. California is reasonably well prepared to contribute to ecosystem management as state policy. For example, ecosystem management has become the organiz-
61
ing principal for land-use planning and management at the state level. The California Resources Agency has ecosystem management ®eld projects underway. An especially notable one is the California Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project. Although federally mandated, the ecosystem assessment and evaluation project could evolve into a state ecosystem management initiative. Various state universities and agencies participate in the project which is a visible and popular one throughout the state. The state of Washington is a focus of federal ecosystem management activities. The state's Department of Natural Resources recognizes naturalresources stewardship that emphasizes the human as opposed to the scienti®c side of ecosystem management. The crown jewel of the state government's ecosystem-based management effort is the Salmon Recovery Program and its Forests and Fish Report. Similar to the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, the Washington counterpart is based on the principles of ecosystem management and integrated natural resources and economic development. In the case of Illinois, the University of Illinois at Urbana , has developed a program titled `Ecosystem Management for Illinois Landowners'. The in¯uence of, or at least the consistency with, the university's ecosystems program is evident in the ecosystem-based management activities of the state government. Included there is a program titled `Conservation 2000' with many of the attributes of ecosystem management. For example, an Ecosystems Program supports the formation of Ecosystem Partnerships built around individual watersheds. Illinois' ecosystemrelated activities appear ready to support a state ecosystem management program. New York, North Carolina, and Wisconsin have reasonably well-developed state programs that compliment ecosystem management. Interdisciplinary approaches to resources management and an awareness of a balanced perspective toward sustainable development are apparent in each state, but more so in North Carolina. Most importantly, the three states have integrated environmental protection with natural resources management into a common department as Florida has done. As noted, ecosystem management support from New York, North Carolina, and Wisconsin appears to be average except perhaps for a lesser apparent extent of emphasis on public and stakeholder
62
C.R. Malone / Landscape and Urban Planning 48 (2000) 57±64
participation in resource management decision-making. The Wisconsin program combines environmental protection and natural resources management as a consequence of the Wisconsin Environmental Protection Act. The act is somewhat similar to Florida's Environmental Reorganization Act, but does not mandate the ecosystem approach. Consequently, the Wisconsin program is weaker than Florida's formal and well-organized program. 3.3. Third tier The lowest tier of states that meet less than six of the criteria in Table 3 are Minnesota, Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, and Tennessee . Of these, the highest score was achieved by Minnesota, a state that is on the borderline between the second and third tiers and, perhaps, could be placed in either category. For example, Minnesota has an ecosystem management program founded on the concept and principles of the ecosystem approach. The structure of the program and the information underlying the program are well developed, sound, and include sections, such as Approach, Watersheds and Landscapes, Managing Ecosystems, Management Tools, Environmental Education, Investment Needs, and Ecosystem-Based Community Activities and Works In Progress. In the latter category, there are 14 ecosystem management watershed or landscape-level projects underway within Minnesota. Next are Georgia and Maryland, having reasonably well-balanced ecosystem-based programs. In Michigan, the state government maintains a traditional commodity and recreational approach to natural resources and lacks recognition of ecosystem stewardship. The University of Michigan is progressive regarding ecosystem management and has initiated the Ecosystem Management 2000 program that aims at understanding the recent trends in ecosystem management. Among the topics to be emphasized is that of instilling ecosystem management in state agencies, including the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. The university's program, though young, is promising should the state government wish to build upon it at a future date. Of the remaining two states reported upon in Table 3, both Missouri and Tennessee have state government
departments that include both, resources management and environmental protection, but the programs are not well-integrated or coordinated. Also, the authority to regulate according to the tenants of ecosystem management does not yet exist in either state. For Missouri, the authority seems to follow from the Natural Resources Management Plan envisioned by the state within its Fiscal Year 2000 Integrated Strategic Plan. It is not apparent what Tennessee's plans are in this regard, but intentions toward natural resource and environmental stewardship appear promising for the future. 4. Discussion Highest ranking among the states included in the survey was Florida. This is because Florida is the only state having (1) statutory and regulatory authority for both, ecosystem management and environmental protection combined within one agency, and (2) a mandate to adopt ecosystem management. The only other state known to have statutory authority for combining environmental compliance with resources management is Wisconsin. However, Wisconsin does not have a legislative mandate to adopt the ecosystem-based approach to comprehensive environmental management as Florida does. A state's having legislated authority similar to Florida probably is an important step toward achieving ecosystem management. Once that goal is attained, many other steps and components will follow of necessity. However, there are actions that can be taken and programs that can be implemented ahead of legislative authorization of ecosystem management. This has occurred and is in the process of happening in states other than Florida. A potentially important factor for the prospects of a state's success appears to be having sound professional and academic support with the state university system. This helps the state government with instituting a scienti®cally sound and interdisciplinary ecosystem-based socio-economic program for balancing economic growth with sustainable natural resources across future human generations. Instilling environmental ethics and resource stewardship in other sectors of the state can be assisted by the state's educational system. Similarly, developing realistic
C.R. Malone / Landscape and Urban Planning 48 (2000) 57±64
perceptions of what sustainable development is, i.e. that it implies that resources may pose limits to economic growth, are important for all stakeholders to perceive. This type of support was available in Florida, and it appears available in only a few other states, e.g. Illinois, California, and perhaps, Michigan and Wisconsin. In addition to Florida, the states that appear to have the soundest base for moving toward ecosystem management are the three Paci®c coast states, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, and, possibly, Minnesota and Wisconsin. The remaining states listed in Table 3 have farther to go, but do show degrees of potential, while the 36 states not mentioned herein appear to lack progress regarding ecosystem-based programs. This holds true particularly for states of the western interior, where many public land resources exist. Presently, these resources largely are addressed by the Federal Ecosystem Management Initiative, although California, Oregon, and Washington are initiating states' initiatives. The federal initiative has caused concern in the conservative west regarding states' rights and has given rise to the Enlibra doctrine of the WGA to balance the role of the federal government in managing public natural resource within the western states (Malone, 1999). Citizens and other stakeholders, with interests in how the nation's public lands are managed, should take note of the WGA's Enlibra doctrine. As a conceptual practice, ecosystem management has much to offer the nation, the states, and the public regarding maintaining renewable natural resources in pursuit of sustainable economies for future generations. Many hurdles remain regarding overcoming utilitarian views of nature and the environment and creating a lasting land ethic. Much remains to be accomplished at all levels of government to foster collaborative, democratic decision-making. Science, too, has a large role to play by improving the understanding of ecosystem and developing effective resource management tools and strategies. The federal government has made large strides in these regards in the past 15 years and much of what has been accomplished provides a basis upon which state governments can build ecosystem management policies and practices. In this regard, the state of Florida serves as a successful example that can guide other state governments.
63
Appendix A. Bibliography of URL addresses used California. 1999a. California Resources Agency. http://ceres.ca.gov/cra/. California. 1999b. Ecosystem Management in California. http:/ceres.ca.gov/ceres/calweb/biodiversity/ ecomgmt.html. California. 1999c. Department of Fish and Game. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/. California. 1999d. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project. http://ceres.ca.gov/snep/. California. 1999e. Ecology at the University of California at Davis. http://www.ucdavis.edu/publications/ecology.html. Florida. 1999a. Department of Environmental Protection: Ecosystem Management. http://www.dep.state.¯.us/ecosystem/. Florida. 1999b. University of Florida College of Natural Resources and Environment. http://web.cnre.u¯.edu/. Georgia. 1999. Department of Natural Resources. http://www.ganet.org/dnr/environ/mainpage.html. Illinois. 1999a. University of Illinois Ecosystem Management for Illinois Landowners. http://www.aces.uiuc.edu/nres/research/eco/esm.htm. Illinois. 1999b. Department of Natural Resources Ecosystem Programs. http://dnr.state.il.us/c2000/ manage/partner.htm. Michigan. 1999a. Department of Natural Resources. http://www.state.mi.us/dnr/. Michigan. 1999b. University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment. http:// www.snre.umich.edu/. Michigan. 1999c. Ecosystem Management 2000 Homepage. http://www.umich.edu/emsnre/. Minnesota. 1999a. Department of Natural Resources Ecosystem Based Management. http:// dnr.state.mn.us/ebm/. Minnesota. 1999b. University of Minnesota Natural Resources Research Institute. http://www.nrri.umn.edu/. Missouri. 1999a. Department of Natural Resources. http://www.dnr.state.mo.us/. Missouri. 1999b. University of Missouri School of Natural Resources. http://www.snr.missouri.edu/. New York. 1999. The Environment. http://www.state.ny.us/environment.htm.
64
C.R. Malone / Landscape and Urban Planning 48 (2000) 57±64
North Carolina. 1999. Department of Environmental and Natural Resources. http://www.ehnr.state.nc.us/ehnr/ Oregon. 1999a. The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. http://www.oregon-plan.org/. Oregon. 1999b. Oregon State University College Departments and Programs. http://www.orst.edu/. Tennessee. 1999. Department of Environmental Conservation. http://www.state.tn.us/environment/ index.html. Washington. 1999a. Salmon Recovery Home Page. http://www.wa.gov/esa/. Washington. 1999b. Department of Natural Resources. http://www.wa.gov:80/dnr/. Washington. 1999c. University of Washington College of Forest Resources. http://www.cfr.uwa.edu/. Washington. 1999d. Washington State University Program in Environmental Science and Regional Planning. Http://www.sci.wsu.edu/. Wisconsin. 1999. Department of Natural Resources. http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/.
IEMTF (Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force). 1995. The ecosystem approach: healthy ecosystems and sustainable economies. The White House, Washington, DC. Malone, C.R., 1998a. The federal ecosystem management initiative in the U.S. In: Lemons, J., Goodman, R., Westra, L. (Eds.), Environmental Sustainability. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 203±217. Malone, C.R., 1998b. The southern Nevada ecosystem management initiative. Environments 26 (2), 1±15. Malone, C.R., 1999. Ecosystem management and the Enlibra Doctrine in the Western U.S. J. Political Ecol. (in review). OEP (Of®ce of Environmental Protection), 1995. Memorandum of Understanding to foster the ecosystem approach. The White House, Washington, DC. Schlickeisen, R., Musgrave, R., 1996. Saving biodiversity: a status report on state laws, policies, and programs. Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC. Szaro, R.C., Sexton, W.T., Malone C.R. (Eds.), 1998. Special Issue on Ecosystem Management, Landscape and Urban Planning 40(1-3), pp. 1±233. TKC (The Keystone Center), 1996. National policy dialogue on ecosystem management. The Keystone Center, Keystone, CO. Vogt, K.A., et al., 1997. Ecosystems: Balancing Science with Management. Springer, New York. (WGA) Western Governors' Association, 1999. Enlibra: a shared environmental doctrine. WGA, Denver, CO. Yaffee, S.L., 1994. The Wisdom of the Spotted Owl: Policy Lessons for a New Century. Island Press, Washington, DC.
References
Charles R. Malone has been an ecosystem manager with the Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office in Carson City since 1986. Prior to that he held an environmental science advisory position with the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council. Dr. Malone received his Ph.D. degree from Rutgers University in ecosystem science, and afterward worked for three years at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory conducting research in radiation ecology before relocating to Washington, DC for 15 years. In Nevada, Malone assists the state government regarding ecosystem and environmental aspects of nuclear waste disposal and management of 85% of the state-owned natural resources and managed by the federal government.
Brown, R.S., Marshall, K., 1996. Ecosystem management in state governments. Ecolog. Appl. 6 (3), 721±723. Cortner, H.J., Moote, M.A., 1999. The Politics of Ecosystem Management. Island Press, Washington, DC. Davis, C., 1997. Conclusion: public lands and policy change. In: Davis, C. (Ed.), Western Public Lands and Environmental Politics. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp. 193±202. Gore, A., 1993. Reinventing environmental management. The national performance review. The White House, Washington, DC.
Ecosystem management policies in state government of the USA Charles R. Malone* Nuclear Waste Project Of®ce, Capitol Complex, Carson City, NV 89701, USA Received 14 October 1999; accepted 7 January 2000
Abstract In the U.S., some state governments are beginning to adopt policies based on ecosystem management for conserving natural resources. Implicit or explicit in the policies usually is the concept of sustainable development that embodies achieving sustainable economies through the use of ecosystem management. State-level ecosystem management programs in the western U.S. often are in response to the Federal Ecosystem Management Initiative established by the White House in 1995 for federal land management agencies to apply to public lands. The intent of the policies in the western states, under the arising Enlibra doctrine of the Western Governors' Association (WGA), may or may not compliment the activities of federal agencies. Consequently, the idea for the new western doctrine, already formally embraced by the WGA, is viewed with skepticism by some aside from those involved in developing it. Midwestern and eastern states with emerging ecosystem management policies and programs are discussed and compared in this paper along with the programs arising in the western states under the emerging Enlibra doctrine. # 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Ecosystem management; Natural resources; State programs; Enlibra doctrine
1. Introduction The current U.S. Federal Ecosystem Management Initiative began developing during the late 1980s out of the spotted owl con¯ict in the Paci®c Northwest (Szaro et al., 1998; Yaffee, 1994). The resulting federal policy and practices have brought about signi®cant changes in how renewable natural resources are managed on the nation's public lands. National ecosystem management policy arose out of the
* Tel.: 1-775-687-3744. E-mail address: [email protected] (C.R. Malone)
0169-2046/00/$20.00 # 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 1 6 9 - 2 0 4 6 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 4 3 - 8
National Performance Review, in which Vice President Al Gore (Gore, 1993) called for federal land management agencies to adopt ``a proactive approach to ensuring a sustainable economy and a sustainable environment through ecosystem management.'' Following this action, the U.S. White House Of®ce of Environmental Policy (OEP) established the Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force which issued a report titled `The Ecosystem Approach: Healthy Ecosystems and Sustainable Economies' (IEMTF, 1995). In response to the recommendations of the task force, the OEP (1995) executed its `Memorandum of Understanding to Foster the Ecosystem Approach'. This action led to adoption of the White
58
C.R. Malone / Landscape and Urban Planning 48 (2000) 57±64
House's ecosystem management policy throughout the federal government. By the time that ecosystem management had become U.S. policy, agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service (FS) and those of the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) had already adopted such policies (Szaro et al., 1998). Other agencies soon followed suit and enacted their own ecosystem management policies (Malone, 1998a, b). The signi®cance of the Federal Ecosystem Management Initiative is re¯ected in the fact that together, the FS and the DOI manage about 700 million acres of public land, more than onefourth of the U.S. This is especially important in the western U.S. where the majority of public lands are located. A consequence of the federal initiative has been that some economic interests in the west, e.g. timber, livestock, and ®shery industries, have been curtailed on public lands. Under these pressures, western states have acted through the Western Governors' Association to adopt the Enlibra doctrine (Malone, 1999; WGA, 1999). Enlibra is an emerging effort at the state level to give various interests within states greater in¯uence in federal ecosystem management activities. Oregon and Washington, in particular, have ecosystem management programs underway that involve timber, ®shery, economic and environmental interests. These activities come from compromises reached through collaboration between state and federal agencies and other stakeholders. California also is involved in ecosystem management activities, perhaps even to a greater extent than are Oregon and Washington. However, the policies and programs involved in California are less conspicuous and politically purposeful than in the other two coastal states. Several states in the eastern half of the U.S. are also adopting policies and practices based on ecosystem management. Notable among them are Florida, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. As ecosystem-based management of renewable natural resources takes hold, other states are likely to adopt similar stewardship policies to foster sustainable development. Thus, ecosystem management is replacing traditional commodityoriented management of renewable resources, such as forests, grazing lands, ®sh, and water. With ecosystem management policies having infused the federal government, it is natural that
attention is turning to state government. Discussed here are the highlights of the ecosystem management concept and the emerging nature of state policies and programs based on the concept. This perspective is important because of the controversies associated with ecosystem management in much of the western U.S. and in some other regions as well. These have been discussed elsewhere (Malone, 1998a; TKC, 1996). Ecosystem management also involves the relative roles and rights of federal and state governments in managing public natural resources. 2. The nature of ecosystem management Ecologists and land-use planners and managers increasingly are challenged by the need to develop landscapes that contribute to the quality of human life, restore ecological processes and biodiversity, and sustain native natural resources. The pressures of population growth and economic development will continue to alter ecosystem and landscape processes and patterns. Thus, it is timely that ecosystem-based management strategies be adopted in place of traditional resource management by governments at various levels in the U.S. Ecosystem management, or the ecosystem-based approach, differs from traditional commodity-focused or regulatory-focused resources management by integrating various disciplines and embodying a broad mix of goals that re¯ects different interests. Facets of concept and its application have been discussed by Szaro et al. (1998) and Vogt et al. (1997). A summary of the de®ning principles and characteristics of the approach appear in Table 1. Among the differences between ecosystem-based resources and traditional resources management is the integrated and interdisciplinary nature of the former. Ecosystem management encompasses ecosystem science, sociology, economics, political science and institutional arrangements, and stakeholder participation according to democratic principles. Further, ecosystem management is practised according to natural boundaries rather than being con®ned by arti®cial borders. Also, subjective judgment is avoided in making decisions and, instead, science, objectivity, and sound data and information are used. Traditional multiple resources management is commodity-oriented, favors economic development, and
C.R. Malone / Landscape and Urban Planning 48 (2000) 57±64
59
Table 1 Principles and characteristics of ecosystem management ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±
Integrates state-of-the-art science and other disciplines into an interdisciplinary approach Ecosystem and biodiversity are managed in the context of natural (spatial) boundaries Considers the different time horizons across which ecosystems constantly change Recognizes that ecosystem components are interconnected and that altering one will have effect on others Includes humans as components of ecosystems Uses sound scientific information instead of subjectivity for policy making Management strategies and techniques are adapted as new information becomes available Acknowledges that uncertainties exist in measuring and evaluating ecosystem characteristics Institutions become adaptable to new approaches and to cooperation Partnerships are formed among stakeholders for collaborative democratic decision making and sharing resource costs and benefits Uses conflict management to resolve differences among stakeholders Seeks to achieve economic and the environmental sustainability
fails to integrate humans as parts of ecosystems (Davis, 1997; Cortner and Moote, 1999). Regulatory-based approaches also often characterize the failed paradigm, and weakening this adverse trait is a particular goal of the western Enlibra doctrine (Malone, 1999). This issue bears watching, as relaxing regulatory constraints could increase resource harvesting, if not balanced by an increase in resource stewardship. Ecosystem management is meant to foster both sides of sustainable development, i.e. to successfully sustain economies and natural resources across human generations (IEMTF, 1995; Malone, 1998a, b). States that wish to pursue sustainable development through ecosystem management are faced with overcoming the long-standing dominance of economic growth over resource sustainability. 3. State ecosystem management programs Environmentally aware states naturally are aware of the bene®ts promised by ecosystem-based management (Vogt et al., 1997). Additionally, ecosystem management is of interest in western states because of the emerging Enlibra doctrine (WGA, 1999). Enlibra has yet to develop a template or offer guidance regarding the concept and practice of ecosystem management. A current survey of state ecosystem management programs, such as this, will provide insight into where both western and eastern states stand in that respect. Such at effort was carried out in 1996 by the Council of State Governments (Brown and Marshall, 1996), but much has changed since then. Similarly, state biodiversity programs were surveyed
in the mid-1990s by the non-pro®t group Defenders of Wildlife (Schlickeisen and Musgrave, 1996). Biodiversity programs are signi®cant to ecosystem management, but they have more substance when practised in the more comprehensive and interdisciplinary context of ecosystem management. The survey reported here was performed in the fall of 1999 by searching state programs that embody elements of ecosystem-based management. Programs were surveyed on the Wide World Web by searching states' home pages. In Appendix A, following the published literature referenced, a bibliography is provided of the URL addresses taken from the Wide World Web. The merits of the programs thus accessed were judged relative to their contributions as building blocks for ecosystem-based approaches for managing natural resources and protecting the environment (TKC, 1996; Malone, 1998a). The criteria used for this task are given in Table 2 and they re¯ect the attributes of ecosystem management (Table 1). Additionally, the criteria represent what is important in political and administrative contexts within state government (Malone, 1998a, b, 1999; Cortner and Moote, 1999). Among the 50 states of the U.S., those having obvious elements of ecosystem management and biodiversity stewardship programs are listed in Table 3. The 14 states identi®ed and addressed thus have at least three ecosystem-based program elements that would serve as components of ecosystem-based programs. As such, the components merit consideration as potential models for other states to examine with respect of progressing toward ecosystem management on a par with the Federal Ecosystem Management
60
C.R. Malone / Landscape and Urban Planning 48 (2000) 57±64
Table 2 Criteria used to judge the merits of states' programs relative to supporting the conceptual practice of ecosystem managementa 1. Interdisciplinary approach based on state-of-the-art ecosystem science, socio-economics, and institutional arrangement 2. Adaptable institutions capable of cooperative and coordinated actions 3. Realistic appreciation of the two aspects of sustainable development 4. Capable of forming partnerships with interested stakeholders and the public and carrying out democratic decision-making 5. Combined administration for managing renewable natural resources and protecting other components of the environment 6. Appreciation of the role of environmental education, ethics, and biodiversity stewardship in ecosystem management 7. Academic support from in-state universities capable of advising and training within the interdisciplinary context of ecosystem management a
The criteria were developed from Table 1 to re¯ect what was found in ecosystem-based programs of state governments.
latory and planning programs. The DEP is carrying out the legislative mandate through programs that are consistent with the features in Tables 1±3 here. Public and stakeholder participation is a hallmark of the program in that decisions are not made by experts alone. The Florida DEP has an Of®ce of Ecosystem Management (OEM) consisting of units organized along functional lines, such as planning, land acquisition, environmental education, regulation, and pollution prevention. These are integrated to maintain, protect, and improve the state's natural, managed, and human communities in accordance with the concept and
Initiative. States were arranged in three tiers, from high to low, based on arbitrary scoring. 3.1. First tier Florida stands alone in the ®rst tier of states on the basis of the state's 1993 Environmental Reorganization Act. The act merged functions of environmental regulation and natural resources management. Another key requirement of the act was that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is to protect ecosystem functions by enhanced coordination of public land acquisition and regu-
Table 3 States that meet the evaluative criteria in Table 2 well enough to compliment the objectives of ecosystem managementa State
TIER 1 Florida TIER 2 Illinois N. Carolina Oregon California New York Washington Wisconsin TIER 3 Minnesota Georgia Maryland Michigan Missouri Tennessee
Criteria
Score #s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Interdisc.
Instits.
Sus. Dev.
Partici.
Integr.
Ethics
Support
14
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
9 9 9 7 7 7 7
ÿ ÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
ÿ ÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿ
ÿ ÿ
6 5 5 4 3 3
a Arranged in alphabetical order. States are arranged in three tiers according their scores, i.e. the number of pluses within each row of criteria.
C.R. Malone / Landscape and Urban Planning 48 (2000) 57±64
principles of ecosystem management. This is well illustrated by OEM's Of®ce of Environmental Education and Publication which has a large amount of information on ecosystem management and the state's activities in this respect. Another indication that ecosystem management is taken seriously by the Florida state government is that the OEM's programs have in¯uenced the academic programs of the University of Florida's College of Resources and Environment. This raises the issue of the role of higher education in fostering ecosystem management within state government, e.g. by providing trained professional for staffing state government programs. 3.2. Second tier While Florida clearly is ahead of other states regarding ecosystem management, several states are well along in developing programs that include aspects such as resources stewardship, environmental education programs, and interaction with state universities. The states most developed in this respect are California, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin. The three Paci®c Coast states have recently undertaken visible ecosystem-based management programs for salmon ®sheries and timber resources. The programs follow from the spotted owl controversy (Yaffee, 1994) and appear to be biased toward present-generation economic interests and lacking in a more balanced approach to sustaining natural resources, such as that of the Federal Ecosystem Management Initiative. The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, approved and funded in 1997 by the state legislature, seems to be an umbrella that superimposes itself over a traditional framework. It crosses the administrative lines of state agencies involved and includes institutional levels from federal programs down to the levels of communities and citizens. The essential elements of the plan are coordinated agency programs, community-based action, monitoring status and achievements, and taking corrective measures. Of the Paci®c Coast states, only Oregon appears to have arrangements for collaborative decision-making for managing natural resources. California is reasonably well prepared to contribute to ecosystem management as state policy. For example, ecosystem management has become the organiz-
61
ing principal for land-use planning and management at the state level. The California Resources Agency has ecosystem management ®eld projects underway. An especially notable one is the California Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project. Although federally mandated, the ecosystem assessment and evaluation project could evolve into a state ecosystem management initiative. Various state universities and agencies participate in the project which is a visible and popular one throughout the state. The state of Washington is a focus of federal ecosystem management activities. The state's Department of Natural Resources recognizes naturalresources stewardship that emphasizes the human as opposed to the scienti®c side of ecosystem management. The crown jewel of the state government's ecosystem-based management effort is the Salmon Recovery Program and its Forests and Fish Report. Similar to the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, the Washington counterpart is based on the principles of ecosystem management and integrated natural resources and economic development. In the case of Illinois, the University of Illinois at Urbana , has developed a program titled `Ecosystem Management for Illinois Landowners'. The in¯uence of, or at least the consistency with, the university's ecosystems program is evident in the ecosystem-based management activities of the state government. Included there is a program titled `Conservation 2000' with many of the attributes of ecosystem management. For example, an Ecosystems Program supports the formation of Ecosystem Partnerships built around individual watersheds. Illinois' ecosystemrelated activities appear ready to support a state ecosystem management program. New York, North Carolina, and Wisconsin have reasonably well-developed state programs that compliment ecosystem management. Interdisciplinary approaches to resources management and an awareness of a balanced perspective toward sustainable development are apparent in each state, but more so in North Carolina. Most importantly, the three states have integrated environmental protection with natural resources management into a common department as Florida has done. As noted, ecosystem management support from New York, North Carolina, and Wisconsin appears to be average except perhaps for a lesser apparent extent of emphasis on public and stakeholder
62
C.R. Malone / Landscape and Urban Planning 48 (2000) 57±64
participation in resource management decision-making. The Wisconsin program combines environmental protection and natural resources management as a consequence of the Wisconsin Environmental Protection Act. The act is somewhat similar to Florida's Environmental Reorganization Act, but does not mandate the ecosystem approach. Consequently, the Wisconsin program is weaker than Florida's formal and well-organized program. 3.3. Third tier The lowest tier of states that meet less than six of the criteria in Table 3 are Minnesota, Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, and Tennessee . Of these, the highest score was achieved by Minnesota, a state that is on the borderline between the second and third tiers and, perhaps, could be placed in either category. For example, Minnesota has an ecosystem management program founded on the concept and principles of the ecosystem approach. The structure of the program and the information underlying the program are well developed, sound, and include sections, such as Approach, Watersheds and Landscapes, Managing Ecosystems, Management Tools, Environmental Education, Investment Needs, and Ecosystem-Based Community Activities and Works In Progress. In the latter category, there are 14 ecosystem management watershed or landscape-level projects underway within Minnesota. Next are Georgia and Maryland, having reasonably well-balanced ecosystem-based programs. In Michigan, the state government maintains a traditional commodity and recreational approach to natural resources and lacks recognition of ecosystem stewardship. The University of Michigan is progressive regarding ecosystem management and has initiated the Ecosystem Management 2000 program that aims at understanding the recent trends in ecosystem management. Among the topics to be emphasized is that of instilling ecosystem management in state agencies, including the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. The university's program, though young, is promising should the state government wish to build upon it at a future date. Of the remaining two states reported upon in Table 3, both Missouri and Tennessee have state government
departments that include both, resources management and environmental protection, but the programs are not well-integrated or coordinated. Also, the authority to regulate according to the tenants of ecosystem management does not yet exist in either state. For Missouri, the authority seems to follow from the Natural Resources Management Plan envisioned by the state within its Fiscal Year 2000 Integrated Strategic Plan. It is not apparent what Tennessee's plans are in this regard, but intentions toward natural resource and environmental stewardship appear promising for the future. 4. Discussion Highest ranking among the states included in the survey was Florida. This is because Florida is the only state having (1) statutory and regulatory authority for both, ecosystem management and environmental protection combined within one agency, and (2) a mandate to adopt ecosystem management. The only other state known to have statutory authority for combining environmental compliance with resources management is Wisconsin. However, Wisconsin does not have a legislative mandate to adopt the ecosystem-based approach to comprehensive environmental management as Florida does. A state's having legislated authority similar to Florida probably is an important step toward achieving ecosystem management. Once that goal is attained, many other steps and components will follow of necessity. However, there are actions that can be taken and programs that can be implemented ahead of legislative authorization of ecosystem management. This has occurred and is in the process of happening in states other than Florida. A potentially important factor for the prospects of a state's success appears to be having sound professional and academic support with the state university system. This helps the state government with instituting a scienti®cally sound and interdisciplinary ecosystem-based socio-economic program for balancing economic growth with sustainable natural resources across future human generations. Instilling environmental ethics and resource stewardship in other sectors of the state can be assisted by the state's educational system. Similarly, developing realistic
C.R. Malone / Landscape and Urban Planning 48 (2000) 57±64
perceptions of what sustainable development is, i.e. that it implies that resources may pose limits to economic growth, are important for all stakeholders to perceive. This type of support was available in Florida, and it appears available in only a few other states, e.g. Illinois, California, and perhaps, Michigan and Wisconsin. In addition to Florida, the states that appear to have the soundest base for moving toward ecosystem management are the three Paci®c coast states, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, and, possibly, Minnesota and Wisconsin. The remaining states listed in Table 3 have farther to go, but do show degrees of potential, while the 36 states not mentioned herein appear to lack progress regarding ecosystem-based programs. This holds true particularly for states of the western interior, where many public land resources exist. Presently, these resources largely are addressed by the Federal Ecosystem Management Initiative, although California, Oregon, and Washington are initiating states' initiatives. The federal initiative has caused concern in the conservative west regarding states' rights and has given rise to the Enlibra doctrine of the WGA to balance the role of the federal government in managing public natural resource within the western states (Malone, 1999). Citizens and other stakeholders, with interests in how the nation's public lands are managed, should take note of the WGA's Enlibra doctrine. As a conceptual practice, ecosystem management has much to offer the nation, the states, and the public regarding maintaining renewable natural resources in pursuit of sustainable economies for future generations. Many hurdles remain regarding overcoming utilitarian views of nature and the environment and creating a lasting land ethic. Much remains to be accomplished at all levels of government to foster collaborative, democratic decision-making. Science, too, has a large role to play by improving the understanding of ecosystem and developing effective resource management tools and strategies. The federal government has made large strides in these regards in the past 15 years and much of what has been accomplished provides a basis upon which state governments can build ecosystem management policies and practices. In this regard, the state of Florida serves as a successful example that can guide other state governments.
63
Appendix A. Bibliography of URL addresses used California. 1999a. California Resources Agency. http://ceres.ca.gov/cra/. California. 1999b. Ecosystem Management in California. http:/ceres.ca.gov/ceres/calweb/biodiversity/ ecomgmt.html. California. 1999c. Department of Fish and Game. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/. California. 1999d. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project. http://ceres.ca.gov/snep/. California. 1999e. Ecology at the University of California at Davis. http://www.ucdavis.edu/publications/ecology.html. Florida. 1999a. Department of Environmental Protection: Ecosystem Management. http://www.dep.state.¯.us/ecosystem/. Florida. 1999b. University of Florida College of Natural Resources and Environment. http://web.cnre.u¯.edu/. Georgia. 1999. Department of Natural Resources. http://www.ganet.org/dnr/environ/mainpage.html. Illinois. 1999a. University of Illinois Ecosystem Management for Illinois Landowners. http://www.aces.uiuc.edu/nres/research/eco/esm.htm. Illinois. 1999b. Department of Natural Resources Ecosystem Programs. http://dnr.state.il.us/c2000/ manage/partner.htm. Michigan. 1999a. Department of Natural Resources. http://www.state.mi.us/dnr/. Michigan. 1999b. University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment. http:// www.snre.umich.edu/. Michigan. 1999c. Ecosystem Management 2000 Homepage. http://www.umich.edu/emsnre/. Minnesota. 1999a. Department of Natural Resources Ecosystem Based Management. http:// dnr.state.mn.us/ebm/. Minnesota. 1999b. University of Minnesota Natural Resources Research Institute. http://www.nrri.umn.edu/. Missouri. 1999a. Department of Natural Resources. http://www.dnr.state.mo.us/. Missouri. 1999b. University of Missouri School of Natural Resources. http://www.snr.missouri.edu/. New York. 1999. The Environment. http://www.state.ny.us/environment.htm.
64
C.R. Malone / Landscape and Urban Planning 48 (2000) 57±64
North Carolina. 1999. Department of Environmental and Natural Resources. http://www.ehnr.state.nc.us/ehnr/ Oregon. 1999a. The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. http://www.oregon-plan.org/. Oregon. 1999b. Oregon State University College Departments and Programs. http://www.orst.edu/. Tennessee. 1999. Department of Environmental Conservation. http://www.state.tn.us/environment/ index.html. Washington. 1999a. Salmon Recovery Home Page. http://www.wa.gov/esa/. Washington. 1999b. Department of Natural Resources. http://www.wa.gov:80/dnr/. Washington. 1999c. University of Washington College of Forest Resources. http://www.cfr.uwa.edu/. Washington. 1999d. Washington State University Program in Environmental Science and Regional Planning. Http://www.sci.wsu.edu/. Wisconsin. 1999. Department of Natural Resources. http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/.
IEMTF (Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force). 1995. The ecosystem approach: healthy ecosystems and sustainable economies. The White House, Washington, DC. Malone, C.R., 1998a. The federal ecosystem management initiative in the U.S. In: Lemons, J., Goodman, R., Westra, L. (Eds.), Environmental Sustainability. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 203±217. Malone, C.R., 1998b. The southern Nevada ecosystem management initiative. Environments 26 (2), 1±15. Malone, C.R., 1999. Ecosystem management and the Enlibra Doctrine in the Western U.S. J. Political Ecol. (in review). OEP (Of®ce of Environmental Protection), 1995. Memorandum of Understanding to foster the ecosystem approach. The White House, Washington, DC. Schlickeisen, R., Musgrave, R., 1996. Saving biodiversity: a status report on state laws, policies, and programs. Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC. Szaro, R.C., Sexton, W.T., Malone C.R. (Eds.), 1998. Special Issue on Ecosystem Management, Landscape and Urban Planning 40(1-3), pp. 1±233. TKC (The Keystone Center), 1996. National policy dialogue on ecosystem management. The Keystone Center, Keystone, CO. Vogt, K.A., et al., 1997. Ecosystems: Balancing Science with Management. Springer, New York. (WGA) Western Governors' Association, 1999. Enlibra: a shared environmental doctrine. WGA, Denver, CO. Yaffee, S.L., 1994. The Wisdom of the Spotted Owl: Policy Lessons for a New Century. Island Press, Washington, DC.
References
Charles R. Malone has been an ecosystem manager with the Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office in Carson City since 1986. Prior to that he held an environmental science advisory position with the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council. Dr. Malone received his Ph.D. degree from Rutgers University in ecosystem science, and afterward worked for three years at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory conducting research in radiation ecology before relocating to Washington, DC for 15 years. In Nevada, Malone assists the state government regarding ecosystem and environmental aspects of nuclear waste disposal and management of 85% of the state-owned natural resources and managed by the federal government.
Brown, R.S., Marshall, K., 1996. Ecosystem management in state governments. Ecolog. Appl. 6 (3), 721±723. Cortner, H.J., Moote, M.A., 1999. The Politics of Ecosystem Management. Island Press, Washington, DC. Davis, C., 1997. Conclusion: public lands and policy change. In: Davis, C. (Ed.), Western Public Lands and Environmental Politics. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp. 193±202. Gore, A., 1993. Reinventing environmental management. The national performance review. The White House, Washington, DC.