Public Review Draft – DRECP Independent Science Advisory Report1
This report summarizes recommendations from a group of independent science advisors
for theCalifornia Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP). DRECP will be a NaturalCommunity Conservation Plan (NCCP) under California’s NCCP Act of 2003. It may also serveas one or more Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) under Section 10 of the U.S. EndangeredSpecies Act. The NCCP Act requires input from independent scientific experts to ensure thatplan decisions are informed by best available science. The advisors include experts in desertecology, conservation biology, and other fields pertinent to informing how to conserve naturalecological communities and species in the planning region. Appendix A provides brief biographies of the advisors.To ensure objectivity, the advisors operate independent of the plan applicants, their consultants,and other entities involved in the plan. Our recommendations are not legally binding on agenciesor individuals involved in planning or implementing DRECP.Contents of this report reflect the advisors’ review of available information and maps of theDRECP process and planning area, results of a two-day science advisors’ workshop, andsubsequent research and discussions amongst the advisors. The science advisors met April 22-23, 2010, to hear the concerns of plan participants and begin formulating recommendations.Advisors were also encouraged to seek expert input from other scientists. We also reviewedvarious questions and comments submitted by agencies, stakeholders, and other interested partiesbefore, during, and after the April 2010 science workshop (available athttp://www.energy.ca.gov/33by2020/documents / ). However, we made no attempt to specificallyaddress submitted questions in a question-answer or response-to-comments format. Instead, wehave attempted to address appropriate questions and comments intrinsically within ourrecommendations.In general, our recommendations are organized to address four sets of principles for which theNCCP Act requires independent science input: principles for addressing data gaps anduncertainties; principles for conservation and reserve design; principles for conserving specifictarget species and natural communities; and principles and framework for an adaptivemanagement and monitoring program. We also address certain aspects of the plan scope,including the geographic area, time period, species, natural communities, and actions that theplan is to cover. A previous draft of this report was circulated to other scientists for peer review,and comments received from four reviewers
Dr. Wayne Spencer, Conservation Biology Institute (Lead Advisor); Dr. Scott Abella, UNLV; Dr. CameronBarrows, UC Riverside; Dr. Kristin Berry, USGS; Dr. Todd Esque, USGS; Kimball Garrett, Natural HistoryMuseum of LA County; Dr. Christine A. Howell, PRBO Conservation Science; Robin Kobaly, The SummertTreeInstitute; Dr. Reed Noss, U Central Florida; Dr.Richard Redak, UC Riverside; Dr. Robert Webb, USGS; Ted Weller,US Forest Service.
are reflected in this draft.
Dr. Paul Beier, Northern Arizona U; Dr. James Patton, UC Berkeley (Emeritus); Dr. David Bedford, USGS; Mark Jorgensen, Anza Borrego Desert State Park (retired).