Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1995/05/24 (5) DRAFT MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM (MSCP) PLAN. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY March 1, 1995 1. INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES The Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) is a comprehensive habitat conservation planning program for 581,649 acres in the southwest portion of San Diego County. The intent of the program is to plan for habitat preservation to protect our region's biodiversity, create an interconnected open space system of native habitats and allow for economic development. The program objectives are as follows: a. Efficiently and effectively comply with the Endangered Species Acts through a regional and habitat-based approach to protect endangered, threatened and rare species and to preclude the need to list more species as endangered or threatened. b. Enable and facilitate economic development of the region, including development of public and private projects, on lands not designated for habitat preservation. c. Achieve a workable balance between preservation of natural resources and regional growth and economic prosperity. To achieve these general objectives, the draft MSCP Plan contains the following elements: 1. The plan defInes a proposed Multi-Habitat Planning Area (MHPA) within which preserve planning is focused, or in some cases, within which a preserve boundary is defIned for future dedications and acquisitions. This MHP A conserves sufflcient habitat to protect an identified list of species and provides for wildlife use and movement to permit self-sustaining populations. 2. A partnership is proposed between federal, state and local agencies of government and with private property owners to cooperatively implement the plan through local project review and approvals and through public commitments of lands and money for acquisition. 3. The plan provides a framework for development of subarea plans (more specific habitat conservation plans) and/or project plans to directly implement the MSCP, and provides guidelines on land use regulations and project mitigation for local jurisdictions to develop their own implementing tools. 4. A financing and acquisition strategy is presented which equitably spreads costs among all benefIciaries and provides an affordable program. Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (3/1/95) Page 2 5. Recommendations for long-term management and for monitoring of the system build-out and success are provided, along with guidelines for compatible land uses and activities within and adjacent to the preserve. 2. STUDY AREA BIOLOGY, OWNERSHIP AND LAND USES Biology The MSCP study area occupies approximately 900 square miles (581,649 acres) in southwestern San Diego County and includes the City of San Diego, portions of the unincorporated County of San Diego and 10 additional city jurisdictions. The area is bordered by Mexico to the south and the San Dieguito River Valley to the north (see the map on the following page). Approximately 41 % of the study area is developed or disturbed by urban development, and 5% is in agriculture. The rest (54 %) is vegetated with 18 native habitat types. These vegetation communities, with the exception of chaparral and non-native grasslands, are considered to be sensitive or rare or have state or federal regulatory protection. Three habitat types make up the majority of the vegetation in the study area: coastal sage scrub (37%), chaparral (35%) and grasslands (9%). The remaining habitat types each occupy between i-3% of the study area. Many of our area's native vegetation communities have experienced significant losses from development. As a result, San Diego County has a greater number of threatened and endangered species than anywhere in the continental U.S. Over 200 plant and animal species that are federally and/or state endangered, threatened, rare, or proposed or are candidates for listing occur in the County. Over half of these species occur in the MSCP study area, although the area comprises only 20% of the County. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) selected 93 of these species (48 plants and 45 animals) as target species to aid in developing a viable habitat preserve system. This plan designates 43 of the 93 target species as "priority" species if they are state or federally listed, proposed for listing, category 1 candidates for listing or state Natural Communities Conservation Program (NCCP) target species. NCCP. In 1991, the state of California established the Natural Communities Conservation Program (NCCP), with a pilot program to preserve coastal sage scrub habitat. In March, 1993, the California gnatcatcher was listed as threatened by the federal government, with a unique opportunity to ensure the protection of this species through the state-established NCCP or through an equivalent program like the MSCP. Because the California gnatcatcher occupies coastal sage scrub and related vegetation communities in areas of the County subject to development pressure, the adequate protection of this particular species has been a priority of the MSCP. Bioloeical Core Areas. A key step in developing the MSCP Plan is prioritizing the most critical biological resource areas for preservation. An extensive Geographical Information System (GIS) data base has been created with vegetation communities, species locations, topography, soils, LEGEND D MSCP Study Area ~ Unincorporated (../ Jurisdictional Boundaries -.;.-- /'vi' MSCP SIudy Area Boundary Q ~ FIIftaYS 5.5 0 - , - Major Streams , ,- MILeS Source: SANDAG lOB Jurlldlctlons within MSCP Study /Ina ..... 3 Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (3/1/95) Page 4 drainage and other physical factors. These factors have been used to develop a Habitat Map of Evaluation Map which ranks each quarter-acre parcel with Very High to Low rankings of potential habitat value. This map can then used as a regional tool to identify biologically important areas (core areas) and habitat linkages between the core areas. Sixteen (16) core biological resource areas and associated linkages (202,800 acres of habitat) have been identified by the draft MSCP Plan. The core areas and linkages serve as a basis for designing the preserve system boundaries; unfragmented core resource areas and linkages are recommended by the plan to be maximized in the preserve. OwnershiD. The study area contains over 300,000 acres of habitat, with two-thirds (64 %) being privately owned. Over one-third of the habitat land within the MSCP study area is in public ownership; the federal government owns 41 % of the public habitat lands and the state owns 6%. Because so much of the habitat in the study area is privately owned, the ability of the region to equitably preserve portions of this land and to develop an affordable preserve system is a critical issue. The location of habitat by jurisdiction is illustrated below. A majority of the habitat in the study area (62%) is in the unincorporated portion of the County; however, this 62% includes lands owned by the Bureau of Land Management and the City of San Diego (Otay Lakes, San Vicente, Marron Valley). Approximately 22% of the habitat lands in the study area are in the City of San Diego's jurisdiction, excluding the Miramar Naval Air Station. 200.000 PUBUC AND PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF HABITAT (MSCP Study Area) 201,892 LOCATION OF HABITAT BY .JURlSDlcnON (MSCP Study Area) 200,000 1$6 630 HABITAT leer'" WlllrIJlllaM 17,453 50,000 ,to ! q . ~ , ~ 4' ", # c:; I' "d' 150,000 150,000 HABrTAT (- 112,998 100,000 100,000 Cities 30.076 50,000 o o PUBLIC LANDS PRIVATE LANDS .tJ if </" ~ ~ c:; ~ ~ c:; # d' OWNERSHIP .JURlSDlcnON Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (3/1195) Page 5 Land Uses and Re!!ional Growth In 1990, the population in San Diego County was 2.5 million. According to a recent growth forecast by the San Diego Association of Governments (Sandag), the region's population is anticipated to grow to 3.8 million by the year 2015, with civilian employment increasing from 1.1 to 1.5 million. To accommodate this growth, it is expected that the region will need approximately 457,000 additional housing units. The existing general and community plans (unaffected by the proposed MSCP) would accommodate residential growth up to around 3.3 million persons, which is forecast to be reached in the year 2005. A regional land use strategy is being developed to accommodate this growth while maintaining quality of life objectives. The MSCP Plan can assist in developing this strategy by more clearly establishing areas for preservation and for development and in streamlining the development process once preserve areas are delineated. Gap Analysis A "gap analysis" is the process of overlaying data layers describing biological resources, ownership and land use to identify where resources are currently protected and to determine gaps in conservation protection. The currently protected areas serve as building blocks for designing the preserve. A gap analysis has been completed for the MSCP and reveals which habitat lands are already permanently protected and managed as habitat and which habitat lands are designated in land use plans as parks or open space. Approximately 71 % (80,388 acres) of all public lands with habitat and just under one-fourth (47,401 acres) of all private habitat lands in the study area are either protected or planned for protection/open space (as of 1994). Approximately 45% (91,623 acres) of the total core and linkage habitat areas is currently dedicated open space or planned as open space in General/Community Plans, while only one-fifth of the linkages are protected (as of 1994). 3. CONSERVATION PLAN 3.1 Plan DescriDtion The lands proposed for open space and habitat preservation are located within the draft Multi- Habitat Planning Area (MHPA). The draft MHPA has been cooperatively designed by the 12 participating jurisdictions in consultation with the USFWS/CDFG staff, major propeny owners and environmental groups, based on biological, economic, ownership and land use criteria. Planning staff from the five jurisdictions with the most habitat (County and cities of San Diego, Chula Vista, Poway and Santee) developed focused planning area lines, within which the future preserve would be sited or considered for inclusion, or "hard line" preserve areas. The County's proposed focused planning area calls for 70% of the habitats within the lines to be conserved. The actual conservation boundaries will be developed through the preparation of Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (3/1195) Page 6 subarea plans. Subarea plans are more specific habitat conservation plans which define habitat preserve boundaries and implementation measures. In addition, public lands and mitigation lands for large developments and a linkage area are shown for 100% or 90% preservation. The County's portion comprises 110,030 acres of habitat, or 67% of the MHPA (including 24,306 acres owned by the Bureau of Land Management). The City of Poway is developing a subarea plan which designates publicly owned, open space areas and other lands conserved as mitigation for 100% conservation; areas zoned for low density residential for 80% conservation; and prioritizes areas for acquisition as additional 1 00 % lands. The cities of Santee, Chula Vista and San Diego have proposed "hard line" preserve boundaries, within which 90-100% of the habitats are proposed to be conserved. City of San Diego lands comprise 37,167 acres of the MHPA, plus additional lands owned by the City outside its jurisdiction. City of San Diego lands comprise 23% of the MHPA and 55% of all habitat within the City's jurisdiction. 3.2 Bjolo~icaJ Conservation The proposed MHPA conserves 164,326 habitat acres, over half (52%) of the habitat in the MSCP study area, including 60% of all coastal sage scrub and 73% of the core biological resource areas and linkages. Almost three-fourths of the habitat conserved are coastal sage scrub and chaparral, with wetlands and grasslands comprising another 17%.' It is assumed that 100% of all wetland habitats will be conserved within the MHPA (Le. no net loss). Approximately 66% of all Very High value lands and 52% of all High value lands in the study area are proposed for conservation as well. The preservation of vegetation communities and habitat values are summarized in Table 3-3. Much of the coastal portion of the MHPA is comprised of smaller habitat patches which are completely or nearly isolated by development. As much as 17% of the total MHPA area (27,455 acres) could be subject to existing and future edge effects (adverse impacts from development), based on the assumption that edge effects extend 200 feet into the preserve. Appropriate management techniques for these and other potential impacts are addressed in Section 4 of the plan. Fifty seven (57) target species will be conserved by this draft plan, if adopted, including 29 priority species, and 28 other target species. Two NCCP target species, the California gnatcatcher and the orange-throated whiptail, are included on the "covered species list" , as are 17 other NCCP species. Each jurisdiction will receive permits to take listed species which are adequately protected by the plan (referred to as "take authorizations"), under the condition that all other implementing actions, as described in this plan, are fulfilled. Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (3/1195) Page 7 Protection Status Plants Animals Total Federally listed (1) 3 10 13 State listed (2) 10 1 11 Federally proposed 2 1 3 Federal candidates(Cl & C2) 18 10 28 Other (no status) 0 2 2 Total 33 24 57 (1) may also be state listed (2) may also be federal proposed or federal candidate) In determining adequate conservation of species, the analysis focused on the percent of major populations that would be conserved in the MHP A; percent of appropriate habitat conserved was used for those species with few or spotty documented occurrences in the study area. Each species was also assessed on the level of risk, including edge effects, degree of protection outside the MHP A afforded by state and federal wetlands regulations and topographic inaccessibility. Other 9% Grassland 6% Wetlands 11% Chaparral 32% Coastal Sage Scrub 42% Composition of Vegetation Communities Conserved in the MHP A .~ TIlts dr1It map depicts mas within which habftat preerws may be crea12d, and is InIBnded for estimallng habi1at pro1eClion IIId c:os1& for !lie dnII't Multiple Species Conservation Prooram (MSCP). The biD- IogtaJ dati have varying sources and acmracy; sII!.speciIIc dala shall update the da1a base, and may modify this draft map. It Is not InIBnded that all lands within !lie Illes be preserved (some dIYIIopment wIB be dowell). and some IIJIIaS IlUllide !lie lines may ultima1ely be Included In !lie I)I8SOM. The MSCP Plan must be approved by the Councils IIId Board III SUpervisors for the CIties IIId county before I!Iis ilformation Is used 10 IIIJIIIII land use. DRAFT '""" -- _ 100% Habitat Preserve D 80% Habitat Preserve E aO% Habitat Preserve ~ 70% Habitat Preserve fen:ent preservation applies only to habitat lands /'.../ ~ ./'... - """ ,-.0. - MSCP Study Area Boundary Freeways Major Streams lakes and Lagoons Q 6.6 , o , );: :;;~:j:)~:i1:: -:~::::; :~:;:j MILES IDJEN Multi-Habitat Planning Area ..... L-r'.""''' .. . ~u.I. 8 Table 3.3 VEGETATION COMMUNITY ACRES PRESERVED WITHIN MSCP MULTI-HABITAT PLANNING AREA (MHPA) Total MSCP MHPA % of MSCP Study Area Total MHP A Conserved Veg. Comm. Vegetation Communities (acres) (acres) (acres) Conserved Beach 1206 627 602 50% Saltpan 235 212 212 90% Southern Foredunes 188 140 139 74% Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub 198 144 130 66% Coastal Sage Scrub 115,636 80,323 69,782 60% Maritime Succulent Scrub 1,804 1,000 924 51% Chaparral 110,191 59,047 52,475 48% Southern Maritime Chaparral 1,777 1,196 1,076 61% CSS/Chaparral Scrub 3,878 1,721 1,431 37% Grassland 28,400 11,546 10,389 37% Southern Coastal Saltmarsh 1,870 1,732 1,732 93% Freshwater Marsh 817 523 523 64% Riparian Forest 1,328 1,102 1,102 83% Oak Riparian Forest 5,382 3,053 3,053 57% Riparian Woodland 731 588 588 80% Riparian Scrub 5,395 4,278 4,278 79% Oak Woodland 5,622 3,098 2,604 46% Torrey Pine Forest 169 152 137 81% Tecate Cypress Forest 5,696 5,615 5,531 97% Eucalyptus Woodland 1,631 440 370 23% Open Water 5,726 5,222 5,222 91% Disturbed Wetlands 928 754 754 81% Natural Flood Channel 860 731 731 85% Shallow Bays 9,581 412 412 4% Pacific Ocean 4,888 0 0 0% Other" 756 143 131 17% Subtotal Habitats 314.890 183.798 164,326 52% Disturbed 22,984 5,993 0 Agriculture 28,594 5,267 0 Developed 215,181 2,048 0 Subtotal 266,759 13,308 0 TOTAL 581,649 197,106 164,326 . Disturbed, Agriculture, and Developed areas with habitat value. Note: Numbers may not sum to total as shown, due 10 rounding. Source: 1994 MSCP GIS data base. 9 lJ092JOOO.Plan Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (3/1/95) Page 10 3.3 Preserve Assembly and Qperation For planning purposes, there are three principal groups of participants and beneficiaries in the conservation program: 1) federal and state governments; 2) local governments; and 3) private landowners. These three groups will 1) commit and manage for habitat use certain lands they currently own and 2) acquire additional lands in private ownership inside the MHPA. These actions are summarized in Table 3-9 as management or dedication of lands and funding of habitat acquisition and maintenance. The more private lands preserved as open space or habitat lands through local land use regulation or dedicated as habitat lands through mitigation, the less need for acquiring habitat within the MHP A through other sources. The plan recommends that local jurisdictions establish encroachment limits for habitat conservation on private lands within the MHPA, and establish other land use regulations and resource protection guidelines to help implement the MSCP. In this plan, two cases are analyzed to illustrate acquisition costs if high rates of conservation are required on private lands (Case A, low acquisition program) or if lower rates of conservation are required on private lands (Case B, high acquisition program). The two cases assume that all habitat acquisition will be accomplished by purchase, and none by alternative methods such as land exchanges. Case A (Low ACQuisition Program) Case B (High ACQuisition Program) Total Acquisition Costs $271 million $513 million Financing cost (interest) for local government $ 17 million $ 88 million Operation, maintenance & management (1st 30 yrs) $145 million $150 million -------- -------- Total 3o-yr program costs $433 million $751 million Federal and State. The combined federal and state share of the total program costs is estimated to be $153 million in Case A and $282 million in Case B. It has been assumed that the federal and state governments will together fund one-half of the habitat acquisition cost, based on the standard approach of federal and state funds matching local funding. Federal and state sources of funds are expected to include the federal Land and Water Conservation Trust Fund, Section 6 of the federal Endangered Species Act and state bond measures. Additionally, the federal and state governments will conserve and manage approximately 31,861 acres of habitat they currently own in the proposed preserve. ~. The local share of the 30-year program costs in 1994 dollars is estimated to be $165 million (38%) in Case A and $357 million (48%) in Case B, with the difference due to Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (311195) Page 11 additional habitat acquisition and the cost of debt financing. The local share may be fmanced through a variety of sources, any of which could be subject to voter approval. The costs range from $7 to $9 per household per year under Case A, and from $15 to $20 per household per year under Case B. Potential local sources of public financing include: Parcel tax/benefit assessment (Assembly Bill 2007) Habitat maintenance assessment district (Senate Bill 445) Mello-Roos community facilities district Ad valorem tax/general obligation bond program Annual fee on water or sewer rates Regionwide utility tax Sales tax As part of the MSCP, local jurisdictions and special districts will preserve and maintain the natural habitat they currently own in the MHPA, which amounts to approximately 39,875 acres. Most of these lands are already protected in open space preserves and passive parks. Private. Private projects are anticipated to acquire habitat inside the MHPA as off-site mitigation and to fund a portion of the operation and maintenance cost. The plan assumes that future development's impacts to habitat outside the MHP A will be mitigated through conservation of habitat inside the MHP A. For all private parcels containing at least some habitat inside the MHPA, the average land value is estimated to be $17,800 per acre, with a median value of $10,300 per acre. It is estimated that future private projects requiring off-site mitigation will purchase 10,000 acres of habitat at the median price of $10,300, at a total cost of $103 million. The MSCP Plan provides flexibility in how future development impacts are mitigated by each jurisdiction, and provides for options such as mitigation fees. Varying land use regulations and mitigation for future projects inside the MHPA also affect acquisition costs, as shown in Cases A and B. For habitat inside the MHPA, land use regulations are assumed to emphasize avoidance by limiting encroachment onto sensitive biological resources. For illustrative purposes, the encroachment allowed for private development inside the MHPA was based on a "base development area" of 40% (Case A) and 60% (Case B) of gross property area. That is, each property was assumed to have the opportunity to develop habitat as necessary to achieve this area of development. For each property, a minimum of 2 acres was also assumed to be available for developed uses. Any habitats impacted peyond the encroachment limitation are assumed to be replaced with habitat of equivalent acreage and value. Table 3-18 presents the two illustrative cases of preserve assembly based on low and high acquisition programs. The total amount of habitat acquired in Case B exceeds Case A by 16,500 acres. A case assuming a 20% base development area was also analyzed. In this case, the total acres of habitat conserved on-site (without compensation) would exceed the conservation goal for private habitat, though some public acquisition (2,300 acres) may be needed to improve connectivity and configuration. This case is a less conservative estimate of costs of the MSCP. Table 3.9 SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL ACTIONS FOR PRESERVE ASSEMBLY AND OPERATION Responsibility Acres of Habitat to Be Conserved in MHP A 1. Federal and State Governments a) Manage and maintain currently owned natura! habitat located in MHP A according to MSCP guidelines. b) Establish a long-term program to purchase privately owned habitat in MHP A. Manage and maintain natura! habitat acquired with federal or state funds. Alternatively, provide funding to participating local governments to acquire and maintain the equivalent amount of habitat in MHP A. 2. Local Governments a) Manage and maintain currently owned natural habitat located in MHP A according to MSCP guidelines. b) Acquire privately owned habitat in MHP A by purchase or by other non-financial methods such as land exchanges and transfers of development rights. Manage and maintain natura! habitat acquired under the local program. c) Assure conservation of natura! habitat on privately owned land in accordance with local land use regulation, environmental review, and resource protection guidelines. 3. Private Landowners a) Conserve on-site natura! habitat currently in private ownership in accordance with local land use regulation, environmental review, and resource protection guidelines. Maintain habitat in accordance with MSCP guidelines. b) Provide off-site mitigation through purchase of privately owned habitat inside MHPA. for impact to habitat outside MHPA, in accordance with resource protection guidelines. Total to Be Conserved in MHP A 31,860 acres 11,300 - 19,100 acres 39,870 acres 2,700 - 11,400 acres See below. 52,100 - 68,600 acres 10,000 acres 164,326 acres Source: Onaka Planning & Economics; Tables 3-11 and 3-13 through 3-16. Figures have been rounded except for tola! to be conserved in MHP A. 12 J J092JOOO.Plan Table 3-18 ILLUSTRATIVE CASES OF PRESERVE ASSEMBLY BASED ON LOW AND HIGH ACQUISITION PROGRAMS Source Case A Low Acquisition Program (acres) Case B High Acquisition Program (acres) Federal and State Governments . Maintain currently owned habitat I . Acquire additional habitat 31,860 11,300 31,860 19,100 Local Governments . Maintain currently owned habitat 2 . Acquire additional habitat 39,870 2,700 39,870 11 ,400 Private Landowners . Conserve currently owned habitat located in Pending private projects 3 Future private projects which impact habitat inside the MHPA 4 . Net off-site mitigation obligation by all private projects (excluding on-site conservation) 5 31,100 31,100 37,500 21,000 10,000 10,000 164,330 164,330 Total habitat in preserve Acquisition Summary Total habitat acres acquired by all sources 6 Total acres of parcels acquired 7 Total acquisition cost ($ Million) 8 24,000 24,800 $271 M 40,500 42,500 $513 M Source: Onaka Planning & Economics: 1994 MSCP GIS data base (Ogden, SourcePoint). Figures have been rounded. 1 Table 3.11. 2 Table3.l3. 3 Table 3.14. Low estimate is used in both cases. 4 Estimaled habitat conservation by fUlure projeclS which impacl habital inside lhe MHP A. See Table 3.15 and discussion in texL 5 See Section 3.3.5. 6 Total privately owned habilat acquired by federal, state, and local govemmculS and private projcclS which impact habilal oUlSide lhe MHP A. 7 Total acres of private parcels which conlain the habilal noted (see teXI for a discussion of potential acquisition). 8 In 1994 dollars. J J092JOOO.P/an 13 Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (3/1/95) Page 14 Operation. Maintenance and Management Costs. The average cost of preserve operation and maintenance is estimated to be $36.50 per acre per year, or $6 million per year for a 164,300- acre preserve. Program management and administration are estimated to cost $7.50 per acre per year, or $1.2 million per year for the preserve, plus an additional amount for preparing planning documents such as subarea plans. Total costs of operation, maintenance and management are approximately $45 per acre per year. 3.4 Implementation Process and Structure Implementation of the MSCP will occur through land acquisition by the federal, state and local governments and through land use review and approval actions of the local jurisdictions. Federal, state and local commitments of publicly-owned lands to the MHPA will also serve to build the preserve system. Therefore, the proposed implementation structure for the MSCP relies on existing institutions to implement the MSCP, primarily the eleven cities and the County. These jurisdictions will use the MSCP Plan as a framework or subregional plan to guide the preparation of subarea plans and development project plans, which are the basic building blocks of MSCP implementation. The MSCP will be incrementally implemented by: a) review of projects for consistency with "hard line" preserves and recommendations of the MSCP, or; b) through the preparation or approval of subarea plans by local jurisdictions and subsequent review of projects. This process maintains local jurisdiction flexibility. Regardless of the process chosen, the end result will be an approved "hard line" preserve before taking of the habitat and species may proceed. This plan proposes a new process for implementing the state and federal Endangered Species Acts (ESA) in that local jurisdictions will obtain authorizations from the state and federal governments to take listed species, and the jurisdictions will then exercise their land use review and approval powers in accordance with the MSCP Plan and each jurisdiction's implementing agreement with the wildlife agencies. Each jurisdiction will enter into an implementing agreement with USFWS and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) to obtain permits to take listed species, to obtain pre-listing agreements and assurances for unlisted species, and to specifically outline the responsibility of each jurisdiction and the agencies in implementing the MSCP. The 5 % limit on interim take of coastal sage scrub, imposed as part of the state's NCCP program, will be replaced by the conditions of each jurisdiction's implementing agreement. The MSCP approval and implementation process is summarized in Table 3-21. Land Use Responsibilities of Local Jurisdictions. Each local government is expected to adopt the final configuration of the proposed MHPA within its jurisdiction and adopt the recommendations of the MSCP Plan through amendment of its General Plan or other applicable plans. Zoning would be retained or properties rewned, as needed, and wning regulations amended to reflect the MHPA and to achieve consistency with the MSCP Plan. The MSCP guidelines for compatible land uses in and adjacent to the MHP A are also expected to be incorporated into the General Plan, zoning regulations, and approval process for projects, Table 3-21 MSCP APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS I. Local jurisdictions requesting take authorizations submit draft MSCP Plan to wildlife agencies. 2 . Wildlife agencies review plan within 90 days. 3. Local jurisdictions and wildlife agencies agree on contents of final MSCP Plan. 4. Local jurisdictions adopt MSCP; jurisdictions and wildlife agencies certify CEQAlNEPA documents. 5. Local jurisdictions and wildlife agencies sign implementing agreements. a. Agreements convey take authorizations to local jurisdktions. b. Local jurisdictions incorporate MSCP Plan into general plans and, if necessary, zoning ordinances. c. Local jurisdictions apply protection to habitats covered by MSCP Plan. 6. Local jurisdictions participate in a subregional or regional open space acquisition program. 7. Local jurisdictions implement MSCP Plan incrementally through local project review and approval process. a. Local jurisdictions prepare subarea plans if needed. b. Applicants prepare project plans and local jurisdictions process project plans. 8. Local jurisdictions certify projects in compliance with MSCP. 9. Wildlife agencies review subarea plan during 30-day comment period. 10. Wildlife agencies issue letter of concurrence on subarea plan. For project plans, if no comment or letter of concurrence is received from wildlife agencies, local jurisdictions may issue permits. II. Local jurisdictions report fmal project or subarea plan impacts to entity responsible for regional monitoring. Jurisdictions monitor permit compliance. See also Section 3.3.4 for a discussion of planning and adrninislTative actions by local jurisdictions. 15 110921000 Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (3/1/95) Page 16 including adoption of appropriate mitigation guidelines. Procedures and regulations for interim controls are also necessary to address activities that would potentially impact sensitive habitats. The current method of individual wildlife agency review of public and private projects will be streamlined by the fact that take authorizations will be issued in advance to the local jurisdictions through the signing of implementing agreements. Plan Monitorin~. Monitoring of MSCP Plan implementation involves two separate components: a) annual accounting of the amount, type and location of habitat conserved and destroyed (taken), and; b) biological monitoring by surveys and other data collection to assess the success of the preserve system in conserving plant and animal species, with reporting expected every three years. Institutional Structure. Local jurisdictions are currently discussing a local structure to coordinate plan implementation. Tasks which must be fulfilled by the responsible jurisdictions or other entity, or through shared responsibility, include: A. Fund raisin~ & acquisition (fund acquisition, establish mitigation banks) B. Plan coordination (maintain data base, coordinate with other regional habitat plans, monitor preserve system implementation, conduct public outreach) C. Preserve management (prepare management plans, manage preserve areas, conduct biological monitoring, oversee restoration or revegetation) The local jurisdictions should select the groups and agencies who will provide coordination and implementation during the MSCP Plan adoption process. Though establishment of a conservancy to perform acquisition or management is being considered, the creation of a new Joint Powers Agency (JPA) is not being recommended. 4. COMPATIBLE USES AND PRESERVE MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES The purpose of the proposed MSCP preserve system is to conserve biological diversity and maximize preservation of target species, while providing open space for public recreation and other land uses, as appropriate. A general land use compatibility chart is provided in Table 4-1. Uses are categorized as either compatible, conditionally compatible or incompatible with preserve, linkage or buffer areas. Land uses are considered conditionally compatible where impacts are reduced or eliminated by specific activity restrictions, design, or management practices. Core areas and linkages within the preserve system are to be managed primarily for biological resources. Buffers may be inside or outside the preserve, depending on ownership and land use, and would be managed for potential indirect impacts on the adjacent preserve. Buffers may be in private or public ownership. Buffers should generally be maintained at least 200-600 feet from the borders of the preserve, with buffer width dependent on the sensitivity to disturbance Table 4-1 GENERAL COMPATIBILITY OF LAND USES AND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIn WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO PRESERVESl,2 Land Use Core Preserve Linkage Buffer Active Recreation I I CC Passive Recreation CC CC CC Agriculture I CC CC Grazing CC CC CC Low Density Residential3 CC CC CC High Density Residential3 I I I Commercial I I CC Indusnial I I CC Utilities CC CC CC Landfills I I CC Water Facilities CC CC CC Transportation I I CC Mineral Extraction I I CC Active Military Use I I CC Worker Camps I I CC 1 CC = Conditionally Compatible Use, some restrictions consistent with biological goals; however, the level of intenSity and cumulative impacts should be addressed. I = Incompatible Use 2 Site. specific exceptions to compatibility designations may exist within any land use category; refer 10 text for specific exceptions. 3Low Density Residential = S I dwelling unit per acre High Density Residential = > I dwelling unit per acre 17 Il092JOOO.PJan Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (3/1/95) Page 18 of the species being protected, the type of vegetation within the buffer, topography, and the type and intensity of adjacent human activity. Zoning and development guidelines will be the best means of achieving biologically compatible uses in these areas. Linkages connect preserve areas and allow for wildlife movement, recruitment and colonization. Linkages are crucial to the functioning of the preserve system, particularly for large mammal movement and for sustaining certain sensitive species populations. Greater use restrictions and more intensive management practices are expected in narrow linkages and those constrained by development. Guidelines for Preserve Land Uses. The MSCP Plan and the MSCP Resource Document provide guidelines and suggestions on how to reduce impacts of several land uses including recreation, agriculture, different forms of development, mineral extraction and itinerant worker camps. It is assumed that planned and current park uses will continue and, in existing recreational areas, existing ownership and management will be maintained. Both passive and active recreational activities are anticipated within and adjacent to the preserve. Guidelines for Preserve Management Activities. The MSCP Plan provides guidelines for fire management; grazing; restoration of vegetation; hydrology; insects and disease; fencing, signage and lighting; predator and exotic species control and other factors. The plan requires that long- term preserve management plans be prepared to address habitat management and land use issues. These preserve management plans should be reviewed and approved by the USFWS and CDFG, and should be annually reviewed and updated by the responsible local jurisdiction. Each plan should identify operational needs, issues, problems and strategies for a five-year period. Preserve management plans can be prepared for portions of the MHPA (such as a single jurisdiction), though coordination is needed to ensure that the overall needs of species and habitats are met on a rangewide basis. 5. ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS An economic impact analysis is a comparison of an economy under different sets of assumptions. For the MSCP Plan, Case A (the low acquisition program discussed in Section 3.3) and Case B (the high acquisition program) are each compared to the No Preserve alternative. The No Preserve Alternative would occur if the MSCP Plan is not adopted and conservation of the region's native biological resourceS would result entirely from compliance with existing federal, state and local laws, including the Special Rule (developed under Section 4(d) of the federal Endangered Species Act) to conserve the California gnatcatcher and coastal sage scrub. The economic impact analysis shows that a multiple habitat preservation program (either Case A or B) will ensure the region's economy against large and persistent developments disruptions. Under the No Preserve alternative, the region will continue to be threatened by and experience large and persistent development disruptions, which will be costly in terms of fewer jobs and less income for residents. Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (3/1/95) Page 19 Either Case A (low acquisition program) or Case B (high acquisition program) would provide the region with an additional 5,000 jobs, with over 46% of those being in the construction industry. These additional jobs would increase personal income in the region by $180.0 to 184.8 million (in the year 2010). Over the first 15 years of the program, the cumulative value to the region, measured by annual net increase in aggregate personal income, would be $1.2 to $1.3 billion. The estimated increase in household income is $78 per year, exceeding the estimated cost impact of$7 to $9 (Case A) or $15 to $20 (Case B) per household per year, associated with public financing of the two alternative acquisition programs. The region's opportunity for economic growth hinges on new public and private investment in capital and technology. In the absence of a regional habitat conservation plan, businesses and investors probably would view San Diego as a risky destination for investment dollars, given unresolved environmental conflicts and the prospect of regulations restricting development each time another species is listed. The median price of a new house in the San Diego region would also be higher without a habitat conservation program. Under the No Preserve alternative, nearly 6,000 additional households would no longer meet the minimum income requirements to purchase a home with the median price (nearly six times the number of households affected by Cases A or B). ImDacts on Planned Land Use Implementation of the MSCP would place into conservation some lands that are designated for potential active use by general and community plans, including potentially 37,550 housing units and employment uses for 32,260 persons within the MHP A. Some of this planned development could take place inside the MHP A or some outside. It is highly unlikely that development would be eliminated from the region. Publicly Owned Lands. Approximately 27% of 74,781 acres of publicly owned habitat in the MHPA (20,228 acres) have general plan designations for active use. If low density residential uses are excluded, public lands designated for active uses total nearly 9,200 acres. This plan assumes that 4% (3,045 acres) of the publicly owned habitat in the MHPA would be lost to development and approximately 96% would be conserved. In order to limit the loss to this amount, it is anticipated that only essential public facilities would be constructed. Privately Owned Lands. Nearly two-thirds of the privately owned habitat inside the MHPA have general or community plan designations for active use. Inside the MHP A, about a third of privately owned habitat lands are currently designated by local general or community plans as preserves and open space, and nearly half are designated for low density residential uses (1 unit per 20 acres to 1 unit per acre). About 10% are designated for urban uses. According to this plan, approximately 85% of the 109,018 acres of privately owned habitat in the MHPA would be conserved, and 15% (16,428 acres) could be lost to private development. The total number of housing units that could be built in the MHP A through buildout, as envisioned by current land use plans, is 37,550 units; 31,970 of these are shown on lands to be conserved. Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (3/1/95) Page 20 6.0 STATEMENT OF ASSURANCES AND IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT Assurances. A goal of the MSCP is to achieve certainty in the private and public sector development process while conserving our region's biodiversity. The following are taken from a list of assurances developed with the other two habitat conservation planning programs in the County and with the wildlife agencies. The statement of assurances outlines the ~or policies and procedures upon which implementation of the MSCP can depend. 1. A list of species adequately protected by the MSCP Plan and for which take authorizations can be granted (Covered Species List) will be agreed to by USFWS and CDFG. The wildlife agencies will not require the commitment of additional land or financial compensation beyond the level agreed to in the plan, provided the plan is properly functioning and in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. 2. The wildlife agencies will issue take authorizations (permits) and other assurances for listed and unlisted species; the permits will cover significant time periods to provide predictability to public facility and private project development. 3. If additional species are listed in the future, take authorizations will be expedited for species on the Covered Species List. 4. The wildlife agencies agree to phased implementation if interim protection of habitat is provided by jurisdictions and monitoring demonstrates compliance with the MSCP Plan and implementing agreements. 5. Jurisdictions will ensure implementation through local land use plans and local codes and ordinances, conserving public lands as identified in the MSCP Plan and ensuring exactions and mitigation for private and public projects. 6. Federal and state land contributions shall focus on the implementation of the MSCP Plan. 7. Subregional plans shall incorporate a uniform severability guarantee that protects local jurisdictions and property owners from noncompliance by another jurisdiction or owner. Implementin~ A~reement. The implementing agreement is the vehicle by which USFWS and CDFG will issue permits to take species ("take authorizations") and to provide pre-listing agreements and assurances for unlisted species. The implementing agreement will be a binding contract between an individual jurisdiction and the USFWS and CDFG, and will be an agreement on specific actions between the parties to implement the MSCP. These actions would include but not be limited to: the process by which local land use authority will be exercised to create the preserve system through land use policies, project approvals and interim controls; the Executive Summary of Draft MSCP Plan (3/1195) Page 21 monitoring of conservation and take of species; preparation of subarea plans, if needed; coordination with neighboring jurisdictions; participation in regional financing; and management and maintenance of habitat. A model implementing agreement is provided in the MSCP Plan to serve as a template for local jurisdictions in preparation of specific agreements. 7. PLANNING PROCESS AND PARTICIPANTS The MSCP began in July, 1991, with the formation of the MSCP Working Group, comprised of state and federal wildlife agencies, local jurisdictions, special purpose agencies, and representatives of development interests and environmental groups. In addition, an Implementation Strategy subcommittee was formed to provide review and expertise to development of the finance and acquisition plan and overall implementation strategy. This latter committee joined with staff from the North County MHCP and the County's regional habitat conservation program to propose implementation measures for the entire County. The Working Group and subcommittee have met at least monthly throughout much of the course of the development of this plan. The Working Group addressed such topics as mitigation, preserve design, subarea planning, equity, coordination of interim permit activities, and plan implementation through the review and discussion of 12 Issue Papers. Additionally, four fmance papers were developed for input to the acquisition and financing strategy. A Resolution of Intention (ROI) was developed in 1993 for approval by the twelve local jurisdictions within the study area. The ROI was prepared to confirm the voluntary commitment by local jurisdictions to participate in the development of the MSCP Plan by identifying a schedule and responsibilities. The ROI was approved by 10 local cities in the study area. RelationshiD to Other Planning Efforts. In addition to the MSCP, two other subregional habitat planning efforts are underway in the San Diego region: 1) the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) covering the nine jurisdictions in the northwest part of the County (managed by Sandag), and; 2) the County of San Diego Multiple Habitat Conservation and Open Space Program for the unincorporated lands east of the MSCP and MHCP. Regular coordinating meetings have occurred with agency, local jurisdiction, developer and environmental interests. In 1994, the MSCP Policy Committee of elected officials, originally formed to address preserve boundary and fmancing issues for the MSCP, was expanded to include elected officials from the MHCP and, therefore, cover all three programs. The MSCP Plan is a Habitat Conservation Plan (RCP) as envisioned in Section lO(a) of the federal Endangered Species Act. The MSCP is also prepared as a Natural Community Conservation Plan in accordance with California law. Based on the definitions in the .Southem California Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP Draft Process Guidelines (July 1, 1993),. the MSCP is an Ongoing Multi-Species Plan and may be a=pted as an NCCP. This relationship was established by the signing of an Ongoing Multi-Species Planning Agreement in July 1993.