Ecosystem Review at the Subbasin Scale

Introduction to Volume 2

... Copying does not interfere with breakthrough thinking: to the contrary, it improves the chances of achieving a breakthrough. For instance, the most creative scientists are synthesizers. They pull together disparate ideas and reshape them to solve a current conundrum....

--Tom Peters, Thriving on Chaos

The effectiveness of mid-scale information relies on its high visibility for use by team members to make easy comparisons or to synthesize information to facilitate the prioritization and recommendation phases of the review process. This synthesis process is essential if teams hope to reach clearly integrated interest-based agreements in a collaborative framework.

The examples displayed within this document come from many sources. A number of them are from the Subbasin Review prototype efforts that were undertaken from fall 1997 through spring 1998. Many examples also come from other mid-scale work completed over the past several years. Although the examples in this second category depict excellent ways to display mid-scale information, those assessments were conducted for different purposes (such as assessments to support forest plan revision) and under more open time frames than that envisioned in the ICBEMP to meet critical basin-level objectives. Teams can use these examples for ideas or modify them accordingly to fit the budget, data availability and time frames they will face for each review.

The concept of synthesis is critical to the Subbasin Review process. As defined by Webster, synthesis is "the combination of parts or elements ... or objects of thought into a complex whole." For the purposes of Subbasin Review, it is important that team members recognize two different levels of synthesis: synthesis within functions and synthesis across multiple functions.

The first level of synthesis, within functional areas, occurs when individual specialists combine their detailed data into displays that make sense at the subbasin scale. Examples of functional-type synthesis include:

* Soils or land type information displayed as erosion risk categories;

* Not-properly-functioning, functioning-at-risk, or properly functioning watershed conditions;

* Unhealthy forest or rangeland vegetation conditions;

* Healthy or depressed fisheries populations by watersheds;

* High, moderate, or low recreation use landscapes by winter or summer seasons.

This type of synthesis takes place during the review's Step 3, Description of the Mid-scale Character, and it forms the base information for use in the second level of synthesis.

The second level of synthesis takes place throughout all phases of the review but is brought together for final development in Step 4, Prioritization and Recommendations. This synthesis process includes combining displays between or across functional elements to identify and display critical integrated characteristics such as:

* Unhealthy vegetation and not-properly-functioning watershed conditions;

* Roadless areas with healthy or unhealthy vegetative, watershed, or wildlife conditions;

* High density roads and high risk erosion areas.

Of particular value in this synthesis phase is the identification of areas where two or more ecosystem issues must be resolved jointly in order to demonstrate true progress toward ecosystem management objectives.

This volume contains a variety of map, graphics, and matrix displays that can serve as examples of ways to display information at the mid scale. The examples are intended to stimulate ideas about highly visible methods to compare and integrate information to meet the objectives of the Subbasin Review. It represents only a sample of techniques and does not dictate how specialists are to develop information.

Available data for each subbasin will govern how specialists can assemble information, but these examples offer ideas that others have used to display information at the mid scale. Review teams are constrained by the level of detail they can reach in the allotted time frames, and by the purposes of the review. Findings from the basin assessment (see Appendix A) provide numerous issues that often apply at the subbasin scale. Specialists need to follow a systematic process to:

1. Identify whether they have information that applies to the issue. If a need for data is identified for future analysis, the issue area should be highlighted for development of recommendations to gather the needed data.

2. If no data are directly available for an issue, identify whether there are other indirect data that can be used to approximate factors related to the issue for Subbasin Review purposes.

3. Identify where issues overlap, requiring joint solutions rather than pursuing functional solutions to individual issues with limited regard to other concerns.

Developing these characterizations and integrating the information into meaningful review recommendations will be challenging to team members who are used to working at finer scales and taking much more time to inventory and analyze data. Using aspects of the many examples provided may help teams to be more efficient with their limited review time.

It is vital that specialists understand how to work with information that is important and makes sense at this subbasin scale and to focus on visual, spatially explicit displays rather than written words to promote understanding at this scale. An individual specialist's ability to display a particular pattern or process will better help the team to reach integrated recommendations and priorities.

For example, one seemingly useful tool would be a transportation map for the subbasin, yet a more powerful mid-scale display would be a map showing patterns of high and moderate density road network locations. Similarly, soil type or land type maps are available on many units, but a more powerful mid-scale tool would be a map derived from the soil or land type map that locates patterns of high risk surface or mass failure erosion. Taken one step further, an even more useful tool at the subbasin scale would be to combine the two previous maps into an overlay that displays where the combination of high road density and high erosion risk might indicate a high priority for watershed restoration.