04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Beyond biodiversity and scenic values,we will also integrate priority areas that have already been established during several meetings held in 2015.These include: Doolan Canyon, between the Cities of Dublin and Livermore; Springtown Alkali Sink, north of the City of Livermore; the Tesla/Corral Hollow area, east of Livermore; Cedar Mountain,in the southeast corner of the County; Brushy Peak, north of Livermore; and the Altamont Wildlife Corridors,east of Livermore. Finally,a set of analyses,and maps called the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy was prepared under the auspices of various Alameda County governmental bodies and districts as well as state and federal agencies and these priority areas will be integrated as well. Other aspects that may be important to conservation While protecting native biodiversity, scenic views and community priority areas are first order task, other aspects may also be important for conservation. For example, the potential for recreational uses or if a parcel has strategic value as part of a broader conservation plan may both impact the value of a parcel for conservation. As the team at UC Berkeley develops their databases and becomes familiar with the study area,we expect to find parcel attributes that may provide value for conservation but are not currently listed as priorities.Therefore, in our meetings with ALOSAC we expect to consistently have a dialog concerning what other features we should include in the scoring and ranking system. Scoring and ranking Prioritization systems should be based on a scoring and ranking of all parcels based on their contribution to Alameda County. Inherently, ranking non-comparable goods(such as habitat quality and viewsheds) requires a value judgement on the part of the researcher.Therefore, it is important that any scoring system be transparent and separable.A transparent scoring system allows for sensitivity analysis to understand how weighting scores differently impacts a parcel's score and rank.A separable scoring system allows people to view each component of the score individually and therefore understand what is driving the ranking. We expect the development of the scoring system to be an interactive process with input from ALOSAC along the way. We can imagine a hypothetical scoring system based on a habitat score,viewshed score,and community priority area score. An alternative ranking may include additional scores,such as from the threat of development in the absence of conservation action.The habitat score would be made up of many components,for example two points could be given to a parcel for each: presence of rare plants, presence of rare animals,connectivity to other open space,connectivity to other parkland and nearness to populations centers. Adding up all component scores would give a total score for Habitat. Similar methods could be used to give scores to viewsheds and community priority areas and threat of development. In this hypothetical example(Table 1.)we can see each components contribution to the total score and overall ranking. By comparing the primary score and rank(which includes only the three main components of the analysis)to the secondary score and rank we see the differences that including a new variable (threat to development)can make in the overall ranking. It is important to emphasize, however,that the ranking should be used for guiding purchases, but not to rigidly find the"best" parcel available. Rankings are scientifically informed,yet subjective since we do not account for parcel attributes. It is the crucial role of the ALOSAC to use this information and their own judgement to make the final decisions concerning what parcels should be pursued.