SONORAN DESERT CONSERVATION PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE REPORT TO THE PIMA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS June 13, 2003 Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................................................... 2 PURPOSE OF THIS STEERING COMMITTEE REPORT............................................................................. 2 STEERING COMMITTEE BACKGROUND ............................................................................................... 3 II. STEERING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................. 5 SPECIFIC STEERING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... 6 Scope of the Section 10 Permit Application .................................................................................... 6 Implementation of the MSHCP ...................................................................................................... 7 Habitat Protection Priorities for Pima County’s Section 10 HCP Permit........................................ 8 Plan Funding ............................................................................................................................ 12 Adaptive Management.................................................................................................................. 15 Pre-approval and Periodic Independent Review of Compliance and Progress .............................. 16 Public Availability of Annual Monitoring Reports........................................................................ 16 Consolidated and Improved Land Use Regulations ...................................................................... 16 Recreation ................................................................................................................................... 17 Mining Issues ............................................................................................................................ 17 III. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 18 FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................. 19 Figure 1: Habitat Protection Priorities in Eastern Pima County APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................................... 20 Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Appendix E: Current Steering Committee Membership and Organizations with Permanent Representation on the Steering Committee Steering Committee Member Minority Views Steering Committee Operating Guidelines Steering Committee Quarterly Reports Steering Committee Meeting Notes Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan Steering Committee Report to the Pima County Board of Supervisors I. Introduction and Background In 1998, the Pima County Board of Supervisors initiated comprehensive land planning efforts “with the goal of combining short-term actions to protect and enhance the natural environment and long-range planning to ensure that our natural and urban environments not only coexist but develop an interdependent relationship, where one enhances the other.”1 Born out of these efforts was the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP), a farreaching initiative that will address natural and cultural resource protection for several decades into the future. The SDCP contains six elements. They are2: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Ranch Conservation; Cultural Resources Element; Mountain Parks Element; Riparian Protection Management and Restoration Element; Habitat Protection Element; and Corridors Protection Element In addition to the elements described above, the SDCP also envisions development of a Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) in order for Pima County to seek and receive an Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 10 permit. In 1999, as part of its decision to pursue an ESA Section 10 permit, the Pima County Board of Supervisors appointed members of the community representing diverse viewpoints to serve on a “Steering Committee.” When established, the stated purpose of the Steering Committee was to provide “advice to the Board [of Supervisors] about which reserve design alternative the County should prefer in making application for a multi-species habitat conservation plan to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.”3 The Steering Committee’s mandate was reaffirmed in October 2001 when the Pima County Board of Supervisors directed the Steering Committee to “continue formulating alternatives for the Section 10 permit.”4 Purpose of this Steering Committee Report Consistent with its charter, this document reports the Steering Committee’s recommendations on issues related to Pima County’s ESA Section 10 permit 1 Pima County, Preliminary Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, September 2000, p. 3 Pima County, Preliminary Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, September 2000, p. 4 3 Pima County, Preliminary Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, September 2000, p. 4 4 Memo from Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry, October 9, 2001 and Transcript of October 9, 2001 Pima County Board of Supervisors Meeting 2 2 application and the associated MSHCP. With a few exceptions, it does not address the issues associated with the other elements of the SDCP. Given that this report focuses primarily on the Steering Committee’s recommendation and the relevant background information, more detailed supplementary materials are included as appendices. Steering Committee Background As mentioned previously, the Steering Committee was appointed by the Pima County Board of Supervisors in 1999. It initially consisted of 89 members representing various stakeholder interests. There are individuals representing environmental groups, real estate development and housing interests, the business community, ranchers, neighborhood associations and mining interests. There are also a number of Steering Committee members that consider themselves unaligned with any stakeholder group. In February 2002, the Pima County Board of Supervisor adjusted the Steering Committee membership removing those members that had not indicated a desire to continue participation as well as designating organizations that should have permanent representation on the Steering Committee5,6. Since its inception in 1999, the work of the Steering Committee can be grouped into three distinct phases. The first phase commenced in May 1999 with a series of educational sessions that were intended to provide the Steering Committee with baseline knowledge about the SDCP and its component elements. Twelve educational sessions were held on almost a monthly basis until June 2000. After an approximate 11 month hiatus, the Steering Committee began its next phase in which it developed the organizational structure and operating procedures under which it would operate. In May 2001, the Steering Committee was reconvened by Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry. At this meeting, Mr. Huckelberry indicated that the Steering Committee had the discretion to develop its own organizational framework to fulfill its mandate to the Pima County Board of Supervisors. At this meeting, Mr. Huckelberry also made available to the Steering Committee the facilitation services of the Strategic Issues Management Group, Inc. During this phase, the Steering Committee on its own initiative received a briefing from the Arizona Attorney General’s Office on compliance with the Arizona Open Meeting Law, conducted a workshop on decision-making led by a professional facilitator and as a result, developed detailed Operating 5 See Appendix A for a current roster of Steering Committee members See Appendix A for the listing of organizations designated by the Pima County Board of Supervisors having permanent representation on the Steering Committee 6 3 Guidelines under which it operated (attached as Appendix C.) While having to be amended several times as circumstances dictated, these guidelines are important as they were the first significant decisions the Steering Committee made and provided the framework that enabled it to productively engage the more difficult issues that would come later. The next and final phase of the Steering Committee’s work resulted in the recommendations contained in this report. After hearing from among others, scientific experts, economists, the Fish and Wildlife Service, Pima County, the public and affected stakeholders, the Steering Committee developed the substantive recommendations on the issues associated with Pima County’s Section 10 Permit application and the MSHCP contained in this report. 4 II. Steering Committee Recommendations In the course of developing specific recommendations, the Steering Committee was guided by the key assumptions listed below. These assumptions were developed by the Steering Committee after hearing the various views of the stakeholder interests. They represent areas of general agreement among the Steering Committee. i. The near-term goal for the Steering Committee is to recommend an alternative for Pima County’s MSHCP. ii. The Steering Committee recognizes that all development must comply with the Endangered Species Act where applicable. iii. The MSHCP should protect both the covered species and habitat. iv. The MSHCP should reflect a balance among the science-based conservation of natural resources, economics, and quality of life issues such as affordable housing, recreation, cultural resources, historic preservation and production agriculture. v. The Section 10 permit application should cover all relevant County projects and permits, and other willing entities within Pima County. vi. The Steering Committee recognizes that land use and development patterns will be different from those in the past. vii. The Steering Committee recognizes that water availability will be a critical factor in limiting development and growth. viii. The regional economic impacts (costs and benefits) of the MSHCP need to be analyzed consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act and other relevant statutes. ix. The regional economic impact (costs and benefits) for the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan needs to be analyzed. x. MSHCP development and implementation should have broad participation from the public, the affected stakeholders and relevant government entities. xi. The Section 10 Permit application should have sufficient acreage for mitigation to permit both development and conservation. xii. Costs of the SDCP should be fairly distributed. xiii. Funding for new MSHCP land acquisition should be shared fairly between the public and private sectors. Not more than 50% of MSHCP funding should come from affected private landowners. Not less than 50% of MSHCP funding should come from publicly –funded sources. xiv. Voter-approved funding should be considered for the acquisition of lands and other rights within the Conservation Lands System. 5 xv. The SDCP should use voluntary incentives to the largest extent possible in both planning decisions and in the implementation of the CLS. xvi. Under current law, Pima County has no authority to “(p)revent, restrict or otherwise regulate the use or occupation of land or improvements for railroad, mining, metallurgical, grazing or general agricultural purposes, if the tract concerned is five or more contiguous commercial acres.” (ARS 11-830) xvii. The National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and their information should be integrated into the design, implementation and continuing biological monitoring efforts throughout the life of the Section 10 permit. The Steering Committee further recommends that Pima County pursue a cooperative agreement with the NRCS. Specific Steering Committee Recommendations Scope of the Section 10 Permit Application The Steering Committee considered a number of issues associated with the scope of the Section 10 permit application. These issues related to the duration of the Section 10 permit, what entities and projects would be covered under the permit and what species would be covered by the MSHCP. Plan Duration The Steering Committee recommends that Pima County apply for a permit for a duration of 20-50 years. The decision on the specific duration of the permit should be made after other details of the application are completed. Coverage of the Section 10 permit application The Steering Committee recommends that the Section 10 permit application cover all relevant County projects and permits, and other willing entities within the County. 6 Species to be covered The Steering Committee recommends the adoption of the ecosystem approach that has resulted in a Conservation Lands System map that protects the habitat of 55 priority vulnerable species. In addition, the Steering Committee recommends that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the MSHCP clearly describe and analyze five alternatives: 1) The 55 priority vulnerable species and the conservation measures enacted for their protection; The 9 listed species plus those that would be adequately addressed by the conservation measures enacted for the species; A combination between the 8 and 55 species; The species within the 55 that are currently listed as threatened and endangered or are candidates or proposed for listing; and The no action alternative as required by law. 2) 3) 4) 5) The Steering Committee further recommends that this analysis should include an economic analysis of all five alternatives and other important topics that would include, but not be limited to, reserve requirements and regulatory requirements Implementation of the MSHCP The Steering Committee spent a great deal of time dealing with issues relating to the implementation of the Section 10 permit and MSHCP. In U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service vernacular, these are known as measures to minimize and mitigate impacts. Essential Elements of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan The Steering Committee believes that there are several essential elements to the success of the MSHCP that should be included in the program to ensure a balance between urbanization and conservation of natural resources. These elements are also necessary to ensure that the program meets the Endangered Species Act legally and practicably; to ensure funding; and ensure that permitted activities will improve the conservation status of these species. The elements that the Steering Committee believe essential include: • • • • • • Measurable conservation goals and objectives; Conservation lands; Consolidated land use regulations; Protective management and monitoring of conservation lands; Assured funding; and Periodic independent review of documents and implementation. 7 Building the Conservation Lands System The Conservation Lands System approach, adopted by the Steering Committee on February 1, 2003, should be used to guide implementation of the following MSHCP components: • Acquisition areas, including new land acquisitions and other similar protections such as purchases of development rights; • Re-dedicated, existing protected lands; • Regulated areas, including set-aside and mitigation areas; and • Mitigation banks. The amount and location of land ultimately included in each of these components should reflect MSHCP goals and objectives. Habitat Protection Priorities for Pima County’s Section 10 HCP Permit Land should be protected and managed for the MSHCP through direct purchase, conservation easements, and other mechanisms. The County should adopt, subject to the takings analysis that will be necessary for MSHCP approval and permitting, the following set of biologically-based goals and criteria as applied to the Conservation Land System by The Nature Conservancy and Arizona Open Land Trust. Application of these goals and criteria results in the identification of the most important lands to protect first, provides guidance on the sequencing of land protection efforts, and can be a method for prioritizing that is easily incorporated into an adaptive conservation management program. Figure 1 attached provides an illustrative example of these priorities. A. Conservation Goals: 1. Maximize the benefit of existing protected areas by increasing their size. 2. Emphasize protection of the rarest habitat types or “special elements” as per STAT. 3. Maintain a network of connected protected lands where native habitat and natural corridors remain. 4. Systematically evaluate lands throughout eastern Pima County so that priorities are identified in all of the County’s biologically important areas. B. Selection Criteria: 1. Lands identified in the most biologically important Conservation Land System categories of Biological Core, Important Riparian and Recovery Management Areas. 2. Private lands equal to or greater than 10 acres in size in vacant or agricultural status. 3. State Trust lands within the priority Conservation Land System categories of Biological Core, Important Riparian and Recovery 8 Management Areas emphasizing lands eligible for conservation under the Arizona Preserve Initiative. State Lands as a Component of the MSHCP The Steering Committee recommends that the Pima County Board of Supervisors give full support to a constitutional amendment that would provide the opportunity to conserve biologically important state trust lands in perpetuity. Benchmarks to Measure the Implementation of the MSHCP The Steering Committee recognizes that the successful implementation of the Plan over an extended period requires the inclusion of reasonable benchmarks. The Steering Committee recommends that benchmarks to monitor the plan’s implementation be identified. The benchmarks would be defined primarily in terms of acres to be conserved. There would be special emphasis on the benchmark(s) to be reached in the first five years. Protective Management and Monitoring of Conservation Lands The Steering Committee believes that protective management and monitoring are necessary to carry out MSHCP goals and objectives, and to ensure long-term maintenance of biological resource values as mandated by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The Steering Committee recommends that a protective management and monitoring plan be prepared and approved by all participating agencies, with specifics of the plan included as conditions of the take permit and assurances. The following are important components of the protective management and monitoring plan: • • • • Methods to identify non-profit stewardship organizations; Measures to minimize the harmful edge effects of development in and adjacent to the Conservation Lands System; Measures to conserve covered species populations and habitats; and Measures to identify necessary management adjustments. The monitoring provisions of this section should be implemented so as to result in deliverables that facilitate other reviews as recommended by the Steering Committee. Conservation Incentives The Steering Committee recommends that a variety of incentives be considered to encourage private property participation in the implementation of the MSHCP. Financial incentives should be utilized that acknowledge private property values. For example, one of these incentives is the purchase of development rights from willing sellers, resulting in conservation easements. Accordingly, the Steering Committee 9 recommends that land valuation by the County and tax rates by the state should be reduced on lands with voluntary conservation easements. Transfer of Development Rights The Steering Committee recommends that legislation be sought to permit the Transfer of Development Rights in unincorporated areas. This legislation should also permit transfer of development rights across jurisdictional boundaries. Conservation Easements The Steering Committee supports legislation with clear and simple guidelines that gives incentives to property owners who want to use Conservation Easements to protect or preserve their properties. These incentives could include reductions in their property taxes. Any law should be consistent with the federal tax guidelines for Conservation Easements. The Steering Committee further recommends that the Board of Supervisors work with the County Assessor to provide a reduction in the assessed value of properties with conservation easements, thus creating a tax incentive to property owners to grant conservation easements without adding value from any perceived benefit from conservation. This incentive would be achieved by subtracting the assessed value of the conservation easement from the assessor’s full-cash value. Thus, for example, if the full-cash value of the property is $300,000 and the conservation easement is appraised at $150,000, the value of the property with the conservation easement is $150,000 for Pima County Assessor taxation purposes. Mitigation Banks The Steering Committee believes that mitigation banks should provide one alternative of several for participating MSHCP agencies to accomplish a number of program goals. The County should act to establish mitigation banks as part of the MSHCP to build the Conservation Lands System, ease and improve the efficiency of mitigation for development impacts, reduce the burden of searching for suitable mitigation lands on private land owners and others, and direct mitigation towards high conservation value lands. Sufficient land should be acquired as mitigation banks prior to, or concurrent with development. The Steering Committee recommends that mitigation banks contribute additional land to the Conservation Lands System when participating MSHCP agencies or others purchase high conservation value properties inside the Conservation Lands System. The Mitigation Banks should subsequently sell credits from these properties to private land owners, 10 agency departments or other MSHCP participants with mitigation obligations. The various Conservation Lands System approaches should guide mitigation bank acquisition priorities. Mitigation Ratios The Steering Committee recommends that the types of mitigation-acquisition of existing habitat, protection of existing habitat through conservation easements, restoration or enhancement of disturbed habitat, creation of new habitat in some situations --- be considered in the development of the multi-species habitat conservation plan. These issues are concepts and more discussion needs to take place to develop specific recommendations. Additionally, the Steering Committee further recommends that prescriptive management on private land be the result of negotiations. Private Property Rights The Steering Committee recommends that Pima County recognize the rights of property owners to use their property, provided such use is consistent with planning, zoning, and ordinances. Components of the MSHCP should also include, to the maximum extent practicable, measures to minimize expense and to streamline decision making for property owners generally. This should include assurances that an individual property owner may construct one single family dwelling on their property. If the property owner is prohibited from constructing a single family dwelling, the property owner shall be compensated by one of the following mechanisms: • • • • • Outright acquisition; Transfer of development rights; Purchase of development rights; Trade or exchange of property; and Acquisition through condemnation The Steering Committee recognizes the possibility that there may be instances in which the implementation of the MSHCP compels the County to restrict the use of private land within the CLS, even if the recommended reassurances are included in the Plan. Therefore, the Steering Committee recommends that Board of Supervisors include provisions in the MSHCP to the effect that: When the County purchases from willing sellers, they will do so at fair market value, in good faith and unaffected by land use 11 restrictions that may be created following the date this recommendation is adopted by the Steering Committee. To the extent the County may need to restrict the existing uses of lands and that the owners are not willing to agree to the restriction(s) and are not willing to sell, the County shall have the option to offer a Transfer of Development Rights, which shall be the preferred option. When Transfer of Development Rights is not feasible or is unacceptable to the landowner, the County shall also have the option to condemn such properties by the power of eminent domain, which option triggers the constitutional rights of the landowner(s). (The references to ‘existing’ and ‘current’ zoning and other land use restrictions and legislation are intended to mean those that are in place at the time of the Steering Committee’s adoption of this recommendation.) Plan Funding The Steering Committee spent a considerable amount of time discussing methods to fund the implementation of the Section 10 permit and the MSHCP. The Fish and Wildlife Service conveyed to the Steering Committee that secure funding is necessary prior to plan approval. Distribution of Costs The Steering Committee recommends that the costs of the implementation of the Section 10 permit and the MSHCP be fairly distributed among the community. Funding for new MSHCP land acquisition should be shared fairly between the public and private sectors. Not more than 50% of MSHCP funding should come from affected private landowners. Not less than 50% of MSHCP funding should come from publicly –funded sources. Funding Priorities The Steering Committee recommends that Pima County use public funds for conservation efforts in areas with high biological value. Assured MSHCP Funding Consistent with Fish and Wildlife Service policy, the Steering Committee believes it is critical that assured MSHCP funding be in place throughout the life of the program notwithstanding varying political climates so that the program’s goals and objectives can be implemented. Purpose for the assured funding The Steering Committee recommends that assured funding be provided to carry out the following components of the MSHCP: 12 • • • • • • • New land acquisitions and other similar protections to build the Conservation Lands System; Creation of mitigation banks; Protective management and monitoring of the Conservation Lands System; Contingency funding for private property compensation for takings pursuant to U.S. or Arizona constitutions; Contingency funding for changed and unforeseen circumstances; Periodic independent review; and Administration Segregated Fund The Steering Committee recommends that the County establish a segregated fund from the following sources to be used solely for the acquisition and management of habitat and the purchase of development rights within the Conservation Land System. The Committee also recommends that the County establish a citizen’s oversight and review committee to oversee management of this fund. Voter-approved funding The Steering Committee recommends that voter approved funding be considered for the acquisition of lands and other rights within the Conservation Lands System. One of the funding mechanisms that should be considered is a voter-approved bond. The Steering Committee specifically requests that the Board of Supervisors authorize a bond election for 2003. The Open Space Acquisition Review Committee (a citizen’s group appointed by Pima County) recommended a 2003 bond in the amount of $250 million. The Steering Committee recommends that the November 2003 bond should be at least $250 million to support funding of the MSHCP. Bonding should be sufficient in size to provide a significant portion of the total funding of the County’s Section 10 permit. The Steering Committee recommends that the County place the highest priority on acquisition and protection of lands necessary to achieve the goals of the MSHCP over the duration of the permit. The Steering Committee understands and acknowledges that in order to implement the MSHCP, public support will be needed to gain a successful vote for an open space bond measure and the County will need to acquire lands to attain the goals of the broader 13 Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. This includes but is not limited to lands included in the 1997 open space bond that are yet to be acquired. The County should acquire as many 1997 open space bond parcels as feasible to implement the goals of the MSHCP, as soon as possible. The Steering Committee also recommends that the County pursue means to protect lands within the CLS not identified in the habitat protection priorities. Heritage Fund The Steering Committee recommends that Pima County request that the legislature abide by the will of the voters when establishing the Heritage Fund in 1990 (A.R.S. §5-22), and maintain the Heritage Fund as dedicated funding for the purposes for which it was established. Arizona Preserve Initiative The Steering Committee recommends that Pima County encourage legislators to assist Pima County in working with the State Land Department so that the Arizona Preserve Initiative can fund conservation efforts in this region. It is fiscally beneficial for Pima County to maximize use of the Arizona Preserve Initiative program since State funds from Growing Smarter can pay one-half of the acquisition costs. Public Lotteries The Steering Committee recommends that legislation be sought to establish County-by-county lotteries, the proceeds for which will be spent in the County in which the tickets are sold. Fifty percent of it will go to fund Arizona Preserve Initiative projects in the respective County. Other revenues generated by these games would go for the purchase of development rights. Sales Tax The Steering Committee recommends that Pima County explore the feasibility of presenting to the voters a sales tax proposal as non-regressive as possible consistent with law. This increase should be placed in the segregated fund described above and be used to obtain lands for the MSHCP. General Fund Line-Item The Steering Committee recommends that the County expand the $2.25 million designated open space budget line-item as the County budget permits. 14 Flood prone Land Acquisition Program Flood prone lands are purchased with money from two sources; (1) general obligation bonds designated especially for this purpose; and (2) a flood control line-item that is part of the existing County property tax formula. The Steering Committee recommends that the County authorize a general obligation bond for flood prone land acquisition and accelerate and expand the flood control budget line-item as economic conditions allow. Impact Fees The Steering Committee recommends that statutory authority be pursued at the State level so that counties may impose open space impact fees. Mitigation Fees The Steering Committee recommends that the County implement an equitable mitigation fee program. As an alternative, a “property owner responsibility program” should be implemented, whereby property owners can be given the option to mitigate independently of the County fee program. Federal Grants The Steering Committee recommends that Pima County aggressively pursue federal funding from federal sources such as: • The Land and Water Conservation Fund • Fish and Wildlife Service Challenge Grants • Applicable Farm Bill funding • Other Federal programs Direct Congressional Appropriations The Steering Committee also recommends that Pima County encourage our Congressional Representatives continue pursuing Federal line-item appropriations. Adaptive Management In order for a Section 10 permit application to be approved by the Fish and Wildlife Service; it must contain an Adaptive Management component. Adaptive Management is a mechanism that allows the Fish and Wildlife Service to work with the applicant [Pima County] to reach mutual agreement upon changes in the mitigation strategies within the [MS]HCP 15 area, if new information about the covered species indicates this is needed.7 The Steering Committee recommends the inclusion of a strong adaptive management program. Pre-approval and Periodic Independent Review of Compliance and Progress Independent review of the MSHCP is critical to ensure sound science, legal compliance, program transparency, public trust and to improve the likelihood that program goals and objectives will be fully achieved. Independent review of the MSHCP document should be conducted prior to program approval. The MSHCP implementation should also be reviewed independently over the life of the program. Both levels of independent review should be conditions of the take permit and related assurances. Periodic independent review of the MSHCP implementation should occur at years three (3) and six (6), with subsequent reviews at intervals not to exceed five (5) years. The review committee should include citizens and individuals with professional qualifications or experience to address results generated by the adaptive management and monitoring program. Public Availability of Annual Monitoring Reports An annual report prepared by the County summarizing progress on implementation and compliance with the terms of the MSHCP should be made available for public review. Consolidated and Improved Land Use Regulations The Steering Committee recommends that land use regulations be an important tool for minimizing and mitigating the impacts to MSHCP biological resources and should apply to all development permitting activities. These regulations should support MSHCP goals and objectives and be crafted as conditions of the take permit and related assurances. They should include: • Site analyses; • Avoidance of the rarest resources; • Mitigation for impacts; and • Protective management and monitoring. In addition, these regulations should simplify, consolidate, and improve existing regulations, as well as provide various compliance options to improve regulatory flexibility in support of MSHCP goals and objectives. The regulations should also include, to the maximum extent practicable, measures to minimize expense and to streamline decision making for 7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Habitat Conservation Plans, Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act, February 2002 16 property owners generally, with assurances that an individual property owner may construct one single-family dwelling. The Steering Committee further recommends that draft regulations be provided for public review as part of a draft MSHCP package. The monitoring provision of this section should be implemented so as to result in deliverables that facilitate the other reviews recommended by the Steering Committee. Recreation After receiving a presentation from the Recreational Technical Advisory Team (RECTAT), the Steering Committee recommends the following: • • • • That decision makers consider natural resource based outdoor recreation as they develop the Section 10 permit application and the SDCP; That the benefits of the SDCP and the Section 10 permit application related to the natural resource based outdoor recreation be identified when the plan is presented for public review; That a comprehensive study be conducted by the appropriate land management agency and jurisdiction to document the scope and distribution of natural resource based outdoor recreation in eastern Pima County and identify trends and projected future demand for natural resource based outdoor recreation in Pima County; That recreation interests be included in the development and implementation of adaptive management plans. Mining Issues The Steering Committee recommends that in seeking to acquire State Land, Pima County should consult mineral potential data, and explore alternatives to acquiring State Land with high mineral potential if conservation goals can be accomplished by acquiring an alternative parcel. The Steering Committee further recommends that Pima County, in conjunction with the appropriate industry concerns, should review potential source areas for sand, gravel and aggregate, and come to some agreement on which areas can be mined for these materials, consistent with the conservation goals of the MSHCP. 17 III. Conclusion It is an understatement to say that the process for arriving at these recommendations has been difficult. There were divergent viewpoints on the Steering Committee on many of the issues that needed reconciliation. This was a collaborative process in which many compromises were made. No one party is either completely satisfied or completely dissatisfied with the final product. However, the Steering Committee attempted to reach consensus on all issues, and where that did not occur, they relied on a voting procedure that required a super-majority of two-thirds plus one to move forward with issues of substance. Moreover, Steering Committee members voluntarily gave up many of their valuable weekends and evenings to fulfill their responsibilities to the Board of Supervisors and the citizens of Pima County. In the face of these challenges, the Steering Committee persevered for almost four years to arrive at the recommendations contained in this report. While the Steering Committee always recognized that its role was strictly advisory with the final decision-making authority remaining with elected office holders, it is hoped and expected that given the members’ personal commitment, the Board of Supervisors will meaningfully consider these recommendations as it moves forward with submitting an ESA Section 10 permit application. 6/13/2003 18 Appendices Appendix A: Current Steering Committee Membership and Organizations with Permanent Representation on the Steering Committee Appendix B: Steering Committee Member Minority Views Appendix C: Steering Committee Operating Guidelines Appendix D: Steering Committee Quarterly Reports Appendix E: Steering Committee Meeting Notes 20 APPENDIX A: CURRENT STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP AND ORGANIZATIONS WITH PERMANENT REPRESENTATIONS ON THE STEERING COMMITTEE Current Membership of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan Steering Committee 1. VACANT, Sonoran Desert Museum – Vacancy created by Nancy Laney 2. Ken Abrahams, Pres/Foothills Resort Property Ltd 3. Neale Allen, Mountain view Homeowners Association 4. Bill Arnold 5. Peter Aronoff, AF Sterling 6. Charles Award, Southern Lago del Oro Community 7. Ellen Barnes, Landowner 8. Dan Beckel, Andrada Property Owners Association 9. Robyn Benson, Lou Benson Construction Co. 10. Lou Benson, Lou Benson Construction Co. 11. Larry Berlin, Attorney/Private Property 12. Tim Blowers, Developer/Landowner 13. John Bordenave, Enchanted Hills Neighborhood Association 14. Carolyn Campbell, Coalition for the Sonoran Desert Protection Plan 15. Joe Cesare, Hotel/Property Owner 16. Sue Chilton, Chilton Ranch 17. Sue Clark, Pima Trails Association 18. Ernest Cohen, Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Tucson 19. Hector Conde, Oro Valley Coalition 20. Cindy Coping, Avra Valley/Silverbell Conservation Alliance 21. Vicki Cox Golder, Real Estate/Golder Ranch 22. William Crosby, Environmental & Cultural Conservation Organization 23. Carl Davis, Silverbell Mountain Alliance 24. Mary Darling 25. Carol Duffner, NW Coalition for Responsible Development 26. Jonathan DuHamel, President, Tucson Chapter of People for the USA! 27. Ken Fleshman, GVCCC, Inc. 28. Heather Fox, Serrita Mining and Ranching 29. Richard Genser, Real Estate 30. Gay Lynn Goetzke, Property Rights 31. David Goldstein, Real Estate Developer 32. Bruce Gungle, Tucson Mountain Association 33. Trevor Hare, Sky Island Alliance 34. Richard Harris, McGee Ranch, Sierrita Mountain Coalition 35. Lynn Harris, Sierrita Mining and Ranching 36. Gayle Hartmann, Buffers 37. Deborah Hecht, Tucson Mountains Association 38. David Hogan, Southwest Center for Biological Diversity 39. Gerald Juliani, Pure Water Coalition 40. Patricia King, Anvil Ranch 41. Rob Kulakofsky, Center for Wildlife Connections 42. Alan Lurie, Southern Arizona Home Builders Association 43. Teresita Majewski, Chair, Tucson-Pima Historical Commission 44. Dr. Rob Marshall, The Nature Conservancy 45. Mitchell McClaran, Ph.D., UA Range Management 46. Andrew McGibbon, Altar Valley Alliance 47. Micaela McGibbon, Altar Valley Alliance 48. Christine McVie, Desert Watch 49. Doug McVie, Landowner 50. John Menke, Saguaro Forest Associates 51. Mary Miller, Elkhorn Ranch 52. Chris Monson, Rocking K Development 53. Joe Murray, NW Coalition for Responsible Development 54. Jenny Neely, Defenders of Wildlife 55. Luther Propst, Sonoran Institute 56. Patricia Richardson, Tucson Association of Realtors 57. Barbara Rose, North Tucson Mountains Resource Conservation Project 58. Chris Sheafe, C. Sheafe Company 59. Victoria Sikora, Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Tucson 60. Quinn Simpson, Center for Environmental Ethics 61. Lisa Stage, Women for Sustainable Technologies 62. Lucy Vitale, Line by Line Editorial Services 63. Frances Werner 64. Michael Winn, Ecological Restoration/Management Associates 65. Carl Winters, Winters & Association 66. Nancy Young Wright, Buffers 67. Nancy Zierenberg, Wildlife Damage Review 68. Michael Zimet Organizations with Permanent Membership on the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan Steering Committee The Center for Biological Diversity Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection Defenders of Wildlife Green Valley Coordinating Council Pima Trails Association Sky Island Alliance Sonoran Desert Museum Sonoran Institute Southern Arizona Homebuilders Association Southern Arizona Leadership Council The Nature Conservancy Tucson Association of Realtors Tucson Chamber of Commerce Pima Property Rights Association The Avra Valley/Silverbell Conservation Alliance APPENDIX B: STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBER MINORITY VIEWS ~lhlb11 Southern Arizona Home Builder:> Association 2840 N, Country Club Tucson, AZ 85716 Phone: (520) 795-5114 Fax: (520) 326-8665 Web: www,sahba.or~ Minority Report Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan Steering Commitll"ecRecommendations: SAHBA appreciatt:s the opportunity to comment on the Steering Committee Recommendations. Executive Vice President Alan Lurie 2003 Executive Orfu;ers President Caro1ePawlak The Genc:>ceCompany 1st Vice President John Shorbe, Sr. Canoa Development. inc. 2nd Vice President Chris Kcmme1'ly Kemmerly Homes, Inc. Secretary Martha Wright Southwest Gas Corporation Treasurer Chuck Myers Compass Bank 2002 Past President Robert Storie ContraYesIProperties. Inc. ~ NAHB N...TIONM I'-""",A'f.