Laserfiche WebLink
<br />FRAYED SAFETY <br /> <br />NET S ".".,........,................,..,.....,...,.......................,..,..,..,.".....................,.....,....,.,..................................".,',..,."..,..., <br /> <br />conservation plans that the wildlife agencies <br />(DFG and FWS) deem adequate for issuance of <br />incidental-take permits. The NCCP is intended <br />to take a multispecies, multi-habitat approach. <br />Planning areas are delineated by ecosystem <br />boundaries rather than landowner or county <br />boundaries. This approach relieves FWS of hav- <br />ing to help develop and approve HCPs project <br />by project and species by species and seeks to <br />give local governments and the state wildlife <br />agency (DFG) an official role in ESA-related <br />conservation planning. <br />Currently the NCCPis limited to a pilot pro- <br />gram in southern California that embraces five <br />counties: San Diego, Orange, Riverside, Los <br />Angeles and San Bernardino. The program can be <br />visualized as a giant jigsaw puzzle, in which the <br />entire planning area encompasses the remaining <br />coastal sage scrub habitat - 6,000 square miles <br />stretching from Los Angeles and San Bernardino <br />Counties to the Mexican border. This puzzle is <br />broken into 11 pieces labeled subregions, each <br />with its own Natural Communities Conservation <br /> <br />Plan. The Multiple Species Conservation Program <br />(MSCP) for southwestern San Diego County, <br />assessed in this report, is one of those 11 pieces. <br />Each subregion (including the MSCP) is divided <br />into smaller subareas to facilitate planning. <br />The NCCP is a habitat-based approach to <br />conservation planning. The Habitat Conservation <br />Planning Handbook (p 3-38) declares: "The <br />rationale for a habitat-based approach is that if <br />certain habitat-types are scientifically selected <br />and assessed, and adequately protected under the <br />terms of the HCP, the HCP could protect a <br />broader range of species than the few 'target' <br /> <br />species that might otherwise be addressed by a <br />conventional HCP." <br />Other ESA-related programs also seek to use <br />large-scale planning to address ecosystem-level <br />concerns. For example, for the Louisiana black <br />bear (Ursus americanus LuteoLus), landowners, <br />wildlife biologists and conservationists have <br />developed recovery strategies and priorities <br />focused on identifying remaining bottomland <br />hardwood forests and employing management <br />techniques to enhance habitat and develop corri- <br />dors for bear movement. <br /> <br />Concerns About Ecosystem Planning <br /> <br />The ecosystem-based approach to conserva- <br />tion gives momentum to fulfilling the ESA's origi- <br />nal purpose - to protect ecosystems and recover <br />imperiled species that depend on those ecosystems <br />(patlis 1996). The ecosystem approach addresses <br />potential cumulative effects, habitat fragmentation <br />and multiple species. Many hold the NCCP up as <br />the model for endangered species management, <br />but it has potential flaws. For the NCCP, funding <br />may be insufficient for plan implementation and <br />preserve acquisition, and some individual plans <br />have been developed with insufficient indepen- <br />dent scientific oversight (NRDC 1997). In addi- <br />tion, such plans are used frequently as an excuse <br />not to list species that become imperiled despite <br />NCCP implementation. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br /> <br />....................................................................................................................................................................................................... <br />.......................... <br />