Reserve Will Make a Difference in Preserving Native Wildlife : Large area is much more effective in sustaining habitats, but county plan does have room for improvement.

The basic questions facing the conservation community vis-a-vis the recently approved coastal scrub reserve are: Will Orange County’s native plant communities and wildlife be better off with this reserve? And if the answer is yes, can the plan be further improved?

We are all stakeholders in this project--conservation biologists and the general public, landowners and developers, as well as the regulatory agencies charged with protecting the public’s plants and animals (the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game).

Why do we need this reserve, stretching in two major swaths across central and coastal Orange County? Our local ecosystem is coastal sage scrub, named for the complex of mostly low-growing, fragrant shrubs that blanket the hillsides and canyons of the coast. Coastal sage scrub plants have adapted to the cool, wet winter and warm, dry summer, rebound after fire and hang onto steep slopes with deep-rooted tenaciousness. Within the coastal sage are perhaps 100 kinds of specialized plants and animals that exist nowhere else. Biologists estimate that between 75% and 90% of the coastal sage scrub has already been replaced by urban development.

State and federal endangered species acts recognize that society wishes to protect its native plants and animals, especially those whose numbers are declining. These so-called “sensitive species” are currently protected one species at a time, one project at a time, in separate land set-asides, in effect small reserves.

The wildlife agencies and conservation biologists have known for some time that this approach is not ideal, and, where possible, attempts are made to combine small reserves into larger mitigation “banks,” where habitat losses from several developments can be mitigated.

One large reserve is better than a lot of separate, smaller reserves for a number of reasons. A larger reserve has more “inside” in proportion to “outside,” so disruptive factors such as habitat fragmentation, isolation and urban edge effects can be minimized. Also, the larger the reserve, the more kinds of plants and wildlife will survive. Finally, management of a large reserve is apt to be more effective both biologically and economically.

The biological goal for the new reserve is to set aside enough habitat and then manage it so that entire natural communities of native plants and wildlife, not just single species, are preserved into the future.

The economic goal is to enable development to occur on as much coastal sage scrub in the county as possible. Landowners owning coastal scrub that supports rare species such as the California gnatcatcher, a tiny songbird, contribute some of the land to the reserve, and in exchange are able to develop the rest.

The regulatory goal is to satisfy federal and state endangered species acts with regard to the protection of threatened and endangered species such as the gnatcatcher while satisfying the other two goals.

Despite the fact that the reserve design never received the promised scientific review from independent biologists, the overall boundaries are probably reasonable, and most of the policies governing the reserve are adequate. Nevertheless, the plan could be improved:

* The reserves must not shrink in size in the future. Reserves must also be managed for wildlife protection and habitat quality in perpetuity because land that is developed is forever lost.

* Connections between reserves and other large open spaces such as Cleveland National Forest must be maintained. No single reserve is large enough to stand alone.

* The Pacific pocket mouse recovery plan should not be part of this plan. There are no mice in the reserve, and no evidence that there is even potential mouse habitat. The plan was included for political, not biological, reasons.

* Criteria must be established to determine whether the reserve is functioning properly. This would seem to be a basic requirement but is not included in the plan.

* The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game must have veto power over reserve management decisions covering fire, recreation, restoration or grazing plans.

* The boundaries of the reserve must be protected with buffer zones and a public education program.