EVALUATION OF CRITERIA GUIDING 

TRANSITION OF SCIENCE AND MANAGEMENT 

ACTIONS IN ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 

BY 

GCDAMP SCIENCE ADVISORS 

JUNE, 2010 
1

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EVALUATION OF CRITERIA GUIDING TRANSITIONS OF SCIENCE AND 

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS IN ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 

• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

• PURPOSE 

• INTRODUCTION 

• SCIENCE ADVISOR CHARGE AND PROCEDURE 

• EVALUATING ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 

LITERATURE FOR GUIDANCE 

• ROLE OF MANAGEMENT AND SCIENCE IN IMPLEMENTING ADAPTIVE 

 MANAGEMENT 

• OBSERVATIONS FROM LITERATURE ON TRANSITIONS FROM 

 MANAGEMENT TO SCIENCE 

• OBSERVATIONS ON GCDAMP STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONS AND 

 IMPLICATIONS TO PROGRAMMATIC TRANSITIONS 

• EVALUATING SCIENCE AND MANAGEMENT TRANSITIONS IN LARGE 

 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT CONSERVATIONS PROGRAMS. 

• CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

• APPENDIX 

• LITERATURE REFERENCES 

 
2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

EVALUATION OF CRITERIA GUIDING 

TRANSITIONS OF SCIENCE AND MANAGEMENT 

ACTIONS IN ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 

BY 

GCDAMP SCIENCE ADVISORS 

JUNE, 2010 

THE ISSUE 

 The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) continues to define 

implementation of adaptive management (AM) in terms of blending research, monitoring, 

management actions, etc. in policy experiments directed at managing complex resource issues of 

the middle Colorado River. In developing the FY 2010-11 work plans and budgets, GCDAMP 

members desired greater clarification of how adaptive management programs integrate 

experiments and policy and how they distinguish and transition between science and 

management responsibilities and funding. 

A GCDAMP project that gave impetus to the need for greater clarification in the above 

areas is the mechanical non-native fish removal program along the river mainstem. The nonnative fish removal program was established as a policy experiment to determine if non-native 

fish and specifically rainbow trout could be effectively removed from the ecosystem. Based on 

the hypothesis that rainbow trout created negative impacts to the Humpback Chub population, 

effective removal procedures were developed and included in a 2008 Biological Opinion issued 

by the US Fish and Wildlife Service as a necessary conservation measure to be implemented by 

the GCDAMP. Under current budgeting guidelines used by the GCDAMP science and 

management actions are considered as separable funding items. Hence, the administrative issue 

arose as to how coldwater species control (specifically non-native salmonids) should be managed 

and funded. That is, should this project be continued and funded as a policy experiment of the 

GCDAMP and managed by the Grand Canyon Monitoring and research center (GCMRC)? Or, 

should it be redefined as a management or compliance activity by one or more management 

agencies and overseen and funded by the agencies apart from the GCDAMP? 

 

SCIENCE ADVISOR CHARGE AND PROCEDURE

 In response to these questions, the Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) passed 

the following motion by consensus on August 13, 2009 reflecting their desire to have the 

GCDAMP Science Advisors (SAs) continue to develop information on this issue: 

“The AMWG requests that the Science Advisors survey other adaptive management 

programs and develop a report which describes their definitions of criteria for defining 

science-based management actions and the transition from research to management. The 

report should be provided to the TWG and AMWG members, and TWG should review the 

report and forward to AMWG options for AMWG to consider with regard to how 

GCDAMP should handle these issues.” 
3

 The Science Advisors responded to the AMWG’s request by doing a review of literature 

as well as evaluations of how other AM programs manage transitions from science inquiry to 

management actions or similar practices on specific issues, projects or activities. Based on this 

information, criteria and guidelines were identified to assist scientists, managers and 

stakeholders to improve transitions of science and management actions in the GCDAMP process. 

PERSPECTIVES FROM LITERATURE ON MANAGEMENT ACTIONS, POLICY AND 

SCIENCE IN AM

 Two key ideas surfaced from the review of adaptive management literature and AM 

programs that relate to the issue of programmatic transitions between science and management 

activities. First, most often there are not clear distinctions made between science and 

management in AM programs. Second, the pursuit of social or institutional learning is but one 

linkage between research and management in an adaptive management program. Both ideas 

have implications for decisions about management and science authorities and responsibilities, as 

well as funding allocations. 

 Adaptive management is not designed as a science process with a primary goal to reduce 

uncertainty relating to proposed policy and management actions so they can be implemented. 

Nor is it simply a management model that determines best management actions to meet policy 

objectives. Rather, adaptive management is a blend of the two, one that generates opportunity 

for learning how to understand complex ecosystems, while achieving resource improvement 

goals. Conceptual models of adaptive management characterize the AM process as more a 

continuum of using science to evaluate outcomes of adjusted management policies/actions due to 

changing biological and social dynamics as well as surprises. Uncertainty and risk are embraced 

as significant continuous elements of the process. As such, the adaptive management paradigm 

addresses learning differently than the more traditional science model of extensive science 

applications to reduce uncertainty and risk before management action is taken. 

 Guidance from the AM literature would support several general clarifications regarding 

the AM paradigm and the relative role of science and management actions in these programs as 

follows. 

• AM programs in natural resource conservation are management models established to 

resolve complex, multiple resource issues that harbor significant ongoing uncertainty. 

• Active AM programs are most effective in implementing iterative management 

actions and monitoring response through time to create improved states of resource 

conditions and learning. 

• Two types of learning are involved in the AM model. The first, “single loop”, uses 

monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of selected management actions as policy 

experiments, but assumes that the underlying AM hypotheses regarding attainment of 

resource goals is correct. The second, “double loop” learning allows for the 

development and replacement of hypotheses over time. That is changes in all 

processes of the AM model can occur. 

The ever-present uncertainty in AM programs requires, as noted, a different purpose for 

management actions and ordering of the actions by managers. The AM model must rely also on 

a broader and also slightly different set of criteria for evaluating outcomes from differing 

management actions. These include probability analysis, uncertainty analysis, stochastic 

modeling, social consensus, resource tradeoff analysis, structured decision processes, etc. 

In terms of the salmonid mechanical harvest program, this program is still viewed 
4

in terms of a hypothesis among multiple hypothesis that through learning are likely to help meet 

humpback chub recovery goals. As such, it is one of a variety of interactive management actions 

and monitoring activities needed, but one that should help managers continue to learn how to 

meet these goals. 

The review revealed that AM structures and processes used by the GCDAMP and other 

AM programs do effect transitions between management and science. Many AM program 

attributes have some influence on these transitions. 

OBSERVATIONS ON GCDAMP STRUCTURE AND PROCESSES AND 

IMPLICATIONS TO PROGRAMMATIC TRANSITIONS 

 The programmatic transitions among various stages of an AM program, i.e., consensus 

building, assessments, management actions, monitoring, evaluation, revised management 

actions, etc., represent a continuum of decision points for managers. Developed criteria 

associated with the following institutional structures and characteristics of the GCDAMP are 

helpful in understanding both impediments and supporting mechanisms to science and 

management transitions. 

• Organization, Goals and leadership 

• Program and budget planning 

• Effective science monitoring 

• Responding to external perturbations 

• Assessments of Knowledge 

• Independent Reviews 

Organization, Goals and Leadership 

The GCDAMP program has defined purpose, mission, strategies, goals, etc, that are 

supported by federal law, regulation, policy and funding mechanisms. It has an organizational 

structure similar to most AM programs. The ability to operate multiple major management 

activities concurrently while maintaining resources and learning is general evidence that 

transitioning of management actions to monitoring and back to management actions is realizing 

selected successes. 

However, several reviews of the GCDAMP program over the past five years have 

identified needs of the program to reevaluate several of its adaptive management processes 

related to administrative structure, roles of the GCDAMP groups, desired future conditions, 

monitoring plans, Native American consultation, etc., as well as others areas. Reviews and 

revisions in some criteria and guidelines could improve transitions between management actions 

and science, such as the following. 

• A review of overall mission and goals needs to occur, such as those relating to criteria 

guiding the GCDAMP role for overall resource management and recovery of T&E 

species 

• The roles and responsibilities of the GCDAMP groups need to be reevaluated and 

possibly revised. 

• Development of more specific goals and well defined desired future conditions needs 

accomplishment 

Program Planning and Budgeting 
5

 In recent planning direction, i.e., 2004-2010, strategic and operational program and 

budget plans are in place and utilized. Evidence exists that the program, after 15 years of 

operation, could benefit from the “Double Loop” learning process. 

 Continued budget shortfalls in areas that were determined to be important management 

actions and monitoring reveals needed improvements in program planning criteria for 

determining the minimal information that is explicitly required, and more effective out year 

budget planning. 

Effective Science Monitoring 

 The AM model uses monitoring of the resource impacts of management actions to 

validate both accomplishment of resource improvement and learning. In the second decade of 

the GCDAMP, 2007-2016 it is proposed that core monitoring programs will formally be 

implemented for each GCDAMP goal. Implementation proposals for this critical program 

require planning, programming and budgeting commitments by all AMP entities. Concern exists 

that criteria such as fully specified goals, information needs, and budgets need better planning. 

Focus is needed regarding the minimal information needs that best inform management actions 

and science and improve resources. 

Responding to Perturbations 

 An attribute of many AM programs with high variability is that one can be surprised by 

perturbations that were not foreseen. The GCDAMP has witnessed several in its short tenure. 

The issue of warm water releases from Glen Canyon Dam, one such perturbation, did 

result in some disruptions of management and science processes during the 2003-2006 period, 

but they were minimal. However, although GCMRC and TWG both identified needs for 

potential management and science changes and additions to the GCDAMP portfolio as a result of 

this perturbation, only minor changes appear to have occurred. For example, should improved or 

changed criteria and assessment guidelines related to predicted warming been a response to this 

perturbation? 

Assessments of Knowledge 

The GCDAMP program with GCMRC guidance has recommended criteria for significant 

reviews of knowledge at five-year intervals, i.e. Knowledge Assessment and Status of Colorado 

River Ecosystem (SCORE) reports. To maintain effective policy on transitions of management 

and science these assessments should also be developed to inform redesign of management 

actions and science programs. Budget planning does not seem effective in maintaining these 

AM attributes. 

Independent Review 

 Internal and external review processes are critical criteria for evaluating an organizations 

effective use of management and science to address issues. Reviews have cited needs for many 

improvements including greater ecosystem focus of the GCDAMP, improved integration of 

science and management activities, appropriate role assignments of entities, desired future 

conditions etc. 
6

How a collaborative AM program structures independent review and responds to it can 

significantly influence, through time, the effectiveness of management and science transitions. 

Some concern exists over lags in response to issues identified in several reviews. 

OBSERVATIONS FROM REVIEWED AM PROGRAMS 

 Ten currently active CAM Programs were reviewed to evaluate criteria they use in 

sustaining effective transitions of management and science in the AM process, and how those 

criteria and approaches might benefit the GCDAMP. 

 The review confirmed the literature assessment that active CAM Programs have 

developed criteria and guidelines in AM processes to assist these transitions. Our review first 

looked at improvements needed in GCDAMP processes and then evaluated other AM programs 

for criteria that would assist the GCDAMP in making improvements. 

 The need for several improvements were identified in GCDAMP processes. The 

following were focused upon in reviewing other AM programs. 

• Organization structure, goals, dfcs; etc. 

• Program planning and budgeting 

• Effective monitoring programs 

• Responding to perturbations 

Reviews of other AM programs reveal broad opportunities to transfer knowledge gained 

on management actions and science to assist the GCDAMP. These include fish management and 

monitoring approaches used in The Upper Colorado, San Juan and Platte River RIPs; First 

Nation consensus building and dispute resolution in the Lower Bridge River Program; AM 

processes for program planning and budgeting from the CAL-FED ERP and Kissimmee River 

RP; analytical tradeoff models and decision support systems from CAL-FED ERP, Lower Bridge 

River Program, Lincoln National Forest Restoration Program; etc. 

CONCLUSIONS 

 Findings from this assessment were used to craft the following conclusions and 

recommendations. 

• AM is not a science model. It departs from the traditional science model wherein 

science is implemented until uncertainty is primarily resolved and management 

actions can be implemented with limited risk. 

• AM is a management model that was developed to confront the dynamics and 

continued uncertainties and risks encountered in large natural resource management 

issues such as riverine restoration, native species recovery, large forest area 

restoration, etc. 

• AM processes engage broad based stakeholder concerns, use best knowledge to 

define policy experiments and needed management actions to improve resources and 

learn, monitor and evaluate outcomes of these actions, and modify actions through 

repeated cycles of management and monitoring to gain desired outcomes. 

• Two general statements often ascribed to the AM model are very appropriate, “you 

learn by doing”, and “distinctions between management and science are blurred in the 

process to accomplish the primary goal, resource improvement”. 

• Because the management model relies on best science and modeling to both learn and 

define and refine improved management actions through repeated cycles, it is critical 

that managers are attentive to maintaining robust AM processes that will maximize 
7

effectiveness and efficiencies in continued transitions of management and science 

activities. 

• Reviews of literature and operating AM programs reveal that several AM attributes 

and processes are critical to sustaining effective management/science processes 

through time. Reviews of the GCDAMP indicates that improvements may be needed 

in several of those AM processes including: 

• Organization, structure, goals, entity roles 

• Program planning and budgeting 

• Effective monitoring approaches 

• Responding to perturbations 

• Reviews of other AM programs reveal broad opportunities to transfer knowledge 

gained on management actions and science to assist the GCDAMP. 

• Although improvements are needed in GCDAMP processes to insure more effective 

transitions of management and science activities, the review also found this to be 

normal occurrence in many AM programs. It is described in AM literature as 

“Double Loop Learning” and is critical to effective AM programs. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 The following recommendations are proposed related to management/science transitions 

in the GCDAMP. 

• The GCDAMP HBC goal appears to approach a recovery implementation program. 

If the GCDAMP is incorporating RIP direction informally, it should be clarified in 

mission, goals and objectives. 

• Goals should be made more specific and prioritized more as needed to assist program 

and budget planning on management actions and science. 

• Desired future resource conditions should be developed for all resources to effect 

appropriate planning of management actions and science. 

• Near term program and budget planning must have improved direction from 

stakeholders and managers as to priority needs. Definitions of minimal levels of 

resolution, types and amounts of information needed as well as accuracy requirements 

can be improved. 

• Out year program and budget planning (5-10 years) needs to be improved to help 

identify additional management actions and science needs as well as forced 

reductions in programs from budget shortfalls. 

• Monitoring programs under development must be explicitly designed to detect change 

in key indicators of resources of concern. A focus on design parameters that identify 

minimal information needs to define resource changes is important. 

• Abilities to identify, in advance, potential perturbations to the system assists 

management and science transitions. Improvements in program planning and 

budgeting, simulation models, tradeoff models and decision support systems would 

benefit these identifications. 
8

 EVALUATION OF CRITERIA GUIDING 

TRANSITION OF SCIENCE TO MANAGEMENT 

ACTIONS IN ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 

BY 

GCDAMP SCIENCE ADVISORS 

June, 2010 

PURPOSE 

The purpose of this report is to provide information to Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program members regarding criteria used in AM programs for transitioning 

between science and management actions. To provide this information we have evaluated both 

science literature on adaptive management and active programs pursuing adaptive management. 

 

INTRODUCTION 

 The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) was established to 

implement requirements of the 1992 Grand Canyon Protection Act and Glen Canyon Dam EIS as 

follows: “Operate Glen Canyon Dam and exercise other authorities in such a manner as to 

protect, mitigate adverse impacts to and improve values for which Grand Canyon National Park 

and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were established, including but not limited to natural 

and cultural resources and visitor use, and subject to water allocation and development 

provisions of existing statutes and laws,”. The Glen Canyon Dam EIS requires the Secretary to 

“Initiate a process of adaptive management whereby the effects of dam operations on 

downstream resources would be assessed and the results of those resource assessments would 

form the basis for future modifications of dam operations. The concept of adaptive management 

is based on the recognized need for operational flexibility to respond to monitoring and research 

findings,” (GCDEIS 1995). 

 In developing the FY 2010-11 work plans and budgets for the GCDAMP, it became clear 

to members that the GCDAMP needed to reevaluate and better define the management, science, 

policy and budget implications of how it was addressing research, monitoring, management 

actions, policy experiments, etc. in the program. Many GCDAMP members wanted greater 

clarification of how adaptive management literature and ongoing programs address activities of 

known and unknown outcomes in proposed tests of experimental policy. Issues of science 

sufficiency, management responsibilities, and appropriate assignment of funding as well as other 

factors required further clarification. 

As an example, a program which illustrates the need for greater clarification is the 

mechanical non-native fish removal project along the Colorado River mainstem. The non-native 

fish removal program was established as a policy experiment to determine if non-native fish and 

specifically rainbow trout could be effectively removed from the ecosystem to reduce predation 

on Humpback Chub (HBC). Effective procedures were developed and the removal program was 

included in a US Fish and Wildlife Service 2008 Biological Opinion as a necessary conservation 

measure to be implemented by the GCDAMP (USF&WS 2008). 

The science entity of the GCDAMP, the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center 

(GCMRC) has concluded that it has successfully completed the policy experiment for the 

management action, i.e. developing protocols and procedures for achieving desired levels of 
9

rainbow trout (RBT) control. However, the proposed Long Term Experimental Program (LTEP) 

direction of the GCDAMP could modify the policy experiment to also determine whether 

continuation of control of RBT has positive or negative effects on HBC. Uncertainty still exists 

as to impacts of the RBT control methods on long term HBC populations. 

Under budgeting guidelines in the GCDAMP which separate science and management 

from a funding perspective, if coldwater species control (nonnative salmonids) is continued, 

should it be continued and funded as a management action, science program, compliance activity 

or some combination, and what are the associated funding and program administrative changes 

needed, if any. 

The GCDAMP web site www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg includes the following 

statements related to management actions. 

• The scientific information obtained under the Adaptive Management Program is used 

as the basis for recommendations for dam operations. 

• Through the Adaptive Management approach, scientific experimentation is integrated 

into resource management actions. Over time, as more is learned about the 

complexities of the downstream ecosystem, the goal of enhancing and improving 

downstream resources and dam operations can be realized. 

Fundamental questions have surfaced from the above and other areas in the GCDAMP 

where activities could be defined as a science activity, management action, or both. Questions 

that have been raised by GCDAMP members include the following. 

• What does it mean in the context of adaptive management policy experiments to 

move from scientific experimental research to management action or conservation 

measures with known outcomes? 

• Do implemented management actions simply fall on a continuum of science relating 

to how much research or monitoring is involved or needed in their implementation? 

• What are the important considerations in evaluating criteria for moving from science 

to management actions or are these distinctions necessary in adaptive management 

programs? 

• Who takes responsibility for funding and implementation of “gray areas” in 

implementation of necessary management actions and science in an adaptive 

management program. 

SCIENCE ADVISOR CHARGE AND PROCEDURE

 The following motion was passed by the Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) 

by consensus on August 13, 2009 reflecting their desire to continue to develop information on 

this issue: 

“The AMWG requests that the Science Advisors survey other adaptive management 

programs and develop a report which describes their definitions of criteria for defining 

science-based management actions and the transition from research to management. The 

report should be provided to the TWG and AMWG members, and TWG should review the 

report and forward to AMWG options for AMWG to consider with regard to how 

GCDAMP should handle these issues.” 

 The Science Advisors developed approach for responding to the AMWG’s request is 

confined generally to the following objective: The SAs will develop a review of literature and 

brief survey of selected federal and state adaptive management and related programs and 

gather information on how AM programs transition between science and management 
10

activities. Based on information obtained the SAs will identify criteria or guidelines that 

might assist GCDAMP scientists, managers and stakeholders to improve transitions between 

management and science. 

 The Science Advisors protocol and operating procedures do not include assessments of 

policy or legal interpretations of USDOI and GCDAMP decision processes. The request by the 

AMWG asks for a brief survey of information from the literature and other programs that utilize 

adaptive management or similar processes and have implemented management actions or similar 

practices. This request is an activity that conforms to SA protocols. 

 The project is not intended to create an explicit definition for either “a science activity” 

or a “management action”. Nor is it intended to determine when GCDAMP programs should be 

transitioned from management actions to science or science to management actions or similar 

activities. These are policy decisions of the Secretary of Interior. However, the project and this 

report does provide information to the Secretary, AMWG, GCDAMP managers, scientists and 

stakeholders from scientific literature and programs applying active adaptive management 

processes to assist in some of these determinations. 

 The general approach taken for information development was a review of literature 

followed by case study methodology. Ten adaptive management program cases were selected 

that had similar characteristics to the GCDAMP as follows: 

• Federal and/or state directed programs 

• Utilize adaptive management or similar processes 

• Long term programs with legal, policy, or regulatory authorities to resolve landscape 

level issues involving natural resource and social resource conflicts that include high 

uncertainty 

• Implementing management actions to assure appropriate protection and or 

management of natural and social resources is significant program thrust 

• Science learning to reduce uncertainty of related impacts from management activities 

is significant program thrust 

• Sufficient science exists in some management activities to reduce science investments 

in selected areas. 

EVALUATING ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT LITERATURE FOR GUIDANCE 

Generally, the adaptive management literature reviewed is directed at evaluating effective 

approaches to adaptive management, including the Department of the Interior’s 2007 technical 

guide for adaptive management (Williams et al, 2007). Focus on reviewed literature was given 

to observations on AM made in the 1980s, 1990s, and new millennium. The period marks 

decoded milestones for scientific reviews of programs initiated in the 1980s and 1990s. 

 The key question in this assessment relates to whether criteria and guidelines for 

transitioning from management to science and science to management are being used in adaptive 

management programs and if so, how are they being used. 

Adaptive management programs differ from traditional science models where science has 

been more of an exogenous information input to both decision and management processes. In 

the traditional science model university and government agency scientists in the 1950s-1970s 

conducted much of their research apart from the management process. Because scientists were 

not intimately engaged in either management decision processes or management activities, their 

science was often improperly specified with limited applicability to management needs. The 
11

label “Ivory Tower” science has been used by managers to highlight their frustration of not being 

able to apply research results. 

In spite of the incongruence in science and management processes in the 1950s-1970s 

both scientists and managers struggled to improve the process. Scientists had fears of being 

tainted by closer associations with managers. Managers feared that decision processes could be 

diluted by extraneous information from scientists. Academic programs began to engage 

managers to “better frame” the science inquiry, and managers, both public and private, realized 

the importance of reduced uncertainty in good decision making and invested more in science. 

Frustration of both scientists and managers in natural resources heightened in the 1960s 

and 1970s when national and global resource assessments clearly revealed large scale natural 

resource degradation and the need for improved ecosystem management and science at the 

landscape level (Ehrlick and Birch 1967, Borman and Likens 1967; Carson 1962; Odum et al 

1960; Van Dyne 1966). The US public, manifested in growth of environmental groups and 

passage of environmental protection laws demanded more effective science/management 

programs. 

 The 1970s-1990s included significant changes in the science/management model. 

Primary paradigm shifts involved more holistic systems approaches in both science and 

management with concepts such as ecosystem science and operations research not only realizing 

effective definition but also implementation. Academic and management foundations were 

provided for these new approaches through advances in systems ecology, decision theory, risk 

assessment, uncertainty analysis, game theory, conservation ecology, management science, 

systems modeling, etc. (Bellman 1957, 1961; Clark 1976; Ermoliev and Gaivaronski 1984; 

Glantz and Thompson 1981; Krutilla and Fisher 1975). 

 By the 1980s scientists and managers were advancing in these new fields but struggling 

to address large ecosystem problems with extensive biophysical and socio-economic dynamics 

and great uncertainty. Traditional disaggregation of science and management processes could 

not provide effective discovery and resource improvement. However, a proposed process of 

ongoing management policy assessments by teams of managers and scientists offered promise 

(Holling 1978). 

 All of the above factors and others were important in creating the basis for the concept of 

adaptive management, and they are fundamental to the practice of this management science 

concept today. The Adaptive Management (AM) paradigm is a management model supported by 

science, and it differs significantly from the traditional science approach. It is in this context that 

we seek clarification of criteria and guidelines. 

Holling (1978) and Walters (1986) and several teams of scientists from the University of 

British Columbia are credited with forging this new management approach. Their development 

of Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management (AEAM) programs created the basis 

for the approach (Gunderson et al 1995). 

The issue for which clarification is sought applies to both passive and active adaptive 

management. In a passive approach, predictive models are used to identify key monitoring 

variables needed to evaluate system dynamics. The monitoring information is used to track 

outcomes that result from external environmental variation. It is passive because managers don’t 

purposely perturb the system for response, but rather rely on natural variation in key drivers to 

result in system responses. 

In active adaptive management, management strategies and management actions are 

adapted as policy experiments to test and sort among alternative hypotheses. Programs are 
12

defined passive or active depending on the degree of imposed change in the management 

direction. The GCDAMP program has used both approaches in recent history but generally 

active approaches are being pursued. Flow release experiments and non-native fish control both 

fall in the category of active adaptive management policy experimentation. 

Adaptive management was developed as an approach to environmental management that 

recognized ecosystems as complex, dynamic systems of high variability (Holling 1978, Walters 

1986). As such, adaptive management is built on assumptions that these complex systems are 

characterized by large uncertainties that persist through management/science processes and are 

full of surprises. System behaviors exceed the bounds of rational expectations. 

Adaptive management is an ongoing process that combines assessment with management 

actions in order to learn about the complexities of system dynamics as well as to achieve 

intended social objectives (Holling 1978, Walters 1986, Lee 1992). Assessing a system requires 

synthesizing available data to generate a set of competing alternative explanations about 

particular sets of resource problems and social objectives. Management actions are designed by 

considering what actions are robust to uncertainties among alternative explanations and what 

actions will help test and winnow those uncertainties (Walters 1986). Management actions are 

evaluated by monitoring system indicators in a process that uses that information to promote 

learning. While these activities are described linearly, adaptive management is typically an 

iterative process that develops an ongoing dialogue through time about the functioning of the 

system and the goals of management. 

While the AM approach has been around for almost forty years, it has proven to be 

“technically capable and socially challenged” (Johnson 1999). The technically capable part of 

adaptive management processes involves the ability to develop integrative models that help 

scientists and managers to 1) decide upon an agreed set of hypotheses to test, and 2) to design 

experiments to evaluate both the understanding of system dynamics and the effects of subsequent 

interventions and policy tests (Walters 1986, 1997). In the GCDAMP the development of 

hypotheses (or explanations) and subsequent implementation and evaluation of policies 

derivative of those explanations has been accomplished in several areas. An example is the 

salmonid control program. 

The socially challenged part of Johnson’s (1999) statement refers to the non-scientific 

parts of AM, in which complicated social and political uncertainties arise. Taking the GCDAMP 

non-native fish control example, although a control method for salmonids has been developed, 

its longer-term implementation could have many implications which have considerable 

uncertainty. That is, will it improve HBC and other native fish resources or create greater 

predation from other more efficient and effective predators? And, are its social conflicts with 

cultural values, sports fishing, etc. resolvable? 

 Two key ideas come out of the literature review on adaptive management and how they 

relate to the issue of programmatic transitions back and forth from management to science to 

management. One is the operational aspect of adaptive management as it is being implemented. 

In other words, what do the processes or methods of adaptive management, as laid out by various 

authors, suggest about transitions between science, monitoring and management as they apply to 

the GCDAMP? The second idea involves social or institutional learning. This rephrases the 

questions of programmatic transition to one of, can the AM processes and methods being applied 

be improved and also improve resources and learning? Each of these ideas is discussed in the 

following sections. First we address the operational aspects of adaptive management, i.e. actual 

implementation of AM and how it relates to the question of transition. Second we examine the 
13

role of long term learning in adaptive management and how it relates to administration of AM in 

the GCDAMP and necessary transitions of management and science. 

ROLES OF MANAGEMENT AND SCIENCE IN IMPLEMENTING ADAPTIVE 

MANAGEMENT 

 Several conceptual models have been developed that attempt to characterize the 

implementation of adaptive management. The earliest of these was presented by Holling (1981) 

and is shown in Figure 1. This model presents a more complex flow chart of resource problem 

assessment, primarily the left hand side of the figure, and management actions. The assessment 

phase of adaptive management uses models, simulation, deduction etc. to help winnow among 

sets of hypotheses about resource issues. That information is used to develop a range of policy 

options that are tested and evaluated prior to policy formation and implementation. 

Figure 1. Conceptual model of adaptive environmental assessment and management, indicating 

the integration of processes that assess, propose, test and evaluate hypotheses of ecosystem 

dynamics and policy implementation ( Holling 1981), 

The second model we present was developed by Williams et al (2007) and is shown in 

Figure 2. In this figure as in the Holling (1981) approach, problem assessment is the beginning 

of the adaptive management process, followed by design and implementation of particular policy 

options. The DOI model is more linear, and proposes a cyclical, iterative approach. 
14

Figure 2. US. Dept. of Interior diagram of steps in the adaptive management process (Williams 

et al. 2007). 

Both diagrams emphasize the circular, integrated and iterative nature of adaptive 

management. The Holling diagram focuses on the key role of alternative scientific hypotheses in 

developing and testing policies prior to selection for implementation. The DOI process sees 

separation of model assessments of a policy to its implementation as a management action as a 

design feature. Both diagrams depict distinct steps in the process, i.e. that the framework 

involves shifting the focus of activities from one of assessment to implementation and then 

evaluation. 

Interestingly, there is no distinct separate step in either model for the extensive traditional 

science inquiry process prior to implementation of an action. That is, neither of the conceptual 

models depicts science as a process that is distinct (as an identifiable item or bubble) and unto 

itself. Elements of scientific processes are ever present, i.e. hypothesis formulation, simulation 

experiments, monitoring, modeling, etc. However, they are cast into the process of adaptive 

management policy experimentation. This is why many authors state that adaptive management 

blurs the distinction between science and management (Holling 1978; Walters 1986; Lee 1993; 

Gunderson and Prichard 2002; Williams et al. 2007). This relates to the principle in an adaptive 

management framework that there is not clear separation of science and management activities, 

indeed they are both part of a more holistic model of management. 
15

Both diagrams emphasize the role of monitoring as a critical step in adaptive 

management. In the adaptive assessment phase of the process, one of the key outcomes is 

identification of critical ecosystem variables to monitor. Walters (1997) states that monitoring 

should evaluate the outcomes of management interventions, and as such is a critical part of 

adaptive management. While monitoring is done for many reasons, it is in the context of 

adaptive management that monitoring helps to build understanding and provides the basis for 

learning. 

The second idea relating to our issue of management actions and science in AM relates to 

social learning. The completion of iterative cycles as depicted in Figure 1 and Figure 2 is often 

referred to as social learning in AM (Williams et al. 2007). Incremental or single loop learning 

occurs as management action plans, models and policies are implemented and evaluated. The 

second type of learning is described as double-loop, where the underlying AM model or schema 

is questioned and rejected or revised to improve AM processes. 

With respect to programmatic transitions i.e. moving from more management based 

activities to science based activities, the role of learning becomes a key consideration. The 

GCDAMP program has demonstrated the capacity to learn, from iterative passive and active 

management approaches. The series of flow release management actions made over the past 13 

years in the Modified Low Fluctuating Flow (MLFF) policy experiment has fostered extensive 

learning through monitoring and research. Improved conceptual and predictive models were 

developed, and extensive research studies and assessments completed to provide knowledge of 

resource condition, impacts and changes related to these policy experiments. For example, now 

high flow experimental flood releases are only scheduled to occur when the river is in an 

enriched condition relating to specific aspects of sediment. Management actions, monitoring and 

research continue to evaluate sand input, retention, conservation, redistribution etc. under high 

and low flows. 

OBSERVATIONS FROM LITERATURE ON TRANSITION FROM MANAGEMENT 

ACTIONS TO SCIENCE 

Our review of AM literature reveals that the AM paradigm generally minimizes the 

distinction between science and management activities being implemented. That is, AM policy 

experiments utilize management actions that managers and scientists feel, based on their 

assessments, will most likely improve resource conditions and learning. Through the iterative 

process of implementing and monitoring the results of these revised actions, AM programs can 

obtain improved responses from resources and improved learning. Some AM programs will 

require many iterations of management action/monitoring and in a few surprises will occur that 

disrupt both resource improvement and learning. 

 Both AM conceptual design and program implementation models characterize the 

process as more a continuum of evaluating outcomes of adjusted management policies/actions 

due to changing biological and social dynamics as well as surprises. Uncertainty and risk are 

embraced as continuous elements of the process. Most often the high uncertainty and risk that 

these programs confront cannot be resolved due to highly dynamic biological and social 

interactions. As such, the paradigm addresses learning differently than the more traditional 

science model of extensive science applications to reduce uncertainty and risk before a 

management action is taken. 

In its application the AM model is not designed as a science model with a primary goal to 

reduce uncertainty relating to management actions so they can be implemented, nor is it simply a 
16

management model that focuses on optimizing actions. Rather it is a mixed model, wherein 

management actions are designed and implemented to maximize potential opportunity for 

resource benefit and learning. Iterations of modified management actions and monitoring are the 

primary mechanisms for gains in both areas. 

The issue focused upon in this literature assessment relates primarily to how science and 

management activities operate together in the Adaptive Management Model to provide 

management effectiveness. Science in and of itself is an important part of the process. That is, 

best knowledge is used to both initialize the AM process, i.e. select best management actions and 

hypothesis, as well as design and implement effective monitoring to provide the learning to make 

iterative revisions to management actions. 

Science is a critical component of the continuing process that permits us to learn and 

improve decision processes regarding management actions. As noted, its focus is different, 

however, than the traditional science model, because uncertainty in many AM programs cannot 

be resolved to levels that will mitigate high risks in the management decision processes. 

The ever present uncertainty in AM programs requires a different purpose for 

management actions and ordering of the actions by managers. We find from the literature that 

the AM model must rely also on a broader and also slightly different set of criteria for evaluating 

outcomes for specific resources and management actions, contrasting of actions, resource 

outcomes and decision processes (Table 1). In major part this relates to the fact that the resource 

issues and settings require the manager to invoke decisions in highly dynamic and uncertain 

biophysical and social environments and, therefore, often assume higher risk. As such 

methodologies such as tradeoff analysis structured decision process, etc. are invoked. 

Table 1: Contrasting differing criteria and methods in traditional science models and AM 

models. 

Traditional Science Model AM Model 

Problem definition Consensus building 

Science question Policy experiment design 

Bivariate statistics Simulation modeling 

Analysis of variance Uncertainty analysis 

Power tests Bayesion statistics 

Predictive modeling Fuzzy regression 

Multivariate statistics Stochastic modeling 

 Probability analysis Conflict Resolution 

Resource tradeoff analysis Structured decision processes 

In the AM paradigm, implementing management actions hypothesized to best improve 

resources and learning, and effective monitoring of resource improvements is the validation for 

continuation of activities. Because uncertainty cannot be resolved the above differing criteria are 

needed to assist the manager in determining the degree of risk that will be tolerated in the 

decision process. 

Guidance from the AM literature would support several general clarifications regarding 

the AM paradigm and the relative role of science and management actions in these programs as 

follows. 
17

• AM programs in natural resource conservation are often established to resolve 

complex, multiple party, multiple resource and multiple objective issues that cover 

large physical areas and harbor significant ongoing uncertainty. 

• Active AM programs are most effective in implementing iterative management 

actions through time to create improved states of resource conditions and learning. 

Improvements in resources of concern through management represent the primary 

thrust of the AM paradigm. Learning is accomplished through the ongoing 

monitoring activities to evaluate changes in environmental processes and resources of 

concern. 

• Two types of learning are involved in the AM model. The first, “single loop” 

learning evaluates the effectiveness of management actions in the policy experiments. 

The second, “double loop” learning allows the applied AM model itself to be 

evaluated over a longer period. 

• “Single Loop” learning is most focused in AM on the continued iterative process of 

management action/monitoring/evaluation/ revised management action. 

• Longer term learning allows one to evaluate overall AM effectiveness, and revise 

accordingly and then monitor. This is referred to by Williams et al (2007) as 

“double loop” learning and involves evaluating institutional structures such as AM 

methods, goals, objectives, etc. GCDAMP is currently at a stage of long term AM 

learning which indicates that changes in the GCDAMP approach should be evaluated. 

Literature addressing the operating principals of adaptive management are fairly 

consistent and clear in clarifying general guidelines for its application and the roles and 

transitions of management and science (Holling 1978; Walters 1986; Gunderson et al 1998; 

Williams et al 2007). 

OBSERVATIONS ON GCDAMP STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONS AND 

IMPLICATIONS TO PROGRAMMATIC TRANSITIONS 

 The programmatic transitions among various elements of an AM program, i.e. consensus 

building, assessments, management actions, monitoring, revised management actions etc. 

represents a continuum of decision points for managers. The following section provides 

observations on criteria and guidelines that can improve AM institutional structures and 

operations. Hopefully they will be helpful to GCDAMP members in understanding science and 

management transitions. Several structural and operational characteristics of GCDAMP are 

referenced. 

• Organization, Goals and Leadership 

• Program Planning and Budgeting 

• Effective Science Monitoring 

• Responding to Perturbations 

• Assessments of Knowledge 

• Responding to Independent Review 

Organization and Leadership 

Adaptive management was developed to address complex natural resource issues where 

uncertainty is pervasive i.e. ocean fisheries management, migratory waterfowl management, 

landscape level public lands wildfire management, etc. Functional organizational structure and 
18

purpose as well as quality management and leadership are critical for effective 

management/science transitions. 

 The GCDAMP program has defined purpose, mission, strategies, goals, etc., supported 

by federal law, regulation and policy and funding mechanisms. It has an organizational structure 

similar to most AM programs with administrative components considered important for effective 

operation, i.e. policy group, technical group, science group, independent review group, etc. 

 The ability to operate multiple large management and science activities concurrently 

while maintaining stability in critical resources and learning is general evidence that transitioning 

of management actions to monitoring and back to management actions is being successful. This 

requires ongoing collaboration of managers/scientists through extensive documented meetings, 

actions, developed assessments and decisions. Generally, many of these criteria appear to be met 

in the GCDAMP. However, internal and external reviews of the program have cited needs for 

improvement. 

Several reviews of the GCDAMP program over the past five years have identified needs 

of the program to reevaluate several of its adaptive management processes related to 

administrative structure, roles of the GCDAMP groups, goals, desired future conditions, 

leadership, Native American consultation etc. (GCDAMP Science Planning Group Report 2006; 

Susskin et al.2009; GCDAMP Science Advisor Review 2007; GCDAMP Roles AD HOC 

Report 2009; USGS Workshop on LTEP 4/10/07; USGS Knowledge Assessment, 2006; SCORE 

Report 2005; NRC 1999). When one reads these reports the need for improvement in several 

key criteria in organization, goals, leadership, consensus building, program planning and 

budgeting, research and monitoring, etc. as well as other program areas is evident. 

Although several organization and leadership criteria are noted as needing attention, the 

following have emphasis. 

• A reevaluation of overall mission needs to occur as relates to threatened and 

endangered species and recovery of such species, i.e. should the GCDAMP 

incorporate a Recovery Implementation Program (RIP). 

• The roles, responsibilities and authorities of the GCDAMP groups need to be 

reevaluated and possibly revised to respond to changing program activity. Native 

American consultation and dispute resolution need improved criteria. 

• Development of well defined goals and desired future conditions for resources of 

concern need accomplishment. 

• To assure seamless operation of the GCDAMP through changes in administration the 

Secretary Designee and GCDAMP may benefit from an executive director or similar 

position. 

Individual entities of the GCDAMP, i.e. AMWG, GCMRC etc, have had pulses of strong 

productivity but reviews have identified lapses over time in each program which have hampered 

progress of the whole. Strong executive leadership in these programs have been cited as a 

potential factor for improved long term accomplishment. 

 The literature on adaptive management indicates that criteria such as individual AM 

leaders can play a large role in the advancement of programs and facilitate transitions among 

stages in a program, i.e. science to management. To improve management to science transitions, 

more definitive specification of roles are needed relating to differing entities in the GCDAMP, 

how the AM processes function, and the authorities and responsibilities of differing AMP 
19

members (federal, state and tribal agencies) as relates to management actions and science. These 

issues are addressed at length in the GCDAMP Roles Report (2009). 

Walters (1997) found that the presence of strong leadership is critical to the success of 

adaptive approaches to solve fisheries issues. Gunderson et al. (1995) found small groups of 

leaders in different settings can also be a determining factor to success. 

Program Planning and Budgeting 

 Effective program planning is a principal criteria in insuring management action/science 

transitions in complex natural resource programs such as the GCDAMP. This involves 

comprehensive planning efforts for overall adaptive management process and procedure, 

strategic planning for long term management and science programs and tactical planning for 

annual operation plans and budgets. 

 In evaluating recent planning direction, i.e. 2004-2010, strategic and operational program 

and budget plans are in place and utilized. Examples are the GCDAMP 2004 Strategic Plan, 

GCMRC 2009 Strategic Science Plan, and GCDAMP and GCMRC Annual Program and Budget 

Operation Plans 2004-2011. However, the 2010-2011 GCDAMP program and budget 

development process raised concerns over potential use of science base funds to conduct 

management and or compliance activities (non-native fish control). The GCMRC raised 

concerns about continual erosion of science capability by the transfer of funds from needed 

science programs to management and compliance activities. Yet some GCDAMP members feel 

the long term fish control program is simply one of the many flow and non-flow management 

actions being implemented in the long term MLFF policy experiment. A deficiency seems to 

exist in criteria and guidelines to resolve the conflict of funding competing science and 

management activities. This specific concern was in part the impetus for this paper and clearly 

could impact management/science transitions in the program. 

As noted in the above sections, the GCDAMP could benefit from a review of its overall 

AM structure and processes. The current issue related to the non-native fish control program 

does not appear so much a conflict over improper AM processes, but rather a need to revise 

original organizational guidelines on funding science and management actions and possibly 

clarification and refinement of management and science entity roles and responsibilities in AM 

policy experiments. Evidence exists related to management of the GCDAMP that the program, 

after 15 years of operation, could benefit from the “Double Loop” learning process (Williams et 

al, 2007). 

Funding of the GCDAMP as relates to total level, and allocations to various operations 

i.e. administration, management actions, science, independent review etc. is a policy matter of 

the Secretary’s office. The current issue does reveal a need for the AMWG in its advisory 

capacity to the Secretary to review the GCDAMP strategic Plan sections relating to roles and 

responsibilities of various GCDAMP entities and required budgets to accommodate current 

needs of these roles. Several findings seem to support this need. For example, the past three 

annual program and budget cycles have resulted in increasing lists of both management actions 

and science that have to be deferred due to budget short falls. Current out year budget planning 

does not appear appropriate for a program of this need and scope and guidelines do not seem 

clear regarding the GCDAMPs authorities to pursue cooperative funding ventures. 

Effective Science Monitoring 
20

 The AM model uses monitoring of the resource impacts of management actions to 

validate both accomplishment of resource improvement and learning. Having credible and 

effective monitoring programs is one of the most critical criteria for evaluating the mix of 

science and management actions and there transitions. 

 The GCDAMP is currently using a structured and collaborative process to develop and 

validate most appropriate monitoring approaches for the specified GCDAMP goals. Over the 

second decade of the GCDAMP, 2007-2016, it is proposed that core monitoring programs will 

be formally implemented for each GCDAMP goal. A collaborative process of the TWG and 

GCMRC, reviewed by the AMWG, protocol evaluation panels, Science Advisors, and other 

scientists is currently validating the process. Implementation proposals for this critical program 

reveal significant overall requirements, both in programs and budgets. 

 Over the first 10 years of the GCDAMP the necessary transitions of management actions 

to science to management actions were impacted but not heavily constrained by structural 

,managerial or budget issues of the program. However, over the past five years the three issues 

have become problematic in effecting transitions. Although current budget shortfalls appear to 

be a driving factor, needed revisions in program structure also exist. 

The effectiveness of monitoring and research to improve the designs of management 

actions will be a primary factor influencing future resource improvements and learning in the 

GCDAMP. Criteria that can guide monitoring designs to obtain clear specification of managers 

information needs, including types, resolution level, accuracy, priorities, etc. are critical. 

Assessments of Knowledge

The accomplishment of research and monitoring in GCDAMP is based on criteria and 

principles that apply whenever and wherever the need for science exists. As noted, however, in 

AM the science process must confront the vagaries of extremely high variance and uncertainty, 

and invoke a broader set of analytical and other tools. 

Because of the greater dynamics and uncertainty, continued assessments of knowledge 

are critical in AM programs to more effectively redesign management actions in policy 

experiments and inform managers of associated risk. This ever-present uncertainty surrounding 

goal attainment requires continued updates to knowledge assessments as critical criteria in the 

iterative management action/monitoring process. 

The GCDAMP program with GCMRC guidance has recommended criteria for significant 

reviews of knowledge at five-year intervals, i.e. Knowledge Assessment and Status of Colorado 

River Ecosystem (SCORE) reports. These are critical for maintaining effective policy on 

transitions of management to science and should occur I 2011/2012. Criteria and guidelines for 

their development should be strongly based in ecosystem management and science, clarifying the 

critical integration required between management actions and monitoring in the AM process. 

The assessments should be used to better inform designs for management actions to improve 

resources and learning. 

 

Responding to External Perturbations 

 An attribute of many AM programs with high variability is that one can be surprised by 

perturbations that were not foreseen. The GCDAMP has witnessed several in its short tenure, 

including unexpected variability in rainbow trout populations in the CRE, multiyear drought 

causing significant low flow inputs to Lake Powell and high output temperature to CRE, strong 
21

opposition of Native American communities to continued trout removal from the LCR 

confluence area, etc. Each of these and others have effected how the GCDAMP has transitioned 

from management to science. 

Issues such as rainbow trout population control involve impacts to science, management 

and policy. This issue and potentially others will require significant GCDAMP effort to assure 

progressive transition among management and monitoring activities. 

 The issue of warm water releases from Glen Canyon Dam, also a significant perturbation, 

seemingly did not result in significant disruptions of management or science processes during the 

2003-2006 period. However, although GCMRC and TWG both identified opportunities for 

management actions and science to take advantage of the natural policy experiment, minor 

changes occurred. An outcome could have included a risk assessment of potential impacts of 

predicted future warming. 

Responding to Independent Review 

 Internal and external review processes are critical criteria for evaluating an organizations 

science knowledge related to management decisions. Reviews have cited concerns over focus of 

the GCDAMP science (NRC 1999); AM processes and science/management integration 

(GCDAMP Science Advisors, 2007); appropriate role assignments and leadership (GCDAMP 

Roles Ad Hoc Report 2009); desired future conditions (GCDAMP DFC Group 2009), AM 

processes (Susskind et al 2009) etc. 

 The GCDAMP from inception in 1996 established several levels of program reviews 

which are extensive and continuous. Some of the reviews are required in the 1995 GCDEIS 

Record of Decision by the Secretary of Interior for operations of the program. Strategic reviews 

are required by the EIS and have included the National Research Council (NRC) and the 

GCDAMP Science Advisors Group (SA) reviews. The NRC has generally evaluated the long 

term response of the program to its original requirements as established in the GCDEIS (1995). 

 The SAs are a required Independent Review Panel (IRP) of the EIS to evaluate overall 

strategic and operational management and science planning direction including budget 

appropriateness. As such, they review all major science and management plans and their 

budgets. They also provide advice to the Secretary, AMWG, GCMRC and TWG on issues of 

concern. Approximately 4-6 reviews are developed each year and the SAs are engaged on a 

continuous basis in their service role. 

 GCMRC utilizes other independent review panels (IRPs) including Protocol Evaluation 

Panels (PEPs) to evaluate science protocols, and many independent scientists to evaluate study 

plans, proposals, manuscripts, reports etc. The AMWG and TWG also utilize the SAs for 

science and technical reviews and other service. Further, member agencies perform annual and 

term reviews of the effectiveness of various elements of the program. 

 The GCDAMP is also evaluated by external management, science and policy experts 

who have academic and other interests in the results of application of the AM paradigm on 

resources of concern (Susskin et al. 2009). These reviews have highlighted AM concerns 

mentioned above that effect management/science transitions. 

Independent reviews are important to evaluate the effectiveness of the transition in 

management and science and recommend how they can be revised to best improve management 

and science procedures. Accepting for observations of the NRC, no formal assessment has 

occurred to evaluate how the GCDAMP responds to reviews or how reviews have influenced 
22

criteria as to when and where changes in management/science transitions should occur. This 

assessment also did not include a charge to accomplish this task. 

Evidence exists that the GCDAMP has extended lag times in responding to reviews. 

Examples are recommendations related to goals, dfcs, ecosystem science approaches, monitoring 

plans, science and management integration, etc. These lags cause disruption in 

management/science transition and progress of the GCDAMP 

EVALUATING SCIENCE AND MANAGEMENT TRANSITIONS IN LARGE 

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION PROGRAMS 

In addition to evaluating the literature for guidelines on transitioning of science and 

management in adaptive management programs, we reviewed a group of operating adaptive 

management programs in the U.S. and Canada. 

The application of the concepts and theories of adaptive management as developed by 

Holling (1978), Walters (1986), Gunderson et al (1995) and others has not had a long history 

from which to evaluate operating procedures. Yet, its application is quite broad based in North 

America and several other continents. 

Assessment Approach 

Our approach used in the review of adaptive management programs was to first identify 

needs for improvement in how the GCDAMP transitions between management and science 

processes and isolate criteria and guidelines used by other adaptive management programs that 

might improve GCDAMP processes. 

Potential areas of improvement in GCDAMP abilities to transition between science and 

management were categorized by the general areas where these transitions are effected. This 

“double loop” learning is considered by many adaptive management specialists to be critical to 

adaptive management programs long term enhancement as a management tool (Gunderson and 

Pritchard Jr, et al. 2002). 

The intent of this review of selected active adaptive management programs and the 

discussion of how they utilize management actions and science is not to imply that any explicit 

guidelines are best for all programs or GCDAMP. In fact, all programs reviewed have extensive 

accomplishments and offer opportunity for learning to other programs. Adaptive management is 

not an exacting science and in fact variance and uncertainty are defining attributes. Leaders in 

this field of management, i.e. Hollings (1978), Walters (1986), Gunderson et al. (1995) all have 

observed great variance in how it is applied. The intent instead is simply to identify methods that 

might improve transitioning between science and management in the GCDAMP. 

Adaptive Management Programs Reviewed 

 Although ten active adaptive management programs were selected for review, additional 

programs were screened to select the ten for interviews. The general approach taken for 

information development was case study methodology. Cases selected had similar 

characteristics to the GCDAMP as follows: 

• Federal and/or state directed programs 

• Use adaptive management or similar processes 

• Long term programs with legal, policy, or regulatory authorities to resolve landscape 

level issues involving natural resource and social resource conflicts 
23

• Implementing management actions to improve appropriate protection and or 

management of natural and cultural resources is a significant program thrust 

• The use of science to reduce uncertainty of related impacts from management 

activities is a significant program thrust 

• Sufficient science success exists in reducing the uncertainty of outcomes of 

management activities to define reduced science requirements in some areas. 

An effort was also extended to incorporate several programs that are focused on 

providing the science and management basis for recovery of endangered fish in western reverine 

settings, a priority goal of the GCDAMP. Following are programs that were screened in the 

assessment. Reviewed programs are in italics. 

• Adaptive Waterfowl Harvest Management: USDI/FWS 

• Interagency Bison Management Plan: National Park Service, Yellowstone National 

Park. 

• Apache Sitgreaves NF Restoration Program,, AZ 

• Lincoln National Forest Restoration Program, NM 

• Kissimmee River; Florida 

• Columbia River Programs; PNW 

• Cal-Fed; California 

• Platte River; Wyoming/Colorado/Nebraska 

• Trinity River; California 

• South Florida Restoration Task Force, Florida 

• Jornada Experimental Range; NM 

• Northwest Forest Plan; PNW 

• East Cascade Greater Forest Ecosystem; PNW 

• Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program; SW 

• Interagency Basin Management Plan 

• Upper Colorado River Recovery Implementation Program 

• San Juan River Recovery Implementation Program 

• Lower Bridge River of British Columbia, Canada

• Klamath River Basin Restoration Program 

• Chesapeake Bay Restoration Program 

• Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP); Florida 

Proposed GCDAMP Actions to Improve Management/Science Transitions 

 The GCDAMP utilizes many operations guidelines and criteria for the TWG, GCMRC, 

SAs etc., that effect how management actions and science are implemented, integrated, etc. 

These are specified in various GCDAMP strategic operations, protocol and procedures 

documents. 

As noted above, internal and external reviews of the GCDAMP have cited needed 

improvements in various program elements that can effect its performance. We identified 

selected criteria related to needed improvements in the following areas for evaluation. 

• Organization and leadership 

• Program and budget planning 

• Effective monitoring 

• Responding to perturbations 
24

 In the review, our intent is to evaluate needed improvements in the above GCDAMP 

program areas and identify guidelines, criteria and procedures from reviewed adaptive 

management programs that could have application to these needed improvements (Table 2). 

Table 2: Areas of Needed Improvement in GCDAMP Attributes to Enhance 

Management/Science Transitions. 

Organizational Structure, Goals and Leadership

• Improvement in criteria and guidelines for insuring effective collaborative adaptive 

management processes (CAM); i.e. improve consensus building; dispute resolution 

process; joint fact finding. etc. 

• Improvements in roles and responsibilities of GCDAMP entities. 

• Improved specification of criteria related to goals, desired resource conditions and 

program priorities. 

Program Planning and Budgeting 

• Improved guidelines and criteria regarding type, amount, resolution and accuracy of 

information needed to better define management actions and experimental policies 

• Improved 10 year strategic program and budget criteria that incorporates guidelines 

for tradeoff analysis methods and structured decision analysis 

Effective Monitoring Program 

• Improved criteria for monitoring that focus on cost effective detection of critical 

system and resource indicator changes for priority resources and issues of concern. 

Responding to Perturbations 

• Improved CAM criteria for resolving disputes, clear understanding of tradeoff and 

risks, revised out year program and budget planning. 

Organizational Structure, Goals and Leadership 

Improved guidelines and criteria are needed for collaborative adaptive management 

(CAM) processes. Improvement in guidelines for consensus building and dispute resolution 

will effect management action/science transitions. Areas that exemplify the need for 

improvement in consensus building are; time intervals required by the GCDAMP to reach a 

consensus and resolve issues on criteria for management actions in a long term LTEP; Protocols 

for a HFE; criteria and protocols for non-native fish control; etc. Improved guidelines could 

result in reduced conflict in AM processes and shorter time intervals for transitioning between 

management and science activities. 

 An area that exemplifies needed improvement in both consensus building and dispute 

resolution is the 2010 decision of member Native American Tribes to oppose selected non-native 

fish control policies. Tribes, based on cultural values, oppose unnecessary taking of life. In the 

consensus building process Tribes agreed to the policy experiment as a science effort assumed to 

have short tenure. Tribal concerns now exist that proposed continuation of non-native fish 

removals as a management activity violates cultural values and does not follow appropriate 

consultation and dispute resolution with the Tribes. 

Significant time and resources have been dedicated to developing Rainbow Trout nonnative fish control management actions and monitoring. Could improved criteria for AM 

consensus building and dispute resolution have helped to resolve this issue and avert similar 

issues in the future? 
25

 In review of other adaptive management programs, many revisit and revise elements of 

their mission, goals, and operating protocols in the first 20 years. Much of this revision relates to 

inherent program dynamics, the need to reevaluate originally cast hypothesis, i.e. “double loop” 

learning. 

 Some programs have very focused mission, goals, objectives, operations protocols, etc., 

that have limited need for revision. Examples are the San Juan River, Upper Colorado River, and 

Platte River Recovery Implementation Programs, etc. However, even in these programs many 

initial hypotheses of how resources and society respond to policy experiments and management 

actions do require revision. Interviews with program managers document that formal guidelines 

and criteria and processes for gaining and sustaining input and consensus from stakeholders is 

critical to transitions between management and science and that these criteria must be revisited 

and revised as part of the “double loop” learning process. 

 Some adaptive management programs screened have highly developed AM approaches to 

very complex multi-objective management and science programs. Most often this enhancement 

correlates to the broad scope of issues addressed. Examples are the Cal-Fed Program, 

Chesapeake Bay Program, South Florida Program, Northwest Forest Plan, etc. These programs 

are so large, individual projects in the programs often have more comprehensive activities and 

larger funding than the GCDAMP. 

 In some AM programs it can take one to two decades after implementation to resolve 

stakeholder consensus on fundamental issues such as program goals, or desired future resource 

conditions. For example, the Kissimmee River program was challenged with two decades of 

science and consensus building to formulate acceptable definitions of its mission to restore 

“ecological integrity” to the Kissimmee River and even more years to craft and implement 

agreed upon goals, objectives and management actions. 

 Most programs screened and reviewed adhere closely to the adaptive management 

principles outlined in the literature review. That is, management actions for policy 

experimentation are structured from best knowledge, implemented, monitored, results evaluated, 

actions revised and implemented again. Management action/monitoring cycles are repeated in 

programs reviewed to enhance targeted resource condition and learning. 

 Because of their size and inevitable bureaucratic trappings, large CAMs such as Cal-Fed 

and the Chesapeake Bay programs utilize very organized and well developed criteria, guidelines 

and procedures for building consensus and resolving disputes. In major part this relates to the 

need to constantly integrate information for analysis and decisions from much larger and more 

diverse interest groups. It is recommended that some of the diverse approaches utilized by these 

programs for consensus building, conflict and dispute resolution be evaluated for use by 

GCDAMP. 

 In reviewing programs that address the scope and scale of problems that are similar to the 

GCDAMP, the Lower Bridge River program of Canada and Kissimmee River program of South 

Florida provide examples of unique approaches to consensus building where explicit protocols 

are crafted to accommodate diverse stakeholder positions. 

 The Kissimmee River Program (KRRP) often is credited with some of the earliest 

applications of adaptive management principles in large rivers. When authorized, the program 

was the largest river restoration project ever attempted (Toth et al. 1995). Nearly two decades of 

science, management and stakeholder efforts at learning and constituency building were 

necessary to both design and solidify support for the complex restoration progression. Pilot 

demonstration projects from the 1980s, deemed necessary to gain and sustain public support 
26

were active into the 1990s. Now with a tenure approaching 40 years, KRRP administrators have 

seen multiple cycles of consensus building and declined support, each time requiring revised 

criteria and guidelines for approaches to rekindle support for the program. Selected Kissimmee 

River criteria for building and sustaining consensus through time is continually adapted and 

includes: 

• Defining through collaboration processes, revised goals, DFCs, and objectives, etc., 

based on manager/stakeholder needs. 

• Written clear operating protocols for developing consensus, dispute resolution, 

consultation, etc. 

• Open and neutral forums for all aspects of adaptive management processes. 

• Continuous planning for and building needed consensus capacity. 

The Lower Bridge River, a tributary of the Frazier River in southwest British Columbia. 

provides habitat for diverse birds and wildlife, cultural importance to the First Nations, 

significant salmon runs, recreation benefits and power from three hydroelectric facilities. The 

CAM program developed in the early 2000s was established to address multi attribute conflicts 

associated with regulated flows for power production. Like the GCDAMP, over the 1970s to 

1990s conflicts among power, cultural resources, fish and recreation and other interests required 

implementation of adaptive management approaches in 2000 to gain resolves. The program 

developed a structured decision making model (SDM) for evaluation of resource tradeoffs and 

decision making with strong involvement of First Nations. 

The Lower Bridge River cultural program has been important in minimizing disputes and 

assuring needed transitions of management and science to enhance resources, including cultural 

resources. The program acknowledges that experimental results alone will not gain resolves 

involving multiple management objectives and wide variances in cultural values (Failing et al 

2004). A long term sustained process of consensus building that follows key guidelines as 

referenced by Williams et al (2007) was necessary. 

 The Bridge River program, like the KRRP, utilizes the following AM criteria to insure 

continuous progress on transition of management and science. 

• Fully engage stakeholders in all elements of the planning, discussion and decision 

processes 

• Clear identification of goals, objectives and desired future conditions 

• Open and transparent processes for development of proposals and decisions 

• Incorporation of meaningful consultation of First Nations and all stakeholders 

In the Canadian Supreme Court decisions are explicit regarding the fact that meaningful 

consultation embraces a broad array of required interaction of parties. The Lower Bridge River 

program incorporates meaningful consultations by demonstrating that parties have mutually 

explored and learned all aspects of an issue including all feasible science and management 

options and outcomes, clarified uncertainties and dynamics that must be considered, and clarified 

tradeoffs that will occur in differing alternative approaches (Gregory et al. 2008). For example, 

for cultural resources, extensive First Nation consultations were used to develop values for 

cultural and spiritual quality that could have been benefited or degraded by differing science and 

management activities. These values were structured into protocols and scales to insure both 

consistency and transparency to other parties in tradeoff analysis. 

The GCDAMP could possibly benefit from assessment criteria used for consensus 

building and dispute resolution by the Lower Bridge River and other AM programs reviewed. 
27

Improved specification of roles and responsibilities of CAM program entities is 

needed to improve transitions of management and science. In 2004 the AMWG identified 

that conflicts might exist regarding roles and responsibilities of various entities of the GCDAMP 

i.e. Secretary Designee, AMWG, GCMRC, TWG, SAs, and that these conflicts could affect 

management and science activities. Reviews by a Roles Ad Hoc Group were requested. A Roles 

Ad Hoc Group was convened in 2005, and reconvened in 2007 and 2008. The result of reports 

produced identified needed improvements in roles and responsibilities to better ascribe to the 

adaptive management model and improve GCDAMP performance (Roles Ad Hoc Group 2009). 

All CAM programs reviewed developed selected revisions of entity roles in the first two 

decades of operations. Programs that seem to have greatest need for revision are restoration 

programs led by formal stakeholder groups serviced by technical and science committees or 

groups. Programs that seem to have less need for change are programs that have a more narrow 

focus such as species recovery implementation programs (RIPs). 

Examples of the latter are the San Juan River (SJRIP), Upper Colorado River (UCRIP) and 

the Platte River Recovery Implementation Programs (PRRIP). All of these programs are focused 

on recovery of long lived fishes in the Colorado and Platte Rivers as well as accomplishing 

requirements for habitat improvement, consultation and water development. Many AM 

programs in the west are often established for and have as a primary focus protection and 

recovery of one or more threatened or endangered fish. The GCDAMP is not designated 

explicitly as a species recovery program, although one of its priority goals relates to maintenance 

or improvement in native fishes with specific emphasis on the Humpback Chub. In the last five 

years the program has increased both management and science activities toward this goal. 

Recent EA and BO requirements have created even greater program focus toward recovery 

activities. 

The roles and responsibilities of involved management agencies are more easily deefined in 

many RIPs and more limited disruptions and issues arise in science/management transitions. 

This often relates to the following guidelines and criteria followed in these programs. 

• Programs are voluntary collaborations of federal, state and local government entities, 

and other stockholders 

• Law and regulation are explicit regards federal, state and local government 

requirements for recovery as related to management, science, and even funding. 

• Authorities, roles and responsibilities of federal, state and local government entities 

are also specific relating to recovery program implementation. 

• Introduced dynamics and variance in these programs are primarily related to 

biophysical and socio-economic responses to management actions. 

Program Planning and Budgeting 

Improved program planning and budgeting is needed to better define acceptable 

types, content, resolution, accuracy, etc. of information needed to inform improved 

management actions and decision processes. In transitioning from needed information to 

design of management actions to monitoring science, both managers and scientists must work 

closely on criteria and guidelines to make the transitions efficient, effective and minimal cost. 

Managers have a critical role in defining the types, amounts, resolution, and accuracy etc. 

of information needed to guide decision making criteria. The range of tradeoff analysis and 

decision criteria used in AM programs are from simplistic word models to complex analytical 

models. The greater a programs dependence on complex analytical tools for evaluating risk, 
28

penalties, tradeoffs, final decisions, etc. the greater the requirements for data. Science and 

associated data gathering and assessments for AM programs must be explicitly guided by 

defined management information needs. Otherwise it will lack efficiency and effectiveness. 

Guiding criteria are: 

• Focus on explicit need, resolution level and accuracy 

• Use effective and efficient methods 

• Evaluate cost effectiveness 

Managers must understand that orders of magnitude increases in data requirements may 

occur as managers require greater data resolution and accuracy. For example, data costs to prove 

why and how some change is occurring is much greater than simply to prove that change is 

occurring. Generally, the former mode is the province of research studies whereas the latter is 

monitoring. 

Improved guidelines and criteria are needed to evaluate and resolve out year 

program requirements and related impacts to management/science transitions. The 

GCDAMP has apparent capacity to develop two year budget planning and potentially resolve 

funding needs. The strategy seems unclear for out year planning. 

Obviously, available budget, both base and marginal new funds, is the single greatest 

factor that will affect GCDAMPs ability to transition its science and management needs in the 

short run. This is demonstrated in the 2010, 2011, and 2012 annual budget planning wherein 

existing ongoing science programs are reduced to accommodate new management and science 

programs. 

 The Cal-Fed program has decade long program and budget planning, professional budget 

staffs and multiple sophisticated program and budget planning tools at the program and project 

level. Further, they can be applied to assure best approaches in assumed increasing, stable or 

declining budgets. In the review of CAM programs we found what one would normally expect, 

that larger programs had more structural adaptive management programming, funding, 

development, and management and science capability. 

 Management capability, including personnel, technical capacity and budget resources 

may not be changed significantly when AM approaches are adopted. This relates to the fact that 

required levels of management normally exist prior to CAM programs being developed. 

Adopting adaptive management approaches simply revises how management resources are 

applied to the problem or issue. The same is not true for science, adaptive management, budget 

development and public relation activities, processes and resources. These generally increase 

with implementation of AM. 

 Larger programs such as the Cal-Fed, Northwest Forest Plan, South Florida CERP, etc. 

have significant resource capacity to accomplish out year budget planning and make adjustments 

in required funding or programs to respond to need. Most often out year planning is 5-10 years, 

but longer plans exist. GCDAMP currently uses a two-year budget planning cycle with some 

projecting to three years. Often endangered species recovery implementation programs have ten 

year or greater planning horizons. The Lower Colorado Multispecies Conservation Program has 

a 50 year budget plan. 

 GCDAMPs out year budget strategy appears to be based on a declining real budget. If 

this is the budget strategy, it needs more structured criteria and guidelines on how to mitigate out 

year impacts on science and management transitions. GCDAMP should consider adapting 

criteria and guidelines from larger adaptive management programs to better accomplish this 

strategy over both short term (two year) and long term (ten year) program cycles. 
29

In the GCDAMP, expected outcomes of various alternative management actions provided 

by science are discussed, often accompanied by tables of data where tradeoffs are presented or 

can be interpreted. Developed analytical tradeoff models (ECOSIM) are used in some settings. 

This approach could be improved with established consistent criteria and guidelines used for 

developed findings. Capabilities exist to utilize existing simulation models (ECOSIM) more 

often or devise different tradeoff models that could create consistency in evaluating tradeoffs 

among management actions and deriving decisions on selected options. 

 Both the A/SNF and Lincoln National Forest Restoration Programs utilize forest 

ecosystem simulation models to evaluate outcomes of differing management actions. The 

A/SNF have utilized the Terrestrial Ecosystem Analysis and Management System (TEAMS), a 

simulator that accomplishes both biophysical and socio-economic tradeoff assessments. The 

Lincoln National Forest Restoration Program uses the Ecological Simulation Model (ECOSIM) 

for biophysical tradeoff analysis and the Forest Multiresource Analysis System 

(FORMULAS)for socio-economic tradeoff analysis. These approaches are similar to the 

GCDAMP model ECOSIM. Models of more and less analytical sophistication are used in other 

CAM programs. 

Complex quantitative models are not always necessary to conduct effective tradeoff 

analysis for mangers and stakeholders. However approaches chosen should provide consistency 

and repeatability in differing applications. 

To assist transitions of management and science some programs reviewed have 

developed formal criteria and guidelines for their decision processes. Selected programs have 

decision models with very structured criteria and guidelines, which include elements to 

accommodate assessment of uncertainty and risk in the decision process. 

 The Lower Bridge River Program uses a Structured Decision Making (SDM) model 

providing both tradeoff analysis and decision support capability. The decision support system 

incorporates both objective and subjective measures (cultural resources, wildlife, etc). 

In evaluation phases of both short term and long term program and budget planning the 

GCDAMP could improve programmed transitions of management and science by establishing 

improved criteria and guidelines for the following: 

• The GCDAMP needs to improve AM processes for manager and stakeholders 

specification of the minimal information needs for conducting effective tradeoff 

analysis 

• If the GCDAMP decade plan is to operate on a constantly declining real budget, it 

should improve guidelines to assure resource protection 

• Consistent GCDAMP guidelines do not exist for conducting structured tradeoff 

analysis of multiple resource changes for differing management action scenarios. 

Differing criteria, guidelines and methods have been used for differing assessments. 

• Current GCDAMP criteria and guidelines do not formally exist for structured 

decision processes regarding selection of one alternative management action over 

another. Differing criteria and methods are used over time.

Effective Science Monitoring Programs 

 Implementing effective integrated multi-attribute monitoring programs focused on 

detection of critical indicator changes for priority resources are criteria important for 

improving transitions between management and science. Implementation of the GCDAMP long 
30

term monitoring program as scheduled over the next five years will finalize the primary science 

tool for supporting adaptive management. It’s effectiveness for assuring rapid transition of 

management action evaluation and revision will depend on its capabilities to detect resource 

change and inform needed revision in management actions. 

 The implemented GCMRC PEP process and its criteria and guidelines for insuring the 

above objectives are met appears effective in insuring improvements in monitoring individual 

resource attributes. However, because the PEPs disaggregate assessments of differing resources, 

i.e. physical, biological, cultural, etc. it could potentially mask benefits that could be derived 

across an array of multi-resources when one evaluates remotely sensed methods. 

 The dimensions of monitoring needs are primarily determined by specified information 

needs of managers and stakeholders. Levels of resolution of specified multi-resource data, 

number and type of attributes for each resource, and time and space dependence of data often 

influence strongly whether remotely sensed methods prove superior. Improved specification of 

data needs with these guidelines could assist assessment of the value of increasing remotely 

sensed methods. 

 Monitoring programs should be designed to track only those attributes that are critical to 

defining change in priority resources of concern to managers and stakeholders. This minimalist 

approach forces clearer evaluation of alternative monitoring strategies, methods and costs. All 

CAM programs through time reevaluate their monitoring program efforts based on advances in 

technology, increased knowledge of resource dynamics and interaction, changes in priorities by 

managers, etc. Necessary changes should receive extensive review for effectiveness. 

 Review of monitoring designs and implemented strategies of existing CAM programs 

reveals that the science and management process for the GCDAMP monitoring program is 

similar to approaches used in many other programs, i.e. manager/stakeholder specification of 

need, science evaluation, testing of alternative methodology (PEPs, Pilots), implementation of 

monitoring programs, etc. 

Review of issues and approaches taken in the Kissimmee River and Trinity River 

programs, as well as others, might strengthen this plan and its implementation. Criteria for 

closer examination are as follows: 

• Improved manager/stakeholder specification of priority information needs, level of 

resolution, accuracy, etc. 

• Planned approaches to integration of measurements of multi-resource attributes and 

related use in assessment models. 

• Monitoring program contribution to specifically redesigning management actions. 

Responding to Pertubations 

 Improved CAM processes are needed to more effectively respond to perturbations 

both internal and external to the GCDAMP. Some perturbations can be predicted or 

identified early in management and science planning, and others will simply be surprises. All 

significant perturbations need to be responded to in two ways. First, resolve issues related to the 

occurrence and second create mechanisms to best identify and resolve any recurrence. Criteria 

and guidelines used by CAM programs for dealing with perturbations to best support 

management/science transitions are many. 

The GCDAMP has had several perturbations in its tenure. Some were easily resolved 

with existing programming while others required new programming. 
31

 AM criteria, several mentioned previously, are used by CAM programs reviewed to both 

identify and evaluate perturbations and resolve their related impacts. These criteria and related 

programs in the GCDAMP should be reviewed for potential improvements. 

 Out year program and budget planning (5-10 years) can help identify potential 

perturbations that could be evaluated prior to occurrence. Several methods such as risk 

assessments and tradeoff analysis could occur to evaluate mitigation requirements in both 

management actions and science. The Kissimmee River program has a very structured process 

as do other longer-term adaptive management programs. 

 Effective monitoring programs are critical to defining perturbations in process, often 

detecting them quickly, defining what attributes are being impacted and providing guidance on 

possible resolves. The CAL-FED ERP has multiple program examples of well-developed 

approaches. Developed decision processes and tradeoff evaluation capabilities such as being 

used by the Lower Bridge River Program permit more rapid comprehensive approaches to 

respond to perturbations and best approaches to gain resolves. Cal-Fed sub programs use 

sophisticated analytic approaches, rapid response assessments and decision methods. Even 

smaller programs such as the LNF Restoration Program also use analytical and rapid response 

approaches. 

 Guidelines and criteria used in several GCDAMP attributes could be improved to help 

forecast the potential occurrence of perturbations, detect their occurrence, mitigate their impacts 

and inform program changes to ward against future unwanted events. The following are 

proposed for consideration. 

• Improved consensus building and conflict resolution guidelines could prevent social 

perturbations such as current Native American oppositions to non-native fish 

removal. 

• Out year (10) program planning and budgeting with associated risk assessments could 

have possibly better prepared GCDAMP to utilize the natural warming of 2003-2006 

as a policy experiment. That learning could have improved management/science 

transitions should predicted long term warming actually occur. 

• Improved tradeoff analysis and structured decision processes will better support the 

GCDAMP in responding to perturbations, especially surprises. Although complex 

analytical methods are not necessary, methods employed should be repeatable and 

provide consistent outputs. 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 This review of literature and selected adaptive management programs has attempted to 

provide information on a question generally cast as follows; 

• What criteria and guidelines exist in AM literature and operating programs to assist in 

transitioning among management and science programs? 

Our review concludes that the AM paradigm as originally designed and as implemented 

by practitioners is a holistic management model, with the following characteristics; 

• It is not a science model, although it is strongly dependent on science in its 

implementation. 

• AM applications depart from the traditional science model wherein science is 

implemented until most uncertainty is resolved and management actions can be 

implemented with little risk. 
32

• AM development was necessary to confront the dynamics, continued uncertainties 

and risks encountered in large natural resource management issues such as riverine 

restoration, native species recovery, large forest area restoration, etc. 

• AM processes engage broad based stakeholder concerns; use best knowledge to 

define policy experiments and needed management actions to improve resources and 

learn; monitor and evaluate outcomes of these actions; and modify actions through 

repeated cycles of management and monitoring to gain desired outcomes. 

• Two general statements, often ascribed to the AM model are very appropriate, “you 

learn by doing” and “distinctions between management and science are blurred in the 

process to accomplish the primary goal, resource improvement”. 

• Because the management model relies on best science to both learn and define and 

refine improved management actions through repeated cycles, it is critical that 

managers are attentive to maintaining robust AM processes that will maximize 

effectiveness and efficiencies in these continuing transitions of management and 

science activities. 

• Review of literature and operating AM programs reveal that several AM attributes 

and processes are critical to sustaining effective management/science processes 

through time. Reviews of the GCDAMP indicates that improvements may be needed 

in several of those AM processes including: 

• GCDAMP organization, consensus building, entity roles, goals, dfcs etc. 

• Program planning and budgeting 

• Effective monitoring approaches 

• Responding to perturbations 

• Reviews of other AM programs reveals broad opportunities to transfer knowledge 

gained on management actions and science to assist the GCDAMP. These include 

fish management and science approaches used in the Upper Colorado, San Juan and 

Platte River RIPs; First Nation consensus building and dispute resolution in the 

Lower Bridge River; AM processes on program planning and budgeting from the 

CAL-FED ERP and Kissimmee River RP; analytical tradeoff models and decision 

support systems from CAL-FED ERP, Lower Bridge River, Lincoln National Forest 

Restoration Program; etc. 

• Although improvements are needed in GCDAMP processes to insure more effective 

transitions of management and science activities, the review found this to be normal 

occurrence in many AM programs. It is described in AM literature as “Double Loop 

Learning:” and critical to effective AM programs. 

• Overall, GCDAMP appears to follow the AM paradigm and its processes quite 

closely. Although this was not a review of GCDAMP or other AM programs 

regarding effectiveness, anecdotal evidence suggests all programs reviewed are 

implementing AM procedures and demonstrating accomplishments toward 

established goals 

Recommendations 

Based on the review of AM literature, other AM programs, and internal and external 

reviews of needed improvements to GCDAMP processes, the following recommendations are 

proposed to improve criteria and guidelines for GCDAMP management/science transitions. 
33

• The GCDAMP Mission regarding recovery implementation programs for the 

endangered species should be reviewed. If the GCDAMP is incorporating this 

direction informally, it should be clarified in mission, goals and objectives. 

• Criteria to assure that goals are made more specific and prioritized more effectively 

are needed for effective management actions/science transitions. 

• Desired future resource conditions should be developed for all resources to effect 

appropriate planning of management actions and science. 

• Near term program and budget planning must have improved direction from 

stakeholders and managers as to their priority needs. Specifications should include 

minimal levels of resolution, types and amounts of information needed as well as 

accuracy requirements. 

• Out year program and budget planning (10 years) needs to be improved to help 

identify additional management actions and science needs as well as forced 

reductions in programs from budget shortfalls. 

• Monitoring programs under development must be explicitly designed to detect 

changes in key multi resource indicators of resources of concern of stakeholders. 

Focus on design parameters that define the minimal information needs to detect 

resource changes is important 

• Abilities to identify, in advance, potential perturbations to the system assists 

management and science transitions. Improvements in program planning and 

budgeting, simulation models, tradeoff models and decision support systems would 

benefit these identifications. 

 
34

APPENDIX 

OVERVIEW OF ADAPTIVE 

MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 
35

APPENDIX 

OVERVIEW OF ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 

PROGRAMS REVIEWED 

 Twenty programs that utilize adaptive management principles were screened in this 

assessment. The ten programs reviewed are as follows: 

• Kissimmee River Program 

• Cal-Fed Program 

• Lower Bridge River of British Columbia 

• Trinity River Restoration Program 

• Lincoln NF Restoration Program 

• Platte River Program 

• San Juan River Recovery Implementation Program 

• Apache Sitgreaves NF Restoration Program 

• Upper Colorado River Recovery Implementation Program 

• Lower Colorado Multispecies Conservation Plan 

The programs were reviewed as regards how they administer, manage, integrate etc. 

science and management activities in their program direction. The general objective was to 

understand the criteria and guidelines being used in transitioning between science and 

management actions. 

Following is a brief overview of the programs evaluated. 

THE GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (GCDAMP) 

Origin 

• Construction (1963) and operation of Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) on the Colorado 

River caused significant changes in riverine physical resources, i.e. water and 

sediments and their related impacts to flora and fauna. Long-term AM program 

established in 1996 to monitor effects of management actions on resources. 

Goals 

• A set 12 of goals and related desired outcomes for resources, collaboration, AM, and 

knowledge is developed. First decade of program (1996-2007) significantly oriented 

to science assessments of best management practice, research, and monitoring.

Legal Context 

• Authorized through Grand Canyon Protection Act (1992), GCD EIS (1995), and 

GCD EIS ROD (1996), including adaptive management process. 

Structure 
36

• Formal FACA of 25 representatives of state water agencies, federal agencies, Native 

American Tribes, environmental community, stakeholders, etc.

• Directed by a DOI Secretary Designee and includes an Adaptive Management Work 

Group, Technical Work Group, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center and 

Science Advisory Group

• Formal consultation of federal and state agencies, Tribes and stakeholders 

Participants: FACA Committee 

• Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region • The Hope Tribe 

• Arizona Game & Fish Department • Navajo Nation 

• U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service • Souther Paiute Consortium 

• Depart. Of Energy-Western Area Power Administration • Pueblo of Zuni 

• Hualapai Tribe • San Juan Paiute Tribe 

• Grand Canyon River Guides • Bureau Of Indian Affairs 

• Arizona Water Conservation Board • Interstate Streams Engineer 

• Colorado River Commission of Nevada • Federation of Flyfishers 

• NM Interstate Stream Commission • CREDA 

• Grand Canyon Wildlands Council • Grand Canyon Trust 

• Dir. Division of Water Resources, Utah • National Park Service 

• UAMPS • Wildlands Council 

• Utah Associated Municipal Power 

Program Development 

• 1992: GCPA 

• 1996: GCDEIS Record of Decision

• 1996-2008: Management Actions: research, monitoring, consultations

Program Management/Decision Process 

• Recommending body Adaptive Management Work Group (FACA)

• Use collaborative consensus process and/or voting of FACA member; 2/3 majority 

required for decision vote

Accomplishment Toward Improving Resources Through Management Actions and Science 

• 1996-2008 Policy Flow Experiment of MLFF of GDEIS 

• 1996-2010 Policy Experiment of MLFF with 2008-2010 LSSF revision 

• 1996: HFE Management actions/monitoring; also 2004, 2008. 

• 2000: LSSF Management actions/monitoring; also 2008-2010 

THE SAN JUAN RIVER RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM (SJRIP) 

Origin 
37

• Concerns regarding impacts to fauna and flora related to construction and operation of the 

Animas La Plata Irrigation Projects on the San Juan River and related Navajo Reservoir 

operations 

Goals

• Recover populations of Colorado Pike Minnow and proceed with water development and use 

in the basin 

Legal Context 

• Authorized and funded through PL 106-392 (amended). Compliance based under 

ESA and formal recovery program requirements 

Structure and Participants 

• Formal cooperative agreement of program participants for ongoing collaboration and 

actions 

• Formal ESA section 7 consultation on water development and water management 

activities 

Participants 

• State of Colorado • U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs 

• State of New Mexico • U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

• Jicarilla Apache Nation • U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

• Navajo Nation • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

• Southern Ute Indian Tribe • Water Development Interests 

• Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe • Conservation Interests 

Program Development 

• 1997 – Animas La Plata Consultation 

• 1987 – 89 Fish Survey 

• 1990 Recognition of consultation 

• Draft BO/jeopardy determination 

• RPAS 

• Research; Recovery Program; Decision on Navajo Reservoir releases 

• 1992 Program and cooperative agreement signed 

• 2002 ESA Sec 7 consultation 

Program Management/Decision Process 

• Program Mgt: USF&WS; SJRIP Long Range Plan

• Coordination Committee: Decision body 2⁄3 majority rate of participants

• Biology and Hydrology Committees; Recommendations, 2⁄3 vote

Accomplishment Toward Reducing Uncertainty Through Management Actions; 

Monitoring and Research 

• Native Fish Assessments 

• Native Fish Introductions 

• Non-native Fish Assessments 

• Flow impact assessments on native/non-native fish 

• Native fish barrier assessments/recovery monitoring 
38

• Flow management; mimic natural hydrograph 

• Razorback Sucker; meeting stocking goals; CPUE increased 2001-2007; reproduction 

and local evidence since 1998; juveniles since 2002 

• Colorado Pike Minnow; meeting stocking goals; CPUE increased 2001-2007, Barrier 

removals at Cuder diversion, Hogback diversion, and PNM Opened 36 miles of 

habitat.

UPPER COLORADO ENDANGERED FISH RECOVERY PROGRAM 

Origin 

• Concerns in 1984 about impacts of water use and development on four endangered 

native fishes; Pike Minnow, HBC, Razorback Sucker, Bonytail Chub; i.e. ESA/water 

depletions conflict 

Goals 

• Recover four endangered fishes while continuing water use and development 

Legal Context 

• Operates under formal legal requirements of ESA and section 7 compliance 

requirements: Public laws; 106-392 (2000) and 109-183, 

Structure 

• Program functions under general principles of adaptive management and 

requirements of long-range operational recovery program. Management actions 

identified, implemented, evaluated and revised based on results of research and 

monitoring.

Participants 

• State of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming; USF&WS, BOR, NPS, WAPA, Colorado Water 

Congress, Utah Water Users; Wyoming Water Association, Colorado River Ecology 

Distributions Association, The Nature Conservancy, Western Resource Advocates

Program Development 

• 1984: Implementation of negotiations to resolve ESA/depletions conflicts 

• 1985: Recovery program proposed 

• 1987: Framework document 

• 1988: Cooperative agreement signed 

• 1993: Section 7 agreement signed 

• 1993: Section 7 agreement final 

• 2002-2010: Expanded capital projects 

Program Management/Decision Process 

• Implementation Committee (ED), Management Committee, Biology Committee, 

Water Acquisition Committee, I&E Committee 

• General Agreements 

• ESA compliance achieved 
39

• BOR & WAPA operate projects consistent with ESA Section 7 and existing 

contracts 

• F&WS determines sufficient progress for recovery action plan 

• Program provides flows F&WS determines essential to recovery 

• Participants responsible for viable program 

• Costs equitably distributed 

• Agencies retain authorities and laws and compacts maintained 

• Participation voluntary 

• Decision process is by consensus 

PLATTE RIVER RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM (PRRIP) 

Origin: 

• Concern over Pallid Sturgeon and bird species; Interior Least Term, Whooping 

Crane, Piping Plover decline in the Central and Lower Platte River Basins. Colorado, 

Wyoming and Nebraska proposed to create the PRRIP in 1997. 

Goals: 

• Goals are represented as milestones for period increments. In the programs first 13 

year period increment there are three primary goals (elements) 

• Increasing stream flows in Central Platte for fish and wildlife in specified time 

periods 

• Enhancing habitat for target bird species 

• Accommodating new water developments 

Legal Context 

• Program operates under a formal cooperative agreement of three states (CO, NE, 

WY) and the USDOI; US BOR EIS; USF&WS Biological Opinion and federal 

legislation. 

Structure 

• Formal Cooperative agreement of program participants 

• Directed by Governance Committee (GC) with representatives from Wyoming, 

Colorado, Nebraska, US Department of Interior, Water users, and Environmental 

Groups 

Participants 

• State of Wyoming

• State of Colorado

• State of Nebraska

• U.S. Dept. of Interior

• Water Users

• Environmental groups

Program Development 
40

• 1997: Cooperative agreement signed

• 1998: Governance committee plans program implementations assessments initiated

• 2006: EIS and ROD approved by USDOI

• 2006: Biological opinion approved by USDOI

• 2006: Nebraska governor authorizes program

• 2007: Management actions implemented

Program Management/Decision Process 

• Governance committee develops and approves 13 year program milestones and 

annual budget.

• Program managed through executive director.

• Entities responsible for recommending program and budget direction are Water 

Advisory Committee (WAC) and Land Advisory Committee (LAC)

Accomplishments Toward Resource Improvement Through Management Actions and 

Science 

• Adaptive management strategies

• Fish assessments

• Bird assessments

• Strategic and operational land plan

• Strategic and operational water plan

• Water reallocations

• Land acquisitions and conservation practices

• Monitoring and research plan

LOWER COLORADO RIVER MULTISPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM 

(LCRMSCP) 

Origin: 

• Concerns over water depletion in lower Colorado River, conservation of species and 

habitat and other resources in accordance with ESA. Foundation in federal, state and 

other participant’s agreement 

Goals:

• Conserve habitat and work toward recovery of T&E species as well as reduce 

likelihood of additional species listing 

• Accommodate present water diversions and power production and optimize 

opportunities for future water and power development 

• Provide basis for incidental take authorization 

Legal Context: 

• Responds to NEPA and ESA 

• 2006 EIS and related NEPA requirements 

• ESA Section 7 and 10 compliance requirements and related HCP 
41

• Other law of river related compacts 

Structure: 

• Unique 50 year program agreement 

• USBOR manages river operations 

• AZ, CA and NE users own water rights 

• Sec. 7 USBOR consultation and Sec 10 permit for non-federal activities 

• LCR previous expressed modifications considered in program goals, compliance etc., 

i.e. all past dams, diversions, etc. in baseline as well as changes not expressed. 

Includes effects into Mexico 

Participants: 

• Federal agency group 

• Arizona participants (26 entities) 

• California participants (11) 

• Nevada participants (5) 

• Native American Group 

• Conservation Group 

• Other groups 

Program Development: 

• 1990s Concerns over lack of formal protection and management program. 

• Initiation of EIS 

• 2006 Completion of EIS 

• 2007-2010 Formalized program plans; Science and Monitoring Plan 

Program Management/Decision Process: 

• Managed by a steering committee using a consensus based process and formal dispute 

process. Follows developed Annual Work Plan and Annual Budget. 

• Budget 1-20 yrs average $20 million per year: 26% science, 61% habitat creation and 

maintenance, 5% fish augmentation. 8% administration. 

• Cost share 50% fed, 50% states 

Accomplishments Toward Improving Resources Through Management and Science: 

• Native fish assessments 

• Non-native fish assessments 

• Flora/fauna assessments 

• Non-native fish management (removals, regulation) 

• Target areas for habitat development and restoration; flood plains, marshes, 

backwaters, etc. 

• Target areas for habitat maintenance based on species needs 

• Flow management from dams 

• Native fish augmentation combined with programs for self sustaining populations 

• Systems wide science and monitoring program 

• Final science strategy and science reports 

• Site selection criteria for habitat maintenance and development 

• Annual work plans and budget 
42

KISSIMMEE RIVER RESTORATION EVALUATION PROGRAM (KRREP) 

Origin: 

• Approved channelization (1954) of an original 160 kilometer stretch of the Kissimmee 

River in South Florida to 70 kilometers for flood control Significant degradation to the 

ecological integrity of the river system with broad impacts to physical and biological 

resources. 

• USDOI and State of Florida approved restoration of river in the 1970s. Represented the 

largest river restoration in the U.S. 

Goals: 

• To restore as possible the ecological integrity of the Kissimmee River including physical, 

biological and related social components. Application of CAM principles in both 

restoration and long term management of the restored river. 

Legal Context: 

• Endangered Species ACT, National Environmental Protection Act 

• Kissimmee River EIS and Record of Decision 

• Formal Cooperative Restoration Program of U.S., Florida and local governments. 

Structure: 

• Formal corporative agreement of program participants for ongoing collaboration, 

planning and management. 

Participants: 

• U.S. Departments of Interior, Commerce, Agriculture, Reclamation; Florida State 

Departments of Water, Natural Resources; local county and municipal groups, private 

stakeholder groups. 

Program Development: 

• 1970s. Environmental resource and social assessments. 

• 1980s. Development of demonstration and pilot projects and assessments of results of 

hydrologic changes on ecology. 

• 1990s – 2000s. Design and implementation of comprehensive restoration strategies and 

comprehensive ecological evaluation program. 

Program Management Decision Process: 

• Program management guided by long term strategies and short term operational plans. 

• Management and decision processes by cooperative U.S. and Florida Natural Resource 

agencies. Stakeholder input through South Florida Water Management District Planning 

Programs. 

Accomplishment Toward Improving Resources Through Management Actions and 

Science: 

• Hydrologic assessments 

• Biology assessments 

• Flora assessments 

• Adaptive management protocols and processes 
43

• Demonstration of hydrologic management 

• Demonstration of biology restoration 

• Development of ecological restoration plans and programs 

• Development of comprehensive ecological evaluation program 

LOWER BRIDGE RIVER COLLABORATIVE ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 

PROGRAM 

Origin: 

• Development of the hydroelectric Terzaghic Dam (1960) significantly reduced river 

flows and altered flow regimes so as to significantly impact downstream fish, recreation, 

cultural and other resources. General public concern resulted in development of CAM in 

early 2000s to gain alternatives for resource improvements. 

Goals: 

• Develop collaborative adaptive management program for consensus building, structural 

decision process, meaningful First Nation consultation, and conflict resolve. 

• Design alternatives to attain multiple resource outcomes. 

Legal Context: 

• Canada federal and provincial law and regulation protecting commercial and sports 

fisheries, native flora and fauna, industry and culture. 

• Federal and provincial agreement on cooperative Lower Bridge River alternative 

management approaches. 

Structure: 

• Collaborative adaptive management program of cooperating agency managers, 

stakeholders and scientists. 

• Working groups developed on volunteer participation. 

Participants: 

• Federal water, power and natural resource agencies; British Columbia water, power, 

natural and cultural resource agencies; water and power interests; environmental 

interests; recreation interests. 

Program Development: 

• 1980s – 1990s. Development of assessment data on flows. 

• 2000 – 2005. Development of adaptive structured decision making (SDM) framework. 

• 2000 – 2005. Development of experimental flow plan hypothesis and proposed 

management actions. 

• 2005 – 2010. Implementation of management actions and monitoring. 

Program Management/Decision Process: 

• Recommendations from working groups provided to Ministries of Environment and 

Power. 

• Use of designed Structural Decision Making Model 
44

• Use of structured consultation approaches with First Nations. 

Accomplishments Toward Improving Resources Through Management Actions and 

Science: 

• Evaluation of biophysical resource data, proposed management actions 

• Implementation of structured decision making model 

• Experimental flow plan 

• Implementation of management actions 

• Monitoring of resource change 

THE APACHE SITGREAVES NATIONAL FOREST (ASNF) STEWARDSHIP 

RESTORATION PROGRAM 

Origin: 

• 1980s- 1990s. Loss of mature Ponderosa Pine forest component to insect and disease and 

catastrophic wildfire, threatening ecological integrity of forest watersheds. 

Goals: 

• Establish collaborative adaptive management processes for developing capacity for 

consensus and dispute resolution on landscape level forest restoration approaches. 

• Develop demonstration and pilot approaches for ecological restoration of large forest 

landscapes. 

• Design and implement 100,000 – 150,000 acre stewardship restoration program. 

Legal Context: 

• Proposed large scale terrestrial and riparian restoration supported by multiple federal law 

and associated regulation; Clean Water Act, National Forest Management Act, 

Endangered Species Act, Healthy Forest Restoration Act, etc. 

• Improved management practices regulated by NEPA and A/S Forest Plan, EIS. 

Structure: 

• A/SNF Natural Resource Working Group for Restoration is recommending body to 

Forest Supervisor. Associated technical and science committee’s develop and 

recommend various management actions, monitoring, pilot programs, etc to USFS 

Participants: 

• Natural Resource Working Group (NRWG) incorporates federal agency, state agency, 

tribal, local government, agricultural, industry, business, water, environmental and 

general public interests. NRWG is a volunteer group. 

Program Development: 

• 1990 – 1994. Baseline ecological assessments of forest and riparian ecosystems. 

• 1995 -2000. Development of baseline assessments of 17,000 acre Blue Ridge Pilot 

Restoration Areas. 

• 2000 – 2005. Post treatment assessments. Develop and implement multiple resource 

monitoring program. 
45

• Develop A/SNF Strategic Restoration Plan. 

• 2005, Develop and implement 125,000 acre landscape forest stewardship restoration 

program. 

Program Management/Decision Process: 

• Recommendations on program planning and implementation by NRWG and committee's, 

i.e. science, technical committees. 

• Decisions on management actions by A/S Forest supervisor and Tribes with consultation 

by USF&WS and other agencies. 

• Program management by A/SNF, White Mountain Apache Tribe and other federal, state, 

and local agencies of authority. 

Accomplishment Toward Improving Resources Through Management Actions and 

Science: 

• Landscape forest resource baseline assessments 

• Riparian landscape forest resource baseline assessments 

• Socio-economic baseline assessments 

• Forest restoration pilot and demonstration implementation and assessments on 17,000 

acres. 

• Monitoring program development and implementation by Multi-Party Monitoring Board 

• Design and implementation of 125,000 acre stewardship restoration program. 

THE LINCOLN NATIONAL FOREST (LNF) COLLABORATIVE STEWARDSHIP 

RESTORATION PROGRAM 

Origin: 

• 1980s and 1990s loss of mature mixed Conifer forest landscapes to wildfire and insect 

and disease. Watershed health decline and impacts to water quality and quantity resulted 

in local government demands for restoration of forest ecosystems. 

Goals: 

• Establish LNF Collaborative Forest Resource Working Groups to design program 

approaches with Mescalaro Apache Tribe 

• Develop and implement demonstration LNF/Mescalaro Stewardship Restoration Program 

• Develop large landscape stewardship restoration program. 

Legal Context: 

• LNF/Mescalaro cooperative stewardship restoration supported by NFMA, HFRA, ESA, 

NEPA and associated regulation. 

• LNF/Mescalaro/State and County government cost share agreements for forest 

restoration. 

Structure: 

• LNF Otero County Forest Restoration Working Group and Ruidosa Forest Restoration 

Working Group provide recommendations to Forest Supervisor and Regional Forester. 

• Forest Supervisor and staff serve on two working groups, which are volunteer 

organizations of approximately 25 – 50 active members. 

Participants: 
46

• Volunteer workings groups (2) comprised of federal agency, state agency, tribal, local 

government, agricultural, energy industry, business, water, environmental and general 

public interests. 

Program Development: 

• 1998 – 2002. Develop baseline ecological assessments of forest and riparian ecosystems 

• 2005. Develop LNF Strategic Restoration Plan 

• 2006. Implement LNF/Mescalaro 16,000 acre pilot stewardship restoration program 

• 2007. Design LNF Monitoring Plan 

• 2009 – 2010. Design LNF/Mescalaro Stewardship Restoration Program. 

Program Management/Decision Process: 

• Recommendations on restoration program planning and implementation by LNF/Otero 

County and Ruidosa Working Groups. 

• Decisions on management actions by LNF Forest Supervisor and Mescalaro Tribe with 

consultation of federal and state agencies. 

• Program management by LNF, Mescalaro Tribe, and other federal, state and county 

agencies of authority. 

Accomplishments Toward Improving Resources Through Management Actions and 

Science: 

• LNF forest and riparian baseline resource assessments 

• Socio-economic baseline assessments 

• Hydrologic baseline assessments 

• LNF Strategic Restoration Plan and Monitoring Plan 

• LNF/Mescalaro 16,000 acre stewardship restoration project. 

. 

 

TRINITY RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM (TRRP) 

Origin: 

• Construction of Trinity and Lewiston dams in the Trinity River Basin, CA in part created 

significant impacts to fish and wildlife populations in the Trinity River Basin. The 1984 

Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Management Act authorized the Secretary of 

Interior to develop and implement a management program to resolve resource issues. 

Goals: 

• Improve hatchery capability to mitigate salmon and steelhead losses. 

• Restore natural salmon and steelhead production 

• Fish harvest management. 

• Compensate for wildlife impacts 

• Stabilize watersheds to reduce sediment inputs to river. 

Legal Context: 

• 1984 Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Management Act. 

• 1992 Central Valley Project Improvement Act. 
47

• Trinity River Mainstream Fishery Restoration EIS, 2000. 

• Supplemental EIS, 2001. 

Structure 

• Eight member Trinity Management Council (TMC) established to recommend program 

alternatives to the Secretary of Interior. 

• Trinity Adaptive Management Work Group, River Restoration Program Staff and 

Scientific Advisory Board assist TMC in recommendations. 

Participants: 

• TMC Members; Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest 

Service, National Marine Fisheries Services, California Resources Agency (Departments 

of Water, Fish and Game), Trinity County, Hoopa Valley Tribe, Yurok Tribe. 

• Members of AMWG (15-20), Restoration Programs Staff (12), SAB (5). 

Program Development: 

• 1984 Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Management Act. 

• Development of action plans for main goals; 14 member Task Force. 

• 2000 EIS and ROD establishing program. 

• Establishment of TMC, support entities and initiation of science and management 

activities. 

Program Management Decision Process: 

• Secretary of Interior is final decision body for program direction. 

• TMC is empowered by Secretary of Interior to take a strong leadership role in policy 

issues, decision-making and recommendations. 

Accomplishment Toward Improving Resources Through Management Actions and 

Science. 

• 1980s – 1990s Completion of Trinity River Flow Evaluation Studies. 

• 1990s – 2000s Completion of EIS, evaluation of alternatives and selection of preferred 

alternative. 

• 2000 – 2010 Completion of monitoring and research assessments, BO. 

• 2000 – 2010 Implementation of management actions. 

CAL-FED Bay-Delta Environmental Restoration Program(CAL-FED ERP) 

Origin: 

• The CAL-FED Bay-Delta Environmental Restoration Program (ERP) is one element of 

the comprehensive CAL-FED Program, which addresses water quality, water supply, 

flood control and ecosystem integrity in California’s Central Valley and Bay-Delta 

regions. Due to extensive threats to the environment from development in the region, the 

Environmental Restoration Program (ERP) was initiated in 2000. The CAL-FED ERP is 

one of the largest and most comprehensive restoration programs in North America. 

Goals: 
48

• The two following overreaching goals are underpinned by six general goals and multiple 

 objectives and information needs for each general goal. 

• Increase amount and quality of aquatic and terrestrial habits in Bay-Delta ecosystem. 

• Improve the ability of Bay-Delta ecosystem to support diverse and self sustaining 

 environmental and social resources.

Legal Content: 

• Multiple Federal and State laws, regulations and policy are in place supporting overall 

CAL-FED direction, major program elements and projects 

Structure: 

• Multiple working groups represent a diverse group of programs for different physical 

areas of the Bay-Delta. 

• The CAL-FED programs, including all programs in the ERP element independently 

propose annual programs and associated budgets to CAL-FED administration and upon 

approval implement programs. 

Participants: 

• In numbers and diversity of representation, the ERP element of the CAL-FED program is 

comprehensive as regards local, regional and national interests involved in the region. 

All levels of federal, state, county, tribal, city and town governments; agricultural; forest; 

tourism; manufacturing; etc. industry; environmental groups; general public; etc. are 

represented. 

Program Development: 

• Although many elements of the CAL-FED program had been in operation, the CAL-FED 

Ecological Restoration Program was not approved by the California Legislature until the 

fall of 2000. 

• Significant activity has occurred in 2000 – 2010 on developing the science basis for 

ecological integrity of the Bay-Delta. Focus has been on development of systems of 

models and best knowledge for defining policy experiments and management actions. 

Program Management/Decision Process 

• Program management is accomplished by a structured set of recommending and advisory 

groups to federal, state and local government agency managers. 

• Due to the environmental and socio-economic impacts associated with many decisions, 

they can involve the Governor of California and Secretary of Interior. 

Accomplishment Toward Improving Resources Through Management Actions and Science 

• 2000 – 2005: The CAL-FED ERP, as developed, is one of the most comprehensive 

CAM Programs in North America. Extensive planning and programming has occurred to 

accomplish three immediate objectives. 

• Fully define and implement the governance model for the program, i.e. Collaborative 

 Adaptive Management (CAM). 

• Implement science strategies and programs to define and gain ecological integrity. 

• Develop complex set of conceptual, simulation, predictive, etc. models to guide 

 management action, definition and assessments. 
49

LITERATURE REFERENCES 

Bellman, R., 1957, Dynamic Programming: Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press. 

Bellman, R., 1961, Adaptive Control Processes: Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press. 

Bormann, F.H., and Likens G.E., 1967, Nutrient cycling Pattern and Process in a Forested 

Ecosystem: Springer-Verlag, New York. 

Carson, Rachel, 1962, Silent Spring: Houghton Mifflin, Boston. 

Clark, C.W., 1976, Mathematical Bioeconomics: The Optimal Management of Renewable 

Resources: New York, Wiley. 

Core Team,. 1998, Strategic plan for ecosystem restoration in the CALFED Bay-Delta program. 

Report of the core team for strategic planning: CALFED Bay-Delta Program, Sacramento, 

CA. 

Dahm, C.N., Cummins K.W., Valett, H.M., and Goldman R.L., 1995, An ecosystem view of the 

restoration of the Kissimmee River: Restoration Ecology, 3-225-238. 

Davis S.M. and Ogden J.C., eds., 1993, Forest ecosystem management, an ecological economic 

 and social assessment: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C. 

Ehrlick, P.R. and Birch L.S., 1967, The balance of nature and population control: Am. Naturalist 

101:97-107. 

Ermoliev, Y. and Gaivoronski, A.A., 1984, Stochastic Quasigradient Methods and Their 

Implementation: Working Paper WP 84-55 Laxenburg, Austria, International Institute for 

Applied Systems Analysis. 

Failing ,L,G, Horn and P. Higgins, 2004, Using expert judgement and stakeholder values to 

evaluate adaptive management options: Ecology and Society 9 (1), 13. 

Garrett L. D., 1997, Evaluating changing overstory conditions on the Apache/Sitgreaves 

 National Forest, Problem Analysis: Biological Resources Division, USGS, Flagstaff, 

 Arizona, 128 p. Illus. 

Garrett, L. D. and Soulen, M.H. , 1999, Changes in character and structure of the 

Apache/Sitgreaves Forest Ecology, 1850-1990: Proceedings of the Fourth Biannual 

Conference of Research on the Colorado Plateau, USGS Report Series USGS 

FRESC/COPL/1999/16, pp, 25-59, USDI, USGS, Flagstaff, Arizona. 

Garrett, L. D., 2001, Evaluating Forest Restoration Opportunities on the Lincoln National Forest: 

 Research Report, Lincoln National Forest, Almogordo, NM. 184 pages, Illus. 

GCDAMP Science Advisors, 2007, A Review of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

 Program Effectiveness: CDAMP Administrative Report, USBOR, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Glantz, M.H. and Thompson, J.D. (Eds), 1981, Resource Management and Environmental 

 Uncertainty: Lessons from Coastal Upwelling Fisheries: New York, Wiley. 

Gloss, S.P., Lovich, J.E., and Melis, T.S. eds, 2005, The State of the Colorado River Ecosystem 

 In Grand Canyon: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1282.220p. 

Gregory, R, L. Failing,and M. Harstone, 2008, Meaningful resources consulting with First 

 People: Notes from British Columbia, Environment 50 (1), 36-45. 

Gregory R.L. Fischoff, and T. McDaniels, 2005, Acceptable input; using decision analysis to 

guide public policy deliberation: Decision Analysis 2, 4-16. 

Gunderson, L.H., and L. Pritchard Jr., 2002, Resilience and the behavior of large scale systems: 

Island Press, Washington, DC. 
50

Gunderson, Lance H., Holling C. S., Light, Stephen S. (eds.), 1995, Barriers and Bridges of the 

Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions: New York, Columbia University Press, ISBN 

0231101023. 

Hennessey, T.M., 1994, Governance and Adaptive Management of Estuarine Ecosystems, the 

 Case of Chesapeake Bay: Coastal Management, Volume 22. Pages 119-145. 

Holling, C. S. (ed.), 1978, Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management: Wiley, 

ISBN 0-471-99632-7. 

Holling. C.S., Berkes F. and Folke, C., 1998, Science, sustainability and resource management In 

F. Berkes and C. Folke, eds. Linking social and ecological systems, management practices 

and social mechanisms for building resilience: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 

UK. 

Horton, T. and Eichbaum W.M., 1991, Turning the tide saving the Chesapeake Bay: Island 

Press, Washington, DC. 

Johnson, F. A., Williams, B. K., Nichols, J. D. Hines, J. EI, Kendall, W. L., Smith, 

G. W.,and Caithamer, D.F., 1993, Developing an adaptive management strategy for 

harvesting waterfowl in North America: Trans Am Wild Nat Resour Conf (58): 565-583. 

Johnson, F. A., and Williams, B. K., 1999, Protocol and practice in the adaptive management of 

waterfowl harvests: Conservation Ecology 3 (8). 

Krustilla, J.V. and Fisher, A.C., 1975, The Economics of Natural Environments: Baltimore, MD, 

Johns Hopkins University Press. 

Johnson, H., C. Revenga, and Echeverria J., 2001, Managing water for people and nature: 

Science 292:1071. 

Kaufmann, M. R., Huckaby L. S., Regan C., and Popp J., 1998, Forest reference conditions for 

ecosystem management in the Sacramento Mountains, New Mexico: USDA Forest Service 

General Technical Report RMRS-GTR 19. Ft. Collins Colorado. 

Keeney R. L. and Gregory R., 2005, Selecting attributes to measure the achievement of 

objectives: Operations Research 53 (1), 1-11. 

Lee, K. N., 1993, Compass and Gyroscope, Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment: 

Washington, D.C., Island Press, ISBN 1-55963-197-X. 

Margoluis, Salafsky Nick, 1998, Measures of Success: Designing, Managing, and Monitoring 

Conservation and Development Projects: Washington, D.C., Island Press. ISBN 

9781559636124. 

Margoluis, Stem, C., Salafsky, N., Brown, M., 2009, Using conceptual models as a planning and 

evaluation tool in conservation: Evaluation and Program Planning 32: 138-147. 

Marmorek, D., Robinson C. E., Murray C., and Grieg, L., 2006, Enabling Adaptive Forest 

Management: National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry, p. 94 pp 

Melis, T.S. J SA.,Wright, B.E. Ralston, H F, Finly, T.A., Kennedy, M.A., Anderson, L.F., 

Coggins Jr., 2006, 2005 Knowledge assessment of the Effects of Glen Canyon Dam on the 

Colorado River Ecosystem: An Experimental Planning Support Document, Working 

Paper, USDOI, USGS. 

Moyle, P.B. and Yoshiyama R.M., 1994, Protection of aquatic biodiversity in California, a fivetiered approach: Fisheries 19 (2): 6-18 

Munro, T. B., Beazley Herman, K. and Dearden, P. eds., 2003, Making Ecosystems-based 

Management work: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Science and 

Management of Protected Areas, Victoria, BC, May,2003, Science and Management of 

Protected Areas Association, Wolfville, Nova Scotia. 
51

Murray C. and Marmorek D.R., 2004, Adaptive management, A Science based approach to 

 Managing ecosystems in the face of uncertainty: Ecological Society 10(4). 

Murray. Carol; and Marmorek, D.R., 2003, Adaptive management and ecological restoration: In 

Peter Friederici (ed), Ecological Restoration of Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forests::, 

Washington, D.C., Island Press, pp. 417-428, ISBN 1-55963-652-1. 

National Marine Fisheries Services, 2000, Biological Opinion for the Trinity River Mainstem 

Fishery Restoration EIS and it effects on Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho 

Salmon, Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon, Central Valley Spring-run 

Chinook Salmon, and Central Valley Steelhead: October 12, 2000. 55 pp. 

National Research Council 1999, Downstream; adaptive management of glen Canyon Dam and 

the Colorado River ecosystem: National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

Nichols, J. D., Runge, M. C., Johnson, F. A., and Williams, B. K., 2004, Adaptive harvest 

management of North American waterfowl populations, a brief history and future 

prospects: Journal of Ornithology 148 (148), 343. Doi, 10. 1007/s10336-007-0256-8. 

Nichols, J. D., Johnson, F. A., and Williams, B. K., 1995. Managing North American waterfowl 

in the face of uncertainty: Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst, 26: 177-199. 

Odam, T., Cantlon John E., and Kornicker Louis S., 1960, An organizational hierarchy postulate 

for the interpretation of species-individual distributions, species entropy, ecosystem 

evolution and the meaning of a species-variety index: Ecology 41:395-99 

Peterman, R. M., and Peters, C., 1998, Decision analysis: taking uncertainties into account in 

forest resource management: In Statistical Methods for Adaptive Management 

Studies,Victoria, B. C. Ministry of Forests. pp. 105-127, ISBN 0-7726-3512-9. 

Raynie R.C. and J.M. Visse, 2002, CWPPRA Adaptive Management Review: Final Report 

Prepared for the CWPPRA Planning and Evaluation Subcommittee, Technical 

 Committee and the Task Force. 

Roles Ad Hoc Group of Adaptive Management Work Group, 2009, Roles Ad. Hoc. Report and 

Recomendations to Secretary Designee: Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program. 

Salafsky, N., Margoluis, R., Redford, K., Robinson, J., 2002, Improving the practice of 

conservation, A conceptual framework and agenda for conservation science: 

Conservation Biology 16: 1469-1479, Dol:10. 1046/j.1523-1739.2002.01232.x 

Salzer, D., Salafsky, N., 2006, Allocating resources between taking action, assessing status, and 

measuring effectiveness of conservation actions: Natural Areas Journal 26. 

Science Advisors, GCDAMP, 2007, Science Advisors Review of GCDAMP Administrative 

Report: USBOR, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Senge, Peter M., 2006, The Fifth Discipline, The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization: 

New York, Currency Doubleday, ISBN 978-0385260954. 

Stankey, G. H., Clark N., and Bormann, B. T., 2005, Adaptive management of natural resources, 

theory, concepts, and management institutions: Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-654, Portland, 

OR, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

P.73 p. 

Stem, C., Margoluis, R., Salafsky, N., Brown, M., 2005, Monitoring and evaluation in 

conservation, A review of trends and approaches: Conservation Biology 19: 295-309. 

Stetyer. G. D. and Llowellyn D.W., 2000, Coastal Wet lands Planning Protection, and 

 Restoration Act, a Programmatic Application of Adaptive Management: Ecological 

. Engineering, Volume 15 numbers 3-4 pages 385-395. 
52

Susskind, L., Comacho A.E., and Schenk T., 2009, Collaborative Planning and Adaptive 

Management in Glen Canyon, Cautionary Tale: Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 

Vol 3511. 

Thom R.M., 1997, System Development Matrix for Adaptive Management of coastal 

 Ecosystem Restoration Projects: Ecological Engineering, volume 8, pages 219-232. 

Toth L.A., 1995, Principles and Guidelines for Restoration of River/Floodplain Ecosystems, 

 Kissimmee River, Florida: Lewis, New York NY, Pages 49-73. 

U.S. Department of the Interior,1995, Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental 

Impact Statement: Salt Lake City, Utah, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, 

337 p., appendices. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 2000, CALFED Bay-Delta Program Programmatic Record of 

Decision: August 28, 2000, 1199pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Hoopa Valley Tribe, 1999, Trinity River Flow Evaluation 

Final Report: June 1999, 513 pp. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 2007, USGS Workshop on Scientific Aspects of a Long-Term 

Experimental Plan for Glen Canyon Dam, April 10-11, 2007, Flagstaff AZ: Scientific 

Investigations Report 2007, USDOI, USGS. 

USGS, 2009, Strategic Science Plan to Support the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program, Fiscal years 2009-1012: Administrative Report, Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center, USGS, Flagstaff, AZ. 

Van Dyne, George M., 1966, Ecosystems, Systems Ecology, and Systems Ecologists: Oak Ridge 

Nat. Lab 3957. 

Walters, C., 1997, Challenges in Adaptive Management of Riparian and Coastal Ecosystems: 

Conservation Ecology (online) 1 (2).1. 

Walters, C.J., and Holling, C.S., 1990, Large-scale management experiments and learning by 

. doing: Ecology, v.7, p. 2060-2068.. 

Walters. C. J. and Hollings C.S., 1990, Planning and Evaluating Restoration of Aquatic Habitats: 

 Ecology, Volume 71, pages 2060 to 2066. 

Williams, B. K., Szaro C., and Shapiro, C.D., 2007, Adaptive Management: The U.S. 

 Department of the Interior Technical Guide.US Department of the Interior.ISBN 1-411- 

 31760-2.