California Biodiversity Council
Regional Meeting with the Regional Council of Rural Counties

September 20, 2000
DoubleTree Hotel
Rohnert Park, California

Topic III: Improving Participation by Rural Counties in Public Landuse Planning

Secretary Nichols opened this session by introducing the panelists: Robert Meacher, Plumas County Supervisor; Linda Arcularius, Inyo County Supervisor; Nancy Huffman, Modoc County Supervisor; and Elizabeth Martin, Nevada County Supervisor.  The Secretary commented that this would be a positive, constructive dialogue about how we can all do better in this respect.  Secretary Nichols asked each of the panel members to briefly describe their experiences in this realm. 

Bob Meacher, CBC member and Supervisor from Plumas County, first offered some information on his experiences with public landuse planning.  Supervisor Meacher has worked on a variety of processes – from the micro-level with the Feather River CRMP to regional approaches like the Herger-Feinstein Forest Recovery Act (after the Quincy Library Group) to even larger programs like CALFED.  More and more, our public lands are becoming political lands and this is especially true in California.  As much as the local agency staff may agree with local elected officials and landowners, the agency is still driven by a larger political arena.  Supervisor Meacher would like to open a dialogue to discover how RCRC can work with state and federal agencies to approach this issue.

Linda Arcularius, Supervisor from Inyo County, gave context to the situation and the challenges that local government staff often face.  In California, there are over 46 million acres managed by federal agencies, over 11 million acres managed by state agencies, and 755,000 acres protected by local governments and land trusts.  Inyo County is extremely diverse.  It is the second largest county in California, but with only 18,000 residents.  It contains the highest point in the United States, Mount Whitney, and the lowest point in the Western hemisphere, Bad Water in Death Valley.  These are the challenges that we face as local government.  91.6% percent of Inyo County is owned by the USDA Forest Service, BLM, National Park Service, and the China Lakes Naval Weapons Base.  The City of Los Angeles owns 2.7% of the prime land in the county:  the watersheds, riparian areas, and the source of a vast amount of water.  Less than 2% of Inyo County is private land.  The challenge here is not only to increase public participation, but also validate that participation and give it credibility by the actions taken.  Although the county’s planning department is responsible for 15-20 management plans, however, there are only 4 planners working for Inyo County.  We hope to reach out to the 28 rural counties and find ways to develop meaningful dialogue. 

Nancy Huffman, Modoc County Supervisor, briefly described her district and county.  Modoc is in the northeast corner of the state bordering both Oregon and Nevada.  Seventy percent of the land area is owned by federal and state agencies.  There is only one incorporated town with 3,500 people, over one-third of the county’s entire population.  There is only one industry, agriculture and one key issue, grazing.  However, there are many good, active partnerships.   Modoc County has worked with the USDA Forest Service and put together full alternatives for the Sierra Nevada Framework report.  Modoc County also has a landuse committee that has been working since the mid 1990s.  That is the key issue and also the key difference for Modoc County.  The Cattleman Stewardship Committee has been working with the BLM for the past 25 years.  It has been an active and fruitful endeavor while solving many of the grazing issues plaguing Modoc County.   Supervisor Huffman asked, “How does a small county address all of these issues?”  You have to get a group of people in your county that are willing to take the time to work with the agencies and then make sure that the agencies realize that you’re there and see to it that the counties have input.  It is also important that the agencies let the county know what the end products are.  This relationship is critical – the decisions made by state and federal agencies, affect the county and each county should have input into the process.  Supervisor Huffman emphatically stated, “We don’t want to own or support public land, we want input into the management in order to help them and us.” 

Elizabeth Martin, Nevada County Supervisor, noted that Nevada County has almost 0.1% of the voting electorate in California.  Rural communities feel that they have a very good understanding of how to regulate their resources.  The resources in the county are not matched by political power and this makes small counties extremely nervous.  Thus, you end up with the fundamental issue of trust.  There are many difficult problems that have been left over the years.  Supervisor Martin stated, “We as a county want to engage with the California Biodiversity Council, but we don’t have the experts.  We need an opportunity to engage in a way that’s meaningful.  This may mean providing us with an expert that we control.  The message that is coming from rural California, and especially from the Sierra Nevada, is we love our place as much as anybody, we understand water, we understand land, and we are going to fight all the way to the end to protect it.  We all agree that is it stewardship, watershed management, and landuse are issues that we simply have to find a way to work together.”  Local government in rural areas is much more responsive that anywhere else. 

Secretary Nichols next introduced Robert Weygandt, Placer County Supervisor.  Several years ago, the general election created a Board of Supervisors, which could talk creatively and openly about preserving open space in the face of huge urbanization pressures.  This effort started out as a workshop to undertake the open space implementation plan established by the 1994 General Plan.  The objectives in preserving open space include agriculture, outdoor recreation, diversity of plants and animal species, separating urban areas, flood control issues, fire danger, snow avalanche, and scenic and tourist areas.  Currently, Placer County has 225,000 residents and the Department of Finance has predicted over 500,000 people by 2040.  The scope of the Placer Legacy project is to address open space conservation opportunities on both private and public lands.  The group knew from the beginning that collaboration was essential in order to be successful.  The Legacy founders hoped to end up with a Habitat Conservation Plan of some type.  Placer Legacy, as a policy effort, was just finished by the Board of Supervisors during the summer of 2000.  Over the years, every policy vote was unanimous.  Supervisor Weygandt noted that the Placer Legacy correctly based the project on existing policy, embraced the existing General Plans of all of Placer’s cities, created very clear objectives, and engaged all the stakeholders.  On the other hand, the Supervisor stated the Placer Legacy could have engaged local and state agencies better.  It was difficult to deal with the cities in regards to the HCP.   Also, the Legacy needs to identify the political and social needs of the region and secure sufficient funding.  The next steps for the Placer Legacy program include identifying potential conflicts, identify opportunities for joint funding, provide for open lines of communication, obtain counsel and advice on land management decisions, and provide regional models for coordination and cooperation.   

Secretary Nichols first asked the Council members to reflect on the issues that the panel presented particularly in terms of the need for an approach to increase participation in the land use planning process.  The Secretary then opened up the session for discussion between the panel, Council members, and the audience. 

Alexis Strauss, US EPA, noted that the new drinking water regulations are extremely technical and difficult.  “How can we, as a federal institution, better convey this in easy terms?  What are some ideas to more effectively communicate?”

Nancy Huffman answered by saying that there should be some coordination of the rules that are made to the landscape that is affected.  You often need different rules for different areas, as you cannot apply the same rules to Alturas (Modoc County seat, 3500 people) and San Francisco.

Bob Meacher noted that short of rural counties being able to raise the funds within their own county, it is a matter of capacity building.  The more rural you get, the more difficult it gets to raise funds and interact with the big agencies.  Supervisor Martin felt that, “If I could allocate a staff person to work with the agencies on a regular basis, I think we wouldn’t hit the walls so often.” 

Secretary Nichols stated that terminology is often a problem and that we need to learn how to regulate by focusing on results, rather than the process.  It is often that the process cannot be the same across the state. 

Elizabeth Martin noted that constituents are often very suspicious of government.  No one has the money or desire systems, the only thing that the county has is the rule that is impossible to comply with based on the situation.  It comes down to money and we need to be able to explain the new rules to folks and not everyone checks the website.  It takes more time and money to explain difficult regulations to rural folks. 

Robert Weygandt answered that agencies, local government and private stakeholders alike need to keep the standards and also have a creative, open mind at the same time. 

Additionally, Bill Vance (Cal EPA) mentioned that the EPA does have regional board members that are available to local government at all times to foster these types of relationships. 

Al Wright (BLM) said agencies must be flexible and to put staff in communities in order to foster trust and create credibility. 

Joan Smith, Siskiyou County Supervisor, first commended the members of the panel for communicating the hardships that local counties face.  Siskiyou County formed a land committee, however, that was not the solution.  The county then hired a natural resource specialist to be the point person for the agencies; this helped quite a bit.  Additionally, Siskiyou has signed on with the Bureau of Reclamation in a collaborative on-the-ground effort.  This type of situation may be the solution.  However, it is difficult to exchange specific information about the area or come to an agreement when you’re not face-to-face.  Unless the county is part of the solution, they will be part of the problem.

Lassen County Supervisor, Brian Dahle, reiterated some of the points made by Supervisor Martin.  Mr. Dahle noted that the building block between the rural counties and the public landholders is education.  Rural areas simply need good management and to let the stakeholders know that neither timber cuts nor grazing are bad; they are only tools that need to be used.  We need to educate the people of how to use these tools properly. 

Linda Arcularius added to Supervisor Dahle’s comments.  Education is a huge part of the solution.  However, local expertise and talent is available in rural counties, although it is not always recognized.  You need to start the process with the people.  By first asking “Who is impacted?” and “Where will it occur?” this will automatically bring you to the local level. 

Mark Nielson, El Dorado County Supervisor, offered another example of this type of situation.  Air quality standards in California require the rural California must meet certain criteria when they’re in non-attainment.  Rural California receives the sea-breeze air from the bay area that flows down into the San Joaquin Valley creating non-attainment.  The regulations disregard transport. 

Secretary Nichols posed another question.  She asked, “What can we, as agency & local elected officials, do in the next year to help build the capacity to do our jobs better? Specifically, what kind of incentives or support can we provide?”

Bob Meacher replied that agencies should act as advocates towards the legislature.  Also, the Board of Equalization has continually devalued some of the infrastructure in the counties, like railroad and electrical facilities.  Just hiring a resource specialist to work in the county public works department is becoming political difficult. 

Mariposa Supervisor, Bob Baker, described a situation occurring in his county.  They met with the National Park Service concerning the Merced River and Yosemite in the Merced River Wild and Scenic Act.  The final Record of Decision actually identified specific concerns that the community raised.  Supervisor Baker maintained that you need face-to-face contact and agency flexibility. 

Leslie Mansfield, Water Consultant for San Leon Water Parks and Wildlife, raised the following question: “Considering the conflict between rural counties and water bills trying to accomplish local and system-wide benefits, what do you mean by local control?”

Elizabeth Martin commented on local control and why the Sierra Nevada wants it.  First, it is the law.  Origins of water and watersheds have a great deal of authority over how water is used.  The district office of a federal organization does not count as a county or local organization.  There have been direct efforts to take land use control away from Nevada County.  The way that policy is done in the state capitol is not a very healthy, accessible, or logical process and that way of policy-making should be stopped.  There needs to be real invitation for the local folks to come and sit down at the table and that’s why RCRC is here.  Supervisor Martin added, “I know that counties have the reputation of hoping that science will just go away.  However, we need to acknowledge that its real and if the state has the data, we need to pay attention to it and trust it.  We need people to help explain the date to us.  That’s why I love the idea of circuit riders.  I think agencies need to have budgets where they allot a significant amount of money to explain and open these lines of communication.  We, as local, state and federal officials, have to get used to a more complex communication environment.”

Nancy Huffman reiterated that you need to talk to the local counterparts to reach that solution, perhaps not in the prescribed way, but in a way that will get the job done.

Dick Pland, Supervisor with Tuolumne County, told the group that only 10% of his budget is discretionary.  The idea of a resource specialist in each county is fantastic, but there are not funds to handle this.  We need to correct the fiscal relationship between the State of California and the local counties.  In order to accomplish the things that we have been talking about today, it comes back to dollars and cents and survival of whether we can get a resource specialist so that we can work with the agencies and get early input and ultimately better legislation. 

Linda Arcularius felt that it is important to continuation of these types of panels.  There needs to be a venue where we can ask these tough questions like ‘what can we do better,’ ‘what kind of incentives can we offer,’ ‘where is the funding going,’ and ‘how can we partner with agencies.’ 

Robert Weygandt added that we need a predictable state source of monies to help rural counties. 

Trinity County planner, Tom Stokely, noted that they have been able to develop a natural resource plan in partnership with the federal and state government.  One interesting twist is that the federal government has a restoration plan for bulldozing a part of the Trinity River, an extremely controversial issue.  However, that requires a permit from the Trinity County Floodplain management department.  This enabled the county to become the lead agency on the EIR, giving them a tremendous opportunity to work together.  You end up with a much better document because of that local involvement.  Mr. Stokely encouraged other counties to look at any avenue that can give the county this type of control. 

Nancy Huffman noted that you need continual funding, not just one grant. 

Bertha Gilliam, USDA Forest Service, mentioned that the Forest Service has struggled with how to involve the people in all of their thousands of projects.  We really value the input.  She suggested that we continue to look at solutions to try and collaborate better together.  Ms. Gillam is willing to provide staff to create a toolbox of solutions to work with the local communities.

Secretary Nichols concluded the session with several comments.  First, the Secretary noted that we, as environmental agencies, have more in common with rural California than the rest of state government.  These areas hold a disproportionate amount of land and water.  Thus, we do have something important in common. We have just received the first portion of the funding for CCRISP, which is meant to help improve the management of public lands and be a toolbox to protect private lands.   Perhaps in the context of the CBC, we could take the suggestion of Supervisor Arcularius, a working group to focus on the financial side, and take that on as a project for the next year.  This could create some specific recommendations that can bring, as a group, to the legislature.