California Code of Regulations › Title 23 - Waters › Division 6 - Delta Stewardship Council › Chapter 2 - Consistency with Regulatory Policies Contained in the Delta Plan › Article 4 - GENERAL PROVISIONS › Appendix 1B - Adaptive Management

Current through Register 2024 Notice Reg. No. 28, July 12, 2024
Adaptive Management
Adaptive management is defined in the Delta Reform Act as
					 "a framework and flexible decision making process for ongoing knowledge
					 acquisition, monitoring, and evaluation leading to continuous improvements in
					 management planning and implementation of a project to achieve specified
					 objectives" (Water Code section
					 85052).
					 Adaptive management can be applied at a program, plan or project level.
Adaptive management is a strategy that provides for making
					 management decisions under uncertain conditions using the best available
					 science rather than repeatedly delaying action until more information is
					 available. Adaptive management allows for continuous learning resulting in
					 management decisions based on what was learned, rather than adopting a
					 management strategy and implementing it without regard for scientific feedback
					 or monitoring. Adaptive management is an approach to resources management that
					 increases the likelihood of success in obtaining goals in a manner that is both
					 economical and effective because it provides flexibility and feedback to manage
					 natural resources in the face of often considerable uncertainty.
To be effective, governance to support and implement
					 adaptive management in the Delta must be flexible and have the capability to
					 make timely changes to policies and practices in response to what is learned
					 over time (e.g., the Delta Plan adaptive management approach described in
					 Chapter 2). Governance for adaptive management should provide a decision-making
					 structure that fosters communication among scientific experts, independent
					 scientific reviewers, the relevant decision making authorities (e.g., state and
					 federal fisheries agencies on issues related to aquatic ecosystem restoration)
					 and a balanced approach to the involvement of interested stakeholders.
A Three-phase and Nine-step Adaptive Management
					 Framework
The Council will use the three-phase and nine-step adaptive
					 management framework in Figure 1B-1 that is described in detail below. The
					 Council will use this framework to evaluate the usefulness of adaptive
					 management for reviewing proposed covered actions involving ecosystem
					 restoration and water management along with developing, implementing, and
					 updating the Delta Plan (See Chapter 2). Ecosystem restoration and water
					 management covered actions should include an adaptive management plan that
					 considers all nine steps of this framework; however, they need not be rigidly
					 included and implemented in the order described here and should not be used as
					 a means to prevent action, but rather as a tool to enhance decision making. The
					 intent is to build logical and clear information exchange and decision points
					 into management actions that increase options and improve outcomes. In
					 developing an adaptive management plan, the best available science should be
					 used to inform the various steps of the adaptive management process.
Click
					 here to view image
Figure 1B-1
A Nine-step Adaptive Management
					 Framework
The shading represents the three broad phases of adaptive
					 management (Plan, Do, and Evaluate and Respond), and the boxes represent the
					 nine steps within the adaptive management framework. The circular arrow
					 represents the general sequence of steps. The additional arrows indicate
					 possible next steps for adapting (for example, revising the selected action
					 based on what has been learned). This framework and the description of each
					 step are largely derived from Stanford and Poole (1996), CALFED Bay-Delta
					 Program (2000), Abal et al. (2005), and the Bay Delta Conservation Plan
					 Independent Science Advisors on Adaptive Management (2009).
Plan
The
Plan
phase of the adaptive management
					 framework is presented as four steps.
1. Define/Redefine the Problem
The first step of effective adaptive management is to
					 clearly define the problems that will be addressed in the form of a problem
					 statement. The problem statement should clearly link to program goals and to
					 specific objectives, which should be developed by proponents in an open manner.
					 The boundaries of the problem (e.g., its geographic and temporal scales) should
					 be defined in the problem statement.
2. Establish Goals and Objectives
Clear goals and objectives must be established by
					 proponents of proposed covered actions for ecosystem restoration and water
					 management and be based on the best available science (See GP 1 in Chapter 2).
					 Goals are broad statements that propose general solutions. Objectives are more
					 specific than goals, and are often quantitative, specific narrative statements
					 of desired outcomes allowing evaluation of how well the objectives are being
					 achieved.
3. Model Linkages between Objectives and Proposed
					 Action(s)
Models formalize and apply current scientific
					 understanding, develop expectations, assess the likelihood of success, and
					 identify tradeoffs associated with different management actions. Models can be
					 conceptual, statistical, physical, decision support, or simulation. Models link
					 the objectives to the proposed actions and clarify why an intended action is
					 expected to result in meeting its objectives. Models provide a road map for
					 testing hypotheses through statements that describe the expected outcome of an
					 action.
Both qualitative (conceptual) and quantitative models can
					 effectively link objectives and proposed actions by illuminating if and how
					 different actions meet specific objectives. Conceptual models are particularly
					 useful for decision makers, scientists, and the public because they illustrate
					 the most critical cause-and-effect pathways. Conceptual models provide an
					 articulation of the hypotheses being tested and how various actions might
					 achieve particular objectives. Conceptual models also help to develop
					 performance measures, which are qualitative or quantitative information that
					 tracks status and trends toward meeting objectives. Conceptual models should be
					 used in adaptive management planning because they help explain how other types
					 of models, research, and actions will be used to explore hypotheses and address
					 specific existing and anticipated uncertainties.
Recent conceptual models developed specifically for the
					 Delta include comprehensive models developed as part of the Delta Regional
					 Ecosystem Restoration Implementation Plan (DRERIP). The DRERIP models were
					 designed to aid in the identification and evaluation of ecosystem restoration
					 actions in the Delta, and include both ecosystem models (processes, habitats,
					 and stressors) and species life history models. Another set of conceptual
					 models was developed to plan the IEP's Pelagic Organism Decline (POD)
					 investigations and to synthesize the POD results into "stories" about what may
					 have happened to cause the rapid decline of multiple open-water fish
					 species.
4. Select Action(s) (Research, Pilot, or
					 Full-scale) and Develop Performance Measures
The process for selecting an action or several actions to
					 meet objectives includes an evaluation of the best available science
					 represented in the conceptual model. This evaluation should guide development
					 of the action. Consideration should be given to the following:
* Level of the action(s) to be taken (research, pilot-scale
					 project, or full-scale project)
* Geographical and temporal scale of the action(s)
* Degree of confidence in the benefits
* Consequences of being wrong
The scale of the action selected should be informed by the
					 certainty of the relevant scientific information, consider the reversibility of
					 the action, and account for the potential cost of delaying larger-scale
					 actions. For example, when the best available science cannot predict the
					 outcome of an action with a reasonable degree of certainty, and irreversible
					 consequences exist for incorrectly predicting the outcomes of an action,
					 further research or a pilot-scale action is likely more appropriate than a
					 full-scale action, unless the cost of delaying a larger-scale action is very
					 high (for example, a species of concern goes extinct or urban water supplies
					 are cut off). In some instances, choosing to take no action could be the best
					 selection (when no foreseen benefit would result from a research, pilot-scale,
					 or full-scale action). Where possible, the action(s) selected should test
					 cause-and-effect relationships in the conceptual model so that the model can be
					 adapted using the information learned from implementing the action(s).
Performance measures derive from goals and objectives, and
					 help to address the status and trends of progress toward achieving the goals
					 and objectives. Performance measures can be placed in three general
					 classes:
* Administrative: performance measures that describe
					 decisions made by policy makers and managers to finalize plans or approve
					 resources (funds, personnel, projects) for implementation of a program or group
					 of related programs
* Output (also known as driver): performance measures that
					 evaluate factors that may be influencing outcomes and include on-the-ground
					 implementation and management actions
* Outcome: performance measures that evaluate ecosystem
					 responses to management actions or natural outputs
The distinction between performance measure types is not
					 rigid. In some cases, an outcome performance measure for one purpose may become
					 an output performance measure for another purpose.
Development of informative performance measures is a
					 challenging task. Performance measures must be designed to capture important
					 trends and to address whether specific actions are producing expected results.
					 Performance measures are selected based on the conceptual model. In addition
					 the monitoring plan should be designed so that the information collected
					 supports performance measure analysis and reporting.
Efforts to develop performance measures in complex and
					 large-scale systems with many ecosystem types like the Delta are commonly
					 multi-year endeavors; however, initial performance measures provide value for
					 initial assessments of progress made in the interim. The process for developing
					 performance measures should address the rationale for each performance measure,
					 metrics, method for analysis, baseline and reference conditions, expected
					 outcomes, timeline for evaluation, and a communication/visualization element.
					 The development of performance measures should be informed by the best
					 available science and involve key stakeholders.
Do
The
Do
phase of adaptive management
					 includes two steps that occur in parallel.
5. Design and Implement Action(s)
The design and implementation of action(s) include clearly
					 describing specific activities that will occur under the selected action(s) and
					 how they will link to the monitoring plan. Design includes creating a plan for
					 implementing the action(s) and monitoring responses resulting from the
					 action(s). The design of the action(s) should be informed by existing
					 uncertainties, and should be directly linked to meeting the goals and
					 objectives.
6. Design and Implement Monitoring
					 Plan
A well-designed monitoring plan includes a data management
					 plan. A data management plan describes the process for organizing and clearly
					 documenting observations, including how data are collected; the methods,
					 quality assurance, and calculations used; the time and space scales of the
					 variables; and accurate site locations and characteristics. Data management is
					 critical for analyses, syntheses, and evaluations.
A well-designed monitoring plan goes beyond data collection
					 and data management. A monitoring plan often includes targeted research to
					 answer why certain results are observed and others are not. A monitoring plan
					 also includes clear communication of the information gathered and current
					 understanding drawn from this information. A complete monitoring plan
					 includes:
* Compliance monitoring (required by permits)
* Performance monitoring with pre-project monitoring
					 (measuring achievement of targets)
* Mechanistic monitoring with concurrent targeted research
					 (testing the understanding of linkages in the conceptual model)
* System-level monitoring (holistic, integrative and long
					 term)
These types of monitoring can measure and communicate
					 various types of information, including administrative/inputs (such as dollars
					 awarded and spent or projects funded), compliance/outputs (such as tons of
					 gravel added or acres exposed to tidal action), and effectiveness/outcomes
					 (such as actual outcome expected from implementing an action at the local
					 scale, suites of actions at the system-wide scales, and status and trends
					 assessments). The monitoring plan design must include the development of
					 monitoring metrics that can be integrated and summarized to inform decision
					 makers and the public as described in step eight,
Communicate Current
					 Understanding
.
Monitoring plan design requires making tradeoffs between
					 resources spent on monitoring and resources spent on actions and analyses. To
					 aid in this evaluation of tradeoffs, a rigorous pre-analysis using simulation
					 models can show the information value of different variables that might be
					 monitored. These values assessments can then be used to compare the benefits
					 from monitoring certain variables against the benefit of using resources for
					 other actions.
Implementation of actions and monitoring should be closely
					 coordinated. Before an action is implemented, initial conditions should be
					 clearly documented to the extent practical so that a baseline is established.
					 Baseline data includes characterization of natural variation observed in the
					 examined system over space and time. For many ecological and hydrological
					 variables, an extensive set of baseline data is available because of the
					 efforts of the Interagency Ecological Program and repositories of information
					 such as those available from the U.S. Geological Survey and the California
					 Department of Water Resources. The implementation of action(s) and monitoring
					 should be clearly executed and communicated to the public. Status and trends
					 metrics that compare conditions before and after action implementation are
					 often good assessment and communication tools.
Evaluate and Respond
The
Evaluate and respond
phase of adaptive
					 management includes three key steps.
7. Analyze, Synthesize, and
					 Evaluate
Analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of the action(s) and
					 monitoring are critical for improving current understanding. Analysis and
					 synthesis should incorporate information on how conditions have changed,
					 expectedly and unexpectedly, as a result of implementing the action(s). Because
					 measurable change might not occur on short timescales, evaluations should also
					 examine whether actions prevented further deteriorating conditions that would
					 have occurred if no actions were taken. The evaluation should examine whether
					 performance measures indicate that one or more of the objectives have been met
					 as a result of the implemented action(s), and if so, why. If an objective is
					 not met, the potential reasons why it was not met should be clearly identified
					 and communicated. Analyses should be cumulative. As each year's data becomes
					 available, analyses should assess whether the probability of the desired
					 outcome has changed and, if so, how this affects decisions about the action.
					 The results of the analysis, synthesis, and evaluation step could be published
					 in technical peer-reviewed papers and reports for the purpose of external
					 review, disclosure, and accessibility where results warrant this level of
					 communication. Scientists and technical experts will be critical for carrying
					 out this step.
8. Communicate Current
					 Understanding
Communication of current understanding gained through
					 analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of implemented action(s) and monitoring is
					 a key step for informing and equipping policy makers, managers, stakeholders,
					 and the public to appropriately respond and adapt. This step spans the
Do
and the
Evaluate and respond
phase of
					 adaptive management because the communication of current understanding and
					 related recommendations for change requires both policy and technical
					 expertise. The information communicated should be technically sound, well
					 synthesized, and translated into formats conducive to informing a nontechnical
					 audience (e.g., a report card format or a general science outlet such as a
					 newsletter). The information should then be disseminated to those directly
					 involved in the adaptive management process for the plan, program, or project
					 and to those interested in the outcome of the action.
Technical staff and decision makers should be regularly
					 involved in the exchange of information as data are analyzed and synthesized.
					 Communication should be ongoing and occur at appropriate intervals at which an
					 improved understanding could help refine other steps of the adaptive management
					 framework.
The key to successful communication is a skilled and
					 dedicated interdisciplinary person or team who understands the technical
					 information learned, the functional needs of the decision makers, and how to
					 best transmit this information. Communication should utilize various media
					 (e.g., web-based materials, social media, outreach opportunities, public
					 forums, etc.) and strive to meet the goals of transparency and clarity.
9. Adapt
Proponents of covered actions for ecosystem restoration and
					 water management should be engaged and prepared to adapt to changes in current
					 understanding and changes in current conditions (e.g., environmental or
					 socio-economic). Informed and equipped with new results and understanding,
					 decision makers should reexamine the other steps of the adaptive management
					 framework and revise these steps where current understanding suggests doing so.
					 Possible next steps could include redefining the problem statement, amending
					 goals and objectives, altering the conceptual model, or selecting an
					 alternative action for design and implementation. Also, decisions to adapt
					 might be needed at various time intervals for the same adaptive management
					 experiment. For example, decisions might need to be made daily (e.g., Delta
					 water operations), yearly (e.g., implementation of landscape-scale
					 restoration), or decadal (adaptive management of landscape-scaled restoration
					 design).
Knowing when to adapt is not always obvious. Adaptive
					 management actions should have a planned time frame that includes when to adapt
					 (based on understandings of the system and its uncertainties), and that time
					 frame should be abandoned only if the results show that the action is doing
					 more harm than good or the anticipated benefit is not noted within a reasonable
					 timeframe beyond what was expected. In general, one year's results, however
					 anomalous, are seldom enough to demonstrate that the action should be subject
					 to adaptive measures. Furthermore, when the analysis, synthesis, and evaluation
					 of information learned from implementing an action indicates that no benefit
					 results from the undertaken action, resources should no longer be spent on that
					 action no matter how popular the action might be.
Decisions made within the adaptive management process for
					 ecosystem restoration and water management actions should be made by decision
					 makers for the entity responsible for implementing adaptive management.
					 Adaptive management decisions relevant to revising and updating the Delta Plan
					 will be made by the Council.
1. New
					 appendix filed 8-7-2013; operative 9-1-2013 pursuant to Government Code section
					 11343.4(b)(3)
					 (Register 2013, No. 32).