DRAFT
SDCP - Steering Committee
Pima County Public Works Bldg. Rm 'C'
8:30am to 11:30am
Saturday, March 1, 2003
Meeting Notes
Participants: David Steele. See attached sign in sheet.
Guest Speakers:
Documents made available to the Steering Committee members at the study session:
* Agendas
* Two Funding Presentations from Steering Committee members, one from Gayle Hartmann, Debbie Hecht, and one from Lucy Vitale
* Proposals from Working Group titled: Elements to be included in Pima County's Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Program
* Mining and Mineral Exploration Concerns from Steering Committee member Jonathan DuHamel
* Answers to Steering Committee questions, from US Fish & Wildlife Field Supervisor, Sherry Barrett
* Proposal from Steering Committee member, David Goldstein
* The ADR Provision in Growing Smarter
Meeting Commenced at 8:30am
Meeting commenced with 25 Steering Committee members and 4 members of the general public. David Steele opened the meeting by introducing himself, reviewing the ground rules and reviewing the agenda. By 9:15 there were 42 Steering Committee members.
Logistics for the next Steering Committee Meeting:
Wednesday, March 5, 2003
6:00pm to 9:00pm
Pima County Public Works Building, Rm. 'C'
201 North Stone
Logistics for the next Ad-Hoc Subcommittee meeting:
Immediately following the Steering Committee meeting.
Administrative Matters:
* At the last meeting Steering Committee members were asked to sign up for cd's from the Pima County GIS department containing maps and overlays to address the various questions. This proved to be very expensive and the GIS department opted to provide color maps.
* The maps were done in such a manner that they show the CLS boundaries, the pygmy owl habitat and its relations to private land.
* The GIS Department will also provide maps that show the vacant lands and the recovery area as opposed to the critical habitat.
* Maps were provided to those that signed up at the last meeting and another sign in sheet was circulated so maps could be provided to those Steering Committee members that did not attend the last meeting.
* In planning meetings for April some members questioned whether they could participate via telephone. This will be investigated and placed on the March 5th agenda for discussion.
Old Business:
Approval of minutes from February 1:
· Although the transcripts cannot be changed, Lucy Vitale wants the meeting notes to read that she said, "include the numbers of "yes" votes, comma, the number of "no" votes, comma, and the total number of attendees. "
· Minutes were approved.
Approval of minutes from February 15
· Deferred to the next meeting.
Status of Key Decisions and Schedule for their consideration:
The following items have been discussed by the Steering Committee:
· Scope of the Plan
· Duration
· Species Covered there has been no consensus on this issue, but the Steering Committee continues to discuss this.
· Implementation of the Conservation Land Systems
· Acquisition of Core Areas-the county is seeking guidance from the Steering Committee on this issue.
· Mitigation Ratios although the Steering Committee has had some discussion on this issue they expect to hear more from experts at the next meeting.
Stakeholder discussions:
Lucy Vitale presented a series of funding suggestions and requested that the Steering Committee vote on whether or not to include them in the final report to the Board of Supervisors as recommendations for funding sources. Lucy stated that she decided to present these suggestions because she thought the Steering Committee had not addressed the issue of funding. The following points and recommendations were made:
· Five months ago the Coalition, The Nature Conservancy, the Sonoran Desert Museum, and the Arizona Open Land Trust, presented an entire report on funding.
· Gayle Hartmann and Debbie Hecht also had a presentation on funding and perhaps it would be better to hear both presentations before voting.
· Elements of both plans could be combined and then voted on by the Steering Committee.
· Lucy should present all the recommendations and then the Steering Committee should vote on them en block.
Lucy declined to work with the other Steering Committee members developing funding recommendations and also declined to have all her recommendations voted on en block.
While the Steering Committee was willing to discuss the recommendations, a procedural motion was put forth for the Steering Committee's vote:
Motion: Defer the list of funding recommendations proposed by Lucy Vitale until a meeting at some point in the future, which could be March 5th. If not deferred then the Steering Committee would vote to consider the motions individually or separately.
Action: Motion to defer passed with a two-thirds majority vote of 28.
* After her presentation, some members requested that Lucy speak with the Board of Supervisors and report back to the Steering Committee any advances she made regarding one of her recommendations, specifically Supervisor Ray Carroll and Lucy's recommendation of the half-cent sales tax that would affect winter residents.
* Other members offered again to work with Lucy and some members of the Steering Committee reiterated that it would be valuable for Lucy to work with other Steering Committee members on funding recommendations.
Jonathan DuHamel, working in conjunction with stakeholder groups within the Steering Committee presented two motions. The following comments and brief discussion ensued regarding his first motion.
· This motion may be unnecessary as the process of state land acquisition addresses what this motion is saying.
Motion: That in seeking to acquire state land; Pima County should consult mineral potential data and explore an alternative to acquiring state land with high mineral potential if conservation goals can be accomplished by acquiring an alternative parcel
Action: Passed
41 present Yes votes: 39 Abstained: 2
The following recommendations and friendly amendments were made:
· Perhaps the words, "find areas that can be mined, " can be added to the motion so that this motion does not make it virtually impossible to locate areas to mine sand, gravel and aggregate.
· There will be some areas that should be mined or could be mined without making it so absolute that it will have to be all of these areas, therefore the current wording provides a good balance to recognize both sides of the concern that there could be a general exemption for sand and gravel mining in all important riparian areas.
· If the appropriate industry concerns already know where a lot of this aggregate is, especially south of town, then there is no need to find, but there needs to be some agreement on which ones of those areas can be mined and which ones need to be protected.
· Both the county and the town of Marana are currently involved in a joint discussion to explore how they can best service the community as well as protect resources and quality of life issues for the citizenry in the northern area of eastern Pima County. This motion addresses those concerns about having that same kind of consultation and process with the town of Sahuarita and others. Current state law says that the only kind of mining that the county can regulate is sand and gravel. Consequently, the wording of this motion should remain as Jonathan presented.
Jonathan declined to accept any friendly amendments to his motion. At the end of the discussion the motions were presented for the Steering Committee's vote as Jonathan stated.
Motion: That Pima County, in conjunction with the appropriate industry concerns, should review potential source areas for sand, gravel and aggregate and to come to some agreement on which areas can be mined for these materials consistent with the conservation goals of the MSHCP.
Action: Passed
41 present Yes votes: 40 No votes: 1
Alan Lurie presented a memorandum at the last meeting that he felt provided the Steering Committee members with new information regarding the 55 species instead of the 8 issue. He wanted to know if any members were having second thoughts in light of the new information and if the Steering Committee would like to reconsider its previous vote. While some members wanted the vote to be reconsidered at the March 5th meeting, other members wanted to vote that the motion not be reconsidered at all, stating that one reconsideration is fine, but the Steering Committee could not continually allow for continuous reconsiderations of items it has already voted into place.
Motion: To defer this item to March 5th so the Steering Committee can review the information that Alan Lurie has previously passed out, give him the opportunity to present his information and defend his position, and then the Steering Committee can decide if there is a need to reconsider it.
Action: Passed
42 present Yes votes 26 No votes: 10
Carolyn Campbell, Larry Berlin and other members from a group of Steering Committee members that have been meeting, presented a draft of their proposal titled, "Elements to be included in Pima County's Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Program", that they would like the Steering Committee to review for consideration on March 5th.
· While this group made it a point to mention that everyone on the Steering Committee is encouraged to participate, a member of the Steering Committee felt that it was necessary to know who had said what.
· Still other members felt that this was very productive for the Steering Committee and that this was helping the Steering Committee focus on the areas that required more discussion in order to reach consensus.
· Some members voiced apprehension that their stakeholder group still had concerns with the wording of the document as it applied to their stakeholder group. Other members pointed out that this document was not the only document that the Steering Committee should be considering when writing the final recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, and that all other members of the Steering Committee should be presenting their points for consideration by the full Steering Committee.
· The working group presented this document as their effort to date, as a working document. Their hope was that the Steering Committee could agree on the principles that are in this document, understanding that it may not be complete, then at least the Steering Committee will have reached some consensus on something positive. They also feel that this will also enable the Steering Committee to move forward on those issues on which there is not consensus at this time.
Gayle Hartmann and Debbie Hecht presented a draft of their funding recommendations titled, "Funding the MSHCP". Gayle stressed that is was for the Steering Committee to review and add to with comments, suggestions and recommendations so that a set of funding recommendations could be voted on by the Steering Committee at the March 5th meeting. The document offered a series of ideas proposed for Steering Committee consideration. The document was divided into 3 basic categories. The idea was to start a fund that would be funded over long periods of time by the different mechanisms mentioned, with the idea that the money in the fund would be used specifically to preserve open space and habitat. At the end of their presentation they suggested that anyone with input that would like to join with them for discussion in making their recommendations at the March 5th meeting, should contact them. Steering Committee members were given a copy of their presentation for review.
Call to the Public:
None
Development of Steering Committee Recommendations:
· It was suggested that the stakeholder issues be included in the final report to the Board of Supervisors.
· Alan Lurie was concerned that he brought forth the consideration that the economic analysis of the Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan was insignificant in comparison to the economic analysis of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, but it had not been discussed or resolved, therefore, he wanted assurances that his concerns would be included in the final report as something that hasn't been discussed.
· David noted that in the Draft Outline of the Report Section 2a Steering Committee Recommended Assumptions, Number 8 states: The regional economic impacts (costs and benefits) of the MSHCP need to be analyzed consistent with the National Environmental Policy act and the Endangered Species Act and other relevant statues.
Future meeting schedules and issues for future meeting agendas and new business:
* The next Steering Committee meeting will be Saturday, April 5 from 8:00 am to 11:30 am. A location will be secured and announced to the Steering Committee and to the public by way of mailings and public notice.
* The proposal was made that the Steering Committee meet on April 5th and hear the economics consultants and that a week or two later after that point in time have another meeting at which point that would be the deadline for issues to be presented to the Steering Committee to be included in the report. There were not enough members present at the time this was introduced to vote on this as a motion, however various dates were discussed an eventually the Steering Committee decided to postpone scheduling any further meetings beyond April 5th.
Call to the Public:
Stephanie Smallhouse: I just had a few points that I wanted to touch on and most of them you have discussed here so I think they might be of some important information to you, I would hope. First of all, in the 55 species, just to make a comment. It's difficult for me to get the agendas and what's going to be discussed and what's going to be voted on. And I had no idea that that was going to be dropped. And I would like to take a moment just to say something about it at this time if you are going to reconsider it. Just as an example, on my property if you use the 55 vulnerable species for this plan instead of the 8 endangered species, that covers 26 species just on my property. Of those 26, only 4 are endangered. And of those, all of those 26, only one has been documented to actually exist there. And it's not endangered. Now you've been discussing about mitigation prices, mitigation levels and things like that. For somebody in my position to have to deal with 26 species, all of which except 4 are not even listed, that's an incredible burden to put on me to be required to go along with mitigation that's the same as federal mitigation for endangered species. I mean there's practically no permit I could go to the county with where I wouldn't have to mitigate for one of those 26 species. Not only that, but also these regulations and mitigation were made for endangered species. It's not made to burden a landowner to death on every species that everybody thinks should be protected. That's why we have the process of petitioning the federal government to make sure that it's worth this burden. So I just want to make it clear to you how intensive the burden would be to some of us who are in these biological core areas.
Also, like Sue was just saying, for the graduated, and I know this is just a suggestion, but just as an example like I said. With myself having 26 of those species, if you have a graduated scale on mitigation and I just want to do a simple building project for myself, I'm going to have to pay huge mitigation because of the level of species I have on my property or the habitat potential, I should say, that's on my property. And I just wanted to make that clear. I realize the ecosystem management is better than single species management, but the point being is that this is too much of a burden on a single landowner. These are federal regulations, federal laws, they apply to endangered species, not to what the science technical advisory committee considered to be sensitive species. It's a federal law. You can't apply it to everything. I think it's unfair to put the burden on landowners, that kind of burden, for something that's not endangered and it's not in federal regulation.
My next point would be under the recommendations from the landowners. Basically I'm not involved in the Altar Valley conservation lands, I'm on the other side of Pima County. So I didn't come up with these suggestions. But I would like to say that I'm very in favor of them as a rancher and a landowner. And I think that they should be considered very seriously and I'm glad that it's being considered seriously. But like Mary was saying, the most important point on there is the, is not taking the value away before you offer to buy it from somebody. I've heard over and over again over these years that ranchers are an important part of this plan. I mean, we're providing the pudding for this plan. I mean, it's our land that's going to go towards the mitigation. And over and over again we've been asked, what is it that you want? Well, we're telling you what we want and we're telling you in black and white. And if you really want us to be, excuse me, like I said then this is it right here, there shouldn't be any more question. And the most important point is don't devalue our land before you offer to buy it. That doesn't make any sense. I mean everybody should realize that. And just as an analogy to make a lot of you understand, I hear a lot of you saying that, and in the last few meetings trying to come up with funding. Well, you want to tax the people who are coming out of state. Correct, that should be a possibility, for enjoying what we have here. Well, as landowners we feel the exact same way. For those of the people who live in the city that want to enjoy what we're managing and we're maintaining at our own cost, you should have to pay us. Just like you think out of state people should have to pitch in to view what we've got. It's the same thing.
The last thing I would like to, I'll try to be real quick. The last comment I want to make is just a piece of information for you all because this sheet here was provided to you for informative purposes, I'm assuming, this article out of the Arizona Republic. "Big State, Small Ambitions". And I would just like to make two short comments on that since it is an informative piece of information, I'd like to provide some information to that. It says that agricultural is nearly zilch in this state (inaudible). Agricultural provides almost $6 million dollars to this state and to some of you maybe that doesn't seem like a lot but considering the state of our economic affairs right now, that's a lot of money. And over half of that is livestock. So if you think ranching is insignificant in this state, you're completely wrong. It also states that wells on the San Pedro are going dry. I live downstream from the San Pedro, which means my water is coming from upstream. I don't know their situation but my wells aren't going dry. And I think you need to, when you're provided with information like this to help you make your decisions, I think you need to realize what's propaganda and what's the truth.
Meeting Adjourned:
11:15am