SUSTAINABILITY

ADOPTED | APRIL 2016

APPENDIX

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS

NATURAL &

FARM LANDS
INTRODUCTION 1

DATA & ANALYSIS 3

RECOMMENDED POLICIES 5

STRATEGIES & NEXT STEP RECOMMENDATIONS 6

NOTES 15

ADOPTED | APRIL 2016

APPENDIX

SCS BACKGROUND I NATURAL & FARM LANDS
NATURAL & FARM LANDS

INTRODUCTION

Parallel to its diverse economy, population and increasing transportation options, the SCAG 

region is home to an enormous amount of natural biodiversity and agricultural richness. 

Host to desert, mountain and coastal habitats, some of the highest concentrations of 

endemic plant and animal species on the planet are found within our region. In fact, Southern 

California is part of the California Floristic Province, one of the planet’s top twenty-five 

biodiversity hot spots.1

 Additionally, much of the SCAG region has a rich agricultural history, 

and Imperial County continues to be one of the main food suppliers for the entire nation: 20% 

of dairy products and an estimated two thirds of the nation’s vegetables consumed during 

the winter months are from the Imperial Valley.2

However, as the SCAG region’s population continues to grow, vital habitat and farm lands 

face severe development pressure. In addition to their respective roles in biodiversity and 

food production, both natural and farm lands help to reduce the impacts of climate change 

by acting as “carbon sinks,” storing C02 emissions in the soil, plants and trees instead of 

allowing them to concentrate in the atmosphere. Furthermore, urban, suburban and even 

rural development on previously undeveloped land results in increased greenhouse gas 

emissions. Finally, the conservation of natural3

 and farm lands on the edges of urban and 

suburban development is an integral aspect of the Sustainable Communities Strategy, 

because it incentivizes infill development and the concentration of different land uses, 

making it easier to travel shorter distances and thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

A planning approach that integrates land use and conservation strategies is paramount 

to protecting the environment and reducing greenhouse gas emissions while meeting the 

needs of current and future populations. The 2016 RTP/SCS points to an updated land 

use approach that prioritizes the concentration of development in areas that are frequently 

served by public transportation. A complementary piece of the transit-integrated land use 

strategy should ensure the protection of lands on the edge of existing urban development. 

Otherwise, development of previously open lands on the urban/suburban edge undermines 

the economics of building in transit-rich infill communities. If the direct costs of developing 

near transit outweigh the costs of development, the incentives to build sprawl-type 

communities increase, which leads to the consumption of the region’s agricultural 

and natural lands. 

Many counties and cities in Southern California have excelled in their work to protect these 

vulnerable lands, but few regional plans or policies have been enacted to preserve habitat 

and farm lands on a wider scale. With a population expected to increase by 17 percent by 

2040, conservation decisions made now can safeguard the endurance of these lands, 

protecting threatened wildlife and the local agricultural economy and reducing carbon 

emissions, while also contributing to a high quality of life for future generations. 

NATURAL LANDS

A range of local conservation plans, habitat conservation agencies and state/federal park 

designated areas provide protection for a significant amount of natural and farm land in the 

SCAG region. However, the majority of these protected lands are in remote, desert areas far 

from incorporated areas. Therefore, a substantial amount of land on the urban and suburban 

fringe is vulnerable to development. Protected areas tend to not be distributed evenly across 

habitat types, leaving some habitat types largely unprotected. Many of the high-biodiversity 

habitats that play a key role in the region’s ecosystem are adjacent to urban and suburban 

communities, and do not have protected status.4

 

In acknowledgement of this need for conservation, local agencies throughout the region 

have worked together to form Regional Conservation Plans (RCPs). These plans recognize 

that important habitats do not routinely line up with jurisdictional borders, so designation of 

conservation lands can span multiple jurisdictions. Additionally, RCPs efficiently address 

mitigation mandates from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by anticipating 

transportation projects and “banking” potentially threatened endangered-species habitats. 

Currently, there are three adopted major conservation plans made up of multiple jurisdictions 

within SCAG’s boundaries. Coachella Valley and Western Riverside are Multiple Species 

Habitat Plans (MSHCPs), which allow the county, its cities and special districts to more 

effectively make local land use decisions regarding development while adhering to state 

and federal endangered species acts regulations and environmental mandates. Under 

an MSHCP, wildlife agencies grant authorization for public and private development that 

is potentially detrimental to individual species, in return for assembling and managing a 

coordinated Conservation Area. Similar to the MSHCP, Natural Communities Conservation 

Plan/Habitat Conservation Plans (NCCP/HCP) acquire and manage large conservation 

areas that can be made up of several distinct jurisdictions. An NCCP/HCP takes a broadbased ecosystem approach, focusing on the long term protection of wildlife and plant 

species while also allowing for development. 

The following RCPs have been formally approved and are in implementation:

COACHELLA VALLEY MSHCP

The Coachella Valley MSCHP aims to preserve 240,000 acres of natural habitat and 27 

plant and animal species in the Coachella Valley region of Riverside County. Since receiving 

its state and federal permits in 2008, about one third of the land (80,000 acres) has been 

acquired. Currently, a major amendment is in the works to have the entire City of Desert Hot 

Springs covered by the plan. 
 2 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

ORANGE COUNTY CENTRAL-COASTAL NCCP/HCP

Approved in 1996, this plan was one of the first regional HCPs in the country. The planning 

area covers 208,000 acres, protecting habitats for 39 species, six of which are federally 

listed endangered species. Participating organizations include seven cities, the County 

of Orange, Irvine Company, Metropolitan Water District, the Transportation Corridor 

Agency and UC Irvine. 

WESTERN RIVERSIDE MSHCP

Half a million acres of land are designated for conservation under this plan. When the 

MSHCP was enacted in 2008, nearly 70 percent of the land already had public or quasipublic status. Since then, the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), the plan’s facilitating 

agency, has been active in acquiring the remaining 153,000 acres. To date, 27 percent of the 

total land has been acquired. 

According to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the following RCPs are in the 

planning phase. While not yet formally approved, conservation and restoration efforts for 

most of them are well underway. 

DESERT RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN (DRECP)

Unlike many RCPs that focus on the environmental mitigation of transportation projects, this 

plan was devised for future renewable energy projects, such as windfarms and solar panels. 

The DRECP’s boundaries include the desert regions of Imperial, Los Angeles, Riverside 

and San Bernardino County, as well as Inyo, Kern and San Diego. The total planning area 

includes 22.5 million acres. 

IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT NCCP/HCP

Covering about 500,000 acres in Imperial County, this plan is anticipated to protect nearly 

100 fish, wildlife and plant species for the next 75 years. The planning area includes the 

Salton Sea, which has become a refuge for birds and other wildlife species that live in the 

marsh-like habitat. 

OCTA MEASURE M2 NCCP/HCP 

This plan will protect thirteen threatened plant and wildlife species and cover routine 

maintenance for preserve areas. It is funded by OCTA’s Measure M2 Environmental Freeway 

Mitigation Program. An extension of 1990’s Measure M, Measure M2 is a voter-approved 

half-cent sales tax increase to fund transportation improvements. Over thirty years, the 

Environmental Mitigation Program will allocate about $300 million to acquire natural lands 

and fund habitat restoration projects, while enabling a more streamlined approval process for 

freeway improvement projects. Since the initial funding round in 2010, 1,300 acres of natural 

lands have been acquired and eleven restoration projects have been funded. The total land 

in the planning area is 510,000 acres.

RANCHO PALOS VERDES NCCP/HCP

At 8,661 acres, this is the smallest regional conservation plan in the SCAG region. Despite 

its size, the planning area for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP has some of the richest 

biodiversity in the region. One of the protected species include the Palos Verdes Blue 

Butterfly, whose population is slowly rebounding after near-extinction in the 1980s.

TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY MSHCP

Like the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP, the Apple Valley MSHCP is currently made of 

only one jurisdiction, and the planning area includes a considerable amount of biodiversity. 

The plan will cover 227,000 acres, protecting the habitats of seven endangered species and 

twenty-six sensitive species. 

FARM LANDS

Farm lands make up 2.6 million acres in the SCAG region. The most common crops 

include alfalfa, strawberries, citrus fruits and ornamentals, which are exported throughout 

California and the rest of the country. Like natural habitat lands, farm and grazing lands 

are at risk. According to the California Department of Conservation’s most recent data, 

369,804 acres of farm and grazing land in the SCAG region has been developed since 

1984. Moreover, the region lost 19 percent of farmland designated as “important” by the 

Department of Conservation.5

 This decline of agricultural land has implications for the 

economy and the environment, especially in the face of climate change. While many 

farming practices do contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, emissions from farmlands are 

far less than those from urban environments. Furthermore, when sustainably maintained, 

preserving rather than developing arable lands and pastures ensures carbon sequestration, 

in which C02 is absorbed by the soil instead of concentrating in the atmosphere.6

 Farm 

and grazing lands can also provide such co-benefits as wildlife habitats, flood control and 

groundwater recharge. 

As with natural lands, there are notable farm land conservation strategies currently in place 

in the SCAG region. Also known as the “Williamson Act,” the Land Conservation Act (LCA)

is a voluntary land conservation program adopted by the California Legislature in 1965. The 

LCA incentivizes farm land conservation by providing lower tax rates to landowners who 

restrict their land to agricultural or open space uses for a minimum of 10 years. In the SCAG 

region, about 6.6 percent of farmland is protected under this policy. Participating SCAG 

counties include Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, Ventura and San Bernardino and Ventura.

In addition to the Williamson Act, Ventura County has safeguarded its abundant agricultural 

assets by enacting the “Save Our Agricultural Resources” Initiative (SOAR). SOAR 

conserves farm land in Ventura County by establishing “City Urban Restriction Boundaries” 

(CURB) around cities. Development outside any designated CURB requires voter approval. 
SUSTAINABILITY I NATURAL & FARM LANDS 3

Participating jurisdictions include City of Ventura, Camarillo, Oxnard, Thousand Oaks, 

County of Ventura, Moorpark, Santa Paula and Fillmore. 

STATE AND LOCAL POLICIES 

While there are many state policies related to the conservation of natural and farm lands, 

this appendix refers to the greenhouse gas reduction related policies from the state on 

natural and farm lands. The overarching framework that addresses this issue is in the AB 32 

Scoping Plan Update. The AB 32 Scoping Plan and all subsequent updates are required to 

develop a plan at least every five years that outlines sector specific approaches for reducing 

statewide greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, as outlined in AB 

32.7

 In addition to addressing topics such as transportation, waste, energy and others, the 

state outlines a connection between natural/farm land conservation and greenhouse gas 

emissions mitigation. While the latest AB 32 Scoping Plan Update refers to the significance 

of maximizing greenhouse gas reduction benefits, it does not, for the purposes of the topics 

discussed in this appendix, establish any specific requirements of local governments or 

metropolitan planning organizations. 

At the local and regional levels, SCAG and many municipalities have taken action to 

conserve natural and farm lands through policy and programs. SCAG, at its 2015 General 

Assembly, passed Resolution Number GA 2015-1 supporting the wildlife crossing over 

the Ventura Freeway at Liberty Canyon as an approach to a mitigation measure that 

minimizes the impacts of transportation infrastructure on wildlife, improves habitat 

linkages, and preserves wildlife corridors.8

 In early 2014, SCAG staff conducted a survey 

of all SCAG member cities and counties throughout the region to better understand the 

initial implementation of the 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable 

Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) by local jurisdictions. Part of the survey was focused on 

open space conservation activities, which included natural lands, habitat lands and parks 

or conservation easement areas used for passive recreation like hiking, biking or equestrian 

uses. Example of survey questions and results can be found on TABLE 1. 

After distribution to local planning departments, SCAG received 145 completed surveys, or 

a 74 percent response rate. As of September 2014, 46 percent of respondents indicated that 

they have policies related to natural lands, and 14 percent have agriculture policies. Nearly 

half of respondents listed land use programs/policies for open space in their jurisdiction, 

which were primarily general plan elements, such as open space element, parks and 

recreation element, natural resources element or conservation element. Other prevalent 

programs/policies were mitigation programs such as Natural Community Conservation 

Programs and Habitat Conservation Programs (22 percent). Third party programs, such as 

those administered through non-profits, represent 9 percent and several jurisdictions have 

other programs related to open space (12 percent). 40 percent of jurisdictions have plans for 

open space programs in the future. Over 1/4th (27 percent) of future plans are related to land 

use and general plans. 

DATA & ANALYSIS 

DATA 

As a regional planning agency, SCAG’s data gathering role is a key opportunity to work 

toward improved information sharing for stakeholders across the region. This is especially 

true for natural and farm lands where no other governmental agency covers the same wide 

geography with a focus on natural or farm lands. In response to the suggested steps to 

work toward improving regional conservation and mitigation planning from the 2012 RTP/

SCS, SCAG hired a team to enhance its existing data. That effort included the development 

of a comprehensive database with resources for county transportation commissions, local 

governments and other planning agencies to use in their conservation and mitigation 

planning processes, along with a report to provide context.9

 The database includes more 

than 70 Geographic Information System (GIS) datasets covering vegetation, vertebrate 

species, boundaries of habitat plans, habitat connectivity, soil types and more from state, 

federal and other sources.10 Each database was ranked by relevancy for assessing regional 

habitat or ecosystem conditions and functions in a spatial context as follows:

z Rank 1: Databases from this “Directly Useful” category can be used to assess 

habitat or ecosystem conditions or functions in a spatial context. Examples include 

vegetation maps, wildlife habitat maps, soil surveys and fire risk maps.

z Rank 2: Databases from this “Indirectly Useful” category can be used for land 

use planning or impact predictions related to habitats and ecosystems. Examples 

include planning boundaries related to natural resources, land use designations 

and management designations. 

z Rank 3: Databases from this “Little or No Use” category are tangentially or 

not related to identification or assessment of impacts on natural resources. 

Examples include political boundaries, U.S. Census data, employment data 

and earthquake faults.

The databases in the inventory can be used in a variety of ways to describe the amount, 

location and function of biological resources in support of conservation and open space 

planning. Some databases in the inventory, especially those in relevancy Rank 2, are useful 

in the assessment of potential impacts of human activities on natural resources, though this 

was not the focal purpose of data gathering.
 4 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

Databases that provide information on the distribution of different vegetation types are 

the primary source of information useful to regional conservation and mitigation planning. 

Wetlands mapping data provide greater resolution of these special vegetation types that 

often provide important habitat for sensitive wildlife species and for wildlife in general. 

Some agricultural crop types provide important habitat for sensitive wildlife species 

and maps of agricultural crops and cropping patterns are useful in understanding the 

distribution of habitat across the landscape. The inventory includes vegetation, wetlands 

and agricultural lands mapping databases from various federal and state agencies such as 

the U.S. Forest Service, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service.

The same report outlines data gaps. Most of the databases in the inventory are not useful 

at the scale of individual development project planning because projects cover relatively 

small areas and typically require site-specific natural resources information at a greater 

resolution than is provided in the regional databases in the inventory. Some of the databases 

in the inventory provide only partial coverage of the SCAG region and some are of such 

coarse resolution that they may not be suitable even for regional planning purposes. Such 

data gaps specific to each database in the inventory are described in the report. A number 

of regional HCPs and NCCPs are being implemented or are in development in the SCAG 

region that include valuable natural resources information. HCPs and NCCPs typically 

develop more uniform and sometimes higher-resolution vegetation GIS data, use regional 

databases (similar to the databases gathered for this inventory) to develop and apply habitat 

models for endangered and threatened species and other species addressed by the plan, 

identify species occurrences derived from other sources than the California Natural Diversity 

Database, and identify areas of important habitat proposed for future protection. That data 

will need to be gathered in the future. 

CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK AND ASSESSMENT REPORT 

A habitat assessment tool was used to measure habitat quality both at the coarse, regional 

scale and also measured a more local, fine scale site as a pilot. In addition, an analysis 

was conducted to develop the Conservation Framework and Assessment Report. The 

assessment and framework are available in a combined report.11 This report acts as a key 

step towards and encourages a regional open space conservation program and/or a regional 

advance mitigation plan. The strategy is flexible in that it could build off existing local plans 

and also be designed to meet the needs of individual stakeholders.

The report used the Combined Habitat Assessment Protocols (CHAP), which is an 

accounting and appraisal tool that is a simple yet advanced methodology used to spatially 

measure habitat quality to do both coarse-level and fine-level analysis. CHAP has been 

applied as a framework for conservation planning across the western US. Its methodology 

establishes a habitat value based on assessment of species, habitat and functions. The 

methodology evaluates biodiversity within a habitat type and/or structural condition. 

The outcome of a CHAP evaluation is a Habitat and Biodiversity metric that gives a 

per-acre value for each homogeneous polygon delineated. CHAP accounts for specieshabitats-functions at a site that is also joined to a peer-review Integrated Habitat and 

Biodiversity Information System to create appraised “values” between site(s) and different 

management activities. 

The framework and assessment report provides substantial detail of the CHAP methodology 

for both the coarse-scale and fine-scale assessments. To summarize, CHAP is an 

accounting and appraisal tool that is a simple yet advanced methodology used to measure 

habitat quality spatially.

The coarse analysis of the Conservation Framework and Assessment Report included the 

entire SCAG region. The foundational blocks of the coarse-scale assessment were the ten 

watersheds in the SCAG region, rather than political boundaries or hexagons that have 

little relevance to biological systems. The watershed-based approach is appropriate at this 

regional planning scale because of common issues and solutions that impact watersheds. 

The ten watersheds in the SCAG region include: Ventura San Gabriel Coastal, Tulare Buena 

Vista Lakes, Southern Mojave, Santa Ana, Salton Sea, Northern Mojave, Lower Colorado, 

Laguna San Diego, Central Nevada Desert Basins, and Central California Coastal. The Prado 

Basin site include 479 small mapping areas, referred to as polygons, in 4,237 acres. 

The CHAP approach provides SCAG with a replicable, data-driven technique for assessing 

habitat that provides a consistent look at the region that can also be used for mitigation and 

restoration actions at the local level. This assessment used the state Department of Fish 

and Wildlife’s California Wildlife Habitat Relationships database and its species range maps 

(included in the database inventory), ultimately identifying 550 vertebrate species that could 

occur in the SCAG region. Forty-three species, or eight percent of the total vertebrate, nonfish species in the region, have a state or federal listing status of threatened or endangered. 

See EXHIBIT 1, SCAG Region Habitat Evaluation Map, for the outcome for the CHAP 

coarse-level evaluation for the entire region. The lowest four ranges (Urban/Agricultural, 

Low, Medium, and High) on this map made up the area used in Policy B Scenario during the 

scenario planning process and growth was excluded from the highest (Very High) range. 

The fine-level CHAP analysis of the SCAG region was completed as a pilot to demonstrate 

for local agencies this relatively simple methodology and also show the options for using the 

information upon completion of the assessment. The team conducted the pilot analysis at 

the Prado Basin, which is the largest riparian woodland habitat in the SCAG region. Located 

near the intersection of State Route 91 and State Route 71, the Prado Basin spans portions 

of Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange Counties. The site is made of 4,237 acres and is 

home to ten habitat types such as agricultural, annual grassland, coastal oak woodland, 
SUSTAINABILITY I NATURAL & FARM LANDS 5

coastal scrub, eucalyptus, fresh emergent wetland, unknown, urban, valley foothill riparian, 

and water/riverine. The CHAP analysis identified about 250 species and took into account 

the large influence of invasive species due to the site’s location adjacent to urban conditions. 

See EXHIBIT 2, Prado Basin Habitat Evaluation Map, for a sample map of the CHAP 

fine-level evaluation for the pilot site. Key components of the Conservation Framework 

and Assessment address biodiversity, water resources, ecosystem services, and climate 

change resilience through:

z Protection of sensitive, rare, threatened and endangered species and essential, 

critical, rare and unique habitats, including wetlands, riparian areas, oak 

woodlands, coastal sage scrub and others;

z Ensuring that the full range of habitat types are identified and represented as 

important areas for conservation; 

z Enhancing natural lands contiguity and maintaining critical landscape linkages;

z Ensuring watershed integrity and protecting groundwater and 

surface water sources;

z Protecting key habitats and landscapes that provide resilience to 

climate change; and 

z Documenting the wide range of ecosystem services provided by open space lands. 

The Conservation Framework and Assessment also mapped and analyzed the distribution 

of protected land in the SCAG region (see EXHIBIT 3, Protected Lands in SCAG Region). 

It analyzed the amount of protected habitat in each SCAG basin for each CWHR habitat 

type using GAP Statuses 1 and 2 lands and the CalFire land cover map (see TABLE 2 Share 

of Protected Lands by Watershed). Excluding the non-natural land cover types (urban, 

agriculture, and eucalyptus), the habitat types with the lowest amount of protection in 

the SCAG region are valley foothill riparian, valley oak woodland and coastal scrub, all of 

which have less than ten percent of their total area in protected status according to the 

U.S. Geological Survey GAP Status 1 or 2. For example, only seven percent of the total 

area of the Santa Ana Basin is protected, with less than three percent of valley foothill 

riparian habitat and only four percent of coastal scrub habitat protected in that basin. These 

underrepresented habitat types also tend to have high per-acre habitat values and might 

serve as focal habitats for conservation action. 

To build off of the data analysis and mapping, the Conservation Framework Assessment 

suggested some next steps to bridge the “research-implementation gap” and help lead to 

conservation action. The report suggested deciding how to use the information in the report 

and other supporting data to help inform and prioritize conservation actions. The report 

outlined six recommendations for moving forward with systematic conservation planning 

approach: representation, ecological integrity, connectivity, hydrologic connectivity, 

climate change adaptation, and Environmentally Distributed Ecological Networks 

(EDENs)/citizen science. 

RECOMMENDED POLICIES 

In the 2012 RTP/SCS, SCAG outlined suggested steps towards developing an Open Space 

Conservation Plan to mitigate planned activities. Since then, SCAG, in coordination with 

regional partners, have taken some key actions to make progress on those suggested 

steps. In addition to mitigation, this appendix outlines some other motivations for SCAG 

to undertake a cohesive natural land/farm land conservation plan. These strategies 

were developed by the Open Space Conservation Working Group and cover a variety 

of approaches to conserving natural and farm lands. These approaches are not listed in 

priority order. Participants in the Working Group included San Bernardino Association of 

Governments, LA Metro, Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, Friends 

of Harbors Beaches and Parks, Orange County Transportation Authority, City of Mission 

Viejo, City of Irvine, The Nature Conservancy, Building Industry Association, The Trust 

for Public Land, Town of Apple Valley, Endangered Habitats League, Amigos de Los Rios, 

Riverside County Transportation Commission, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and California 

Department of Fish and Wildlife. SCAG consulted, as appropriate, with federal, state and 

local land management agencies concerning the development of the regional transportation 

plan. This was done as part of SCAG’s outreach/consultation activities and in convening the 

Open Space Conservation Working Group, in accordance with applicable federal planning 

requirements. These recommended policies enhance the land use strategies outlined in the 

RTP/SCS, and therefore were not included in the modeling assumptions. Their impacts were 

not quantified as part of the Scenario Planning Model Outputs.

PROMOTE BEST PRACTICES

Support innovative land conservation tools that facilitate the exchange of information 

related to best practices amongst local governments, resource agencies, non-governmental 

agencies and other stakeholders in and outside of the SCAG region.

FACILITATE PARTNERSHIPS AND COLLABORATION

Encourage, cultivate and facilitate partnerships and collaboration on natural/farm 

lands policies and programs between public, educational and non-profit agencies 

throughout the SCAG region. 
 6 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

ENCOURAGE REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANNING

Seek and expand engagement with resource and permitting agencies, County Transportation 

Commissions, Caltrans, California High Speed Rail Authority and other partners on regional 

advanced mitigation and integrated regional conservation planning. 

EXPAND DATA SHARING 

Continue to gather spatial and other data to better inform regional policies regarding natural/

farm lands, such as the 2014 data gathering efforts to provide coarse and fine scale habitat 

assessment data for the SCAG region. Coordinate and improve the Intergovernmental 

Review Process to provide or obtain enhanced data regarding mitigation opportunities. 

SUPPORT INNOVATIVE LAND USE POLICIES

Recognize the region’s growth potential and its inherent connection between the 

conservation of existing natural/farm lands and strategies to promote infill, such as transfer 

of development rights and land banking, which relieve pressure to expand the urban 

footprint. Additionally, continue efforts to work toward identifying priority conservation areas, 

including habitat and farm land areas, to permanently protect as part of future regional plans. 

IMPROVE NATURAL CORRIDOR CONNECTIVITY

Encourage and facilitate research, programs and policies to identify, protect and restore 

natural habitat corridors, especially where corridors cross county boundaries. Additionally, 

continue support for preserving wildlife corridors and wildlife crossings to minimize the 

impact of transportation projects on wildlife species and habitat fragmentation.

ENCOURAGE URBAN GREENING/GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

Support planning and implementation efforts that improve the relationship between the 

urban built environment and the urban natural environment, such as urban forestry, 

urban greenways and trail systems, watershed management and expansion of green 

infrastructure systems. 

CONNECT TO PUBLIC HEALTH

Recognize and encourage policy development of the link between natural/farm lands 

conservation with opportunities to improve public health such as recreational access and 

active transportation investment.

INCLUDE CLIMATE SMART CONSERVATION

Support the purposeful consideration of climate change in natural/farm lands management 

including linking actions to key climate impacts and vulnerabilities. Encourage and seek 

opportunities to quantify baseline greenhouse gas emissions and emissions reductions 

related to enhanced regional conservation efforts, especially modeling tools and 

Cap-and-Trade funding. 

SEEK FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES

Actively seek funding opportunities for SCAG, member jurisdictions and potential partners 

for programs that facilitate the conservation and restoration of natural/farm lands, including 

pilot program opportunities. 

These approaches respond to the suggestion in the Conservation Framework and 

Assessment that the region explore goal setting in order to develop a robust conservation 

plan and align with recommendations from the AB 32 Scoping Plan Update calling for the 

local and regional planning to integrate an emphasize on land conservation and avoided 

conversion of croplands, forests, rangelands and wetlands. The Scoping Plan Update also 

suggests land conservation efforts be coordinated with the expansion and promotion of 

urban forestry, urban agriculture and green infrastructure.12

STRATEGIES & NEXT STEP RECOMMENDATIONS 

SCAG has demonstrated progress toward creating an Open Space Conservation Plan and 

simultaneously engaged numerous stakeholders through this process. Building on this effort 

has the potential to create a regional conservation program that CTCs, cities, agencies and 

non-profits can align with and support. This strategic and comprehensive approach allows 

for regional growth, while at the same time ensuring that important natural and working 

lands as well as water resources are protected in perpetuity. The 2012 RTP/SCS committed 

to a regional mitigation plan for inclusion in the 2016 RTP/SCS. With that as the foundation, 

the following next steps suggested for further development of a conservation policy could 

include the following:
SUSTAINABILITY I NATURAL & FARM LANDS 7

potential funding source. Several of the California Climate Investment programs specifically 

target natural resource conservation15 and agricultural land conservation.16 

As SCAG works toward implementing appropriate natural and farm land strategies to meet 

mitigation requirements and address regional goals, the approach should maximize cobenefits. As identified in the AB 32 Scoping Plan Update, efforts to maintain and enhance 

forests, rangelands/grazed lands and wetlands may offer a range of co-benefits. These 

co-benefits may include, but are not limited to, carbon storage; improving water quality and 

quantity; potentially providing safeguards against risks such as flood and erosion; providing 

habitat, refugia and corridors for species and natural communities that are increasingly 

stressed by climate change; offering enhanced recreational opportunities and tourism 

revenue; supporting bioenergy development; offering waste diversion opportunities; helping 

to reduce energy demand as a result of shading; improving air quality; and/or supporting job 

creation in rural communities.17

With local support, SCAG policies and strategies outlined in the RTP/SCS and in this 

appendix will help to reshape future land consumption. This regional plan includes a 

strategy that promotes a more compact growth pattern that will return many benefits, such 

as savings in water and energy, conservation of habitat lands, support for agriculture as 

both a key industry and a cornerstone of the region’s economic history, more sustainable 

transportation investments, diversified housing options, and an urban form that supports 

a competitive economy. By committing to the strategies and recommendations in this 

appendix in the context of the other key RTP/SCS strategies, the SCAG region can anticipate 

the fruition of a better region for our residents, our ecosystems and our economy.

z Expanding on the Natural Resource Inventory Database and Conservation 

Framework & Assessment by incorporating strategic mapping layers to build the 

database and further refine the priority conservation areas. Specifically:

 Further investing in mapping and habitat and farmland data tracking. 

 Working with County Transportation Commissions to support their countylevel efforts at database building. 

z Encouraging CTCs to develop advance mitigation programs or include them in 

future transportation measures. Specifically:

 Funding pilot programs that encourage advance mitigation including data and 

replicable processes

 Participating in state level efforts that would support regional advanced 

mitigation planning in the SCAG region

 Supporting the inclusion of advance mitigation programs at county level 

transportation measures

z Aligning with funding opportunities and pilot programs to begin implementation of 

the Conservation Plan through acquisition and restoration. Specifically:

 Seeking planning funds, such as Cap-and-Trade auction proceeds that could 

help prepare for local action on acquisition and restoration.

 Supporting county transportation commissions and other partners

 Continuing support of the State Wildlife Action Plan 2015 Update13

and its implementation.

 Integrating greening strategies into regional planning efforts.

z Providing incentives to jurisdictions that cooperate across county lines to protect 

and restore natural habitat corridors, especially where corridors cross county 

boundaries. Specifically:

 Working with stakeholders to identify incentives.

 Considering providing sustainability planning grants that help protect habitat 

corridors, especially across county boundaries. 

As recognized in the AB 32 Scoping Plan Update, funding is essential to address land 

conservation and maximize its related greenhouse gas benefits, yet it is traditionally 

underfunded.14 Much like transportation, outcomes of actions on natural and farm lands 

often occur on a long range scale. The Scoping Plan Update suggests action within the next 

ten years is critical to ensure that long-term benefits begin materializing by 2050. Because 

of the greenhouse gas reduction connection between natural and farm land conservation, 

SCAG should seek out and leverage funds identified for greenhouse gas reduction as a 
 8 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

Table 1 Open Space Conservation Activity – Local Government Questionnaire

Top Five Responses:

Classification Category Response Occurence

1 Land Use Planning General Plan: Open Space Element 20

2 Land Use Planning General Plan 19

3 Land Use Planning Parks and Recreation Program 16

4 Mitigation Multi-Species Habitat Conservation 

Plan 15

5 NCCP Natural Community Conservation 

Plan 12

QUESTION 2 

Please provide a list of open space conservation, restoration, mitigation or similar plans, 

programs, and/or policies (such HCPs, NCCPs, TDR, mitigation banking, conservation or 

agricultural easements, etc.) that have been adopted by your jurisdiction.

Classification Total %

Land Use 66 46%

Mitigation 31 21%

Revenue 7 5%

3rd Party* 13 9%

Other 16 11%

N/A or No Response 58 40%

QUESTION 1 

Does your jurisdiction have any open space plans, a greenprint, programs, policies, 

mitigation, mitigation ratios, easements, or other tools and activities related to open space 

conservation, preservation, and restoration activities?

Category Total %

Natural Lands 66 46%

Agriculture 20 14%

Parks and Recreation 86 59%

Overview of Results: September 2014

Total Surveys Completed: 145

Total Surveys Remaining: 52

Response Rate: 74%

QUESTION 3 

Are mitigation activities developed on a project-by-project basis or are there mitigation 

approaches, plans, policies, and/or procedures for comprehensively mitigating impacts to 

open space/natural lands in your jurisdiction?

Activity TOTAL %

Project by Project 63 43%

Comprehensive 7 5%

Both 27 19%

N/A or No Answer 48 33%

* Managed by an outside agency such as a non-profit
SUSTAINABILITY I NATURAL & FARM LANDS 9

QUESTION 5 

What kinds of existing or historic funds (from your general fund, special allocations, or 

voter-approved taxes/bonds) or other funding mechanisms are available to implement open 

space conservation plans, greenprints, programs, and policies and/or mitigation activities?

Classification Total %

Land Use Planning 4 3%

Mitigation 18 12%

Internal Revenue 28 19%

3rd Party* 17 12%

Other 16 11%

N/A or No Response 94 65%

Top Five Responses:

Classification Category Response Occurence

1 Internal Revenue General Funds 13

2 3rd Party* Grant Funds 11

3 Mitigation Mitigation Fees 9

4 Internal Revenue Development Impact Fee 6

5 Internal Revenue Taxpayer Initiative Funds 6

Top Five Responses:

Classification Category Response Occurence

1 Mitigation Multi-Species Habitat 

Conservation Plan 11

2 Land Use General Plan 8

3 Mitigation Natural Community Conservation 

Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan 7

4 Land Use Planning General Plan Open Space 

Element 5

5 3rd Party* Conservation Authority 5

QUESTION 4 

If you have an HCP or NCCP or other conservation tool/mechanism in your county, 

describe how (if) it is related to current plans, programs, or policies in your agency.

Classification Total %

Land Use Planning 15 10%

Mitigation 24 17%

Revenue 1 1%

3rd Party* 7 5%

Other 7 5%

N/A or No Response 109 75%

* Managed by an outside agency such as a non-profit

TABLE 1 Open Space Conservation Activity – Local Government Questionnaire Continued

* Managed by an outside agency such as a non-profit

* Managed by an outside agency such as a non-profit

* Managed by an outside agency such as a non-profit
 10 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

QUESTION 6 

Do you have any pending or plans to develop open space conservation plans, programs, or 

polices in your jurisdiction in the near future?

Classification Total %

Land Use Planning 40 28%

Mitigation 6 4%

Internal Revenue 0 0%

3rd Party* 3 2%

Other 14 10%

N/A or No Response 93 64%

Top Five Responses:

Classification Category Response Occurence

1 Land Use Planning Parks and Recreation Plan 11

2 Land Use Planning General Plan 10

3 Land Use Planning General Plan-Open Space 

Element 8

4 Land Use Planning Open Space Plan 5

5 Mitigation Multi-Species Habitat 

Conservation Plan 4

QUESTION 7 

What data resources, tools, examples, or information do you need for considering open 

space conservation planning or mitigation? What types of data would be useful to have?

Categories Total %

Environmental Data (GIS) 27 19%

Land Use Data (GIS) 15 10%

Guidelines/Best Practices 18 12%

Funding 11 8%

Other 7 5%

N/A or No Response 79 54%

TABLE 1 Open Space Conservation Activity – Local Government Questionnaire Continued

* Managed by an outside agency such as a non-profit
Kern

San Diego

Santa

Barbara

NEVADA

ARIZONA

MEXICO

Santa

Ana

Salton

Sea

Southern

Mojave

Lower

Colorado

Tulare-Buena

Vista Lakes

Northern

Mojave

Central

Nevada Desert

Basins

Laguna-San

Diego Coastal

Ventura-San

Gabriel

Coastal

Central

California

Coastal

Basins (6-digit HUC) Per-acre Habitat Value

Urban/Agricultural (2.39 - 8.75)

Low (8.76 - 14.20)

Medium (14.21 - 17.48)

High (17.49 - 20.28)

Very High (20.29 - 24.43)

Source: SCAG, 2015

° 0 10 20 5

Miles

Exhibit 1 SCAG Region Habitat Evaluation Map
San

Bernardino

County

Riverside

County

Orange

County

Santa

Ana

Ventura-San

Gabriel

Coastal

Basins (6-digit HUC) County Boundary Baseline Condition Corrected Per Acre Value

Urban/Agricultural (2.39 - 8.24)

Low (8.25 - 13.58)

Medium (13.59 - 18.32)

High (18.33 - 23.22)

Very High (23.23 - 35.56)

Source: SCAG, 2015

° 0 0.3 0.6 0.15

Miles

Exhibit 2 Prado Basin Habitat Evaluation Map
Kern

San Diego

Santa

Barbara

NEVADA

ARIZONA

MEXICO

Source: SCAG, CPAD 2014

° 0 10 20 5

Miles

US Forest Service

US Bureau of Land Management

National Park Service

US Fish and Wildlife Service

Other Federal

California Department of Parks and Recreation

California Department of Fish and Wildlife

Other State

County

City

Non Governmental Organization

Special District

US Military/Defense

Private*

Exhibit 3 Protected Lands in the SCAG Region
 14 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

Table 2 Share of Protected Lands by Watershed

Total Acres Protected** Acres % Protected

Ventura San Gabriel Coastal 2,794,092.35 440,347.27 16%

Tulare Buena Vista Lakes 9,865.00 84.06 1%

Southern Mojave 5,671,795.18 2,889,425.15 51%

Santa Ana 1,726,591.10 121,111.18 7%

Salton Sea 3,775,248.13 1,091,663.16 29%

Northern Mojave 7,038,791.08 2,496,261.45 35%

Lower Colorado 2,461,937.96 1,210,360.88 49%

Laguna San Diego 565,301.57 65,307.67 12%

Central Nevada Desert Basins 388,430.02 274,436.50 71%

Central California Coastal 154,450.51 61,900.99 40%

Total 24,586,502.90 8,650,898.31 35%

** Defined as U.S. Geological Survey GAP 1 or 2 Status18
 15

NOTES

1 Myers, N., R.A. Mittermeier, C.G. Mittermeier, G.A.B. da Fonseca, J. Kent. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature: 403:852-858.

2 Imperial County Farm Bureau. Imperial County Agriculture. Accessed at: http://www.icfb.net/countyag.html

3 For purposes of the 2016 RTP/SCS, the term “natural lands” includes habitat areas such as grasslands, wetlands, deserts, forests, shrub lands, riparian zones, and other types of natural environments. Natural lands are 

not intended to include agricultural croplands, grazing/rangeland, other working lands; or municipal parks serving primarily recreational purposes..’

4 Southern California Association of Governments. 2015. Conservation Framework and Assessment. Accessed at:

http://sustain.scag.ca.gov/Sustainability%20Portal%20Document%20Library/SCAG%20Final%20Conservation%20Framework%20%20Assessment_Feb.pdf

5 Includes Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland and Farmland of Local Importance

6 California Air Resources Board. 2008. AB 32 Scoping Plan. Accessed at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf

7 ibid

8 Southern California Association of Governments. 2015. Resolution Number GA 2015-1. Accessed at: http://www.scag.ca.gov/committees/CommitteeDocLibrary/ga050715fullagn.pdf

9 Southern California Association of Governments. 2014. Existing Information and Data Gaps forNatural Resources in SCAG Region. Accessed at:

http://sustain.scag.ca.gov/Sustainability%20Portal%20Document%20Library/Final_Report-Existing-Information-Data-Gaps.pdf

10 Southern California Association of Governments. 2014. Natural Resources Database Inventory. Accessed at:

http://sustain.scag.ca.gov/Sustainability%20Portal%20Document%20Library/SCAG%20Inventory%20Natural%20Resources%20GIS%20Databases.pdf

11 Southern California Association of Governments. 2015. Conservation Framework and Assessment Report. Accessed at: 

http://sustain.scag.ca.gov/Sustainability%20Portal%20Document%20Library/SCAG%20Final%20Conservation%20Framework%20%20Assessment_Feb.pdf

12 California Air Resources Board. 2014. AB 32 Scoping Plan Update. Page 59. Accessed at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/updatedscopingplan2013.htm

13 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2015. California State Wildlife Action Plan 2015 Update. Accessed at: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/SWAP/Final 

14 California Air Resources Board. 2014. AB 32 Scoping Plan Update. Page 74. Accessed at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/updatedscopingplan2013.htm

15 California Air Resources Board. 2015. Natural Resources and Waste Diversion Funding. Accessed at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/auctionproceeds/ggrfprogrampage.htm#ResourcesandWaste

16 Strategic Growth Council. 2015. Sustainable Agricultural Lands Conservation Program Overview. Accessed at: http://sgc.ca.gov/s_salcprogram.php

17 California Air Resources Board. 2015. AB 32 Scoping Plan Update. Natural and Working Lands Working Paper (Appendix C) Page 3. Accessed at:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/naturalandworkinglands.pdf

18 US Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program (GAP). November 2012. Protected Areas Database of the United States (PADUS), version 1.3 Combined Feature Class
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ADOPTED | APRIL 2016

WWW.SCAGRTPSCS.NET

APPENDIX

SCS BACKGROUND I NATURAL & FARM LANDS

REGIONAL OFFICES

Imperial County

1405 North Imperial Avenue, Suite 1 

El Centro, CA 92243 

Phone: (760) 353-7800 

Fax: (760) 353-1877

Orange County

OCTA Building 

600 South Main Street, Suite 1233 

Orange, CA 92868 

Phone: (714) 542-3687 

Fax: (714) 560-5089 

Riverside County

3403 10th Street, Suite 805 

Riverside, CA 92501 

Phone: (951) 784-1513 

Fax: (951) 784-3925

San Bernardino County

Santa Fe Depot 

1170 West 3rd Street, Suite 140 

San Bernardino, CA 92410 

Phone: (909) 806-3556 

Fax: (909) 806-3572

Ventura County

950 County Square Drive, Suite 101 

Ventura, CA 93003 

Phone: (805) 642-2800 

Fax: (805) 642-2260 

MAIN OFFICE

818 West 7th Street, 12th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90017

(213) 236-1800

www.scag.ca.gov

please recycle 2347 2016.03.31