|
|
|
|
|
Western Riverside Multi-Species
Habitat Conservation Plan
By Alison Shilling
The Administrative Draft, the final version before the one that will be presented to the public officially in May, was released to the HCP Committee on March 7th. It is a 1600-page document, available at the www.rcip.org website (click on the Library icon on the main page; it is the most recent document there). The Table of Contents will provide a necessary guide.
The Plan provides for the acquisition and conservation of some 153,000 acres of private land, and has designated some 300,000 acres as 'Criteria Areas' from which the conservation areas will be carved. Figure 3-1 is a map (more up-to-date than the subsequent more detailed maps) showing these CA's in quarter sections. The intent is to conserve some percentage of each habitat type (a larger proportion for those areas, such as wetlands, which support a wide range of species) covering not only the twenty-nine endangered species that occur in the Plan area, but over 100 others. (These are named in Section 2.1.4 and described in detail later). Figure 3-1 shows graphically the strategy of enlarging current reserve areas already in public hands, and providing linkage 'corridors' between them.
The official deadline for submitting comments on this draft was March 22, and Ileene performed the Herculean task of putting together 16 pages, with much help from Dave Bramlet and Fred Roberts - detailing the weaknesses, from a plant perspective, in the Plan's areas to be conserved and the strategies for monitoring.
Although the members of the HCP committee, comprised of representatives from the construction, development and agricultural, as well as environmental, interests, have widely differing expectations, there is overall agreement that without adequate funding the Plan will go nowhere. If funding is inadequate, the 'Implementation' strategy might well lead to a patchwork of conserved areas which will be simply an irritant to everyone, almost worthless for conserving most species and a management nightmare.
Section 5 provides detailed management plans for each area - you can look up an area in which you might be interested; section 6 gives procedures for acquisition, including some details on how to deal with wetlands and narrow endemics. If you have comments, please get them to me, though it is not certain that our comments will even be accepted. (And the outlook for having them incorporated into the public version even less likely, since our comments on earlier versions were not!)
Chapter Council Meeting March 2002
By Alison Shilling
This newly formed body, composed of the presidents or their representatives from each chapter of CNPS, met for the whole day at Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Gardens on March 2. Someone was there from almost all chapters, as well as Sue Britting, Greg Jirak, Dave Chipping and others from Sacramento.
Papers were read updating us on CNPS' conservation (in particular wetlands, desert and forest), plant science and legislative concerns. The many urgent issues relating to our forests make it im
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
perative that we have more members assume a watching brief for forests in their area. A revised plan for our own four Southern California forests is being worked on now, and we need a volunteer for each. Ileene is keeping an eye on some desert plans (as well as our Western Riverside Plan - see article) and has prepared listing package for the desert cymopterus. A resolution was passed concerning desert grazing - basically opposing it except where it is proven compatible with survival of the flora.
Housekeeping issues took up a lot of time. The new organizational structure was once again explained. Five people on the Board have only a one-year position, so that nominations will be needed by June 1 for next year. The Society is switching its fiscal year to April-March. The Chapter Council meetings for the rest of this year are: June 1, Bishop, September 7, Redding and December 7, Berkeley. Allan Barnes is resigning as Executive Director, and a search is on for a new one.
It was emphasized several times that much valuable information is available on the CNPS website, www.cnps.org , such as links to Chapter websites, policies, details of legislation and maps showing Chapter boundaries. If you are interested in our fight with the UC system over the Merced campus, visit www.vernalpools.org, and if you would like to volunteer to work on rare plant data and monitoring, contact Roy Woodward at rwoodw@parks.ca.gov.
CONSERVATION
By David Chipping, CNPS Conservation Director
This article was excerpted from the March Issue of Obispoensis, the Newsletter of the San Luis Obispo Chapter. It was included because of its focus of interest to all members, regardless of its local area comments. - Ed
This may surprise you, but we need to repeal the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA). This 1977 was one of the first plant conservation laws in the U.S., and was a big step forward from zero protection. Under this new law, plants could be "listed" as Rare or Endangered, and were to be given some protection by public agencies. Little protection was afforded to plants on private land, where owners could destroy plants after giving 10 days notice, and the law did not apply to timber operations, building sites, roads, right-of-way, or the actions of a public utility.
In the San Luis Obispo area, Pismo Clarkia, Purple amole, Lompoc Yerba Santa, and a species of Thermopsis from near Santa Barbara were listed under NPPA before the current California Endangered Species Act (CESA) was enacted in 1984. Since that time CNPS and Cal. Dept. of Fish and Game have listed plants under CESA, considering them to have much greater protection under the terms of the newer law. However in 1998, then Attorney General Lundgren opinioned that an ambiguous clause in CESA can be interpreted to mean that no plan listed under CESA would have any greater protection than it would under NPPA. This, of course, would have a devastating effect on our flora, and would essentially remove all plant protection from private lands. It should be remembered that the California Environmental Quality Act forces the study of environmental impacts and some mitigation of those impacts, but is paired with CESA in developing plant protection.
CNPS is now facing challenges to plant protection from timber
|
|
|
|
|
|
