---

Chapter 3: The Process For Establishing Goals

---

Contents

Selecting Key Species and Habitats

Assembling and Evaluating Information

Preliminary Recommendations

Integration

---

Early in the Project, the RMG adopted a general approach for establishing habitat goals. The approach, initially proposed by SFEI, included several discrete steps, including selecting key species and habitats, assembling and evaluating information, preparing recommendations, and integrating recommendations into goals. As the Project moved forward, participants generally followed this approach; however, there was substantial iteration between the steps, and some steps were modified or deferred. The approach is summarized below and is illustrated in Figure 3.1.

An important precept of the Project is that the goals should be based on the best available science the intent being to make the goals both useful and scientifically credible. As one way to ensure this, the RMG has encouraged a free flow of ideas and opinions among the Project participants at every opportunity. The participants tended generally to be conservative in their recommendations, that is, to make recommendations for change only when they could readily be supported by the available data and reasonable inference. Areas of uncertainty and needed research were identified and are described in Chapter 9.

The Bay Area EcoAtlas was used throughout the Project to provide detailed information on both historical and modern conditions within the baylands. The picture of past conditions near the time of European contact shows the natural arrangement of habitats, given the existing climate and topography. The picture of present conditions shows the existing resource base and was used to help visualize how the ecosystem has changed since historical times. These views helped the Project participants to visualize habitat distribution and use through time.

Selecting Key Species And Habitats

The first two steps in developing goals were selecting key species of baylands animals and identifying the habitats that support them, the key habitats. The RMG agreed on this approach because there was relatively abundant information available on baylands species and habitats. Also, the RMG believed that goals developed to protect many kinds of plants and animals would concurrently assure other important wetlands services such as nutrient cycling, flood control, and water quality improvement. The approach was modified for the Plants Focus Team, which chose to identify important plant communities rather than individual species. The work of the Plant Team was then used to help define the key habitats identified by the other teams.

Figure 3.1 Process for Establishing Goals

After preliminary lists of key species, communities, and habitats were prepared, the RMG asked the focus teams to undertake several exercises, first to ensure that the lists were appropriate and adequate, and second to help initiate the transfer of relevant information between focus teams. To the extent practicable, the focus teams were asked to document complex biological relationships such as trophic structure, species interrelationships, and overall representation of community complexity along gradients of tidal elevation and degree of tidal influence and salinity. As a part of this work, each team developed a functional matrix to show which habitats support which species, in terms of breeding, foraging, and resting. The RMG considered the results of the various exercises and concluded that the focus teams had selected an adequate suite of key species and habitats.

The process used to select key species and a list of the species selected are presented in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 describes the key habitats and the process by which they were selected.

Assembling and Evaluating Information

Once the RMG and the focus teams were comfortable with their selected species, communities, and habitats, they began to assemble qualitative and quantitative data about them. The data are in three primary forms: species narratives, wildlife population censuses, and maps.

For most of the key species and plant communities, focus team members compiled pertinent data on life history, use of habitats, and historical and current distribution. These data, summarized in brief papers referred to as "species accounts," formed the basis for the focus team recommendations and these draft goals. Because of time, funding, and other constraints, written accounts were not prepared for all of the key species. However, the needs of all of the key species were still considered. The list of key species and plant communities provided in Chapter 4 indicates those for which accounts were prepared.

While the initial purpose of the species narratives was to provide Project participants with needed information to develop goals, it soon became apparent that they would be useful for other scientists, planners, and the interested public. Accordingly, the RMG decided to publish all of the species narratives together as a separate document which will be available in the Fall of 1998.

Each of the focus teams discussed the need to obtain and display numerical census data regarding current species distribution and abundance. The MARI, Other Birds, and Shorebirds and Waterfowl focus teams assembled data on species abundance and distribution from a number of sources and displayed them on various types of maps. These three focus teams used their maps of species distribution to assist them in developing draft goals. The Plants and Fish focus teams chose not to prepare current species distribution maps, but the Plant Focus Team identified representative reference sites for their plant communities.

---

The Use of Data

Data, simply speaking, are observations that lead to understanding.

Tables of measurements of such things as species diversity and population size are one kind of data. Other kinds may include maps and pictures of habitats, descriptions of animal behavior, unwritten recollections of sightings of a species, local lore, and anecdotes about field conditions. Many kinds of data are potentially useful during expert deliberations.

But the scientist who collects and analyzes the data will always understand more than the data indicate there are always gaps in data, and the knowledgeable scientist will draw on past experience to help interpret the information and make important conclusions.

Many kinds of data were used to inform each step in the Goals Project. In the final analysis, the scientific credibility of the Project will be provided not just by the data that were or were not used, but by the collective understanding of the scientists who have contributed to the goals.

---

 

The RMG and the focus teams used the EcoAtlas to analyze and display historical and modern spatial information regarding the key species and habitats. To increase the utility of the EcoAtlas for the Project, the RMG requested SFEI to add to it additional habitat distribution coverages and data from several avian census studies. This information was added during a period of more than a year.

Preliminary Recommendations

Based on their assembled information regarding species and habitats, each team then formulated recommendations for the amount and arrangement of habitats needed to support their species. The teams differed markedly in their approach to this step. For example, the MARI and Other Birds focus teams mapped their recommendations on maps of the EcoAtlas. The Shorebirds and Waterfowl, Plants, and Fish teams did not illustrate their goals on maps; instead, they reviewed and commented on the maps produced by the two other teams. Each of the focus teams ultimately produced preliminary recommendations that reflected the habitat needs of its species. These recommendations varied considerably in content and format, but adequately described the array of needed habitats. The formulation of their preliminary recommendations enabled the focus teams to begin sharing their perspectives with each other. To facilitate communication, the focus teams asked the RMG to organize a series of joint focus team meetings. Most of these meetings involved pairs of focus teams, but as many as four focus teams attended some meetings. After a couple of meetings, it became apparent that the HAT needed to join the discussions in order to address physical issues such as hydrology, sediment supply and transport, and sea level rise. These meetings continued for several months and proved to be extremely important as they enabled the focus teams and the HAT to present and discuss their preliminary views, to identify potential habitat conflicts and, where possible, to modify recommendations in a way that would best meet the needs of several species groups. During the joint meetings, participants used their maps, draft habitat narratives, species narratives, census data sets, and spatial data layers in the EcoAtlas to assist them in the discussions. It was important to ensure that the focus team recommendations and maps accurately represented the views of the focus teams and that all participants involved in the process adequately understood each team's recommendations and the rationale for developing them. By the end of 1997, the focus teams had completed their joint meetings and had prepared final recommendations. The focus team recommendations and information prepared by the HAT are presented in Appendix B.

Integration

The final step in preparing draft goals involved blending all of the focus team recommendations into a single unified vision that balances the needs of the many baylands species. In preparing for this, the RMG integrated the focus team recommendations and used the EcoAtlas to show how the habitats might be arrayed on the landscape.

Using the RMG's integrated map as a starting point, participants met for several days in early 1998 to discuss issues and to agree on unified goals. At these meetings, the focus teams each presented their recommendations, and the HAT gave an overview of important physical considerations. By the end of the fourth day of meetings, participants had developed an overall vision and goals for each of the four Project subregions. At the fifth and final meeting, they discussed issues relevant to implementing the goals. The recommendations in this report emerged from those meetings.