1. Parks and other protected areas are not islands; they are open systems which are inextricably tied to neighboring areas. They are constantly changing and will continue to change as a result of natural processes and human activities (see Information Paper 1).
2. Because humans need land and resources as well as a healthy environment, ecosystems must be managed for multiple goals, including preservation. These goals should be viewed in a regional context (as is already being done, for example, by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee).
3. Cooperative management approaches are most likely to maximize the preservation of biological diversity and ecosystem processes.
4. Scientific information is necessary for understanding ecosystem processes and the consequences of human actions, but many management decisions will be driven more by values than by facts; it is up to the public to decide what values and priorities will guide ecosystem management.

A first step in cooperative ecosystem management is to understand the differing mandates, interests, or objectives of all the parties concerned with ecosystem issues. This paper provides an overview of some of the key groups and organizations in the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem, focusing in particular on their involvement in managing the ecosystem's biological diversity. The Man and the Biosphere program is discussed as a potential model for bringing all of these parties together to cooperate on ecosystem management in the CCE.

Who runs the CCE?
Dozens of government agencies, private organizations, and businesses, as well as individual residents and visitors to the region, are concerned with the management of all or part of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem. The major organizations or agencies engaged in maintaining biological diversity in the ecosystem are discussed below.

Parks vs. forests. Many park visitors do not distinguish between the two major public land managers in the CCE the National Park Service (NPS) under the U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) under the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Unless they have to stop and pay money at an entrance station, many do not even realize it when they have moved from lands managed by one to lands managed by the other. Of course, these two agencies do differ in many ways, including their approaches to managing biological diversity.

There is no legislation in the U.S. specifically mandating the maintenance of biological diversity, but the National Park Service does consider this to be a management goal (see NH 2.1- 2.3) in keeping with the NPS mandate "to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife" of National Parks (National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, 16 USC). Interpretation of this mandate has, of course, changed over the years. In the early decades of this century, for example, "wildlife" was taken primarily to mean elk, deer, and other ungulates. Animals that preyed on this wildlife wolves, coyotes, mountain lions, bears, etc. were systematically killed under federal predator control programs.

Today the main objective in natural zones of NPS units is "to maintain all the components and processes of naturally evolving park ecosystems, including the natural abundance, diversity and ecological integrity of the plants and animals" (NPS 1988). Specific management objectives relevant to conserving biological diversity in Glacier NP include the following (see NH 2.1 and NPS 1988):

1. Perpetuation of resident and migratory native plant and animal populations as parts of the natural ecosystem (minimizing human impacts on natural population dynamics and relying to the greatest extent possible on natural processes to control populations);
2. Protection of the full range of genetic diversity in native plants and animals;
3. Removal where feasible of non-native species;
4. Restoration of degraded natural habitats and extirpated or substantially diminished native plant and animal populations.

On the other hand, the Organic Administration Act of 1897 (16 USC 473-78, 479-82, 551) instructs the USFS that "no national forest shall be established, except to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States." The Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (MUSYA; 16 USC 528-531) expanded the Forest Service mandate from protecting just two raw materials timber and water to include managing national forests for multiple uses, including "outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes." MUSYA defines multiple use to mean the

harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources, each with the other, without impairment of the productivity of the land, with consideration being given to the relative values of the various resources, and not necessarily the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output. (MUSYA Section 4)

Subsequent federal legislation has had a major impact on the way the Forest Service and all federal agencies (including NPS) manage natural areas. The Wilderness Act of 1964 recognized wilderness as a legitimate use of public land. Under the provisions of this law, the huge Bob Marshall-Great Bear-Scapegoat Wilderness complex and the Mission Mountains Wilderness on the Flathead and Lewis & Clark National Forests in the CCE were designated and thereby protected from major (though not all) human intrusions. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 made protection of environmental quality a goal of every federal agency. In 1973 Congress passed the Endangered Species Act authorizing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to work with other federal agencies to identify and protect endangered and threatened species in the U.S. and elsewhere. As of 1988, 495 species in the U.S. have been listed under this Act as threatened or endangered (Anon. 1988); four of these are found in the CCE (see Information Paper 1). Finally, the regulations under the National Forest Management Act of 1976 now require the Forest Service "to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species" (§ 219.29) and state that "management prescriptions, where appropriate and to the extent practicable, shall preserve and enhance the diversity of plant and animal communities" (§ 219.27(g)).

In spite of the passage of these laws and others (see OTA 1987, NH 2.7), the Forest Service, including national forests in the CCE, is still perceived by many as placing an inordinate emphasis on timber production and other forms of resource extraction at the expense of wildlife, scenic, and recreational values. Virtually every national forest management plan produced in recent years has come under fire from environmental groups who argue that the Forest Service is not enforcing its own regulations and in many instances is subverting the intent of the National Forest Management Act. Executives and employees in the timber industry, on the other hand, fear that the Forest Service is bowing to environmentalist pressures, locking up needed resources, and costing people their jobs by reducing timber sales and designating wilderness areas (see Mitchell 1989). Forest Service policies are currently undergoing a great deal of evolution in response to changing public values and perceptions regarding the use of public lands.

Both the Park Service and the Forest Service are beginning to embrace the concept of ecosystem management (see Mealey 1988, Hayden 1989, and NPCA 1988, for example). Perhaps the most noticeable efforts have been made in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, where the two agencies have begun formally cooperating on planning and management (GYCC 1987, GYCC 1989). Misunderstandings and misuse of the term ecosystem management have aroused some fears, however, among both Park Service and Forest Service constituents. Some people equate ecosystem management solely with preservation; some among these feel that park managers who involve themselves in external issues are being "pushy neighbors" (The Conservation Foundation 1985) and, as mentioned above, some feel that increasing pressure on national forests from environmentalists will lead to unemployment and economic depression. On the other hand, some Park Service critics feel that ecosystem management means supporting development and lowering park standards on resource protection (e.g., Carr 1989). Meanwhile, if park managers fail to take strong action with respect to external threats, they may be accused of not being aggressive enough in enforcing those standards (Sax & Keiter 1987). Clearly there is a need to educate both managers and the public about the concept of ecosystem management, and to use the term carefully (Agee & Johnson 1989).

Other agencies and organizations. In addition to the Park Service and the Forest Service, other land managers and owners in the CCE who control smaller but often quite significant portions of the CCE. For example, substantial portions of both Glacier NP and the CCE lie within the Flathead River basin. The northernmost headwaters of this drainage lie in the southeastern corner of the Canadian province of British Columbia. Although it contains only 5% of the entire drainage, regulation of land use activities in this part of the province is critical to the protection of the basin's high water quality and excellent fisheries (Flathead Basin Commission 1985, IJC 1988).

No comprehensive survey has been made of the dozens, perhaps hundreds, of additional agencies and organizations that are in some way involved in or concerned with the management of natural resources in the CCE. They range from local and national private organizations like Friends of the Wild Swan, the National Audubon Society, and the National Forest Products Association, to city and county planning commissions, to chambers of commerce, to state, provincial, and federal administrative or regulatory bodies like the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the USFWS Office of Endangered Species, and the Alberta Department of Forestry, Land, and Wildlife, to state, federal, and international consortiums like the Flathead Basin Commission, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, and the International Joint Commission.

A few of these organizations bear special mention here because of their direct involvement in biological diversity issues. The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MDFWP), in addition to managing state parks and other parcels of state land, is mandated to "protect, perpetuate, and propagate" fish and wildlife in the state, with an emphasis on harvested species and other species identified as being "of special interest or concern." MDFWP does not regulate hunting or fishing on tribal lands or within Glacier NP (where fishing is regulated by the park and no hunting is allowed), but once animals in Glacier leave the park they are subject to the hunting seasons and limits set by MDFWP (and, conversely, once animals enter the park they are protected).

The Blackfeet Tribe has developed a game code to regulate hunting on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation which shares its western border with Glacier NP. The regulations have resulted in an expansion of elk populations on the reservation which, it is hoped, will both restore natural elk migration patterns between the park and the reservation and improve hunting opportunities for members of the Blackfeet Tribe.

The Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP), housed in the Montana State Library, is part of the now-complete nationwide system of state heritage programs set up by state agencies in partnership with The Nature Conservancy, an international non-profit organization (see Chipley 1988). MTNHP maintains a database of information on Montana plants, animals, and communities that have been identified according to The Nature Conservancy's ranking system as being rare or imperiled at the state, national, or global levels. MTNHP is the only government body in Montana explicitly committed to identifying and preserving the full spectrum of biological diversity, but it does not have any management or enforcement authority.

The USFWS Office of Endangered Species is responsible for listing and overseeing the recovery of threatened and endangered species. Under the Endangered Species Act an endangered species is defined as any species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is one that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The thrust of the Endangered Species Program is protection through proper management of a species' habitat. Most management activities are carried out by federal and state agencies with jurisdiction over the habitats, not by USFWS (unless the species occur on National Wildlife Refuges) (OTA 1987:228).

Although the Endangered Species Act was a ground-breaking piece of legislation, the program has been criticized for the slow pace at which candidate species are reviewed for listing (OTA 1987:229, Reffalt 1988). Only about 34% of the species in the U.S. that are likely threatened or endangered have been officially listed. Recovery plans have been approved for only 57% of those listed. Of the listed species, only 3.2% are recovering; another 18 species (3.6%) are possibly extinct. Of the more than 3,800 candidate species (species being considered for listing), 295 (8%) may already be extinct (Reffalt 1988). (See Information Paper 5 for a discussion of the status of some endangered species in the CCE.)

The Man and the Biosphere program
The Man and the Biosphere program (MAB) was initiated by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization in 1970. Its main objective is to achieve a better understanding of the relationship between humans and their environment. The most visible result of the program has been the establishment of a global network of biosphere reserves to protect representative portions of the earth's ecosystems and to serve as focal points for research, education, and local involvement in the development and testing of sustainable land use practices. Under MAB, 266 biosphere reserves have been created in 70 countries around the world (MAB 1987). Glacier National Park and the Coram Experimental Forest in 1976 and Waterton Lakes National Park in 1979 were each independently designated as biosphere reserves.

An ideal biosphere reserve consists of a core area surrounded by experimental research zones and zones of multiple use. The core area is protected, relatively undisturbed, and large enough to be a self-sustaining ecosystem. It provides a "benchmark" against which to compare the ecological impacts of land uses on surrounding lands. In the research and multiple use zones scientists, land managers, and local farmers, ranchers, and foresters work together to minimize impacts of human activities while meeting the needs of human communities (Gregg & McGean 1986; NH 4.16, 4.27.28).

Most designated biosphere reserves coincide with existing protected area designations national parks, national forests, etc. and most, like the Glacier and Waterton Lakes Biosphere Reserves, incorporate only core areas, which limits their ability to carry out the full intent of the MAB program (Eidsvik 1985, Barbee & Varley 1985). But the three biosphere reserves in the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem have a unique opportunity to work together as an informal international biosphere reserve and to use the biosphere reserve model to integrate other land managers and owners into ecosystem research and management efforts.

Glacier already works with the Coram Experimental Forest (located on the Flathead National Forest) on research, such as current experiments on revegetation methods (see Information Paper 5). Waterton has been using its biosphere reserve designation as a framework for working with local ranchers, industry such as Shell Resources Canada, and federal, provincial, and municipal governments to address common resource management concerns and encourage research, education, and training related to these concerns (Waterton Biosphere Reserve Committee 1985). Other examples of cooperative efforts in the CCE toward ecosystem research and management have been described elsewhere (Hayden 1989). These efforts may enable managers in the CCE to approach the MAB ideal of conserving natural areas while at the same time improving human well-being.

Conclusion
As Agee & Johnson (1989) point out, ecosystem management is not a panacea. As indicated above, the agencies and organizations involved in the CCE have diverse legal mandates, histories, and policies. Clearly, reaching consensus or compromise on issues ranging from hunting regulations, to grizzly bear management, to the siting of oil and gas development, to mitigating the impacts of timber harvesting, is not and probably never will be easy, nor will the results please everyone. Furthermore, ecosystem-level processes and interactions are still poorly understood; attempts at ecosystem management may get slowed down or paralyzed by the sheer complexity of ecosystem issues.

Perhaps most importantly, both ecological and social scientists and the public are only beginning to ask some fundamental questions about human relationships with ecosystems, in the CCE and elsewhere. For example, how many people, with what standard of living, can our environment support? How many residents, how many tourists, how much timber harvesting or oil and gas extraction, and so forth can the CCE support without experiencing deterioration of ecosystem functions and loss of biological diversity? Are some of our multiple goals mutually exclusive are we trying to have our cake and eat it too? (For example, can we both have economically viable timber production and protect scenic vistas, water quality, and endangered species habitat?) What level of environmental deterioration or species extinctions are we willing to accept in exchange for how many jobs, for which products and services? Are there alternative, economically and socially viable ways to meet human needs without impairing the quality of life or the functioning of ecosystem processes?

These are huge questions. But the future of places like Glacier and the CCE as well as our own future depends upon our willingness to look for their answers. An ecosystem approach to research, management, education, and training in the CCE may help to provide both the will and the mechanisms to do so.

Author: Karen J. Schmidt.

References

Agee, J.K. and D.R. Johnson. 1989. Ecosystem management for national parks. Courier 34(12):6-9.

Westman, W.E. 1990. Managing for biodiversity: unresolved science and policy questions. Bioscience 40(1):26-34.