Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08171999 - D3 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISOR w aContra FROM:, DENIMS M. BARRY, AICA Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County DATE: August 17, 1999 SUBJECT: REPORT ON COMPLETION OF EAST COUNTY BIODIVERSITY STUDY i SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUNDAND JUSTIFICATION l� Cr �ESr'� illk.dATi ACCEPT report from the Community Development Director on the completion of the East County Biodiversity Pilot Study and the Fest County Pilot Study Task Force consensus process. FISCAL IMPA T None. BAQ The East County Pilot Study Task Force ("Task Force") consensus process concluded In May of 1999 with an agreement among the broad range of interests represented on the Task Force to release two reports: 1) the Report from the East County Pilot Study Task Force (or Task Force Report) which includes consensus policy recommendations on improving biological resource conservation; and 2) the East County Pilot Sturdy Technical Report (or Technical Report) which contains biological and economic information on resources and the conservation process written by professional consulting firms with input from the Task Force. The composition of the Task Force is described in detail in the Task Furca Report (see the signature page at the front of the document and the roster in Section 3.3), but in general the Task Force included representatives of the primary interests and organizations involved in biological resource conservation and land usw conservation advocates, developers, landowners, community interests, local government, and wildlife agencies. This staff report describes the history of the East County Biodiversity Study and the Task Force process, summarizes the content of the two reports, and concludes by assessing the primary outcomes and lessons of the Task Force process. CONTINUED X YES SIGNATURE:Lz��� RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD CO € IST APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S)- ACTION IG IA URE( )eACTION OF BOARD ON August 17, 1929 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED y OTHE IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the above report is ACCEPT EC without ratification of the documents contained therein, VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS (ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: DOES, AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE ABSENT:T ABSTAIN, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN, Contact: John Kopchik, CDD (925-335-1227) ATTESTED CC., Community Development Department (CDD) PHIL I ATC OR, CLE IG OF Counter Administrator THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Agricultural Commissioner � AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ry c:\,M�!,ocU-IdJKOPr-\JOHN-Cosc\EcTFFINL.Bo BYe-e't1__-,DEPUT`Y I Report on Completion of East County Blodiversity Study August d 7, t 999 Page 2 History. The East County Biodiversity Study was originally commissioned in 1995 by the Alameda-Contra Costa Biodiversity Working Group', a partnership of state and local government agencies formed in 1993 to work with the various interested and affected parties to explore better gays for conserving the biodiversity of the region, At the outset, the study was to include a regional assessment of biological resources and land use, storage of the gathered information in a Geographic Information System "GWS" ) database, and a computerized analysis or "weighting strategy" to simultaneously consider biological resources and proposed land uses to identify the best areas for conservation. In 1996, as work on the study was proceeding and progress updates were made at Biodiversity Working Group meetings, landowners and developers began to empress concern. The reasons given for this concern included the weighting strategy, the reaps to be generated with the weighting strategy, reaps that would shower habitat and species information from the database, and the perception that landowners and developers had not been adequately involved. To respond to these concerns, staff convened several public workshops in early 1997 to discuss how best to modify the public process for the study to assure that a broad range of interests could provide active and substantive input. The East County Task Force was the outcome of these discussions. Key features of the Task Force process included the following., 1) a mission of reviewing and revising the study and developing policy/imple'mdntation recommendations; 211 broad representation of the major constituencies involved in conservation and land use; and 3) a consensus-based rather than vote-based decision- making process. Task Force Report- The Task Force Report was ratified by the Task Force on May 6, 1999. The Task Force Report has three primary components-. (a) background information on the Task Force and on biological resource conservation issues (Sections 1 -3); (b) recommendations from the Task Force on improving the process for conserving biological resources (Section 4); and c short papers on a variety of subjects related to conservation and land use issues, including property rights, resource stewardship, funding sources for conservation, and criteria for habitat conservation (Section 5). The background information and recommendations contained in Sections "1 -4- represent consensus findings of the Task Force. The short papers in Section 5 were solicited by the Task Force but were written by individual Task Force members. Section 5 also contains a brief summary of a subject on which the mask Force was unable to reach consensus, namely, inclusion of the computerized mapping analysis, or "weighting strategy," in the Technical Report, The Task Farce recommendations presented in Section 4 may be the most significant portion of the report, primarily because so many diverse interests participated in shaping there. Some ideas presented in Section 4 include recommendations that, • additional funding mechanisms be developed to compensate willing landowners for resource stewardship and protection. • the public contribute its fair share of funds to Delp support the oasts of resource conservation. • biological conservation be coordinated on a larger scale to aid in maintaining functional natural systems and habitat connectivity. • mailable alternatives to project-by-project regulatory review, permitting, and mitigation be considered that could reduce the cost and time dedicated to ''he agency sponsors of F'qe Biodiversity Working Group are.Aarneda County,Contra Costa Co-unty,the Cort~a Costa`eater District,the Depart hent of Fish and Game,&-e East Bay Municipal Utility Distmet and the Bast Bay Regional?ark District. 2 Report on Completion of East County Blod€vers€ty Study A-ugust 17, 1999 Page 3 processing while increasing the resources and options available to perform; conservation. Technical Report, The Technical Report provides information on and analysis of both biological and economic topics. The biological sections were written by Jones & Stoles associates and derive from the original technical work commissioned in 1995 by the Biodiversity Working Group prior to the formation of the Task Force. These sections include a description of the methods used to assemble a database of biological and land use information; maps displaying some aspects of the collected data; a description of a computer-driven methodology, or weighting strategy, to assess resource values and identify conservation priorities; and a discussion of the use and (imitations of this information (Sections 1 -3 and Appendices B-D). The economics section was written by Economic & Planning Systems. It was commissioned during the Task Force process. The economics section includes a generalized cost-benefit analysis of cooperative approaches to resource impact permitting and mitigation, including a discussion: of habitat Conservation Flans and mitigation banking (Section 4), The Task Force convened a Biological Technical review Committee composed of university faculty and private sector professionals to review the biological information and provide advice on its use, and its findings are presented in Appendix A. The Task Force reviewed and helped to revise the Technical,deport, but decided that it was not appropriate to attempt to ratify the document because it contains detailed technical information prepared by professionals in these fields. However, reaps showing areas of higher and lower resource and conservation value, as determined by the computerized weighting strategy mentioned above, were not included because the Task Force could not reach agreement on the validity and value of these maps (see Section 5.1 of the Task Force Report for additional discussion of this issue), likewise, no comprehensive reaps of biological or land use data were included because some members of the Task Force were concerned about accuracy and misuse. The remaining members were willing to omit such detailed maps from the report, even though they thought the raps would present valuable information on regional conservation priorities, in order to gain broader consensus on the Task Force Report. Conclusions: Though long and occasionally frustrating, staff believes that the Task Farce process was, nevertheless, a helpful and valuable undertaking that improved communication and identified potential improvements to the conservation process that could be supported by a broad range of interests. The Task Force participants volunteered substantial time and patience to this end, and their contributions should be and are greatly appreciated, Other staff observations on the Task Force process include the following: Initial Dubllc outreach.regarding the study was inadegua Better involvement of a broad range of parties at the outset of the study would have identified potential areas of controversy earlier and allowed these topics to be addressed more sensitively and, ultimately, more thoroughly. Once the Task Force process was initiated, significant time was spent overcoming dissatisfaction with the original outreach effort, Consensus-lased processes involving full range-of points of view cam be constructive. While certainly not a panacea and not a substitute for leadership, broad, consensus processes such as the East County Task Force process can be a useful tool in certain circumstances for pushing through conflict and addressing core interests, Such processes can in this way be a means for identifying mutually beneficial approaches to solving problems. They are also a way to involve citizens in government in a manner which is hopefully more participatory and meaningful. 3 Report on completion of East county Biodiversity Study August 7; 1999 Page 4 Exoenence with the Task Force suggests two key factors in making such processes work. I) raking a dedicated effort to determine the full range of interests/perspectives and recruiting participation accordingly; and 2) directing the consensus process toward topics on which the involved parties have an incentive to negotiate. The Task Force process successfully followed the first guideline, but was less successful with respect to the second. For instance, discussion on the details of the study and the weighting strategy methodology were hindered, in part, because the parties who were skeptical of the value of such information stood to gain little by agreeing to these components. Without a tradeoff, such as some process in place to buy sensitive lands, consensus was difficult to reach. Due to these constraints, the focus of the `bask Force shifted increasingly to policy recommendations, a topic which was more productive from a consensus point of view because the parties had incentives to reach agreement. The consensus recommendations of the Task Force Drovlde some valuable tr ra dor �clr l � r�l�f rra rel c1 bloldaic l resource conservation and land use. The Recommendation principles and the fifteen General Recommendations presented in Section 4 of the Task Force Report are, as mentioned previously, the most significant outcome of the Task Force process, Though somewhat general by necessity, these recommendations do provide helpful insight or. how the conservation process can be improved from a multi-objective perspective and on the types of reforms which may enjoy broad support. For example, public funding for habitat and open space acquisition, buffers between less-compatible land uses, regional approaches to resource assessment and conservation, and efforts to improve the effectiveness of resource protection regulations while streamlining the regulatory process are constructive actions which, based on staff perception of the Task Force process, could reflect the interests of many groups and organizations, It is important to note that implementing the Task Farce policy recommendations would require more work, the addition of detail, and continued dialogue with affected parties to translate consensus on broad policy questions into support for specific implementation measures, For instance, many of the recommendations by the Task Force describe improvements to the conservation process that could potentially be achieved through implementation of Habitat Conservation Plans ("HCRs") and/or other approaches to coordinating conservation and permitting on a more regional basis. However, the Task Force did not explicitly address HCPs or other similar planning tools in its recommendations, as such discussions would have taken significant time and would have involved more detail and more issues of 1€ plerentation than was appropriate for a general policy forum such as the Task Force. As a result, though it is staff's view that HCRs are an appropriate vehicle for implementing many of the recommendations and principles developed by the Task Force, more work would be required to build consensus around such specific proposals. Attachments., Fast County Pilot Study Task Force Report Fast County Pilot Study Technical Report c:\MvoocU--I\jKOPC\jOHN-oLo\EcTFF� !-.BO :- ,� ,,�x: . ... " .. .1X-Xl-,.::I ,'.-...,:, ,< 'XX - -I-...-..- --Y�I. -, .-�'.�.Il , ... .. I:.":...:,..,.. -X. 11:11 " , "' , ::�I .. ::: .:., --'..:-x,--.l..-.-X.--'X-.",....... " ... ...� .�X:�.,.�Ix,zl�lzw�- - :"::.....,..I......I.... ................,......::: ....:.. - ::: ",:, ........ ........I I....I.:..:,.�..........................................- . . - I .. � ...- ,..::,.:-:::"%,.*:,.:x:,��":,:::::� ,.................,".............................. .... ...1:XI.::�:', <, ,..,:-:-.M.*.-':� ......x,-K, X -I... .. ........ . ?..'�,"..': .1 -,�'. - ......:.-:�::::e-, ":I-..".....,.."::".,...."..'...."."......... ��.. :. . .1 1.1.1-1.11-.-.....-...-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-I 1. . , , .., -F .:1XI 1:��//�- � .::�-:-:-:-:-:�.�,.,., :, . :.:.:.:",.,,.........�.-.-.�..:,.:"...."",..'....................�........,.................�................�..."..........�.:�::::..:.:�l:.:::::::.:.:,:�::.:.":.:.:.::.:.:.:.:.:..: ..,... . .X yz W"M ME,� * .xx. . . : I ... .".. I I.I .I . -:.�.".. -...'.. .:I. . I --.:.:::,.:-,". ":................. I -. . ":O,:-���, .. , � � 1. �'.....X.,."'I"".- - - ,�� "� *i::....X.--�'fz;o I .:::%:X.X.",". "".: :.:.":.:.:.::.:.:.:.::.:......,......................."''I'll . ...:: , ::,i���:���:�.,,i��ii�ii:i�,"?.i�-.�::::�:i��.��. �.-S�,:,. .. - �I.:�.",.::.. - ,, " , ,:.:,... X'"I'l ... .1. - .�.:"x.."., . ......-.-I.-,,.,,-.-,.:lX-X ". :"',z..... " ... ....�....�. ........ -'-I ,.. .. .. .. ",x,:. .:..',":.:.:::, .:. ,,...-I.I.,......I...I-.-.--1...:: ... ....-.-,...-..:�.�:.:.:�.:�<.:.�:.:.:.:.:.:.,:.:.:.:.:.:.:.�:��z,.�.:,.", 1, .:::,.-:::,.:.,.:'-:::::�..,....�:]::�]....'.'�."'.i:]i:]:"..,i."���:�]��."]�li.'�.'. --. ....'":,": .... -::� , �.:�,��,�/z; ,�;. , -� --,::..��'..�-�--z.,�-.'- .."I X .. -, : �: .. I , , , I I �.�I...�'...I....... _ M, � ..-,.-.-.-.-..,..,..Y,:.::.:::,..:.:.:".":.".:.,:,.,,,., - , , - :. , X." .. :, . X: : ". . : �:*'.",�,X- :,::" - " "",-":::::ff:" .,�-�,:`, "'. ...-.,:....- " ".�w l." � .. �?�.-,:.".1:.:,:: :, :. �� 'i .,;,, . .::.: ::: -,.-.-.-.-...x.�..,- -- .. ......I� :I...- ...... .:. I. . '.:""":::�::,:�,:::::::��:�'- Xo/lIo"I 1�1;I.,; �� .. ., ,.:.1 I.X.......:...,.x.:::,. ..I.I I::::�I..I.I.I.I..." :: � . " �� � M, " :� ::.-1. x ..:::� ,� �i��,�.::�:.....: I.. .. .. - .�. , ,."mz, .. .. .._ ",.:,:,:::,:... ...............................x I.:I.-N' F ," , ,W-I:f�:-"", I-,........".............., :::,."l.".:":::::� .� - .. " I , .� , .., -",'.. .....N. -:.:-:-:.:-X..-.-.-.-,"....... .. :.:x.:-::.:,:...........111......"..........."...................,."::::::::::,:::'. '.."...,...-,.,.,.-........ -�:::::: x.� M ,:::., :� .... ..:I I.% .. I ..,:*m z, ?.'�i:�:,-� x".,:.X.:.,:.:.�:-:-:-:-�:-�:-:--,:-:.:,....".�.�.-.-.-.-,::::::::::::::::'I'l:.:.:.".".�.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:�l..:.:.....:.:........�.......'-::::::::,::::::::'"l::::::::::::,::::.:: .............................1-1. I....I.:. :*... . ", " ................�...�....... -.:.::.:.:.::",.:".:.:,.,,::::::,:::::::::::::::::::::�::::�::�:.:.:.:.:.:.:�:.::�,�, � ", . ......... ...... .. ... -::.::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::� -.1-I....,.......:.�.:"..":.::..........................'�........�". . :, "::�"'.":,-,-,-.-�:::,'::::::::`,:...:l.:l.X:::::.,::::� .:::::�.":1.: -X.",.:."::-, , .. ..:.:.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::::,:.::.:.:::.:.::.:.:.:.:.:.,..:.:.:.:.:..,.:l.:.:l.::,-.:.:.:.:........."..�.,.,..,.,,.-.,.,.,.-.,.,.-.,.-.-..-.-.-.-..............::::I . .1............I..,.:�;.`.-,X.:-X. . .:'Z,�, ml ...,------:::::::-":-'.,':......... .... .....................................:.:.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,..:.:.:.:.:I....I... ...-�.....- , '-.,.�?�'. . ... , . :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ,11.1........... " -, : . 0:%......:....:...:.,:.::.:�,:-:-":.......X...............................:.:.:.:.::.:.:.:.::.:.::.::.::.:.:.:.:�:.:.:.:,....:.:.:.::.:.:.:.:::.:::.:",:::::::,:.:.:::.:.,::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::.:.:.::.:.:.:,..:.:.:.:. .q�:.:.:':.:.:.:.:.:.:.X.....I. .....,........::::. ......�, , ME. , "'' "' , ", , ... .- ..:..�:,..:.:.:.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::.:.:".....,...-...�..................................... - I....I...I....I........:.:.:.::.:.:.::.:::: x:::::: . .. �I X...,.:�-X-KM ;" .. , ,,X"....I.....I........:..........................'...,....., ...................... ....................... .....................::� -........... ... .,..",:�".::-:-:-:-�:.:-:.:.:.,..,...,... ... '. ..........."................. ...... . ..............,"...'..."""`� ,: I .. " �...:.:.::.:.::.:.::.::"':.:-:-:.:-:.:-:.:.X-:.:-:.:--...........-..-................---..",::,.�-"�...I'll.... -.,.-.,"..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: �,;".. ,".1, . .... .:��,:-:.:--.� . ................... ,............. .. ....-." ,,� �...........I I............-...........................................................I I.......I � �;� m,%:::-"..X: ":.:.:.�:.:.:".:.:.,:.:.:.:.:."..:.:�l,.::I:::"-- .........................�..�.....:..............................................�....,......... .:.:.:,..:.:.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::.:.:.,:.:i:::::.::::::�� '. �,-­ /. .I, X.:X-"X':-:.,. ....-X.: ..".1", .� . ...:.:.:.:.:.X.:.,,:.:"..-.:.:.:,..:.:".:,.�:...:.......,.....,...,.,.,,.-.,,,,..,'.."........... .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:�:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::.::.:.:::.::",:.::.:�:.::::.:.:.:.:.:,�.:::::,::...X:...:,::.,::::::::::::::.:",:.:.::.:.,:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:�.::.:.:�::.::.:.::.:................ -Fz;,W�MON. "' ':X.:X.,�X: ..I.".'.'.".'�'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.":.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. .. .::::::.:........... .. ,.:" :-:.:-:-:�:-:-::.:.:.:-::-:.:,..:--I...I..........................."........ :::::................................... ... .11, -:.",.:�-.::.'-'.:X:,.:. .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. ......... , -- j�:j-:-X-X<,>X.;,::%�,"' I :l.-:-X-:-.-"X-:-X�lX'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'........�.":.:.:.:.:.:.:,.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:".:.:.:.::.:.::.:.:.::.::.".."�.-.,......."'.- ------�---....................."'."'.'."""""'............... ..... :-::.::.:.:.::..,:::..":::,i:::�:j:�:::�:::]:�:�:�:::::::�::::,�%:...........'.'.'.'.'­.:�/-',:�, .... .....................................�.....................................X:.X....................... . .. " , ,�.- ................................................................ ............................................. "..,:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:".:.:.:. ": ........"�,:]I:i.�il:�,:��illi�i�i:�i:����::]��"�::��.i��i�].��,,�:�.-:'�,,,.:.�":"-�.,�*����::.,N..�,-- '.,,'/.,"/ ,, .::::::::::::::::::I . .-.:...-...........:...:l'.*......":...:.,......... .......I.-I..................... ........ ........ ........................... ....::::::::: ::::::. . . .. .. ....... ......".�'..'........"..".."...".".".".,..,..""."....,..".........".:::.::::.::::: . ........I......:.:.::":,.:.:.:.:.:.:.::.:.:.:.:.::.:.:.:.:.: ........................ -............ ..'....'.......". .:.::.:,::.:-::.X....'.." .. -:::-:-:.:-:-:-:X..I.I...I................. ''.. - �..........I...e.:.:.:.:.:..I............................. . : - . .......�:::::::::,.::""'".-`-",-`q......."ll'11.........-.'.".:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:....-.,�.-.,,...I I.... . . . - , -:::: . .- ... .........,............":.:.::.:.::::.:.:.:.:�.....�....�..... :.....::,.....", '�-.i,M-- 1, -1...�.:,-.. ., ......... ...... .ffil: :... , ,..:, , :.:-:.l:-X-" .............................:.:.::.:.:.:�.:,..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::.:.:.:.:.:.:::.:.::.:.:":.:.:.::.::::.::"::.:.::.:.:.:.:".:.:.:.::.:.::::.:.:.:.::.":.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,..:.:.:.:.:::::::::::::: ..�-........I......-i::. ,'�.K:;�*��:.'O/-� ':, . ................. . '.�i,.-::iUll,�.....:, , ..... .".......�.1, . . .....: �".�.��.� . . . .......: ............ �.?..::i�.'.�e� . --�--.-----..X.,'.'."�X.'-X-"-'."-�-......V.'.:::.:.�:::.:.-......................-.-.-,..,.-.-.,..:.:.:.:�.:::::.::.:,::.:.:.:.:.:.":.:",:.:.:.:.. .. .:.:.:.�:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::.::.:.:.:.:.:... ..:.:.:.:.:.:.::.:.:........"".-.-.-.-.,.,.-.-.-.-.-.,.,- ,�� .��:i.� ..... ....... � �......"�.'.'.".'.'.'.'..."........"....:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:...:.:.:.,.:.:.:.,.:..........�..... .. , I............................... I-I.I..,..........................:,:,:,:,:::.............. .. . -.-:-X-"l:-:-: .., X, . .... . I., - .. m M: :,,,�,,,��]:�il�,ii:�::i�:, i:�:.%:/, ::z . " ," .. , .*...."X. " -:1i:�::-, `i�:��i:i ,��, ,,�� : : -X.:X, m - .. ::: ::::"::::, ::::::, I - � �i��?-i:�i, - �ili��.... //g..,.-- ... .:�..` ", , "'"?"""', """": :M " ... " ,, " ...... - , . "' """"',"" , . .., ,,.... "' ::q,-:...-" : X., -- I... ..."... , .I.X ... . :11- �--. ,, Fzzz;"", I.. . . X .- - -:1 :::%, :� .:. : ...... �.-:-: ." '. .11. .. ,X� I..... :,% ".I.. ..- I. :,..:.: :* ",/K I :.x.",-:-:,-:.n... :" ,:.,- - --I ... *W. -11 ,,,, .".. .. . 1. I . X.:-- -- �- :,-K I '..X X:x�x I - ... ... I..:.:.:. .": ,:� � . .-x-:-:-:.-.-...-.- X.I. ..:..I. I.... ...., .:,... .. 'm :i I....... ....*. ..... .-,...,.:. :. '. ... I.... .W. - .., .., ..:... ... ..:, *:*�.*�*K*i*�:� . ........".,.""..-.................M......'.'."�...'" ft , .-l.-...�.-.-.:::::�:,::�.: :::,.::�::" ......I I............... ... .............................. . -.......... ....:: .. 9- . . .................................. :::" %........". ...........�.--,-.....- X ,: :::.., ...... .................................. . I .: - �-.......... � ...... ....., ....................................."........".. ......: 1.1-1. `*�*:*i*�*i,X.* . ,. ........ . ........... ..." ::::i:::::.5�:::�:::]:i:i:i:::�:�:j:�:i:i::......,....I-X.:.:.:-:-:-:......-...I-...... ... I .:.�:�:.:.:�:.:.:�:.�:.:.:.:.:.:.: :. :.-: ,�X.:.--I " ," :�*�**]*�� �i�'�,,'�'i?.i�, ......,, . ........................�...: ::::"" .I . �---, ....�-,I I""I'll"", ..".:.:.:.:.::i:�.�l?..-"..".-...-..,......"."�. , ..1 "... """"""""".,"" - ,;":::,:-".:::::l.-.::-.� ... i--'�.-...............,.�...,......,....,..,."., -,.-.-,.-,- � ,,:?�,.,:z-?-,l,M---,--11�11 .-- I ,.:..:,:.::...:..- ,.:" .. -1: - .. , . ::�". ,..::"'".: -e:I.::-:�l.:-X x 'O"',,,":'��.-- :X::,:"': ...I ..�.- i:i:i:::]:]]:�i��i:ii::i:���:��]�:f -"':-:-�X"-X-X::,-"::... -.,:::. : :".'.' "*,�, -, -�,, .- : X ,.,: ..��]:il:li�i:�:��i:�i�:i::� .. ,.:�,�-,R; .. ;X; V,-;-, �,-x.,.� .-.:."--,-,....x.-.*.'-:.-l.... : : :...:", . .:,:.: :.:-�'-.1 R-� "I, , '. I . ,:."."..X�.:,..:.:.�:1.�.�,.�.I....".I I -,'11/0. ... , :.. ,..,.-., W .. ..................... .- � ,'. , x-:-�x,...-..l. .. - i ;. . .;.::::,:::.:�.�.�.�:jm.--.-:: .. 11,11-11--, � ,;::::::,..:,: .... .I...... .--,; .� �:� <�<<.:..-�:�,�:�-.2�-.,:;�.,�.:,::: '%.i:*K�*'XXK*:,**�.-� , :.,:.:, I.. I::..�;:�.I... :, 0 111,1;,� .. : X. .��. --::.*.� 'iX��i�ii�i�i��,,,-,, ;��':�i:i:i:��.�;i:��:�:�i�.:�i*!:�:!:�i:i:i:i�.:i:j�":: gog'g,,,,�,"/g// .. I.... .:.:.��.:..:.:.:.:-:.�:�:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:...:�.: �-.../g.m.:x , - , -l;:�:::::::::,. ".,.::,'. .".."-......O.....,.... �...��.,i:!:i:i:i�.:!:i!.::�::�,.*:��� ,z ....,"....",..... . ,�:i�iK.� -�i� ': , . � ., ,WWW��1101/ ..... "I -- .:i:::�:::::::�:::::i:::::�:�:::i:::::::�:::�:::::::�:::::::::, . . '. . . , , - . :::: i .... .."".....:.:.:�::�;.:.:.:.:.�:��.:�:�:..� . -�- --i%----,-.. ":]:i]�;:,,:,,j�,�:?�:i��.�:i:i����,'i��������:, �, -::��. - , .� '..., F", �.,-/,:UZ/� �.K:�/?., I Ix . *...... ..... . .g * .....�:�i�:i��ii�.i� " � - � - -...........I....i�......... . ,M,/l/,zz,lMMY'/, , . , --:'�', . .... ..:���i�:]��:i�i�i.-,�.i�,�.����i��ii�ii��:::��i�ii�:i]���i:�:�.,:�!����ii�i�:�i���'����i� -. . � �ii:�:i!��i:]:]:� , .. . .. ... -.". I - .. :11:1.y , l:-X-:-"", . : m :�,'......, ...".-,f . 10 i:i� .:::::il �x,--.:,.:--.--x�---.:.-.ol-K.X-1, ffl;,K�.�"�I. ,-.1. - .: 0 , '. , :�?�::�:::�:::,�-.":.-:X.I....... vz/:I,N�;,��..- .. . , -'l..,.,.-.-...:.X.:,.X.:,............'....... 1, :: : WOMMOI/X: . 2,zOO//`,/�`X: , . . . I :� ,--��ii:�:-�...i�.�::x:li�, r!...k i"� i�� j"w", z .r.�, . ..i�i�i��.�� .'.:.,:�:.:.:.:..��- 7.... . " ""�' " 11 "' .?... -�X.I":�.":I...11 1:���� i . , ...":::: ........ I F. M , I .. -...::x::: x.-:.X..-:.:-: :.'�"-X-"-,-,-.�:]:j�.:j::::��:�:,:::::�:j: I.-...I.x. ./ '", "" "" " �:X ,j,. .'i-Il.", llx,� " "'��"","�""""�'�",",","',',"',',"',"',,"',�',', , ", " ­�,.�...:......�.-�"�-":�/g:-� . 'li� ,V m ,�,.� . �. ::i::,..i::::::::......-.........'.f�:::�.��,.-,,-,-.-.-.�.�.-.�.-.-.,.-.-.-. - "..'-':�:i::.:.�:.:.:.:.:.:�:.:.:.:.�,,.��:�:.:.:�.� Pf mgz: . !!i !114" "" OWN ......., ................X,-.-.-.".-,.. ":.:.�:-:-:.:,.,..:,..:,.,..�:-:-:.�:i:�:��:]:�-,'.i.?�?".:�:��.il���.�-.��i?..-.,...........�.� ,:::%'W':� '. , :.... . .1. .., ll::�:�� . � ..........�.._:�:%::,�:, � I �.: � . .. , .;?:j:/X�: :%�.-/" ..,.::..:.::...",i:���i:�:ii���ii�iii�,,,�', " :- I.-.-.-.-.-.-,- ......... . i'. .1.�'. ..................,:, .., �1�11 ,�:iii�%.� � " , I..-.-..I I-I-.... .: �*i��i:�, �.- , , ,:;,m-m-g: -�//- �""...",'... . .�-.-.�l.-.-,..,.-.-��l.-.-.�-:�.,.-.-,�.,.��,, ....................X.:. . ,� ... 11:1z..- I-I 11 .......... �:... ,1,1.1-11.,�..............�. m ::"-:":"�,:":,.:.:.: 1. ...,- ,-,",,,,,,-,"�,z a ,,.,.,.,,, ,,,,W""".".".,.�",....",........,. .�I/xz. ..:�,::l.-:-:.:-:l.-:.: I I.--Z .. ., '. - - .. .........��-'--X.,:�"ll . .I I 6.-"��- .... .,'; -.: .:: ,..: .....C....m-.,...M.""O .....,�.'*.�..".,O.,...."""""",.n :::,.-:-:.:-:.:.:..:::::::::�.::.�..::.:.%,1:1:-:.:--,:.:-�:.:.:.:,..:.:.:.�:.:.:.:.,- ":::]:]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: "::" . - .:.:.:...:.:�.:...:.��.:.�:��.:<,.� - �M O.- Z>// -1-1..... ..:'..,I,::.:.............. .. . .:::�::::::-:::::-:::::::::... .:, , �%,." , .....I.... :.x.:.:.:.:.: . ..":.:.X-:-X-:-.-X.:-:-.11.- *; - :. .. -:.:l..:-:-:-:-:-:.::..,X"l:-:."l:.:.:.:.:.:-::.:-:,"................ ll�.--.- :q-1. . ........X..I....I.......",�,.,.,.���.....".�'......��'ll'I.- - - :,:,.:-X.:-:-:,-:::::: -X.N.: .:.:.�:.:":.":.:.:,..:.:".:.:.:.:.:.: :,i��%.ii�]�:��::i�:�,::��:]:��:���i:ii�]�li::i��:i�i�����]���i """, .......l.... ............'..............., �, -X��.--,,-- . X�-:-:-,-.-.`."-."-."..- .I... ""': I..1...,:.X.IX � -�, -:-,:-:.:.:-:-:...'..'.......'.I.-I"..-.-.-....,.......::::::::::::%:::..................., .:.,:.�:.:,..:.:��,..:�.�:.:.:.:.:.:-:-:-:l.-x,:,.:: :.... I - ..:,X�."X.:.,,.:�.:.:*�.�:.:.:.�.:�.:,.�..��.": �"...:...:.I.. . X:. -.-.-.-.:.:,�. .. . , ." ,::.:-:-:-:.:.:�.::::�:".-, �,.:-.�:�:�:�i�::]:ii:]�:�:��� -:j:j:�:::��::::::::'��:: .. X.x.,.......-....." .I..�I I.. ,��z,M�l WO , .:,.,11 .. .1. .�-.�I........'.................... ..:. ........ I...I.....- '�:-:-:-:.:-x-:-:-� -�...........-.............. ."" ..."�-'�,.�I". . . � I::::.....::::...,.,:: ,:�., :"....:"": :..�:, ,�.'���:::��:��:::i:i:i:�:j:�-.'�:j�:�:�:�-j:j:�:i:ii�:i::::�::�::::�:.:�::::::::�::::i::",�.:�::::::::::::�:::::: ,?.,:: ,-.. - :.,: : .�]��.:,.�j:j.'. � ;� ::x;::.: ..:::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:::::::::,. � , �..... � ,x:�:j�y _ , � . . -::x . ,x,,�o .:-X,:::::",:I::::::::,,.:".:"'-""'.,.,.,..,. .... ... .". .x...".,........., .,-.--.1 -� x--�,%,�,;,*,�,,�,----.--.%�;�...,. ,�:,- '.-i*.',.-.'-�................. ".i?..:-"I--�-I I.......I... ... ;:�,;",.�.,:..�.',",":-,Ix�.,:";,:..."z ,.�,IsK..,:;�;�"., .........IM X.*" --:.-��-,-- .�-X-:-�X-: :::]:�:::::::::�:::�:::.......�.�-.,.-,���x.,.', -��. -V , X, ".., - , �/ I ... . :%:I�//x-"<�/,�.:;�;- . ," - - --X.11..... .........�< ��,. y i .:::::,.:::::::�.:::::�.,:::::�'�:,-X-X.: -I- ::"�,.:: '.,, �. , -:,:....':-X" ..?,>`:.:�-X:%:�-:-:-::%�. ":-:-�X�-.x " '. XX ::" : ., ....'......,:.X-:-: . � , ---z ". I .. .. - .. ......... :,X,.,:,,-,,��:i� ", � I . :::%:::�::::�::,:�::::::�., g.-�:,ff..*:; '.. .:-�X- x .--:�:*��.':',-'.::::i",.K ,:�:�,,.:�,;.x�.:,.:..�":X,.�'�;,���.:.$:ix�:,:.��,:::�.�z.-�" ...�...�..: :��' ���iii� �-�;F-Yzx,..,.�....... X .X .I.............. 1..:-X-:-:l.-X..,-:-:l.-:.`,... -:-X, ,:�� '. � ,.,.,..,.-.. .-�-....'............,-............ : ": X-x, .......... -......".,:.:,.."...,-,� .. 11 .. ,�-.�=, -�M .s .,. z.-,--.�. .. - -":::IX.. .::�:�,.,��.��:�,.,�;�.,.���//,.X/,.�, . ........ ..... Xl. 11 " ..ll:%-:-�. -,.X::: ::::%�:�..::�:�.:��,.�..',�,':�?.i,,� .11 -:�:,:::::*":- . . , ,zl/lZ ,x:�.- ..:::",� ,::,:�;:�.� .,.: -;,- .... 11.. , ..ll.-� 1111 ......,...,.,........x,::ffl.�'�?.f . .--':l.-:-:-:-X-:.:.:. " �M ,�/z IIX/z, ... .I... " ..'�x I .I.." ,.::-XI " " - , - X/ .�i�.".'...��.:.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.� �/-.-: ��?"����,%."�,':��:i:i:i.":::i: Xx..."....- ..., X*�� -'�� �?g�.:-:-:-:,�-x,,x . ," . ..IX.- . , . x, y :,*..���i��i� -.'-� i Z.�. �%'.�::I . , -:�.'*,�. -X�-x-x�..� .,x .2. X........I . �, x "/. ....... -.:.,�....,:,. -� <�: �:�.�1.1�11'W.,I .��-..." " , ... I �y V,z , ":-,:.:�.X.11��.I.�:�.-:.:.,."". ,-',,.:.X.:.:�Z.���-�:.:.�;.�.�..".".:.�e:?�,:�://.;� , .- :::::::::�::,:::��;:%:�::�,.:::::: . 1�-11,11,11------..... g� i�".. KNO"..-MI.. X X,"."'. ��� ,, "" ":::.,- Xl-�X-, , .�;,'�.i�'%-oX::?",*�.- / ::::O::�:�. ""*'l..l-l-"-x-l-�,,,,X-, " ...'; - . I:- �,��,K-��,:��X�.?�,'�'.�?�,�.�:'� '/ ':%'�:%::%%:�. :�, , . '.z.�::::::::::, ,, x�.�:%: . �� -:�Iz.�.<�,Z/­., , " � ::��.:�.�;�Iz�,�: : ::::: 1:1.1...-� �.� , -, . .�- �I �s �'/ ,:,:M., ,:::::::::::2:::��. ":I !�:���:x*�i��:��?��,,,,�"//� F-�.�,//- -'%.-�-X"'.-"X-F---,".X . lfflml , .. -1 �'Iyz.%:�...........�.,..-�.....I.,-."--.-,.-�:�;�:%::�::�:::�::%::�.%:��::�'-. . ::: : 1: .� zz - m � W -W ,R!.� -'.�,�"--",-:�.%X:.,-.-:. ."'.., , I'i�Mx�e,l,.---�z. ..... .-�.M.�:?�.�-��*:��:ii��,�i�, ."I,.,."..,.. ��%��.*i� z V::�:F,. K , ,x .."" , " .� 1� , ...."...'.... .,.,.-�,-.-.--.-. -'X - �,�.-",:Kii*�, .,.-..-- I//l/ ..,*i,,<.Oz::::�:�?�:::",,,`--i'.-`..,i��.......�?X.::-?,":��..'..."':""""' .. �'. .........I..-.., . �,---X-:��x.ggf : .......,..... . / :-Z;�,;%�; .....%::::��"_.�::�.��-��;.:�,�..:�,,����.:�:,::::$: .1.1... -.-" .0'... .. ,�:�,,�.X.*,'�*�$.: ....- - , ,x-, '..", - - .... I I .�;,.,:.:�,,,,:.:*�z.?�z.�,�:�;., , I " -`-11llF.-l.-l:-x-:-,-I.., .11,". I.... I .,.�;�-:::::�;:�:.:��:�;::­�. ;::�::�:::�:��:::il,.::::�::::%::::::::::::�.,�":i�:���- �::�- : - :,.: , �/ , ;, . , ,/ ," ��...... . ,'. :�l.,:%.:."�.:.:.�:.:.:�.:.:.:.:.:.:�.Y:�;. ..l.... .... X�-: �::�.:",�;.�,5�x�l.:z��:�.�z.:�.�"11;�,.� ., ..'-.". --.X-.-.-.-..l.l.l.l'.,y .�. , ,:::'�:-,:.,X,p:, :,X P/zz��,r"/z�ip/,/ . - ��x.,,-,�-,:X.�;;",-x ::�::*�;�*?�:�']*m:�;�.... , ,�,,,. ...�.X. - ... -x ��i��,iiK.�i�.i�'i�, '*, ,,:.::�-,��/ --z�y/- y . - . � , :. � I F1 .-.-.- �::i�ii?*��:ii:�.-�R.�.��--";�, ..-.1 �/,- I.x.....li�?.. . :� .............-.... .. , ��.:::%��.�:X ....�i.X.:!�:��,� ,;. - ,�, �. , '� � ......:111,1:1�1-.:.-.. :.,.:.,...., I....-I.......... : ��V, :�zz.�x� :���::::::�:::�.:�::::::,..::,��::��:::.- � I I..........................,...� 0�;�.""-' :..'�Zx.- - .. X .2��.x ,.. ,�ix'j� , : .x..x,." ...."XIIX-11. I. I I ',� .M:- � � . :'::..x:::::::.: .,�ffly . :.:::.... ::.::.:.:.:w.. �'. ......��K:� .......:.:.: ..,-:?��,,,�,-,.,.Z�." /011 / :� 0/�, I ,1, . ./1111,w . �j�::��.:��,:�� ::.::, . . ,�, z., "-1, .... ...: :::�'. .. ". . I m -:1 , , , .. .... .�.x.,x X., -, " -� . ,-.".. l.,:::::::::�:::,::%:�,.�::::: ...X.....-...I...... .. '/. .U.X .:::��.,.` Ilx.",:11 ...... go .,�.g;�:; . I ,,��::.,� �..............:....,:...�.:..:.. .I I :;�:iw�x�:":X,wx;�...............X, :: *�]i::x�� .;.:,�, ?�i� �K]i� :::::]*:�::::":: .�-l.-.-llll.�-11.,,.,.,., ..... �::� �.��:�.:.:.::::::::::::::�:::::::�;:::�:::: - --...- .-I.....""; x I,''I'l�%� .... �' ��"*-:i�,!�i�i��,,��g//,: I : : ::]].,.,*:��lil:::::::�!::i:,-;':z . ::-- �,K::*,-,�.�:"",:�.� z< - ­­ . ��.i?�,-,�,�.,. - --::-- -.. " .1 ... '�-i�'�,:, -.V/z '......- X:.�:�: '., No I , :�:%:::�,.::%��.x. '. g, �,,�. *..... ;:i�':�i:i:i:��:�i',�,,�*::i.,.�.���;i:i I " I"-.............,..,:.,.... , , o/. ..*', .:::�:::]:�:::�������:]:�:�::..::: ,-.-.�!-��..,::::::::%-. .. - -......................,....,............�.."...."..".-�.' I ::::"� XO:%:, ,��:j� . .., :��-:-:�,-.:%:-�;'.:.:-.-..:-:- .. : ?�lWZW,//". '.,:j.f.:�.j:,� ..,: ....;,�*-::-xm :: :: ::� - , ", "'. ,, ::,::,:1,----:.�.' :� ..' I .. ,�;�:�:,..�.*�:::::�.:�.�,:::�.:::�.�; . .........,.--., -.- .1 .. -.- I 111.1--.......- I-.11 I.... .,'�..�o�,, y .,:�".,.....,....".,�''''�..... . '...... �-:-.::. ..-:., ,..,,- ,..........-I'll- I... I...... .��:::�/�.:..::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:�<�..,:.�..�l":�.,"/,y I...� ....I... .. " :::::::::::::m:::::::m��.. . . . ............ - ...:.:.X:-x:.:-:: :::: '': . . ,�'--- �//,,�,,, X. �l.:,-�-:1�.:,/.,�'..:�:�.�..�:.�,:, :::.:.:.. -.-...,.�1.I I I I...I"I I'll", I I ".....q................., -- " Ill......I ::. ::1 :�,;�'.".-.'��.:.-.-.-,.,-.-.�x...",",.:�,.-,:�� , -11 -Xz-:-:-.1/ .......w.....'.., I'll ...........,......I - .I.I............ :.�.::�... ,. ..-I.-....---...... .1 ,., -..� ,�z I . I I "I......... I 11.1 X " " .� �el:i�,:'e.,, '�'....,:Z:::�.:,�;" I", 1.1''. :X:l.-:-::-:-:.:-:.:-:- ......... .,. 'r -:,,. I/ / ,.� " . I I PEMMEM ,, ... -.",.,.,.",.,.",.....�...�1.1.1,.,...,.",.�....�. "..11 .1.11 . ....-I I I.....I I 1-1--1:1 1,:,1: , .Y.,���.,.�::::�,�;::%:�::":::�.�:�:.:::.",�..:::����,*�/� "..� �::.:���..:��.�,'��":�..::'�.*�.��;�. "..........- I I..-1....�I I....I I I'll I I I - -X::-::.X-, ,. ...11.1....�.. ...................- , I ...I . ... . . - ,-:.:-.-.,�-.:�,.-:-x�- - .-:-� . ....-I...,�...I I 1,I I'I"".,'1-1.."""I..,..,.....'�,1,I 1-1 I I �: :j�. , / , .... ''. I ,I...."I....... �--l- .'m -M , ,.1-1"...I..-.1 I.....,.","..'..-.1.1"I."""1.I� I I K" . . ...,.,...... 1-1,1-1 I I .:::::]::.:: :�:.:-e-.:"..' .-, ,''.. :�.........* .�X. I I I ........ ."- ....I .ozzax ��.:�:�.:::$:::,��.,::�.:�:i:�i:i.",:i�.:::�:::i*.��.����.�'�:!:,.�:::::��,.:��'�:.:.:.:.:.:.:.���.-Y"I ......-..'...�... I 1,1.I..�I I........,,..,- I I .....I..�, - I I ''..., I .. I.-Il I 1''.. -I...�......I "�,<.:::�:���::,::�::�:%�:��..::,.,..,�l-, ., - ,-y z, .....I, 1. I..� I. I I I I... I -I......, I I......'�..,......,...,......�..........�.....�.... .-,,�., . ��, , ..-.-....- - 111-11-1...I'll -.........-,�I I -11.....I I.''..,...I..I.....-.....I.- . �, . , -.............I I..........�..... ,�....�....-, I -....... ............�I......--......�...�....... ":-�zX-X.:-X-X.:�X:�, ..x.-Y -- ...." ;;-'%,�ff, - :"::,::::::::::-I:I: -;I:ji��.:::::::.-I.x.,:x:x::��: ::::::�.::::�:::":":":.:.:"::,-::X..... ll-:�,,". '/ , ... .......-.1.11 "I I.,.I .....�......... � gg . :%:�:::::::::::�::::�:::::::�:��:�;:�::::�::�::::�:::":�;:i�:::"�.:::::%i:K�%��.:".,.,,.,."- "'I:,:::::,,:'':.,::::::.:: .��i�:Iii]i' .� �,, �� "I X. I 'MR.... ..., ,.-ll.-.-l.-.-.....,.::��:. :...I�I I I 1.I I I..................51.-...,eX: .. . U..., "z// � - . .:::::::�::::::-: .'� .. zz-�-� �,.- , . ,..,. .............." "X""" - - - ,ii�Mi:�.f:iiii��:��.-.�.-.-'. ".". ,.,. .�.�.. ... .... .... ,� . .::::: X. �M, -�iiiiii:i�,-� ,.......l."......'................ ........ X:::::::: -:-:::-XX:::�::: Z ". "�'.',�.�.:�:�.-�:.:.:.:,,.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,.�;.:.:.� .-�i::::, . . , , ..'':.:. :::...--.-.. ................-.-.. I I I....i�..�............. ", '' �� ..,..I'll.�I.I../:��/��/�������,.���/"`�1"Xi. -.... ..I'll............--..,......I...,I........ - '. Z., . ... ............ . 1:%.:::%::%�.�.:..IX.�.<-:-:-:-�.,�..�-�.:.:.:.:.::,.".:.:.:�.:��.:.:���-�:::�:�.:::�.:,.��;.:.�:�.: ,:�;:::::::::::�.,�....�'..,.,.,.,...,.".,..,...,.I.....I"."....::., :f;/-X ��.Wwxww::: .:.::X---:-:----..-:-:jij�:�.�.i:�:.���,.�./-$.`�`/����`����`��`�"�`��""""�`V.1.�'..-.�, I -*�, ,�, - ..r - ...._ ...-...�.I I Z"":%x ��V., ., I I ,� ,:�.`:�;��:::::�:�: -�,?p .. � �� ,"'. $-.M-:�. .�//m/ , . .W,::::::�:,:::::::::::::::::- -..... :.X!:::%:::::�." .::]7�*.i::i::. ...".,.....'.X�:.:.-:::X": m.-II..n. . i /// ::i:,��-.-.-,.-.-.��-,.�....":.:....,.:.:<.:,,-:�.,;.:��.:��.:�.:.��;.�.� z.� , ., .�:.-,�..:.:.�//,:.:.:�::.::::::.:..:,....::..."..""� �'-,'.'.�',�"..-,�,..... ., /� 1. , - .0.':-..'.'.-'.�.-...'..'- .:, .. '. ,� x//-,�,"�,.",�,.,.x,.,,:�.".'.'.'.'.".'.,.,:�.,.,.,.:�.:.K:��.�.�,:.�.�:�.:.:�.::� . W", ... ...............I .".,;' -'.� ," , -- : .. , ,�- . 1.." 'm "' �'...,::�.:.:�:.:"�l:,",,:,,.:.:. I.I... . p".0 0/�,, ,�/ffig '� : I : "��//z.:::.. ,.",:::�::::�:�;:::::�:::::::::: -X�:�.:::�O":; //,�/��,.I -mz*.'�'z i��:��*�, I.. . / ...-. ez.<�i:��i�.��:�:.",:��.�,:,��i:i:�,����:�:i:, , , .." . . I I '. '.-'H.X*.:�.,I.i�,�:.�zz;,; .,".....'', .:.:::''::::��:]�"�"�:�]�]�:�:��.'�.:.�'.].�',""���..'���:�������������������- 11 Y.:.*.1y . , m - ...,. :.:i��::::� ..', . ,;x ..-.I' -.m.O.",��,. �... I. ,,,� ` -�f...*......-" xm:��v... ,</,��,,<,�7.,Yl 1 ";? ".::::��,x,: . / ::::::,::.::,,",::::.::�:::::::::...........- , .�.j.. , , '/��,z'.*'.�'.X-��.i*",:i*i:l X.... ,.".,.. "', :�;y ;�.:::�.M ....::::�:,,:�:i,�'ii';�",�.-: � . . ::.*,'�'/��'.'�-��,, - Z : ,....IX /�i� ':, x-M 11 ,:�,�Il .M.-I ii , ,M �,';',:�.�z.::,�;::,:��.:�..��';",.:: ,� .", . .��I'll..",........- X� , '51 m .. z M / :� ,,.:, , / . : " ::!......:.:;::�-::�,:-:�:;:-:-- ............... --.%.-��,�/.�M W-,;� .:,�...:.i:�..��:.�:.�..x.�".,.,*.�,'�..:,;������zzz;.j,�,M'-., ".�,:::::::::::::,.:,:::,e­ . . 1, I ---- ,;,�,,.�". I .f�-�. . -......X.,..X ,� ..,........ X ZXX�, z.�,,,�� M'. .',�.",� ,�::::-"�. ,,:�, -- ....�.... I .1,� :::j:j I... ......- ........... :.:.::::".:.::.:.::.:.::::.::.:.1. ..,I.,I..... , . .� ............,..�.I..,.."....................�...............I-I......I...I. : ,��': i:z/ ::� .. . .z�.,O,.:�,:�,:�� ,:..:� ,Xi�,,�:-�::�.,.-:� ............,.......,...............,....................... ......�..............................I i �,$�,',,/.`//`11-1111 .................�............,.........�.............'.............................................. ,� , ........ z �....... . �:: --"'--Iz"�1.1,Y-1 ,........................... I'll �,z:�Xffl..':-*�gl I" z I- '�;�;*;;:::::�:":. .11......I------ ..................�......�.......,..........,''..................."...:::::.:,�i... -:I li gx z" ... . . �/, ....�.......�.............,...�..-... ........, ., i�,,/�:��"::��Iz�� �./ ..".................................................. , , ................,......................�..�....... .:: "I -�Xffi,,,.xlz.l -��,-:�-,'..,--�:.� ...,...�........"............��....- .. .:.:.::.::�:... , .1 11 I .,..-.--, ..- ....... :.:.:.:. �j:X'XX /. mmw� *','��-.:��is-..�*--g* ............�....�..�.......�.�.......�., :. � ff I..'......... , .1...K,I : i ...�..............'...... -- I. - i . .. .... .,..,......,.....I.. ........................�.....�.........:.... I :�;,i::,.. .. -'li:� . . ..-..�... :Le;-:.... I . I "."'. ,*P;/M."/�/`��/��� , .-,� -,., .- . , . . ,.� 'j: : . ,.� I /- ,/� ,-Vwx- ../.I.I....I .........I..I ...'......--, . .., M I` . ,, . ,."",.....,Wl I .. -;g/m*�Yg ��� . ": .. ..1.- � :::::,:,:: 11 �........... , IIIX '? .�.�..�.�.�,� ,//K , '.��', �:��// . 'g MIZI $,� . I-I..............,.,."I - . - . ..1. .� %........,.....- I I I I'1-1.1.,... �z.I"/ -� -,�,,::��.. .....................�....�..'�'...�...�:::�.:.,..:,��::.:., 6��:.. . �.:::-��;-;�.,.g//F�. .M/ / .,�, �:;X. �-�. , - , ..I , , ��zo:/�z 1111 ,/gg/ - i z." ....�.................................... . -I I I , / -Rl� :,�- '- "'.."....", I ,...."'­.,I..I 1�1 I "/ ��. , z z�,y z:; lll,z.:'/',�.lQ:- - . .. 1:�::�::� : , �� I.. I'll �.:�.��MM,� W'M'//zz,�'l,/r I..,�.11.� .. , . . I �Rl ,V;/z��.-, .:.. :4�:- ". -SIR ,, ...I ..'' M, - ,..�zz., .:...". :*., . : . '-'//, I ,��//g--,-x,�.�/ ....�:.:, 1// .1-11 ,; ��,zl INOX"""ZOR' I.X, ...... �- . Fl; '71.�l1fz;ZlMll;l'l V/ "" Mr,, ': I ....,�.,,".�' 4 ,,,� 4w.'..:�, mgigg. �.g, M,��Y. I I . ��,. I I I.... " :: �z ..., - ...- I.. I .. .. ... - .1 1. 11 .. I /z.x - ...�.......""i:i::��.]�:...,..�":."...:,:;:; ...:�---/.X. 4: . M '�', -11 . NO M 4x�.,, 0 :�/,.*.`,,�:�.`VMMIXX .... *,�.::". :,:.i:%%- -:.:-:-:-:X ;;;.,.,,� �fzllffl 01,11-Im... z;I/M:-Il xx. 1. ,�,:�zf"/����//����"�`�""`�/.�I m .g%� x-*." ,,,�-P-.�.i ..�'r....�..;:..-....- I ..�,/.Il....-,.. .... . .. � .��.M.. �", I , M-I, I ".,'M " �- .... ..- r� - , 1. ,; i- . :�. , �' 11 M,I-�Illllll I ...;l .... .:.:o..-e .- - -�w .. . :::::: ..r �, "IM, ,-�1.11.1//,... .., - .. 4w .- YZ � �"-X-'�?.-31'�Izl ........ . <.:. , �/,,�X�.IX.,�� :� :�", ��.....�,-,..- - I - :�� ., '.,�/,X--/z.i�/,Y;/-,�.-:� �, ., /Y. - .xx ,...:..:�,Xl�.::�.:":"�:,.,�:,�:.:.:.:.. �...�� , --,--- :",..-. -.........I....... , 4 ""' I ../,/Z., ��/YZI��//Z����z,��;1;1;1;...,.,. ... -.*i::*. .,.�.�xj��-� -y :�`: �� , ...1. � 0,--� m .,:.. /x � .10 ,I vl�ll I K1:11 , , El...zx�,-- �.X:X. 1-1 : :45�M - �.-.�,7-1'.- I - " :,V.,T.'-.-�.. 0.- ,�.m." .., ...e ,:. .. ,:�y .... op- - - ". go .1 : r" OF.�- .,� ; ,�F�px , �l...�e.��....�'��,,.�01!��.:.��L.��. .. .. , 1, ::. ..... I .- --.�:,,�: , ../z.z 11 - .... .I..4: ... .........."..".- I ,.- � I. ...'..I I I 1 -,X�.!7: - ''. ... ..,. , I -�, .... I.,.-.'-.-, . I ffl,�,�Z"'� , .: . � .':::iK 4< 11...I.. ..", ...� . .,,''... :-:�-�"., M .,: ...::::.�,.�.::ii:� , : 0 .--%X,:�;:::.' " , .:��---.-.,'��',..:� " " .*Y, ./z��v x,,:�,.�z:�� Y ,. ". ,g �> /I - : .,� �..�,,,O��!�� ....�...-I e. ,. , , ,� x'JIMIN 11 . �. w . - I... . I ...., . .., 4.v� ., -, - - .�z SK - , .. "�':e ��.�::7�, :., ,:,��.,. �, / IM-El. -�::;:::::::::X:, ,,,, ., .7". . X IM/Ir-1 vz". �: - ..'.�'.-�*.,,.`- �::�;.� ...1. - ...- �, ..��* .-.-.�.:.: .'.-�:- .:... .�- -q::.:,:::,::::-:::. .,.-.., " `:`:;�,v, �, , " . :/11//X��-,`��Iiz,� .� - - -, " .. M. / W - , - ---f �--/V, /,. ... . �, ,� m- "r.-----w - , I v//z�, :�:.Mxzzll' ,...::::::::.".:�.::x]:::: ....:: , .-�:�..-f�, ":"m :w -:"/ ,g ,// g /,�//, I.1:�... , I,..,:, /zmm,� , :::::::::,:,::::: ":,:,:: " . /� . . ..v I � .yz.r5,,l �,/�-Z/;.�"g. - "'--I..�.::x]::::�....:: . . :::� ::��.:. - - . ,;z .,.- -." , . ,� M �, , � -.: ...I. .. .-.".. -, �W, ...-:;:� ,� ." .: I. ml.%::K�,�. 0 -.. ..,, -., �. , ,::�.�.::: - ...I...I... , . ., .� ,..... .:, qq, ... I... . '1�1 - ..;:. .1.� ", , -.1 -, �,�i:,��,I I,,,,�.::�/,.-�,.j�-,, . .� /p/lir, ., . ......... 1--l'.. �,/. , .... 1� ': ,...:... . � . Em ,V , .-z�*:�/ ?;,�,M-?,; ': Oil/ , ..g., I ..�'., � -, '/ .Vgg.? 1� ,l/ �Ml. �:.,,..... - . , ml M, I/y/ g�lv�� ",-, �:,.� I M I 1/11MMEMIS 1/11101M M / gg/, ,./, ,/ ,E , I ., � . ,M�,! I I 'I .. I/ . ..- - , , " , ., 'M �,I I ,,�/ // ,�/; ��*/ /,/ - .... ll ."-�/ - -g "I /111 �: / / I millm" , OR/, / M. m ,,'.�, ,�.'/g*� I I 11 1:�v�;��11/1.�//-,"`,/�/`1.1��l:-�I r�� " . . .> K, � -�, 'I'M ,-. , I ,YZI IN �,,,,�"r/���T-�,�",/r,/:,/�/7/�-7///I . OMME M .IX. ,��//'/.��Z:*,:g,---/ I. I,M/I 1"IXI .1 I I , , ...., I . , .�'-,. -xx� ., m M, �� m/m/m,WER/l/ -- -Z..........g'..,.,..". "I 'Iffill"'. �.-,Z...,..111. V; i , M. ,,-,�-,-g'/,%l-�, .., . . VI.,�// " �� .�,:x , 0..-,,.." 1-1 I ., ,g ./ / � NO / . �/ . , ,.�. " M �I 11:118 ,..-%,- ,."�, , , , , M R i�, . ; . � ,NO.�,� I :� 5,�IMM,011011, �0.�/,M.x.::--K.,- � 'Em,Y;:�yz-�;��.:�*,.�*.,.:��I . , - 11 ., ., ., . IN ' '/ .. Ez, m -'�,- 'm '/ . , �, I , . . .e,. .:y . 'M I . ., 11 " I , , I , I I/ , , '' - - ;�lz�-�-�/ -/,;'.m'." .:%� , -.,:�, , 0. I 11 �'/,�-:::�.�/�p/%Y�,:.�..'Y�`/�""`-." �,Y/,.�,.-'.-"��,-.�.,.X",..�'ll"��/�� ,�� , ,/ I I , O ��- ,.,,�,�Y,���,�,./�/;�.-.,.�z��.://- -'- .-' //.�-v �.�. -g�g . ..g - .."�,��X- ,:.,1m,.--m%o, ,. , , , " "�.F/,ffi/y,�;'�",��,g�g- I ��.�.jmi�, / , '. -, -. .." I 11 X" /, . - 1/0" 11,11,11 , .. , � I , :/'::N� :�.g. , ,�/ ,, . I I -/l. , . , g � /// " ,; ., . . . ,j��/I,x I//X, / . . . ," x . zffl� ��@ ./--( x�",X..�.,-.:.-�'ZI"�,."'-",���;�/'�'/ ,� , Y- m . , , I ,, x Yz.xx -�/, - ," . ,'�' �/�-�, .. .:,.x ..*-'.., ,-,..... .., ,.�.:, ,-:<� I /, m .7 ......�i / . , ., ::��.'U,;.:XXX�-: , ,,� ,,,-,-,.,.xx:� Z<X -��.',:M '.f** ,/ " , ',:� ,� . i�. MI. .k�:,?. %,�. ----�,�-� ,:�.-- � - , �///, X. . . /: ,:� --.",��,M M:�%'��-*�/ :��,��:'I xx,-�-�- .; /M/��Xlxllllll ��, g-,--��.�.:�.�;�.j*,:,�,.Iyl .�X'.- I . ,��",�,-,M/'.'. . M--1Xll;I,e;�g.-,--, . *.:M , � - , . ,*.:::::,. ,� '*<.":'; .� , . . . I/ "'�":*.'.�'/��/"���-"'�':�.:,�l"""�-.��..:�, -,�.:�O:::%:, ,i�.:��,:,:�'-:%; I. ,.-,Z/Z.R.� .�IP'...�.�.��ll-l�.�,�l.:��Y/�;",�'�-.�'l,'�,'�--,.-;:� -� ....."-:%x. ;�', X/ - . "-j�g...:,--,V/,,��," " ,:x �f eM Z. . . .?;, -� �.�-"' .�,111:�'. . ,/,/ �,/ :�,x<"/.,. , '� --�� -,�.g .- � �* , ,.:.:�,.,.,.�,.,�,.,.'-'��"-�'-'-�.�.�:.�.::,.�.:�.:�.: , , '. x�/ �­-..: �/ . /. .� . �Y;. ,...ffi,";�:j".*-�,,,/- ..':� � ,---M%.�'.� MKMIM, .���/.,.:.�/��:.:��.:..;�:�::�/�.:.�.:�::�:::��,�:�'�:::,�.:Y,:�.,:�.'�.'�i::�:�.:,�<�:i:, -.-.,-,,-, I ��/m ffl�Xi��i�i.......... ;� �.x ji� --,,., :�/z"�//.�: I :,;gffixg.�x?, -.:*-m� . , , ,", ,.�.� �.�xii�.'./// ..y , , , .. '-' �.�.:- �-',::��: . ."v. x,/,.�.�,, ,,-�, �,Y.�,.X�-�.,.-.:Y.,-,Yxx'�,'�-,,'�':j:,�� -'P,.:::::: -I"-.-.-,., ..;-..�.:z ---:�.:�' , ,,� X. / . �,� :�: ,";;�. ,�� ?mr �. ., ./ /�. . :�e�'": ,.::j�/ .. : .�."m i:�-.-.-.--.Y..-.-."",�..-��.�,�;��;�:�.',��i:�:i�,,�*.'X��i;-.�,.�i:�.�,'x- :::..,..,x"'. . . . �. .Y/ .:: , ...� ,;��:% - .�x .I.,I....,.,.,,-,..,-X�-X�X-, . . -z; ... . ,��-,�,.-.:Y0/-:�, � ,�� 'I."l.-.'l.-l.-.�-.-.'�- .. .:.,:��:.:.�.:.:.:��.:.:,.�,:�.:.�-�l:.ii�-X-'.,.-.�ll.-��l-.- , "W-':.�.�'. ..,.":,� . ,/>�.`//` I . ,:�-":�:i�;.:��,M.�, ��*�:g:� I ,�,�� - :�.�ll.�'ll.�,.-,,.-.-�.,�,,:,:�-.�-.5,'�,'�,�',�'��,;,��-��.�f��--.�xg. .,".. I x" � --�X: . O ..l........y -,". ... . . ,��,.%�.�-.�.::... � ... , �.,.-.".,.,.".,.,.�.,...,.X�,�����,�. -.�.-. ",:i:i�':�:��':�i�:�..�"i:��:�:i* ,.,.",.,. , ...........I. X: � ,� ., .. V,....n ... Z,.:*;�.�: . �'.- '. "-:*"'*.::�;:::. "";- .." *�-'.�z�..:,.:.:.:.:���1-1.1"-",'-'-'�,.��".,...�.....,..:,.:y-ly,�,:�.- �. �,-X , " x,. :v I .::�; :y I-.-.-,--:.:.-Y..:. -..,� ", ... - '-"::"%,�:1."'x, '�,�.�,��:i�::;,�.�::�:?��:��,':�:��;�.i�,11".'�". .,.l./11. ---,.:,.":-X-�X,... .:�,fll .- ., 11 I .11, ,-� .I. .. .- *� ., - :m "" �.. -X�--X'......, : . I. ," . . :: .x--X-.l.-X-: .. .. ......."..,........ ... " �. ....M.... -I..,-.�: - O" ,.I., :-::,��.-,:::` , , ,.. , .. :. X: .,.-,- :,*'... :, ,:.;: :::""",.o -...:I'.:::",:,.:'�,. '..X .�.� ..�:;�­ , .. ;......1-1. 1: --.--:�- .:::,.:., "::',%-,,,,,, 1�111 : . . 1.1.1-i , ... .. .. , ':i:�::i?,-,::i",.- .... -::::�....,.�.----. W. 0 �-... I . .X. . .l.. ..... I X .g"..... ..... �gxx.,-.""'::�;�'�'�.,:.. ...... ".1.......�:., .x;-:.:�.? - .--.-.-..:,...........�:..,.x:.:,.... ... . .. "", . l�X..": ;.,::::::",""'',."�";.- :-:::.....".."..., : .1 .1 ... ... . ........ X-:,�-.-�I,....:". :�...:..,. 11 . . .:: X .::......,........ I - , ,:.:�.. �.." -., .. : :":�'�' " . . . �; . . , ,.x'..�.5,� , �:%��:,;:�. ,._ .. ... , � � , - - -� . , ,-� . : . . . . . . . . . , , , , , , - . .. , � -;�Ix '. X , .. , :. .� . . j'� . . 11 -,�-.- .. ., ': . � -, - , I Illy . . ,O , - - � � � � � .�. -,� , - .. - . , :ff".,.,I K1*1, . � _j, ,-�, �:� " , -� I I � --- !:� -- - Y, 'o; ,0- EAST COUNTY PILO` STUDY TASK FORCE REPORT CONSENSUS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING L GICAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION shied May 1999 Preparesy Alameda—Contra Costa Biodliversity Working Group, East County Pilot Study Task Force Ratification of Recommendations We,the r em-hers of the East.County Pilot Study Task Force,have drafted,dellbera.ted,and ratified the agreements ani.recommendations in this report. °ar sig:°satures below i-�i .ice,,e; (!-')our active participation on the Task Force;( )general a. ree ent wif-.the ratified portions of this document; and (3) commitinerit to and support for the process of balancing fhe needs of agriculture, business, urban development, and private property rights with biodiversity in East County. Our si atures on this ticcurnent do not represent approval of the separate technical report. Organizational affiliations, below are provided for informational purposes and do not reply endorsement of this document by these organizations. 4-� Seth Adams Paul Campos Save Mont l i blo Hobe Builders Association of NorthernCalifornia �4 Henry Aller gCl r e; ora e Ol de, Alternate) Contra Costa Chambers of Corruneme Representative of Developers In North Livetore Sheila Barry olores hell Alameda County Resource Co e a'don Alan eda.County Landowner astrlct B ar( a aioel, Iternate) Leonarderr�° Alameda County Plannhig Department Contra Costa County R source Conservation District e-ne mdn Jim Gwerder A ab eda County Land ernti a Costa County Citizens Land Alliance i St phen Herrick Nfichele Perrault Byron Municipal advisory Council (Margaret Tracy,Alternative) Sierra Club .mss i � u€ Dennis Pisil�ennis cCor ac Alameda-Contra Costa Cattleman's Contra Costa Water District Association a i hn Kope Roberta oulart Valerie Ray�ond�ois�Lu Cost.County COm unItY South Livermore Valley Agricultwal ,and � n '� t3' Development Department Trust rrie Lagar J a Stice Bi versify Working Group Community S` aature Properties Participant I Sheila L rseu M e Vu c U.S. Fish& Wildlife Service Contra Co Farm bureau juue Pe feat nn CityCity ll Ott League of Women eters pity ��Livermore Tom Mooers Carl °tcoxi3oaue a on Greenbelt Alliance alifb a hep c of Fishdame +Bra�d041 €/Beth Stone East Bay Regional Park District ii .................... ............................................................. .......................................... .............................................................................. ............................................................. .. ...................................................................._______.. _ ......... ......... ...................................................... ..............._____. .............................................................................................. ................................................................................................. ...................................................................................... Acknowledgments The volunteer contribution s of time and thoughtful discussion by Task Force!nernbers are greatly appreciated. The following agencies, consultants, and staff provided support to.lie Task Force. Biodiversity Working Group Agencies: A.laxneda County Contra Costa County Contra Costa Nater District East Bay Regional ParkI-st et California Department of Fish and Game Consultants- Task Force Facilitator Peter Bl hon, Bluho,Planning Group Conservation Planning Consultant Paul Cylinder, Ph.D.,Jones &Stokes Assoclates Economic Consultant `alter Kieser,Economic and Planning Systems Members of the Biological Technical Review Committee: Dr. Michael Barbour, UC Davis Dr. James Bartolome, UC Berkeley Dr. Barbara Ertter, UC Berkeley, Jepson Herbarium Ms. Marylee G inon, Sycamore associates LLC Dr. Lynn Huntsinger, UC Berkeley Mr. Peter Hopkinson, UC Berkeley, graduate student of Dr. Huntsinger Mr. Thomas kat; , Lawrence Livermore rational Laboratory Dr. William Lidic yea, UC Berkeley . Geoff"honk,Monk&Associates NL-r. alcoffin Sproul,LSA associates,Inc. Mr. Michael Stevens, Autodesk,Inc, The Task Force also wishes to acknowledge the contributions of Al McNabney, who seared on the Task Force untsl he passed away in 1998. iii Summary The deport from the East County Pilot Study Task Force ;or Task Force Report3 is a report on opportunities for balancing the needs of agriculture, business, urban development, a-nd private property rights withbiodiversity in eastern Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. It was written through a, consensus process involving the Fast County Pilot Study Task Force (or "Task Force"), a committee consisting of conservationists, developers, government representatives, agriculturalists,landowners,and community interests. A separate report,the fast County Pilot Study T°echnical Report(or Technical Report),contains biological and-economic information that is reievant to the Task Force Report and helpfu for improving the process of conserving biological resources. The Technical Report was written by professional consulting firrns with input from the Task Force. THE TASK FORCE PROCESS The Task Force was fo-nned in April 1997 by the Alameda—Contra Costa Biodiversity Working Group,a,partnership of state and local government entities and other interested parties working to develop more efficient and effective methods for conserving the biological diversity, or "biodiversity,"of the East Bay(see Task Force Report Section 5.5 for a complete definition of biodiversity). In 1995, the Biodiversity Working Group commissioned an assessment and analysis of biological resources and land use in a defined area of eastern Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Preliminary work on this project raised concerns arming landowner and developer interests. These interests were particularly uncomfortable with the computerized mapping methodology intended to identify areas of higher and lower biological and conservation value and with the data used in this analysis. The Task Force was convened to review the preliminary technical work and to make recommendations on how the information should be used and on what could and should be done at a local level to improvebiological resource conservation. efforts. Two features of the Task Force process distinguish it from many other efforts to involve the pub' in governmental actions related to biological resource conservation: 1. The Task Force contained a broad range of perspectives on conservation issues, representing near:;all the maior constituencies involved in past and present land use contficts. 2. The Task Force operated by consensus and aid not take votes to make decisions. East county Pilot Swdy Task Force Repon,A1ay 1999 v The Task Force process was facilitated by Bluhon Planning Group. Detailed information on the Task Force process is provided in Section 3 of the Fisk Force.depart. TASK FORCE REPORT The Fisk Force Report was rationed by the Task Force on May E, 1999. The Task.Force Report has three primary components: (a)background information on the Task Force and on biological resource conservation; issues `Sections 11--3)9 (b) recommendations from. the Task Force on improving the process for conserving biological resources (Section 4)v and (c) short papers on a variety of subjects related to conservation and land use issues, including property rights, resource stewardship, funding sources for conservation., and criteria for habitat conservation (Section. 5). The background information and recommendations contained in Sections 1a-4 represent consensus findings of the Task Force. The short papers in Section 5 were solicited by the Task Force but were written by individual Task Force members. Section. 5 also contains a brief summary of a subject on which the Task Force was unable to reach consensus, namely, inclusion of the Computerized mapping analysis, or "weighting strategy," in the Technical Report. The Task Force recommendations presented in Section 4 may be the most significant portion of the report. These recommendations are valuable because so many diverse interests participated in shaping them,but the Task Force wishes to emphasize that its recommendations are based on the knowledge and experience of lay persons and not on professional or technical expertise. Ideas presented in Section 4 include recommendations that, * additional funding mechanisms be developed to compensate willing landowners for resource stewardship and protection. * the public contribute its fair share of funds to help support the costs of resource - conservation. * biological conservation be coordinated on a larger scale to aid in maintaining functional natural systems and habitat connectivity. IN available alternatives to protect-by-projeot regulatory review, permitting, and mitigation be considered that could reduce the cost and time dedicated to processing while increasing the resources and options available to perform conservation. a other opportunities for better reconciling resource conservation,economic growth, and property rights be explored;the work of the Task Force addresses only some of the potential methods for dealing with this problem. Section 4 contains details of these and other Task Force recommendations. Section 4 also contains recommendations from individual 'Task. Force members on what issues need to be considered in the future (Section 4.2) as well as suggestions for improving future consensus-based processes (Section 4.3). vi SUMV 7y ......... ....... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ .. ........ ........ .._...... .........................._.. ........ ........ __ _ _ ... . ..... TECHNICAL REPORT she Technical R,_�port provides infortmation on and analysis of both biological and economic topics, The biological sections were written by Jones&Stokes Associates and derive from the original, technical work commissioned in 1995 by the biodiversity Working group prior to the formation of the Task Force. 'These sections include a description of the methods used to assemble a database of biological and land use inforrnation;maps displaying some aspects of the collected data; a description of a computerdriven methodology,or weighting strategy,to assess resource values and identify conservation priorities; and.a discussion of the use and limitations of this Info_snation(Sections 1-3 and appendices B --D). The economics ics section was written by Econorni.c & Planning Systems. It was commissioned during the Task Force process. The economics section includes a generalized cost-benefit analysis of cooperative approaches to resource impact permitting and rnitigation,including a discussion of Habitat Conservation Plans and mitigation banking (Section 4). The Task Force reviewed and Helped to revise the Technical deport,but decided that it was not appropriate to attempt to ratify the document because it contains detailed technical information prepared by professionals in these fields. However, snaps showing areas of higher and lower resource and conservation value, as determined, by the computerized weighting strategy mentioned above, were not included because the'Task.Force could not reach agreement on the validity and value of these maps (see Section 5.1 of the Task Force Report for additional discussion of this issue;. Likewise,no comprehensive soaps of biological or land use data were M.-luded because some members of the'Task Force were concerned about accuracy and misuse. The remaining members were willing to omit such detailed snaps to gain broader consensus on the Task F orce Repast. The Task Force convened a biological 'Technical Review Committee composed of university faculty and private sector professionals to review the biological information and provide advice on its use. The biological Technical Review Committee found that the approach and methodology used in the preliminary technical work or. the Eastern AlarnedaZontra Costa Biodiversity Study (the predecessor to the Technical deport) are generally valid and provide us-fa'in-form.ation on regional biological resources—if the purpose and application of this study are to address broad, regional biological questions. They also found that the data and the analysis do have some significant shortcomings that could and should be addressed over time, but that these shortcomings do not outweigh the substantial improvements to baseline biological information provided by the study and would not preclude appropriate use of this information in the it terim. `Th- Task Force provides implicit guidance on appropriate use of this infor,nation througl its policy recommendations in Section 4 of the Fisk Force Report. The Task Force also discussed convening additional technical committees to provide advice on other topics, such as economics and any economic impacts of the various mapping efforts. In the end,such additional technical cornwnittees were not convened,in part because the Task Force decided to omit the more controversial snaps, thereby eliminating some of the rationale for economic i mpact analysis. Some Task Force members would have preferred to consider economic and related topics more thoroughly and were disappointed that additional. technical East County Pilot Study Task Force Report,may 1999 vii committees were not formed. Other members preferred to keep the focus on biologica* issues and on how biological issues affect the diverse interests of Task Force members, viii Suw.=ry .................................................................................................................................................... .............................. ..............................................................................................- .............................. .............. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1® 1.1 `ask Force Report Overview 1,2 Elements of the Report 1.3 Purpose and Objectives 1.4 Protect History 1,5 Task Force Profile 1,5 Consensus Process s Background of Task orReport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.1 The Problems with and Need for Improving the Process of Conserving and Managing Biological Resources o Consensus Process Agreements -1 3.1 Mission Statement 3.2 Ground Rules 3.3 Roster for Task Force and Biological Technical Review Committee .4 Selection Criteria for the Technical Review Committees 3.5 Protocols for the Biological Technical Ravius Committee 4. Task Force Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 4.1 General Recommendations .2 Other Issues the,. Should Be Addressed it Future 'Effor°s to Conserve Biological Resources 4.3 Lessons Learned 5. Discussion ofIssues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e . , . , . , , . . . , . , , , . . , . , . . , . . , a . . . 5-1 6A Unresolved and Unresoly .blo Issues ire the Consensus Process 52 Discussion of Property Rights, Takings, and the Fifth: Amendment &3 The Value of Stewardship in Conserving Biological Resources in .Eastern Alameda and Contra Costa Counties 5.4 Options for Funding ng the Acquisition and Protection of Habitat, Open Space, and Agricultural Land in Alameda and Contra Cost. Counties 5.5 Criteria for Habitat Preservation x :ter^=t •j Section 1 . Introduction 1.1 TASK FORCE REPORT OVERVIEW 1.2 ELEMENTS OF THE REPORT 1.3 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES 1.4 PROJECT HISTORY e5 TASK FORCE PROFILE 1.6 CONSENSUS PROCESS v. Section I . Introduction e1 TASK FORCE REPORT OVERVIEW This East County Pilau Study Task Force Report dor Flak Force Report) consists of the agreements achieved by the East County Pilot Study Task Force (or Task Force) through a dialogue on biological resource conservation in eastern Alarneda and Contra Costa Counties. The report consists of the process agreements and ground rules used by the Task Force; a background statement on key issues in biological resource conservation and a discussion of some of these key issues; and policy reco€mendations. Participants in the dialogue included representatives from key interests involved with biological resource conservation and land use in East County, including agriculture, property rights groups, business, developers, environmental advocacy groups,conm. unity groups,and government agencies. The work in this report comes, in part, from the Task Force's review and discussion of biological .resource information prepared by Jones & Stokes Associates in the East County Piior Study Technical Re part tor.Technical eport). Figure l shows the location of eastern Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. The Task Force worked diligently to define issues of concern regarding biological resource conservation in a balanced, credible manner and recommended policies to improve the current regulatory process. This document is intended to assist policy makers at local and regional agencies by suggesting general principles and a process for snaking resource permitting more of rcient, effective, equitable, and practical. The recommendations have particular legitimacy in that they have been crafted and agreed to by the individuals and constituency representatives directly involved with resource issues. This document can also be used as a framework for private and public entities to use;in the future to continue to level op creative solutions for aeccornmodating econormc gro th.while conserving the area's biological resources, This framework depends on key stakeholders participating in proposing programs and policies to balance urban development and biodiversity. Theframework views stakeholders as payers who jointly gather information and identify concerns,set common goes, and develop approaches that are equitable. The associated Technical Report constitutes the economic and biological information and analysis reviewed by the Task Force. Although the Task Force suggested revisions to the Technical Report, it agreed that it was appropriate not to seek consensus on such detailed infor- nations. Roan County Pilot Study Task Force Report,May 1999 L d� 1.2 ELEMENTS OF THE REPORT s he Task Force Report consists of the five sections summarized below. Sections '-4 were developed and ratified by consensus of the Task Force. Section 5 contains expository discussions on key issues raised by the Task Force,but does not present consensus viers of these issues. 1. Introduction: The introduction outlines the historical context and purpose for preparing this report; describes the process used to write this report; and describes the key interests of Task Force member constituencies. 2. Background and of Study: This section consists of a detailed discussion of some of the problems with conserving and managing biological resources,as viewed by the Task Force. The statement forms a common basis for parties to pursue improvements to the current process of resource;protection. 3, Consensms Process Agreements: This section includes the rules ratified and used by the Task Force to guide its deliberations and decision making. It also includes the criteria used to select the members of the Biological Technical Review Corm- ittee and guide their review of technical data. 4. Task Force Recommendations: This section outlines the Task Force's recommendations to county,regional,state,and federal policy makers and the public, on general principles and a process for making resource pernnitting more efficient, effective, equitable, and.practical. 5. Discussion of lssves: The first subsection lists unresolved issues that emerged from the consensus process. The other subsections provide an overview or summary of topics relevant to better balancing resource protection with the range of public and private land use interests. Some of these individual sections were separately ratified by the Task Force as the full Task Force Report was being developed. Such sections contain italicized:rotations under the section treader indicating the date of ratification. 1.-2 Section 1. Irtroduction i i 2 E t4atsa�te�¢ � ` E r E Oregon ? #` a ° llllll Area CO v 'fait, UMM € C. ««m;C*atRMom Fmclaca MWOWCnat SM F P � a 1 T am WS 9WR L7 3 a, M ,n_ V&IWM °u fir,NOVO Mexico Jones& Snakes Assoc;ates, enc. Figure I General Location of Easter.Alameda-Contra Cost Counties ties Biodiversity Study Area in California .3 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES [This section was initially ratffled by the Task Force on. 7123198.] The overall goal of the Task Force's word was to balance the needs of agriculturists, business, conservation groups, urban development, private property rights, and public agencies with biodiversity in eastern Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. The Task Force Report and the associated Technical Report are intended to achieve this goal, in part,by improving the€mall-ty of biological resource information,by possibly increasing the mutual acceptance and use of the information among public and private entities and individuals involved with land use, and by suggesting improvements to the process for conserving biological resources. The Task Force recognized that the Task Force Report and the Technical Report, as well as the process used to develop theme, are only one facet of the policy, social, econorme, and conservation. Treasures necessary to improve the process for conserving biologics'_ resources, 10 ,1 Objectives The Task Force's work consisted of two components: (1*1 review and discussion. of technical inforrnation, including biological and 'and use data and maps, and 1 ) consensus recommendations frorn the Task Force on how to use technical information to improve the way biological resources are conserved and managedforthegoal ofbetterbala€ e4ngbiodiversitywith private and public interests involved with land use. Technical Information Objectives. This component involved review of data collected by a consultant on natural resources, -habitat, species, and planning designations for the study area. The information was collected nom existing dog ur<ents and studies and interpretation of aerial photographs. Specific objectives of the consultants' work included; 1. identification of biological resources,inciading habitats, riority species occurrences, and ley habitat features; 2. identification of planning boundaries, proposed projects, and city/county land use designations; 3. development of a map ping database of biological resources and citylcounty land use designations and proposed land ;uses, which may be updated, improved, and expanded upon over time; and 4. identification and discussion of the limitations of the data,including those related to data collection and presentation. Consensus Process Objectives. The Task Force was formed to review preliminary work on the Fast County Pilot Study in a way that reflects the reeds of private and public stakeholders in eastern Alaneda and Contra Costa Counties. The Task Force participated in a consensus process East County Faust Study Task Force Report,May 1999 i-3 } ., to review axed revise draft text and develop a document on which the parties could agree. Specific objectives at the outset of the consensus process were: 1 r to reach agreement on,he use and limitations of the biological data and mapping, 2. to identify possible applications and misapplications of the data., 3. to build an understanding of the -needs and constraints of each public and private party involved with various lard uses; 4, to identify ways in which biological resource information car be better prepared, distributed, and used by the different parties; 5. to identify other types of technical information, including, but not limited to, biological and economic information that may be necessary to balance enhancement of biodiversity with various other land uses; 6. to recornrnend to local and/or regional decision makers specific policies or programs that will iMprove the conservation and management of biological resources and better bene-fit the needs and rights of public and private stakeholders in the study area; and 7. to identify areas on which the Task Force could not reach agreement. 1-4 ,Suction'. Introduction 1 4 PROJECT HISTORY The Ala rneda—Contra Costa Biodiversity Working Group was initiated in 1992 to provide a forunn for exploring opportunities to im-prove the process of protecting biological resources through improved coordination, better technical information, and an -,;mphasis on protecting biological systems and biological diversity rather than focusing on individual endangered species. After its inception,the Biodiversity Working Group he'd reguiar public meetings(on approximately a qcartery basis) open to anyone interested in addressing issues related to biodiversity. Six public agencies--Alameda County, Contra Costa County, the California Department of Fish and Game (DDG), the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD1, Contra Costa Water District ( C D}, and the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD)—sponsored the Biodiversity Working Group and served on its Steering Committee. These agencies jointly coordinated+.he Biodiversity Worldng Group's two projects: the East County Pilot Study and a modest effort focused on maintaining a wildlife corridor in the Oakland Hills. The formation of the Biodiversity Working Group reflected the intent of the State of California's Metnorandurn of Understanding ;1 OU), Califomia's Coordinated Regional Strategy to Conserve Biological Diversity: The Agreement on Biodiversity which was approved or, August 16, 1991, by the California Resources Secretary, DFG, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ','USFWS), and a number of other state and federal agencies. This MOU recommends formation of diverse local committees to cooperatively address biological issues. In November 1994,the Biodiversity Working Group discussed undertaking a pilot biodiversity study within a subarea of the two-county area. Ln February 1995, the Steering Committee solicited reco m rnendations from the Biodiversity Working Group on possible areas to focus a pilot-study. Based on these recommended-ons,the Steering Committee identified a227,0_00-acre area in eastern. Contra Costa and Alameda Counties and released a,request for proposals for a study of opportunities and constraints for consenving biological diversity while accommodating urban growth. Theprimary criterion that guided the selection of the study area boundaries was the need to identify an area the presented a good case study, i.e., an, area that could be productively examined for opportunities to simultaneously maintain biological resources and urban.growth. For this reason,the study area was defined to inclUde the large,contiguous areas of parIcs,water shed.,and grazing lands between Mount Diablo in the north and the Diablo Range in the south,as well as portions of the rapidly growing communities that border these contiguous undeveloped or less-developed areas. One intent of this regional a- pproach was to place more emphasis on habitat evaluation and cess emphasis on species occurrences (sightings,. Specific study area boundaries were chosen for'heir eltar definitions to facilitate mapping. For example, railroad rights-of-way,which show clearly on aerial photographs,partially define the study area. In June 1995, the Biodiversity Working Group Steering Committee selected Jones & Stokes Associates of"Sacrarnento as the project's technical consultant. Jones&Stokes' approach to the task involved preparing an inventory of resources and proposed land uses and developing -methods for analyzing this inventory to identify areas of higher and lower biological value and areas with higher and lower constraints to conservation. Eant Couray Pilot Study—Axk Force RePort,May 1999 1-5 i 1996, as the study was well .-Into development, concerns were expressed by landowners and developers that they not been adequately involved. In response, the Steering Committee held two workshops in June and July 11096 for landowners and developer representatives to learn more about the pilot study's goals and to solicit input to the study. An outcome of these workshops was the identification of a clear need to continue constructive dialogue between landowners,developers,and agency staff as well as to expand involvement in the study to other interested people and organizations, In February and April 1997,the Biodiversity Working Group invited interested stakeholders to a public rn`eting to determine how best to involve the public in preparing the pilot study. The outcome was an agreement to form a task force with agency,landowner,developer,conservation, wid community representatives in which each member would have equal standing in a consensus decision making process (not amajority-minority voting procedure). Central to the agreement was that the Task Peace dialogue would result in consensus text that would acknowledge and respond to the diverse constituencies represented. 1-6 Section 3. artroduvion 1 X TASK FORCE PROFILE Four members from each of five constituencies were asked to serve on the Task Force. These constituencies included .- 9 property owners/agriculturists; developer's, conservation advocacy groups; goverrirr ent agencies; and community organizations. In addition, the five governmental entities sponsoring the pilot study each assigned a, represent-e-ive to serve on the Task Force. Task Force discussions required participants to respect different viewpoints and endeavor to craft agreements acceptable to each constituency. This presented a significant challenge as the constituencies represented on the Task Force had diverse interests and viewpoints on low to balance land use issues with biodiversity. Outlined below is a brief summary of the key interests Task Force members brought to the dialogue. 1.6.1 Agriculturistsand Private Property Rights Advocacy Groups Agricultuarists and property owners who served on the€ask Force are concerned with pr=otecting natural reso aces bit believe that they experience a disproportionate burden of responsibility for conserving natural resources and that this responsibility is imposed by government regulation. They believe that governarent agencies often have inadequate data when making resource assessments and in determining what lands need special protection. Many feel that private property sights guaranteed in the United Mates Constitution are infringed and/or violated when agendes unreasonably restrict the development or use of their land. They also feel that private property rights are the cornerstone of a government for, by, and of the people, and that these rights are berg slowly and silently eroded. In addition, private:property rights advocates are concerned about the influence of unelected officials on:hese issues. -Also comm.on to both constituencies is the belief that land values diminish when species and habitat information is evade public. Such information, they believe, reduces the property's potential for urban deveioprnent and its appraised value to lenders. In particular, they believe that goverrrmental entities sometimes release studies or-proposed prq*ts that create uncertainty and ultimately affect the land use planning and the value/niaeketability of the lands within the defined area. Though agriculturists acknowledge that biodiversity protection.can be compatible with their work,they are concerned that habitat,planning increases the chance that relators will restrict agricultural practices or lirnit what land can be fared. East Cluny.F'as'o%Study Task Force Ret9d'n,May 1999 1-7 s�e: 1.5£2 Developers The developers participating on the Task Force view economic development and resource stewardship as compatible goals. At the same time, they want efficient environmental review of proposed developments and fair mitigation requirements. Their key interest is in expedient environmental review and regulatory certainty when multiple agencies review development _ proposals. Developers need to know in advance of applying for development entitlements what mitigation will be required and what areas of the parcel can be developed. Also, developers desire greater flexibility in mitigating habitat impacts so that biological resource conservation can be achieved at a reasonable financial cost. .5.3 Conservation Advocacy Groups .'he main interest of the conservation groups participating in the Task Force is protecting our natural resources and duality of life. To this end, conservation groups promote awareness of environmental issues and urge that sound environmental resource assessments be conducted and that existing state,and federal regulations be applied judiciously where land use changes occur. _ Conservation groups have advocated aggressively at the state and national level for the past 30 years for stringent environmental regulations that will,they believe,protect the nation's natural _ heritage. Although they recognize that economic development and.housing are important for a healthy region,they believe that development and housing should contribute to the general social health of the region and not come at the asst of open space,habitat, and species loss. They view biological resource stewardship and econ€=c sustainability as potentially compatible. They suppo-innovative,effective, and flexible solutions for protecting environ mental resources. 1. a4 Community-at-Large This constituency included representatives from the business community, the land trust corn11.n€rnity, Byron and adjacent unincorporated areas, and a nonpartisan political organization (the League of Women Voters). The common interest for each was the assurance that the broader good of the community would be considered in biological resource conservation. For the business community,it is in portant that conservation efforts are fair and cost effective. They also believe that existing regulations, such as the Endangered Species pct and the California Environmental Quality pct, should be reformed to better balance environmental and-economic priorities. Also,business is concerned that no:unnecessary new taxes,public costs,or regulatory burdens be placed on the community, The land trust community is interested in.conserving land with high biological or agricultural value for future generations in a wary that respects the rights .and management needs of private property owners. The Byron community is interested in political and economic self-determination through developing a specific area plan. ft desires that all issues regarding environmental protection,economic development,and individual rights be set forth in the community's specific area.plan. The League of Women Voters is interested in seeing an open,fair dialogue take place with public input to find legitimate and viable solutions. - ,Section 1. Introduction 1.5.6 Government Agencies This constituency consisted of three entities, each with a different interest: the City of Lives-ri ore, the local Resource and Conservation Districts (LCDs), and the USFWS. (Other participating governen t entities are described in lection 1. . .) the pity of ,ivern ore wants to see is general plan considered and integrated in biological conservation efforts car planning. The RCDs want to ensure that biological resource panning is comprehensive but balanced,and that it includes local management considerations. The stewardship provided by private landowners in conserving biological resources is recognized and valued by the RCDs. The USFWS participated in the consensus process to clarify the intent of government regulation and to engage in developing flexible approaches to achieving its mission. 1.5.6lodiv rsi Working Group Sponsoring Agencies The sponsoring agencies for the biodiversity Working Group consist of the two counties, Alarneda and Contra Costa; two special districts, the bast bay Regional Park District and the Contra Costa Water District; and a resource agency, the California Department of Fish and Carne. (__PBM is a member of the biodiversity Working Group but chose not to paft- icipate in the development of the Task Force Report or the Technical Report.) The planning departments ofAlarneda County and Contra Costa County plant to reduce the internal and public costs of the development review process through improved coordination of biological resource information. Also, the counties w&—.t to realize the goals of their general plans in a way that acconarnodates urban growth and maintains biological,values in appropriate areas. The EBRPD is interested it conserving open space and protecting biological resources and, where appropriate, providing compatible recreational activity. CCWD's key interest is in protecting and enhancing the biological valhae of watersheds around its reservoirs to provide high-quality potable water and to meet environmental commitments. DFG is most interested in protecting and-managing the area's diverse plant and wildlife resources,with an emphasis on those species and natural co nrn nities that are listed or are considered sensitive. Each of the biodiversity Working Group sponsoring agencies has an interest in coordinating biological information to manage resources effectively. East County Pilot.Study Task Force Report,May 1999 1-9 hr 1.6 CONSENSUS PROCESS The Task Force met on a monthly basis for almost two years to deliberate issues and to draft and ratify agreements. `l``wo consultants retained by the biodiversity Working Group sponsoring agencies provided important technical support on biological and economic issues. A. professional facilitator chaired the meetings to guide deliberations and achieve consensus. Contra Costa County provided valuable adr-runistrative support. In addition, the Task Force convened a biological Technical review Committee consisting of professionals not affiliated with he Task .Force. Operating under protocols ratified by the Task Force (Section 3.5 f, the Bio'logical Technical review Committee conducted an independent review of the biologics:data and,methodologies in the Technical Report. At its first meeting,the'Iask Force agreed to gather and review information and make decisions by consensus rather than use a majority voting procedure. The Task Force ratified a fission Statement and ground rules to guide its deliberaw r s and decision making process. In the Ground Rules, the'bask Force agreed to explore the interests of the constituencies represented when deliberating and crafting recommendations. ,This interest-based dialogue helped the Task Force move away from previously held positions and develop agreements that,as a whole,were inclusive of the diverse interests represented. Members also agreed to work together or.preparing a single report. The Task Force agreed to this collaborative approach rather than release unilateral positions on issues under discussion or use information from sources not agreed to by consensus. This single negotiated text began with the adoption of the fission Statement at the first-meeting and culminated with ratification of this document. For each meeting, a summary was prepared of the discussion items and ratified agreements and was adopted by the Task Force at the subsequent meeting. The Task Force devedopvd and ratified 10 agreements. They included process agreennents,such as ground rules and criteria for selecting technical review cornrnittee members, and substance agreements,such as the background Statement in Section 2 and the policy recommendations in Section 4. Implicit in these agreements are the increased understanding and respect among the parties regarding the concerns and issues about biodiversity and biological resource conservation. 1-10 Section 3. introduction Section 2. Background of Task Force Report 2A THE PROBLEMS WITH AND NEED FOR IMPROVING THE PROCESS OF CONSERVING AND MANAGING BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Section 2. Background of Task Force Report a This section was rotijfted by the Task Force on 1211 197.E 2.1 THE PROBLEMS WITH AND NEED FOR IMPROVING THE PROCESS OF CONSERVING AND MANAGING BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .1.1 Introduction and Purpose of the Background Statement The Task Force has discussed and identified some of the problems with the current process of conserving and managing biological resources. The following discussion surninarizes some of these problems, some reasons why the current process sloes not satisfy the needs of the parties involved, and some potential benefits of improving the current process. 2.1 a2 Problems with the Current Process of Conserving Biological Resources The current process of assessing and mitigating impacts to biological resources on public and private land is sometimes inefficient and ineffective. Some problems include; l o The development approval process is expensive for project sponsors and regulatory agencies. Project sponsors often rnust expend time and money to complete environmental studies without assurances that they will receive the necessary approvals and permits. 2. Biological resource conservation: and management efforts have not always been successful in stopping the decline of sensitive animal and plant species, 3. The burden: of preserving or mitigating in, to biological resources is often not shared equally among landowners. The last properties to be developed in a biologically sensitive area are sometimes left with a larger share of responsibility to protect sensitive resources than adjacent properties developed earlier. 4. Regulatory agencies require mitigation measures to preserve and recover biological resources that sometimes do not effectively protect the resource or are too costly for the project sponsor. 5. The burden of preserving biological resources can fall disproportionately on landowners and azriculturists. East County Paior Study Task Force Report,May 1999 2-1 6. The lack of information on a regional basis, the focus on single species protection, and the project-by-project approach to mitigation do not account for the regional scale and complexity of managing biological resources. 7. Agriculturists and other landowners aro not always provided adequate incentives for resource stewardship. 2.1.3. Information Deficiencies In Biological Resource Conservation and Management Effective conservation and rnanagernent efforts of landowners and agencies require good - information on the biological resources of an area. inadequate resource information can result in poor conservation strategies and.results. Listed below are several examples of hoar inadequate information is used or how good information is misused in biological conservation efforts: I. Information about a site is not arrays shared among regulatory agencies,landowners, project sponsors, and other interested pasties. 2. Different agencies with different mandates sometimes use different information sets to assess impacts. This can result in contradictory mitigation requirements being req°aired by different agencies. 3. Often there is inadequate or incorrect biological information about a site and its regional context. This can inhibit creature and cost-effective solutions for conserving resources and mitigating impacts. Without adequate-information,regulatory agencies have difficulty providing flexible mitigation measures. 4. Agriculturists,landowners,project sponsors, and regulatory agencies sometimes do not agree on resource reaps and habitat boundaries. 2.1 s4 Ways to Improve Biological Resource Information Listed below are some of the ways that the process of developing and using biological resource information could be unproved by resource agencies and local government: 1. Coordinate the dissemination of uniform data and mapping information among necessary agencies and private entities. 2. Gather information and assess impacts to biological resources on a regional scale. 3. Develop and use information.that is mutually accepted by resource agencies,project sponsors, agriculturists, landowners, and conservation groups, 2a2 Section 2. Background of Task Force Resport ............................................................................................................_________. . _........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................._._................................__________ ...... .............. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ........_..._.... 2.1.5 Potential Benefits of Improving Biological Resource Information and the Biological Conservation Process An irriproved b1olo-ica:resource Conservation process could better manage and preserve the East County's natural resources, a goal' shared by landowners, business, agriculturists, conservation groups, and the broader cornrnu-nity. Certain improvements -.'I the way biological resource information. is gathered, disseminated, and used could benefit,the interests of landowners and project sponsors and the process of resource assessment and conservation. Some benefits might include or lead to: * reduced time and cost of securing project a-, rovals; I p * increased efficiency aid effectiveness of managing biological resources; * reduced level of responsibility on a single projec-1f, sponsor to mitigate biological impacts; * reduced tirne and cost of project review by multiple agencies; * increased opportunities for co=ensating landowners and agriculturists for the stewardship of biological resources or,their land; and * greater certainty about what, compliance with resource regulations will entail and what/how resources wfll be protected. East County Pilo,Study Task Force Report,May 1999 2-3 Section 3. Consensus Process Agreements 391 MISSION STATEMENT 3.2 GROUND RULES 3.3 ROSTER FOR TASK FORCE AND IOL OGICALH TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE 3.4 SELECTION CRITERIA FOR THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEES 3.5 PROTOCOLS FOR THE BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Section 3. Consensus Process Agreements All documents in this section were developed and ratified by the Task.Force as they are printed here. These documents represent the intentions and position of the Task Force at the tine of their ratification. Some items may not necessarily have been achieved by the Task Force during its subsequent work. 3.1 MISSION STATEMENT 'This section was ratifiedby the Task Force on 6626/97.] The mission of the East County Pilot Study Task Force is to consider and develop an East County pilot Study,with broad representation from and involvement of community interests and public agencies. The study will address opportunities for balancing the needs of agriculture, business, urban development, and private property rights with biodiversity in East County. Task Force participants will engage in a collaborative,consensus based process to produce the pilot study. The Task Force will consist of landowner,agricultural,developer,conservation,city, and natural resource agency representatives and representatives of the Alan.eda—Contra Costa Biodiversity Working Group signatory agencies. Representatives of the signatory agencies will provide general project support. A Technical Review Counittee consisting of experts selected by the`bask Force will provide biological- and scientific support to the Task Force. 'ask Force rompers serve as representatives of basad community constituencies encies and are encouraged to convey the interests of their constituency or organization/agency at Task Force meetings. The monthly Task Force--meetings will be open to the public. The Task Force will hold periodic meetings to give the community at lame an opportunity to comment on the work of the"bask Force. The Task Force inn-tends to conduct open discussions a4nong community representatives and public agencies to obtain input and develop agreement on eluents of a pilot study, including: need;purpose, objectives, and possible applications of the Study, * data collection, * data analysis and modeling, discussion of analysis, and. * unresolved and unresolvable issues. The Task Force wviil commit to prep anng a study in an efficient manner through a series of rnor°&Iy meetings. East County.Pilyot Study Task Force Repo a,May 1999 3-1 3.2 GROUND RULES [This section ,,vas rat%aero by the Task Force on 5/22797. Revised on 7124197.1 The East County Pilot Study Task Force will use the following ground rules to guide deliberations and development of a pilot study, 3. .1 Roles - 1. The role of the Task Force is to consider,discuss,critique,and develop elements of a biodiversity pilot study in eastern Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. 2. The role of the Technical Review Conunittee is to provide independent, objective review and analysis of the biological and other technical components of the study. The Task Force will select individuals to serve on the committee. 3. I rojectSupporta The signatory agencies of the Alameda—Contra Costa Biodiversity Working Group will provide overall project support, including preparing draft meeting material, securing meeting space, and coordinating consultant services. 4. Facilitator:r: The role of the neutral facilitator will be to guide discussion, ensure balanced participation, Identify and clarify areas of disagreement, Delp shape and, record areas of emerging consensus, and prepare meeting agendas. 3.202 Representation 1. Each Task Force mernler will articulate and represent the interests of his or her constituency, Members will regularly brief their organizations or agencies, senior staff,and/or governing boards on Task Force proceedings. Significant comments or questions expressed by the staff or governing boards of the organizations on the Task Force should be communicated to the Task Force at its next meeting. 2. .Every member is responsible for communicatirg his or her position on issues under consideration. Voicing these interests is essential to enable meaningful dialogue. If a Task Force member does not regularly attend Task Force meetings or cornrnunicate his or her viewpoint on an issue, it is assumed that the member agrees with the principles, decisions, or recommendations made by the Task Force. 3. Members will. commit to preparing for and attending regular monthly meetings. N a member cannot make a scheduled meeting, that person can designate an alternate to attend and represent him or her. If an alternate is not designated,the Task Force member should.communicate.his or her comments orally or in writing directly to the facilitator. 3n2 Section 3. Consensus Process Agreemet is ............................................................._....__. ___ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ _................ ......... ......... ._....... ....... _ ......... .....-_.... ........... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......._... ...... ir✓i'si'0..f 4. If a member is unable to continue serving as a regular member of the Task Force,he or she will select a replacement who represents the same constituency or agency. 5. Replacements or alternates of Task Force members participate in Task Force deliberations with the understanding that they affirm and accept agreements previously ratified by their predecessors. 3.2.3 Discussion Guidelines 1. The consensus process is a cooperative,Joint problem solving effort. Members whl refrain from engaging in competitive behavior that denigrates other participants or disrupts the work of the group. Members will respect the opinions, values, and integrity of other members and not stereotype others or make personal attacks. Delay or absence from.meetings will not be used to avoid undesired results. 3. Disagreements will be regarded as problems to be solved and not as arguments to be Avon. Disagreements should foes on the issues involved and not on the personalities or uerceived motives of other Task Force members. 4. Members who have missed a meeting and replacerner is or alternates of Task Force members have a responsibility to brief themselves or upcoming meeting topics and cannot use pl€;nary Task Force meetings to backtrack on topics or ask for detailed discussion of items already ratified or discussed by the Task Force. .2.4 Information Sharing 1. Members should provide pertinent information for items under discussion or that may affect Task Force deliberations. Members have an obligation to share specific information, including possible or pending decisions within or by the agencies, groups,or constituencies they represent as well as information in the form of reports, rnernos, and studies that may affect the Task Force. 2. The need to withhold privileged or confidential information will not be asserted lightly. 3. 'Tentative or sensitive information will be respected.. 3.2,5 Decision Making _> The Task Force will use a consensus-based process and adhere to these principles to guide deliberations and form decisions and recommendations: Hast Cour y Pilo.,Study Task Force Report,Play 1999 3-3 a. Consensus is built by identifying and exploring the interests of all parties and developing ars agreement that satisfies these interests to the greatest extent possible. Consensus is reached when parties agree that their key interests have been considered and addressed and that they can live with the decision of the group. b. Consensus does not necessarily mean unanimity. Some parties may strongly - support a particular recommendation while ethers -may accept it as a workable agreement. 'bask Force members can pa_-ticipate in consensus without embracing each element of the agreement with the same level of support as other members. c. Parties recognize that negotiating an agreement requires exploring a combination of gains and compromises. d. A disagreement can highlight unrecognized problems and issues and serve as a catalyst for examining the issue more closely. This process, in some cases, can improve the final decision or recommendation. When disagreement persists,the`bask Force will explore and address the unmet interest and bind. a way to meet that interest in a revised. agreement. 2. Individual members should not block the overwhelming will of the group in reaching agreement unless they can identify genuine,substantive interests which have not been - addressed adequately by the Task Force, If the Task Force reaches an impasse on a particular issue, one of these approaches will be used to resolve the issue: a. I he topic can be postponed for discussion until the next plenary Task Force meeting. b. A subcommittee,representative of the different viewpoints,will explore the issue further and craft a consensus agreement that the full Task Force can support. c. A subcommittee, representative of the different viewpoints, can summarize the issue and document the areas of agreement and disagreement and include the summary as an appendix to the final study. 3.266 Ratification Process y.. The Task Force will ratify each section of the study individually by full consensus. Provisional ratification will be used in special cases to allow the group to move forward with an agreement while leaving open the opportunity to revise a previous chapter. The final study will be ratified as a complete document. The Task Force can revisit and open up for discussion a previously ratified item by consensus of the full Task Force. 3-4 Sectton 3. Consensus Process Agreements _.................................................................................-__ ____ ........................................................................................................................................ .................................... ... ......... ...._ _......_........._.......__... _.......... .................._....... .. 2. Task Force members will use a sin- glemtext approach to craft a final study. This means that all recommended changes to written material under consideration by the 'ask Force are to be made on or in direct response to the actual documents so that they may be easily incorporated into the revised text. Changes to draft written agreements proposed outside of plenary Task Farce meetings via separate memos, letters, phone calls, and faxes will not be accepted. 3. As the Task Force makes decisions on different issues, project support staff will prepare draft material reflecting emerging consensus at plenary meetings. Draft material will then be circulated for review by the Task Force in a packet for the subsequent meeting, Irl'=ere the facilitator will seek ratification. This pattern of drafting,revising,and ratificatior.will be the primary method of seeking agreements. 3.267 Communicating with the Media 1. The Task Force may establish a Media Subcommittee, representative of all the interests serving on the T ask a orce,to j ointly prepare press releases at key milestones in the process to accurately convey the proceedings sof the Task Force to the media. 1 h. 'ask Force rnerrbers discuss the proceedings and deliberations of the Task Force with the redia,members should present only their own views and not these of other members. Members are encouraged to suggest that media representatives contact outer Task Force members who may have different points of view. Members will not disc-ass or represent someone vise's point or view or interests in discussions with the media. No Task Force member can represent the whole 'bask Force to the media unless the Task Force selects a spokesperson by consensus. 3. While the 'bask Force studies, discusses, or evaluates issues, members bers gill refrain from prejudging outcomes publicly. Such statements inhibit creative discussion and the group's ability to modify draft proposals. 4. Representatives of the media are welcome to attend Task Force meetings and are requested to identify themselves to the'bask Force or the facilitators prior to the start of each meeting. 3.2.8 Schedule x. ask force member s will corn reit to reviewing agenda materials and participating in monthly meetings to help the group develop agreements in an efficient manner. Members will not delay meeting progress or the scheduling of nneetings to avoid ars undesired outcome. Ear Crpwy Plloo Swdy:°ask Force Rebore,May 1999 3-5 fay 2. The Task Force will use a time frame of eight to 12 rnonths (from May 1997) to structure the consensus process and prepare a final study. After six months,the Task Force can decide by consensus to increase or reduce this time frame. 3.2.9 Technical Review Committee I. 1t is essential that the Task Force have accurate,valid,unbiased information to guide and inform its deliberations. To this end, the Task Force will appoint a Technical Review Committee which will work by consensus and serve as a neutral body to analyze,discuss,and present information and results to the Task Force. One or more Technical Review Committee members will be designated as liaisons to the Task - Force. 2. The Task force will develop selection criteria to form the Technical Review Committee. Once the Technical Review Committee is formed, the Task Force will develop protocols and standards in cooperation with the Technical Review Committee for preparing, analyzing, and presenting information. 3. The Task. Force, in its plenary meetings, will identify information requests and submit these to the Technical Review Committee. Individual Task Force members cannot submit information requests outside of plenary Task Force meetings. 4. The scope of questions requested of the Technical Review Committee will be lirnited to those topics relevant to completing a biodiversity pilot study. S. The signatory agencies of the Alameda---Contra Costa Biodiversity Working Group will provide initial funding for consultant work.. The Task force will need to consider the assts of its requests within the context of other information that may be - necessary later in the consensus process. If the Task Force determines by consensus that additional work is necessary to complete the study,the Task.Force will develop a viable funding strategy to complete the additional work. 392.10 Community Participation 1. All meetings of the Task. Force will be open to the public, and a public comment period will be provided at the end of the meeting agendas. 2. Organizations and agencies interested in the work of the Task.Force are invited to attend the meeetings. Representatives of such organizations can transmit comments or questions about topics under discussion to Task Force support staff via written or personal communication. All such communications will be conveyed to the full Task Force at its next.regular meeting. 3-6 Section 3. Consensus,Process agreements _.. ......... ......... ....._.. ......... .............1_111 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ _1111......... _...._.... .._......... _...11.11... 111.1.... .... _ ......... ............. ...._....... ......... .......__... ..._ u> 3. The Task Force will hold regular public meetings to update the community at large €in, 'T'ask Force work and provide an opportunity for cis unity comment. 4. Mers of the public are free to relay comments or questions to mer-leers of the ask Force. .Fast Counry Fi:ot,Study Task Force Report,May 1999 3-7 3.3 ROSTER FOR TASK FORCE AND BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE [Task.Force roster ratified by the Task Force on 5122197, corrected on 7124197. biological Technical Review Committee Roster ratified by the Task.force on 1122198.j 3.3.1 Initial East County Task Furca Roster The raster-iresented below describes Task Force membership at the time the Task Force was formed. Sorne initial members did not participate in Task Force meetings, The uitimate composition ositi© f the Task Force is d s ribed or, the ratification page at the beginning of this resort. 3-8 Section 3. Consensus Process Agreements _...................................................................................................................................................._............................._..--_______ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ _.... ............_......._............. ........... _ __.._ ......... _ __......................... AGRICULTURAL/PRIVATE DEVELOPERS LANDOWNERS Alameda County Landowner(shared) Cowell ranch Project Gene B-°adman,Delores Cornwell Gary Craft Contra Costa Farm Bureau Hoare Builders Association of Northern M!ke Vukeliep California Paul Campos,Phil Sarna(alternate) Citizens Land Alliance(alternates) Jim C werder.Frank Perera North Livermore Project(two large property owners in the area) Alameda/Contra Costa Cattlemen's Bill Clarke,C✓on e Goldade(alternate) Association Larry Plog Signature Properties Ken Crews,Mark Stiee CONSERVATION ADVOCACY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ORGANIZATIONS Audubon Society City of Antioch Al MO a`oney,Gloria Cannon Victor Ca-niglia Greenbelt Alliance City of Livermore Torn Mooers Terry Watt Save Mount Diablo Resource Conservation Districts(spared) Seth Adams Sheila Barry,Alan eda County RCD Leonard Gerry,Conga Costa County RCD Sierra Club Mio bele Perrault,Margaret Tracy U.S,Fish and'wildlife Service (ateniate; Sheila Larsen. COTMIMU I` Y REPRESENTATIVES BIODIVERSITY WORKL'4G GROUP AGENCIES Byron Municipal Advisory Council Alameda County(alternates) Stepper:Herrick Chris Bazar,funis Noel Citizen/long-time Biodiversity Working Group Contra Costa County(alternates) participant 'Roberfa Goulart,John Kopchik Marjorie LaBar Contra Costa Water District(alternates) Contra Costa Chambers bers of Commerce Denis McCorrnac,Dennis Pisila Henry Alker,Linda Brewer(altercate) California Department of Kish and Game League of Women Voters(alternates) (alternates) Pat Mann,June Perry Joanr:e Karl:or,Czar:Wilcox South Livermore Agricultural Land Trust East Bay Regional Park District(alternates) Valerie Raymond,Lo--s Lutz(alternate) Brad Olson,Beth Store East Ct unV Plat Sft4 Task Force Report,May 1999 3-9 3.3.2 Biological Technical Review Committee Roster Dr. Michael Barbougr, University of California, Davis Dr. James Bartolo e, University of Cahfomia, Berkeley Dr. Barbara Etter,University of California, Berkeley, .�epson Herbarium Ms. Marylee Guinon, Sycamore Associates LI.0 Dr. Lynn Huntsinger, University of California, Berkeley Mr. Deter opkinson, University of California, Berkeley, graduate student of Dr. Huntsinger Mr. Thomas Kato, Lawrence Livermore rational Laboratory Dr. William Lidicker, University of California, Berkeley Mr. Geoff Monk, Monk &Associates Mr. Malcolm Sproul, LSA Associates, Inc. Mr. Michael Stevens, Autodesk,.Inc. 3-10 Section 3. Consensus Process Agreernents _. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........._.. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3.4 SELECTION CRITERIA FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEES [This section was ratified by the Task Force on 7/24/97.1 These criteria were used to select me bens far the Biological Technical Review Committee. No tither technical review comynittees were convened by the Task Force, The Task Force will use the following criteria to develop a list of members for various Technical Review Committees: 1. Technical Review Committee members cannot be members o tl?e Task Force. 2. Technical.Review Committee .embers mast be willing to commit the time necessary to review detailed technical information periodically over the duration of developing the study. 3. Tech—nical Review Committee members must possess recognized expertise in the subject areas necessary to provide analysis of the topic under discussion by the Task Force. 4. Technical Review Co puttee r,embers mist be able to provide obiective critique and res-oonse to 'bask Force requests for -information, interpretation, or do went review. 5. The Technical Review Committee should consist of the mini um nurnber of people necessary to ensure an efficient aid thorough technical review process for whatever topic is under discussion. 6. Two or more members of any Technical Review Committee will be designated as liaisons to the Task Force. 7. Technical Review Committee candidates shall disclose any past or current professional and/or advocacy associations or relationships with Task Force member organizations or agencies. 8. The Task Force should strive to select Technical Review Committee members who are ob eetive and do not represent advocacy positions. In eases where there is no agreement about the ability of attaining an objective Technical Review Committee, +,he Task Force will select Technical Review Committee members who represent a diversity of positions and backgrounds on the topic ender disousslon. East County Pilot study Task Farce Report,May 1999 3-11 .-`.6t 3.5 PROTOCOLS FOR THE BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMrrTEE [This section was ratified by the Task Force on 1122198.1 3.5.1 Purpose of the Biological Technical Review Committee The Biological Technical Review Committee will provide the East County Pilot Study Task Force with an independent, scientific review of the adequacy and validity of the biological data collection and mapping methods developed to date for the pilot study. This independent review is intended to clarify technical biological questions related to the study and to inform 'ask Force deliberations. 3.5.2 Protocols b. the bask Force wi11 prepare specific questions and instructions for the Biological Technical Review Committee regarding the data sources, data collection and mapping methods,possible applications,andlor other questions related to preparing the pilot study. 2. All inquiries will be developed by consensus of the plenary Task Force and submitted in writing to the Biological Technical Review Committee. Questions raised by individual Task .Force members outside of Task Force meetings will not be considered by the Biological Technical Review Committee. 3. The Biological Technical Review Committee will receive documents and information sources reviewed by the Task Force,including information for elements of the draft pilot study) prepared by Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc., and text developed and ratified by the Task Force(including Mission Statement,Background Statement, etc.) and any other information necessary to complete its review. A representative of Jones & Stokes Associates will be available to the Biological `technical Review Committee to answer questions and summarize work completed on the pilot study. 4. The Biological Technical)review Committee will consider the questions submitter) by the Task Force and strive to develop responses by consensus. Where consensus cannot be achieved,the Biologicai Technical Review Committee will identify areas of scientific disagreement and/or items for further research. 5. The Biological Technical review Committee wi11 select a chair or two co-chairs to wide its deliberations and present written and verbal findings to the Task Force,. Staff will provide logistical and secretarial support. 3-12 Section 3. Conser us Process Apeements _. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... _.. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ......... ......... ......... ......... .........I....._....... _ _...... .......... .... ....................... .......... ............ .......... ....... per..... �; Section 4. Task Force Recommendations 4.1 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS .2 OTHER ISSUES THAT BRONCO BE ADDRESSED IN FTE EFFORTS TO CONSERVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4.3 LESSONS LEARNED . J, :44o Section 4. Task Ford Recommendations 4.1 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1.1 General Recommendation Principles Consistent with the general Task Force objective of balancing the needs of agriculture,business, urban development, and private property rights with biodiversity,the Task Force recommends that the following general principles guide actions taken to improve the process for conserving biological resources: Conserving the biological resources and the neural environment of laneda and Contra Costa Counties is impo tan.t. * ?maintaining economic growth,promoting agriculture,and protecting property rights are im-oortant, * Reducing the level of conflict over the conservation of biological resources and related public policy issues is in the community's interest. Increased regulatory clarity, consistency, and certainty related to biological conservation and development can benefit all interested parties, improving the effectiveness of regulations to conserve biological resources may be compatible with strearnlining the regulatory process and reducing applicants' permitting expenses. Both goals can have broad support when pursued in tandem and when an effective,adequately funded monitoring program is established to help assure that results match expectations. * Assessing and conserving biological resources is best accomplished on a regional or sub-regional scale that reflects the functions of natural systems. Using a regional approach can also facilitate permit streamlining. * Promoting agricu tUre and conserving biological resources can be complementary goals. Cooperative approaches to conservation planning involving all interested parties offer opportunities for developing creative, mutually beneficial solutions. E---t County Pilot&udy Task Force Repo t,May 1999 4-1 Approaches to biological resource conservation should be effective and provide real and equitable benefits to all stakeholders. 4.1=2 General Recommendations The Task Force discussed and identified some of the problems with the current process of conserving aid managing biological resources. used on hese discussions,the Task Force has developed 15 general recommendations to help address these problems. The Task Force wishes to emphasize that these recornmendations are based on the knowledge and experience of lay persons and not on profession-al or technical expertise. The 15 general recommendations of the Task Force are as follows: 1. In general, mitigation actions and funds should not be transferred out of the general east Alameda--Contra Costa area, particularly in cases where a comprehensive mitigation program is contemplated. Adopting this approach can benefit local resources and local landowners seeking mitigation funds. However, for some developments,mitigating locally may,in some instances,be constrained by economic Feasibility or constitute an unreasonable economic burden. Likewise,local-mitigation :must be of a caliber that is biologically acceptable. 2. soca: agencies and resource agencies should explore more efficient regulatory processes for preserving biological resources without compromising effectiveness. I, Approaches to biological resource conservation should include coordinated regional efforts involving both public and private entities. 4. 0-) ortunities for site-by-site planning and permitting should be continued. 5. Local agencies, private entities, and resource agencies should continue to strive to develop, snare, and use information and mapping data that are mutually accepted by resource agencies, protect sponsors, agriculturists, landowners, and conservation groups. 6. Mechanisms should be implemented to compensate willing landowners and agriculturists who provide resource stewardship and protection: for biological resources on their land. Such opportunities for compensation could provide a real alternative to the development of their land. 7. Efforts to coordinate and streamline endangered species compliance should be integrated with programs to streamline other tykes of environmental compliance, including wetlands permitting through the J.S. Array Corps of Engineers, the Regional dater Quality Control Board,and others. Expanded oppor`unities for"one stop shopping" for permits would be an improvement. 4-2 Section 4. Task Force Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... ...... ... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ..................... .........._..... ..............._._..... ........................ ...... 8. The public should contribute its fair share of funds to help support the casts of securing,protecting,and managing land for habitat and open space. Land trusts,park districts, and other conservation organizations may be appropriate vehicles for receiving and spending these finds. 9, Public and private developers should pay their fair share of the casts of protecting habitat land and securing open space. 10. In return for effective biological resource conservation,lands that are designated for developrner t should receive streamlined review and per fitting. Such a reciprocal arrangement should be accompanied by comprehensive monitoring and clear performance standards to help assure that results match expectations. 11. Opportunities for directing biological conservation efforts to strategies that maximize the conservation effectiveness of existing public lands should be explored. 12. Local agencies, private entities, and resource agencies should explore mechanisms such as mitigation/conservation barks, which can help,to direct mitigation funds in a more biologically sound manner, can provide more cost-effective mitigation through economies of scale, and can reduce uncertainty and delays. 13. Local agencies and cooperating landowners should strive to develop transition areas or buffers between incompatible land uses. Authorization of land use changes should consider the need for buffers and should not pass this responsibility on to neighboring prope:°ties. 14. The Task Force and its work can only partially address the full range of options for better reconciling protection of the environment with maintenance of economic growth and protection of property rights, For instance,the Task Force cannot address legislative reform, a subiect which many members believe is crucial to reconciling these concerns. This and ether opportunities for addressing these problems could and should be pursued. 15, The Task Force also recommends, consistent with the Mission Statement and with the recommendations and recommendation principles described above, that local goverment and resource agencies consider initiating a coordinated program or programs for processing permits and directing mitigation related to endangered species and other natural resource regulations. To be effective,such a program must: have a real and reliable source of funds to compensate wialing landowners for their resource stewardship. improve the conservation of biological and Cather natural resources by: (a) approaching this task from a regional or sub regional perspective that better reflects the functions of natural systems and enables conservation to be targeted East Country Pile Stady Task,Force Pep,rt,May 1999 4-3 to areas of significant resource value; and (b) directing the costs arzd effor-tt associated with regulatory compliance more toward resource protection and less toward the process of permitting. reduce the amount of time, money, and uncertainty that developers and project proponents Int.st dedicate to compliance with endangered species laws and other resource protection regulations. 44 Section 4. Task Force R'ecorzraerdatzors ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 42 OTHER ISSUES THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED IN FUTURE EFFORTS TO CONSERVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 10 i prove the process for conserving biological resources, individual Task Force members recorn end that the following issues be studied andlo-addressed in the future; * Housing needs in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. * Opportunities for in-fill development in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. * 1mpacts to property varies,either positive or negative, of a weighting strategy map, if one is released. Economic impacts of current-requirements and processes for conserving biological resources. Economic aspects of sustainable agriculture. Alternatively, study what is required to make agric€:ltare sustainable in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. The agricultural lending process and the question. of how loans may or may not be impacted by studies, maps, and planning efforts related to agricultural lards. * The costs and benefits of i ple-meeting Habitat Conservation plans and other mechanisms to improve and stream.line environmental regulations in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties (study this issue in, greater detail). Infrastructure casts of new development. Econo-mic costs of preserving species and other biological resources. * Economic costs of not preserving species and other biological resources. Compare the costs of preserving various endangered species. Which are cheaper` More expensive? Compare to the costs of preserving habitats. * The economic vale of local livestock grazing. * The value oflivestock grazing to the conservation of biological resources. The costs and benefits to public agencies of preserving species. The role private landowners play in conserving biological resources by their stewardship of their lands. * The unrealized economic benefits to ranchers of the resource stewardship they provide to society. .fast County Pilot Study Task Force Report,May 1999 4-5 * Who is gaining and who is losing from property rights restrictions made in the name of resource protection? Opt. for improving biological resource conservation through voluntary irnprovernents in nanagernent practices. _ The successes and failures in similar e$foi s to conserve biological resources. The Contra Costa Citizens Land Alliance and other landowners suggest studying issues regarding rational sovereignty and the "Biosphere Reserve?5 concepts prorr rilgated in the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity signed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, yet to be ratified by the Senate) as they relate to identifying and naming "Biodiversity Areas" locally. -6 Section 4, Task Force P<ecorrm—endations 493 LESSONS LEARNED A consensus process on biological resource conservation and regulatory issues requires good technical data,fair ground rules,and incen.ives to negotiate. This process was the first efft r�.in East County where key private an d public stakeholders could discuss conservation issues in a nonpolitical context. The process helped Task Force members recognize and understand the issues facie each constituency and yielded several agreements and recommendations upon which policy makers might base new administrative and legislative policies in the future, to improve biological resource conservation and regulation. The Alaw eda-Contra Costa Biodiversity Working Group formed the East County pilot ,Study Task Force to incorporate the concerns of community interests into the East County Pilot Study. The initial purpose of revising the study eventually resulted in a dialogue about the problems with and possible changes to the regulatory-environment. Discussed below are several important lessors learned during the course of this dialogue and suggested improvements for future consensus processes. a Convene Task Force in a Context of Mutual Gains. This dialogue was initiated principally as a response to strong opposition by some stakeholders to the pending release of the Pilot Study and the process used to develop it. although tlse Pilot Study originated from an open, committee process, unsuccessful outreach resulted ire l incited partticipation from?landowner and d-evel�sper inter-esti. Consequently,rna_ny in the Task Force considered the key topic of discussion at the o=utset to be how the study would hurt some constituencies and benefit others. in general, members negotiated tenaciously and tried to negotiate concessions away from-each other rather than explore mutual gain agreements. Although trust increased over tine,the Task Force often focused on how the pilot study would burr or hinder certain constituencies. Future consensus dialogues should b-e convened with the hope that many parties stand to gain frorn the process. The dialogue should be a voluntary.willing interest by the panties, who understand that the goal is to work collaboratively to craft equitable, mutually beneficial agreements. 2m Provide Real Incentives to Negotiate. Creative solutions and agreements emerge when parties are assured that they will. receive valuable benefits that outweigh the alternatives to a negotiated agreement,such as political confrontation,litigation,and lobbying for legislative changes. The most attainable outcome from the East County dialogue was advisory recommendations for policy markers to consider. Task Force members had little incentive to disclose bottom--line needs since no binding outcomes around current conservation regulations or policies were likely to be achieved.. The 'bask Force was, however, able to craft substantive consensus recommendations during this process on mutually beneficial approaches for improving biological resource conservation efforts. Fasz Counay Pilot Study Task Force Resort,May 1999 4-7 Future dialogues should be convened in a context in which representatives have authority to offer possible policy or economic benefits or increased regulatory certainty. This will motivate participants to explore issues in greater detail and construct more creative solutions. 3. Novide Adequate Time to Examine Stakeholder Issues. parties build trust in a consensus dialogue when they see their negotiating partners genuinely inquire about and listen to their needs, constraints, and objectives. Due to time constraints and reservations about the use of subcommittees, the Task Force did not explore exhaustively the range of concerns of the individual constituencies (some of which are listed in Sectio?402 above). Exploratory,non-binding discussions or stakeholder concerns can elucidate the overlapping and competing interests around the table and help parties seek wise, efficient solutions that address these concerns. Future dialogues should allow time for the group to examine and understand specific stakeholder interests. Subcommittee or informal working group meetings can be convened to learn and exchange information among parties without having to negotiate agreements. � Use Subcommittees to Draft Preliminary Agreements. For the most part,the Task Force meet as a fall group to develop preliminary work and review and revise final agreements. In some cases,this process was tedious and inefficient, The Task Force did convene some committees to resolve issues and review reaps toward the end of the process. In future dialogues with 10 or more parties, subcommittees should be form ed to craft prelirninary agreements. Subcommittees should consist of a cross-section of the interests represented in the negotiating group, 5. Develop and Use laps by Consensus. Maps related to biological resources can be useful but contentious. The final Technical Report contains fewer maps than originally proposed in the pilot study. Conse^ration and some government interests believed such reaps would be useful tools, enabling better protection of important resources and a more efficient regulatory process. Landowner and developer interests were concerned that such maps would be taken out of context, misapplied, or otherwise used to impose or perpetuate stricter regulations. The issue of maps suggested that, in future dialogues in the East County, it is critical that efforts to create and use maps should be conducted as part of the consensus process. Specifically,the full consensus group should define the purpose and uses,deter m line the data sets, and decide on the format and release of data and policy maps. Further discussion of the mapping issues is provided in Section 5.1. 4-8 Section 4. Task Force Recommendations .............................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................................................. Section 5. Discussion of Issues 5.1 UNRESOLVED VE AND UNRESOLVABLE ISSUES IN THE CONSENSUS PROCESS 5.2 DISCUSSION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS, TAKINGS, AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT 5.3 THE VALUE OF STEWARDSHIP IN CONSERVING IOLa I AL RESOURCES IN EASTERN ALAMEDA AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTIES 594 OPTIONS FOR FUNDING THE ACQUISITION AICD PROTECTION OF HABITAT, OPEN SPACE, AND AGRICULTURAL LAND IN ALAME A AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTIES 5.5 CRITERIA FOR HABITAT CONSERVATION Section 5. Discussion of Issues .1 UNRESOLVED AND UNRESOLVABLE ISSUES its THE CONSENSUS PROCESS Due to the diverse opinions and interests held by members of she€ask Force,there are a number of subjects on which members could not reach agreement (and a great number more on which they did not try to reach agreement), A fist of issues not addressed in this study but recommended for future discussion by individual Task Force mernbers is provided in Section 4.2. Section 4.3 includes suggestions for improving the col seusus process to r e it more productive. Substartive policy recommendations on which the Task Force could reach agreement are contained in Section 4.1. Provided bele is a sl mmanof the reasons for disagreement on an,issue central to the Task Force process: inclusion of maps displaying relative biological or conservation value, as determined by a computer-driven model or weighting strategy. o1 91 Brief Summary of Past Arguments Mace by Task Force Members For and Against Inclusion of a Model or Weighting Strategy Map in the Study The preliminary worl, on the eastern Alameda—Contra Crista Biodiversity Study contains a computer-driven weighting strategy (altermativety referred to as the "model" or `'spatial analysis")that interprets the biological resources and land use data in order to rank portions of the study area as having high,medium, or low conservation priority. Intermediate ediate steps in this weighting strategy rank portions of the study area in terms of high,medium, and lowv biological value and conservation: constraint. provided below is a brief summary of y.,he arguments made in the past by Task Force members bath in support of and in opposition to the inclusion of this Wvighting strategy in the final study. No atterr pt is made to gauge the rela¢ive validity of these arguments. Some of the arguments made in favor of including the weighting strategy are: a The weighting strategy is a more powerful tool than the data alone for reconciling the sometimes competing goals of biologic;., resource conservation and urban development. The weighting strategy provides a means for better coordinating these two objectives as it could be used as a tool in land use decisions to guide development toward;owner resource value areas and avoid areas with higher resource values. Likewise, even if there is no agreement to use the weighting strategy to guide development, in any way, the weighting strategy is a more effective tool than the data alone for guiding mitigation to the most suitable, most biologically rich 5 East C'nvn y Film Study?,ask Force Rej)ort,May;999 -1 f$c areas. ('the weighting strategy would also provide a means for assigning mitigation lands more or fewer Wtigation credits based on their resource value.) • The weighting strategy is the portion of the study that brings in habitat connectivity and corridor considerations. Applying these concepts can be essential in effectively protecting biological resources. • It is possible that responsible use of the weighting strategy could conserve biological resources snore efficiently and provide for more development for any given level of resource protection than a land use decision-making process that does not refer to the weighting strategy. • The weighting strategy is more useful for preplanning development and conservation (habitat acquisition) projects than the data alone. Some of the arguments made against including a weighting strategy are: a The weighting strategy could impact property values by influencing land speculation. Designation of some areas as having high conservation priority could put a cloud over these lands and diminish their values. Ranchers and farmers depend on maintained property values to secure lows for their agricultural activities. is the weighting strategy might be used as a rationale for blocking development projects and for down-zoning. Conversely,the weighting strategy might be-used as a rationale for approving development projects and for rezoning some agricultural areas for development. • The weighting strategy is based in part on current county and city general plans. Some parties believe that,for a large range of reasons, some of these general plans are inadequate. publishing the results of this weighting strategy could perpetuate these general plans. • The weighting strategy is very similar to what could be performed as a part of a map-based Habitat Conservation Flan (HCP). It is not fair to landowners to publish such a weighting strategy and expose them to risks (property values,rezoning,etc.) before an HCP is developed to provide assurances and incentives to landowners. • The weighting strategy methodology relies on biological,agricultural use, and land planning assumptions. Ln addition, some property owners challenged the accuracy of lard use and biological data relative to their specific properties, and all parties acknowledged that the data were at least several years old.. Changes to assumptions or to the data would change the results of the weighting strategy programa and could substantially alter the identification of conservation priorities. 5-2 Section 5. Discussion'Ames . . ................................................................................................................ 5,2 DISCUSSION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS, TAKINGS, AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT Prepared by Pani Campos, Home udders association ofiNorthern Cal fomia, and Torn Mooers, Greenbelt Alliance. One of the Drincipal reasons that members of the regulated community (landowners, farnners, ranchers,builders,developers,arra other.eai estate-interests)became involve.-in the Task Force was their concern that the pilot study might adversely impact their properaty rights and property value. These stakeholders were particularly cor cemed.that the proposals to wrap private property and/or assign habitat values to private property within the study area would either limit property values, lead to additional regulatory restrictions that could burden property owners, or both. Ultimately, the Task Force did not include a habitat valuation: assessmer t as a ;art of the final study "in part because of these concerns by some embers of the regulated co rnurdty). However, many property owners continue to fear that the Task. Force's work product :may negatively impact property values. Specifically, they are uncomfortable with the prospect of identifying or designating private property as having high conservation value without a committed source of public funding for acquiring these lards or easements.- At the root of this discomfort is the fear that the government may seek to protect the newly identified conservations values via land use restrictions rather than outright purchase of the affected properties. The issues of property rights and",regulatory takings were frequently and passionately discussed at Task Force meetings.In'light of;hese discussions,the Task Force felt it appropri.ate to include a brief overview of the legal aspects of the regulatory takings issue. The Just Compensation Clause of the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment provides that"nor, shall private property be taken for public use, without Just compensatiorn." The framers of the Constitution added the Just Compensation Clause to the Bill of Riglus to reflect their conviction that "government is instituted no less for the protection of the property, than of the persons of individuals" (No. 54, p. 333 (Madison)). Under the police Powers, the government has wide latitude zn regulating to advance the pub-lie's health,safety,and welfare. For example,in Euclid v. Ambler .fealty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld comprehensive Zoning restrictions as a constitutional exercise of the polio;;;ever. In ensuing decades,the Court has naso sanctioned zoning for aesthetics, historical. s reserva:aon, x fanned unit comrrsunLWses, food lairs, and open space controls as legitimate exercises of tie police power. The Fifth Aroendment does not restrict the government's right to act for the public good; instead, it addresses the issue of who must bear the costs associated with such protections. The Court has explained that the purpose of the gust Compensation Clause is alto bar Government from forcing some people to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole,"Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40,49 (1960). At the time the Bill of fights was adopted,the Fifth Amendment was understood to apply solely to situations where the government actually physically seized property. In his 1803 treatise on constitutional law, Virginia judge and legal educator St. George ?ticker explained that. the East counry Plot Study Task Force 4eport,May 1999 5-3 J Takings Clause "was probably intended to restrain the arbitrary and oppressive mode of obtaining supplies for the arm y, and other public ;ries, by impressment, as was too frequently practiced during the revolutionary war." Regulations that impact an individual's use of his or her property are not new, Indeed many Colonial laws regulated land use: limiting the locations of certain businesses (such as slaughterhouses), the density of development (to prevent overcrowding) and ever: aesthetic features of development. These restrictions on use were not affected by the Takings Clause, which, at that time, dealt solely with physical appropriations. 1922, the Supreme Court first extended the Fifth Amendment's protection to apply to regulations or "regulatory takings." Writing for the majority in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mohan,250 U.S. 393,415(1922),Justice Holmes recognized that if the uses of private property were sukiected to unbridled,uncompensated qualification under the Police Power, 66the natural tendency of human nature would be to extend the qualification -more and more until at last private property disappeared." SinceYlahon,the Supreme Court has adhered to the principle that while government may regulate the use of private property under the police power,"if regulation goes too far it wibl be recognized as a taking." When does a regulation go too far? Justice Holmes' opinion expressly recognizes the often conflicting concerns implicated in takings analysis. Finding a regulatory taking too readily would expose government to limitless liability and have a chilling effect on legitimate exercises of the police power. As Holmes put it, government hardly could go on if to some extent values incident to property could riot be diminished without paying for every such change in the general law. As long recognized, some values are enjoyed under an implied limitation and east yield to the police power. Both the California and U.S. Suprerne Courts have repeatedly held that - diminution in value of property does not, by itself, constitute a taking. On the other hand, Holmes also recognized that,absent restriction,government might regulate private property more and more until at last it is valueless.To combat that tendency,it is necessary to protect property owners by rewiring compensation when regulation goes too far. Expressing an opinion still shared by many in the regulated community, Holmes wrote. The general rule at least is, that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking. . . . We are in danger of forgetting that a strong public desire to improve the public condition is not enough to warrant achieving the desire by a shorter cut than the constitutional way of;paying for the change. Until recently, the U.S. Supreme Court generally eschewed any set formula for determining whether a regulation has gone too far, noting that it is essentially an ad hoc determination and thus depends on the individual facts in a particular case. Factors that are considered in takings analysis include the character of the government actions, whether existing uses are allowed to continue, whether traditional rights were taken from ownership, whether new rights were substituted for those prescribed,the economic impact of the regulation,the extent of interference with distinct investment-backed expectations,whether the regulations allow a reasonable return on investment, etc. 594 Section S. Discussion of Issue.? .................................................................................................................................................................................. In its 1992 decision in. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 5€35 U.S. 1003, the Court announced that where a regulatory action: has the effect of depriving :and of all economically viable or productive use,compensation is required unless government is prohibiting a use that would constitute a common law nuisance under state.law.Thus, after Lucas,a regulatory action that denies all viable use effects a categorical taring `unless it qualifies for the nuisance exception), while a regulatory action that does not may nonetheless effect a taking requiring compensation, dependlrng on the ad hoc factors mentioned move. A regulatory action -fay also constitute a "taking" if it is determined to be an excessive dedication requirement. an attempt to impose a condition on the use or development of real pro-per' that exceeds the impact reasonably associated with the use or development itsel" This issue typicaliv arises in development exaction cases, where, as a condition to approving a land use permit, government :reposes some form of m- itigation requirement to compensate for the impacts associated with the development.In Nollan v. Calybrnia Coastal Commission,483 U.S. 825(1987)and Delon v. City off'Tigard,512 U. S.374(1994),the Supreme Court held that such conditions must have an essentia.l nexus to the nature of the impact and rest be roughly proportional to the extent of the impact. Conclusion written from the perspective of the regulated con, runny. Many government and environmental interests note that courts do not often find regulatory actions to be tapings requiring compensation. They argue from this observation that current planning and permitting requirements are not as onerous as many in the regulated community argue.For their part,I andowners agree with the observation but disagree about the appropriate conclusion to draw. They continue to believe that courts—particularly the California state courts—have refused to follow the U.S. Supreme Court's precedents and bend over backwards to shl el d the government treasury from takings liability.Furthermore,ore,landowner s note that the bills of fights--in which the compensation requirement is found—is meant to provide only a minirnurn level of protection against governmental overreaching. Thus, they argue,just because a regulatory action may not be found to be a taping in court, does not necessarily mean that it is fair or just to a property owner. Conclusion written from the perspective of the conservation community: it is clear that the vast majority of land use regulations (planning and permitting requirements) do not glue rise to compensation requirements under the Fifth- Amendment. ifthAmendment. Although courts rarely find that regulations "go too far" in, constitutional dens, many landowners have a less legalistic (and lower) threshold, objecting to regulations that diminish their potential property value. 'hese landowners argue that government should provide compensation in cases where regulations adversely impact potential property values,even in situations where it is not cot stitution"xa4 requ--red, East Counry Pilon,Study Task.Farce Report,May 1999 5-5 /r 5.3 THE VALUE OF STEWARDSHIP IN CONSERVING BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IN EASTERN ALmAMEDAi AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTIES Prepared by Sheila Baily, Alameda County Resource Conservation District addition to finding solutions to accommodating economic growth in the eastern parts of Alameda and. Contra Costa Counties, conservation of biological resources will require that stewardship on private and public lands is recognized and valued. The dominant vegetation in the eastern parts of Alan eda and Contra Costa Counties is non-native annual grasses introduced from ffie Mediterranean region, perhaps before the arrival of the Spaniards. These non-native grasses include wild oats, soft chess, and rye grass, for exarn le, While it is controversial whether or not biological diversity should consider only native flora and fauna, in reality, maintenance and enhancement of biological diversity on annual grasslands must consider the numerous well-adapted non-native species as permanent residents. Heady (1988) Noted the permanence of non-native species in a dissertation on California's grasslands: "Mien species should be considered as new and permanent,-members of grassland rather than aliens. . . . Their elimination from the California prairie is inconceivable." Biological diversity planning efforts must incorporate the management of norm-native species. Active stewardship by landowners and resource professionals can control non-native species and can work to maximize the diversity of-plant and animal life. Since the habitat needs of flora and fauna in the East County are not uniform,there is no single management tool or stewardship prescription that is "best." For example, dense, tall grass is utilized by some songbirds for nesting cover,whereas golden eagles can-more easily hunt where vegetation is sparse. In addition, golden eagles prefer solitude and may be negatively impacted by public access near their habitat,whereas other wildlife species may tolerate hu-mars intrusion, Insects are usually more abundant in areas of low grass cover that.provide for more flowers and microhabitat conditions. In particular, control of invasive species life rsedusahead and yellow starthistle will benefit numerous plants and. animals. To conserve biological diversity, a wide array of land management and use activities is beneficial. Land management and land use activities that are beneficial in time conservation of biological diversity on grasslands include managed livestock grazing,fire,mowing,herbicide application, seeding, and tillage.When the impacts that these land management and and use activities have on managing invasive :son-native species and preventing the accumulation of decaying plant material are not recognized and addressed, species are last. The San Francisco popcornflow-er, artist's popcornflower,Sonoma spineflowrer,Pt.Reyes meadowfoarn,Scotts Valley polygonum, Santa Cruz clover, Santa Cruz tarplant,andmany other wildflowers are;he first examples from around the Bay Area of what.will become a long list of species disappearing because grasslands and oak woodlands are not being effectively-managed. Insects like Opler's long horned moth ,'Adela opleralla),blister beetle(LY raolesta),Bay checkerspot(Euphydryas editha bayensis), and Ohlone tiger beetle (Cicendella ohlone)will also disappear. To conserve biological resources, an ecosystematic approach to land management and use activities -must be promoted. Like "biodiversity," "ecosystem" is a relatively new term that is 5-6 Section.5. Discussion ojj Issues _.................. ........................................................................................ ....... ......... ......... ......... ......... _........... _ ......... ......... ......... ......... ...... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... .............................. _. ........................... ......... ......................... ............._...._..... .._ _ not clearly nor consistently perceived by the public, but models for ecosystem. marageim t include economic, social, and ecological interactions. Working g Faith landowners and resource managers to identify community va ues and shared visions is ararnoant to successful, conservation of. biological: resources, B=t Cosin:y Pilot Study Task Force Report,May 1999 5-7 -17- 5.4 OPTIONS FOR FUNDING THE ACQUISITION AND PROTECTION OF HABITAT, OPEN SPACE, AND AGRICULTURAL LAND IN ALAMEDA AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTIES Prepared by John Kopchi&, Contra Costa County Community Development Department, and Lisa Dische, Alamedo County Community Development Agency ,I is section provides a description of a rank of options available to fund tie acquisition and protection of habitat, open space, and agricultural land in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. The following options are discussed: public grant programs,private grant programs,local public funding sources, and mechanisms for collecting development fees. 5.4.1 Introduction Notes on Receiving and Spending Funds Raised. A variety of options are available for receiving and spending any funds raised for the acquisition of lard and. easements. These include: * direct management of the acquisition program. by the appropriate county government; * collection and management of the funds by some other existing institution, such as the l BRPD; collection and management of the funds by a newly created special district, which could be either dependent on, or independent of, the Board of Supervisors (for example, an "Espen Space and Agriculture Conservation District" ',; * expenditure of funds by a land trust, such as the Contra Costa County Agricultural Trust or the South Livermore galley Agricultural sand Trust via a contract arrangement with the appropriate county government; * management of a grant program by the appropriate county goverment to award funds to agencies and land trusts for specific acquisition projects; and * combinations of the above. The selection of one or more of these mechanisms should be based on a number of considerations, including relative administrative costs, lard management funds, authority, expertise,and accountability. When and if a fundraising effort is initiated,this smatter should be examined more closely. Acquisition Options. Most of the funding options discussed in this section could be used both to acquire full.ownership of Gard via a fee title purchase and/or to acquire only the development rights of the land via purchase of a conservation easement(a few minor exceptions are noted.in 5"8 Section 5. Discussion of issues ya the descriptions), although most conservation easements impose binding restrictions in perpetuity can such activities as development and construction,other provisions ofe easement car, vary greatly. For instance, a conservation easement intended primarily to protect natural resources might prohibit grazing near water bodies and restrict grazing intensity and timing in other areas. A conservation easement designed to protect agricultural activities,night allow or even mandate intensive irrigated and cultivated agriculture. Easements might include provisions for public trail bights-of�way or explicitly prohibit public access. Depending on the provisions of the easement and the portion of the land value associated with development rights,the costs of conservation easements it California have ranged from 25% to 75% of the full land value'. The decision on whether to purchase the land or an easement:may be based on the importance of public access, the relative acquisition cost of the two methods, the relative ongoing Managernent assts, the management needs of the property, and a host of other factors related to the particular acquisition. 5.4.2 Public Grant Programs There are many public grant programs that could be a source of funds for the acquisition or protection of habitat, open space, and agricultural land. Though grant funding alone could not support substantial land or easement acquisition in the area, such sources remain attractive because they could provide seed. money for more ambitious fundraising efforts. This section provides a brief summary of the programs and their potential applicability to Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. (See section 5.4.3 for a discussion of b rivate grant programs.; Where are a number of public grant programs that can provide Binds for acquiring open space, either in the form of development rights or fee title. This section provides information regarding the Lan: and Fater Conservation Fund, the Agricultural Lands Stewardship Program, the Habitat Conservation Fund.,the Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program,and other public grant programs(such as the Wildlife Conservation Board and a future state bund measure for parks). Some of the grant prograns also provide funds to assist with planning programs to acquire and protect agricultural and open space lands. In addition to the private grant programs discussed below, which may provide funding both for;;lamming and acquisition, pla aping grants may be obtained from.the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation,the:hast Bay Community Foundation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Mate. Tribal,soca:We Grant Program.. (for planning wetlands protection), and, possibly, the CALFED Bay-Delta program. The Mate of California also offers funds for planning assistance, and the Contra Costa County Agricultural Trust is exploring the possibility of receiving such a grant. The following is a partial list of important public grant programs: 7-le Sonoma Co-unty A.grVcuIt-ara.Preservation and aper.Space District reportedly pays,or average,approximately 50%of fu a lard value for the conservation ease:ren's it purchases. Eas Caurty Pilot turfy Task Force Report,May 1999 5-9 1. f'ed'eral. .and and Fater Conservation lw nd: This is a federal program that was initiated in 1965 to provide grants for lard and water conservation. Grants are administered by a range of federal resource agencies, including the USFWS. Although the annual appropriations have been substantially reduced in recent years, the total grants nationwide have averaged approximately $200 million per year. _ Typical grants range from $100,000 to a few million dollars. In the past, this program has focused on lards with exceptional promise as a natural park and/or wildlife habitat. 2. Habitat Conservation Fund., This fund was created by the Wildlife Protection Act of 1990 (Proposition 117) and provides $2 million in funding each year statewide. The program- has a number of funding categories, including funding for riparian areas, wetlands, trails, and endangered species. The Habitat Conservation Fund program- is administered by the California Department of Parks and Recreation. Contra Costa County will soon receive a $225,000 grant from. the Habitat Conservation Fend on behalf of the Martinez Regional Land Trust to assist with the acquisition of Sky Ranch. This fund awards up to $500,000 per project. 3. The Agricultural hands Stewardship Program: This is a grant program administered by the California. Department of Conservation that provides funds for purchasing development rights for agricultural lands. Although the program could provide funds for grazing lards, it focuses primarily on protecting prime, intensively cultivated agricultural.lands. The Contra Costa County.Agricultural Frust is currently working with the Department of Conservation to discuss the potential applicability of the property located it the Agricultural Core area. The program provides exceptional assistance to those who are interested in applying for its funds. 4Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program: The Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program (EEMP) is a state-sponsored grant program that is intended to complement and help mitigate transportation programs. EEMP draws its funds from:the gasoline tax approved by the voters under Proposition 111. EMP annually disburses$10 million in grants throughout the state. The gas tax and BEP will sunset in two years,though renewal is a possibility. Grants tend to be in the $100,000s range. Successful applications demonstrate a clear nexus to transportation projects and to mitigating the impact of such.projects. 5. Wildlife Conservation Board and State dark Band Measures: A number of other public gran:programs could potentially provide money for acquiring aper_ space in one manner or another.These include the Wildlife Conservation.Board,which exists now, and a state park bond measure, which could be passed in the near future. The Wildlife Conservation Board awards grants from an array of funds to acquire and protect wildlife habitat and improve public access. The Wildlife Conservation Board may have a budget of approximately $100:million in Y1995®-99. 5-10 Section 3. Discussion of Issues ................................................................................................... .. ............................................................................................. California last passed a$776 million parks bond measure in 1988 (Proposition 70),and fending from such a statewide measure is no longer available, Some members of the Legislature had advocated placing a new state park bond measure oil the November 1998 ballot,but the initiative ultimately failed( .B.2). However,it is expected that the voters will consider a new statewide park bond measure in the next several years. 534.3 Private Grant Programs A number of private foundations provide grants and loans to support the acquisition of open spave. Private foundations may be more flexible and can act more quickly than public, grant programs. private foundations may also be more amenable to providing funding for start-up casts or for agricultural enhancement activities(e.g.,traffic calming). Grants range from.smaller planing grants to multimillion dollar funding. T free mama or private programs are summarize" below. With a budget of more than 100 million,the Packard Foundation may hav;-the largest program-m for supporting time acquisition of open space and agricultural land. The Packard Foundation's latest grant program for the region may include Alameda and Contra Costa Counties within the area which could potentially receive funds. Grant funding requests could be explored as a coordinated approach with the other sand trusts operating in the counties. The Irvine Foundation and the Hewlett Foundation are other major foundations that make significant Contributions toward lands conservation. however,all:three foundations emphasize preservation of prime agricultural land. 'hese foundations and others may be a potential source of funds to support planning activities related to the purchase of developr�ment rights. AA Loom Public Funding Sources There is a wide range of methods and combinations of methods for securing local public funds, either countywide or in specified subareas. For simplicity, only prototypical techniques are described below, though many permutations and alternatives are possible. Y and when either county considers enacting one or more specific approaches, more research should be done on these methods to clearly define the legal guidelines and constraints associated with their inlementation. Pay-as-You-Go vs.Bonds. luny new taxes can provide revenue on an ongoing basis or can be used in conjunction with the sale of bonds to finance the procurement of up-front money. General obligation bonds are a special. case because the tax that funds these bonds, the ad valorem propety tax, cannot be raised beyond its current leve: without passing a general obligation bond (a provision of Proposition 13). General obligation bonds also typically cry the lowest interest rates of any government bonds because they are backed by a commitment to adjust,the ad valorem property tax each year to ensure adequate revenues. Other bonds have somewhat less steady revenues and may carry higher interest rates, require a reserve funds and Ease Counry Filo:Suldy Task Force Repon,May 1999 5-11 ^rf>a Tt _�F'may,-`,;y,✓' __. require a portion of anticipated tax revenues to be used on a pay-as-you-go basis rather than to fund debt service. Mammy factors influence the decision on whethem to seal bonds or receive revenue on an ongoing basis. Issuing bonds might allow acquisition to proceed more rapidly and might reduce administrative costs slightly by reducing the length of the acquisition program.. Bonds also provide greater flexibility,removing obstacles tomaking ac gUisitions when the rear estate market is down or when unexpected opportunities may arise. 6 ngoing revenue strews avoid the finance costs associated with bonds. also, there is currently some legal uncertainty regarding the impact of Proposition 218 on bonded indebtedness. That measure contained provisions protecting the power of citizens to pass initiatives that repeal taxes,possibly increasing the risk that a revenue stream dedicated to debt repayme:nt coed be terminated, However,the degree of the threat posed may not be severe since the contract provisions of the U.S. Constitution may override. Likewise, since initiatives may only Lake actions that legislative bodies are legally capable of taking, and since legislative bodies are incapable of term. inati.g revenues to certain types of bonds, it may not be possible for an initiative to termnumate funding for some bonds. Before a board measure is passed, further research on and clarification: of this matter are recommmmended. Cine-Time Levy vs.Longer Term Revenue Stream. Each of the local public funding opt,ons discussed below could involve levying taxes on a one-or two-year term or a 10-,20-,or 30-year term.by including a sunset date in the ballot measure. Some could be levied imndefinitely,though - this is not recommended for acquisition purposes,since protecting and acquiring open space and agricultural land ate finite tasks (however, some permanent revenue for new land management duties would be necessary). Proposition 218. Proposition 218, which was approved by voters in 10.35, altered the requirements for enacting new assessments,property-related fees(rot including developer fees), and taxes. This measure has two primary implications for raising local public funds for the acquisition of habitat,open space,and agricultural lard in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties: (1) assessments and property-related fees are now less suitable for acquisition of habitat/open spaceragricu:lture because proposition 218 clarified and strengthened the requirement that such measures have a direct benefit to the property charged(beyond a benefit to property values)and not be used to fund services that benefit the pubic i:r general; and(2)raising any tax in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties to create a dedicated source of revenue for acquisition of open space/agriculture will require approval by two-thirds ofeligible voters in an election.(Propositions 218 clarified prior requirements that all special taxes be approved by a two-thirds majority). Proposition 218 also imposed a new requirement on enacting general taxes, limiting such measures to general elections that coincide with the elections for members of the sponsoring agency's govern3i ng board. "general taxes still may be passed by a simple majority, but time resulting revenues may not be firm-11y dedicated to any specific purposes. Less Feasible Mechanisms anisms for Raising Local Public Funds. Additional mr-secharisn-,s for raising local public funds do exist,out,for a variety of reasons,may be less feasible than the four 5-12 Secrion 5. Discussion of issues ........................... . ................................................................................................................. ......... ......... ......... ......._. ....... ..._...... ...._........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... _.......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... _. ......... ......... ......... ......... rnechanisrns listed above and discussed in greater detail later in this report. A partial list of these other mechanisms and a short explanation as to why they may be relativelydifficult to implemem e provided below: .deal estate transfer tax: Alameda and Contra Costa County each have a real estate transfer tax of.b I%. This tax rate is at the state maximum, and special legislation would be needed to raise it further. As an alternative to raising the sate, the two counties could seek to change the procedures for determining which transfers are taxable to snake the tax more uniformly applicable to all transfers. However, state legislation would be required for this approach as well. * Transient occupancy tax; The Contra Costa County tax of 1€ % may be at the state-Moosed limit already, Alameda County does not impose the transient occupancy tax on businesses providing this service, so enacting such a measure is passible but would be a significant change from current practices. Also, counties only have the power to levy this tax in unincorporated areas. Business taxes: Counties have the power to levy this tax only in unincorporated areas. EJ tilit�v taxes: Proposition 218 imposed restrictions on the use of rnany such taxes for general public benefit (and uncertainty remains regarding how 218 will apply to other utility taxes). Contra Costa County has discussed collecting such a tax often in the past, but it has been difficult to build support for the idea. Ali a-meda County does assess a utility tax for general public services in the unincorporated area, but this tax will expire in 2002. * Certificates of anticipation: Frorn time to time, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties issue debt for capital acq uisi¢yon and refunding, lin some instances,the debt is in the fora:of Certificates of Participation. With this method,the debt is backed by a pledge of the full. faith and credit of the county, not by a particular revenue stream. Given typical county budget constraints, issuance of Certificates of Pw-ticipa.tion may not be a viable option. Countywide Public Funding Sources. Some more feasible mechanisms for raising local public funds on a countywide basis are described below. 6, Sales Tax(General Tax) Alarneda andfor Contra Costa County could develop a new stream of general p7srpose revenue by raising sales taxes via approval by a simple majority of voters in a general elections that coincides with the e'sections for the Board of Supervisors. Decent legislative actions provide the counties with the ability to raise an increment of the sales tax., the "transaction and use tax,"by up to /2%, but only in increments greater than or equal to s/4%. The current sales tax in both Alameda and Contra Costa County is 81/4%,which includes r/2%for Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). The sales tax in Alameda County also includes r/x% for East County Plot Srad'y Task Force Repom May 1999 5-13 transportation capital from Measure B;due to expire in 2001. A revised Measure B including growth management and transportation will be on the November 2000 ballot. The sales tax in Contra Costa County includes V2% for transportation and growth management from Measure C (1988). Iri 1997, under a different statutory authority that allows the sales tax to be raised in smaller increments for library purposes,Contra Costa County's:measure A for libraries would have raised the sales tax by 1/8%to 83l8%a,but failed to receive the two-thirds majority required for special taxes. Funds generated by a general tax increase could net be specifically dedicated to open space or any other purpose. However, many counties have placed general tax measures the ballot with companion advisory measures that outline the purposes for which the voters recom rend the new revenues be used. In 1996, Santa Mara County sought to increase revenues for transportation by raising its general sales tax. Two measures were placed on the ballots one to raise the sales tax to increase general fund revenues and a.second advisory measure to instr=uct Santa Clara.County to spend new revenues on specified transportation projects. The tax increase required only a simple majority and passed. The tax increase was challenged, but in a recent court decision, it was upheld.. However, the Santa Clara measure was passed. before Proposition 218 came into effect,and it is anticipated that subsequent attempts to use this approach will be challenged again under provisions of Proposition 218, which defined special taxes to include taxes imposed for a specific purpose but placed in the general fund. Despite the new requirements of Proposition 218,such an approach may still survive legal challenge if the taxing agency is not legally bound to use the tax for any specific purpose. Marin and Sonoma Counties placed similar pairings of a general sales tax increase and an advisory measure on the November 1•_998 ballot (both primarily for transportation purposes). In each case,the advisory measure passed but the tax failed to receive a simple majority. ''redia reports prior to the election indicated that voter opinion of the tax measure was influenced by confusion over the twin-measure approach and some frustration with what was perceived as an indirect approach to the problem. (Many other factors influenced the election as well, including an independent analysis that claimed that the revenues would not be adequate to accomplish the intended projects.) In theory,other general taxes could be used under this approach. However,property tax shifts:reposed by the state legislature to balance the state's budget in fiscal years 1992x"93 and 1993/94 have resulted in a cumulative reductions in discretionary revenue sources for counties. The general sales tax may be the only viable general tax available to either county because the real estate transfer tax and the ad valorem property tax are already at the state maximum. The transient occupancy tax JOT) is already at the state maximum for Contra Costa. County, but may be a potential funding source for Alameda County. As discussed previously,the remaining general 5-14 Section 5. Discussion,of Issues .......................................................................................... _._. __....__..__... ............ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ................. _.. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ....._... .............. ......... ......... ........ ......... ......... ......... ......... .............._........ taxes (e.g.,business tax,utility tax,the TOT)are less attractive alternatives because counties may only impose these measures in unincorporated areas. 7. Sales Tax(Special Tax): Alameda and/or Contra Costa County could also develop a new stream of revenue dedicated specifically to the acquisition of open space, habitat, and agriculture by raising sales taxes in the counties via approval by two-thindis of eligible voters in an election.As in option 5,the tax inc.-as.-could only be in 1/4% increments, though the increase could be shared among several special pulses. Sonorna County's Agricultural and Open Space District is funded with a 1/4%special sales tax. The District receives an, annual revenue of approximately $12.5 million from the sales tax. It uses these funds primarily to purchase conservation casements on agricultural lands, including grazing lands and vIneyards. A primary m Ission of the District is to purchase properties/easements that create"community separators," a goal. which is in to complement Sonoma County's -approved urban growth boundaries. To date the district has motected 26,600 acres, rinost with easements. The District was established via special state legislation that-enabled the sales tax to be passed by a simple majority of the popular vote. 8. Countywide Parcel Tax: Revenues for open space, habitat, and agricultural accuisitions-could be created by establishing a new special tax on property or avarcel tax. A parcel tax is a special tax that, can be irnplemented by a variety of means. This tax could be imposed on a countywide basis by a two-thirds vote under a number of different mechanisms. The following is summary of such mechanisms. * Direct taxing authority of the county: This m echanism is direct and does not.- require consent of the cities. However,as a practical,natter,consent of t1he cities is important to pass a measure. * Mello Roos community facilities district: This mechanism has some general requirements related to how the tax is calculated, but also exables issuance of a specific type of bond that,--nay be relatively safe from an initiative that terminates she tax revenue, Mello Roos districts have frequently been used for new developments to fund infrastructure development,but have been and can be used for established communities, Mello Roos districts can fund one-time enenses as well as merations and maintenance. * County Service Area: This mechandsm could be initiated by Alameda and/or Contra Costa County, but is approved through a LAFCO process. Each city included in the area must-.)ass an ordinance consenting to inclusion. * Agriculture and Open Space District: A new special district could be created to receive the revenue and acquire and manage the land or easernents. The title and function of such a district may vary—"agriculture and open space" is just one E---t Coyer Pilot Smdy Ta3k Forre Report,Afay 1999 5-i5 example. Barring special authorization from the state,such districts can only be created by a citizen's petition. Alameda and/or Contra Costa County could have significant flexibility in designing the special tax on property, or parcel tax,that would be imposed under this funding mechanism. The tax could take the four of a flat per parcel charge, could be unposed only on some classes of parcels but not on others (for example, it could be unposed on residential parcels but not on cornmercial or industrial parcels), and could be graduated based on the size or value of improvements on the parcel. The flexibility of parcel takes differs markedly from the other mechanism for raising a property-related tax,the general obligation band. Furthermore, a flat per-parcel tax applied to all parcels would impose a much smaller burden on commercial and industrial property owners than a general obligation bond. Parcel taxes carry a significant administrative charge(approximately$.74 per parcel taxed in many cases in Contra Costa County! and more complicated formulas, such as formWas that differentiate between the relative value or size of improvements, would carry a very substantial administrative burden and cost. If this approach is to be considered for implementation,more research should be persorrned to determine the actual administrative costs. 9. Countywide General Obligation and General obligation bonds are another means for raising finds for open space acquisition. General obligation bonds are backed by - a pledge to annually set the ad valorem property tax at a rate sufficient to pay the annual principal and interest due on the bonds.They are considered the most secure type of municipal bond and, therefore, are the least expensive bon; local governments car,issue(the interest on these bonds is lower than the interest or other types of bonds. The terms of general obligation bonds may vary,but cannot exceed. 40 years. General obligation bonds must be approved by a two-thirds majority in a popular election. Measure AA, approved by voters in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties in 1988 to fund local parks, is an example of such a bond. Measure AA authorized the sale of $225 million it bonds,of which$126 million was to be used by the EBRPD for park and open space acquisitions. Nearly all of the authorized bonds have beer issued, and the 113RFTD may consider a reauthorization proposal in the next several years. Another example of such a bond. is California Proposition: 70 in, 1988, which provided $776 million it bond revenues for parks, wildlife, and open. space. The Legislature considered placing a new park bond measure on the November 1998 ballot,but did not. Such a statewide measure could be proposed again in the future (see Section 5.4.2). 10, Landfill Tipping Fee: Another potential funding source for open space acquisitionn, is a landfill "tipping fee" aimed at mitigating the effects of a landfill project on specific opera space resources. Such a fee is typically `cased on the tonnage of 5-16 Section 5. Discussion of.ssues material deposited at a landfill site (e.g., so many dents per ton). One example of such a fee is the 25 cents per ton currently being collected by Alameda County at the Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery Facility. This fee generates several- hundred everalhundred thousand dollars annually for mitigation related open:space acquisition in the inim,ediate vicinity of the landfill. Localized Public Funding Sources° Mechanisms are also a.vailabse to raise local public ffunds or: a less-than-countywide basis. There are few, if any, Bruits on how such subareas may be designated. This approach could be designed around an, acquisition program that targets only certain areas of Alameda Contra Costa Counties for acquisition and imposes the casts of such a program only on those cors munities that could benefit most. Altenna.tively,this approach could be used in a countywide manner to provide different subareas with separate funding streams and better associate the costs of local open space with the communities benefitting. T' latter option could riot only provide a more direct connection between taxpayers and the open:space they are funding,but could also enable the local costs to reflect differences in the f---nount of local open; space acquisition-needed or desired. The two mechanis°-ms best suited for this localized approach, a localized parcel tax and a localized general obligation bond, are briefly surnmarized below. 11. Localized Parcel Tax: Options for implementing this mechanism would be identical to those for option 7 (countywide parcel tax). 12. Localized General Obligation Bond: Counties have the authority to issue general obligation bonds that are restricted to designated County Service Areas. The process for creating such County;Service Areas is brie-fly described in option 7(countywide parcel tax). Features of a localized general obligations band are identical to those described for a countywide general obligation.bond (option S). 5.4.5 Development Fee Collection Mechanisms Section 66000 of the Stat;of California Government Code authorizes development impact fees and defines the circumstances under which they car; be legally collected and spent, Such lees have been and can be used to fund the acquisition of open space. However,exaction and use of such fees are subject to specific state and federal regulations. New legislation and courtrulings, such as that in lrllan v. California Coastal commission handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987, have required increasingly strict demonstration of a nexus between the fee and nts 4 uroose. Funding mechanisms that involve development impact or mitigation fees should be Carefully examined before enactment to ensure legality. Five options are discussed below. 13. Collection gf'Develop ent Impact Fees and Dedications on a Project-by-Project .iasis: Development rights or fee title to open space and agricultural lands could con roue to be collected by negotiating developm ent impact fees and dedications from new development as a part of the development review process. Such an East Counry Plot Study Task Force Report,May 1999 5m 1 7 a, approach was used as a part of the recently approved proposal to build a golf course on Roddy Ranch in Contra Costa County. Dedications have been more common in Contra Costa County than the collection of impact fees. Other areas have favored impact fees, with some of the highest fees being levied in the Livermore area, For example, The Ruby Hill development in Pleasanton, a project that included luxury homes,paid$10,000 per housing unit in open space mitigation, as agreed to by the developer via a development agreement. All projects face a different set of economic circumstances (sometimes much different), making it difficult to determine the appropriateness and feasibility of a proposed development fee by simply extrapolating based on fees collected in other areas. The advantage of this project-by-project approach is that it can be tailored to a particular project and the particular open;space needs and assets of the surrounding area, Disadvantages include the inability to coordinate dedications and fees from several projects,and the time and money required to perform this process one project at a time. 14. Habitat Conservation Plana A regional HCP provides an endangered species permit for developers and a coordinated system for protecting species by pooling fees and acquiring habitat from willing sealers(fee simple or easements), regional HCPs are generally prepared by local agencies through an active public involvement process. The U SFWS is responsible for approving the plan and providing a regional incidental take permit for species covered by the plan. The terms of the HCP remain in effect evenif the status of species covered by it changes. HCP initiatives can:be expanded in scope to include streamlined permitting for state-listed endangered species, for Wetlarnds fill, for streambed alterations, and for other natural resource protection regulations. HCPs can also be linked to other general policy goals, such as open space and agricultural protection (agricultural practices typically continue on protected lands). San Joaquin County is close to approving the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plain, which will provide an endangered species permit for the development of 72,000 acres of habitat (plus 37,000 acres of undeveloped, nonhabitat lands) and protect more than 100,000 acres through acquisition. Developers of most types of habitat lands(other than vernal pools)will pay a$1,500/acre impact fee. By the end of its 50-year term,the plan is expected to cost approximately $263 :million (current dollars). HCPs have the potential to raise significant amounts of money through fees(as well as grants), but the amount of funds is generally proportional to the amount of developrnernt. One benefit is the potential to raise acquisition funds through a coordinated acquisition program whip; reducing developers' permitting costs. However, developing HCPs can be a time-consuming and contentious process. 548 Section 5. Discussion of Issues .................... . ........................................................................................................................................... ....... ......... ......... ......... ......... ..............._..............__..... .._...................... ........... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ....................... _ _ _. ......... ......... ......... ......... ...................... J.5. Regional Mitigation Bank: Funds for open space acquisition In Alameda ancYor Contra Costa County could be secured by establishing mitigation or conservation banks that could sell m. itigatior,credits to developers In other areas. Such banks are established by surveying resouirces and consulting with the DF G and the USFW. S to determine the types of habitat and endangered species mitigation that the bank can suppott- and the number/density of credits that car. be sold. Once established, developers seeking mitigation, for habitat and endangered species impacts can purchase such, mitigation from the bank at a mutually agreed upon price. The devel€-3ment. seeking rnitigation need not be close to the mitigation bank. Banks have been allowed to accept rrdtigation from &veloprnents as -much as 40 miles away. Lands protected by the mitigation 'bank must be placed lander permanent it. Such easements generally preclude development and may conservation easeme. I constrain land mar,agementpractices to some extent. Continuing grazing practices would probably be a requirement of"such easements. Most mitigation banks are a single property with a single owner who agrees to place the property under easement a,the outset. Mitigation banks could be used in either G. county to recoup fude funds spent to acquire a property in order to velop more,funds to buy additional property. Alternatively, it may be possible to establish a mitigation bank that is simply a land trust or other organization that pools mitigation money and buys easements from willing sellers in a designated area according to protocols developed when the bank was established. A trust could also attempt to negotiate installment purchases with willing landowners, which could enable payments to be made as --mltlgatior- credits are sold. The American Land Conservancy purchased 650 acres on Pleasanton Ridge in Alameda County,relying on loans for a large portion of the acquisition costs. This organization is in the process of establishing a mitigation bank or., the pro-perty to recoup their expenditure and repay their loans. Many mitigation buyers have already -expressed interest. Mitigation banks can be attractive because they may obtain funds frorn developers without requiring a county to impose fees. Mitigation banks can also generate revenues from public agencies such as Caltrans that have protects throug7lhout the state in need of mitigation. However, further economic analysis is needed to determine what land.-prices the mitigation market will bear. It should also be noted that establish-Ing such banks is a time-consuming process, and it can require years of effort before funding is received. 5.4.6 Transfer of Development Rights Transfer of development rights(TDR)or credits systems have been used to achieve conservation goals by allowing property owners with land in areas where increased density is acceptable or desirable to purchase development rights from property owners with land in areas where lower East County Pilot Study Task Force Report,May 3999 5-19 density is desirable. TDR. programs can rely solely on market incentives or they can also be lurked with regulations, such as policies restricting development in one area and allowing it in another. Several types of TIER (and similar)programs have been included in the South Liverrrrore plan. lh one progrmn, owners of lands with 100-acre zoning can create 20-acre parcels by agreeing to place the new parcel(s) under an easement that requires vineyards on 75% of the land,restricts building on each parcel to a 2-acre envelope(for one house, one winery,etc.), and allows up to 3 acres to be both undeveloped and uncultivated to protect creeps,avoid areas with steep slopes, etc. In a second program in the plan,property owners seeping increased density in a designated receives area negotiated purchase of development credits from property owners in a designated donor area.. It has been reported that development rights are currently selling for approximately $60,000 to$70,000 each. Contra Costa County has a TDR program in the Bethel Island area to encourage off-island development,but it may not yet have been used. An active TDR prograrn in Lake Tahoe is currently the subject of a court case. However, before sending the case back to a lower court,the U.S.Supreme Court ruled only on a narrow question of standing and refused to rule on the legality of the prograrn (a controversial decision am.on.g some observers). 16. Kangir cad Develop meat JQhts (Agricultural Land Conversion): Alameda and/or a` ntra Costa.County could fund protection of open space and agricultural land where new development is occurring in areas formerly used for agriculture by initiating or continuing TIR programs that allow property owners in one area to buy development rights from property owners in another area. Such a program would require a clear definition of baseline development opportunities and protocols to govern all transfers, Transactions could occur directly between property owners or could be facilitated by a trust. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) regulates land use in both the California and Nevada portions of the fake Tahoe Basin using a cornplicated TDR program. Under this system, development rights, construction authorizations, and tree clearance rights are bought and sold. TRRA established the following baselines for each tradable credit: (1) each parcel, regardless of size (unless, presumably, of substandard size), can develop one house; (2) 300 construction authorizations are issued each year; and (3) tree clearing is limited to 30% of¢..he land area. Lands in stream zones cannot be developed, bort their development rights can be sold. The Tahoe Conservancy facilitates the trading of most of the credits. 17. Tiangfhr ofDevelopment fights (In-Fill): Alameda and/or Contra Costa County co rld fund protection: of open space and agricultural land by implementing a TDR program that allows property owners with land suitable for "in-fill" to purchase increased density from property owners in areas more suitable for open space, habitat, or agriculture. A thorough analysis of this concept is needed to determine (1) if it is feasible; and (2) what lands might be suitable for in-fill development. Lands surrounding BART stations are often suggested as appropriate places for in-bill 5-20 AcAn I Lhscussion of Issues develoument. The area surrounding the Pleasant Hill BART Station is an example of in-fill development encouraged by county policy. The primary advantage of such an in-fill TDR program is that, it could fund protection, of open space and agriculture while directing growth to areas that are dete mined to be advantageou,s. Further research would 1e required to determine feasibility and funding potential. East County Pilot Study Task Force Report,May 1999 5-21 r'Gda T.. ,... 1111.. 5.5 CRITERIA FOR HABITAT CONSERVATION Prepared by Carl Wilcox, Environmental Ser,,)ices Superviso-, California Department gjf'Fi.sh and Game In identifying the criteria for developing habitat Conservation strategies, it is important to understand the concepts of conservation biology. These;concepts are the basis for the Natural Communities Conservation Programs and multi-Species HCPs, which focus on protections of habitat and not individual species. This type of planning effort loops at protection of habitats as a rneans of protecting not only individ:ai sensitive species but also the broad array of biological diversity and functions provided by the habitat(s). To begin with, we must have ars understanding of what biodiversity is and the scales at which it operates and can be disrupted. What is Biological Diversity? Biological diversity,simply stated,is the diversity of life. Because there are different levels and components to the diversity of life, a more detailed definition is useful. Biological diversity means the full range of variety and variability within and among living organisms and the ecological complexes in which they occur,and encompasses ecosystem:or community diversity, species diversity, and genetic diversity,2 Genetic diversity is the combination of different genes found within a population of a single species and the pattern of variation found it different populations of the same species. Coastal populations of a particular species are genetically different from Central Malley populations. Genetic adaptations to local conditions, such as the summer fog along the coast or hot summer days in the valley, result in genetic differences between two populations of the same species. Species diversity is the variety and abundance of different types of organisms that inhabit a region. A 1€ -square®mile area of Centra Costa County contains different species than a simsilar° size area in Kern County. Ecosystem diversity encompasses the variety of habitats that occur within a region: or the mosaic of patches found within a landscape. A familiar exarnple is the variety of habitats and environmental parameters that constitute the San Francisco Bay-Delta. grasslands, wetlands, rivers, estuaries, and fresh and salt eater. Maintaining biological diversity requires attention to all three different scales; ecosystems, species, and genes. N efforts are focused at only one scale, such as the conservation of an. individual species, ecosystem patterns and processes are likely to be ignored or overlooked, leading to ecosystems degradation and loss of diversity at the landscape scale. Similarly, if species diversity is the focus, the genetic diversity found in different populations of the same 'Although the concept of biological diversity is applied in the implementation of many state and federal resource protections regulations, "biological diversity" is not a specifically defined legal tears. 5-22 Section 5. Discussion of Issues _.......................... .................................................................................................... .... ......... ......... ......... ......... ..............._........ ... .. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ...... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ............ _........... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......._.. _........... ......... ......... .11.11.... s:N species may be over'looked,because it is only noticeable at a finer scale of resolution. Typically, there is significant: loss of biodiversity at one level, it will result the loss at e other levels because the cornpon.ents of bio' diversity are dependent on. each other. To rr�aintain healthy natural systerr s that function,ecologically,it is necessary to protect the many individual species and genetic strains that constit=ate these systems. But, in fact, the need for preservation is even greater because of the linkages arnong the three levels of biodiversity --ecosysterns, species, and genes. Ecosystem Diversity ,cosystein diversity encompasses the variety of different systems in which plants,animals,and rr�icroorganisms interact with the nonliving errviror rr ent. Alt-hough ecosystem diversity is the largest scale of biodiversity, we can think of many different levels with n eeosysterri diversity. 'he largest is the biome,which is a community characteristic of a bread global climatic region, such as the conifer biorne of the ?northern. Hemisphere, The next smaller sca.e is the habitat-type, a repeating vegetation assemblage characteristic of the-environmental constraints of a region or locale, like the familiar oak woodlands. The smallest scale is the microhabitat. Examples of r icrohabitats include the ephemera:pools in rock outcrops that fairy shrirnp live in or the ground sglairrel burrows the,tiger salarnanders dwell in and burrowing owls nest in, The best scale at which to evaluate ecosystem diversity in California is habitat-type(ie.,valley oak woodland). We reed to know how many habitat-types there are, how much area each one overs,what has been lost, and wart has peen protected.Evahuading the future habitats requires understanding the impacts of human activities and the threats they pose to the na—wral systems. Understanding trends is critical in maintaining healthy functioning and biologically diverse habitats into the fut-are. Species cannot survive without suitable habitat, and,is a species is lost, so is the genetic diversity it contains. Dominant,,vegetation types are generally used as an indicator of terrestrial.habitatmtype, phis is for both theoretical and pragmatic reasons. Dominant vegetation has a profound effect on the resources available on a site and the species that car, exist there. k addition, the geographic distributions of the dominant plant species are generally well correlated with chmate, so vegetation is often considered a means of integrating climatic and other environmental variables. Finally, different t-y s of vegetation provide different homes or habitats for wild. ife. So vegetation diversity indicates habitat type diversity. Vegetation types are distinct, identifiable, recurring assemblages of organisms and environm=ental features that comprise a significant portion of a region's biodiversity. From the pragmatic viewpoint, it is a relarively straightforward task to inventory tare existing vegetation of an area.. East County Pilot s'tud'y Task Force Report,Allay 1999 ~2 Yr , Species Diversity The species populations within an ecosystem trust be protected if the ecosystem functions are to be maintained. Ecosystems contain populations interacting with each other and with heir physical surroundings; such systems may be able to tolerate or adjust to the loss of a single population but, inevitably, the loss of too many populations or of a critical population leads to drastic changes in the character of the ecosystem. Ecologists cannot always predict just how many populations can be removed from an ecosystem without changing its character dramatically and degrading its viability,but there are many documented examples of ecosystems with narrow tolerances for such. disruption. The number of species in a region has long been considered indicative of the region's biological diversity. Although species diversity reflects only a portion of the biological diversity of a region,most researchers think of particular species as representative of at.area.The total number of species gives at,indication of the"richness"of ars area,while the number of endemic species, those species restricted to a particular region,indicates how distinctive,the f,ora and fauna of that region are. The study area supports a relatively high level of biodiversity because it is located in a zone of biogeographical transition between coastal and interior habitats,between lowland grassland and higher elevation woodland and chaparral, and between southern and northern elements of the Coast Ranges flora.(Jones and stores associates 1.950. The eastern portion of the study area supports several plant communities typical of the San Joaquin`alley occurring on alkaline soils. Several species reach their northern limit in the study area, including San Joaquin kit fox. and - Coulter pine,whereas other species react:their southern limit. Of particular significance to the biodiversity of the area is Mt. Diablo State Park, largely located west of the study area, which supports several endemic plant species. Genetic Diversity Finally, to protect species and maintain properly functioning whole ecosystems, it is also necessary to preserve genetic diversity. Species require a range of genetic traits so that at least some individuals in the populations can tolerate novel harsh conditions. For example, a genetically uniform forest of trees is more vulnerable to outbreaks of pests or to climate change than is a genetically more diverse one. Hence,the ability of an ecosystem to continue to function is its jeopardy if its populations lacy genetic diversity. Genetic diversity allows species to adapt to changes in their environment. Species with more genetic variability have more options to draw upon when conditions charge. Genetic resources are found in different levels: the genes themselves, the individuals of a species, and the races or populations that contain genetic attributes not found uniformly throughout the species. As a result,genetic conservation can be accomplished by various means. Seed storage,tissue culture, zoos, and 'botanical gardens are common rt�eans of conserving resources off site from their 5-24 Senior S. Discussion of Issues natural habitat. Conservation of species in their natural habitat is the best way to assure the continuation of adaptive genetic variation. Although genetic diversity is critical to species' long-term survival, we know little about how mrich there is in any species, nor are there yet data on how much is protected or ought to be protected. While an ideal conservation effort might focus on genetically distinct populations rather than ori species, the information necessary to use such an approach is not available. Therefore,conservation planning focuses on the two larger scales m biodiversity—species and ecosysterns—in the belief that as long as genetic considerations are included in the conservation strategy, maintaining species and ecosystems is the best way ILO protect the genetic variation found within, wild populations. Losses Are Linked between Levels The three levels of biodiversity—genes, species, and ecosystems—are linked, and thus conservation efforts must address each level if any one is to be preserved. bosses of biodiversity can occur at any level--ecosystems,species or genes—and losses are linked between levels. Loss or gain of biological diversity occurs naturally in all regions. Losses of genetic diversity occur whenever an individual organism dies. But becaa-1se any individual is genetically quite similar to its relatives,scientists are primarily concerned when all or most of the individuals in a population die. Most, species, such as robins, or kit foxes, or poppies, have many distinct poPullations in the state. Because populations are genetically differentiated from each other, some genetic diversity is irretrievably cost when apopulation is lost. Each time an entire population is'lost,that species is a little closer to extinction. 'thus, oss of biodiversity occurs along a continuum, with genetic diversity declining and vulnerability to extInctlor,increasing as each population disappears. Extinction occurs wher.the last population of a s-oecies disappears. As a result,to understand species extinction,factors casing ausin -population extinction need to be exami--ned. Species and ecosysterns are also linked; ecosystems include a collection of -populations of different species interacting with their environment. A loss of species degrades the ecosystem and diminishes the ecosystem's productivity,limiting the number and abundance of species present, Conservation biologists recognize five major processes that result- in the loss of biological diversity:ecosystem degradation,habitat loss,habitat fragmentation,direct mortality,and altered species interactions. Typically,several forces work in,conjunction to reduce biological diversity. Ecosystem Degradation Ecosystems can be characterized by the physical processes and patterns of events such as flooding, fires,climate pattern, s and nutrient cycles, as well as by the functional capacity of the ecosystem to provide services such as water-holding capacity, nutrient availability, or soil East Cour.ty P.'Iot Study Task Force Report,May 1999 5-25 ".z. retention. These characteristics determine which species live in the ecosystem: and influence community dynamics, such as disease outbreaks and successional patterns. Ecosystem degradation occurs when human activities such as physical disturbance, over-utilization, water diversion,or those that cause pollution reduce the functional capacity of the ecosystem or alter ecosystem processes, When an ecosystenn is degraded, the other two levels of biodiversity also decline, greatly reducing the benefits the area can provide. Habitat tress Habitat loss occurs when areas suitable for maintaining a species are eliminated. Because smaller areas can support fewer individuals than larger areas, as the total acreage of a habitat declines so does the number of individuals of each species as well as the total number of species. Hence, as the habitat area shrinks,the number of species present declines. This "species—area" relationship is one of the best-documented patterns in ecology. Habitat lass need not be the complete elimination of habitat for all species, more typically, it is the conversion of land frorn one type of vegetation to another,such as converting oak woodland to grassland. The grassland will support a different group of species than the oak woodland did. Removal of a critical microhabitat feature can also result in habitat lass. Many activities can render an area uninhabitable for a particular species because species Dave specialized reeds. For example, loss of vernal pools cars result in elimination of plants and animals found only in that - habitat. Both species diversity and ecosystem diversity are changed when habitat, is converted or lost. Understanding the con-sequences of the loss of many individual patches of habitat requires looking at a landscape or regional scale. Habitat Fragmentation .Another significant consequence of conversion or elimination of habitat is the resulting fragmentation of the habitat that remains. Imagine a large area of ranched grassland and then create amental picture of ranchette subd;visions within this grassland. As the subdivisions grow in size and number, the pattern becomes one of a patchwork of grassland and subdivisions. Eventually,the ranchettes are more common than the grassland,and the grassland is fragn_ented into many small pieces, leavirsg"islands' of grassland surrounded by subdivisions. The remaining islands will support less wildlife than their combined acreage would suggest because many of the fragments of grassland that remain may be too small to support wide-ranging species or those sensitive to disturbance. This is because of two factors. First, manly species have what is referred to as "minimum area.requirements." For a population of a species to be able to persist within a habitat, the patch of habitat must be of sufficient size. In 5-26 Section✓< Discussion of Issues _.................................................... .. ....................................................................................................................... _..... ......... ......... ......... ............ .................__..... ......... .__.... _...... _...... ......... ......... ... ... _ __ ......... ......... ......................... ......... ......... _........... ......... ___. _....... addition, many habitat patches are functionally smaller than their acreage suggests. This is because the edges of the habitat are ecologically different from the interior. For species that require a woodland habitat typical of the interior,hese edge areas are not.usable, making many woodland patches too sinal;. to support a viable population. The second problem with frag�sented habitat is that the inhospitable areas between fragments often serve as impassable barriers to species or as substantial sources of mortality to individuals that attempt to cross these barriers. Relatively small distances can serve as'complete barriers to species, Also,the chances of a patch berg recolonized after a species is"_o-st decreases with the size of the barrier. Mortality at the edge of the habitat patch maybe very high. Hundreds oa thousands of animals are killed each year crossing highways. Altered Species Interactions Changing species relationships can also lead to a loss of biological diversity. Noss of ars individual species from an ecosystem can have ripple effects due to the changes in species interactions. Sometimes the removal of a predator has produced damaging side effects. For example, sea otters were hunted for their fur until they were present only in very low numbers along the California east. Once the utter numbers were quite low, sea urchin populations increased greatly, because urchins, an irnportant utter food, were released from predation pressure. The urchins, which eat kelp, caused a serious decline in the kelp beds off the California coast. Kelp is ars important commodity, and kelp forests are horn.- to nurnerous urine species. filtering the species' interactions can have dra=matic effects. L-this case,decline in the population €�f the predator in ,he systems: led to significant ripple effects, with adverse consequences for both humans and the offier components of tie ecosystem(Duggins et al. 1989' Criteria for Development of a Conservation Strategy Conservation pliamiers all over the world recommend a multifaceted approach to habitat protection, starting with a system of protected areas that included key sites where the land is dedicated to conservation. These "core" areas provide safe sites for species. Land surrounding the core, when nianaged sustain ably for multip e uses,provides both economic return from the land and habitat for many different species. These multiple-use lands can act as "buffer areas" between preserves and areas fu—iffier away from the core that have little habitat value for biological diversity. While many acknowledge that parks and protected lands alone are not enough, all agree that parks are essential to the protection of biological-, diversity(see e.g.,Harris 1984,McNeeley and Miller 1984,Jensen 1987). parks protect populations of species from the threats of huntitg,1 °Id conversion, and habitat loss. Some species are not abe to survive in areas that are grazed or logged or used for agricultural production. More importantly, parks allose the ecosystem processes to continue. Functioning, productive ecosysterns change over time, and the species that live within: these ecosystems evolve in response to ganging environment-al conditions. Erst County Pilot Study Task Force Report,May 1999 5®27 , An ideal system of reserves in the study area would contain representative stands of all the habitat types present. The system would also contain duplications so that the full geographic range of each habitat was represented. Widespread habitat types should be included in more than one preserved area to encompass the full range of variation present within that habitat-type. To the extent that exam.Ales of a habitat-type vary in their species composition, ecological interactions, and genetic make up, duplication actually provides completeness to the reserve system. To the extent that different examples of a habitat are the same, duplication provides redundance and thereby safeguards the systems against loss of on-site from a catastrophic event like a fire. The opportunity exists in eastern Alameda and Contra Costa Counties to protect large areas of habitat and a rich assemblage of species while allowing economic development. However, effective conservation of biodiversity requires that growth and development and the conservation of biological resources be coordinated early and at a regional scale in accordance with a regional conservation strategy. While many important gaps exist in our knowledge of biodiversity and the means by which it is depleted, we have many indicators (habitat loss and fragmentation, direct mortality, and increasing numbers of protected species)of declining diversity in the study area. We also have recognized methods for initiating conservations planning,which darn provide a level of assurance that correct planning decisions are being Trade. An ongoing monitoring and research program associated with irrnplemerntatiorn of the strategy is essential. The research program can resolve unanswered questions that bear on the conservation of target species that inhabit the study area and the biodiversity associated with its habitats. Conservations planning can move forward with varying levels of information, lin many cases, substantial basic information exists that can be used to rnake decisions. Frornn this, informed inferences can be made about the biodiversity in the study area and the habitat requirements of the species present. Basic information Needs include crapping of physical features, land uses, species occurrence,and vegetation to portray the options for the designs of a reserve and corridor network. Other information will assist in evaluating conservation planning options by documenting species distributions and relative abundances within the study area.,by identifying the sues and configurations of habitat patches necessary to sustain stable derrnographic units of target species, and by assessing the physical characteristics of landscape corridor linkages required to facilitate dispersal, gene flow, and recolon}ization by species inhabiting the various habitats present. Based on this inform. ation,a system of interconnected reserves can be developed that is designed. to (1)promote biodiversity, (2)provide for high likelihoods of persistence of target species in the study area, and (3) provide for no net loss of habitat value from the present, taking into account management and.enhancement. No net loss of habitat value means no net reduction in the ability of the subregion to maintain viable populations of target species over the long ter M. . The conservation strategy will meed to establish a range of habitat management and enhancement tools and incorporate a monitoring prograrn to provide guidance for ongoing management. 5-28 Section 5. Discussion of issues ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ _. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......__. .. ......... .......... .. ........ ......... ......... .........._....................................................................................................... _._.. ........... ._......... _ __ These would be usedin an adaptive vnanage-Mlent process that world evaluate progress toward conservation objectives and provide for improvements in the strategy based on future information and research. The following basic tenets of reserve design should be applied In developing the conservation strategy. * Conserve target :species throughout the planning area. Species that are well distributed across their native ranges are less susceptible to extinction than are species confined to small portions of their ranges. * Larger reserves are better. Large blocks of habitat containir g large populations of the target species are superior to small blocks of habitat containing small populations. Keep reserve areas close. Blocks of habitat, that are close to one another are better than blocks of habitat far apart. * Keep habitat contiguous. Habitat that occurs in less fragmented,contiguous blocks is preferable to habitat that is fragmented orisolated by urban lands. .ink reserves with corridors. Interconnected blocks of habitat serve conservation purposes better than do isolated blocks of habitat. Corridors or linkages function better when the habitat within thein resembles habitat that is preferred by target species. * Reserves should be diverse. Blocks of habitat should contain a diverse representation of physical and environmental conditions. * ,protect re,servesfs rom encroachment. docks of habitat that arelroadless or otherwise inaccessible to human disturbance serve to better^onserve target species than do accessible habitat blocks. Natural communities are inherently dynamic and should be managed to retain their capacity to support the broad range of species over the bong term. An adaptive management regime that provides for natural successional dynamics within the reserve system should be maintained. Fast County Vida:Study Task Force Report,May 1999 5-29 REFERENCES California Department of Fish and Gare. 1993. Southern California coastal sage scrab: € nservation guidelines. Sacramento, CA. - Duggins,D. 0..C.A, Sirne stad,and J.A.Estes. 1959. Magnification of secondary ppro duction vy kelp detritus in coastal manure ecosystems. Science 245:170-1;7'_';. Barris, T. D. 1954. The fragmented forest. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. Jensen,D.B. 1957. Concept of preserve design: What have we learned? Pages 595- 604 ire T. S. Elias (ed.), dare and Endangered Plants: Proceedings of the Conference, November 5-5, 1956. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Jensen,D. B.,M.Tom, and J. Harte. 1990. 1r our hands: A strategy for conserving biological diversity in California. California Policy Seminar Research Report. University of California, Berkeley,CA, Sones & Stokes Associates. 1959. Results of biological resources inventory and habitat evaluations in the Kellogg Creek Watershed. Sacramento, CA, Prepared for James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Inc. McNeely,J. too and K.R.Diller(eds.). 1954. National Peks: Conservation and develoDment. Smithsonia-n Institution gess.Washington,D.C. Murphy, D. `992. ''he California coastal sage scrub scientific review paneh Its p rrpose and approach. .An NCCP Special Report. (Special Report No. 1.) The California Environmental Trust, Sari Francisco, CA. Reck, S. 1995. Planning for biodiversity: Issues &-nd examples. Island gess, Covelo, CA. } ;.::.f .::.::.:: `'� f� ff f f #f r IN ff}f lhyf: f ff f l!. f / f RmMm fwf N-4. � '4 i f i EAST COUNTY PILOT STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT BIOLOGICALS LAND USE, AND ECONOMIC INFORMATION CONSIDERED BY THE EAST COUNTY PILOT STUDY TASK FORCE may 1999 Pre-cared by; Jones & Stokes associates, hic. Econormc and Planri g Systems lahon Planning Group Reviewed and revised by the East County Pilot Study Task Force (Nest endorsed by the flask Force) Summary The Fast County Pilot Study Technical Report (or Technical Report) contains biological and economic information. and analysis relevant to improving the process of conserving biological resources in eastern.Alameda and Contra Costa Cooties. The Technical Report was written by professional consulting fins with input from the East County Pilot Study Task Force for Task Force),a com ittee of conservationists,developers,government representatives,agriculturalists, landowners, and community interests. The consensus recom.mendations of the Task Force are contained in a separate report, the East County Pilot Study Task Force Report(or Task Force Report), which describes opportunities for balancing the needs of agriculture, business, urban development,and private property rights with biodiversity in eastern Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Prellminary work on portions of the Technical Report was initiated in 1995 by the Alame&— ontraCostaBiodiversityWorking€group,apartnership of state andloca,government entities and cher interested parties working to develop more efficient and effective methods for conserving the biological diversity, oA "biodiversity," of the East Bay (see Task Force Report e tion 5.5 for a complete definition of biodiversity). When this original work on assessing and analyzing biological resources and 'land use raised concerns among landowner and developer interests, the Biodiversity Working Group convened. the Task Force to review and revise the technical material and make recommendations on its use (see the Task.Force Report for more information on the Task Force review process and recommendations). Thi;biological sections of the Technical Report were written?by Jones&Stokes Associates and derive from the original technical work commissioned in 1995. These sections include a descriptio of the methods used to assemble a database of biological and land use information; reaps displaying sorre aspects of the collected data; a description: of a computer-driven methodology, or "weighting strategy," to assess resource values and identify conservation priorities, and a discussion of the use and <irnitations of this infonnation (Sections 1-3 and . ,ppendices B– ). The ecor o ics section was written by l conotnic & Planning systems. it was commissioned during the Task Force process. The economics section includes a generalized cost-bene-fit analysis of cooperative approaches to resource impact permitting and mitigation, includi ng a discussion of Habitat Conservation Plans and mitigation banking (section 4). The Task Force reviewed and heiped to revise the Technical Report,but decided that it was not appropriate to attempt to ratify the document because it contains detailed technical information prepared by professionals irr these fields. However, maps showing areas of higher and louver resource and conservation value, as determined by the computerized weighting strategy mentioned above, were not included because the Task Force could not reach agreement on the validity and value of these ops (see section 5.1 of the Task Force Report for additional Ea v County Pilot study Teckmical Repos,.may 1 g94 i discussion of this issue). Likewise, no comprehensive:naps of biological or land use data were, included because some members of the Task Force were concerned about accuracy and misuse. The remaining members were willing to omit such detailed maps to gain broader consensus or, the Task Force Report. _ The Task Force convened a Biological Technical Review Committee composed of university faculty and private sector professionals to review the biological inforrnation and provide advice on its use, The Biological Technical Review Committee found that the approach and methodology used in the preliminary technical work on the Eastern Alameda—Contra Costa Biodiversity Study (the predecessor to the Technical sport) are generally valid and provide useful information on regional biological resources---if the purpose and application of this shady are to address broad, regional biological questions. They also found that the data and the analysis do have some significant shortcomings that could and should be addressed over time, but that~,hese shortcomings do not outweigh the substantial improvements to baseline biological information provided by the study and would not preclude appropriate use of this information in the interim, The Task Force provides implicit guidance on appropriate use of this information through its policy recommendations in Section 4 of the Task Force sport. The Task Force also discussed convening additional technicall committees to provide advice on other topics, such as economics and any economic impacts of the various :napping efforts. In the end, such additional technical committees were not convened,in part because the Task Force decided to omit the more controversial traps, thereby eliminating some of the rationale for economic impact analysis. Some Tush Force members mould have preferred to consider economic and related topics more thoroughly and were disappointed that additional technical committees were not formed. Other members preferred to beep the focus on biological issues and on how biological issues affect the diverse interests of Tas'-,Force members. The agencies that sponsored the Biodiversity Working Group may be contracted for more information regarding the details of the work conducted for the Technical Report. ii Summary Table of Contents 1. Overview of Biological and Land Use Data Collection e s Q a . s s a 9 a . m . m . . . . 1-1 `i Background 1.2 Objectives 1.3 approach 1 A Data Evaluation 2.1 Biological Resources Data ollection 2.2 Land Use Data Collection: 3. Discussion of Data and Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r , . . . . . . 3-1 3.1 Recom mended Future Changes to the Data 3.2 Limitations of the Data 3.3 Possible Applications Generalized Cost-Benefit Analysis of Cooperative Approaches to Habitat Impact Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Summary of Regulatory Requirements 4.3 Cooperative Approaches to Habitat Impact Mitigation 4.4 Survey of Cooperative Programs in California 4Z Benefits of Cooperative Approach 4.6 Costs of Cooperative Approach 4.7 Additional Features of Cooperative Approaches 4.3 Response to Economic Issues Appendices A Report of the Biological Tec nicai Revise Committee on Preliminary Technical Work for the Eastern; Alameda.—Contra Costa. Biodiversity Study B Jones & Stokes Associates Weighting Strategy Methodology C Information Suppordng Jones & Stomas Associates" Sections 1®3 and Appendix B of the Technical Repot Citations for Jones & Stokes Associates' Sections 2 and 3 and appendix B of the Technical Report 4i Section vw of Biological and Land Use Data Collection 1.1 BACKGROUND 1.2 OBJECTIVES 1.3 APPROACH 1�4 DATA EVALUATION Section 1 . Overview of Biological and Land Use Data Collection Prepared by Jones&Stokes Associates 1.1 BACKGROUND The Aia eda-Contra Costa Biodiversity'Working Group initiated in 1995 a regional study of biological reso=urces and proposed laird uses in eastern portions of the two-county area to provide; information that may be useful for improving the process for conserving and managing biological resources. In particular, the study was intended to provide a case st=udy of opportunities and constraints for conserving biodiversity while accommodating urban growth. The approximately 7247,00-0-acre study area identified by the Biodiversity Working Group is located between the urban centers of Pittsburg,Antioch,Brentwood,Livermore,and Clayton and extends as far south as Cedar Mountain. ' a or land uses in the area include irrigated and dryla d farming, other forms of agricalture (including grazing), wind energy development, residential development, other forms of urban development and industry,and open space(including lands for recreational use and watershed protection of urban water supplies.). Figure l shows the general location of the study area.. In 1995,the Biodiversity Working Group retained the biologicalrenvironmental consulting firm. of Janes&Stokes Associates to map readily available biological resource and land use data for the entire study area. Progress on this study caused increased public interest and concern, and the East County Task Force was fo=rmed in the spring of 1997 to review, revise, broader, and seek consensus on the contents of the study. The Task Force reviewed a preliminary submittal of the Jones&Stokes Associates wo=rk product. Sections 1 and 2 and Appendix B of this East County Pilot Stu y Technical Report`or Technical Reporit))present those elements of the revised consultant's study that the Task Force agreed may be use al to further biodiversity work. Detailed mapping of the study area's biological resources and land uses is not included because some members of the Task Force did not agree about the completeness of the informmatior-or the value of the reaps or were concerned about misuse of the maps. Other members believed some of the maps should be included, but were willing to osrnit the maps frorr this .report in o=rder to broaden consensus on the Task Force Report. Section i of the Task Farce Report provides additional information or the history of the project, Section 5.1 of the Task Force Report provides additional information on the obstacles toconsensus. The study area supports a relatively high level of biodiversitybecause it is located in a zone of biogeographical transition between coastal and interior habitats,between lowland grassland and higher elevation wo3odland and chaparral, and between southern and northern elements of the E'a„ct County Pilot Study Technical Arort,May 1999 1-1 Coast ranges flora (Jones & Sto-kes Associates 1989). The eastern portion of the study area supports several plant communities typical of the San Joaquin Valley occurring on alkaline soils. Several species reach their northern limit in the study area, including San Joaquin kit fox and Coulter pine,whereas other species reach their southern limit. Of particular significance to the _ biodiversity of the area is Mt. Diablo State Park, located largely west of the study area, which supports several endemic plant species. Beyond its biological resources, the study area provides a good case study because it supports several other irnnortant land uses that are soften seen to conflict. For example, the study area contains significant approved and planned development and housing opportunities,particularly adjacent to the existing, rapidly growing communities sof Pittsburg, Antioch, Brentwood, Livermore, and Clayton. Many sof these areas are among the fastest growing in the state. Likewise, the study area also supports significant agricultural resources, including lands dedicated to ranching,dryland farming,irrigated row crops, and orchards, Such lands make up a majority of the study area. I-2 Section 1,Overview of Biological and Land Use Data Collection t�! Study Area a MW r 3 K s mom soft 14, CFi7�Gatfit $aft�"8s9P.SbL`k J { f :�bras "4t t ^mss t ?6 J j g ica Jones Stokes Associates.Inc. Figure 1 General Location of Eastern Alameda-Contra Costa Counties Biodiversity Study Area in California 1.2 OBJECTIVES The specific objectives of the data collection and Napping effort were to: • :map biological resources, including ve et ,tioa, key habitat features, and priority species occurrences; • map planning boundaries,proposed projects, and land use designations; and • develop a geographic information systems `GIS;database of biological resources and proposed land use which will enable updates to the data as the physical landscape changes, as policies and plans charge, and as neva or better information becomes available. As discussed in Section 1.1,detailed snaps of the study area,biological resources, and land uses re not included ire this report. In addition to the three specific objectives sof the data collection. and mapping effort listed above, review and modification of this Technical Report based on input from the Task Force have suggested an additional objective for the technical information presented in Sections I, 2, and 3 and appendix : document a methodology for biological and land use data collections and analysis that can be applied throughout the East Bay, and, with some customization, outside the East Bay. Some members of the Task Force did not agree that the methodology was useful, but all generally agreed that it should be documented so that other could reach :heir own conclusion=s. EMT C-9u sry Pilo!Study Technical Report,May 1999 1-3 1 s3 APPROACH The biological resource data in this assessment were based on aerial photographic interpretation and existing published and unpublished data., and were collected with the intent of providing :useful regional--scale inf=ormation rather than detailed,site-specific information. Tree types of biological data were collected and mapped:vegetation.,key habitat features,and priority species occurrences. Information: on vegetation and key features was derived primarily from aerial photograph interpretation and was collected and mapped in a uniform manner throughout the study area. Species occurrence data were collected from pre-existing surveys and do not constitute a uniform sampling,but are only a compilation of past efforts. As most past species studies have been performed only in conjunction with proposed development projects, some portions of the study area have been surveyed much more intensively than others. Biological resources data collection and results are discussed in Section 2," of the Technical Report. Regional data on proposed land uses were also collected to provide general information on current plans for growth and to help identify opportunities for better coordinating land use with the conservation of biological resources. Two general types of proposed land use data were - collected.: land use designations from city and county generall plans, and proposed. projects (approved or nearing approval). While general plan reaps typically record the boundaries of public property,in cases where general Man reaps dirt not accurately describe current public land holdings,the data were adjusted accordingly. Land use data collection and results are discussed in Section. 2.1 of this report. The biological resource and proposed land use data collected by Jones&Stokes associates were originally intended to form the basis for a computerized weighting strategy. The purpose of this weighting strategy was to systematically evaluate the biological and land use data to determine relative biological value and conservation constraints throughout the study area.. These two pieces of information were then combined to determine relative conservation,priorities. The East County pilot Study Task Force(or Task Force)did not reach consensus on the value of snapping the results of the weighting strategy analysis,and such maps are not included in this report.. The reasons why consensus -could not be reached on including such maps and the arguments made for and against their inclusion are discussed in Section 5.1 of the Task Force Report, "Unresolved and Unresolveable Issues in the Consensus Process." The weighting strategy methodology is presented in Appendix B of this report. 1-4 Section 1.Overview o,Biological and Land Use Data Collecraon n4 DATA EVALUATION The Task Force created a Biological Technical Review Committee, consisting of university professors, sciee tists from the private sector,and others,to review the data,weighting strategy, and potential a;pplicatio s. The review eras=used by the Task Force to evaluate and interpret the results of the data collection, to suggest data improvements (Section 3.1), describe 111imitations (Section 3.2), and suggest passible applications (Section 3.3). The complete findings sof the Biological Technical Review orrrrrrittee car:be found it., Appendix A. The limitations of the data are thoroughly described it-. Section 3.2, but brief mention of these limitations is warranted here as well. The biological resource and proposed land use data,were collected on a generalized,regional scale that is not suitable for direct application to site-specific pbanning. In addition,no field studies were performed as a part of this assessment to verify the accuracy or corn leterress of the data. The data were intended to provide a broad base of information to support regional conservation planning and to assist site specific studies with improved baseline information. The data can not tale the place of project-specific studies and surveys. Biological resources and lard use data ;were collected and mapped in 1995-1996 using the € ethods described in Section 2 of this report. Interested Task Farce members and other individuals have reviewed these data, East Cowi€y Pitot Study Technical Rerport,1,1ay 1999 1-5 Section 2. Data Collection and Mapping Methods 241 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES DATA COLLECTION 2.2 LAND USE DATA COLLECTION Section 2. Data Collection and Mapping Methods Prepared by Jones &Sfokes Associates 2.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES DATA COLLECTION This section. provides a description of how biological resources data for the pilot study were gathered. Data on three types of biological resources were collected. vegetation,key features, and species. Descriptions of resources, sources of data, and methods used for mapping are presented below for each of these three types of biological resources. Maps displaying the biological resources data collected in the study area are not contained in this report(please see Section 1 a I for an explanation). 2.1.1 Vegetation Mapping Vegetation Classification A vegetation classification systern was developed(Table 1)specifically for the study area based on the Holland(1986), Califfomia Native Plant Society(C-.NTPS) (1995), and California wildlife habitat relatio-nships (Airola 1988) systems (see Appendix C.1). Figure 2 is a map of the vegetation categories in a small I subsection off the full study area to provide an illustration of the collected data. Brief descriptions of land cover categories are provided below.. Grassland. Grasslands are vegetation types dominated by grasses and(orbs. Dominant species are typically non-native biomes (Bromus spp.), wild oats Ovens spp.), and wild barleys (Hordeurn spp.). Woody vegetation is sparse or nonexistent. Most of the grasslands in eastern Alameda and Contra Costa Counties are grazed by cattle, Please note that cattle grazing may also take place in woodland, shrubland, and irrigated agricultural lands (i.e.,irrigated pasture). Grassland without Features. Grasslands without features are those grassland habitats that are not drylar-�d farmed, do not, have wind turbine development, and do not support concentrations of seasonal wetlands. Grassland—Dryland Farmed. Dryland-far-raed grasslands are those grasslands that are disked for the purpose of producing hay or grain crops. Grassland with Wind Turbines. Grasslands with wind turbines are those grasslands where wind turbines are located. &ul Counry?Uot Study Techmical Repalt May 1949 2-14 Grassland with Seasonal Wetlands. Grasslands with seasonal wetlands are grasslands that support greater that: I%areal cover of seasonal wetlands. These areas support vernal pools, swales, and other seasonal wetlands withinn a grassland matrix. hru land,> Shr ublands are vegetation types dominated by shrubs. Trees and her°oaceous cover also may be present,but they are not the dominant vegetative cover. Shrublands include coastal scrub and chaparral habitats. Shrubland—Scrub. Scrub vegetation types are those shrubiands dominated by Diablan sage scrub. This coastal scr=ub is dominated by California sagebrush(Artemisia californica)and several species of sage (Salvia spp.). Sh b1 d- Chaparral. Chaparral vegetation types are those shr . land.s dominated by hard-leaved, evergreen shrubs typical of chaparral. Dominant species include charnise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) and several species of.amanita(Arctostaphylos spit,). Woodland. Woodlands are vegetation types dominated by trees with open to closed canopies. This category includes vegetation that could be termed forests(closed canopy)or savannas(open _. canopy of widely spaced trees). Woodland may support a herbaceous or shrubby understory. Oak Woodland. Oak woodlands are woodlands dominated by oaks, Common oak species in the study area are blue oak (Quercus douglasii), coast live oafs.(Quercus agrifolia), valley oak(Quercus lobata), and interior live oak.(Quercus wislizenii). Mixed Conifer Woodland. Mixed conifer woodlands are woodlands dominated or co-dominated by Coulter pine(Firms coulteri). Oaks are typically present, and the understory may be grass or shrub dominated. Riparian Vegetation. Riparian vegetation types are tree-or shrub-dominated habitats associated with streams or lakes. Riparian.Scrub. Riparian scrub is shrub-dominated riparian vegetation with willows _ (Salix spp.) typically dominant. Riparian Forest and Woodland. Riparian forest and woodland is tree-dominated riparian vegetation. Typical dominant trees are valley oak, oodding's black willow (Salix gooddingii),Fremont cottonwood.(Populusfrerr ontii),red.willow(Salix ltaevigata),and shining willow (Salix lucidax ssp. lasiandra). Emergent"wetland. Emergent wetlands are vegetation types dominated by herbaceous species that grow in either perennially or seasonally flooded, ponded, or saturated soil conditions. Permanent Marsha Permanent marshes are wetlands that support ponded or saturated soil conditions year round. Typical dominant plants are toles (S'cirpus spp.), cattails (Typha spp.), rushes (.Juncos spp.), and sedges (Carey. spp.). 2-2 Section 2.Data Collection and Mapping Method's Table 1. Vegetation Classification System for the Eastern Alameda—Contra Costa Biodiversity Study 1.0 Grassland I Grassland without features —2 Grassland- diryland far ed 1.3 Grassland with wind turbines 1.4 Grassland with seasonal wetland aggregations (>I% seasonal wetland cover') 2.0 Shrubland 2,1 1 Shru:bland- scrub 2.2 Shrubland -chaparral 4.0 Woodland 4.1 Oak woodland 4.2 Mixed conifer woodland (coulter pine/ponderosa pine) 5.0 Riparian habitat 5.1 Riparian scab' 5.2 Riparian forest and woodland 6.0 Emergent wetland 6.1 Permanent marsh 6.2 Seasonal wetland 7.0 Aquatic (open water) 8.0 Irrigated Agricultural 8.1 Agriculturad - cropland &2 Agricuitural - orchard 9.0 Developed sites 9.1 Reside--atial 9.2 Industrial/cornmercial sites 9.3 Distufbed ground (e.g., quarries) 9.4 Landfills 9.5 Developed parks and golf courses a 'parian hal itat '5.0) No riparian scrub habitat was mapped separately firom the more general n category, which is atruxture of riparian forest and scrub. - { } } 4 {.}!;{n}S:j'ivi;.}:tj:+.•::y:vi}:•.'•Y}}:•iJ::y:$•:i}:•y t 4 y 4 •y'- s y :J J F r ! � { t xx b r. a {y XX { y k S l f S : � f 4 t �`�{ t fS �. T ti? IAN } I f } f of Vegetation Mapping x 20.00 Feet Legend [7: Grassland r without features Note This figure displays a sample location of j Grassland a dryland farmed 4,700 acres within the 227,000 acre study Shrubland-chaparral area for which vegetation was mapped. Oak Woodland Riparian Forest andWoodland Seasonal Marsh. Seasonal marshes are wetlands that support paraded or saturated coedit°cans only from winter through spring. Dominant vegetation is typically herbaceous annuals. Vernal pools are a special type of seasonal wetland. Aquatic. aquatic sites are open water habitats or habitats that support submerged or floating vegetation Irrigated Agricultural. Irrigated agricultural lands are areas that are tilled, cultivated, and irrigated for crop production,planted in orchards or vineyards,or irrigated for pasture. Note that dr-yland famed lands are included under the grassland vegetation category. Note also that grazing tales place in grassland, woodland, and shrubland or pasture vegetation. Cropland. Croplands are those areas tilled and cultivated for agricultural crops. Orchard. Orchards are tease areas planted in orchard trees or vineyards. Developed Sites. Developed sites are those areas that have structures, paved surfaces, horticultural plantings,or lawns, or that have been cleared of vegetation. Residential. Residential developments are those areas with primarily housing. Ind stria `Co er°ciaim Industrial/commercial developments are those areas with primarily industrial and commercial uses. Disturbed Ground. Disturbed ground is land that has been cleared of vegetation, usually in preparation for development and quarries. Landfills. Landfills are those areas where vegetation has been cleared for the purpose of solid waste disposal. If these areas are overgrown by grasses, they are classified as annual grassland. Developed Darks and Golf Coarses, Developed parks and golf courses support horticultural plantings and lawns with little or no natural habitat Data Sources and Standards Vegetation types identified in the vegetation classification system for the study area were upped on black-and-white orthophotographs taken in 1970 (scale: 1:24,000) of the following U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-nnnute quadrangles, which have been rectified to standard accuracy: • Clayton, • Antioch South, • Brentwood, • Tassaiara, East Couray Pilot Study Technical Repot,May 1999 2-3 Byron Hot Springs, 0 Bethany (Clifton Court Forebay), - a Li vel Taore, Altamont, Midway, n Mendenhall Springs, and a Cedar Mountain. The minimal mapping unit used was 10 acres for riparian and wetland habitats and 40 acres for all other habitats. Because the orthophotogtaphs are of low resolution for vegetation mapping and were take:, in 1970,more recent and higher resolution aerial photographs were used to identify vegetation types upped or the orthophotographs. The set of photographs used consisted of large-format false-dolor infrared photographs at a scale of approximately 1:7,200, taker in June 1987 and in 1988, in connection with the Contra Costa Nater District Los Vaqueros reservoir project, that covered all USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles in the study area, except Cedar Mountain and Mendenhall Springs. To cover the remainder of the study area, 9-by 9-inch false-color infrared photographs at a scale of 1:36,000, taken on May 2, 1990, that cover the study area within the Altamont and Midway and parts of the Mendenhall Springs and Cedar Mountain USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles were obtained from the Alameda County Manning Department. US. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) rational Wetland Inventory (NT IWI) maps (scale: 1:24,000) were reviewed as an additional source of information to identify and reap riparian vegetation and wetlands that may not have been discernible on the aerial photographs. Environmental documents, primarily environmental impact reports (EIRs) prepared ender the California Environmental (duality Act(CEQA),were reviewed for information on vegetation at specific sites in the shady area that was obtained by others through on-ground observations (.Appendix C-3). SPOT satellite imagery acquired between 1992 and 1994 was obtained from the California Department of Fish and. Game (DFG) and used to determine where new development had occurred since the aerial photographs used in vegetation mapping were taken. The SPOTview product consists of panchromatic(black and white),terrain-corrected mosaics of selected SPOT scenes with a 10-meter pixel size. Mapping Methods Vegetation types listed in Table 1 were identified based on their distinct signatures on the false-color infrared aerial photographs and subsequently were trapped on the 7.5-minute orthophotographs.Vegetation maps were compared with ground-truthed maps prepared by.tones six Stokes Associates for the Los Vaqueros study area to ensure that vegetation had been identified correctly. If the vegetation type was not easily identifiable to the lowest classification level From the photographs, the vegetation types were mapped at the higher classification level (e.g., shrubland [2.01 instead of scrub [2.1] or chaparral (2.21). An existing ground truthed 2-4 Section 2.Data Coilecrion and Mapping Methods ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... _...................... .. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ........................................ ...................................................................................................................................................................... vegetation man. of the Los Vacueros watershed (Jones & Stokes associates 1989) was used to identify aerial photograph signatures. Grasslands for which evidence of disking appeared on the 1987 color aerial photographs were rapped as dryland fared (1.2). if no disk marks were discernible on the photographs, the grassland was mapped as grassland without features (1.1). Grasslands that are d�Jland farmed on a 2-,3-, or 4-year rotational basis or abandoned may have been mapped as grassland without features. Grasslands with wind turbines (1.3) were mapped if the turbines were discernable oh the aerial photographs. Because wind turbines are located in linear or dendritic arrays, a standard distance from the outermost t-arbine was chosen to nap the arrays as polygons and to distinguish between arrays or to combine thea as polygons. a standard distance of 2,000 feet from the edge of wind turbine mrelds was used to deterrraine grassland arras to include in this mapping unit. The 2,000 foot-wide area around turbine arrays was selected to approximate the potential area of influence- of the turbines on the use of the grassland by raptors. Grassland areas that included more tha `i cover of seasonal wetlands that was discernible. on the aerial photographs or upped on the NJl:maps were upped as grasslands with svaso gal wetland aggregations (1.4), h.rublands (2.01 were identified on the aerial photographs based on their dark signatures and location on steep hillsides and mountaintops. Scrub(2.1) generally differed from chaparral (2.2) ,n the darkness o� -lie signature and the location ori slopes. Where coastal scrub and c�aparral cold not be distir g�aished,the polygon was labeled as the higher classification level shnubland (2.0). Oak woodlands (4.1) were easily identifiable on aerial photographs and =mere, upped by following the outer canopy edge of continuous stands. Mixed conifer woodlands were mapped as key features (see the section `Key FeatureMapping") because their extent in the study area, was limited. Riparian forests and woodlands (5.2) were identified by their specific signature on the photographs and their proximity to strearnns,drainages,and lakes or reservoirs. No riparian scrub (5.1) was mapped in the study area,but sites that support a triix of riparian forest and scrub were mapped as the higher order riparian vegetation category (55.0). rnergent wetlands (6,€1) were identified based on their signature on the photographs and their location in landscape positions that would support wetland hydrology. Penmanent-.marshes (6.1) differed from seasonal wetlands (6.2) in the darkness of the signature and the density of vegetation.. Only wetlands larger than 10 acres were mapped. aquatic sites(7.0)were easily discernible based on the smooth,dark signatures can both the aerial photographs and the orthophotographs. Only water bodies larger than 10 acres were mapped. Irrigated agricultural croplands (8.1) and orchards (8.2) were identified and,differentiated based on the different signatures on the aerial photographs. East Ccssnty Pala Study Technical Repan,May 1999 2-5 Developed sites were mapped based on their distinct signatures. Sites chapped as residential developments (9.1) are predominantly occupied by residential development but may include small areas of industrial/commercial developments that did not meet the minimal mapping unit of 40 acres. Likewise, industrial/commercial sites (9.2) -nay include areas of residential developments that did not meet the minimal mapping unit criteria. Disturbed ground (9.3) was clearly discernible by large, light-colored scrapes in the landscape. Developed parks and gulf courses (9.5), indicated by the regular pattern of managed grass, were snapped in two locations. SPOTview images were used to map recent developments not in existence when the 1987 photographs were taken. These developments occurred primarily in the Antioch. and Liverhnore areas. New developments were identified by comparing the SPOTview image signatures to the orthophotograph signatures and mapped habitats. New development boundaries were mapped by readjusting the boundaries mapped for developed areas. Boundary linework for all vegetation and other band cover types was manually digitized into the project CMS database. Each polygon was attributed with the numeric classification shown in Table 1. 2.1 a2 Key Feature Mapping Key Feature Classification Key features are specialized habitat types with potentially high value for special-status plant and animal species that typically occur in batches smaller than the 40-acre minimum mapping unit used to map habitats. Key features were mapped and entered into the GIS as point locations instead of polygons. Brief descriptions of all key features snapped are provided below. Serpentine Habitat. Serpentine habitats are areas of serpentine soils or serpentine outcrops. These substrates support serpentine bunchgrass grassland and serpentine chaparral habitats .known to support a variety of special-status plant species. Alkali Wetlands. Alkali wetlands are areas with alkali soils and wetland hydrology tiat support a unique assernbsage of alkali--tolerant plants. - Rock Outcrops. dock outcrops are primarily unvegetated areas of rock that occur as small habitat islands within other types of habitat. lock outcrops provide nesting and roosting habitat for birds and habitat for special-status plant species. lug the outcrops contain intermittent pools, they may also provide habitat for special-status invertebrates, such as fairy shrimp and tadpole shrimp or curved-foot hygrotus diving beetles. Caves. Caves are large subterranean spaces with rock walls and little or no light. They may provide roosting habitat for several special-status bat species. Coulter Pine Stand. Coulter pine stands are forest or woodland habitats with Coulter pine (Pinus coulter°i) as a dominant or codominant tree. Coulter pine reaches the northern limit of its 2-6 Section 2.Data Collection and Mapping Methods ......................................................................................................... .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................__.___________. . _......_....._._............ _ ....... ......... ...._... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... distribution in Contra Costa County(griffin and.Critchfield 1972)• This species has a limited distribution in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties (California Native plant Society 1995). Sargent Cypress Stand. Sargent cypress stands are forest or woodland habitats with Sargent cypress (Cupressus sarge d) as a dominant or codominant tree. Sargent cypress grows on serpentine soils. ThIs species has a hmited distribution in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. Data Sources and Standards Key features were mapped from a variety of sources, including USGS 7.5-minute series quadrangle whops; soil surveys for Contra Costa and Alameda Counties (U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1966, 1977); the aerial photographs listed under"rata Sources and standards" in the section"` eretation Mapping„; Jones& Stokes associates file informedon, ;Deluding data from the Los "vaqueros proiect Stage 2 E ; and environmental documents provided by the East Bay gional Park District(EBRPD), Contra Costa County, and Alan eda County(appendix C-3). Each key feature was mapped as a point location,on USGS 7.5-i:'#�.inut quadrangle-raps and was given a symbol,an acronym for the feature's name, a r urib r identifying the source document, and a better indicating the accuracy of the data source. The following USGS 7.5-minute series quadrangles were used to map key features occurrences: Clayton: (1953, photorevised 1980), Antioch South (1953, photorevised 198€1), Brentwood (1978), Tassaara 0953, photorevised 1968), * Byron Hot Springs (1953,photorevised 1968), Clifton Court Forebay(1978), Livermore (1961, photorevised 1980), altannon�t (1953,photorevised 1981), Midway(1953, photorevised 1980), Mendenhall Springs (1956, photorevised 1971), and Cedar Mountain (1956, photorevised 1971). Appendix -3 presents a complete list of source documents; appendix C-4 lists all acronyrns and letter codes used to attribute mapped key features. The accuracy of rapped key feature locations was dependent on the accuracy of the source information.kation. 'Three levels of accuracy were assigned to key features; 0-0.25 square rile, >0.25-0.5 square-Wile, and 80.5 square mile. Mapping Methods The methods used to identify and .map the location of each type of key feature are described separately in the following sections. Serpentine Habitat, Serpentine habitats were -napped based on information contained in the soil surveys for Contra costa and Alameda bounties (U.S. Soil Conservation Sc-°vice 1966, 1977). Soil rapping units in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties that potentially support E.ct Coram-Film study T_pchnieal Repan,May 1999 2-7 serpentine habitats are rock outcrops of the Xerorthents Association: (Contra Costa County) and Henneke rocky loam and rock lairds(Alameda County) (Table 2). A geology map of the study area. (California Department of Mines and Geology 1990) was used to confirm serpentine occurrences wrapped in the soil surveys. Soil units were originally upped as polygons on clear acetate overlays of the 7.5-minute quadrangle maps. The data were subsequently transformed into point location data by assigning each polygon one to several ports based on the size and shape of the polygon. Points were placed. approximately 3,000 feet apart in the central areas of each polygon. The number of points used depended con the size and shape of the polygons they represent. Alkali Wetlands. Alkali wetlands were upped based on information contained in the soil surveys for Contra Costa and Alameda Counties, Soil rapping units in Ala;neda and Contra Costa Counties that potentially support alkali habitats are Pescadero clay loan and Solano loam (Contra Costa County)and Solano fine sandy loan and Sunnyvale clay loam(Alameda County) (Table 2). Vegetation units that have potential to include alkali habitats (i.e., grasslands, emergent wetlands)were subsequently identified within these soil mapping units. If information on topographic reaps and aerial photographs revealed that the hydrology of these locations could support wetlands, the sites were identified as alkali wetlands. Alkali wetlands polygons were transferred onto clear acetate overlays of the 7.5-minute quadrangle reaps. The data were subsequently transformed into point location data using the same method as described above for serpentine.habitat. Additional alkali habitats were mapped from the source documents (Appendix C-3). Areas upped as alkali wetlands in the source documents that were less than 10 acres in size and thus had not been identified previously on the vegetation -map were mapped as point locations. Rock Outcrops. dock outcrops were mapped from the environmental source documents (Appendix C-3)or, if they were discernible,from the 1987 color aerial photographs. They were Napped on the 7.5-minute quadrangle maps and transferred to the project datalbase. Caves. Cave locations were obtained from Jones & Stokes Associates' in-house file information, including data from the Us Vaqueros project. The locations were rnapped on the 7.5-minute quadrangle maps and transferred to the project GIS database. Where sensitive Native American art is known to be present, cave sites were mapped as a general area and not to the exact location. 2.1 a3 Species information Three categories of species were used in the biodiversity study: special-status species,priority species, and umbrella species. Definitions of these species categories are provided below. Only priority species occurrences were wrapped and entered into the GIS. 2-8 Section 2.Data Caidection and Mapping Methods ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Table 2. Soil Mapping Units That Potentially Support Serpentine or Alkali Habitats Soil appin Unit(Map Unit Symbol) Serpentine Habitat Alkali Habitat Contra Costa County' Rock outcropfXerorliemts Association (fie) Pescadero clay loam (Pb, Pc) x Solaro loan , strongly alkali (Sic) x Alameda Coutyb l enneke rooky loam n2' x Rock lard ( oF) Solaro fine sandy loam (S-) x Sunnyvale clay loam 11 (Sl, Sin, Sn) x a Source: U.S. Soil Conservation Service 19;7. Source: U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1966. Special-Status Species Special-states species are p=.ts and animals that are 'ega ly protected ander the California Endangered Species Act(California ESA.)or the federal Endangered Species Acs (federal ESA) or other rezalations and species that are considered sufficiently rare by the scientific community to qualify for suchlisting. Special-status plants are :pedes in the following categories: 0 plants listed or proposed for 1--sting as threatened or endangered under the federal IDSA (50 Code of Federal. Regulations [CFR] 17.12 [listed plants] and various notices in the Federal Register [FRI [proposed speciesl)§ a plants that are candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the federal ESA(58 FR 188, September 30, 1993) (Note: Data were collected for this study before federal candidate status was changed on February 28, 19961, plants listed or proposed for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered under the California ESQ 114 CCR. 670.5), plants listed as rare or endangered under the California Dative Plant Protection Act (California Fish and Game Code, Section 1900 et seq.); M plants that meet the definitions of rare or endangered edea CEQA (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15380)9 a plants considered by CLAPS to be "rase, threatened, or endangered in California" (Fists I and 2 in Skinner and Pavlik 19909 and a plants listed. by Cl4PS as plants about which more information is needed to determine their status and plants of limited distribution Gists 3 and 4 in Skinner and Pavlik 19941, which may be included as special-status species on the basis of local significance or recent biological information. Special-status animals are species in the following categories: * animals listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal ESA (50 CFR 17.11 rusted anirnals1 and various notices in the FR Iproposed speciesl)s * animals that ars; candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the federal ESA (59 FRI 2.9:58982-59028, November 15, 1994) [Note: Data were collected for this study before federal candidate status was changed on February 28, 19961; aninals that meet the definitions of rare or endangered under CEQA(State CE. A. Guidelines, Section 15380); .East County PUrt Study 71-chnical Report,Allay 1999 2-9 • animals listed or proposed for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered under the California ESA (14 CCS 570,5); • animal species of special concern to DFG(Remse n 1978 [birds] and Williams 1.986 ,Finammals'); and • animas fully protected in California(California Fish and Daae Code,Sections 3511 [birds], 4700 [mammals-i, and 5050 [reptiles and amphibians]). A complete list of all special-status species with potential to occur in the study area. (Appendix C-Z) was compiled by reviewing the Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB) (1995), the CNP S Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. (Skinner and Pavlik 1994), and Jones & Stokes Associates in-house file information. Priority Species Priority species are defined as those species with protection priority in the eastern Alameda and Contra Costa Counties study area because of their legal status or because the continued existence of the species depends on its occurrence in the study area. Priority species include those species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the California or federal ESA and those species for which the study area provides a significant portion of their range or a critical portion of their habitat. Priority species and the rationale for their selection are provided in Table 3. Data Sources Information on occurrences of priority species in the study area was obtained from DF 's N. DDB, environmental documents lasted in Appendix C-3, and Jones & Stokes Associates .in-house data. Mapping Methods and Data. Standards Occurrences of priority species (Fable 3) were mapped for the study area. Occurrences of other special-status species and umbrella species were not upped. Priority species were mapped using occurrences recorded in DFG's NDDB and the environmental documents listed in .Appendix C-3. recorded NDDB occurrences of priority species were taken from the GIS file of special-status species provided to Jones & Stokes Associates by DPG in November 1995 for the study area, All NDDB occurrences were checked for their presence code to ensure that the occurrence is considered extant by DFG. Priority species occurrences recorded in the environmental documents were mapped on the USG S 7.5-minute quadrangles. Similar to the key features,each species was assigned a symbol, an acronym for its name (Appendix C-4), a number code for the source document (Appendix C-3), and a letter code indicating the accuracy of the occurrence(Appendix C-4). Records of the 2-10 Section 2.Data Collection and Mapping Methods _....................................................................................................... - _................ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......................... ......... ......... _.. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ................................................... .......................... _. ......... ......... ......... ......................... _ Table 3. Priority Species for the Eastern Alameda- Contra Costa Biodiversity Study Page I of 3 Statasa Conumon dame scier:tific Name Federal/State/Ci-,PS £rti g Reason for Inclusion as L azget Species Animals San.loaTuin kit fox E/T/NA Federally listed and state-listed species;s ady area Vu4pes Macrosis Mutica constitutes northern ex:re?-e of:;ie species'range San joaquir po ket mouse --/--/l-A Local endemic species Perognathus inornat-a s inorr oars Alarneda whipsm&e T MINA Federally listed and state listed species,local endemic Masticophis lateralis eup,,-,anthus Swvainson's hawk --/SNA State-listed species;known to forage in the study area Buteo ssvainsoni Golden eagle --/SSC,FP/'NA Although species has a wide range,the study area Aquda chrysaetos provides important regional resting areas California tiger salamander C/SSC/: A Federal candidate for listing,study area regionally ff"ffre'bystorna ealiforniense important to species California red-legged :71 og T/SSc/NA Federally listed species;study area regionally Rana aurora dr cyton imMrtant to species Longhorn fairy s7hrimp E/--NTA Federally listed species;endemic to the study area. Branchar:ecaa longiantenpa Vernal pool faLy shrimp T/--/'IN'A Federally listed species Branchinecta lynchi Curved-foot hygrotris diving beetle --/--/NeA focal endemic Hygrotus curvipes �slesta�i blister beetle --/--NA Study area regionally important to species Lytta molesta Bridge's Coast Range shoulderband aw/--/iA Study area regionally important to species Helrrair:thoglypto nickliniana bridgesi Plaits Sharsrnith's onion --/—/Ili Substa.itial portion of range in study area or vicinity A-Rium,s'harsmithae Large-flowered fiddleneck E/`✓/IB Federally and state listed as-endangered Almsinckia grandirrrca belt.Diablo inanzanita --/--/IB Substantial portion of range in study area or vicinity Asrctostaphylos auriculata Cortra Costa it amanita --I- lI Substantial portion of range in study area or vichnity Arctostsgpr'rylos m arzanfta ssp. laevigata Big tweed --/--1€ Substantial portion of range in study area or vicinity hl pharizonia plumosa ssp. pltarraosa lust.Diable fait'-lantern 441B Substantial portion of range in study area or vicinity calochortus pulchell'us Table . Continued Page 2 of 3 S tatus2 Common Name Scientific Name Federai/State/C,N-PS Primary Reason for Inclusion as Tame¢Species Shacsrnith's harebell J__/4 Substantial portion of range in study area or v cLnity Campanula sharsmithiae Mt.Diablo bird's-beak State listed as rare;endemic to study area or vicinity Corrylanthus nidularius Palmate-bracted bud's-beak. E/E/IB Federally and state listed as endwigered Cordylanthus palmatus Diablo helianthella etl/-_JIB Substantial portion of range in study area or vicinity HeRanthella castanea Brewer's western flax __!--lI Substantial portion of range in study area or vicinity Hesperolinon bre-wer' Contra Costa goldfields E/_n/IB Federally :fisted species asthenia conjugers Mason's lilaeopsis --/R/IB State listed as rare Lilaeopsis masonii Rock sanicie --/R/IB State listed as race S'anicula saratilis Mt.Diablo jewe f€ower ..-/—/IB Substantial portion of range in study area or vicinity S&eptanthus hispidus a Status explanations Federal C = Candidate species for which USFWS has on rile sufficient information on bio ogicai vulnerability and threat(s)to support proposals to list them as endangered or threatened. E = Listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. T _ Listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. -- = No status dea�nition. State E = Listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. FP = Fully protected under the California Fish,and Game Code. R = Listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act. SSC = Species of special concern in California. T _ Listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act. _- = No status definition. California Native Plant Society NA = .Not applicable. IB = List IB species: rare,threatened,or endangered in California and elsewhere. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............. . . ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ .... .. __ _ __ same,species rapped from the source documents that were less than a quarter-mile apar were b mapped as a single occurrence and transferred into the project GIS database. If ann NDDB occurrence and a record from a,-,i env ronmental document for the same species occurred within 500 feet of each Esther, hese were assumed to be the same occu 1-enee, and the record from the environmental document was de eted from,he prereet GIS database. Fast County Pilot Study Technical Repan,May 1999 24 2.2 LAND USE DATA COLLECTION ,and use mapping of the study a.ea involved mapping political boundaries,planning boundaries, and proposed projects. County and city planning staff assisted in providing the required information. EBRPD provided a map of public open space lands and easements in the East County area (Figure 3). Political boundary data. (county and city limit dines) were gathered from Contra Costa and Alameda County maps. County land use designation data were obtained from the Contra Costa County General plan land use map, .Alameda County's East County Area Plan's land use diagram reap, and San Joaquin County's General Flan land use map. For the purpose of this study,under the guidance of Contra Costa and Alameda Counties, some land use designations were clanged from the county's genera; plan designations to better reflect conservation opportunities and constraints (Kopchik and Butch Pers. comms.). An example of this is the Site 300 site that straddles Alameda and San Joaquin Counties. Alameda County's East County Area plan designates the Site 300 site as Major Public,but because most of the Site 300 site is a buffer of open space, Alameda.County suggested that the site be considered as open space for this study's purposes (Dutch Pers. comm.). Information on proposed projects was provided by the cities and counties in the shady area. City and county planners verified the location and size of proposed projects in their jurisdictions. Generally,only these projects greater than 1€0 acres were mapped, However,in some instances, if a boundary of a project was known and the county or city planner indicated that the project should be identified.,the proposed project was included in the mapping. All future development projects known by staff at city and county land use agencies as of January 1996 were entered into the database. The following information was mapped for the study area; m county lines for Contra Costa, Alarneda, and San Joaquin Counties; county urban limit lines (FYI.Ls) for Contra Costa.and Alameda Counties; * city limit lines for the incorporated cities of Livermore, Pittsburg, Clayton, and Antioch; * city sphere of influence (SOI) lines for Alameda and Centra Costa Counties; * county land use designations for Contra Costa.,Alameda, and San Joaquin Counties; and future development projects in Contra Costa, Alameda, and San Joaquin Counties. 2-12 -s2 Section 2.Data Collection and Mapping Meshods - __..... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... _. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ..._..... ......... ......... .. ...... ......... ............._......._..._. ........... ......... .. _. ......... ......... ......... ......... ........._....._....... _ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ ° D k r A x a v �n L 1, Exper'sko-- Ajar, g PFa � e U5. Y � .t �5! pmt YW• �` { FIGURE 3 PubiVy Owned Undeveloped Land and Eawment$ in rz;stern Xer� a and Contm Costa Counties " June, 199 ' E Pubfi*0%,ned Undle eloped Land Land in Conservation Easement nW z €sats This rasp represents the best available summary a l of p€b le lards and easements that are undeveloped or dsdl ted to park,opera space or habitat purposes. e It Is not a comprehensive inventory of all such lands I as the extent of public ownership can change frequently. Limits for ufban growth in Alan eda County are called "urban growth boundaries," but for the purpose of this study, "ULUwas used for all. counties. Data sources are described and mapping methods are discussed below. Maps displaying the I collected land use data are not contained in this report (please see Section 1.1 for ar. explanation), The agencies that sponsored the Biodiversity Working Group may be contacted for-Inol-e info-tmattion on the collected data. 2.2.1 Planning and Political Boundaries Data Sources and Standards Where they crossed the biodiversity study area.county lines for Contra Costa, Alameda, and San Joaquin Counties were snapped from US 7.5-minute topographic maps and county land use maps obtained from-, Contra Costa, Alameda, and San Joaquin Counties. County ULs were mapped for Contra Costa and Alameda Counties from a Contra,Costa County ULL map(scale: 1. inch®4,000 Let),revised July 13, 1993, and an I by 1177-inch man, (scale: I inch=approximately 7,000 feet)of the urban growth boundary from the County of Aia mieda East County Area Plan, adopted on May 5, 1994. Because of the size and scale of the map, provided by Alameda County, boundary data were manually transferred to USGS 7.5-m—inute topographic--maps before entry into the GIS, City limit lines for the incormorated cities of Pittsburgh, Clayton, Antioch, and Livermore were mapped for the biodiversity project area. City limit line information was obtained from the following: Contra Costa County city limit line map (scale: I inch = 4,000 feet-; base --nk-0, including 1995 updates); City of Pittsburg community development map of the proposed an- nexation area(scale: ": inch=approximately 5,000 feet) (Gravel pers, comm.); and an 11P by 17-inch map of the city limits and spheres of influence(scale: I inch=approximately 79000 feet) from the East County Area Plan, May 5, 1994. Because of the size and scale of the map provided by Alameda County, boundary data were transferred manually to US 7.5-minute topographic maps before entry into the GIS. SOI lines for Contra Costa and Alameda County cities were mappedfor, the project area from the city SOI Trap from Contra Costa County (scale: I inch = 4,000 feet; base map, including 1995 updates), and an 114 by 17-inch map (scale: I inch ® 7,000 feet) of the city limits and spheres of influence from the East,County Area Plan, adopted on May 5, 3.994. Alameda County boundary data were transferred manually to USGS 7.5-minute topographic maps before entry into the GIS. City SOI lines for the Cities of Pittsburg and Antioch were received on a USES 7.5-minute topographic snap, Antioch South Quadrangle, from Contra Costa County Plwinin-g Department staff(Kopchik pers. comm. Eavi County Pilot Study?Iechnicai Repon,May 1999 2-13 Mapping Methods Planning and political boundary information from Contra Costa County (scale: I inch =4,000 feet) was digitized directly into the GIS. Additional proposed city limit boundary expansion information. from the City of Pittsburg (scale: 1 inch= 5,000 feet) was pat onto the existing map of Contra Costa County and then digitize; into the GIS. Information from Alameda County (scale: 1 inch ® approximately 7,000 feet) was transferred rnanually to USGS 7.5-minute topographic maps and then digitized into the GIS. 2.2.2 Land Use Designations Data Sources County land use designations were mapped for Contra Costa, Alameda, and San Joaquin Counties from the following information sources: a land use designation snap from Contra Costa County(scale: I inch=2,030 deet),revised on Idly 995; an Alameda County East County Area flan land use diagram snap (scale: 1 inch®approximately 7,000 feet), adopted on May 5, 1994; and the 1995 San Joaquin County General Plan snap. Under the guidance of Contra Costa and Alameda Counties, some land use designations were changed from the county's general plan designations in the study area(Kopchik and Dutch Pers. comms.). An example of this is the Site 300 site that straddles Alameda and San Joaquin Counties. Alameda County's East County Area Plan designates the site 300 site as Major Public,but because most of the site 300 site is a buffer of open, space, Alameda County suggested that the site be considered as open space for this study's purposes 'Dutch pees. comm.). Mapping Methods ,and use designations for Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Joaquin Counties were digitized directly into the GIS. 2.2.3 Proposed Projects Data Sources City and county planners of jurisdictions in the study area were asked to provide information on approved./permitted or pending projects located in the study area and the vicinity of the study area. These projects are referred to as "pro-posed projects" for the purpose of the study. Approved/permitted projects include parcels that have been approved or permitted for development or are under construction. Pen=ding development includes parcels for which some form of development proposal has been prepared or is considered probable based on input from county and city planning personnel. Planning staff from the Cities of Pittsburg, Antioch, Clayton, Brentwood, and Livermore and Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Joaquin Counties assisted in identifying proposed development areas in their jurisdictions and indicating the future plans and directions of development (Augustine, Bendorff, Dutch, gavel, Hatch, Kopchik. 2-14 Section 2.Data Collection and Mapping Methods .................................... . .................................................................................................... _ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ....... ......... ......... ....................... .........._.. ......... .. ......... ......... ......... ......... ............................ _.. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ....... _. ......... ......... ......... McEiligott, Stein, and Zilm pers. coinrns.). Project I-ocation maps were either sent directly from the planning agency or gathered from environmental analysis documents (Le., EIRs, master plans). Only proposed projects known by county or city planning staffs, as off January 1996 were included in the database. Mapping Methods P.-Oposed projects were mapped onto USGS 7.5-minute topographic maps. The information was then digitized into the GIS. Some proposed protects contained preserved natural open space project components. Only the designated development areas of projects were identified as proposed project sites, and the designated natural open space areas were placed into an open, space designation category (Kopchik and Dutch Pers corns.). East County Pilot Study Tmhnical Rg�pom May 1999 2-15 Section Y Discussion of Data and Applications 3.1 RECOMMENDED FUTURE GRANGES TO THE DATA 342 LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA 3.3 POSSIBLE APPLICATIONS Section 3. Discussion of Data and Applications 3.1 RECOMMENDED FUTURE CHANGES TO THE DATA The following is a list of additional data or changes to existing data suggested by the Biological Technical Review Com.mittee for t-he East County Pilot Study(based on a review of the findings of the committee in Appendix A): * obtain and use for vegetation mapping recent aerial photography taken in spring; * re-map wetlands using nenv photography: * update and increase the resollh.tion of the vegetation classification,(e.g.,subdivide oak woodland vegetation to the species-association level)usi ing niew aerial photography; * map the boundaries of special-status species survey efforts; * update special-status species table and identify known versus potential occurrences; * map watershed boundaries; * conduct ground-truthing of vegetation and key features inforination; iff add information on cominor.species that are rare in the study area; * develop comprehensive list of all species in study area(long-term goal); and * add information on physical and temporal ecosystem processes. F=Coup ty Pilot Study Techrical Report,May 1999 3®i e2 LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA .2.1 Limitations of Biological Data Collected Because the purpose and application of the study were to address broad, regional biological questions, the data are not sufficient or appropriate to address site- or project-specific issues. _. Several limitations of the data and examples of inappropriate uses of the data are provided below: Resolution of the Vegetation Data. All vegetation units were upped to a 4 -acre tninimusn :napping unit except riparian, wetland, and aquatic habitats, which were napped to a 10-acre minimurn mapping unit. The vegetation data are not suitable for assessing site-specific impacts. There may be a temptation by individual landowners to use the data for the purpose of site planning on individual parcels. This use would be inappropriate. The resolution of the data is sufficient for the regional scale of the study,but is not sufficient for resource or lard use planning for areas less than 10,00 or 20,000 acres(about 5-10%of the study area). It would not be appropriate to mix the regional data provided by this study with new or existing data from local or project-level vegetation mapping efforts that have a higher mapping resolution (smaller minimum mapping units). * Detail Level in the Vegetation Classification. The vegetation classification is general and does not subdivide broad categories of vegetation into specific series(e.g.,coast live oak woodland,blue oak woodland,and valley oak woodland). The lack of finer divisions in the vegetation classification precludes the use of the data for finer-level differentiation of potential wildlife and plant habitats. It would not be appropriate to use the data to identify potential suitable habitat for wildlife or plants below the level of classification mapped for the study. In addition,it would not be appropriate to rnix the regional data provided by the study with new or existing data from local or project-level vegetation mapping efforts that have mare finely divided habitat classifications. Rem. ote Sensing Technique. `vegetation data were not specifically ground-truthed for this study. The study instead relied on a remote sensing technique involving aerial photographic interpretation. There is therefore a greater possibility for error in identifying vegetation types than if on-ground surveys had been conducted. Portions of the study area.,however,had been mapped in previous ori-ground surveys (some conducted by the staff involved in this study), and these studies were used to verify the units mapped through aeriall photographic interpretation. In addition,the classification system was intentionally developed to accommodate features that could be interpreted from the aerial photographs. It would not be appropriate to use the data for resource planning or studies of individual parcels or within individual map units because of the potential for errors in identifying vegetation types; such errors could result in undue effects on the outcome of local-scale or site-specific planning or studies. 3_2 Section 3.Discussion ofData and Applications * Wetland and Rinarrian Habitats Data. The extent of wetland and riparian habitats may have been underestimated in the data due to the time when the aerial photographs used for the study were taken. The photographs were taken in the early dry season of a drought year. In addition, -many wetlands are too small to be identified from the aerial photographs used. For these reasons, there may be a greater extent of wetland and riparian,habitats in the study area than estimated by the study. The data should not be used in any way for compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, such as for delineation of wetlands and other waters of the United States or for wetland impact analysis. * Priority Species Occurrence Data. The priority species occurrence data were not uniformly collected over the study area because these data were derived from a variety of independent special-status species surveys conducted in different years,at different levels of survey intensity,and for different purposes. Some portions of the study area have been surveyed comprehensively and intensely for special status species, and other portions have never beer. surveyed. The data should not be interpreted as a distribution density for priority species in the study area because portions of the study area that have been, intensely surveyed could be erroneously interpreted as supporting the highest density of occurrences of a species,when other areas that have not been surveyed as intensely may in fact support a greater density of occurrences. The converse is also true;portions of the study area that were not surveyed may be mistalkenly assumed not to support any priority species. The number of occurrences and the location of occurrences recorded for priority species that are very mobile(e.g.,birds and large-and medium-sized mammals)should not be interpreted in the same way as occurrences recorded for less-mobile species(e.g., plants,reptiles,arnphibians,small man mals). Occurrences of mobile animals often represent one individual that has been seer in several locations. Occurrences of less-mobile species more often represent several individuals or a population that is not likely to move far from the location identified. As sated by the Biological Technical Review Committee,while there are shortcomings in the data, "these shortcomings do not outweigh the substantial improvements to baseline biological inforniation provided by the study and should not preclude appropriate use of this information." (See Appendix A for Biological Technical Review Committee report.) 3.2.2 Limitations of the Weighting Methodology Conservation biology is a young science, and basic concepts in conservation biology are still controversial, For example, guidelines that were followed in the weighting strategy described in Appendix B include the principles that a few large preserved areas are better than many small preserved areas and that preserved areas should be connected by habitat corridors for wide-ranging species. These guidelines have been widely advocated(Wilcox and Murphy 1985), but are also criticized in the scientific literature (Quinn and Hastings 1987, Sim.berloff et 0. Fast County Plior Srudy Technical Report,May 1999 3-3 1992). 'Much support exists, however, for protecting large, contiguous habitat areas and connecting hese with corridors for wide-ranging species when possible. The tools used to analyze and synthesize the biological data were developed specifically for this - assessment. The spatial analysis benefitted from earlier experiences, such as the Natural Community Conservation plans (NCCPs) for coastal sage scrub in southern California. The specific requirements of this assessment, however, necessitated the development and GIS implementation of new models for processing biological and land use data and a vowel spatial model to produce a conservation priorities crap. The limited amount of available data and lack of well-established scientific guidelines made it necessary to make a series of assumptions about biological resources and land use planning information. The analysis included critical biological assumptions about: a species-habitat relationships, _ is representation of groups of species by selected umbrella species, spatial habitat requirements of umbrella species, and the value of habitats to support biodiversity. The analysis included critical land use planning assumptions about: a relationships between designated land use and the level of conservation constraint, a the meaning of planning boundaries, and E the status of proposed.projects. A change in any of these assumptions would result in a different conservation priorities reap. The conservation priorities assess Hent presented here should be interpreted as part of a planning process that presents areas of conservation priority given the underlying assumptions used. 3-4 Section 3.Discussion of Data and Applications 3.3 POSSIBLE APPLICATIONS This section provides a compilation of the possible applications of the East County Pilot Study data and the East County Pilot Study consensus process. The Task Force has reviewed this list of possible applications but has neither approved nor rejected it. Inclusion of a possible application in this list does not imply endorsement, but it does indicate that the Task Force considers these applications to have enough potential merit or risk to warrant'Urther analysis and discussion. Actual implementation of the applications listed below would require specific action by appropriate organizations and agencies and, in most cases, would require both additional technical information and additiona.,public input. 3.3.1 Mitigation and Conservation Banking Mitigation and conservation banking are means of streamlining and better coordinating m - development projects. Mitigation banking is the term generally applied to i -on off processes involving we ands, while conservation banking generally refers to other types of habitat.Typically,property owners worlk with state and federal resource agencies to establish a rnitigation/conservation. banks) onn their land and determine the 'type and amount of initigatimn/conservation credits this bank(s)can sell. Developers seeking off-site mitigation for their project can obtain this mitigation in the form of credits purchased from the r.,u't-igatio,-,v'con.servatio.n bank(s). Both,banking approaches are essentially processes for buying and selling portions of the conservation easement which will ultimately cover the entire mitigation/conservation bank(s)property. This approach to mitigation is intended to improve both the biological value of offsite mitigation by avoiding haphazard, fragmented habitat mitigation,and the efficiency of the off-site mitigation process by reducing the time and.expense to project proponents in locating and purchasing mitigation. This approach also provides an alternative means for landowners to benefit economically from their on-going resource stewardship. The information generated by the East County Pilot Study could be useful-, to property own ers and resource agencies when assessing resources, siting and establishing mitigation banks and supporting the use of the mitigation banks by projects seeUng off-site mitigation. Concerns with this approach include: off-sfte,,mitigation may not protect resources of the same type or value as those being impacted by development; may lead to less sensitive treatment of resources at the development site; and may present concerns to landowners who neighbor the conservation bank. 3.3,2 Improve and Accelerate CES EISA Compliance CEQA requires state and local government agencies with discretionary authority over projects to evaluate and rnitigate impacts to biological resources(as well as other impacts). This typically East County Pilot Study Technical Report,May 1999 3-5 requires a professional assessment of biological resources present on the site and can involve preparations of an FlR. The inform, ation generated by the East County Pilot Study could provide property owners and developers who generally pay for these professional biological assessments with a head start on this requirement, though projects would stall need site-specific study. Likewise,the study could help improve the assessment of cumulative impacts,a requirement of CEQA which has been difficult to carry out effectively due to the lack of regional or contextual biological information, INEPA requires federal agencies to assess the environmental effects of actions funded or authorized by the federal agency. Information generated by the East County Pilot Study could provide infor at on on biological resources to support the analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative irrmacts of federal actions. 3.3.3 Fulfill Resource identification Objectives of County General Plias The Contra Costa and Alameda County General Plans call for the collection of new and/or better information on biological resources,including preparation of an inventory of such resources as _ habitats and rare species. The information collected by the Fast County Pilot Study could be used to implement a portion of these General.Plass objectives. 3.3.4 Assist Non-Profit Organizations and Land Trusts Many independent non-profit organizations or land trusts are working in eastern Alameda and Contra Costa Counties to protect a range of resources, including wildlife habitat, prime agricultural land, ranching and creeks,via fee-title or easement purchases from willing sellers. The resources inventory provided by the study could help these organizations to carry out their missions by providing more informations on the resources important to thews. .15 Aid Preparation of HCP or NCCP Habitat Conservation Plans ( CPs) and natural community conservation plana /NCCPs) establish a coordinated process for permitting and mitigating the incidental tape of endangered species. Developers seeking coverage under an CP/NCCP typically pay a mitigation fee and, in exchange, receive an incidental take permit for their project. Funds collected via these fees, sometimes augmented with other funding sources,are pooled and used to purchase habitat from willing sellers via fee title or easement transactions. Property owners who sell conservation easements are typically able to continue to derive economic benefits from their land by ranching or farTnning as before. Streamlining of wetlands permitting, protection of prime agriculture, streamlining of opens space mitigation, and reduced CES,requirements can be incorporated in development of anICP/Ni CCP. Regional HCPs.1NCCPs are intended to benefit endangered species by increasing mitigation flexibility and enabling the purchase of connected and biologically rich blocks of habitat.They 3-6 Section 3.Discussion of Data and fipplicarions are also intended to benefit developers by relieving thein of the -expense and uncertainty of conducting endangered species surveys and individually securing ntigatior.- HCPsNICCPs also provide funding and a rnechanism.to reward,landowners for their ongoing resource stewardship. The information generated by the East County Pilot Study could aid preparation of an HCP/N. CCP by providing at least a first step towards the resources in usually necessary to prepare such plans. Concerns with HCPs/N, CCPs include the fol1lowing: the potential for cost reductions and perm."¢ streamlining may riot occur as anticipated; there may be diminished restrictions on new development; and'there may be impacts on real, property, including property values and use. 3.3.6 Improve Agency Coordination and Streamline Permitting A number of independent governmental agencies with differing legal mandates are responsible for protecting biological and other resources and for issuing permits to prqlects with impacts to these resources. '1he resources inventory generated by the East County Pilot Study provides a common information base for use by these agencies which could improve communication among agencies and enable better identification of upcoming regulatory conflicts and opportunities for averting or minimizina these con-f-licts. 3.3.7 Useful in Addressing Anticipated Changes to ESA to Greater Emphasize Habitats the he U.S. Congress is currently debating changes to the federal ESA, w*qic-'.111, if approved, would place greater er-n-phasis on habitats aid less emphasis on individual endangered species. the East County Pilot Study provides substantial infonnatior, on habitats that could help landowners and agencies to better address the different requirements of such potential revisions to the law. 3.3.8 Regional Planning The information collected in the East County Pilot Study and the Task Force consensus process could bring regional context to local planning and/or could assist existing efforts to address land use issues on a more regional level. By bridging the jurisdictions and interest areas of two counties, six cities,and a number of developer,landowner,conservation,and community groups, the East County Pilot Study provides regioned information and a forurn for communication between groups and areas that generally do not interact. Regional planning has the potential to solve land use proble-rns and conflicts more efficiently that local planning, but also has the potential to diminish local control. In addition to regional agencies like the Metropolitan Transportation Agency and the Association of Bay Area Govemments, a four-county regional part-nership has, been developed to discuss issues such as growth, traffic, and jobs-housing balance. T"he Task Force process and information: could be useful to these agencies and -efforts, East County Pilot Study Technical Report.May 1499 3-7 3.3.9 A Note on Misapplications of the Data The limitations of the data are thoroughly discussed in Section 3.2 and in the Biological Technical Review Committee findings in Appendix A,but some potential misapplications bear mentioning here, The biological resource and proposed land use data were collected on a generalized,regional scale that is not suitable for direct application to site-specific planning. In addition, no field studies dere performed as a part of this assessment to verify the accuracy or completeness of the data. The data were intended to provide a broad base of information to support regional conservation planning and to assist site-specific studies with improved baseline information. The data cannot tale the place of project-specific studies and surveys. _ 3-8 Section 3.Discussion of Data and Applications Section 4. lysis of Cooperative Approaches to Habitat Impact Mitigation 4.1 INTRODUCTION 4.2 SUMMARY OF REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 4.3 COOPERATIVE APPROACHES TO HABITAT IMPACT MITIGATION .4 SURVEY OF COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS Its CALIFORNIA 4.5 BENEFITS OF COOPERATIVE APPROACH 4.6 COSTS OF COOPERATIVE APPROACH .7 ADDITIONAL FEATURES OF COOPERATIVE APPROACHES 4%8 RESPONSE TO ECONOMIC ISSUES Section 4. Generalized Cost-Beneflit Analysis of Cooperative Approaches to Habitat Impact Mitigation Prepared by Walter Kieser, Economic and Planning Systems 4.1 INTRODUCTION This section of the Technical Report addresses the economics of cooperative approaches to mitigating the impact,of development on listed species. The East County Pilot Study provides an overview of a number of issues surrounding the preservation of"biodiversity"in the eastern portions of Alarn-eda and Contra Costa Counties,an area encompassing the eastern slopes of the Diablo Range. The study area is at present largely undeveloped and is committed to extensive agricultural lases, principally grazing. During the course of its proceedings, the Biodiversity Working Group has identified several issues related to economics—Including the potential economic effects of biodiversity planning e area and axe effects of-ooperative approaches to mitigating habitat losses and th impacts of "talces" of species listed as threatened and endangered (regulated by the federal government (federal ESAJ and the state government [02fflfomia ESAJ). The term"cooperative approaches"encompasses a range of programs that replace,all o--.-in part, the normal project-by-project regulation of listed species takes and habitat loss by federal,state, and local governments with a consolidated and simplified process. HCPs and mitigation banking are examples of such programs. While no specific cooperative program is considered as a part of this analysis,it is possible that some form of cooperative habitatimpact mitigation will be a part of future efforts to preserve habitat in the study area. The documented existence of endangered species in the study area,along with the proximity of the area to developing portions of the East County and the T-n-Valley, suggests that impacts on listed species will require m ,itigation in one manner or another, thus creating the opportunity for development of a cooperative approach. Broader questions regarding the costs and benefits of maintaining biodiversity through means beyond impact mitigation and the effects of existing laid use regulations are not fully addressed in this section. In.this regard,it is irnportantto clearly distinguish impact mitigation from habitat conservation planning and land use planning in general. Mitigation involves offsetting loss of habitat or species takes through preserving or creating new habitat elsewhere, usually at a multiple of that lost. This approach may or may not address broader habitat conservation issues related to scale, connectedness, population diversity, and sustainability, Habitat conservation Fast County Pilot Study Technical Pep n,May 1499 4-1 planning, on the other land, dwells on these broader issues. It endeavors to create "viable' habitats necessary to maintair,individual listed species it the contest of their natural ecosystem. Maintaining biodiversity is a key objective of such planning. Mitigation car contribute to broader habitat conservation planning. In fact, marry of the cooperative approaches discussed in this section have as an objective establishing a program. uratic link between mitigation and broader habitat conservation planning. 4-2 Vection 4.Generalized Brost-Benefit Analysis of Cooperative Approaches to Habitat Impact Mitigation 4.2 SUMMARY OF REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 4.2.1 Regulatory Requirements Federal and state regulations protecting endangered species and habitat, along with local and regional regulations, are p&-t of the regulatory environment faced by development throughout the state. They arm lac` ingcooperative approaches—admimstered on a project-by-project basis with each agency independently adrninister-Ing its own regulations. In essence,each development project, including those requiring discretionary approvals and those only requiring ministen-al approvals from local government,must obtain the necessary permits from the regulating agencies c:aiming jurisdiction if habitat loss or listed species takes are involved in the project. Key regulatory requirements include: • The federal BSA and the California ESA both require individual "take"permits for the loss of habitat for aH species listed as threatened and endangered (Section 7 Consultation/Section I 0(a),iSection 2081 "Incidental Take Permits"). The federal ESA is administered by the USFWS and National Marine Fishenes Service. The California BSA is administered by the DFG. Under both programs, individual projects resulting in take of listed species are required to mitigate those adverse effects. Section 2081 of the California BSA provides that."The legislature further finds and declares that if any provision of this chapter requires a person to provide iffigation measures or alternatives to address a particular. species,the measures or alternatives required shall be roughly proportional in extent to any impact on those species that is caused by that person." • Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) requires mitigation for loss of waters of the United Mares, including wetlands, the, results from activities involving the placement of dredge or fill I materials into these waters. 91 CEQA provides for environmental review and -mitigation, of impacts on resources determined to be significant and creates "standing" for interest groups to affect development activity. a Under Sections 1600 et seq.of the California Fish and Game Code,the DFG requires a stream and lakebed alteration agreement for activities affecting the bed or bank of any stream or lake. DFG typically requires mitigation of habitat and species affected by such activities. Local and regional agencies may have additional policies and programs that require mitigation. For example, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has its own permitting process for projects affecting waterways. East Counry Pilot Study Technical Aeport,May 1999 4-3 In addition to affecting individual development applications, enforcement of federal and state _ regulations can affect constructio-n of region-serving urban infrastructure,including water,sewer, and road facilities, which will, in turn, influence development activity. It is presumed the.. these state, federal, and local regulations will continue and will therefore influence development activity within the study area and elsewhere. One of the issues raised by the Biodiversity Working Group was related to the economic impact sof these programs at the present time. As with any land use regulation (e.g., zoning restrictions), hese programs are a factor to be considered as a part of the development process and typically increase the cost of development. In effect, development is asked to"internalize"the costs associated with loss or - darnage to habitat. Section 2086 of the California ESA provides for the development of locally designed voluntary programs for routine and ongoing agricultural activities on farms or ranches to encourage habitat for wildlife. Any "take" of species incidentall to routine or ongoing agricultural activities that occurs while the management practices of the plan are followed is not prohibited by the California ESA. In addition,until December 31,2002,any"accidental take"of species resulting from inadvertent or ordinary negligent acts that occur on a farm or a ranch in the course of otherwise lawful routine and ongoing agricultural activities is not prohibited under Section 2087 of the California ESA. 4.2.2 Current Procedures for Meeting Regulatory Requirements Regardless of regulatory venue, mitigation of species takes or loss of habitat typically requires detailed analysis, negotiation, and?mitigation.. Typical steps in this process include. * thorough field surveys of the site at appropriate times for endangered species; * assessment of impacts, including level of tale; * negotiations on mitigation, site design, and construction practices with regulating agencies; and identification and procurement of any needed off-site mitigation and/or dedication of on-site mitigation (e.g., open space easements). The above compliance is performed independently by the landownerldeveloper and the USFWS and DFG in order to obtain take authorization pursuant to California HSA, Section 2081 and federal ESA Section 10 when a non-federal act-ion (i.e., pro,ect or activity) results in take of listed species. Authorization is issued under Section 7 of the federal.ESA when a project has federal funding err requires federal permits,such as Section 404 permits for fell in wetlands. The local land use agency is usually not involved but does separately negotiate mitigation under CEQA. 4-4 rection 4.Generalized Cost-Benefit Analysis of C oopercataVe Approaches w F abitat InTacr Mitigation Theammount of tree and funding dedicated to each of these,pennit processes varies, sometimes dramatically, from one prc�ject 110 another. Some project proponents in the East County have Y, incurred significant expenses in this process. All project proponents rnust contend with som.e uncertainty regarding how long endangered species compliance will take,how much mitigation will be required,and what vial happen.in the future if unioreseen circumstances arise that affect a protected species before take authorization is issued. In addition to endangered species require eats,CEQA(and NEPA if there is a federal action), and any resource protection measures adopted by the local land use planning agency, project proponents must also comply with a nuir�ber of other environentalregulations. For example, actions that could affect wetlands or other waters of the United States must have a thorough site survey and formal wetland delineation verified by the Natural Resources Conservation Service or the Corps. Such projects must receive permits from the Corps, and the RWQCB. Projects affecting streams and lakes require a streambed alteration agreement with DFG. Con-straetion activities require a separate permit from the RWQCB to control water quality impacts. Projects may also have loca!and other restrictions related to preservation of pri'n'ce agricultural lands. Fast Count y Pilot Siudy Technical Repo,-!,May1999 4-5 4.3 COOPERATIVE APPROACHES TO HABITAT IMPACT MITIGATION Regional HCPs, NCCPs, mitigation banking, and other- forms of cooperative approaches to mitigation have been developed by the regulating agencies, private landowners, local governments, and interest groups as an alternative to projbct-by-project regulation. Regional HCPs and NCCPs are examples of cooperative approaches for obtaining a permit for the incidental tale of endangered species. HCPs are authorized under federal lava and relate to species and restrictions covered by the federal ESA. NCCPs are authorized under the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act.and relate to species listed under the California ESQ.and the species and regulations covered by it. The first HCP in the U.S. was completed in 1952 to protect endangered species and permit development on San Bruno Mountain in San Francisco. Since then, thousands of individual landowners or developers have completed relatively small-scale HCPs to receive endangered species permits for projects on their land.. Many such HCPs are in progress for individual protects in the East Bay, and many local developments, including Dougherty Valley, have prepared very similar plans under a different section (Section 7) of the federal ESA, which applies when a project has a federal connection. No regional HCPs or NCCPs have yet been completed in the Bay Area. Cooperative conservation planning has grown out of the development community's frustration with the powerful and restrictive federal HSA that could effectively prohibit development on public or private lands that contained habitat for endangered species. In 1982, the federal.ESQ. was amended to provide more flexibility for landowners and developers by allowing, through Section 10(a), for the issuance of an incidental take permit-m--authorizing take that is incidental to otherwise lawful activities---when an acceptable HCP was prepared. While all cooperative - conservation planning projects vary by geography, biology, and local land use circumstances, they generally have the following characteristics in common: They provide for comprehensive mitigation for multiple species and habitat, * They provide for a `regional" permit that encompasses the requirements under Section 1€ (a)(1)(B) of the federal ESA, Section 2535 of the California Natural Community Conservation planning Act, and Section 2081 of the California ESA. An HCPRNCCP preestablishes requirements for granting incidental take permits for target species, In some cases, the regional permit may also encompass the requirements of Section 404 of the dean Water Act regarding the destruction of wetlands. * They provide a single fra€nework for biological analysis and mitigation. An HCP/ CCP may integrate the regulatory efforts of several resource agencies, including the USFWS, the DDG, the Corps, and all affected local government agencies. _ 4-6 Section 4. Generalized Cost-BcnefitAnalysis of Cooperative Approaches to Habitat Impact Mitigation They provide for the sharing of costs and risks associated with habitat mitigation, Comprehensive reg anal mitigation plans allocate costs and often include funding from a variety of sources, including federal, state, local and private agencies. 4.3.1 Motivating Considerations and Objectives Cooperative conservation planning programs are developed to lower private sector assts and risks associated with the indiv1dua.permitting process while at the same time mitigating habitat loss associated with development. Cooperative mitigation efforts offer a way to reduce and distribute the economic effects of regulation. The following benefits may be derived from regional conservation mitigation plans: Regulatory efforts are condensed into a singe programmatic solution. Landowners and developers will be able to rneet mitigation requirements under a.regional penult, thus not having to deal with multiple agencies such as the USFWS, DFG. and the Corps. Landowners!developers are typically given the following choices: pay an in-lieu fee for every acre developed; 2. dedicate conservation easements or fee title as specified by the plan; or 3. purchase approved mitigation bark credits as specified in the pian. Gists of achieving mitigation are documented and allowing developers to proceed with.some certaint�v of obtaining permits. For example,in-lieu fees range from about$750 per acre for a single-species mitigation plan in Sacramento County to as much as $50,+000 per acre for a multiple-species mitigation plan in Orange County. In both cases, developers agreed to the mitigation plan since the fee represented a lower cost than conducting individual project-by-project mitigation. Qpportunitiesforcombining mitigation e nd preser,,ation efforts and attracting grant funding and the assistance of national nonprofit organizations and f rundations are created. In Sacramento County, for example, The Nature Conservancy ( 'C) is actively acquiring land and conservation easements in the Cosumnes River Valley. TNC is seeking competitive grants and negotiating bargain sales,thus reducing the overall cost of land preservation in the area. 19 basks of subsequent endangered species listings are reduced. HCPsandNCCPsmay provide for currently unlisted target species that may later become'listed so that these species will also be covered by the regional permits, thereby reducing one of the greatest risks of uncertainty associated with development projects. East County Pilot Study Technical Report,May 1999 4¢7 4.4 SURVEY OF COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS IN CALIFORNIA There are currently approximately 45 approved HCPs in California and another 1346 HCPs are in the active planning process, according to the DFG. Some of these HCPs cover a relatively small planning area and mitigate for a single species, while others are large multi species and multi-jurisdictional pians, such as the CALFED Bay-Delta Program,Conservation Strategy and the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Plan. Table 4 summarizes key information regarding several adopted HCPs in California. Table s provides similar information regarding HCps that are currently under preparation. These tables - show the time involved in each program, the species covered,the geographic extent,the public part* ipation involved, and the mitigation techniques used in each case, `hese ongoing program, s provide a wealth of information to hose considering a similar cooperative approach. Positive and negative lessens are apparent in this bandy of experience that - will Delp those designing a new program. The wide diversity of programs indicates that there is nes singular or "canned' approach. Ln each case, a program fitted to the particular circumstances of the area is necessary. While the regulations peranitting cooperative approaches included in the federal ESA and the California ESA provide a framework and basic criteria for cooperative approaches, they also provide wide latitude and discretion to those involved in developing the program. 4"8 Section 4.Generalized Cost-Benefit Analysis of Cooperative Approaches to Habitat Lrrapawt Mitigation IZI Jol y iay c : � U ° to" L i � . t • En 03 0 , IVZ-0 s , 10 c ,` .Cil a 4.•* o 40, .- In ° . °° o i eU est � 8tb12a js sa gam„' •sa 'dam' r`t+. r ro � . k e C J -T s z ° # a 4 G97 z C3 a 44 g . a cam a -Se � c� a ,u �a � 4� F 2 3 E to 0 z o E A , E ,s . ? ca . a as ca 78 U] u Vj ' •" °� , Cas � � ,�`� ,� � •� .� � � ;� � =� �: � � .� � � � �`� � � �' °1 � a, as � ,� u v se ° DC7 Q. CL �a 11 U .r S00 0 ° > xvz ° st tv 0 INm ° 60 bo ? � � -00 ces era L > ° . bz in,cd ca ou, Cc >� > ' od wt Ca �� 15 96cd as to u 40. ;•'b aseD �r G u eta ............... ............................................... .............................................._ ................ ...... _.... ...................................._........ ........ ......... ...................................................____. . ........................................................................... ................................................. .................................................................................... ........................................................................ .. . c� Q�45 . ol zn - 0cc � t, cu 0 w o C) v — 00 e m ca to s 4 Q � 1 ch �a ess _ cd �3cu th r r e Z, ti .......... ................................. .................................. ................................. ................................... ................... .......................... ...................................... ...................... ..................................- ............................... ............................................. ............................................ ...................... .............. .................... 4.6 BENEFITSOF COOPERATIVE APPROACH The 'large number of cooperative programs underway in ali=ornia and the rest of the nation suggests that interested parties perceive the potential benefits of cooperative approaches to itigatzng habitat and species loss. The framework for hese benefits was outlined above. At the saine time, there are costs associated with cooperation that must be considered. The potential benefits to regulated landowners have been the driving force of cooperative approaches to habitat and species loss mitigation. In many instances,case-by-case reation is simply too costly and too risky. At the sarne time, regulating agencies and local governments have recognized that cooperative approaches offer a way to link: itig:ation to broader habitat conservation planning efforts. 4a a1 Benefits to Regulated Propel Owners Reduced time arta mitigation costs for individual landowners and developers. The significant uses incurred by landowners and developers trying to connply with the federal and California ESA requirements include delays and uncertainties while wa'ting for biological surveys to be completed and for regulating agency personnel to determine the tyke and amount of mitigation,if any,required. 1ndividual permits may taupe between two and six years to negotiate,and the resulting mitigation costs will rem ain uncertain until all,the resource agencies have signed off on the permit. In contrast,lance a regional mitigation plan is approved, all subject landowners will know how much their mitigation costs will be and how gong it will take to receive federal. and California ESA approvals. • .disks of(iabiiity associated with adjacency to preser ms can be reduced. Many regional conservation plans also costa provisions that adjoining parcels, or participating habitat­enhanced property will receive"hold harmless"protection from future liability ender the incidental take permit and associated management authority. �p`}eye�pse�xproperties hhare able y to conptin�5.��a.�e/e ordinary )gfarm 9 int�g,, �r�ining, reclamation, and maintenance practices, even. if such activity results in an incidental take. • Cast-benefit analyses that have been conducted on HCPs and other cooperative approaches to habitat impact mitigation suggest that coni prehensive regional mitigation plans are more cost e eetivethatindividualproject mitigation. Very few lis have conducted formal cost-benefit analyses. However,it may be inferred that in the case of the 45 approved HC 's, the participating landowners had completed their own internal east-benefit analyses and concluded that the HCP was a more cost-effective approach. A cost-benefit analysis was prepared recently for the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan. The study concluded that developers/landowners would save about$5.9 million a year or about$294 million over the 50-year life of the plan. The cost savings were mainly in the category of reduced planning for habitat mitigation, including project proponent staff time, consultant fees, preconstruction surveys, and legal. services. East County Piiw Study TechnicaaI Report,May 1999 4-9 in the category of reduced planning for habitat mitigation, including project proponent staff time, consultant fees, preconstruction surveys, and legal services.' Opportunities for collateral benefits can reduce total mitigation costs. There are economic benefits associated with habitat and open space protection as measured by quality of life indicators, enhanced property= values, and the ability to create a sustainable future. In El Dorado County, for example, an Ecological preserve Fee program designed to protect the habitat of several endangered plant species will also reduce the threat of wildfires in the semi-rural areas of the county by periodically requiring controlled burgs of certain habitat areas. In Yolo County, where agriculture is the main economic base,the HCP designed to protect the Swainsonss hawk, among other species,will have the additional benefit of achieving permanent agricultural preservation through the purchase of conservation easements that promote and encourage continued"normal" agricultural activities, go Market opportunity. If development opportunities in habitat areas are low for any other reason, including physical constraints, weak real estate demand, lack of infrastructure,or resource-oriented land use regulations,a cooperative approach can create a new market for land. In effect, the habitat value of the land becomes a tradable cormnodity. 4.5.2 Benefits to Regulating Agencies A presumption of cooperative approaches is that, once established, the quality of habitat preserved will be greater than that achievable through the project-by-project approach to regulation. A habitat-oriented approach is more consistent with broader habitat management objectives,including preserving biodiversity and other values. Moreover,just as the cost to the private sector is red=,iced,the cost to the regulating agencies is reduced, allowing redeployment from regulatory activities to habitat management and species recovery activities. 4.563 Benefits to Interest Groups If it is true and can be proven that the quality and quantity of habitat created or preserved under a cooperative approach is superior, it follows that those who have an interest in such outcomes should be supportive. Major conservation organizations have been supportive of cooperative approaches and have, in some instances, become a party of interest because cooperative approaches provide an efficient vehicle for grants and charitable donations that they receive in support of their mission. t Economic calyses for t se far_Joaqufti Cour Multi-Species Habitat conservation and Open Space Plan, April 7, 1997,by 1-tafzsrath Economics croup. 4-10 Section 4.Generalized Cost-Benefit Analysis of Cooperative Approaches to Habitat impact Mitigation Some national and local environmental groups have opposed cooperative approaches for a variety of reasons. From. their viewpoint,cooperative approaches m. ay not be beneficial from the habitat protection perspective that they advocate. This may be due to their absolute opposition ;o any development activity that involves a loss of habitat or listed species. Since cooperative approaches in effect, faciliftate such developrnent, they may be viewed as counterproductive. Also,a project-by-Project approach to regulation offers many more opportunities for increr enta]. opposition to development projects. 4.5.4 Collateral Public Benefits Cooperative approaches offer a way to link mitigation:to broader habitat conservation planning efforts. At the same time.this habitat conservation planning offers the ability to achieve other public policy objectives. Examples of hese public policy goals include: I - a promoting cornpact urban form(avoiding "sprawl"'), a agricultural land protection, a reduction in urban conflicts through the creation of agricultural buffers, a open space and vi,-;wshed protection, a watershed protection, scenic corridor protection, a * wild-fire prevention and control, * erosion control and flood control, * air and water quality protection, and * educational and recreational benefits, At the same time, these other public policy objectives increase opportunities for fund raising from non-traditional conservation sources, thereby reducing potential mitigation costs to landowners. Bast County Pilot Study Techrical Repon,May 1499 4-11 486 COSTS OF COOPERATIVE APPROACH Estabiishing a cooperative approach, such as the ;MCPs documented in this section, has often been a time-consuming and costly effort. While the opportunities for cost savings to the private sector and unproved performance and collateral policy objectives motivate the public agency participants, simply creating cooperative programs can coast millions and take years to implement. Also, given the multi-party nature of the programs, involving landowners, developers, local governments,regulating agencies, interest groups, and, ultimately the courts, the risk of failure is high. Not all parties may perceive or receive benefits sought by others. 4.6m1 Costs to Prepare A variety of factors lead to the coasts for co mpleting cooperative approaches. The most common form, the HCP, was the subject of our survey effort. Costs for those programs range into the millions of dollars,as shown on gable 4. MCPs are particularly complex because they typically involve the preparations of detailed scientific studies of habitat impacts and mitigation requirements and require participation of a diverse group of interests. It is also important to note that there is a risk of failure. A large number of HCPs under preparation in 6alifoarnia have failed to be completed for one reason or another. Among other reasons for failure is the long duration involved in preparation. During preparation, circumstances that originally attracted participants can change or the policies of participants can change. This is particularly true for the local governments involved. 4.6.2 Costs of Regulation As noted above, lowering the coast of regulation on those that would otherwise be subjected to project-by-project review is a primary objective of cooperative approaches to habitat mitigation. By rationalizing and standardizing mitigation coasts,cooperative approaches create the essentiai certainty that developers seek in pursuit of their projects. While performance of the individual Cls and other cooperative agreements may vary in this regard., comparative coast reduction is It-he sine qua non of cooperative agreements. All HC 's offer this advantage. also, by linking anitigation. to broader habitat conservation efforts, additional funding can be attracted from a variety of sources,including non-government organizations and public agencies,thus lowering the net coast of mitigation and/or improving perfornnance. 4.6.3 Additional and Ongoing Costs to Public Agencies Public agencies involved in MCPs and other forms of cooperative approaches are often asked to fund all or a part of preparation coasts. A large amount of staff time may also be involved.. In addition to preparation costs, cooperative approaches may also require funding commitments from public agencies for coasts of habitat conservation not covered by mitigation requirements 4-12 Section 4.Generalized,Cosi-Benefit Analysis of Cooperative Approaches to Habitat Impact Mitigation and for ongoing administration and maintenance. The mItigation approach often makes it difficult to establish recurring sources of funding necessary to cover these costs. 4.6.4 Costs to Habitat Conservation Area Cooperative approaches can involve the designation of"mitigation areas"-®--areas that comprise or create viable habitat that serve as mitigation for that lost through development activity. `hese habitat areas are implemented in a number of ways. Ei some instances,habitat areas are simply dedicated to public ownership or management as apart of the developmentprocess or the related cooperative progra-m. In other instance=s,mitigation areas are designated in privately owned areas and are presurned to be main-wined in open space(e.g.,wet4and,floodway)or resource-oriented uses (e.g., agriculture, forestry). The creation of permanent habitat in these areas,through public acquisition of fee interest or the purchase of conservation easements,raises issues regarding they relationship with adjoining lands not similarly restricted. If development opportunities in these areas are low for any reason, including physical constraints, weak real estate demand, lack of infrastructure, or resource-oriented laid use regulations, the impact of cooperative approaches -nay be positive, creating a market for land that would not otherwise exist. In effect,the habitat value of the land becomes a tradable commodity. L� however, development opportunities exist, or are perceived to exist, the advent of a habitat designation and incremental purchases of land or conservation easements could affect non-participating properties in a nurnber of ways over and alcove the effects that would result from the standard listed species or habitat regulation. The potential for such impacts on adjoining lands is a factor that --must be taken into account when planning and irnplernen€if g habitat preservation areas, East County Pilot Study iechniaad Pep©;-,yay I,9 4 4.7 ADDITIONAL FEATURES F COOPERATIVE APPROACHES Cooperative approaches to habitat impact mitigation have produced a number of solutions to the potential costs and impacts of the programs. key examples of these solutions include; "No surprises." HCPs and other cooperative approaches generally guarantee that fees and conditions of the incidental tale permit will not deviate from the fees and conditions agreed upon in theCP/N1 CCP, as long as the program operates as originally planned. This"no surprises' policy will remain effective even when the regulatory status of covered species changes. For this reason, many plans extend coverage to species which are not currently listed as endangered or threatened, but have some potential for being listed (e.g., current candidates for listing). Willing sellers. Most HCPs and other cooperative approaches use a combination of conservation easement and fee title acquisitions to protect habitat purchased from willing sellers. Under a conservation easement, the landowner receives compensation for on-going land stewardship in exchange for agreeing not to develop t`1he'land. * Voluntary participation. Most cooperative programs provide project proponents with the option of not participating in the program and instead addressing - endangered species ori their own as occurred previously. However,since mitigation fees are calculated based on assumed levels of participation, it is important that the plan be financially attractive to ensure that the participation rate matches expectations. * Hold harmless provisions. plans may include "hold harmless" provisions which provide assurances to those landowners adjacent to acquired preserves. * Financing alternatives. Habitat mitigation can be financed with a combination of funding mechanisms in addition to-mitigation, including grants from private,state, and federal sources, local bond or tax revenues, and other public or private funding sources. In most cases, plans are structured to be "pay as you go," meaning that habitat acquisition requirements are not determined up front, but rather keep pace with development. Continued r°esour reproduction. Mitigation lands that are purchased or placed under easement often continue to provide resource production, such as grazing. Some limitations on grazing intensity and grazing near bodies of water may be imposed on lands acquired or placed under easement. In programs where prise agricultural lands are purchased for habitat value (e.g., in Yolo County), current agricultural activities are expected to continue. Map-based vs.process-based plans. Many of the first regional plans developed in Southern California were map-based,meaning that areas of development and areas 4-14 sect#ass 4.Generalized cost-Benefit Analysis o,Cooperative Approaches to Habitat hrpact Mitigation of habitat protection and acquisition were explicitly rapped. More recent plans In the Central Valley have been referred to as process-based plans which do not rap development or preserve areas, but simply establish a process for collecting mitigation foes, issuing pemmuts, and purchasin iti,gatlorn lands. Both rap and process-based paws can be related to general plans in order to assist witl:calculating fee anounts, while process-used plans may Contain narrative descriptions of the habitats to be purchased. A hybrid of these two approaches has also been}.sed which maps relative resource values and assigns land mitigation credits used on this rnap ke. ., Kern County Malley door HCP;. Lands with high resource values pay a relatively higher per acre fee to develop, but also receive relatively higher pea acre initl atiort compensation. East Ces rtl Plot atudy Tech:ical Report,,4�'tay 1999 4m 155 4.8 RESPONSE TO ECONOMIC ISSUES The decision to proceed with some form of cooperative approach to habitat mitigation in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties is yet to be made, `while there are potential benefits of such an approach,there are costs and potential impacts as well,as discussed above. If policy makers wish to pursue the utter further,the body of work prepared by the biodiversity Working Group will provide both a technical basis and a catalog of issues to be addressed. These issues include. * the cost of program development and funding of these costs. the economic benefit to potentially regulated landowners and agencies vis a vis the alternative project-by-project approach to mitigation., * the potential casts and impacts on areas designated for habitat conservation. * the costs for the overall program, including land/easernent acquisition, habitat restoration, and habitat maintenance. The economic issues and financing of a cooperative approach should be addressed. as an integrated effort alongside the biological analysis, regulatory review, and public participation processes involved in creation of the program. While HCPs and other cooperative approaches are always tailored to meet local conditions, there are certain steps that consistently meed to be completed to reach an approved programa. a define the geographic area affected by the plan; 91 prepare a development analysis and forecast for the plana area; * derive from biologists and resource agency representatives the amount and the approximate location and type of mitigation acres required; conduct cost analysis (which includes land value research as well as estimating habitat restoration costs and long-term administration and maintenance costs); prepare nexus study to allocate costs equitably (determine who benefits from the proposed plan'; * seek to reduce costs and/or secure supplemental finding (e.g., through achieving collateral values, obtaining grant funding, or integrating with regionwide conservation funding programs); * prepare net cost allocations to development by type and location, * conduct economic feasibility study(estimating the costs of mitigation in combination with other development impact fees); 4-16 Section 4.Generalized Cosa-BeneyltAnalysis of Cooperative Approaches to Habitat Irvact Mitigation * es114.mate in-lieu mitigation fees or other appropriate financing mechanisms, such as M."Tation banking; wid participate in drafting of implementing agreements and, ordinances to ensure that lagal, financial, and economic terms are properly implemented and e-nforced. It may be helpful, as an exploratory effort, to conduct a "design and feasibility s dy" for a cooperative approach to habitat mitigation in eastern Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Such a feasibility study cwi confirrn and quantify t .e potential benefits of a cooperative approach and address specific issues that the Biodiversity Working Group and other interested parties have raised. est County Pilot Study Tec�nicod Report,AlIdy 1999 Appendix A. Biological Technical Review Committee ort on Preliminary Technical Work for the Eastern Alameda-Contra t rt Study Appendix A. Biological Technical Review Committee r n Preliminary Technical Work for the Eastern Alameda-Contra Costa 131odiversilty Study ,Approved by the Bl0lvgleal Technical Review Committee on 4123198,1 Members of the Biological Technical Review Committee Dr. Michael Barbour, University of Califomnia, Davis Dr. James Bartolome,University of California, erlteley Dr. Barbara Enter, University of California, Berkeley, Jepson Herbarium Ms. Melee Guinan, Sycamore Associates LLC Dr. Lynn Huntsiuger, University of California, Berkeley Mr. peter Hopkinson, University of California, Berkeley, graduate student of Dr. Hu tsinger Mr. Tho is Kato,Lawrence Liven-nore National Laboratory Dr. William Lid icer, University of California, Berkeley Mr. Geoff Monk, Monk&Associates Mr. Malcolm Sproul, LSA Associates, Inc. Mr. Michael Stevens, Autodesk,Inc, FINDINGS The findings presented below represent the general consensus of the Biological Technical Review Cormnittee(BTRQ members and respond to the five questions posed to the BTEC by the Task. Force on January 22, 1495. Summaries sof Task Force questions are in bald text. BTRC responses and comments appear in plain text, Summa The approach and methodology used in the preliminary technical work on the Eastern Alameda–Contra. Costa Biodiversity Study (study) are generally void and provide useful information on regional biological resources—if the purpose and application of this study is to address bread, regional biological questions. The study is not sufficient to address site or project-specific questions. The data and the analysis de have some significant shortcomings that could and should be addressed over tune,but these shortcomings do not outweigh the substantial East County Pilot,study Technical Report,May 1999 A-1 improvements to baseline biological information provided by the study and should not preclude appropriate use of this information: in the interim. However, these shortcomings should be addressed before the data and the analysis are applied to the development of a Habitat Conservation plan or similar formal conservation plan. The model ("weighting strategy" is a preferable terra) to evaluate relative biological resources contributes substantially to the value of the study. Any application of the study for conservation planning, such as development of a Habitat Conservation Plan or a conservation bank, would be greatly improved if based or; a spatially explicit evaluation of resource values such as that performed in the study. Ia. For which types of scientific questions are the biological data suited' 1b. Were appropriate types of biological data collected` Summarized response to la. The biological data are suited for some questions of applied science,such as for more thoroughly documenting the types and locations of biological resources - and for use in a weighting strategy to better evaluate the relative distribution and value of these resources. The data are not suited for assessing the biological impacts of specific development projects. The data are also not ,generally suited for questions of experimental science as they provide little or no opportunity for relating observations and causes. Summarized response to 1b. It is very difficult to evaluate the appropriateness of the collected data types without more specific mfon-nation on how the data will be used. If the data are to be used for broad biological questions as discussed above,then the data,types collected for the study are appropriate. Including additional types of data,, such as watersheds, more detailed information on non-rare species,and other data on physical and temporal processes would be an improvement. The types of collected data are not appropriate for assessing site-specific impacts because the large scale and noxa-uniform nature of the data are not compatible with this purpose. However,though the data are not comprehensive and detailed, they could assist lead agencies and others with the preparation of required,site-specific studies by providing general context and an improved base of information upon which to build. Specific comments on Ia and 1b are the following a Some data sets are incomplete and contain substantial gaps. For example, many areas of the study area have not been surveyed or not surveyed thoroughly for species, while others have. Likewise, the study generalizes some habitat types, identifying all oak woodlands,for exarnDle,simply as oak woodlands,though some - r:aay be dominated by coast live oak while others are dominated by blue or valley oak. A-2 Appendix A. Biological Technical Review Committee Report on Preliminary Technical Work for the 'astern Alameda--Contra Costa Biodiversity Study Other sources of species data exist, but were not i ncluded, that could heli to close some of the gaps in.this data base. Consultant surveys that have yet to be added to the California Department of Fish and Game's Natural Diversity Data Base are one exa mle of another source of data. * The shady overlays distinct data types with differing levels of resolution and spatial uniformity. This characteristic can create problems for interpretation that must be addressed carefully in the weighting strategy and that rust be explained clearly in the text. * The study should state wether a goal of the project is to better protect all species in the area or only rare or endemic species. This information could be relevant to assessing the appropriateness of data types used and the methods by which the data were collected. The study must clearly state the purpose and valid uses of the mapped data (i.e., broad, :acro-level biological and plan ling questions). * The study shou d also clearly state the improper uses of the data(i.e., site-specific biological questions). For example, absence of a species sighting in the database might be due to either absence of the species or absence of a survey. Warnings and disclaimers should be printed directly on reaps to advise the reader on proper and improper uses, * Salt marsh harvest mouse and San. Pablo California vole should be removed from Section 2.1 and Appendix C of the Technical Report,the list of special status species with potential to occur in the study area. Where is no suitable habitat for these species in the study area and/or they are not found there. * adding some additional data tykes would be useful. Examples include the following. ® Developing a comprehensive list of all species present in the study area would be useful and shouldbe pursued as a long-term goal. Such a list could,among other things,be a valuable monitoring tool. Should consider adding information on the occurrences of loca]ly -rare species that may be co mon elsewhere. One source of such information is a document entitled Unusual and Significant Plants of Alamed a and Contra Gusty County. Should consider adding some other layers that address physical processes (i.e., watershed boundaries). E,=1 County Pilot study Technical Report,May 1999 Ami Should consider mapping areas that have been:surveyed and areas that have not, or areas of relative greater or lesser survey intensity. perhaps also consider distinguishing in the study between. potential to occur, known to occur, and extant. las Were the methods used to collect and store biological data scientifically valid? 2b. Did the methods used impose a bias? Summarized response to 2a. The methods used to collect data for the study are scientifically valid. However, these methods could be bolstered in several ways, mainly by improving or expanding some data.sources. Likewise,differences between data sets,both in terms of the scale at which data were collected and the uniformity of data coverage within the study area, present difficulties when interpreting the combined information. This constraint,partially unavoidable and partially attributable to budget limitations, should be explained clearly, given appropriate consideration when interpreting the data, and documented on data.maps. Summarized response to 2b. The metlods used do not impose a political or nonscientific bias. The °methods do impose a scientific bias. The two most significant examples are wetlands, which are probably under-identified because the aerial photos used to map them were taper. ir. June of a drought year,and species sightings data,which are influenced not only by the presence and absence of these species, but also by relative differences between areas in the amount of surveying that has occurred. The species data should be clearly labeled as an inventory of past studies to avoid rnisinterpretations of the data as a comprehensive surveying effort. Sued%,fic comments on 2a and 2b are the following • The aerial photos used to reap habitats were taken in.lune 1987, Because 1987 was a drought year and because June falls several months after the wet season,only very substantial wetlands are likely to be identified. Some wetlands that generally exceed the minimum mapping unit of 10 acres in the wet season of a normal year may not have been identified. Likewise,vegetation may have changed in the 11 years since the photos were taken. Using newer aerial photos in a wetter season would be an irnproveinent. • The non-uniformity of the species data presents problems that could be addressed, in part, with the recommendations under Question 1 above. A-4 ARvendix A. biological Technical Review Cotnminee Repsor, on Preliminary Technical Wark for the Eastern A latneda-Contra Costa Biodi✓ersizy Study 11 Comparing the current habitat map with a mkv based on updated aerial photos would be interesting and could provide some temporal information ation on the area and perhaps yield data on succession. * Ground-truthing the habitat and key features data would be an improvement. * The Habitat Classification section of the st=udy indicates that ponderosa pine is a primary species in the mixed Conifer Woodland habitat type. While it may be true that ponderosa pine is dominant species in this habitat type in other areas of the state, ponderosa Dine is not present in the study area. The text should be clarified to avoid confusion. * The study and data maps should be corrected to refer to irrigated/cultivated agricultural lands as "cultivated" or "crops" rather than as "agriculture" because nearly all the grasslands in the study area are also agricultural lands. 3a. Would the biological resources inventory provided by the study be useful in developing a biological conservation strategy, in establishing a mitigation bank or banks, in developing a federal Habitat Conservation Plan or state Natural Communities Conservation Plan,or in complying with the California Environmental Qual-ity Act? (etc....) 3b. .at assumptions or background on Habitat Conservation Plans and the other potential study applications described above does the BTRC have? (etc....) Summarized response to 3a. The biological resources inventory provided by the study would be useful in developing a biological conservation strategy, but analysis or these data using a computer model or weighting strategy would provide better information for developing a conservation strategy than the data alone. However,the concerns and shortcomings with the data and the model presented under Que tions 1, 2 and 4 would impact the quality of this -9 1 conservation strategy. Such concerns should be addressed before such a conservation strategy is formally implemented via a Habitat Conservation Plan. or other conservation planning tool. Summarized reesvonse to 3b. Conservation planning tools,such as Habitat Conservation Plans, which attempt to address biological issues or, a regional scale can improve the process for preserving these resources by shifting the frame of reference for conservation decisions to a larger perspective more suitable for assessing species and their habitats. However,incorporating in these plans spatially explicit conservation criteria.based on a map of areas of higher and lower biological value isiniportart to assure that protected areas are biologically rich,or have potential to become biologically rich, and that habitat connectivity issues are appropriately at-dressed. Process-based plans that are not linked to spatially explicit crit--ria in any way lack such assurances, particularly in areas such as eastern Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, which support a variety of resources and habitats. East County P"10.1 Study Technical Report,May 1999 A-5 4. Do you have any general comments on the spatial computer model designees to evaluate biological resources` r :�arized reponse to 4. Overall,the spatial computer model, more appropriately labeled as a weighting strategy, is valid and contributes substantially to the value and utility of the study. However, because the value of the weighting strategy depends or,the quality of the input data, concerns with the data identified under Questions I and 2 translate into concerns with the output of the weighting strategy. The probable under-identification of wetlands and the non-uniformity of the species sightings data are examples of data shortcomings that could impact the output of the weighting strategy. The weighting strategy itself could be improved by incorporating other factors such as tine,plant succession,hydrology and other physical processes, and analysis of the viability of populations of critical species. Specific comments on 4 are the following • The text describing umbrella species should be changed to explain the concept more clearly. • It is difficult to apply the umbrella species concept consistently to the various habitats in the study area. For example, there may not be a. species that has a relationship to oak woodlands that is equivalent to the relationship of kit fox to grasslands. • The use of a mating pair as an ecological unit in the umbrella species portion of the analysis could be a significant problem unless the need for connectivity among and between habitats is Made clear. It is important that the study not give the impression that a mating pair is a viable demographic unit. • The model does not contain a population viability analysis for any species. The results of the model cannot be used to directly infer species survival or survival rates. • Golden eagles and burrowing owls do not fit the description: of umbrella species. • Integrating more information on middle species (i.e., not rare, not tole predators) might improve the weighting strategy. • Watershed issues, physicall processes, and ecosystems functions are not considered in the scoring of biological value(i.e., the model might identify a wetland, but not the creeks or other features of the watershed that transport water to the wetland). Integrating these factors would be an improvement. A-6 Appendix A. Biological Technical Review Committee Report on Preliminary Technical Work,for the Eastern Alameda—Contra Costa Biodiversiry Steady The weighting strategy could he improved by considering temporal factors,inchiding succession, and importa it ecological events such as flood, fire, etc. * The model seems to converge with a proper balance between biological resources and land use. * An important long-term goal which the weighting strategy suds some insight,ori) is the identification of a minir. um viable unit for specific habitats. . Any other comments on the preliminary work done on the East County Pilot Study? Haring species location data available to the public can put rare species at risk of collection and vandalism. A plan should be developed for how or if such sensitive information; is made available to the ublic. CONCLUSION The Biological Technical Review Committee appreciates this opportunity to review and commenton the preliminary technical work for the Eastern Alameda--Contra Costa Biodiversity Study, The BTRC complements the sound professional work conducted by Jones and Stokes Associates, particularly given their budget constraints, and the hard work of the Task Force to seek consensus approaches to resolving difficult resource conservation issues. 1n closing,the B RC would life to convey several thoughts on importance of, and the process for, conserving biological resources in eastern Alameda and Contra Costa Counties: The study should more explicitly state that the fundamental goal of the process is not just to protect biodiversity, that is to directly benefit species, but to protect and sustain these resources so as to benefit important aspects of society in general economic health,residential quality of life,water supplies,p�bl c health,open space access, etc.) and to protect these resources in a more efficient, coordinated, and mutually beneficial manner. * All options for increasing the accessibility of biological value maps to landowners should be explored because such mapping is critical to the development of a successful conservation strategy. Although land-use decisions may yield winners and losers, these decisions should be based on sound. information (rather than on misinformation or political expediency) and should be promulgated so as to benefit society collectively and to spread the costs of conservation more equably,rather than disproportionately affecting particular groups and individuals. A crucial element of implementing such a conservation strategy will be building a base of support among staieholders. Though, the means of doing this are not well understood, it is East County Pilot Swdy Technical?sport,May 1999 A-7 important that potentially effective approaches to this problem are discussed, researched, and thoroughly explored. The BTRC understands that lard use decisions made to protect biological resources must be based upon sound biological principles and be supported by the public at large. The study and the process for developing it represent a good stat at achieving this goals but if and when formal conservation plans are developed, identified shortcomings with the study will need to be addressed while continuing to rely on sound biological principals. Anything less may not achieve the goal of protecting biological diversity within ars expanding human enterprise. Ad8 Appendix A. Biological Technical Review Committee Report on Preliminary Technical Worts for the Eastern Alameda--Contra Costa Biodiversity Study Appendix B. Jones & Stokes Associates Weighting Methodology B. Jones & Stokes Associates Weighting Methodology Prepared by Jaynes and Stokes Associates INTRODUCTION In 1995,under the guidance ofthe Eastern Alameda—Contra Costa BiodiversitY Working Group Steering Cornrnittee, Jones and Stoles Associates developed a spatial Freighting strategy to identify opportunities for and constraints to conserving biodiversity in the east county study area. The weighting strategy was based on the geographic information system (GIS)database of biological resources and proposed land use described in Chapter 4 of this report. A primary objective of the weighting strategy was to produce a map of conservation opportunities and constraints for the study area. A conservation opportunities and constraints assessment resulting from the weighting strategy presented in this report should be viewed within the larger frarriewor of a regional planning process or biodiversity conservation. his assessment presents an initial step in a process that involves the participation of local,regional,and state agencies; landowners and other local stakeholders; and the public st large. The conservation opportunities and constraints assessment is a tool that can aid in generating public involvement, focusing discussion, developing a planning strategy,and guiding decision making. Tl-.e biological resource and proposed land use data used in the-weighting strategy were synthesized and interpreted based on,a set of assumptions. Conservation opport. .ities and constraints were derived from the biological resource and proposed lard use data,used or, an additional set of assumptions. The assumptions used in data collection and weighting were, to the largest extent possible, based on objective criteria; these criteria are explicitly documented in Chapter 4 and in this appendix. Limitations oft-he available data restrict the level of detail possible in this assessment. The weighting strategy identifies relative levels of conservation priorities at a regional scaled The relatively large scale of the mapped inforrraation does not allow the identification of precise boundaries or detailed recommendations for the establishment of preserves. The approach to identifying conservation opportunities and constraints involved developing and implementing a method for assigning conservation priority designations to Est Count/Piled Study?Technical Repos,May 1999 B-1 all undeveloped sites Ln the study area. The level of conservation priority assigned to a given site was determined by two factors; biological Pr ue--the relative value of biological resources present,and conservation constraint--the constraint to use of the site for conservation purposes because of prior land use decisions. The biological value,conservation constraint,and conservation priority determinations were based on applying a series of models to biological resource and land use planning data sets. Included in the analysis were models for; is assigning a relative biological value to habitats based on supporting models for special-status species,habitat rarity, and general wildlife; determining sites with suitable amounts of habitat based on the spatial requirements of specific"u brella7' species; assigning relative conservation constraint levels based on land use designation, proposed project, and planning boundary information; and * assigning conservation priorities based on biological values and conservation constraints. Figure -i provides a schematic summary of the approach to the conservation priorities analysis. PRELIMINARY BIOLOGICAL VALUE ASSESSMENT Preliminary Grid Galt Scoring The biological resources in the study area were evaluated using a GIs-based model, implemented in the GRID component of the .0/1'�IF0 software package. This analysis _ followed a two-stage process, First, a grid of square 36-acre cells was overlain on the biological resources database,and an initial biological value scare was assigned to each cell based on the value of the resources present in the cell,regardless of its spatial context. The second stage consisted of a spatial analysis that combined initial cell scores wiffi the habitat patch requirements of umbrella species to identify areas of high,medium,and lour biological values The 36-acre cell size was chosen because it provided sufficient resolution of habitat distribution to perform the preliminary analysis and,in addition,its size is similar to the 40- acre minimum mapping unit used for common habitat types. Bat Appendix B. ,laves&Stokes Weighting Strategy Methodology i `. %A Olt 50 rIA q S t w :il0s °+ Zot r� 4 i t i Pre' iinary biological value scores were derived from.scares for habitats,key features, and priority species. The habitatvalue score for a 36-acre cell could vary between 0 and 10, the key features score was either 0 or 3,and the priority species score varied between 0 and 1. The biological value score consisted of the srn of the habitat, key filatures, and priority species scores. Priority species occurrences were given a lower vale than the other components because the distribution of documented species occurrences strongly suggested that the occurrence data axe biased toward areas where intensive surveys have been.conducted(e. .,Los Vaqueros .,Reservoir watershed and.Byron airport). The key features sores received a lower maxima. thart the habitat value scores because the key features in a cell were mapped as point locations rather than polygons and because the occurrences of key features were based hn part on indirect data (e.g., soil mapping units) rather than on directly observed aerial photograph signatures of habitat. The biological-value sere is,therefore, largely based on habitats The derivation of habitat,key features, and priority skies sores is described below. HabitatValue Scores. The iabitat ap was converted to a raster of 14-acre-sized cells, with each cell assigned the most common habitat type in the cell. Each habitat type was assigned a score based on three components: special-status species score—the rmnber ofspecialmstas species with the potetla to occur in the study area that use the habitat type, habitat rarity score—the proportion of the study area occupied by the habitat type, and general wildlife score---the number ofterrestrial vertebrate species known to occur in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties that are predicted to use the habitat type. Special-Status Species Score Component. he use ofd fferent habitat types by special-status species was determined based on habitat descriptions in SIdinner and Pavlik(1994)and Hickman(1994)for plant species and can Zein er e-,al.(1988,1990a,1Qb for animal species. Only habitats that are crucial for the serval of the species or local populations were considered. When a species used more than one habitat type, the cont bation of each habitat type was divided by the number of habitat types used by the species. T"he special-status species score was then re-scaled to range from 4 to 10. Habitat Rarity Score Component. Habitat rarity score(R)-was calculated tom the acreage(A)of the habitat types in the study area,using the formula for habitat types larger than 450 acres: I0(log( /A)/log{ E=1 couetv Pilo.,Sludy Te-chvc cal Report,MMY 1999 B-3 Po A locations for the occurrence of priority species were converted to a lmacre cell fid, with grid cells assigned the value of the species occurring in the cell. If more than one species was rapped for a cell, a species was selected at random. Subsequently,the 1-acre cell,grid was aggregated to a 36macre cell fid, with the grid cells assigned a preliminary value equal to the sura ofthe values of the 36 one-acre cells encompassed by that 36-acre cell. The sere for each 36-acre cell was thea divided by the highest scare of any 36-acre cell so that the priority species scores varied between€l and 1. Biological Value Scores. The geographic data for vegetation(habitats),key features, and priority species were overlayed and the sum ofthe habitat value score(0-10),key features score (0 or 3), and priority species score (0-1) resulted in the initial biological values sere (0-l4), whzch was determined/calculated prior to the spatial analysis described below. INCORPORATING PATIAL ANALYSIS INTO THE BIOLOGICAL VALUE ASSESSMENT The purpose of the spatial analysis is to introduce principles of conservation biology, such as habitat connectivity, corridors, minimum patch size, and umbrella species, into the weighting strategy for biological value. Umbrella Species In addition to the list of priority species discussed in.Section 2,a separate list ofumbrella brella species (Table B-1) was developed. Umbrella species are defined as species-whose spatial habitat recuirements are so broad that their requirements encompass',the spatial habitat requirements of a large number of other species. The requirements of w brella species for lame areas of habitat are usually a result of their great mobility and their dependence on a dispersed food:base. Urnbrella species are typically top predators (consumers at the top of the food chain). They.may include, but are not required to be, special status species. A set of umbrella species was chosen so that each major vegetation type in the study area (grassland,woodland,shtubland,riparian,and wetland)is represented.'Umbrella species are used to identify key conservatio�x parameters (e.g., minimal viable patch size and corridor attributes' for the vegetation type they represent. The spatial requirements of umbrella species are summarized in Fable 13-2, and more detailed information about heir spatial requirements is provided in Appendix C.5. The rationale for the choice of umbrella species for each major vegetation type is presented below. Grassland/San Joaquin Kit Fox. The umbrella species chosen to represent grassland habitat is the Say Joaquin kit fox. San Joaquin kit fox is a top predator and broad- ranging species that is highly dependent on grassland habitat. Conservation strategies that benefit the San Joaquin kit fox would result in benefits to other grassland-dependent species East i:ountY Pilot S.wtyy Technical Report,May 1999 Bey ' b1e -1 a Umbrella Species Used to Represent Major Habitat Types Habitat Umbrella Species(key habitat) Grassland Sar.Joaquin lift fox(all grassland) Shrabla-rid Al arneda whipsnake (chaparral and coastal scrub) Woodland Cooper's hawk parian habitat Yellow warbler(dense-riparian understory) Jestern pond toile (aquatic ripariwl and adjacent iplands) Emergent wetland California tiger sala ander(seasonal and permanent wetlands and ad:acent uplands) nordhern ost extent of the species' range (Table B-2, Appendix b5), Grassland habitat patches must be large enough for mating pairs to successf-ully rear young and suffficiently connected to allow dispersal of young and general movement of adults. A minimum patch size of 1,5€10 acres of grassland habitat was selected as sufficient for a mating pair of Lit fox. This patch size would be sufficient to support populations of other grassland-associated species,including plus,birds,small mammals,reptiles,and amphibians. To be optimal for the kit fox, corridors that connect conservation areas must support grassland habitat. A criterion of one rile o-corridor width that includes at lust 0.5 mile of grassland habitat was considered su fficient to allow kit fox movement among habitat areas;in many cases,the one- mile criterion also provides sufficient habitat for mating pairs. A maximum corridor length of 10 miles should not preclude successful hanctioning of a cornidor because kit fox are known to move 5-6 miles per night and have been recorded to have dispersed between sites 30 miles apart(Appendix C.5). Oak Woodland. The mimmurn patch size goal for oak woodlands was determined based on a goal of maintaining a viable local slabpopulatio of Cooper's hawks in the study area(Table B-2, appendix C.5). This goal can be achieved by maintaining oak woodland patches large enough to support breeding pairs of Cooper's hawks, Cooper's hawk nesting pairs require between 1,5€10 and 4,200 acres of oak woodland. A minimum patch size Of 1,500 acres was,therefore,selected for oak woodland. This size patch should be sufficient to support resident populations of other oak woodland-associated species, including plants, birds,reptiles,amphibians,and small rnanimals. Cooper's hawks do not require connecting ground corridors. Connecting habitat corridors among oak woodland patches should be sufficient to allow the movement of large-and medium-sized mammals(e.g.,mule deer,gray fox, raccoon, striped skunk), and less vagile woodland birds, such as California quail. ("Vagile"is a tens used in ecology, that means the movement and dispersal capabilities of a species within the context of the habitat scale.) hr blan . The minimum patch size goal for chaparral and scrub was determined based on the spatial re uirements of the Alameda whipsnake (Table -2, Appendix C.5). bating pairs of whipsnakes require between 5 and 21.5 acres of habitat. hipsnakes do not travel long distances;therefore,it is important that patches be ofsufficient size to support at least small populations. To provide a sufficient amount of habitat for several mating pairs in a given patch,a minirnurn patch size of 100 acres was used. This size patch should by sufficient to support resident populations of shrubland-associated plants, birds,reptiles,and small miammals. Alameda.whipsnakes are not migratory,but connecting corridors of habitat suitable for the movement of the whipsna e and other sh .bland- associated species.between conservation areas would allow population movement and gene flour over generations. Riparian habitat. The minimum patch size goal for riparian forest,woodland, and scrub eras based on the spatial requirements ofthe yellow warbler and western pond turtle (Table B-2,Appendix C.5). Home ranges for.nesting pairs of yellow warblers are generally less than 1 acre; western pond turtles require up to 1,300 feed of upland habitat adjacent to East C'cunv r-doi Study Technical Report,May 1999 B- Table BR . Grouping of Land Use Designations for Conservation Constraints Analysis Developnwnt Category SV "fiery Lows-Density Residential(:,ortra Costa) SL Low-Densty ResidertW(Contra Costa) SM Medium-Density Residential(Contra Costa) SH High-Density Residential(Cort°a Cassa) ML low-Density Residential(Contra Costa) MM edium-Density Residential(Contra Costa) Co Co nercial(Contra Costa) OF Offi e(Cor:tra Costa) BP Business Park(Contra Costa`, Ll Light Industry(Contra Costa) PS Pub2i-dSe r-:public(Contra Costa) PR*(D) Parks and Recreation(Contra Costa)-Parks proposed for intensive recreation RR Rura Residential(Alameda) LR Lown-Density Residential(Abarneda) MR Medi-:m-Density Residential(Alameda) M R Medium High--DersityI2esiden-al(Alamm a) HIR High-Density Residential(Ala neda) CM Commercial(Alan edd) IIS Industral(Alameda) My Mixed Us usinzess Park(Alaaneda) MP Major Public(Aianieda) bR Urban Reserve(Alameda) URB U bar(San Joaquin" PA.*(D', Parks(San Joaquin,)-Parks proposed for intensive recreation! Existing Natural Park Category PR*(E) Parks and Recreation(Contra Costa)-Existing natural park PK*(R) Ma or Parks(A.lazneda)-Dxistirig natural hark Core Agriculture Category AC Agricultural Core.(Contra Costa) Open Space Category CSS Open Space(Contra Costa) DR Delta.Recreation and Resources(Contra Costa) WA dater(Contra Costa) WS Watershed(C...Ontra Costa) PR*(0) Parks and Recreation(Contra Costa)„Proposed natural parks I,P *anrfill(Co=a Costa) WM Water Management(Alameda) RM Resource,Management(Alameda) PK*(;) Mayor Pares(Alas-recta)-Proposed nat•u pariks PA*(0) Parks(San Joaquin)-Proposed Natural parks S rE Site 300(Saxe 3oaquir) Agriculture Category A'., Agricultural Land(Contra Costa) LA** Large Parcel Agriculvare(Alaxneda) AC Agriculture(San soagain) *Designation Put into more than one category and m diPed based or site specift information. D m developed park, m existing park,D m open.;space designated park site. *"Alameda County does not differentiate between"core agriculture"and other ag cuitur-al lands uses. i approveda°Pending? � s is{and USO desig€ al6on " is the site Within a cid n"y Is€xzY7d USS weS.go`tIC3r1 a Urban liml.ling at a city herinfluence? deve€oprnen,category t � E } i 9 :s,land use desionation t 2 �u�4� '°Sni catvey? YES s i 1 (N�O �� a iones&Stokes Associates.. ir.:. Figure °2 ConservationConstraint Classification Flowchart STUDY AREA ti B 0 Open Space 1 01 10 Existing Park R 0 Existing R Park . e d - Level of Constraint to Conservation - Koh Moderate Low Figure B-3 Jones&Stakes Associates, IM Conservation Constraint Levels by Land Use Categories and Planning Boundaries Rationale for Assigning Conservation Constraint Levels to Planning Data :each polygon in the proposed land use database was assigned a conservation constraint level based on the rationale described below. Existing Natural park. portions of the study area located in established nat al parrs that are used for opera space preservation and regional recreation were given a lour conservation constraint level because the use of these areas isgeneral'iY consistent with habitat conservation goals. proposed Projects. Portions of the study area for Which applications for urban or ancillary development have been adopted (but the project has not been built) or for Vnich applications are pending were given a higih conservation constraint level because the possibility for habitat or special status species lasses is most i=.irSent in these areas. In general,portions of the study arca that are proposed for development are the yeast likely sites for pursuing conservation opportunities unless the pending project incorporates habitat preserve or natural open space areas that are contiguous to adjacent habitat. Cora Agricultural Designation. "Core agricultural"laird is composed primarily of prinne sails(Class 1 or H)and is considered the best soil for farming a ride variety of crops. (Core agriculture land use is designated only by Contra Costa County.) Much of the area designated as care agriculture is actively cultivated for rave crops. It is a goal of the county to preserve care agricultural lard for agricultural production. This goal conflicts with habitat conservation goals because the land will most likely be kept in agricultural production and not returned to a navaral state that would provide habitat for plants and wildlife. Core agricultural land,therefore,was given a high conservation constraint level. Open Space and Agricultural Designations outside ULLs and S01s. Sites designated as open space and agriculture outside of county ULLs and city SCSIs were considered to have a low conservation constraint level because it is unlikely that these lands would be developed for uses adverse to habitat conservation. Because these areas are not within county ULLs or city SCSIs,development uses are not being planned by the counties or cities. Most of the agricultural lands in these areas are rangeland that is providing valuable wildlife habitat. Development Designation outside ULLs and S01s. portions of the study area that are not within a county ULL or city SOI and are designated for development were assigned a moderate conservation constraint level. hand designated.for development is more likely than other land outside the county ULL or city SCSI to become developed in the future and thereby conflict with habitat conservation goals. Because these lands are outside the county ULL and city SOI,they are considered less likely to be developed t=han lands within these planning boundaries that are designated for development. East County Pilot Stud Technical ReporB,May 1999 m Agricultural Designation within ULLs and SOIs. Lands designated for agricultural use within county DLLs or city SOls were given a moderate conservation constraint level because of county goals to beep land designated as agriculture in agricultural production and pressures from cities to develop in the agricultural areas within their planning boundaries. Pressure to maintain land in agricultural production or to convert agricultural land to urban use conflicts with habitat conservation goals. Development Designation within UL,L.s and SOIs. For portions oa the study areas that are located within a county ULL or city S01 and are designated for urban development in a county or city general plan, conflicts with habitat conservation goals are substantial. implernenting regional habitat conservation policies in county and city planning areas that are already designated for urban development would be Hauch more difficult and costly than in other parts of the study areas. These sites were given high conservation constraint levels. Open Space Designation within ULLs and SOls. Lands designated as open space within a county ULL or city SOI were given a.moderate conservation constraint value because there is a greater likelihood that open space within these urban planning boundaries will be used for intensive recreational purposes,such as developed urban parks,ball fields,and golf courses,that conflict with habitat and biodiversity conservation goals. GIS Analysis and Results A conservation constraints map was created inARC/INFO from the proposed land use data following the above criteria. This constraints map was then.rasterized(i.e., converted to a grid.) using square Macre grid. cells. Each grid cell was assigned the conservation constraint category(i.e.,high,moderate,or low)that was the most prevalent in the 1-.acre cell. CONSERVATION PRIORITIES ASSESSMENT Conservation priorities were assigned in a two-stage process. First,initial priorities were assigned according to combinations of biological value and conservation constraint.Then,the resulting area of high conservation priority was evaluated to address the viable patch size and connectivity goals for habitats and umbrella species. Where necessary,areas initially assigned moderate or low conservation priority were reclassified to meet the conservation goals. Initial Conservation Priorities Initial values for conservation priorities(i.e.,high,moderate,or low)were assigned based on the combination of biological value and conservation constraint present at each site. Figure B-4 shows the relationship between conservation priority rank,biological value,and conservation constraint. B-I0 appendix B. Jones&Stokes Weighting&e afe Yethodolagv Conservation Constraint High Moderate Low { } o HP HP C i } 0 3 py d ; LP LP} y avmmuaNwvemvr.�.u�a.. 1 LEGEND P High priorfty for conservation MP Moderate priority for ccnservat�.cn LP Low pholty for conservation Jones tt,, Figure B4 Conservation Priorities Matrix All areas of iow biological value received a low conservation pnority designation. Areas of moderate biological value with a-noderate or low level of conservation constraint dere assigned a moderate conservation priority. areas of-moderate biological value with a high conser,ation constraint received a lour conservation priority designation. Areas of high biological value with high conservation constraints are expected to result in the highest level of conflict concerning land use. Conservation efforts in hese areas are expected to be bath controversial and costly. "hese areas received a moderate conservation priority designation. Areas with moderate or low conservation constraints and high biological value were given a high conservation priority designation. Conservation efforts in areas its low conservation constraint and high biological value are expected to result in conserved areas with,the highest value in relation to the effort and cost necessary to conserve the resources, Adjusted Conservation Priorities n.e distribution of habitat types in the area of high conservation priority was evaluated to determine whether the conservation goals for t.,he umbrella species were met. Areas of moderate conservation priority that supported appropriate habitat types were reclassified to high conservation priorly when necessary to meet tine conservation goals. The presence of habitat connections was evaluated for conservation areas in the study area and for connections between conservation areas in the study area and conservation areas outside the study area (e.g..western San Joaquin County). Some ofthe moderate and low conservation priority cells (36 acres) were reclassified to high conservation priority to provide grassland habitat and movement corridors for San Joaquin kit fox, encompass high-value riparian habitat, and encompass known Alameda vrhipsnake occurrences. Grassland habitat in moderate- and low-priority areas was reclassified to a high conservation prior ty to satisfy Sara Joaquin kit fox habitat and corridor requirements based on the locations of known Sari Joaquin kit fox occurrences and the judgment of biologists regarding kit fox.range. The criteria used to reclassify grassland as kit fox habitat were that the cell: occurs near a.cluster of known occurrences of kit fox, occurs in an area judged by biologists to be within the kit fox range, supports grassland habitat, is located outside of high-constraint areas,and is connected to areas that support at least 1,500 acres of grassland.. The criteria used to reclassify grassland as kit fox corridors were that the corridor: • connects core conservation,areas or gather portions of kit fox range outside tdre study area(Le., gran stand.areas of San Joaquin.County), • is a mir mora of 1 mile wide with grassland at least 0.5 mile wide, Ewt County Pilaf SWd� v a echniotai Report,,;.Fay 1999 -I I is located outside of high-constraint areas, * includes the greatest possible ratio of previously scored moderate conservation Priority cells to low conservation priority cells,and * has a minimum of edge associated with areas that are not high conservation priorsty. Riparian habitat was elevated to high conservation priority by reclassifying all moderate and low conservation priority cells that contained mapped riparian habitat and did riot overlap with a high conservation constraint area. The criteria used to reclassify riparian habitat were that the cell. * supports riparian habitat and * is located outside of high conservation constraint areas. Known occurrences of Alameda whipsnake were identified and the conservation priority _ of the surrounding habitat was elevated. All 36-acre cells that were located in the moderate and low conservation priority area that contained Alameda whipsnake occurrences were reclassified to high conservation priority and any adjacent cells were reclassified to high priority if necessary to produce an area of at least 100 acres ofhi h conservation priority area.. The criteria used to reclassify shrubland as Alameda whipsnake habitat were that the cell: a supports a known whipsnake occurrence and a is connected to other cells totaling at least 100 acres that are reclassified to high conservation priority, or is connected to an existing designated high conservation priority area greater than 100 acres. LIMITATIONS F THE WEIGHTING STRATEGY METHODOLOGY _ Conservation biology is a young science,and basic concepts in conservation biology are still controversial. For-example,guidelines that were followed in this assessment include the - principles that a few lame preserved areas are better than many small preserved areas and that preserved areas should be connected by habitat corridors for wide-ranging species. These guidelines have been widely advocated (Wilcox and Murphy 1985) but are also subject to some criticism in the scientific literature(Quinn and Hastings 1987,Simberloffet al. 1992). Much support exists, however, for protecting large, contiguous habitat areas and, when possible, connecting these areas with corridors for wide-ranging species. The tools used to analyze and synthesi conservation priorities nim The hirlited amount. of available data awed lack of well-established scientific guidelines made it necessary to make a series of assumptions about biological resources and land use planning information. The analysis included critical biological.assumptions about-, a' species Habitat relationships, tv representing groups of species by selected urnbrella.species, * spatial habitat reqwire,,,,neits of umbrella species, and * the value of habitats to support biodiversity. T"he analysis included critical land use planning assumptions, including: * relationships between designated land use and the level of conservation constraint, * the meaning of planning boundaries, and * the status of proposed projects. A change in.any of these assumptions-Mould result in a diFferent map of conservation priorities. The conservation pri ' pnorn iorities assessment presented here should be interpreted as a part of a planning process that presents areas for conservati ior,priority given the underlying assumptions used. E=e County Pilo.,S.u&y Technical Repart,May 1959 B-13 A&IDpendix C. Information i Jones & Stokes Associates Sections 1-3and Appendix B of the Technical a 4 v eSE - COO rn � •yam rai a> • us �? Tetiun, a> a4 cn vim" > 14 cn CA to m 0 as = � � �? 73 � •� � � ' �£° `«� `p, _ � m � �c`'. E AS aV5 z z u *� U C> LJ z j � 'Al� N'. '�n � t�*s a e a C-01 a ` fie° a �a 0 .20 « , s 5 tea C, "40 " 1 Id as I zs Id L iso > > > z x 45 �n � 0 �a +i"u .... CL P19 g"' Ott.. . .... tg 4 Icn roa � ; ria as �a n � f a <� � °� � °aa � z� ca " cr I t� cn 5 � ` a Z, cx u s 0 tj c 0 m tir FCS ' Cd 00 Ig I cS CJ (o i _ cz > C> o � IS -44 u c"55 C✓ a s s to s ^r� cct ev d c`? It u� e� ! 2I i U5 a � a � � Col: va gP 5� �R z z i { C5 C A A R 1 > < ed wua a Cd 2 i C < 1 Appendix C-2. Special-Status Species Known to Occur or with Potential to Occur in the Study Area Page 1 of 4 Status 8 Common panne Scientific Marne Mederal/State/CNTPS Mammals Saar Joaquin kit fox Vulpes maacrotis mutica ,a/NA Berkeley kangaroo rat Dipodorrays heer anni berkeleyensis C2/--./NA Sax,Joaq-uin pocket mouse Perognathus inornaxtus inornatus C2/--,/A Arr�r can banger Tazirlae to us --/SSC/NA Pacific western big-erred bat Plecows townsendii townsen ii C2/SS 'N-A Greater western mastiff be, Eumops perosis califorricus C2/SSC NA San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat Neotoma,iascipes annectens C2/SSCd�;A Sar Joaquin valley woodrat Neotomaa fascipes riparia Ci/SSC/N-A Tenurial Reptiles Alameda w hipsnake Masticophis laaeralis euryxaanthus MYNA Giant garter snake Thamnophis couchi gigas V1^1 1^1 A Raptors Arnerican peregrine falcon Falco per°egrinus ancaturr DENTA Bald eagle H'aaliaseetus leucocephalus SENA Swairson's hawk Buteo swainsoni /T/,NL A Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos --/SSC,FP/NA Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia C2ISSQ A Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus --;SSOaNA Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperii --/SSC/IA Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striattas -4SSCINA Northern ha--rier Circles cyaneus --SSA errbginous hawk ,waters regalis --/SS dA Long-eared owl Oslo etas --ISS A Short-eared ow' Asio f lammeus --/SSC/NA Black-shouldered lite Manus caerileus Other Birds Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CMSC INTA Black sw=f~ C'ypseloides niger -v-41NA California.clapper rail ,hallus longir°ostris obsoletus JNA CaHfornia M.ack rail L ateraltu,s jamaicensi CI/TaTD-4-A Double-crested cormcrant Phalacrocorax auritus --/SSC/NA Alameda song sparrow Melospiza melodia pusillula C2/SSC/N-A Suisun song Sparrow Melospiza melodiaa maxillaris C2/SSC/N-A San Pablo song sparrow Melospiza melodia sarruelis C2/SSCf.N-A Matazz¢,.n plover Charadrius rnontanus C2/SSC/,NA Appendix C-2, Continued Page 2 of 4 Status Common Nam.e Scientific Name Federal/State/CIPS Aquatic Reptiles and Amphibians California tiger salasnnander Ambystoma californiense C1/SSCINA California real-legged frog Rama aurora drayronii TISSC/- A Western pond t9_.rtle Clerrrrmys marmorata C2/SSC/NA Wester,spadefoot toad Scaphiopus haam mondii C2/SSCI A Foothill yellow-legged frog .Rana boylei C2/SSC/,\'A Invertebrates Longhorn fairy shrimp Braznchinecta loragiantennaa E/--/NA Vernal pool fairy s',m p Branchinecta lynchi Vernal pool tadpole shrimp Lepidurus packardi B/--,+SIA Valley elderberry longhorn bee,"e Desrnocerus californicus dirraarphus T/--/NA Bay checkerspot butterfly Luphydryas editb a baayensis T/--/NIA Ca`:lippe sire=-spot butterfly speyeria callippe callipe E/--/NIA Carved-foot hygrtatus diving beetle Hygrctus curvipes C21-41lA Moestan blister beetle Lytta moesta C21--NTA Molestan blister, beetle Lytta molesta C2/-.-NTA Bridge's coast rarnge shoulderbasnd Hebrinthoglypta nickliniana bridgesi C2/---NT A Dura nts snail Haplotrema duranti --/--/NA Antioch dunes anthicid beetle Anthicus antiochensis C2/--/-.a"A Antioch coph ran rea'bberf y Cophura hurdi C2/--INA Antioch efferian robberfly Efferia antiochi C2/--/bIA Yellow banded a.ndrenid bee Perdita hirticeps luteocincta C2/-milA Antioch andrenid bee perdita scitua antiochensis C2/--,,.,NTA Antioch niultilid wasp myrmosulaa Pacifica C2/--r"'�A Red-leaded sphecid wasp Eucercercis ruf ceps C2/--/NA Antioch speeid wasp Philanthus nasilis C2,L-INA Middlekaufs shieldback katydid .ldiostaaws middlekaufr C214IA Plants Sharsmith's onion Alliunn shrarsmithae -4-41B Large-flowered faddleneck Anuinckia grandifsrrra DPEAB Mt.Diablo nmnzanita ArctOstaphyl€rs auriculata C3c%-/1B Contra Costa manzanita Arctcstaphylvs rnanzanita ssp.laevigataa _4_41B Alkali milk-vetch Astragalus terser var.terser e4_41B Heattscale Atriplex cordulata C2/--IIB Brittlescale Atriplex depressa --/--/2B San Joaquin saltbush Atriplex joaquiraiana C2/4-ilB Big-scale balsarnroot Balsamorhiza macr€rlepis var,macrolepisB Big tarweed Blepharizonia plumosa ssp.plumosa --/--/1B Mt.Diablo fairy-lantern Calochortus pulchell'us --/--/1 B Shars?=th's h&-ebell Campanula sharsmithiae C2/--/?B Mt. Hamilton thistle Cirsium fontinale var.campylon C2l41_B Appendix Cele Continued page 3 of 4 Status, Cctzmen Name Scientific Name Federal/State/CMTS Santa Clara red ribbons Clarkia concinna ssp.automixa C2/-i-/IB Hispid bird's-beak Cordylcanthus mollis ssp.hispi us —,2/--IIB Mt.Diablo bird's-beak Cordylanthus n.idularius Cl, O'il3 Palmate-bracted bird's-beak Cordylanthus palmatus EIE/I B Hospital vanyor. larkspur Delphinium.calrtFarnicum ssp.interias C2/--/yB Recurved larkspur Delphinium recurvatum. C21-41B Mt.Diablo buckwheat Eriogonum truncatum C2*1--/I A Diamond-petaled California poppy Eschscholzia ncombipetala C21-411B Stinkbells Pritillaria agrestis Oct-44 a alas f-itillary Fritillarda f alcata C2/41B Fragrant Mtillary Fritillaria liliacea 02/4113 Diablo hel-anthella Helianthella castanea C2/--IIB Congdon's tarp' Hemizcnia pa;ayi ssp.congdonii -4-41B Brewer's western fax Hesperolinon breweri C2/--/'-,B ose�rnl ow Hibiscus lasiocarpus 02142 -Northern California black walnut Juglans californica var.hindsii C2/--/lB Contra Costa goldfields Lasthenia conjugens E/-41B Mason's i laeotmis Lilaeopsis masonii C2/RIB Shorey madia Madia radiata --/--/IB Hall's bush ah-ow Malacctha nus hallii _41 Sari Antonio Hills monardeha Manardella antonina ssp.antonina 00-44 Littler ousewl Myosurus minimus ssp.apes C2/--"3 ?fit.Diab`o phase is Phacelia phaceiicides 2/--/i Hairless popcorn-flower Plagiobothrys glaber C2,!--/IA Rock sanicle Sanicula saxatilis C2/R/IB Rayless ragwort Senecio apharaactis -4-42 Most beautiful jewel-flower Streptanthus albidus ssp,peva encs CV-41B Mt.Diablojewel-flower Streptanthus hispidus C2/--IIB Showy lndian clover Trifolium amaenun, C2'V--/l Caper-ft—jited tropidocarpum Tropidacarpum capparideum C2*/--/IA Note: Because the analysis was conducted before federal cardiate species defritiors were changed on February 28, 1996,this table indicates pried car6date designations. z Status definitions: Fedeml E = listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. z = listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. PE = proposed for federal list ng as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. Appendix C=2a Continued 'age 4 of 4 Cl = Category 1 candidate for federal listing. Category 1 includes species for which USFWS has or file enough substantial infoxr ation on biological vulnerability are.treat to support proposals to list them. Species that are possibly extinct are indicated with an asterisk(*). C2 = Category 2 candidate for federal listing. Category 2 includes species for which USFWS has some biological information indicating that listing may be appropriate but for which further biological research and field study are usually needed to clarify the most appropriate status. Species that are possibly extinct are indicated with an asterisk(*). Category 2 species are not necessarily less tate,threatened,or endangered than Category 1 species or listed species;the distinction relates to the amount of data available any is therefore administrative,not biological. 0 = no longer a candidate for federal listing. Category 3 species have been dropped from the candidate list because t-hey are extinct(0a),taxonomically invalid or do not meet the USFWS definition of a"species" (Ob),or too widespread or not threatened at this time(C3c). NA = not applicable. _e = no designation. State E = listed as endangered under the California Endargered Species Act. T = listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act. FP = f=illy protected under the California Fish and Game Code. SSC = species of special concert:. ® = no designation. California Motive Plant Society IA = List I species: presumed extinct in California. IB = list 1B species: rare,threatened;or endangered in California and.elsewhere. 2 = List 2 species: rare,threatened,or endangered it California but more coi_tmor elsewhere. 3 = List 3 species: plants about which more information is needed to determine.heir status. 4 = List 4 species:plants of limited distribution. . ......................................................................................................... ....._. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... _ ........ ......... ..._..... ......... ......... .............. ... .. ......... ......... ......... ......... ................................_..... ........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ...._.... _ _ __ Appendix -3. Environmental Documents Used As Sources of Information on Habitat, Key Features, and Priority Species 1. Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1983. Results of biological resource inventories and habitat evaluations in the Kellogg Creek watershed. February. Sacramento,CA. Prepared for Janes M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2. Jones&Stokes Associates,Inc. 1992. Biological assessment for federal threatened,endangered, and candidate species for the Los Vaqueros project. August 6. Sacranmento,CA. Prepared for US.Bureau of-Reclamation,Sacramento,CA,and Contra CostaWater District,Concord,CA. 3. Jones&Stakes Associates,Inc. 1991. Results of supplemental biological inventories conducted for the Los Vaqueros project in and adjacent to Kellogg geek watershed. January. Sacramento, CA. Prepared for Contra.Costa Water District, Concord, CA. 4. Jones & stokes Associates, Inc. 1993. Results of spring 1993 special-statas P_r phibian and reptile surveys in and adjacent to the Kellogg geek watershed. Administrative draft. September 17. Sacramento, CA. Prepared for Contra Costa Water District, Concord, CA. 5. Jones & Stokes Associates,Inc. 1995. Memor ndum to Jan ice Hutton re: Results of summer 1995 California red-leg aci frog surveys in and adjacent to the Kellogg Creek watershed. Sacramento, CA. July 31. 6. Willdan Associates. 1993. Dra=t environmental imnpact rep€ry for the North Livermore genera plan amendment. S H No.93013065. Prepared for City of Liver-ore Planning Department. 7. Brady and .Associates, hic. in association with CH2M Hill, Consulting Engineers. 1988. Altamont Hills landfill acquisition environmental impact report. 1%blic hearing draft. July. 8. ESA. 1994. responses to comir,�ents addendum:;l aralisa planned development environmental irnpact report. Prepared for City of Livermore, CA. 9. Contra Costa County. 1992. Draft subsequent environmental impact report; Byron Sand pla t/Unirnin Corporation Contra Costa County file no. 2078-91. SCH#91113€170. April 6. 10. John Wagstaff Associates. i994. Biological resources in Cowell ranch administrative draft environmental impact report. June 21. 11. Baseline Environmental Consulting. 1994. Environmental impact report; Mountain House roaster plan and specific plan 1. Emeryville, CA. June. 12. Environmental Science Associates. 11993. state route 4 bypass project environmental impact report; volume 2 m east county corridor programs.. October. San Francisco, CA. 113. Biosearch 'Wildlife; Surreys. 1995. lied-legged frog survey, North Flynn road widening project, Alameda County, California. Santa,C.n z, CA. May 24. Subr- fitted to CH2M Hill, Oakland, CA. 14. ESA. 1993. Draft Altamont landfill and resource recovery facility reclassification project environmental impact report. October 19. 15. LSA Associates, Inc. 1993. Biological resources; Cowell Ranch, Contra Costa County. November- 1. Pt.Richmond, CA. LSA Project No. CRA.301. Prepared for The Cowell Ranch Project, Lafayette, CA. 16. Strornberg, L. P., Ph.D. 1955. Biological constraints analysis, Byron planning area, Contra Costa County, California. San Rafael, CA. March 8. Submitted to Mr. Jiro Cutler, Community Development Department,Martinez, CA. 17. CH2M ill. 1993. Integrated waste management Facility conceptual plan; draft environmental impact report. December. Oakland,CA. 18. Wallace Roberts&Todd, 1992. Eastern Dublin general plan amendment and specific plan,part 1, draft environmental impact report. State Clearinghouse Number 21103 164. August 28, Dublin, C.A. 19. Jones & Stokes Associates. 19911. Results of supplemental biological inventories conducted for the Los Vaqueros project in and adjacent to Kellogg Creek watershed. Sacramento, CA. January. Prepared for Contra Costa Water District, Concord, CA. 20. U.S.Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1977, Sail survey of Contra Costa County, California. Concord, CA. 21. U.S. Department of Agnculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1966. Soil survey: Alameda area, California. March. Series 1961, No. 41. 22. Sharsrr*:ith, H. K. n.d. Flora of the Mount Hamilton range of California. Special Publication Number 6. California Native Plant,Society. n.p. 23. Lake,Mane. Unusual-plant coordinator. CLAPS East Bay chapter. January 4, 1995 m telephone conversation. 99. Jones & Stopes Associates' unpublished data. ................ .............................................................................................. ......... ........ .......... ......... ........ .__..._.... ...... ....... ......... ........ ......... ........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......._ ......... ......... ......... ......... ........... .................................................................................................. Appendix -4s Guide to GIS Codes for Key Features, Priority Species, and Accuracy Levels GIS Codd Key Features Alkali habitat AH Coulter pine stand CP Caves CV Rock outcrop RO Sargent cypress staid SC Semertine habitat S Priority Species Alameda whipsnake ALWS Bridge's Coast Range shoulderbard BCRS Big tarweed, BITA Brewer's western flax BRWF Contra Costa goldfields CCG, Coed-foot l ygrotus diving beetle CHDB California red-legged frog C ,F California tiger salamander L'I'SA Diablo helianthella. DIHE Golder:eagle GOEA Large-flowered fddler:eck lye Longhorn fairy shrimp LHFS Mason's ii'aecpsis MALI Mt.Diablo manzanita DOHA Molestan blister beetle MOBB Palmate-bracted bird's beak, PBBB Rock sanicle ROSA San Joaquin kt fox SJ 3F San 7oaquln pocket rnouse SJPM Vernal pool fairy shrimp VPFS Accuracy Levels High(0-0.25 square mile) a Moderate(>0.25-0.5 square mile) b Low(>€3.5 square mile) C 0 '5tM ; c'3 acdc ria ra ca 3 q b �c v era 4.5 c�tl w ',mac.," ate tt r' z _ e ate CL .� fl as as g !2 a 00 mu a b as tn «� as , 0* cn ID m etas ea` �e c4 ? � as cz cd w cd ° \10 Wo ,, 00 c ra oo CJ ol � 4-. C h ` 13 r `� ca od � a� e4 40 •� ° ° c� cz as i E as '. as 04 n ° 6 z� *10 44 0 ` � c4 ® � " } sw C y � � E y � � th :gra 3, C4 W CL s Pte : y E � �` ma �g 9 Appendix . Citations for Jones & Stokes Associates Sections 2 and 3 and Appendix B of the Technical Report Appendix D. Citations for Jones & Stokes Associates :coons 2 and 3 and Appendix B of the Technical Report PITTA REFERENCES Airola., D. 1988. Guide to the Cali`crnia wildlife habitat relationships system. California Department of Fist and dame. Rancho Cordova. Austin, C.C., and G.B. Shaffer. 1992. Short-, medium-, and long-term repeatability of loco ctor perfor, ante in the tiger salatnanderAmbystoma cal iforniense.Functional Ecology 6(2):145-153. Beer, . R., L. D. Frenzed, and '' . Hansen. 1956. Minimum space requirements of some nesting passerine birds. Wilson Bulletin 68:200-209. California. Department of Fish and Carne. :994. Draft std' report on burrowing oval mitigation. Sacramento, CA. Cali a< Division of'Mines and Geology. 1990. Geologic map of the San Francisco-San .Tose Quadrangle. Compiled by D. L. Wagner,E.J. Bortugno, and R. D.. eJun]-Ci , Scale 1:250,000. California Native Plant Society. 1995.U usual and significantpiants cfAlameda and Contra Costa counties. Dianne Lake, March 1. Sacramento, CA. Craighead,J. J.,and F. C. Craighead,sr. 1956.Hawks,owls and wildlife. Stac pole Boobs, Harrisburg pts,. Dixon, J. B. 1937. The golden eagle in San Diego County, California. Condor 39:49.56. Eicken, M. S., and. R. W. Ficken, 1966. motes on.mate and habitat selection in,the yellow warbler. Wilson Bulletin 78:232-233. Grin.,J.R.,and W.13.Critc.Uield. 1972. The distribution of forest trees in California. U.S. Forest Service. Pacific Sout1west Forest and Range'—Experiment Station, Berkeley, Cie Bast counpy Pilot Study Technical Report,May 1999 Hickman, J. C. (ed.). 1994. The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA. Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary description of the terrestrial plant communities of California. California Departrnentof Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. Holland, D. C., and R. B. Bir. 1992. Status sof the western pond turtle (Clemmys armor.-ta)in 1991. In Presentation at the Western Section of the Wildlife Society Annual Meeting 1992. San Diego, Cts. Jackman,S.M.,and J.M� Scott. 1975.Literature review of�renty-three selected forest birds of the Pacific Northwest. I.J.S. Forest Service,legion 6. Portland OR. Jennings,M. R. and M. P. Mayes, 1994. Amphibian and reptiles species of special concern in California. Report to California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, CA. Jones& Stokes Associates,Inc. 1989.Res€ its of biological resource inventories and habitat evaluations in the Kellogg Creek Watershed. (JSA 87°031).Prepared for James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inca Project Sponsor: 6ontra Costa 'Tater District, Concord, CA. - 1992. [App. F] 1995. Distribution of the San Joaquin kit fox and effects of nilita*y training activities at the Multi-Purpose Range Complex(MPRC)on lit foxes at Fort Hunter Liggett, California-preliminary results. Final. February 13, 1995. (JSP 89-224.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, Sacramento, CA. .endeigh, S. C. 1941. Birds of a prairie community. Condor 43:165-174. Knapp,D. K. 1978. Effects of agricultural development in Kem County, California, on the San Joaquin kit fox in 1977. Final Report, Project -E-1-1, Joh V-1,21, Non-Game Wildlife Investigations, California Department of Fish and.Game. Sacramento,CA. Mayer, R. F., and W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr. (eds.). 1988. A guide to wildlife habitats of California, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Sacramento,CA. _ Harrell, S. 1972. fife history of the San Joaquin kit fox. California Fish and Game 58:162- 174. Natural Diversity Data Based 1995.Records search of study area. California Department of Fish and Gane. Sacramento, CA. D-2 Appendix D. C cations for.forces&Stokes.4sso-cf ates Sections 2 and 3 and Appendix B of the?'echnical Report Orloff, S., F. Hall, and I,. Spiegel. 1986. Distribution and habitat requirements of the San joaquin.lit fox in the northern extreme of their range. Transactions ions of the Wester Section of the Wildlife Society 22:60-70. Quinn,J.F., and A.Hastings. 1987.Extinction in subdivided habitats.Conservation Biology 1:198-208. Rathb=, G.B., N. Siepel, and D.C. Roiled. 1992. Nest1ng behavior and movements of western pond turtles(Clemmys rmorata).The Southwestern Naturalist 37(3)e319- 324 emsen, J. V. 1977 Bird species of special concern inCalifornia-. an annotated list of declining or vulnerable bird species. onga e Wildlife investigations, Wildlife Mari gement Branch Alluvial Report No. 78-1.) California Department of Fish and Fume. Sacramento, CA. Sawyer,J.,and T.Keeler-Wolf 1995. A--nanual ofCalifornia vegetation. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Shaffer, H. B., R. N. Fisher, and. S. E. Stanley. 1993. Status report: the California tier salamander(Ambystoma californie e).Final report to the California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fishenes Division, Rancho Cordova, California under Contracts (FG 9422 and FG 1383). imberloff, D., J. A. Fa-r-, J. Cox, and D, W. Mehlman. 1992. Movement corridors: conservation bargains or poor investments?Conservation Biology 5: 59-70. Skinner, M., and B. Pavlik, 1994. Inventory of rare and endangered vascular plants of aliforma. 5th edition. California Native Plant Society. (Special I'°blieation No.1.) Sacramento, CA. Smith,D.G.,and J.RMfurplqy. 1973.Breeding ecology of raptors in the easter.Great Basin of Utah.Brigham Young University.Provo,UT,(Science Bulletin Biology Series 18, o.3.) Spiegel,L.K.,M.A.Bradbury,M.M.Disney,and R.L.Anderson. 1991.California Energy Commission's Saga Joaquinkit fox monitoring project in Kern County. 1991 Annual Report to California Department of Fish and Game.California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA. Stebbins, R. C. 1972. California amphibians and reptiles. University of Califomi.a gess. Berkeley, Cts.. ,Fast Counti Pihot Study Technical Repon,1vcay 1999 Dm3 - 1985. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. 2nd edition. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston,MA. Swaim,K.E. 1994.Aspects of the ecology of the Alameda whipsnake Masticophis lateralis evryxanthus. Master's thesis. California State University,Hayward.Hayward,CA.. Swaim,K. E., and S.M.McGinnis. 1992. Habitat associations of the Alameda w1ruipsnake. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 28:147-111. U.S.Soil Conservation Service. 1966. Sail survey:Alameda area,California.. March. Series 1961,No. 41. Washington, DC. a Y 977. Soil survey of Contra Costa County,California. Concord, CA. Werner, J., and A. S. Boss. 1984. California wildlife and their habitats: western Sierra Nevada, (General Technical deport PSW-37.) U.S.Forest Service,pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment.Statism. Berkeley, CA. Wilcox, B.A.,and D. D. Murphy. 1985. Conservation strategy: the effects sof fragmentation on extinction. American Naturalist 125;879-887. Williams, D. 15. 1986. Mammalian species of special concernin California. (Report 86-10) California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Division. Sacramento, CA. "seiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Layer, and M. White. 1988. Calior€ a's wildlife: Volume L amphibians and reptiles. Californiia Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. 1994a. California's wildlife Volume 11.birds. California Department of Fish and Gare. Sacramento, CA. _ 1990b. alifornia's wildlife, Volume III. mammals. California Department sof Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. Zoelliek,B. W.,T.P. O'Farrell,and T.T.Kato. 1987. Movements and home ranges of San Joaquin kit foxes on the Naval Petroleum Deserves,Kern County,California. (EG&G 10282-2184, DE88 05188.) EG&G Energy Measurements, Inc. Goleta, CA. Prepared for U.S.Department of Energy,Naval Petroleum Reserves in California,and Chevron USA, Inc.,Nevada Operations Office, Reno,NV. D-4 Appendix D. Citationsf"orJones c&Stokes Associates Sections 2 and 3 and PDpendix R of the Technical Report PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS Augustine, Arny. Project coordinator. San Joaquin Co ncil of Governments. December 26, 1996 ® letter and reap of San Joaquin County land use designation map. endorff,Ron. Assistant planner. Antioch Community Development. December 13, 1995- facsimile and telephone conversation about future/pending/Planned projects in the City of Antioch. Brode, John. Biologist. California Depar e t of Fish and Came, Rancho Cordova, CA.. Septernber°4, 1991,and January 1491 through April 1992-telephone conversations. Dutch,Allen. Planner. Alameda County Planning department. January 23, 1946.,updated plan,--naps of the fast County Area Plan;Febru&—yy 20, 1996-telephone conversation. Caravel,Jeff. Planner. City of Pittsburg Conunwaty Development Department. December 11, 1995 - telephone conversation regardingire/pend:ing/proposed projects; facsimile with information of the City of Pittsburg's annexation. Hatch,dandy. Planning director. City of Clayton Community Development. December 12, 1995 T telephone conversation regarding future/proposed/pending projects in the City of Clayton. opchnk, io'I= Planner. Contra. Costa. County Community Development Depart .ent. December 8, 1995 a telephone conversation regarding general plan designations; December 1.2, 1995-letter with inform tion about futurre/proposed/pending projects in Contra Costa County. c lligolt, Liz. Planner. Alameda County, Planning Department. December 8, 1995 m telephone conversation and facsimile about the North Livermore land use designations. Palrrnsano, 'ferry. Wildlife biologist. California Department of Fish and Carne, legion 3, Yountville, CA. October 5, 1989, and November 1989 through February 1992 a meetings;Novernber 1389 through February 1992 d telephone conversations. Peeter°s,dans.Professor.Chabot College,Hayward,CA..August 22, 1988 A letter;September 1, 1988 -telephone conversation. Stein, Deborah. Planner. Alameda County Planning Department. December 28, 1995 telephone conversation with testy Chew clarifying the ?worth Livermore Project, April 5, 1996 e- Memoranda clarifying land use designation categories in North 1.,iverrnore. East Countv Pilot Study 7echnical Ro- pon,May 199 D-5 Zil , Jeff. Planner. Brentwood piing Department. December 12, 1395 v telephone conversation about future/pending/planned projects in the City of Brentwood. Appendix D. Citations for.clones&Stokes Associates Sections 2 and 3 and Appendix&of the Technical Report t REQUEST PEAx rom t (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete t is form and place it in the box rear the speakers, roster a ore ddress n the Board. {9_ Name: Phonem `s : F Address- city-.— I ddres as ); am speaking for myself or organization.- OWN Of OrgWOM10n) CEECX ONEt wash to speak on Agenda Item Date.- ; icy comments will be: genera. or against I wish to speak an the subject o o not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: