COMMENTARIES ON ENDANGERED SPECIES : Wilson-Backed ‘Conservation’ Plan Endangers His Credibility : It looked good on paper, but its pro-environment promises were lost in action. What’s needed is commitment by Wilson.

Last summer, the Wilson Administration announced with great fanfare its Natural Community Conservation Planning, or NCCP, program. Its goal was to find cooperative ways to preserve multiple species of California’s native plants and animals while reconciling economic conflicts. This positive message was welcomed by both conservation and development communities.

For its pilot project, the NCCP chose the coastal sage scrub ecosystem of Southern California, now 70% to 90% depleted. It thus entered the fray over proposed endangered species listing for the California gnatcatcher, a small songbird whose survival depends upon setting aside significant amounts of otherwise developable land. Now, after much delay, NCCP procedures for enrolling landowners and local governments are finalized. A look at the program tells us much about this governor’s environmental agenda.

From the start, the NCCP served political ends. At the behest of Southern California development interests, the state Resources Agency used it to circumvent a state-level endangered species listing, even though staff scientists recommended otherwise.

A far more constructive precedent would have been set by integrating the concepts of Natural Community Conservation Planning with appropriate application of the law. Perhaps the desire to place a feather in the governor’s cap or to serve influential campaign contributors took precedence over other considerations.

As first proposed, the coastal sage scrub NCCP was to incorporate strong interim controls on development so that important habitat would not be lost while the final reserve was being designed. On that basis, conservationists agreed to participate.

Unfortunately, promises went by the wayside. Measures which would have provided needed land-use authority were taken off the table, and language suggested by Department of Fish and Game staff was watered down until almost meaningless. For example, agreement on “protection” of coastal sage scrub was transformed into a pledge “to be sensitive to potential impacts.” Development interests proved to have effective veto power over policy decisions.

For land-use controls, the program relies on the same flawed process which brought us to where we are today, which is review of projects under the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA. Under the best of circumstances, CEQA review is fraught with potential misrepresentations; when high-stakes development projects are at stake, it is an invitation to abuse.

Even if a major population or an important habitat connection is threatened, pro-development local governments do not agree to avoid these damages. Without binding interim control mechanisms, there is simply no assurance that conservation goals will ever be met. Adding to the uncertainty is the ability of participants to drop out of the program along the way.

The program’s structure also works against a sound result. It is better suited to the needs of giant Orange County landowners than to less flexible regions with smaller parcels. Also, the enrollment system allows developers to choose which lands they will temporarily set aside for conservation planning and which they want to develop immediately. Thus, if work on reserve design ever commences, a skewed and unscientific bias will be in place.

Ironically, it is likely that NCCP deficiencies will contribute to a federal decision to list the gnatcatcher as endangered, and possibly then to the program’s abandonment.

If the original message is to be salvaged, major changes are needed.

First, the program should be redefined as a cooperative effort which works within the framework of endangered species laws. Insufficient time remains to avoid a California gnatcatcher listing, but a reserve can still be built for the many other coastal sage scrub species which otherwise would surely become endangered. That is accomplishment enough for this Administration.

Second, we need to outline a step-by-step method leading to final and certain reserve implementation. With wildlife agency oversight, conservation plans for each region should be prepared by working groups of local agencies. Until these plans are finalized, projects may still go forward, but with approved use of reconfiguration and mitigation.

More generally, the governor should reflect on what it really takes to resolve tough environmental problems.

Whether it’s gnatcatchers or another issue, adopting an agenda set by industry and then using fancy phrases is not enough.

Of course, the integration of economic concerns is essential. But an element still missing from his approach is an unshakable, bottom-line commitment to preserving California’s vanishing natural world.