Yuba and Sutter County Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP)

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

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.