Premises on timing

  1. The southern California planning region is too large to be planned as a single unit. For conservation planning purposes, the region needs to be divided into subregions that are based on both biological and political considerations. The scale and focus of the subregions has been defined by the SRP (Subregional Planning Document, May 1992, revised August 1992). The focus area map is included as Attachment B.

  2. Subregional conservation planning will progress at different rates due to different local economic conditions. Some subregions are ready to initiate NCCP planning now; others may not participate for several years. Some subregions may need to subdivide into subareas for planning purposes. Where appropriate, the CDFG and USFWS can accept the delineation and planning of subareas within subregions, provided subareas continue to participate in the subregional planning effort and adhere to the subregional goals and objectives. Planning on a subarea basis may proceed prior to final approval of the subregional plan provided the subarea plan integrates its preserve design with adjacent subareas, is consistent with the overall design of the subregional plan, and describes how it will mesh with and augment the subregional plan.

  3. Scientific information available to the SRP does not support a conservation plan that would lead to significant losses of CSS habitat. Despite recent efforts to address this data shortfall, there is still a lack of scientific information on important aspects of CSS biology that may be necessary to formulate and implement a long-term plan.

  4. Land owners and local governments should initiate the subregional planning process and identify and begin to fill information needs specific to that subregion. The extent of additional information needed, hence the time and effort needed, depends on the extent of projected habitat losses within a subregion. The amount of additional data necessary for decision-making will be minimal where subregional habitat losses are expected to be minimal or where adequate mitigation for losses can be demonstrated conclusively. Conversely, where greater habitat loss is proposed or where mitigation entails unproven technologies, data needs will be greater.

  5. Subregions are encouraged to formulate NCCPs for approval by CDFG and USFWS as early as possible. One element of a NCCP must be an assessment of the status of scientific information in the subregion. A NCCP can be approved for implementation in phases despite a need for scientific information. Implementation of each phase of the plan must be adequately supported by scientific information.

  6. Short-term habitat conversion should not foreclose future long-term conservation planning options.

Table of Contents | NCCP Home | DFG Home