USGS ScienceSearch

USGS · 70194537

Adaptive management: The U.S. Department of the Interior technical guide

Abstract

The purpose of this technical guide is to present an operational definition of adaptive management, identify the conditions in which adaptive management should be considered, and describe the process of using adaptive management for managing natural resources. The guide is not an exhaustive discussion of adaptive management, nor does it include detailed specifications for individual projects. However, it should aid U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) managers and practitioners in determining when and how to apply adaptive management. Adaptive management is framed within the context of structured decision making, with an emphasis on uncertainty about resource responses to management actions and the value of reducing that uncertainty to improve management. Though learning plays a key role in adaptive management, it is seen here as a means to an end, namely good management, and not an end in itself. The operational definition used in the guide is adopted from the National Research Council, which characterizes adaptive management as an iterative learning process producing improved understanding and improved management over time: Adaptive management [is a decision process that] promotes flexible decision making that can be adjusted in the face of uncertainties as outcomes from management actions and other events become better understood. Careful monitoring of these outcomes both advances scientific understanding and helps adjust policies or operations as part of an iterative learning process. Adaptive management also recognizes the importance of natural variability in contributing to ecological resilience and productivity. It is not a ‘trial and error’ process, but rather emphasizes learning while doing. Adaptive management does not represent an end in itself, but rather a means to more effective decisions and enhanced benefits. Its true measure is in how well it helps meet environmental, social, and economic goals, increases scientific knowledge, and reduces tensions among stakeholders. Adaptive management as defined here involves ongoing, real-time learning and knowledge creation, both in a substantive sense and in terms of the adaptive process itself. It is described in what follows in a series of 9 steps, as summarized in section 4.1, involving stakeholder involvement, management objectives, management alternatives, predictive models, monitoring plans, decision making, monitoring responses to management, assessment, and adjustment to management actions. An adaptive approach actively engages stakeholders in all phases of a project over its timeframe, facilitating mutual learning and reinforcing the commitment to learning-based management. Adaptive management in DOI is implemented within a legal context that includes statutory authorities such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. For many important problems now facing the resource management community, adaptive management holds great promise in reducing the uncertainties that limit the effective management of natural resource systems. For many conservation and management problems, utilizing management itself in an experimental context may be the only feasible way to gain the system understanding needed to improve management. Though it is commonly thought that an adaptive approach can produce results quickly at low cost, the opposite is more likely to be true. An initial investment of time and effort will increase the likelihood of better decision making and resource stewardship in the future, but patience, flexibility, and support are needed over the life of an adaptive management project. For these reasons it is important to carefully consider the potential use of an adaptive approach, and to engage in careful planning and evaluation when adaptive management is used.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

B K Williams, Robert C. Szaro, Carl D. Shapiro. 2009. Adaptive management: The U.S. Department of the Interior technical guide. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70194537

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Factors affecting benthic macroinvertebrate health in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, 2020–2023

Major waterways in the City of Roanoke (City) have failed to meet Virginia’s aquatic life designated use since 1996. Segments of the upper Roanoke River lack healthy benthic macroinvertebrate communities which prompted a total maximum daily load (TMDL) study by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) to identify the most probable stressor(s) causing the impairment. Excess fine sediment was identified as the most probable stressor impairing benthic macroinvertebrates on portions of the Roanoke River in 2006, and a watershed implementation plan published in 2016 required communities within the impaired watershed to implement projects that would reduce the load of fine sediment entering the Roanoke River. Additional benthic macroinvertebrate sampling and stream habitat assessments along the Roanoke River and Tinker Creek (a tributary to the Roanoke River that flows through the City) revealed continued impaired conditions, and subsequent stressor identification analysis was completed in 2023. Samples collected downstream of the City on the Roanoke River and Tinker Creek generally showed more impaired conditions relative to samples collected at locations upstream of the City. Based on this evaluation, sediment and sediment-bound polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were identified as probable stressors while specific conductance, total nitrogen, and sediment metals were possible stressors in Tinker Creek; however, only a sediment TMDL target was identified to address impaired benthic macroinvertebrate communities. In the Roanoke River upstream of the Niagara Dam, sediment and total phosphorus were identified as probable stressors, sediment polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and sediment PCB were considered possible stressors; however, the TMDL target was only for total phosphorus. The City partnered with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 2016 to continuously monitor water quality and streamflow conditions on a major tributary of Tinker Creek, Lick Run, and by 2020, four similar monitoring stations were installed on the Roanoke River and Tinker Creek near the locations of benthic macroinvertebrate sampling. Monitored parameters included streamflow and/or gage height (water level), water temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, and turbidity. Turbidity is a measure of the relative clarity of the water and was previously used to model suspended-sediment concentrations at the monitoring stations. The City also contracted Kirk Environmental, LLP (KE) to collect benthic macroinvertebrate samples and stream habitat assessments near the locations of the water-quality monitoring stations. Identified benthic macroinvertebrates were used to calculate the Virginia Stream Condition Index (SCI), a multi-metric index composed of eight biological attributes that represent elements of the structure and function of the benthic macroinvertebrate community that measure diversity, composition, and tolerance to pollution. Study objective: In this report, benthic macroinvertebrate samples and stream habitat assessment scores collected at four locations on the Roanoke River and Tinker Creek by KE and the VDEQ between 2020 and 2023 were compared to measured water-quality and streamflow conditions prior to sampling to evaluate patterns between benthic macroinvertebrate health, water quality, and hydrology.

Virginia