The Delta as Changing Landscapes

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | July 1st, 2016

What happens at one place in a landscape influences and is influenced by what happens in other places. Consequently, management and restoration that focus on individual p

What happens at one place in a landscape influences and is influenced by what happens in other places. Consequently, management and restoration that focus on individual places may fail to recognize and incorporate interactions across entire landscapes. The science of landscape ecology, which emphasizes the interplay of landscape structure, function, and change at multiple scales, offers a perspective that can integrate the spatial relationships of ecological processes and the functional interconnections of land and water in the Delta. Although the Delta is one of the most studied estuaries in the world, applications of landscape science have been limited. We describe why it is important to incorporate landscape science into management and restoration, emphasizing how Delta landscapes have changed over the past centuries. The land–water linkages of the past have been broken, waterways have been over-connected, and hard boundaries have replaced the gradual and dynamic transitions among landscape patches. The contemporary landscape also has new, novel assemblages of species and stressors that were not there in the past. This historical perspective indicates how knowledge of past landscape functions can contribute to the restoration and management of contemporary landscapes. We illustrate these points with case studies of inundation dynamics and riparian woodlands, and use a third example to describe a landscape approach to restoration. We propose that science that encompasses the multiple, interacting components of functional landscapes in the Delta will foster resilient and enduring restoration and management outcomes that benefit both people and wildlife. We suggest several ways of moving landscape science to the forefront of management and restoration in the Delta.

The Governance Gap: Climate Adaptation and Sea-Level Rise in the San Francisco Bay Area

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | June 27th, 2017

This report summarizes the results of an extensive study of governance for climate adaptation and sea-level rise in the San Francisco Bay Area (SF Bay Area), wh

This report summarizes the results of an extensive study of governance for climate adaptation and sea-level rise in the San Francisco Bay Area (SF Bay Area), where the concept of sea-level rise adaptation also includes coastal flooding from high tides and extreme storm events. We focus on the “governance gap” that exists between the problem of sea-level rise and the implementation of adaptation solutions that increase resilience. We take a broad view on governance as the set of institutional arrangements, governmental authorities, and public stakeholders who collectively plan and implement adaptation activities, including identifying funding strategies and the agreeing on the information basis for decision making. While most stakeholders recognize the risk of sea-level rise and other climate impacts, and have good ideas about potential on-the-ground solutions, realizing these solutions requires overcoming a series of governance challenges. All of these governance challenges are barriers to stakeholder cooperation at multiple geographic levels—local, regional, state, and federal. There are many different governmental and non-governmental actors facing the same sea-level rise problem (in “the same boat”), and coordination is required to have them “row in the same direction.” The imperative for multi-level cooperation becomes more poignant as the science on sea-level rise continues to advance, and considers the possibilities of higher average levels of sea-level rise and rapid and extreme sea-level rise due to accelerated melting of the Antarctic ice sheet. This report summarizes the major challenges, identifies the menu of possible solutions, and develops some specific recommendations on the next steps needed to remedy the governance gap and enhance the adaptive capacity of the SF Bay Area. The governance analysis is a component of the larger UC Davis/Berkeley research project called Resilience of Infrastructure as Seas Rise (RISeR), See Figure 1, which is funded by National Science Foundation to analyze the interactions between sea-level rise adaptation, transportation infrastructure, and governance in the SF Bay Area. The governance analysis was conducted in Fall 2016-Winter 2017, and is based on a qualitative case study that combines in-person interviews, focus groups, document analysis, and content analysis of interview responses. The draft report was made available to study participants in Spring 2017, along with two webinars for receiving feedback. Participants included leaders of governmental and non-governmental organizations across the SF Bay Area region. The research focused mainly on sea-level rise and coastal flooding, but also linked to broader issues of climate adaptation when appropriate. Focus groups deliberated on the best possible solutions to solving the identified governance challenges. Respondents identified the overarching governance challenge as the imperative for multi-level cooperation among all sea-level rise adaptation stakeholders. Sea-level rise adaptation entails interdependencies, where the vulnerabilities and adaptation decisions of local actors impose regional costs and benefits. While regional cooperation is beginning to emerge, most stakeholders see a critical need for shared learning, coordination and planning. The recommendations provided in this report are intended to accelerate the processes of learning and cooperation needed to address the increasingly urgent problem of sea-level rise and coastal flooding.

The potential of collaborative solutions to improve management of California (United States) wildlands

Restoration Ecology, Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) | November 13th, 2024

The Pulse of the Bay 2022: 50 Years after the Clean Water Act

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | October 13th, 2022

This August an algal bloom of historic proportions blanketed San Francisco Bay. The most concerning aspect of the bloom was the death of thousands of fish across wide are

This August an algal bloom of historic proportions blanketed San Francisco Bay. The most concerning aspect of the bloom was the death of thousands of fish across wide areas of the Bay, including 10,000 yellowfin goby, hundreds of striped bass and white sturgeon, and other species like green sturgeon, bat rays, and sharks. This is the most widespread and deadliest fish kill in the Bay in recent memory.

The Pulse of the Bay: The 25th Anniversary of the RMP

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | July 1st, 2017

San Francisco Bay is the defining feature of our region and a world-class ecosystem. The Bay Area is also known world-wide as a cradle of innovation, excellence, and succ

San Francisco Bay is the defining feature of our region and a world-class ecosystem. The Bay Area is also known world-wide as a cradle of innovation, excellence, and success, especially in the technology sector. Less well known is the fact that over the past 25 years the Bay Area has been a world leader in water quality monitoring, supporting a pioneering program for the Bay that demonstrates how regional collaboration can provide the science needed to protect and improve water quality in a treasured ecosystem. The Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality in San Francisco Bay (RMP) was established in 1993 and, with sustained local funding and continuous improvement, is going stronger than ever a quarter century later.

The Science Charade in Species Conservation

Supreme Court Economic Review | September 2nd, 2017

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is among the nation’s most important and powerful environmental laws. It is also a source of great conflict and controversy.  The list

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is among the nation’s most important and powerful environmental laws. It is also a source of great conflict and controversy.  The listing of individual species, the designation of critical habitat and the implementation of conservation measures often prompt fierce legal and political battles. In these conflicts, activists on all sides claim that “sound science” supports their respective positions, and scoff at the “junk science” relied upon by the other side. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service fails to rely upon the best science, critics claim.  If it did, they charge, it would adopt policies more to their liking.  The debate over the use of science under the ESA is part of the “science charade” that clouds substantive policy debate about species conservation.3 What typically divides competing interest groups is not a devotion to science, but sharply divergent policy preferences dressed up in scientific garb. The political debate over the use of science under the ESA tends to obscure the dividing line between science and policy and undermines the development of more effective and equitable conservation strategies. Further, efforts to reform the ESA by mandating additional scientific procedures or increasing judicial scrutiny of the use of science by federal agencies will do little to address the ESA’s underlying problems or make species conservation efforts more effective.  Scientific research is necessary to inform species conservation decisions. But species conservation is not – and cannot be – a wholly scientific exercise. Judgments about what constitutes a distinct species or how to evaluate incomplete scientific data necessarily draw upon normative premises. More significantly, policy decisions about what sorts of conservation measures should be adopted are not scientific at all. Whether habitat loss will reduce the likelihood that a given species or population will survive in the wild may be a scientific question, but what measures should be adopted to conserve such habitat, and at what cost, is a normative policy judgment. Science can – indeed, must – inform such inquiries, but science cannot tell us what to do. Engaging in the “science charade,” either by pretending that ESA implementation may be guided by scientific judgment alone or by claiming that reforms of how science is used is unlikely to improve species conservation. To the contrary, efforts to constrain or control the use of science in ESA listing decisions or enhance judicial review of agency scientific determinations will undermine the quality and reliability of ESA science and lead to less effective conservation policy.  Whatever ails the ESA, a failure to incorporate adequate science is not the cause of the disease. As this Article explains, efforts to augment the amount or type of science used in ESA decision-making, whether through additional procedural mandates or altered standards of judicial review, will not address the conflicts that afflict species conservation policy. In some cases, such measures could further undermine the ESA’s ability to conserve species.  Part I of the Article gives a brief overview of the ESA, its operation, and the scientific requirements written into the Act. Part II describes the “science charade,” through which policymakers and others pretend that policy judgments are purely scientific questions, and the legal and political incentives that ensure this artifice persists. Part III details how the ESA’s structure generates political pressure on the use of science and encourages the science charade in species conservation. Part IV explains why various “sound science” reforms will not address these problems, and Part V outlines alternative policy reforms. 

Toward a Preemptive Ecology for Rapid, Global, and Increasingly Irreversible Environmental Change: A Discussion Paper with Implications for Research and Management in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | November 15th, 2019

People have extensively modified the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta since the 1850s. Rapid change is not new, but the nature of rapid change that is beginning to be experie

People have extensively modified the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta since the 1850s. Rapid change is not new, but the nature of rapid change that is beginning to be experienced has new qualities. The Delta Independent Science Board, working in conjunction with the Delta Science Program and the Delta Plan Interagency Implementation Committee, is assessing the adequacy of environmental and ecological research in the Delta, how well that research is addressing emerging challenges, and how it might be improved. This paper is a part of that process. Each member of the Delta Independent Science Board has contributed to this document, but there is not a consensus among the members around the full content of this paper. This paper is written to inform and stimulate discussion around controversial yet important issues. 

Towards the Protection, Restoration, and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem: A Synthesis

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | March 15th, 2018

Towards the Protection, Restoration, and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem: A Synthesis. Appendix A: Summary of Existing Habitat and Species-Specific Plans, Strategies, and Management Approaches

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | March 15th, 2018

U.S. Geological Survey Climate Science Plan — Future Research Directions

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | September 6th, 2024

Climate is the primary driver of environmental change and is a key consideration in defining science priorities conducted across all mission areas in the U.S. Geological

Climate is the primary driver of environmental change and is a key consideration in defining science priorities conducted across all mission areas in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Recognizing the importance of climate change to its future research agenda, the USGS’s Climate Science Steering Committee requested the development of a Climate Science Plan to identify future research directions. Subject matter experts from across the Bureau formed the USGS Climate Science Plan Writing Team, which convened in September 2022 to identify and outline the major climate science topics of future concern and develop an integrated approach to conducting climate science in support of the USGS and U.S. Department of the Interior missions.