Appendices A - H

Appendix A - Planning Chronology 1996-2001

1996-98

March 1-2, 1996 - More than than 200 area residents participate in the Sonoita Crossroads Community Forum event.

October 9, 1996 - Residents create the Sonoita Crossroads Community Forum (SCCF), a nonproft organization.

March 7, 1998 - SCCF sponsors development review meeting. See The Bulletin for 3/11/98.

August 29, 1998 - Current planning effort begins with training on "Managing Rural land Use Change." See The Bulletin for 9/2/98.

1999

Preparing to Plan January 18 - SCCF Board meets to design initial planning events[1].

February 27 - "Sonoita, Welcome Aboard!" event previews the planning effort in a community open house format attended by more than 100. See The Bulletin for 3/3/99.

March 13 - More than 40 area residents particpate in a "Same Page" meeting to design the planning process.

Learning About Our Community

April 7 - First in a series of four training sessions focusses on public lands issues with presentations from Arlan Colton of the Arizona State Land Department, Karen Simms of the Tucson Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management, and Mark Kaplan of the Coronado National Forest. See The Bulletin for 4/14/99.

April 28 - Second training session features talks on features of the local landscape by geologist Bill Peachey, grasslands ecologist Mitch McClaran, hydrologist Shel Clark, the Arizona Game and Fish Department's Joe Sacco, and local astronomer Mike Shade.

May 19 - Consulting Planner Lee Nellis presents basic facts about the growth and the growth potential of the area, as well as preliminary results of an analysis of the fiscal impacts of growth. See The Bulletin for 5/26/99.

June 12 - Final training occupies most of a Saturday, with 42 participants learning about the "Performance Approach to Managing Rural Land Use Change." See The Bulletin for 6/16/99.

Developing Policies

June 21 - SCCF Board meets to design the policy development phase of the planning process.

July 28 - Open Space and Commercial Working Groups are formed. See The Bulletin for 8/4/99.

August 16 - Commercial Working Group Meeting meets for the first time at a breakfast co-sponsored by Sonoita-Elgin Chamber of Commerce. See the The Bulletin for 8/25/99.

August 18 - First Open Space Working Group meets for the first time.

September 1 - Open Space Working Group continues. See The Bulletin for 9/8/99.

September 15 - Open Space Working Group continues.

September 20 - Commercial Working Group workshop features speakers and resource people from the Greater Arizona Development Authority, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Arizona Department of Transportation, Santa Cruz County Health Department, and WestLand Resources, Inc.

September 29 - Open Space Working Group continues.

October 13 - Open Space Working Group continues.

October 27 - Open Space Working Group continues. See The Bulletin for 11/3/99.

November 1 - Commercial Working Group continues. See The Bulletin for 11/10/99.

November 10 - Open Space Working Group continues.

November 22 - Commercial Working Group holds its final meeting. See The Bulletin for 12/1/99.

December 1 - Open Space Working Group continues.

December 15 - Open Space Working Group meets for the last time.

2000

Getting the Plan Adopted

January 10 - SCCF Board meets to design the draft distribution and review phase of the planning process.

February 2000 newletter sent.

Draft plan presented to the public, who are encouraged to communicate responses to board members.

October 2000 newletter sent; SCCF sponsors District 3 Candidate Forum.

2001

Refining the Plan

January 2001 newletter sent; items include "Forest Service Management Under Fire," "Federal Land Exchanges and Land Use Planning," "Comprehensive Plan Summary,"and SCCF membership drive.

February 24 - Annual meeting of SCCF. John Maynard, county supervisor, spoke to the meeting about the county's plan status and saw the SCCF plan as a "chapter"in the county's complete plan. Board members elected. See The Bulletin for 1/28/01.

August 2001 newletter sent; items include "Septic Systems,""Shared Community Vision," and "SCCF Elects New Board Members - Board Elects New Executive Officers".

[The SCCF Board met monthly. This chronology includes only critical SCCF Board meetings.]

Appendix B - Demographics, land use and buildout data

This appendix presents some of the basic demographic, land use, and buildout calculation data used in developing this plan.

Table B-1 - NE Santa Cruz County Building Activity

These data were taken from individual building permit records examined at the Santa Cruz County Building Department.

Table B-2 - 1990 Census Household Size Data

The local household size used in the planning process was calculated from 1990 Census data for Block Group 99601, which includes most of the planning area. Total household size as alculated by dividing the population by all housing units was used because the current population estimate, water consumption, and other planning calculations based on household size should be based on housing unit counts, not counts of occupied homes. Using 1.77 instead of 2.29 accounts for the fact that some units are vacant and some (there were 65 in 1990) are seasonal.

Table B-3 - Sonoita-Elgin Emergency Services, Inc. (SEESI) Calls

These data were provided by SEESI.

Table B-4 - Regional Population Change

These data come from Bureau of the Census Current Population Estimates at:

<< http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/county/co-98-2/98C2_04.txt >>.

Figure B-1 - The Retirement Wave

This chart is based on 1990 Census age data. It shows the rapidly increasing number of people who will potentially - no mortality adjustment was applied - reach retirement age during the first quarter of the 21st century.

Table B-5 - NE Santa Crux County Land Ownership

Land ownership is given as measured from Bureau of Land Management Surface Management quadrangles at a scale of 1:100,000. Acreages are approximate. Note that the acreage of private land given in this table does not match that given in Table B-6 because the private land use data in that table come from a different source, covering a slightly smaller area.

Table B-6 - NE Santa Crux County Private Land Use - Residential Buildout Calculation

This table is based on tax assessment data for Elgin Elementary School District 2500, as provided by the Santa Cruz County Assessor's office and the Arizona Department of Revenue.

The number of additional homes permitted on vacant lands was obtained by counting the number of vacant residential parcels and assuming one home per parcel, then dividing the remaining vacant land (that which is not divided into residential parcels) by 180,000 square feet: the minimum lot size permitted by the General Rural (GR) zoning that applies in most of NE Santa Cruz County. The number of homes permitted on ranch lands was obtained by deducting lands that are not available for development, primarily the private lands of the Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch, from the total of ranch lands, deducting 180,000 square feet for each existing ranch home, then dividing the remaining ranch land by 180,000 square feet. A development efficiency factor of 75% was applied to both calculations to reduce buildout to account for the land that must be devoted to roads, wells, and other accessory uses, and the presence of floodplains, slopes, and other natural features that tend to reduce density regardless of zoning. These buildout numbers are conservative because development efficiency may run higher than 75% and because unplatted areas that are zoned for higher densities were treated as being zoned GR to simplify the calculation.

Table B-7 - Traffic Counts on Arizona State Highways 82 and 83

These data come from the Arizona Department of Transportation's Traffic on the Arizona State Highway System.

Appendix C: Community Values, Tourism and Growth

Appendix C-1 presents the results of the values identification activity conducted at the March 2, 1996 Sonoita Crossroads Community Forum. This list was used as the basis for values validation activities at the August 1998 training and the February 1997 "Welcome Aboard" event. A detailed chronology of the events leading to the presentation of this plan is outlined in Appendix A. References to press coverage are provided where possible.

Appendix C-2 presents the results of surveys about tourism and growth taken from visitors and residents on several occasions.

Appendix C-1. Community Values

Lifestyle

Economy

Environment

Appendix C-2 Tourism and Growth

A resident/visitor survey was created to assess the attitudes of visitors and residents of the Sonoita-Elgin area about tourism and growth. Survey respondents were asked to identify the factors they enjoyed about the area, as well as to describe how they felt about tourism and growth. The survey was conducted on four different occasions: the Annual Harvesting of the Grapes Festival held in Elgin; and the Santa Cruz County Fair, a Sonoita-Elgin Chamber of Commerce/Sonoita Crossroads Community Forum (SCCF) meeting, and an SCCF Open Space Working Group Meeting held in Sonoita. A total of 264 surveys were completed by 160 visitors and 104 residents as follows:

* A number of participants at the Open Space meeting had already filled out the survey at the Chamber/SCCF meeting.

Respondents varied in terms of age, gender, income, and place/length of residence, as shown in Table C-2a.

Table C-2a. Demographic composition of survey respondents.

A multiple-part question asked what factors attract people to the Sonoita-Elgin area. Respondents, both residents and visitors, were asked to check all of the reasons they enjoy the area. Table E-2 show the responses to the multiple-part question. The percentages represent the proportions of either visitors or residents who marked each factor. Two of the questions on the resident surveys addressed perceptions of tourism and growth. One question asked: "Do you consider tourism in this area to be a cause of its population growth?" Respondents could write in more lengthy responses than simply "Yes" or "No." Analysis included careful categorization of each of the 92 written responses; only those that were clearly and directly either a "Yes" or a "No" response are reported as results. After considering all resident surveys, 57 were judged to be "Yes" responses, while 35 were "No" responses.

Table C-2b. Factors that Attract People to the Sonoita-Elgin Area.

The responses to another similarly open-ended question were broken down into more categories. The question asked: "Do you think that the growth occurring in the Patagonia, Sonoita, and Elgin area is good?" Responses were as follows:

These responses lead to the conclusion that people are at least somewhat concerned about the growth that is occurring in the area.

The survey results suggest that visitors and residents enjoy similar qualities of the Sonoita-Elgin area. Respondents take pleasure in the climate more than any other virtue of the area. The rural flavor found in places away from cities is also enjoyed by all residents, though at varying levels. Opportunities to see wildlife and take part in or learn about the local heritage seem much more important to residents than to visitors. Safety is evidently the least essential reason for living in or visiting the Sonoita-Elgin area, although about half of the residents consider it to be important.

The information in this appendix was gathered, analyzed, and summarized by Jennifer Merrill, a graduate student in Geography at the University of Arizona.

Appendix D - Open Space Framework

Appendix D-1. Original Policy 1.

This original open space policy was the result of hours of discussion by participants in the NE Santa Cruz County planning process. That discussion led us to understand that open space conservation will enhance, not diminish, private property values. We also learned that the existing zoning of our area is arbitrary: that it does not accurately reflect the capacity of local public services, safe groundwater yields, and other facts on which we based the original open space policy and the rest of this plan. As Strategy 1.D of Interim Policy 1 states, this community urges the Arizona Legislature to repeal ¤sect;11-824.F and ¤sect;11-829,G, ARS and allow us to adopt this policy, which effectively protects both open space and property rights.

Our Community's Goal:

Implementation Strategies

Creation of the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area, as called for by Policy 1, would be a significant step toward implementing this policy. Remember that the regulatory strategies proposed here apply to land use changes, not established uses.

1. Santa Cruz County, the Sonoita Crossroads Community Forum (SCCF), the Southern Arizona Grasslands Trust (SAGTI), and other area organizations and individuals should work with the Arizona State Land Department, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Coronado National Forest to ensure that the state and federal portions of the Open Space Framework stay intact. All actions, including land exchanges and the review of applications for utility easements or rights-of-way across public lands should be consistent with this plan.
2. SAGTI should attempt to acquire conservation easements on the private lands within the Open Space Framework. This can be accomplished via donation (for which the landowner may realize significant tax advantages), land exchanges, or purchase. SCCF and other local organizations and individualsshould assist SAGTI in raising funds sufficient to implement this strategy.
3. Santa Cruz County, SCCF, SAGTI, and other local organizations and individuals should ask the Arizona Legislature to enable counties to collect open space impact fees. Given authority, Santa Cruz County should adopt such fees to help fund the purchase of development rights from lands within the Open Space Framework. Homes affordable to a family living on less than a selected percentage (probably 85- 90%) of the local median income would be exempt from such fees.

   An impact fee is a one-time fee collected at the time a building permit is issued. Arizona counties may collect such fees for water, sewer, streets, parks, and public facilities (ARS §11-1102), but not for the acquisition of conservation easements. Impact fees may not exceed a fair proportional share of the cost of the improvements necessitated by the development from which they are collected.

4. The Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership's (SVPP) draft management plan rovides guidance for sustainable ranching in NE Santa Cruz County. Landowners are encouraged to follow its guidelines. A summary of the draft SVPP plan appears in Appendix H.
5. Ranching, outdoor recreation, and conservation are the preferred land uses within the Open Space Framework. This plan recognizes, however, that funds for the acquisition of conservation easements are limited, and that not all landowners will be able, or inclined, to take advantage of the tax incentives for donating conservation easements. This plan provides two options.
   1. Development rights may be voluntarily transferred from within the Open Space Framework to suitable sites outside it. Landowners may move development rights to sites they own, or market them to developers seeking to build at higher densities on suitable sites, especially at the Sonoita Crossroads (see Policy 14). A density bonus should be used to encourage transfers.
   2. Land within the Open Space Framework may also be developed. An open space development pattern, in which at least 60% of the site is retained for ranching, outdoor recreation, or conservation use, or held in common by a community association will be encouraged, but very large lots (40+ acre) may also be approved. Sensitive lands, including buffers along intermittent streams and washes, cienegas, and steep slopes, must be included in the open space provided or protected from development by the use of building envelopes.
6. Development within the Open Space Framework will be subject to all requirements for residential development (see Policy 10) as well as additional performance standards that help protect sensitive lands and facilitate wildlife movement, including a requirement for wildlife-friendly fencing.

Appendix D-2

The Open Space Framework was delineated using the steps described below. This approach draws from the emerging discipline of landscape ecology, but also follows long-established principles of sound landscape planning. For background see Benton MacKaye's 1928 classic, The New Exploration, and Dramstad, Olson, and Forman's Landscape Ecology Principles in Landscape Architecture and Land-Use Planning.

Step 1. We reviewed the wildlife habitat maps provided by the Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch (Research Ranch) and the species richness maps provided by the Cooperative Park Studies Unit at the University of Arizona. These maps show the distribution of key species of mammals and the richness (number of species present) of amphibians, birds, mammals, and reptiles. Reductions of the habitat maps provided by the Research Ranch follow page F-2.

Step 2. We considered other natural resources and natural hazards. The Open Space Framework includes the Sonoita Creek, O'Donnell Canyon, and Turkey Creek valleys where shallow alluvial aquifers are vulnerable to contamination from surface sources and on-site sewage disposal systems. Flooding is a hazard in parts of these valleys. The cienegas in O'Donnell Canyon are a rare vegetation and habitat type.

Step 3. We conducted a visual preference survey, as described in Appendix G. The visual preference survey was a systematic approach to determining which views are most valued by residents of NE Santa Cruz County. Open space, wildlife habitat, and water resource values overlap to a fair extent in NE Santa Cruz County, providing multiple reasons for including most of the lands in the Open Space Framework.

Step 4. We analyzed the land ownership pattern. The Open Space Framework should rely on federal and already protected private lands as much as possible.

Step 5. We analyzed landscape fragmentation by mapping subdivisions and records of survey to identify heavily fragmented areas. Such areas were not included in the Open Space Framework. For example, the area between the Sonoita Crossroads and Elgin, is largely divided into parcels ranging from four to forty acres in size. This eliminates a potentially valuable open space corridor along the upper reaches of Cienega Creek.

Gardner Canyon. Gardner Canyon links the Santa Rita Mountains to the grasslands of the Upper Cienega Creek Basin. It also appears to be a major source of groundwater recharge for that basin. Gardner Canyon is mostly in the Coronado National Forest. Private lands total less than 500 acres. The Coronado National Forest is seeking a land exchange that would add 319 acres of private land in Gardner Canyon. That exchange is inconsistent with Policy 4 and Strategy 6.A of this plan.

Sonoita Creek. Casa Blanca and Corral Canyons form a link from the Canelo Hills to the Santa Ritas. This part of the Open Space Framework also extends along Sonoita Creek from Casa Blanca and Corral Canyons to Fort Canyon, extending the linkage upstream to include important views and the alluvial aquifer associated with the creek. There are approximately 3,240 acres of private land in this block, including several areas that have been divided into large - mostly 40+ acres - residential lots.

Huachuca/Canelo/Mustang/Empire. The Open Space Framework provides a critical connection from the Huachuca Mountains and Canelo Hills to the Mustang Mountains and Empire-Cienega Resource Conservation Area. This corridor is widened north of the Mustangs to include highly valued views from State Highway 82 and also includes the view from Highway 83 north of the Sonoita Crossroads looking east toward the Whetstones. This corridor is built around public lands - national forest, state trust, and BLM - and the Research Ranch, but does include four areas of private land.

1. There are 1,100-1,200 acres of private land in O'Donnell Canyon and along Turkey Creek, including The Nature Conservancy's (TNC) preserve in O'Donnell Canyon. There are a number of homes along these drainages, but expansion of the TNC preserve to further protect the cienega and acquisition of development rights from the larger undeveloped parcels would be desirable.
   
   
2. Completing the linkage from the Research Ranch to the state trust and BLM lands in the Mustang Mountains requires a corridor across the Babocomari Ranch. That corridor can vary in width with the owners' needs, but should be wide enough to be a valuable patch of grasslands habitat, rather than just a connector.
   
   
3. BLM and state trust lands already form a partial linkage from the Mustang Mountains to the Empire-Cienega Ranch. Adding one section of private land would complete this linkage. Some of the most valued views in NE Santa Cruz County are from Highway 82 to the Mustangs, however, so this corridor was widened to include a few hundred acres of private lands on the north slope of the Mustangs.
   
   
4. There is also an important visual connection from the north side of the Sonoita Crossroads to the Empire-Cienega RCA and on to the Whetstones. This view corridor includes around 1,400 acres.

The Open Space Framework also includes virtually all of the state trust lands in NE Santa Cruz County. While some state trust lands, like the steep slopes of the Mustangs, have little development potential, moving them into a conservation status through creation of the Las Cienegas NCA or some other means is essential.

Appendix E

In order to determine which specific views, as well as what types of views, are most valued by the people of northeastern Santa Cruz County, local residents and landowners who were participating in Sonoita Crossroads Community Forum Open Space Working Group meetings were asked to take part in a series of visual preference surveys. These surveys involved rating color slides of the views that can be seen along State Route 83 from the Pima/Santa Cruz County border south to Canelo; and along State Route 82 from just east of the Town of Patagonia east to near the Santa Cruz/Cochise County border. Both roads have been designated as scenic highways by the State of Arizona.

Methods

Photo points were established at 29 sites along the two highways (see map on page G-2). At each site, four color slides were taken at 90° intervals around a central point on the road. The resulting 116 slides were divided into four sets and shown to Open Space Working Group participants at meetings held on October 27, November 10, December 1, and December 15, 1999. After receiving forms that listed the slides to be viewed that evening, participants were asked to look at each view and indicate their personal opinion of its aesthetic value on the form by rating it from (5 for "very unappealing" to +5 for "very appealing" (a rating of zero meant they had no particular reaction to that view). Basic statistical analyses were performed on the ratings, with a primary focus on the average rating and standard deviation of each view.

Results

Average view ratings ranged from + 4.71 to - 3.87, with standard deviations ranging from 0.56 to 2.88 (see Table G-1 below). There was strong consensus of opinion around which views were most aesthetically appealing - i.e., high view ratings had relatively low standard deviations. In fact, the five views that received the highest ratings also had the five lowest standard deviations, indicating that people's reactions to these slides were significantly different from their reactions to most of the other slides. The "top twenty" slides included:

1. views of the Mustang Mountains from Highway 82 (the top 3 views);
2. views from Highway 83 in the Canelo area that showed oak woodland, a riparian meadow, the Canelo Hills, and the Huachuca Mountains;
3. views of the Babocomari and Empire Ranches, both with and without mountains in the background;
4. views from Highway 82 just north of Patagonia looking southeast across the Sonoita Creek bottomlands;
5. views of oak woodlands along Highway 82 near the Ft. Buchanan site; and
6. views along Highway 83 north of the crossroads looking across open grasslands east toward the Santa Rita Mountains, and west toward the Mustang Mountains.

Except for the highest-rated slides, there was less agreement about how appealing many of the other views were - i.e., some people thought they were very appealing, while others thought they were very unappealing. These views varied significantly, ranging from vistas of grasslands to close-up views of hillsides or oak woodland. Some included a house, road, mailbox, or other manmade feature.

The scatterplot shown in Figure G-1 illustrates the generally inverse relationship between view ratings and their standard deviations. A possible explanation for these results is that some people may have looked at a slide and rated only what was shown in the frame (which may have included a fence, weeds, road surface, a road cut, or something else not especially attractive), while other people may have envisioned the overall landscape and ignored the less attractive elements of the photograph when rating the view.

There was fairly strong agreement, nevertheless, about the three least appealing views. These views, which had by far the lowest ratings, also had lower standard deviations than would be expected given the lower rating/higher standard deviation trend (they appear as the outliers at the bottom of Figure G-1). The negative response to these views is easily explained, however: two were looking head on at a road cut, while the view with the lowest rating was dominated by a long, windowless building with a corrugated metal roof.

The presence of buildings in a slide did not necessarily result in low scores from every participant, although only one of the highest-rated views contained a building. That slide, a view of the Mustangs from Highway 82 with a house or two in the mid-ground, rated lower than otherwise very similar views of the Mustangs.

The locations and images of the highest ranking views are shown in this image, which will open in an adjoining browser window.

Table E-1. Mean Rating (Mean) and Standard Deviation (sd) for Views Along Arizona State Routes 82 and 83 (listed in descending order of mean rating).

Conclusion

Residents and landowners in northeastern Santa Cruz County clearly place a high value on views of open (i.e., undeveloped, unfenced) grasslands, especially when mountains can be seen in the background. These include views of the Santa Rita and Mustang Mountains from both Highway 82 and Highway 83, as well as views of the Babocomari and Empire Ranches. Vistas of pastoral valley bottoms and oak woodlands are also highly valued.

Appendix F - Water Supply and Land Use in NE Santa Cruz County

Policy 7 of this plan states that development in NE Santa Cruz County should be limited to a level that minimizes the potential for overdraft of the groundwater resource. This requires that water use be balanced with the average annual groundwater recharge. This appendix reviews and analyzes the studies that have attempted to quantify groundwater recharge in the Upper Cienega Creek Basin (UCCB), then proposes a reasonable-risk level of development based on that analysis and an estimate of current groundwater consumption.

Overview

There are three surface watersheds in NE Santa Cruz County, two of which are part of the larger Santa Cruz River Basin. See the map below for watershed boundaries. The Babocomari River flows east, through Elgin, toward the San Pedro River and the San Pedro National Riparian Conservation Area. Cienega Creek, which includes one of the few perennial stream reaches remaining in southeastern Arizona, flows north to Pantano Wash and the Santa Cruz River. Sonoita Creek flows southwest through Patagonia and The Nature Conservancy's preserve, toward the Santa Cruz River.

The groundwater picture is not so simple. The boundaries of the groundwater basins (groundwater divides) do not coincide with the boundaries of the watersheds. Available water level data indicate that groundwater which originates in the UCCB is discharged in the subsurface to the Sonoita Creek and, possibly, the Babocomari Rive groundwater basins. Note also that two different types of aquifers are used for water supplies. Some wells along O'Donnell Canyon and Sonoita and Turkey Creeks tap a shallow body of groundwater in the coarse alluvial material along the stream. Most wells in the area are completed in a deeper aquifer in variable, but generally finer-textured basin sediments.

Literature

Seven estimates of total recharge to the UCCB were identified. They are summarized in Table F-1. The reader should note the term "estimates." None of the research cited here directly measured recharge. Each researcher calculated recharge based on a conceptual model of how groundwater enters and moves through the UCCB, and a set of assumptions about aquifer characteristics. The authors of these studies and other researchers generally share certain assumptions about the UCCB, including :

there is no evidence of a general decline in water levels in wells in the UCCB at the current rate of consumption;


1. precipitation and evapotranspiration on the basin floor are in balance in the long run, meaning that groundwater recharge from the basin floor is negligible; and
   
   
2. recharge occurs along the mountain front as intermittent runoff infiltrates stream channels and areas of joined, fractured, or faulted rock.

Most of the researchers also share a common database. All estimates of transmissivity (the rate at which groundwater flows through an aquifer) in the UCCB are based on well tests made by Geraghty & Miller in 1970 and Harshbarger and Associates in 1975. The researchers also use essentially the same precipitation, evapotranspiration, and stream flow data.

Researchers do not agree on some factors, including the direction and volume of groundwater flow from the UCCB to adjoining basins, the total amount of recharge, and the amount of recharge that can be attributed to each of the mountain ranges surrounding the UCCB.

Recharge

Table F-1 shows that the total recharge estimates obtained by different researchers vary considerably. The Geraghty & Miller and KafriB estimates apply only to the entire UCCB, most of which is in Pima County. The other five researchers made recharge estimates for each of the mountain ranges surrounding the UCCB, thus providing a basis for estimating recharge in NE Santa Cruz County.

The estimates of recharge contributed by different mountain ranges made by Boggs, Bota, KafriA, Knight, and Osterkamp were compared and adjusted, as necessary, to apply to NE Santa Cruz County. All recharge to the UCCB from the Canelo Hills and Mustang Mountains was attributed to NE Santa Cruz County. Recharge from the Santa Rita and Whetstone Mountains was attributed to NE Santa Cruz County based on the share of total channel length descending from the range into the UCCB that is in, or ends in, NE Santa Cruz County. The results of this attribution appear in Table F-2.

The estimates of the five researchers were averaged, then compared against the averages to identify potentially anomalous results. Three figures were either double, or nearly so, or less than half the averages. Bota's estimate for the Canelo Hills is more than double the average. Bota notes this, but does not provide a plausible reason why his model produced a result that was so different. KafriA produced the highest overall estimate of recharge to the UCCB, primarily because of a high estimate of recharge from the Whetstones. Boggs suggests that KafriA overestimated infiltration into certain geological formations. After reviewing KafriA, this critique seems accurate. The infiltration rate KafriA used for the principal geological formation in the Whetstones is not consistent with the literature. Osterkamp's estimate of recharge from the Canelo Hills is less than half the average, but consistent with his estimates for other ranges and clearly explicable using his methodology.

Table F-1 - Summary of Literature

Table F-2 - Mountain Front Recharge in NE Santa Cruz County (Acre-Feet per Year)

To eliminate the influence of the clearly anomalous results, the averages were recalculated by substituting averages of the non-anomalous results for the anomalies. The result of this smoothing technique appears as the adjusted average in Table F-2. These adjusted averages incorporate the interpretations of the various researchers into a result that can be used for planning until additional data are available.

Consumption

How much development will 3,650 acre-feet of recharge support? That depends on how much water different types of development consume, and how much development there is. It also depends on other "uses" of groundwater.

Standard texts and the management plan for the Santa Cruz Active Management Area were used as a basis for estimating how much groundwater is presently consumed in NE Santa Cruz County. The results of these calculations appear in Table F-3, which shows that human use of groundwater in the UCCB is far less than "natural" consumption.

Table F-3 - Groundwater Consumption in NE Santa Cruz County

Groundwater recharge is required to sustain the perennial reach of Cienega Creek and the endangered fish and other wildlife it supports. The allocation of 865 acre-feet per year is based on the assumptions that every part of the UCCB makes an equal contribution to the flow of Cienega Creek, and that sustaining the baseflow of the creek and the riparian vegetation along the creek requires at least 865 acre-feet.

There is general agreement that groundwater flows from the UCCB to the Sonoita Creek Basin. This requires an allocation of recharge to help sustain water table levels and the perennial stream flow in Sonoita Creek. Quantifying this allocation is difficult. Naeser and St. John measured the perimeter of the Sonoita Creek Basin and the joint boundary between the UCCB and the Sonoita Creek Basin, then applied the ratio between the two to the underflow estimate made by Ben-Asher, et al. That procedure seems as reasonable as any given the information available.

Development

Subtracting the estimated groundwater consumption in NE Santa Cruz County from the average estimated recharge leaves a surplus of about 1,050 acre-feet. This is sufficient to support approximately 2,485 additional dwelling units, or the equivalent of that many additional dwellings in some combination of dwellings and new agricultural or commercial uses.

Risk

There is uncertainty about groundwater recharge to the UCCB. Estimates of total recharge and recharge from the contributing mountain ranges vary considerably. There is less uncertainty about groundwater consumption, but the single largest "use," the underflow from the UCCB to the Sonoita Creek Basin, is the least certain of all present use estimates.

This plan responds to the uncertainty about the groundwater supply in NE Santa Cruz County by relying on the best available information, as explained here, and setting a policy that minimizes the risk of excessive groundwater withdrawals, while calling for research that will provide more certainty. The costs of not addressing groundwater issues now could be high. The perennial reach of Cienega Creek is the featured attraction of the Empire-Cienega Ranch, a $41.7+ million public investment and habitat for three endangered fish species. Creating a local controversy like the ongoing debate over groundwater withdrawals that may affect the San Pedro National Riparian Conservation Area would be in no one's interest.

Research

The groundwater study called for by Strategy 17.B (and by the previous comprehensive plan for Santa Cruz County) should be co-sponsored and funded by the Arizona Department of Water Resources, the Bureau of Land Management, Pima and Santa Cruz Counties, and other interested agencies and organizations. The study should be managed in a participatory, collaborative manner and produce the following information:

1. a complete literature review;
   
   
2. a complete well inventory, including current water levels and water level histories;
   
   
3. maps of water levels and water level changes; and
   
   
4. better estimates of consumption based on voluntary metering of typical households and commercial uses.

This study should be followed up with regular water level monitoring.

Appendix G - Authorities for Federal - State Cooperation with Local Governments

This appendix lists the principal mandates federal agencies have to cooperate with local governments. Federal laws are found in the United States Code: abbreviated USC. Administrative rules are found in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is abbreviated CFR.

Authorities for Specific Agencies

Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

43 USC 869 is the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, which provides for the sale or lease of federal land to local governments for specified purposes. 43 USC 869(a) requires that a local plan and zoning be in place before more than 640 acres is made available. The rules for implementation of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act are found at 43 CFR Part 2740.

43 USC 1241 permits state weed control programs to operate on federal lands.

43 USC 1712 Land Use Planning

(c)(9) requires coordination with land use planning and management programs of state and local governments. It also requires the Secretary of the Interior to be apprised of local plans, to assist in resolving inconsistencies between federal and nonfederal plans, and to provide meaningful involvement of state and local officials. Corresponding regulations are found at 43 CFR 1610.3-1 and 1610.3-2.

(f) Local government must receive notice of BLM planning activities. See the regulations cited above.

43 USC 1713 states that state and local government are to be considered among potential purchasers of any federal land offered for sale. The corresponding regulation is found at 43 CFR 2710.0-6.

43 USC 1714(c)(7-8) requires consultation with state and local government and analysis of impact of major withdrawals on local economies. See 43 USC 1716(a) for land exchanges.

43 USC 1720 requires that local officials be notified before federal land is sold or otherwise conveyed. See also 43 USC 1721(c).

43 USC 1733 provides for contracts and cooperation with local law enforcement agencies. The corresponding regulation is found at 43 CFR 9260.0-3.

Forest Service

The Forest Service is given authority for practical cooperation with local government in several sections of the U.S. Code, including 16 USC 551(a) and 553.3. The corresponding regulations include 36 CFR 211.3 (cooperation in enforcement of state laws), 36 CFR 211.4 and 5 (cooperation in fire suppression) and 36 CFR 212.5 and 212.9 (cooperation in road maintenance). National forest planning is conducted pursuant to 16 USC 1604. The corresponding regulations are found at 36 CFR 219 - Planning.

219.1 includes coordination with local planning efforts as a goal of forest planning

219.5 makes coordination a responsibility of the interdisciplinary team

219.7 requires coordination with other public planning efforts

(a) says responsible line officer SHALL coordinate with local planning

(c) requires responsible line officer to review local plan and display results in EIS

(d) responsible line officer shall meet with local government at beginning of planning process

(e) Forest Service shall seek input from local government, supplemented by (f) which requires monitoring impact on communities

36 CFR 222.8 provides for cooperation in state weed control, estray law, etc.

36 CFR 251.9 provides for the protection of municipal watersheds.

36 CFR 254.20 provides for the acquisition of up to 640 acres for townsites, including additions to existing communities. Authority for this regulation is provided by 16 USC 478(a).

Authorities Affecting Multiple Agencies

Intergovernmental Cooperation

31 USC 6505-6506 provide general authority for intergovernmental cooperation by all federal agencies. 31 USC 6506(c) states: To the extent possible, all national, regional, state, and local viewpoints shall be considered in planning development programs and projects of the United States Government or assisted by the Government.

Endangered Species Act

16 USC 1531(c) requires cooperation with state and local governments to resolve water resource issues related to endangered species.

16 USC 1533(b) states that decisions to list must consider state and local efforts to protect the species.

16 USC 1533(b) requires a 90-day notice to the affected state and county before listing a species. The corresponding regulations are found at 50 CFR 424.16.

National Environmental Policy Act

42 USC 4332(c) requires that federal agencies account for the impacts of ñƒ major Federal actions significantly affecting the human environment ƒ .î

40 CFR 1500, et seq. provides the Council on Environmental QualityÍs basic rules for the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Note that many Federal agencies also have specific rules for NEPA compliance.

Appendix H -The Empire-Cienega and Adjoining Public Lands

This appendix provides additional information on the activities focussed on the Empire-Cienega Resource Conservation Area (RCA) and adjoining public lands. Appendix H-1 describes the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area. Appendix H-2 describes the Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership (SVPP) and summarizes its draft plan for management of the RCA and associated lands.

H-1 - Las Cienegas National Conservation Area

What is a National Conservation Area?

A National Conservation Area (NCA) is a mechanism by which Congress can protect land that contains unique and nationally important resources "for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations." NCAs offer a flexible alternative to traditional federal designations like national parks and monuments. Unlike these other designations, each NCA is created by individual legislation that requires development of a management plan tailored to its specific resources. Currently, eight NCAs (all managed by BLM) have been established nationally.

What is the Las Cienegas NCA?

In September 1999, Congressman Jim Kolbe of Arizona introduced HR 2941 to establish the Las Cienegas NCA, which would include a diversity of southeastern Arizona landscapes with unique aquatic, cave, archaeological, historical, recreational, scenic, plant, and wildlife resources. The proposal grew in part out of the collaborative planning efforts of the Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership, an inclusive group of local citizens, conservation organizations, ranchers, recreationists, BLM, and Pima County, who spent four years developing a multiple-use management plan for the RCA, which comprises about two-thirds of the NCA.

The NCA encompasses over 200,000 acres of BLM, private, county park, and state trust lands that connect nine protected mountain ranges. Preserving these connections would form a regionally significant network of open space that extends from national forest lands north of Tucson south to protected lands in northern Mexico. County parklands within the NCA would be managed in coordination with Pima County, while state lands (or conservation easements on them) would be acquired over time. To protect private land within the NCA, BLM would purchase conservation easements from those landowners who wish to sell their development rights. Private landowners would also continue to participate in developing a management plan for the area that includes continued sustainable grazing and recreation in appropriate areas.

Why do we need the Las Cienegas NCA?

Rapid growth in southeastern Arizona threatens the diversity of natural and cultural resources found in the NCA, over half of which is owned by the state and therefore susceptible to sale and development. Throughout the Southwest, urbanization has fragmented open space and wildlife habitat, depleted water resources, degraded water quality, and led to the loss of unique rural landscapes. Water resources have become particularly strained, as less than 5% of the Southwest's original streams and rivers remain today. Las Cienegas NCA, which takes its name from the rare cienegas (marshlands) along Cienega Creek, would play a critical role in protecting southeastern Arizona's water resources.

H-2 - Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership - provided by Karen Simms, Ecosystem Planner, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson Field Office.

Introduction

The Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership (SVPP) is a voluntary association of federal, state, and local agencies; organized groups; and people who share a common interest in the future of public land resources in the Sonoita Valley. Participants come from a variety of southern Arizona communities, including Sonoita, Elgin, Patagonia, Huachuca City, Sierra Vista, Nogales, Tucson, and Phoenix. Participants also represent organized groups, including conservation organizations; grazing and mining interests; and hiking, bird-dog, mountain biking, and off-highway vehicle clubs. Agency representation has come from BLM, the Nogales and Sierra Vista ranger districts of the Coronado National Forest, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Arizona State Land Department, Arizona Department of Water Resources, Pima County Parks and Recreation and Planning/Flood Control, and Santa Cruz County. The partnership is open to all: anyone can participate and can join at any time.

The Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership was conceived as a way for the community (private, public, government, local, non-local) to come together to resolve local and national issues affecting public lands in the Sonoita Valley. The partnership has increased awareness, communication, understanding, trust, and support among its members and has helped us look at the valley as a whole and determine what we want and need in the future.

Setting

A unique, scenic area of open, rolling grasslands in a high desert basin, the Sonoita Valley lies in the uppermost watersheds of three streams in southeast Arizona: the Babocomari River, Cienega Creek, and Sonoita Creek. To the north spread the grasslands and woodlands of the Empire- Cienega Resource Conservation Area managed by the Bureau of Land Management. To the south, east, and west are the woodlands and forests managed by two units of Coronado National Forest.

At the crossroads of two scenic highways within an hour of the rapidly growing Tucson metropolitan area, the Sonoita Valley is surrounded by public lands with outstanding dispersed recreation opportunities, a variety of traditional uses, and significant natural resources, including several endangered species. The valley still retains wide open spaces, rural lifestyles and values, and an great variety of plant communities and wildlife. But, at the same time, is it also vulnerable to the impacts of rapid growth and the intensifying conflicts at the urban-rural interface.

Process

The Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) direct that to the fullest extent possible federal agencies shall encourage and facilitate public involvement in decisions that affect the quality of the human environment.

Traditionally, BLM and other agencies have involved the public in planning at the initial scoping stage, then "disappeared" until ready to ask for comments on a draft plan. This resulted in many people thinking that their comments were ignored and to a lack of trust in the agencies and outcomes of the process.

In recent years, there has been a shift toward an ecosystem management approach in land use planning. Under the ecosystem management approach, planning processes are more open to the public, and the public is involved early in the process. Interested parties are encouraged to help establish goals and identify ways to achieve them.

The interagency ecosystem management task force in its 1995 report, The Ecosystem Approach: Healthy Ecosystems and Sustainable Economies, recommended eight steps in The Ecosystem Approach to guide agencies in implementing and participating in ecosystem efforts and which are complementary to NEPA:

1. Define the areas of concern or interest
2. Involve stakeholders
3. Develop a shared vision of the ecosystem's desired future conditions
4. Characterize the historical ecosystem and the present environmental, economic, and social conditions and trends
5. Establish ecosystem goals
6. Develop and implement an action for achieving the goals
7. Monitor conditions and evaluate results
8. Adapt management according to new information

In 1995, The Tucson Field Office, Bureau of Land Management decided to take a new collaborative approach to planning for the Empire-Cienega Resource Conservation Area with full public participation guided by these principles of Ecosystem Management. This approach resulted in the formation of the Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership. The Planning Partnership met monthly for four years focusing initially on developing a shared vision, goals and specific objectives for the Sonoita Valley. In the last year and a half, the Planning Partnership focused on working with the BLM on developing alternatives for management of the Empire-Cienega Resource Conservation Area.

Background

In 1988 BLM acquired through a land exchange 45,000 acres within the Empire, Cienega, and Rose-tree ranches in northeast Santa Cruz County and southeast Pima County, Arizona. These lands, which comprise the Empire-Cienega Resource Conservation Area (RCA), hold extremely high social, cultural, and resource values for the local and national public. These values include a critical watershed important to Tucson for flood control and aquifer recharge; five of the rarest habitat types in the American Southwest: (cienegas, cottonwood-willow riparian areas, sacaton grassland, mesquite bosques, and semi-desert grasslands); habitat for several endangered species and a diverse array of fish and wildlife; two proposed wild and scenic river segments; a site listed on the National Register of Historic Places; scenic open space; and high potential for dispersed recreation.

BLM is mandated to develop a land use plan for the acquired public lands within the resource conservation area. After several false starts on developing a plan, BLM decided to take a new approach that would involve more public participation in all aspects of planning. The approach would also improve communication and coordination with surrounding public and private landowners. This desire for a new approach led to creation of the Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership.

Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership Chronology

In January 1995, BLM brought together people from federal, state, and local agencies with an interest in the Sonoita area to discuss forming a partnership to work with the community on public land issues. All participants had a strong interest in the valley. This meeting was followed by a community potluck in April 1995. Agencies and groups were then invited to put up displays of their activities in the Sonoita area. Tours were given to sites in the valley. And participants filled out a questionnaire on their concerns for the valley's future.

In July 1995, the Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership held a community workshop to review the questionnaire results and discuss other issues related to the Sonoita Valley. Workshop participants decided to have the Partnership deal only with issues involving public lands surrounding the Sonoita Valley and to defer issues of growth management and private land concerns to another effort.

Participants at the workshop formed three working groups to confront issues relating to wildlife-vegetation, water-minerals, and people. The working groups met monthly from August 1995 to December 1995. During this time, the working groups developed desired future condition descriptions: visions, goals, and objectives for upland vegetation, riparian vegetation, aquatic habitats, fish and wildlife, cultural resources, and recreation opportunities. In December 1995, the working groups gave a joint presentation on their visions, goals, objectives and categorization of issues. Group members also decided to merge the water-minerals and wildlife-vegetation groups into a natural resources working group and to continue to meet monthly. The Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership's area of concern was defined roughly as the Cienega Creek watershed south of Interstate 10 and small portions of the upper watersheds of Sonoita Creek and the Babocomari River.

From January 1996 to September 1996, the working groups met monthly and refined resource objectives; participated in technical presentations on fire management, wildlife management, grasslands, riparian vegetation and cultural resources; and worked on preliminary development of management strategies. In September 1996, the groups gave another joint presentation on achievements on objectives and management strategies and decided to have all working groups meet together to finalize their objectives and develop alternative management strategies.

From November 1996 to May 1997 in monthly meetings, the Partnership refined and reached agreement on wording of the resource objectives which were written so that they could be applied by managers or owners to any lands within the Partnership's focus area in the upper Cienega Creek Basin.

From June 1997 to October 1998, the Partnership's monthly meetings focused on developing and refining alternative management strategies to resolve issues and meet the resource objectives, mainly on the public lands within the Empire-Cienega Resource Conservation Area. In addition, several new subgroups were formed to work on the details of proposals and report back to the Partnership at regular monthly meetings.

From December 1998 to February 1999, the Partnership worked on achieving consensus on a preferred series of management strategies out of the alternative strategies which had been developed.

From March 1999 to February 2000, the Partnership met four times (February, May, and September 1999 and February 2000) on development of a monitoring program for the Empire-Cienega.

SVPP Accomplishments

To date the Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership has accomplished the following:

1. Created vision statements relating to open space, water, healthy diverse grasslands and traditional uses for the Sonoita Valley that broadly define desired future conditions to maintain or reach in this valley.
   
   
2. Raised a variety of issues concerning public lands within the Sonoita Valley including mineral use and impacts; utility rights-of-way and other land uses; management of off-highway vehicles and road and trail networks; establishment of and management of a segment of the Arizona Trail; management of outdoor recreation; management of visual resources; designation of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern; management of livestock grazing; maintenance of water quality and quantity; management of riparian and upland vegetation; management of endangered species and fish and wildlife habitats, management of cultural/historical resources, economics, and public education.
   
   
3. Developed broad goals for vegetation, wildlife, water, watershed, cultural resources, recreation, open space, traditional uses, and stewardship of resources which can be applied to all lands within the Sonoita Valley.
   
   
4. Drafted specific, measurable objectives for upland and riparian vegetation, watershed, wildlife, cultural resources, and recreation opportunities which can be applied to all lands within the Sonoita Valley.
   
   
5. Developed alternative management strategies for mineral development, utility rights-of- way, OHV designations, roads and trails closures and restrictions, recreation zones and sites, visual resource management, ACECs, livestock grazing, fish and wildlife, vegetation management, and cultural resources for public lands within the Empire-Cienega Resource Conservation Area.
   
   
6. Reached consensus on a preferred alternative that they would like to see BLM implement on the Empire-Cienega Resource Conservation Area.
   
   
7. Provided input on BLM and Forest Service project proposals within the Sonoita Valley.

Future of the Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership

The Empire-Cienega Resource Conservation Area Land Use Plan is nearly complete, and the Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership will soon be looking in new directions. The partnership may help implement and monitor the Empire-Cienega Plan, address public land issues in the valley as they arise, or work with Sonoita Crossroads on public land issues.

Lessons Learned

The Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership's success so far is reflected by several phenomena. The working groups have maintained a high level of participation. New participants have continued to join. Communication has increased among participants on a variety of levels. Agencies have increased their interest and involvement in management. And the local community has started up the Sonoita Crossroads Community Forum, which is dealing with many issues that complement those being dealt with by the partnership. From BLM's perspective, we need to understand community values, present and future needs and concerns, and the importance of the valley to everyone. We also need to understand how public lands are important to sustaining the desired community and character of the valley and how the solutions to our problems today lie in our community's strength in the future.

But each participant may measure success differently. The results of our participant survey and interviews (pending) will help us better define the success of the process for everyone involved. However success is defined, we have learned the following valuable lessons through this process.

An open process is important. When everyone is invited to participate, then everyone's concerns can be heard, and the group gets the value of a variety of perspectives. Detractors can simply be invited to come and see for themselves. A neutral facilitator is valuable for starting the process, particularly if a public agency plays a key role in this process. Such a facilitator may become less needed as trust is built and facilitation can be shared among participants. A neutral facilitator may also be useful for discussions or decisions on topics in which all participants have a stake so that everyone has an equal chance to participate. At the outset everyone should become acquainted or reacquainted in a non-confrontational, recreational (fun) atmosphere. Such a partnership is all about community, and participants should first have the connections as members of a community before tackling tough issues together. Sharing a meal (potlucks are great for this) also helps people connect.

A partnership must have an effective way to communicate among participants and to maintain communication throughout the process. Poor communication can lead to misunderstandings or mistrust. The Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership's main communication tool has consisted of monthly minutes mailed to all participants.Community participatory approaches tend to be long and involved and require a strong continued commitment to keep them going. It is important at the outset to have known funding sources, whether agency funding, grants, or donations. Costs for meeting rooms, mailings, workshops, and refreshments can add up. Also important is a coordinator with a certain amount of time dedicated to the process.There is always a place for education. Participants informally educate each other whenever they share views. For certain topics technical specialists can ensure that everyone is familiar with terminology and methods. Because not everyone is likely to agree on who the technical specialists are, participants should decide as a group what people to bring in, when to bring them in, and for what topics. Participants should begin the process by developing visions and goals or some product that will define a common ground. It may take a while to get there, or it may be relatively quick, depending on the situation and issues that are being worked on.

Sonoita Crossroads Community Forum
P.O. Box 1274
Sonoita, AZ 85637

© 2002 Sonoita Crossroads Community Forum