ADAPTIVE

WASHINGTON MANAGEMENT and the

OREGON NORTHWEST FOREST PLAN

Rhetoric and Reality

CALIFORNIA

George H. Stankey, Bernard T. Bormann, Clare Ryan, Bruce Shindler, Victoria Sturtevant, Roger N. Clark, and Charles Philpot

Adaptive management represents a process to use management policies as a source of learn- management in the Northwest Forest ing, which in turn can inform subsequent actions. However, despite its appealing and appar- Plan (ROD 1994). Based on a review ently straightforward objectives, examples of successful implementation remain elusive, and of the literature and organizational a review of efforts to implement an adaptive approach in the Northwest Forest Plan proves the documents, along with interviews with point. Barriers include an institutional and regulatory environment that stymies innovation, managers and researchers, we report on increasing workloads coupled with declining resources that constrain learning-based factors affecting efforts to incorporate approaches, and a lack of leadership. The time is right to learn from experiences and consider an adaptive approach and suggest steps alternatives. to facilitate implementation. ABSTRACT

Keywords: endangered species; Pacific Northwest; policy; USDA Forest Service Theory and Application Despite the attention adaptive man- agement has attracted, questions per- lthough adaptive management 1993), examples of successful imple- has attracted growing attention mentation remain elusive (Walters A by scholars and practitioners 1997). This article reports on an evalu- Figure 1. The Adaptive Management Area (Holling 1978; Walters 1986; Lee ation of efforts to implement adaptive system.

40 Journal of Forestry • January/February 2003 sist regarding the ability to implement are, in fact, preferable to experimenta- 1993, p. ii) and that were consistent such an approach (Walters 1997). tion as a way to protect endangered with applicable laws and regulations, What does an adaptive management values. Moreover, a consequence of the such as the Endangered Species Act approach imply? Our literature review failure to act adaptively in the presence (ESA). The FEMAT team focused at- revealed three key ideas, along with of uncertainty is that potential learning tention on the federal lands of western several persistent critiques. which might better inform future ac- Oregon and Washington and northern First, adaptive management treats tions is foregone. California, an area of approximately 24 actions and policies as experiments that Third, effective adaptive manage- million acres. yield learning. An adaptive approach ment involves three elements: (1) pro- The eventual selected alternative— mimics the scientific method: It speci- ducing new understanding, based on the Northwest Forest Plan—was fies hypotheses, highlights uncertain- systematic assessment of feedback from grounded in the principles of conser- ties, structures actions to expose hy- management actions; (2) incorporating vation biology, emphasizing risk potheses to field tests, processes and that knowledge into subsequent ac- avoidance to the region’s environmen- evaluates results, and adjusts subse- tions; and (3) creating venues in which tal system in the short term (ROD quent actions in light of those results. understanding can be communicated 1994). The plan’s system of terrestrial In an adaptive approach, actions and (McLain and Lee 1996). However, the and riparian reserves, when combined policies are undertaken based on the adaptive management literature reports with existing congressionally reserved best available knowledge and they are only modest achievements in any of areas (e.g., national parks) and other implemented in such a way as to pro- these elements. For example, the asym- administratively withdrawn areas, em- duce new understanding that can in- metry between the economic, political, braced nearly 80 percent of the plan- form subsequent actions. and personal costs of experimentation ning region. In addition, a suite of However, despite learning’s central (often immediate and obvious) and the standards and guidelines further re- role in adaptive management, there is benefits (often displaced to the future stricted management activities and de- little agreement in the literature as to and problematic) can act to suppress velopment, even in areas outside the when learning has occurred. For exam- investments in knowledge acquisition reserves. ple, what criteria might be used to as- and distribution. FEMAT’s mission statement, how- sess whether the results of an adaptive Although the literature provides ever, acknowledged that the uncertain- policy constituted new understanding ample evidence that adaptive manage- ties facing forest managers, fostered by and the basis for a revised policy, or ment can offer important benefits for the complexity of the scientific issues simply were an idiosyncratic outcome? dealing with complexity and uncer- and the ambiguity of the political set- Confusing chance variation with actual tainty, it also identifies formidable bar- ting, would require an adaptive ap- treatment effects could significantly riers standing between the concept’s proach: confound efforts to understand com- potential and on-the-ground imple- plex systems and develop appropriate mentation. In light of this, we were Your assessment should include and responsive policies (Bednar and concerned with assessing the progress suggestions for adaptive management Shainsky 1996). achieved through adaptive manage- that would identify high priority in- ventory, research, and monitoring Second, rather than treating risk ment in implementation of the North- needed to assess success over time and and uncertainty as a reason for precau- west Forest Plan. essential or allowable modifications in tion, adaptive management embraces approach as new information becomes them as opportunities for building un- FEMAT and the Northwest Forest Plan available. (FEMAT 1993, p. iii) derstanding that might ultimately re- The gridlock behind President duce their occurrence. As experiences Clinton’s 1993 forest conference in The plan further emphasized an in bioregional assessments confirm, the Portland, Oregon, was grounded in adaptive approach by allocating 10 management of complex biophysical conflicts associated with pressures to Adaptive Management Areas (AMA) and socioeconomic systems inevitably protect old-growth forests and associ- (fig. 1), covering about 1.5 million involves risk and uncertainty (Johnson ated species (such as the northern spot- acres, or 6 percent of the planning area, et al. 1999). Typically, such conditions ted owl) on the one hand, and, on the across the three-state region “to en- trigger calls for caution or, in some other, the social and economic impacts courage the development and testing of cases, no action until more is known. associated with declining timber har- technical and social approaches to However, acting in a risk-averse man- vests. The Forest Ecosystem Manage- achieving desired ecological, economic, ner can suppress the experimental poli- ment Assessment Team (FEMAT), cre- and other social objectives” and to help cies and actions needed to produce un- ated in response to these concerns, was agencies “learn how to manage on an derstanding that will reduce risk and asked “to identify management alterna- ecosystem basis in terms of both tech- uncertainty. Ironically, under condi- tives that would attain the greatest eco- nical and social challenges” (ROD tions of uncertainty, it is problematic as nomic and social contribution from 1994, p. 6). to whether such minimalist approaches the forests of the region” (FEMAT Given this evolutionary and knowl-

January/February 2003 • Journal of Forestry 41 AMAs were outlined. Other interview Table 1. Adaptive management interview sample. participants included the Region 6 re- Interviewee category Number of interviews (N = 50) Percent gional forester, Pacific Northwest Sta- tion director, former Pacific Southwest AMA coordinators 19 38 Station director, the Forest Service Na- AMA lead scientists 8 16 Policymakers 5 10 tional Adaptive Management Coordi- Line officers 7 14 nator, and the head of the Regional FEMAT Chapter 8 authors 3 6 Ecosystem Office (REO). REO staff 2 4 Interviews lasted from one-half to Other (citizens, academics) 6 12 three hours. Each respondent could de- cline to answer any question and could end the interview at any time during edge-driven strategy, adaptive manage- vides a brief overview of this approach. the process (none did). Interviews in ment represented more than a tactic or A qualitative approach is useful for Washington State, southern Oregon, allocation; it was the cornerstone to the issues in which variables are not clearly and northern California were audio- plan’s long-term success (Pipkin 1998). identified, theories need to be devel- taped with approval of the respondents. Adaptive management complemented oped, a detailed view of a topic is The remaining interviews were docu- the precautionary short-term strategy needed, or the study requires that indi- mented by extensive written notes. by offering a long-term strategy focused viduals be studied in a “natural” setting The audiotapes and interview notes on expanding knowledge of the under- (Creswell 1998). In a qualitative study, were transcribed and reviewed until lying biophysical system and its interac- research often begins with “what” or themes became apparent. These tion with the social and economic sys- “how” questions. This study was themes were compared to those used in tems as a way to improve management guided by questions of how the adap- the interview guide to see if there were policies. Over time, as understanding tive management program had been any major inconsistencies; there were and knowledge grew, both the alloca- implemented and the factors that facil- none. Analysis consisted of coding data tions and the standards and guidelines itated or constrained implementation. from individual interviews, then could change (Pipkin 1998). A semi-structured interview format grouping similar themes and ideas However, in an assessment of plan was used, which included questions re- from all the interview texts into cate- implementation, Pipkin (1998, p. 9) garding a variety of themes while re- gories (Rubin and Rubin 1995). After described adaptive management as an maining open to changes in the se- coding was completed for each inter- “area where initial expectations have quence and specific wording of ques- view, similar themes were grouped fallen short” and called for a review, tions, so that interviewees were able to from all interviews and emergent including an assessment of impedi- respond in their own terms and in ways themes were summarized and reported. ments and suggestions for improve- that made the most sense to them Results of the full evaluation will be ment. In 1998, the authors submitted (Kvale 1996). Interview questions were published by the Pacific Northwest Re- a proposal to the Pacific Northwest based on recurring concepts derived search Station. Research Station to undertake an eval- from the literature (e.g., role of organi- The evaluation also benefited from uation of the adaptive management zational commitment and resources, direct involvement of some of the au- and AMA program. The proposal was development of monitoring and evalu- thors in writing portions of the approved, and this article reports on ation protocols) as well as specific as- FEMAT report and with implementa- that evaluation. pects related to management of the tion of the AMA program. Authors AMAs (e.g., training received, bud- Clark and Stankey, for example, spear- Methods getary support). headed creation of the lead scientist The evaluation relied on several in- Fifty individuals were interviewed program at the Pacific Northwest Sta- formation sources. As noted above, an (table 1). Given our focus on imple- tion, in which individual researchers extensive literature review was under- mentation issues, we elected to inter- were assigned to each AMA in Oregon taken, including adaptive management view those directly involved in under- and Washington to provide liaison be- as well as cognate fields such as learn- taking the adaptive management pro- tween managers and the research com- ing theory and decisionmaking. Based gram objectives. This included AMA munity. (The Pacific Southwest Sta- on the review, an interview guide was coordinators, managers, and lead scien- tion did not assign lead scientists, but prepared, which provided a structure tists; members of Provincial Advisory individual scientists were involved for discussions with agency personnel Committees or Board of Directors; and with the Goosenest and Hayfork (management and regulatory agencies) agency line officers and staff. Inter- AMAs and were interviewed.) Since involved with implementation of the views also were conducted with Jack establishment of the AMA program in plan. The interview results provide the Ward Thomas, leader of the FEMAT 1994, several of the authors have par- basis for much of the following discus- project, and the principal authors of ticipated in coordinator meetings and sion. As our analysis relied heavily on FEMAT Chapter 8, where the strate- collaborated with individual coordina- qualitative methods, the following pro- gies of adaptive management and tors and scientists. The study also was

42 Journal of Forestry • January/February 2003 informed by information gathered are needed to think and act adaptively? dinators and some line officers cited through other authors’ participation in What institutional changes—external the belief among some colleagues that discussions, field trips, and other in- and internal, legal and organizational— the AMAs received undue or even un- teractions with AMA personnel, line are required to facilitate adaptive ap- fair attention and support. This per- officers, and management staff over proaches? What criteria are used to de- ception of favored treatment often the past seven years. fine learning, and how might learning stymied efforts to collaborate with oth- Information from the interviews, be incorporated into subsequent ac- ers, even within their own manage- the literature review, and our review of tions? The lack of explicit consideration ment agency. organizational plans and reports pro- of these questions in defining adaptive With respect to the coordinators, duced rich insight on efforts to imple- management in the plan also carried most felt their job was not considered ment adaptive management as part of over into widely divergent notions as to a priority by supervisors or other staff. the Northwest Forest Plan. Although the role of the AMAs, ranging from a Adaptive management repeatedly was adaptive management was seen as of- view of them as a type of economic en- described as not “on the radar screen”; fering an innovative approach to man- terprise zone to support local communi- in short, there was a demonstrated lack agement and to links with stakehold- ties, to simply a new name for experi- of evidence of a clear and unequivocal ers, there was open and candid recog- mental forests. Some respondents held organizational commitment to facili- nition of the formidable barriers— that management agencies always had tate and support a “new way” of doing internal and external, operational and been adaptive, which served to justify business. systemic—challenging implementa- the contention that no significant Coordinators and line officers cited tion. In some cases, the barriers are changes were necessary in the way agen- few incentives to undertake adaptive chronic and some might see a focus on cies operated. approaches, arguing that experimenta- them as discouraging. Yet, as Kotter tion and risk-taking are not standards (1995, p. 60) notes, successful organi- Building Organizational Capacity against which they are evaluated. They zational change efforts often start with When the Northwest Forest Plan described their organizations as risk- a frank discussion of potentially un- was implemented, Forest Service Pa- averse (i.e., concerned with minimizing pleasant facts, the purpose of which is cific Southwest and Pacific Northwest the possibility of harm occurring [Wil- “to make the status quo seem more Regions and the Bureau of Land Man- davsky 1988]) but acknowledged that dangerous than launching into the un- agement (BLM) assigned coordinators such behavior is rational and appropri- known.” to each AMA. Some coordinators vol- ate in a world in which the burden of unteered whereas others were assigned, proof has shifted to land managers to Adaptive Management: What Is It? but collectively the authors were im- provide rigorous evidence that any pro- The term “adaptive management” pressed with the enthusiasm, interest, posed action (including experimenta- embraces a variety of actions, ranging and commitment they brought to their tion) will not lead to adverse conse- from experimentation to traditional assignments. However, although coor- quences for threatened and endangered scientific inquiry to less formal, trial- dinators were asked to undertake a species (Lee 1993). They also acknowl- and-error approaches. These concep- leadership role in implementing adap- edged how such a stance stands in con- tions are a testament to the concept’s tive management, organizational com- trast to an adaptive approach. richness, but also a source of confu- mitment to support and foster their It was difficult to track budgetary sion. Lee (2001, p. 9) describes adap- role was limited. For example, inter- support for adaptive management. Be- tive management as particularly views with coordinators revealed they ginning in 1994, funds in support of “worthwhile when laboratory-style pre- received no training or orientation, implementation were available for cision seems infeasible but trial and were provided no support staff, and the adaptive management work. However, error seems too risky.” In the case of time and energy they could devote to in 1998 much of this support disap- the Northwest Forest Plan, Lee con- AMA-related programs quickly eroded peared in the face of declining budgets cludes that its use does not seem to as new demands arose. Most estimated and shifts in regional priorities. At pre- “emphasize experimentation but rather they spent only 20 to 25 percent of sent, funds to support adaptive man- rational planning coupled with trial- their time in this role (two AMA coor- agement largely derive from local ben- and-error learning. Here ‘adaptive dinators, both from BLM, are full- efiting functions; some support is avail- management’ has become a buzzword, time), down from nearly a full-time able from state BLM and regional For- a fashionable label that means less than commitment when they first under- est Service offices. it seems to promise” (Lee 2001, p. 12). took the job. Nor was there any evi- Our interviews revealed confusion The interviews revealed conflicting dence of efforts to support mentoring as to where responsibility lay for devel- conceptions and expectations regarding or career development; as a conse- oping policy direction for adaptive the definition, purpose, and objectives quence, the coordinators noted their management and the AMAs. For in- of adaptive management and the AMAs. ranks were “only one deep.” stance, at the onset of the AMA pro- The lack of a consensus as to what the There also was evidence of conflicts gram, there was a decision in Forest terms mean has a number of implica- over resources and priorities within and Service Region 6 headquarters to not tions: What kinds of training and skills across local management units. Coor- provide direction, guidance, or other

January/February 2003 • Journal of Forestry 43 Moreover, official license to deviate from the standards and guidelines Update on Plan Revisions within the AMAs, following certain prescribed conditions, was available in In early 2002, the Bush administration announced plans to revise the direction provided by the Regional Northwest Forest Plan, soliciting feedback from regional heads of the Ecosystem Office (2000). Thus, the USDA Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and other agencies. lack of projects involving experimenta- Currently, the administration is working to revise certain elements of the tion and the testing and validation of Northwest Forest Plan, including the Survey and Manage Guidelines and standards and guidelines appears the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. Both of these policies were adopted rooted in a more complex set of factors as mitigation measures in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the than can be explained simply by re- Plan in 1994 and were intended to achieve a balance between species strictive laws and zealous regulatory conservation and economic needs of the region. However, many have oversight. questioned the efficacy of these policies, claiming they do not meet their intended purposes and could in fact conflict with other existing land man- However, the relation between the agement policies. management and regulatory agencies Therefore, in October 2002 the administration announced plans to ex- clearly requires attention. Under pre- amine the Survey and Manage requirements of the Northwest Forest Plan vailing interpretations, actions judged and determine whether revision or elimination of the guidelines is neces- to pose a risk to endangered species sary. In November the administration announced its intention to revise the generally are opposed, even when the Aquatic Conservation Strategy to ensure its consistency with the original efficacy of precautionary approaches is intent of the policy. SAF comments on the proposed changes to the Survey poorly understood. However, failing to and Manage Guidelines are available at www.safnet.org/policy/psst/survey embrace risk (Gunderson 1999a) by manage.htm. emphasizing conservative—but ulti- mately ineffectual—policies might not only threaten long-term survival of en- dangered species but also could result instructions for implementation of the Statutory and Regulatory Environment in a loss of the learning that experi- AMAs. However, during interviews A common theme among inter- mental actions might have provided. with regional office officials, they ex- viewees was that laws such as the En- Although such learning would come plained their decision was intended to dangered Species Act and the regula- too late for the extirpated species, it avoid imposing a top-down set of rules, tory agencies that enforce such laws could lead to an improved capacity to while offering field staff an opportu- (e.g., Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS]) sustain other threatened species. Al- nity to frame more local, individually provide little latitude for the practice of though there are costs to experimenta- attuned solutions and approaches. adaptive management. In one AMA, a tion, there are also costs in failing to ex- However, because the rationale under- research proposal to test alternative sil- periment (Wildavsky 1988). lying the regional office’s silence in set- vicultural prescriptions in fostering While coordinators and other man- ting policy and protocols was not com- old-growth conditions along the ripar- agement staff cited external constraints municated to field personnel, the ab- ian zone was opposed because the re- on innovation and creativity, they ac- sence of regional direction was inter- searcher was unable to provide fishery knowledged that internal problems preted as evidence of a lack of interest biologists and regulators with a guaran- were equally daunting. In their view, and support for adaptive management tee that the experiment would not the tendency in both the Forest Service and the AMAs. jeopardize salmon populations; ap- and BLM to operate according to pre- Forest Service Research generally proval was contingent on provision of scriptive approaches and standardized failed to capitalize on the opportunities sound scientific evidence that such ad- rules greatly constrained innovation. and challenges of adaptive manage- verse effects would not occur. The re- Despite the acknowledged role of ment. For example, opportunities were sulting catch-22 situation, in which ex- AMAs as venues for testing and vali- (and still are) available to develop tech- perimentation can be undertaken only dating the standards and guidelines niques to facilitate learning from man- if there is a guarantee of no adverse and other innovative management ap- agement actions (e.g., development of consequences, establishes a difficult, if proaches, the lack of clear, explicit or- monitoring and documentation proto- not impossible, decision criterion to ganizational support for such efforts, cols). In 1998, following the loss of satisfy (Wildavsky 1988). Yet we found coupled with concerns about opposi- Forest Service Region 6 funds, the Pa- little evidence of efforts on the part of tion from internal staff groups, special cific Northwest Station withdrew its fi- the management and research organi- interest groups, and the regulatory nancial support of the lead scientists, zations to work with the regulatory agencies, largely stymied such efforts. who, like their coordinator colleagues, agencies to build understanding and The risk-averse nature of the man- interpreted the decision as evidence of support for adaptive management and agement organizations was openly and a lack of priority given to adaptive its role in the long-term implementa- widely acknowledged by interviewees. management. tion of the Northwest Forest Plan. They noted that the public, environ-

44 Journal of Forestry • January/February 2003 mental groups, and especially the regu- icy or practice. Moreover, much of this ments on complex biophysical systems; latory agencies disapprove of decisions evidence involved descriptive and anec- similarly, organizational culture, norms, that involve risk, but they also recog- dotal accounts and, although these are and beliefs will not change overnight. nized that such a perspective runs not without value, the lack of rigor, de- At the same time, our results suggest counter to the notion of adaptive man- tail, and specificity limits their contri- that significant barriers confront adap- agement. As a result, many concluded bution to learning (Walters and tive management and that legal, organi- that in such a risk-averse, litigious con- Holling 1990; Bormann et al. 1999). zational, and ideological changes must text, an experimental-based type of Nonetheless, two important exam- occur before implementation can suc- adaptive management would prove dif- ples of landscape-scale adaptive man- ceed. An adaptive approach will require ficult to implement, a conclusion in agement experiments can be reported. a significant transition in how we think which Gunderson (1999b, p. 35) con- The Central Cascades AMA, in associ- and act, including a capacity and will- curs: “… if the risk of failure during ex- ation with the H.J. Andrews Long- ingness to acknowledge that current ac- perimentation is not acceptable, then Term Ecological Research group (led by tions and beliefs might be wrong. To do adaptive management is not possible.” the Pacific Northwest Research Station so will require transformative actions The irony here is that while continua- and Oregon State University), has for both individuals and organizations tion of policies that have not worked begun implementing an alternative (Bridges 1991; Danter et al. 2000). seems to ensure continued failure, un- strategy to the Northwest Forest Plan’s A major factor compromising long- dertaking actions where outcomes are reserve system, focused on natural dis- term implementation of the Northwest uncertain is resisted because of the in- turbance regimes (Cissel et al. 1999). Forest Plan has been the failure to im- ability to ensure that unwanted effects Although the 57,000-acre Blue River plement a rigorous, experimental-based will not result. landscape study so far lacks a control model of adaptive management, relying When minimizing the possibility of and has yet to be replicated, associated instead on an approach to decision- failure dominates the policy and man- modeling and similar efforts in the ad- making that is informal and incremen- agement process, we trade uncertainty jacent Augusta Creek buoy confidence tal but nonetheless widely accepted as for a “spurious certitude” (Gunderson in the study’s interpretation. A different what an adaptive approach involves. 1999a) that provides a comforting but landscape-scale approach is taking This conclusion echoes Lee’s (2001, p. illusionary sense of predictability and shape in the Five Rivers drainage on the 12) observation that adaptive manage- control. Although it might be assumed Siuslaw National Forest in a 16,000- ment in the Northwest Forest Plan was that the Northwest Forest Plan’s pre- acre management experiment compar- a “buzzword that meant less than it cautionary strategy is the most viable ing three strategies to integrate road, promised.” Although the failure to take approach to long-term protection of plantation, and stream management to a more experimental approach can be key species, another perspective is to meet plan goals (ROD 2002). The attributed in part to legitimate barriers treat this assumption as a “question three strategies are replicated four times imbedded in the political and legal masquerading as an answer” (Gunder- on randomly designated 1,300-acre structures within which natural re- son 1999b, p. 35). Yet, as several inter- areas. These efforts demonstrate that source management takes place, it has viewees noted, in today’s risk-averse en- implementing adaptive management is resulted in an inability to test and vali- vironment, avoiding experimentation possible on federal lands and their im- date many of the underlying assump- and its inherent uncertainty to mini- plementation might represent an im- tions on which the Northwest Forest mize or eliminate personal and profes- portant foothold for efforts elsewhere. Plan is based, and it has similarly lim- sional risks becomes a rational re- ited development of alternatives to the sponse, even though it carries with it What’s Next? plan’s precautionary direction. outcomes that might endanger those Despite the intuitive appeal of adap- After seven years of experience, now values society desires to protect. tive management as a strategy for re- might be the time to revitalize and sponding to risk and uncertainty and reinvigorate efforts to make adaptive Learning How to Learn of making incorporation of the best management the central strategy Despite the depiction of learning as available knowledge more efficient and which the Northwest Forest Plan orig- a key element of adaptive manage- effective, it has not translated easily inally intended it to play. The follow- ment, most AMA coordinators, man- into practice. The reasons underlying ing areas require particular attention agers, and lead scientists acknowledged this difficulty are diverse, as our discus- in such efforts. there has been little in the way of sys- sion suggests. What does this imply for First, there is a critical need for lead- tematic design and documentation to efforts to realize the role envisioned for ership to assert itself in support of an promote learning or to address the adaptive management and the AMAs adaptive approach throughout the question of what it means to learn. in the Northwest Forest Plan? management and research organiza- Projects cited as evidence of adaptive It is important to recognize that an tions. Specific actions needed include management often involved any activ- innovative process such as adaptive establishing stable funding, promoting ity within an AMA, irrespective of its management requires time and pa- training and career development op- objectives, when or why it was under- tience. Significant time lags confound tions, facilitating development of orga- taken, or evidence of its impact on pol- efforts to confirm the effects of treat- nizational competency and capability

January/February 2003 • Journal of Forestry 45 in adaptive management, and encour- ers and scientists is one example of how RECORD OF DECISION (ROD). 2002. Five Rivers land- aging and supporting risk-taking. this might be encouraged. scape management project. Portland, OR: US Depart- ment of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Region. Second, there needs to be organiza- REGIONAL ECOSYSTEM OFFICE. 2000. Standards and tional recognition that adaptive man- Literature Cited guidelines and the Adaptive Management Area system. agement represents a significant change BEDNAR, L.F., and L.J. SHAINSKY. 1996. The concept of Adaptive Management Area Work Group Paper 1. overcontrolled systems: Implications for forest man- in how work is done, and such changes Portland, OR: Regional Ecosystem Office. agement. Journal of Forestry 94(8):29–33. RUBIN, H.J., and I.S. RUBIN. 1995. Qualitative inter- must permeate agency actions rather BORMANN, B.T., J.R. MARTIN, F.H. WAGNER, G. viewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: than be seen as limited solely to the WOOD, J. ALEGRIA, P.G. CUNNINGHAM, M.H. Sage Publications. AMAs. Managing the transition to a BROOKES, P. FRIESEMA, J. BERG, and J. HENSHAW. STANKEY, G.H., and B. SHINDLER. 1997. Adaptive Man- new way of doing business will require 1999. Adaptive management. In Ecological steward- agement Areas: Achieving the promise, avoiding the ship: A common reference for ecosystem management, peril. General Technical Report PNW-GTR 394. patience and skill, as it involves eds. N.C. Johnson et al., 505–34. Amsterdam: Else- Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific North- changes in deeply rooted beliefs, vier. west Research Station. norms, and behaviors (Bridges 1991; BRIDGES, W. 1991. Managing transitions: Making the TUCHMANN, E.T., K.P. CONNAUGHTON, L.E. FREED- Danter et al. 2000). most of change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. MAN, and C.B. MORIWAKI. 1996. The Northwest For- CISSEL, J.H., F.J. SWANSON, and P.J. WEISBERG. 1999. est Plan: A report to the President and Congress. Port- Third, steps must be taken to en- Landscape management using historical fire regimes: land, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest gage the regulatory agencies as active Blue River, Oregon. Ecological Applications 9(4): Research Station. participants in management experi- 1217–31. WALTERS, C.J. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable ments, particularly those that focus on CRESWELL, J.W. 1998. Qualitative inquiry and research resources. New York: Macmillan. design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand questions critical to threatened and en- ———. 1997. Challenges in adaptive management of ri- Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. parian and coastal ecosystems. Conservation Ecology dangered species survival and habitat DANTER, K.J., D.L. GRIEST, G.W. MULLINS, and E. 1(2):1 Available online at www.consecol.org/vol1/ restoration programs. Tuchman et al. NORLAND. 2000. Organizational change as a compo- iss2/art1; last accessed by staff November 2002. (1996, p. 121) observed that “the regu- nent of ecosystem management. Society and Natural WALTERS, C.J., and C.S. HOLLING. 1990. Large-scale Resources 13(6):537–47. latory and management agencies differ management experiments and learning by doing. FOREST ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT TEAM Ecology 71(6):2060–68. in their opinions about the extent of (FEMAT). 1993. Forest ecosystem management: An eco- WILDAVSKY, A. 1988. Searching for safety. New management and experimentation al- logical, economic, and social assessment. Portland, OR: Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. lowed within the [Adaptive Manage- US Department of Agriculture. GUNDERSON, L. 1999a. Resilience, flexibility and adap- ment Areas]”; this situation persists tive management—Antidotes for spurious certitude? and must be addressed more effectively. Conservation Ecology 3(1):7. Available online at This should include collaborative ef- www.consecol.org/vol3/iss1/art7; last accessed by staff forts among the regulatory, manage- November 2002. George H. Stankey ([email protected]) ———. 1999b. Stepping back: Assessing for under- ment, and research communities to test standing in complex regional systems. In Bioregional is research social scientist and Bernard T. and validate the assumptions on which assessments: Science at the crossroads of management and Bormann is principal plant physiologist, the plan is based and to establish policy, eds. K.N. Johnson et al., 27–40. Washington, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest processes regarding the evidence re- DC: Island Press. Research Station, 3200 SW Jefferson HOLLING, C.S. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment quired to trigger adjustments in stan- and management. London: John Wiley & Sons. Way, Corvallis, OR 97330; Clare Ryan dards and guidelines. JOHNSON, K.N., F. SWANSON, M. HERRING, and S. is assistant professor, College of Forest Re- Fourth, because adaptive manage- GREENE. 1999. Bioregional assessments: Science at the sources, University of Washington, Seat- ment inevitably involves risk and un- crossroads of management and policy. Washington, DC: tle; Bruce Shindler is associate professor, certainty, enhanced efforts to build and Island Press. Department of Forest Resources, Oregon KOTTER, J.P.1995. Leading change: Why transformation sustain mutual trust among key stake- efforts fail. Harvard Business Review March–April: State University, Corvallis; Victoria holders—agencies, citizens, politicians, 59–67. Sturtevant is professor, Department of and the courts—is essential. Without KVALE, S. 1996. Interviews: An introduction to qualitative Sociology and Anthropology, Southern it, efforts to implement adaptive man- research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pub- Oregon University, Ashland; Roger N. lications. agement will lack the social approval LEE, K.N. 1993. Compass and gyroscope: Integrating sci- Clark is research forester, USDA Forest necessary for implementation (Stankey ence and politics for the environment. Washington, DC: Service, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, and Shindler 1997). Island Press. Seattle, Washington; Charles Philpot is Fifth, activities that foster learning ———. 2001. Appraising adaptive management. In Bi- forestry consultant, Sherwood, Oregon. ological diversity: Balancing interests through adaptive (e.g., the National Environmental Pol- collaborative management, eds. L.E. Buck et al., 3–26. icy Act [NEPA] and decision processes, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. monitoring and evaluation, and public MCLAIN, R.J., and R.G. LEE. 1996. Adaptive manage- involvement processes) need to be bet- ment: Promises and pitfalls. Environmental Manage- ter defined, coordinated, and commu- ment 20(4):437–48. PIPKIN, J. 1998. The Northwest Plan revisited. Washing- nicated both within and among agen- ton, DC: US Department of Interior, Office of Policy cies and key external interests. A signif- Analysis. icant investment in learning (through RECORD OF DECISION (ROD). 1994. Amendments to sharing learning techniques) and train- Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management plan- ning documents within the range of the northern spot- ing, is required; establishing learning as ted owl. Washington, DC: US Department of Agri- a performance element for practition- culture.

46 Journal of Forestry • January/February 2003