 |
|
|
California Biodiversity Council Business Meeting
November 20, 1997
MINUTES Members present
Douglas Wheeler, Resources Agency Call to Order Chair Douglas Wheeler called the meeting to order at 8:45 am. Approval of minutes for the September 18, 1997 meeting Minutes were approved as written. Council Announcements Watershed Restoration Protection - Jim Branham, Resources Agency Notice on Clean Water meeting 11/25/98 - request for emphasis on community-based watershed management. Need to have Watershed Protection and Restoration Council represented at the meeting. Executive Commiftee Report - Carl Rountree, chair Invitation to participate in strategic planning workshop in January at the Cosumnes Preserve. This workshop will replace the regularly scheduled Executive committee meeting. Science Coordinating Committee chair, Susan Cochrane, requested additional staff to serve on theme teams. Follow-up discussions from past Council meetings 1. Conservation of native Monterey pine forests, Russ Henly, Califomia Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF), Fire and Resource Assessment Program. Key issue: level of local government support-A few local government letters of support have been submitted to the Council. Before the NCCP process moves forward with full force, it will be important for more local governments and other local stakeholders to weigh in with their support for the process. Council needed to support process; deal with roadblocks; and facilitate communication about the planning process 2. Department of Defense biological conservation initiatives Rescheduled to next meeting. Announcement of a December 10, 1997 public information hearing on military range rule in Lawler Events Center, University of Nevada Reno. Council participation is invited. Integrated natural resource management plans also out for public review. 3. Alliance for a Fire Safe California Update, Richard Wilson, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection The Alliance for a Fire California will have its second meeting on March 27, 1998. The next Fire Summit is planned for October 1998 in Irvine, California. Strengthening Ties with Local Government to Plan for Growth, Protect Biodiversity, and have a Healthy Economy Overarching questions for panel presentations:
It is clear that a lot of people will be coming to California. Can't use statewide numbers when addressing bioregional impacts of population (really varies by bioregion). There is no consistent pattern between international immigration, domestic migration and natural increase. Four general patterns have been observed in wildland and agriculture, intermix, and developed land distributions. In Sierra foothills, we are not looking at the Orange county model of development. Comments
Impacts of Development Pattems on Biodiversity, Bill Stewart, CDF Fire and Resource Assessment Program Discussion of newer tools available to support biodiversity assessments. Used Sierra as the example. The bioregional planning goal is to conserve native species and ecosystem services over regional areas while meeting other human needs. Dimensions of allocating finite resources: conversion/consumption, reservation/restoration, sustainable use including ecosystem services rarely find a model that integrates across all of these dimensions. Considerations for siting conservation areas: non-biological values, rarity and endemism, threat, biodiversity representation, efficiency, feasibility (cost, etc.) SNEP tool: Biodiversity Management Area Selection (BMAS) Model, Frank Davis, University of Santa Barbara Multi-objective optimization model. The models goals are to represent all biodiversity elements in BMA at a target level (e.g. 1 0 percent); minimize the area required to meet the representation goals and maximize the suitability of the selected sites. Gap Analysis data used to analyze vegetation communities. CALWATER planning watersheds used as the management units. Watersheds vary in their suitability because of differences in current population density, roadedness, percent of private lands, and fragmentation of ownership. A balanced weighting of these four indicators results in a spatial representation of a watershed suitability index. Dr. Davis provided an example of the modeling being used to identify aquatic diversity management areas based on Peter Moyle's research at UC Davis. Problems with model: need to think of entire geography; areas identified are not islands in a sea of rock; need to keep rerunning as parameters change (e.g. watershed suitability). No sense of prioritization (which areas do you deal with first?) Dr. Davis used model to address The Nature Conservancy holdings in Columbia plateau. Now they are trying to explicitly account for use and future land use. Another tool for reserve planning is being developed at National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) to address Alameda Contra Costa to focus on a select set of species (umbrella species). Final points on decision support for regional conservation planning we have made. It is a hard and wicked problem. Need to force explicitness, foster understanding, narrow choices, facilitate negotiation and provide for priority setting. The approach provides a gross model for a regional solution. The tool should be used in planning departments, not at UCSB. Comments
How would you instruct the Council to identify priorities?
Problems with stasis with a dynamic system-reserves solve the
problems of today. Need to consider potential BMAS for the
future.
Should identify the areas that are the poorest to invest in-turn
the model upside down.
How are you picking areas of suitability when conditions are
changing so rapidly?
Models are best for regional application. Do they apply at the
local level?
Do you have a feel for what it would take to incorporate
socioeconomic factors, fire processes, etc. ?
What was the size of the management units?
Has any county actively tried to use this information? Dr. Davis commented on another lesson. The more extensive surveys are more useful than intensive surveys that result in complete data gaps (no data) for some areas. It is worth compiling the information at the regional scale. Advantage of this approach is that it forces you to bring the information together and becomes an organizing principle in managing for biodiversity. Impacts of Development Pattems on Biodiversity, Tim Duane, University of Califomia Berkeley Mother Lode area in 1990 appears to look like the Gold Country in 1970. Places that appear dissimilar often have similar patterns of parcelization. It is important to consider the patterns over time in each of the different areas. In the intermix zone, it is important to consider different thresholds of concern for biodiversity effects. The model used analyzed for a variety of thresholds. Both the population growth and the footprint (concentrated or dispersed) matter in projecting development impacts. He identified plant communities in at least 50 percent private land holdings for County X. An alternative was evaluated that would accommodate the same amount of growth in a more compact area. The exercise identified better areas for development that would have less impact on biodiversity and important habitats (e.g., those that special status species depend upon). Suggests opportunities for land swaps and other types of exchanges. Designing the Foothill Intermix: Pixels, Parcels, Plans, and Policies in El Dorado County, Greg Greenwood, CDF Fire and Resource Assessment Program Referenced Van Gogh's Starry Night and the need to maintain the whole picture and not just manage for the bright spots. Served as a member of citizen's committee appointed by the County's planning commission to address the planning for oak woodlands. Important points: the analysis was done with a citizens group and within an existing planning process. In this setting, you have to face the issue of validity, otherwise you are dead in the water. Addressed vegetation communities that are on the entire western slope of the Sierra Nevada Did analysis with no new data. There were no silver bullets, i.e. simple prescriptions or policies at the general plan level that would solve the problem of fragmentation in the oak woodland were not apparent. Public lands in this environment are at a minimum. Therefore, the private lands are providing the resource values. Successfully moved the discussion from Heritage program and saving individual trees to addressing the whole oak woodland ecosystem. A more important map than the general plan is the one that shows the footprint of development and the areas of protection as identified by different ordinances and protection mechanisms. Final analysis suggested that design even at landscape level would be more effective than broadbrush prescription policies. Neither downzoning nor specific policies such as clustering will automatically achieve conservation goals. This tool can be used to target where problems are likely to occur as well as to test different designs or policies proposed to solve the problems (e.g. test the efficacy of an acquisition program). The citizen committee and county government was not set up or capable of doing the analysis. Agencies need to provide both data and people to assist with these types of analyses.
Open Discussion with local decision-makers on how CBC can
strengthen ties with local
government on planning for growth, a healthy economy, and
biodiversity protection, Was the information presented today understandable? Whiteside: Began to feel that this was like the DNA example in the O.J. Simpson trial. All the scientists understood but you couldn't convince the jury. Folks on the street are not even close to understanding. Scarborough: Maps are essential and conservation planning cannot be done without them. Need to provide more carrots to developers to utilize these tools. Blake: the mapping work is extremely useful and educational in trying to communicate with the public and the business community. James: one of the challenges in utilizing maps is taking the inanimate information and putting it into practical terms for the people. Need to show where things are leading, how it results in an economic return. Need to show how the mapping exercises help us learn. Pauli: Important to remember that these were designed for leadership and not the general public. Should not be viewed as more than a tool and one component of the planning process. Should not think that the public will understand, but they are useful for decision-makers. Whiteside: need to have awareness at the public level that conservation planning is important, particularly when you don't have a regulatory requirement. Have to work at a large scale to evaluate the multiple values and trade-offs. One of the problems is that the interests are not all represented at the local value (e.g., water, wildlife, fire, etc.) Scarborough: Process is important and should include biology, economics, etc. Did you hear things today that sparked an interest? Blake: Greg's comment about engaging the private landowner. This is a positive component in considering the management of open space and the role of private initiative. Scarborough: Magnitude of in-depth work and critical thinking was impressive. James: Canvas of different land use and how to grapple with- how to integrate conservation and economic planning is an area with which we need to move forward. Pauli: Local governments are the ones that need to use this tool, but there are a number of other components that will overwhelm these maps (e.g., Louisiana Pacific selling out, Headwaters, etc.) "Marginal" to Bill would mean something different to the next person. Need a mechanism with the maps to explain to a Board of Supervisors what the maps mean. Whiteside: Talking a lot right now about a market-based society, and there is little reward for conservation. Local governments see their role as one of wealth-building within their jurisdiction. Conservation is seen as something you have to deal with and not a goal. Need to revalue this system to put these two things back together. Scarborough: There is a dichotomy between a decade and 1 00 years. City officials have a fouryear time horizon. Has to be some silver lining in the short term to address the long term. We are still in the education cycle. James: Need to get both groups together to identify and address the commonalties between conservation and economic goals. Also need to show how we're not wasting resources between local, state and federal planning efforts. Pauli: It has been a disaster to just address endangered species. Now we're talking about biodiversity and preservation of whole areas for a combination of species. There is caution and skepticism because of the previous experience with ESA. Part of what we're seeing is the evolution of trying to move from one approach to another. Also need to consider that most governments are broke and development brings the dollars in. Need to bring in financing with the bioregional concept. Scarborough: It has been an evolution, and the City of San Diego is now faced with the funding issues. In San Diego, the Naturelands Project is addressing the quality of life and how to get at people's heartstrings. Blake: Has to be recognition that different places will be willing to move at different times. Agencies need to be encouraging where the local conditions are ripe for moving forward. Even though we're not yet ready to taking on a bioregional approach, there are counties that are ready to move forward. Need real carrots for the landowners to participate in the process. James: Local governments will build it if they get the funding and when the threats for government preemption are removed. Need to foster an environment that allows for local governments to do more-this requires funding. Biggest hamstring is the lack of funding. Should there be a fund to promote collaborative planning across counties? James: Yes and there should also be incentives and funding to promote cities to collaborate together. Whiteside: We have to create a public consciousness that insists that conservation planning and evaluations are done. Counties can change their entire character in a lifetime. This type of thing has to be in game theory, such as SimCity. Blake: It's a wrong perception that the public is unaware. A poll of 1 000 registered voters indicates that they value farmland, are concerned about quality of life, believe that a healthy economy and environment can go hand in hand. One of the problems is that stakeholders are not showing up at county meetings. Also, need to consider the incredible bang for the buck in considering purchase of conservation easements, instead of direct acquisition. Land is viewed as their insurance policy. James: Need to get public involved in decision-making, and they need to understand government. Government institutions need to better serve the public. CBC needs to do more State-Federal coordination and communication (e.g., address differences between Federal and State endangered species acts.). Resources should be pooled to address common interests. Water Quality Control Board and Integrated Waste Management Board directives need to be brought together, as well as other laws. Pauli: Commented that people probably do understand government, they just don't like it. The real issue is planning for the growth of our ever expanding population. Are we going to have higher densities? At this point, we're usually shut off. Need to plan for this growth and the infrastructure to support this growth. Whiteside: Information center for local government is appropriate. Entitlement process takes a long time, and the public often sees it when it's old news (3-5 years later). Need to shorten review process and engage the public earlier. Scarborough: Need to add a "3D" aspect to maps and utilize at planning commission meetings. This will help people get it. Education also has to happen internally with the various staffs. Questions and Comments from the Council Sounds like were trying to address the biodiversity protection issue through regulation and not through incentives. If more information were available, would it be acted upon? Tim Duane's reply: Depends on where the information comes from. Need consensus on conservation strategies. Cannot inundate local governments with information without building up trust. Also need to address the use of the information. Need to give information on where to put houses, instead of where not to put houses. This is where we're missing the boat. Closing Comments Mr. Hastey commented that we do a lot of land acquisition in California, and often times they are opportunity oriented. We probably need to revisit and should use the Executive Committee to better coordinate acquisitions and other protection mechanisms, in conjunction with other private organizations. Also, we need to better market the multi-county plans and how they're being used to solve a lot of local problems. Ms. Huffman remarked that if you're going to look at what the government is going to acquire, you should also look at what should be released for private ownership, because counties don't collect taxes off of public land. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 3 p.m. |
|
