Here are some ideas of linking EMS, indicators, cumulative effects and monitoring. What do you think?
There are a couple of different scales of learning in "passive adaptive management."
1. One is day to day on a project. For example, contractors aren’t following the correctly- instruct contractor- check again.
2. The next level is project to project. Hey that didn’t work.. Let's be more explicit in our NEPA document next time about ….
3. The next level is project to plan.. Yes, we have done a bunch of projects with the intention of restoring aspen, have they had the intended effects? Should we continue that approach to moving towards desired condition, or should we try some other approaches? This might lead to a more active adaptive management approach (let's try an array of different kinds of projects). I would see that this is a key area for adaptive management comparing the sum of project results to desired condition measures.
So "Desired Condition Measures" are a key part of the plan and adaptive management.
They may be direct measures (acres of aspen in adequate condition) (populations of species) or indirect measures (number of allotments in improved condition based on project definitions of condition) or (measures or index of stream health) or (habitat condition.). If we are doing what works, we should be improving these desired condition measures..
4. The last adaptive management step would be comparing desired condition measures to broader environmental indicators.
Sometimes the final broadscale "performance measure" (air quality, population recovery) is a function not only of what the FS does, but of what others do on adjacent land. While the FS should be measuring how it is improving it’s environmental performance (to use "EMS" lingo), someone should also be looking at, and often are, these larger scale indicators. But often this is not the task of the FS, or not the FS alone. I propose calling these "environmental indicators."
If the FS is moving toward desired condition, and the environmental indicators don’t improve, there are two main possibilities: the FS activities aren’t working, and the FS activities are working but other factors are involved, on public or private land or both.
If this happens, this is a place for research to develop some hypotheses for what's going on. These can be tested using the most appropriate methodologies: designed research experiments or active adaptive management with monitoring.
Cumulative effects on soils, water, and wildlife or air quality would be estimated by project monitoring feeding into a model for cumulative effects. The model would take projects with effects and put their location and other variables into a model. The model would be tested and improved by comparing the modeled results with some kind of combination of desired condition measures and environmental indicators at the forest scale.
The EMS might focus on ensuring the soils water wildlife and air effects were addressed through an adaptive management cycle, including development and ongoing course correction of models.
Sharon Friedman
Recent Comments