LA BELLA ITALIA - Banda Zirahuen (CD "Despedida Con La Banda") 2005
Biennial Symposium; 1994 October 17-20; Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico.
General Technical Report RM-GTR-266.
Fort Collins, CO: U.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
The symposium's purpose was to 1 share information that promotes forest sustainability and 2 build research-management partnerships among natural resource managers, scientists, landowners, policy makers, and public constituencies to address just click for source related to sustainability.
Keywords: sustainability, ecosystem management, international forestry, forest management Executive Committee: Jerry A.
Seseo, Deputy Chief for Research, USD A Forest Service Denver P.
Burns, Rocky Mountain Station Director, USDA Forest Service Charles Cartwright, Southwestern Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service Carlos E.
Gonz√°lez-Vicente, Vocal de la Divisi√≥n Forestal, INIFAP, SARH Victor E.
Sosa-Cedillo, Director General de Protecci√≥n Forestal, SEES, SARH General Coordination Committee: Thomas W.
Hoekstra, Rocky Mountain Station, USDA Forest Service Vicky Estrada, International Forestry, USDA Forest Service Celedonio Aguirre-Bravo, Rocky Mountain Station, USDA Forest Service Gonzalo Novelo-Gonz√°lez, INIFAP, SARH Oscar Cede√Īo-S√°nchez, SEES, SARH Editorial assistance with Spanish papers: Lie.
Javier Sosa Cedillo and Dr.
Daniel Garza y Rueda, INIFAP, SARH Page layout: Karen Mora, USDA Forest Service Editors' Note: In order to deliver symposium proceedings to users as quickly as possible, many manu- scripts did not receive conventional editorial processing.
Views expressed in each paper are those of the author and not necessarily those of the sponsoring organi- zations or the USDA Forest Service.
Trade names are used for the information and convenience of the reader and do not imply endorsement or preferential treatment by the sponsoring organizations or the USDA Forest Service.
The United States Department of Agriculture USDA prohibits discrimination in its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs and marital or familial status.
Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information braille, large print, audiotape, etc.
To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, U.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.
USDA is an equal employment opportunity employer.
CONTENTS Preface iv Denver Burns OPENING REMARKS Components for successful ecosystem management 1 Adela Backiel Working together 2 Jerry Seseo Partnerships for sustainable forest ecosystem management 3 Charles Cartwright INVITED PAPER PRESENTATIONS Sustainability: A matter of human values in a material setting 5 T.
Allen and Thomas W.
Hoekstra The scientific basis for sustainability abstract 11 Alejandro Velazquez Martinez Sustainability: How much?
Fenn, and Frederick N.
Scatena Methods for monitoring sustainability 24 Andrew J.
Gillespie Forest management methods for sustainable evaluation: An overview for Mexico abstract 33 Gerardo Segura Management applications for sustainability abstract 34 Hugo Manzanilla Management applications for sustainable ecosystems: A case study in the Klamath National Forest 35 Barbara Holder and Joyce Andersen CASE STUDIES The sustainable management of forestry resources in Quintana Roo, Mexico abstract 47 Miguel A.
Olayo Gonzalez, Ricardo R√≠os Rodr√≠guez, L.
Alfonso Arg√ľelles Su√°rez, and Daniel Gonz√°lez Cort√©s i An overview of the Chattooga Ecosystem Management Demonstration Project 48 David C.
Cawrse Research to support ecosystem management in the Chattooga River Demonstration Project 52 Charles C.
Martinez, and Brett T.
Coleman Management, conservation, and protection of forests in Desierto de los Leones Forests Abstract 66 Jes√ļs V√°zquez Soto The technical and social basis for implementing the master plan to manage the Patzcuaro Watershed ‚Ä?'TNIFAP-INI Subcomite de Solidaridad'' abstract 67 Alberto G√≥mez Tagle Rojas and others Partnerships for sustainable forest ecosystem management in the Lake Tahoe Region 68 Steve W.
Chilton CLOSING REMARKS Closing thoughts 77 Jerry Seseo Future challenges 78 Adela Backiel POSTERS VOLUNTARY PAPERS Applications of geographic information systems in assessments of El Carrizal Watershed 105 Malchus B.
Medina, and Steve Dudley Relationship between precipitation and streamflow on El Carrizal Watershed, Tapalpa, Mexico 115 Malchus B.
Burns, Lucas Madrigal Huendo, and Daniel G.
Neary ii A preliminary classification of the riparian vegetation of El Carrizal in Tapalpa, Jalisco, Mexico 128 Yolanda Chavez Huerta, Alvin L.
Medina, Xavier Madrigal Sanchez, and Trinidad Saenz Reyes Habitat and breeding ecology of amphibians of the tropical deciduous Forest of Jalisco, Mexico 134 Paulette L.
Ford and Deborah M.
Finch Abundance, species richness, and habitat use of land birds of the Lake P√°tzcuaro Watershed, Michoac√°n, Mexico 138 Santiago Garcia, Deborah M.
Finch, and Gilberto Chavez Le√≥n The Ouachita Mountains Ecosystem Management Project: A case study of the linkage between research and management 147 James M.
Curran, and William Pell Road derived sediment in El Carrizal Watershed, Tapalpa, Jalisco, Mexico 150 Lucas Madrigal Huendo, Yolanda Chavez Huerta, and Daniel G.
Neary The role of herbicides in protecting long-term sustainability and water quality in forest ecosystems 162 Daniel G.
Neary and Jerry L.
Michael Center for the utilization of products from forest ecosystems 165 Gonzalo Novelo-Gonzalez, David Green, and Patrick J.
Pellicane Creating wildlife trees in managed forests using decay fungi 175 Catherine A.
Bull, and Gregory M.
Filip How wildlife concerns were addressed within the Sacramento River Ecosystem Management Area 178 Danney Salas and Tim Meyer Preliminary inventory of the birds of the Tapalpa Region 183 Constantino Ordu√Īa Trejo and Alvin L.
Medina Preliminary inventory of the mammals of the Tapalpa Region 190 Constantino Ordu√Īa Trejo and Alvin L.
Medina Ecosystem management for northern Mexico: Landowner perspectives at El Largo-Madera 197 Maria Teresa Garcia and others iii Preface Dr.
Official records of this bilateral activity go back as far as 1911, that is, six years after the Bureau of Forestry was established to manage the expanding Forest Reserve System, later becoming the USDA Forest Service of today.
Around the same time, in 1917, Mexico first created the Bureau of Forestry, Wildlife, and Fisheries under the Secretariat of Agricul- ture and Development.
These institutions, since they came into existence, have been exemplary role models of international coop- eration and collaboration.
These agencies have signed several agree- ments on Forestry cooperation that have evolved along with their own institutional growth.
Three of the most important agree- ments under which they base their coopera- tive activities are: The North American For- estry Commission, The Memorandum of Understanding on Scientific and Technologi- cal Cooperation in Forestry, and The Letter of Intent on Forestry Research.
These agree- ments, particularly regional agreements of forestry cooperation, have been fundamental mechanisms under which several previous technical and scientific meetings were suc- cessfully held.
Of historical importance have been the four previous symposia organized under the auspices of a regional agreement between SARH-INIFAP, the Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, and the Southwest Region of the USDA Forest Service: Management and Utilization of Arid Land Plants; Strategies for Classification and Man- agement of Native Vegetation for Food Production in Arid Zones; Integrated Manage- ment of Watersheds for Multiple Use; and Making Sustainability Operational.
Given the success attained, the sponsors of these previ- ous symposia made the recommendation to ' Director, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experi- ment Station, USDA Forest Service.
Under this new framework the Fifth U.
The purpose of this symposium was to share information that promotes forest sus- tainability, emphasizing research- management interactions, building partner- ships, and the need for a transdisciplinary approach to sustainable ecosystem manage- ment.
About 500 people attended the sympo- sium, among them policy makers, resource managers, scientists, indigenous people, industry, and land owners.
Symposium objectives were met and results indicated that in order to make sustainable ecosystem management an operational concept, a new approach is urgently needed.
In particular, an approach that goes beyond orthodox concep- tions of scientific disciplines is required, one that calls for synthesis and convergence integration of many different disciplinary perspectives.
Central to this approach is that no discipline has intellectual precedence over any other, especially in an endeavor as impor- tant as achieving sustainability.
Many institutions and people from Mexico and the United States made this symposium an impressive international example of work in partnership.
Thanks to their efforts, this symposium was a complete success and a very special experience where partnerships for sustainable ecosystem management were truly emphasized and visited during the field trip to the forests of Tapalpa, Jalisco.
Sympo- sium participants had no doubts that bilateral symposia, such as this held in beautiful Guadalajara, have been a fundamental means for assuring continuity and success of present and future programs of forestry cooperation and collaboration between our countries.
Mike Espy, at this conference that higWights our enduring partner- ship in an area of vital concern to both the United States and Mexico: sustainable forest ecosystem management.
Our many agreements illustrate our good working relationship and our common goals, specifically our Memorandum of Understanding, the research letter of intent, and the most recent U.
On this occasion, when we celebrate the new understandings and practices gained for sustain- able forestry through our common work, I'd like to briefly share what we believe are important com- ponents to the success of ecosystem management.
Ecosystem management is a policy that embraces the complexity of scientifi- cally based sustainable management over the course of time.
It is the integration of the human, biological, economic and physical factors in our planning and projects.
The underpinning of good resources management in the United states has been and will continue to be scientific information on management options.
One way the Forest Service is strengthening the science base is through "state of the science" habitat conservation assessments for: 1.
Pacific Coast anadromous fish, 3.
Small forest carnivores lynx, wolverine, martin, and fisher4.
Inland cutthroat trout, 6.
Northern goshawk, and 7.
Similar efforts to obtain the best scientific informa- tion are underway for ecological processes, vegeta- tion and disturbance patterns, and expanding knowledge of the human dimensions of ecosystem management.
Public participation and a variety of perspec- tives.
We're improving public involvement, for greater incorporation of public needs in our man- agement activities.
This change requires a highly paticipatory process for involvement of all U.
We're expanding collaboration and partnerships.
Agency personnel are commit- ted to working with more partners, and a broader array of partners, than in the past.
For example, the Forest Service is working with both national and international partners and other U.
In conclusion, we understand that sustainable resource management is an evolving activity within the United States.
It rests on a national policy, an ecosystem management approach.
And we're making changes and progress, with the help of many partners, including many Mexican col- leagues present here today.
The United States shares a 2,000 mile border with Mexico, many migratory species, natural resources, economic trade, and cultural identi- ties ‚Ä?so it is gratifying that we also share in the pursuit of new knowledge and new management approaches for sustainable forests.
Thank you again for this invitation to talk with you and to hear about our joint accomplishments.
And, welcome to all of you, my esteemed colleagues and friends.
I'm delighted once again to be in Mexico ‚Ä?in the well-known and progressive State of Jalisco and in the lovely and romantic city of Guadalajara.
I understand that there is an old Mexican prov- erb which says that "he who has been touched by the dust of Mexico will never again find peace in any land.
Ever since I first came to Mexico a few years ago, I find that I want to come here more and more.
There is some- thing magnetic and wonderful about Mexico.
Being here in Guadalajara today brings back memories of a significant event.
It was here in July 1992 that the leadership of INIFAP and the U.
Forest Service signed an agreement for focused collaboration in research.
Since that occasion, we have watched research groups form and develop joint proposals, followed by conduct of joint studies.
One year later, in July 1993, the Supplement to the Memorandum of Understanding with the Sub- secretar√≠a was renewed and created a new admin- istrative framework for our bilateral work planning.
This new framework now brings land managers and scientists to the same table to develop and prioritize activities.
In short, it enhances partner- ships.
Being in a partnership means that we have a shared ‚Ä?or common ‚Ä?vision of what we wish to accomplish.
It is my opinion that science which doesn't ultimately contribute to better ways of doing things is sterile and land and forest manage- ment that doesn't use new and evolving scientific knowledge is, in the long run, ineffective and inefficient ‚Ä?and may lead to social, economic, and environmental harm.
So I believe it is obvious why this is a sympo- sium emphasizing partnerships.
This will be done largely through hearing about actual case studies built on partnerships for sustainability.
Our national policy for sustainable forestry in casinos de michoacan con banda zirahuen United States is being implemented through an ecosystem management approach.
We define ecosystem management as a process which sus- tains both diversity and productivity of ecosystems while meeting people's needs for livelihood.
More than 40 years ago, forester and wildlife biologist Aldo Leopold said that people should take care of the land as a "whole organism" and try to keep all the cogs and wheels in good working order.
If we did this, he implied, all the things we value from the land would fare well.
As we work together, we need to enlarge and extend the geographic and temporal scales of our research and management.
We need to strengthen interdisciplinary work and partnerships with land owners.
We need to be giving more attention to the monitoring of our actions.
We need to "manage by experiment" or "learn as we go.
Our borders are in- creasingly transparent to our economic develop- ment, our social development, and our environ- mental health.
Resource policies in the United States and Mexico are converging in order to support our converging economies and societies.
And we are pleased that our partnership in re- search ‚Ä?strengthened through joint interdiscipli- nary planning with land managers, is likewise promoting the convergence of our science and management.
On behalf of Jack Ward Thomas, Chief of the U.
Forest Service, I extend best wishes for a successful meeting.
Much work has gone into this symposium.
I know it is going to be successful.
So, I'd like to extend my personal thanks to everyone involved in the preparation.
I look forward to our time together and thank you for the honor of helping open this symposium.
I can't think of a better time to be in Guadalajara.
First, I understand this week is part of Guadalajara's Fiestas de Octubre ‚Ä?a time to share history, art, music, and culture.
Fiesta in many cultures is a very human celebration of people's ties to the land and is often at harvest time.
Secondly, this week our two countries meet for the fifth biennial symposium to exchange forestry and ecosystem management technolgy, and share the many success stories we have accomplished to- gether since our last symposium in 1993.
Again, we must emphasize the inseparable tie of people to their ecosystems.
Plus, I look forward to Thursday when we start planning our next symposium and new projects.
In the Southwestern Region of the Forest Service, U.
Department of Agriculture, we define ecosystem management as multiple-use management that integrates the needs of people with environmental values in such a way that the National Forests and Grasslands represent diverse, productive, and sustainable ecosystems.
Clearly, our management philosophy establishes ecosystem management as a human endeavor, seeking the well-being of people and communities as well as ecosystem health.
The critical issues pertaining to ecosystem sustainability are inher- ently human issues.
Issues such as global change, acid deposition, endangered species, and forest health stem from human activity, are issues be- cause of human concerns, and must be addressed through human ingenuity and collaboration.
There are four key components to our ecosystem management strategy.
In each of these areas, we have opportunities to work with our Mexican colleagues.
PARTNERSHIPS WITH PEOPLE We have an ongoing partnership with the Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales y Agropecuarias INIFAP and Secretaria de Agricultura y Recursos Hidr√°ulicos SARH to exchange scientists and technicians in research on mutual issues and management.
We are working with Colorado State University, the Rocky Mountain Station, and INIFAP on a study of cultural ties to ecosystems and ways to involve people from all cultures in ecosystem management planning.
We have a volunteer program that facilitates the exchange of techni- cians for on-the-ground implementation of ecosys- tem management.
AN ECOLOGICAL APPROACH We defined eco-regions and sub-regions of the United States that must be extended into Mexico for broad-scale planning on regional scales.
Plan- ning on ecological scales rather than stopping at international boundaries or property ownership lines will help us better define regional issues and ecosystem interactions.
The air and watersheds that affect our two countries pay little attention to human boundaries.
We can apply this shared information and monitor the results.
We can share adapted infor- mation based on our monitoring in the future.
There are opportunities to share and coordinate our monitoring programs so our information is more mutually meaningful and useful.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING We continue to seek ways to bring all people and cultures into collaborative processes for decision-making.
We realize that different means of participation are more comfortable for different people.
There are opportunities to share successful experiences among countries for possible interna- tional applicability.
Communications among the human communities of interest are essential throughout the ecosystem management decision processes.
Mexico and the Southwestern Region of the United States share much in our common life- support systems.
We also have a long, successful history of working together.
We are doing a good job communicating, but we can do more.
We must continue to learn, share technology, and manage to insure sustainability of our life-support systems for ourselves and our future generations.
First we lay out the philosophical basis to the approach we take.
Sec- ond we identify the problems of dealing with a biophysical structure that, in the conventional view of sustainability, is the thing to be sustained by ecologists, conservationists and resource managers.
Third we identify that all will be lost unless the social context of the biophysical system is brought to a sustainable condition.
Only when our intellectual framework is laid out, can the special utility of our point of view be recognized.
Only when one understands the difficulties of dealing with complications of the mechanics of the plants, ani- mals, soil, climate and their interactions can we hope to take action that has predictable consequences.
Only when the manager operates in a sustainable social setting, one of social justice and economic viability, can one hope to have the planned course of action be sustained.
THE PHILOSOPHICAL POINT OF DEPARTURE Because ecologists and resource managers deal with things that they can see and touch, such as trees and rivers, there is every temptation to imagine that humans engaged in a search for sustainability deal with material reality Allen and Hoekstra, 1992.
Of course there can be no such thing as making observer- free observations, and practicing scientists would no think otherwise.
Modern philosophies of science emphasize that data are only a matter of observation.
The practical implication of such philosophies seek actively to avoid behaving as though data are exactly equiva- lent to external reality.
Observation does not give the scientist access to the real system, only a system that arises as the interaction between the value-free material system and the value-laden observation protocol of the observer Allen and ' University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wl 53706 USA.
Prospect Street, Fort Collins, CO 80526 USA.
We are prepared to admit that there probably is a real world independent of human observation and values, but as humans we are all denied direct access to it.
This may seem to be an esoteric point that has little to do with saving the planet from ecological destruction.
However, the scientist who sup- presses the role of the observer in data ends up with wrong predictions.
This is demonstrably the case in the hard sciences like particle physics.
The strange equations in quantum mechanics lead to some very counter-intuitive notions of observation and reality Allen and Starr, 1982.
The bottom line is that we never observe an independent material system, we only get to observe a system that is being observed.
Scientific observation cannot escape a click to see more component.
It is there- fore best to acknowledge subjectivity and keep it all the time as a working partner in the process of scientific resource management.
The subjectivity in scientific observations relates to matters of sustainability in two important ways that lead directly to the points of tension raised in the rest of this paper.
First, there is always an observation protocol that employs scaling factors.
Second, sustainability does not exist independent of hu- man values.
As to the first issue of scaling versus type of system in the foreground, all structures are arbi- trary assertions of the observer, even those that feel concrete and real.
In sustainability the struc- ture is the thing to be sustained, as opposed to a very large number of other things that might be candidates, but have not been chosen.
This first issue is discussed in the next section of this paper.
As to the second issue of human values, sustainability is not a relevant concept until there is a significant human component to the material system.
Pristine nature is a pleasing thought, some far off, untouched piece of creation.
However, unspoiled nature is a mythical state that has no importance in a world that is home to over five billion people Allen and Hoekstra, 1994.
If nature is left to do what it has always done, then sustainability is an academic matter.
Sustainability involves an active pursuit of a goal.
In technical terms, sustainability requires an objective function.
Without an explicit value statement in it, sustainability has no meaning.
There is some desired condition that is valued more than some other condition; the please click for source is to be sustained, and the emergence of the latter implies a loss of sustainability.
We look to the issue of human values as an integral part of sustainability toward the end of this paper.
THE BIOPHYSICAL SYSTEM Observing the biophysical system From the traditional purview of the ecologist and resource manager, the thing to be sustained is the biophysical system.
This system has its organ- isms from elephants to insects, and its physical aspects, like water quality.
It is easy to capitulate to some undefined material whole, and say we must sustain everything Allen, Bandurski and King, 1993.
However, such a course is not possible, and it has no meaning.
If we did manage to sustain everything, as humans with limited powers of knowing, we would have no means to see that we had achieved such a goal.
Alternatively, if we had failed to save every aspect of everything, we would not be https://nycwebdesigner.org/casino/launceston-country-club-casino-entertainment.html to see much of the manner of that failure.
Sustaining every aspect of a material system is so far from being an option, that some other course of action must be taken.
Noth- ing can be achieved until the manager accepts responsibility for decisions of scale and system type.
All observations are set in the context of an observation protocol that implies some model of the material system.
Any observer is free to erect any framework, but there are some useful frame- works that come from a fairly small set of conven- tional wisdoms.
Some of these conventional frame- works come from ecology, and embody the subdis- ciplines of organismal, physiological, population, community or ecosystem ecology.
All of the above frameworks define the type of system that is to be sustained, independent of scalar considerations.
Each of these subdisciplines have their devotees, and remain remarkably separate from each other Allen and Hoekstra, 1992.
Each brings out some aspect of the system, and each has something to contribute to achieving sustainability.
In general it is quite hard to work with hybrid frameworks that fall between the subdisciplines, but it can be achieved with the exercise of some imagination.
Let us distinguish between a couple of the conventional frameworks to show how each leads to sustaining a distinctive aspect of the material system.
In the following comparisons and con- trasts, we emphasize that the definitions of com- munity and ecosystems that we use are our own, and we do not wish to impose them on others.
The reader should consider them as operational.
The exercise is not a matter of finding a set of proper definitions, but is rather an illustration of the how reasonable, relatively orthodox definitions lead to very distinct conceptions and courses of action.
All of the conventional frameworks are very incom- plete accounts of the full and inaccessible material whole, but that incompleteness comes with the scientific treatment of any problem.
Science is precisely not a matter of seeking to understand everything, but is rather a matter narrowing frameworks to that predictability can emerge.
A community view focuses on collections of to open a casino california of different species that accommodate to each other and form a stable, multispecies 6 whole.
This view takes the other respective king- doms to be the biotic environment.
For plant communities it is the animals that eat, trample, pollinate and disperse the community members.
For animal communities, the biotic environment consists of plants that make up animal resources and the habitats.
Separate from each community's biotic environment is the physical environment.
The community view emphasizes the separateness of community and environment.
Within the com- munity, competition, mutualism and other factors that pertain to evolution and adaptation are key processes.
Sustainability of communities is signifi- cantly distinct from sustainability of populations, ecosystems or landscapes.
Let us contrast an ecosystem view with one that employs the community as the organizing prin- ciple.
Ecosystems, by our definition, include the biotic and physical environment as part of the system.
This view of ecological systems changes the tools that can be used to study such systems from those important in community studies.
In communities, the adaptations of organisms are central, whereas in process-functional ecosystems, adaptations and evolution are singularly unimpor- tant.
With the environment inside the system, organisms significantly melt away into pathways of energy flux and material flow.
In an ecosystem, cows might as well have no sex or color.
They may well not even be distinguishable from horses.
In an ecosystem, cows are the connection between teeth and anus, they are the converter of green plant material into detritus.
The tools of choice in studying ecosystems address material and energy flows.
Principles such as mass balance and conservation of matter allow ecosystem calibration Allen, O'Neill and Hoekstra, 1987.
Used carefully, they can detect nutrient leakage or accumulation.
In communities or populations, mass balance is not violated, but it is unimportant.
The fact that deer in a population eat the same amount as they respire, urinate and defecate tells nothing of their adaptations or role in the community.
Conversely, the organisms that exist anonymously in ecosystem nutrient cycles are the product of evolution, but that can usually be safely ignored.
In matters of sustainability, a community view is very different from one that comes from an ecosys- tem perspective.
In the final analysis, a community cannot exist if its commensurate ecosystem is defunct.
Furthermore, there can be no ecosystem if there is no mode of primary resource capture.
Without plant communities, there is no primary productivity, a crucial aspect of ecosystem function.
Even so, despite these ultimate co-dependencies, it is perfectly possible for an ecosystem view to detect immediately that the system is not sustain- able, while the community may show no signs of stress or dysfunction whatsoever.
In other circum- stances, a problem that appears on the face of it to be a community in trouble might be better ex- plained in ecosystem terms.
As a case in point, in the loss of salmon fisheries on the Pacific Coast of North America, the first impression was that overfishing had destroyed the breeding stock.
The symptoms looked for all the world as though it was a non-sustainable popula- tion or community.
Further investigation showed that it was not live salmon numbers that were too low to lay eggs, for the few fish that do make it to the spawning grounds lay more than enough eggs to make a cohort.
It emerged that the 7 clans warroad casino factor was a sufficiency of dead salmon, expired after returning to lay eggs.
Dead salmon are the product of a reverse nutrient pump that makes up for the flow of minerals downstream.
Dead salmon rot to give phytoplankton apologise, doubledown casino facebook are that supports zooplankton, which in turn feed the hatchling salmon Hyatt and Stockner, 1985; Stockner, 1981.
The loss of sustainability is of the ecosystem, not the population or the community.
The solution is artificial addition of mineral nutrients, and the fish could do the rest of the job of recovery.
Scaling decisions for the biophysical system Because this planet will be consumed in an expansion of the sun in some billions of years, absolute sustainability for all time is a moot point.
Of course, our species will be extinct long before our sun does its worst.
However, this does mean that there are limits, and once we acknowledge any limit, we must decide which ones are impor- tant and which are incidental.
Sustainability has a temporal extent for each condition, beyond which we acquiesce.
The observer must decide what is important and for how long Allen and Hoekstra, 1994.
While Methuselah lived nine hundred years, most organisms live for much shorter time spans.
Issues of sustainability need to take into account the inherent temporal spans of organisms and other parts of sustainable systems.
Further- more, were Methuselah a resource manager, he would probably have a very different agenda for his efforts toward sustainability than would the rest of us mortals with our three score years and ten.
Thus sustainability involves not just the tempo- ral spans of the biological organisms or other parts of the biophysical system, but also it must be planned around the temporal spans of the rel- evance of societal values that are implicit in sus- taining the biophysical world in the prescribed manner.
Much as temporal scaling is a crucial part of decisions toward sustainability, spatial scaling matters as well.
One might argue that the restora- tion of the Curtis prairie in the University of Wisconsin Arboretum is inadequate as an effort to sustain tall grass prairie because it supports no buffalo.
Indeed buffalo are absent, but the prairie, wonderful as it is, is only a slightly larger area than a moderate sized agricultural field for the region.
It is not that buffalo are missing from the community restoration, it is that the area is not great enough to include them.
Thus the appropri- ate biophysical character of that which is to be sustained is dictated by spatial area.
The futility of aiming at sustainability without setting spatial bounds can be made clear by taking the argument to its absurd logical conclusion: it makes no sense to complain that the Alaskan wilderness inad- equately sustains the biophysical system because it contains no tropical rain forest.
Sustainability must always be planned for some scale-defined situation Allen and Hoekstra, 1987.
Often there will be a relationship between the spatial and temporal aspects of sustainability Allen, O'Neill and Hoekstra, 1987.
Large areas are likely to have an appropriately long time line as part of the program, while small areas may be adequately sustained as relatively ephemeral systems.
For example, in a study of a microcosm, sustaining it for a few months could easily be fully adequate for the purposes at hand.
On the other hand, an appropriate time span for a plan to sustain a large forest would probably be at least a millennium.
SOCIAL JUSTICE AND ECONOMIC VIABILITY Joel Cohen once wrote that biologists have physics envy.
That is probably true, and to make matters worse they envy Newtonian tidiness over the penetrating logic of quantum mechanics.
In ecology this manifests itself in an illusion that the scientist's appropriate agenda is to find out what is really happening in the material system in the manner that ecologists imagine physicists do.
As we have already asserted, above and elsewhere Allen and Hoekstra, 1992science may be ap- proaching some ultimate reality in its models, but that is not relevant to the conduct of scientific inquiry.
If scientific models do represent move- ment towards ontological reality, the approach must be so infinitesimal that it is hardly something upon which to base the criteria for success of the enterprise.
Even so, there is a pecking order to resource scientists that holds in its highest ranks those scientists pursuing the hardest sciences with the most direct physical measurements, and puts at the bottom those who deal with the soft end of resource management.
Soft resource management addresses issues like land ethics, where human values are everywhere.
Sustainability cannot be properly considered unless the soft end of the problem is included as more than a token.
Lynton Caldwell has said that one does not directly manage the biophysical ecosystem; rather the manager influences the people who act on the system.
Therefore, if the human side of the equation cannot be sustained, then neither can any other part of the project.
The human part of sustainability can be effectively divided into two.
One half is economic and the other is social justice.
Sustaining any biophysical system involves direct human activity of an economic sort.
Peri- meter fences around parks take money to erect, as do guards and wardens to protect a game reserve.
Even if some aspect of sustaining a system does not involve actively spending cash, it could 8 equally involve foregoing resources that would give direct economic advantage.
To the party making the sacrifice, money not made is the same as money spent.
If biophysical resources are to escape destruction from exploitation for short term profit, there must be other resources that are offered as compensation.
That of course demands some sort of economic system that is in a position to support the exercise of discipline and restraint.
Dan Janzen has been saying for some time now that any tropical rain forest that does not in some fairly direct way pay for itself will be gone in a few decades.
There are enormous pressures for wood, grazing land and minerals in marginal local econo- mies of the tropics.
National governments re- sponding to international entreaties to preserve genetic and ecological resources need compensa- tion.
That compensation consists of economic resources that should be directly coupled to the acts of restraint that allow tropical forests to be sustained.
There is an explicit economic aspect to sustainability.
A stable and adequate economic base is a requirement for sustainability.
Beyond economics, social justice is also a crucial component, although justice and economics may be linked.
Without social justice, reasonable people cannot be expected to exercise measured steward- ship.
Preservation of ancient varieties of crops from isolated agroecosystems cannot be achieved with any reliability in germ plasm banks of indus- trial nations.
The only place that such crucial materials can be sustained is in their place of origin.
On the other hand, who is going to be prepared to live in what amounts to an agricultural museum to keep ancient methods of husbandry alive in a world that beckons with consumer opportunity?
The first world must pay a fair price for genes and the rare pharmaceuticals from the isolated places that have thus far here progress.
Beyond direct economic aspects of social justice, sustainability of biophysical systems requires stable social settings that arise from societal mem- bers perceiving the situation as worth their coop- eration.
War lords make very poor conservation- ists.
A small disgruntled section of a society can start feedback processes going that lead quickly to out and out social strife.
The olive branch as a symbol of peace derives from olive groves in the Mediterranean being safe havens for routed armies.
The victors would not press pursuit into the olive grove because it was a valuable biological resource that once destroyed would take decades to replace.
However, the olive grove is an excep- tion, for social upheaval generally destroys fragile biophysical resources.
Therefore, social justice that leads to social stability must be part of a realistic program for sustainability.
CONCLUSION The issue of sustainability requires a precision of thought.
It must avoid myths and easy ways out.
It is clear that sustaining everything for all time is worse than impractical; it is meaningless.
Refer- ence to some pristine system as a pie-in-the-sky ultimate goal is also impractical and meaningless.
Sustainability does not become an issue until there are humans with values inside the system.
Human values are an integral part of sustainability; the mythical, completely objective scientist is particu- larly inappropriate in matters of sustainability Allen, Bandurski and King, 1993.
Since there are limits to what is possible and desirable, the resource manager and scientist must take responsibility for bounding the system to be sustained in both time and space.
Also, the type of system that is to be sustained cannot be left im- plicit and unstated.
Like the issue of scale, the type of system that is the object of action needs to be laid out clearly in the mind of the planners, and then stated clearly for those who are to execute the remedial or holding action.
Sustainability is not something that will happen if we just leave things alone and let nature take her course.
There is an imperative call to action with some explicit goal in mind that comes from openly stated agenda and values.
Those who address sustainability cannot afford to focus narrowly on just the ecology of the bio- physical system.
Meaningful planning must at least take into account all the stakeholders in efforts to sustain a natural resource system.
Where possible stakeholders should be party to the decisions that are made Checkland, 1981.
Plan- ning must be done cognizant of the social system that is the context of the biophysical system.
While narrowly focused biologists or academic ecologists do have something to offer a world that seems bent on destruction, now is no time for scientists to 9 retreat to delusions of objectivity and accurate measurement of material truth.
The sciences that come to address sustainability need to put aside narrow agendas.
Effective sustainability will come not from grasping an objective truth, but from casting about to find powerful points of view.
Now is the time for expansive thinking that reaches out to embrace a world full of rich differences in human needs, values and aspirations.
In such a challenging place, students of resource management need a sound philosophy of knowledge.
They must have a clarity of thought that uses that philosophy to achieve understanding that can lead to action with beneficial, predictable consequences.
Now is no time for clinging to scientific myths or a retreat into academic myopia.
But now is the time for forging a new collaboration between natural and social scientists, if we are to have a chance of a desirable, sustainable future.
King 1993 The ecosystem approach: theory and ecosystem integrity.
International Joint Commission, Washington, DC.
Hoekstra 1987 Problems of scaling in restoration ecology: a practical application.
Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Cambridge.
Hoekstra 1992 Toward a unified ecology.
Hoekstra 1994 Toward a definition of sustainability.
DeBano technical coordina- tors Sustainable ecological systems: implement- ing an ecological approach to land management.
USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins.
Hoekstra 1987 Interlevel relations in ecological research management: some working principles from hierarchy theory.
Applied Systems Analysis 14: 63-79.
First published in 1984 as Rocky Mountain General Technical Report 110 USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins.
Checkland, Peter 1981 Systems thinking, systems practice, pp 330, Wiley, New York.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42: 320-331 Phrase casino de juegos en linea can J.
This concept is understood to guarantee the use and conservation of natural resources in the long run.
Sustainability in forest resources management should be compatible with both physical and biological ecosystem integrity.
Sustainability must also satisfy human needs throughout designed strategies of natural resources use.
Sustainability is part of the "sustainable development" concept, defined as creating land use opportunities for the present without compromising the ability of future generations to have the same opportunities.
It is established knowledge that sustainability is based on biological sciences, economic sciences, social sciences, political sciences, and technology.
An analysis of this integration can produce strategies for source managing forest resources in the context of ecosystem management.
Now, society as a whole has become involved in that interest, which has brought a new interdisciplinary focus.
Without being restrictive, we propose that the following be sustained: a meeting human needs b biodiversity; c soils and the subjacent layers d air and atmosphere; e water; f climate and energy flows; and g the interaction of all of the above.
A crucial question arises: How do we want to conserve these items?
Do we conserve them as they are now, or as they were many years ago?
It has to be a consensus based on the best available knowledge of sustainability paradigms.
Any such consensus must include economic sustainability and social acceptance.
The demand for sustainability results from human interest at three levels: a humanity's habitat biosphere ; b humanity's organization societies or countries ; and c humanity's individual members.
In spite of being too anthropocentric, such a proposition can be accepted after some arguments.
In any case, a sustainable scheme must be congruent among those levels.
It is urgent to define "sustainability descriptors," which should have the capability of being quantified.
Available knowledge is insufficient to quantify the descriptors right now.
But it is necessary to define a set of descriptors and continuously review them if we want to move from wordy discussions to operative guidelines for sustaining forest resources for humankind now and into the future.
Current economic developments are taxing the biosphere's capacity to supply those services because the magnitude of the negative impact of hu- man activities on the environment has not been fully recognized.
Sustainability is achieved when the service capabilities of the biosphere are not violated by our economic activities.
Four broad categories of environmental indicators for natural resources include: response indicators, exposure indicators, habitat indicators, and stressor indicators.
These indicators and criteria for their selection are essential in the development of an environmental monitoring program.
The natural environment or biosphere performs three principal functions for the economic activi- ties of humankind Jacobs 1991.
First, it provides us with three principal types of natural resources: non-renewable resources ‚Ä?such as coal, oil, gas, minerals and other materials; renewable re- sources ‚Ä?such as water, air, plants and animals; and inexhaustible resources such as the sun's energy which is harvested by photosynthetic organisms.
Second, the biosphere assimilates the waste products of human and natural activities through processes such as carbon sequestration, nitrogen cycling in forests ecosystems, and water filtration and purification.
Third, the biosphere provides us with various environmental services.
Some of these environmental services are tradi- tionally ignored in economic analyses because they lack a direct market value.
Scatena is a Research Hydrologist, USD A Forest Service, International Insti- tute of Tropical Forestery, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico.
Life support functions such as regulation of climate and the gaseous composition of the earth's atmo- sphere or maintenance of genetic diversity, that are necessary to maintains the biosphere can be con- sidered another type of environmental service Jacobs 1991.
Without these environmental func- tions no economic activity would be possible.
Many of the environmental problems challeng- ing human society are fundamentally ecological in nature Lubchenco and others 1991.
The growing human population and its increasing use and mis- use of resources are exerting enormous pressure on the Earth's life support capacity.
We must develop knowledge to conserve and manage wisely the Earth's natural resources.
Everyone ‚Ä?including citizens, policy makers, resource mana-gers, and leaders of business and industry ‚Ä?make decisions related to the Earth's resources, but such decisions cannot be made effectively without a fundamental understanding of the effect of our activities on the Earth's biosphere.
By establishing specific goals or targets for biosphere capabilities and ensuring that our economic activities do not violate those targets.
It is clear that these goals or targets can not be absolute values; they will vary depending on the environmental conditions and whether the natural processes are declining, maintaining or increasing.
Monitoring is the mechanism through which compliance with the established targets can be ascertained.
This paper discusses the concepts of monitoring, indicators of and environmental health, and sustainability and how they relate to economic development, as well as the implication of the present economic development paradigm on the sustainability of the biosphere.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SUSTAINABILITY The health and sustainability of the natural environment or ecosystems are very important not only to the well being of humankind, but to nature itself.
However, both the terms "ecosystem health" and "ecosystem sustainability" are difficult to define and even more difficult to operationalize.
Many articles and books on the subject have been written, but many researchers do not agree on what these terms mean, or even how to measure or moni- tor them Gale and Cordray 1991, Hunsaker and Carpenter 1990, Kelly and Hardwell 1990, Kessler and others 1992, Lubchenco and others 1991, SAF 1993, Schaeffer and others 1988, Schreckenberg and Hadley 1991, Udo de Haes and others 1991.
Schaeffer and others 1988 state that ".
The assessment of ecosystem health requires the identification of a systematic set of relationships which will provide the basis for organizing data from various disciplines.
The objectives are the initial definition of a healthy state, the selection of param- eters which allow quantification of state or condition, and the identification of criteria which allow assess- ment of relative health.
The additional cost of multiple indicators to assess ecosystem health presents a challenge, particularly in those developing countries with limited finan- cial resources and pressing social needs.
The concept of sustainability is equally difficult to define.
Generally the concept of sustainability is related to a sustainable relationship between society and the environment Udo de Haes and others 1991.
The World Commission on Environment and Development 1987 goes further in stating that present levels of development can only be sustained if the integrity of the biophysical I environment is protected.
The problem is that a ' sustainable relationship between society and the environment might take place at a level of poor I quality of either society development levelsuch ' as in developing countries, or the environment environmental qualityas in highly polluted industrial areas.
In some cases, societal development and environmental protection are both threatened by factors such as eroded mountainous areas in developing countries, or slums surrounding large cities in the industrialized world Udo de Haes and others 1991.
To define or measure sustainability we have to consider quality standards for societal development as well as for environmental integrity.
We must also define the desired equilibrium between the two with regard to the environment.
The issue of sustainability is further complicated by the lack of rigorous scientific information that can be applied in the decision making-process.
This is demonstrated by the paucity of work addressing such critical issues as long-term soil capability after repeated logging cycles, or the cumulative effects of timber management practices at either the landscape, regional, or provincial scale Dunster 1992.
In adaptive management programs, management activities are conducted as experiments to test hypothesis and develop information for future natural resource management Swanson and Franklin 1992.
Adaptive management research programs provide scientists with the unique opportunity to perform manipulative large-scale studies, and will also provide forest managers with information needed for best managing forests for long-term health and sustainability.
More than ever, management of natural resources requires knowledge about ecosystems, including relationships to human values, activities and patterns of resource use Kessler and others 1992.
The answer to this question depends on the relationship between society and the environment.
Maini 1990also suggests that-sustainable development is a process that operates through the utilization of natural resources, and the direction of investment, the orientation of technical development and institutional structure; all of which are continually changing to maintain harmony and to enhance both the current and the future potential of the biosphere to meet human needs and aspirations.
Thus these definitions may offer a clearer under- standing of sustainable development, but they do not suggest how to achieve it!
Because economic development is needed to satisfy societal needs many analyses have focused on these paradigms to solve environmental prob- lems.
But these economic development paradigms do not fully address the negative impacts on the biosphere.
One of the best examples of this today are the tropical regions of the world as the tem- perate regions were in past centuries.
As Schreckenberg and Hadley 1991 state, ".
Resources are mined for the short-term with disregard for the long-term sustainability of the forest ecosystem.
This is not an exclusive problem of check this out countries.
In the United States, for example, more than 1 billion tons of soil, net of natural replacement, are lost every year‚ÄĒan area equivalent to almost 300,000 hectares Jacobs 1991.
The fact that the present patterns of economic development are environmentally damaging does not mean that link solution to our environmental problems is to curb economic development.
No economic development, or a decrease in economic development could be equally damaging, and in some cases more damaging than economic growth Udo de Haes and others 1991, Jacobs 1991.
We need a definition of sustainability that allows compatibility between environmental conservation and the economic development needed to satisfy societal needs.
On the basis of the definition of sustainability by the World Commission on Envi- ronment and Development 1987and because of the need to define environmental protection Jacobs 1991 proposed the following operational defini- tion of sustainability: "the environment should be protected in such a condition and to such a degree that environmental capacities the ability of the environment to performs its various functions are maintained over time; at least at levels sufficient to avoid future catastrophe, and at most at levels which gives future generations the opportunity to enjoy an equal measurement of environmental consumption.
Similarly, for the assimilation of waste function, the basic rule for sustainability is that the flow rate and concen- tration of waste discharge should not exceed the assimilative capacity of the recipient medium.
For the environmental services capacity the measure- ment of sustainability is more difficult, because the environmental services are not consumed like a renewable or non-renewable resource.
MONITORING Monitoring environmental indicators can be used to record changes in the environmental capacity and its consumption how much the environmental capacity has been reduced.
Theo- retically, by adopting limits or targets for the appropriate environmental indicators, and ensur- ing that the economic activity does not exceed these limits, sustainability can be use as an opera- tional policy.
From attempts to describe prevailing environmental conditions, and the occurrence, distribution, and intensity of pollution, to provid- ing a read more on the countryside at large have been considered monitoring Hellawell 1991.
Adopting a clear definition of monitoring helps to ensure the design of a monitoring program.
The major difference between monitoring as defined by Hellawell, and survey and surveillance, is that monitoring is intrinsically purposeful and presupposes an idea of the results that are ex- pected.
We are concerned with establishing limits, however arbitrary, and deciding what to do when the monitoring reveals the present situation is out of the norm or target.
Even before any monitoring program is begun we need to consider five basic questions Usher 1991, Roberts 1991 : 1.
Purpose ‚Ä?Why are we monitoring?
What is the aim of the monitoring?
Collecting data is not sufficient reason in itself.
We need to specify the purpose of the data, i.
The intensity and frequency of the monitoring must also be considered.
Method ‚Ä?How can the aim be achieved?
How to obtain the data?
This includes choice of the sampling techniques, and any experimental manipulation.
Analysis ‚Ä?How will the collected data be handled?
What data, tests, and analyses will be needed to answer the question asked?
This includes determining the type of data required, sample sizes, and appro- priate statistical analyses, if needed.
Interpretation ‚Ä?What might the data mean?
Fulfillment ‚Ä?When will our aim be achieved?
Types of Monitoring In general, broad reasons for monitoring in- clude: assessing the effectiveness of policy or legislation, regulatory performance or audit functionand detecting incipient change early warning Hellawell 1991.
Depending on why we want to monitor, MacDonald and others 1991 have identified several types of monitoring.
These types are not exclusive and are defined more by the purpose of the monitoring rather than the type and intensity of measurements.
Ex- amples include measurement of climatic or water quality data.
Examples include developing species inventories and inventories of wildlife habitat.
Examples include site visits to determine if a project was implemented as specified in a contract or planning document.
Examples include measuring water quality changes before and after the implementa- tion of best management practices like riparian buffer zones.
Each of these types of monitoring have a role in monitoring for sustainability, and each have associated costs.
Baseline and implementation monitoring are typically the most cost effective, while effectiveness and validation monitoring require the greatest scientific rigor and design.
INDICATORS FOR MONITORING FOREST HEALTH AND SUSTAINABILITY General Considerations According to Jacobs 1991to measure sustainability two types of environmental indica- tors need set targets: those that measure quantities and qualities stock of the essential environmental features such as soils, forests, land use, water resources fresh and marinenumber and diver- sity of species, and others; and those indicators that measure the economic activities causing changes in the first type of indicators such as emission and discharge rates for pollutants.
It is important to monitor those indicators that help us evaluate whether an ecosystem is in a sustainable condition.
Indicators which provide information on the "health" and vitality of an ecosystem, should also indicate the likelihood of sustainability.
Recognition of the potential for change is implicit in the rational for most monitor- ing activities.
We want to detect a change that has occurred, and establish its direction, and measure its extent or intensity.
It is at this stage that moni- toring of critical indicators of ecosystem health and sustainability becomes relevant.
Long-term moni- toring will be the most informative and the most likely to detect significant signs of ecosystem deterioration or unusual deviations from expected patterns of ecosystem state and functioning.
The use and implementation of indicators for monitoring ecosystem health is still evolving and requires further research and development Lubchenco and others 1991, Schaeffer and others 1988.
The number of proven diagnostic tools for assessing ecosystem health is low Schaeffer and others 1988.
No single indicator has sufficient diagnostic value to indicate the health or status of a forest.
A combination of indicators, or in some cases a suite of indicators, is needed to provide a more comprehensive picture of ecosystem health and sustainability Kelly and Harwell 1990.
Various criteria or guidelines for selecting indicators of ecosystem health has been proposed Hunsaker 1993; Hunsaker and Carpenter 1990; Kelly and Harwell 1990; Riiters and others 1992.
Indicators chosen for monitoring may be partly determined by the desired endpoints or character- istics to be sustained in the forest e.
Ecosystem science has progressed to the stage in which general ecological principles and characteristics of "healthy" functional ecosys- tems are known.
On the basis of that kiiowledge, candidate indicators of forest health and sustainability can be developed, employed, and further refined.
Whatever indicators are ultimately used, we must carefully evaluate their response relative to the successional patterns of forest development.
For example, stand growth rates, biomass allocations, nutrient pools and cycling processes, and the incidence of disease and pest outbreaks can change dramatically with the pro- gression of stand development and succession Grier and others 1989.
The key elements of a sustainable forest, accord- ing to the Society of American Foresters 1993are the maintenance of biological diversity and soil fertility, and the conservation and dispersal of genetic variation.
The Society's task force on Sustaining Long-Term Forest Health and Produc- tivity SAF 1993 recommended that the primary objectives for forest sustainability focus on the state of the forest.
These priorities are based on the premise that forests in a healthy functional state, will be best suited for long-term maintenance and support 17 of multiple environmental values.
Indicators of forest sustainability should reflect the state of the ecosystem, with productivity as a secondary measure of sustainability.
Provided that a diverse genetic base is intact, soil is the remaining base resource essential for forest sustainability.
Powers 1989 reported that soil volume, soil organic matter and total soil porosity are major factors in determining the long-term productive potential of forest stands.
Interpretation of forest indicator responses should be considered within the context of past forest management, climatic and environmental stresses, land use, and stand history.
For example, overly disruptive harvesting techniques can result in loss of topsoil and soil organic matter, soil compaction, and reduced soil porosity.
The net result would be a significant degradation in the capacity of that site to grow vigorous trees, and could explain indications of deteriorating forest health.
Knowledge of natural fire regimes, fire history in the current stands, or of fire exclusion and its possible effects on forest sustainability, can also be important considerations in maintaining and monitoring forest sustainability.
Indicator responses suggesting decreasing forest sustainability may also be explained by additional information regarding stand history and manage- ment practices, episodes of climatic extremes, or severe pollutant exposures.
The development of sensitive indicators to evaluate forest health and sustainability with a high signal-to-noise ratio is a significant challenge.
Sensitive indicators often show high natural variability.
The lack of sensitive indicators of ecosystem stress limits detection of early stages of ecological change Lubchenco and others 1991.
Ecosystem degradation is often detected retrospec- tively "after the fact".
Indicators of initial disease states or stress are needed to determine disease before symptomology reaches clinical magnitude Kelly and Harwell 1990; Schaeffer and others 1988.
Species level indicators usually respond more rapidly than process-level indicators.
Effects on ecosystem functions implies prior associated effects on the biotic populations performing those functions.
Thus, functional measurements of ecosystem processes functional indicators such as productivity and nutrient cycling are typically less sensitive indicators of ecosystem stress than are structural properties such as species composition Kelly and Harwell 1990, Lubchenco and others 1991.
However, functional indicators show longer-term consequences, perhaps forewarning irreversible change Kelly and Harwell 1990.
Analogy to Human Health Physicians routinely measure body temperature, blood pressure, heart rate and weight to monitor the general fitness of their patients.
In forest health monitoring, analogous parameters include annual height growth, live crown ratio, leaf area, and needle retention for single trees; and leaf area, diversity, dominance, and productivity for forest stands Smith 1990.
Odum 1985 has outlined the general trends expected in stressed ecosystems in terms of energetics e.
Other trends in stressed ecosystems include decreased resource use efficiency, in- creased parasitism and decreased mutualism, ecosystems that become more open as internal cycling is reduced, and reversed successional trends Odum 1985.
Species diversity of an ecosystem can also increase in response to stress if original diversity is low Odum 1985.
Schaeffer and others 1988 defined a diseased ecosystem as one in which the effects of illness are profound.
These effects or indicators of a diseased ecosystem include changes to: standing vegetative biomass, gross or net primary energy production, relative amounts of energy flow to grazing and decomposer food chains, mineral macronutrient stocks, and changes to both the mechanisms of and capacity for, damping undesir- able oscillations.
Diseased ecosystems may also include decreased numbers of native species, and overall regressive succession.
Response Indicators are the primary gauge of ecological condition, and may consist of indicators at the level of organisms, populations, communi- ties, or ecosystem characteristics.
Examples of response indicators for forests include tree growth efficiency, visual symptoms of foliar damage, nitrogen export, abundance and species composi- tion of understory vegetation, or animal demo- graphics.
Exposure indicators are measures of organism, population or ecosystem exposure to chemicals, nutrients, acidity, heat or physical stress.
Examples of exposure indicators include visual symptoms of foliar damage which may also be a response indicatornutrients or chemical contaminants in tree foliage or in mosses and lichensand biomarkers e.
Habitat indicators represent conditions that are necessary to support an organism, population or community.
Abundance and density of key physi- cal features i.
Exposure indicators and habitat indicators are used by EMAP to identify and quantify changes in exposure and physical habitat that are associated with changes in response indicators.
Stressor Indicators reflect natural processes, environmental hazards or management actions that stress an ecosystem.
Examples of stressor indicators include measures of pollutant emissions, number of permits for construction activity, land use practices, climate fluctuations or conditions, pest and disease outbreaks, or silvicultural treatments.
Although more research is needed to refine existing indicators, and to develop new ones, four potential indicators of forest health and sustainability have been assessed for their accu- racy and effectiveness.
Tree growth efficiency Tree growth efficiency reflects the ability of trees to maintain a healthy and productive presence in an ecosystem.
Tree growth efficiency is also related to sustainability because higher growth efficiency is associated with casinos de michoacan con banda zirahuen resistance to insect attack Mitchell and others 1983.
The use of a growth efficiency indicator is based on carbon allocation patterns in trees.
Environmental stresses that alter carbon allocation are manifested first in reduced stem-wood growth and reduced production of protective chemicals.
Thus, stem-wood growth is used as the indicator Hunsaker and Carpenter 1990.
The denominator can be one of several indices of the amount of light absorbed by the overstory trees e.
For application as a response indicator, threshold values for subnominal growth efficiency will need to be developed, possibly fiom the literature, previous data, and further research and testing.
Some have maintained that the numerator and denominator should be separate indicators, be- cause if both the numerator and denominator decrease similarly, the growth efficiency value will remain constant even though productivity and sustainability have changed Hunsaker and Car- penter 1990.
Furthermore, interpretation of growth efficiency indicators should be done in conjunction with information on species composi- tion, age, stand density, etc.
Measurements of stem-wood and foliage measurements should be taken after the period of rapid changes from spring to mid-summer.
The recommended frequency for data collection is 10 years Hunsaker and Carpen- ter 1990.
Stem- wood volume can be determined by standard techniques Husch and others 1972.
LAI can be estimated from remotely sensed data, and LAI or APAR can be obtained using hand-held devices in the field Hunsaker and Carpenter 1990.
The major problems with the stem-wood as an indicator include obtaining sufficiently accurate volume or biomass measurements with the stan- dard procedures.
More accurate, although more expensive methods may need to be used.
The indirect methods of estimating LAI and APAR also have their limitations.
The most appropriate method will depend on stand composition, stand density, terrain characteristics, and related factors.
Visual symptoms of foliar damage Measures of visual symptoms provide a re- sponse indicator for the environmental values of productivity and aesthetics, and they may indicate exposure or habitat stresses affecting forest condi- tion.
Following the protocols for visual surveys used in international programs will enable inter- specific comparisons and greater relevance to studies in other regions of the world Hunsaker and Carpenter 1990.
In monitoring programs, native indicator plants are considered as response indicators since they are actual compo- nents of the forest ecosystem, and as exposure indicators because they indicate possible damage to other species Hunsaker and Carpenter 1990.
Biomonitor plants with known sensitivity dodge city ks symptom development with exposure to particular pollutants can also be used as exposure indicators Krupa and others 1993.
Core measurements of visual symptoms fre- quently made are crown density, crown transpar- ency measures of defoliationheight to live crown ratio, crown class, discoloration, crown dieback, needle length and retention, and identi- fied insects and pathogens.
If destructive samples are needed they should be collected at nearby sites away from the permanent monitoring plots.
Root 20 samples can be cultured for identification of pathogens.
The primary problem with visual injury indicators is the standardization of measure- ment and assessment methods, and training of crew members to determine the subjective esti- mates of crown condition consistently within a 10% range.
Nitrogen export Nitrogen export from a forest ecosystem in the form of nitrate NO3" has potential as a useful response indicator because it provides a net water- shed level response, and an integrative measure of the many processes of nitrogen cycling within a watershed.
Losses of nitrogen from disturbed ecosystems are usually much greater than for other nutrients.
Although disturbances do not always result in altered NO3' losses, changes in NO3" export does provide strong evidence of distur- bance within the ecosystem.
Chance occurrences such as wildfire, insect defoliation and animal foraging can also affect nitrate concentrations in stream water Hunsaker and Carpenter 1990.
To implement this indicator, samples of surface water runoff or ground water are obtained and analyzed for NO3' concentration by standard laboratory procedures.
The episodic nature of nitrogen export could be a drawback of this indica- tor, making it difficult to select an optimal sam- pling window.
However, NO3" concentrations tend to be highest during snowmelt in the spring, or when plant and microbial demand for nitrogen is lowest.
Older highly mature stands may also be less retentive for NO3" than younger more vigor- ously growing stands.
Soil productivity index Soil productivity can be defined as the capacity of a given volume of soil to produce a vegetative response under a specified system of management.
Initial measurements of key soil productivity variables are used to establish baseline levels and ratios among physical, chemical and biological soil constituents.
This baseline soil characterization is then related to nominal and subnominal forest condition as estimated by response indicators Hunsaker and Videoslots history 1990.
Periodic remeasurement of these values every 4 to 6 years can be used to assess trends.
Most commonly, soil parameters of interest include specific soil nutri- ents, toxic substances, erodibility factors, soil structural characteristics, parent materials, and ancillary data such as soil moisture supply Palmer Drought Index, Hunsaker and Carpenter 1990.
Soil productivity data provide interpretive data that is not available through foliar chemical analy- sis because plants may compensate for limited soil nutrients and moisture.
Forest productivity can be affected by chronic or acute deficiencies of essen- tial soil nutrients.
Soil characterization and sam- pling should be done concurrently with the foliar sampling and tree measurements at a given plot.
Because of the significant spatial variability that can occur within a single plot, a composite sample collection design may be in order.
SUMIVIARY Current trends in economic development to satisfy societal needs and desires is at the core of our environmental problems.
Until recently the balance was in favor of an economic development paradigm which did not adequately consider the negative impacts of the economic activities on the natural environment.
This choice currently is best exemplified by the rapid deterioration of the tropical regions of the world.
A new economic development paradigm is needed by which the sustainability of the natural environment is guar- anteed.
Sustainability can be achieved by monitoring carefully selected indicators of ecosystem health, thus ensuring that ecosystem management and economic activity do not cause significant deterio- ration of ecosystem health and functioning.
How- ever, the cost of monitoring ecosystems health with indicators must not be excessive, or imple- mentation of ecosystem health monitoring pro- grams will be very difficult in many countries of the world with great environmental problems and little financial resources.
Assessing the sustainability of Canadian forest management: progress or procrastination?
Environmental Assessment Review 12 1-2 : 67-84.
What should forests sustain?
Journal of Forestry 89 5 : 31-36.
Productivity of forests of the United States and its relation to soil and site factors and management practices: A re- view.
Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA-Forest Service, Portland, OR.
Helia well, John M.
Development of a rational for monitoring.
Towards monitoring of long term trends in terrestrial ecosystems.
Environ- mental Conservation 11 1 : 11-18.
New concepts in environ- mental monitoring: the question of indicators.
The Science of the Total Environment.
Elsevier Science Publishers B.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Ecological indicators for regional monitoring.
Ronald Press, New York.
The Green Economy, Environ- ment, Sustainable Development and the Politics of the Future.
Concord, MA: Pluto Press; 312 p.
Indicators of ecosystem recovery.
Environmental Manage- ment 14 5 : 527-545.
New perspec- tives for sustainable natural resources manage- ment.
Ecological Applications 2 3 : 221-225.
Use of tobacco cultivars as biological indicators of ambient ozone pollution ‚Ä?an analysis of expo- sure response relationships.
The sustainable biosphere initiative: an ecological research agenda.
Monitoring Guidelines to evaluate effects of Forestry Activities on Streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska.
Foliar amino acid accumulation as an indicator of ecosystem stress for f√≠rst-year sugar maple seedlings.
Sustainable development and the Canadian forestry sector.
Forestry Chronicle, August: 346-349 Mitchell, R.
Thinning lodgepole pine increases tree vigor and resistance to mountain pine beetle.
Trends expected in stressed ecosystems.
Maintaining long-term forest productivity casinos de michoacan con banda zirahuen the Pacific Northwest: Defining the issues, pp.
Portland, OR: Timber Press.
A selection of forest condition indicators for monitoring.
Monitor, and Assessment 20:21-33.
Field monitoring: confessions of an addict.
Monitoring for Conservation and Ecology.
Society of American Foresters.
Task Force Report on Sustaining Long-Term Forest Health and Productivity.
Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters; 83 pp.
Economic and Ecological Sustainability of Tropical Rainforest Management.
Paris, France: UNESCO; 100 p.
The health of North American forests: stress and risk assessment.
What is the condition of American forests?
New forestry principles from Ecosystem Analysis of Pacific Northwest Forests.
Ecological Applications 2 3 : 262-274.
Udo de Haes, H.
Towards sustainability: indicators of environ- mental quality.
In Search of Indicators of Sustainable Development.
Boston, MA: Kluver Academic Publishers; 89-105.
Scientific requirement of a monitoring program.
Monitoring for Conservation and Ecology.
World Commission on Environment and Develop- ment.
Our Common Future Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 388 p.
Information can come from a variety of sources.
Monitoring consists of a long term, periodic collection of information which helps determine the current status of a system as well as the changes which occur over time.
This infor- mation feeds back into the management planning process, allowing correc- tions to maintain the system in a sustainable state.
This paper discusses various aspects of designing a system to monitor sustainability of forest ecosystems including defining monitoring objectives and measurements, designing the sampling system, conducting quality assurance activities, and continuous improvement of the monitoring system over time.
INTRODUCTION There is increasing recognition that the most important resource with which land managers deal with is not forest, water, or even people.
The most important resource is information.
In the absence of information, all of our planning amounts to nothing more than guesswork, with results rang- ing from very good to very poor.
Given the correct information, management becomes a rational process free of frequent nasty surprises.
Sustain- able management of a system depends on reaching a state where we have sufficient information about the system to select, in perpetuity, management options which will maintain the system in a de- sired, sustainable state.
This is a tremendous challenge.
There are many ways to gather information.
One of the most traditional and reliable is through experience.
A land manager may spend a career on a given piece of land, trying different activities, experiencing successes and failures, and making mental associations between cause and effect.
Gillespie is Program Manager for Inventory and Monitoring, USD A Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experi- ment Station, located at Radnor, Pennsylvania, USA.
The manager may be able to commit some of this information to paper for future generations of land managers to follow, or the experienced manager may have the opportunity to mentor younger managers and impart the information directly.
A second planet casino sign up bonus of gathering information is to actively seek out information, as an end in itself rather than as a means to an end.
This has tradi- tionally been the domain of natural resource research organizations such as the USDA Forest Service Research and Mexican Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales y Agropecurias.
Such investigations take many forms from designed experiments to broader based monitoring and inventory efforts.
This paper focuses on develop- ing monitoring systems.
This paper is organized into two general parts.
The first part discusses some of the needs for information in sustainable management, and outlines various strategies by which these informa- tion needs may be met.
In this context, the mean- ing of 'monitoring' is used in the broadest sense of 'gathering information about a system'.
The sec- ond part of the paper deals with some specific consideration for developing a process suitable for monitoring sustainability of a natural resource management system.
Adap- tive Management is the scientific method applied to management activities.
Under Adaptive Man- agement, you plan and implement an activity, monitor the implementation and results, assess the outcome, adjust your working hypotheses, and feed the information back into the management planning process: EVALUATE ACT In this model, monitoring is used both to estab- lish a baseline of the status of current conditions within the system, and to track changes in the status of the system over time.
The monitoring should be broad enough to include some areas which are not treated in any way, to act as 'control' sites.
This allows one to generate cause-and-effect hypotheses about changes in the behavior of the system as a result of management practices, and to test these hypotheses using appropriate designed experiments.
DEFINITIONS OF SUSTAINABILITY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR MONITORING Clear definitions of what it is we are trying to measure are a prerequisite to a successful monitor- ing system.
In the context of natural resource management, 'sustainable' is generally defined to imply 'maintaining the environmental system in such a state that the system is able to function in perpetuity'.
This does not necessarily imply that the status or outputs of the ecosystem - water, timber, food, recreation, aesthetics, etc.
However, 'sustainable' generally implies that no one output of the system will be utilized to the extent that the long term casino opatija ductivity of the ecosystem will degrade.
The impli- cation for monitoring is that monitoring for sustainability requires measurements of many different resources, not just one or two resources of interest.
It also implies a long-term perspective, rather than focus solely on short term changes.
Increasingly managers are faced with the de- mand to create management systems which are economically sustainable as well as ecologically sustainable.
Many people derive their livelihoods from management or use of forested ecosystems.
To such people, short term economic consider- ations are often more important than long term ecologic considerations.
In the larger picture, both sets of considerations are important.
The implica- tion is that monitoring for sustainability requires measurement of social and economic parameters, and can not be limited solely to ecological param- eters.
The issue of sustainability depends very much on spatial scale.
With modern advances in commu- nication, trade, and transportation, the world is increasingly interconnected.
Changes in one ecosystem e.
Local actions have global implications, and vice versa.
The implications for monitoring are 1 the need to consider multiple levels of scale when monitoring management activities, 2 the necessity of sharing information across administrative and political boundaries through collaborative research and bilateral symposia such as the present one.
DEVELOPMENT OF A MONITORING SYSTEM Like Adaptive Management, the development of a good monitoring system is often an iterative process, rather than a linear process.
As you plan and implement monitoring, you lean more about the system and are able to increase monitoring efficiency by modifying the monitoring system.
In each iteration, there are several key steps: develop- ment of monitoring criteria, relating those criteria 25 to measurable indicators, selecting a sampling design, implementing the monitoring, conducting quality assurance assessments, improving the monitoring system, and reporting the results of the monitoring.
The following discussion briefly considers each of these activities.
DEFINING THE POPULATION OF INTEREST One of the first things required is a definition of the population of interest, e.
The boundaries may be arbitrary, but they must https://nycwebdesigner.org/casino/love-spins-casino.html clearly stated in order to define the potential set of sample elements available to monitoring.
The population may be stratified, for example several major forest types existing within a given forest.
However, realize that for each stratum for which you wish to make a statement, you need to collect a minimal amount of information.
Too many strata may result in a very large and expensive sample size.
DEVELOPMENT OF MONITORING OBJECTIVES The next task in designing a monitoring system is to identify exactly what it is that you want to make statements about: that is, what are the sam- pling or monitoring objectives.
These objectives are typically formulated broadly, then refined into attributes which may be quantified through field measurements.
There are many other potential monitoring objectives, e.
DEVELOPMENT OF INDICATORS FOR THE MONITORING OBJECTIVES Once the monitoring objectives are determined, the next step is to develop a list of indicators which can be related to the monitoring objective.
The distinction between a monitoring objective and an indicator is that the indicator must be quantifiable, either through direct measurements or via an aggregation of direct measurements.
A monitoring objective is typically addressed through several indicators.
For example, using 'sustainability' as our monitoring objective, potential indicators of sustainability might be species diversity, soil nutrient status, net primary productivity, stream water quality, and population levels of a key indicator species.
It is unlikely that any single indicator will suffice to describe completely the status of the ecosystem with respect to sustainability.
However, by monitoring several key different ecosystem attributes e.
Once a list of indicators is selected, the next step is to determine what measurements are required to quantify the indicators.
Other indicators may not be practical or possible to measure directly, but may be estimable through indirect means.
For example, measuring biomass increment of trees might be done by measuring tree diameters and heights, then using a regression equation to estimate biomass.
There needs to be some objective means of assessing how well the indicator performs in terms of quantifying the monitoring objective.
The following seven criteria are being used by the US National Forest Health Monitoring FHM program to assess the effectiveness of proposed monitoring indicators Lewis and Conkling, 1994.
The indicator needs to be clearly and simply related to the sampling objec- tive.
In statistical terms, there ought to be a mean- ingful correlation between changes in the value of the indicator and changes reflected in the status of the associated monitoring objective.
Ideally there will be a range of indicator values associated with 'good' and 'poor' status of the monitoring objec- tive.
This range of values may come from previous studies, past experience, expert opinion, or even pubic opinion.
There will always be a certain amount of arbitrariness associated with the inter- pretation of indicators.
Nonetheless it is critical to establish these threshold levels initially; they can always be adjusted later if appropriate.
In a field moni- toring effort, data will typically be collected during some measurement period, e.
June 15- August 30.
Ideally the value of an indicator should remain constant over the entire measurement period, so that measurements taken at the start of the period may be treated the same as measurements taken at the end of the measurement period.
If an indicator does change in value over the measurement pe- riod, the data may still be useful if the change can be modeled and adjusted prior to analysis.
If the mean of the measurement remains constant but there is an associated variation over the measure- ment period, then the variation over the period will increase the uncertainty in the final estimate and will decrease the power to detect change in the measurement over time.
If the mean of the mea- surement changes over the measurement period for example, foliage cover decreases as growing season closesthen inter-period change may be confused with between-period change in some arbitrary fashion depending on the order in which sample units are sampled.
Measurement period stability for an indicator is best assessed through a designed experiment which quantifies the variance component associated with measurement period instability.
The FHM program uses an arbitrary level of 10% as the maximum acceptable percent variation due to measurement period instability.
This refers to the magni- tude of variation in a measurement.
As the amount of variation noise in a measurement increases, the ability to detect change in the mean value of the measurement signal decreases.
Indicators with large variance components will require either more time or larger sample sizes for change detec- tion than will indicators with lower variance components.
Signal-to-noise is determined by an analysis of variance components from data col- lected over time.
A typical threshold value for determination of acceptable signal-to-noise ratios consists of stating the magnitude of change which one wants to detect given a certain sized sample and level of statistical power.
This refers to the ability of an indicator to reflect changes across the whole region or population of interest.
It is as- sumed that the relationship between indicators and the associated monitoring objective are consis- tent across the whole population, and that changes in the objective criteria e.
In cases where indicators do not behave consistently across the entire population, it may be appropriate to post stratify the population of interest into subpopula- tions in which the indicator does behave consis- tently.
Population responsiveness can be ad- dressed through use of spatial statistical analyses, to look for patterns in means or variances associ- ated with other spatial criteria, e.
Ground based monitor- ing implies repeated measurements of indicators over time.
It is possible to use completely indepen- dent samples at each time period; however, the variation between samples would then serve as 'noise' to hide whatever changes had occurred in the indicators.
It is more common to perform repeated measurements on the same sample elements using permanent plots.
If this is the case, then it is critical that the measurements and the measurement process be monitored to insure that the process of monitoring does not itself change the attributes being monitored.
Logistic elements such as crew training, crew size, and frequency of visit determine the degree of environmental impact.
Biotic conditions such as moisture, soil type, and vegetation at the plot site also determine environmental impact.
Environmental impact can be minimized by careful planning of fieldwork, elimination of destructive sampling from the immediate plot area, and training crews to be sensitive to impacts.
However, assessment of the environmental impacts of measurements requires a designed study with controls.
The logistic feasibility of a measurement depends on many things including the level and training of crews, the type of equip- ment available, and the amount of time available to complete the fieldwork.
Measurements need to match the abilities of field crew.
For example, a botanical survey may not be possible if there are no botanists available to serve on crews.
Crews need to be equipped appropriately, relative to the level of precision required in the measurements.
The time involved in measurements is also impor- tant, particularly if the time involved in getting to 27 and from the measurement site is large say 20% or more relative to the time involved in collecting measurements.
The value of the information returned from an indicator needs to be considered relative to the cost of collecting the information.
The cost of collecting the information depends on the time, people, and equipment required to collect the indicator.
Crews will typically be measuring several indicators at each site, so casinos de michoacan con banda zirahuen addition of an indicator may have significant cost impacts on a crew, for example if it requires a crew to visit a plot a second time.
SAMPLING DESIGN Anecdotal information gleaned from casual, unplanned observation can be a vital basis for generating hypotheses and ideas about ecosys- tems.
However, a monitoring system intended to support long term information collection needs a formal, statistical basis in order to protect against observer bias and to minimize the risks that changes in the system will go undetected.
This statistical basis involves many decisions which are commonly referred to collectively as the 'sampling design'.
A suitable sampling design can only be selected after several key decisions are made.
The sampling objectives must be clearly defined in terms of what is going to be measured.
Sampling objectives may relate to ecological items e.
The population of interest must be clearly defined.
Ideally there should be a statement of the minimal level of precision desired in estimates, e.
Once these preliminary criteria are defined, there are several other key issues which help determine the final sampling design.
These include scale, or the utility of multistage sampling; the required periodicity of sampling; and the appro- priateness of an inventory based system vs.
The Need for a Probability Based Sample.
A probability based sample is a sample selected at random from a population where the probability of selection for each possible sample is known.
This is different from a sample selected purpo- sively, where the person making the selection decides whether or not to include the sample element based on some personal non-random judgement.
The advantage of a probability based sample is that there is then a large body of sampling theory available to make inferences about the accuracy and precision of estimates based on the sample.
There is no way to make similar inferences for non-probability based samples.
A probability based sample need not be terribly complicated.
The simplest way to select a sample with known probability is to use equal selection probabilities, selecting each sample element tree, plot, watershed with equal probability.
More complicated sampling methods may be used to increase sampling efficiency e.
However, when setting up a monitoring scheme for something as complex as sustainability, which may involve a multitude of measurements, it is unlikely that any single weighting scheme will be optimal for all measure- ments, so an equal probability sample is generally a reasonable choice.
An ecosystem can be studied at an infinite number of scales from the landscape to the organ- ism.
Clearly it is impossible to engage in monitor- ing at all possible scales; typically monitoring is done on a finite, usually small number of levels.
For example, satellite imagery or aerial photos can be used to monitor changes in extent of various forest types or land uses in an area.
This monitor- ing can be done on a permanent basis by georeferencing the imagery and looking at the same area over time.
The imagery can also be used to stratify the population or area of interest, and a second level of sampling e.
Such a multistage sampling system is valuable because it allows measurement of indicators at varying spatial scales, which increases the likeli- hood of detecting ecosystem changes which may be observable at one level before observable at 28 other levels.
It is generally straightforward to design a multistage probability based sample such that the various stages can be statistically linked, enabling inferences which combine information from two or more of the sampling stages.
Random Location of Sample Points.
Sample sites may be located across a population in a systematic fashion e.
Most monitoring systems favor systematic grids because of the desire for even spatial coverage and for simplicity in sample location.
As long as the population of interest is free of spatial patterns which coincide with the sampling frame, experi- ence has shown that systematic samples often give more precise results than simple random samples Cochran, 1977.
A systematic sample may be risky if the spacing or orientation of the grid corre- sponds to some spatial feature in the population of interest in some way, for example if the grid is aligned along a major river or mountain ridge.
If used, a grid should be initiated with a random starting point and a random orientation, and results should be analyzed spatially for unex- pected spatial trends.
The timing of visits depends on the rate of change and periodicity in the indicators being measured.
Annual visits may be required in cases where indicators change annually, e.
Less frequent visits are appropriate for indicators which change less rapidly, e.
Some indicators need to be monitored continuously, https://nycwebdesigner.org/casino/casino-bus-from-austin-to-shreveport.html />The frequency of visit needs to be balanced against the cost effectiveness is the information worth the cost of collectionas well as the potential environmental impacts of additional visits.
A monitoring design may incor- porate several measurement types, for example annual visits to collect understory vegetation data plus 4 year visits to collect tree growth and mortal- ity data.
Monitoring of ecosystem sustainability will involve measurement of indicators which change rapidly e.
An inventory is an accounting of what exists in some population of interest.
An inventory approach to monitoring will describe the status and change of the system over time, but will not by itself be sufficient to test hypotheses about cause and effect, e.
The inventory approach is what most people commonly think of as 'moni- toring'.
Cause and effect hypotheses can be tested using a designed experiment approach.
A designed experiment typically involves a treatment e.
The continue reading is applied to a random sample of units, and another random sample of units are left untreated as a control.
Assuming that the treatments were assigned to the sample units randomly, and that the sample units are a random sample from some population of similar units, then differences in the response e.
A common example in forestry for testing hypotheses about sustainability of silvicultural treatments are systems of long term permanent growth plots which many managers set up and maintain over time.
It is important to recognize that these plot systems are designed experiments, and must be treated as such in order to support statistically defensible hypotheses testing.
In particular, it is critical to assign treatments at random to sample areas, at the start of the pro- gram; to have true replication, rather than a single plot for each treatment; and to include untreated sample units as controls.
Experimental design is a well-researched field.
If the rules are followed, experiments can be power- ful tools for monitoring sustainability over time.
A holistic monitoring system for addressing a con- cept as broad as 'sustainability' will likely need to incorporate both inventory-based monitoring as well as experiment-based monitoring activities.
There is a large body of literature dealing with quality assurance, but most of the literature deals with manufacturing or laboratory processes.
Nonetheless, the principles of quality assurance can be applied to ecological and economic moni- toring as well, and many management agencies are attempting to do so e.
Following are some basic Quality Assurance principals which can be incorporated into data collection.
Establishment of Measurement Quality Objec- tives.
Anytime a measurement is conducted, we need to specify the desired quality of the measure- ment.
The desired level of quality is defined chiefly by the use to which the data will be put.
A typical measurement quality objective consists of a maximum allowable error in a measurement which is acceptable a certain proportion of the time.
Measurement quality objectives should be estab- lished for all measurements, whether quantitative or qualitative.
The error may be expressed in absolute units, in terms of percent, or in terms of standard deviations.
Some examples: Tree diameter + or - 2 cm, 95% of the time Timber volume cut + or - 1 0%, 95% of the time Crown class + or - 1 class, 90% of the time Species name No error, 99% of the time Establishing these objectives serves several purposes.
The objectives allow data users to know how much error exists in the measurements, which is useful knowledge when conducting analyses.
The objectives serve as targets for training ses- sions, objective measures of whether or not crews have been adequately trained.
The objectives can also be used to determine whether or not field crews are conducting the measurements in the proper fashion, as well as whether or not the measurement methods are able to achieve the target data quality.
If the measurement procedures are not able to satisfy the measurement objective, there are two choices: relax the objective, allowing greater amounts of error, or modify the measure- ment procedures better training, better equip- ment to meet the target measurement quality.
Clear written documentation of all measurement methods are required.
These materials serve as training and reference materials for crews, as well as documentation for future managers and data analysts who will be working with the data generated by the monitoring system.
Documentation may need to be updated periodi- cally to reflect changes in the monitoring program.
Documentation of measurement methods is one of the most often neglected aspects of monitoring, and lack of adequate documentation is one of the most frustrating challenges facing those who rely on monitoring data.
Training of those collecting the data is a critical part of the quality assurance process.
Data collectors have the greatest impact on data quality, affecting the quality of all subsequent analyses and assessments which use the data.
Good training depends on well defined and docu- mented measurement procedures, as well as experience and expertise on the part of the trainer in training techniques.
The best training program is developed jointly by experts in the measurement processes and experts in education methods.
Training should end with a certification test to make sure that all potential data collectors can meet measurement quality objectives for all mea- surements.
Training does not stop with the initial training session.
After a week or two on the job, most data collectors will benefit from a training audit, which is a visit by an expert in the measurements.
The expert watches the data collectors in action, answers questions, and offers advice and coaching to help the data collectors improve their technique.
After the crews are more experienced, remeasurement audits may be conducted.
These are independent remeasurements of the same sample elements by an expert crew, in the absence of the original crew who first collected the mea- surements.
The objective of the remeasurements are to establish between-crew variability, to iden- tify crews or measurements which are not con- forming to stated measurement quality objectives, and to collect the data needed to show that mea- surement quality objectives are being satisfied.
Remeasurement audits are typically accomplished by randomly selecting audit plots from the list of 30 already-completed plots, usually stratified by crew so that each field crew is audited but does not know in advance which plot will be audited.
Analysis of Quality Assurance Data.
The data collected during resampling audits are valuable for a variety of purposes.
Comparisons between the expert crew and standard crews will identify any crews where data quality is substandard, implying the need for more training.
If many crews exhibit variation with the expert crew on some measure- ment, it might indicate a problem in the training program or in the measurement itself.
Statistical analysis of the data from the resampling audits can be used to estimate means and confidence inter- vals of the deviations between repeated measures of the same sample elements, which can then be compared to the established measurement quality objective.
Information from this analysis is invalu- able in improving the measurement and training process over time, leading to continuous improve- ment in the monitoring system.
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT, ANALYSIS, AND REPORTING Information management, analysis, and report- ing systems are often overlooked or neglected until data start flowing in to the office; then an ad hoc system is patched together using whatever meth- ods and capabilities happen to be available.
Over time, the ad hoc system is 'fixed' in a variety of ways until finally it collapses under its own weight and must be redesigned, at a great cost in terms of wasted effort and the time loss while the new system is implemented.
It is much better to plan and develop an infor- mation management, analysis, and reporting system as a part of the monitoring system.
The system need not rely on state-of-the-art computer databases and portable data recorders; simpler systems using data collected on paper and entered into flat ASCII files may well be most appropriate for the needs of the monitoring system.
The impor- tant item is to have an Information Needs Assess- ment INA before monitoring begins, so that the information management systems may develop along with, not in response to, the data collection systems.
Conducting an INA can be simple or complex depending on the degree of complexity proposed in the monitoring system.
Expertise in information management needs to be combined with expertise in the measurements being collected as well as expertise in the analysis of the data to develop an information system to serve long term program needs.
SUSTAINING MONITORING IN THE LONG RUN Monitoring is an activity that needs to be re- peated over time in order to become most valu- able.
The costs of establishing a monitoring system are often greater than the cost of sustaining the system, but not always by much.
Monitoring can be a relatively expensive process, which unfortu- nately makes it an attractive target when budgets are tight.
It is imperative that management recog- nize both the present value of the information being collected as well as the future value of maintaining the monitoring effort.
There are several activities important to main- taining monitoring over time.
The most important is adequate planning.
Planning must address all key areas: training, logistics, quality assurance activities, information management systems, assessment and reporting.
Written plans are needed for all activities, so that all participants know what is expected at what time.
Ideally plans ought to be reviewed by people outside the moni- toring program, to avoid excessive 'inbreeding'.
Budgeting is also crucial for monitoring.
It is important not to spend all available resources on data collection, and to leave resources for plan- ning, quality assurance activities, information management, analysis, and reporting.
The monitoring system needs to be subjected to continuous improvement.
Periodically, informa- tion gathered from quality assurance activities, peer reviewers, and especially from the users of the information generated by monitoring can be used to make improvements in the design, imple- mentation, or reporting of monitoring information.
Finally, there will be research needs associated with the monitoring system.
For example, monitor- ing information may generate a cause-effect hy- potheses regarding some management practice and a resulting ecological impact.
There needs to be some way to bring such research needs to the 31 attention of appropriate researchers, either within the program or not, so that these research ques- tions may be addressed in a timely manner.
SUMMARY: MONITORING SUSTAINABILITY Development of a system to monitor forest ecosystem sustainability over the long term should consider the following steps: 1 Define ecosystem s of interest, monitoring objectives, and associated indicators of sustainability.
Note that this model corresponds closely to the adaptive management model described at the start of this paper: plan, act, monitor, evaluate, and repeat.
Monitoring is a scientific activity, and as such is amenable to the scientific method.
No amount of a priori experience will anticipate all potential challenges in the initial implementa- tion of a monitoring system.
It is best to think of the initial implementation as a pilot implementa- tion, with the first 'real' implementation occurring after digesting the experience gained in the initial implementation.
The initial experience will be a valuable learning experience in itself, and future iterations will only compound the value of the information being gathered.
In time, monitoring will lead to the database necessary to support ecological and economically sustainable forest ecosystem management.
LITERATURE CITED Cochran, W.
Island Press, Washington, DC.
US Envi- ronmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
A Primer on Stand and Forest Inventory Designs.
USDA Forest Service, Gen.
USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Station.
Research Quality Management Program Docu- ment.
Currently, Mexico has one of the largest deforestation rates and its forest sector is undergoing a severe crisis in which production has declined as much as 30%.
Imports have increased similarly.
The reason of this crisis is partially related to the lack of competition of Mexican forest products in international markets within the more open economy generated by treaties like GATT and NAFTA.
Given this situation, and the casinos de michoacan con banda zirahuen that more than 80% of Mexico's forest lands are owned by some of the poorest rural landowners and are under one form or another of communal ownership, I argue that before more sustainable forest management practices can be achieved, and specific criteria and methods to evaluate it can be designed and implemented, it is essential that certain minimal conditions are met to assure that forest management practices are viable not only from an ecological but also from a social and economic perspective.
These are analyzed from a historical perspective to find out why these conditions have not been met in rural areas of Mexico.
Severe equity problems have been generated by inappropriate government forest policies that have either been nonexistent or biased in favor of industry and not of landowners.
Problems in the definition or vagueness in assigning property rights, and granting forest concessions to timber companies that have been responsible for extensive timber mining activities, are associated with these policies.
Forest concessions, which have caused severe degradation of forest resources, have led to important reductions and deterioration of the natural capital of large areas of forested lands.
A lack of natural capital has also been a problem in many tropical forest areas where only a small percentage of the available timber volume is commercially valuable.
Finally, not allowing forest products to be sold competitively both locally and internationally has also been a common problem in most forest areas.
Inefficiencies have been detected in all aspects of the productive cycle including silvicultural practices as well as transportation, industrialization, and commercialization of forest products.
These inefficiencies have been mainly related to a severe lack technical assistance and infrastructure.
Throughout time, humans have survived by using natural resources.
Forests can be kept in a sustainable state without human presence, but when humans use them it is necessary to assure forest sustainability throughout time and space.
When society lives in contradiction with sustainability, natural resources become more scarce.
Products derived from natural resources are many and complex; the system that produces them is an integration of primary products, added value products, energy, food, medicine, and ecological, cultural, and recreational values.
To reach sustainability of the above-mentioned products and values, humans must consider themselves as the owner and user of all of them.
Humans must acknowledge the limits and brevity of human life, scientific information, and the long periods of time in which natural resources require to develop.
It is important to recognize that good management of natural resources can support poorly developed areas and can satisfy human needs without risking natural resources for future generations.
Our challenge is to teach all children love and respect for natural resources and to use them properly.
Investigador del INIFAP, SARH.
Changing social values, legislation and litigation has forced greater attention to manage for sustained ecosystems.
In 1992, the Forest Service established a policy of "ecosystem management.
Partnerships between local communities, research and management are emerging through adaptive management applications.
This paper describes a process and management applications for sustaining ecological systems.
INTRODUCTION "Sustainable development is not a goal.
Rather it is more like freedom or justice, a direction in which we strive" Lee 1993.
In the last decade, the northern spotted owl became the focus of a debate over how federal lands in the Pacific Northwest should be managed.
This ongoing controversy resulted in lawsuits, court rulings, appeals and protests.
So President Clinton commissioned an interagency scientific team to develop alternatives for managing forests within the owls range.
The President then directed his cabinet to craft casinos de michoacan con banda zirahuen balanced, comprehensive and long-term management policy for over 24 million acres of public land.
Management direction was issued on April 13, 1994.
This management direction is a comprehensive ecosystem management strategy, much of it aimed at restoring and maintaining watershed health.
Watershed analysis is required to develop a scien- ' Barbara Holder is Forest Supervisor, USD A Forest Service, Klamatfi National Forest.
The analysis focuses on key issues, existing and desired conditions, harrahs casino in kansas city missouri ecological processes, restoration opportunities and major planning and coordina- tion requirements.
Watershed analysis will guide future monitoring and inventory by disclosing data gaps.
Since 1991, the Klamath National Forest has been developing a methodology to implement ecosystem management.
We have designed a process to conduct watershed analysis and analyze ecologicalprocesses and interactions.
This process has resulted in three significant changes from how we have managed in the past.
First, the scale of analysis is expanded to fifth order watersheds, rather than aggregations of selected stands.
Sec- ond, management objectives are designed to sustain ecological processes that benefit ecological systems instead of individual resource targets such as timber harvest.
Third, the purpose and need for individual projects directly relates to sustaining ecological processes and functions, such as underburning, fish habitat improvements or vegetation management.
This paper focuses on a direction to adaptively manage for sustainable ecosystems.
Watershed analysis is the process we use to guide resource 35 decision making and drive project development.
Anticipated products from this analysis include an understanding about the ecological structures, functions, processes and interrelationships.
It also means that people obtain what they need from ecosys- tems, while sustaining ecosystem health" Thomas 1994.
Watershed analysis is required to under- stand key issues and ecological processes.
To simplify and organize management for systems that are overwhelmingly complex, we devise methods to apply ecological theory.
As expressed by Egler 1977"ecosystems are not only more complex than we think, they are more complex than we can think.
The Klamath National Forest delineated 32 analysis watersheds based on true watershed boundaries ranging in size be- tween 28,000 and 123,000 acres.
The average size was 66,000 acres.
After delineating watersheds, the next step is to prioritize the order in which watersheds will be analyzed.
The Klamath National Forest used several criteria to assist in prioritizing watersheds for analysis.
After selecting a watershed for analysis, the work begins.
This group functions as a self-directed team.
Timeframes for completing the analysis have varied between 3-6 months depending on the size and complexity of the analysis and the level of public involvement.
Watershed analysis is expected to guide Klamath's future monitoring and inventory by disclosing data gaps, describing large-scale rela- tionships, and identifying the information neces- sary to better understand the ecosystem.
There are five steps in the watershed analysis process: 1.
Disturbance Processes and Historic Range of Variability: Disturbances and past patterns are identified to characterize the historical range of variability for the area.
Landscape Elements: The existing condi- tion of vegetation and landscape compo- nents are described in terms of composi- tion, structure, and function.
Functions, Interactions and Management Opportunities: Movement of people, organisms, nutrients, energy, their linkages to other landscapes, and interactions with landscape elements are assessed.
Sustain- able uses are identified that can help retain long-term ecosystem form and function.
Partnerships and Monitoring: Partnerships with research and the community identify interactions and monitoring needs at larger scales.
Management Direction: Desired condition is defined by the goals and objectives of management direction.
Refinement comes from local knowledge about the unique landscape features, past disturbances, and site capability for the area.
The following examples from the Humbug Landscape Analysis demonstrate how broad patterns of ecosystem interactions relate to man- 36 agement applications.
The Humbug Landscape is within the Klamath Physiographic Province, where forest conditions are drier than they are in the Pacific Northwest.
Precipitation ranges be- tween 20-50 inches annually.
Elevation ranges from 2,100 to 6,220 feet.
The landscape is approxi- mately 28,600 acres 24% is privately owned.
It is within a 30 minute drive from Yreka, which has a population of approximately 6,000 people.
Disturbance Processes Disturbances are an important part of ecosystem stability.
In the Humbug Landscape, key natural disturbances include fire and insect epidemics.
Prevalent human-caused disturbances include mining, fire exclusion, and timber harvesting.
We used various techniques to assess the histori- cal range of variability.
These techniques included interviewing local residents, reading historical documents, gathering historical surveys and inventories, studying fire history and using histori- cal photos to compare the existing composition, structure and arrangement of vegetation.
Examining past land use and settlement patterns helps us understand how humans have influenced ecological systems.
Reviewing historical docu- ments led us to for casino lake side z√ľrich for other interesting discoveries.
In 1853, 1,000 miners lived along Humbug Creek.
Four good sized towns and a township were established and daily stages ran from Yreka to this area.
Today, the only remnants of a once booming mining settlement are scattered tin cans, fruit trees, and broken dishes.
Mining tailings, water diversions, and removal of riparian vegetation caused dramatic changes to the stream channel morphology.
Fire has also significantly shaped vegetation across this landscape.
Over 60 years of fire history records were analyzed for this landscape, which indicate a fire frequency of 6-12 years.
This corre- lates to research studies of fire scars on trees for the area suggesting that, prior to fire exclusion, frequent fires characterized by slow-spreading ground fires were the norm rather than high intensity conflagrations.
Fire suppression has changed the natural fire regime for the Humbug Landscape.
The cata- strophic Haystack Fire in 1955 significantiy shaped vegetative patterns in the Humbug Landscape.
This was a high intensity, stand replacing fire which consumed vegetation across 75% of the landscape.
Vegetative patterns subsequently resulted in the even-aged distribution of decadent brush.
Another result was the post fire establish- ment of very large plantations representing over 35% of the landscape.
Many of these plantations were pre-commercially thinned.
Inadequate fuel treatment adds to fuel accumulations.
Today, the landscape is characterized as ecologically unstable because there are contiguous, decadent brushfields and even-aged plantations that are extremely susceptible to another catastrophic fire.
Ecological stress is defined as a force that pushes an click beyond its threshold or ability to resist or recover.
Typically stress results from disturbance that is outside the svstem's evolved adaptations.
Events such as the alteration of disturbance regimes or catastrophic natural events may significantly reduce species diversity or cause shifts in species composition.
In the Humbug Landscape there have been gradual shifts in species composition due to the alteration of the fire regime.
The previous Douglas-fir and Sugar Pine dominated overstory has shifted more to ponderosa pine with white fir understory.
White fir, which is not well adapted to dry sites, is dying and contributing to more haz- ardous fuel conditions.
Past harvesting of the highly valued Douglas-fir and sugar pine in the overstory also contributed to a shift in species composition.
Landscape Elements Managing for ecological sustainability entails maintaining biological diversity and ecological integrity.
Habitat is determined to a large extent by the composition, structure and pattern of ecosys- tems.
Composition describes learn more here kinds and amounts of plants, animals and other biological and physiological elements in an ecosystem.
Structure is the vertical and horizontal arrange- ment of these elements within and between veg- etative patches.
Pattern is the arrangement of vegetation across the landscape or linkage with adjacent landscapes.
The landscape is best described as hetero- geneous, comprising a mix of species composition, size, shape and arrangement of vegetation.
Vegeta- tion structure is layered with stocking rates gener- ally exceeding the carrying capacity for the site.
Key forage species are presently underutilized because of their poor condition and forage quality.
Some of the decadent brushfields are impenetrable even to wildlife movement.
Some rare and unique features are present: lush riparian areas along Humbug Creek, Calochortus persistens and Lezvisia cotyledon var.
Large, contiguous blocks of similar vegetation exert strong control over movement of materials, energy and organisms because of the connectivity of habitat it provides, but large blocks of similar vegetation are lacking in the Humbug Landscape.
https://nycwebdesigner.org/casino/casino-points-system.html late successional forests or stands exhibit- ing old growth characteristics are nominal, repre- senting less than one percent for the entire land- scape.
Humbug Landscape is best described as a fragmented arrangement of habitat.
Fragmentation does not necessarily mean less diversity.
Biotic diversity enhances total species co-existence" Forman, Godron 1986.
Symptoms of stressed ecosystems may include declines in productivity and changes in how the ecosystem functions from an alteration in disease incidence.
From historical records, we learned that a significant beetle epidemic occurred in the spring of 1912 in this landscape.
It is evident that over- stocking, compounded by cyclic droughts and fire exclusion have exacerbated this situation over time.
In 1994, significant mortality is again preva- lent.
Riparian corridors are relatively linear features across the landscape.
Numerous intermittent and ephemeral channels occur due to the deeply incised inner gorges.
Ephemeral and intermittent channels are recognized in the Humbug Landscape as important connective corridors that sometimes offer the only shade, particularly in the eastern portion, where brush dominated slopes offer little cover.
Watershed analysis helps us better under- stand the importance of these channels to down- stream beneficial uses and their use by terrestrial and riparian dependent species.
Functions, Interactions and Management Opportunities Function is the flow of energy, materials and species among ecosystems and landscapes.
Evolutionary processes, such as mutation, gene flow, and differ- entiation of populations must also be maintained if the biota is to adapt to changing conditions" Noss, 1993.
It is important to focus on the KEY flows within a landscape in order to avoid "analysis paralysis.
Generally, key flows are those likely to be critical in the future which will be affected by human activities.
In the Humbug Landscape, there were eight key flows identified: fire, humans, water, fish, surface erosion, deer, northern spotted owl, and Pacific Fisher.
Fire - Fire has played, and will continue to play, an important role within the land- scape.
There are over 2,400 acres identified as high fire risk, which is determined by comparing fire history records and the number of fire starts by location to the fuel type and slope class.
Map displays of these areas help managers prioritize management treatments based on knowing areas of high fire risk relative to critical habitat areas or private property.
Four bands of high-risk occur in proximity to overstocked, multi-layered canopies and scattered trees over decadent brushfields.
Fire spread is influenced source fuel loading, fuel moisture, slope and aspect.
Fire risk is generally greater from June through September.
Vegetative treatments are urgently needed to reduce the fire hazard and return to a fire adapted ecosystem.
Exclusion of fire has created a vegetative condition that is not resilient to fire processes or climatic varia- tions drought.
In general the conifer stands are overstocked.
This contributes to the continued mortality that is occurring as a result of site check this out />Left untreated they present an increased risk to insect and disease infestations and potential loss to wildfire.
Left untreated these stands will not rapidly develop the future structural and functional diversity that is desired for the landscape.
Reintroducing prescribed fire achieves multiple resource objectives by reducing fire risk, improving forage quality, protecting soil and water quality and wildlife habitat.
Humans - Humans readily travel through this landscape because of its proximity to Yreka and to access parcels of private ownership.
Recreational uses include off-highway vehicle use, mountain biking, picnicking, fishing, hunting, snowmobiling, sledding, and driving for pleasure.
Road access enables people to connect with the Klamath River Highway an eligible State Scenic Highwaythe Klamath River a designated National Recreation RiverNational Forest campgrounds, and the Interstate freeway.
Recreational opportuni- ties include developing an area for recre- ational gold panning, maintaining the snowplay area, developing an off-road vehicle plan in partnership with the Bureau of Land Management, and maintaining the mountain bike route through the landscape.
Renovation of the Deadwood Baldy Fire Lookout could serve as a ski hut in the winter and a picnic or camping site during the summer.
Interpretive opportunities abound with the rich history of the gold mining within the area.
Cooperative agree- ments and partnerships still need to be formed with the Siskiyou County Chamber of Commerce, historical societies and local residents to work together in promoting read more />Exhibits, interpretive trails and pamphlets are in the planning stages.
Commercial and precommercial thinning opportunities are identified which benefit multiple resources.
Thinning overstocked stands reduces fuel loading and contributes to wildlife habitat objectives while supply- ing products such as sawlogs, firewood and biomass which stimulates the local economy and provides employment.
Water - Humbug Creek is the primary year-round source of surface water within the landscape, although in 1994 the main stem has dried up approximately 3 miles upstream from the mouth of the creek.
Numerous intermittent and ephemeral channels occur in this landscape.
As is typical for a Mediterranean type climate, most of the precipitation is received be- tween September and May.
Water flows from Humbug Creek into the Klamath River.
Some portions are lacking a conifer overstory altogether.
Streambank protec- tion and improvement are identified as restoration opportunities.
Monitoring water samples from potentially contaminated mining adits are also identified needs.
Fish - Humbug Creek is a tributary of the Klamath River which is a significant anadro- mous fishery in the Pacific Northwest.
Humbug Creek is considered primarily a steelhead producing stream, although fall chinook, coho salmon and resident trout are found as well.
Spawning habitat in Humbug Creek is very good, although the amount of rearing habitat is limited.
Subsurface flow during drought years reduce the amount of both the fall run of chinook and coho salmon.
Chinook salmon are generally large system spawners and their occurrence in Humbug Creek coincide with high survival rates and in years with adequate flows.
Chinook do not travel very far up the creek, usually remaining near the mouth.
Coho and steelhead occupy the same reaches, although coho numbers are nominal.
The November coho spawning runs overlap with the chinook and steelhead.
Summer mortality of young steelhead is high because there is not enough suitable pool habitat for half of the population.
Seventy-three percent of existing habitat types are low gradient riffles and runs.
About half of the steelhead population are found in the limited pool habitat type.
Side channel creation and pool deepening are management applications which could increase suitable rearing habitat and im- prove summer survival rates and the overall sustainability of the steelhead population.
Additional opportunities include improving the vegetative structural diversity, and increasing the conifer component within the riparian areas that are currently dominated by Cottonwood and alder.
Land acquisition has also been identified in order to deepen and stabilize the channel near the mouth of Humbug Creek.
Surface Erosion - Surface erosion is a key flow identified in the Humbug Landscape.
BANDA ZIRAHUEN "El Orgullo De Michoac√°n"
Michoac√°n, Mexico. Hometown. Favorites. Music. Corridos Y Banda. So Mexican, Primm Valley Casino Resorts, Artwork_by_erick, Banda Zirahuen "El Orgullo.
The authoritative answer, funny...
In it something is. Thanks for an explanation.
Excuse, that I can not participate now in discussion - it is very occupied. I will return - I will necessarily express the opinion on this question.
Rather excellent idea
Speaking frankly, you are absolutely right.
I can not with you will disagree.
You are not right. I can defend the position.
Just that is necessary, I will participate.
The properties turns out, what that
Absolutely with you it agree. It seems to me it is very good idea. Completely with you I will agree.
I consider, that you are not right. Write to me in PM, we will communicate.
Quite right! It seems to me it is excellent idea. I agree with you.
Now all became clear to me, I thank for the necessary information.
In my opinion you commit an error. Write to me in PM, we will discuss.