Tejon Ranch is one of California’s most precious natural areas—a haven for rare and endangered species, a sanctuary for the soul of ancient California, a treasure that, through the years, has not escaped the wonderment of ranchers, hunters, wildlife enthusiasts, and scientists. This is a place through which thousands of people drive daily, but few have really seen; where one can visualize the dramatic geologic processes that shaped California’s landscape and influenced the evolutionary history of California’s diverse flora and fauna. In this place, California condors still fly, centuries-old oaks still flourish, and streams are born. Perhaps most remarkably, virtues of this place have not yet been compromised by the urban sprawl that is rapidly devouring so much of California’s natural landscape.

Tejon Ranch, 270,000 acres of southern Kern and northern Los Angeles counties, is the largest, contiguous, privately owned property in California.  Owners of the Ranch are currently planning large-scale residential and industrial developments in what is now a largely undeveloped and natural landscape. Concerned that these development plans might severely compromise the Ranch’s ecological integrity before the public has had an opportunity to understand its significance, Environment Now and a coalition of environmental groups commissioned the Conservation Biology Institute to assess the regional and statewide value of Tejon Ranch for conservation of biological diversity. Through the course of this assessment, we have come to recognize what others have already suggested—that Tejon Ranch is truly one of California’s most priceless natural areas, unparalleled in its diversity of natural resources and its importance to conservation, and meeting all of the State’s criteria for a priority conservation target.

This report shares our synthesis of publicly available information—documenting the biogeographic importance of the Tejon Ranch region, revealing the values of the region’s natural resources, and identifying factors that threaten these values. This report does not advocate any specific open space design, but rather it illuminates the extraordinary values and regionally under-protected resources of the Ranch so that the public and decision-makers are fully aware of their importance in future land planning decisions. We hope that this information will be used as a basis for comprehensive, rather than piecemeal, land use planning of Tejon Ranch.

Tejon Ranch supports a multitude of irreplaceable biological resources, and the melding of these resources in one large, intact landscape makes the Ranch a regionally significant conservation target. This report evaluates the distribution of conservation values on Tejon Ranch, as an incremental step towards developing a regional reserve design.

We used publicly available data and science-based conservation principles to describe and map selected conservation values for Tejon Ranch. Our assessment demonstrates that, although different areas of the Ranch support different sets of conservation values, virtually all areas of the Ranch support one or more sets of values. To spatially describe the distribution of these values on Tejon Ranch, we identified four landscape units that differentially support the conservation values considered in our analysis:

Reserve designs for Tejon Ranch must, at a minimum, capture these values while ensuring the maintenance and management of ecological processes within and between landscape units. Similarly, conservation planning must ensure integration and connection of these landscape units with others in the region, along with a regional plan for long-term management and biological monitoring. Without careful and comprehensive consideration, land use plans for Tejon Ranch could irretrievably alter the biological functions and values of this keystone landscape.

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.