Natural Communities Conservation Planning
Southern California
Objectives and Critiques

by: Ruth Michelstein

The Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act of 1991 was established by the California Legislature, is directed by the Department of Fish and Game, and is being implemented by the state, and public and private partnerships to protect habitat in California₁. As opposed to the single species interpretation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), this act aims at protecting many species using a regional approach to habitat preservation. Douglas Wheeler has written a nice synopsis of the NCCP within the context of the history of conservation of habitat. The NCCP is a program that is meant to have voluntary multi-stakeholder cooperation in planning, management and funding. In Southern California the target habitat is Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS), home to the federally "threatened" California Gnatcatcher.

Conservation is needed, particularly in Orange County, because of the large-scale development of homes, businesses, and roads. The listing of the California Gnatcatcher as a "threatened" species and the dwindling numbers of other CSS dependent species are a testament to the need for whole-habitat preservation. For instance, CSS habitat includes other birds and organisms in need of protection, including the Coastal Cactus Wren and the Orange-throated Whiptail Lizard. The single species approach moves very slowly and often species go extinct before any listing is allowed. In the meantime, other species require protection and are placed as a last priority. The ESA, many conservationists argue, was always meant to be an act aimed at supporting multi-species preservation. With the leisurely pace at which legislation moves and with the single-species interpretation always attributed to it, the ESA has not been able to serve as a protector of entire habitats. Whole-habitat preservation suggested in the NCCP will, hopefully, incorporate the necessary elements for adequate protection of a species, allowing it to thrive in its habitat with the other organisms that it usually shares space with.

The NCCP is designed to allow Orange County and participating counties the opportunity to develop plans for saving what remains of the CSS among the existing development. In this process counties are asked to account for future urban and farming development. Stakeholder participation is important in this process for obtaining input from various sectors of the community. Businesses and cities can come forward with plans for future expansion and development, managers of habitat can come forward with goals and limitations of the habitat and scientists can come forward with recommendations for size and structure of habitat and ideas for restoration to enhance corridors between habitat.

The NCCP planning program will be implemented in large parts of Orange County, in parts of San Diego County and in portions of Riverside County. The main areas of interest for this issue paper are located in Orange County and are referred to as Coastal Subarea Reserve and Central Subarea Reserve. Coastal Subarea Reserve is located in the San Joaquin Hills area of Orange County. Central Subarea Reserve is located within the unincorporated county jurisdiction2.

The funding for the development of the NCCP comes from several sources. Landowners are making contributions that are estimated at over $10 million dollars. The U.S. government and the State of California are also making contributions. Also, landowners needing mitigation credit (to replace habitat that they removed or destroyed for developing) are giving mitigation funds to the program.

The management of a program as large as the NCCP will take the cooperation of many people from many different fields and perspectives. The plan will require the acquisition of land, conservation easements, on-site dedication of open space, land exchanges, zoning changes, habitat banking, dedication of public land and a group of people who know how to make all of these things flow together and actually work to save CSS habitat. The NCCP also states that a Non-profit organization will be created to coordinate the management efforts of the reserves it sets up. Some management is built into the terms of the NCCP with guidelines for interim period protection. In junction with the ESA, the NCCP will not let more than 5% of habitat in the designated NCCP regions to be developed or altered in any way. Management of the NCCP will involve many management and owner agencies₁.

There have been many news articles praising the NCCP for its program to try and save habitat as a whole. The NCCP, ideally, will set up a series of reserves to help prevent further habitat fragmentation and degradation, which could lead to population reduction or population bottlenecks that will bring species to the point of "listing" or even extinction. While the NCCP appears to be able to do all of these things, many scientists are questioning its true capability to do all of these things.

With all of the praise and literature written about the NCCP, criticisms and concerns do exist that deserve to be addressed. Past criticisms by some scientists and experts for the Orange County portion of the NCCP stated that there was lack of scientific review and sound methodology in planning the reserve designs. Also, the lack of adequate corridors and habitat links between NCCP reserves could lead to isolation of the "threatened" California Gnatcatcher, a target species for the project. To some, there did not seem to be any regard for maintainence of biodiversity by only focusing upon CSS when many coastal plants are just as important (ie: Chapparal, Grassland). The criticism that the NCCP allowed for too much human access to core preserve area and that more effective buffer zones were needed. Restoration of abandoned farmland and other areas was suggested as a good, cheap way to gain some space for corridors; however, this idea seems to have been completely overlooked. The Foothill Transportation Corridor now runs through what used to be prime Gnatcatcher habitat and there are plans to build housing tracts in other areas of prime CSS habitat₂. These concerns have been reiterated by scientists in the area being discussed and by scientists who have done study in this area. These questions all seem to have some level of credibility to them and the concerns seem to be concerns that usually plague the minds of conservation biologists. The question remains, what has been done to alleviate these concerns in the wake of the final approval of the NCCP for Orange County?

A scientific review board has been established for giving input and advice concerning the way to execute the program in a way that will best benefit the target species. This board has developed a scientific methodology for planning the reserve space with corridors and buffer zones for the core habitat. To this writer it seems that the advice has gone unheeded and human expansion will continue to have its way in this area of the world. The NCCP Core Group, a group of managers, scientists, sponsors, and facilitators is also in existence to advise in the process. Some complaints about this board have been that it doesn't have the feel of a true advisory panel. There is no real authority and no formal leadership, which probably keeps the board rather weak. The budget for the group is faulty and the group itself is wrought with political divisions. There does not seem to be any coordination of research and management here. Again, how can a group like this be effective in telling developers, the city, and the federal government what to do with all of this allocated land? In my opinion, it cannot expect to ever do so if these conditions persist.

Where does the NCCP go from here? With the plan approved, changing the terms of the agreement cannot be done. Strengthening the NCCP Core Group may help to organize the management, execution, and success of the plan. Additionally, the scientific methodology for reserve planning should be referred to, especially when handling a "threatened" species and other species that are in such fragile numbers. Human impacts need to be limited and buffer zones with utilization zones around them would be the best option for truly saving this habitat type. In conclusion, the NCCP has all of the variables to make for a good conservation program, it just needs more scientist and manager input for it to truly be stakeholder oriented.

References

1. County of Orange Environmental Management Agency. 1995. Natural Community Conservation Plan & Habitat Conservation Plan: Parts I & II, Part III, and Part IV.

2. County of Orange Environmental Management Agency. 1995. Natural Community Conservation Plan & Habitat Conservation Plan: Map Section.

Web Links
NCCP Links:
http://www.ceres.ca.gov./CRA/NCCP/index.html
http://www.cyberg8t.com/wroberts/ehl/nccp.html

NCCP Act of 1991 Link/Dept of Fish and Game:
http://ceres.ca.gov/cra/NCCP/FandGCode2800-2840.html

Endangered Species Act Link:
http://www.law.indiana.edu/envdec/c.html

Douglas Wheeler Link:
http://www.ceres.ca.gov/CRA/PressReleases/nccp_wheeler_fall9 5.html

Coastal Sage Scrub Links:
http://envirolink.org/FSCR/Watershed103/ws3014.html
http://www.calpoly.edu/~dchippin/zonecoast.html

Artemesia californica graphic:
http://rain.org/~mkummel/flora/artcal.html

Other Coastal Plants Link:
http://ceres.ca.gov/ceres/calweb/coastal/plants/scrub.html

California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Link:
http://www.fws.gov/~r9endspp/i/b6w.html

California Gnatcatcher and other CSS species Link:
http://www.epa.gov/EPA-SPECIES/1995/June/Day-21/pr-304.html

San Diego County NCCP Link:
http://resources.ca.gov/CRA/NCCP/nccp_san_diego.html

Interim Management Link:
http://www.ceres.ca.gov/CRA/NCCP/nccp_coastal_sage_scrub.htm l

Biological Corridors Link:
http://www.safnet.org/policy/psst/psst24.html

Back to Senior Seminar