This document provides an introduction to the intersecting cultural and biological conservation values of Rancho Guejito—its cultural history, rare biological resources, its ecological functions within surrounding conserved areas, its significance to past, present, and future generations of Californians—and a plea for conservation of the irreplaceable values it supports, the loss of which cannot be mitigated elsewhere:

Western Oregon contains approximately 2.5 million acres of lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) across six districts (Salem, Eugene, Coos Bay, Roseburg, Medford, and Lakeview): approximately 2.1 million acres of this is managed under the requirements of theO&C Lands Act of 1937 and other laws with the remainder (406,600 acres) managed as “public domain” lands (USDI BLM 2005).  All these lands are managed under the provisions of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP), with nearly a third (739,000 acres) designated as latesuccessional reserve (LSR). Each of the BLM districts completed Resource Management Plans (RMPs) in 1995 that incorporated land-use allocations and standards and guidelines pursuant to the NWFP.  However, a lawsuit filed by the American Forest Resource Council (AFRC) and others against the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior (i.e., Secretaries) alleged that the NWFP violated the terms of the O&C Act and numerous other laws. The Secretaries, AFRC, and the O&C counties agreed to settle this lawsuit in August of 2003, requiring BLM to revise its RMPs and consider at least one alternative that will not create (i.e., eliminate) any reserves on O&C lands except as needed to avoid jeopardy to species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Consequently,the BLM is now conducting scoping for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to revise its RMPs that will determine how the agency should manage the O&C lands to achieve the O&C Act requirements of permanent foreproduction, sustained yield, community economic stability, and watershed protection (as interpreted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) while complying with applicable laws such as the ESA and the Clean Water Act.  Here, we provide BLM with a scientific foundation for managing its lands to meet the ecological objectives of the NWFP, ESA, and Clean Water Act by: (1) demonstrating the importance of the reserve network within the context of the NWFP and more specifically within western Oregon BLM lands (both O&C and public domain lands); (2) evaluating potential consequences of eliminating or reducing protections for LSRs and Riparian Reserves under consideration by the BLM; (3) highlighting potential cumulative impacts from adjoining Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) on State and private lands; and (4) raising significant issues for BLM to consider in RMP revisions, particularly alternatives to the elimination of reserves.

This report summarizes recommendations from a group of independent science advisors for the Yolo County Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP). This scientific input is provided early in the planning process, before preparation of a draft plan, to help ensure that the plan is developed using best available science. To ensure objectivity, the advisors operate independent of the Yolo County Habitat/Natural Community Conservation Plan Joint Powers Agency (JPA), its consultants, or any other entities involved in the NCCP/HCP. Our recommendations are advisory only and are not binding on NCCP/HCP participants.

In some cases our advice may extend beyond what was expected by the JPA, relative to the current scope of the NCCP/HCP. For example, although the JPA is not seeking permit coverage for aquatic species or flood-control projects through the plan, we offer recommendations concerning these issues (1) in case the plan is ever expanded to address them, (2) because even development projects in terrestrial habitats can affect aquatic species, and (3) because the plan has potential to contribute to the recovery of aquatic resources in coordination with other planning or regulatory mechanisms. For example, throughout this document we offer suggestions for where the NCCP/HCP may complement the goals of such other planning efforts as the County’s Integrated Regional Water Management Plan.

Our recommendations are organized by the following major topics: (1) the scope of the plan, (2) review of existing information, (3) conservation design approaches, (4) conservation analyses, and (5) adaptive management and monitoring.

This report summarizes recommendations from a group of independent science advisors for the Yuba and Sutter County Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP). This statutorily required scientific input is provided early in the planning process, before preparation of a draft plan, to help ensure that the plan is developed using best available science. Attachment A provides brief biographies of the independent science advisors. To ensure objectivity, the advisors operate independent of the two counties, their consultants, the wildlife agencies, or any other entities involved in the NCCP/HCP.

This report assesses potential impacts of feral pig populations in southern California (San Diego, Riverside, Imperial, and Orange counties) and Baja California, with an emphasis on San Diego County. We compiled information on the status of pigs in these areas from the literature and interviews with numerous individuals knowledgeable about feral pig populations, including a population recently introduced into San Diego County. We also reviewed available information on the potential impacts of feral pigs on natural resources, water systems, agriculture, and human health, and discussed the feasibility of various control and eradication options.

We developed population and habitat suitability models for feral pigs in San Diego County to examine the potential for numeric and geographic expansion following the recent introduction near El Capitan Reservoir. The models suggest that the population has the potential to grow rapidly and expand into large expanses of currently un-occupied habitat. Such expansion could harm natural biological resources, including riparian and oak woodland communities and numerous sensitive species. It is possible that populations could establish in such protected lands as Cuyamaca Rancho State Park and Volcan Mountain Preserve, as well as various wilderness areas. This could greatly diminish and possibly nullify large conservation investments already made in this region, including habitat restoration efforts. Finally, an expanding feral pig population in San Diego County could invade and cause grave damage in Baja California, where feral pig populations have not, to date, been reported.

This report evaluates the impact that administrative and ecological constraints might have on the amount of forest biomass that could be extracted for energy use in the Southeastern U.S. Using available spatial datasets, we quantified and mapped how the application of various “conservation value screens” would change previous estimates of available standing forest biomass (Blackard et al. 2008). These value screens included protected areas managed for conservation values, USDA Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands, steep slopes, designated critical habitat for federally-listed threatened and endangered species, inventoried roadless areas, old-growth forests, wetlands, hydrographic (lake, stream, and coastline) buffers, and locations of threatened and endangered species (G1-G3, S1-S3).

Two alternative combinations of values were examined: in Alternative 1, all areas within value screens, including all Forest Service and BLM lands, were excluded from biomass development. In Alternative 2, Forest Service and BLM lands not afforded extra protection by such designations as wilderness or research natural areas were assumed available for biomass extraction; all other values continued to be excluded from extraction. In both alternatives, biomass located within the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) was assumed available for extraction regardless of conservation value screens.

The analysis was conducted at 100-m x 100-m resolution. Summary statistics were derived at three scales – entire study area, 13 states, and 24 World Wildlife Fund (WWF) ecoregions. Results were also summarized and mapped for all 1,342 counties.

Finally, we compared hydrologic datasets at two different scales (1:24,000 and 1:100,000) at multiple sample areas in the study area to evaluate how hydrologic scale might affect the delineation of riparian reserves and resulting estimates of biomass availability.

According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program (CDF FRAP 2005) there are over 340 million bone dry tons (BDT) of nonmerchantable, technical (potentially available) forest biomass, and slightly over 62 million BDT of shrubland biomass, that could be used for energy production in California. However, these CDF estimates did not account for a variety of administrative and ecological constraints that may limit where or how much biomass can actually be removed, due for example to concerns about impacts to ecologically sensitive lands or areas of high conservation value. We therefore evaluated to what degree additional ecological and administrative constraints might reduce the CDF estimates of technical forest and shrubland biomass for energy production. This coarse evaluation is meant more to illustrate the nature and extent of the constraints these issues may present to biomass use, rather than provide a comprehensive and precise quantification of the issues.

The Sonoran Desert of southern California has long been a region of under-appreciated natural significance. For most, the term “desert” evokes images of a bleak and lifeless wasteland—a place of unforgiving heat, sun, sand, and rocks. Throughout history, the Southwest’s deserts have been avoided or they presented a challenging obstacle on the way to a greener place. In the 19th century, during the era of exploration and migration, the desert was seen as an area to be crossed as quickly as possible. Even today, the Sonoran Desert remains one of the least populated areas in California. Historically and recently, many who ventured into the desert did so for utilitarian purposes—for activities such as mining, military training, farming, off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreation and, more recently, for energy production. In general, however, there has been a lack of awareness of the special and uniquely diverse species and ecosystems found in the region, leading to an unfortunate under-appreciation for what is truly an area of incredible
natural significance.

The foothills of the iconic Sierra Nevada—the California gold fields—are linked to California’s way of life and sense of place, as well as tied to the history of our nation. To many Californians, the natural resources of the Sierran foothills are emblematic of our state—grasslands golden in the summer sun mingling with rolling oak woodlands. Nonetheless, this iconic California landscape is not well protected, but rather is severely threatened by residential sprawl that has the potential to permanently compromise its conservation values. Less than 10% of the oak woodlands and grasslands in the Sierra Nevada foothills are protected, and the value of these conservation investments relies on maintaining the lands’ integrity and ecosystem functions by buffering them from development and maintaining connections to other intact areas. The current downturn in the real estate market provides a window of opportunity to protect some of the last uncompromised areas of the northern Sierra foothills using conservation tools such as fee title acquisitions, conservation easements, and land management agreements.

CBI staff facilitated and contributed to several indepent science adivsory processes and recommendation reports for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta Conservation Plan.

Bay Delta Conservation Plan, Aquatic

A group of nine scientists were convened in September 2007 to provide independent advice to the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) Steering Committee. These scientists provided advice on the use of science in developing an effective Conservation Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in accordance with California’s Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCCPA) and the BDCP Planning Agreement. Consistent with the requirements of the NCCPA, the Science Advisors’ report includes a listing of principles for conservation planning, design, and management. The Report also includes a series of more specific recommendations regarding application of the existing knowledge base and the use of data and analyses for informing the BDCP. The following briefly summarizes key foundational principles and recommendations from the Report. These principles and recommendations should be considered as the overall conservation strategy and potential conservation measures are developed for the BDCP.

Bay Delta Conservation Plan, Aquatic (2007) PDF

Bay Delta Conservation Plan, Non-Aquatic

This report summarized recommendations from a group of six independent science advisors (ISA) concerning the treatment of non-aquatic species and communities by the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP).  The intent of the ISA process is to ensure that the plan has access to the best available science.  Our recommendations area not biding, and area not intended to either question or promote particular plan goals or policies, but are intended to help inform the planning process.

Bay Delta Conservation Plan, Non-Aquatic (2008) PDF

Bay Delta Conservation Plan, Adaptive Management

This report summarizes recommendations from a group of nine independent scientists convened in December 2008 concerning incorporation of adapative management into the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP).  This report includes a general review of pertinent BDCP documents and a recommended framework for incorporating adative management into the planning, designa and implementation of the BCDP.

Bay Delta Conservation Plan, Adaptive Management (2009) PDF