SCIENCE in California’s Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs) California Department of Fish and Game Brenda S. Johnson, Ph.D.

California’s Human Population Growth Year

Resource Competition

Species at Risk in California 400+ Listed plants 200+ Listed animals 200+ Species of Special Concern Sensitive plants (CNPS)

CALIFORNIA Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (1991, 2000, 2003) California Fish and Game Code Chapter 10, Sections UNITED STATES Endangered Species Act (1973) Section 10(a) (HCPs) 1982 Five-Point Policy 2000

NCCP/HCP Goals  Protect and recover biological diversity  Prevent future species listings  Allow compatible and appropriate use

Characteristics of Regional Conservation Plans  Locally-driven collaborative partnerships  Broad geographic scope  Ecosystem-based approach  Long-term conservation and management  Monitoring in perpetuity

Regional Conservation Plans 2006

NCCP Science  Existing information  Planning phase  Implementation

Existing information (consultants and lead agencies)  Previously collected data  Vegetation mapping (GIS)  Other spatial data sets  Local scientific expertise  Museum records  Existing monitoring programs

Planning Phase I (consulting team)  Refinement of existing data  New data collection  Conceptual models  Biological goals and objectives

Planning Phase II (independent science advisors)  Review existing data  Data gaps/research needs  Species ecological requirements  Conceptual models  Biological goals and objectives  Conservation and recovery principles and strategies  Scientific uncertainty and risk  Potential for changed circumstances

Implementation (implementing entity)  adaptive management  effectiveness monitoring  targeted studies

“Monitoring is important, it is difficult, and it is often avoided or overlooked.” Schoonmaker, P. and W. Luscombe Habitat Monitoring: An Approach for Reporting Status and Trends for State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies. Prepared for Defenders of Wildlife.

CHALLENGES  Monitor covered species and ecosystem integrity

CHALLENGES  Monitor covered species and ecosystem integrity  Scale up and integrate across

CHALLENGES  Monitor covered species and ecosystem integrity  Scale up and integrate across

CHALLENGES  Monitor covered species and ecosystem integrity  Scale up and integrate across  Acknowledge high degree of uncertainty

CHALLENGES  Monitor covered species and ecosystem integrity  Scale up and integrate across  Acknowledge high degree of uncertainty –Reduce critical knowledge gaps –Scientific capacity –Resources –Flexibility

CHALLENGES  Monitor covered species and ecosystem integrity  Scale up and integrate across  Acknowledge high degree of uncertainty  Phase-in monitoring program development

MONITORING PROGRAM PHASES  Phase 1-- Inventory resources and identify relationships  Phase 2 – Pilot test monitoring and resolve critical uncertainties  Phase 3 – Long-term monitoring and adaptive management

CHALLENGES  Monitor covered species and ecosystem integrity  Scale up and integrate across  Acknowledge high degree of uncertainty  Phase-in monitoring program development  Stage implementation spatially

We need to  Think before monitoring  Embrace complexity  Use many brains  Be strategic  Have fun with uncertainty  Analyze early and often  Communicate progress

Habitat loss Due to land use change – urbanization, grazing, agriculture Invasive species cover Habitat alteration from invasive plants Trampling By vehicles, people, livestock Fire??? Natural drivers Current Anthropogenic Drivers Climate Change Altered hydrology Due to water diversion, dams, mining Hydrology Available habitat Episodic floods create openings Number populations (patches) Size of populations Historical Anthropogenic Drivers To be monitored for Ambrosia pumilla A B C Management Responses A)Remove exotics (or see C) B)Restrict access C)Restore flooding or mimic disturbance that causes clearings Soil compaction???

What have we really learned?  It hurts to think

What have we really learned?  It hurts to think  Too many cooks can spoil the broth

What have we really learned?  It hurts to think  Too many cooks can spoil the broth  It costs a lot!

What have we really learned?  It hurts to think  Too many cooks can spoil the broth  It costs a lot!!  There are trade-offs

What have we really learned?  It hurts to think  Too many cooks can spoil the broth  It costs a lot!!!  There are trade-offs  This is not the ivory tower

What have we really learned?  It hurts to think  Too many cooks can spoil the broth  It costs a lot!!!!  There are trade-offs  This is not the ivory tower  Every monitoring program is different

What have we really learned?  It hurts to think  Too many cooks can spoil the broth  It costs a lot!!!!!  There are trade-offs  This is not the ivory tower  Every monitoring program is different  Close the loop

Progress!  New frontier

Progress!  New frontier  We’ve got data!

Progress!  New frontier  We’ve got data!  We are learning