Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUpdate Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habiat Conservation Plan .S -COI CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jeff Winklepleck,Parks and Recreation Planning Manager DATE: January 11, 2001 SUBJECT: Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/ Natural Communities Conservation Plan Update Attached is a copy of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan (MSHCP/NCCP) update which was presented on December 8, 2000 to the CVAG Technical Advisory Committee. The update identifies the MSHCP/NCCP schedule as well as identifying implementation alternatives and associated costs. According to the schedule,consensus of the jurisdictions will be sought in February on the preferred alternative for the conservation plan and implementation methods. Pages 7 through 9 of the handout show the alternatives, costs and potential scenarios with local, state and federal participation. /attachments CITY COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED RECEIVED MEETING DATE ,r)I - ► - AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: VERIFIED BY: �(2 ( AA4 Original on File with City Clerk 's Office , , Separate Attachment Item 5 CVAG TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FRIDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2000 10:00 A.M. MSHCP/NCCP Schedule August, 2000 > Administrative Review Draft Transmitted to Agencies September 1, 2000 • 24 month period for completing MSHCP, permit issuance, etc. commences January, 20001 • Scientific Review Panel • Complete agreements with RCFCWCD, DWA, CVWD, MWD re: their coverage under and contributions to the MSHCP February, 2001 ➢ Achieve consensus among jurisdictions on Preferred Alternative for conservation plan and implementation methods March, 2001 • Revised draft of MSHCP/NCCP prepared • Complete screen-check DEIR/EIS prepared May, 2001 Release public review draft MSHCP/NCCP and DEIR./EIS November, 2001 > Submit Draft plan, DEIR/EIS, Implementing Agreement, permit applications to USFWS and CDFG Natural Communities Addressed in the MSHCP Active Desert Dunes Stabilized and Partially Stabilized Desert Dunes Active Desert Sand Fields Ephemeral Desert Sand Fields Stabilized and Partially Stabilized Desert Sand Fields Mesquite Hummocks Mesquite Bosque Sonoran Creosote Bush Scrub Sonoran Mixed Woody and Succulent Scrub Mojave Mixed Woody Scrub Desert Saltbush Scrub Desert Sink Scrub Southern Arroyo Willow Riparian Forest Sonoran Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Forest Southern Sycamore-Alder Riparian Woodland Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh Cismontane Alkali Marsh Desert Dry Wash Woodland Desert Fan Palm Oasis Woodland Arrowweed Scrub Semi-desert Chaparral Chamise Chaparral Redshank Chaparral Peninsular Juniper Woodland and Scrub Mojavean Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Species Proposed for Coverage Peninsular bighorn sheep, Ovis canadensis cremnobates (FE/ST) Palm Springs (round-tailed) ground squirrel, Spermophilus tereticaudus chlorus' Palm Springs pocket mouse, Perognathus longimembris bangsi' Southern yellow bat, Lasiurus ega or xanthinus' Desert tortoise,Xerobates or Gopherus agassizii (FT/ST) Arroyo toad, Bufo microscaphus californicus (FE/SC) Desert slender salamander, Batrachoseps aridus (FE/SE) Flat-tailed horned lizard, Phrynosoma mcallii (FPE) Desert pupfish, Cyprinodon macularius (FE/SE) Yuma clapper rail, Rallus longirostris yumanensis (FE/ST) California black rail, Laterallus jamaicensis (ST) Burrowing owl, Speotyto cunicularia (SC) Least Bell's vireo, Vireo bellii pusillus (FE/SE) Yellow warbler, Dendroica petechia brewsteri (SC) Yellow-breasted chat, Icteria virens (SC) Southwestern willow flycatcher, Empidonax traillii extimus (SE/FE) Summer tanager, Piranga rubra' Gray vireo, Vireo vicinior (SC) Le Conte's thrasher, Toxostoma lecontei (SC) Crissal thrasher, Toxostoma crissale (SC) Coachella giant sand treader cricket, Macrobaenetes valgum' Coachella Valley Jerusalem cricket,Stenopelmatus cahuilaensisl Coachella Valley grasshopper, Spaniacris deserticolat Casey's June beetle, Dinacoma caseyi' Dark aurora blue butterfly, Euphilotes enoptes cryptorufes' Coachella Valley milk-vetch,Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae (FE) Triple ribbed milk-vetch, Astragalus tricarinatus(FE) Mecca aster,Xylorhiza cognata' Little San Bernardino Mountains Gilia, Gilia maculata (FC) Orocopia sage, Salvia greatael Key: FE = Federal Endangered FT = Federal Threatened FPE = Proposed for Federal Endangered listing FC = Candidate for federal listing, sufficient information exists to support a proposal to list SE = State Endangered ST = State Threatened SC = Species of Special Concern (a state list of species that are at risk due to habitat modification or destruction, over-collecting, disease, or other threats) Existing Land Uses Use Total Acres °A) of Plan area Urban 67,364 5.90 Rural, Rural Residential 12,516 1.10 Agriculture 84,852 7.50 Lake (includes the Salton Sea) 43,460 3.80 Reservoir 816 0.07 Wind Energy Uses 4,356 0.40 Quarry 928 0.09 Landfill 412 0.04 Public and Private Non-Conservation Lands 2 320,566 28.20 Open Space - Public/Private Conservation Lands 600,991 52.90 TOTAL AREA COVERED BY PLAN 1,136,261 100.00 Indian Reservation Lands -Not a Part 69,578 TOTAL ALL ACRES IN PLAN AREA 1,205,839 General Plan Land Use Designations: Conservation Alternative 2 Use Total % of % of Acres Conservation Projected Areas Future Land Uses Lands Designated as Open Space Watercourse, Water Resource 8,552 1.3 16.5 Open Space and Vacant Land Private Land - Open Space& Conservation 6,987 1.0 35.6 Other Vacant Private Land 8,568 1.3 60.8 Desert Areas, ldu/10 acres 73,004 10.9 66.5 Mountainous Areas, 1 du/lo acres 52.298 7_8 73.2 Subtotal-Private Open Space 149,409 22.3 55.3 Public Land -Open Space - Conservation 459,122 68.4 Public Land - Open Space -Non-conservation 10.010 1_5 Subtotal-Public Open Space -169.13 2 69.9 77.7 Lands Designated Residential: Minimum Lot Size 2.5 - 10 acres Very Low Density (3B), 2.5-5 acre min. 2,951 0.4 46.8 Very Low Density (4), 5 acres and larger 1,522 0.2 28.9 Subtotal 4,473 0.66 38.7 Lands Designated Residential: Minimum Lot Size 1.25 -2.5 acres Very Low Density (3A-SV), 1.25-2.55 acre min. 5,873 0.9 41.6 Lands Designated Residential (Minimum Lot Size < 1.25 acres), Commercial, Industrial, Public Facilities Very Low Density (3A), 0.5-2.5 acre min. 3,682 0.6 40.3 Very Low Density Residential 0-2 du/acre 18,916 2.8 62.3 Low Density Residential, 3-6 du/acre 13,688 2.0 18.7 Medium Density Residential, 7-15 du/acre 702 0.1 5.3 High Density Residential, 16-21 du/acre 1 0.001 0.06 Very High Density Residential, 22+ du/acre 42 0.006 5.4 Tourist-Resort/Hotel 24 0.004 2.6 Parks, Golf Courses, Schools, etc. 1,408 0.21 15.2 General and Neighborhood Commercial 863 0.13 6.4 Public Facility, Gov't Buildings, Health Care, etc. 291 0.04 7.1 Light and Heavy Industrial 609 0.09 4.9 Transportation, Utilities 65 0.009 1.1 Subtotal -10,291 6.3 23.0 Lands Designated for Agriculture 2,102 0.31 3.5 TOTAL 671,280 100.0 59.1 General Plan Land Use Designations: Conservation Alternative 3 Use Total % of % of Acres Conservation Projected Areas Future Land Uses Lands Designated as Open Space l4,l34 l.9 25.7 Watercourse, Water Resource Open Space and Vacant Land 7 956 1 0 40.5 Private Land -Open Space & Conservation 10,577, 1 0 05 Other Vacant Private Land 0,577 12.314 75.082.7 Desert Areas, l du/l0 acres 990,823 2_3 82.7 Mountainous Areas, 1 du/lo acres 21 3 79.8 Subtotal-Private Open Space 180.470 2� 6 Public Land - Open Space - Conservation 468.849 Public Land -Open Space -Non-conservation 10.590 1_46� 0 7� Subtotal-Public Open Space 479.439 Lands Designated Residential: Minimum Lot Size 2.5 - 10 acres 55.2 Very Low Density(3B), 2.5-5 acre min. 3,482 0.47 39.7 3 0.28 . Very Low Density(4), 5 acres and larger 2 5 09 093 0 7 7 Subtotal Lands Designated Residential: Minimum Lot Size 1.25 - 2.5 acres 1 5 gp 0 Very Low Density (3A-SV), 1.25-2.55 acre min. 11,286 Lands Designated Residential (Minimum Lot Size < 1.25 acres), Commercial, Industrial, Public Facilities Very Low Density (3A), 0.5-2.5 acre min. 4,580 1 0.6 2 6 50 50.. Very Low Density Residential 0-2 du/acre 20,734 2 8 68 3 3 Low Density Residential, 3-6 du/acre 20,963 2,500 0.34 19.0 Medium Density Residential, 7-15 du/acre 00 0.0135.8 High Density Residential, 16-21 du/acre 59 .8 Very High Density Residential, 22+ du/acre 356 0.0080.05 37.1 Tourist-Resort/Hotel 0.27 391 Parks, Golf Courses, Schools, etc. 2,0142,274 21.7. General and Neighborhood Commercial0.05 0.31 8.9 8 Public Facility, Gov't Buildings, Health Care, etc. 367 0 51 30.1 Light and Heavy Industrial 3,775 Transportation, Utilities 263 0.04 4_5 57,977 7.9 33.1 Subtotal Lands Designated for Agriculture 2,679 0.4 4.4 TOTAL 737,517 100.0 64.9 Three Scenarios for Local, State, and Federal Shares of Acquisitions Local Share State and Federal Share Acres Projected Acres Projected Purchase Purchase Price Price' Scenario 1, 50,501 $ 69,746,634 146,413 $102,904,125 Conservation Alternative 2 Scenario 1, 84,336.5 5331,462,63-4 163,941.5 $145,275,352 Conservation Alternative 3 Scenario 2, 65,638 $ 57,550,253 131,276 $115,100,536 Conservation Alternative 2 Scenario 2, 82,759 S158,912,662 165,518 $317,825,324 Conservation Alternative 3 Scenario 3, 98,457 $ 86,325,398 98,457 $ 86,325,398 Conservation Alternative 2 Scenario 3, 124,139 S238,368,993 124,139 3238,368,993 Conservation Alternative 3 This is not a commitment of either state or federal dollars. It is a commitment that the state and federal governments would be responsible for conserving the indicated number of acres. Scenario 1 assumes that: 1. State and federal contributions will come primarily in the form of additional acquisitions in areas where state and federal agencies have past or current acquisition programs and are the primary land managers. In these areas, it is assumed that the state and federal agencies will acquire 90% of the land and local entities 10%. 2. In areas where local, state, and federal acquisition partnerships are already in effect, such as in the sand source area for the CVFTL Preserve, these will continue. The relative shares of acquisition responsibility will be 50% for the state and federal governments combined and 50% for the local share. 3. In areas where the state and federal governments do not have a significant presence, the local share will be 90% and the state and federal share 10%. Scenario 2 assumes that the local, state and federal shares of acquisition are determined without reference to geographic areas, and the state, federal, and local shares are one- third each. Scenario 3 assumes that the state and federal share combined and the local shares shall each be one-half. Potential Implementation Funding Sources Local Share. > Funding would come in part from a mitigation fee or a requirement for habitat replacement. The mitigation fee could be either a standardized fee of so many dollars per acre, or a variable fee based on the relative level of impact. > Other local funding sources could include landfill tipping fees, a portion of sales tax revenues if a new measure (perhaps tied to a sales tax increase for transportation) were approved by voters, or another broadly distributed funding source, and contributions. > Acquisitions involving local jurisdictions and nonprofit organizations - and not including state and federal funds - are in excess of 30,000 acres since 1986. > The size of a mitigation fee will depend on the total funding needed for the Plan, the local share of that, and how much of the local share needs to be met through a mitigation fee (as opposed to tipping fees, sales tax revenue or other local sources). It is instructive to note that the CVFTL mitigation fee collections ($600/acre) averaged $463,890 per year between 1989 and 1998. The single year high was $767.506. State Share. > Funding could come from a variety of sources, including the Wildlife Conservation Board, state bond funds appropriated to the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy, appropriations from the legislature, and state grant programs. > In the past, the Wildlife Conservation Board has acquired more than 26.000 acres in the Santa Rosa Mountains, and additional lands in the Fringe-toed Lizard Preserve. > The 1988 park and open space bond measure provided $19 million for acquisition for the Indian Canyons Heritage Park. The Conservancy received $5 million from Proposition 12, passed in March, 2000. Additional Proposition 12 funds. as well as Proposition 13, a state water bond measure also passed in March, 2000, may be available through grants and other state agencies. > In the last six years, state grants have provided $1,540,000 in acquisition funds. Federal Share. > The primary federal sources of funding are the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and Section 6 Cooperative Endangered Species Act Fund. > The former has provided more than $14 million to BLM since 1990 for acquisitions in the Santa Rosa Mountains National Scenic Area, Morongo Canyon Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and Dos Palmas Area of Critical Environmental Concern. > Recently, $1.5 million in Section 6 money was made available through USFWS for acquisition adjacent to the Fringe-toed Lizard Preserve. Additional funds may be available this year. Other federal acquisition sources include land exchanges and federal grants. Land exchanges have resulted in acquisition of thousands of acres of habitat in the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains and in the Fringe-toed Lizard Preserve. While the available land base has been significantly reduced by past exchanges, BLM is pursuing additional exchanges specifically to help implement the Plan. Background on Administrative Review Draft of MSHCP/NCCP Current Situation The Administrative Review Draft (Admin Draft) of the MSHCP/NCCP is currently being Leviewed by those agencies that are expected to be signatories to the Plan, i.e.. cities, the County, CDFG, USFWS, special districts, BLM, USFS, and the National Park Service. The recent MOU on the CVFTL issue calls for a 24-month timeline, which began September 1, 2000, to complete the Plan and obtain permits.preferred To adh re to alternatiis timeline, we need to get consensus among these agencies on a the conservation plan itself and the implementation and funding mechanisms within the next 5 months so that a Public Review Draft and a Draft EIR/EIS can be released in May, 2001. Thus, timely responses to the Admin Draft are essential. To further the dialogue on the Admin Draft, this study session is being held for the TAC; a similar one will be conducted with the Executive Committee. Conservation Alternatives The Admin Draft presents 3 conservation alternatives: 1. Alternative 1: Public lands and private conservation lands only alternative. This alternative includes all local, state, and federal agency lands in the Plan area with sufficient conservation management that have habitat for the species included in the Plan or have one of the natural communities included in the Plan. This alternative also includes private conservation lands that have habitat for the species included in the Plan or have one of the natural communities included in the Plan. (A map of these areas will be presented at the study session.) No new areas would be acquired for Plan purposes. The local jurisdictions would contribute to the management of the existing conservation areas as mitigation for the habitat loss allowed under the Plan. Some of the areas are well protected, but habitat fragmentation is a problem in other areas where considerable private lands still exist. On the valley floor, the only significant conservation areas would be the three existing Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard preserves and Dos Palmas ACEC. The sand sources for the fringe-toed lizard preserves are not adequately protected, and, collectively, the valley floor preserves do not provide adequate habitat for most of the species proposed for coverage. It is not anticipated that this alternative would provide incidental take permits for most (or any) species. 2. Alternative 2: Core Habitat, Essential Ecological Processes, and Linkages. This alternative was developed by the Scientific Advisory Committee. This alternative would establish conservation areas that protect core habitat for the species and natural those communities included in the Plan, ecological processes necessary to areas, and linkages. The conservation areas include the Alternative 1 lands as well as private lands essential for core habitat, ecological processes, and li kageand .p New management prescriptions are proposed for the existing public ate conservation lands where needed, and the private lands would be protected through acquisition, general plan policies, ordinances, and planning tools. (A map of these areas will be presented at the study session.) This alternative adds to the public and private conservation lands described in the previous alternative by protecting private lands in the mountains necessary to avoid habitat fragmentation, protect essential ecological processes, and maintain linkages. On the valley floor, this alternative builds on the existing Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard preserves and Dos Palmas ACEC by adding adjacent habitat for the species and natural communities included in the Plan, protecting the essential ecological processes that maintain the habitat areas, and protecting linkages between the major Creek area mountainse east of High way In 621s alternative creates new preserve areas in the Snow along Mission Creek and Morongo Wash, and at the Whitewater River delta at the northwest end of the Salton Sea. 3. Alternative 3: Expanded Conservation Alternative. This alternative expands Alternative 2 by including the high conservation acreage alternative areas and additional areas that were recommended for further consideration by USFWS and CDFG. (A map of these areas will be presented at the study session.) A hydrological study is currently in progress to provide additional information that will be useful in evaluating whether conservation of some of the areas proposed for consideration by USFWS and CDFG is necessary. Overall, Alternative 3 would more than double the cost of implementing the conservation Plan and would seriously constrain development. The focal point for discussion of th Alternative!on 2 orternatives Alterticrtcls veyV 3 aort lta e preferred alternative should be. Should it be modification of one of these? Implementation Alternatives Three alternative approaches to implementation are discussed in the Admin Draft. 1. Tool Box Approach to Implementation. The Tool Box approach derives its name from the use of a variety of mechanisms or tools to achieve the protection of the conservation areas as delineated in Section 4'miri mitigation for development outside he main components of this approach are the conservation program, requiredg the conservation areas, restrictions on development within the conservation areas, and permitted uses within the conservation areas. Private lands within the conservation areas would be conserved through a variety of tools, including acquisition, conservation banking, flood management policies, compatible uses, and planning mechanisms such as existing zoning restrictions and development standards, environmental constraints sheets, density transfer, and cluster development. Acquisition from willing sellers will be the single most important tool to ensure the protection of the conservation areas. A local, state, and federal funding partnership will implement the acquisition program. Acquisition priorities will be defined and updated by the Plan Implementation Committee. The relative share of funding contributed by the federal, state, and local governments toward acquisition has not yet been determined. Local, state, and federal acquisition partners will coordinate their efforts to obtain maximum benefit from each funding source. In addition to that provided through development mitigation requirements, local funding can come from a combination of potential sources, including taxes (sales, transient occupancy, utility), tipping fees, benefit assessments, or general obligation bonds. Development outside of conservation areas would rthreat threatened,ive incidental endangered species. to develop regardless of the presence of sensitive, Except in limited instances required by the Plan for a few species about which more information needs to be generated through Plan implementation, development outside of the conservation areas will not be required to conduct biological surveys for the species covered by the Plan. The environmental document for a project outside a conservation area may utilize information from the Plan and its EIR/EIS to identify potential impacts of the project on species and natural communities. Compliance with the Plan will constitute adequate mitigation for project impacts. For most projects this would consist of paying a mitigation fee.within thec conservation areas inave the lieu of alternative of providing replacement habitat paying a fee. Protection of the conservation areas is the heart of the Plan and the basis for the issuance of incidental take permits for development outside the conservation areas. The Plan must provide adequate certainty that the conservation areas will be protected. In the absence of sufficient funds to acquire all the private land within the conservation areas before development is proposed on any of those parcels, the Plan must provide a means to limit development in conservation areas to that which is consistent with the Plan's conservation objectives. These objectives include protecting a minimum of 90% of the habitat in the conservation areas for each of the species and natural communities included in the Plan, maintaining the viability of essential ecological processes, and maintaining the viability of linkages between conservation areas. In assessing measures to provide this protection, the reviewer should consider the extent of lands within the conservation areas already protected by public agencies and private conservation organizations, the extent of lands within the conservation areas that are currently designated as open space in general plans, and the limited extent of land within the conservation areas that have onlyd use8 1%oof the land within the esignations other than open space. This limited extent of land accountsfor conservation areas under Alternative 2 and 10.51% under Alternative 3. If agreement is reached on how to protect lands designated as open space, 91.9% of the conservation areas will have adequate protection land can be acquired under Alternative 2. (Potential control mechanisms and the maximum levels of development allowed within conservation areas will be discussed at the study session.) The areas where the biggest threats exist are the sand source areas for the Willow Hole Preserve and the Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Lizard Preserves. These should be high priority for acquisition. There is, in fact, an acquisition effort with approximately$6 million already available under way in the sand source area for the latter preserve. There is currently no funding available for acquisitions in the sand source area for the Willow Hole area. ch 2. Purchase of All At-Risk Areas Approach to Implementation This pp local assfunumes adequate funding sources from a combination of federal, state, ands to purchase all private lands within the conservation areas prior to development. The state and federal funding commitment has not yet been determined, but in other plans of this type, the state and federal governments have expressed theist share n state ans d acres to be acquired rather than specific dollar amounts. The federal contributions would be available depends upon actions by the Legislature and Congress. Local funding sources could include One mitigation tmethod fee, front-load ing s, sales tax funds for or other tax revenues, and general fund acquisition of conservation areas before development can occur would be the issuance of bonds by local jurisdictions. These would need to be backed by funding commitments, either general funds, loans or "lines of credit" from various "investors", or new state or federal programs to provide such lines of credit. Either local investors or the state or federal government would enter into an agreement with a local government to establish a line of credit with the state. The local government would then issue bonds to acquire habitat, allowing them to front load the critical acquisitions to implement the Plan. The line of credit is tantamount to underwriting the bond measure. If the local government can pay off the bonds with its own revenue sources, such as mitigation fees, sales tax, tipping fees, etc., then it would not draw on the line of credit. If, however, in a given year it has insufficient revenue to make its bond payments, it would draw from its line of credit. This loan would be at a specified interest rate. The local government would be required to pay back the loan over time using mitigation fees, tipping fees, and other available funding sources, including the general fund if needed. It should be noted that no such program morf underwriting bonds by the state or federal government or by private s currently exists. Establishing such a program within a reasonable period of time would be a condition of Plan approval. 3. Habitat Transaction Method. The Habitat Transaction Method (HTM) relies in part on market forces to steer development away from high conservation value areas, where mitigation requirements would be high, to areas with lower conservation value and lower mitigation requirements. The required mitigation in these areas would, in turn, create a market for and help fund the acquisition of land within the high conservation value areas. All parcels in the Plan area are assigned a conservation value. The core habitat, essential ecological process areas, and the linkage areas necessary for the conservation of the species and natural communities included in the Plan would have the highest value. For example, these areas might have a value of 6 units per acre. To obtain conservation credits that could be sold, a landowner would need to place a conservation easement on the property or convey title to the property to an acceptable conservation agency. The conservation credits received could then be sold to proponents of projects that would be required to mitigate by acquiring lands or purchasing conservation credits in the high onservationtion valuealue of thereas. The impa impacted mitigation requirement would be based on t lands. This might range from 1 unit per acre to 4 units per acre. A mitigation ratio would be determined for projects. This would depend on the total amount of acres that need to be conserved in the Plan area, the total amount of land projected to be developed, and the amount of conservation to be accomplished through mitigation instead of by public agency purchase using local, state, and federal funding sources. In addition to acquisition of high conservation value areas through project mitigation, an acquisition program funded by federal, state, and other local sources would also acquire lands within the high conservation value areas The HTM assumes that the mitigation requirement will be a disincentive for development in the high conservation value areas. Similarly, the HTM relies on conservation credits granted for preserving parcels in these areas to provide landowners with an economic incentive to preserve their property and sell the credits to proponents developing parcels outside conservation areas. To achieve conservation certainty, however, it is necessary to protect 90% of the high conservation value areas. The HTM must not allow development in excess of this to occur in the high conservation value areas. The Plan would, therefore, identify safety nets and a monitoring system for the species and natural communities to avoid or minimize biological impacts in the high conservation value areas. The Plan would specify remedial actions if Plan monitoring indicated that the safety net limits on habitat loss in the conservation areas were at risk of being exceeded. If the levels were actually exceeded, the permits would be suspended or revoked. For each species and natural community included in the Plan the basic safety net would be that development could not be allowed on more than 10% of each species' habitat and each natural community area in the high conservation value areas. Similar safety nets would be established for essential ecological process areas and linkages. Based on recommendations from the SAC, the protection of 90% of each quarter section in essential ecological process and linkage areas would constitute the safety net. If habitat loss occurs in the high conservation value areas, the Implementation Committee would assess additional threats of habitat loss, update acquisition priorities, and identify strategies for increasing the rate at which the habitat is protected, such as developing additional incentives to encourage the sale of conservation credits in the areas at risk. If disturbance reaches the 7.5 percent level (out of the 10 percent total allowed), the Implementation Committee would ouldtriggnotif appropriate jurisdictions of how many more acres of disturbance er the suspension of the Plan's coverage for the affected species or natural community. A mandatory 120 day negotiation period for any development projects proposed in the affected high conservation value areas would also be implemented. For the safety net provisions to be effective a real-time monitoring system is required. This monitoring system would require that each local agency notify the dtallvA ollatiovo3 aiji uz `sntjs '%06 sl uo!1VMasuoa jo lanai algvldaoov zunzuru!UI azjl sva.ty asatp u! puv 1 cads JatjJVJ a.ry papalo.rd aq of paau Jotp sva.zv arjj -uopvnJzs Sw you .ro 11v UV jsouJly sz aim my !Ions st puadap efagi tion{M uodn sassaooad lvo!8oloaa aril puv sa!aads a!utapua alp .ioj Jvpzgvq atji jo a.mwu arl,� •rtj!l!q!xa panuul sz a.rarll `uopvnl!s s,yfallvA vllagavoj aqi uI 'pa'vuvu1 dl!sva lou put; alor1M lua4arloo v Jou Si ;RI wady uo!Jvuasuoo fo zuajsrfs v u! alnsa Ipl sna ns!d situ uo!1vn�as2oo oi a!utouooa uo .ratpod lnq ot8°1 lvo!Soio!q uo paw.? aq Jol 11.r SupinsaJ aqi imp 4sl.t v st alarjb •sasnuoq lzpaaa uofyn.zasuoa uvtji 'widow aa4j arl� u! pasvrjo.rnd ado Yuan uo!1yn.rasuoa a.zarlM Su duo o uzu's a'ruago�aaaiaoa o aq o1 avoid dot saaz.zd puoi .za(o7 •asvo arjl aq Jua.rarloa tfllyo!Solo!q y jo uo!ayzu.rojarjl apo nd�uu a1vu��1n arl ol s ly �fju!v sluatuisn ��avp u z pazunssv sr 1I -wady uoymidasuoo atp jo u p 1foa madat ju! uv sr anti' `pa.anbov Sutaq sauoz autos f°s oydodonluop 1 m d aq p d°M aq pjnoM sauoz eflido!Jd iatjlo jo sa&yjuaoiad .ra11 1 S auoz aril jo %06 'anlvn u°!Iyniasuoo JsazjSrrj10 auoz all; uI •saauoalgo uozjvn.zasuoa s,uvld alp ana!tjov of auoz rlova u! spuvl juatazfjs Su1i1nbov rfq palquzassv aq Lia,lvt-u!1ln pinoM soa.m uo1Jvn.1asuoo aril `rjovoiddv srrjl .rapun -auoz tlava u! slao.rvd arji o1 pauSzssv s! a.zov-.lad-anlvn-Ivl!gvrl y anlvn�(juno d asuo.udais aApolad atp u! uo pasvq sauoz oiu! oa.m uvjd alp saP!n!P Awl ail `dlHSI� pa.rap!suoo Su!aq sy -1Quzviiaoun jo lanai v su!vnuoo Kul and iapun uS!sap aMasa.rd < •asuodsaJ puv uoz;v.rap!suoa lions aloinru!Is o) ]jvia Ma!nag aApod)s!u!rupy 11 j t/L uv suo!�o! sunl s!zj1 u: paluasa.zd a.ry sanss!o8n�ra°t uo� lnja�n�Q npvvhls��f sarz�z puv suo�sanb pool aril �fq Iuazuu�oo puv •1 P. jo .ragrunu v a,ry aiatjl `d,D,DN/cDHSPV uv jo jivd so paluazualdzu! puv pano.rddv uaaq Lflsno!naid lou svrj imp ldaouoa lvo!)a.roarjl v s! I'r.LH alp asnvoag Arm azli eu!pavoag sanssl •sacoads paloaJJe all ioj si uuad avl jeluap!oui ail auipuadsns jo asinooal all antq pjnoM g3QD put SMjSf1 `Aoua2e Ptai all Act ponoldde alarm loafoid all ji !pjos aq,(jluanbasgns ueo iioi4M `slcpalo uoputuasuoo loj Xl.iadoid all anlasoid of aaAy !ajgtictnt alt spunj uoilisinboe J! `Xl_cadold all jjas of aaiSV • 3 g3Qm pug SMISf1 limn aleilo2oN •Z `sltluii Tau ,Cla3es all wolf uoildaoxa ue to � lau 'Claus all 2uipaaoxa To-long of loafoid al 1 ?P oN uoil• do 2ucnkojjoj all anel pirio' luauodold loa[old all `liuni lau Alajts sill paaoxa pjnom Jell `slog fold jeilalsiutul put AnuolalosiP gloq Buipnjoui `pasodold slam 'Clcold opsa B ` suoisinold pajja of puu aoueglnlsip leligtl !grim Put jeuualod loliuow of aautuIulop uoileluawaidwi all ajgtua pjnom sil.L 'stale uolltntasuoo all utlliM pansst lcwlad uuiptiO to 2uipjinq itilalscuiw Aug 3o put ienolddt ,Cie o it uo l uawa dwi pa fold t ioj pauiwgns uoileoijdde Aug jo s�Cep L uillin� aautunzi i 'slvo8 s,uvjd aj1 artalrlov lou 111M sva1v papoaffv ul splwdad Sulpuadsng 'ssauartlpaaffa paltunl fo puv arulovoJd UVLi1 JarlpvJ aarpavaJ sl uorsuadsns uw,rad `wsruvrlaaw uollaaloJd v sy 'uavoiddy xog loos aLip .iapun uvrll pry arlp .rapun ajod 1uvidodwl a.1ow v Sdvjd s1tuWJad ayvl jvpuaplaul fo uoisuadsns fo waxy ail' `LYIH aril iq pazlwrulw .10 paploav sl uollvjn2a.t asn puvl asnvaag •pasvrla.rnd slag puv 'mot fo luvulwJalap rGvwrJd at11 sl uotiv&ulw Sulpaau puauododd pal-odd alp 0l lsoo .ivjlop arlp `walsrfs uant4p-1avvw pull aLip .rapun 7sar1Slrf alp a.ry spaau puawa&vuvw .io slva.'g1 luawdojartap aJaLiM sva.ty fo uolloaloJd artaltiov o1 sa!I! 0!1d uolnslnbdv luawajdwl puv las uvo sarouaSv Surluawaldwt alp 'wapsr(s uorioajjoo oafuor)VSrnw v .rapun 7a4dvw aqi rfq uvrlp salauaSv Supuawajdwl aLi1 ifq papoa,rzp ssaj sr svaJv uoilvruasuoo aqi fo uornslnbov I'f.LH aril sv Lions wapsr(s uartyp-1avvui v uj C •rfpulvlJao uozlvrtuasuoo ssaj 8ulprrto.ld sv ivy ar11 anzaa.rad r(vw D,gGJ puv SA1 ISn •Liavoiddy xog joo j; dLi1 ut sv pau fap jjaM puv 1lolldxa so 1ou a.ry sva.113 anjvrt uolpvnrasuoo LiSlr1 ur puawdojartap uo sllwlj aril Vital uorlvruasuoa wnwrurw %06 aLi1 01 slva.igl 01 SurpuodsaJ dof suolsl toad ;au r(pafvs awos svrl Arm ail all'1d1 7uawaJznbai uollv2lplw LiSALi aq1 fo ands ur puawdojartap Suznsand va,w jvazl!Ja v ul auoawos fo sjs!J v sl adarp pvr11 pa.raptsuoo aq lsnw 1l `a.rdLf4iXuv papuauiajdwl uaaq Jou Surrtvg `luzod spy iv lapow jvolla.oarll v sl pull alp asnvoag JV.LH azfl iofjapow jvalladoaLi1 aril ul uvgl paulfap ((lasloa.rd a.row 'r(nzssaaau jo 'adv soa.ty uorlvrtaasuoo aLi1 `anogv paulvjdxa sv `asnvaaq dam vjjarlovoJ aijj ur anjvrt puv r(1lltgvazjddv ssaj anvq pjnonl sasnuoq puv sluawlsnfpo asalfj .anjvn uollvruasuoa pauXzssv arjl uo -pasvq won uorlvalasuoo atlp 1uawSnv op uouoalo.1d aoinosa.r jvzaads puv saSo)juzj aof sasnuoq fo ulalsrfs v puv spaffa aSpa puv„azrs Lio1vd, uo pasvq sluawisn[pv vpada fo waifs v sazwin pull alp 'dlHSLII t1iunoJ u.ralsan( alp ul pa.raprsuoo 8uzaq sy C •Liovoaddv uartr.rp-Jax.1vw v fo admit 8uzpznoJd tansies a1Qzxajf v sv uojpunf op ((1i114o swill 8Li1 sljwrj rtallUA vjjagario3 arjl fo rfvjvad jvaiSolorq ayd 'auoz xi; 1noLi8no.tgp rfjddv wont luawdojartap uo 1zru11 %01 alp puv pangs! aq pinoo slzpaJd uoz)vruasuoo Liarrint ut auoz auo (flu() aq pjnonl aJaLij .paluawajdwr aq pjno/LY.LH r(vnt aril ul rj;11Qzxaj`ssaj sz aiagl • 6