SDCP - Steering Committee Meeting Notes February 15, 2003

DRAFT

SDCP - Steering Committee
Pima County Public Works Bldg. Rm 'C'
8:30am to 11:30am
Saturday, February 15, 2003
Meeting Notes

Participants: Maeveen Beham, David Steele. See attached sign in sheet.
Guest Speakers: Don McGann, Chair RecTAT; Sherry Barrett, Field Supervisor, US Fish & Wildlife Service; Mike List, GIS Coordinator, SWCA Environmental Consultants.

Documents made available to the Steering Committee members at the meeting:
* Agendas
* Frank Bangs Assertion Regarding Mining
* SDCP Issue Clarification
* Mitigation PowerPoint Presentation by Sherry Barrett
* RecTAT PowerPoint Presentation by Don McGann
* CD from Pima County SDCP Reports on Recreation
* Relationship Between Critical Habitat and Habitat Conservation Plans, by Alan Lurie, Steering Committee member, Executive Vice-President, SAHBA

Meeting Commenced at 8:35 am
Meeting commenced with 40 Steering Committee members and 9 members of the general public. By 9:05am there were 48 Steering Committee members and 11 members of the general public. David Steele opened the meeting by introducing himself, reviewing the ground rules and reviewing the agenda.

Logistics for the next Steering Committee Meeting:
Wednesday, February 26, 2003
6:00 pm to 9:00 pm
Sheraton Four Points
1900 E. Speedway Blvd.

Logistics for the next Ad-Hoc Subcommittee meeting:
Wednesday, February 19, 2003
9:30 am to 11:30 am
AZ Builder's Alliance Conference Rm
1661 N. Swan Road
Suite 144

Administrative Matters:
Membership Issues
Member Resignations: The following members resigned from the Steering Committee:
Stan Abrams, Donald Honnas, Caroline Honnas, John Martin, Dick Walbert and Mike Grassinger.
The number of Steering Committee members is now 68 and a quorum is 35 members.

GIS Information Requests- Pima County GIS department provided base maps that show the zoning and the Conservation Land System with acetate overlays. A sign up sheet was circulated so that the County could provide maps to these individuals.

Old Business:
Approve minutes from 2/1/03 meeting:
This item was deferred to the March 1st meeting.

Assumptions used in Economics Analysis Mike List, GIS Coordinator, SWCA Environmental Consultants.
Mike List: Good morning. First of all, I want to apologize. I didn't bring any handouts, being a little unfamiliar with this process. I came with a map I've proposed, but what I can do is put together a communication and get it to Maeveen in the early part of this week outlining some of the things I'm going to talk about today and then that can be distributed to the committee. I'm here today to talk about just the GIS methods and assumptions in our analysis. There are 2 elements of the overall economic analysis that work in concert.
My big role is to construct a GIS model, which measures the likelihood or suitability of the non-built lands in eastern Pima County to be developed. While I'm doing that, ESI, the economists, are taking PAG population projections and running them through their proprietary land absorption model and feeding me area calculations for the amount of land that is predicted to be absorbed by land use. I then take those area calculations, and feed them into the GIS and based upon my suitability model which says this parcel of land is more likely to be developed for this land use than that one, the GIS has the ability to allocate those land absorption area calculations. We met with the county for nearly 3 hours on Tuesday and talked about the GIS methods in detail. At a level of detail that we were unable to provide in our scope of work when we responded to the RFP. There are basically 3 sets of assumptions that we spoke about and I'll talk about today, but I want to back up and just tell you what I mean when I use the word "GIS model". I want you to think of it as a methodical overlay of these map layers, these digital map layers. And that's all I mean by the GIS model. And we have the ability with the computer just to, and I'm sure some of you are familiar with this; it's very similar to what RECON did in modeling potential habitat. We have the ability to stick a toothpick through all these map layers and make some judgments about which parcel of land might be more suitable for development than another by land use.
The first and perhaps the most important assumption in my end of the analysis is delineating the current built environment. The model proceeds through time and builds on what we define as the current built environment. I looked at a number of ways to do this. Right off the bat I thought, let's take a satellite image and look at it, either through human interpretation or some sort of computer algorithm, demarcate the natural landscape and the hardscape, buildings, parking lots, facilities of any sort. That works really well in some parts of the world. Unfortunately, it doesn't work in arid environments, particularly the desert southwest for the simple reason that to a satellite that's 40, 60, 200 miles above the earth, desert hardpan and exposed rock outcrops look quite similar to roofs and parking lots. Working with John Regan we then looked at another remote sensing approach, another approach using satellite imagery. He had a coverage, and I'm not sure of the source of this data, which delineated the urban lights at night. I believe it was a picture taken from the space shuttle. But we both decided that there were some flaws in that approach, too, and that data layer that was provided to us from the federal government. I then engaged in some rigorous and torturous manipulations and queries of the parcel base, there's 350-some-odd thousand parcels in that GIS layer, and made some progress but was unhappy with the results. I also looked at a coverage from the Pima County Development Services department which mapped land uses, but staff indicated that they had some serious questions about the validity of that coverage, so we threw that approach out.
What I have settled upon is a combination of two things. Our base is the sewer service area as the built environment. And to that I'm using, I'm reversing an analysis that John Regan performed when he mapped vacant parcels outside the Conservation Land System. I've inverted that analysis to map built areas, both inside and outside the Conservation Land System. So those two things, and I know you can't see the detail of this map, please come up during the break or afterwards to take a look. We are defining the built environment as the sewer service area, plus all parcels outside the sewer service area that are occupied, or if unoccupied, have improvements greater than $10,000. The second set of assumptions involves settling upon what GIS layers would go into this model, the layers that would be overlaying in a methodical fashion to create this suitability analysis. I rifled through those last time and since then we have settled upon Oh, let me back up in terms of built environment. There was a question last time about how are we going to address infill. There is a large opportunity for infill within the sewer service area. We will quantify that opportunity but in terms of the modeling, we are going to move outwards from the sewer service area. That will make our analysis conservative in terms of the cost estimates, and secondly it's in step with the cost model report that we were given from Pima County that serves as guidance and a baseline for our work. In terms of the coverages, the GIS layers that are going to go into our model, last time I used the words "factors" and "constraints". When I use the word "factor", I want everybody to think of a GIS layer which can influence the model positively or negatively. And a "constraint" is a barrier, an absolute impediment to the model.
We will be looking at a manipulation of the street network which measures the ease or hardship of movement based upon the functional classification of a street, the notion there being it's easier to get from point A to point B on an interstate than on a rural collector. We're also going to look at the proximity of a target parcel to the existing sewer infrastructure. We'll be looking at slope gradient and we're working with the planning department right now to reflect the HDR in this influence, this factor. We're looking at proximity to the 5-year program to transportation capital improvement and the 5-year program sewer capitalimprovement. And there was a question last time, came from this side of the room, about using or going to PAG and getting a hold of their long range transportation plan and incorporating that in our model. We did in fact communicate or talk to PAG. Brian, my colleague at ESI, called up Andy Gunning over there. And based upon that discussion, Brian was, and Brian and Judy at ESI were fairly adamant, very adamant in fact, about not including that in our approach. They did not have enough faith in that, not that it's not, that the people at PAG aren't capable, but in terms of what their model requires, they did not feel comfortable using the long-range transportation plan. And to further complicate things, PAG does not maintain the plan in a GIS format.
In terms of influences to the model, the proximity to the existing water service area. The proximity only in terms of low density residential, when we try to cite that proximity to the existing preserve, the notion there is on low density residential there might be the appetite to, you know, back your house up to an open space so that you can enjoy that. And a final influence in our model is kind of a combination of a couple coverages, a couple GIS layers. And that measures proximity to the existing built environment with regard to the continuity of vacant land. So if you had, say, 100 acres of vacant land that were 10 miles from the existing built environment, that might be scored higher than 90 acres of vacant land that is 9 miles from the existing built environment.
In terms of barriers to our model, and these really haven't changed, there's the existing preserve which you are all familiar with, the proposed preserve, county and municipal parks, the footprint for the mines and landfills in eastern Pima County. An important point, we are not using the 100-year flood plain as an absolute constraint to the citing or to the absorption of land in our model. That was a point several people have raised. We are however using the actual channel delineation of the major rivers and washes in eastern Pima County. Tribal lands are excluded. The built environment itself is a barrier to the model because we are going to extend outwards from what we have delineated to be the built environment. And for some of our scenarios, non-conforming zoning is a constraint on the model. We're looking at zoning staying the same and zoning allowed to change. That's more of a nuance that a question should be directed towards ESI on. The third set of assumptions we're looking at are wa?? some of these influences relative to each other. So that proximity to sewer is regarded in the model as more important perhaps than proximity to the water service area. We have developed a system of weights that will, for the model. But we will also be conducting map based and statistical analysis to compare the use of those weights with leaving everything equal, the use of no weights in the model. So those are basically the 3 sets of assumptions. How we delineated the built environment, our use of a weighting system, and the decision on which GIS layers from the Pima County database to include in the model. And these are all reflected on the map here.

* Maeveen Behan noted that it would be in the best interest of the Steering Committee to go back and review the RFP or the scope of work, in case this discussion raised additional issues the Steering Committee would like the economics consultants to consider. If the issues were sent to David, he could get them to the County and the consultants so they could be included in the final report as part of the appendix with a response from the economics consultants.

Questions from the Steering Committee
Question: How are septic tanks included in this analysis?
Mike: They would, well; first of all probably show up in those occupied parcels outside of the sewer system that we are including in the built environment. If you are talking about those people on septic tanks within the sewer service area, we were going to quantify vacant lands within the sewer service area and note that as an infill possibility, but we're not going to count the number of residents within the sewer service area who are off the sewer grid. Our analysis is conservative in the sense that whether or not they're on the sewer system or on a septic and whether or not there's vacant land inside this boundary, the sewer system boundary, the sewer system service area, we're assuming that it's all built out, at least in terms of one element of the model.

Question: Did you imply that sewer was a more important consideration than water?
Mike: No, I didn't. I might have said that as an example of how these layers can be weighted, but I'm not sure how it's played out. I have this list of weights here and I can, and there are a number of weights by land use and I can put that in that communication I'm going to put together.
I wasn't even looking at my notes when I used that comparison. I was just picking two of the influences out and saying this could be twice as important as that.

Question: Are we going to have a presentation by the economists?
Mike: Yeah, they're going to come back in two weeks. And there are a set of assumptions that deal with their land absorption model and the way that they manipulate the population projections that they're going to speak about at the next meeting.

Status of Stakeholder discussions:
·        The ranching community was not ready to present at this meeting, but would have something to present at the February 26th study session.

·        Alan Lurie asked to make a presentation to the Steering Committee regarding a memo he received from Norm James of Fennemore Craig, titled: Relationship Between Critical Habitat and Habitat Conservation Plans:
Alan Lurie: It was my recollection that if a species had been listed and critical habitat has been designated for that species and that it subsequently went into a Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan area, that the critical habitat would still be in effect even though there was an overlying Habitat Conservation Plan. To test my recollection of that, I went to Mr. Norm James with Fennemore Craig to ask him that specific question. His reply was yes, that's true, if the species has been listed and critical habitat designed prior to the Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan, that the critical habitat would stay in place. Now the point I'm making here or the appeal that I'm making is that when we had a vote last week on the 55 species versus the 8, there were comments made that under the CLS and the eco-plan that there would be a lessening of the impact on the entire habitat conservation area. And I would suggest that that's not correct. And because of that I would like, with new information, hopefully with new logic, that we go back and consider that 55 species vote. Whether it's yes or no, at least we'll be doing it with better information. And I would recommend to you that what we'd better do now is get one of the county's maps and on the area of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, we put 1.204 millions of acres underlying that Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan and then find out what flexibility you really have as we do our MSHCP. I think that's important information. I think it's valuable information and I think it'll give you a better look at what we're really about.
What I'm trying to do is bring some additional information to the group so that they understand that if the 1.204 millions of acres of land under the redesignated critical habitat for the pygmy owl is passed, in fact, that that will be done prior to the MSHCP and will be in effect if the habitat conservation plan is passed, and that this freedom of motion, the ability that the CLS would give us, is hampered by 1.204 millions of acres.
Sherry Barrett: When we issue a permit, we have to analyze the effects of the permit on the species. And part of that analysis and our Section 7 consultation on the issuance of that permit would address critical habitat. So regardless of whether or not the critical habitat is in place at the time that we look at this permit,we would address the effects of that permit issuance on the critical habitat and at that point it would therefore be put to rest. So that whatever action that you have that comes under the county's purview that may affect critical habitat, it's already been addressed through this regional conservation plan. We would analyze the impacts of the issuance of the permit on in particular the pygmy owl's critical habitat so that it would probably remain in place, but all the effects to it have been fully addressed in the NEPA document and in our Section 7 consultation on our issuance of the permit.
·        While some members felt that this information was valuable and wanted the County to provide more map overlays in order to better understand this issue, other members felt the purpose of submitting this memorandum from Norm James was so that the Steering Committee could consider whether or not they wanted to reconsider the vote they took at the last meeting.
·        Other members felt that this issue could not be revisited without knowing the following two assumptions:
1.       That by following the habitat approach and the CLS map for 55 species that the county would wind up with greater rather than lesser predictability for landowners.
2.       That the county would wind up with greater protection of endangered species.
·        After much discussion the Steering Committee decided to discuss the interaction between the habitat conservation plan and the critical habitat. Then discuss the 8 versus 55 at the February 26th Study Session. Paul Fromer and Pima county staff will be asked to be present.

Allan: I think the reason I brought this up, well I know the reason I brought it up was that I thought that the Steering Committee was being given some information that was inaccurate. And that was that with the passage of a habitat conservation plan and using this CLS, that everything would be treated in the same way and it would be a smoother and more simplified version of a region wide critical habitat. And I know that not to be true because of the fact that previously listed critical habitat is not impacted by the Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan. So that the footprint is different and the impacts are different. I thought if we got maps and put that impact on the map, have the critical habitat for the pygmy owl and then the Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan overlaid on that, I think what you would see would be the area of land mass that you really had no control over when developing the CLS program. Because it had already been listed. And for the Pima pineapple cactus and any of the other species that are already listed and have critical habitat. So it really is a very different picture.
Sherry: Just for clarification, the Pima pineapple cactus does not have critical habitat. But what I'm trying to say is even if the critical habitat is put in place today and we do the habitat conservation plan tomorrow and you propose development on critical habitat, we would address that. And if it's found not to adversely modify that critical habitat, it would be permitted. And so there, I agree with what Jenny said, that we would have to address the impact of any proposed development on critical habitat. If it's found to be acceptable based on mitigation and other avoidance mechanisms that are put in place, you would move forward and critical habitat would have no further impact on private development. It would continue to have impacts on other federal activities outside the purview of this county process. For example, federal highways would not be able to now look at some area of the preserve and say, that's the best place to shoot a brand new 8-lane highway through. They would have to still address the impacts to critical habitat with the Fish & Wildlife Service. It would continue to affect large power lines that would want to shoot through the middle of a preserve area. And we would still work with the Border Patrol activities, for examples. So it would still address and pertain to federal activities.

* Lucy Vitale motion was deferred for lack of quorum and an expiration of meeting time.

Review of new Stakeholder Agreements/Resolutions: This item was deferred.
Development of Steering Committee Recommendations: This item was deferred.

Mitigation Ratios-Sherry Barrett, Field Supervisor, US Fish and Wildlife Sherry Barrett, Field Supervisor, US Fish & Wildlife:
Sherry Barrett: I'm going to talk to you about mitigation, give you some definitions and kind of go through some concepts. I'm not here to give you any answers about what the mitigation ratios should be. This is, that's something that you all need to develop as the proposal. But I hope to give you some thoughts on what to consider as you're developing those proposals.
First I'm going to go through the definition of mitigation. And this is in our regulations. Mitigation means to moderate, reduce or alleviate the impacts of a proposed activity and includes an order of descending preference. And when I talk about descending preference, I mean that these are the, that's the order of what you're supposed to consider first. So as you look at a project and its effects, the first thing you should look at is avoiding the impacts by not taking a certain action or parts of an action so you avoid the impact. Excuse me, ah, mix those around. Sorry, avoiding should be first. Second is minimizing. If you can't avoid it you should minimize it to the extent possible, rectify it, and I apologize, I put this together yesterday and it's my first PowerPoint presentation, so bear with me. I told Irene I was a mossback, I had to explain that. So second, you minimize an impact if you can't avoid it. Third is you rectify it, repair it or rehabilitate it, restore it.
You then reduce the impact and then you compensate it. And within compensating is the concept of mitigation. So really, when you, the full concept that we look at is mitigation which is re?? it. So, next slide? If you look at them all together, then you first avoid, then you minimize what you can't avoid, you rectify it, you reduce and compensate(?) for it.
The authority for mitigation under Section 10 of the ESA requires that the effects to the covered species within the permit application be minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. So that's where the term "mitigation" comes about for this process that we're going through right now.
What we recommend is that the amount of mitigation be based on conservation strategy. In this case, I know you're still all considering the Conservation Land System. But that is a conservation strategy, so that's an example of what we would be talking about. You have a biological goal that you're looking towards. Mitigation for effects to species and their habitat can be offsite. Which means that in some instances, wetland mitigation for example, generally there's a heavy emphasis that the mitigation for impact to a wetland be onsite. So for example if you have a mining operation or something that's in the middle of a riparian area, the goal would be to try and have the mitigation for that as (inaudible) possible. In endangered species arenas, having the mitigation onsite does not always make sense because in some cases that would mean that the conservation that you're trying to achieve would be subject to the effects of that project that you're implementing. So it can be offsite.
The types of mitigation that are available. First of all, acquisition of existing habitat. And this is what I'll call preservation mitigation, which means you're going and buying land someplace else that has the values, the biological values that you're looking for onsite, they're existing today. Another component of that would be to go out and buy a conservation easement on a piece of land that has those existing values. So the first one is you're actually buying fee title to a piece of land. The second is somewhat less, you're buying the conservation easement, which lays out how that land would be conserved. A third way is restoring or enhancing disturbed habitat.   This is often done with riparian systems. They're fairly easy to restore if you take the stressors away. Creation of new habitat, and as I say, in some situations. Creation is not a really viable alternative in most cases because we're not smart enough to know how to create habitat. There's certain systems that ?? created such as wetland marshes. If you look at Sweetwater Marsh, it depends on what your goal is. If your goal is to provide for waterfowl in a wetland system, you can put water in a particular place and grow tullies(?), etc. or rush, etc., and your waterfowl are like ?? So you can achieve that biological goal. But in most other cases, for endangered species in particular, creating habitat is not really a viable option. And make sure you keep the distinction between restoration and creation separate. Restoring again would be like a riparian system that you take the stressors off. Sometimes you might plant some cottonwood, willow trees or whatever into that existing area where they were historically. Creation is taking, say, a piece of desert and making it into a marsh. And then fifth would be where you're implementing management on a piece of land to achieve goals that you're not currently achieving.
When you look at mitigation costs and how you're going to go from your impact to your mitigation, one term that I use is currency. They need to be comparable in many regards so that you know that what you're mitigating over here is going to, what you're impacting over here, rather, is going to achieve what you're mitigating over here. And there's a lot of different ways that you could do that. For example, you could base it on habitat. You may be able to say that we're going to have two acres of cottonwood/willow over here that we're going to displace and mitigate with four acres of cottonwood/willow over here. Saguaro, palo verde/saguaro, 5 acres of palo verde/saguaro, and to offset the impacts of those 5 acres of palo verde/saguaro we're going to go mitigate over here with 15 acres of palo verde/saguaro or something like that. So that would be the habitat base. It can be based on species. There's a, you could have, for example, it's easier in timber stands for me to illustrate this. Red cockaded woodpeckers are a species commonly mitigated for the Southeast. And they'll have family groups, for example. And if your timber stand has 5 family groups of red cockaded woodpeckers, you need to mitigate with, say, 10 families of red cockaded woodpeckers over here in another timber stand that you're preserving.
In Clark County, Nevada, they based it on a flat fee per acre regardless of whether it had habitat on it. It was just everybody paid a certain amount of money per acre in the entire county if they developed. And then that acreage went, excuse me, that funding from that flat fee went towards the mitigation. There's potential for basing it on each house. Everybody, they call it rooftop fee sometimes, just in jargon. If you build a house, each house has some kind of impact fee, that money then goes towards the mitigation. And it can be based on other elements. So just kind of keep in mind what your currency might be with how you're going to, if you're looking at a mitigation ratio. Now I will say at this point, and I would like Maeveen to help me clarify this issue, that it's my understanding that the county actually doesn't have the legal authority to impose mitigation fees, but the towns and cities do. Maeveen, am I correct on that? When talking about mitigation fees?
Maeveen Behan: I would say the county's more limited in imposing impact fees than the cities and towns. That's for sure. And the county's certainly more limited than cities and towns in the range of impact fees that they can impose, there's no question. But the, when I just look at these options, I think that you see a suggestion for mitigation ratios built into the Conservation Land System. If you're trying to determine, well, what's the right ratio? You see in our economic study we have, we're calculating the cost, no matter what your recommendation is, you'll have a cost estimate for it 1 to 1, 2 to 1, 3 to 1, 4 to 1. And that's a recommendation that we look forward to hearing from you. What do you want a mitigation ratio to be? But I think that a lot of work's already been done from the science community that suggests what the Conservation Land System mitigation ratios might be to keep the natural system sustained. So you're in a really good position to make a decision that works.
Sherry: Then that brings up a very good question, segues into who should pay for the mitigation? The community at large? If it was the community at large, it would be something similar to a bond. Because that would be a cost that would be spread across everybody who exists today and those that come in the future for however long that bond's in effect. Some areas it's new development, so it's everybody newly buying a house or building a house, new residence. Tourists, there are a lot of areas that have a tourist tax on hotels to pay for different amenities in the community. Others, and it could be a combination of the above. So that's a big question to consider is who should bear the burden of the cost of the plan.
Now as Maeveen was talking about, we already have the mitigation costs that are going in. And it's important to keep in mind that the community at large costs are going to be inversely correlated, wherever you want to say it, to mitigation costs on a project by project basis. So the greater the bond for example is, the greater the ability you have to simply go out and acquire land, the less mitigation fee you would have on a project by project level. If you have an ultimate goal, the more you can buy, the less you have to mitigate to acquire it. Does that make sense to people? Think about it, we can come back and talk after I'm done. Next? And there can be mitigation incentives. This makes it a lot more complicated and I think the goal has always been to make this system of mitigating as simple as possible. But there can be incentives for example that if you're mitigating in a low biological value area and mitigating into a high biological value area, the mitigation ration could be less. That's something just to consider.
This one is my final slide and I wanted just to give you some thoughts on what mitigation ratios actually mean. If you, and this is again talking in terms of preservation mitigation, so that's where you are impacting a piece of land with existing biological values and you're going over and you're acquiring through mitigation other pieces of land that already have existing biological values. If you're mitigating at a 1 to 1 ratio, if you look at the global extent of what you're looking at, you have a 50% loss and a 50% conservation. So it's important to realize that at a 1 to 1, you're losing 50% of what you have in that universe, of what you're looking at impacting or what you're looking at conserving. At a 2 to 1, it's 33, 67. So you would be looking at conserving 67% of your universe and losing 33%. At 3 to 1 it's 75/25 and at 4 to 1 it's 80/20. So if you're looking at, again if you have one acre of land that you're conserving, excuse me, one acre of land that you're impacting and 3 acres of land that you're mitigating with, you're losing one acre. You're not gaining in your universe of land out there for the species 3 more acres. You're conserving them, but you're not gaining them. Does that make sense? You're not creating it. In the world of preservation mitigation, you're not creating 3 new acres. You're still losing one, but you're putting 3 acres into conservation, which would also have management value for the species.
Now one thing that I don't have in the presentation to consider is when you're looking at ratios, some elements to keep in mind when we look at ratios are, again, how to achieve the conservation strategy based on what your impact's going to be. Often what you consider also are time lags. Especially when you're doing restoration mitigation. How long will it take, if you're going to impact cottonwood/willow over here, how long will it take for you to restore and achieve those values over in your mitigation. Because there's a lag time between when you take the stressors off the system and when you actually have vegetation at the size, for example, that the species may need. Southwestern willow flycatcher, yellow billed cuckoo, they're not going to benefit from the seedlings, they're going to benefit from a tree size. So there's a lag time before you actually achieve that.
Maeveen: As I was sitting listening to Sherry talking, I felt that there was an invitation to the Steering Committee to do the work of what I see recovery teams do in determining mitigation ratios. And I just want to suggest that our last 4 years of science team process have looked holistically at this issue. My observation is that you'll never come out of the maze if you look at it species by species. And an example would be, you know, they talk about 4 to 1 with the pygmy owl and that's been much discussed over time and now doesn't exist in the draft recovery plan. And when you do a Section 7 consultation on pineapple cactus, there's all kinds of factors that determine whether or not the Service is going to ask you to mitigate at 1 to 1 or 2 to 1 or 3 to 1. I would just suggest that instead of entering the conversation that way, my prediction is that you will never come out on the other side, that maybe you consider what the science team has already done which is to look at all the species, the whole natural system, narrow it down to 55, those 55 reflect what's in decline and also the entire natural system and they, within their Conservation Land System, have suggested that a multiple use area would be looking at mitigation ratios along these lines and the core areas would be looking at mitigation ratios along these lines, somewhere in between those. And let that be your guide instead of sort of trying to recreate or question the work of the science team. And the outstanding question that really exists for this community, I think, is how much mitigation will be, kind of like the Clark County question, there's a lot of available land that's not in the Conservation Land System. I think there's been, you see in the cost model there's this assumption that there's not a burden on that land, there's not a burden on that land, a mitigation burden. And that might be something we go to Fish & Wildlife and negotiate and say, we'll write off this part and conserve this other part. That is not the same thing as saying, "who pays?" That is not the same thing as saying, "who pays". And what they did in Clark County was say, there's some land that's, you know, free-for-all and really everybody's going to pay for that. So I just would like to come back and talk to you sometime about what I think the threshold points are and maybe what the useful discussion is and what the complex discussion is that may be irrelevant here, and I think that might save you a lot of time. These topics were suggested to me as I listened to Sherry's presentation.

Questions from Steering Committee members:
Question: This is a comment, not a question and that is that lag time applies if there's restoration or creation, but not if you mitigate with lands that are already in condition and occupied.

Question: Where is the best place to find all this information within the many reports we have received?
Maeveen: It's the map that has the Conservation Land System on the front and the development guidelines on the back, on Disc 15.

Question: Could there be a lag if we allow mitigation banking which just sets money aside as the mitigator and not habitat? Could that lag years behind destruction of habitat?
Sherry: Mitigation banking does have a precise area of habitat, so there shouldn't be a lag time because you actually have delineated the area and you have credits for that particular piece of land. But in lieu fee, I agree with Trevor, there is an ability when we talked about some of those that you might have a fee per rooftop or something like that. And it would be paramount that this plan ensures that the conservation expenditure, expenditure of that fee for conservation, keeps up with the impact. When I've seen the problems occur with in lieu fees is that acquisition takes a long time. And as you're going through this acquisition process, oftentimes the land values are going up. So it can occur that the fee that you collected today for a particular amount of acreage can't buy that acreage tomorrow. So it's important that you have a system. The best way is to actually have a rolling system where you've already bought some land and you continue to buy land and that land is in place before the impact occurs so it continues to roll in front of it.

Question: Is any room in the ESA to use conservation leasing?
Sherry: That would not be appropriate under a habitat conservation plan because our guidelines are that the mitigation should be in perpetuity.

Question: Doesn't the landscape method put everything on an equal playing field versus a species by species type look?
Sherry: There sometimes can be sort of a combination, too, if there are certain species that have to be specifically dealt with because they're so rare. You could have some species that have to have more specific mitigation versus the rest of it that could be more habitat based. So yes. But for the most part, habitat based is the more appropriate.

Question: How common is it to give the landowner the option of whether they want to mitigate or avoid or minimize in these HCP plans?
Sherry: The ability on a project-by-project basis to avoid, versus mitigate, is going to depend on how the mechanism's set up. And also it's going to depend on where that landowner is probably within this mapping system. Whether they're in the development area versus the core areas would probably make a large difference on that.

Question: Can we look at this thing on an ecosystem approach and assume that whatever we have out there has got all kinds of endangered species on it, but we are now going to set aside so much available land that these species can flourish in, that it doesn't matter what we do inside the CLS to a large extent?
Sherry: It depends in large part on how quickly you think that the conservation can come into fruition. And where you're intending to mitigate first. We have to make sure that there are balances. That's a more tricky threshold, to make sure that our very rare species aren't being left out as the rest of the mitigation's getting put in place.

Question: Might some of the rare species be given a higher consideration in the planning?
Sherry: Yes, I think somehow that needs to be built in just so that we don't, as I said, end up building out all the areas of our very rare species and conserving the areas of the less rare species. We have to make sure in our analyses that we conduct in the issuance of the permit that there's going to be adequate mitigation for each of these species. Our analyses still have to be species by species under the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. So while you can plan and you can mitigate more on a habitat-based basis, we would then have to assume that whatever you're saying is going to be conserved, is conserved so that we can analyze that as a whole versus what's going to be impacted.

Question: Whom would you recommend, as the one with the greatest expertise, that we consult with regarding how the mitigation ratios that are being recommended by the science and tech advisory team were determined and justified?
Sherry: Paul Fromer of RECON
Maeveen: Paul Fromer

Question: Could you comment on the impact, if any, on mitigation ratios of permitting an opt-in and opt-out concept for those individual landowners or developers or groups of homeowners who might wish to apply separately for their own permitting?
Sherry: There are two elements to the answer on that one. One is that it would have to be; the mitigation ratios would likely be higher. Because we have to assume the worst case and that would be that those projects would then not come under this permit. And we have to look at the impacts and other people would likely be picking up their mitigation. So I would assume that they would be higher. The second thing is that with unlisted species in the permit, an opt-in, opt-out concept would not work. Because we could never cover those unlisted species if people are going to choose just to opt, to go for their own permit on an individual basis, it's likely that people would only go for listed species on their permit. So we would have no assurance that those unlisted species would be adequately conserved through the building out of Pima County.

Question: Would new landowners/homebuilders need to have their land surveyed for each of the 55 species under the 55 species plan, before obtaining a building permit?
Sherry: That's going to depend on how the implementation mechanisms are structured.    If it's habitat based, not likely. There may be certain individual species that are so rare that you would still need to do some surveys for them. But that's, it's going to depend on how the mitigation's going to be required and what kind of avoidance measures are going to be built into your building conditions. For example the ordinances may be structured to the extent that you know how you need to build that single family home where you don't need to do any surveys in certain areas.

Question: Why are we getting a Section 10 permit at all if we have to, each owner has to maybe go to you separately? I thought that was the whole idea of the county doing it for everybody?
Sherry: Surveys doesn't mean that you're coming to me separately. If surveys were necessary to properly implement this plan, they would be required by the county.

Question: If the Steering Committee and then the county made a recommendation to the Fish & Wildlife Service that we're looking at kind of a one-size-all mitigation ratio and the different levels of the Conservation Land System, if Fish & Wildlife Service looked at that and saw that it covered, that was covering the needs of all the species, then you could permit that. If you looked at that and there was certain species that you thought weren't quite covered well enough, then you could come back to us and hopefully we can deal with this before we finalize it. But you're saying that the Fish & Wildlife Service saw there was 3 or 4 or 5 species that weren't quite covered well enough, we could still have that one-size-fits-all except for, say if it was the pygmy owl in the recovery areas. Or if it was the Pima pineapple cactus in that habitat. Is that what you're saying?
Sherry: Yes.

Questions from the public:
Question: How much flexibility is there with these various alternatives?
Sherry: When you can't meet the issuance criteria. And unfortunately our issuance criteria for the permit are fairly vague. The 3 key ones are that there's an adequate funding source to implement the plan. The other one is that you minimize and mitigate the impacts to the covered species to the maximum extent practicable. And the third one is that our issuance of the permit won't jeopardize any of the species. So those are the analyses that we have to make, so there is a lot of flexibility within those 3 key criteria for how you're going to structure your plan.

Question: Are you going to continue to make those on a case-by-case basis?
Sherry: No. We would do it on the permit, on analyzing the application for the permit, along with the county's habitat conservation plan.

Question: Is an, 'in lieu fee' the same as an impact fee in terms of the limitations of the county in terms of using that within a mitigation system?
Maeveen: Not necessarily. There's different fees, fee structures available. And what I ought to do is just come back with a report that describes that for you, so you know what fees are available.

Motion: Consistent with previous Steering Committee action, the Steering Committee is recommending 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 by the Steering Committee and that these issues are concepts and more discussion needs to take place to develop the specifics. Additionally that on private land, prescriptive management of habitats for specified biological characteristics, prescriptive measures, prescriptive management will be the result of negotiations.

Action: Motion passed by an over two-thirds majority vote with 33 yes votes.   There were 42 members present at this time.

Conservation Lands System Acquisition Criteria: This issue was deferred.

Report from Recreation Technical Advisory Team-Don McGann, Chair:
Don McGann:   The Recreation Technical Advisory Team was appointed by the county administrator about a year and a half ago and we have been working to collect information on natural resource based recreation in eastern Pima County over the past 18 months, information that we think is useful in development and finalization of the SDCP as well as its implementation over time. We're here today just to provide you with some information about our activities and findings and recommendations. We're not asking the Steering Committee to take specific actions but just to consider recreation as it applies to the decisions that you are being asked to make.
The first item here is just a composition of the RECTAT. It consists of interested citizens, recreation user organizations or representatives thereof as well as agency representatives, people from the National Park Service, from the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service as well. They are volunteers all, have been working diligently over the past year and a half, meeting monthly or more frequently and I think a very good group of people. And there's a number of people in the back here, if you would maybe just stand up and acknowledge the people who have come that are members of the RECTAT committee. Debbie and Meg and Larry and Judy, and I think there was someone else there I may have missed.
I'd like to maybe just kind of tell you where we're coming from as a committee. The Recreation Technical Advisory Team has a vision and that is for the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan to maintain and expand opportunities for natural resource based outdoor recreation in Pima County, specifically eastern Pima County. Maybe just as an aside here it's important to identify what we're talking about in terms of natural resource based recreation. That is that range of activities that occurs in a natural setting, be it the forest or along a wash or our in the desert. It encompasses things like hiking and birding and mountain biking. It does not include outdoor recreational activities such as golf and tennis and youth sports. They are important components of our community but really don't relate as directly to the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. So we focused on that specific set of recreational activities. And it's our hope that the Plan can be a vehicle to advance and to provide expanded opportunities for those types of activities in Pima County.
Natural resource based outdoor recreation. And the distinction is, other forms of outdoor recreation, golf and tennis and youth sports, as opposed to hiking, birding, mountain biking and some of the things that we'll talk about in a moment. So it's a mouthful, but I think an important distinction. So that's our vision. We also have some concerns, and that is that there's a potential for the Plan to impact opportunities for those types of recreation in the community and perhaps restrict those opportunities. And I want to be very clear that the Team does support and will continue to support restrictions or regulations on a localized basis both in terms of area or in terms of time, where it's appropriate for the protection of resources. But we certainly do not want the Plan to be an impediment to those opportunities on a countywide basis. So we have a concern. But we do believe that we can facilitate or help advance this process, and our goal would be to develop a plan and see it through implementation that achieves the necessary and appropriate conservation objectives that have been put forward, but that also improves the quality of life for residents of Pima County by enhancing those opportunities for natural resource based recreation. So that is kind of where we're coming from, to kind of frame the discussion here.
Some of the activities that RECTAT has been involved in over the last year and a half include workshops with various user organizations. We have done mailings and surveys and collected information about who is doing what and where they're doing it, trends and things like that. We've tried to synthesize that data and include it in a report. It's my understanding that you will receive a copy of the report that we prepared, the title of which is "An Overview of Natural Resource Based Recreation in Eastern Pima County". I think that it will be a useful document in your deliberations and for other decision makers as well.
The scope of the report that we have prepared is really based on the fact that there are over 20 different natural resource based outdoor recreation activities that both the residents and visitors to Pima County engage in on a regular basis. And I think it's very easy to underestimate the scope of what is occurring and what does occur in this community. But we identified specifically 20 different activities and have looked at them in terms of who participates, where they engage in these activities, what trends are happening in terms of popularity and changes in use patterns, etc. The activities that we took a look at include, and I won't go into any detail on these but just identified which activities we took a look at, include birding, camping and a number of different types of camping, caving and mine exploration, cultural resource observation, dog walking and exercising. Also included, equestrian activities, and there is certainly a large group in the community that engages in that activity. Fishing, where it's possible to do in Pima County. Hiking, hunting is a popular activity, mineral collection and rock-hounding, mountain biking, native plant and animal collection, natural history study, off-highway vehicle use or OHV use, picnicking, rock climbing, very popular, scenic driving, popular particularly with visitors to the community. Stargazing and astronomy, swimming and perhaps more generally, water-based recreation, as well as target shooting. So those are the 20 different activities that we took a close look at and that are described in the report. And I think, I have a hunch that perhaps everyone here in this room or a family member or a visitor from out of town probably engaged in at least one of those and perhaps several of those in recent weeks or months. So it is a big deal in Pima County.
Very briefly, some of the findings that are included in the report, and in this presentation we'll be pretty general. First is that there's an incredibly wide range of opportunities for natural resource based recreation in Pima County. We certainly stack up with any community in the country in terms of those opportunities and probably have far more than many communities in other states. It's also important to note that there are high levels of participation. Specific quantitative data is hard to come by, but you look at various studies that have been done, at least on a localized basis and there are extremely high levels of participation by members of the community in those 20 and other related activities. I think it's also important to note that there are sites that you can do these things in close proximity to the population. You don't have to drive a day and a half to get to a place to mountain bike or to rock climb. You can in fact maybe drive a half an hour or not at all and engage in these activities in this community, and I think that's somewhat unique. Also, these are popular and they can occur on a year round basis, given the climate that we have here. So I think the long and short of this is that natural resource based outdoor recreation is a big deal in Pima County because of those opportunities and because of that participation. It's not only a big deal, but it's growing. The demand for that type of recreation is increasing and that's due to both the popularity of these particular activities, as well as in increasing population in the Tucson basis. And all trends seem to indicate that that increase in demand will continue at least for the foreseeable future.
And then it's not only a big deal and it's not only growing, but to relate it back to the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, it's important to acknowledge that these recreational activities do occur and will continue to occur on lands that are being considered for protection under the Plan. We have not seen final maps and I don't know where you are in terms of your recommendations for final maps, but it would I think be naïve to think that recreational activity does not occur on those lands that are being considered for some measure of protection as part of the conservation plan. There's also a quality of life issue and certainly some benefits that accrue to the public from these opportunities for natural resource based recreation. There are a number of studies that have indicated that this is very important in terms of how people perceive this as a community to live in. So there are some real quality of life benefits that accrue from those opportunities. There are not only quality life issues; there are economic benefits that accrue from this as well. Certainly those opportunities to engage in rock climbing or mountain biking or birding or whatever enhance the county as a destination for tourists. And when tourists come, there are tourist expenditures that are associated with that that benefit the local economy. There's also direct employment. There are a number of different businesses that employ people to, and sell equipment or services associated with these various activities. And as that equipment and those services are sold, there are sales tax revenues that are generated for the county and for other local jurisdictions. So there are both quality of life benefits as well as economic benefits that accrue from theseactivities. And it's a little bit surprising that with those benefits, that there really has been no comprehensive studies that document exactly what the scope is and what the distribution of those activities are in Pima County. There have been studies that have been done by the Park Service or the Forest Service that deal with these activities on a localized basis, but there has not been that comprehensive study, and we think that that's probably an omission that needs to be corrected.
So that, very briefly, is some of the findings that are included in the report and discussed in much more detail. The last part of this presentation, then, is some specific recommendations that we would like to provide the Steering Committee. Also recommendations to go to the Board of Supervisors and other decision makers in this overall process. The first of those is a general recommendation that you consider natural resource based recreation as it relates to the development of the SDCP. We're not asking you to take specific actions, but certainly in your deliberations in terms of lands to be included or statements of agreement, I think it would be an omission not to make specific reference to recreation as it relates to the Plan. The second recommendation is that the plan that you help craft specifically expand rather than restrict opportunities for natural resource based recreation. We certainly are cognizant of the fact that this represents a major investment on the part of the community and that we think that the benefits, including recreation, ought to be emphasized as the Plan is developed. The third recommendation relates to how the Plan is presented to the public. We feel very strongly that the benefits of the Plan, specifically as they relate to natural resource based outdoor recreation be identified and clearly articulated when the Plan moves forward and goes to the public. I think it's been our collective observation that there's some skepticism or in some case just indifference to the fact that the Plan may or may not affect or may or may not provide benefits for outdoor recreation as it moves forward, and we think that that's an opportunity to bring people on board and support your efforts and the efforts of the conservation plan. The Plan, obviously, has not been finalized. There are potential benefits in lands remaining open for outdoor recreation in the future, for access to be secured for access to areas where these activities occur. So in terms of protecting those lands, we think that there's a number of different benefits that can accrue.
The fourth recommendation here is that there really needs to be an evaluation, a study that documents two things. One is, what's currently happening? What is the scope, what is the distribution, where are these activities occurring in eastern Pima County? And I think as importantly, that study needs to identify trends and projected demand as population increases and the demand for these activities, what's the magnitude of that demand at some point in the future. So we think that that's an important study that needs to be implemented. And lastly, looking into the future, the Plan moves forward, there are various management plans, adaptive management plans that will be developed to implement the Plan. And we think that recreational interests need to be included in the development of those plans. There's always going to be a dynamic between the conservation of resources and the use of those same resources and we think that it's very important that recreational interests be included in that dialogue and those debates in terms of how the Plan ultimately plays itself out. So that's a very brief presentation, some of the things that we've been doing, some of the findings that are included in the report that you'll receive today and some of the recommendations that we would provide for you to consider and for the Board of Supervisors and others as well. And with that, I'm going to ask some of the other members of the RECTAT maybe to join me up here and we'll try to field questions that you have. Anyone who's willing? I'll try to field your questions, but Debbie here is with the, a long time member of the committee, with the Forest Service, Sue Clark, Meg Weesner, Judy Nicholson, Larry, I think that's the group that's here today.

Questions from Steering Committee members:
Question: How do you intend to expand opportunities and could you elaborate more on how access is a benefit?
Don: If there are in fact lands that are protected in some manner that also provide opportunities for outdoor recreation through the conservation plan, that in perpetuity those lands are protected, that's an opportunity for these various activities. Access is a site-specific issue in most cases but there's a long history in the community of restricted access to areas where these various activities, be they climbing or hiking, that history has occurred and if protection of lands can concurrently provide that access, we think that's a benefit as well.

Question: My question is actually for Sherry, for Sherry Barrett, and in terms of what our work is here with the Section 10 permit, can you explain how recreational impacts are dealt with in the Section 10 application?
Sherry Barrett: They could be considered just part of the impact area if there's new trails or whatever that would be needed. So it really depends on what you're talking about. If you're talking about a new trailhead or whatever, those are areas of habitat disturbance. On the other hand, I think they would fall into management of the lands that are put into conservation status, recreation should be considered. And also as part of the monitoring program, it should monitor effects of recreation on the resources we're trying to conserve.

Question: Is your committee going to cover the impact the 20-some activities will have on the environment?
Don: Well, in terms of the impacts, we're certainly not advocating that these activities be allowed at any time and in any place and in any level of concentration. We share those concerns and that objective of resource conservation. But we think that the two can be compatible. Where they occur and the level at which they occur needs to be addressed on a site-specific basis. But we want to ensure that those opportunities are preserved while resource conservation is occurring as well.
Meg Weesner: I work at Saguaro National Park and the National Park Service has a long history of balancing the need to protect the resources, which we've been asked to protect and yet also provide access to them for the people. In sum, if you don't have access to your national parks, you won't have public support either. But building in appropriate kinds of recreation in areas is a great enhancer and benefit of the other parts of your protection system. And that's why our committee has been very supportive of insuring that recreation is recognized and continued as part of the solution to the puzzle in the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan.

Question: Don't you think that given the highly destructive nature of all terrain vehicles, that that activity is worthy of some kind of a special recommendation?
Don: Well, it certainly is different in many respects than the others. But it is a legitimate activity. It does occur. Pima County has been exercising leadership in terms of developing the Motor Sports Park, where there's a designated area that has been disturbed prior to this activity and where people can go as opposed to just doing it out their backyard or at any location in the desert. Obviously these need special consideration and Debbie, I know you deal with this on an issue in the forest, that there are places where it's allowed and as part of the forest management plan, and places where it's not.
Debbie Kriegel: Yeah, I guess I can say a couple words about that. Yes, vehicles off roads do damage and there are some places that that's appropriate and lots of places that it's not. On the forest, it's not even allowed off roads. And we do try to encourage, we're actually trying to work on the forest encouraging responsible use of OHV's on designated roads. And it's working to some extent and I think as the county develops this plan, that kind of thought could go into still allowing the use but allowing it responsibly and on roads.

Question: What would help us the most is if you could identify specific areas that you consider high priority areas for preservation of certain of these 20 steps so that we can take that into account when we consider high areas of linkages for protections of habitats.
Don: Well, a couple thoughts. One, we were not suggesting that this is necessarily something that gets plugged into the Section 10 process. But it's a longer-range view of conservation and recreation as it relates to Pima County over the next decade or so. The report that you'll receive a copy of today does go into more detail in terms of, for each of these activities. What are some of the key locations where they occur, be it birding or mountain biking or whatever. So there's some additional information that we did not try to present today. After your review of that, if there is some, you have some specific questions related to any or all of those activities, we'd be more than happy to come back and continue that discussion. So this is admittedly very brief and an overview this morning, but there is some additional information in there and there is some more work that needs to be done.

Question: Have you taken a look at those trailheads and trails that have been closed or access restricted because of developments such as in Pima Canyon and in the eastern Catalinas?
Don: We've discussed it at some length and it appears to us that most of these issues are site specific in terms of ownership patterns and historic access to certain areas and probably need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. So I don't know that we have a general recommendation other than where those issues occur to the degree that the plan can help solve those problems, that we would like to see it do so.

Question: Do any of your proposed recreational trails cross private property or are all your suggestions on public property?
Don: We don't deal in this report with specific trails or recommend trails that they be, other than in concept that people like to hike, that there ought to be a trail system that they can use. Certainly private property in the implementation of a trail system, as Pima County has been attempting to do and continues to work on, those issues need to be addressed. But in terms of what we're proposing here, what we're talking about, it is simply these activities occur and the degree to which this plan can continue or maintain and expand those opportunities, that's what we'd like to see. We're not dealing with specific locations.

Question: Would you have to provide or would some group or entity have to provide surveys to see that endangered species were not being harmed before these activities were undertaken?
Don: I think there is an absolute mandate for new trails or new facilities if they in some manner affect TNE (?) species, that that would have to be identified and cleared as with any other project. If it falls under the jurisdiction of the US Fish and Wildlife, their concerns would have to be addressed. As to who would cover the cost, depends on the nature. If it's a new trailhead and it's being developed by Pima County, Pima County would have to bear that responsibility. If it's the Forest Service wants to do something, then the Forest Service would. If it is a private entity that wants to develop a facility, then they would be responsible for that.

Question: Can you go into detail on how the adaptive management provision, listed as number five in your presentation, works within your specific rubric?
Don: Well, I think there's probably a number of different dimensions. But ultimately, if a plan is adopted, over time there will need to be an adaptive management plan that monitors impacts that are occurring on those lands based on whatever activity might occur, be it in this case being recreation. And that there is a plan that if degradation begins to occur here, there is some response to that. And I'm not terribly familiar with how these adaptive management plans will play out as it relates to the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. But certainly there is that follow-up phase. You adopt a plan, you implement it and then you monitor and respond to what occurs based on what you thought might occur and what is actually occurring.

Question: Does anyone in your group have any access to polling or studies or statistics about how many people move to Tucson for recreational opportunities or how many people in the community hike or do different activities?
Don: We think that's a limitation in terms of the data we've been able to collect, because it's not a quantitative study. We have not gone out to trailheads and monitored trails and take headcounts. We think that's important information and that was the basis for the recommendation of more a comprehensive study that is quantitative in nature.
Judy Nicholson: I represent a camping group that's national, Loners on Wheels, and then we're the Pueblo Chapter based here in southern Arizona. In doing research for my chapter for the report, I spoke with several people in Pima County and was given the figure that you're all acquainted with the 50 cent per night tax that is put on vehicles, you know, campers or camping spots overnight in Pima County, that in the fiscal year 2001 to 2002, that tax alone collected $189,000 which meant that 94,000 people had to camp at least one night in Pima County. Now considering the amount of money that they bring in, and that is strictly on private campgrounds. That is not in the public forest service campgrounds or Pima County campgrounds such as Gilbert Ray. That is strictly private. So recreation and camping in Pima County is a major industry. The amount of dealers, the amount of people that provide services for recreational camping is astounding. I have no total dollar figure per year of what that brings, but if you figure a town of this size supports 17 recreational vehicle dealers, then there has to be some money in there someplace changing hands. And what we want to do is avoid, what we want to do is maintain the quality of camping in Pima County by not putting out the perception that everything in Pima County is off bounds because it's all tied up in a recreational plan and you can't drive through it or you can't visit it or you can't be there and do anything else that you enjoy.

Question: Have you provided or can you provide a succinct statement or list of specific provisions that you either do or do not want in the plan?
Don: We have not done that. We will meet again and certainly give that some consideration. If that would be useful to you as a Steering Committee, I think we would certainly consider that.

Don: Thank you, and I just wanted to close by thanking Frances Werner. She's been a member of RECTAT. We didn't make her get up here and stand this morning, but we appreciate her efforts.

Questions and or comments from the public:
Question:   I would implore you to consider as a component in the final plan a designation of those specific areas that are popular recreational rock hounding places to provide for continuing rock hounding recreational opportunities.

·        David Steele noted that Maeveen Behan brought the RecTAT report and maps on CD for distribution.
Discussion:
Motion: Adopt Recommendation 1 That decision makers consider natural resource based outdoor recreation as they develop the Section 10 permit application and the SDCP.
Action: Motion passed with no objections.

Motion: Defer Recommendation 2 -- That the SDCP expand opportunities for natural resource based outdoor recreation in eastern Pima County, keeping in mind that restrictions in sensitive areas may be necessary.
Action: Motion passed. 47 present            39 yes votes    8 no votes

Motion: Adopt Recommendation 3 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.
Action: Motion passed with no objections.

Motion: Adopt Recommendation 4 -- That a comprehensive peer reviewed 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 eastern Pima County.
Action: Motion failed. 47 present             26 no votes    21 yes votes

Motion: Adopt Recommendation 4 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.
Action: Motion passed 47 present            36 yes votes    11 no votes

Motion: Adopt Recommendation 5 -- That recreational interests be included in the development and implementation of adaptive management plans.
Action: Motion passed with no objections.

Future meeting schedules and issues for future meeting agendas and business:
The suggestion was made to ask the Steering Committee to vote on converting the February 26th study session to meeting, but there were not enough members present to vote, therefore this was tabled and February 26th would remain a study session.

Call to the public: None

Adjourned 9:00pm