WCMSHCP: Habitat Plan Continues

Habitat Plan Continues

Continuing the development of a western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously March 13, 2001, to approve a revised staff recommendation that keeps the MSHCP on track. However, supervisors continued for 30 days a set of 17 policy guidelines for further discussion.

The 17 policy guidelines, incorporated in the staff recommendations as "Attachment A-1," faced objection from a coalition of the Building Industry Association, Property Owners Association of Riverside County, land owners, and Riverside County Farm Bureau. Coalition members said they had received the document less than 24 hours before the supervisors' hearing and had not had time to fully analyze it. Farm Bureau specifically objects to points number 9 and 10, which suggested limitation could be imposed on farming on land that isn't acquired for habitat.

Qualifications in Coalition Letter

The coalition supported moving forward with the MSHCP under the following qualifications, which were included in a Coalition Letter to the Board of Supervisors. The qualifications are:

The following significant issues must be addressed to the satisfaction of the stakeholders in developing the MSHCP:

1. Assurance that critical habitat designations will be coterminous with the MSHCP Reserve;

2. Conservation analysis, including number of species to be covered by the MSHCP, number of acres to be subject to MSHCP Conservation Criteria, and focused survey requirements;

3. Funding, including equitable distribution of MSHCP costs among state, federal and local sources, cash flow considerations, and acquisition priorities;

4. Timing of MSHCP development and integration with the General Plan update and CETAP transportation planning;

5. Conservation Criteria, which are in the process of being developed and which have not yet been presented to the MSHCP Advisory Committee; and

6. Outstanding Funding and Implementation Program elements, including treatment of wetlands and narrow endemics, conflict resolution process, and "safety nets."

Staff Recommendations

The recommendations that went to the Board of Supervisors are presented as an Adobe Acrobat Portable Document File at Staff Recommendations

You can view this page with Adobe's free viewer, Acrobat Reader, available at www.Adobe.com

Protect Property Rights

Before this final recommendation was submitted to the Board of Supervisors, Farm Bureau had objected to staff recommendations that appeared to threaten private property rights. Farm Bureau's comments were presented in a press release, Protect Property Rights.