Climatic Change

, Volume 111, Issue 1, pp 135–163 | Cite as

Conservation and management of ecological systems in a changing California

Article

Abstract

Climate change in California is altering habitat conditions for many species and exacerbating stress from other factors such as alien invasive species, pollution, and habitat fragmentation. However, the current legal and planning framework for species protection does not explicitly take climate change into account. The regulatory framework is primarily reactive, kicking in only after species’ health is gravely threatened. Neither federal nor state regulations require forward-looking, climate-sensitive species or ecosystem protection plans. Habitat planning is poorly funded and often piecemeal. In this context, the wrong lands may be protected, with development allowed to occur in areas that would be most beneficial for species conservation in the future. A more forward-looking approach to habitat conservation is needed, one based on a statewide strategy to identify and protect critical habitat areas, including corridors to enable species migration. The approach would also require development of assessment indicators and assistance strategies not dependent on current habitat structure, and a governance structure to implement regular, periodic updates of management plans in relation to agreed-upon performance indicators. Such a strategy should integrate habitat conservation planning with other state and regional plans and objectives, such as for transportation infrastructure, urban development, and mitigation of climate change.

References

  1. Ackerly DD, Loarie SR, Cornwell WK, Weiss SB, Hamilton H, Branciforte R, Kraft NJB (2010) The geography of climate change: implications for conservation biogeography. Divers Distrib 16:476–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnett TP, Pierce DW, Hidalgo HG, Bonfils C, Santer BD, Das T, Bala G, Wood AW, Nozawa T, Mirin AA, Cayan DR, Dettinger MD (2008) Human-induced changes in the hydrology of the Western United States. Science 319:1080. doi:1010.1126/science.1152538 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrows ME (2007) The natural communities conservation planning act: an assessment of its efficiency in preserving biodiversity. Dissertation, University of California, IrvineGoogle Scholar
  4. Beever EA, Brussard PF, Berger J (2003) Patterns of apparent extirpation among isolated populations of pikas (Ochotona princeps) in the Great Basin. J Mammal 84:37–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett WA (2005) Critical assessment of the delta smelt population in the San Francisco Estuary, California. San Franc Estuary Watershed Sci 3:Art. 1Google Scholar
  6. Bonfils C, Duffy PB, Santer BD, Wigley TML, Lobell DB, Phillips TJ, Doutriaux C (2007) Identification of external influences on temperatures in California. Clim Chang. doi:10.1007/s10584-007-9374-9
  7. Bradley BA, Wilcove DS (2009) When invasive plants disappear: transformative restoration possiblities in the Western United States resulting from climate change. Restor Ecol 17:715–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bunn D, Mummert A, Hoshovsky M, Gilardi K, Shanks S (2007) California wildlife: conservation challenges (California’s wildlife action plan). UC Davis Wildlife Health Center for California Department of Fish and Game, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  9. California Air Resources Board (2007) Staff report: proposed adoption of California climate action registry forestry greenhouse gas protocols for voluntary purposes. California Air Resources Board, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  10. California Continuing Resources Investment Strategy Project (2001) First draft report on the methodology to identify state conservation priorities. California Resources Agency, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  11. California Department of Fish and Game (2009) Lands inventory fact sheet. California Department of Fish and Game. As of December 7Google Scholar
  12. California Department of Fish and Game (2010) Conservation and mitigation banks in California approved by the Department of Fish and Game. California Department of Fish and GameGoogle Scholar
  13. California Fish and Game Commission (April 7, 2010) Notice of findingsGoogle Scholar
  14. California Natural Resources Agency (2009) 2009 California climate adaptation strategy: a report to the governor of the state of California in response to executive order S-13-2008. California Natural Resources Agency, Sacramento, p 200Google Scholar
  15. California Senate Office of Research (2002) Timber harvesting and water quality: forest practice rules fail to adequately address water quality and endangered species. Sacramento, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  16. Camacho AE (2007) Can regulation evolve? Lessons from a study in maladaptive management. UCLA Law Rev 55:293–358Google Scholar
  17. Camacho AE (2009) Adapting governance to climate change: managing uncertainty through a learning infrastructure. Emory Law J 59:1–78Google Scholar
  18. Cayan DR, Kammerdiener SA, Dettinger MD, Caprio JM, Peterson DH (2001) Changes in the onset of spring in the Western United States. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 82:399–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cayan D, Maurer EP, Dettinger MD, Tyree M, Hayhoe K (2008) Climate change scenarios for the California region. Clim Chang 87:S21–S42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Christensen NL, Bartuska AM, Brown JH, Carpenter S, D’Antonio C, Francis R, Franklin JF, MacMahon JA, Noss RF, Parsons DJ, Peterson CH, Turner MG, Woodmansee RG (1996) The report of the Ecological Society of America Committee on the Scientific Basis for Ecosystem Management. Ecol Appl 6:665–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Climate Action Team Economic Subgroup (2007) Climate strategy updates, prepared for updated macroeconomic analysis of climate strategies presented in the March 2006 climate action team report, public review draft. Sacramento, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  22. Craig RK (2010) ‘Stationarity is dead’—long live transformation: five principles for climate change adaptation law. Harv Environ Law Rev 34:9–75Google Scholar
  23. Cylinder P, Bogdan K, Zippin D (2004) Understanding the habitat conservation planning process in California: a guidebook for project and regional conservation planning. Institute for Local Self Government, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  24. Davis MB, Shaw RG (2001) Range shifts and adaptive responses to Quaternary climate change. Science 292:673–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Doremus H (2001) Adaptive management, the Endangered Species Act, and the institutional challenges of ‘new age’ environmental protection. Washburn Law J 41:50–88Google Scholar
  26. Dukes JS, Mooney HA (1999) Does global change increase the success of biological invaders? TREE 14:135–139Google Scholar
  27. Elmqvist T, Folke C, Nyström M, Peterson G, Bengtsson J, Walker B, Norberg J (2003) Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Front Ecol Environ 1:488–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Epps CW, McCullough DR, Wehausen JD, Bleich VC, Rechel JL (2004) Effects of climate change on population persistence of desert-dwelling mountain sheep in California. Conserv Biol 18:102–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fire and Resource Assessment Program (2003) The changing California: forest and range 2003 assessment. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  30. Gaffin JM (1997) Can we conserve California’s threatened fisheries through natural community conservation planning? Environ Law 27:791–801Google Scholar
  31. Gordon TM, Alderete JC, Murphy PJ, Sonstelie J, Zhang P (2007) Fiscal realities: budget tradeoffs in California government. Public Policy Institute of California, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  32. Greer KA (2004) Habitat conservation planning in San Diego county, California: lessons learned after 5 years of implementation. Environ Pract 6:230–239Google Scholar
  33. Groves CR, Jensen DB, Valutis LL, Redford KH, Shaffer ML, Scott JM, Baumgartner JV, Higgins JV, Beck MW, Anderson MG (2002) Planning for biodiversity conservation: putting conservation science into practice. BioScience 52:499–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hannah L, Hansen L (2005) Designing landscapes and seascapes for change. In: Lovejoy TE, Hannah L (eds) Climate change and biodiversity. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp 329–341Google Scholar
  35. Hannah L, Salm R (2005) Protected areas management in a changing. In: Lovejoy TE, Hannah L (eds) Climate climate change and biodiversity. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp 363–374Google Scholar
  36. Hannah L, Midgley GF, Lovejoy TE, Bond WJ, Bush M, Lovett JC, Scott D, Woodward FI (2002) Conservation of biodiversity in a changing climate. Conserv Biol 16:264–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Harris JA, Hobbs RJ, Higgs E, Aronson J (2006) Ecological restoration and global climate change. Restor Ecol 14:170–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hatch L, Uriarte M, Fink D, Aldrich-Wolfe L, Allen RG, Webb C, Zamudio K, Power A (2002) Jurisdiction over endangered species’ habitat: the impacts of people and property on recovery planning. Ecol Appl 12:692–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hayhoe K, Cayan D, Field CB, Frumhoff PC, Maurer EP, Miller NL, Moser SC, Schneider SH, Cahill KN, Cleland EE, Dale L, Drapek R, Hanemann RM, Kalkstein LS, Lenihan J, Lunch CK, Neilson RP, Sheridan SC, Verville JH (2004) Emissions pathways, climate change, and impacts on California. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:12422–12427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Heller NE, Zavaleta ES (2009) Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: a review of 22 years of recommendations. Biol Conserv 142:14–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hierl LA, Regan HM, Franklin J, Deutschman DH (2005) Assessment of the biological monitoring plan for San Diego’s multiple species conservation program: report for task A of local assistance grant #P0450009. San Diego State University, for California Department of Fish and Game, San Diego, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  42. Hopkins J (2004) Regional conservation planning in California: a guide. Institute for Ecological Health, DavisGoogle Scholar
  43. Hughes FMR, Colston A, Mountford JO (2005) Restoring riparian ecosystems: the challenge of accommodating variability and designing restoration trajectories. Ecol Soc 10:12Google Scholar
  44. IPCC (2007) Summary for policymakers. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, Linden PJvd, Hanson CE (eds) Climate Change 2007: Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 7–22Google Scholar
  45. Kremen C, Williams NM, Thorp RW (2002) Crop pollination from native bees at risk from agricultural intensification. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:16812–16816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Krist J (2006) Humboldt habitat conservation plan upheld, but logger loses water ruling. Calif Plann Dev Rep 21Google Scholar
  47. Krist J (2007) Court ruling offers warning to habitat plan negotiators. Calif Plann Dev Rep 22Google Scholar
  48. Kueppers LM, Snyder MA, Sloan LC, Zavaleta ES, Fulfrost B (2005) Modeled regional climate change and California endemic oak ranges. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:16281–16286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Landis JD, Pendall R, Olshansky R, Huang W (1995) Fixing CEQA: options and opportunities for reforming the California environmental quality act. California Policy Seminar. University of California Berkeley, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  50. Lawler JJ, Tear TH, Pyke CR, Shaw MR, Gonzalez P, Kareiva P, Hansen L, Hannah L, Klausmeyer K, Aldous A, Bienz C, Pearsall S (2010) Resource management in a changing and uncertain climate. Front Ecol Environ 8:35–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Legislative Analyst’s Office (2003a) Environmental protection indicators. Analysis of the 2003–04 Budget Bill, Sacramento, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  52. Legislative Analyst’s Office (2003b) Resource assessments: improving effectiveness and creating savings. Analysis of the 2003–04 Budget Bill, Sacramento, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  53. Legislative Analyst’s Office (2007) Improving the appraisal function in resources land acquisitions. Sacramento, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  54. Legislative Analyst’s Office (2008) 2008–09 Budget overview: resources agency departments. Sacramento, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  55. Legislative Analyst’s Office (2010) The 2010–11 budget: resources and environmental protection. SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  56. Little Hoover Commission (1994) Timber harvest plans: a flawed effort to balance economic and environmental needs. Sacramento, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  57. Loarie SR, Carter BE, Hayhoe K, McMahon S, Moe R, Knight CA, Ackerly DD (2008) Climate change and the future of California’s endemic flora. PLoS ONE 3:e2502. doi:2510.1371/journal.pone.0002502 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Macmynowski DP, Root TL, Ballard G, Geupel GR (2007) Changes in spring arrival of nearctic-neotropical migrants attributed to multiscalar climate. Glob Change Biol 13:2239–2251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Malcolm JR, Liu C, Neilson RP, Hansen L, Hannah L (2006) Global warming and extinctions of endemic species from biodiversity hotspots. Conserv Biol 20:538–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Manthripragada, D (2006) Species protection versus state agency autonomy: striking the appropriate balance under the California Endangered Species Act. UCLA/Frankel Working Paper #3. The Evan Frankel Environmental Law and Policy Program. UCLA School of LawGoogle Scholar
  61. Maurer EP, Brekke L, Pruitt T, Duffy PB (2007) Fine-resolution climate projections enhance regional climate change impact studies. Eos 88:504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. McCarty JP (2001) Ecological consequences of recent climate change. Conserv Biol 15:320–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. McLaughlin JF, Hellmann JJ, Boggs CL, Ehrlich PR (2002) Climate change hastens population extinctions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:6070–6074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Millar CI, Westfall RD (2010) Distribution and climatic relationships of the American pika (Ochotona princeps) in the Sierra Nevada and Western Great Basin, U.S.A.; Periglacial landforms as refugia in warming climates. Arct Antarct Alp Res 42:76–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Millar CI, Stephenson NL, Stephens SL (2007) Climate change and forests of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecol Appl 17:2145–2151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Moritz C, Patton JL, Conroy CJ, Parra JL, White GC, Beissinger SR (2008) Impact of a century of climate change on small-mammal communities in Yosemite National Park, USA. Science 322:261–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Fonseca GABd, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Nagle JC, Ruhl JB (2002) The law of biodiversity and ecosystem management. Foundation Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  69. Natural Resources Defense Council et al. v. Dirk Kempthorne, in his official capacty as Secretary of the Interior, et al. (2007) Case 1:05-cv-01207-OWW-NEW, E.D. CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  70. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (2004) Environmental protection Indicators for California. California Environmental Protection Agency, with Department of Health Services, California Resources Agency, Sacramento, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  71. Opperman JJ, Bernazzani P (2003) Comparing perspectives of participants and outside commentators on habitat conservation plans. Endanger Species Update 20:79–90Google Scholar
  72. Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Institute for Fisheries Resources, et al. v. Carlos M. Gutierrez, in his official capacity as Secretary of Commerce, et al. (2008) Case 1:06-cv-00245-OWW-GSA, E.D. CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  73. Pelini SL, Dzurisin JDK, Prior K, Williams CM, Marsico TD, Sinclair BJ, Hellmann JJ (2009) Translocation experiments with butterflies reveal ilmits to enhancement of poleward populations under climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. doi:10.1073/pnas.0900284106
  74. Pollak D (2001a) Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP): the origins of an ambitious experiment to protect ecosystems. California Research Bureau, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  75. Pollak D (2001b) The future of habitat conservation? The NCCP Experience in Southern California. California Research Bureau, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  76. Rahn ME, Doremus H, Diffendorfer J (2006) Species coverage in multispecies habitat conservation plans: where’s the science? BioScience 56:613–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Ruhl JB (2005) Regulation by adaptive management—is it possible? Minn J Law Sci Tech 7Google Scholar
  78. Ruhl JB (2008) Climate change and the endangered species act: building bridges to the no-analog future. Boston Univ Law Rev 88Google Scholar
  79. Ruhl JB (2009) Keeping the endangered species act relevant. Duke Environ Law Pol Forum 19:275–293Google Scholar
  80. Sagarin RD, Barry JP, Gilman SE, Baxter CH (1999) Climate-related change in an intertidal community over short and long time scales. Ecol Monogr 69:465–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. San Diego Association of Governments (2006) 2007 Comprehensive regional transportation plan white paper: environmental mitigation program, minutes of the joint meeting of the regional planning and transportation committees. San Diego Association of Governments, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  82. Spencer WD, Beier P, Penrod K, Winters K, Paulman C, Rustigian-Romsos H, Strittholt J, Parisi M, Pettler A (2010) California essential habitat connectivity project: a strategy for conserving a connected California. California Department of Transportation, California Department of Fish and Game, and Federal Highways AdministrationGoogle Scholar
  83. Stachowicz JJ, Terwin JR, Whitlach RB, Osman RW (2002) Linking climate change and biological invasions: ocean warming facilitates nonindigenous species invasions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:15497–15500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Stein BA (2002) States of the union: ranking America’s biodiversity. NatureServe, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  85. Stein BA, Kutner LS, Hammerson GA, Master LL, Morse LE (2000) State of the states: geographic patterns of diversity, rarity, and endemism. In: Stein BA, Kutner LS, Adams JS (eds) Precious heritage: the status of biodiversity in the United States. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 119–157Google Scholar
  86. Thomas GA (2000) Where property rights and biodiversity converge: lessons from experience in habitat conservation planning. Natural Heritage Institute, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  87. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2010a) Conservation plans and agreements database, region 8. As of June 2, 2010Google Scholar
  88. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2010b) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month finding on a petition to list the American pika as threatened or endangered; proposed rule, 50 CFR Part 17. Fed Regist 75(26):6438–6471Google Scholar
  89. van Mantgem PJ, Stephenson NL (2007) Apparent climatically induced increase of tree mortality rates in a temperate forest. Ecol Lett 10:909–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. van Rheenen NT, Wood AW, Palmer RN, Lettenmaier DP (2004) Potential implications of PCM climate change scenarios for Sacramento—San Joaquin River Basin hydrology and water resources. Clim Chang 62:257–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Vasey MC, Holl KD (2007) Ecological restoration in California: challenges and prospects. Madrono 54:215–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Visser ME, Holleman LJM (2001) Warmer springs disrupt the synchrony of oak and winter moth phenology. Proc R Soc B 268:289–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wayburn LE, Franklin JF, Gordon JC, Binkley CS, Mladenoff DJ, Christensen NL, Jr. (2007) Forest carbon in the United States: opportunities & options for private lands. Pacific Forest TrustGoogle Scholar
  94. Westerling AL, Hidalgo HG, Cayan D, Swetnam TW (2006) Warming and earlier spring increase Western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science 313:940–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Wheeler DP, Rowberry RM (2009) Habitat conservation plans and the endangered species act. In: Bauer DC, Irvin WR (eds) Endangered species act: law, policy, and persepectives, 2nd edn. American Bar Association, Chicago, pp 220–240Google Scholar
  96. Wilcove DS, Rothstein D, Dubow J, Phillips A, Losos E (2000) Leading threats to biodiversity: what’s imperiling U.S. species. In: Stein BA, Kutner LS, Adams JS (eds) Precious heritage: the status of biodiversity in the United States. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 239–254Google Scholar
  97. Wilhere GF (2002) Adaptive management in habitat conservation plans. Conserv Biol 16Google Scholar
  98. Zavaleta ES, Hulvey KB (2004) Realistic species losses disproportionately reduce grassland resistance to biological invaders. Science 306:1175–1177CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of City and Regional PlanningUniversity of California, BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.School of Natural Sciences and Sierra Nevada Research InstituteUniversity of California, MercedMercedUSA

Personalised recommendations