Indicators Assessment for Habitat Conservation Plan of Yolo County, California, USA

/ Whereas habitat conservation plans (HCPs) have been intended to provide comprehensive environmental mitigation for multiple species, they often narrow in focus to one species and either one mitigation site or unspecified sites. We developed an indicators framework from which to rate land units for their ecological integrity, collateral values (nonbiological qualities that can improve conservation), and restoration and conservation opportunities. The ratings of land units were guided by the tenets of conservation biology and principles of landscape and ecosystem ecology, and they were made using existing physical and floral information managed on a GIS. As an example of how the indicators approach can be used for HCPs, the 29 legally rare species targeted by the Yolo County HCP were each associated with vegetation complexes and agricultural crops, the maps of which were used for rating some of the landscape indices. The ratings were mapped so that mitigation can be directed to the places on the landscape where the legally rare species should benefit most from conservation practices. The most highly rated land units for conservation opportunity occurred along streams and sloughs, especially where they emerged from the foothills and entered the Central Valley and where the two largest creeks intersected the Sacramento River flood basin. We recommend that priority be given to mitigation or conservation at the most highly rated land units. The indices were easy to measure and can be used with other tools to monitor the mitigation success. The indicators framework can be applied to other large-area planning efforts with some modifications.KEY WORDS: Ecosystem; Indicators; Landscape; Mitigation; Planning; Yolo County; California

[1]  L. R. Taylor,et al.  Aggregation, migration and population mechanics , 1977, Nature.

[2]  J. Connell,et al.  On the Evidence Needed to Judge Ecological Stability or Persistence , 1983, The American Naturalist.

[3]  B. Verboom,et al.  Effects of pool size and isolation on amphibian communities , 1990 .

[4]  Jan Rotmans,et al.  Perspectives on Global Change: Global change and sustainable development , 1997 .

[5]  C. Nilsson,et al.  Fragmentation and Flow Regulation of River Systems in the Northern Third of the World , 1994, Science.

[6]  William C. McComb,et al.  IDENTIFYING GAPS IN CONSERVATION NETWORKS: OF INDICATORS AND UNCERTAINTY IN GEOGRAPHIC-BASED ANALYSES , 1997 .

[7]  R. Norgaard Environmental science as a social process , 1992, Environmental monitoring and assessment.

[8]  Albert Adriaanse,et al.  Environmental policy performance indicators : a study on the development of indicators for environmental policy in the Netherlands , 1993 .

[9]  Dennis D. Murphy,et al.  Umbrella species and the conservation of habitat fragments: a case of a threatened butterfly and a vanishing grassland ecosystem , 1994 .

[10]  William B. Meyer,et al.  HUMAN POPULATION GROWTH AND GLOBAL LAND-USE/COVER CHANGE , 1992 .

[11]  K. S. Smallwood Site invasibility by exotic birds and mammals , 1994 .

[12]  N. B. Kotliar,et al.  Multiple scales of patchiness and patch structure: a hierarchical framework for the study of heterogeneity , 1990 .

[13]  H. Regier,et al.  Ecosystem Behavior Under Stress , 1985, The American Naturalist.

[14]  D. Bryant,et al.  Environmental indicators : a systematic approach to measuring and reporting on environmental policy performance in the context of sustainable development , 1995 .

[15]  Michael L. Morrison,et al.  Wildlife-habitat relationships : concepts and applications , 1993 .

[16]  M. Turner,et al.  LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY : The Effect of Pattern on Process 1 , 2002 .

[17]  C. S. Holling Resilience of ecosystems: local surprise and global change. , 1985 .

[18]  James R. Karr,et al.  Assessing biological integrity in running waters : a method and its rationale , 1986 .

[19]  S. Levin The problem of pattern and scale in ecology , 1992 .

[20]  Eric M. Preston,et al.  Developing the scientific basis for assessing cumulative effects of wetland loss and degradation on landscape functions: Status, perspectives, and prospects , 1988 .

[21]  R. Forman,et al.  Interaction among landscape elements: a core of landscape ecology , 1981 .

[22]  D. Simberloff,et al.  Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective , 1980 .

[23]  Michael L. Morrison,et al.  The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology , 1997 .

[24]  Gene E. Likens,et al.  Integrated Regional Models: Interactions between Humans and their Environment , 1994 .

[25]  K. S. Smallwood,et al.  A rating system for potential exotic bird and mammal pests , 1992 .

[26]  I. Hanski Spatial scale, patchiness and population dynamics on land , 1994 .

[27]  Kenneth E. F. Watt,et al.  System stability principles , 1986 .

[28]  Paul Rookwood,et al.  Landscape planning for biodiversity , 1995 .

[29]  R. O'Neill,et al.  Ecological Risk Assessment at The Regional Scale: Ecological Archives A005-001. , 1991, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[30]  Dennis D. Murphy,et al.  Conservation Strategy: The Effects of Fragmentation on Extinction , 1985, The American Naturalist.

[31]  J. Karr Biodiversity and Landscapes: Landscapes and management for ecological integrity , 1994 .

[32]  R. Macarthur,et al.  The Theory of Island Biogeography , 1969 .

[33]  J. Wiens Spatial Scaling in Ecology , 1989 .

[34]  F. Shilling Do Habitat Conservation Plans Protect Endangered Species , 1997 .

[35]  J. Kaiser When a Habitat Is Not a Home , 1997, Science.

[36]  R. O'Neill A Hierarchical Concept of Ecosystems. , 1986 .