Monitoring species use of habitat linkages and wildlife corridors is one component of the MSCP Biological Monitoring Plan (Ogden 1996). The monitoring plan was developed to document compliance with the MSCP, measure the effectiveness of the conservation program, and inform adaptive management decisions. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) funded the Conservation Biology Institute (CBI) to review the regional habitat linkage monitoring locations identified in Table 4-1 of the MSCP Biological Monitoring Plan (Ogden 1996). The purpose of the review was to assess the general locations of regional corridor monitoring locations, mapped in Figure 4-1 of the Biological Monitoring Plan, and to refine the overall corridor monitoring locations for the MSCP. As part of this assessment, CBI identified potential barriers to wildlife movement and alternate locations that may be preferable to those mapped in Figure 4-1.
It has been commonly reported that gray wolves (Canis lupus) as well as other predators like panthers (Felis concolor) and lynx (Lynx canadensis) once lived throughout the northeastern U.S. including what is today the Adirondack Park. Extirpation of these summit predators closely followed European settlement (see Schneider 1997). As a result of an active bounty system, the last wolf was believed to have been killed in Upstate New York during the mid 1890s.
In recent years, gray wolf recovery (both natural and human-directed) has been successful in a number of locations throughout North America — most successfully in the Upper Great Lakes region of the U.S. (see Fuller 1995). A second population of gray wolves in the eastern U.S. outside the Minnesota population has been expressed as a goal for gray wolf recovery in the U.S. by federal agencies (see U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992), and the Northeast has been identified as a potential region to support a viable population of wolves. In addition to northern sections of Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, the AP has been identified as potentially supportive of gray wolves (see Mladenoff and Sickley 1998).
This study was by the Adirondack Park Citizens Action Committee organized by Defenders of Wildlife to examine the issue of gray wolf recovery in the Adirondack Park (from now on referred to as simply AP). By combining what has been learned about wolf biology from numerous field studies with geographic information systems (GIS), we addressed the issue of gray wolf reintroduction feasibility in the AP. In addition to developing wolf habitat suitability and connectivity models, we examined the important genetics questions pertinent to wolves in the AP.
The Puente-Chino Hills Wildlife Corridor is a peninsula of mostly undeveloped hills jutting about 42 km (26 miles) from the Santa Ana Mountains into the heart of the densely urbanized Los Angeles Basin. Intense public interest in conserving open space here has created a series of reserves and parks along most of the corridor’s length, but significant gaps in protection remain. These natural habitat areas support a surprising diversity of native wildlife, from mountain lions and mule deer to walnut groves, roadrunners, and horned lizards. But maintaining this diversity of life requires maintaining functional connections along the entire length of the corridor, so that wildlife can move between reserves—from one end of the hills to the other.
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.
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.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) commissioned the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project because a functional network of connected wildlands is essential to the continued support of California’s diverse natural communities in the face of human development and climate change. This Report is also intended to make transportation and land-use planning more efficient and less costly, while helping reduce dangerous wildlife-vehicle collisions.
This Report was produced by a highly collaborative, transparent, and repeatable process that can be emulated by other states. The work was guided by input and review of a Multidisciplinary Team of agency representatives, a Technical Advisory Group, and a Steering Committee. The Multidisciplinary Team (~200 people from 62 agencies) provided broad representation across Federal, State, Tribal, regional, and local agencies that are involved in biodiversity conservation, land-use planning, or land management—and that could therefore both contribute to and benefit from efforts to improve habitat connectivity at various scales. The Technical Advisory Group (44 people from 23 agencies) was a subset of the Multidisciplinary Team. It provided technical expertise to help guide such decisions as selection of data sources, models, and mapping criteria. The Steering Committee (ten people from four partner agencies) guided key decisions about work flow, meeting agendas, and document contents. In addition to review by these agency representatives, the work plan and this final report were subject to peer review by five outside experts in conservation biology and conservation planning.