PROSPECTUS 

EVALUATION OF A TRANSITION IN THE ROLES OF SCIENCE 

AND MANAGEMENT DURING THE EVOLUTION OF 

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 

BY 

GCDAMP SCIENCE ADVISORS 

September 2, 2009 

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 

(GCPA, 1992).” The EIS commits 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 future monitoring and research 

findings (GCDEIS 1996)”. 

 One area identified as needing improvement in the GCDAMP involves 

determining when science has sufficiently reduced uncertainty regarding outcomes from 

a proposed activity, so that policy makers and managers can define a management action 

that would require limited future science activity, presumably subject to long term 

monitoring, but not further research. This relationship between research and 

management presumes a level of stasis in the ecosystem and continuity in cause and 

effect relationships between actions undertaken and resource responses. Management 

actions are not explicitly defined by the GCDAMP, and the term is used synonymously 

with experiments in the adaptive management literature, but the GCDAMP web site 

www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg includes the following two statements related to 

management actions (emphasis added): 

 The scientific information obtained under the Adaptive Management Program is used 

as the basis for recommendations for dam operations and management actions. 

 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.

 Information developed by the Technical Work Group (TWG) and other 

GCDAMP entities includes the following discussions on management actions. The 

concept of management actions was brought forward in development of a Long-Term 

Experimental Plan (LTEP during deliberations of the Science Planning Group (an 

AMWG ad hoc group) in 2005 through 2006. Management actions were contrasted with 
experiments in the development of an experimental design for an LTEP. That design was 

designated the “hybrid” design because it accommodated both experiments and 

management actions. Definitions used at that time held that both experiments and 

management actions are purposeful manipulations of the system flow or nonflow 

treatments. Defined management actions were considered to have known, positive 

effects, however, and therefore would be implemented and maintained as needed to attain 

the desired resource conditions. By contrast, experimental actions were defined as having 

more uncertain effects and would be purposefully turned on and off, or implemented in 

different states, as treatments to determine their effects. 

 Neither the Strategic Plan nor any of the other guiding documents in the 

GCDAMP clearly describe what management actions are, how they should be developed 

in relation to science, or what funding should be used to implement them. For example, 

there is a critical need to implement compliance activities within the program, but there is 

uncertainty as to whether they should be treated as management actions or science 

experiments. 

 In developing the FY 2010-11 workplans and budgets, it has become clear that the 

GCDAMP should consider the implications of management actions. An example is the 

mechanical non-native fish removal project along the mainstem, which, as a compliance 

measure could be implemented as a management action, scientific research, or a hybrid 

of the two depending on the presumed certainty of its outcome, whether it is being used 

to test hypotheses, and whether its application has been fully tested under research and 

development. The removal program was included in a 2008 Biological Opinion issued 

by the US Fish and Wildlife Service as a necessary conservation measure. The science 

entity (GCMRC) has completed its charge of assessing protocols for achieving desired 

levels of coldwater species (specifically rainbow trout (RBT)) control, but there remain 

critical questions concerning the relationship between nonnative fish removal and the 

response of native fish,including the endangered humpback chub, as well as questions 

about the origin of the trout and where removal efforts would be most effective 

(tributaries versus mainstem). Trout removal could be implemented as a management 

action following the completion of technique development, but the desired level of 

certainty in outcome regarding resource responses is unknown. Following the 

recommendations of a panel of scientists in April 2007, the approach to determine 

whether the control of RBT has positive (or possibly even negative) effects on HBC was 

terminated. As such, if coldwater species control (specifically, nonnative salmonids) is 

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

activity or some combination (hybrid)? 

 Fundamental questions arise from the above and other examples in the GCDAMP. 

• What does it mean in adaptive management programs to move from scientific 

experimental research to management actions? 

• Can we learn from examples of other adaptive management programs? 

• How is the decision made to evaluate and adopt or reject proposed 

management actions? 

• What is the process to evaluate and adopt or reject proposed management 

actions? 

• What are the important considerations in defining criteria for management 

actions? 

2
• Do management actions fall on a continuum of how much “science” is 

involved in their implementation and monitoring? 

• Where does monitoring fit? 

• Do management actions fall on a continuum of how much “science” is 

involved in their implementation and monitoring? 

• What are the important considerations in defining criteria for management 

actions? 

• How do we determine who is responsible for funding and implementation? 

• Can we learn from examples of other adaptive management programs? 

 These questions will be investigated by TWG with the support of the Science 

Advisors (SAs) and the GCMRC to make technical recommendations to AMWG. The 

first step will involve the SAs evaluation of examples of the transition from science to 

management actions in other programs. It is intended to provide a starting point of 

conversation for discussions by the Secretary’s Designee, AMWG and TWG. 

REQUESTED SCIENCE ADVISOR INPUT TO GCDAMP

The following motion was passed by consensus of the AMWG on August 13, 

2009 reflecting their desire to continue to develop information on this issue: 

“The AMWG requests that the SAs 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.” 

SA PROCEDURE TO RESPOND TO AMWG REQUEST 

 This prospectus describes the SA’s approach for responding to the AMWG’s 

request. The SAs, in keeping with their operating protocols, will only address issues of a 

scientific and technical nature. The SAs protocol and operating procedures do not permit 

assessments of policy or legal interpretations of USDOI decision processes, or decision 

processes of the GCDAMP FACA committee. The request by the AMWG asks for a 

survey of information from 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 SA charge for this specific project will be confined generally to the following 

objective. The SAs will: 

(a) survey scientific literature on adaptive management for uses of the term 

“management actions” and ascertain definitions of this term relative to 

research and monitoring in the evolution of adaptive management programs 

(b) survey federal and state adaptive management and related programs and 

gather information on how these programs managed a transition from 

science inquiry to management actions or similar practices on specific issues, 

projects or activities, and

3
(c) based on that survey identify criteria or guidelines that can assist scientists, 

managers and stakeholders to successfully transition across the roles of 

science and management actions in the evolution of adaptive management. 

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 

science programs should be transitioned to management actions or similar activities. 

However, it should provide information to the Secretary, GCDAMP managers and 

stakeholders to assist in this determination. 

 The general approach taken for information development will be a case study 

methodology. Cases will be selected that have 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 

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

activities is a significant program thrust 

• Implementing management actions to improve appropriate protection and or 

management of natural and cultural resources is a significant program thrust 

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

management activities to define when additional investments in science 

unnecessary or limited 

• Defined needs have been identified to transition to management actions or 

activities with reduced science need. 

In addition, the Department of the Interior’s 2007 technical guide for adaptive 

management will be revisited for any guidance it may contain relating to the subject of 

transitioning from scientific experimental research of ecosystems to approval and 

implementation of management actions. Particular attention will be focused on 

identifying relevant guidance provided in Chapter 5, entitled Other Operational Issues, 

including sections 5.1. Uses of Information in Natural Resource Management, 5.2. 

Accounting for Uncertainty in Adaptive Management and 5.3. The Measurement of 

Learning. Several of the case studies included in the DOI technical guide will also be 

reviewed (as listed below) for evidence of transitions between scientific studies and 

management actions. Lead authors engaged in the revision of the technical guide will be 

queried for their findings relative to the questions being addressed in the SA study. 

 There are many federal and state directed natural resource programs that use 

elements of adaptive management processes. Some programs have fully developed 

science and management programs that are explicitly structured to conduct policy 

experiments and transition to fully informed management actions from their science 

investigations. Our survey will screen a set of programs and focus on those that have 

similar characteristics to the GCDAMP program, i.e. developed science and management 

programs conducting on going policy experiments. 

 A cross section of adaptive management programs will be evaluated to isolate 

subsets that reflect accomplishment in implementing management actions or where 

uncertainty in outcomes was reduced and management actions were adopted. Criteria 

will be applied to ensure comparability across programs and their relatedness to the 

4
GCDAMP. An effort will be extended to incorporate programs that are focused on 

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

riverine settings. 

 Following are examples of programs that may be screened in the assessment. 

• Trout Creek Mountains Restoration, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management, Vale District, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

• Adaptive Waterfowl Harvest Management; USDI/FWS 

• Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership, Bureau of Land Management-Tucson Field 

Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Arizona Ecological Services, Coronado 

National Forest, Natural Resource Conservation Services, Colorado 

• Bully Creek Landscape Area Management Project; U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Vale District,

• Interagency Bison Management Plan; National Park Service, Yellowstone 

National Park,

• Ponderosa Pine Forest Restoration on Turnbull; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

• Five Rivers Landscape Management Project; U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

U.S. Forest Service,

• Kissimmee River; Florida 

• Columbia River; PNW 

• Cal-Fed; California 

• Adaptive Fisheries Harvest; Northwest 

• Platte River; Wyoming/Colorado/Nebraska 

• Trinity River; California 

• South Florida Restoration Task Force; Florida 

• Northwest Forest Plan; PNW 

• Northeastern States Research Cooperative 

• Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program; SW 

• Tahoe Science Consortium 

• Chesapeake Bay Program 

• Upper Colorado River Recovery Implementation Program 

• San Juan River Recovery Implementation Program 

• Bridge River of British Columbia - flow experiments and BC Hydro 

operational strategies, 

• Bill Williams River, AZ– operational strategies for Alamo Dam 

• Vernalis Adaptive Management Program, USFWS, California

• Missouri River Recovery Program (MRRP), USFWS and USACE 

• Bay Delta Conservation Plan, California 

• Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) Adaptive Management 

Program 

Several case studies within the Colorado River Basin may also be of particular 

relevance to the issue of how management actions (primarily, daily to annual release 

strategies, but other treatments also) have been recently implemented as DOI policies: 1) 

scientific basis for MLFF rules for Glen Canyon Dam operations approved as ROD in 

1996, 2) scientific information used as basis for current Flaming Gorge Dam operations 

on the Green River under the ROD implemented in 2006, 3) scientific basis for Navajo 

5
6

Dam operations on the San Juan River under current ROD, 4) scientific basis for 

proposed Aspinall Unit operations on the Gunnison and Colorado Rivers in anticipation 

of future ROD. In each case, we assume that the management actions are implemented 

on the basis of scientific information and other legal mandates intended to achieve 

specified resource objectives. The question remains: “How were the current operating 

policies at the above facilities identified and then transitioned from the focus of research 

evaluation to management actions?” 

 The survey and case study assessments will be directed at identifying (1) several 

specific examples where activities have transitioned from science to management, and (2) 

criteria, guidelines, processes, and other information that could be helpful to GCDAMP 

managers in identifying management actions with sufficiently known effects and 

certainty in predicted outcomes that they no longer require significant science 

investments. The need for certainty in implementing management actions has its basis in 

several areas of science, however, the SAs also recognize that there is wide variation 

among managers and policy makers in their risk tolerance for making management 

decisions. Criteria and guidelines can be developed to assist managers and policy makers 

in understanding general levels of certainty that are associated with taking management 

actions. And, case studies can be very helpful in demonstrating the workability of these 

criteria and guidelines. 

 In the end, defining when a specific management action requires or does not 

require additional investments in research and monitoring to further reduce uncertainty is 

a management decision. And, an organization’s or manager’s willingness to accept risk 

varies with many factors, including time, issue, social and environmental conditions, the 

management action under consideration and its effect, cost, certainty of effect, etc. Much 

of the process, therefore, is greatly influenced by value judgments and willingness to take 

risk. 

REQUIREMENT AND SCHEDULE 

 The SAs approach will involve three primary steps in the fall 2009 as follows: 

• Evaluation of science literature for specific findings that can contribute 

criteria, guidelines, models and information to clarify opportunities for 

movement from a science activity to a management action. 

• Screen 20 to 30 adaptive management programs, and select an appropriate 

subset (5-10) to evaluate as case studies. 

• Based on the case studies, identify criteria, processes, guidelines, models, 

information, management experience, and other tools that may assist 

managers in moving from science to management actions. 

 The SAs will complete the above assessments from September 15, 2009-

December 15, 2009. A report of findings of the SAs will be submitted to GCMRC and 

the TWG by December 21, 2009. The SAs Executive Coordinator will present their 

findings to the TWG at their January 2010 meeting and to the AMWG at their spring 

2010 meeting.