M E M
O R A
N D U
M TO: Members, Conservation Acquisition
Commission FROM: Kerry Baldwin, NRPR Natural
Resource Division Manager DATE: November 2, 2006 SUBJECT: Proposed Wildlife Corridor and Habitat
Linkage List for 2008 Bond Program
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
For the past
several months the CAC has been discussing the potential of adding additional
lands for wildlife corridors and habitat linkages to the 2008 Bond package. Considerable
discussion, both pro and con, has been generated around the proposals. While
the committee has supported the concept and need for enhancing and protecting
corridors and habitat block linkages, the political, economic and biological
implications of such a move has warranted further review and the committee’s
desire for additional information.
When the
Conservation Land System (CLS) was originally developed, there was a
recognition that in addition to identifying biological core, important riparian,
scientific research and multiple use management areas, there was a value to
also identify areas within these designations that would be identified as
critical landscape connections. In the CLS documentation, the category of
Critical Landscape Connections was described as …”broadly defined areas that
contain potential or existing barriers that tend to isolate major conservation
areas. Specifically, these regional-scale areas are located: (1) Across
I-10/Santa Cruz River corridors in the northwest; (2) Through Oro Valley,
between the Catalina and Tortolita Mountains; (3) Across the I-10 corridor
along Cienega Creek in the east; (4) Across the I-19 and Santa Cruz River
corridors in southern Pima County; and (5) Across the Garcia strip extension of
the Tohono O”odham nation; and (6) The CAP canal in Avra Valley.
These landscape
level connections have never been refined to actual boundaries. In fact, the
STAT committee resisted defining them beyond the level that the important lands
should fall within the CLS Biological Core and Important Riparian Areas and
thus identified in the 2004 Bond language.
Acquisitions
utilizing the 2004 Bonds funds have been made within some of these Critical
Landscape Connections. Additional lands are considered on a willing seller only
basis. The corridor and linkage proposals for the 2008 Bond program are
intended to enhance the Critical Landscape Connections.
During the evaluation
and discussion of the proposed wildlife corridor and habitat linkages additions,
several important considerations have been raised that warrant review.
First, concern
has been voiced that additions of areas and lands will dilute the potential to
construct the original Critical Landscape Connections identified in the CLS.
Also, by adding areas that are more rural, a bias may be created that limits
the completion of more urban connections in favor of rural links because of
lower land values and increased sizes of connections because of price and land
availability.
A second concern
raised has been that the lands being proposed for addition to the 2008 Bond
program have not under gone as rigorous of an evaluation and there is not as
robust of a biological evaluation on them as the original Biological Core lands
and Critical Landscape Connections had.
A third concern
is at what point is too much land added into the program. We know now that more
lands have been identified than funds to acquire them exist. Even if the 2008
Bond is successful and land prices stabilize for the next decade. Does a larger
land base create a reason or potential for individuals and organizations to
limit support of the overall package and acquisition goals? Do additions of new
lands before we have addressed all of the previous Bond lands weaken the
original program vision and integrity?
All of these
questions are valid and will continue to come out in the discussions of the
Commission members. Staff can reasonably try to address the second area of
concern. The first and third concerns seem to lie most appropriately with the
Commission members within their decision making responsibility.
Additional work
on the various areas of lands previously proposed in the September 5, 2006
package you received has been done. You will find an attachment to this memo
that provides additional information about the individual areas that we hope
better addresses concern number two. Using the same basic tool set used to
identify the Critical Landscape Connections we have listed the primary
biological resources that can be highlighted for each area.
There was a
request for an analysis of threat to the lands identified in the new package.
Unfortunately there is not detailed information readily available for all of
them and any analysis will be subjective based on interpretations of the
information that is available. A threat level of low, medium or high has been
assigned to at least try and provide some additional background.
A threat level
of low indicates that no plans for development are known, the lands are well
isolated from urban encroachment and terrain or topographical features don’t
lend the lands to development pressures. A threat level of medium would
indicate that very initial discussion may have been generated around
development possibilities recently or in the past, elements of the terrain in
the proposed corridor that could lend themselves to development and a closer
proximity to urban growth corridors. A threat level of high would indicate
active or past development plans for urban expansion, being adjacent to
identified growth corridors and substantial portions of the property with
terrain that could be developed.
In the previous
proposal package it was correctly pointed out by a CAC member that I had
overstated the amount of land in the new proposal that falls under the more
comprehensive State Trust Reform package. I incorrectly added in an area as
covered that was not included in the reform package. Of the 24,356 total acres
in that new lands package approximately 6,353 are actually included in the more
comprehensive reform package. Also, we have added in the Avra Valley/I-10
crossing to this list to provide additional methods to pursue and complete this
crossing. You have been briefed on this property and potential corridor issue
at numerous meetings in the past.
All of the
proposed additions have value and would enhance the overall acquisition
program. However, taking into consideration the concerns raised over the full
package previously submitted I would respectfully recommend that the Commission
support addition of the following areas to enhance and complement the current
six Critical Landscape Connection areas:
Name Size CLS Designation
Avra Valley I-10 250 acres Important
Riparian
Brawley/Black
Wash- 1,909 acres Multiple Use/Important
Riparian
Brown Canyon- 5,194 acres Multiple Use/Important
Riparian
McKenzie/Cienega
Creek- 723 acres Biological
Core
Redfield Canyon- 1,770 acres Multiple Use
Wakefield
Canyon- 640 acres Biological
Core
Total 12,131 acres
Of this proposal,
the following areas do match up with, or complement, the CLS Critical Landscape
Connections list:
Avra Valley-I/10 I-10/
Brawley/Black
McKenzie/Cienega
Creek I-10 corridor along Cienega
Creek in the east
All of these
lands are State Trust land. Only 300 acres in the
I look forward
to discussing this package further at the CAC meeting. If you have any
questions prior to the meeting please feel free to contact me at 877-6161 or
drop me an e-mail at Kerry.Baldwin@pima.gov.
Proposed
Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkage Additions- 2008 Bond Program
Avra
Valley/I-10: 250
acres CLS: Important Riparian/Multiple
Use/Bio Core
Threat Level- High
Priority Conservation Areas- Habitat
Models
Lowland leopard
frog- Category 24
Abert’s towhee-
Category 1
Cactus
ferruginous pygmy owl- Category 2
Huachuca water
umbel- Category 4
Special Elements
Cottonwood-willow
Ironwood
Low elevation
valley floor
Paloverde/mixed
cacti
Saltbush
Sonoran Riparian
scrub
Intermittent
streams- buffered
Brawley/Black
Wash: 1,909 acres CLS: Multiple Use/Important Riparian
Threat Level- High
Priority Conservation Areas- Habitat
Models
Cactus
ferruginous pygmy owl- Category 2
Rufous-winged
sparrow- Category
Swainson’s Hawk-
Category 1
Pale Townsend’s
Big-eared Bat- Category 2
Special Features
Paloverde/mixed
cacti
Sonoran Riparian
Scrub
Threat Level- Low
Priority Conservation Areas- Habitat
Models
Lowland leopard
frog- Category 2
Abert’s towhee-
Category 1
Cactus
ferruginous pygmy owl- Category 1
Rufous-winged
sparrow- Category 1
Swainson’s hawk-
Category 1
Lesser
long-nosed bat- Category 2
Pima Pineapple
cactus
Desert box
turtle- Category 2
Special Elements
Paloverde/mixed
cacti
Threat Level- Medium
Priority Conservation Areas- Habitat
Models
Lowland leopard
frog- Category 2
Swainson’s hawk-
Category 1
Allen’s
big-eared bat- Category 2
Lesser
long-nosed bat- Category 2
Mexican
long-tongued bat- Category 1
Western red bat-
Category 2
Western yellow
bat- Category 2
Special Elements
Limestone
outcrops: carbon 2 and 5
Native upland
grassland type B
Paloverde/mixed
cacti
Intermittent
stream-buffered
McKenzie/Cienega
Creek: 723 acres CLS: Biological Core
Threat Level- Medium
Priority Conservation Areas- Habitat
Models
Lowland leopard
frog- Category 2 and 3
Abert’s Towhee-
Category 1
Cactus
ferruginous pygmy owl- Category 1
Swainson’s hawk-
Category 1
Western
Yellow-billed cuckoo- Category 1
Gila chub-
Category 3
Gila topminnow-
Category 3
Longfin dace-
Category
Lesser
long-nosed bat- Category 1
Merriam’s mouse-
Category 1
Mexican long-tongued
bat- Category 1
Western red bat-
Category 1
Western yellow
bat- Category 2
Huachuca water
umbel- Category 1
Mexican garter
snake- Category 1
Special Elements
Paloverde/mixed
cacti
Threat Level- Low
Priority Conservation Areas- Habitat
Models
Lowland leopard
frog 1
Abert’s towhee 1
Southwestern
willow flycatcher
Western
yellow-billed cuckoo 2
Lesser
long-nosed bat 2
Merriam’s mouse
4
Mexican long
tongued bat 2
Western yellow
bat 2
Special Elements
Paloverde/mixed
cacti
Sonoran riparian
scrub
Threat Level- High
Priority Conservation Areas- Habitat
Models
Lowland leopard
frog- Category 2
Swainson’s hawk-
Category 1
Lesser
long-nosed bat- Category 2
Mexican
long-tongued bat- Category 1
Mexican garter
snake- Category 1