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

Abstract

ABSTRACT. 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.

Facilitating Adaptive Management in California’s Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

“…The overall results ( Table 1) clearly indicate that implementing comprehensive adaptive management in the Delta is far from routine. A concurrent study reached similar conclusions after analyzing planning documents for eight tidal-marsh restoration projects in the Delta and San Francisco Bay and interviewing associated practitioners (Nagarkar and Raulund-Rasmussen 2016). Participants in both studies acknowledged the importance of adaptive management, and most referenced it in their project plans (Table 1).…”

“…Still, participants in the Delta ISB (2016) review did not consider complexity to be the greatest single impediment to undertaking adaptive management in the Delta; rather, they attributed difficulties to the lack of reliable, long-term funding. Similarly, costs and delays resulting from environmental reviews, permitting, and re-permitting if changes were needed once permitted actions were underway were most often mentioned as difficulties by the restoration practitioners surveyed by Nagarkar and Raulund-Rasmussen (2016). While funds might be available for planning, monitoring, analyses, and even experiments, it becomes increasingly difficult to obtain support for changes and follow-up or longterm monitoring as a project nears completion.…”

“…However, few projects included alternative actions (i.e., a "Plan B" if expectations were not being met) or trigger points that might prompt reconsideration of current actions. Effects of future changes in the ecosystem (such as climate change, sea level rise, or shifting societal, political, or economic priorities) or surprises (e.g., new invasive species, drought, floods), were rarely mentioned by participants in the Delta ISB survey and were not addressed by Nagarkar and Raulund-Rasmussen (2016).…”

“…All eight marsh-restoration cases reviewed by Nagarkar and Raulund-Rasmussen (2016) incorporated quantitative models, although fewer explicitly included conceptual models (even though conceptual models are often the foundation for quantitative models). In contrast, many managers and practitioners surveyed by the Delta ISB considered quantitative models too demanding and expensive for many projects, although conceptual models were common.…”

Inhabiting the Delta: A Landscape Approach to Transformative Socio-Ecological Restoratio

“…This covers the intended adoption of integrative adaptive management in the Delta (DISB 2016;Nagarkar and Raulund-Rasmussen 2016), which is critical to how courses of action are refined and improved within a context of environmental uncertainty. There are uncertainties in how adaptive management theory will be practiced in the Delta, particularly in terms of what phenomena are with upholding laws that serve to protect, conserve, and manage unique and limited natural resources held in public trust.…”