Adaptive Management and Science for the Delta Ecosystem

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | October 1st, 2013

Using science to adaptively guide management for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is widely talked about as good public policy.  Almost every agency, stakeholder, and pl

Using science to adaptively guide management for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is widely talked about as good public policy.  Almost every agency, stakeholder, and planning process professes support and has its own adaptive management and science efforts.  But highly fragmented adaptive management and science cannot solve such urgent complex problems. California’s 2009 Delta Reform Act recognized that meeting the co-equal goals of a sustainable ecosystem and water supply reliability in the Delta required major changes in governance, planning, and management. Such changes also require major changes in how science is organized and employed in management. Here is a straw proposal for integrating the many parochial science and adaptive management programs for the Delta.

Adaptive Management for Ecosystem Restoration: Analysis and Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | March 4th, 2011

Adaptive management is the process of incorporating new scientific and programmatic information into the implementation of a project or plan to ensure that the goals of t

Adaptive management is the process of incorporating new scientific and programmatic information into the implementation of a project or plan to ensure that the goals of the activity are being reached efficiently. It promotes flexible decision-making to modify existing activities or create new activities if new circumstances arise (e.g., new scientific information) or if projects are not meeting their goals. The complex and dynamic nature of ecosystems make their restoration and management amenable to an adaptive management approach, and the concept is being implemented at scales that include entire regions or river basins. Adaptive management has been used to guide several major ecosystem restoration efforts with involvement by the federal  government, including those on the Colorado and Platte rivers. Some of these adaptive management efforts have been specifically authorized by Congress, whereas other efforts have been formulated by agencies. Adaptive management has also been proposed as a guiding principle for several new and ongoing major restoration efforts, including those in the Chesapeake Bay and Lake Tahoe. The concept of adaptive management is straightforward, but its implementation can be difficult. A preliminary review of federal adaptive management efforts related to ecosystem restoration projects suggests that governance structures, management protocol and other factors vary widely.  Additionally, the scope and timing of efforts employing the term “adaptive management” seems  to vary among these projects. Where adaptive management has been implemented, it has encountered challenges. While adaptive management theoretically uses the best available science and monitoring to guide a project or program towards its stated goals, in practice the process can be affected by a number of outside factors. As the number of federal adaptive management efforts grows, Congress may revisit its role in shaping adaptive management programs in legislation. Some argue that Congress should do more to provide specific direction for major adaptive management initiatives in order to make adaptive management more consistent among these efforts. Others contend that Congress should allow federal agencies or restoration governing bodies to shape their own adaptive management programs, thus providing them with flexibility to match their program to their restoration needs. In addressing adaptive management, Congress may face decisions regarding the implementation guidelines and authorizations it provides these efforts, funds to establish and carry out these programs, and oversight issues. This report provides an introduction to the concept of adaptive management. It focuses on the application of this concept to large, freshwater aquatic ecosystem restoration projects with multiple stakeholders. A summary of the benefits and drawbacks of adaptive management for these projects is provided, along with analysis of potential issues associated with various governance models for these efforts. The potential role for Congress in addressing adaptive management is also discussed. As an appendix, the report summarizes the structure and implementation of federal adaptive management efforts to date five ecosystems: Glen Canyon/Colorado River, Platte River, Lower Colorado River, Missouri River, and Florida Everglades.

Adaptive Management of Natural Resources: Theory, Concepts, and Management Institutions

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) | July 19th, 2005

This report reviews the extensive and growing literature on the concept and application of adaptive management. Adaptive management is a central element of the Northwest

This report reviews the extensive and growing literature on the concept and application of adaptive management. Adaptive management is a central element of the Northwest Forest Plan and there is a need for an informed understanding of the key theories, concepts, and frameworks upon which it is founded. Literature from a diverse range of fields including social learning, risk and uncertainty, and institutional analysis was reviewed, particularly as it related to application in an adaptive management context. The review identifies opportunities as well as barriers that adaptive management faces. It concludes by describing steps that must be taken to implement adaptive management.

Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources

Macmillan Publishing Company | July 1st, 1986

In Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources, noted theoretician Carl Walters challenges the traditional approach to dealing with uncertainty in the management of su

In Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources, noted theoretician Carl Walters challenges the traditional approach to dealing with uncertainty in the management of such renewable resources as fish and wildlife. He argues that scientific understanding will come from the experience of management as an ongoing, adaptive, and experimental process, rather than through basic research or the development of ecological theory. In the opening chapters, Walters reviews approaches to formulating management objectives as well as models for understanding how policy choices affect the attainment of these objectives. In subsequent chapters he presents various statistical methods for understanding the dynamics of uncertainty in managed fish and wildlife populations and for seeking optimum harvest policies in the face of uncertainty. Walters concludes with a look at prospects for adaptive management of complex systems, emphasizing such human factors involved in decision making as risk aversion and conflicting objectives as well as biophysical factors. Throughout the text he uses dynamic models and Bayesian statistical theory as tools for understanding the behavior of managed systems, and he illustrates these tools with simple graphs and plots of data from representative cases. This text/reference will serve researchers, graduate students, and resource managers who formulate harvest policies and study the dynamics of harvest populations, as well as analysts (modelers, statisticians, and stock assessment experts) who are concerned with the practice of policy design.

An appraisal of adaptive management planning and implementation in ecological restoration: Case studies from the San Francisco Bay Delta, USA

Ecology and Society (E&S) | July 1st, 2016

Adaptive management has been defined and redefined in the context of natural resource management, yet there are few examples of its successful application in ecological

Adaptive management has been defined and redefined in the context of natural resource management, yet there are few examples of its successful application in ecological restoration. Although the 2009 Delta Reform Act now legally requires adaptive management for all restoration efforts in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, in California, USA, projects in this region still encounter problems with implementation. We used a comparative case study analysis to examine adaptive management planning and implementation both in and around the Delta, assessing not only why adaptive management is not yet well-implemented, but also what changes can be made to facilitate the adaptive management approach without sacrificing scientific rigor. Adaptive management seems to be directly and indirectly affected by a variety of challenges and convoluted by ambiguity in both planning documents and practitioner’s interpretations of the concept. Addressing these challenges and ambiguities at the project level may facilitate the adaptive management process and help make it more accessible to practitioners.

Analog Model Study of the Ground-Water Basin of the Upper Coachella Valley, California

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | July 18th, 1974

An analog model of the ground-water basin of the upper Coachella Valley was constructed to determine the effects of imported water on ground-water levels. The mod

An analog model of the ground-water basin of the upper Coachella Valley was constructed to determine the effects of imported water on ground-water levels. The model was considered verified when the ground-water levels generated by the model approximated the historical change in water levels of the ground-water basin caused by man's activities for the period 1936-67. The ground-water basin was almost unaffected by man's activities until about 1945 when ground-water development caused the water levels to begin to decline. The Palm Springs area has had the largest water-level decline, 75 feet since 1936, because of large pumpage, reduced natural inflow from the San Gorgonio Pass area, and diversions of natural inflows at Snow and Falls Creeks and Chino Canyon starting in 1945. The San Gorgonio Pass inflow had been reduced from about 13,000 acre-feet in 1936 to about 9,000 acre-feet by 1967 because of increased ground-water pumpage in the San Gorgonio Pass area, dewatering of the San Gorgonio Pass area that took place when the tunnel for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California was drilled, and diversions ofsurface inflow at Snow and Falls Creeks. In addition, 1944-64 was a period of below-normal precipitation which, in part, contributed to the declines in water levels in the Coachella Valley. The Desert Hot Springs, Garnet Hill, and Mission Creek subbasins have had relatively little development; consequently, the water-level declines have been small, ranging from 5 to 15 feet since 1936. In the Point Happy area a decline of about 2 feet per year continued until 1949 when delivery of Colorado River water to the lower valley through the Coachella Canal was initiated. Since 1949 the water levels in the Point Happy area have been rising and by 1967 were above their 1936 levels. The Whitewater River subbasin includes the largest aquifer in the basin, having sustained ground-water pumpage of about 740,000 acre-feet from 1936 to 1967, and will probably continue to provide the most significant supply of ground water for the upper valley. The total ground-water storage depletion for the entire upper valley for 1936-67 was about 600,000 acre-feet, an average stor age decrease of about 25,000 acre-feet per year since 1945. Transmissivity for the Whitewater River subbasin ranges from 360,000 gal- lons per day per foot (near Point Happy) to 50,000 gallons per day per foot, with most of the subbasin about 300,000 gallons per day per foot. In contrast, the transmissivities of the Desert Hot Springs, Mission Creek, and Garnet Hill sub-basins generally range from 2,000 to 100,000, but the highest value, beneath the Mission Creek streambed deposits, is 200,000 gallons per day per foot; the transmissivity for most of the area of the three subbasins is 30,000 gallons per day per foot. The storage coefficients are representative of water-table conditions, ranging from 0.18 beneath the Mission Creek stream deposits to 0.06 in the Palm Springs area. The model indicated that the outflow at Point Happy decreased from 50,000 acre-feet in 1936 to 30,000 acre-feet by 1967 as a result of the rising water levels in the lower valley. The most logical area to recharge the Colorado River water is the Windy Point-Whitewater area, where adequate percolation rates of 2 4 acre-feet per acre per day are probable. The Whitewater River bed may be the best location to spread the water if the largest part of the imported water can be recharged during low-flow periods. The area in sec. 21, T. 2 S., R. 4 E., would be adequate for the smaller quantities of recharge proposed for the Mission Creek area. Projected pumpage for the period 1968-2000 was programed on the model with the proposed recharge of Colorado River water for the same period. The model indicated a maximum water-level increase of 200 feet above the 1967 water level at Windy Point, the proposed recharge site, by the year 2000, a 130-foot increase by 1990, and a 20-foot increase by 1980. The model indicated that the proposed quantities of recharge will beneficially affect the ground-water system to Palm Desert by 1980, to Point Happy by 1990, and possibly to the Coachella Canal by 2000. The model indicated that the upper and lower valleys are within the same hydrologic system, and it has been proposed that the model be extended to the Salton Sea. On the basis of the available analyses, changes in the quality of ground water in the Whitewater River subbasin after recharge apparently will be, as a first approximation, proportional to the ratio in which the quantity of recharge and the quantity of ground water are mixed. Where mixing does not occur, the quality of the recharge water will probably not be greatly changed by ion-exchange phenomenon.

Analyses of Rotary Screw Trap Sampling of Migrating Juvenile Chinook Salmon in the Stanislaus River, 1996-2005

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | August 1st, 2006

Annual Report of Activities October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2014, American River Group (ARG)

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | September 30th, 2014

Annual Report of Activities October 1, 2013, to September 30, 2014, Delta Operations for Salmonids and Sturgeon (DOSS) Technical Working Group

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | October 31st, 2014

Annual Report of Activities, October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2014, Stanislaus Operations Group (SOG)

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | September 30th, 2014