Ocean and Coastal Policy Center

94

Section 4

95

• In conjunction with the SWRCB, each regional board will attempt to coordinate the actions of governmental agencies and programs to best assist the local groups. Better coordination of the many overlapping state and federal activities, especially those involving regulations and funding, is critical to the success of local watershed groups.

The SWRCB and RWQCBs, in partnership with the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), have developed an integrated planning process to more effectively and efficiently direct the limited State and federal funds to the highest priority activities. Statewide priorities are developed collaboratively by the SWRCB, USEPA and the RWQCBs. These priorities and the planning process are described in the WMI Integrated Plan.

The initial focus of the WMI has been on development of the watershed man-agement strategies by each of the RWQCBs. Unique strategies that consider the local conditions and pollution sources have been developed for each priority watershed. These strategies are contained in each RWQCB’s Chapter of the WMI Integrated Plan. The current Integrated Plan is dated January 2000 and it will be updated annually in November of each year.

Each RWQCB Chapter of the WMI Integrated Plan identifies the organization’s priorities, where and how they will spend their resources, as well identified additional resource needs. The Chapter of the WMI explains how and why organizational goals and priorities were established, and describes the strate-gies to be used to achieve water quality goals. The Chapters themselves are not commitments to complete work. These commitments are made in source-specific workplans that address funding issues. Annual program workplans and grant applica-tions will still be prepared by SWRCB and RWQCB program managers to identify which activities are going to be funded in a particular year.

The development of the WMI Integrated Plan is not required by law. It is mainly an internal planning document to support local watershed management activities. Each RWQCB determines the method of public participation that goes into development of the Chapters. The WMI is not considered to be an SWRCB program. It is an effort to coordinate the activities of the existing SWRCB programs to better support watershed management. Existing programs include water quality standards, basin planning, core regulatory (e.g. NPDES Permits and WDRs), nonpoint source, monitoring and assess-ment, TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Loads), etc.

The FY 1998-99 and FY 1999-00 State budgets included fund-ing for 10 WMI Coordinators to carry out the WMI. There is one WMI Coordinator at each of the nine Regional Boards and one at the State Board. Proposed State funding for FY 2000-01 would make these coordinator positions permanent. WMI Coordinators have as their main task working with local watershed groups and serving them as a RWQCB liaison. Other tasks of the Coordinators are preparing the WMI Inte-grated Plan Chapters and coordinating with other State, fed-eral, and local agencies on watershed specific issues.

Forty-four watershed management areas have been identified statewide by the Regional Boards as priority targets for immediate attention and funding. There are approximately one hundred watersheds identified statewide that will be addressed in the future, with the initial step usually being preparation of watershed assessments to identify problems and opportunities for solutions.

The San Diego Association of Governments proposed the Multiple-Species Conservation Program (MSCP) as a means to mitigate planning for land development and construc-tion projects. The goal of the MSCP is to create a preserve network that consists of multiple habitat patches and wildlife “corridors” that can protect selected sensitive plant and animal species within the boundaries of San Diego County.

The MSCP is a comprehensive habitat conservation planning program for southwestern San Diego County. In addition, a sub-planning group, the North County Wildlife Forum, has been formed which includes Camp Pendleton as a participant with federal, state and local agencies, environmental groups and developers, has been created.

The MSCP is based on an assumption that a reserve network of habitat and open space can protect biodiversity while providing developers with an economic benefit by reducing constraints on future development and decreasing the costs of compliance with federal and state laws protecting biological resources. The MSCP Plan has been developed cooperatively by participating jurisdictions and special districts in partnership with the wildlife agencies, property owners, and representatives of the development

industry and environmental groups. The plan is designed to preserve native vegetation and to meet the habitat needs of multiple species, rather than focusing preservation efforts on one species at a time. By identifying priority areas for conservation and other areas for future development, the MSCP will streamline existing permit procedures for development projects that impact habitat.

Many native vegetation communities in the region are considered sensitive because they have been greatly reduced in distribution by development. San Diego County contains over 200 plant and animal species that are federally and/or state listed as endangered, threatened, or rare; proposed or candidates for listing; or otherwise are considered sensitive. Over half of these species occur in the MSCP study area. The MSCP will protect habitat for over 1000 native and nonnative plant species and more than 380 species of fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals.

The proposed assembly of the MSCP preserve is based on the policies that public lands should be incorporated to the greatest extent possible and that private property rights be fully respected and upheld. Private lands acquired with public funds for the preserve will only be acquired from willing sellers. The MSCP is also based on the equitable distribution of costs.

Local jurisdictions and special districts will implement their portions of the MSCP Plan through sub area plans, which describe specific implementing mechanisms. The MSCP Plan, with its attached sub area plans, will serve as: 1) a multiple species Habitat Conservation Plan pursuant to Section 10(a) of the federal Endangered Species Act; and, 2) a Natural Community Conservation Program (NCCP) Plan pursuant to theCalifornia NCCP Act of 1991 and the state Endangered Species Act. Once approved, the MSCP and sub area plans will replace interim restrictions on impacts to coastal sage scrub, as a result of the federal listing of the California gnatcatcher as threatened, and will allow the incidental take of other Covered Species as specified in the plan.

The MSCP study area covers approximately 900 square miles (582,243 acres) in south-western San Diego County and includes the City of San Diego, portions of the unincorporated County of San Diego, ten additional city jurisdictions, and several independent special districts. The study area is bordered by Mexico to the south, National Forest lands to the east, the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Dieguito

(10) San Diego Multiple–Species Conservation Program

Badger killed on Highway 101 along Gaviota Coast

©M

organ Ball

Cuyamacha Lake

American Kestrel male

©H

ugh

Smith

Jr.

Ocean and Coastal Policy Center

96

Section 4

97

River Valley to the north. Naval Air Station Miramar, the Point Loma Naval Complex, and other military lands are within the MSCP study area but are being planned separately.

Approximately 54% (315,940 acres) of the MSCP study area supports several distinct vegetation communities or habitat types, most of which are considered sensitive or rare, with the remainder developed (41%) or in agriculture (5%). The MSCP preserve was designed using an evaluation of 93 species as indicators of the range of habitats and biological diversity in the study area. Included within the 93 species were 41 species that are federally or state listed, candidates for listing, or proposed for listing. The plan attempts to maximize the presence of these species and their habitats in the preserve.

Biological core and linkage areas were identified to assist local jurisdictions and special districts as one element to be considered in identifying their portion of the MSCP preserve and/or preserve design criteria. The most critical biological resources were prioritized for preservation to maximize the conservation value of the preserve, to efficiently use acquisition funds and to identify less important habitat areas that could be developed. Sixteen core biological resource areas and associated habitat linkages, total-ing approximately 202,757 acres of habitat, were identified. Sub area plans with specific preserve boundaries maximize inclusion of unfragmented core areas and linkages in their preserve design to the extent possible.

The study area contains 315,940 acres of habitat with almost two-thirds (about 194,563 acres) being privately owned. Over one-third of the habitat is in military (20,082 acres) or other public ownership (101,295 acres).

A gap analysis was performed to identify where existing protection of key biological resources was already in place such as planned open space lands, public lands and lands unlikely to be developed because of steep slopes and floodplains) and where “gaps” in habitat pro-tection may occur.

The gap analysis showed that only 17% of the biological core and linkage areas were already preserved for biological open space as of 1994, and these protected areas were widely distributed without linkages between them. According to adopted general and community plans, most of the remaining habitat areas in the MSCP study area are planned to be developed with low density residential uses (39%) or used as parks, preserves or open space (29%). The local jurisdictions considered these planned land uses in designing or establishing criteria for the MSCP preserve and will amend land use plans, as needed, to implement the MSCP.

The HCCP/HCP is intended to streamline the regulatory process, and to provide greater certainty for landowners and local government with respect to future land-use activity and development.

The HCP is authorized under section 10(a) of the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), which allows authorization of incidental take upon approval of a conservation plan that includes the following conditions: 1) take is incidental to the purpose of

the project, not that the magnitude of the take is necessarily incidental to the species; 2) impacts of take are minimized to the maximum extent practicable; 3) there is adequate fund-ing for the plan; and 4) taking a protected species will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery.

State permits under Section 2081(b) of the California Endan-gered Species Act (CESA) have similar requirements. The CESA requires: 1) minimizing and mitigating impacts roughly propor-tional to impacts of an authorized take permit so the continued existence of a species will not be jeopardized; 2) the NCCP identifies and provides for a regional or area wide protection and perpetuation of natural wildlife diversity, while allowing compatible and appropriate development and growth; and

3) that the HCP provides comprehensive management and conservation of multiple species. However, there are no required conservation standards for NCCPs, other than those required for species covered by FESA and CESA.

The NCCP program area within Orange County comprises approximately 340,000 acres within two major sub regions (central/coastal and southern sub regions) and one smaller sub region in the north. The Orange County planning areas include a majority of the remaining coastal sage scrub habitat in California.

The Orange County Central/Coastal Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan was approved on July 17, 1996 by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California Department of Fish and Game. The planning process includes 209,000 acres of which 34,500 acres is coastal sage scrub acreage (CSS). The HCCP process spanned over five years. The USFW signed the Implementation Agreement (IA), along with CDFG, Orange County and other key participants, and issued incidental take permits to IA signatories who applied for permits (e.g., the Irvine Company), pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (FESA). In other words, the County has been issued a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit, which provided regulatory coverage for the gnatcatcher, as well as seven other coastal sage scrub species, should they be listed in the future. However, it also allowed the development of some gnatcatcher habitat.

It is important to understand the relationship between this NCCP/HCP approval and actions that may be subject to FESA, the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and/or the NCCP Act within local jurisdictions in the Central/Coastal Sub region of Orange County. The special rule prepared pursuant to sec-tion 4(d) of FESA for the coastal California gnatcatcher estab-lished procedures which allowed interim take of up to 5% of the existing coastal sage habitat within jurisdictions enrolled in

and actively preparing a sub regional NCCP. Now that the Central/Coastal NCCP/HCP has been approved, the interim process is no longer applicable within this sub region of the County. However, all interim take authorizations approved prior to July 17, 1996 are honored. Future loss of coastal sage scrub habitat occupied by the gnatcatcher within the Central/Coastal Sub region is now be guided by the NCCP/HCP.

(11) Orange County Natural Community Conservation Planning

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 California and to streamline the endangered species regulatory process. The Act also has provided greater certainty for landowners and local government over land-use activity and development.

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.

Hermit Thrush

©H

ugh Smith Jr.

Pacific-slope Flycatcher

©M

orga

n Ba

ll

Red-legged Frog

©M

orga

n Ba

ll

Ocean and Coastal Policy Center

98

Section 4

99

The County and eight other Participating Landowners are now permitted to destroy habitat of the gnatcatcher and six other listed species, subject to the terms of the NCCP/HCP. Non-Participating Landowners, within the jurisdiction of local governments that are signatory to the Implementation Agreement (and outside of the designated Reserve System, Special Linkages and Existing Use Areas), will be able to fulfill their endangered species-related mitigation responsibilities by payment of a “voluntary miti-gation fee” which is based on the acreage of coastal sage scrub occupied by gnatcatch-ers, and impacted by a proposed activity with assurances of no further mitigation requirements.

Landowners within jurisdictions that did not sign the IA, or who do not wish to utilize the voluntary mitigation fee option provided under the NCCP/HCP, are required to obtain separate approval and permits from the USFW and the CDFG if they propose activities that may result in take of any State or federally listed species.

The Orange County Central/Coastal NCCP/HCP authorized take of 618 acres of CSS habitat supporting an estimated 13 gnatcatcher sites within the reserve system. The NCCP/HCP authorizes the incidental take of habitat supporting up to 116 gnatcatcher sites. The total authorized incidental take proposed by the NCCP/HCP includes an estimated 1,309 acres of “occupied” CSS habitat, and the conversion of 7,395 total acres of CSS for habitat protection purposes.

The IA also specifies commitments from the Irvine Company to dedicate 18,818 acres of land located within the reserve system, plus an additional 3,001 acres to the reserve system and commitments to special linkages (or corridors linked to reserve networks).

The reserve design process involved a gap analysis between already planned open space and maps of overall habitat qual-ity and target species presence. The covered species list of the Central/Coastal NCCP relies upon umbrella species methodolo-gies, variable amounts of survey data, and judgments of habitat sufficiency.

The result of the NCCP/HCP is a preserve of 39,000 acres coastal sage scrub, chaparral, grasslands, and other habitat, which cover approximately 44 including the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), Pacific pocket mouse (Perogna-thus longimembris pacificus), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), south-western arroyo toad (Bufo microscaphus californicus), and the Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni). Thirteen cities and major landowners are participating in the implementation of the HCP. Sixty-three percent of the reserve is conserved as coastal sage scrub.

The No-Surprises Debate

Despite the federal and state approval of this NCCP/HCP, there remains controversy over one particular issue – the “no surprises” component of the HCP. The US Department of Interior has established a “no surprises” system that stipulates that developers do not have to pay additional costs if the HCP proves inadequate, and that species are not protected. This remains an issue of concern since our understanding of biogeography and wildlife is limited, and changes over time with new knowledge and technology. In October 1999, the Spirit of the Sage Council (and a number of other organizations and community groups, including the Biodiversity Legal Foundation) sued the USFWS, Department of Commerce, and NMFS charging that these agencies have failed to comply with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act in adopting HCPs and approving incidental take permits. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are arguing that the adoption of the “no surprises” rule is “a flagrant violation of both the Administrative

Procedures Act and the ESA”. The ultimate decision by the US District Court for the District of Columbia may influence the future implementation of this HCP.

This case may also influence the pending Southern NCCP/HCP of Orange County that has not been approved. The Southern NCCP/HCP involves 131,000 acres of which 26,500 acres are coastal sage scrub.

Critical Habitat Designation by the USFW

As a response to a lawsuit in February 2000 the USFW designated approximately 68,763 acres of critical habitat within the Southern NCCP Subregion of Orange County for the gnatcatcher. The USFW believes this area contains significant core populations of the species and provides the primary linkage for core populations on Camp Pendleton to those further north in Orange County. This has led to contention in the Southern HCP negotiation process over the reserve design for the gnatcatcher.

Carpinteria Salt Marsh

Sycamores ofRiparian Ecosystem