Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Conservation and management of ecological systems in a changing California

  • Published:
Climatic Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Spawning by the delta smelt occurs within a limited temperature range, with larvae intolerant of water above 20°C. Lower recruitment tends to occur in warmer years, because the number of days suitable for spawning is reduced.

  2. The definition of “take” differs in CESA and ESA. ESA regulations define take to include “harm,” which refers among other things to “significant habitat modification or degradation” that results in death or injury to wildlife. The CESA definition of take includes no such explicit reference to habitat modification, and in general, the California definition of take includes only acts that cause the death of a protected species. The Department of Fish and Game has applied CESA in such a way that habitat removal is prohibited if it is the proximate cause of death. However, in some cases, habitat modification may be considered take under the federal ESA, but not under the California ESA (Cylinder et al. 2004; Manthripragada 2006).

  3. Although not explicitly required by CESA, inter-agency consultation for actions that affect threatened and endangered species is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). However, CEQA’s stipulations for requiring mitigation are not as stiff as CESA’s (Manthripragada 2006).

  4. In California, 134 HCPs have been approved and appear in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2010a) Conservation Plans and Agreements Database, Region 8. Many cover a single species for a short term (5 to 10 years), but many are large-scale multi-species regional HCPs.

  5. NCCP plans are developed cooperatively by federal and state agencies, local governments, and private sector and non-profit stakeholders. There are 24 active, in-progress NCCPs (many of them HCPs as well) covering nearly 10 million acres; 8 have been approved and permitted (California Department of Fish and Game NCCP website, as of June 1, 2010).

  6. DFG has approved 52 conservation mitigation “banks” statewide, allowing for tradable offset credits, most for wetlands projects (California Department of Fish and Game 2010). DFG also oversees various incentive programs to promote conservation on private lands; about 43% of DFG-administered land is managed through easements, leases or other agreements with landowners (California Department of Fish and Game 2009).

  7. The required conservation component of local “general plans” for community development often has been minimal, and adopted measures often have not been implemented. At the project level, environmental review has suffered from lack of capacity for evaluating cumulative impacts of individual projects (Bunn et al. 2007; Hopkins 2004).

  8. The Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32, Nunez) calls for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In addition, Governor Schwarzenegger signed an executive order (S-3-05) on June 1, 2005, calling for even larger reductions by 2050, to 80% below 1990 levels.

  9. Six different sub-county NCCPs are being developed within San Diego County. Three have been adopted and are being implemented.

  10. According to DFG’s Lands and Facilities Branch, annual land operation management costs for many wildlife areas range from $16 to $100 per acre, with local agencies estimating these costs to be significantly higher. In 2005, the average level of support for DFG’s wildlife areas and ecological reserves was $13 per acre, with one staff person per 10,000 acres (Bunn et al. 2007).

  11. See http://www.climateregistry.org/PROTOCOLS/FP/. The forestry protocols require that pertinent carbon reductions must be in addition to what would have occurred in the absence of a carbon market, and that qualifying projects commit to best management practices, to maintaining and promoting native forest types, and to supporting natural forest management (California Air Resources Board 2007). Qualifying projects must be secured with a permanent conservation easement to a qualified third party, a conservation not-for-profit organization, or a state or local government entity.

  12. NCCP plans must be reviewed by independent scientists, although only as an initial input into plan development and approval. Reserves are required to be large-scale and to provide for diverse landscape gradients and corridor linkages within and beyond their boundaries—design elements all likely to aid species transitions. NCCPs must conserve the ecological integrity of large habitat blocks, ecosystem functions, and biological diversity—although these terms have not been defined in statute. Adaptive management programs must be implemented to “use the results of new information gathered through the monitoring program of the plan and from other sources to adjust management strategies and practices” (California Fish and Game Code § 2805).

  13. The Essential Habitat Connectivity Project was mandated through passage of Assembly Bill 2785 (Ruskin) in 2008. That statute mandated the Department of Fish and Game to identify and compile a database of California’s most critical areas for maintaining habitat connectivity, including wildlife corridors and habitat linkages.

References

  • 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 16:476–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrows ME (2007) The natural communities conservation planning act: an assessment of its efficiency in preserving biodiversity. Dissertation, University of California, Irvine

  • Beever EA, Brussard PF, Berger J (2003) Patterns of apparent extirpation among isolated populations of pikas (Ochotona princeps) in the Great Basin. J Mammal 84:37–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett WA (2005) Critical assessment of the delta smelt population in the San Francisco Estuary, California. San Franc Estuary Watershed Sci 3:Art. 1

  • 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

  • Bradley BA, Wilcove DS (2009) When invasive plants disappear: transformative restoration possiblities in the Western United States resulting from climate change. Restor Ecol 17:715–721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Sacramento

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Sacramento

    Google Scholar 

  • California Continuing Resources Investment Strategy Project (2001) First draft report on the methodology to identify state conservation priorities. California Resources Agency, Sacramento

    Google Scholar 

  • California Department of Fish and Game (2009) Lands inventory fact sheet. California Department of Fish and Game. As of December 7

  • 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 Game

  • California Fish and Game Commission (April 7, 2010) Notice of findings

  • 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 200

    Google Scholar 

  • California Senate Office of Research (2002) Timber harvesting and water quality: forest practice rules fail to adequately address water quality and endangered species. Sacramento, California

  • Camacho AE (2007) Can regulation evolve? Lessons from a study in maladaptive management. UCLA Law Rev 55:293–358

    Google Scholar 

  • Camacho AE (2009) Adapting governance to climate change: managing uncertainty through a learning infrastructure. Emory Law J 59:1–78

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 82:399–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cayan D, Maurer EP, Dettinger MD, Tyree M, Hayhoe K (2008) Climate change scenarios for the California region. Clim Chang 87:S21–S42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 6:665–691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, California

  • Craig RK (2010) ‘Stationarity is dead’—long live transformation: five principles for climate change adaptation law. Harv Environ Law Rev 34:9–75

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Sacramento

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis MB, Shaw RG (2001) Range shifts and adaptive responses to Quaternary climate change. Science 292:673–679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doremus H (2001) Adaptive management, the Endangered Species Act, and the institutional challenges of ‘new age’ environmental protection. Washburn Law J 41:50–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Dukes JS, Mooney HA (1999) Does global change increase the success of biological invaders? TREE 14:135–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Elmqvist T, Folke C, Nyström M, Peterson G, Bengtsson J, Walker B, Norberg J (2003) Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Front Ecol Environ 1:488–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 18:102–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fire and Resource Assessment Program (2003) The changing California: forest and range 2003 assessment. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaffin JM (1997) Can we conserve California’s threatened fisheries through natural community conservation planning? Environ Law 27:791–801

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon TM, Alderete JC, Murphy PJ, Sonstelie J, Zhang P (2007) Fiscal realities: budget tradeoffs in California government. Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Greer KA (2004) Habitat conservation planning in San Diego county, California: lessons learned after 5 years of implementation. Environ Pract 6:230–239

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 52:499–512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 329–341

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 363–374

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 16:264–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris JA, Hobbs RJ, Higgs E, Aronson J (2006) Ecological restoration and global climate change. Restor Ecol 14:170–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 12:692–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 101:12422–12427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heller NE, Zavaleta ES (2009) Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: a review of 22 years of recommendations. Biol Conserv 142:14–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, California

  • Hopkins J (2004) Regional conservation planning in California: a guide. Institute for Ecological Health, Davis

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes FMR, Colston A, Mountford JO (2005) Restoring riparian ecosystems: the challenge of accommodating variability and designing restoration trajectories. Ecol Soc 10:12

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 7–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Kremen C, Williams NM, Thorp RW (2002) Crop pollination from native bees at risk from agricultural intensification. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:16812–16816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krist J (2006) Humboldt habitat conservation plan upheld, but logger loses water ruling. Calif Plann Dev Rep 21

  • Krist J (2007) Court ruling offers warning to habitat plan negotiators. Calif Plann Dev Rep 22

  • 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 102:16281–16286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, California

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 8:35–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legislative Analyst’s Office (2003a) Environmental protection indicators. Analysis of the 2003–04 Budget Bill, Sacramento, California

  • Legislative Analyst’s Office (2003b) Resource assessments: improving effectiveness and creating savings. Analysis of the 2003–04 Budget Bill, Sacramento, California

  • Legislative Analyst’s Office (2007) Improving the appraisal function in resources land acquisitions. Sacramento, California

  • Legislative Analyst’s Office (2008) 2008–09 Budget overview: resources agency departments. Sacramento, California

  • Legislative Analyst’s Office (2010) The 2010–11 budget: resources and environmental protection. Sacramento

  • Little Hoover Commission (1994) Timber harvest plans: a flawed effort to balance economic and environmental needs. Sacramento, California

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macmynowski DP, Root TL, Ballard G, Geupel GR (2007) Changes in spring arrival of nearctic-neotropical migrants attributed to multiscalar climate. Glob Change Biol 13:2239–2251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malcolm JR, Liu C, Neilson RP, Hansen L, Hannah L (2006) Global warming and extinctions of endemic species from biodiversity hotspots. Conserv Biol 20:538–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 Law

  • Maurer EP, Brekke L, Pruitt T, Duffy PB (2007) Fine-resolution climate projections enhance regional climate change impact studies. Eos 88:504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarty JP (2001) Ecological consequences of recent climate change. Conserv Biol 15:320–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin JF, Hellmann JJ, Boggs CL, Ehrlich PR (2002) Climate change hastens population extinctions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:6070–6074

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 42:76–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millar CI, Stephenson NL, Stephens SL (2007) Climate change and forests of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecol Appl 17:2145–2151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 322:261–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Fonseca GABd, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagle JC, Ruhl JB (2002) The law of biodiversity and ecosystem management. Foundation Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. California

  • 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, California

  • Opperman JJ, Bernazzani P (2003) Comparing perspectives of participants and outside commentators on habitat conservation plans. Endanger Species Update 20:79–90

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. California

  • 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

  • Pollak D (2001a) Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP): the origins of an ambitious experiment to protect ecosystems. California Research Bureau, Sacramento

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollak D (2001b) The future of habitat conservation? The NCCP Experience in Southern California. California Research Bureau, Sacramento

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahn ME, Doremus H, Diffendorfer J (2006) Species coverage in multispecies habitat conservation plans: where’s the science? BioScience 56:613–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruhl JB (2005) Regulation by adaptive management—is it possible? Minn J Law Sci Tech 7

  • Ruhl JB (2008) Climate change and the endangered species act: building bridges to the no-analog future. Boston Univ Law Rev 88

  • Ruhl JB (2009) Keeping the endangered species act relevant. Duke Environ Law Pol Forum 19:275–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagarin RD, Barry JP, Gilman SE, Baxter CH (1999) Climate-related change in an intertidal community over short and long time scales. Ecol Monogr 69:465–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Administration

  • 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 99:15497–15500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein BA (2002) States of the union: ranking America’s biodiversity. NatureServe, Arlington

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 119–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas GA (2000) Where property rights and biodiversity converge: lessons from experience in habitat conservation planning. Natural Heritage Institute, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2010a) Conservation plans and agreements database, region 8. As of June 2, 2010

  • 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):6438–6471

    Google Scholar 

  • van Mantgem PJ, Stephenson NL (2007) Apparent climatically induced increase of tree mortality rates in a temperate forest. Ecol Lett 10:909–916

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 62:257–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasey MC, Holl KD (2007) Ecological restoration in California: challenges and prospects. Madrono 54:215–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visser ME, Holleman LJM (2001) Warmer springs disrupt the synchrony of oak and winter moth phenology. Proc R Soc B 268:289–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 Trust

  • Westerling AL, Hidalgo HG, Cayan D, Swetnam TW (2006) Warming and earlier spring increase Western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science 313:940–943

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 220–240

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 239–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilhere GF (2002) Adaptive management in habitat conservation plans. Conserv Biol 16

  • Zavaleta ES, Hulvey KB (2004) Realistic species losses disproportionately reduce grassland resistance to biological invaders. Science 306:1175–1177

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the following individuals for discussing issues related to climate adaptation and conservation planning with us either in person or by telephone: Michael Beck, Vicki Campbell, Jim Dempsey, Holly Doremus, Rob Klinger, Robert Leiter, Amy Luers, Connie Millar, Reed Noss, Gail Presley, Steve Ritchie, Brad Samuelson, Rebecca Shaw, Dan Silver, Wayne Spencer, Gregory A. Thomas, and David Zippin. We also thank Ellen Hanak, Louise Bedsworth, Rebecca Shaw, Michael Teitz, and anonymous reviewers for helpful comments, Lynette Ubois for editorial guidance, and Sarah Swanbeck for her assistance with figures. This research was supported by the Public Policy Institute of California, The Nature Conservancy, Next Ten Foundation, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of City and Regional Planning, University of California, Berkeley, 904-B Bancroft Way, Berkeley, CA, 94710, USA

    Elisa Barbour

  2. School of Natural Sciences and Sierra Nevada Research Institute, University of California, Merced, 5200 North Lake Road, Merced, CA, 95343, USA

    Lara M. Kueppers

Authors
  1. Elisa Barbour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lara M. Kueppers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elisa Barbour.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Barbour, E., Kueppers, L.M. Conservation and management of ecological systems in a changing California. Climatic Change 111, 135–163 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0246-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0246-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation