4
Introduction
Monitoring
• Monitor biophysical outcomes
• Monitor social and economic outcomes
• Monitor societal values and goals
• Recommend new assessments, new
decisions. and/or new implementation
Assessment. s
Monitoring shows
• Acknowledge stakeholders and their questions
• Develop situation analysis of biophysical ,
--..
a need for new
r----.. social, and economic systems
assessments or
added information
• Identify trade·ofts and limitations
• Develop an understanding of fulure conditions
Emerging
• Assess risk for issues of concern
issues
-
Changing
societal
vaiues and
goals
Decisions
New scientific
Monitoring
• Idenlify desired future condilions
understanding
• Seleci management goals
~
shows a need
:-----+ • Develop management allernatives
for new
• Predict impacts of alternatives
decisions
• Recommend preferred alternative
• Select an alternative
Monitoring
Implementation
~
shows a need
:-----+
• Implementation decisions on the ground
for changes in
• Establish partnerships
implementation
• Publicize decision, facilitate participation
• Inaugurale adaptive management
Iii
FIGURE 1. A general planning model for adaptive resource management (Haynes et aI., 1996).
this phase: (1) implementation monitoring, which
determines if a planned activity was accomplished,
(2) effectiveness monitoring, which evaluates if
an activity achieved its stated goal or objective,
(3) validation monitoring, which determines to
what degree assumptions and projections used in
developing a decision document or ecological assessment are correct, and (4) baseline monitoring,
which measures ecosystem patterns and processes
that may be affected by management activities.
The second and less traditional phase of monitoring evaluates social needs in relation to changing societal values, new scientific understanding,
and emerging issues (Figure 1). In this phase of
monitoring, social values and needs are constantly
assessed in relation to the validity of stated desired
future ecological conditions. Such monitoring is
critical, because societal values often change more
rapidly than ecological conditions. Additionally,
this phase of monitoring facilitates the incorporation of new knowledge into adaptive resource planning and the testing and modification of previous
assumptions.
Integrated ecological assessments provide a
much needed broader-level context for regulatory
or land management planning decision documents
(e.g., NEPA project-level environmental assessments; USDA, Forest Service forest plans; and
USDI, Bureau of Land Management area plans).
They are commonly conducted at regional or subregional levels to address issues that are not appropriately handled at finer assessment levels (e.g.,
site or landscape). Examples of such issues often
include the viability of broadly distributed species,
such as neotropical birds, grizzly bears, and
salmonids; maintenance of mature forest structure
Introduction
Monitoring
• Monitor biophysical outcomes
• Monitor social and economic outcomes
• Monitor societal values and goals
• Recommend new assessments, new
decisions. and/or new implementation
Assessment. s
Monitoring shows
• Acknowledge stakeholders and their questions
• Develop situation analysis of biophysical ,
--..
a need for new
r----.. social, and economic systems
assessments or
added information
• Identify trade·ofts and limitations
• Develop an understanding of fulure conditions
Emerging
• Assess risk for issues of concern
issues
-
Changing
societal
vaiues and
goals
Decisions
New scientific
Monitoring
• Idenlify desired future condilions
understanding
• Seleci management goals
~
shows a need
:-----+ • Develop management allernatives
for new
• Predict impacts of alternatives
decisions
• Recommend preferred alternative
• Select an alternative
Monitoring
Implementation
~
shows a need
:-----+
• Implementation decisions on the ground
for changes in
• Establish partnerships
implementation
• Publicize decision, facilitate participation
• Inaugurale adaptive management
Iii
FIGURE 1. A general planning model for adaptive resource management (Haynes et aI., 1996).
this phase: (1) implementation monitoring, which
determines if a planned activity was accomplished,
(2) effectiveness monitoring, which evaluates if
an activity achieved its stated goal or objective,
(3) validation monitoring, which determines to
what degree assumptions and projections used in
developing a decision document or ecological assessment are correct, and (4) baseline monitoring,
which measures ecosystem patterns and processes
that may be affected by management activities.
The second and less traditional phase of monitoring evaluates social needs in relation to changing societal values, new scientific understanding,
and emerging issues (Figure 1). In this phase of
monitoring, social values and needs are constantly
assessed in relation to the validity of stated desired
future ecological conditions. Such monitoring is
critical, because societal values often change more
rapidly than ecological conditions. Additionally,
this phase of monitoring facilitates the incorporation of new knowledge into adaptive resource planning and the testing and modification of previous
assumptions.
Integrated ecological assessments provide a
much needed broader-level context for regulatory
or land management planning decision documents
(e.g., NEPA project-level environmental assessments; USDA, Forest Service forest plans; and
USDI, Bureau of Land Management area plans).
They are commonly conducted at regional or subregional levels to address issues that are not appropriately handled at finer assessment levels (e.g.,
site or landscape). Examples of such issues often
include the viability of broadly distributed species,
such as neotropical birds, grizzly bears, and
salmonids; maintenance of mature forest structure