- NEWS
- Marine killed by deputy called disciplined, religious 12 minutes ago
- Police look for victims in coach sex case 1 hour & 58 minutes ago
- Deputy suspected of sexual acts with inmate 7 minutes ago
- Two popular Mexican restaurants expanding 30 minutes ago
- SPORTS
- Lin-sanity: NBA fans crazy for Jeremy Lin 57 minutes ago
- The ultimate Angels quiz 27 minutes ago
- OCVarsity Hot Shots: Thursday’s games in pictures
- SI Swimsuit Issue cover unveiling Monday 1 hour & 16 minutes ago
- BUSINESS
- Contract workers get help from government 3 hours & 29 minutes ago
- OC to get $1.1B in foreclosure deal 21 minutes ago
- What news may jolt real estate markets? 2 minutes ago
- Disney expansion to create 2,300 jobs 2 hours & 31 minutes ago
- ENTERTAINMENT
- LIFE
- 10 great last-minute Valentine gift ideas 35 minutes ago
- 10 romantic drinks for Valentine’s Day 3 hours & 44 minutes ago
- Art Crawl in Anaheim and 50% off Muzeo 2 hours & 55 minutes ago
- Celebrity kisses spread Valentine wishes
- TRAVEL
- OPINION
Transportation agency to spend millions saving habitat
December 18th, 2009, 6:45 am · 18 Comments · posted by Pat Brennan, science, environment editor
What could well become one of the largest habitat preservation efforts in county history is beginning quietly at the Orange County Transportation Authority, with potentially tens of millions to be spent in coming decades to restore or acquire large chunks of native landscape. 
The preservation push, meant as a hedge against possible habitat damage from a 30-year, $4.8 billion freeway improvement project the agency is planning, has ignited Orange County’s conservation community — though some have expressed concerns about how land wil be restored.
“We’re absolutely thrilled,” said Melanie Schlotterbeck, an Orange County preservation activist and vice chairwoman of an OCTA environmental committee now reviewing 26 properties for possible acquisition. “This is a great thing, and a model not only for other counties in the state but for how environmental mitigation can be done at the national level.”
The funds could be used to buy or restore streamside habitat, oak woodlands and stretches of Orange County’s scrub land, home to the threatened California gnatcatcher.
Measure M infusion
The money comes from Measure M, a half-cent sales tax extended by Orange County voters in 2006 to fund transportation improvements. A portion of the funds would go toward making up for habitat damage from road improvements and other projects.
In Orange County, a 2005 estimate showed that as much as $243 million could be used over 30 years to restore or acquire wild habitat; that number could rise or fall, however, depending on market conditions. At the moment, that estimate is down about 40 percent.
“The policy is to try to get 80 percent acquisitions, and approximately 20 percent into into restorations,” said Monte Ward, a retired OCTA official acting as a consultant on the project.
The environmental committee on Thursday reviewed 26 properties around the county that are among the top candidates for acquisition. Some will be dropped from the list and others added, and it could be months before the agency begins to buy land.
A push to buy property
Acquiring land is the priority for now, Schlotterbeck said, with restoration decisions likely to be made later. And the economic downturn could make the idea of selling the property attractive to landowners.
“The sooner we buy things, the likely cheaper they are,” she said. “It really timed out well with the economy.”
While no one knows yet how much land will be bought or restored, Dan Silver, a preservation activist who is also on the environmental committee, guessed the acreage will be in the hundreds, not the thousands seen in past land set-asides.
Much of the transportation agency’s preservation effort will likely focus on improving wildlife corridors, perhaps allowing freer movement of mountain lions, bobcats, deer and other species among areas of wild habitat.
Wildlife biologists for years have worried about increasing isolation of some animal populations, as expanding development throws up new barriers between their ranges.
A wildlife corridor at Coal Canyon, connecting the Santa Ana Mountains with the Chino Hills, could be beefed up with land acquisitions, while a long, dark tunnel beneath the El Toro “Y,” one of the only connections between the San Joaquin Hills and the mountains to the east, could be rendered more accessible to wildlife.
Large sums might also be available for habitat restoration.
Irvine Ranch applies for funds
That prompted the Irvine Ranch Conservancy to put in its own bid for up to $20 million to restore as much as 2,000 acres of a 20,000-acre natural area in northeastern Orange County that the Irvine Co. has offered to transfer to OC Parks. Fire-prevention work would be included.
The conservancy’s bid raised questions among some Orange County environmental activists about whether OCTA money would be used to replace funding commitments by Irvine Co. chairman Donald Bren intended to preserve, restore and manage the same property.
Mike O’Connell, executive director of the Irvine Ranch Conservancy, a non-profit entity created to manage wildland on the historic Irvine Ranch, said those fears are unfounded.
The Bren commitment to the land, some $50 million doled out in varying amounts from year to year, will remain available no matter what other restoration funds the conservancy manages to acquire, O’Connell said.
The transportation agency has also accepted applications for funding from other groups. The environmental committee, meanwhile, will continue investigating potential land acquisitions, such as the land around the Coal Canyon wildlife corridor.
And while no acreage totals have been identified, the large scale of the project means government approval would come in the form of a Natural Communities Conservation Plan.
Such plans were used in past years to create two nature reserves in Orange County, although not without controversy. Landowners who agree to set aside parcels for preservation receive assurances that they will not be subject to new endangered species restrictions in the future — a provision known as “no surprises.”
That rankled some activists and preservationists, who said new scientific data often reveal hidden threats to species that could not have been anticipated.
Court rulings, however, have allowed the “no surprises” privision to stand.
Past controversies fade
Silver said the latest effort is nothing like the contentious conflicts in the 1990s to create the county’s first nature reserve.
“There’s so much less controversy here,” he said. “This is a program that’s really fun. It’s not like the battleground where you’re trying to fight developers. We’re all working together to provide the most benefits.”
(Register photo of Coyote Hills in 2006 by Bruce Chambers; the West Coyote Hills, near Fullerton, are among the parcels being considered for acquisition and preservation by the Orange County Transportation Authority.)
Latest posts:
Reader Comments
Comments are encouraged, but you must follow our User Agreement.- Keep it civil and stay on topic.
- No profanity, vulgarity, racial slurs or personal attacks.
- People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
18 Comments
-
ADVERTISEMENT
-
-
-
-
16th annual People’s Choice
From your favorite restaurants and shops to the best day spa in town, here are your choices for the number one places to eat, shop and play in O.C.
Browse the 2009 Best of Orange County winners-
ADVERTISEMENT
OK, maybe I missed it, but why is the **Transportation Authority** buying up land that is not going to be used for transportation? Is it because they have the money? Don’t think so. Is it because they’ve damaged or destroyed other habitat lands??
I’m not arguing about the intent or the value of the restoration and/or preservation, I’m just wondering why OCTA funds are being used when they are cutting service and talking about fare increases.
Vern Vern, I don’t get it either.
Ernest.
Ah the gnatcatcher, the dream critter to stop all projects for “environmentalists” who want nothing built.
Even though many of the projects are now designed with the environment in mind and would fix areas that look like rundown urban areas.
how is it that measure m was passed for improving transportation in orange county is now funding the purchase of land that has nothing to do with transportation. if voters want to purchase land, shouldn’t they create measure G(reen) and fund it accordingly?
Cap & Trade,
Destroy one piece of land by paving it over for a new toll road, and preserve another non-descript piece of land somewhere else.
I hope they buy Coyote Hills, our neighborhood wouldn’t be the same without it. I would hate to see it taken over by greedy developers.
You mean they don’t want to build a freeway on it? Woah.
“We’re absolutely thrilled,” said Melanie Schlotterbeck, an Orange County preservation activist and vice chairwoman of an OCTA environmental committee. Can anyone else see a conflict of interest here. This person is a preservation activist and is a vice chairwoman of an OCTA EVIROMENTAL COMMITTE. Is no wonder we in the real world a growing tired of any and all goverment agencies!!!!! UN BLEEPING REEL!!!!11
funny I don’t remember voting for this. let private conservation groups do these things. isn’t that what they’re there for? I thought Measure M was supposed to pay for transportation projects, to improve the quality of the roads and somewhat relieve the (mostly) terrible transportation infrastructure we have here in Orange County. weird.
Welcome to the United Socialist States of America, where 47% of all land is now Government owned or controlled and that number is increasing by 4% per year. Time to pass another multi- billion dollar bond issue, tell the people it’s to improve the roads and transportation, use it as a giant slush fund for pet projects and “Studies” and then buy land with the rest. We need to protect the yellow belly sap sucker, sorry we have to take your what we consider “worthless” land for pennies on the dollar and “GIVE” it to the people. Then we can raise taxes to “Maintain” it as a wilderness preserve, while charging a “Fee” for you to come and see it.
Check your alarmism about government ownership of land. The federal government owns 86.1% of Nevada and 45.3% of California. None of this is unusual or new to the western part of the country, it’s been like this since the founding of each state. So unless, you categorize Reagan as a “Socialist” there’s nothing nefarious about this deal. Consider government ownership of land the next time you visit a state or federal park or walk on the beach (public access to the ocean guaranteed by government ownership of below the high tide line).
So they are cutting routes in OC but they will buy land? OKAY….
I’ve got an Arroyo Toad on my desk, good to see that some folks are buying land for more than profit.
Did any of you objecting to this read the article? Did you read measure M? O bviously enough of you voted for it that it passed. Part of it was to conserve areas as well as improve roads, etc. And checking yes on the voter box meant that tax increase, which I bet most of you don’t even notice! Routes are being cut because not enough people take them – hence they need more funds to operate at the level they have for years of not enough people taking them. Be thankful that 50 years from now there will be more natural hills that your grandchildren will be able to enjoy, etc. instead of another grouping of cookie cutter homes that cost too much money.
This is Measure M money used to purchase land to offset property destroyed because of infrastructure construction. If the article was clearly written to show this isn’t an agency spending on a project that isn’t REQUIRED BY LAW then there would be a lot less worrying by readers. If projects like this didn’t happen the Orange County would just be an enormous suburb between San Diego and Los Angeles without any natural value. Try to remember why you, or your ancestors, moved to the OC to begin with and try to preserve that for the next generation.
With a unanimous vote, the Orange County Transportation Authority directed its staffers today to draft a ballot measure for a 30-year extension that would allocate funds for projects with the same breakdown as the current Measure M: 43 percent for freeways; 32 percent for streets; and 25 percent for mass transit.
Did I read measure M. Not all 72 pages, however the above comes from a OC Register article from Sept. 09. The percentage numbers are the same as the ones in Measure M. Now I’m trying to read between the lines here, yet I see no percentage of funds being mark for land conservation.
It seems like many of you read through the article a little too fast, or maybe just like to comment on topics you’re not all too familiar with.
If you bulldoze, grade, pave over, degrade land, especially environementally sensitive land, often you are required to mitigate/restoration land at another location. Pretty basic idea. Development 101 in Orange County.
Obviously if the OCTA has a “30-year, $4.8 billion freeway” project plannned, odds are it’ll be required to mitigate or restore land at some point in time. OCTA is getting the best bang for its buck by buying land while prices are cheap….. just like it says in the article….. which is seems like most people are reading every other 5 words of…..
It is about time that the County TA and the County it’s self get moving on this. PEOPLE this is PROGRESS in every direction. Buy all the free space we can and keep it FREE SPACE. Add or improve roads for better traffic flow… anywhere in the county, and save gas, and the air quality.
There will always be growth and a need to support it… always! All the road blocks and delaying does is cost, we, the residence a lot of money… MONEY!!