The article on the San Diego Multiple
Species Conservation Program (MSCP) paints an overly negative
picture of the effort (HCN, 11/10/03: San Diego’s Habitat Triage).
The MSCP took a fragmented ecosystem within a major metropolitan
area — otherwise on the road to oblivion — and created
an interconnected reserve system. Indeed, the most developable
large tract of land remaining on the urban fringe is now preserved.
While information gaps prohibited scientific accountability at one
level, the program pioneered the application of the “core and
linkage” model recommended by conservation
biologists.
While no one is better aware of the
deficiencies of the plan than those who, like us, struggled for
years to maximize its benefits, a statement that the outcome is
“probably” better than the status quo is simply absurd.
Fundamentally, the MSCP harnessed the power of local land-use
authority — zoning and entitlement — into a partnership
with state and federal agencies in achieving Endangered Species Act
mandates. The lack of land-use authority on the part of these
agencies is the reason why endangered species protection on private
lands typically falls short, resulting in “postage
stamp” preserves. Furthermore, collaboration among interest
groups was not for the sake of compromise, but to leverage
political action.
It should be understood that an
ESA-driven process, however scientific, will never be a substitute
for sustainable land-use planning.
Unfortunately, policy
is made by decision-makers, whose election the environmental
community has effectively abandoned to the building and real estate
industry. It is apparently easier for environmentalists to
criticize decisions and file lawsuits than to get involved in the
necessarily impure political process in which decisions are
actually made.
Dan Silver
Los Angeles,
California
The writer is executive director of
the Endangered Habitats League.
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Story gave San Diego plan short shrift.

