Jane Block
HCP presentation 2014
When I started in the early 1970s as a citizen environmental activist in Riverside County, many of
the developers’ environmental reports that were submitted to planning departments for proposed
projects were neither very informative nor very accurate. Little current research had been
incorporated and even I, a lay person with no planning background or formal environmental science
training, could recognize that in some reports there was little more than “boiler plate” and little
difference other than the name of the project.
Fortunately, I had good connections to UCR since my husband was a professor in the department of
Mathematics , and I was aware of some of the excellent research on environmental science being
done in various departments. I called Dr. Tom Scott, a UCR and UCBerkeley biologist, for help in
solving the problem of bad information going to planning staffs and elected officials. He suggested
the first step in changing the process would be assuring that the environmental reports’ information
was accurate and the research supporting that information was of high
quality.
Dr. Scott, Dr Toscano, Andy Sander, curator of the UCR Herbarbium and Greg Ballmer Staff biologist
made important contribution to this goal. Most important Dr Scott assigned staff member Nanette
Pratini to the task of digitizing all recent EIRs, making them available to the planning staffs of the
county and the cities and the public. At that time, none of the environmental reports were available
on line. This was a new phenomenon for the county and fortunately, after Dr. Scott
presented the concept, the County Board of Supervisors was supportive.
The quality of the research and analysis in the biological reports rapidly improved. The information
from previous research and surveys could be easily referenced and the biologists hired by the
developers had support for findings that their bosses might find negative. The planning department
staffs also found more support for quality decisions. This led to better-informed elected officials who
then often would make better decisions. It also gave greater substance to conservation advocates
and solid information upon which to base their actions.
UCR has long been regarded as a source of high quality environmental research; however it was
difficult for someone outside of the UC system to access that research or even to know that it existed.
It was apparent that such information available to local planning staff would lead to more
thoughtful decisions. UCR Biology Professor Emeritus John Moore, a member of the National
Academy of Sciences, was a leader of the support group Dr. Scott and I had assembled. We all agreed
that the community would benefit if the research and broad background of environmental
information at UCR could be made available as a part of the land use process in the county and its
cities. It would lead to better land use decisions and fewer lawsuits.
Dr Moore and I made an appointment with UCR Chancellor Ray Orbach to discuss this issue. The
Chancellor was impressed by Dr. Moore's emphatic support for the work that had been done by Dr.
Scott, which illustrated that the university expertise would be welcomed by the county and cities
and that science-based environmental information was neutral and would not lead to the university
being perceived as taking sides. The Chancellor agreed that a Center could and should be established,
with the provision that the Center would not take any position of support or opposition on specific
projects but would provide scientific and research information to city and county planning agencies.
Independent of us, UCR Biology Professors David Reznick and Leonard Nunney also met with the
Chancellor in early 1996 to urge creation of a Conservation Biology unit. With the strong support of
the then Dean Michael Clegg of UCR’s College of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, and other UCR
biologists, UCR’s Center for Conservation Biology was soon established, with initial interim director
Professor Norm Ellstrand during the search to bring in of the first regular director, Professor
Michael Allen.
Also during the 1990s, Dr. Scott and I worked on environmental issues with Tom Mullin, who was
then on State Senator Presley's Staff. We were aware of the high value Mr. Mullen placed on creating
workable infrastructure for the present and the future of Riverside County. When he became County
Supervisor for the 5th district after Norton Younglove retired, I found that he continued with the
balanced thoughtful approach on planning issues that had been the practice of Supervisor Younglove
and that had been evident in his work to enhance Riverside County infrastructure. . I was not
surprised when he proposed the concept of a Habitat Conservation plan for Riverside county that
would protect habitat, including the connectivity that was important for the long term survival of
species. From a governance perspective Supervisor Mullen cited the often lengthy delays that added
to the cost of construction of infrastructure such as roads. He also felt that it would gain the support
of builders by facilitating the process of environmental approval for them through planning ahead
for species conservation.
One thing that was apparent in the conservation that had been accomplished in the County was that
connectivity was random and uncertain when environmental needs were considered project by
project. Although major conservation efforts had been successful -- such as the Santa Ana River,
Indian Canyons Arlington Mountain, Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly habitat, the Santa Rosa Plateau
and other major acquisitions -- connecting them was often problematic. Supervisor Mullen agreed
that connectivity was important and he also assured us that environmental decisions would be
science based with appropriate use made of the information and expertises available at UCR in the
Center for Conservation Biology. With that assurance I and many others in the community
supported his efforts and were pleased when he succeeded in having the County and cooperating
cities establish the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation plan in 2004. Subsequently, a similar
Habitat Conservation Plan was established for the Coachella Valley in 2008.
When we started, EIRs were primarily reviewed by the developers who paid for them, habitat
preservation was always a pitched battle, and habitat conservation planning was inconceivable. Now
we have a standard for environmental documents, an agreement that habitat conservation will be
part of region’s development, and a plan that is based on what we know about species and
ecosystem persistence. To some this may seem like too small a step towards science-based
management, but to those of us who lived through the juggernaut of land development in the 1970s
and 1980s, the change is breath-taking. Never forget where we have come from as you strive to get
where we need to go.