ENS 696 Sec.4   Adaptive Management   Fall 2007
M/W  4:00- 5:20 PM   209 Marshall               last updated 10/25/07
 Prof. John Felleman   108B Marshall      
Office Hrs:   TBA
 felleman@esf.edu         www.esf.edu/es/felleman                             

  Background   Schedule        Objectives        Workload         Grading     


    In the second half of the 19th century, accelerating technical/industrial “progress” coupled with rapid expansion of capital and population, created massive changes to America’s forests, prairies, surface waters, and urban centers. In the early 20th century, societal response to uncontrolled despoliation, and degradation of human health was centered in the “progressive” movement. Legislatures created specialized public bureaucracies (“technocracies”), to manage natural resources, develop infrastructure, and regulate business. These institutions were intellectually aligned with new technical colleges, and professional associations. They also were politically aligned with private sector corporations, and legislative committees (“iron triangles”). 
   The decades following WWII were a period of unprecedented development. By the 1960’s the advances in environmental knowledge, coupled with the rise of television reporting and the citizen empowerment movements (war, blacks, women…) revealed fundamental inadequacies in our “modern” institutionalized approach for environmental management. Citizen pressure led to the passage of NEPA in 1969. This was immediately followed by the “environmental decade”, the passage of most of our major environmental laws. The new managerial framework was a hybrid of lofty goals, increased budgets, many more regulations, increased participation and transparency, all grafted onto traditional institutions.

   Although many improvements in environmental quality have resulted from this legislation, it has become increasingly clear that individual technocracies are not capable of resolving controversial issues where our underlying knowledge of causal processes are limited, and decisions require the collaboration of a diverse set public and private actors/stakeholders. Currently we are in a period of experimentation with new approaches for integrating scientific knowledge building, social learning, and active stewardship. “Adaptive Management” is one of the primary thrusts of this initiative.


Course Objectives:

Upon completion of this course shoudents should have the capacity to:

1. Demonstrate comprehension of the historical  background that has led to Adaptive Management, and its roles in public decision- making;

2. Identify the key AM challenges in: scientific uncertainty,  measuring/monitoring/evauating large scale experiments,  and developing long-term collaborative stewardship arrangements;

3. Appreciate the importance of case studies in developing our understanding of the situational appropriatenes in utilizing AM for complex environmental decision making.

1. Students are expected to attend classes, review readings BEFORE class, bring the assigned readings to class, and actively participate in discussions.  <>The course will use a variety of readings and web resources.
 A book: K. Lee, Compass and Gyroscope, will provide a basic framework for our discussions.
A second basic reference is the Forest Service's 80 pg web document:
   Adaptive Management of Natural Resources:Theory, Concepts, and Management  Institutions  on line at: http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr654.pdf
2. Particualr emphasis will be placed on the clear/consistent use of key terms/concepts. At the end of each week  Terms will be posted on the website each week. Students will develop a glossary of posted course terms/concepts.
3. There will be two course research papers: the first on an AM related topic; the second an AM analysis of a mini "case study". Term Papers

Grading:     Class participation     10%
                         Glossary                    15
                         paper 1                      30
                         paper 2                      45     

"PRELIMINARY" Schedule (updated weekly on the web):

Readings; Assignments; Terms


M 27
Intros; ESF's History
W 29
Ancient Egypt
handout: Worster 19-21,
Egypt  group assignment
W 5
Bureacracy and Rationalism I
handout: McAllister Ch1, 9
M 10
Bureacracy and "Bounded" Rationalism
Simon; Jones
W 12
Public Works; Land Mangement
M 17
NEPA;  the "Env. Decade"- regulations
handouts: Felleman; Landy;
   Russell ; Moran (in Sarewicz)
W 19
Adaptive Management I- roots
handouts:Karplus, Holling
M 24/
W 26
Adaptive Management II-
Lee: Ch 1-6

 AM Challenges


M 1
 Uncertainty; Open Systems- multi scale 
handout: Gunderson
11 W 3  Indicators, Indices
handouts: Hodge; Simonson
Web    Terms/Concepts
12 M 8  Distribution of goods/bads, tradeoffs, equity
13 W 10  Governance-  balkanization/layers/law suits
14 M 15  Collaborations-  time scales; funding/elections
15 W 17  Case Study -Spotted Owl
M 22
 Case Study- CalFed Web
W 24
  Information Systems
M 29

Moon Reserve
19 W 31
Topic Papers Due- Discussion
20 Nov.
M 5
Guest Speakers

W 7

M 12

W 14

M 19

Student Case Studies

M 26

W 28

M 3

W 5
Case Study presentation

M 10
Case Study Reports Due

1. from Syllabus:
      progressive movement
      iron triangle
      environmental decade

3. Weber's basic elements of a modern bureacracy:
     Weber's basic critiques of Bureaucracy:

   Mc Allister
         Ch. 4  Steps in the "Planning Process":...
                   2 Phases of Decision Making (Fig. 1.1)
                   major issues in evaluation:...
          Ch. 5  "Conventions" :....

    Class: Comprehensive Rational Decision Making Diagram
               Traditional Bureacracy Diagram


4.  Simon- Satisficing
     Jones: bounded rationalism 4 principles:
                attention-driven choice

5. OMB-PART: role of OMB
                          purposes of program evaluation
                          government program types
   federal public works agencies:
                          dam building agencies
                              - benefit/cost analysis
                              - "iron triangles"
                          transportation- federalism (shared federal-state)
   federal land management agencies:
                         land agencies
                         organic acts- multiple, conflicting goals
                         official land management plans
                         construction, permits, disjointed incrementalism

6. NEPA: "procedural law", not a "substantive" law
                   response to agency  legislative/bureaucratic reductionism
                  action forcing (cite sections)-1. EIS report: alternatives, prediction of outcomes
                                                              2. all federal agencies with jurisdiction or expertise must collaborate
                   transparency- public comments, potential for procedual litigation
                   topical legislation assigned to an agency
                   agency promulgates regulations and permit system
                   challenges: often dubious scientific basis for specific standards
                                           permits based on model predicitions (see Karplus)
                                           reactionary- disjointed incrementalism, lack of systems understanding

     7. Karplus:
                   spectrum diagram of numerical modeling capabilites; basis for this continuum
                   appropriate management decion use of modeling along the spectrum

                   limitations of bureaucratic incrementalism trial and error approach to learning
                   types of decisions where adaptive management is needed
                   basic components of AM

8-9 Lee:
          compass- adaptive mangement- components
          gyroscope- bounded confllict- components
          social learning
          large ecosystems
          systems scale model- shared database
          time scale
          learning theories- Fig. 6.1; Table 6.1
                single loop; double loop
            "a.m." vs "A.M."
            case study diagrams:
                   multi-track time lines
                   rational decision making with explicit monitoring feedbacks       
10-11  Hodge: presures to construct numerical information
                                 selections of indicators
                                 measurement scales 
                                 "index problem"- misuse of arithmatic logic 
                Simonson: purpose of "Fish habitat rating system"
                                  selection of indicators
                                  computation of the 'index'
                NRC- Review of EPA's EMAP
                            EMAP "goals"
                            Critique of  program: sampling design; indicators; 'endpoints'; funding; multiple scales; conceptual model; bureaucratic structure
                Felleman- uncertainty bibliography: no standard defintion of uncertainty; Brown's Fig.1- how does this relate to AM?

15 Stankey
         incremental adaptive management
         passive adaptive management
          active adptive management
          particpation-limited adaptive mangement
          integrated adaptive management

   17 Felleman
          Dimensions of Open Modeling  (Fig. 3)
          Open Modeling Subsytems (Fig. 4)


Web Links-Moon reference 2007

Class 2
Moon reserve: Woster, D.(1992). Rivers of Empire. NY: Oxford U. Press.

Class 3
Max Weber is a central figure in the development of sociology. He was an astute analyst of relationships between a society's economy, its value systems, and its organizations. Building on studies of historical cultures, he was the first to focus on the emergence of modern bureacracies in the rapid coevolution of large industries and big government late 19th-early 20th century.
Note: The link below is not always "available:  so the readings are also available at: Weber

(Go to the "Dead Sociologist's Index:
    Click on Weber, read: Summary of Ideas- Bureaucracy; and  Orig. Work- Characteristics of a Bureacracy)

Class 4
Conceptually, bureacracies are a good fit with comprehensive rational decision making. Herb Simon was taught this in the thirties. Then he went into the real world to study how things actually were done. His dissertaion was published after WWII and is still in print as "Administrative Behavior". Read a bit about Herb.

One of Simon's main conclusions is that rationality is "bounded". This is a complicated but important topic. Read Jones (skipping over the infighting discussion that academic political scientists seem to enjoy).  Jones

Class 5
Government bureaucratic agencies administer "programs". Programs are established by congressional law (sometimes executive order) , subesequently detailed by agency rules and regulations. Programs are funded by congress on various budget cycles.

Go to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and look at the slide show:
what are gov programs???
how do we know if they work?
The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for many federal lands. Review the map of government land holdings and the agencies involved:  Gov%20Land%20Map.jpg.jpe

Note that BLM is also responsible for underwater- offshore lands- not shown on the map.

Read the origins of BLM's "organic act" (FLPMA 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq): http://www.blm.gov/flpma/organic.htm ,
    then go to the U. of New Mexico's summary of federal law site: http://ipl.unm.edu/cwl/fedbook/statute_frame.htm
    and read a summary of FLPMA.

Examine a land management plan for a national forest

Class 6
The Council on Environmental Quality’s "NEPA-net": A good basic site containing several links for downloading NEPA related regulations, procedural guidance, annual reports by the CEQ, topic-specific data links, and other documents and links.
Print out and carefully read the NEPA statute.

NEPA is a broad information-based "proceduarl policy" that encompases all federal environmental activities. Most of the latter are based on "substantive" policies.
For a quick overview of these policies, start with Cornell's WEX site: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Category:Property_%26_Natural_Resources

Class 7
On Moon reserve: Holling, C.S. ed. 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Mangement. NY: J. Wiley and Sons.

Class 9
Virtually every environmental field has wrestled with decision making under uncertainty. A bibliographic-based overview is on-line at: Information Quality and Environmental Decisions

Class 11
EPA was created as a human health pollution control regulatory agency in 1970. For decades it has been criticized for ignoring the ecological effects of pollution. Starting in the late 1980's it attempted to develop a comprehensive national approach to this issue: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program- EMAP. This program was quickly controversial, and although some remanants still exist under this name it would be difficult to look at this entriprise as a "success". The National Research Council reviewed EMAP three times. Read (quickly) the essence of the final review at: http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=4931

Class 14-15
Read the Forest Service's "take" on AM and the Pacific NW: http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr654.pdf

Class 16-17
Review S. Lurie's case study of "CALFED": 696%20AM%20CALFED.htm
Read about "Open Modeling"- note: many of the links are now obsolete: OpenMod/OM-Paper.html

Class 18
If "social learning" is essential to adaptiveenvironmental stewardship, then maybe in some situations, the evolution of new networks of actors and stakeholders is more important than the "science experiment". Many analysts have been using the phrase "adaptive governance". To learn more about this approach, and to see more case studies, check out on course reserve at Moon Library:

Brunner et al. 2005. Adaptive Governance; Integrating Science, Policy, and Decision Making. NY: Columbia U Press

Scholz, J. and B. Stiftel eds. 2005. Adaptive Governance and Water Conflict: New Institutions for Cllaborative Planning. Wash DC: Resources for the Future