National interest in roadless area conservation dates back to the 1970s when the Forest Service was directed by Congress to inventory roadless areas in response to the public’s growing desire to protect wild landscapes primarily through wilderness designations. In 2001, President Clinton enacted the Roadless Conservation Rule to protect 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless areas on Forest Service lands, including nearly 2 million acres in Oregon. However, on May 13, 2005 the Bush administration issued a revised rule that established a process for governors to propose locally supported regulations for conserving roadless area within their states. While some states, including Oregon, have legally challenged this rule change, State governments will continue to play a vital role in providing recommendations to the Forest Service concerning the protection of federal roadless areas. This report provides new information on the importance of roadless areas in Oregon that places these areas among the most ecologically valued in the nation, thereby providing a scientific foundation for protecting all of Oregon’s roadless lands regardless of the method to achieve this outcome.
The Peninsular Ranges extend 1,500 km (900 mi) from Southern California to the southern tip of the Baja California peninsula, forming a granitic spine near the western edge of the North American continent. They comprise an intact and rugged wilderness area connecting two countries and some of the richest montane and desert ecosystems in the world that support wideranging, iconic species, including mountain lion, California condor, and bighorn sheep. Connectivity at this continental scale is critical to maintaining ecosystem processes, biodiversity, wildlife movement, and habitat values of existing conservation investments in both countries.
This study was undertaken as part of a larger effort to conserve the integrity of this landscape linkage, in the face of increasing sprawl of development inland from the coast, escalating border security infrastructure, and other competing uses for the land. It focuses on the border region of California and Baja California, where the long-term connectivity between federally endangered bighorn sheep in Peninsular Ranges of Southern California and bighorn sheep in Baja California is threatened. The current level of connectivity and the possibilities for maintaining this connectivity in the future are not well understood. This preliminary study assesses the distribution and habitats of bighorn sheep in the Sierra Juárez in Baja California, just south of the international border, the potential threats to bighorn sheep there, and the threats to this landscape linkage, so as to inform conservation and management strategies for linking protected parklands in both countries.
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
Our group of advisors was assembled to offer independent review of the scientific foundations for the Eastern Merced County Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP)/Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), a plan in progress. The objective of our review is to ensure the quality of the data, planning principles, analytic techniques, and interpretation of analytical results. We are charged to offer an independent evaluation of the science upon which planning decisions will be made in the proposed NCCP/HCP and to provide advice about how to improve the process with sound science. We generally will not comment on the goals or outcomes of planning. Moreover, for the purposes of this review we ignore the differences between NCCPs and HCPs and, instead, focus on scientific questions of concern to both processes. Although we avoid explicit comment on policies, it is difficult to divorce a discussion of scientific issues entirely from their policy implications.
This report summarizes recommendations from a group of independent science advisors for the Butte County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP). This statutorily required scientific input is provided early in the planning process to help the plan proceed with best available science. The advisors operate independent of the entities involved in planning or implementing the HCP/NCCP.
Our recommendations are advisory only and not binding on HCP/NCCP participants. They are organized by the following major topics: (1) review of the Draft Ecological Baseline Report (SAIC 2007), (2) scope of the plan, (3) information gaps, (4) conservation design, (5) conservation analyses, and (6) adaptive management and monitoring.
This Executive Summary briefly highlights important recommendations. See the full report for additional details.
This report summarizes recommendations from a group of independent science advisors for the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP). This scientific input is provided early in the planning process to help the plan proceed with best available science. The advisors operate independent of the entities involved in planning or implementing the HCP/NCCP. Our recommendations are advisory only and not binding on HCP/NCCP participants.
Our recommendations are organized by the following major topics:(1) scope of the plan, (2) review of existing information, (3) conservation design, (4) conservation analyses, and (5) adaptive management and monitoring.
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.