Supervisors Rethink Plan: Comprehensive Resources Effort is Deemed Too Costly, Time-Consuming.

By Cathy Locke, The Sacramento Bee, Calif.

Mar. 15–Responding to pleas from the real estate and development community, the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors backed away from an ambitious resource conservation planning effort.

The board last week directed staffers and a consultant to come up with a process tailored to meet county general plan requirements for an integrated natural resources management plan.

Under the general plan, adopted in July 2004, measures for managing natural resources are to be developed by 2009.

They are to cover habitat for special-status species, deer migration, wetlands and riparian life, native vegetation, and aquatic environments, including streams, rivers and lakes. The resources plan also must include measures to protect, acquire, manage and monitor habitat, and compensate for losses due to development.

The board in November, however, had expressed interest in a plan that would meet federal and state regulations as well.

Other agencies, including El Dorado Irrigation District, argued that a comprehensive habitat conservation plan could streamline the environmental review process for public and private development projects.

Paul Cylinder of the consulting firm Science Applications International Corp. proposed a process he likened to a freeway leading to state- and federally approved plans, with several “off- ramps,” or points at which the board could opt for a less comprehensive plan. But those who spoke at last week’s meeting urged supervisors to avoid the freeway entirely.

Craig Sandberg, an area land-use attorney, said the general plan called for a “homegrown process. I don’t understand how it grew into a monster process.”

Comprehensive plans typically are undertaken by jurisdictions dealing with conservation issues that make it difficult for developers to obtain state and federal permits.

In Sacramento’s Natomas basin, such plans were prompted by concerns about the Swainson’s hawk and the giant garter snake, Sandberg said.

In El Dorado County, oak trees have been the major issue, and “oaks aren’t an endangered species,” he said.

“Why make how we deal with oak trees a multi-agency issue?” he asked.

Camille Courtney said she works with landowners to evaluate the feasibility of housing developments in the county, and none has indicated difficulty obtaining state and federal permits.

Courtney said she was involved in Placer County’s development of a comprehensive habitat conservation plan.

“It was like passing a kidney stone,” she said, but it was necessary there because developers had to deal with species associated with vernal pools.

In El Dorado County, Courtney said, developers face fewer difficulties identifying and protecting habitat for endangered species.

But board chairwoman Helen Baumann said such issues may not have come to the fore locally because development was stymied for many years due to lack of a general plan.

“This county hasn’t had land-use authority for a very long time,” she said.

Although a narrowly defined integrated natural resources management plan would meet general plan requirements, Baumann said, it would not expedite the environmental review process.

State and federal permits still would have to be obtained on a project-by-project basis.

Federal and state plans also offer a “no surprises” assurance that regulatory agencies won’t come back and ask for additional land, water or money to offset development impacts, provided that the plan is implemented in accordance with the permit.

David Witter, director of environmental compliance and water policy for El Dorado Irrigation District, reiterated the district’s support for the more comprehensive habitat conservation plan.

The district sought such a process in 2004 and has again expressed interest in partnering on a plan that would streamline state and federal permitting for district projects.

To those concerned about involving the state Department of Fish and Game and federal Fish and Wildlife Service in county habitat conservation issues, Witter said, “I’ve got news for you: They’re already here.”

A conservation plan that would allow the county to hold the permits that now have to be obtained on a project-by-project basis, he said, “is a way to save money for our customers, allow development to happen and implement the general plan.”

But supervisors last week were concerned the county could become bogged down in the more comprehensive process, which the consultant projected would cost more than $2 million and take until 2011 to complete.

In comparison, the natural resources management plan called for in the general plan would cost about $1.4 million and be in place by the 2009 deadline.

Supervisor Jack Sweeney said, “I’d rather get this project of ours done by 2009.”

He suggested talking to state and federal agencies about their areas of concern in the county, but proceeding independently from there.

Sweeney said he favored a plan unique to El Dorado County. Once it is in place, the county might be able to persuade state and federal agencies that “we’ve done it right,” he said.

Greg Fuz, development services director, said staff members and the consultant would return to the board in April with a scope of work that focuses on a limited number of species and habitats, such as the Pine Hill rare-plant preserve.

—–

Copyright (c) 2007, The Sacramento Bee, Calif.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Business News.

For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.