Search

We analyzed whether decision-making triggers increase accountability of adaptive-management plans. Triggers are prenegotiated commitments in an adaptive-management plan that specify what actions are to be taken and when on the basis of information obtained from monitoring. Triggers improve certainty that particular actions will be taken by agencies in the future. We conducted an in-depth, qualitative review of the political and legal contexts of adaptive management and its application by U.S. federal agencies. Agencies must satisfy the judiciary that adaptive-management plans meet substantive legal standards and comply with the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act. We examined 3 cases in which triggers were used in adaptive-management plans: salmon (Oncorhynchus spp. ) in the Columbia River, oil and gas development by the Bureau of Land Management, and a habitat conservation plan under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. In all the cases, key aspects of adaptive management, including controls and preidentified feedback loops, were not incorporated in the plans. Monitoring and triggered mitigation actions were limited in their enforceability, which was contingent on several factors, including which laws applied in each case and the degree of specificity in how triggers were written into plans. Other controversial aspects of these plans revolved around who designed, conducted, interpreted, and funded monitoring programs. Additional contentious issues were the level of precaution associated with trigger mechanisms and the definition of ecological baselines used as points of comparison. Despite these challenges, triggers can be used to increase accountability, by predefining points at which an adaptive management plan will be revisited and reevaluated, and thus improve the application of adaptive management in its complicated political and legal context. Detonadores de la Toma de Decisiones en el Manejo Adaptativo [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the processes for determining water quality standards in the U.S. and the scientific and ethical implications they have for the health and well-being of indigenous people in the Columbia River Basin as of November 2012. Topics include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) establishment of surface water quality standards, the Clean Water Act, and water toxicity levels. Additional information is presented on salmon fishing in Oregon, ambient water quality criteria, and social ethics prescribed by Catholicism.

In the State of Washington, water policy has been gridlocked between those who support additional permits for water withdrawals from the Columbia River and those who oppose such withdrawals because of their potential to harm imperiled salmon populations. Caught in the middle, the Washington Department of Ecology requested a study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), sometimes called ‘The Supreme Court of Science.’ NAS found that new water withdrawals from the Columbia would pose risks to salmon during the summer months, when flows in the River may be relatively low and water temperatures relatively high. The NAS Report then recommended a new approach to Columbia River water allocation and management, Including a regional,, intergovernmental forum to consider water allocation and management in the Columbia Basin; water markets and conservation (rather than new permits) as the first option to supply water for new uses; tougher requirements to obtain new permits; and greater flexibility in water allocation and management. These recommendations flow logically from the Report's key scientific finding, but they are contrary to the western states' traditional approach to new water rights. This Article reviews the NAS Columbia River study, examines its water policy imputations, and assesses its possible effect on water policy in the western states. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]