transport

Josh Page
 * Evolution of Adaptive Management**

//Introduction// Adaptive management (AM), in theory, is a very structured style of management that uses a dynamic approach of adjusting and evolving techniques from learning experiences. This type of management alters the original design to better fix the issue at hand by evaluating the outcomes and results to create a stronger plan of action. This approach is constantly changing over time to minimize risk and address uncertainty. Because of the nature of AM, it is widely used in restoration projects worldwide especially when a large amount of uncertainty is involved. Because it is an "evolving from learning" type of management, it only makes sense that the ideology behind AM evolves as well. Over the years, other variations and tools have been developed from the original idea of AM. One tool helps with the beginning stages of a restoration project when using AM. This is known as an integrated assessment plan. One major barrier of implementing AM in the past was creating collaboration between different skilled individuals. Thus a new version of AM was created known as adaptive co-management, which created an outlet for all stakeholders involved to act as a team.

Adaptive management is a wonderful tool for sustainability solutions, especially in restoration projects. The basic strategy of AM is to learn of the changes in the environment and take those changes and adjust traditional management practices for future practices. The dynamic nature of AM is an obvious choice when applied to ecosystem recovery since it considers the constantly changing environment. Some researchers recently looked into the connection between sustainable community development, adaptive management, and past community management practices and how they can all be used to create a new evolution in adapted management. According to a study by Berkes et al in 2000, some past cultures developed community value systems that contained some of the same practices that Adaptive management uses such as feedback learning to deal with uncertainties. Another note from the study is how certain cultures used a diverse range of resources for cultural security and to minimize risks by using flexible management techniques such as switching species and rotating crop locations. They state that this is consequence cultural knowledge and historic decisions deeply ingrained by a society (Berkes et al,. 2000). However, this type of evolution in Adaptive Management still is questionable and a lot of research is needed to prove correlation and to further develop the theories of using past societies approaches when shown to be sustainable in nature.

Because of that, the scope herein will briefly describe the evolution of adapted management regarding the Integrated Assessment Plan and Adaptive Co-Management approaches. Within each approach an example of implementation will be provided, to get a strong sense of the benefits these approaches have to just using traditional Adaptive Management. In order to make things more relevant to the Southwest, an in-depth breakdown of the Co-Management approach that is currently being developed in the Middle Rio Grande will be reviewed.

Watersheds encompass an assortment of natural systems, anthropogenic alterations, and social-economical structures. In recent decades, these acceptances lead to different AM approaches. One of which is Integrated Assessment Plans (IAPs). IAPs incorporate AM techniques with a detailed plan of action to evaluate the successfulness of recommended AM practices towards accomplishing set goals. IAPs have two main components; to gauge the progress of accomplishing the program’s purpose and goals in the long-run, and by providing responses to improve management strategies by addressing uncertainties and testing key theories in the short-run. (Wittler, 2009) Other aspects of IAP include: larger spatial scales, longer time frames, understanding the functionality of resource consumption for multiple needs, the political frameworks involved, and involvement of various disciplines (Aspinall & Pearson, 2000).
 * //Integrated Assessment Plan//**

//Barriers of Implementation// Integrated assessment plans create a powerful tool to water restoration needs. But like most management strategies IAPs have their own drawbacks. When dealing with one of its fundamental characteristics, spatial scales, a large amount of debate can occur. This in time could lead to failure in executing such a method. One issue is the adoption of technical solutions may be limited to local phenomena and not the entire area of interest. Another issue seen in studies is the variation in regulation between involved agencies throughout the entire watershed scale (Aspinall & Pearson, 2000). Plans like this are carried out in the longrun, with little progress visible to the majority of the stakeholders involved. This issue of involvement is a major factor especially when a diverse group of specialist with different backgrounds in necessary for its success (Wittler, 2009) (Costy et al, 2013).

//Trinity River Restoration Case Study – IAP Approach// The Trinity River is located in Northern California, which joins the Klamath River as it discharges into the Pacific Ocean. This dynamic system is a breeding ground for salmon, steelhead, and other aquatic life which supplied them with an environment that prepared them for life in the ocean. Like most river restoration projects, the Trinity River Restoration Program (TRRP) was implemented to restore and ensure the quality of the riparian habitat. Growing populations in California’s Central Valley created a need for more energy and water, which resulted in the Trinity Dam and the Trinity River Diversion into the Sacramento River in 1964. A decade later, it was obvious that these anthropogenic influences were disturbing the Trinity River. On average, 88% of annual inflow was taken away from the Trinity River (Polos et al., 1999). Not only did this cause issues for the wildlife, but low flows like these don’t allow for sustainable geomorphology of the river as a system. For the restoration plan the TRRP decided to implement an Integrated Assessment Plan. The IAP was developed in 2000 and was organized in the following way:

Chapter 1: Overview of the programs goals, the approach to accomplish such goals, alternative hypotheses considering different limiting agents for fish production, evaluation tools and methods, and the proposal process and development. Chapter 2: Summary of all the objectives required for the success of the program, the decisive factors used for prioritizing for both the present and the future, and how to integrate multiple stakeholders. Chapter 3: Describes the methods recommended for each of the objectives. Chapter 4: Provides a sample framework for the entire program. The overall hypothesis for the IAP states that if mechanical stream modification and vegetation removal, along with managed high-flow releases in the spring, would promote rapid geo-fluvial processes that would lead to a new channel formation which in time would provide a sustainable habitat for the subjected aquatic life (Aspinall & Pearson, 2000).

In theory, Adapted Management is collaborative in nature. However, most implementation of AM only looks at the learning and adjusting portions; making it scientific learning in nature. Collaborative environmental decision making tries to build social, intellectual, and political capital by applying stakeholder participation, conflict resolution, and collaborative education; making it social learning in nature (Randolph, 2004). Since the turn of the century, Adaptive Co-Management (ACM) theories have tried to link these two practices into one united method. ACM accepts the fact that ecosystems contain a high level of uncertainty and irregularity due to heterogeneity, anisotropy, complexity, and connectivity. It also makes the connection that social-economical systems display the same levels of uncertainty and irregularity in an increasing rate due to globalization (Huitema et al., 2009). In the river restoration field, both systems predominately exist and issues tend to create their own boundaries. Because of the nature of these issues ACM attempts to create a solution to the many challenges restoration projects face. The collaboration side of ACM refers to two functioning parts, the first being the governmental sector. For ACM to work properly, cooperation between different levels of government bodies and policy districts are obligated to work out issues that do cross political and jurisdictional boundaries. The other side of the collaboration spectrum is just as, if not, more important. This includes non-governmental stakeholders such as the local communities, interest groups, and even local industry (Huitema et al., 2009). Combining this with adaptive learning and a large scale ecosystem approach, restoration projects will develop new creative decisions from all points of view as opposed to traditional approaches (Randolph, 2004).
 * //Adaptive Co-Management//**

The nature of Adaptive Co-Management requires multiple levels of involvement, which in order for restoration projects to be successful, these diverse roles of participation have to be identified and properly allocated (Hoggarth & Aeron-Thomas, 1998). This brings into account the symbiotic relationship between the two sectors. Without some type of legislative support local communities attempts at restoration could become troublesome, and vice-versa. Thus, new instructional arrangements need to be created in order to communicate between all stakeholders involved and to develop more elastic solutions for each local condition within the entire project area (Hoggarth & Aeron-Thomas, 1998) (Huitema et al., 2009) (Munaretto & Huitmea, 2012).

//Barriers of Implementation// Adaptive Co-Management is a very powerful method for water restoration projects worldwide. In theory this could create a more communal and sustainable way of protecting water resources. But due to its high level of involvement, many boundaries must first be overcome. Some structure of spatial sharing of management responsibilities between the large scale, government bodies, and the small scale, local community members, stakeholders along with proper collaboration and communication is necessary for ACM to exist (Hoggarth & Aeron-Thomas, 1998). Some restoration problems may be too overwhelming to properly coordinate an ACM approach. This happens when there is too much ambiguity over the stakeholders directly involved. It also occurs when there seems to be little to no commitment or strong enough incentives among the public and other organizations for long-term learning and involvement towards the issue (Hoggarth & Aeron-Thomas, 1998). Another issue pointed out by Munaretto and Huitmea is relational learning. In an ACM system this type of learning is crucial and creates problems in trust building, collaboration mindsets, and the ability to understand other groups’ goals and connection to the issue at hand.

//The Venice Lagoon Restoration Case Study – ACM Approach// Within the Mediterranean region, the Venice Lagoon is the largest coastal lagoon with a catchment basin size around 2000 km2 (Munaretto & Huitema, 2012). It is a unique system open to freshwater from streams and artificial channels, but still connected to the sea. Diverse ecosystems exist throughout the lagoon on islands and coastal strips. Major water issues involving the lagoon come from chemical industries and agriculture. The physical survival of the lagoon is under stress from water level variation and geomorphologic instability which is causing relentless erosion, annihilation of habitats and biodiversity, and increasingly dangerous floods to the Venice area (Munaretto & Huitema, 2012).

Throughout the years, individually, national and local governing bodies have both implemented restoration projects on the lagoon. Most of their goals were to protect bank ecosystems while also controlling flooding events (Munaretto & Huitema, 2012). The national organization, the Ministry of Infrastructure, created the Venice Water Authority (VWA) which was their partnership that dealt with water management and navigation projects in the lagoon since 1907. As for local involvement, the Venice municipality is in charge of water pollution removal in the lagoon. Over the past decades a lot of organizations have participated in the safeguarding of the lagoon, but most of the time projects fell apart and funding allocation was in the hands of one organization. Thus, Munaretto and Huitema analyzed whether or not adapted co-management would be beneficial for the Venice Lagoon. They examined the four major ACM prescriptions; polycentricity, participation, experimentation, and bioregional approach.

Webster’s Dictionary defines polycentric as having multiple centers for development or control. In the Venice Lagoon community a complex system of stakeholders exists with overlapping responsibilities creating an illusion of polycentricity. Nevertheless, cooperation is limited to an uneven distribution of power (Munaretto & Huitema, 2012). The current institutional arrangement, the Venice Water Authority, uses a hierarchical approach to decision making causing many unresolved disputes which caused a lack of cooperation. The VWA as an organization is successful at networking within the national government but overlooks the need to connect with the local community. The Venice Municipality and local environmental groups have over time protested most national decisions due to a lack of collaboration (Munaretto & Huitema, 2012). In order to set balance to this system one option is by negotiating inter-institutional agreements. This will allocate costs of capital, simplify procedures, and let all the stakeholders involved get a say in the committee. This would take a lot of effort in reaching agreements but is plausible. The other option would be to create a new inter-institutional arrangement. This body of power could be democratic with representatives from all organizations and stakeholders in the Venice Lagoon region. This arrangement would force communication between everyone in hopes of developing cooperation.

Adapted Co-Management relies highly on participation, especially from the public. According to Munaretto and Huitema’s report, there is no tradition of public involvement in restoration decision making efforts for the lagoon. In past times, public participation was mandated to abide European Union requirements which resulted in the public losing motivation from frustration and lack of leadership. Public consulting concerning lagoon issues has only one face currently, environmental groups. Which is a issue, since other public support may specialize in other disciplines that could bring different perspectives of awareness of local issues and their involvement could prove beneficial in finding unique solutions

Experimentation has been a key in the restoration attempts of the Venice Lagoon. Since their 1993 morphological restoration plan, the VWA has created volumes of adapted research and technical knowledge that has helped them create an evolving science in morphological reconstructions of streams and river systems (Munaretto & Huitema, 2012). Part of the new restoration proposal takes the past decade of research and new found knowledge in an adaptive way to create a plan that takes on a more ecological view on riparian restoration.

The Italian government was a pioneer in the management world creating one of the first bioregional approaches to water management dating back to the 16th century; this organization was known as the Venice Water Authority (Munaretto & Huitema, 2012). Over the centuries, however, the power and management responsibilities of the VWA was changed from a watershed based approach to being limited to only having jurisdiction over the lagoon itself. At the turn of the century, the European Water Framework Directive brought back this idea of large scale management but the lagoon has fell prey to political boundaries since all the decisions regarding the lagoon falls into the hands of the VWA. Because of this major issues over leadership roles, power struggles, responsibility disputes, and overall goals have been delayed. The construction of a new institutional arrangement is most likely the only solution to bring in an adapted co-management practice as Munaretto and Huitema explained.

The Middle Rio Grande basin encompasses a wide variety of land ownership and land use covering many political boundaries within the State of New Mexico. Restoration attempts within this large study area involve many stakeholders. Thus in recent years, a joint effort to handle some of the issues in the Middle Rio Grande basin has looked to adaptive management as a solution. Through the Department of Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation, the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program (MRGESCP) was developed. The programs main goals consist of monitoring of the silvery minnow and the southwestern willow flycatcher, restoration of their habitats, river management, water acquisition, and procreation of endangered species populations (Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program, 2013). The program itself created a Recovery Implementation Program (RIP) in 2013 to stay in compliance with the Endangered Species Act and to better outline the goals and objectives of the MRGESCP.
 * //Adaptive Management Practices in New Mexico//**

Due to the heterogeneity and scale of the study area, it was almost necessary for the RIP to take on an adaptive management approach. Even though it is not directly stated in the program’s doctrine, it does use the more updated co-management approach and the doctrine itself follows the protocols of an Integrated Assessment Plan. According to the programs website, Congress provided the Bureau of Reclamation $115.8 million dollars to support their purposed activities. Another $12.7 million was gathered from non-federal funds. The following partners of the program are also listed on their website: the Bureau of Reclamation, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Interstate Stream Commission, the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, the New Mexico Attorney General’s Office, the Pueblo of Santo Domingo, the Pueblo of Sandia, the Pueblo of Isleta, the Pueblo of Santa Ana, the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, the City of Albuquerque, the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority, the Assessment Payers Association of the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, the New Mexico Department of Agriculture, and the University of New Mexico. These stakeholders all take on a collaborative approach to the restoration goals stated in the RIP.

//Executive Committee// In order to create a solid framework for communication and establish responsibilities, the RIP clearly created a co-management organization structure. The Executive Committee (EC) acts as the governing body of the RIP. They are responsible for ensuring the goals and objectives are accomplished. They are also the head decision makers and mediators of any conflicts that may arise. The members of the Executive Committee are individuals selected from each of the partners of the program listed above. If new entities want to be represented in the EC they must write a letter of intent and meet part if not all of the following criteria: a representation of a meaningful size, be willing to contribute to non-federal funding, some type of ownership affected by the RIP such as land or water, regulatory responsibility, and commitment and participation (Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program, 2013).

//Non Executive Members// The other side to the organization structure is participation from volunteers. These non Executive Committee members must follow the same guidelines as those of the EC. This creates an outlet for local individuals and community involvement in a collaborative nature. Volunteers are accepted into the program by the stakeholders, and must be competent in participating and demonstrate the ability to perform the RIP goals and activities. Their participation can not affect the authority and individual responsibilities of the stakeholder involved (Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program, 2013).

//Executive Director and Science Coordinator// The RIP must also include an Executive Director and Science Coordinator to help in the program’s success. The Executive Director (ED) is selected by the Executive Committee and needs to be qualified for the position. These qualifications include the need to be a senior level professional in their field of study and have program management experience. The ED carries out all directions and goals of the EC and RIP. They are responsible for creating staffing plan incompliance with the RIP which will be approved by the EC in an annual basis. This involves types of positions and their unique responsibilities, number of such positions, and a budget for said staff. The staff may include economists, public affairs specialists, engineers, scientists, policy makers, and any other contracted specialists all of which are approved by the EC. Some of the main responsibilities of the ED and their staff include: prepare budget and progress reports, conduct meetings and objectives, manage and track annual work plans and reports, and communicate with local governments, the public, and the media. Other responsibilities will be delegated by the EC in accordance with the RIP.

The major hire from the Executive Director is a Science Coordinator (SC), who needs to be a senior level scientist with management skills as well. They will be responsible for overseeing all contractors involved with adaptive management approaches to guarantee correct scientific standards are being carried out and all information is checked and evaluated for adaptive purposes. Keep all restoration projects on track in a reasonable manner. The SC needs to remain in contact with the EC on a weekly basis, giving updates to ensure scientific data will be available for all RIP progress reports.

//Adaptive Management Committee and Implementation Team// The group directly involved with the adaptive management protocol is known as the Adaptive Management Committee and Implementation Team (AMCIT). They are responsible for most of the scientific and technical aspects under the RIP and serve as a coordination team. They work directly with the Science Coordinator who shall be a nonvoting member of the committee. Some of their more detailed responsibilities include: creating a scientific database for analyzing, classifying uncertainties, generating hypotheses, and developing proposals for obtaining additional data. They are also responsible for proposing adaptive management tests, conducting long term monitoring of sites, and evaluating assessments and making proper adjustments to comply with appropriate adaptive management techniques. The Executive Committee creates teams within the AMCIT based on achieving certain tasks within the RIP. These teams are made up of a variety of specialists to collaborate of a specified task such as habitat reconstruction or river morphology issues. Teams are responsible for creating project needs and plans while maintaining their budget. Quarterly meetings between teams, the Adaptive Management Committee, Science Coordinator, and the Executive Director will ensure progress and help with coordination between all parties. Of these teams a mandatory Action Team will be created using an interdisciplinary and multi-organization approach. They will be in charge of creating annual action plans regarding water and habitat restoration based on adjustments from the Adaptive Management techniques from previous assessments. They are responsible for creating these adjusted recommendations prior to spring runoff each year from the long-term results of the previous years.

//Adaptive Management Plan// Since this is the first time Adapted Management has been used in the Middle Rio Grande for restoration purposes a preliminary version used as the foundation for a more detailed and scientifically sound design to be created in the near future. Version 1 of the Adapted Management Plan uses all 6 cycles of AM but in a general manner, Version 2 will need more time to develop for a few reasons. The initial uncertainties that were defined were gathered from participants that attended meetings that were held as the entire Plan and RIP was in the drafting stages. Now that there is a framework for the program, the above stakeholders and members must take on a co-management approach to properly define the critical uncertainties and together develop the underlying hypotheses associated with them (Murray et al., 2011). Another reason is that the actions prescribed by the AM approach have not been properly selected by the Program. There are a handful of Biological Opinions developed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in the study area, but most of these only create experimental management techniques to test the hypotheses. Time will allow for these actions to be agreed upon by the Executive Committee which would allow the solutions to be more specific to the needs of the region (Murray et al., 2011).

As of 2011 when the document was drafted, everything inside the restoration plans referenced a document known as the Long Term Plan, which was not finished until 2013. By developing a framework in Version 1, the final AM plan will be utilized and developed with collaboration following the RIP’s guidelines to create actions to answer the address the remaining uncertainties to more quickly and cost effectively move towards recovery of the species and their habitats. Testing of these new hypotheses would utilize Version 1 of the AM Plan and the 2014 Biological Opinions (Murray et al., 2013). According to the Long Term Plan, a 2-year pilot project will be implemented to access the effectiveness of the monitoring p rocess, the adapted co-management approach, and future restoration priorities (Murray et al., 2013). This pilot project will act as stepping stone to develop long term program monitoring plan that will encompass all four reaches of the Middle Rio Grande. In an effort to transition into Version 2 of the Action Plan a two step committee was developed. One is a technical group comprised of scientists and professionals from the science work groups. The other is a policy and management group appointed by the Executive Committee and the Coordination Committee. The Policy group is responsible for providing focus and direction of the technical aspect and to ensure the significance of the technical actions in a management standpoint. The Technical group must provide simulations of new actions and their outcomes (Murray et al., 2011). Figure 1 illustrates the process of these groups in the efforts to develop a new Action Plan. As the figure demonstrates, collaboration between the two groups is necessary for success. They act as a check and balance systems to insure the proper alternatives are developed for the best possible approach to address identified uncertainties for a broad range of possible future scenarios.

The basic steps to adaptive management are addressed in figure 2 which are slightly modified from the approach created by Marmorek et al. 2006 to better fit the restoration goals in the Middle Rio Grande. Each and every step has a breakdown of the important functions within that step. Figure 3 represents the prescribed actions from both the Policy and Technical groups in order to create the new Version 2 of the Action Plan. More research is needed to describe these steps and how beneficial there are to the progress of the Program itself.



The creation of an effective adaptive management plan for the restoration of the Middle Rio Grande is the necessary tool to offset the uncertainties of future availability of spring runoff and high flows that would not only create unlivable environments of fauna but also further degrade the river system itself. AM will also contribute to the uncertainties in respect to where and when to execute restoration plans. As within this site specific example, adaptive management itself should evolve over time, such as creating a more collaborative approach as the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program has done. The key to the adaptive co-management plan for the Middle Rio Grande is to provide a flexible use of water from year to year and to be able to share the additional available water through multi agency cooperation. The main intent of this approach is to stop or undo any undesirable trends that are identified after certain restoration techniques are implemented (Parametrix, 2008).

The word adapt can be replaced with the words adjust, alter, change, correct, or amend. But evolve is the basis for an Adaptive Management approach no matter how you define it. Thus, it’s only appropriate that this type of management strategy itself has a tendency to evolve over time. The two changes in the approach to AM stated above show the possibilities and benefits this type of management gives to restoration projects worldwide. With new strategies in the planning process and collaboration of stakeholders’ success for such projects are greatly increased. Examples of implementing these new strategies have shown use the benefits they endorse and give us a ‘learning by doing’ approach that is the basic framework of Adaptive Management. New large scale restoration projects, like the one being carried out in the Middle Rio Grande, understand the power AM can provide. By implementing this type of approach sustainability efforts can be reached more effectively and future generations can learn from the efforts being used today. However, the correlation of past societies efforts to use adaptive management techniques and how they can be studied for current projects still needs a great deal of research to fully understand its capabilities.
 * Conclusion**

__**References**__

Aspinall, R & Pearson, D. (2000). “Integrated Geographical Assessment of Environmental Condition in Water Catchments: Linking Landscape Ecology, Environmental Modeling, and GIS” //Journal of Environmental Management// **59**, 299-319.

Costy et al. (2013). Integrated Assessment and Planning Handbook. IAP Working Group, United Nations.

Hoggarth, D. & Aeron-Thomas, M. (1998). Adaptive Co-Management of Harvest Reserves in Indonesian Rivers. Marine Resources Assessment Group Ltd., 47 Prince’s Gate, London, SW7 2QA, UK

Huitema, et al. (2009). Adaptive Water Governance: Assessing the Institutional Perscriptions of Adapted (Co-) Management from a Governance Perspective and Defining a Research Agenda. Ecology and Society **14**(1):

Munaretto, S. & Huitema, D. (2012). Adaptive comangement in the Venice Lagoon? An analysis of cureent water and environmental management practices and prospects for change. Ecology and Society **17(**2): 19

Murray, C., Marmorek, D., Greig, L. 2013. Revised Draft Long Term Plan. Prepared by ESSA Technologies Ltd. (Vancover, BC) and Headwaters Corporation (Kearny, NE) for the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program, Albuquerque, NM.

Murray, C., Smith, C., and Marmorek, D. 2011. Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program Adaptive Management Plan Version 1. Prepared by ESSA Technologies Ltd. (Vancouver, BC) and Headwaters Corporation (Kearney, NE) for the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program, Albuquerque, NM.

Parametrix. 2008. Restoration Analysis and Recommendations for the Isleta Reach of the Middle Rio Grande, NM. Prepared for the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program, USBR Contract No. 06CR408146. Prepared by Parametrix, Albuquerque, New Mexico. July 2008.

Polos, Franklin, Stalnaker, & Wittler. (1999). //Trinity River Flow Evaluation.// Final Report. 308 pp. Arcata, CA: US Fish and Wildlife Service, Hoopa Valley Tribe.

Randolph, J. (2004). Environmental Landuse Planning and Mangement. The Center of Resource Economics. Island Press, Suite 300, 1718 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington DC 20009.

Wittler, R. (2009). //Trinity River Restoration Program: Integrated Assessment Plan//. Version 1.0. 285 pp. Weavervill, CA: ESSA Technologies Ltd.