Independent Scientific Input. The Local Agencies and DFG intend to include independent scientific input and analysis to assist in the preparation of the Plan. For that purpose, a list of potential Independent Science Advisors is being developed by BCAG. The Science Advisors will at a minimum, provide recommendations, advice and guidance to the Local Agencies and DFG on: • scientifically sound conservation strategies for species and natural communities proposed to be covered by the Plan; • reserve design principles that address the needs of species, landscapes, ecosystems, and ecological processes in the planning area proposed to be addressed by the Plan; • management principles and conservation goals that can be used in developing a framework for the monitoring and adaptive management component of the plan; and • data gaps and uncertainties so that risk factors can be evaluated. The Science Advisors will consist of approximately 12 scientists currently being assembled by BCAG, in consultation with the Wildlife Agencies, to provide technical expertise on the affected taxonomic groups, larger scale ecological processes, principles of conservation biology, and conservation and land use planning in practice. The Independent Science Advisors may be asked to provide additional feedback on key issues during preparation of the Plan, and may prepare reports regarding specific scientific issues throughout the process, as deemed necessary by the Local Agencies and DFG. Design and implementation of the science advisory process must be done in a coordinated fashion and with the mutual agreement of the Local Agencies and DFG. The Local Agencies and DFG will establish a funding source and payment procedures. The independent science advisory process will include the development of a detailed scope of work, use of a professional facilitator, input from technical experts, and production of a report by the scientists. In addition, the Local Agencies and DFG will make the report available for use by all participants and the public during the planning process.
Independent Scientific Input. The Applicant and CDFW will include independent scientific input and analysis to assist in the preparation of the Plan. For that purpose, independent scientists representing a broad range of disciplines, including conservation biology and locally relevant ecological knowledge, will, at a minimum: • recommend scientifically sound conservation strategies for species and natural communities proposed to be covered by the plan; • recommend a set of reserve design principles that address the needs of species, landscapes, ecosystems, and ecological processes in the Planning Area; • recommend management principles and conservation goals that can be used in developing a framework for the monitoring and adaptive management component of the plan; and • identify data gaps and uncertainties so that risk factors can be evaluated. The independent scientists may be asked to provide additional feedback on key issues during preparation of the Plan and may prepare reports regarding specific scientific issues throughout the process, as deemed necessary by the Applicant and CDFW. Design and implementation of the science advisory process must be done in a coordinated fashion and with the mutual agreement of the Applicant and CDFW. The Applicant and CDFW will establish funding and payment procedures. The independent science advisory process will include the development of a detailed scope of work, use of a professional facilitator, input from technical experts and members of the public, and production of a report by the scientists. In addition, the Applicant and CDFW will make the report available for use by all participants and the public during the planning process.
Independent Scientific Input. The Parties intend to include independent scientific input and analysis to assist in the preparation of the DRECP. For that purpose, independent scientists representing a broad range of disciplines, including conservation biology and locally-relevant ecological knowledge, convened by the State will, at a minimum: • Recommend scientifically sound conservation strategies for species and natural communities proposed to be covered by the DRECP; • Recommend a range of conservation actions that would address the needs of species, ecosystems, and ecological processes in the Planning Area proposed to be addressed by the DRECP; • Recommend reserve design principles and processes that are adaptable to changing climate conditions and the needs of species, landscapes, ecosystems, and ecological processes; • Recommend management principles and conservation goals that can be used in developing a framework for the monitoring and adaptive management component of the DRECP; and • Identify data gaps and uncertainties so that risk factors can be evaluated. The Parties will design and implement the science advisory process, in consultation with the Executive Steering Committee (see section 8.5 below). The Parties will develop a detailed scope of work for the independent science process and establish funding and payment procedures. The independent science advisory process will include the use of a professional facilitator, input from technical experts, and production of a report by the scientists. The Parties will make the report available to the public during the planning process.
Independent Scientific Input. In 2001, the County contracted with a group of independent science advisors to review computer models, field research data, and potential Preserve design methods for the North County Plan. Their recommendations were summarized in a written report dated July 1, 2001 and resulted in revisions to the modeling process and incorporation of the SITES Reserve Selection Algorithm model. In 2002, the independent science advisors reconvened to review the revisions made based on the 2001 recommendations. Their response to the revisions made to the North County Plan modeling process and their recommendations and input on the Preserve planning process are summarized in a written report dated February 27, 2002. In 2006, the County convened another group of independent science advisors to provide input on the East County Plan. They participated in two workshops (February 2006 and January 2007) and produced a report dated March 31, 2006. County and CDFW anticipate additional consultation with independent scientists as preparation of the Plans continues in order to ensure that Plans are developed using the “best available” science methodologies. The County and CDFW intend to seek additional independent scientific input and analysis to assist in the completion of the North County Plan and in the preparation of the East County Plan. For that purpose, independent scientists representing a broad range of disciplines, including conservation biology and locally relevant ecological knowledge, will, at a minimum: Recommend scientifically sound conservation strategies for species and natural communities proposed to be covered by the Plans; Recommend a set of reserve design principles that address the needs of species, landscapes, ecosystems, and ecological processes in the Planning Areas proposed to be addressed by the Plans; Recommend management principles and conservation goals that can be used in developing a framework for the monitoring and adaptive management components of the Plans; and Identify data gaps and uncertainties so that risk factors can be evaluated. Design and implementation of the science advisory process must be done in a coordinated fashion and with the mutual agreement of the County and CDFW. The County and CDFW will establish funding and payment procedures. The independent science advisory process will include the preparation of a detailed scope of work, input from technical experts, and production of a report by the scientists. In addition, the Count...
Independent Scientific Input. The Local Agency and CDFG intend to include independent scientific input and analysis to assist in the preparation of the Plans. For that purpose, independent scientists representing a broad range of disciplines, including conservation biology and locally-relevant ecological knowledge, will, at a minimum: • Recommend scientifically sound conservation strategies for species and natural communities proposed to be covered by the Plans; • Recommend a set of reserve design principles that address the needs of species, landscapes, ecosystems, and ecological processes in the planning areas proposed to be addressed by the Plans; • Recommend management principles and conservation goals that can be used in developing a framework for the monitoring and adaptive management components of the Plans; and • Identify data gaps and uncertainties so that risk factors can be evaluated. The independent scientists may be asked to provide additional feedback on key issues during preparation of the Plans, and may prepare reports regarding specific scientific issues throughout the process, as deemed necessary by the Local Agency and CDFG. Design and implementation of the science advisory process must be done in a coordinated fashion and with the mutual agreement of the Local Agency and CDFG. The Local Agency and CDFG will establish funding and payment procedures. The independent science advisory process will include the preparation of a detailed scope of work, input from technical experts, and production of a report by the scientists. In addition, the Local Agency and CDFG will make the report available for use by all participants and the public during the planning process.
Independent Scientific Input. The Parties intend that preparation of the NCCP/HCP will be guided by independent scientific input and analysis. For that purpose, an independent Science Advisory Panel has been convened by the HCPA. The role of the Science Advisory Panel is to, at a minimum, provide recommendations, advice, and guidance on 1) scientifically sound conservation strategies for species and natural communities proposed to be covered by the plan; 2) reserve design principles that addresses the needs of species, landscapes, ecosystems, and ecological processes in the Planning Area proposed to be addressed by the Plan; 3) management principles and conservation goals that can be used in developing a framework for the monitoring and adaptive management component of the plan; and 4) data gaps and uncertainties so that risk factors can be evaluated. The Science Advisory Panel consists of six scientists and was assembled by the HCPA, in consultation with the Wildlife Agencies, to provide technical expertise on the affected taxonomic groups, larger scale ecological processes, principles of conservation biology, and conservation and land use planning in practice. An independent facilitator supports the work of the Science Advisory Panel by coordinating meetings, framing questions, and assisting with report compilation. The Science Advisory Panel may be asked to provide additional feedback on key issues during preparation of the NCCP/HCP, and may prepare reports regarding specific scientific issues throughout the process, as deemed necessary by the Parties. The HCPA will continue to implement the science advisory process in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies.
