CHAPTER 6: MONITORING  

BACK TO CONTENTS PAGE
 
 


 

The general concepts for adaptive management were outlined in the Northwest Forest Plan:

What is Monitoring?

Monitoring is systematically checking what we've done to see if it worked; it is therefore an integral step in the adaptive management process that must be directly tied to the objectives, designs, and implementation of different projects. Thus monitoring in the Northern Coast Range AMA will be closely tied to the specific learning and management objectives that were laid out in previous chapters. Although monitoring has been required of federal agencies in the past, efforts have tended to be poorly funded and haphazard. New monitoring efforts (for example, of a particular stream or stand of trees) will ideally be standardized across agencies and fit into landscape- and regional-scale objectives to determine whether the Northwest Forest Plan is being implemented as intended and how well it is working.

Three distinct types of monitoring are generally recognized:

The Monitoring and Evaluation Plan in the Northwest Forest Plan (ROD 1994, Section E) presents a general framework for the kinds of information that should be gathered. The Research and Monitoring Committee, comprised of scientists and managers in the Regional Ecosystem Office, is developing more specific monitoring and research plans that will provide some guidance to AMA managers. Two projects developed by this Committee have chosen the Oregon Coast Range for pilot efforts to test and refine monitoring protocols. The implementation monitoring group developed a set of implementation monitoring questions which was tested during the summer of 1996 on fiscal year 1995 timber sales. The Regional Ecosystem Office will review the process, the questions used to implement the process, and the timing of the effort. The effectiveness monitoring group is evaluating monitoring questions, available data, and strategies for integrating efforts and analysis across agencies, with an emphasis on assessing forest structure across the Coast Range landscape.

The Salem District (BLM) Resource Management Plan and the Siuslaw National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan also contain evaluation questions and some monitoring requirements for individual projects and the organizations as a whole. Watershed analyses, which will eventually be completed for the entire AMA, provide a thorough assessment of existing information and identify specific items to be monitored on individual watersheds. Two networks of permanent forest plots already exist which will help us monitor forest change across the AMA (Map 6). The PRIME (Pacific Resource Inventory Monitoring and Evaluation) program run by the USFS Pacific Northwest Research Station (formerly called "FIA") monitors 143 plots within the AMA which are approximately on a 5.4 kilometer (3.4 mi) grid (number of plots by ownership: 32 State, 69 private industrial, 41 other private, 1 city). The Siuslaw National Forest installed about 70 permanent Current Vegetation Survey plots in 1996 on a more intensive 2.7 km (1.7 mi) grid; approximately 35 are within the AMA (only the coarser 5.4 km grid is shown in Map 6).

All of these efforts will provide general monitoring guidance for AMA activities at the broad scale to help us assess our progress toward restoring and maintaining late-successional habitat. Site-specific research and learning projects will require additional monitoring efforts to answer the questions they are designed to address.

Much of the existing guidance on ecosystem monitoring is fairly general; many important questions about monitoring strategies (What? Where? How? How much? How often?) still need to be decided. Monitoring all ecosystem components everywhere is of course not practical; strategies will need to identify the most important information and realistic funding to accomplish it. Strategies will also need to be coordinated so that project-level information can be compiled and help address district-level and region-wide issues.
 
 

Issues and Questions

The following is an initial "laundry list" of some of the issues and questions that could be addressed, and the variables (that is, kinds of information) that might be collected in the AMA. These items were gathered from several local, regional, and national reports (see references). The appropriate type of information and timing for collecting it differs with each variable. For example, water temperature might be measured weekly with thermometers during the summer for 5 years after a project, and forest structure across the landscape might be measured with satellite images once every 10 years.
 
 

Late-successional forest

Issue: Inadequate and insufficient late-successional forest habitat exists to support species associated with such forests.

Questions:

Monitoring variables:  

Species of concern

Issue: For most species, except northern spotted owls and marbled murrelets, the necessary information to predict response of species to habitat change does not exist. Some species live in special habitat types (for example, meadows, rock outcrops, seeps or springs), often isolated pockets associated with specific microhabitats.

Questions:

Monitoring variables:  

Riparian species and habitat

Issue: Anadromous fish populations have declined drastically in the past 150 years; habitat quality and water quality are degraded in many streams

Questions:

Monitoring variables:  

Human communities

Issue: People have depended on commodities from the AMA for many years; current outputs of traditional commodities (fish, fiber) are low.

Questions:

Monitoring variables:  

Adaptive management

Issue: Few local models for collaboration, planning, and coordination of land-management partners for ecosystem management objectives are available.

Questions:

Monitoring variables:  

Making Sure Monitoring Happens

A strategy for setting priorities among monitoring elements will be developed after landscape design is completed, so that information to be gathered will fit into learning objectives for the AMA. The strategy will include how monitoring will be accomplished and by whom.

Monitoring offers an opportunity for all affected interests to participate, including federal, state, and local agencies; tribes; local communities; private citizens and land owners; interest groups; and schools. Indeed, it is not likely that the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management will have sufficient funds and work force to meet even minimum monitoring needs.

The Research and Monitoring Committee is compiling a list of monitoring activities in this region and will identify research priorities for monitoring needs. Monitoring priorities in the AMA will be adjusted as information from the Research and Monitoring Committee is received.
 
 

AMA Guide Revisions

Monitoring results are likely to lead to revisions of the AMA Guide. AMA activities and monitoring information will be reviewed periodically, and the Guide will be supplemented or revised as necessary. The AMA Coordinator will be responsible for maintaining the Guide; revisions and additions will be available from BLM offices in Tillamook and Salem, and Forest Service offices in Hebo and Corvallis.