This file was created by scanning the printed publication. Text errors identified

by the software have been corrected; however, some errors may remain.
Authors

Bernard T. Bormann is a principal, plant physiologist. Patrick G.

 Cynningham is an operations research analyst, and Martha H.

Brookes is a science editor, Pacific Northwest Research Station,

Corvallis, OR 97731; Van W. Manning is District manager,

Bureau of Land Management, Salem, OR 97306; and Michael

W. Collopy is director, Cooperative Research and Technology

Unit, National Biological Survey, Corvallis, OR 97331. Cover

art by Stephanie Dix, 159 Scotland Rd., Madison, CT 06443.
Adaptive Ecosystem Management

in the Pacific Northwest

Bernard T. Bormann, Patrick G. Cunningham,

Martha H. Brookes, Van W. Manning, and

Michael W. Collopy

Published by:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Portland, Oregon

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-341

September 1994
ABSTRACT

Bormann, Bernard T.; Cunningham, Patrick G.; Brookes. Martha H.; Manning,

Van W.; Collopy, Michael W. 1994. Adaptive ecosystem management in the

Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-341. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

22 p.

A systematic approach to adaptive management is proposed to simultaneously

manage at the regional, provincial, and watershed scales and to reorganize the

activity of agencies to better support the concepts of adaptive management.

Reorganizing management activities into these four groupings is recommended:

adjustment (expanded decision-making); linked, not single actions; feedback,

including monitoring; and information synthesis. A major new focus for the

collaborative decision process is to identify and set priorities among possible future

adjustments. Linked actions that integrate management and research would then

be designed to produce the information needed to decide whether to make

proposed adjustments. Feedback and information synthesis will follow to facilitate

and inform future decisions. The strategy requires making better decisions;

improving public participation; and developing science-based management.

Keywords: Adaptive management, feedback, adjustment, future decisions, linked

actions, management experiments, information synthesis, decision support, sciencebased management, public participation, the lacing model.
SUMMARY

In this report, we seek to clarify the philosophy of adaptive management as it could

be applied to Federal lands in Oregon, Washington, and northern California. The

report does not attempt to suggest standards and guides for the whole region

because they would hinder the development of creative approaches to adaptive

management. The next step is to build interagency adaptive management systems

for each provincial planning and analysis area-as defined by the Record of Decision

(ROD 1994)--following the broad guidelines in this report.

Elements of adaptive management-feedback and adjustment-have been practiced

in past management. More rapid and effective learning is now needed to increase

the probability of desired outcomes. We propose a strategy to improve management

by:

• Making better decisions;

• Improving public participation;

• Developing science-based management; and

• Using a systematic approach.

A systematic approach to adaptive management is proposed to simultaneously

manage at the regional, provincial, and watershed scales and to reorganize the

activity of agencies to better support the concepts of adaptive management. We

recommend reorganizing management activities into four groupings that support the

desired function of the whole system:

• Adjustment (expanded decision-making);

• Linked, not single actions;

• Feedback, including monitoring; and

• Information synthesis.

A major new focus for the collaborative decision process is to identify and set

priorities among possible future adjustments or decisions. Linked actions would

then be designed to produce the information needed to decide whether to make

proposed adjustments. Feedback and information synthesis will follow to facilitate

future decisions.

Authority to make adaptive ecosystem management work lies with the Regional

Interagency Executive Committee and the Regional Ecosystem Office. Allocation of

funding is an important mechanism for optimizing the system's functioning. This

approach to management represents a change in strategy, emphasis, and

participants. Two newly formed groups, the Interagency Resource Information

Coordinating Committee and the Research and Monitoring Committee, will play

major roles. Implementation in the provincial planning areas will be the responsibility

of participating agencies.
CONTENTS

PART I. BUILDING AN ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Introduction

A Strategy To Increase the Probability of Desirable Outcomes

The Adaptive Management System

PART II. EXAMPLE APPLICATIONS

Adapting Intermittent Stream Buffer Widths

Adapting the 50-11-40 Concept

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

REFERENCES

1

1

4

6

14

14

18

21

22
PART I. BUILDING AN ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Introduction

Adaptive management, which is required in the Record of Decision for the

President's Forest Plan, applies to all Federal lands covered in the Plan, not just to

Adaptive Management Areas. Controversial practices will likely be tested on

Adaptive Management Areas, but adaptive management on other lands will provide

vital information as well. For example, adjacent Federal and non-Federal lands

might be compared in collaborative experiments with non-Federal owners.

Watershed restoration outside Adaptive Management Areas should also use

adaptive management principles.

We have not sought to establish specific standards and guides for adaptive

management of Federal land in the Pacific Northwest; rather, we define broad

constraints under which diverse approaches to adaptive management can be

implemented. We recommend that an adaptive management approach be used to

develop specific standards and guides in each of the provinces. Provinces, as used

in this report, are the provincial planning and analysis areas defined in the Record of

Decision (ROD 1994). The role for regional managers is to encourage a diversity of

approaches, ensure that implementation is documented, and analyze successes

and failures within each province. A natural variation in approaches will emerge.

and this variation should be promoted within these broad guidelines to provide a

breadth of experience to improve approaches at all locations.

The adaptive management system described in this report establishes a framework

for combining resource-information management, monitoring, research, planning,

public participation, and watershed analysis. This publication is based on the

reports of the Adaptive Management Process working group, commissioned by the

Regional Interagency Executive Committee as part of a larger effort to implement

the President's Forest Plan.

Review of adaptive management concepts

The term "adaptive management," as used by Holling (1978) and Walters (1986),

was adopted in the President's Forest Plan as a sequence of planning, acting,

monitoring, and evaluating (fig.1). The concept of adaptive management is being

widely debated and is taking on different forms and definitions. Various perspectives

on adaptive management are rooted in parallel concepts in business (total quality

management), in experimental science (hypothesis testing), and in systems theory

(feedback control), to mention a few. All of these views of adaptive management

have a common thread: feedback and adjustment. Feedback is knowledge or data

on the effects or results of an action, purposefully collected and used to improve

future actions. Adjustment is using knowledge and data produced by feedback to

redirect subsequent action.

Feedback and adjustment are a lot like learning: the importance of experience is

recognized and a change is made to reflect experience. Viewed this way, adaptive

management is "learning to manage by managing to learn." Beyond this simplistic

description, definitions of adaptive management diverge considerably. To develop

1
our view of how adaptive management should be implemented regionally on Federal

lands, we first looked at past management from the perspective of feedback and

adjustment.

Figure 1-An adaptive management cycle, modified from the FEMAT report (Collopy et al.

1993). Adaptive management is a series of steps structured to promote rapid learning and

modify management responsively to meet changing societal objectives and evolving

knowledge of ecological systems. For adaptive management to succeed requires adequate,

stable funding of all steps.

Feedback and adjustment in the past

The concepts of feedback and adjustment can be found in existing laws and

regulations and were often applied in past management efforts. Public involvement

provided some feedback to planning through the process specified in the National

Environmental Policy Act (1969). The National Forest Management Act (1976)

dictates adjustments through National Forest plans every decade. Short-term

adjustments can be made through formal amendments or by re-initiating the plans.

More dramatic feedback has become commonplace through endangered species

listings and court actions, culminating in Judge Dwyer's 1991 injunction on timber

sales. Dramatic adjustment followed with the Forest Conference on April 2, 1993,

and implementation of the President's Plan. Hilborn (1992) describes this agency

approach as "reactive learning." Reactive adaptive management hinders collection

and use of feedback because learning-although it does occur, especially during

periods of crisis-is not fast enough to deal with quickly changing issues.

Management on Federal lands in the past has resulted in outcomes that were not

always desirable-particularly when viewed retrospectively. No management system

can eliminate mistakes, but adaptive management-with more rapid and effective

feedback and adjustment than in the past-can shorten the time from recognizing a

problem to correcting it, so that management reflects new societal demands or new

research data. Because ecosystems and people's collective values often change

unpredictably, any management target is not likely to endure for long. A system that

focuses on rapid learning to adjust to changing circumstances is likely to improve

over the long term.

2
What will change under a new banner of adaptive management? How will these

changes become institutionalized? We begin by defining effectiveness of adaptive

management as increasing the probability of achieving desirable outcomes.

The need for more effective feedback and adjustment

The need for new approaches to adaptive management comes from more than

gridlock. Increasing awareness of change and uncertainty also argue for new

approaches:

The world changes rapidly, both socially and ecologically. People see the global

environment changing at an increasingly rapid pace-for example, increasing

atmospheric carbon dioxide, decreasing global fisheries, and extensive eroding of

crop-land. Increasingly rapid societal changes are equally apparent-for example,

increased population growth, the dissolution of the Soviet bloc, and separatism

spreading from the Balkans. Taken together, these recent changes suggest a broad

scope and an increasingly rapid pace for future change, and the need to be able to

adapt to changes-many of which are now unforeseen-becomes apparent.

The full ramifications of management actions are unknown. Some land

management practices previously thought desirable turned out to be socially or

ecologically undesirable when viewed historically. Ecosystems are far too complex

to predict future condition accurately. Does this mean nothing should be done until

the ramifications are fully known? No, because doing nothing, if that were possible,

also has many unknown and poorly predictable effects. Complexity is confronted by

increasing effort to understand mechanisms that influence change, by reducing

expectations that the future can be accurately predicted, and by reducing risk

through diversifying.

"Cookbook" approaches seem easier. People tend to limit their thinking to what

they already know. The more an action or process becomes routine and the less it

is questioned, the more difficult modifying it becomes when modification is needed.

Because information is always changing in unpredictable ways, approaches will

always need to be modified. Institutionalizing adaptability requires that people think

about and question every decision and every action. Standards and guides are

important, but they must be changed when new information warrants a change; new

information must be actively sought to change the standards and guides. Thinking

about possible future changes that people may need to adapt to does not come

easily, but anticipating changes and developing strategies in advance will improve

people's ability to respond to change.

3
A Strategy To Increase the

Probability of Desirable Outcomes

Make better decisions

Invest In improved future decisions. Future decisions require more and new kinds

of information than now available, even if access were perfect. Actions are needed

to produce this information, including pilot-tests of proposed creative solutions.

Some of these actions may not appear to have immediate benefit and should be

considered an investment for future generations.

Make more-informed decisions. Some important societal, scientific, managerial,

and legal information is not readily accessible to decision makers. Facilitating

access to relevant information is a crucial step in improving decisions.

Make more-defensible decisions. One reason for increased litigative feedback is

that decisions have not been legally defensible. Improving defensibility requires

tracking information used in decisions and involving potential litigants before

decisions are final.

Improve public participation

Reflect societal values. The perspectives of communities that tended to have a

stake in outcomes were sometimes considered in past decisions. Many other

communities did not participate in the debate, however, and their views were not

known. The democratic ideal of majority rule with protection of minority rights based

on the best available information can be approached most effectively through

participation by a diversity of people. The more people participate in shaping

decisions, the more they will accept the outcomes and take responsibility for them.

Generate new ideas. Experiences of people in business, art. manufacturing, and

everyday life are relevant to Federal land management. When ideas based on

diverse experiences are challenged through civil and constructive debate, creative

solutions often emerge. Managers need to facilitate the debate to tap into this

source of knowledge.

Develop science-based management

Design management to produce information. Increasing the probability of

desirable outcomes will require better predictions of the implications of current

decisions. Science connected to management, science done at the operational

scale of management, and monitoring are all required to produce data and theory to

improve these predictions.

Include both social and ecological sciences in decisions. Barriers to

communication among scientists and between scientists and managers should be

removed, and institutional boundaries between research and management blurred.

Blurring the boundaries is needed to incorporate scientific concepts such as

experimental design into management institutions, and operational relevance into

research institutions. The need for credible feedback from research requires that

4
research and management remain independent. Scientists, like the public, need to

participate in shaping management decisions and to share responsibility for the

outcomes. New mechanisms are needed to ensure that research is more relevant

and that results are incorporated quickly into management. People need to

overcome their fear of new information; new information may require change, but

without new information, adaptive management is impossible.

Test and retest assumptions. People learn by making assumptions and applying

those assumptions to the subject of interest. As more is learned, old assumptions

are replaced or modified. Assumptions may also require changing because the

subject of interest, or its behavior, changes. Ecosystems also change, usually in

response to human activities or natural events, and the assumptions people apply to

them must change to allow for continual learning. Adaptive management provides

an environment in which scientific and managerial assumptions can be tested

against alternative assumptions that also describe or allow for observed ecosystem

behavior. This ability to test assumptions is the foundation of adaptive

management.

Use a systematic approach

Develop an adaptive management system. An improved system of interacting

management components is needed to ensure that management agencies work as

a whole to achieve defined objectives by using the adaptive management concepts

outlined above. A systems approach is also needed to deal with the complexities

and tradeoffs of managing at different geographic scales. Institutional resources

must be allocated to components of a management system with the function of the

whole system in mind.

Improve institutions. Adaptive management concepts should be applied to

institutional function as well. The functioning of components and the new system as

a whole must be continually analyzed to identify and remove bottlenecks. People

responsible for implementing adaptive management need to understand that taking

risks is acceptable and occasional failures are unavoidable. Institutions must

provide an environment where people will take risks-and acknowledge and learn

from mistakes.

5
The Adaptive Management System

Defining a system based on the strategy as we have outlined is a first step in

applying our adaptive management concepts to managing ecosystems in the

Northwest. Specific guides based on the institutional framework described in this

report must be developed for each province to provide a diversity of approaches.

Twelve components of the system were identified in the FEMAT report (fig.1).

"System" implies that the components interact with one another in a way that works

as a larger whole. Potential interactions between the 12 components are numerous,

and each interaction may be an important process. We sought to simplify the

portrayal of the system by combining components into groupings to perform

integrated feedback, adjustment, linked actions, and information synthesis (fig. 2).

These groupings are designed to improve consistency between different geographic

scales in all activities and to identify which activities are responsible for each step in

the adaptive management process. Information synthesis was added as a special

grouping, in recognition of the enhanced information needs of an adaptive

management system. We are thus elevating information to a status equal to or

greater than traditional resources. Groupings are considered below.

Figure 2-The proposed adaptive management system, modified from FEMAT. Changes

include internalizing science and public participation; integrating analysis and planning into an

adjustment process; recognizing a wider range of feedback mechanisms; linking management

actions, including some research, into a network of related activities where each activity helps

to explain responses of the others; and recognizing the importance of information synthesis in

this information-rich approach to management.

6
Adjustment

Deciding when to adjust is perhaps the most difficult task of the adaptive

management system. Adjusting when the evidence does not yet warrant it can be

as bad as waiting too long. People have much to learn about how to make adaptive

management decisions. Designing the adaptive management system to produce

and synthesize information will help, but it will ultimately require criteria and rules for

deciding when to adjust. Research is needed to develop a "statistics" of adaptive

management that includes defining these criteria and rules, and designing

management experiments to produce the needed information. Initial approaches to

making these decisions should include the following:

Integrating across watershed, provincial, and regional scales. Regardless of the

scale of a decision, the predicted effects of each decision on the other scales must

be estimated. Predicted effects can be aggregated over time and space, and the

analysis provided to managers at all scales. Society's conflicting objectives can be

identified and a negotiation process implemented. The idea of the negotiation is,

like the interfacing of societal values and ecological capacity, not a matter of

redefining the laws of nature, but of understanding the limits, being able to convince

others of the limits, and finding creative solutions.

Identifying who is the decision maker. Federal law still requires that line managers

are responsible for decisions on Federal lands. Recent interpretation by the courts

of the Federal Advisory Committee Act severely limits input from groups that include

non-Federal employees, including State employees, yet collaboration is the key to

managing ecosystems for objectives that transcend ownership boundaries.

Collaboration, coordination, and sharing of information are needed among agencies,

adjacent private and industrial landowners; county, State, and tribal governments;

scientists; and the public. New mechanisms are needed to make these interactions

legal and effective.

Identifying broad societal goals. The first step in any decision process at all

geographic scales should be to attempt to identify what society wants, in a general

sense. This step was taken in the Forest Conference-where the President identified

five principles for managing the forests of the Pacific Northwest-but needs to be

continuously re-addressed in the adaptive management process. Finding core

values that most people agree to also helps to avoid polarization. The Colville tribe

in north-central Washington tried this approach successfully by involving tribal

members in defining their quality of life and describing the landscape they desire for

the future. They then began to look at what forest practices improved or degraded

the defined quality of life. Similar grass-roots efforts in southern Oregon and

northern California provide definitions of broad societal goals. At a minimum, these

definitions facilitate developing new management strategies. The more that specific

actions are the focus and the more these actions are divorced from broad goals, the

more difficult achieving societal approval becomes. A societal debate focused on

specific actions often ignores the effects of such actions on other societal goals.

7
Keeping adjustments within national laws. National laws also define broad

societal goals, and keeping adjustments within these constraints is necessary to

fulfill goals. Recognizing that national laws are not entirely consistent with one

another and that laws change as societal goals change is also important. Identifying

inconsistencies to policy makers and integrating the intentions set forth in the laws

rather than settling for the least common denominator is important as well.

Facilitating an iterative "discussion" between societal interests and the scientific

basis for sustainable ecosystems. Because societal values and ecological

capacity must be integrated to achieve sustainability, iterative interaction is required

(fig. 2). Defining what is ecologically possible is not efficiently pursued without first

knowing what people want; reconciling what is desired with what can be sustained

and finding creative solutions require understanding what is and is not thought to be

possible. Thinking about new possibilities does not come easily, and ideas from a

broad cross-section of society are needed.

Figure 3-The lacing model represents an iterative decision process (expanded on the right)

for any geographic scale to "lace" together societal values and ecological capacity to achieve

sustainable ecosystems (Bormann et al. 1994). This model requires that managers,

scientists, and the public work together through the steps outlined to achieve the overlap

defined as sustainable ecosystems.

8
Integrating watershed analysis and provincial planning. To the extent that

watershed analysis is a synthesis of knowledge about a specific place, watershed

analysis belongs in the information-synthesis grouping. If watershed analysis

defines what is ecologically possible, then it should be iteratively linked to the

decision process. That is, the analysis must be modified as the decision process

unfolds, not to redefine the laws of nature but to find creative solutions that seek

to achieve what people collectively want and what is ecologically possible in the

long run.

Identifying outcomes and measures, in advance. At a minimum, outcomes

should be predicted and specific measures of success identified and documented in

advance, as a yardstick to evaluate whether the action was successful. Concepts

from experimental science and cognitive psychology should be used to develop

techniques that help people to see evidence that does not support their

preconceived notions. The focus should be more on mechanisms thought to control

outcomes than on the outcomes themselves. Focusing only on outcomes quickly

results in a cookbook approach.

Using existing information. Decisions must use scientific and societal information

available through the information-synthesis grouping. What information is used must

be documented and tracked to help justify the action. Having information in a form

that can be used thus becomes paramount. Feedback to the information-synthesis

grouping is essential in improving the quality of information available for decisions.

Deciding on possible future adjustments. Success in attaining societal goals

ultimately depends on whether current management can be designed to produce the

information needed for future decisions. Managers, scientists, and the public must

collaborate to specify possible future adjustments; management actions, research,

and monitoring must be designed to provide information that will improve these

adjustments.

Linked actions

Actions are not independent; they must not be thought of as independent. A

decision process is needed that produces multiple, linked actions, not single.

independent actions. Coordination between actions is essential to connect

management at different scales of time and space, and to monitor, study, and

ultimately understand management effects. Coordination to support the adaptive

management system requires:

Integrating actions across watershed, provincial, and regional scales. Individual

actions can be designed to interpret other actions. For example, determining

whether the regional strategies for a late-successional reserve system and riparian

buffers has succeeded (or failed) by design or by chance will be difficult. If the

spotted owl or endangered salmon races are saved, how will people know that the

strategy was responsible? Evaluating a range of strategies in watershed

comparisons and retrospective studies will help, but any management experiment at

a large scale is complex, combining variation in history, environment, species, and

managerial objectives. Field trials at the stand or stream-reach scale, with replicated

treatments, can be used to tease apart complex factors that combine to influence

9
the watershed comparisons. Ultimately, small-scale research experiments are

needed to connect ecological theory to management. Large-scale actions are

mainly directed toward management objectives; small-scale actions are mainly

directed toward testing scientific assumptions. The designed connections between

management activity, watershed comparisons, field trials, and research experiments

are more important than the individual activities (fig.4). Information from individual

management and research activities cannot be safely extrapolated to different

scales without these connections.

Figure 4--A linked-action plan connects the regional management strategy to ecological theory

through management experiments and research experiments and studies testing scientific

assumptions (science filters up and management objectives filter down). Public participation

is essential in all stages.

Actions linked through time. A series of management actions is often needed to

achieve a societal goal or management objective because ecosystems develop over

centuries, and ecosystem development is not easily predicted. Coordination

between scales and documented commitment through time are both necessary.

Difficulties with changing previous commitments should be fully explored and

justified.

Feedback

Feedback is more than traditional monitoring; it must include:

A forum for ideas. People need to continually question assumptions and

management approaches, and to evaluate management outcomes. Managers need

to facilitate "bounded conflict" (Lee 1993), where ideas from a wide variety of people

are considered and evaluated on their merits. All views are considered and

tabulated, recognizing that many of them are incompatible and cannot be fully

accommodated.

10
Monitoring changing societal views. Changes in societal views should be studied.

and existing studies should be acknowledged and used. For example, the Oregon

Business Council funded a little known but extensive survey of Oregonians that

evaluates, among other things, the importance of the environment to randomly

chosen citizens of the State. The Forest Service recently undertook a similar survey

on the national scale in an effort to be more responsive to the public. A social

inventory and profile of the people and groups that are concerned or may be

affected by management actions is needed to better understand their interests and

ensure their participation in decisions. Monitoring societal conditions may also help

to understand and anticipate changing societal views.

Monitoring management success. What needs monitoring, as described by the

interagency Monitoring Working Group, includes implementation (achieving

standards and guides), effectiveness (attaining goals), and validation monitoring

(testing assumptions arid cause-and-effect relations).

Inventory of regional ecosystem conditions. Inventory of conditions on public and

private lands is essential to the collaborative management of regional and provincial

ecosystems. Decisions on Federal lands affect decisions on non-Federal lands, and

decisions on non-Federal lands affect decisions on Federal lands. Recognizing this

interdependence can improve Federal land management.

Analyses of past actions. If future actions are carefully designed, high-quality

information will be obtained to adjust subsequent actions, but this process will take

many years. New information can be obtained quickly by analyzing past actions, but

this information is usually of lesser quality than that obtained through designed

actions. Retrospective studies are often limited by the lack of information about past

actions, and they are limited to the range of past practices and natural events; they

supplement, but do not replace, analysis of current and future actions.

Research that questions decisions. Research is needed to reassess scientific and \

managerial assumptions and societal views. Research is needed that asks scientific

questions related to future needs: for example, if society wanted some condition in

the future, what would be required to produce it? Direct feedback is needed to

linked actions that allows for research to identify small-scale experiments and

retrospective analyses overlooked in the decision process (fig. 2).

Integrating across watershed, provincial, and regional scales. Monitoring,

research, and inventory should be consistent, comparable, and accessible across

geographic scales. Common methods and quality standards are required to achieve

integration between scales. The need for consistency should be balanced with the

need for unconstrained feedback and the need to reflect inherent differences

between sites.

11
Information synthesis

The proposed adaptive management system, in contrast to traditional management.

will require more and better-synthesized information to make decisions; more

information management to handle information generated through feedback

mechanisms; and more tracking to improve the adaptive management system over

time. This system, based on the principle that information is a vital resource, is

consistent with the report of the Resource Information Working Group being

prepared by the Regional Ecosystem Office. Activities within this grouping include:

Active Information management Managing information requires synthesizers who

make information available in forms appropriate for multiple users, and translators

who convert ideas into language that can be understood by a broad audience. To

identify gaps in knowledge, feedback from the information-synthesis grouping to the

adjustment and feedback groupings is required.

Consistent, compatible, and accessible databases and geographical information

systems. Coordinating, among agencies, the approach to collecting, storing, and

retrieving information is essential to reduce the cost of information, improve

information quality, and ultimately improve decisions. Standards are needed to

ensure that Information quality is maintained and improved. New mechanisms,

such as electronic bulletin boards and terminals accessible to the public, are

needed to ensure adequate access to agency information to facilitate scientist and

public participation. Details are provided in the Resource Information Working

Group report.

Synthesis of existing research information. Much valuable information exists in

journal articles and other publications that is not widely known or used. Many

managers are highly trained in specialized fields and may know little about other

fields. Much of the specialized literature is often in a form not useful to managers

because it is loaded with jargon and inadequately linked to other fields. Much

information exists in national and international literature. Synthesis of existing

information has seldom been rewarded in research institutions.

Mechanisms to accumulate and use local knowledge. People who live near and

visit Federal lands know much about them. Acquiring and incorporating this

knowledge into databases, knowledge bases, and decisions is essential.

Mechanisms to facilitate consensus-based expert analyses. The use of both

local and scientific expert opinion has proved valuable in assembling perspectives

on how various management strategies will affect selected fauna and flora that have

been insufficiently studied (e.g., FEMAT 1993, Thomas et al. 1993). The scientific

basis for objective collection and analysis of this type of data should be further

studied to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of this approach.

Models and graphical tools to explore future possibilities. Managers,

researchers, and the public will need to have access to computer facilities that are

equipped with user-friendly graphical visualization systems, geographic information

systems, simulation models, and on-line descriptions of ecosystem management

principles. These tools will allow interactive, management-scenario development

12
and analysis by those interested in exploring alternative management plans.

Visualizing future possibilities and having a common understanding of terminology

are necessary for learning about ecosystem principles and the tradeoffs between

value statements and ecological capacity.

Decision-support systems for adaptive management Including a decisionsupport system with information synthesis is reasonable, even though information is

gathered and used. and decisions requiring information are made throughout the

adaptive management system. Research on learning and decision making, as well

as modern technology and analytical methods, have made significant contributions

to knowledge of natural and human systems. This understanding should be applied

to addressing the legal, social, policy, physical, and biological aspects of decisions.

Cooler

National and international societal and scientific knowledge, laws, treaties (including

tribal treaties), and conditions represent information resources and add complexity

and constraints to the adaptive management system. Forests on Federal lands in

the Pacific Northwest cannot be managed in isolation. Trends in human population

growth, consumption of fossil fuel and other resources, and global environmental

degradation will and should affect how forests are managed on Federal lands. The

ramifications of changes in policy in the Northwest should be studied and included in,

decisions. For example: Is reduced timber harvest on Federal lands in the

Northwest shortening rotations on private lands or displacing harvests to other

 regions or countries? If the ultimate goal is human survival through protection

global ecosystems, this broader view is essential.

Knowing about external information resources and understanding external

constraints improve the adaptive management system by reducing courtroom

feedback and political micromanagement, and by including important information

gained under different conditions. Synthesis and communication of external

resources and constraints is a major activity for the information-synthesis grouping.

Communication

The arrows that connect the system groupings (fig. 2) represent effective

communication of information or sometimes specific instructions. Because

communication between groupings is likely to be a bottleneck in the system, special

efforts are needed to improve communication skills of individuals and agencies.

Beyond the obvious needs for clear, two-way interactions, effective communication

requires rapid feedback from the receiver to the sender on the form and value of the

information. Improvements require training, as well as tracking and analyzing

communication.

13
PART II. EXAMPLE APPLICATIONS

We present two hypothetical examples to illustrate how the adaptive management

system could be used to learn to manage by managing to learn. These examples

are purposely incomplete descriptions of some of the major steps that are needed.

Adapting Intermittent Stream Buffer Widths

One of the most significant additions in the President's Plan to the standards and

guides is to reserve buffers along intermittent streams. This action limits harvesting

and other activities on much of the land area in forests with steep slopes to protect

stream and riparian habitat. Adapting these guides requires the following steps:

Step 1. Deciding on possible future adjustments

We begin with the assumption that the Record of Decision for the President's Plan

will need to be adjusted because of feedback. Traditionally, managers would follow

a set of regional guides until new plans were approved. The President's Plan differs

by emphasizing the collection of information to inform future decisions. An important

new step is to identify possible future decisions and the information needed to

assess them.

Intermittent stream buffers, one of the more controversial decisions in the

President's Plan, were set for key watersheds as 100 feet or a width equivalent to

the height of one site-potential tree (average maximum height of dominant conifers

in a given site), whichever is greater. The Record of Decision included these widths

in all watersheds. Riparian buffers are thought to protect stream habitat structure

and function; riparian habitat for obligate riparian species; riparian areas as refuge

habitat; and connectivity of habitat for species that are not necessarily riparian

dwellers but requiring the habitat to maintain interactions across populations. We

assume that the decision integrates what people want with what is ecologically

possible in the long term, and that ensuring protection of riparian function reflects

what society wants.

The President's Plan will be implemented through subsequent decisions on the 12

provincial planning areas. Watershed analysis, which seems to us to belong in the

information-synthesis grouping, must be completed before provincial decisions that

differ from regional guides can be made. The decision makers remain the line

officers of the various Federal agencies, as required by law. These line officers must

coordinate with each other and use the provincial teams, scientists, and citizens to

inform their management decisions.

An important part of this first provincial decision is to design management actions to

produce the information to allow for possible adjustments during a second

adjustment process. The plan to produce information must identify likely future

adjustments and the information needed to make them. Specific criteria for

triggering an adjustment would be identified for each potential adjustment.

14
Possible adjustments and the information needed to determine whether they are

needed, might include:

Changing the width of the buffers In the regional plan. The evidence needed

to determine if buffer widths are appropriate includes:

• Riparian function is degraded in watersheds with current buffers, and wider

buffers are needed;

• Riparian function is not degraded in watersheds with current buffers, and no

change is needed; or

• Riparian function is not degraded except with much smaller or no buffers,

and a change is needed to allow other important activities in these areas.

Adding more site-specific information to regional guides. Evidence is needed

to determine what factors, in addition to tree height, influence appropriate buffer

width for specific sites, for example, slope, aspect, wildlife habitat requirements,

and slope stability. Accumulated results from watershed analyses will help to

determine what adjustments are needed.

Passing authority to set buffers to the provincial planning teams. If evidence

is produced that suggests that Regional guides do not work well at smaller

scales, then a decision to pass authority to the provinces might be warranted.

Guidelines for actions in the 12 provinces-required to evaluate potential

adjustments-might identify the following minimum required elements:

• A control watershed with buffer widths for intermittent streams from the

President's Plan;

• A comparable watershed with wider buffer widths (perhaps in an adjacent LateSuccessional Reserve); and

• A watershed with many, small intermittent streams with a wider range of possible

treatments, including one where intermittent stream buffers are removed

entirely. 1

Within broad guidelines, much would be left for the provincial planning team to

develop. The number of treated watersheds might vary with province. Treatments

on intermittent streams might include partial cuts and changed vegetation

composition to look for ways to harvest trees without damaging streams or other

riparian components. Restoration activities might also be tried in these buffers. The

means that province teams might use to develop these treatments would also vary.

Some teams may collaborate with local citizens familiar with the chosen watersheds

or citizens committees that suggest alternative treatments in Adaptive Management

Areas, after learning of the scientific assumptions behind the need for buffers.

1

Note that controversial treatments will not be applied to key watersheds or Late-Successional

Reserves. Such treatments are likely to be concentrated in Adaptive Management Areas or,

on a voluntary basis, on non-Federal lands.

15
On a voluntary basis, whole watersheds on adjacent private or State lands might

have all intermittent buffers removed, for comparison. Through watershed analysis,

fish and wildlife biologists and researchers from various agencies would be asked to

identify the most important riparian variables to monitor. Citizens and social

scientists might identify social variables that should be monitored. An interpretive

trail might be planned through the various watershed treatments to allow access to

the public. Specific outcomes of each action would be predicted and fully

documented in advance. Outcomes that would convince people that the treatment

failed would also be identified in advance.

If the political or judicial system decides this experimental approach is not tenable,

an observational approach could be applied. Observational studies could be

established by implementing the new buffer-width standard in drainages where it is

feasible, and locating other comparable areas (possibly in collaboration with private

land owners or in wilderness or reserve areas) where alternative conditions exist or

can be created. Differences in these alternative conditions must be large enough

that changes in habitat, biodiversity, and fish and wildlife dynamics can be detected.

Depending on available habitat and the goals of managers, scientists, and the

public, measurement plots can be installed and monitored over time to evaluate

changes in habitat conditions and fish and wildlife response. This approach

provides less power for detecting differences between the new buffer-width standard

and other alternatives than would the experimental approach. The risk of

confounding effects and introducing statistical bias is higher in a study of this type

than In more formally designed experiments.

A third alternative is to implement the buffer-width standard throughout the

landscape and monitor habitat condition, biodiversity indices, and fish and wildlife

response over time. This approach will not provide much useful information and will

restrict the ability of managers to adapt. This approach is described by Hilborn

(1992) as "passive learning" and by Walters and Holling (1990) as a "passive

adaptive process." Walters and Holling also state that this approach is "likely to

confound management and environmental effects." and that opportunities for

improvement might be missed if people are blinded by the assumption that the

implemented approach is the optimal one. They also state, however, that passive

approaches do sometimes provide valuable information not easily obtained by other

means.

A combination of these approaches is likely to be more powerful than a single

approach. Other linked actions would include research to evaluate whether applying

the buffer-width standard or other biological or physical factors best explain the

observed changes in riparian habitat and riparian-dependent species, and

retrospective research to compare and contrast effects of past management.

The plan would be reviewed by the regional research and monitoring committee,

managers, scientists, and the public.

16
Step 2. Producing information for future adjustments

Managers and researchers, and possibly the public, collaborate in implementing a

plan for linked actions. This plan. developed as part of the adjustment process.

includes both managerial and scientific activities: large-scale management

experiments, medium to small-scale formal scientific experiments, and retrospective

studies. These experiments and studies are nested in such a way that: large scale

activities will provide experience with complex regional and provincial scale

responses; activities at scales such as watersheds will help to interpret large-scale

responses and provide experience at medium scales; and small-scale activities will

help to interpret larger-scale responses, evaluate a wider range of possibilities, and

test ecological theory. Each activity scale is related to and interpretable at both

larger and smaller scales. These activities should also be linked in such a way that

ecological and social processes that either influence or are influenced by these

activities can be studied over time.

Step 3. Soliciting feedback

Management actions would be monitored, with oversight from cooperating scientists

and citizens. Citizens might be hired to assist with taking measurements. Regional

monitoring would include a check to see that acquired data would be adequate for a

regional assessment. Analysis of effects would be ongoing. Initial indications that a

watershed was being negatively affected by a treatment might precipitate a quick

adjustment to prevent undesirable effects. Research agencies might conduct

separate studies that look at even broader possible management treatments,

treatment assumptions, and retrospective analyses. A social and economic

assessment on the effects of various buffer widths and alternative management

strategies is needed to determine the effect on local and national economies, as well

as indirect influences on private lands. Monitoring these watersheds might form the

backbone of a regional inventory system that also includes non-Federal lands. All

information would feed into the information-synthesis grouping.

Step 4. Synthesizing information

Information from all sources would be assembled and synthesized to focus on the

potential adjustments identified in step one, along with newly developed potential

adjustments. New issues may arise unexpectedly from observations of

management effects, retrospective studies, new legislation, public surveys, and

experiences in other regions. Data would be accessible to managers and

researchers working at regional, provincial, and local scales. Visualization programs

might be developed that explore how changes in buffers are predicted to affect

ecosystem processes and functions through time.

17
Step5. Adjusting again

An adjustment may or may not be warranted, depending on the outcome of the

management actions and their evaluation, and other information and issues that

have appeared since the first adjustment, especially information collected in

watershed analysis. A decision not to adjust might be based on insufficient

information, and monitoring would be continued. Entirely new issues may arise that

make the management comparisons less relevant. Judgment must be used to

decide when to eliminate or stop monitoring comparisons, recognizing that a longterm commitment is often needed to yield relevant information.

A second entry into a regional adjustment substitutes for a second Forest

Conference and FEMAT process. For example, a new regional buffer policy might

be adopted. Whatever the result, the problem of appropriate intermittent stream

buffer widths is not likely to be fully resolved. The new policy would be evaluated in

a series of new watershed comparisons and other actions in the provinces,

repeating steps 1-4.

Adapting the 50-11-40 Concept

The following hypothetical example is based on and closely follows the adaptive

management guidelines for the 50-11-40 rule included in the Final Draft Recovery

Plan for the northern spotted owl (USD11992). The 50-11-40 rule was developed to

provide for dispersal of northern spotted owls among Habitat Conservation Areas,

the precursors of the Late Successional Reserves. Although the rule was not

adopted as a standard in the ROD (1994) for the President's Plan, it is still being

used in watershed analysis as a basis for determining the quality of dispersal

habitat. Therefore, discussion of adaptive management of the 50-11-40 concept is

still pertinent. New guidance oh dispersal habitat that could result from adaptive

management would be used implementing the Plan locally, and might play a role in

periodic revisions of the Plan.

Step 1. Deciding on possible future adjustments

As in the previous example, we assume that the 50-11-40 concept will need to be

adjusted because of feedback and that management must produce the information

needed to determine what needs adjusting and how the adjustment will be made.

The Plan calls for "retention of adequate habitat conditions for dispersal" of spotted

owls among Late-Successional Reserves. Guidance from the Plan called for

managing Federal forest lands within the range of the northern spotted owl so that

50 percent of the land in each quarter township under each Federal agency's

jurisdiction will be dominated by trees at least 11 inches in diameter at breast height

with at least 40-percent canopy cover (the "50-11-40 rule"). This concept is based

on a combination of scientific research, professional judgment, assumptions of owl

sustainability, and cartographic convenience. The Plan suggested that the first step

in adjusting the concept should be a thorough understanding of the assumptions it is

based on, and developing working hypotheses of how the concept would function to

achieve objectives.

18
These hypotheses could then be tested to determine the efficacy of the 50-11-40

concept. Factors that could be tested could include availability and density of prey,

foraging success, adult and juvenile owl survival rates, and the demographics of owl

populations. These factors could be tested both in landscapes that meet the

50-11-40 concept and in landscapes managed under alternative concepts. A formal

experimental approach would provide the highest quality information to managers,

scientists, and society for evaluating the efficacy of the concept (Irwin and Wigley

1993).

If the political or judicial system decides that an experimental approach is not

tenable, an observational approach could be applied. Observational studies could

be established by implementing the 50-11-40 concept on lands where it is feasible,

and locating other comparable areas (possibly in collaboration with private land

owners or in wilderness or reserve areas) where alternative conditions exist or can

be created. Differences in these alternative conditions must be large enough that

changes in prey and owl dynamics can be detected. Depending on available habitat

and the goals of managers, scientists, and the public, measurement plots can be

installed and monitored over time to determine habitat conditions and owl response.

This approach provides less power for detecting differences between the 50-11-40

concept and other alternatives than would the experimental approach. The risk of

introducing statistical bias and of confounding effects is higher in a study of this type

than in more formally designed experiments.

A third alternative is to implement the 50-11-40 concept throughout the landscape

and monitor habitat condition and owl response over time. This approach will

provide minimal information and will restrict management's adaptive ability. The

limits to this approach are described in the first example.

A combination of these approaches is likely to be more powerful than a single

approach. Other linked actions would include research to evaluate whether applying

the 50-11-40 concept or other biological or physical factors best explain the

observed changes in owl populations.

Outcomes that might be expected if the 50-11-40 concept is inadequate guidance.

adequate guidance, or unnecessarily restrictive guidance would be:

• Unstable or declining populations on landscapes that meet the 50-11-40 concept

(indicating that the 50-11-40 concept is not sufficient to sustain a stable

population);

• Higher survival rates for individual owls. maintained or increased body mass of

individual owls, and stabilized or increasing populations of owls under 50-11-40

conditions than under other conditions (indicating that the 50-11-40 concept is

sufficient to sustain a stable population); or

• Stabilized or increasing populations on landscapes that do not meet the 50-11 -

40 concept (indicating that the 50-11-40 concept may be more restrictive than

necessary to sustain a stable population).

19
If the 50-11-40 concept does not perform as expected, changes can be made to:

(1) the guide for the proportion of the land on which the diameter and cover

requirements apply, (2) the diameter or cover guides, (3) the guide that the concept

must apply to each quarter township. (4) the guide that the concept be applied

across the entire landscape, (5) the guide that the 50-11-40 concept be applied to

lands under each Federal agency's jurisdiction separately, or (6) some combination

of these guides. Alternatively, the guideline could be changed in more fundamental

ways; for example, corridors of high-quality habitat could replace the existing

guidance.

Managers, scientists, and society must also be aware that spotted owl behavior and

habitat condition probably vary by province. This variation suggests that standards

and guidelines be tested and refined within provinces and areas with significantly

different ecological conditions.

Managers, scientists, and the public must know when review of the effects of

alternative standards and guides is appropriate and what, if any, action is necessary

to refine these standards and guides to provide more-appropriate management

guidance. Standards and guides should be reviewed either when regularly

scheduled or when information collected as part of the adaptive management

process or new information from other sources indicates review is needed.

As in the previous example, this adaptive management process would be reviewed

by the regional research and monitoring committee, managers, scientists, and the

public.

Step 2. Producing information for future adjustments

Managers implement the plan for linked actions on the ground with collaboration

from scientists and possibly the public (refer to the first example).

Step 3. Soliciting feedback

The information necessary to evaluate the efficacy of the standards and guides will

come from monitoring the conditions where the 50-11-40 concept is being evaluated.

Six kinds of effects should be monitored: (1) the effects of the alternative standards

and guides on habitat; (2) the effects of alternatives on management activities;

(3) the effects of the alternatives on northern spotted owl prey and predators; (4) the

effects of these alternatives on owl behavior and survival; (5) the effects of these

alternatives on economic and other social factors at the local, regional, and national

scales; and (6) the effects of these alternatives on private lands. Related research

projects will also be initiated to further determine owl behavior-particularly as related

to alternative management practices-and potential management activities used to

provide owl habitat.

Step 4. Synthesizing information

When a review of the standards and guides is deemed appropriate, information from

all sources should be evaluated to determine if, and to what extent, adjustment is

necessary. After all information is analyzed, and alternative standards and guides

20
evaluated, managers, in collaboration with scientists and the public, must decide if

the accumulated evidence is sufficient to justify selecting one of the alternative sets

of standards and guides in one or more provinces. Formal experiments on the

alternative standards and guides as described above has the advantage of providing

managers and scientists with strong evidence for what should be altered and to what

extent. The other means of collecting information can also help with these

decisions, but not to the extent that formal experiments can. Managers, scientists.

and the public will use available expertise, knowledge, and decision-support systems

to aid in this decision process.

Step 5. Adjusting again

After a decision has been made whether to modify the standards and guides, future

decisions will be required to continue the adaptive management process. If the

decision is to adjust, adaptive management must be applied to this modified set of

standards and guides. This process will include cycling through the adaptive

management system testing the continued efficacy of these new standards and

guides. If an adjustment was not made. further monitoring or research may be

necessary or a decision may be made to forgo further information-gathering on this

issue. Either way, input from managers, scientists, and the public should be

included.

New issues, such as the interbreeding of barred and spotted owls, may arise that

confound the effects of the 50-11-40 concept and the comparisons of alternatives

with this concept. Other issues may override the 50-11-40 concept, such as

adoption of new habitat guidelines for anadromous fish. These scenarios are also

candidates for adaptive management, and strategies should be developed to apply

the adaptive management process to them as well.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This publication is slightly modified from the report of the interagency Adaptive

Management Process Working Group: Roger Blair (Environmental Protection

Agency); Bernard Bormann (Pacific Northwest Research Station); Bill Bradley, Roy

Montgomery, and Van Manning (Bureau of Land Management); Arnie Browning

(Bureau of Indian Affairs); Michael Collopy (National Biological Survey); Jerry

Monesmith and Mike Srago (National Forest System). Additional key contributors to

that report include: Kevin Birch (Oregon Department of Forestry); Martha Brookes

and Patrick Cunningham (Pacific Northwest Research Station); Ken Franklin

(Oregon Department of Lands); and Richard Holthausen (National Forest System).

Others who assisted as reviewers or in other ways include: Francis Berg, Rick

Brown. Kejiy Burnett, Lee Carison, Lee Douthit, Tony Faast, Pete Farnum, Jeff

Goebel. Doug Heiken, Howard Hunter, Eron Kellog. Dick Kelly, Darrel Kenops.

Jonathan Kusel, Jerry Mason. Jim Mclver, Ross Mickey, George Moeller, Ray

Moody. Don Motanic, Bruce Olsen, John Osborn, Pete Owston, Mark Paul, Bonnie

Phillips-Howard. Charlie Philpot, Marty Raphael, Gordie Reeves, John Sheehan,

Lynn Starr, Fred Swanson, Carl Weidert, and Bill White.

21
REFERENCES

Bormann. B.T.; Brookes, M.H.; Ford. E.D.; Kiester. A.R.; Oliver, C.D.; Weigand, J.F.

1994. A framework for sustainable-ecosystem management. Gen. Tech. Rep.

PNW-GTR-331. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 61 p.

Collopy, M.; Cannell, J.; Daniels, S.; Dippon, D.; Gaar, E.; Grant, G.; Mulder, B.;

Philpot, C.; Steffenson, J.; Swanson, F. 1993. Implementation and adaptive

management. Chapter VIII. In: Forest ecosystem management: an ecological,

economic, and social assessment. Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management

Assessment Team (FEMAT).

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. 1993. Forest ecosystem

management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland, OR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of Interior [and others]. Variable

pagination.

Hilbom, R. 1992. Can fisheries agencies learn from experience? Fisheries. 17(4):

6-14.

Holling. C.S.. ed. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management.

New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 377 p.

Irwin, L.L; Wigley, T.B. 1993. Toward an experimental basis for protecting forest

wildlife. Ecological Applications. 3(2): 213-217.

Lee, K.N. 1993. Compass and gyroscope. Washington, DC: Island Press. 243 p.

ROD. 1994. Record of decision for amendments for Forest Service and Bureau of

Land Management within the range of the northern spotted owl. USDA Forest

Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management. Variable pagination.

Thomas, J.W.; Raphael. M.G.; Anthony, R.G. [and others]. 1993. Viability

assessments and management considerations for species associated with latesuccessional and old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest. USDA Forest

Service. 530 p.

USDI. 1992 [unpublished]. Final draft recovery plan for the northern spotted owl.

Volume 1. Portland, OR; U.S. Department of Interior. 322 p.

U.S. Laws. Statutes, etc. .National Environmental Policy Act. 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370a

(1982 and Supp. V 1987).

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 94-588. National Forest Management Act of

1976. Act of Oct. 22. 1976. 16 U.S.C. 1600 (1976).

Walters, C.J. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. New York:

McGraw Hill. 374 p.

Walters, C.J.; Holling. C.S. 1990. Large-scale management experiments and

learning by doing. Ecology. 71(6): 2060-2068.

22