Evaluating Criteria Guiding Transit

and Management Activities in 

Management Program

GCDAMP

Science Advisors

Technical Work Group Me

Phoenix, AZ

June 29-30, 2010
Project Objective

Literature Review:

– Evaluate adaptive management liter

guidance on criteria to transition be

and management actions

Review Existing AM Programs:

– Survey active adaptive managemen

criteria being utilized for transitions
• Kissimmee River Restoration Program

• Cal‐Fed ERP• Lower Bridge River Restoration Progra• Trinity River Restoration Program• Platte River RIP

• Lincoln National Forest Restoration Pr

• San Juan River RIP Implementation Pro• Upper Colorado River RIP• Lower Colorado Multispecies Conserv

• Apache Sitgreaves NF Restoration Prog

Adaptive Management Con

Programs Reviewed
Observations

Impetus for AM Development; 1960

3⁄4Need to incorporate input from dive

stakeholder group

3⁄4Need to address large complex natu

management issues under significan

3⁄4Need to conduct policy experiments 

management actions and monitorin
AM Development

3⁄4Relatively new approach in manage3⁄4Development of methodology in 19

3⁄4Incorporates both passive and activ3⁄4Utilizes concepts from several scien

3⁄4Management science

3⁄4Probability theory

3⁄4Risk and uncertainty

3⁄4Decision theory3⁄4Ecosystem science
Observations

Difference in Traditional Science Mod

Adaptive Management Model

Traditional Science Model: Focus on learning thro

disaggregation of ecosystem issues and contro

experimentation

• Issue: Wildfire danger from high fuel volum

Science Question: Can controlled fires rem

• Hypotheses → • Controlled Experiments

→

• Science Proofs →• Management Action → 
Observations

AM Model: Focus on Improving Resources in t

and Learning With Cyclical Management Ac

3⁄4 Problem: Loss of forest Ecosystem Integrity 

landscape →

3⁄4 Managers, Stakeholders provide need spec

3⁄4 Design: Multiple management actions and 

3⁄4 Implement Management Actions

→

3⁄4 Monitor and Evaluate: →

3⁄4 Adjust Management Actions →
Adaptive Management Model 
Role of Science

• Science provides critical support t

model through alternative manag

assessments, simulation modeling

monitoring, hypothesis tests, eval
Observations

AM Theory and Practice Does Not Identify Expr

Resolve Certainty Before Moving to Managem

 AM accepts reality that we cannot resolve 

complex programs

 Adapted to issues of continued high unce

traditional science paradigms have limited 

 AM approach is “learning by doing manag

implement management actions; monitor 

evaluate; revise management actions

 Use of risk analysis, probability theory, Ba

tradeoff analysis, etc. to respond to mana

to accept risks
Two Key Findings Of Asse

• AM process treats management/s

continuum of blended activities.

• Learning is but one linkage in man

and science transitions.
Related to the First Fin

• The AM paradigm follows a princi

explicit separations of managemescience activities.

• Uses instead integrated cyclic app

both in a more holistic manageme
The Holling Mode
Related to Second Fin

• Developed criteria to guide progra

transitions among attributes of AM 

ie consensus building, assessment

management actions, monitoring

revised management actions, etc, 

effectiveness of management/scie

transitions.
Approach to Evaluat

Criteria/Guidelines 

Management/Science Tra

• Indentify AM attributes from liter

effect management/science trans

• Indentify attribute areas needing

improvement in GCDAMP.

• Identify criteria/guidelines in attri

operating AM programs offering p

improvements to GCDAMP.
Observations from Literatu

AM Attributes Effecting Pr

Transitions• Organization, Goals and Roles of E

• Program Planning and Budgeting

• Effective Science and Monitoring 

• Assessments of Knowledge

• Responding to Perturbations• Responding to Independent Revie
• Organization, Goals and Roles

– Consensus building; conflict resolut

– More specific goals; dfcs

– Roles and responsibilities of GCDAM

• Program Planning and Budgeting

– Focus on integrated system approac

– Focus on priority resources and issu

– Incorporating tradeoff and risk asse– Long term program and budget plan
• Effective Science Monitoring

– Defining managers most critical info

management needs.

– Specifying most effective designs fo

actions, monitoring and research.
Organization, Goals and 

• Improved CAM processes: Consen

dispute resolution, etc.

• GCDAMP uses consensus building, ie. 200

SPG; TWG program and budget reviews; G

workshops, etc. Repeated consistent proc

• Improved criteria for consistent consensu

dispute resolution, tradeoff and risk asses

processes could assist program.

• Example issues: HFE criteria and guideline

fish control, etc.
Organization & Goals, 

• Improved CAM processes:

– Kissimmee River Restoration Progra

ecological integrity. Multiple groupsformal and informal approaches. Ex

committee problem solving. Develo

and criteria.
Organization & Goals, 

• Improved CAM processes, cont:

– Lincoln National Forest Restoration 

Restore forest health and social fabr

groups and monthly committee mee

problem solving. Structured analytic

informal methods and guidelines us
Organization & Goals, 

• Improved CAM processes, cont:

– Lower Bridge River CAM. Protect na

enhance riverine habitat, improve re

maintain water and power requirem

Working group and committees. Fo

approaches, structured and analytic

for consensus building, dispute reso

tradeoff assessments, decision mak
Organization & Goals, 

• Specifying goals, dfcs, priorities.

– GCDAMP has developed goals (1996

established priorities (2004). DFCs n

– Reviews identified needed improved 

specification, defined dfcs.

– Issues are conflicts, program plannin

funding goal needs, new HBC relateneeds and increasing needs for man

actions.
Organization & Goals, 

• Improved Goals and Priorities

• Upper Colorado, San Juan and Platt

have explicit goals, prioritization of term accomplishments. Programs u

regulation, authorities and responsi

involved federal and state parties to 

explicit criteria for AM processes, i.e

long term funding etc. Science is primonitoring. Less volatile transitions 

management and science.
Organization & Goals an

Roles

• Entity roles

• GCDAMP entity roles are specified 

and protocol. Exist in advisory role t

Secretary.

• Need for improved criteria and guid

entity operation, flexability to provid

recommendations, more structured 

developing proposals for revised ma

actions and science, greater continu

for tradeoff analysis, decision proce
Organization, Goals and 

Roles, cont.

• Issues of concern: Lack of structura

guidelines on responsibilities results 

variance in quality of proposals; lack 

and tools to insure consistency in ev

proposals (workshops, structured trdecision making tools) results in diff

treatment of proposals. HFE protoc

fish control, Native American disput
Organization, Goals, Enti

• Entity Roles

• CAL

‐FED ERP, Kissimmee River Program ha

structured process of committees and rec

bodies for proposing change in managem

(Scoping workshops; revised proposals; tr

assessments; structured decision process)

• LNFRP and A/SNFRP, although less structu

criteria utilizing ID Teams and NEPA forma

• Colorado and Platte River RIPS and Lower 

use developed criteria and consistent pro
Program Planning and Bu

• Improved criteria needed for better specifica

manager/stakeholder and scientist informatio

type, amount, resolution, accuracy; etc.

• Reviews of GCDAMP identified issues in man

ability to provide information because of unc

desire vs. need, tradeoff and decision proces

• Issues: Lack of manager/stakeholder specific

scientist group to pursue more data of high r

accuracy than potentially needed. Expanding 

management actions/science from declining 

focus on system integration and minimal info
Program Planning and Bu

• Improved specification of informa

• LNF RP uses an integrated tradeoff m

decision support system (TEAMS) an

requirements to inform the AM pro

evaluate minimal information needs

• Lower Bridge River RP uses worksho

structured tradeoff and decision sup

to manage information needs and c
Program Planning and Bu

• GCDAMP uses short term budget planning (1

year program and budget planning needed

• GCDAMP reviews reveal lack of criteria for lo

programs and budget plans to guide manageaction/science transitions.

• Issues: Lack of long term (10 year) program a

may limit effectiveness of management/scien

identifying program perturbations; knowing 

information at critical program junctures; inte

Colorado River Programs.
Program Planning and Bu

• 10 Year Program and Budget Plan

• CAL‐FED, South Florida CERP, Kissimme

Migratory Bird Programs have sophisti

budget planning criteria for increasing, 

level budgets.

• Upper and Lower Colorado RIPS have l

program and budget plans, i.e. 10‐50 y

critical program junctures.
Conclusions

• AM is a Management Model, not Science Mo

critical part. Primary focus is resource improv

• AM needed to address large complex and dyn

resource issues where uncertainty cannot be 

increased risks exist in decision processes.

• Traditional science model of controlled exper

uncertainty and risks has limited application.

• AM depends on integration of management/

pattern of defining and implementing manag

monitoring and evaluating resource impacts, 

implementing revised management actions.
Conclusions, cont

• Criteria and guidelines for effective programm

of AM processes are critical to insuring mana

transitions. Several require improvement in 

• Organization goals and entity roles

• Program planning and budgeting

• Effective monitoring approaches

• Opportunities exist to learn and adapt criteri

programs to inquire GCDAMP management/s

transitions.
Recommendation

• To improve management/science trans

GCDAMP should review and revise sev

its programs.

• Improved criteria and guidelines shoul

developed for consensus building; con

goals and dfc’s; entity roles; planning a

monitoring programs.

• The TWG/GCMRC/SA should recomme

year program for accomplishing neede