Strategic Plan for the
Ecosystem Restoration Program

The purpose of the Strategic Plan for the Ecosystem Restoration Program (strategic plan) is to guide the implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program Ecosystem Restoration Program (ERP) for the Bay-Delta system, one of the largest ecosystem restorations ever attempted. The strategic plan does this by providing operational definitions of the two philosophies underpinning the ERP, ecosystem-based management and adaptive management, defining a strategy for regulatory compliance and describing elements of institutional design for adaptive learning. It addresses in detail the scientific and regulatory aspects of ecosystem restoration; it does not address societal or economic aspects, nor does it deal with conflicts between ecosystem restoration and other human values. Furthermore, it stops short of recommending particular projects, presenting instead a rational way of selecting projects.

The CALFED Bay-Delta Program (CALFED) problem area is narrowly defined to include only Suisun Bay, Suisun Marsh, and the legal Delta and the species dependent on these areas; however, the solution area is much broader and includes the watersheds upstream of the Delta and, potentially, all of San Francisco Bay and the nearby nearshore ocean. Connections to the Delta are interpreted broadly because many important species spend only part of their lives in the Delta and may migrate widely between the ocean, the estuary, and freshwater habitats.

The listing under state and federal endangered species legislation of fish and other species dependent on the aquatic ecosystem has resulted in intense conflicts, particularly over competing uses of fresh water. The declines in species are symptomatic of more fundamental problems of habitat loss and degradation that cannot be solved through piecemeal approaches.

These ecosystem-level problems and the attendant reductions in abundance of species have resisted solution for several reasons. The problems are extraordinarily complex and there is lack of scientific consensus about what actions will restore the system. Furthermore, the range of potential solutions is constrained by the fact that some changes to the ecological system are irreversible (e.g., changes caused by the many large dams on the rivers) and institutional arrangements that are highly resistant to change (e.g., the water rights system). A comprehensive and adaptable approach is needed to address the problem of ecological decline within the constraints and context of domestic and industrial uses of water in central California. The approach adopted by CALFED for the ERP is adaptive management. Using an adaptive-management approach, uncertainty is tackled head on by learning from the ecosystem as actions are taken to manipulate it. The power of the scientific method is used in designing restoration actions as experiments to determine the effectiveness of new forms of management, just as, in medicine, new therapies are tested in scientifically based clinical trials. Adaptive management does not mean that real restoration actions are postponed until more is known. On the contrary, it means that restoration is initiated as soon as possible, based on the best available knowledge. Additionally, restoration actions are organized and implemented in ways that maximize the opportunity to learn more about the ecological system and improve future management. The Vernalis Adaptive Management Project is an example of this kind of approach in which large-scale experimentation is used to learn about the behavior of the ecological system.

Adaptive management begins with a careful definition of the problem to be addressed and clear, measurable goals and objectives. Six goals were identified for ecosystem restoration that address the entire spectrum of problems:

1. Achieve recovery of at-risk native species dependent on the Delta and Suisun Bay as the first step toward establishing large, self-sustaining populations of these species; support similar recover of at-risk native species in San Francisco Bay and the watershed above the estuary; and minimize the need for future endangered species listings by reversing downward population trends of native species that are not listed.
   The strategic plan emphasizes native species in preference to non-native or introduced species and places greatest emphasis on species most heavily dependent on the Bay-Delta system.

2. Rehabilitate the capacity of the Bay-Delta system to support, with minimal ongoing human intervention, natural aquatic and associated terrestrial biotic communities, in ways that favor native members of those communities.
   The strategic plan favors the use of natural processes over continuing intervention to maintain ecological processes and species.

3. Maintain and enhance populations of selected species for sustainable commercial and recreational harvest, consistent with goals 1 and 2.
   The strategic plan recognizes that harvest is a desirable ecosystem service that should be supported provided it does not result in elevated risk of extinction of native species.

4. Protect or restore functional habitat types throughout the watershed for public values, such as recreation, scientific research, and aesthetics.
   The strategic plan recognizes that habitat restoration serves many functions in addition to species recovery.

5. Prevent establishment of additional non-native species and reduce the negative biological and economic impacts of established non-native species.
   The strategic plan identifies non-native species introductions as one of the greatest impediments to ecological restoration and one of the greatest threats to the success of the ERP; further introductions must be stopped.

6. Improve and maintain water and sediment quality to eliminate, to the extent possible, toxic impacts on organisms in the system, including humans.L>
   The strategic plan highlights the poorly understood effects of toxic contaminants introduced from both point and non-point sources throughout the Bay-Delta system, and their potential to jeopardize ecological recovery.

   Conceptual models provide the explicit link between goals and objectives and restoration actions. Conceptual models are simple depictions of how different parts of the ecosystem are believed to work and how they might respond to restoration actions. These models are explicit representations of scientists' or resource managers' tacit understandings and beliefs. Conceptual models are then used to develop restoration actions that have a high likelihood of achieving an objective while providing information to increase understanding of ecosystem function and, in some instances, to resolve conflicts among alternative hypotheses about the ecosystem. The process of adaptive management can be enhanced when conceptual models are developed into simple computer simulations that can be used to explore the consequences of alternative options for restoration.

   Adaptive management is an action-oriented approach to resource management. Various types or combinations of action are possible depending on the particular circumstances. For example, adaptive management may lead to full-scale restoration of a particular ecosystem, pilot projects to test different approaches, targeted research to explore uncertainties, or any combination of these activities. Whatever the action taken, it should be designed to maximize the opportunity for learning and to carry forward the objective of ecosystem or species restoration.

   Thorough monitoring and evaluation of adaptive management actions is critical to successful learning. The Comprehensive Monitoring and Research Program (CMARP) currently being designed will provide for the necessary monitoring and evaluation of ERP projects. Results of monitoring and evaluation will be used to redefine the problem, reexamine goals and objectives, or refine conceptual models to ensure efficient learning and adaptation of management techniques and understanding. Using this process, management evolves in response to increased knowledge and understanding in an active rather than a passive way.

   Adaptive management differs from more traditional approaches to resource management in the degree to which it acknowledges uncertainty in the outcome of any management intervention. A useful analogy is that adaptive management is more like medical science and traditional management is more like engineering in their approach to uncertainty. Because adaptive management requires flexibility and openness, it can create conflicts with regulatory legislation, particularly endangered species legislation, which requires certainty and assurances. The strategic plan addresses this potential stumbling block by laying out a comprehensive strategy for compliance and assurances within the adaptive management framework. The strategy is based on early communication with regulatory agencies, a nested and hierarchical approach to satisfying compliance and assurance requirements, and building trust through collaboration with regulatory agencies.

   For a variety of reasons, including fiscal limitations, regulatory and institutional constraints, uncertainty about outcomes, and the need to coordinate with the water quality, water supply, and levee integrity components of CALFED, not all restoration actions can be implemented at the same time. Restoration will be staged over the 25-30 years of CALFED, giving ample time for evaluation and adaptation of restoration activities. Staging and the long timeframe for the ERP will help ensure that regulatory and compliance needs can be met and restoration will not be held up because of the need to satisfy regulatory requirements. The ERP is divided into two stages, with important decisions about water quality and water conveyance to be made after 7-10 years, at the end of Stage 1. As a consequence, the management actions taken during Stage 1 must be designed, in part, to prepare for decisions to be taken at the end of Stage 1.

   The two-stage nature of the ERP places considerable emphasis on successful implementation of Stage 1 actions. The strategic plan provides guidelines for the design and implementation of Stage 1 actions to facilitate this process. It also offers a preliminary list of restoration actions that could form part of the Stage 1 action plan. The list is not identical to the list in the most recent version of CALFED's "preferred alternative" document but is quite consistent with the theme and intent of that list. Neither the strategic plan list nor that in the preferred alternative document has been subject to the process of screening and prioritization that have been laid out in this document for adaptive management. It is extremely important that this process be applied before any substantive actions are implemented.

   Stage 1 marks the beginning of a decision process in which initial actions are taken and the stage is set for future decisions. These decisions will involve the construction of facilities for storage and conveyance of water, which will ultimately be irreversible; therefore, the selection process for Stage 1 must emphasize, not only projects that are likely to provide significant ecosystem benefits relative to their cost, but also projects that provide the greatest opportunity to learn and to distinguish among likely outcomes of alternative actions. Additionally, project selection should emphasize self-sustainability, complementarity, and public support and visibility.

   Adaptive management does not mesh easily into the structure and culture of most regulatory agencies. For ecosystem restoration to proceed on a framework of adaptive management, a new kind of institution may be needed. This institution must be sufficiently independent to maintain scientific credibility, while remaining engaged in the policy and political discussions about the restoration program. It must also embody the flexibility needed for the adaptive management process while providing assurances as to its overall direction and needs. A number of characteristics that this new institution should have are defined below:

   • Considerable fiscal and administrative independence. The institution should have authority over staffing and be able to enter into contracts; obtain and hold permits; purchase and sell property, water rights, and other capital acquisitions; administer restoration projects; and have its own data management and communications capability. It should not have any regulatory power or responsibilities.

   • Scientific and public involvement. Involvement by scientists from a variety of backgrounds and affiliations is essential to provide broad perspectives on restoration and to ensure against a narrowing of scope. This involvement can also help to assure stakeholders of the continuing scientific integrity of the program. Equally important is a program of public involvement that can inform the public while fostering continuing public support.

   • Dispute resolution. Disagreements on purely scientific issues can be addressed straightforwardly under the adaptive management framework through peer review, expert analysis of critical issues, and design of interventions to resolve differences. Additionally, many of the potential conflicts in a restoration program, such as those between species or between habitats, are resolved through the priorities set in the objectives. More difficult disputes are likely to arise between conflicting societal goals, such as between urban growth and ecosystem restoration. These must be resolved through a formal process of dispute resolution in which the scientific and technical issues are clearly separated from the societal issues.

   This strategic plan, if followed, should lead to an orderly and successful program of adaptive ecosystem restoration. Expectations about the future state of the ecosystem should be tempered by the degree to which these recommendations are incorporated into the culture of the ERP; however, the Strategic Plan Core Team has high expectations for the ERP. There is no turning back and the team anticipates that, in 20-30 years, many habitats will be restored, endangered species will become abundant enough to be delisted, and conflicts will be lessened, even in face of population growth and increasing demands on resources.