Syuxtun Story Circle
The new, 20-foot-wide mosaic that sits upon the very location of the village of the same name, which was once the largest settlement in all of Chumash country
Thursday, January 14, 2010
The Importance of Gaviota Coast in an Era of Climate Change
INTRODUCTION
Biodiversity loss in an era of climate change ultimately is a consequence of the globalizing force of economic trade (in this case, the exchange of coastal and marine resources) and anthropogenic climate change. To begin to address the cumulative impacts of the multiple-use of coastal marine resources and to mitigate the expected impacts from climate change, this paper’s focus is on the development of coastal marine ecosystem-based planning activities in the Euro-Mediterranean, the United States, and California. Coastal marine ecosystem-based policy is one valuable tool to protect biodiversity in an era of climate change.
The Mediterranean-type ecosystems (MTEs) of the world are unique biomes that share a common natural history – people in this areas have had to adapt to major climate events such as flooding, earthquakes, fire, and changes in the available of water and food. The question is whether the contemporary cultures can adapt to anthropogenic climate change, and the synergistic impacts of coastal marine resource use. While the issue of biodiversity loss may seem an “ephemeral” issue in today’s climate change debate, the consequences of biodiversity loss will have dramatic consequences of various peoples and places.
Ultimately, new social alliances and partnerships that combine scientists, policymakers and non-governmental organizations that support the protection of important coastal and marine are needed to address coastal marine biodiversity loss in an age of climate change.
CLIMATE DISTURBANCE AND COASTAL MARINE ECOSYSTEMS
Mediterranean cultures have changed their landscapes and their landscapes have changed society; in many ways natural history of Mediterranean culture reflect adaptations to a turbulent climate (Grove and Racknam 2001; Fagan 2004). Mediterranean-type ecosystems (MTEs) are far from homeostatic or stable systems (Blondel and Aronson 1999). Natural history reveals that the cultures of the Mediterranean have adapted to dramatic long-term change in climate. Brian Fagan, a former Guggenheim Fellow, in his most recent book, The Long Summer: How Climate Changed Civilization, (2004) shows that fluctuations in climate dramatically affect human behavior, technology and culture. The diverse Chumash peoples of south-central coastal California faced dramatic climate events, and developed ways of adapting to changes in water availability, food supply, and dramatic weather events, including long-term, intergenerational change in the climate (Raab and Jones 2004). Mediterranean societies adapted to historic periods of drought, famine, flooding and catastrophic fire.
The five MTEs in the world are characterized by mild, rainy winters and hot, dry summers are extraordinarily rich in biodiversity, covering only 2.25 percent of the earth’s land surface. The MTEs contain 20 percent of its named vascular plant species (Rundel et al. 1998; Blondel and Aronson 1999). The five regions are:
• The southern parts of the states of South Australia, Victoria, and Western Australia;
• All of California excluding desert and steppe, reaching into small parts of the state of Oregon and the Mexican state of Baja California;
• Central Chile;
• Parts of South Africa; and
• The Mediterranean region which covers all or part of thirty countries.
MTEs share many problems related to their climate, including sensitivity to climate disturbance, desertification, air and water pollution, overdrawing of groundwater, degradation of fresh water ecosystems, coastal marine habitat loss, overfishing, and urbanization. Rundel et al. (1998) note that MTEs are not steady-state ecosystems. For example, the Los Angeles River in southern California can increase its flow 3,000 fold in a 24-hour period (Davis 1998). California has experienced significant long-term droughts or extreme hydrological shifts: 892-1112 (220 years) and 1209-1350 (141 years). The longest drought of the 20th Century lasted 6 years during 1987-1992. During the last 60 years, urban development has taken place during what California Institute of Technology scientists call an “earthquake deficit” while major flooding events have been rather calm compared to the historical evidence of climate disturbance. Davis (1998) writes, “The urbanization of southern California seems to have taken place during one of the most unusual episodes of climatic and seismic benignity since the inception of the Holocene” [emphasis added]. The urban-industrial infrastructure of coastal California has changed the character and future of the region. In hope of preventing major flood events, the Los Angeles (LA) River was paved and channelized. Forty-eight percent of the LA Basin is developed, a 5% of the historical coastal wetland remain. California includes over 1200 irrigation systems that feed coastal development, agriculture, and industry. The irrigation network is a significant contributor to the state’s greenhouse gas emissions.
The Need to protect biodiversity
Recent policy development in California represents a preliminary step to address the climate-related pressures on coastal marine biodiversity. The designation of Marine Protected Areas of MPAs represents one regulatory tool in support of an ecosystem-based approach to protect coastal marine biodiversity by limited use of marine areas. MPA network design and policy development should be linked to climate-related pressures, and should not be limited in terms of sector-based priorities, such as fisheries management.
Similar protective measures should be adopted at the regional level in coastal California.
California has also begun to assess the pressures and potential policy responses to coastal marine biodiversity loss. Over the last six years the California Climate Change Center, a state program conducting climate change research relevant to the state, has begun to characterize the expected impacts on key state resources. The existing California policy framework includes Assembly Bill (AB) 32, Senate Bill (SB) 375, SB 97, as well as a host of additional topic-specific bills. The California policy framework presents various obligations and opportunities for each county and city to participate in this emerging State directive. Executive Order S-3-05, signed in 2005 by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, requires both mitigation plans and adaptation strategies to manage climate-related impacts. California policy requires that the public and private sectors participate in reducing California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
While AB 32 sets a framework and process for these achieving goals of greenhouse emission reductions, it does not operationalize them. To begin executing the intended actions, the State legislature has thus far adopted thirteen bills and the Governor has signed four executive orders to provide GHG producers and regulators with additional direction regarding implementation activities. This includes the passage of SB 97, on August 24, 2007, which provides guidance on how GHG emissions are to be addressed through CEQA analysis, as well as the recent passage of the closely watched SB 375. Signed on September 30, 2008, SB 375 aligns the State’s housing mandate with regional transportation plans to effectuate a reduction in vehicle trips. Under SB 375, each of the California’s 18 Municipal Planning Organizations (MPO), is required to develop an aligned transportation and housing plan for adoption by 2013.
In addition to these topic-specific bills, AB 32 charged the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop a Scoping Plan outlining the State’s strategy to achieve the 2020 GHG goals. The Scoping Plan proposes 18 emission reduction measures, which are expected to be adopted in December 2009, with final reduction measures expected to be adopted by January 2011. These measures seek to implement AB 32’s goal of framing a new statewide policy paradigm by outlining specific strategies and actions, including those related to energy conservation and efficiency, improvements to the state’s infrastructure, regionally coordinated transportation planning practices, and market-mechanisms such as an emissions cap-and-trade program. These measures will be legally enforceable at the beginning of 2012, in order to reach the statewide emissions reduction target by 2020. The pending regulatory environment, however, does not necessarily undermine local control.
With the passage and implementation of the AB 32, California is currently investigating the various policy tools that may be needed to mitigate the expected impacts from climate change through reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In concert with these efforts, the California Resources Agency has undertaken the complicated task of developing California's first comprehensive Climate Adaptation Strategy (CAS). California’s efforts include the development of a matrix of policy responses to impacts to coastal areas of the state. The CAS will have six different Climate Adaptation Working Groups that will identify and prioritize climate adaptation strategies on a per-sector basis, including:
• Biodiversity and Habitat
• Infrastructure (roads, levees, buildings, etc.)
• Oceans and Coastal Resources
• Public Health
• Water
• Working Landscapes (forestry and agriculture)
California’s Ocean and Coastal Resources Climate Change Adaptation Strategy will be produced by the Oceans and Coastal Resources Working Group. As of March 2009, this working group is completing an analysis for state-wide strategy that includes: 1) a vulnerability assessment will establish the type and extent of potential climate changes such as sea level rise, storm surges, and changing ocean conditions and how these changes will impact infrastructure and development, human populations, economy, and natural habitats and species; and 2) coastal adaptation strategies (both overarching and specific) will address these impacts.
Santa Barbara County has begun to develop their required Climate Action Plan and has also begun the planning process to update their Gaviota Coastal Plan. This webpage focuses on the biodiversity conservation measures that are needed for both of these County plans.
Biodiversity loss in an era of climate change ultimately is a consequence of the globalizing force of economic trade (in this case, the exchange of coastal and marine resources) and anthropogenic climate change. To begin to address the cumulative impacts of the multiple-use of coastal marine resources and to mitigate the expected impacts from climate change, this paper’s focus is on the development of coastal marine ecosystem-based planning activities in the Euro-Mediterranean, the United States, and California. Coastal marine ecosystem-based policy is one valuable tool to protect biodiversity in an era of climate change.
The Mediterranean-type ecosystems (MTEs) of the world are unique biomes that share a common natural history – people in this areas have had to adapt to major climate events such as flooding, earthquakes, fire, and changes in the available of water and food. The question is whether the contemporary cultures can adapt to anthropogenic climate change, and the synergistic impacts of coastal marine resource use. While the issue of biodiversity loss may seem an “ephemeral” issue in today’s climate change debate, the consequences of biodiversity loss will have dramatic consequences of various peoples and places.
Ultimately, new social alliances and partnerships that combine scientists, policymakers and non-governmental organizations that support the protection of important coastal and marine are needed to address coastal marine biodiversity loss in an age of climate change.
CLIMATE DISTURBANCE AND COASTAL MARINE ECOSYSTEMS
Mediterranean cultures have changed their landscapes and their landscapes have changed society; in many ways natural history of Mediterranean culture reflect adaptations to a turbulent climate (Grove and Racknam 2001; Fagan 2004). Mediterranean-type ecosystems (MTEs) are far from homeostatic or stable systems (Blondel and Aronson 1999). Natural history reveals that the cultures of the Mediterranean have adapted to dramatic long-term change in climate. Brian Fagan, a former Guggenheim Fellow, in his most recent book, The Long Summer: How Climate Changed Civilization, (2004) shows that fluctuations in climate dramatically affect human behavior, technology and culture. The diverse Chumash peoples of south-central coastal California faced dramatic climate events, and developed ways of adapting to changes in water availability, food supply, and dramatic weather events, including long-term, intergenerational change in the climate (Raab and Jones 2004). Mediterranean societies adapted to historic periods of drought, famine, flooding and catastrophic fire.
The five MTEs in the world are characterized by mild, rainy winters and hot, dry summers are extraordinarily rich in biodiversity, covering only 2.25 percent of the earth’s land surface. The MTEs contain 20 percent of its named vascular plant species (Rundel et al. 1998; Blondel and Aronson 1999). The five regions are:
• The southern parts of the states of South Australia, Victoria, and Western Australia;
• All of California excluding desert and steppe, reaching into small parts of the state of Oregon and the Mexican state of Baja California;
• Central Chile;
• Parts of South Africa; and
• The Mediterranean region which covers all or part of thirty countries.
MTEs share many problems related to their climate, including sensitivity to climate disturbance, desertification, air and water pollution, overdrawing of groundwater, degradation of fresh water ecosystems, coastal marine habitat loss, overfishing, and urbanization. Rundel et al. (1998) note that MTEs are not steady-state ecosystems. For example, the Los Angeles River in southern California can increase its flow 3,000 fold in a 24-hour period (Davis 1998). California has experienced significant long-term droughts or extreme hydrological shifts: 892-1112 (220 years) and 1209-1350 (141 years). The longest drought of the 20th Century lasted 6 years during 1987-1992. During the last 60 years, urban development has taken place during what California Institute of Technology scientists call an “earthquake deficit” while major flooding events have been rather calm compared to the historical evidence of climate disturbance. Davis (1998) writes, “The urbanization of southern California seems to have taken place during one of the most unusual episodes of climatic and seismic benignity since the inception of the Holocene” [emphasis added]. The urban-industrial infrastructure of coastal California has changed the character and future of the region. In hope of preventing major flood events, the Los Angeles (LA) River was paved and channelized. Forty-eight percent of the LA Basin is developed, a 5% of the historical coastal wetland remain. California includes over 1200 irrigation systems that feed coastal development, agriculture, and industry. The irrigation network is a significant contributor to the state’s greenhouse gas emissions.
The Need to protect biodiversity
Recent policy development in California represents a preliminary step to address the climate-related pressures on coastal marine biodiversity. The designation of Marine Protected Areas of MPAs represents one regulatory tool in support of an ecosystem-based approach to protect coastal marine biodiversity by limited use of marine areas. MPA network design and policy development should be linked to climate-related pressures, and should not be limited in terms of sector-based priorities, such as fisheries management.
Similar protective measures should be adopted at the regional level in coastal California.
California has also begun to assess the pressures and potential policy responses to coastal marine biodiversity loss. Over the last six years the California Climate Change Center, a state program conducting climate change research relevant to the state, has begun to characterize the expected impacts on key state resources. The existing California policy framework includes Assembly Bill (AB) 32, Senate Bill (SB) 375, SB 97, as well as a host of additional topic-specific bills. The California policy framework presents various obligations and opportunities for each county and city to participate in this emerging State directive. Executive Order S-3-05, signed in 2005 by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, requires both mitigation plans and adaptation strategies to manage climate-related impacts. California policy requires that the public and private sectors participate in reducing California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
While AB 32 sets a framework and process for these achieving goals of greenhouse emission reductions, it does not operationalize them. To begin executing the intended actions, the State legislature has thus far adopted thirteen bills and the Governor has signed four executive orders to provide GHG producers and regulators with additional direction regarding implementation activities. This includes the passage of SB 97, on August 24, 2007, which provides guidance on how GHG emissions are to be addressed through CEQA analysis, as well as the recent passage of the closely watched SB 375. Signed on September 30, 2008, SB 375 aligns the State’s housing mandate with regional transportation plans to effectuate a reduction in vehicle trips. Under SB 375, each of the California’s 18 Municipal Planning Organizations (MPO), is required to develop an aligned transportation and housing plan for adoption by 2013.
In addition to these topic-specific bills, AB 32 charged the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop a Scoping Plan outlining the State’s strategy to achieve the 2020 GHG goals. The Scoping Plan proposes 18 emission reduction measures, which are expected to be adopted in December 2009, with final reduction measures expected to be adopted by January 2011. These measures seek to implement AB 32’s goal of framing a new statewide policy paradigm by outlining specific strategies and actions, including those related to energy conservation and efficiency, improvements to the state’s infrastructure, regionally coordinated transportation planning practices, and market-mechanisms such as an emissions cap-and-trade program. These measures will be legally enforceable at the beginning of 2012, in order to reach the statewide emissions reduction target by 2020. The pending regulatory environment, however, does not necessarily undermine local control.
With the passage and implementation of the AB 32, California is currently investigating the various policy tools that may be needed to mitigate the expected impacts from climate change through reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In concert with these efforts, the California Resources Agency has undertaken the complicated task of developing California's first comprehensive Climate Adaptation Strategy (CAS). California’s efforts include the development of a matrix of policy responses to impacts to coastal areas of the state. The CAS will have six different Climate Adaptation Working Groups that will identify and prioritize climate adaptation strategies on a per-sector basis, including:
• Biodiversity and Habitat
• Infrastructure (roads, levees, buildings, etc.)
• Oceans and Coastal Resources
• Public Health
• Water
• Working Landscapes (forestry and agriculture)
California’s Ocean and Coastal Resources Climate Change Adaptation Strategy will be produced by the Oceans and Coastal Resources Working Group. As of March 2009, this working group is completing an analysis for state-wide strategy that includes: 1) a vulnerability assessment will establish the type and extent of potential climate changes such as sea level rise, storm surges, and changing ocean conditions and how these changes will impact infrastructure and development, human populations, economy, and natural habitats and species; and 2) coastal adaptation strategies (both overarching and specific) will address these impacts.
Santa Barbara County has begun to develop their required Climate Action Plan and has also begun the planning process to update their Gaviota Coastal Plan. This webpage focuses on the biodiversity conservation measures that are needed for both of these County plans.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Gaviota coast presentation
Dr. McGinnis gave a presentation on the ecology of the Gaviota Coast at the Gaviota Coast Rural Planning Advisory Committee meeting on January 6, 2010 at 6:30pm. Information on the meeting can be found at:
http://longrange.sbcountyplanning.org/planareas/gaviota/gaviota.php
http://longrange.sbcountyplanning.org/planareas/gaviota/gaviota.php
Protecting Climate Refugia Areas: The case of the Gaviota coast in southern California
[forthcoming in Endangered Species Update]
Abstract
The designation of “climate refuge areas” should be an important part of a more integrated, ecosystem-based approach to protect endangered species. Identifying “climate refugia” areas should be a priority as resource managers begin to develop adaptive policies. This article describes policy innovation in California that includes important strategic elements and goals that can support the identification and protection of climate refugia for special status species, and offers a case study of the Gaviota coast in southern California. The essay concludes with general recommendations for planning and policy development to support better protection of endangered species, and emphasizes the importance of better local land-use planning.
The Importance of Climate Refugia
This article describes recent policy innovation in California to develop an ecosystem-based approach to endangered species protection, with particular emphasis on the importance of identifying and protecting climate refugia in areas that are known as hot spots for threatened biodiversity. Scientists have begun to describe the cumulative impacts of the multiple-use of resources, and show that these impacts will likely exacerbate an ecosystem’s ability to adapt to climate disturbance (Worm et al. 2006; Halpern et al. 2009). Large-scale climate disturbance will interact with and accelerate the existing anthropogenic pressures to endangered species. Indeed, scientists show that there are synergies among extinction drivers under global climate change that reflect the cumulative impacts of the multiple-use of resources and climate disturbance (Brook et al. 2008). Policy innovation is needed to begin to foster large-scale, ecosystem-based adaptive conservation strategies that can better protect endangered species in an era of climate change.
The scholarly literature has expressed concern over the lack of region- or ecosystem-specific adaptation policy that can enable ecological resilience of threatened biodiversity with respect to climate disturbance. Current strategies include prescriptions at the state and federal government levels that support principles of ecosystem-based planning, and the establishment of habitat reserves that support connectivity or migration corridors, habitat buffer zones, ecological core areas, the control of non-native invasive species, and collaboration across administrative, economic and political jurisdictions (Yaffee et al. 1996). Local land use planning and policy can play a fundamental role in the protection of sensitive habitat areas and ecosystems (Brody 2004).
This article describes recent policy innovation in California that focuses on the need to develop adaptive policy at the regional and local levels to protect climate refugia throughout the state. Resource managers increasingly recognize that adaptive policy must occur at regional levels with local land use decisions and management actions that can protect endangered species that depend on climate refugia. Protecting endangered species and their habitats on private and public lands will become increasingly difficult as plants, animals and insects adjust their ranges in response to climate change. This article offers a number of preliminary strategies that should be developed at regional levels to begin to protect endangered species and climate refugia areas. Extra conservation effort is needed today to protect endangered species in parts of their habitat range that are relatively stable “climate refugia” – areas that function as important source areas from which species can expand given climate disturbance. Among the most recent recommendations in the scientific literature is the need to identify and protect climate refugia across a rapidly changing landscape and seascape (Barnosky 2007). Evidence is accumulating that emphasizes the importance of climate refugia that have historically supported ecological resilience during periods of dramatic climate disturbance, such as long term changes in environmental conditions.
Case Study: California’s Mediterranean-type Ecosystem
Mediterranean-type ecosystems (MTEs) have a rich natural history that includes long periods of ecosystem and climate-related disturbance events, such as changes in oceanographic and climate regimes. Species adapt to these changing environmental conditions by often relying on climate refugia areas. Human impacts on California’s MTE have led to the degradation of a range of habitats that serve the needs of endangered species: 55% of the State listed animals and 25% of the threatened plants depend on wetlands; 43% of the Federally listed species rely directly on wetlands for survival; estuarine wetlands have decline by 75-90%; riparian communities have declined by 90-95%; and vernal pools have declined by 90% (Noss et al. 1995; McGinnis 2009). The multiple impacts of human activities will likely exacerbate the ability of endangered species to adapt to climate change in California (California Resources Agency 2009; Halpern et al. 2009; Halpern et al. 2008). The native plants unique to California are very vulnerable to global climate change such that two-thirds of these "endemics" could suffer more than an 80 percent reduction in geographic range by the end of the century (Loarie et al. 2008). Loarie et al. (2008) point to the need for identification and better protection of existing climate refugia given the evidence of ecosystem disturbance across California’s MTE.
Adaptive Biodiversity Policy Innovation in California
California may be on the verge of establishing a new era of conservation policymaking that may influence how we can protect endangered species in the context of climate disturbance. However, policy innovation and local initiative and leadership will be needed if endangered species protection can reflect the major threats and pressures that exist today in light of recent evidence of climate disturbance. California policy requires that the public and private sectors participate in reducing California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In addition, the existing California policy framework includes Assembly Bill (AB) 32, Senate Bill (SB) 375, SB 97, as well as a host of additional topic-specific bills. The California policy framework presents various obligations and opportunities for each county and city to participate in this emerging State directive. In addition, the California policy framework requires that counties and cities develop Climate Action Strategies. In December 2008, the California Air Resources Board released the state’s Climate Change Scoping Plan, which describes a range of strategies that are necessary for the state to reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. A move beyond a focus or emphasis in reducing GHG is required if endangered species can be protected.
In response to the California Governor’s Executive Order S-13-2008, the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy Discussion Draft [hereafter, Discussion Draft] (2009) outlines a wide range of strategic elements that include goals and objectives for protecting biodiversity and special status species in light of increasing pressures from climate change. While California is encouraging local governments to develop plans that support these adaptive strategies, there has been little if any formal policy developed by local governments that supports the protection of climate refugia for endangered species beyond the regulatory requirements set forth by the state and federal governments, such as the Endangered Species Act, that require critical habitat designation. However, one county in California may represent the first step toward protecting climate refugia that will likely be needed for endangered species.
Protecting Climate Refugia: the case of the Gaviota coast in south California
One consequence of climate disturbance in California will be a shift of biodiversity to the north (Loarie et al. 2008). Scientists from the US Geological Survey developed the Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) to assess the physical vulnerability of the California coast. They found that from San Luis Obispo to the Mexico border, communities along this coastline have “high” or “very high” vulnerability to climate change. One area identified as climate refugia is the Gaviota coastal (GC), which is part of one of the most threatened “hot spots” for biodiversity in the world (McGinnis et al. 2009; National Park Service 2004; Stein et al. 2000). The GC extends from Coal Oil Point to Point Sal and includes the coastal watersheds and terrestrial foothill and mountain ecosystems associated with the transverse Santa Ynez Range. Map 1 depicts the GC and areas of high conservation value (Conception Coast Project 2004).
In 2004, the National Park Service (NPS) completed a feasibility study that included an evaluation of the GC as California’s second national seashore (the only national seashore is the Point Reyes National Seashore north of San Francisco). According to the NPS (2004), the GC includes two of the most biologically diverse ecoregions in the world, and some of the highest concentrations globally-important, rare species in the nation. Of the approximately 1,400 plant and animal species estimated to exist within GC, there are 24 federally- or state-listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species and another 60 considered rare or of special concern. The NPS concluded that the quality and scope of GC’s natural and cultural resources qualify it for inclusion in the National Park system. But because of the preponderance of private land in the area, the NPS found that it would not be feasible to add Gaviota to the National Park system at that time.
In March 2009, Santa Barbara County initiated the long-term development of a Climate Action Strategy (CAS) that would include or consider biodiversity concerns. In addition, the County Board of Supervisors voted to support a Gaviota Coast Rural Regional Planning (RRP) process, which may lead to the development of new policies in the County’s General Plan and Local Coastal Plan (LCP) that can protect endangered species. The County’s CAS and RRP processes are unusual insofar as they include biodiversity protection measures, and the local effort may represent the first local effort in California to consider climate change and endangered species protection.
While climate-related policy development will necessarily include broad spatial scales, decision makers increasingly recognize that implementation must occur at the local level with local land use decisions. With respect to the planning process for identifying and protection of climate refugia, Figure 1 depicts the ideal planning process to begin to address endangered species issues at the county level.
The following planning stages are recommended to begin to identify and protect climate refugia at the local level [see Figure above].
Stage 1 - Identification of Pressures. Climate change will have direct and indirect pressures and impacts on areas designated as critical habitat and environmental sensitive habitat areas (ESHAs). Existing protected areas, such as ecological reserves, wildlife areas, undesignated lands, mitigation sites, and easements will likely be impacted by climate change. A more comprehensive, ecosystem-based and cumulative assessment that includes the identification of multiple pressures or stressors on endangered species and their habitat needs should be included in local land use planning.
Stage 2 - A comprehensive vulnerability analysis should be conducted to establish the type and extent of potential climate changes (such as sea level rise, storm surges, and changing ocean conditions) and how these changes will impact natural habitats and endangered species. Smaller communities are particularly vulnerable as they lack many important resources for effective adaptation. A vulnerability analysis must include detailed mapping that contains “measures of physical risk,” identification of threatened habitats, among other factors. Coupled with an inventory, this analysis can determine the most successful places that exist for ensuring migration of sensitive habitat, such as coastal wetlands, and species.
The vulnerability analysis should be used as one foundation to develop adaptation strategies (both overarching and specific) to protect endangered species. As much as possible, each adaptive strategy should be accompanied by case studies that elucidate that strategy and guidance on how it should be implemented. For example, changes in creek, wetland, and coastal bluff buffer areas and other adaptive strategies that are needed to protect sensitive habitat areas should be incorporated in local plans. In addition, the vulnerability analysis should carefully depict and describe information gaps.
To assist in the regional vulnerability analysis, regional interagency and working groups representing government and non-governmental organizations, e.g. state parks, and the private sector may be needed to discuss and recommend adoption of policies to protect biodiversity. Such a working group could also include the use of a Scientific Advisory Panel to assist in the development of guiding principles to protect biodiversity.
Stage 3 - Identification of Climate Refugia. A number of guiding principles should be emphasized in the identification of climate refugia including the following goals:
o Maintain healthy, connected, genetically diverse populations
o Improve resiliency of existing habitats in order to maintain existing or new assemblages of species
o Reduce non-climate stressors on ecosystems (i.e. invasive species)
o Protect coastal wetlands and accommodate sea level rise
o Consider climate change models as well as historical data when making projections
o Employ monitoring and adaptive management
o Adopt adaptation approaches that reduce risks to species and habitats and provide time for species evolution and development.
With respect to the identification of climate refugia, the precautionary principle must be employed to buffer against scientific uncertainty. There are synergistic effects and positive feedback loops of human-induced climate change, other human impacts, and natural disturbances which make decisions about policy solutions difficult.
The identification of climate refugia should include priority management goals to preserve core habitat and migration corridors. Since climate disturbance will continue to cause plant communities and species’ ranges to shift, adaptive corridors of continuous habitat must be preserved to enable future shifts in ranges and resiliency in ecosystems. Routes containing viable native habitats for plant pollination vectors (wind and insect) and which connect existing and predicted future habitat areas can be mapped and protected. The identification of climate refugia should also include policy development that emphasizes a careful review and assessment of existing land use plans and policies, such as Local Coastal Plans, and other elements such as biological thresholds and environmental sensitive habitat areas.
Stages 4, 5 and 6 - Development of Adaptive Strategic Elements. City and county plans should be amended to include special conservation measures that can support the ecological resilience of endangered species and climate refugia. Amendment and revision of city and county general plans should support an integrated, ecosystem-based approach that includes resources that support long-term monitoring of climate refugia areas, and land use elements should be revised as new information becomes available.
Conclusion
The long-term impacts from climate change on special status species are likely to be dramatic. In the context of climate change, the goal of protecting special status species is exacerbated by the cumulative or synergistic impacts of the multiple-use of resources and the expected pressures from large-scale climate disturbance. This article reviewed recent policy development in California and offered a number of recommendations for cities and counties to begin to develop biodiversity conservation measures that can better protect endangered species and climate refugia. Policy innovation that moves beyond the emphasis in reducing greenhouse gases is needed today that supports the ecological resilience and adaptation of species that are essential to the maintenance of the ecosystem goods and services that are provided by healthy ecosystems.
REFERENCES
Barnosky, A.D. 2008. Climate change, refugia, and biodiversity: where do we go from here? An editorial comment. Climate Change 86: 29-32.
Brody, S.D. 2004. Implementing the Principles of Ecosystem Management Through Local Land Use Planning. Population & Environment 24, 6: 1573-1578.
California Resources Agency. August 4, 2009. California Climate Adaptation Strategy Discussion Draft. http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/adaptation/
Halpern, B.S. et al. 2009. Mapping cumulative human impacts to California Current. Conservation Letters. 1-11. http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/GlobalMarine/impacts
Halpern, B.S., K.L. McLeod, A.A. Rosenberg, and L.B. Crowder. 2008. Understanding cumulative and interactive impacts as a basis for ecosystem-based management and ocean zoning. Ocean and Coastal Management 51:203-211.
Loarie, S.R., B.E. Carter, K. Hayhoe, S. McMahon, R. Moe. 2008. Climate Change and the Future of California's Endemic Flora. PLoS ONE 3(6): e2502. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002502
McGinnis, M.V., W. Su, A. Willsey, and J. Tiegs. 2009. Developing Adaptive Policy to Climate Disturbance in Santa Barbara County. Ocean and Coastal Policy Center White Paper. University of California Santa Barbara. Marine Science Institute. September.
Miller, C.I., N.L. Stephenson, and S.L. Stephens. 2007. Climate change and forests of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications 17: 2145-2151.
National Park Service. 2004. Final Gaviota Coast Feasibility Study. March 9. http://www.nps.gov/pwro/gaviota/
Noss, R.F., E.T. LaRoe III, and J.M. Scott. 1995. Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. Biological Report 28. U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C.
Worm, B. et al. 2006. Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services. Science 314: 787-790.
Yaffee, S.L., A.F. Phillips, I.C. Frentz, P. Hardy, S. Maleki, and B.E. Thorpe. 1996. Ecosystem Management in the United States: An Assessment of Current Experience. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Abstract
The designation of “climate refuge areas” should be an important part of a more integrated, ecosystem-based approach to protect endangered species. Identifying “climate refugia” areas should be a priority as resource managers begin to develop adaptive policies. This article describes policy innovation in California that includes important strategic elements and goals that can support the identification and protection of climate refugia for special status species, and offers a case study of the Gaviota coast in southern California. The essay concludes with general recommendations for planning and policy development to support better protection of endangered species, and emphasizes the importance of better local land-use planning.
The Importance of Climate Refugia
This article describes recent policy innovation in California to develop an ecosystem-based approach to endangered species protection, with particular emphasis on the importance of identifying and protecting climate refugia in areas that are known as hot spots for threatened biodiversity. Scientists have begun to describe the cumulative impacts of the multiple-use of resources, and show that these impacts will likely exacerbate an ecosystem’s ability to adapt to climate disturbance (Worm et al. 2006; Halpern et al. 2009). Large-scale climate disturbance will interact with and accelerate the existing anthropogenic pressures to endangered species. Indeed, scientists show that there are synergies among extinction drivers under global climate change that reflect the cumulative impacts of the multiple-use of resources and climate disturbance (Brook et al. 2008). Policy innovation is needed to begin to foster large-scale, ecosystem-based adaptive conservation strategies that can better protect endangered species in an era of climate change.
The scholarly literature has expressed concern over the lack of region- or ecosystem-specific adaptation policy that can enable ecological resilience of threatened biodiversity with respect to climate disturbance. Current strategies include prescriptions at the state and federal government levels that support principles of ecosystem-based planning, and the establishment of habitat reserves that support connectivity or migration corridors, habitat buffer zones, ecological core areas, the control of non-native invasive species, and collaboration across administrative, economic and political jurisdictions (Yaffee et al. 1996). Local land use planning and policy can play a fundamental role in the protection of sensitive habitat areas and ecosystems (Brody 2004).
This article describes recent policy innovation in California that focuses on the need to develop adaptive policy at the regional and local levels to protect climate refugia throughout the state. Resource managers increasingly recognize that adaptive policy must occur at regional levels with local land use decisions and management actions that can protect endangered species that depend on climate refugia. Protecting endangered species and their habitats on private and public lands will become increasingly difficult as plants, animals and insects adjust their ranges in response to climate change. This article offers a number of preliminary strategies that should be developed at regional levels to begin to protect endangered species and climate refugia areas. Extra conservation effort is needed today to protect endangered species in parts of their habitat range that are relatively stable “climate refugia” – areas that function as important source areas from which species can expand given climate disturbance. Among the most recent recommendations in the scientific literature is the need to identify and protect climate refugia across a rapidly changing landscape and seascape (Barnosky 2007). Evidence is accumulating that emphasizes the importance of climate refugia that have historically supported ecological resilience during periods of dramatic climate disturbance, such as long term changes in environmental conditions.
Case Study: California’s Mediterranean-type Ecosystem
Mediterranean-type ecosystems (MTEs) have a rich natural history that includes long periods of ecosystem and climate-related disturbance events, such as changes in oceanographic and climate regimes. Species adapt to these changing environmental conditions by often relying on climate refugia areas. Human impacts on California’s MTE have led to the degradation of a range of habitats that serve the needs of endangered species: 55% of the State listed animals and 25% of the threatened plants depend on wetlands; 43% of the Federally listed species rely directly on wetlands for survival; estuarine wetlands have decline by 75-90%; riparian communities have declined by 90-95%; and vernal pools have declined by 90% (Noss et al. 1995; McGinnis 2009). The multiple impacts of human activities will likely exacerbate the ability of endangered species to adapt to climate change in California (California Resources Agency 2009; Halpern et al. 2009; Halpern et al. 2008). The native plants unique to California are very vulnerable to global climate change such that two-thirds of these "endemics" could suffer more than an 80 percent reduction in geographic range by the end of the century (Loarie et al. 2008). Loarie et al. (2008) point to the need for identification and better protection of existing climate refugia given the evidence of ecosystem disturbance across California’s MTE.
Adaptive Biodiversity Policy Innovation in California
California may be on the verge of establishing a new era of conservation policymaking that may influence how we can protect endangered species in the context of climate disturbance. However, policy innovation and local initiative and leadership will be needed if endangered species protection can reflect the major threats and pressures that exist today in light of recent evidence of climate disturbance. California policy requires that the public and private sectors participate in reducing California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In addition, the existing California policy framework includes Assembly Bill (AB) 32, Senate Bill (SB) 375, SB 97, as well as a host of additional topic-specific bills. The California policy framework presents various obligations and opportunities for each county and city to participate in this emerging State directive. In addition, the California policy framework requires that counties and cities develop Climate Action Strategies. In December 2008, the California Air Resources Board released the state’s Climate Change Scoping Plan, which describes a range of strategies that are necessary for the state to reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. A move beyond a focus or emphasis in reducing GHG is required if endangered species can be protected.
In response to the California Governor’s Executive Order S-13-2008, the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy Discussion Draft [hereafter, Discussion Draft] (2009) outlines a wide range of strategic elements that include goals and objectives for protecting biodiversity and special status species in light of increasing pressures from climate change. While California is encouraging local governments to develop plans that support these adaptive strategies, there has been little if any formal policy developed by local governments that supports the protection of climate refugia for endangered species beyond the regulatory requirements set forth by the state and federal governments, such as the Endangered Species Act, that require critical habitat designation. However, one county in California may represent the first step toward protecting climate refugia that will likely be needed for endangered species.
Protecting Climate Refugia: the case of the Gaviota coast in south California
One consequence of climate disturbance in California will be a shift of biodiversity to the north (Loarie et al. 2008). Scientists from the US Geological Survey developed the Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) to assess the physical vulnerability of the California coast. They found that from San Luis Obispo to the Mexico border, communities along this coastline have “high” or “very high” vulnerability to climate change. One area identified as climate refugia is the Gaviota coastal (GC), which is part of one of the most threatened “hot spots” for biodiversity in the world (McGinnis et al. 2009; National Park Service 2004; Stein et al. 2000). The GC extends from Coal Oil Point to Point Sal and includes the coastal watersheds and terrestrial foothill and mountain ecosystems associated with the transverse Santa Ynez Range. Map 1 depicts the GC and areas of high conservation value (Conception Coast Project 2004).
In 2004, the National Park Service (NPS) completed a feasibility study that included an evaluation of the GC as California’s second national seashore (the only national seashore is the Point Reyes National Seashore north of San Francisco). According to the NPS (2004), the GC includes two of the most biologically diverse ecoregions in the world, and some of the highest concentrations globally-important, rare species in the nation. Of the approximately 1,400 plant and animal species estimated to exist within GC, there are 24 federally- or state-listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species and another 60 considered rare or of special concern. The NPS concluded that the quality and scope of GC’s natural and cultural resources qualify it for inclusion in the National Park system. But because of the preponderance of private land in the area, the NPS found that it would not be feasible to add Gaviota to the National Park system at that time.
In March 2009, Santa Barbara County initiated the long-term development of a Climate Action Strategy (CAS) that would include or consider biodiversity concerns. In addition, the County Board of Supervisors voted to support a Gaviota Coast Rural Regional Planning (RRP) process, which may lead to the development of new policies in the County’s General Plan and Local Coastal Plan (LCP) that can protect endangered species. The County’s CAS and RRP processes are unusual insofar as they include biodiversity protection measures, and the local effort may represent the first local effort in California to consider climate change and endangered species protection.
While climate-related policy development will necessarily include broad spatial scales, decision makers increasingly recognize that implementation must occur at the local level with local land use decisions. With respect to the planning process for identifying and protection of climate refugia, Figure 1 depicts the ideal planning process to begin to address endangered species issues at the county level.
The following planning stages are recommended to begin to identify and protect climate refugia at the local level [see Figure above].
Stage 1 - Identification of Pressures. Climate change will have direct and indirect pressures and impacts on areas designated as critical habitat and environmental sensitive habitat areas (ESHAs). Existing protected areas, such as ecological reserves, wildlife areas, undesignated lands, mitigation sites, and easements will likely be impacted by climate change. A more comprehensive, ecosystem-based and cumulative assessment that includes the identification of multiple pressures or stressors on endangered species and their habitat needs should be included in local land use planning.
Stage 2 - A comprehensive vulnerability analysis should be conducted to establish the type and extent of potential climate changes (such as sea level rise, storm surges, and changing ocean conditions) and how these changes will impact natural habitats and endangered species. Smaller communities are particularly vulnerable as they lack many important resources for effective adaptation. A vulnerability analysis must include detailed mapping that contains “measures of physical risk,” identification of threatened habitats, among other factors. Coupled with an inventory, this analysis can determine the most successful places that exist for ensuring migration of sensitive habitat, such as coastal wetlands, and species.
The vulnerability analysis should be used as one foundation to develop adaptation strategies (both overarching and specific) to protect endangered species. As much as possible, each adaptive strategy should be accompanied by case studies that elucidate that strategy and guidance on how it should be implemented. For example, changes in creek, wetland, and coastal bluff buffer areas and other adaptive strategies that are needed to protect sensitive habitat areas should be incorporated in local plans. In addition, the vulnerability analysis should carefully depict and describe information gaps.
To assist in the regional vulnerability analysis, regional interagency and working groups representing government and non-governmental organizations, e.g. state parks, and the private sector may be needed to discuss and recommend adoption of policies to protect biodiversity. Such a working group could also include the use of a Scientific Advisory Panel to assist in the development of guiding principles to protect biodiversity.
Stage 3 - Identification of Climate Refugia. A number of guiding principles should be emphasized in the identification of climate refugia including the following goals:
o Maintain healthy, connected, genetically diverse populations
o Improve resiliency of existing habitats in order to maintain existing or new assemblages of species
o Reduce non-climate stressors on ecosystems (i.e. invasive species)
o Protect coastal wetlands and accommodate sea level rise
o Consider climate change models as well as historical data when making projections
o Employ monitoring and adaptive management
o Adopt adaptation approaches that reduce risks to species and habitats and provide time for species evolution and development.
With respect to the identification of climate refugia, the precautionary principle must be employed to buffer against scientific uncertainty. There are synergistic effects and positive feedback loops of human-induced climate change, other human impacts, and natural disturbances which make decisions about policy solutions difficult.
The identification of climate refugia should include priority management goals to preserve core habitat and migration corridors. Since climate disturbance will continue to cause plant communities and species’ ranges to shift, adaptive corridors of continuous habitat must be preserved to enable future shifts in ranges and resiliency in ecosystems. Routes containing viable native habitats for plant pollination vectors (wind and insect) and which connect existing and predicted future habitat areas can be mapped and protected. The identification of climate refugia should also include policy development that emphasizes a careful review and assessment of existing land use plans and policies, such as Local Coastal Plans, and other elements such as biological thresholds and environmental sensitive habitat areas.
Stages 4, 5 and 6 - Development of Adaptive Strategic Elements. City and county plans should be amended to include special conservation measures that can support the ecological resilience of endangered species and climate refugia. Amendment and revision of city and county general plans should support an integrated, ecosystem-based approach that includes resources that support long-term monitoring of climate refugia areas, and land use elements should be revised as new information becomes available.
Conclusion
The long-term impacts from climate change on special status species are likely to be dramatic. In the context of climate change, the goal of protecting special status species is exacerbated by the cumulative or synergistic impacts of the multiple-use of resources and the expected pressures from large-scale climate disturbance. This article reviewed recent policy development in California and offered a number of recommendations for cities and counties to begin to develop biodiversity conservation measures that can better protect endangered species and climate refugia. Policy innovation that moves beyond the emphasis in reducing greenhouse gases is needed today that supports the ecological resilience and adaptation of species that are essential to the maintenance of the ecosystem goods and services that are provided by healthy ecosystems.
REFERENCES
Barnosky, A.D. 2008. Climate change, refugia, and biodiversity: where do we go from here? An editorial comment. Climate Change 86: 29-32.
Brody, S.D. 2004. Implementing the Principles of Ecosystem Management Through Local Land Use Planning. Population & Environment 24, 6: 1573-1578.
California Resources Agency. August 4, 2009. California Climate Adaptation Strategy Discussion Draft. http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/adaptation/
Halpern, B.S. et al. 2009. Mapping cumulative human impacts to California Current. Conservation Letters. 1-11. http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/GlobalMarine/impacts
Halpern, B.S., K.L. McLeod, A.A. Rosenberg, and L.B. Crowder. 2008. Understanding cumulative and interactive impacts as a basis for ecosystem-based management and ocean zoning. Ocean and Coastal Management 51:203-211.
Loarie, S.R., B.E. Carter, K. Hayhoe, S. McMahon, R. Moe. 2008. Climate Change and the Future of California's Endemic Flora. PLoS ONE 3(6): e2502. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002502
McGinnis, M.V., W. Su, A. Willsey, and J. Tiegs. 2009. Developing Adaptive Policy to Climate Disturbance in Santa Barbara County. Ocean and Coastal Policy Center White Paper. University of California Santa Barbara. Marine Science Institute. September.
Miller, C.I., N.L. Stephenson, and S.L. Stephens. 2007. Climate change and forests of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications 17: 2145-2151.
National Park Service. 2004. Final Gaviota Coast Feasibility Study. March 9. http://www.nps.gov/pwro/gaviota/
Noss, R.F., E.T. LaRoe III, and J.M. Scott. 1995. Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. Biological Report 28. U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C.
Worm, B. et al. 2006. Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services. Science 314: 787-790.
Yaffee, S.L., A.F. Phillips, I.C. Frentz, P. Hardy, S. Maleki, and B.E. Thorpe. 1996. Ecosystem Management in the United States: An Assessment of Current Experience. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Monday, December 28, 2009
NEW PROJECT FOCUSES ON SANTA BARBARA COUNTY'S GAVIOTA COAST
Background
Under Santa Barbara County’s current zoning there is significant potential for new development on the GAVIOTA COAST (GC), which will result in a significant loss of open space and inevitably of the biodiversity which distinguishes this region. The Naples (Santa Barbara Ranch) project, located two miles beyond the City boundary of Santa Barbara’s suburb of Goleta, has recently been permitted for the construction of 71 estate homes, an equestrian center, and supporting infrastructure. If built out, this project will likely begin the transformation of the GC into an urbanized area rather than a rare natural landscape. Applications for another 112 residences are already pending on the GC, in addition to about twenty proposals for creation of new lots and lot-line adjustments which are likely precursors to residential development proposals. Large parcels, long held for ranching or agriculture by families, are increasingly being sold to investors and developers.
The GC is one of the premier “hot spots” for threatened biodiversity in the world. According to the U.S. National Park Service (USNPS), the GC includes two of the most biologically diverse ecoregions in the world and some of the highest concentrations globally-important, rare species in the Country. Of the approximately 1,400 plant and animal species estimated to exist within [GC], there are 24 federally- or state-listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species and another 60 considered rare or of special concern. [See Attachment 1 for a list of species of concern.] This fertile coastal plain and its adjacent foothills cover approximately 100,000 acres, and support a rich variety of agricultural and ranching operations on land that has, in many cases, been family held for generations.
In 2004, the USNPS conducted a comprehensive study of the GC and concluded that the quality and scope of GC’s natural and cultural resources qualify it for inclusion in the National Park system. But because of the preponderance of private land in the area, the USNPS found that it would not be feasible to add Gaviota to the National Park System at that time. Instead, the Park Service suggested (inter alia) that landowners and the County of Santa Barbara create programs, regulations, and incentives to protect and preserve the significant biodiversity of the area.
The GC faces immediate threats of significant development which will threaten not only the rural character of this land, but will likely threaten its biodiversity. Two major planning initiatives have begun in Santa Barbara County which has the potential to effectively address these issues. The GC includes at least 38 coastal watersheds which include some of the last remaining healthy habitat for steelhead trout and other threatened and endangered species, see map at: http://longrange.sbcountyplanning.org/planareas/gaviota/documents/GaviotaPlan_Watersheds.pdf
The County has created the Gaviota Rural Regional Planning (GRRP) process and named it as one of the highest priority projects for the county’s Long Range Planning Division in 2009-11. This planning process is designed to bring landowners, government and environmental advocates together to find mutually acceptable management policies for this irreplaceable region. Currently lacking any specific or effective County planning tools for Gaviota, and working from an outdated Local Coastal Plan (certified in 1981), much of the GC’s sensitive wildlife and untouched lands are at risk and could be lost forever to development. The goal of the GRRP is to maintain and improve existing rural land zoning designations by tightening definitions and strengthening the Local Coastal Plan (LCP), General Plan policies, biological thresholds and other policies for the GC. Although the County has assigned planning staff to this task, there is little or no available funding to conduct biological studies or collect scientific data with which to inform this important process.
The GRRP will include the use of a Gaviota Planning Advisory Council or GavPAC that will be selected in early October 2009 by Supervisor Doreen Farr of the Third District. The GavPAC will include a series of public hearings in support of the GRRP. The promulgation of mutually agreed upon regulations to prevent developments that will threaten or impact the biodiversity of the area is, perhaps, the only sustainable method of managing the natural resources of the GC, short of acquisition of the entire region, which is currently infeasible. However, reliable data on what threats exist to biodiversity on the GC must be characterized before this process can be effective. Collecting and disseminating that data is the purpose of this request.
The other Long Range Planning Division priority project selected by the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors for the coming year is the creation of a Countywide Climate Action Strategy (CAS). With respect to climate change, the California policy framework requires that counties and cities develop Climate Action Strategies.
The Center’s work that was funded by the Associates Students Coastal Fund this past academic year led to the introduction of a biodiversity conservation strategy in the County’s Climate Action Strategy. The County is currently the only coastal city or county in the State to include such a biodiversity conservation element in their Strategy, which is required by law. The Center’s report entitled Developing Adaptive Policy to Climate Disturbance in Santa Barbara County (published in September 2009) recommended the development of a biodiversity protection measures in the County’s General Plan, and offered a range of diverse policy tools to support better biodiversity conservation. This proposed project would support the report’s recommendations by actively engaging student contribution in a meaningful way to these two planning efforts in the County.
Under Santa Barbara County’s current zoning there is significant potential for new development on the GAVIOTA COAST (GC), which will result in a significant loss of open space and inevitably of the biodiversity which distinguishes this region. The Naples (Santa Barbara Ranch) project, located two miles beyond the City boundary of Santa Barbara’s suburb of Goleta, has recently been permitted for the construction of 71 estate homes, an equestrian center, and supporting infrastructure. If built out, this project will likely begin the transformation of the GC into an urbanized area rather than a rare natural landscape. Applications for another 112 residences are already pending on the GC, in addition to about twenty proposals for creation of new lots and lot-line adjustments which are likely precursors to residential development proposals. Large parcels, long held for ranching or agriculture by families, are increasingly being sold to investors and developers.
The GC is one of the premier “hot spots” for threatened biodiversity in the world. According to the U.S. National Park Service (USNPS), the GC includes two of the most biologically diverse ecoregions in the world and some of the highest concentrations globally-important, rare species in the Country. Of the approximately 1,400 plant and animal species estimated to exist within [GC], there are 24 federally- or state-listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species and another 60 considered rare or of special concern. [See Attachment 1 for a list of species of concern.] This fertile coastal plain and its adjacent foothills cover approximately 100,000 acres, and support a rich variety of agricultural and ranching operations on land that has, in many cases, been family held for generations.
In 2004, the USNPS conducted a comprehensive study of the GC and concluded that the quality and scope of GC’s natural and cultural resources qualify it for inclusion in the National Park system. But because of the preponderance of private land in the area, the USNPS found that it would not be feasible to add Gaviota to the National Park System at that time. Instead, the Park Service suggested (inter alia) that landowners and the County of Santa Barbara create programs, regulations, and incentives to protect and preserve the significant biodiversity of the area.
The GC faces immediate threats of significant development which will threaten not only the rural character of this land, but will likely threaten its biodiversity. Two major planning initiatives have begun in Santa Barbara County which has the potential to effectively address these issues. The GC includes at least 38 coastal watersheds which include some of the last remaining healthy habitat for steelhead trout and other threatened and endangered species, see map at: http://longrange.sbcountyplanning.org/planareas/gaviota/documents/GaviotaPlan_Watersheds.pdf
The County has created the Gaviota Rural Regional Planning (GRRP) process and named it as one of the highest priority projects for the county’s Long Range Planning Division in 2009-11. This planning process is designed to bring landowners, government and environmental advocates together to find mutually acceptable management policies for this irreplaceable region. Currently lacking any specific or effective County planning tools for Gaviota, and working from an outdated Local Coastal Plan (certified in 1981), much of the GC’s sensitive wildlife and untouched lands are at risk and could be lost forever to development. The goal of the GRRP is to maintain and improve existing rural land zoning designations by tightening definitions and strengthening the Local Coastal Plan (LCP), General Plan policies, biological thresholds and other policies for the GC. Although the County has assigned planning staff to this task, there is little or no available funding to conduct biological studies or collect scientific data with which to inform this important process.
The GRRP will include the use of a Gaviota Planning Advisory Council or GavPAC that will be selected in early October 2009 by Supervisor Doreen Farr of the Third District. The GavPAC will include a series of public hearings in support of the GRRP. The promulgation of mutually agreed upon regulations to prevent developments that will threaten or impact the biodiversity of the area is, perhaps, the only sustainable method of managing the natural resources of the GC, short of acquisition of the entire region, which is currently infeasible. However, reliable data on what threats exist to biodiversity on the GC must be characterized before this process can be effective. Collecting and disseminating that data is the purpose of this request.
The other Long Range Planning Division priority project selected by the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors for the coming year is the creation of a Countywide Climate Action Strategy (CAS). With respect to climate change, the California policy framework requires that counties and cities develop Climate Action Strategies.
The Center’s work that was funded by the Associates Students Coastal Fund this past academic year led to the introduction of a biodiversity conservation strategy in the County’s Climate Action Strategy. The County is currently the only coastal city or county in the State to include such a biodiversity conservation element in their Strategy, which is required by law. The Center’s report entitled Developing Adaptive Policy to Climate Disturbance in Santa Barbara County (published in September 2009) recommended the development of a biodiversity protection measures in the County’s General Plan, and offered a range of diverse policy tools to support better biodiversity conservation. This proposed project would support the report’s recommendations by actively engaging student contribution in a meaningful way to these two planning efforts in the County.
The Ocean and Coastal Policy Center (OCPC) supports three primary educational goal – Study, Inform, & Engage. This timeline reflects these educational goals.
I. STUDY. Collection and Synthesis of Available Information on Hot Spots for Threatened Biodiversity on the Gaviota Coast. This project would support the OCPC Mentoring and Internship Program at UCSB by assisting in the development of a team of undergraduate and graduate student research interns or fellows, mentored by Dr. McGinnis, who would collect and synthesize available information on significant habitat areas, significant feeding and migration corridors, and other information about expected threats to the biodiversity of the Gaviota coast (GC). The team members, drawing on their experience and background, would then conduct a vulnerability analysis based on existing scientific information and publications regarding habitats, especially for identified endangered or vulnerable species, and will identify the most important “hot spots” of biodiversity within the GC. The analysis would be incorporated into two planning processes – the GC Rural Planning Process and the County’s Climate Action Strategy – via a public information sharing campaign described below. (November 15 2009 – January 30 2010)
II. INFORM. Write-up of Vulnerability Analysis. Team members would produce an analysis of the most threatened habitats of the GC. This analysis would represent a “briefing” for elected officials, planners, and members of the public. Please note, the County does not currently have the funds to conduct this type of project to support the planning processes. So, with funds from the Coastal Fund, our project and OCPC team members would work together to create a written vulnerability analysis that would include dissemination tools (including Power Point) to clearly and effectively present their data and conclusions to decision-makers and the public. As noted below, this proposed project would represent the implementation of several of the recommendations made in the Center’s prior report funded by CF. (January 30 –February 30 2010)
III. ENGAGE. Information Sharing Campaign. In a well organized Information Sharing Campaign, the analysis would be presented in a way that specifically addresses planning concepts and considerations in development in the County’s GC Regional Rural Planning (GRRP) and Climate Action Strategy (CAS) planning processes that have begun. The vulnerability analysis would be presented in several public workshops held by students and coordinated by Dr. McGinnis, and would be made available on the web and in printed form. This public outreach, information sharing and educational effort would include formal and informal sessions in a collaborative settings that would foster communication between scientists, policymakers, planners, and members of the public on the nature of biodiversity threats to the GC. (March 1 – April 30 2010)
I. STUDY. Collection and Synthesis of Available Information on Hot Spots for Threatened Biodiversity on the Gaviota Coast. This project would support the OCPC Mentoring and Internship Program at UCSB by assisting in the development of a team of undergraduate and graduate student research interns or fellows, mentored by Dr. McGinnis, who would collect and synthesize available information on significant habitat areas, significant feeding and migration corridors, and other information about expected threats to the biodiversity of the Gaviota coast (GC). The team members, drawing on their experience and background, would then conduct a vulnerability analysis based on existing scientific information and publications regarding habitats, especially for identified endangered or vulnerable species, and will identify the most important “hot spots” of biodiversity within the GC. The analysis would be incorporated into two planning processes – the GC Rural Planning Process and the County’s Climate Action Strategy – via a public information sharing campaign described below. (November 15 2009 – January 30 2010)
II. INFORM. Write-up of Vulnerability Analysis. Team members would produce an analysis of the most threatened habitats of the GC. This analysis would represent a “briefing” for elected officials, planners, and members of the public. Please note, the County does not currently have the funds to conduct this type of project to support the planning processes. So, with funds from the Coastal Fund, our project and OCPC team members would work together to create a written vulnerability analysis that would include dissemination tools (including Power Point) to clearly and effectively present their data and conclusions to decision-makers and the public. As noted below, this proposed project would represent the implementation of several of the recommendations made in the Center’s prior report funded by CF. (January 30 –February 30 2010)
III. ENGAGE. Information Sharing Campaign. In a well organized Information Sharing Campaign, the analysis would be presented in a way that specifically addresses planning concepts and considerations in development in the County’s GC Regional Rural Planning (GRRP) and Climate Action Strategy (CAS) planning processes that have begun. The vulnerability analysis would be presented in several public workshops held by students and coordinated by Dr. McGinnis, and would be made available on the web and in printed form. This public outreach, information sharing and educational effort would include formal and informal sessions in a collaborative settings that would foster communication between scientists, policymakers, planners, and members of the public on the nature of biodiversity threats to the GC. (March 1 – April 30 2010)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)