Table 2 shows the habitat value of the vegetation communities (BLM). The military alone owns slightly over 20 percent of habitat areas, with Camp Pendleton, Fallbrook Weapons Annex and Miramar Naval Air Station comprising significant proportions of the undeveloped land in the study area. Ten percent of habitat areas are owned by local public agencies, and slightly over one percent are owned by state agencies. Almost all of the CNF lands in the study area are currently designated as open space or habitat preserves. About onethird of BLM land and roughly half of the state and locally owned lands are dedicated to open space or habitat preserves. As part of the federal commitment and cooperation in the local habitat planning efforts, the BLM has entered into an agreement with the local programs which states that they will contribute their land holdings to the habitat preserve system where necessary. This will be of great significance to the County's habitat conservation program in the eastern half of the San Diego region where large tracts of BLM lands are located. Map 4 displays land ownership information for the natural areas in the western region. As shown, public lands alone are not sufficient to produce a viable habitat preserve system. In addition to not providing enough acreage, the public lands in the western region are typically smaller in size and are not well interconnected. The existing preserves are also very isolated. Since it is apparent that public lands alone are not going to build a viable habitat preserve, private land contributions have been evaluated. Land ownership, planned land use and constraints to development are combined to create a relative measure of land use protection. The protection categories are hierarchical, ranging from the highest protection type (existing preserves) to categories which offer the least assurances for habitat protection (planned for urban development). Figure 5 shows, for the natural habitat areas only, the proportion of the natural resources within each type of land use protection. The first two categories, preserves and planned open space, offer the most assurance for habitat protection. If current planning policies remain, the constrained land category can provide some protection to natural resources. The last three categories are incompatible with a preserve system because they represent lands which are planned for future uses (agriculture, low density residential and urban development). Figure 5 also indicates the public and private ownership components of each level of land use protection. In general, public lands provide a higher assurance of protection of resources than do private lands. The preserve status affords the highest level of protection to natural resources. These provide the greatest opportunities for inclusion in a habitat preserve and should become cornerstones. Even privately owned preserves can be considered a ⚫ high level of resource protection. Unfortunately, only eight percent of the natural resources within the western region are designated as preserves, and the bulk of these are provided by public lands. An additional 16 percent of the natural areas in the western region are planned for open space uses. Almost equal proportions of the open space designations are on public and private lands. General and Community Plan future land use designations of open space may offer some degree of protection to natural resources but not as much as that provided by preserves. Long term assurances cannot be assumed since these land use designations are subject to change. Also, open space designations in some plans allow uses such as golf courses, landscaped greenbelts, tennis courts and parking lots which are not conducive to preserve systems. Depending upon their location, some of these uses may be suitable for wildlife corridors and as buffers between developed and natural areas, but they have little value as wildlife habitats. Lands constrained from development by local planning policies could be considered as affording some measure of natural resource protection. But, as with the planned land use category of open space, these constraints could be removed and the land allowed to develop. Almost 27 percent of the natural resources in the western region currently have policies which constrain them from development. The majority of constraints are on public lands. Almost 50 percent of the natural areas in the western region are planned for development or agricultural uses, the bulk of which are planned for low density residential development. Thirty-eight percent of the remaining natural habitats are planned for low density residential uses, six percent are planned for agricultural uses, and another six percent are planned for urban uses. These types of land use plans are incompatible with a preserve system. Depending upon their location and habitat value, some areas planned for development could be critical in terms of protecting habitats and in designing habitat preserves and corridors. The bulk of the lands planned for development are privately owned. GAP ANALYSIS Combining biological information with land management information helps to identify opportunities and conflicts in designing a habitat preserve system. Gap Analysis highlights areas of high biological diversity or habitat value that are Unfortunately, only eight percent of the natural resources within the western region are designated as preserves ...... currently being protected, and identifies "gaps" where conservation efforts should be focused to prevent habitat fragmentation. To minimize the cost of a habitat preserve, it would be beneficial to build upon current opportunities, i.e. public lands, areas which are already protected, or areas planned for protection. Typical Gap Analyses used in other areas have only looked at land ownership data in determining gaps in natural resource protection. The region's habitat conservation programs have expanded this tool to include additional land management information such as future land use plans, local policy constraints to development, and existing habitat preserves, to not only identify gaps in preservation but also to highlight opportunities as well. Tables 3 and 4 show the level of land use protection related to habitat value (as determined from the Habitat Evaluation Model) and to vegetation types. This information, along with maps showing the distribution of protected and non-protected natural areas, helps to evaluate how well current planning policies are protecting natural resources and to assist in designing a habitat preserve system. Table 3 shows the level of land use protection related to habitat value. About 70 percent of the existing preserves are comprised of very high or high valued habitats indicating that the existing preserves are doing a good job of protecting valuable resources. Slightly over 70 percent of land planned for open space has very high or high habitat value. About half of the land planned for open space is in private ownership and may not be assured protection into the future. Over twothirds of lands constrained from development have very high or high biological value. Most of these are publicly owned, thereby providing better assurances of preservation into the future. If these policies can be maintained into the future, these areas could provide contributions to a habitat preserve. Indeed, of the very high and high habitat valued areas, almost 55 percent are protected to some degree; although almost half of these are afforded limited protection within the constrained category. Only nine percent of the very high and high biological resources are in the preserve status, the highest level of protection. An additional 18 percent are planned for open space. Forty-five percent of the very high and high valued natural areas are planned for some sort of development and are therefore afforded no habitat protection. The bulk of these areas are planned for low density residential developments. This conflict could pose the greatest concern for local jurisdictions in designing, adopting and implementing a habitat preserve. |