A framework to simplify and understand condition-based management

by Jarod Dunn, Research Associate, Colorado Forest Restoration Institute 

Imagine this: after years of careful planning and environmental analysis, the US Forest Service management team is ready to take action but a new disturbance is on the horizon. They’ve listened to and incorporated public feedback and are set to cut trees, start a prescribed burn, or undertake another crucial activity to bring the ecosystem closer to desired conditions. But just as they’re about to begin, a disturbance looms—a challenge that conventional planning methods can’t easily handle. Unlike the conventional planning approach, which does not include a mechanism for adaptation, these managers have embraced a condition-based management (CBM) strategy. This flexible approach allows them to adapt swiftly to changing conditions, ensuring the forest remains resilient and healthy.

Essential components of CBM

CBM focuses on maintaining responsiveness and flexibility from planning to implementation in natural resource management and has recently been applied for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance. Every NEPA project, even the conventional ones, operates with some level of versatility; that is the ability to develop options for and adapt to changing or unexpected conditions on specific sites by choosing the right timing, locations, and types of management activities to deploy.

Versatility: Select, Validate, and Evaluate Framework 

The Colorado Forest Restoration Institute (CFRI) came up with a framework that highlights different aspects of versatility to characterize CBM and describe the difference between CBM and conventional NEPA. As a member of the science team on the Spruce Beetle Epidemic and Aspen Decline Management Response (SBEADMR) project, I observed that the operating mechanisms were not well understood by project participants. The select, validate, and evaluate (SVE) framework aims to simplify and explain the adaptive mechanisms governing project adaptation and how they integrate within the CBM system.

For NEPA projects, versatility is determined along a spectrum during the NEPA process, noting that while all projects have some built-in versatility, the scale and organization of that versatility vary. We use the SVE framework to break down the various versatile components of CBM strategies. This 2-page CBM infographic lays out the key differences between CBM and conventional NEPA, showing how the SVE framework was used in the SBEADMR project in southwest Colorado. 

Select	Choose the site and type of management activity.
Validation	Gather information at the site to ensure conditions and management activities will have the desired effect and environmental impact.
Evaluate	Monitor and have adaptive management conversations with partners to improve management outcomes over time.

Every landscape has its unique biophysical and social dynamics, so the select, validate, and evaluate framework will look different based on what fits best locally.

Select: The selection criteria in the NEPA document describes which conditions to address with management activities and where. Criteria for selection might include decision support tools such as wildfire risk assessments and potential operational delineations (PODs) to help identify where to work.  

Validation: Validation actions ensure that conditions and likely impact of management activities are within the range of environmental effects evaluated in the NEPA document. Examples include intensive resource surveys, using established practices to minimize or prevent undesirable environmental effects (project design features), and matrices of decision criteria for selecting management activities.  

Evaluate: Review whether management activities are meeting desired goals and identify potential adjustments. Project participants can use monitoring and adaptive management protocols to assess effectiveness.  

CBM landscape strategies vary widely. By choosing and tweaking CBM components within the SVE framework, planners can tackle both social and biophysical variability. The SVE framework helps organize strategies to address landscape dynamics and is a way to formulate, communicate, and digest a CBM strategy. As managers grapple with the necessity of environmental compliance, dynamic landscapes, and capacity challenges within the USFS and forest products operators, CBM increases flexibility for adaptation and learning. 

Choosing the planning process for you 

CBM projects are generally more adaptable than conventional NEPA projects, but CBM isn’t the only way to handle rapid changes and uncertainties in landscapes. It may not be necessary or suitable for every project. CBM is well suited where landscapes are experiencing dynamic changes to the project area (such as insect outbreaks or uncharacteristic wildfires).  Conventional NEPA works well for landscapes where goals and objectives are specific in time and place, management activities are short-term, and site conditions are relatively predictable. Even traditional NEPA projects have some versatility, as dynamic land management requires practitioners to be nimble and make decisions when conditions change unexpectedly.

For landscapes with a lot of dynamic sites that need flexible responses, practitioners can boost a project’s versatility by switching from a conventional NEPA analysis to a CBM strategy or a hybrid approach. For example, a project might have detailed site-specific analysis for one part and use a CBM strategy for another.

Lessons Learned from the SBEADMR and Black Diamond Landscape Resiliency & Risk Reduction Project:

• Having a detailed framework, including checklists and an operational calendar, is crucial for guiding regular Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) meetings throughout implementation. This helps organize workflows for resource specialists.
• Use CBM’s flexibility to choose treatment areas that minimize environmental impacts and the need for additional information gathering (e.g., heritage surveys) where possible.
  • Avoid unnecessary activities; for example, select areas where no new roads are needed.
  • Narrow analysis by dividing the area into smaller subplots for more site-specific nuances.
  • Focus treatments where they make the most sense for achieving objectives (e.g., treating on POD lines to enhance suppression opportunities, rather than all stretches of POD lines).
• The CBM approach may be well-suited for projects located in landscapes with established venues of collaboration, such as watershed groups or all-lands partnerships. This collaborative environment improves project transparency and accountability.

Conclusion

The SVE framework helps simplify the versatility of CBM so planners and their partners can choose a strategy tailored to their landscape. The experiences from SBEADMR and the Black Diamond Project highlight the importance of detailed planning, flexibility, and collaboration in managing dynamic landscapes. By leveraging CBM strategies, resource specialists can adapt to changing conditions and work together to achieve shared management goals.