California Biodiversity Council: Regional Meeting, Visalia, 3/20/97

Michael Mantell, Resources Agency
Ed Hastey, Bureau of Land Management
Nancy Huffman, Northern California Counties Association
G. Lynn Sprague, U.S. Forest Service
Richard Rayburn, Department of Parks and Recreation
Eric Christenson, U.S. Marine Corps
Mike Tollison, National Park Service
Val Siegel, California Environmental Protection Agency
Bob Haussler, California Energy Commission
Peter Stine, Biological Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey
Ray Nutting, Sacramento-Mother Lode Regional Association of California Counties
Patrick Leonard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Dale Hoffman-Floerke, Department of Water Resources
Jim Kochis, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Diana Jacobs, State Lands Commission
Richard Wilson, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
Don Erman, University of California
Pat Meehan, Department of Conservation
Jacqueline Schafer, Department of Fish and Game


Page 4, Tahoe Conservancy, not the Title Conservancy.
Page 10, Sun City, instead of Sand City.
The minutes were approved as amended.

Executive Committee report Al Wright, Chairman of the Executive Committee, reported on the status of the following Council-related activities:

1. Science Coordinating Committee The Committee has met and is developing a workplan that will incorporate the following:

Michael Mantell, Undersecretary for Resources, reported that on Tuesday, March 18, 1997 the City of San Diego unanimously approved their portion of the State's Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) program. The Multi Species Conservation Plan (MSCP) covers 85 species, 18 distinct habitats, and sets up a 172,000 acre preserve system throughout the Southwestern part of San Diego county. Separate sub-area plans now are in the process of being approved.

It is the most comprehensive, far-reaching plan ever approved in the history of the Federal Endangered Species Act. The cooperative effort involves Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Department of Parks and Recreation, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and local entities. At the end of the hearing, representatives of the San Diego Building Industry Association, Chamber of Commerce, Farm Bureau, Nature Conservancy, Audubon Society, Sierra Club, and Endangered Habitats League, all supported the plan, which was then unanimously adopted.

In the northern part of the state on the same day, Department of Parks and Recreation and East Bay Regional Park District reached an agreement with Catellus Land Corporation. They agreed to acquire and set aside over 1,400 acres, nine miles along the shore on the East Bay of Emeryville, Berkeley, and Albany Crescent, to establish the East Bay State Shoreline Park for the future of California. It not only preserves open space, but provides for economic vitality and certainty.

Ed Hastey, Bureau of Land Management, reported on the need to complete the inventory of all of the watershed projects that currently exist in California. Through the generosity of the Resources Agency, Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board, and University of California, about 300 projects in the state have been inventoried. There are approximately 1,000 watershed projects in California about which little is known.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is willing to put in $50,000 this year in order for the University to move this inventory to completion. Mr. Hastey requested additional direct and in-kind contributions from other Council members. It would require less than a work month of time per signatory to assist with the completion of this project. The University and the State's CERES program are working together to provide access to this information via the Internet. Carl Rountree, BLM, is the contact point for those who are able to assist with this effort.

Alexis Straus, representing the EPA, reported that there is now an agreement among 30 federal and state agencies to protect a unique wetland ecosystem known as vernal pools. This agreement represents a commitment among all signatories to work together to protect these wetlands and promote education about the uniqueness of vernal pools.

Don Erman, representing University of California, announced the availability of the Directory of Water and Wildland Expertise and Facilities in the University of California System. An updated online version of this directory is available on the World Wide Web at http:www.nceas.ucsb.edu/exp/. This will be extended to include the California State University system, and state and federal agency expertise.

Pat Meehan, Department of Conservation (DOC), introduced Glenda Humiston, President of the California Association Resource Conservation Districts (CARCD); Tom Wary, new Executive Director for CARCD. with 39 years of experience with Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS); and Jean and Bill Saffle, project coordinators for the San Joaquin Valley. The grant money used to hire the Saffles was provided by DOC, NRCS and CARCD.

Colonel Christensen announced the publication of a new handbook by Department of Defense for conserving biodiversity on military lands. Two other documents from the Military Environmental Coordination committee and its steering committee include: 1) The Vernal Pool Resource Agency guidebook and 2) A Guide to Integrated Interagency Environmental Planning for Military Activities in California. Both of these documents will be available soon.

At the last meeting of the Council, Tupper Ansel Blake requested support for a publication in progress entitled "Living Aldo Leopold's Land Ethic: The Ecosystem Approach to Conservation In The Klamath Basin". He has received $400,000 to date to complete the project, and he still needs another $75,000 to complete the effort. A commitment is needed by April 1, 1997, but the money can be paid out over a period of time. The Resources Agency, Bureau of Land Management and California Energy Commission are currently the only agencies who have expressed an interest in supporting this project.

An Overview of the Southern Sierra and San Joaquin Valley Bioregions: Linkages in the Land and the People

Mike Chrisman, Regional Manager for Southern California Edison Company, reported on the importance of the agriculture industry in the San Joaquin Valley, the natural linkages that are so important to the success of all conservation plans, and linkages that are taking place between organizations to solve critical natural resource issues.

As a State, California has led in agricultural production for over 50 years. It is a diverse industry, well in excess of 250 different crop and livestock commodities. In 1995 the, gross receipts for agriculture were in excess of 22 billion dollars and growing. California agriculture represents one in 12 jobs in California.

The population base in the San Joaquin Valley is 5 to 5.5 million people. Projections for the years 2030 to 2040 indicate there will be 12 to 15 million people in the San Joaquin Valley. The linkage between agriculture and the environment is most evident in the linkage between the Sierra Nevada mountains and the San Joaquin Valley. Mountain water is the lifeblood of this valley, providing the basis for the economy. With management, energy has been produced, irrigation has been provided for agricultural crops, high quality drinking water has been supplied, flooding has been reduced, recreation has been provided and critical fish and wildlife habitat has been maintained. More people will certainly mean greater demands on the available natural resources.

Some wildlife regularly move between the mountains and the valley. Riparian corridors provide many of the migration routes for waterfowl, deer, beaver, mountain lions and many of the birds. Many people live in the mountain communities but commute to the valley for work. These rural urban growth movements impact wildlife by loss of habitat, road kills, air quality reduction, and changes in vegetation.

Mr. Chrisman continued by stating that the success of human communities in this region is critically linked to the richness and diversity of our natural resources. People have joined together to protect natural resources. The Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture Project was established in 1988, made up of 31 member organizations, consisting of public and private partnerships to implement the North American Waterfowl Management Plan here in the Central Valley. The primary goal of this plan was to protect, maintain and restore habitat to increase waterfowl populations here in the valley.

Another project is from the American Farmland Trust, an organization that is a private, nonprofit national organization concerned with the preservation and protection of agricultural land. They are involved in many cooperative efforts to preserve and protect agricultural land.

A further example is the San Joaquin River Parkway and Conservation Trust. Since 1988 this trust has helped the community realize the dream of a San Joaquin River parkway, which is essentially a linear greenbelt of natural reserves and parks, with some 22 miles of contiguous trails. The trust has formed a regional educational program here in this area, offered to schools and the public.

Many of our national forests have completed their land management plans as mandated by NEPA. Those are collaborative linkage processes between state, federal and local people. These plans are 10 year perspectives on some of the cultural, biotic and economic activities of each of these forests.

Mr. Chrisman closed by stating that the key to a healthy future for this valley and the mountains are based on a commitment to protect our valuable natural resources. This commitment involves a strong conservation ethic and wise land use and water decisions recognizing that environmental protection and economic growth are not mutually exclusive.

Local Presentation: Conserving Biodiversity in the Agronomic-based Economy of the San Joaquin Valley

Dennis Keller, a civil engineer and representative of the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District, reported on the issues of fear, communication, trust and action which relate to the conservation of biodiversity.

Mr. Keller's report indicated that fear is related to government taking without compensation and fear that even granting access for investigative procedures will lead to a loss of control of property-related rights. For regulators, there is fear of pressure, both actual and real. These fears include the threat of litigation from special interest groups, fear of taking risk where the course of action is not clearly defined or charted ahead of time, fear of disclosure and the issuance of permits. Also, there is fear of reprisals or lack of support from superiors.

Communication requires that leadership be fostered and nurtured where like interest and concerns exist. With respect to trust, there is an underlying current of lack of trust in almost all of the issues related to biodiversity in the valley. Facilitation in lieu of enforcement can lead to trust which is needed to both create and enhance the biodiversity which exists in this area. In addition, demonstrable actions must take place in order to create, enhance, and preserve biodiversity.

Ted James, Director of Planning for Kern County, focused on the need to change the direction of endangered species planning and focus more on incentive-based approaches, not command and control approaches. He stated 1) there is a coordination problem with local, state and federal governments doing different things; 2) the command and control approach of implementing federal and state Endangered Species Acts must move in the direction of promoting people to want to conserve species, rather than having prohibitions requiring people to do something; and 3) long-range programs are needed.

The Valley Floor Habitat Conservation Plan coordinates the efforts of the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Conservation, Kern County, and Department of Fish and Game for the purpose of conserving endangered species and their habitat and simplifying compliance with the State and federal Endangered Species Acts. The program area is 3,000 square miles and is a habitat based program involving 32 plant and animal species. It addresses oil and gas production, agriculture, cattle ranching, water conveyance facilities, urban development, and even county public infrastructure while respecting private property rights.

Under the Valley Floor Habitat Conservation Plan, there is a predetermined conservation value that is assigned to all lands in this program area. There is a compensation ratio based on a three to one compensation ratio. Credits are adjusted to encourage the preservation of large blocks of habitat and habitat adjacent to existing preserves through the issuance of bonus credits. Landowners who conserve land as habitat reserves receive a credit based on the conservation value. Credits can be sold or traded, or used on other pieces of property. Landowners desiring to develop land cause a loss of the conservation value, so they must compensate with credits. Demand for development creates demand for the credits. This is the basis of the program. The attempt is being made to try to marry economics and conservation principles and make it work together for the benefit of everybody.

Local Presentation: Balancing Programs for Fuels Management and Air Quality Maintenance

Gary Gilbert, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, stressed that fire and smoke have always been part of California and that California ecosystems have been shaped by fire. What has changed over the years is the management of fire and land use practices, and this has changed the frequency and intensity of wildland fires within all the various fuel types in California.

One of the most conflicting goals of air quality in regulation is restoring fire into our foothills and our forest ecosystems, Prescribed fire is one of the fuel management tools most often associated with the impacts on air quality and is probably one of the most visible.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has recognized the value of prescribed fire and proposes a tenfold increase by the year 2005. That increase is both in their targets and in their funding levels to conduct prescribed burns. Several problems remain:

Mr.Gilbert identified some of the potential roles for the California Biodiversity Council:

Mr. Gilbert then reiterated his main points 1) regulatory relief must be provided; 2) partnerships are necessary; 3) public education is necessary; 4) fuels management must include alternatives to prescribed fire; 5) communication channels among all interests must be maintained and enhanced; and 6) creative funding sources must be explored.

Local Presentation and Council Discussion: Planning for Rapidly Growing Human Populations in the Valley and Foothill Regions

Joanie Weber, Secretary of the Institute of Ecological Health, provided information on what could be done to address the growth projections and current quality of life in the San Joaquin Valley.

The values currently considered at risk are 1) farmland and ranchland; 2) open space; 3) livable down towns; and 4) older town neighborhoods. The definition of livable cities is based on a Portland model. Other communities with livable down towns include Visalia, Merced and other areas.

Remaining problems seem to be: 1) a lack of a vision and a need for a regional framework of some kind; 2) changes in some federal level legislation, for example, inheritance tax reform to help farmers remain in farming; 3) local perceptions that density might mean lower quality of life; 4) lack of urban growth boundaries or a clean edge to cities; 5) reforms needed in existing codes and ordinances which prohibit mixed use zoning and those pertaining to widths of streets; 6) communication and moving beyond adversarial to problem solving; and 7) economic viability and the need for more funding options for in-fill development and mixed use building.

Ms. Weber indicated that local interests and groups in the region are willing to try incorporating more people of color into the process; mitigation banking; changes in taxation that pushes agriculture owners into development as the only viable option; making in-fill projects more attractive to developers, and possible sales tax increases for public projects.

Ms. Weber made some suggestions for potential roles for the Biodiversity Council:

In response to Ms. Weber's presentation, a listener suggested that there are at least two models for how development may occur: One which focuses on a livable inner core of the city that attracts people because of the vitality. Density is secondary because of all 'the life that is there, the beauty, and all the culture that emerges. The other is a regional plan, like Natural Community Conservation Planning, that looks at lots of lands and emphasizes the need to capture some areas for biodiversity and allocate some areas to use for development.

Jim Kochis, Natural Resources Conservation Service, noted that new technology such as the Internet, e-mail, are allowing people to live in more rural areas. When populations move away from urban types of settings, it fractures the land base and conflicts with fiber production, food production, etc. Some of these new rural executives have a higher quality of life, but have very little relationship with the viability of the economy of that piece of property.

Don Erman summarized two issues that recur in biodiversity discussions: 1) the need to pay more attention to and actively look at incentives as a way to help people do what they want to do and 2) changing the perception of farmers, ranchers, citizens who think that if they protect and advance biodiversity, in the end this will trap them in some way and punish them.

It was noted that part of the problem is that regulatory biologists are not restoration biologists. These are two different sets of professionals, and perhaps if regulatory biologists were empowered or if part of their job description included the need to consider restoration and protection issues, they might think about helping facilitate solutions, rather than always coming up with a regulation. The necessity for incentives to create economic gain was emphasized.

The suggestion was made that as there is already a well-established mechanism for public bonds to buy land, it could be expanded to include raising public bonds and use the funds to pay for services for private land. For example, subsidizing fuel burning as a means of paying some of the costs of hand labor or reducing the density of cattle grazing around some riparian areas and paying for the difference so the farmer can stay in business.

Chauncey Poston, California Resource Conservation District, noted that Resource Conservation Districts have been working with private landowners in California since the 1940s. They help landowners design anything on their property they want as long as it is a benefit. The bottom line is that private landowners in many cases do a better job than government can do.

Many agencies fear that if land is under federal ownership it is not protected. There are many innovative programs, such as the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), where they are looking at providing easements. One of the problems is that the WRP in California had $10 million, and it is already used up.

Diana Jacobs, State Lands Commission, commented on the marketing of green products, fish-friendly wine and the like. Companies could use help in marketing themselves as friendly to wildlife. An area that is growing fast is ecotimber. The government need not pay for it, just foster education and help coordinate certification.

A Harvard study focusing on biodiversity and landscape planning alternative futures for the regions around Camp Pendleton. This study identifies the year 2010 as the year by which there must be a way of planning the environmental future there or the battle will have been lost. Not doing anything is not a viable alternative, because the biodiversity battle in that particular ecosystem will have been lost.

The group focused on the sustainability of the state of California as a whole. As individuals throughout California make the decision to transfer their lands into development patterns, thought must be given as to what will be the eventual effect on California, in 100 years. How would the state feed the future seven or eight or nine generations? A 20 year or 40 year plan is not long enough.

The need for agencies to work together was a recurring theme. For example, the WRP program allows either a permanent easement or a 30 year easement. One of the things NRCS looks at in terms of their programs is how they can work with other agencies to get maximum use out of each dollar. If one agency cannot afford to a purchase, possibly NRCS can help with an acquisition or easement. There is a need to work together to develop those kinds of proposals.

Dennis Fox, California Native Grass Association, Bakersfield, identified three topics which are interrelated: 1) land conversion, 2) land reversion, and 3) water subsidy structure. On the subject of land conversion, since Proposition 13, many valley counties have sought revenue by zoning for more dollars. Consideration should be given to having a state or regional oversight with veto power over land conversions. The idea behind land reversion instead of land retirement is that if marginal farmlands were reverted to pastoral agriculture, the following would be accomplished: 1) these lands would remain on tax rolls so it would not be encouraging counties to do further land conversion; 2) they would remain in employment with some sales tax revenue coming in, and 3) endangered species problems would not arise until land was put into row agriculture. With respect to water price restructuring, urban areas are allowing the subsidy pricing of water to the farmers in return for increased revenues to pay for more freeway construction.

Bernard Carlson, El Dorado County, expressed his desire to see more local control and incentive based approaches to biodiversity. Changes in the Endangered Species Act need to be made so that science is the basis for declaring a species endangered, not emotion. The fertile valley floors should be preserved as the breadbasket of the world. Current efforts to preserve forests are encouraging. Water will be needed in the future and planning for dam construction must begin now.

Greg Kirkpatrick, American Farmland Trust, reported that the Habitat Enhancement Landowner Program (HELP) was developed by a group of farming organizations over the last year. It came about as a response to a program developed by American Farmland Trust and the Department of Fish and Game to create a safe harbor for farmers who were willing to take on habitat enhancement activities on their private lands. This program is designed to remove disincentives created by the enforcement approach of the Endangered Species Act, and provide a process to create coordination of overlapping regulations. The next steps are for the Agriculture Caucus to respond to the comments of the agencies and the environmental organizations and continue this discussion.

Joan Stewart, California Native Plant Society, is a biologist who works with environmental groups and has been involved in the development of the San Diego Multi Species Conservation Plan since the technical advisory committee was first organized. Many are referring to the San Diego effort as a model, but the process and the results are frustrating. In the final analysis, it is better than nothing, but not even close to the promise of a science driven program that would conserve all the natural resources of the region. She cautions Council members not to sell the program as something that is perfect when in fact it is far from perfect in her opinion.

Bill Saffie, Coordinator for Area 9 Project Revive, highlighted the 27 Resource Conservation Districts in Area 9 from Merced in the north to the coast range in the west, to the Tehachapi in the south, and the Pacific Crest in the east. The common purpose is to take available technology, financial and educational resources, and focus and coordinate at the local level to meet the present and future resource needs of the local land user.

Jean Saffle, Director of the Sierra Resource Conservation District, reported that the Sierra Resource Conservation District receive cooperation from upper level management in most agencies, but that at the field level this cooperation seems to break down. It would be helpful if field level employees could work out interagency issues.