A Review of the Use of Science
and Adaptive Management in

California’s Draft Bay Delta
Conservation Plan

Panel to Review California’s Draft Bay Delta Conservation Plan

Water Science and Technology Board

Ocean Studies Board

Division on Earth and Life Studies

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

                            OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
  A Review of the Use of Science and Adaptive Management in California’s Draft Bay Delta Conservation Plan Panel to Review California’s Draft Bay Delta Conservation Plan Water Science and Technology Board Ocean Studies Board Division on Earth and Life Studies THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Govern- ing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineer- ing, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the panel responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. Support for this study was provided by the Department of the Interior under contract no. 80221-A-G100. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations ex- pressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number 13: 978-0-309-21231-1 International Standard Book Number 10:0-309-21231-6 Photo on the cover is courtesy of David Policansky. Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 5th Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2011 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self- perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engi- neering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cice- rone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, un- der the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selec- tion of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the respon- sibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engi- neering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engi- neering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Acade- my of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal gov- ernment and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Acad- emy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and tech- nology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies deter- mined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engi- neering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
PANEL TO REVIEW CALIFORNIA’S  DRAFT BAY DELTA CONSERVATION PLAN   HENRY J. VAUX, JR., Chair, Professor Emeritus, University of California MICHAEL E. CAMPANA, Oregon State University, Corvallis JEROME B. GILBERT, Consultant, Orinda, California ALBERT E. GIORGI, BioAnalysts, Inc., Redmond, Washington ROBERT J. HUGGETT, Professor Emeritus, College of William and Mary, Seaford, Virginia CHRISTINE A. KLEIN, University of Florida College of Law, Gainesville, Florida SAMUEL N. LUOMA, U.S. Geological Survey, Emeritus, Menlo Park, California THOMAS MILLER, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Solomons STEPHEN G. MONISMITH, Stanford University, California JAYANTHA OBEYSEKERA, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach HANS W. PAERL, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill MAX J. PFEFFER, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York DESIREE D. TULLOS, Oregon State University, Corvallis NRC Staff LAURA J. HELSABECK, Staff Officer DAVID POLICANSKY, Scholar STEPHEN D. PARKER, Director, Water Science and Technology Board SUSAN ROBERTS, Director, Ocean Studies Board ELLEN DE GUZMAN, Research Associate SARAH BRENNAN, Senior Program Assistant  Biographical  information  for  panel  members  is  in  Appendix  H.    This  project  was  organized  and  overseen  by  the  NRC’s  Water  Science  and  Technology  Board  (lead)  and  Ocean  Studies  Board,  whose rosters are in Appendixes F and G, respectively.     v 

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Preface  This panel’s review of the draft Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) has occurred alongside myriad activities in the Delta to facilitate a secure water fu- ture for California, including an environmental future, and alongside related activities of the National Research Council (NRC). I particularly want to make clear the distinction between the Delta Plan and the BDCP, and between this panel’s report and two related NRC reports, one already published, one still in preparation. The Delta Plan (formally the Delta Stewardship Plan) is a comprehensive umbrella plan mandated by the California Delta Protection Act of 2009 to ad- vance the goals of improving the reliability of California’s water supply and restoring, protecting, and enhancing the Delta ecosystem. It is overseen by the state of California and a broadly represented council of stakeholders as autho- rized by statute. Although the Delta Plan was not part of this review and is men- tioned only incidentally in this report, it is related to the BDCP to some degree by intent and to some degree by statute (those relationships are briefly discussed in the body of this report). Readers should understand from the outset, however, that it is the BDCP, and only the BDCP that is reviewed in this report. The related NRC activities are being conducted by the Committee on Sus- tainable Water and Environmental Management in the California Bay-Delta. The NRC appointed that committee in response to a request from Congress and the Department of the Interior to provide advice on two topics: (1) the scientific basis of actions identified in two biological opinions by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect threatened and endangered species in the Delta, and (2) how to most effectively incorporate science and adaptive management into a holistic program for managing and res- toring the Delta. Advice on the first topic was provided in a report published in March 2010 titled A Scientific Assessment of Alternatives for Reducing Water Management Effects on Threatened and Endangered Fishes in California’s Bay- Delta. The committee expects to release its advice on the second topic late in 2011. While the committee was working on its second report, the U.S. Secretaries of Interior and Commerce asked the NRC to review the draft BDCP in terms of its use of science and adaptive management. In response, the NRC established a separate Panel to Review California’s Draft Bay Delta Conservation Plan, which is the author of this report. Although there is considerable overlap between the membership of the committee and this panel, the two groups were appointed separately, have separate statements of task, and have worked independently of each other. This report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their di- vii 

OCR for page R1
viii    Preface    verse perspectives and technical expertise in accordance with the procedures approved by the NRC’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this inde- pendent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the NRC in making its published report as sound as possible, and to ensure that the report meets NRC institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and respon- siveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following for their review of this report: Frank Davis, Univer- sity of California, Santa Barbara; Holly Doremus, University of California, Berkeley; Peter Gleick, Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environ- ment, and Security; George Hornberger, Vanderbilt University; Cynthia Jones, Old Dominion University; Jay Lund, University of California, Davis; Judy Mey- er, University of Georgia; and Lynn Scarlett, Resources for the Future. Although these reviewers provided constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the report’s conclusions and recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Michael Kavanaugh, Geosyntec Consultants, who was appointed by the NRC’s Report Review Committee and by Paul Risser, Univer- sity of Oklahoma, who was appointed by the NRC’s Division on Earth and Life Studies. They were responsible for ensuring that an independent examination of this report was conducted in accordance with NRC institutional procedures and that all review comments received full consideration. Responsibility for this report’s final contents rests entirely with the authoring committee and the NRC. Henry J. Vaux, Jr. Chair Panel to Review California’s Draft Bay Delta Conservation Plan

OCR for page R1
Contents  Summary .............................................................................................................. 1 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 9 2 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................... 11 3 CRITICAL GAPS IN THE SCOPE OF THE DRAFT BDCP................... 20 The Lack of an Effects Analysis ............................................................... 21 The Lack of Clarity as to the BDCP’s Purpose .......................................... 25 4 USE OF SCIENCE IN THE BDCP ............................................................ 29 Incorporating Risk Analysis ....................................................................... 30 Integration of Climate Change Analysis ..................................................... 31 A Framework for Linking Drivers and Effects ........................................... 34 Significant Environmental Factors Affecting Listed Species ..................... 35 Synthesis ..................................................................................................... 36 The Relationship of the BDCP to Other Scientific Efforts ......................... 36 5 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT IN THE BDCP ......................................... 38 6 MANAGEMENT FRAGMENTATION AND A LACK OF COHERENCE ............................................................. 45 7 IN CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 50 References .......................................................................................................... 52 Appendix A Statement of Task .................................................................. 63 Appendix B BDCP Steering Committee Members and Planning Agreement Signature Dates .................................... 64 Appendix C BDCP Proposed Covered Species and Associated Habitats .............................................................. 64 Appendix D Possible Causal Connections in Suppression of Populations of Endangered Suckers in Upper Klamath Lake ............................................................. 72 Appendix E BDCP Adaptive Management Process Framework............................................................................. 73 Appendix F Water Science and Technology Board .................................. 74   ix 

OCR for page R1
x    Contents    Appendix G Ocean Studies Board ............................................................. 75 Appendix H Panel Biographical Information............................................. 76