Comment Log Display

Comment 1
p 2 Overview - land types scope
The first sentence states the land type scope of this plan "
forests, farmland, ranchland, grasslands, wetlands and urban land".
  A similar listing of land types occurs in the first paragraph of
the Introduction on page 4, the first sentence of Plan Scope on
page 5

This scope misses out many natural lands in southern California and
the deserts that are very important for carbon sequestration. 
Examples are coastal sage scrub, chaparral, oak woodlands and a
wide range of desert scrub types.  They are not covered by
"ranchland" because no ranching occurs. In many cases they are
threatened by development that would release much sequestered
carbon and eliminate future carbon sequestration programs, or by
degradation that reduces carbon sequestration benefits.  There are
various state programs and state-funded projects to secure
conservation and restoration of key areas (such as Natural
Communities Conservation Plans and the Wildlife Conservation
Board's climate change adaptation program) for which these southern
Californian and desert lands are very important.  

Comment 2
p 7 Paragraph 1.  Natural and Working Lands GHG flux
To the extent that solid scientific data is available, this should
encompass the full suite of land types as per comment 1 , not the
constrained list stated repeatedly in this document. It will help
to indicate scientific uncertainties, as well as future modeling
and data needs.

Comment 3  
p7 Paragraph 2. Setting path for deeper (GHG) reductions by 2050.
We strongly support setting this deeper, longer term path in this
implementation plan, irrespective of the results of the NWL
inventory  A zero or negative

Comment 4
General comment on modeling, goal setting, implementation plan
components
Essential to address the broader array of land types, as per
comment 1.

Comment 5
Ecological restoration - table on page 12.
We note that the table only addresses mountain meadow and oak
woodland restoration but that text near top of the page suggests
the final Implementation Plan will include additional ;and types. 
Important that it do so.

Comment 6 
Rangeland compost application, page 14.
It is necessary that this important management practice be used
selectively.  There may be areas important for conservation of
biodiversity, imperiled species and ecological functions where
compost application would be deleterious.  Additional scientific
research on this issue needed

Comment 7
Riparian restoration, page 14
Land types are broader than grasslands and cultivated lands, and
suite of species much more than oaks, depending on the location

Comment 8
Note from conversation at May 18 Sacramento workshop
We are very appreciative of Ashley Conrad-Saydeh's comment
understanding the importance of Natural Community Conservation
Plans and Habitat Conservation Plans and that full funding these
plans is an important GHG reduction activity.
Also we note Ashley Conrad-Saydeh's additional comments that
activities in the Implementation Plan are limited by available
modeling and that items which are state-funded but not in the model
are important for meeting the state's climate goals.  We strongly
support this statement and trust that the final Implementation Plan
will include additional modeling needs.