Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 97
4
Adaptive Management
S
ince 2008, Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) partners have embraced
adaptive management as a way to enhance overall management of the
program (EPA, 2008a) and to strengthen scientific support for decision
making (EPA, 2008a; DOI and DOC, 2009c). The Strategy for Protecting
and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (FLC, 2010b) promotes
adaptive management to coordinate science and decision-support activities.
This emphasis on adaptive management crosses all facets of the CBP and
federal and state initiatives for protecting and restoring the Chesapeake Bay.
This chapter provides an overview of how the CBP and federal partners
have framed adaptive management generally and then turns to the applica-
tion of adaptive management to nutrient and sediment reduction programs
to meet water quality goals. In subsequent sections the committee reviews
CBP partner efforts to implement adaptive management and discusses
potential barriers to and possible successful applications of adaptive man-
agement for nutrient and sediment reduction in the Bay watershed.
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM FOCUS
ON ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
In a 2005 report, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) recom-
mended that the Chesapeake Bay Program Office (CBPO) develop a coor-
dinated implementation strategy and establish a means to better target its
limited resources to ensure program effectiveness. In the Chesapeake Action
Plan (CAP; EPA, 2008a), a report to Congress demonstrating implemen-
tation of the GAO recommendations, the U.S. Environmental Protection
97
OCR for page 98
98 NUTRIENT AND SEDIMENT REDUCTION GOALS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
Agency (EPA) presented the intent to institute adaptive management as a
way to enhance overall management of the CBP. The EPA concluded that
the CBP possessed many essential components of adaptive management
but “lacked a single set of strategies for achieving program goals, a com-
prehensive activity plan, and a framework to organize these parts into a
cohesive whole.” In the CAP, the EPA proposed to fill these gaps by adopt-
ing a “five stage model of adaptive management” based on adaptation of
the Kaplan and Norton (2008) closed-loop management system (Figure
4-1). This approach is intended to establish “strong relationships between
strategy and operations” (EPA, 2008a) and foster “continual improvement
of both Bay implementation activities and CBP’s organizational perfor-
mance” (EPA, 2008a). “The cycle of active strategy development, planning,
implementation, and evaluation is being applied to all areas of CBP activ-
ity, so that the organization itself, not only individual partners or partners
engaged in on-the-ground implementation, will learn and change based on
the outputs of the adaptive management process” (EPA, 2008a).
Adaptive management in the CBP is further emphasized in documents
responding to President Obama’s 2009 Executive Order 13508. Specifically,
FIGURE 4-1 The Chesapeake Bay Program adaptation of the Kaplan and Norton
Figure 4-1.eps
closed loop management system.
bitmap
SOURCE: EPA (2008a).
OCR for page 99
99
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
FIGURE 4-2 Proposed adaptive ecosystem management framework.
Figure 4-2.eps
SOURCE: DOI and DOC (2009c).
bitmap
Section 202(f) of the Executive Order required specific agencies to submit
reports that make recommendations for “strengthen[ing] scientific sup-
port for decision making to restore the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed,
including expanded environmental research and monitoring and observing
systems.”
In response, the Section 202(f) report proposed that the CBP further
employ adaptive ecosystem management to complement the adaptive man-
agement process described in the CAP (DOI and DOC, 2009c). The Section
202(f) report recommends an adaptive ecosystem management framework
(Figure 4-2) based on approaches presented by Williams et al. (2009) and
Levin et al. (2009). Section 203 of the Executive Order calls upon federal
agencies to develop a strategy for protecting and restoring the Chesapeake
Bay, including a process for implementing adaptive management principles
with periodic evaluation of protection and restoration activities. The final
OCR for page 100
100 NUTRIENT AND SEDIMENT REDUCTION GOALS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
strategy, called the Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed (FLC, 2010b), promoted “ecosystem-based, adaptive man-
agement through enhanced coordination of science and decision-support
activities” and presented the adaptive management framework depicted in
Figure 4-2.
These two adaptive management frameworks apply to all Chesapeake
Bay protection and restoration goals: restoring clean water, recovering
habitat, sustaining fish and wildlife, conserving land, and increasing pub-
lic access. However, for the purposes of this report, discussion of adap-
tive management is bounded by the committee’s task, that is, to evaluate
whether each of the Bay jurisdictions (i.e., the six states in the Bay water-
shed and the District of Columbia) and the federal agencies developed
appropriate adaptive management strategies to ensure that CBP nutrient
and sediment reduction goals will be met.
OVERVIEW OF ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
Definitions of adaptive management and descriptions of adaptive man-
agement efforts abound in the literature. Excellent overviews can be found
in NRC (2004) and Stankey et al. (2005). The term “adaptive manage-
ment” surfaced from research on improving environmental assessment and
management described by Holling (1978). Gregory et al. (2006) describe
the general goal of adaptive management as improving “managers’ knowl-
edge about a set of well-defined ecological objectives through the implemen-
tation of carefully designed, quasi-experimental management interventions
and monitoring programs.” This focus on improving knowledge, which
may slow ecosystem improvements in the short run in an effort to make
them more effective in the long run, sets adaptive management apart from
other environmental management efforts.
Adaptive management arose from the recognition that uncertainty
is inherent in natural systems, yet management actions generally cannot
be delayed until knowledge is complete and uncertainties resolved. At its
heart, adaptive management reflects the understanding that many ecosys-
tem management decisions must be made in scenarios that are character-
ized by uncertainty. Additionally, adaptive management acknowledges that
“managed resources will always change as a result of human interven-
tion, that surprises are inevitable, and that new uncertainties will emerge”
(Gunderson, 1999) and embraces the notion that, if management decisions
are framed as experiments, learning can occur when the results are carefully
monitored and evaluated.
Adaptive management’s experimental, learning-focused approach
is offered as an effective strategy for reducing uncertainties. Sometimes
referred to as “learning while doing,” adaptive management learning
OCR for page 101
101
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
derives from deliberate formal processes of inquiry (Stankey et al., 2005),
replacing evolutionary learning by trial and error with learning by careful
tests (Walters, 1997; Box 4-1). What does this mean in practice? In his
discussion of the use of adaptive management in Coastal Louisiana and the
Chesapeake Bay, Boesch (2006) lays out the charge:
Under adaptive management, practitioners must be explicit about what
they expect and they must collect and analyze information so that expecta-
tions can be compared with actuality. They must periodically correct er-
rors, improve their imperfect understanding, and change actions and plans.
The coupling among explicit expectations (from modeling), comparisons
with actuality (through monitoring), and changed actions and plans is the
essence of adaptive management.
There is no recipe of steps or building blocks that will immediately con-
stitute an adaptive management program (NRC, 2004), but discussions
of adaptive management expansively describe various procedural compo-
nents (see Box 4-2). Consider the stylized adaptive management process
BOX 4-1
Trial and Error, Passive Adaptive Management, and
Active Adaptive Management
Management can be structured as an adaptive process in three ways:
evolutionary (or trial and error), passive adaptive, and active adaptive.
With an evolutionary process, early management choices are essentially
haphazard, and experience illustrates which subset of choices gives
better results. This information is used to frame subsequent decisions
that, it is hoped, lead to improved results. In contrast, passive and active
adaptive management incorporate definition of management objectives,
deliberate monitoring, effective evaluation and reflection, appropriate
communication among all project participants, and formal mechanisms
for incorporating learning into planning and management. Passive adap-
tive management uses available historical data to construct a single
best hypothesis and implements a single policy or practice to test it.
Active adaptive management uses available data to structure a range
of alternative hypotheses and designs management experiments to test
them that reflect an acceptable balance between expected short-term
ecosystem response and long-term learning about which alternative (if
any) is correct.
SOURCES: Walters and Holling (1990); Schreiber et al. (2004); Allan and Curtis (2005);
Gregory et al. (2006).
OCR for page 102
102 NUTRIENT AND SEDIMENT REDUCTION GOALS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
BOX 4-2
Key Elements of Adaptive Management
Identified in Theory and Practice
1. Management objectives that are regularly revisited and accordingly
revised.
a. Agreement among scientists, managers, and stakeholders on
goals and modes of progress.
b. Agreement on key research questions or lines of inquiry to be
pursued.
c. Iterative process to review (and revise if appropriate) key ques-
tions, paths of inquiry, and programmatic objectives.
2. A model(s) of the system being managed.
a. Clear understanding of model assumptions and limits so that
model results are not equated with reality.
3. A range of management choices.
a. Evaluation, at the outset, of the likelihood that each alternative
will achieve management objective, generate new information,
or foreclose future choices.
b. Exploration of potential for implementing two or more actions
simultaneously to help discriminate among competing models.
4. Monitoring and evaluation of outcomes.
a. A monitoring and evaluation plan developed as part of initial
program design and not added ad hoc after implementation.
illustrated in Figure 4-3, which emphasizes key elements of adaptive man-
agement identified by the NRC (2004) as applied to water quality manage-
ment. Once the water quality goal is established (Step 1 in Figure 4-3),
existing interdisciplinary experience and scientific information is integrated
into models to clarify the management problem; enhance communication
among scientists, managers, and other stakeholders; and screen manage-
ment options (Walters, 1997). Through this planning process (Step 2 in
Figure 4-3), scientists, managers, and stakeholders, in consultation, explore
uncertainties that affect related management decisions. These uncertainties
could be associated with the natural system that is the target of manage-
ment or the social system within which management is to occur.
Collectively, scientists, managers, and stakeholders select one or more
management options to be tested through carefully designed experiments
OCR for page 103
103
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
b. A mechanism for comparing outcomes of management
decisions.
c. Focus on significant and detectable indicators of progress to-
ward management objectives.
d. A mechanism to help distinguish between natural changes and
changes caused by management actions.
5. A mechanism(s) for incorporating learning into future decisions.
a. A plan for how new information will be incorporated as part of
the initial program design.
b. Political will to act upon new information.
c. Flexibility to adjust operations in light of new information or shift-
ing conditions and preferences.
6. A collaborative structure for stakeholder participation and learning.
a. Stakeholder involvement in initial decision to apply adaptive
management.
b. Formal process for involving stakeholders in setting objectives.
c. Formal process for incorporating stakeholder knowledge into
process and for stakeholder learning from new information.
d. Stakeholder flexibility and willingness to compromise.
SOURCE: NRC (2004).
(Step 2 in Figure 4-3), using either active or passive adaptive management
(see Box 4-1). The experiments involve the formulation of hypotheses about
the outcomes of particular management strategies. Testing the hypotheses
requires that management actions be purposefully implemented in such a
way that their effects can be measured (Schreiber et al., 2004). Rather than
trying all management alternatives, sequentially or simultaneously, adap-
tive management focuses on one or a few alternatives, implements them,
and deliberately monitors outcomes in a way that enables evaluation of the
alternatives tested. The choice of alternative(s) to be tested is based on the
likelihood of reducing key uncertainties, model results and other sources
of knowledge, stakeholder input and response, resource constraints, and
temporal considerations.
Monitoring starts with the development of a monitoring plan that
OCR for page 104
104 NUTRIENT AND SEDIMENT REDUCTION GOALS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
FIGURE 4-3 Stylized adaptive management strategy, with the size of the box pro-
Figure 4-3.eps
portional to the amount of effort required. Steps 2 (planning) and 4 (monitoring)
bitmap
typically require the greatest attention for successful adaptive management.
describes how the assumptions and hypotheses embodied in the experi-
ments will be tested (Figure 4-3, Step 2). Monitoring requires more than
assessing status and, as asserted by Lee (1999), information gathering alone
is not monitoring. A monitoring plan should be designed not only to test
whether expected outcomes are realized but also to understand why or why
not (Halbert, 1993). Monitoring and evaluation processes should enable
scientists and managers to answer questions such as:
OCR for page 105
105
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
• How and when will expected outcomes be identified?
• If the expected outcome is observed, then how can we be sure it
was because of the management implemented?
• If the expected outcome is observed, then what should be done
next?
• If the expected outcome is not observed, then why not? What
should be done next?
The monitoring process typically requires an assessment of baseline condi-
tions in addition to monitoring responses to the management action over
time (Williams et al., 2009). The monitoring design must be scaled to the
questions at hand and account for the impacts of routine variability (e.g.,
precipitation, stream flow). Box 4-3 presents an example of monitoring and
evaluation in Tampa Bay and how the results are used to refine management
efforts in an adaptive management context.
Implementation of the management practices is undertaken only after
extensive attention has been paid to the experiments’ design, monitoring,
and evaluation. This is represented in Figure 4-3, which illustrates where
emphasis in adaptive management differs from traditional evolutionary
(trial and error) learning through the relatively larger boxes for Steps 2,
4, and 5. Often, adaptive management efforts are stymied by traditional
funding approaches and programmatic cultures that focus on implementa-
tion rather than on monitoring. In addition, progress evaluations often
emphasize reports on implementation activity, rather than on the value
of new knowledge and how it has been used to improve decision making
(Allan and Curtis, 2005).
EVALUATION OF ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
STRATEGIES IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
The committee is charged with evaluating whether the CBP partners
have developed appropriate adaptive management strategies to ensure that
the program’s nutrient and sediment reduction goals will be met. Chal-
lenges in addressing this question arise from the fact that there are many
definitions and descriptions of adaptive management in the literature.
The National Research Council report Adaptive Management for Water
Resources Project Planning (NRC, 2004) describes the problem:
There are many dimensions of adaptive management, and the ambiguities
inherent in adaptive management can result in policymakers, managers,
and stakeholders developing unique definitions and expectations. The term
is complex and multidisciplinary… adaptive management is an evolving
theory and practice….
OCR for page 106
106 NUTRIENT AND SEDIMENT REDUCTION GOALS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
BOX 4-3
Adaptive Management in Tampa Bay
The Tampa Bay water quality management program is a collaborative,
flexible, multi-disciplinary effort that has evolved in response to changes
in technology, data availability, and scientific understanding. To address
the inherent uncertainties and complexities of Bay responses to changing
pollutant loads and other environmental conditions, the program has ad-
opted an adaptive management (Holling, 1978; Lee, 1993) approach. The
adaptive nutrient management strategy used in Tampa Bay incorporates
periodic evaluations of water quality and seagrass management goals
and annual evaluations of water quality monitoring data to redirect man-
agement actions on an as-needed basis (Greening and Elfring, 2002).
Because of the importance of seagrass as a biological resource in
Tampa Bay, the Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP) and its partners
have adopted numerical targets for water clarity levels (expressed as
annual mean Secchi depth), chlorophyll a concentrations, and nitrogen
loading to help meet seagrass acreage restoration goals for the Bay
(Greening and Janicki, 2006). To ensure consistency with the adap-
tive management approach, the effectiveness of the adopted nitrogen
management strategy is assessed annually by evaluating chlorophyll a
concentrations and water clarity levels measured in each Bay segment
during the previous calendar year and comparing those values to the
segment-specific targets (Greening and Janicki, 2006). A decision matrix
approach (Janicki et. al., 2000; Sherwood, 2009) is used to determine the
level of management response that is appropriate in years when water
quality targets are not met.
The continual monitoring of water quality and seagrass in Tampa
Bay allows managers to assess progress toward meeting established
goals. An important component of this effort is the routine comparison
Kai Lee has been quoted as saying, “Adaptive management has proven
difficult to understand because it’s so easy to understand approximately”
(Halbert, 1993). Definitional problems appear to be a challenge for the
CBP. A review of the federal 2011 Action Plan (FLC, 2010a) for imple-
menting the Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed (FLC, 2010b), the Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load
(TMDL; EPA, 2010a), and the Bay jurisdictions’ watershed implementation
plans (WIPs) indicates that the Bay partners have not established a clear
understanding of what adaptive management means.
The 2011 Action Plan for protecting and restoring the Bay watershed
suggests that using adaptive management “will provide science to improve
OCR for page 107
107
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
of mean annual chlorophyll a concentrations and light attenuation to
desired targets. TBEP has developed a tracking process to determine
if water quality targets are being achieved. The process to track status
of chlorophyll a concentration and light attenuation involves two steps.
The first step uses a decision framework to evaluate differences in mean
annual ambient conditions from established targets. The second step
incorporates results of the decision framework into a decision matrix,
leading to possible outcomes dependent upon magnitude and duration of
events in excess of the established target (Janicki et al., 2000, Greening
and Janicki, 2006). When outcomes for both chlorophyll a concentra-
tion and light attenuation are good (i.e., when both targets are being
met), no management response is required. When differences from the
targets exist for either chlorophyll a concentration or light attenuation or
both, conditions are intermediate and may result in some type of man-
agement response. When conditions are problematic, such that there
are relatively large, longer-term differences from either or both targets,
stronger management responses may be warranted. The recommended
management actions resulting from the decision matrix are classified by
color into three categories for presentation to the Tampa Bay resource
management community (see Sherwood, 2009).
Addressing uncertainty is a necessary component in any manage-
ment strategy. The use of the decision matrix for adaptive management
has proven to be an effective and easily communicated tool to address
management actions in a timely way and has provided a mechanism
for detecting and responding to uncertainty, if it arises. For example, if
seagrass cover stopped expanding before reaching the target acreage,
although nutrient loading and water clarity targets continued to be met,
then a new round of technical investigations would be initiated.
the efficiency and accountability of federal actions to restore water quality,
habitat, fish and wildlife, and conserve lands” (FLC, 2010a). The 2011
Action Plan also commits the Federal Leadership Committee of the Chesa-
peake Bay (FLC) to institute adaptive management in support of imple-
mentation and accountability by establishing “a regular cycle for reviewing
activities, progress against goals and timelines outlined in the strategy”
(FLC, 2010a). Unfortunately, merely reviewing activities and progress regu-
larly will not provide the learning offered by adaptive management and is
unlikely to improve the efficiency or accountability of federal actions to
restore water quality or achieve other goals. Adaptive management is not
OCR for page 114
114 NUTRIENT AND SEDIMENT REDUCTION GOALS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
needed, which reduces the risks of purchasing and over applying unneeded
nitrogen fertilizer. Framing this change in incentive programs as a manage-
ment experiment could address a series of questions: Does the modification
of the cover crop incentive program change farmers’ willingness to adopt
cover crops? Do supplemental nitrogen applications differ depending upon
whether farmers plant cover crops independently or because of the incen-
tive program? What can be learned from the monitored nitrogen balances
about nitrogen retained in the corn and cover crop and nitrogen lost (to
air or water) in fields where the additional components are used and fields
where they are not? Framing specific questions about adoption rates and/or
BMP efficiency, designing a monitoring and evaluation program to answer
those questions, and modifying the BMP design or the incentive program,
if indicated, in response to what is learned represent elements of adaptive
management.
Testing the Effectiveness of Watershed Overlay Permits
Pennsylvania describes the potential use of a Municipal Stormwater
Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) watershed overlay permit in Lancaster
County that would establish a protocol with specific tools to assist munici-
palities in meeting MS4 permit requirements. Described as an iterative and
adaptive approach, the protocol would assist municipalities with meeting
MS4 permit responsibilities and would identify other opportunities for
BMP installation and load reductions, and other prospects for nutrient,
sediment, and stormwater credits. The WIP (PA DEP, 2010) asserts that this
approach will allow the Department of Environmental Protection to gather
data, monitor effectiveness, and evaluate implementation and load reduc-
tion successes. The WIP does not indicate exactly how the overlay permit
would work and how areas included under the overlay permit would differ
from those that are not. However, such a management alternative could be
a component of an adaptive management strategy. In an experimental con-
text, the opportunity exists to compare outcomes in overlay permit areas
with outcomes in similar but non-overlay areas to evaluate the effectiveness
of the approach for increasing implementation of practices.
Monitoring and Evaluation
When management decisions are framed as tests under adaptive man-
agement, monitoring provides the results of the tests. In this section the
committee discusses aspects of monitoring and evaluation needed to sup-
port adaptive management in the CBP.
In most cases, the WIPs address monitoring in terms of assessing com-
pliance with permits, checking for practice implementation progress, and
OCR for page 115
115
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
BOX 4-5
Long-term Monitoring to Assess Response to BMPs in the
Lake Erie Watershed
The importance of long-term monitoring for assessing watershed
response to conservation management is demonstrated by the Lake
Erie Agricultural Systems for Environmental Quality (LEASEQ) Project
(Richards et al., 2002b, 2009). Phosphorus loads in two Ohio watersheds
(Maumee and Sandusky River Watersheds) with major tributaries to Lake
Erie have been monitored since 1975 to determine the effect of BMPs
(e.g., conservation tillage and nutrient management planning in pre-
dominantly row-crop agriculture) on water quality. Monitoring showed an
8 percent average increase in flow since 1975, while mean annual flow-
weighted concentrations of suspended sediment, total phosphorus, and
dissolved phosphorus decreased 23, 44, and 86 percent, respectively
(Richards et al., 2002a). Since 1995, annual flow-weighted concentra-
tions of dissolved phosphorus have increased, while particulate (and
total phosphorus) have continued to decline (Baker and Richards, 2009).
The trend of increasing dissolved phosphorus and decreasing total phos-
phorus may be attributed to a combination of several factors: a change
in rainfall distribution pattern; a buildup of phosphorus at the soil surface
with no-till cropping; and increased applications of fertilizer and manure,
without incorporation in the fall and winter. An adaptive process in the
LEASEQ might have avoided recent dissolved phosphorus increases
through quicker response to perceived impacts of soil phosphorus build-
up at the surface.
This project showed water quality changes (both positive and nega-
tive) in response to management changes at a watershed scale, and it
may offer lessons for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Specifically, BMPs
such as incorporation of applied phosphorus in no-till crops, use of winter
cover crops on conventionally tilled fields, and a transition from fall to
spring application of phosphorus could potentially reduce phosphorus
loss from agricultural land in the watershed. However, consistent moni-
toring, evaluation of data collected, and changes in management are
necessary to avoid unexpected negative impacts of practices.
collecting ambient water quality samples. These kinds of activities do not,
in and of themselves, provide evidence that the technology upgrades or
implemented BMPs are having the intended effects (Box 4-5). In the agri-
cultural BMP implementation context, external financial or weather-related
pressures on farmers may complicate efforts to gauge the effectiveness of
BMP incentive programs.
OCR for page 116
116 NUTRIENT AND SEDIMENT REDUCTION GOALS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
Similarly, as noted by the CBP’s Science and Technical Advisory Com-
mittee (STAC) in its report on small watershed monitoring designs:
To interpret the effects of the conservation practices on nutrient dis-
charges, watershed monitoring alone is not sufficient. It will be necessary
to collect detailed data on the practices and other agricultural activities
that affect nutrient discharges, including: areas, spatial distribution, and
types of agricultural lands (croplands, pastures, etc.); fertilizer application
rates; livestock populations; and the locations of riparian buffers and
wetlands. (Weller et al., 2010)
Weller et al. (2010) provided extensive recommendations for appropri-
ate monitoring strategies. These included focusing on smaller watersheds
(4-15 mi2 or 10-40 km2) within larger areas of high nutrient and sediment
discharges for the greatest impacts and making long-term commitments (5
to more than 10 years) to maintain conservation practices and assemble
spatially explicit data on conservation practices and watershed monitoring.
The report also offered suggestions for improving the cost-effectiveness of
monitoring efforts.
Monitoring is costly, and prioritization of monitoring efforts is essen-
tial. The STAC conducted a review of the CBP monitoring program objec-
tives and priorities and how well monitoring provides information to assess
progress toward goals and to improve decision making in the CBP (STAC,
2009). The report noted that the CBP has a long and rich history of
monitoring which has served some objectives quite well. However, the
STAC also noted that the monitoring program has evolved reactively, is
spread across many fronts, and lacks clear prioritization or reassessment.
Although no monitoring program could effectively address the enormous
range of management endpoints represented in the CBP goals, the STAC
concluded that “continuing operation of the monitoring effort in a status
quo condition is unacceptable” (STAC, 2010). As a result of its review (and
the associated series of workshops held in 2008), the STAC recommended
that the CBP focus monitoring efforts toward two objectives—the delisting
of tidal segments of the Bay and determining the effectiveness of manage-
ment actions—and concluded that appropriate monitoring information
needed to address these issues could be obtained (STAC, 2010). However,
the STAC also noted that balance between the monitoring efforts related to
each objective would be required, as resources dedicated to monitoring for
progress toward one objective would not be available for use for the other.
Senior managers participating in the workshops identified their priorities
for new monitoring as follows:
OCR for page 117
117
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
1. What is the effectiveness of management actions, most specifically
those implemented in the upper portions of the watershed,
2. Where can we demonstrate early signals of trajectories, and
3. If we can’t demonstrate success, then how do we determine the
reasons for failure?
With expected outcomes of management actions made explicit and
monitoring focused on these questions, the CBP would be better prepared
to undertake adaptive management and to address at least some uncertain-
ties, although additional focused monitoring programs would undoubt-
edly be needed. Adaptive management in the CBP will also require better
integration of monitoring and modeling activities so that new informa-
tion obtained about the effectiveness of management actions is reflected
in modeled projections of broader nutrient load reductions. Two STAC
reports (STAC, 1997, 2005) provide detailed discussion on and suggested
approaches for improving the integration of modeling and monitoring.
Potential Barriers to and Opportunities for
Adaptive Management in the CBP
Adaptive management has been applied to a range of ecosystem man-
agement problems with varying degrees of success, and many reasons have
been suggested for why some applications of adaptive management have
been more successful than others (Halbert, 1993; Lee, 1993; McLain and
Lee, 1996; Walters, 1997; Gregory and Failing, 2002). Several barriers to
successful adaptive management in the Chesapeake Bay exist, but oppor-
tunities to overcome the barriers also exist in some cases.
Time and Resource Intensity
Adaptive management requires considerable time and effort in advance
of actual practice implementation for planning the management experiment
and monitoring and evaluating outcomes. These intense resource needs are
problematic for the use of adaptive management in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed because resources are limited and stakeholders (and taxpayers)
are anxious for evidence of improvement. Bay jurisdictions wrote their
WIPs within a short time window with the objective of describing how
load reduction goals will be met. Not surprisingly, Bay jurisdictions are
likely to focus their efforts in the two-year milestones on meeting imple-
mentation goals and to pass on the chance to learn why particular BMPs
were or were not implemented or whether the implemented BMPs are
having the desired effect. Bay jurisdictions are most likely to experience
successful adaptive management if they focus on a very limited number of
OCR for page 118
118 NUTRIENT AND SEDIMENT REDUCTION GOALS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
management initiatives, rather than on their full programs, because not all
initiatives warrant the type and level of planning and monitoring involved
in adaptive management.
Regulatory Inflexibility
Absent sufficient flexibility in institutional structures, successful adap-
tive management is unlikely (Gunderson, 1999). Political and legal rigidi-
ties and narrow interpretations of management agencies’ legal mandates
are among examples of inflexibilities that limit opportunities for adaptive
management (NRC, 2004; Stankey et al., 2005). Potential inflexibilities
introduced by language in the Clean Water Act (CWA) and in regulations
directing the TMDL implementation process may constrain adaptive man-
agement in the CBP. For example, Shabman et al. (2007) noted that obsta-
cles to adaptive management can be found in how the current National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) process is applied under a
TMDL. Once waste load allocations (WLAs) are incorporated into NPDES
permits, anti-backsliding requirements generally prevent changes to the
permits, even if new learning suggests that the initial TMDL or the WLAs
should be changed. Anti-backsliding refers to the CWA requirement that
NPDES permits not be reissued, renewed, or modified to contain less strin-
gent effluent limitations than the previous permit (Thorme, 2001).
On the other hand, philosophical foundations for adaptive approaches
in the CWA may make adaptive approaches to TMDL implementation
feasible (Freedman et al., 2004). Shabman et al. (2007) examined oppor-
tunities for the use of adaptive management (or adaptive implementation,
AI) within a TMDL framework.
AI begins with installation of certain controls to move the watershed in the
direction of reducing pollutant loads, while also providing information on
their effectiveness in improving water quality at different geographic and
time scales. With new knowledge, the original watershed analysis, water
quality analyses, and models can be revised to update the estimates of
current and future pollutant loads and the resulting water quality in the
impaired water body. The new information is used to revise and modify
the implementation plan of the original TMDL. If a [water quality stan-
dard] WQS assessment is added to this mix, then AI expands the concept
of “learning while doing” to the assignment of appropriate WQS to the
waterbody. This reassessment of the implementation strategy distinguishes
AI from SI (standard or current implementation). (Shabman et al. 2007)
However, Shabman et al. (2007) noted that accommodations for adaptive
implementation in the NPDES permitting process may be needed because
AI could involve modification of the TMDL or the WLA over time. Suc-
OCR for page 119
119
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
cessful application of adaptive management in the CBP will require greater
regulatory flexibility. Freedman et al. (2004) explored opportunities for
greater flexibility and suggested approaching a TMDL as a process, not an
endpoint.
The EPA has defined adaptive implementation of TMDLs as “an itera-
tive implementation process that makes progress toward achieving water
quality goals while using any new data and information to reduce uncer-
tainty and adjust implementation activities” (EPA, 2006). However, in its
guidance on adaptive implementation, the EPA only goes so far in embrac-
ing adaptation: “In most cases adaptive implementation is not anticipated
to lead to the re-opening of a TMDL. Instead, it is a tool used to improve
implementation strategies” (EPA, 2006). The EPA does suggest, however,
that new scientific understanding of the effects of climate change might
be incorporated into the TMDL during the mid-course assessment (EPA,
2010a).
Embracing Uncertainty
Framing programs in terms of adaptive management requires explicit
admission that the management effort is experimental. The Bay jurisdic-
tions are likely hesitant to report planned experiments to the EPA and
indeed have little or no experience with designing such experiments. Fur-
ther, federal requirements of reasonable assurance that Bay jurisdictions
will meet nutrient and sediment load reductions remove any impetus for
learning from experiments. Bay jurisdictions are forced to present WIPs that
minimize uncertainty and offer assurances in ways that rule out learning
with adaptive management.
Acceptability of Failure
The EPA has adopted an accountability framework as part of the
renewed efforts reflected in the Executive Order and accompanying strat-
egy (FLC, 2010b), with expected actions (e.g., Phase I, II, and III WIPs;
two-year milestones; BMP implementation to meet the TMDL) and poten-
tial consequences for the failure to meet expectations. This accountability
framework poses challenges for the development of adaptive management
strategies by the Bay jurisdictions. The regulatory structure and threat
of consequences makes admitting to uncertainties and the possibility of
failure, undertaking management experiments, and proposing plans for
adapting based on new information gained difficult propositions. Figure
4-4 depicts EPA’s accountability framework and, with a dead-end at the
consequences box, illustrates the way in which the framework makes adap-
tive management unlikely.
OCR for page 120
120 NUTRIENT AND SEDIMENT REDUCTION GOALS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
Figure 4-4.eps
FIGURE 4-4 EPA’s state accountability framework.
bitmap
SOURCE: EPA (2009).
An alternative way to frame the EPA’s accountability initiative that
is more compatible with adaptive management is to base the threat of
consequences on the failure of the Bay jurisdictions to propose manage-
ment alternatives based on sound expectations, to adequately monitor and
evaluate outcomes to understand the effectiveness of alternatives, and to
adapt management strategies according to the results of the evaluation. Yet
another way to frame the EPA’s accountability initiative that is less preju-
dicial against adaptive management is to base the threat of consequences
on the failure of Bay jurisdictions to authorize and appropriate sufficient
resources for management agencies to undertake planned management
activities, including adaptive management, and the failure of management
agencies to allocate those resources effectively. For the EPA, the levying of
consequences could be viewed as a part of an evaluative process such as
that described in Figure 4-5. The consequences are viewed as an incentive to
continue water quality improvement efforts. Ongoing monitoring of water
OCR for page 121
121
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
FIGURE 4-5 A process that could be used by the EPA to evaluate the need for con-
sequences that is more compatible with adaptive management.
Figure 4-5.eps
quality and Bay jurisdictions’ programmatic components provides feedback
bitmap
on the effectiveness of the consequences levied.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Neither the EPA nor the Bay jurisdictions exhibit a clear understanding
of adaptive management and how it might be applied in pursuit of water
quality goals. Reviewing activities, assessing progress toward goals, and
adopting contingencies were cited as examples of adaptive management.
However, effective adaptive management involves deliberate management
experiments, a carefully planned monitoring program, assessment of the
results, and a process by which management decisions are modified based
on new knowledge. Learning is an explicit benefit of adaptive management
that is used to improve future decision making. The committee did not find
convincing evidence that the CBP partners had incorporated adaptive man-
agement principles into their nutrient and sediment reduction programs.
Instead, the current two-year milestone strategy approach is best character-
ized as an evolutionary (or trial and error) process of adaptation in which
OCR for page 122
122 NUTRIENT AND SEDIMENT REDUCTION GOALS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
learning is serendipitous rather than an explicit objective. In the trial and
error process, when failures occur, jurisdictions have limited capacity to
understand why, and contingencies represent the next thing to try rather
than a deliberate adaptation.
Successful application of adaptive management in the CBP requires
careful assessment of uncertainties relevant to decision making, but the
EPA and Bay jurisdictions have not fully analyzed uncertainties inherent
in nutrient and sediment reduction efforts and water quality outcomes.
Each CBP goal brings with it uncertainties, not all of which can or should
be addressed through adaptive management. Therefore, the EPA and Bay
jurisdictions should carefully and realistically analyze uncertainties associ-
ated with potential actions to determine which are candidates for adaptive
management. Bay jurisdictions may be more successful using adaptive
management for a limited number of components or for programs in
smaller basins, where effects of management actions can be isolated and
well-designed monitoring and evaluation can be undertaken to clearly
quantify outcomes.
Targeted monitoring efforts by the states and the CBP will be required
to support adaptive management. Monitoring plans need to be tailored to
the specific adaptive management strategies being implemented. Presently,
CBP and jurisdictional monitoring programs have not been designed to
effectively support adaptive management. In addition, adaptive manage-
ment will require better integration of monitoring and modeling activities.
Excessive reliance on models in lieu of monitoring can magnify rather than
reduce uncertainties.
Additional federal actions are needed to fully support adaptive man-
agement in the CBP. The federal accountability framework being pro-
moted through the TMDL and the threatened consequences for failure will
dampen the Bay jurisdictions’ enthusiasm for adaptive management. To
support adaptive management, the EPA should modify its accountability
framework and offer explicit language indicating that carefully designed
management experiments with appropriate monitoring, evaluation, and
adaptive actions are acceptable, and that failures resulting from genuine
adaptive management efforts will not be penalized. If the Bay jurisdictions
perceive that the costs of failure are too high, then they may not be willing
to pursue the benefits that adaptive management can offer. Additionally,
federal guidance and training to the states on effective adaptive manage-
ment strategies at the local or state level are needed. One or more examples
of adaptive management designed and implemented at the federal level,
perhaps on federal land, would be helpful to the states as they seek accept-
able and effective management options.
Without sufficient flexibility of the regulatory and organizational struc-
ture within which CBP nutrient and sediment reduction efforts are under-
OCR for page 123
123
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
taken, adaptive management may be problematic. Depending upon how
CWA language and TMDL rules are interpreted, opportunities for certain
types of adaptations may be limited. Truly embracing adaptive manage-
ment requires recognition that the TMDL, load allocations, and possibly
even water quality standards might need to be modified based on what is
learned through adaptive management. However, the jurisdictions may find
that the formal processes required under the CWA to modify load alloca-
tions, TMDLs, or water quality standards constrain or even preclude using
adaptive management. Successful application of adaptive management in
the CBP will require greater regulatory flexibility. Approaching the TMDL
as a process, not an endpoint, and facilitating adaptive implementation of
the TMDL is one way to provide that flexibility (Freedman et al., 2004).
OCR for page 124
