Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

4 Adaptive Management
Pages 97-124

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 97...
... This chapter provides an overview of how the CBP and federal partners have framed adaptive management generally and then turns to the application 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 management for nutrient and sediment reduction in the Bay watershed.
From page 98...
... 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)
From page 99...
... . 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.
From page 100...
... 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 public access. However, for the purposes of this report, discussion of adaptive 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 watershed and the District of Columbia)
From page 101...
... 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.
From page 102...
... illustrated in Figure 4-3, which emphasizes key elements of adaptive management identified by the NRC (2004) as applied to water quality management.
From page 103...
... . Rather than trying all management alternatives, sequentially or simultaneously, adaptive management focuses on one or a few alternatives, implements them, and deliberately monitors outcomes in a way that enables evaluation of the alternatives tested.
From page 104...
... and 4 (monitoring) bitmap typically require the greatest attention for successful adaptive management.
From page 105...
... . 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.
From page 106...
... 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)
From page 107...
... . Unfortunately, merely reviewing activities and progress regularly 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.
From page 108...
... Identification of Goals Clear goals have been set for the water quality programs in the Chesapeake Bay. The overarching and ecological goal shown at the top of Figure 1-15 and detailed in Table 1-4 is to restore biological integrity in the Bay.
From page 109...
... Exploration of Uncertainties CBP partners have not undertaken sufficient analysis of the uncertainties inherent in water quality management. In federal documents, issues of uncertainty largely are minimized or passed off to nonfederal partners to address as part of their WIPs and program design and implementation.
From page 110...
... The 2001 NRC report Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management describes two significant sources of uncertainty in water quality management: epistemic and aleatory uncertainty. Epistemic uncertainty results from insufficient information to estimate probabilities of responses to management actions.
From page 111...
... However, because there are many historic water quality observations for the Chesapeake Bay, it may be possible to run a calibrated model to predict key water quality variables (e.g., chlorophyll a and dissolved oxygen) and compare these against observations for noncalibration years.
From page 112...
... Several Bay jurisdictions have balked at the requirement to develop and seek EPA approval of a WIP. Bay jurisdictions have expressed concerns about the costs of plan implementation, the EPA's reliance on model results as the basis for major policy decisions, and the distribution of costs and benefits of water quality improvements.
From page 113...
... Instead, there are numerous uncertainties that are relevant to decision making, as listed above, for which the dimensions of uncertainty are understood and for which experiments can be designed to better inform future water quality management decisions. Designing Management Experiments Uncertainties are reduced through learning about what works, what doesn't, and why.
From page 114...
... Do supplemental nitrogen applications differ depending upon whether farmers plant cover crops independently or because of the incentive 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)
From page 115...
... 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.
From page 116...
... , 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 management actions -- and concluded that appropriate monitoring information needed to address these issues could be obtained (STAC, 2010)
From page 117...
... 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)
From page 118...
... 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.
From page 119...
... 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.
From page 120...
... . 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 management 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.
From page 121...
... 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.
From page 122...
... 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.
From page 123...
... Truly embracing adaptive management 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 allocations, TMDLs, or water quality standards constrain or even preclude using adaptive management.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.