Using Adaptive Management to Meet Conservation Goals

Thomas M. Franklin, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership 555 Eleventh Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Email: [email protected]

Ronald Helinski 1230 Quaker Ridge Drive Arnold, MD 21012 Email: [email protected]

Andrew Manale, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Center for Environmental Economics Ariel Rios Building (1809T) 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT Natural resource professionals should know whether or not they are doing an effective job of managing natural resources. Their decision-making process should produce the kind of results desired by the public, elected officials, and their agencies’ leadership. With billions of dollars spent each year on managing natural resources, accountability is more important than ever. Producing results is the key to success. Managers must have the necessary data to make enlightened decisions during program implementation—not just at the conclusion of a program. Adaptive management is described as an adapt-and-learn methodology as it pertains to implementing Farm Bill conservation practices. Four regional case studies describe how adaptive management is being applied by practicing fish and wildlife managers. Indicators were identified to monitor and evaluate contributions to fish and wildlife habitat for each of the case studies. Data collected at each stage of the studies were used to make mid-course adjustments that enabled leadership to improve or enhance ongoing management actions.

Fish and Wildlife Response to Farm Bill Conservation Practices 103 s a natural resource professional with a federal What Is Adaptive Management? or state government or conservation non-gov- A ernmental organization (NGO), how do you Adaptive management is a relatively new concept know that you are doing the best job of managing that has begun to gain popularity in the mainstream natural resources? You have a responsibility to in- conservation community. Adaptive management inform your constituents about how well your programs corporates research into conservation action. Specifi- are contributing to conservation goals and objectives. cally, adaptive management is the integration of de- Sounds like common sense, but in today’s world of sign, management, and monitoring to systematically tightening budgets, constant change, unpredictable test assumptions in order to adapt and learn (Salaf- political environments, and high expectations by the sky et al. 2001). Adaptive management is the process public, we often fail to demonstrate results. Deci- of hypothesizing how ecosystems work, monitoring sion-makers may want monitoring and evaluation results, comparing them with expectations and modi- of programs and use of adaptive management in fying management decisions to better achieve conser- program implementation, but they often allocate too vation objectives through improved understanding of few resources to make it happen. ecological processes (Lancia et al. 1996). Since both elected officials and the public are An adaptive management approach deals with the now focused on accountability, we have to produce uncertainty inherent in managing natural ecosystems results. If you haven’t been asked to provide infor- by treating policies or practices as experiments. Be- mation on the effectiveness of your projects and low is a definition of the concept: programs, you soon will be. The key lies in having Adaptive management is an approach to natural the necessary data both to make decisions and to resource policy that embodies a simple imperative: communicate the information to your constituents. polices are experiments; learn from them. In order Adaptive management, including monitoring and to live we use resources of the world, but we do not evaluation, is critical to successful conservation. understand nature well enough to know how to live After reading this chapter, we hope that you will be harmoniously within environmental limits. Adaptive inspired to integrate adaptive management into your management takes uncertainty seriously, treat- decisions and management activities. ing human interventions in natural ecosystems as Billions of dollars are spent each year on manag- experimental probes. Its practitioners take special ing our natural resources. As accountability becomes care with information. First, they are explicit about more important, we’ll need to make better deci- what they expect, so that they can design methods sions not just on how we use those dollars, but also and apparatus to make measurements. Second, they on helping the public understand how they benefit collect and analyze information so that expecta- from the work of natural resource professionals. The tions can be compared with actuality. Finally, they responsibility lies with leadership and management transform comparison into learning—they correct to make good decisions. Those decisions should be errors, improve their imperfect understanding, based on the best science, and that science comes and change action and plans. Linking science and from research that should include a monitoring and human purpose, adaptive management serves as a evaluation component. Adaptive management en- compass for us to use in searching for a sustainable hances the quality of the data. With better informa- future (Lee 1993). tion, better decisions can be made. Adaptive management incorporates research into conservation action. In a conservation project con- Adaptive Management and Monitoring/ text, adaptive management is about systematically Evaluation Basics trying different actions to achieve a desired outcome. It is not, however, a random trial-and-error process. Adaptive management, focused on monitoring and Instead, adaptive management is a cycle that involves evaluation, can help you improve your natural resource several specific steps: management decisions. This section answers the basic START: Establish a clear and common purpose question on how these concepts apply to your work. STEP A: Design an explicit model of your system

104 The Wildlife Society Technical Review 07–1 September 2007 STEP B: Develop a management plan that maxi- mizes results and learning Figure 1. The Adaptive Management Cycle STEP C: Develop a monitoring plan to test your assumptions STEP D: Implement your management and Develop a monitoring plans Monitoring Plan STEP E: Compare result to hypothesis

ITERATE: Use results to adapt and learn Implement Develop a Management & Management Plan, Adaptive management encourages research and Monitoring Plans Goals, Objectives, management to be conducted simultaneously to & Activities reduce uncertainty and improve management and ecological understanding. Administrators can benefit from funding sound management experiments Analyze Data Develop because they can gauge the effectiveness of various and Conceptual Model Communicate Based on Local Site management scenarios and can improve under- Results Conditions standing of why a particular action succeeds or fails (Lancia et al. 1996). Clarify Group’s Use Results to Mission Adapt & Learn Why is Adaptive Management Important? Source: Adapted from Margoluis & Salafsky 1998. Adaptive management is a tool that enables natural resource agencies or organizations to evaluate how they are meeting their short-term and long-term able to provide better information and a more ef- natural resource goals. It allows us to answer basic ficient use of resources. The improved information questions: Is our management of the land working? will help the organizations in their outreach efforts Are our management actions having the desired ef- with constituents and elected officials. These im- fects? Are we contributing to the expansion of desir- provements could result in increases in budgets due able/targeted habitats and subsequent increases in to improved performance on accountability mea- fish and wildlife? sures (indicators/benchmarks). The public benefits In order to use these tools effectively, natural from an improved natural resource base at a net sav- resource organizations will have to improve coordi- ings. Most importantly, natural resources will ben- nation and collaboration with each other. This col- efit. With better data, better decisions can be made. laboration will lead to the development of more com- Corrections or adjustments in project and program prehensive data and more efficient use of resources. design and implementation can be made early with Data sets can be expanded and shared. Funding can more data and improved coordination that are part be leveraged. Key spatial and temporal indicators of adaptive management. or benchmarks can be jointly developed that can be used to provide a better understanding of variation in When and Where Is it Appropriate to performance over a range of conditions, supporting Use Adaptive Management? better analysis. Better decisions on future directions should result from the evaluations. The evaluation Adaptive management is appropriate for all pro- will also allow better communication with the public grams. The following case studies illustrate the on the effectiveness of the programs. benefits. Coordination between federal, state, and conservation NGOs can build on successes. Regional Who will Benefit from Adaptive Management? applications can be better met via this process by minimizing replication. Partnering with others and Three significant groups will benefit from adaptive sharing data can allow you to use scarce resources management. Agencies and organizations will be more efficiently.

Fish and Wildlife Response to Farm Bill Conservation Practices 105 How Can You Gain Efficiency with There should be a correlation between the agencies’ Adaptive Management? goals and the indicators you chose. Remember, there are multiple audiences that you need to be working Adaptive management is a better process for mak- with so how you select the indicators often will deter- ing better decisions. Better decisions should lead to mine their acceptance by targeted audiences. Since better project implementation and results. Through we are focusing on Farm Bill conservation programs, more effective management and programs, you will it would be appropriate to also look at the social and be in a position to establish a record of success and economic implications of indicators. communicate that success to both your constituents and your political leadership. Case Studies Better trend data enhances the science and better documents result. This allows for better accountabil- These case studies describe how adaptive manage- ity of programs. You may be able to clarify the cause ment is being applied on the ground. The Thun- and effect relationship between management actions der Basin of Eastern Wyoming case study and the taken and responses in habitat conditions and popu- Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for Habitat Buffers lation enhancements. for Upland Birds (Northern Bobwhite Quail Buffers) So, if you successfully seek to employ both adap- case study apply adaptive management principles to tive management and monitoring and evaluation, you specific Farm Bill conservation practices. The other will have to be able to answer these questions: case studies, The Tidelands of the Connecticut River 1. Do I do my monitoring and evaluation alone as case study and the Oregon Salmon/Watershed Proj- an agency/organization? ect case study, while not Farm Bill-specific, describe 2. Do I coordinate with other federal and state projects that demonstrate how adaptive manage- agencies and conservation NGOs in monitoring and ment can and should be applied to Farm Bill conser- evaluation activities? vation practices. 3. Does the public understand my research goals? 4. Is there a relationship between information, Thunder Basin of Eastern Wyoming management decisions, and monitoring and evaluation data and the changes in public attitudes toward Jonathan Haufler, Ecosystem Management the agency? Research Institute, Seeley Lake, MT 5. Is the monitoring information used adaptively The Thunder Basin Grasslands Prairie Ecosystem and linked to agency policies? Association (Association) is a non-profit organization established to provide private landowner leadership in developing a responsible, common sense, science- Indicators/Benchmarks—How Do You based approach to long-term management of private Utilize Indicators to Evaluate Progress? lands. Members in the Association consist of private property owners, primarily ranchers and energy pro- In order to evaluate projects and to make midstream duction companies, within a designated 931,000-acre corrections if necessary, you need to develop and in- mixed-ownership landscape in eastern Wyoming. stitutionalize a system of tracking a set of indicators This landscape is recognized as one of the most eco- that monitors soil, water, air, and wildlife. These four logically significant grasslands in the United States. indicators are interrelated. The information can be The Association was formed in 1999 to address used to inform decision-makers of the status of each growing concerns about land management with par- program or project. ticular interest in activities related to ranching, coal Once indicators are identified, you’ll be in a better mining, coalbed methane development, and oil and position to answer the question: “Are fish and wildlife gas production, and the influences of these activi- conditions stable, declining, or improving over time?” ties on a number of wildlife species of concern. The The answer can then be connected to policies, laws, Association’s goal is to maintain responsible econom- and goals established by fish and wildlife agencies. ic use of the land while demonstrating how effective

106 The Wildlife Society Technical Review 07–1 September 2007 stewardship of natural resources can be provided Therefore, treatments will be replicated and moni- through voluntary, privately led, collaborative efforts. tored to provide information for adjustments to The Association recognized that each landowner future treatments. working independently would not be as effective as The Association selected three sets of pastures that a collaborative effort that considered the cumula- averaged approximately 1,000 acres in size to repli- tive contributions of all lands within the landscape cate a desired range of ecological sites: five pastures for ecological, economic, and social objectives. were composed of primarily of clayey sites; five Consequently, the Association focused its efforts pastures were composed of primarily of loamy sites; on developing an ecosystem management plan that and three pastures were dominated by saline condi- addressed the habitat needs of all species of concern tions. The treatment portion of each pasture was left while balancing those needs with sustainable eco- ungrazed prior to treatment to build up fuels for pre- nomic and social activities. The ecosystem manage- scribed burning. In each pasture, prescribed burning ment plan will provide the science-based informa- is being applied to 240 acres in late summer/early tion and integration needed to meet these objectives fall. The burned areas will receive rangeland planting and will provide the basis for landowners to imple- on two-thirds of the area (approximately 160 acres) ment appropriate strategies. as inter-seeding with a native seed mixture appropri- The Association obtained a pooled Environmen- ate for that ecological site that emphasizes species tal Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) grant, with known to have decreased in occurrence and domi- additional funds from the Wyoming Wildlife and nance due to past grazing and other factors. Approxi- Natural Resources Trust Fund and Wyoming Depart- mately 80 acres of each burn will remain unseeded to ment of State Lands and Investments to restore and allow for the determination of the response of native manage the declining habitat of a number of species plants to fire without the inter-seeding. In addition to of concern. These species included the long-billed seeding, half of each burned area (approximately 120 curlew (Numenius americanus), upland sandpiper acres of each pasture) will be treated with an herbi- (Bartramia longicauda), chestnut-collared longspur cide in fall to control cheatgrass. (Calcarius ornatus), lark bunting (Calamospiza The Association will apply varying levels of pre- melanocorys), McCown’s longspur (Calcarius mc- scribed grazing as an additional treatment, with an cownii), mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), entire pasture being the treatment unit. The treat- short-eared owl (Asio flammeus), plains sharp-tailed ments, with the varying levels of grazing, should grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus), and swift fox result in different vegetation responses in both the (Vulpes macrotis). The Association is applying spe- treatment areas as well as areas of each pasture out- cific conservation treatments to 3,250 acres spread side of the treatment area. across 13 pastures in an active-adaptive management In each pasture, five exclosures of approximately design. These treatments are designed to restore spe- one-half acre will be constructed, with one exclosure cific grassland conditions within the Thunder Basin placed in the burned/planted/herbicide treated area, that are in decline relative to the historical record. one exclosure in the burned/planted area, one in the Treatments were designed to produce specific burned/herbicide treated area, one in the burned- plant communities across three different types of eco- only area, and one in the untreated area of the logical sites. Three treatments will be used in com- pasture that is open to the specific grazing treatment. bination: prescribed fire; inter-seeding with selected These exclosures will provide for an ungrazed control native species; and herbicides to control cheatgrass for each treatment combination in each pasture for (Bromus tectorum), an exotic invader. In addition, monitoring purposes. several grazing regimes are being applied to pastures Monitoring, beginning in 2006 with pre-treat- following these treatments. The Association expects ment measurements, will document the response of to produce the desired plant community conditions each pasture for vegetation conditions and wildlife through responses to the treatments. However, it use (plot sampling of bird use) to determine if the is not well known how the plant communities will desired conditions for ecosystem diversity and as- respond to the specific combination of practices. sociated habitat conditions for species of interest are

Fish and Wildlife Response to Farm Bill Conservation Practices 107 obtained. Monitoring for each treatment combina- with the project will document the responses of the tion (Figure 2) will be continued for a number of plant communities and selected wildlife populations. years post-treatment to identify the vegetation and wildlife responses. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for Habitat The pooled EQIP grant will support conserva- Buffers for Upland Birds (Northern Bobwhite tion needs at a landscape scale and will also improve Quail Buffers) rangeland productivity for each of the producers L. Wes Burger, PhD. Mississippi State University, involved in the project. The treatments are designed Mississippi State, MS to produce a significant acreage of desired conditions http://teamquail.tamu.edu/publications/ to meet the management objectives. By pooling the HabitatBuffersforUplandBirdsCP33.pdf funds and using an adaptive management framework, the results will allow for an evaluation of the The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm Services effectiveness of each practice and its combination ap- Agency (FSA) Notice CRP 479 required development plied across different ecological sites. This design will and implementation of a monitoring program as a allow future treatment programs to focus efforts on precondition for states receiving their Habitat Buffers those practices that produce the best results in this for Upland Birds (CP33) allocation. Specifically: landscape and increase the effectiveness and efficien- “A monitoring and evaluation plan must be devel- cy of future Farm Bill funding. Monitoring associated oped in consultation with the state technical committee, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Figure 2. Treatment applications within a schematic 1,000 acre pasture. Service, State Fish and Game agencies, Practices to be applied include prescribed burning, rangeland planting, and other interested quail parties. The pest management-chemical, prescribed grazing, and fencing. In combina- plan must provide the ability to establish tion, these practices are designed to provide restoration and management baseline data on quail populations and of declining habitats to restore desired ecosystem conditions as described estimate increasing quail populations by ecological site descriptions. Exclosures (1/2 acre in size) will be placed and impact on other upland bird popula- in each treatment area to monitor the effects of each treatment combina- tions as a result of practice CP33, Habitat tion in the absence of livestock grazing. Buffers for Upland Birds, including the following: No treatment– • verification that suitable Northern 1/2 ac Bobwhitequail cover is established exclosure • verification that appropriate cover management practices are implemented on a timely basis • states must control acreage within their allocation T1–Grazing • implementing a statewide sampling process that will provide reliable estimates of the number of quail per acre (or some other appropriate measure): T2–Burn T2–Burn T3–Herbicide • before practice CP33, Habitat 3 1 T –Herbicide T –Grazing T1–Grazing Buffers for Upland Birds, is 4 2 T –Seeded T –Burn T2–Burn 3 implemented (baseline) T –Herbicide T3–Herbicide T4–Seeded 80ac 40ac resulting from the established T2–Burn T2–Burn • T4–Seeded 1 CRP [Conservation Reserve T –Grazing 1 2 T –Grazing T –Burn 2 Program] cover.” 4 T –Burn T –Seeded 80ac 40ac 750ac The research committee of the Southeast Quail Study Group (SEQSG)

108 The Wildlife Society Technical Review 07–1 September 2007 developed a suggested national protocol for moni- services, including flood storage, upland buffering, toring northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) water quality improvement, resource production, response to CP33 that could be deployed through a recreation, transportation, and aesthetics. Native combined effort of state offices of USDA-FSA/Natu- biological diversity and the integrity and health of ral Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and state this system are threatened by an invasive species, the resource management agencies to: 1) provide statis- common reed [Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. Ex tically valid estimates of northern bobwhite den- Steud.]. Phragmites has spread unchecked, achiev- sity (or some other appropriate measure) on fields ing near exclusive dominance in many tidal marshes enrolled in CP33 at state, regional, and national along less saline reaches [See Figure 3.] Management levels and 2) provide a measure of the relative effect of the threat and recovery of the system requires size of the CP33 practice. The protocol suggested a Phragmites control. framework for monitoring breeding bobwhite and Numerous governmental and non-governmental grassland songbirds using point transect methodol- organizations came together to create a partnership- ogy and fall bobwhite density using distance-based based institutional structure, the Habitat Restoration fall covey counts. The FSA national office, SEQSG, Initiative Committee, and to establish a common vision Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agen- of success. The partnership required a commitment cies (SEAFWA) directors, and Association of Fish of resources from modeling to on-the-ground restora- and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) have endorsed this tion activities, monitoring, and outreach. Cooperation protocol in concept. Furthermore, Southeast Part- required clarification of restoration issues and needs, ners in Flight (SEPIF) has expressed a commitment clear goals and objectives, a means for facilitating to assist in breeding season songbird monitoring partnering, and a peer-review process. The assump- and dovetail winter grassland bird monitoring on tion is that once Phragmites is controlled, the native this sample of contracts. SEPIF has already pro- vegetation will return. A key milestone was the devel- vided much needed guidance regarding non-game opment of the restoration project plan. The partnering bird monitoring in the CP33 monitoring protocol. A structure facilitated participation and peer review. The grassland songbird monitoring protocol also is avail- effort formally began with work assessing biophysical able at http://teamquail.tamu.edu/publications/ and social realms, developing a conceptual model, and HabitatBuffersforUplandBirdsCP33.pdf. explicitly stating the assumptions underlying the goals The team initiated monitoring in 2006. AFWA of restoration and identifying social values. is assisting states with carrying out the monitoring. The Habitat Restoration Initiative Committee Mississippi State University coordinated sample se- decided to proceed sequentially so that, as restoration lection and sampling packet assembly, and is assist- practices and treatments were completed at one site, ing with data analysis. new project sites were initiated. To date, three sites have been completed, one is in process, and six have The Tidelands of the Connecticut River been planned. Regular monitoring of Phragmites and of rare Nels Barrett, USDA, Natural Resources plants was incorporated into the plan to determine Conservation Service, Tolland, CT, Paul Capotosto, Wetland Habitat and Mosquito the effectiveness of on-the-ground efforts and to Management (WHAMM) Program, Connecticut identify areas of uncertainty that could affect the Department of Environmental Protection, long-term success of the effort. Monitoring was N. Franklin, CT necessary because Phragmites tends to re-invade and may require repeated control measures. Monitoring The Tidelands of the Connecticut River Habitat was also necessary to ensure that rare plant species Restoration Project is a cooperative effort to restore were not adversely affected by the treatments. the ecologically unique habitat for a diverse group Scientists and managers involved in the projects of organisms in the landscape where the Connecti- used the data from monitoring to re-evaluate previ- cut River meets Long Island Sound. The wetlands, ous steps and thereby establish a feedback loop on ranging from fresh to saline, provide many ecosystem the effectiveness of treatments. Monitoring data were

Fish and Wildlife Response to Farm Bill Conservation Practices 109 Figure 3. Phragmites saturation in Tidelands of the Connecticut River

100

40 % areal coverage 30

0 Fenwick Lord Cove Black Hall Otter Cove Duck River Ferry Point Deep River Nott Island Dart Island North Cove South Cove Great Island Goose Island Calves Island Selden Creek Joshua Creek Chester Creek Hamburg Cove Chapman Pond Salmon Meadow Whalebone Cove Pratt & Post Cove Deadmans Swamp Wangunk Meadows Wangunk Ragged Rock Creek Lieutenant River North Lieutenant River South Essex Middle Cove Complex Upper Island Marsh Complex Smiths Neck / Griswold Point Great Meadow / Essex North Cove

also used in performing outreach with the public to were geo-referenced into a Geographic Information engage their interest and to continue the momentum System (GIS). toward achieving the project goals. The adaptive management (AM) approach has led Representatives of the following groups partnered to changes in how the project is implemented and the in monitoring—Related Activities Conservancy, Tide- longer-term effort to control Phragmites is conducted. lands of the Connecticut River, Potopaug Gun Club, Eradication efforts now focus on treating one section Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, at a time, evaluating the effectiveness of the treatment Migratory Bird Stamp Program of Connecticut, Stew- from monitoring data and then making adjustments art B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge, Silvio O. to the treatment practices at subsequent sites. This se- Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge, the U.S. Fish quence of treatment, monitoring and evaluation, and and Wildlife Service, the Connecticut state office of adjustment is repeated at each subsequent site. The NRCS, and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. cost of treatment at each new site declines. The result The Tidelands Plan employs a sequential land- has led to steady improvements of the control prac- scape-scale management strategy as the most tices at each site with a concomitant increase in overall effective way to eradicate Phragmites and restore cost-effectiveness of the effort to eradicate Phragmites the biological integrity of the wetland systems. and restore the Tidewater ecosystem. The sequential treatment of discrete sections was Lessons are still being learned on how to restore decided upon as a means for “learning from doing” Tidelands ecosystems. Experience with AM up to now and for improving the cost-effectiveness of efforts has shown that the assessments improve ecological to restore Tidelands ecosystems. Data gathered understanding. Similarly, the partnering and out-

110 The Wildlife Society Technical Review 07–1 September 2007 reach components of AM can help to communicate Federal: National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish this understanding to scientists and managers and and Wildlife Service, U.S. Environmental Protection the general public, to redeem social value, and to fos- Agency, Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. ter an organizational culture of responsiveness. Tribal: Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission. Partners: Oregon State University, Dept. of Land Oregon Salmon/Watershed Project Conservation and Development, Watershed Councils, some soil and water conservation districts, landowner Stan Gregory, Oregon State University, groups, environmental community and individuals. Corvallis, OR Monitoring is a systematic collection of informa- The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (Plan) tion used to assess the current conditions and trends is a cooperative effort to restore salmon runs, im- in critical resources, ecological processes, or envi- prove water quality, and achieve healthy watersheds ronmental conditions. Factors that affect the status and strong communities across the state. To contrib- and trends in salmon populations such as habitat ute to this vision, the Plan relies on volunteers, creat- conditions, water quality, watershed health, fisheries ing a combination of voluntary and regulatory actions harvest, fish hatcheries, predation by birds and mam- to conserve and restore watersheds and stocks of mals, and ocean conditions are also monitored. The Pacific salmon. This cooperative paradigm drives the Plan’s monitoring was designed to measure those fac- effort and remains the cornerstone to achieving suc- tors needed to describe relationships between popula- cess. This effort began with the creation of an imple- tions, habitats, restoration actions, natural processes, mentation team that reviews and coordinates water- human activities, and management actions. shed restoration priorities. Members from federal, Because salmon require well-connected and in- state, and local governments and tribal agencies have tact habitats from headwaters of watersheds to ocean responsibility for activities contributing to watershed feeding grounds, the Plan endorses management with protection and restoration. A charter was endorsed a landscape perspective as the most effective way to by representatives of Oregon’s state agencies who accomplish meaningful contributions to long-term agreed to support the Plan. salmon recovery in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest. With a formal infrastructure in place, the criti- The Plan’s focus on habitat restoration at multiple cal component of a monitoring and evaluation plan scales across watersheds encourages voluntary land-use was established in March 1997. Its purpose was to 1) practices known to effectively improve not only local establish a structure and identify responsibilities for conditions but also watershed conditions critical to the development of monitoring teams, 2) coordinate sustained salmon populations. The major land use and and evaluate the monitoring efforts of the state agen- geographic areas considered in planning efforts includ- cies, federal agencies, and citizen groups and 3) annu- ed virtually all parts of Oregon with watersheds that ally review the progress of the monitoring program drain into the Pacific Ocean. This area includes eastern and explore the information emerging from the joint Oregon drainages of the Columbia and Klamath basins. efforts. An independent multi-disciplinary science Successful implementation of the Oregon Plan for team provides an ongoing review of the scientific Salmon and Watersheds depends on partnerships foundations of the Plan to the state. The monitoring between state agencies and stakeholders in specific program solidified the interagency commitments to sub-basins and watersheds. Thus, in October 2002, the Plan, including coordination of public and private a charter agreement for regional team coordinators monitoring activities. was created to develop biennial work plans identify- Representatives of the following groups partici- ing key objectives, priorities and collaborative actions pated in monitoring-related activities: to support implementation of the Plan. State: Departments of Agriculture, Environmental Quality, Fish and Wildlife, Forestry, State Lands, Trans- Coastal Coho Project and Assessment portation, and Water Resources; the Governor’s Natural (coastal watersheds) Resource Office; Oregon Watershed Enhancement The Coastal Coho Assessment is the starting point for Board; and legislative committees on natural resources. more effective future restoration investment, monitor-

Fish and Wildlife Response to Farm Bill Conservation Practices 111 ing, and adaptive management action. The objective tions in fishery harvest rates, and redesign of hatchery of this effort is to assist in the recovery of one of the management policies. These changes represent signifi- species of salmon that depends on Oregon watersheds. cant departure from historic practices, based on data This assessment includes: viability analysis, popula- and analysis. The state reviewed the status of coho tion bottlenecks, evaluation of conservation efforts, salmon in 2005 and concluded that the coho salmon monitoring, evaluating current threats, and lessons stocks of coastal Oregon were minimally viable. Based learned with a commitment to adaptive management. on the quantitative data developed collaboratively Key conclusions of the assessment points can be through the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, found at www.mtjune.uoregon.edu/website/OWEB/ the state recommended that the federal government Assessment. One of the key findings related to adap- remove coho salmon from the endangered species list. tive management included “maintaining a com- Both state and federal reviewers of the assessment prehensive monitoring program to allow adaptive noted that this assessment would not be possible in management of conservation efforts as new informa- most states or for many resources and applauded the tion is gained.” coordination of the monitoring program with the management actions of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Actions Taken as a Result of Adaptive Watersheds. Management

In reviewing the factors for coho salmon decline, A Reality Check—Adaptive Management: it was determined that changes were needed in the Myth and Reality fishery harvest, hatchery management, and habitat Jay Nicholas, Oregon Department of Fish and protection and restoration in forest, agricultural, and Wildlife, Salem, OR urban lands. Major modifications of fishery harvest and hatchery management were implemented. Direct The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife used commercial harvest of coho salmon was totally elimi- adaptive management to assist in its decision-making nated from 1998 to 2002, followed by low rates of process. Adaptive management is not just tweak- harvest to the present. Several hatcheries were closed ing around the edges of natural resource issues; it and brood stock management and release practices implies significant course corrections. Under adap- have been modified to minimize the potential for tive management, theoretically, monitoring provides adverse impact on coastal coho salmon. Now reduced data, data generates information, and agencies numbers of hatchery coho salmon are released in only learn from the information and generate changes seven of 19 populations. This decrease in released fish to management programs that are more effective and attention to locations of hatchery releases are in producing desired natural resource outcomes. In intended to lessen genetic interactions, competition, theory, adaptive management is just that simple. It and predation. Enhanced habitat management in- is logical. It is timely. cluded protection, riparian restoration with extensive Nonsense. tree planting and fencing, in-stream improvements, Here’s the reality. Adaptive management (change) development of additional forest management plans, can be achieved, but it can only be achieved slowly, in improvement of culverts and bridges, confined animal the proper time, and it requires some key ingredients. feeding operation programs, total maximum daily These are: load plans, and weed and invasive species control. • leadership • data Lessons Learned • patience The assessments demonstrated Oregon’s responsive- • public support ness to new information and a willingness to implement Of these four ingredients, data are possibly ne- needed changes in management programs. Examples gotiable, the others are not. Leadership can come included extensive restoration efforts of watershed from elected officials, agency directors, charismatic councils, improved forest practice rules, improved individuals, or the public. Depending on the circum- water quality management plans by agriculture, reduc- stances of the issues, leadership may be bold or timid.

112 The Wildlife Society Technical Review 07–1 September 2007 Leadership may truly be out in front of the public or Literature Cited it may actually be following public sentiment. But Dent, L., H. Salwasser, and G. Achterman. 2001. Environ- someone, somewhere, has to lead, or create the ap- mental indicators for the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. Institute for Natural Resources, Oregon State pearance of leading the change. University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA. Data should be a crucial ingredient in adaptive EO 99-01. 1999. Governor’s Executive Order: E 99-01. Salem, management but, in reality, it may or may not be. Oregon, USA. IMST (Independent Multidisplinary Science Team). 1999. De- Sometimes, the data to support change in natural fining and elevating recovery of OCN Coho Salmon Stocks: resource policy or programs are overwhelming and implementation for rebuilding stocks index the Oregon Plan indisputable—yet it will be ignored, minimized, or for Salmonids and Watersheds. Technical Report 1999. Governor’s Natural Resources Office, Salem, Oregon, USA. disputed. This is where patience comes in. The facts Lancia, R., C. Braun, M. Collopy, R. Dueser, J. Kie, C. Martin- may signal a need for change, but the time may not ka, J. Nichols, T. Nudds, W. Porah, and M. Tilghman. 1996. be right for the change to be implemented. Under ARM! For the future: adaptive resource management in the these circumstances, those who see the need for wildlife profession. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:436-442. Lee, K. 1993. Compass and gyroscope: integrating science and change must be patient and not throw themselves politics for the environment. Island Press, Washington unnecessarily or prematurely under locomotives D.C., USA. that are not yet ready to be moved. Under these Margoluis, R., and N. Salafsky. 1998. Measures of success: designing, managing, and monitoring conservation and circumstances, one must wait for the leadership and development projects. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA. public support to achieve sufficient momentum— Salafsky, S., R. Margoluis, and K. Redford. 2001. Adaptive then adaptive management can be implemented. management: a tool for conservation practitioners. Biodi- versity Support Program, World Wildlife Fund, Washing- At this moment, whatever data are available (from ton, D.C., USA. www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/ scant to extensive) may be cited as evidence for the aam/112/titlepage.htm needed change. Examples? Over the course of my career I have seen extremely significant changes in management of fishery harvest and hatchery practices in Oregon. These changes were needed and valid well before they were actually implemented, by perhaps two or three decades. A shortage of data did not slow implementation of change; neither was change ultimately achieved solely on the strength of new data. Society and the lead- ers were not ready to accept or push for the change. The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds is an example of timely, effective leadership that produced a new approach to natural resource management in Oregon. The Oregon Plan incorporates many recently changed management philosophies and practices, including fishery management, forestry management, water quality management, and restoration management. These changed philosophies and practices, together, reflect genuine examples of adaptive management and offer real hope for more effective and sustainable management of natural resources. The time was right to initiate this plan when it was conceived and launched. Success was achieved because the agency was ready to accept adaptive management as a strategy to make better natural resource decisions. As a result, the effectiveness of conservation practices was enhanced.

Fish and Wildlife Response to Farm Bill Conservation Practices 113