The MSCP (Multiple Species Conservation Program) is an HCP (Habitat Conservation Plan) meant to implement the ESA (Endangered Species Act) for the protection of habitats such as CSS (Coastal Sage Scrub), a process that has evolved in response to a whole lot of BS (politics). Confused? It╣s a common state of being, and quite possibly the intended response, for activists embarking on the habitat conservation planning process.

HCP-type planning is upon us at full speed. It╣s tough enough just to comprehend the basic implications. Suddenly, in more and more regions throughout the country, we are being forced to understand and critique this approach to land-use regulation (or de-regulation). Across the country HCPs are being initiated, adopted and implemented without careful consideration of the implications. And like in a train wreck, with no time to think, we are being hit with interim and cumulative losses we have not even begun to assess.

The concept is this: plan │pro-actively▓ for habitats, as opposed to individual species and thereby avoid future ESA listings of species dependent upon those habitats. The first part of the premise is valid: there is nothing wrong with long-term comprehensive planning. In fact, it is a fundamental planning principle that wise, long-term planning should be pro-active in its conservation of open space by designating future configurations for land-use now. Pro-active, comprehensive planning requires foresight and vision. It identifies the desired shape the landscape should take over time and implements short-term projects in compliance with this future concept.

Add the political context. Future focus should be incorporated into all land-use decision-making processes, but when it becomes tied to an assurance of no future listings (the second part of the HCP premise), a clear picture begins to emerge of the true political motivation. Expediency, without concern for even the immediate future, is the name of the game. Developers want permits, assurances and short-term profits. Politicians want immediate gratification, campaign contributions and guaranteed re-election.

In San Diego, the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity has been chronicling the ways in which the political context has shaped the outcome of the HCP process. With more threatened and endangered species than any other region in North America, along with some of the most aggressive developers and dismal planning, San Diego has been identified as a model for the nation. Like HCPs elsewhere, San Diego╣s regional model, known as the MSCP, has two primary directives. One goal is to protect intact habitats as a pro-active means of preventing the isolation, decline and eventual extinction of plant and animal species, and the other is to expedite permit approval for development projects. In theory, the program should be able to achieve both goals by protecting habitats which sustain sensitive species. This would avoid the listing of declining species and thereby preclude the │tedious▓ regulations required by the ESA.

Philosophically there are many controversies that arise from the HCP debate. Some common questions include: why draw lines around what will essentially be an urban preserve area, rather than around development to limit growth; can we manage and plan a preserve with the limited amount of research behind HCP planning; and is this better than the status quo, and should we be settling for merely, │the best we can get.▓ Practically, however, the questions that must be answered relate to the political context, disparities of power and the effect these issues have on the MSCP outcome.

Several major problems arise in the HCP process from the fact that some stakeholders have more leverage than others. The major flaws include inequitable distribution of burden for assembling the preserve, improper use of HCP-type planning and unwieldy complexity. The problem can be summarized: special interests seeking short-term gain have been successful in situating the regional HCP process as the only tool for land-use and conservation planning, shifting the burden away from developers to the public and doing it at such a tremendous pace that it has been virtually impossible to assess the implications.

First, decision-makers are operating under the apparent assumption that HCPs are the only mechanism we need to conserve species and associated biological resources. This assumption is false. HCP preserves were never meant to address all of the land-use and species issues in a given region. The HCP process was meant to be a new tool to promote habitat protection and economic growth by precluding the need to list some species, but it was never intended to be the only tool. The MSCP program should supplement and improve on conventional administration of existing laws and local land-use regulations, it cannot be substituted for them.

In San Diego, the MSCP evolved in response to the threatened status given to the California gnatcatcher. The initial focus of the program was the habitat utilized by the gnatcatcherïthe coastal sage scrub community. As such, the first additional species to be brought into the scope of planning were those that fell under the umbrella of coverage afforded by increased coastal sage scrub protection. Although other associated vegetation communities are now also being addressed in this planning approach, its original intent and stated goals are not all-encompassing. It was not meant to assure the survival of all species.

Some species need the │critical care▓ afforded by the ESA, and it is far too late to attempt to address their needs through pro-active planning. There is a common misperception by the public, encouraged by decision-makers and monied interests, that the ESA is too restrictive and therefore unnecessary. Seen as a more flexible and fair approach, HCP planning has been embraced as an alternative. The measures provided in HCP plans presume that they are to be regarded as an adequate substitution for traditional ESA │safety net▓-type management conditions. The ESA was designed, however, to mandate action instead of merely recommending guidelines. This aspect of the ESA is an inherent design characteristic, indicative of a law intended as a last effort at preventing species╣ decline and extinction when the discretion of decision-makers could not be relied upon to favor the long-term benefits of habitat conservation.

A second major HCP problem also arises from widespread misperceptions. The MSCP, as an example, is marketed as a nature preserve, an amenity and a public benefit. It is commonly assumed that developers are participating mostly out of kindness and concern. It is rarely revealed that the actual intent of a region-wide HCP is to streamline environmental regulations and transfer control from the federal government to local jurisdictions. Existing regulations are, in fact, more restrictive than the HCP.

Under current conditions, developers are required to mitigate impacts to environmentally sensitive land under various state and federal laws. This mitigation is designed to compensate for significant impacts that cannot be avoided. An HCP preserve can be thought of as a mitigation bank for future impacts. In theory, it should cost taxpayers close to nothing because the burden for building the preserve lies with the developers who want permits and must therefore mitigate their impacts. This is not the case however: it is expected that the MSCP will cost taxpayers millions of dollars.

Finally, HCPs are confusing and taking over the country at an alarming rate. It may (or may not) sound like an irrational conspiracy theory to suggest that they are intentionally indecipherable and unassessable. Some claim that this is a ground-breaking (no pun intended) paradigm shift that is sweeping the nation, but how could it be a paradigm shift when the political context remains the same?

It╣s questionable, at best, whether a concept that has been so corrupted by the political context should serve as a national model. The evolution of HCPs in some regions, given some contexts, may be more successful than in others, but it is difficult not to be alarmed when a growth-driven region such as San Diego is chosen as a model. Regardless of regional implications, HCPs are shaping-up to have a tremendous national impact as a model for revising the ESA. This country should acknowledge the need for new tools for planning and remember the intent of the ESA. We need both. Amidst the confusion, one thing is certain, if HCP policies are codified and substituted for original ESA language we can expect an increase in the decline and extinction of species.