American Water Resources Association (AWRA)

Panelist Participants:
Moderator - Olivia Ferriter,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC

Art Coykendall, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO
Byron K. Williams, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA
Carl Shapiro, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA

Adaptive management, a framework for learning about natural resources through management interventions, has been a part of natural resources thinking for several decades, under the generic rubric of learning-enabled management. By now many in natural resources conservation claim, often with only limited justification, that AM is the approach they commonly use in meeting their resource management responsibilities.

In general, adaptive management applies to natural resources that respond to changing environmental conditions and management strategies, under conditions of a limited understanding about resource impacts. Management effectiveness is constrained by this uncertainty, leading to disagreement about appropriate management strategy. A structured process of iterative management interventions affords the opportunity to reduce uncertainty and/or disagreement over time, while adapting management strategy as understanding accumulates. Because aquatic resources often involve iterative decision making in the face of uncertainties about its consequences, aquatic systems seem especially amenable to an adaptive approach to management.

AM is often characterized as “management by experiment” with management interventions seen as experimental treatments, with followup tracking and assessment used to improve understanding and inform future management. In this context AM is portrayed as “science-based” management, with science supporting management by providing information for decision making, and management supporting science with interventions that are designed for scientific investigation. In fact, AM is defined by this bi-directional support, with an overall goal of reducing uncertainty and improving management.

In this session AM is described in terms of deliberative and decision-making phases that are implemented through time. The deliberative phase includes framing the resource problem, identifying objectives and management options, predicting the consequences of decisions, designing monitoring protocols, and actively engaging stakeholders. The management phase consists of decision making, post-decision monitoring, and assessment of monitoring data, with feedback of what is learned into future decision making. Framing AM as an iterative two-phase process makes clear the opportunity for institutional as well as technical learning.

This session involves three presentations followed by a moderated discussion. The session highlights the focus, context, and features of adaptive management, the conditions in which adaptive decision making is most likely to be appropriate and useful, and the operational process of actually implementing and evaluating adaptive management. The session presenters will discuss the initial commitment of time and effort needed to adequately frame an AM problem and its operational components. In addition, they will emphasize the benefits that can accrue to better understanding and increased flexibility in dealing with surprise.

Hydrologic Suitability Evaluation of the Kissimmee River Floodplain in Florida - Joseph Helkowski, AECOM, West Palm Beach, FL (co-authors: Christine Carlson, Jaime Graulau, Guillermo Regalado, Lawrence Spencer)

Development of an Adaptive Management (AM) Program to Support Recovery of the Missouri River: Creating Functional Shallow Water and Emergent Sandbar Habitat - Craig Fleming, Omaha District, US Army Corps of Engineers, Yankton, SD (co-authors: Carol S. Hale, Drew J. Tyre, Ronald M. Thom, Heida L. Diefenderfer)

Adaptive Management of the Lower Owens River Project: Where Policy and Science Meet - Brian Tillemans, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Bishop, CA (co-author: David Martin)

Cheonggye-cheon Restoration Project and Adaptive Management of Its Water Quality - Hyunook Kim, University of Seoul, Seoul, South Korea (co-authors: Soo Hong Noh, Hyunook Kim)

Adaptive Management and Great Lakes Outflow Management - Anthony Eberhardt, USACE, Institute for Water Resources, Alexandria, VA

Collaborative Adaptive Management and Governance for the Kidron Valley/Wadi Nar Catchment Basin - Michael Davidson, Claremont Graduate University, Altadena, CA

Water Supply Brick Wall: Jordan's Dilemma - Tala Qtaishat, NDSU, Fargo, ND (co-author: Jay Leitch)

A Water-related Information System for the Sustainable Development of the Mekong Delta in Vietnam - the WISDOM project - Claudia Kuenzer, German Aerospace Center, DLR, Wessling, Germany (co-authors: Fabrice Renaud, Gabi Waibel, Steffen Gebhardt+, Thilo Wehrmann+ Michael Schmidt, Harald Mehl)

From Ecohydrologic Observatories to Integrated Water Resources Management - Marian Muste, IIHR-Hydroscience & Engineering, Iowa City, IA

Bayesian Network Modeling for Adaptive Management to Control Estrogen Compounds from Swine CAFOs - Boknam Lee, Duke University, Durham, NC (co-authors: Kenneth H. Reckhow, Seth W. Kullman)

A GIS-Based Water Resources Supply Decision Support System For Santa Fe County , New Mexico - David Jordan, INTERA, Albuquerque, NM (co-author: Cindy Ardito)

Panelist Participants:
Moderator -- Willie R. Taylor
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC

Don A. Ostler, Upper Colorado River Commission, Salt Lake City, Utah
Mike Mayer, The Louis Berger Group, Inc., Kansas City, MO
Greg Arthaud, USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC

Policy, law, and stakeholder involvement are key factors in connecting science and decision making. The combination of the three factors represents an institutional framework that needs to be considered in developing and implementing adaptive management decision processes.

This session addresses the importance of explicitly considering the institutional framework within the context of adaptive management. Adaptive management requires an open decision making process, in which stakeholders are directly engaged. Objectives, assumptions, and other elements within the decision process need to be explicit and amenable to analysis and debate. In addition, statutory authorities such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) apply directly to adaptive management and need to be considered within the decision process. Understanding the institutional framework and the relationship between policy, law, and stakeholders is critical to the adaptive management process.

The presentations in this session build directly on the discussion from the previous panel on “An Adaptive Management Overview: Defining, Using, and Recognizing Success.”

20 years of TMDL Implementation: Adaptive Management of Phosphorus Concentrations in the Tualatin River, OR - Charles Logue, Clean Water Services, Hillsboro, OR (co-authors: Bob Baumgartner, Jan Miller)

Adaptive Management of East Canyon Creek - A Watershed Approach - Kathy Lombardi, SWCA Environmental Consultants, Salt Lake City, UT

East Canyon Reservoir Water Quality Improvement and Revised Total Phosphorus TMDL - Erica Gaddis, SWCA Environmental Consultants, Salt Lake City, UT

Adaptive Management in a Nation-wide Implementation of Water Quality Telemonitoring System for Controlling Point Sources Discharge in Korea - Hyunook Kim, University of Seoul, Seoul, South Korea (co-authors: Seokki Lee, Donghee Jung, Junhung Lee)

The Process of Adapting to Droughts: Humans Connected Through Hydrology and History in the Bear River Basin of Idaho, Utah and Wyoming - Lisa Welsh, Utah State University, Logan, UT (co-authors: Joanna Endter-Wada, Theresa Selfa)

Adaptive Management for Land and Water Resources in the Platte River Basin - Jerry Kenny, Platte River Recovery Implementation Program, Kearney, NE (co-author: Chad Smith)

Salt Lake Countywide Water Quality Stewardship Plan - Karen Nichols, Stantec Consulting, Salt Lake City, UT (co-authors: Neil Stack, Kathlyn Collins, Jason Doll, Nicholas von Stackelberg)

Managing Water Supply Operations to Maximize Efficiency and Sustain Habitat - Jamil Ibrahim, MWH, Sacramento, CA (co-authors: Patrick Dwyer, Ken Powers, Mike Nichols, Einar Maisch)

Rural Community Demands Their Right to be Heard on Water Preservation - Joe Haun, HAUNTEC, Las Vegas, NV

Panelist Participants:
Moderator - Byron K. Williams,
U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA

James D. Nichols, U.S. Geological Survey, Laurel, MD
Scott Boomer, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Laurel, MD
Bernard Bormann, USDA Forest Service, Corvallis, OR

Among other key elements, adaptive management involves the use of models to project the consequences of potential management actions, the use of monitoring to track their outcomes and inform future decision making, and the treatment of uncertainties in understanding and predicting resource behaviors through time. In fact, these attributes of AM are intimately linked, in that each defines and contributes to the influence of the others.

Modeling will be characterized in this session in terms of resources that change through time in response to variable environments and management actions. The temporal nature of renewable resources allows for learning through time and promotes management adaptations based on what is learned. Models play important roles in representing resource changes and the influence of management on resource status and trends. They also can play key roles in characterizing and incorporating uncertainties, as well as the facilitation of learning through comparisons of predicted outcomes against actual resource conditions. These and other modeling functions will be discussed in the context of adaptive decision making with aquatic resources.

Monitoring will be framed in terms of the multiple roles it plays in AM. In particular, monitoring will be described in terms of its use in (1) evaluating progress in achieving management goals; (2) determining resource status, so as to inform management actions; (3) improving understanding via the comparison of predictions against survey data; and (4) enhancing and developing resource models as needed and appropriate. The linkages between monitoring, modeling, and assessment of uncertainty will be emphasized. In particular, the importance of framing and designing monitoring programs in the context of a larger management effort involving AM will be highlighted.

Finally, the session will include a presentation about sources of uncertainty in AM, and the challenges uncertainty presents to effective and efficient management. Of particular concern in AM is the uncertainty (or lack of agreement) about the nature of processes that determine resource dynamics. These uncertainties can be expressed with hypothesized relationships among process elements and included in different resource models. In this way uncertainties can be characterized in terms of model dynamics, and measured via the comparison of actual vs. predicted outcomes. An approach to the updating of model uncertainties will be presented in terms of model projections and monitoring data. In addition, issues concerning the scope of inference and pace of improvements in understanding will be addressed.

The session will consist of three presentations dealing with modeling, monitoring, and uncertainty. The presenters will discuss each of these issues in terms of its linkages with the others, and in the broader context of AM as described in the preceding sessions. The issues involved in modeling, monitoring, and assessing uncertainty will be highlighted in terms of aquatic systems.

Going With the Flow: Using a Water Quality Model to Operationalize Water Quality Trading - Arthur Caplan, Utah State University, Logan, Ut (co-authors: Bethany T. Nielson, Matthew Baker)

Virginia’s State-wide Nitrogen and Phosphorus Credit Trading Program - A Discussion of History, Market Structure, and Trading Policies - Cody Stanger, CH2M HILL, Salt Lake City, UT (co-authors: Mark Haley, Glenn Harvey, Chris Pomeroy, Lisa Bacon)

Watershed Modeling for Water Quality Trading - Bethany T. Neilson, Utah State University, Logan, UT (co-authors: M.E. Baker, C. Bandaragoda, J. S. Horsburgh, D. K. Stevens)

Evaluating Future Physical Water Supply in Oklahoma - Travis Bogan, CDM, Denver, CO (co-authors: John Rehring, Kyle Arthur, Gene Lilly, Cynthia Kitchens)

Will Water Rights Allocation in the Western United States Need to Adapt to Climate Change Impacts? - Gordon McCurry, CDM, Denver, CO

Use of Optimization Modeling in Adaptive Management of Water Resources: A Case Study from Walawe River Basin, Sri Lanka - Neelanga Weragala, Utah State University, Logan, UT (co-author: Jagath J. Kaluarachchi)

Crisis Averted: How Collier County used a Programmatic Approach to Overcome a Water Supply Shortfall and Secure its Water Future - Jason Sciandra, AWWA, Fort Myers , FL (co-authors: Phil Gramatges, Alicia Abbott, Paul Pinault)

The Drama of the Commons and its Impact on Adaptive Management: A Social Science Perspective on the Slippery Nature of Water Policy - Kaitlin Steiger-Meister, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN

Scientific Uncertainty and Coalitions in Water Policy Subsystems - Miriam Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL (co-authors: Stephen Gasteyer, David Holt)

Structured Decision Making and Rapid Prototyping for Adaptive Management Implementation on the Platte River - Chadwin Smith, Headwaters Corporation, Lincoln, NE

Panelist Participants
Moderator – Carl Shapiro
U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA

Rodney J. Wittler, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Weaverville, CA
Ron Huntsinger, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC
Bill Werkheiser, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA

Experiences with the use of an adaptive management process vary with changes in natural and human systems. This session consists of presentations describing the adaptive management of three specific aquatic resource systems and the resource management issues and institutional frameworks associated with each. The applications will be discussed in terms of the principles, techniques, and procedures covered in the previous three sessions and will address why an adaptive management process was used and how it was used. In addition, discussion will address the components of the adaptive management process that were successful and the parts in which challenges remain.

Water Resource Planning and Management in Uncertain Conditions: The Relationship between Scenario-Based Planning and Adaptive Management - Kris Esterson, PBS&J, Orlando, FL

Adaptive Management in the Context of Climate Change: A Preliminary Review of Adaptation Options for Climate-Sensitive Ecosystems and Resources - Anne Choate, ICF International, Philadelphia, PA (co-authors: Susan Herrod Julius, Jordan M. West,, Susan Asam)

Enhancing Reliability through Adaptive Management Strategies:A Water Utility Perspective - Alison Adams, Tampa Bay Water, Clearwater, FL

Milwaukee’s Next Step: Adaptive Watershed Restoration Plans - Troy Deibert, HNTB Companies, Milwaukee, WI (co-authors: Timothy Bate, William Krill, Kevin Kratt, Michael Hahn)

Using Adaptive Management in the Recovery of Endangered Species in the San Juan River Basin, USA - Mark McKinstry, Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, UT

Components of an Integrated Environmental Observatory Information System - Jeffery Horsburgh, Utah State University, Logan, UT (co-authors: David G. Tarboton David R. Maidment Ilya Zaslavsky)

Natural Stream Stability / Erosion Monitoring Program for Urbanizing Watersheds - Bruce Phillips, PACE, Fountain Valley, CA

Panel Participants:
Moderator - Tomma Barnes, USACE New Orleans District, New Orleans, LA
Kenneth Barr, USACE, Rock Island District, Rock Island, IL
Marci Cook, USACE Portland District, Portland, OR
Craig Fleming, USACE Omaha District, Omaha, NE
Elmar Kurzbach, USACE Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, FL

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has undertaken the restoration of several large-scale ecosystems throughout the United States. This session is intended to provide a forum for the discussion of similarities, differences, and lessons learned from several of the nation’s most significant ongoing federal programs including: Louisiana Coastal Areas, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Missouri River Recovery Program, Columbia River Channel Improvement Project and Upper Mississippi River Navigation and Sustainability Program. The need to communicate results, experience, and knowledge gained from these efforts is paramount.

The session will compare and contrast several of the nation's largest ecosystem restoration projects, including the numerous lessons learned by the Corps of Engineers and its partners in planning and implementing these projects. Focal points for discussion include the integration of science, monitoring, modeling, and risk and uncertainty within a framework of adaptive management.

Session presenters will provide a brief overview of each restoration program and outline the key lessons learned; then a moderator will facilitate a panel discussion and panelists will address questions related to the restoration efforts. In addition, there will be a brief description of the Corps Actions for Change Adaptive Management initiative and the Agency’s efforts to draft an Adaptive Management Technical Guide.

Challenges Associated with Climate Changes Scenarios into Long-Term Municiapl and Industrial Water Demand Forecasts for the San Diego Area - Jack Kiefer, Hazen and Sawyer Environmental Engineers & Scientists, Marion, IL (co-author: Tim Bombardier)

Incorporating Climate Change in Decision Support Tools - A Cognitive Reasoning Approach - Jason Lillywhite, CH2M HILL, Salt Lake City, UT

Responding to Climate Variability and Change: A Rapid Prototype for Assessing Impacts of Uncertainty in Climate Observations and Model Projections on Decision Support - L. DeWayne Cecil, U.S. Geological Survey, Idaho Falls, ID (co-authors: Cynthia Rosenzweig, Radley Horton, Alex Ruane, Peter A. Parker, Brian D. Killough)

Assessing the Hydrological Effects of Drainage Ditch Management - A Case Study from Northwest Minnesota - Phil Gerla, University of North Dakota and The Nature Conservancy, Grand Forks, ND (co-authors: Andrew Austreng, Kelsey Snyder)

Adaptive Management on the Legacy Nature Preserve - Eric McCulley, SWCA, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT

Trend Analysis of Monitored Stream Water Quality - A Review of Methods and Applicability in Evaluating the Effectiveness of Conservation Practices - Pushpa Tuppad, Texas AgriLife Research, Texas A&M System, College Station, TX (co-authors: Santhi Chinnasamy, Raghavan Srinivasan)

Calibrated Transport Relations, Sediment Budgets, and Applications to River Management - Susannah Erwin, Utah State University, Logan, UT (co-authors: Paul E. Grams, Milada Majerova, John C. Schmidt)

Storm Properties: How Understanding Rainfall History Improves High Impact Applications - Ilse Gayl, OneRain Inc., Longmont, CO (co-author: James Logan)

Management Responses to Groundwater Quality Violations on Guam: 1996-2007 - Gary Denton, Water & Env. Research Institute, Mangilao, GU (co-author: Carmen M. Sian)

Panel Participants:
Moderator - Dennis Kubly, Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, UT
Recent Progress and Hurdles for the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP)

John Hamill, U.S. Geological Survey, Flagstaff, AZ
The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: Recent Progress, Immediate Challenges

Robert Adler, S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT

The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program has been in existence for more than a decade. The program is centered around a federal advisory committee that advises the Secretary of the Interior on actions pursuant to fulfillment of obligations in the Grand Canyon Protection Act. The 25-member advisory committee representatives hold widely divergent values and interests, and often disagree on the likely effects of dam operations, but they have agreed to conduct ecosystem-level experiments using the Glen Canyon Dam as an experimental tool in an active adaptive management process. The experience gained during this process has resulted in a variety of lessons learned, not only about the conduct of science to determine dam operation effects on downstream resources, but also about the psycho-social, political and legal workings of adaptive management. The panel will provide insights on this experience through their presentations and then field questions from the audience in this session

Climate Change Adaptation for a Coastal Watershed: Identifying Risk and Costs for Culvert Infrastructure - Michael Simpson, Resource Management and Conservation Program, Keene, NH (co-authors: Latham Stack, Thomas Crosslin, Derek Sowers, Colin Lawson)

Quantifying the Impacts of Climate Change in Water Supply Planning for the City of San Diego - Tim Cox, CDM, Denver, CO (co-authors: Enrique Lopez-Calva, William Davis)

Integrated Use of Watershed and Farm-Scale Models to Support Adaptive Management: Lake Champlain Basin, VT - Lula Ghebremichael, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT (co-authors: Mary C. Watzin, Russell F. Ford)

Incorporation of Water Quality Uncertainties into Stormwater Master Planning - Richard Wagner, CDM, Jacksonville, FL

Development and Implementation of a Sequential Modeling Approach to Address the Complexity in Planning for Revised Operations for the Central and Southern Project in the Kissimmee Basin - Mark Abbott, AECOM, West Palm Beach, FL (co-authors: Christine Carlson, Guillermo Regalado)

Regional Systems Dynamics Modeling for Adaptive Long-Term Water Supply Planning - Kelley Weaver, CDM, Carlsbad, CA (co-authors: Fakhri Manghi, Enrique Lopez-Calva,)

Weather Derivatives as a Potential Risk Management Tool for Irrigators - Chris Thompson, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE (co-authors: Ray Supalla, Derrel Martin, Brooks Neely, Brain Mcmullen)

Manatee River Minimum Flows and Levels Model - Jason Love, RESPEC, Rapid City, SD

Benefit Cost Analysis of Water Conservation: Considering Uncertainity - Md Rashid, University of Southern Indiana, Evansville, IN (co-authors: William O. Maddaus, Michelle Maddaus, Faridul Islam)

Uncertainty Analysis Using the Method of Morris on a Hydrologic Model in the Okavango Basin - Anna Cathey, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fl (co-authors: Rafael Muñoz-Carpena, Gregory Kiker)

Panel Participants:
Moderator - Andrew LoSchiavo, Everglades Partners Joint Venture/PBS&J, Jacksonville, FL
Tom St. Clair, Everglades Partners Joint Venture, Jacksonville, FL
Elmar von Kurzbach, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL

The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP or Plan) provides a framework to restore, protect and preserve the water resources of central and southern Florida, including the Everglades. Congress authorized the use of an adaptive management (AM) approach for CERP (Water Resource Development Act [WRDA], 2000) to allow the Plan to proceed in the face of complexity and incomplete scientific data (uncertainties). AM has been applied to small-scale projects in numerous ecosystem restoration programs across the country and in large-scale forestry and fishery management programs. However, a comprehensive AM program in support of a system-wide ecosystem restoration program at the size and scale of CERP has never before been successfully implemented. This presentation details the status of the CERP AM Program development and implementation. Though many components of the CERP AM Program have been developed since CERP was authorized in 2000 (e.g., creation of a monitoring and assessment plan as well as performance measures, conceptual ecological modeling, development of interim goals and targets, etc.), the documents describing the AM Program were more recently developed (CERP AM Strategy [2006] and Guidance Manual [2008]) http://www.evergladesplan.org/pm/program_docs/adaptive_mgmt.aspx.

This panel discussion will present the following CERP Program details:
1. CERP AM Program Overview (Andrew LoSchiavo) - How was the CERP AM Program developed? What are the components that make it work?
2. CERP AM Predictive Component (Dr. Tom St. Clair) - What tools are used in predicting CERP restoration performance (e.g., conceptual models, quantitative models, and performance measures)? How are they used to inform CERP planning and implementation efforts (e.g., plan evaluation and robust design)?
3. CERP Adaptive Assessment and Monitoring Component (Elmar von Kurzbach - How are scientific and monitoring efforts organized and applied to support AM (e.g., Monitoring and Assessment Plan)? How is science and monitoring data synthesized into assessments (e.g., Integrated Assessment Team)? How do assessments link science to management decision-making (e.g., system-status reports and workshops, decision-frameworks)?
4. CERP AM Implementation Challenges and Potential Solutions (Elmar von Kurzbach) - What are the key challenges faced in successfully implementing AM for CERP? What are potential solutions for addressing them within CERP and/or natural resource programs in general?

The Potential Use of Winter Cloud Seeding Programs to Augment the Flow of the Colorado River - Don Griffith, North American Weather Consultants, Sandy, UT (co-author: Mark Solak)

Processand Significance of Interception in Colorado Subalpine Forest - Revisited 41 Years Later - Charles Leaf, Platte River Hydrologic Research Center, Merino, CO

Possible Air Pollution Impacts on Winter Orographic Precipitation in the Western U.S. - Don Griffith, North American Weather Consultants, Inc., Sandy, UT (co-authors: Mark E. Solak, David P. Yorty)

Multi-Objective Water System Operations Optimization to Address Supply Uncertainty - Bill Fernandez, CDM, Walnut Creek, CA (co-authors: Kirk Westphal, Alek Cannan)

Hydrostratigraphy and Aquifer Characteristics of South Las Posas Basin, Ventura County, California - Kenda Neil, CSU Northridge, Northridge, CA (co-author: M. Ali Tabidian)

Resource Based Modeling - An Easily Understood Adaptive Managment Tool - Paul Flack, Colorado State Parks, Denver, CO

Development of Adaptive Management Strategies for a Recently Licensed Hydropower Facility - Jory Oppenheimer, Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, WA (co-author: Robert Barnes)

Adaptive Management of Water Supply Reservoirs on the Delaware River - Roger Ruggles, Lafayette College, Easton, PA

Panel Participants:
Moderator – Dr. Eugene Stakhiv, Co-Director, International Upper Great Lakes Study,
Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alexandria, VA

Carlos Peña, Chief, Environmental Management Division, United States Section,
International Boundary and Water Commission United States and Mexico, El Paso, TX

Ed Eaton, Engineering Advisor U.S. Section, International Rainy Lake Board of Control,
St Paul District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, MN

Karen M. Hanson, Program Manager, US Geological Survey, Utah Water Science Center, Member of the Transboundary Hydrographic Data Harmonization Task Force (US-Canada), Salt Lake City, UT

During this panel a few case studies using an adaptive management framework from each of these boundaries will be presented and evaluated in the context of common trans-boundary adaptive management issues and challenges. Issues and challenges may include: managing uncertainty, international legal and policy issues, international stakeholder involvement, trans-boundary monitoring, goal setting and institutional arrangements and funding for conducting Adaptive Management.

Is Adaptive Management Applicable to Global Climate Change? - Indur Goklany, Office of Policy Analysis, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Washington, DC

Water Resources Planning and Permitting in a Changing Climate - Erik Heinen, AECOM, Belmont, NH (co-authors: Mark Gerath, Don Galya, Blaine Dwyer)

Integrating Policy and Science to Adapt to a Changing Climate - Gerald Sehlke, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID

Panel Participants:
Moderator - David Sale, ECO Resource Group, Bainbridge Island, WA
Sandra Davis, ECO Resource Group, Bainbridge Island, WA

Clearly defining how scientific information is utilized, developing collaboration between key participants and communities, and effectively implementing recommendations and experiments are all cornerstones of successful adaptive management programs. Sandra Davis and David Sale have worked on major scientific and collaborative projects in Alaska, Puget Sound, the Columbia River Basin and the Klamath River Basin, designing and facilitating connections between scientific assessment, collaboration building and the development of governance structures. This special interactive session will build on their experiences, and engage participants in exercises and dialogue which incorporate the group’s knowledge and experiences related to integrating these three aspects of adaptive management. Areas to be explored include: • Design considerations for collaborative adaptive management: balancing creativity and rigor. • Integrating collaboration with effective decision-making: Success Factors for collaborative adaptive management. • Fitting science with policy and governance: the Governance Triangle and effective communications. • The role of stakeholders in adaptive management: supporting decision-making and science as well as stakeholder needs. • Managing organizational landscapes - effective change or rearranging the deck chairs? • How adaptive management can support or hinder community resilience. As Sandra and David weave their experience and ideas with those of the participants they will draw attention to various tools that can be used to collect information, build collaborative relationships, and develop resilient management structures. Participants will expand their understanding and take home some practical examples to use in their ongoing work.

Applying COIN-OR Optimization Library to a Large Scale Water Transmission - Ming-Chin Jeng, DCSE, Inc., Aliso Viejo, CA (co-authors: Warren Hagstrom, Nem Ochoa, Stacie Takeguchi)

Spatial Hydrologic Modeling using the Gridded Surface Subsurface Hydrologic Analysis (GSSHA) Model and the Watershed Modeling System (WMS) - Clark Barlow, Aquaveo LLC, Provo, UT

Panel Participants:
Moderator - Olivia Devereux, University of Maryland, Annapolis, MD
Sarah Weammert, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD
T. Simpson, Water Stewardship, Inc, Annapolis, MD
Cassandra Mullinix, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA

Development of an Adaptive Management Decision Support Tool for Increasing Effectiveness of Best Management Practice Implementation in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed - Olivia Devereux, University of Maryland, Annapolis, MD

Enhancing Management, Coordination and Accountability of BMP Definitions and Effectiveness Estimates Utilizing an Adaptive Management Approach - Sarah Weammert, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD

Adaptively Integrating Science into Policy in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed: Lessons Learned - Thomas Simpson, Water Stewardship, Inc, Annapolis, MD

Web-based Tools for Improved Management and Restoration of the Chesapeake by Watershed – Cassandra Mullinix, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA (co-authors: S. Phillips, P. Hearn, J. Wolf, K. Shenk, M. Dubin

Estimated Increases in Municipal Water Demands in Colorado due to Climate Change - Gordon McCurry, CDM, Denver, CO

Adapting to Climate Change in Water Resources and Water Services Eugene Z. Stakhiv, IJC Upper Lakes Study, Institute for Water Resources , USACE, Alexandria, VA

Planning for Reliable Water Supply in the Face of Uncertainty and Climate Change - Dan Rodrigo, CDM, Los Angeles, CA (co-author: Gregory Heiertz)

Operational Framework for Adaptive Management at Federal Facilities - John Scott Thomas, Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV

Adaptive Capacity and Adaptive Management in Community Water Systems - Nathan L. Engle, University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources and Environment, Ann Arbor, MI

Lessons from Adaptive Management Practice - Catherine Allan, Charles Stuart University, Albury, NSW, Australia (co-author: George H Stankey)

Scenario Planning with Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Linked to a Dynamic Systems Simulation - Linking Science, Policy, and Decision Making in an Adaptive Framework - Kathleen O'Neil, PBS&J, Orlando, FL (co-authors: David Yates, Kris Esterson)

Will Simulation of Percolation Lead to Underestimation of Flood Risk? - Zhida Song-James, Michael Baker Jr., Inc., Alexandria, VA (co-authors: Manas Borah, Laura Algeo, Dhananjay Sharma)

Fusion of Remotely Sensed Data for Landcover Classification Using Multiclass Relevance Vector Machine - Bushra Zaman, Utah Water Research Lab, Logan, UT (co-author: Mac Mckee)

Adaptive Management in Real-time: Utah's Experience - Roger Hansen, Bureau of Reclamation, Provo, UT (co-author: Mac McKee)

Use of Unmanned Autonomous Vehicles for Inexpensive Remote Sensing for Improved Real-Time Operation of Large Irrigation Systems - Mac McKee, Utah Water Research Laboratory, Utah State University, Logan, UT (co-author: YangQuan Chen)

Modeling of Errors in an Automated Irrigation Canal Using Statistical Learning Machines - Alfonso Torres, Utah Water Research Laboratory, Logan, UT (co-authors: Andres Ticlavilca, Wynn R. Walker, Mac McKee)

Panel Participants:
Moderator - Wendy Bowden Crowther, Clyde Snow and Session PC, Salt Lake City, UT
Jeremy N. Jungreis, Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, CA
Lisa a. Kirschner, Parsons Behle and Latimer, Salt Lake City, UT
David Aladjem, Downey Brand, Sacramento, CA

This law and policy panel will discuss the implications of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Friends of Pinto Creek v. EPA--a case which essentially holds that new discharges are prohibited in "impaired" waterbodies until such time as the proposed discharger can demonstrate that all water quality standards will be met after development of a TMDL and commencement of the new discharge. Of potentially great concern to many water resource managers, the court in Pinto Creek, unlike previous state court decisions, disapproved EPA's proposed use of adaptive management to achieve TMDL targets over time--instead requiring that new dischargers demonstrate prospective attainmen, notwithstanding that great uncertainty as to the receiving water's assimilative capacity remained. New and existing discharges in "impaired" watersheds that are supported by offsets/water quality trading often require adaptive management to ascertain the exact BMP/treatment technology combination that will reduce loading sufficiently to meet water quality standards. Pinto Creek and other recent regulatory developments raise not only water quality issues associated with adaptive management, but water resource/quantity implications as well. Water reuse projects may very well be frustrated under today's prevailing law and regulatory regimes--thereby keeping water that would otherwise augment and improve existing supplies out of the watershed and unavailable for beneficial use.

Towards Pilot-Testing of the National Groundwater Monitoring Network - Robert Schreiber, CDM - Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., Cambridge, MA

Statewide Monitoring: Fitting into a National Ground-Water Monitoring Network - Thomas Patton, Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Butte, MT

Applying Monitoring Results to Develop Recommendations for Constructing Forest Road Stream Crossings to Control Soil Losses - Pamela Edwards, USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Stn., Parsons, WV (co-authors: Jingxin Wang, Joshua T. Stedman)

Quantitative Stream Profile Analysis for Red River and Arkansas River - Arpita Nandi, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN

The purpose of the closing panel session will be to discuss next steps and solutions to facilitate overcoming the issues and challenges facing organizations to implement effective, collaborative, and scientifically-based AM projects or programs. Each panelist will be responsible for providing a briefing (from a one to two page document) of bulleted theme key points coming from the concurrent sessions, which will be provided to conference attendees. This information will be used by the facilitator in a discussion of next steps and solutions.