Chapter S. Adaptive Management and Monitoring 223 Chapter S. Adaptive Management and Monitoring David S. Pilliod,1 David C. Pavlacky,2 Mary E. Manning,3 Jonathan B. Dinkins,4 Megan Creutzburg,4 Matthew J. Holloran,5 Emily J. Kachergis,6 Adrian P. Monroe,7 Sean P. Finn,8 Matthew J. Germino,1 Paul Griffin,6 Steven E. Hanser,1 Karen Newlon,8 and Lief A. Wiechman8 Executive Summary the sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) biome, and thus, there are a myriad of monitoring approaches or programs. This chapter Adaptive management and monitoring efforts focused on describes monitoring efforts focused on vegetation, habitat, and vegetation, habitat, and wildlife in the sagebrush (Artemisia wildlife. Collectively, the existing natural resource monitoring spp.) biome help inform management of species and habitats, in the sagebrush biome (and potentially other future monitoring predict ecological responses to conservation practices, and adapt efforts) can help inform management of species and habitats, management to improve conservation outcomes. This chapter predict ecological responses to conservation practices, and emphasizes the adaptive resource management framework adapt management to improve conservation outcomes (Nichols with its four stages: (1) problem definition, (2) outcomes, and Williams, 2006; Lyons and others, 2008). Monitoring may (3) decision analysis, and (4) implementation and monitoring. also help maximize efficiency of conservation spending so Adaptive resource management is an evolving process involving that limited resources are spent on the right things, in the right a sequential cycle of learning (the accumulation of understanding places, and at the right time. over time) and adaptation (the adjustment of management over Types of monitoring used in natural resource time). This framework operationalizes monitoring a necessary management include implementation, effectiveness, and component of decision making in the sagebrush biome. Several validation (Wiechman and others, 2019), all of which can national and regional monitoring efforts are underway across inform adaptive management if implemented within the the sagebrush biome for both vegetation and wildlife. Sustaining appropriate framework (fig. S1). Implementation monitoring these efforts and using the information effectively is an evaluates the successful execution of a planned management important step towards realizing the full potential of the action, such as whether seeded species germinate and adaptive management framework in sagebrush ecosystems. emerge in the first growing season. Effectiveness monitoring Furthermore, coordinating monitoring efforts and information evaluates changes in condition and progress toward meeting across stakeholders (for example, Federal, State, nongovernmental a management objective, such as stabilizing soils following organizations) will be necessary given the limited resources, wildfire rehabilitation or increasing bird populations after diverse ownership/management, and sagebrush biome size. restoring wildlife habitats. Validation monitoring uses an experimental approach to determine if the observed outcome is caused by a management action. Some view this latter approach as hypothesis-driven research and thus outside the Introduction realm of monitoring for adaptive management. This includes most short-term, local research projects conducted by agencies In natural resource management, monitoring provides and universities, including those that evaluate alternative information about how resources change through time in management options. response to management or whether resource objectives Given the uncertainty in the management of natural are met following a management action. Well-designed resources, monitoring needs to be integrated into all monitoring for specific conservation problems begins with management systems to maximize effective decision making clearly articulated objectives, often with input from multiple and sustain conservation efforts. Examples of approaches for stakeholders. There are many conservation challenges facing integrating monitoring data into decision making frameworks include: (1) Systematic conservation planning to answer the “what to do” and “where to do it” questions; (2) Structured 1U.S. Geological Survey. decision making (SDM) to integrate stakeholder objectives, 2 Bird Conservancy of the Rockies. alternative management actions, data models and tradeoffs; 3U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (3) Adaptive resource management (ARM) that extends SDM 4Oregon State University. processes to include effectiveness monitoring over time; and (4) 5Operational Conservation. Strategic habitat conservation that integrates the principles of 6U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. conservation planning and ARM at the landscape level (Wilson and others, 2009; Marcot and others, 2012; Millard and others, 7Colorado State University, in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey. 2012; Williams and Brown, 2012; Drum and others, 2015). 8U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 224 Sagebrush Conservation Strategy—Challenges to Sagebrush Conservation Although monitoring is often given considerable attention The first stage of ARM is a clear articulation of the in conservation and management policies and plans, it is often conservation problem to be solved and involves framing treated as an afterthought in conservation and management the problem, defining objectives, and establishing criteria action. Monitoring data are inadequately used in adaptive by which alternative solutions can be evaluated (Marcot management because of a lack of consistent understanding and others, 2012; Nichols and others, 2012, fig. 1). The among those tasked with addressing all or some of the articulation of the problem statement is an indispensable steps required for effective adaptive management. Adaptive aspect of the ARM framework. Problem structuring involves management operationalizes monitoring as a necessary part of identifying the responsibilities of decision makers, recognizing decision making, and as such, this chapter outlines the use of necessary tools and information, determining appropriate vegetation and wildlife monitoring in sagebrush ecosystems levels of investment, and ensuring the right problem is being within the construct of adaptive management. solved (Marcot and others, 2012). Problem framing and objective setting stems from the policy, legal, and social dimensions of the management context and reflects the values of decision makers and stakeholders. Because natural Adaptive Management resource management often involves multiple and potentially competing objectives, the development of objectives often Adaptive management is a structured approach to benefits from workshops involving social scientists and decision making. Adaptive management essentially means experts in human dimensions to elicit the values of decision learning by doing and adapting management strategies based makers and stakeholders (Marcot and others, 2012). on what has been learned (Williams and others, 2009). In all Objectives play the central role in ARM because they drive the cases, adaptive management is seen as an evolving process other aspects of the process. involving a sequential cycle of learning (the accumulation of Second, the outcome analysis stage of ARM entails understanding over time) and adaptation (the adjustment of defining the full range of alternative management options, management over time). This feedback between learning and estimating their potential consequences, analyzing tradeoffs, decision making is the central feature of adaptive management and identifying key uncertainties (Marcot and others, 2012). (Williams and others, 2009; Williams and Brown, 2012). It is Defining alternative management options may involve input important to recognize that adaptive management is the actual from stakeholders, but the remainder of the decision analysis process of implementing a conservation program, not a part of involves confronting management alternatives with mutually the program to be initiated upon failure to attain an objective. agreed-upon objectives developed in the problem-definition Although adaptive management is not conceptually complex or stage. Evaluating consequences involves predicting the operationally intricate, successful implementation of the process outcomes of each alternative management action in terms of requires long-term perspective, commitment, and dedication, measurable objectives (Marcot and others, 2012). Quantitative and it can be expensive (Williams and others, 2009; Williams modeling of existing data is often used to predict outcomes for and Brown, 2012). However, given the uncertainty surrounding each alternative management option. However, existing data the proactive management of sagebrush habitats coupled with may be of little use if not relevant to the objectives. Hence, not the need to pursue innovative management approaches to all existing monitoring data can be retrofitted or repurposed achieve landscape-scale conservation goals in these habitats, the for new or future objectives. process of how conservation programs are implemented may be Methods of addressing uncertainty in an ARM context as important as the actual management and conservation actions often involve assessing the value of information relative to pursued. Strictly adhering to adaptive management principles the predicted outcomes, thereby establishing the extent that can inherently facilitate the application