DRAFT
SDCP - Steering Committee
Pima County Public Works Bldg. Rm 'C'
6:00pm to 9:00pm
Wednesday, March 5, 2003
Meeting Notes
Participants: David Steele. See attached sign in
sheet.
Documents made available to the Steering Committee members
at the meeting:
* Agendas
* Revised Draft from Working Group
* Presentation on Judge Bury's order regarding 55 vs 8 Species
from Alan Lurie and Mary Darling
* Presentation on Recommended Motions and Concerns from Mary Miller
* Presentation on Funding Mechanism Recommendations from Lucy
Vitale
* Presentation on from David Goldstein
* Presentation on Funding the MSHCP from Gayle Hartmann and Debbie
Hecht
* Proposed Mitigation Ratios
* Draft Outline of Steering Committee Report to Board of Supervisors
* Letter from member of the public, Stephanie Smallhouse
Meeting Commenced at 6:00pm
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 6:40 there were 46 Steering Committee members present
and 10 members of the public.
Logistics for the next Steering Committee Meeting:
Saturday, April 5, 2003
8:30am to 11:30am
Pima County Public Works Building, Rm. 'C'
201 North Stone
Logistics for the next Ad-Hoc Subcommittee meeting:
To be determined.
Administrative Matters:
Member participation via telephone conference call. Per
the County Attorney, Paula Wilk, members of the Steering Committee
can participate via telephone if the following three conditions
are met:
1. Everyone that is in the room needs to hear the person that
is on the other end of the phone.
2. The person on the other end of the phone needs to be able to
hear everyone at the meeting.
3. Agenda needs to note that some members may be participating
by electronic means.
Member attendance and member qualifications: Mitch McClaran
requested that David Steele ask the Board of Supervisors to make
sure that all members of the Steering Committee are qualified
to vote. The Board of Supervisors has set some guidelines
about attendance and who is qualified to be on the Steering Committee
and who is not. David noted that any member of the Steering
Committee is welcome to present this issue to the Board of Supervisors.
It was also noted that SIMG fills out an Attendance Roster requested
by the Clerk of the Board and that SIMG receives an updated list
of members once a month. Mitch also requested to know the maximum
group size that can meet outside of scheduled meetings without
violating open meeting laws. It was noted that the issue of attendance
was not specifically on the agenda and so the Steering Committee
could not discuss it beyond stating that this issue would be listed
on the April 5th agenda for discussion.
Meetings held by stakeholder groups outside the Steering Committee:
Lucy Vitale feels that even though the Steering Committee
is following her recommendations to meet in smaller groups, if
quorum is being achieved, then the groups may be in violation
of the open meeting law. Carolyn Campbell noted that a count is
always taken by various stakeholder groups meeting to assure that
they are not in violation of the open meeting law.
Old Business:
Approval of minutes from February 15:
* Lucy Vitale wants the meeting notes changed to read that her
presentation was deferred because: "there was no more quorum
and we ran out of time and that's why it was deferred".
Stakeholder discussions:
David proposed an order for the presentations. It was noted that
any decision that the Steering Committee makes does not bind the
Steering Committee from either amending or reconsidering at a
later date if new information is provided that would cause members
to do that. The Steering Committee members still have the right
to bring up issues after they hear the economics consultants presentation.
Stakeholder groups would present their motions and would require
a 2/3-majority vote to be included as one of the recommendations
in the report.
Lucy Vitale: SDCP Funding Mechanism Recommendations
* Lucy presented a list of 13 motions that she requested be voted
on in order to present them to the Board of Supervisors. Eleven
of the motions failed.
* The motion to recommend the County use public funds for strictly
conservation efforts of areas with high biological value and not
in efforts to prevent development of privately-owned lands simply
to benefit a few area residents, was amended by Carolyn Campbell
to the following motion:
Motion: Recommend the County use public funds for
conservation efforts of the areas with high biological value.
Action: Passed.
· The motion
to recommend a half-cent sales tax as a dedicated source of revenue
for the plan was amended by Ernie Cohen to the following motion:
Motion: That we recommend that the County explore the feasibility
of presenting to the voters a sales tax proposal as non-regressive
as possible, consistent with law.
Action: Passed.
See attached.
Alan Lurie and Mary Darling: Judge Bury's decision on the 55 vs
8 Species:
* Alan Lurie's main concern was whether or not the Steering Committee
has made the right decision by using an ecosystem approach or
55 species as the baseline number for the Habitat Conservation
Plan.
* Alan presented the premise that If a species, whether they be
listed or not, whether they be vulnerable or not, are put into
a Habitat Conservation Plan, they are a federally listed species.
Since Pima County will be the agency that issues permits, the
Fish & Wildlife will recover that Pima County ensure maximum
protection for all of the species inside of the Habitat Conservation
Plan.
* While some members questioned the information in the Bury decision,
stating that the species are not going to be listed by nature
of becoming covered species under the HCP. They're going
to be treated as if they are listed and assurance is granted.
They will not have critical habitat designated for them unless
they become listed. Critical habitat cannot be designated for
a species that's not on the endangered species list. Other members
added that whatever the court ultimately determines the critical
habitat to be will exist irrespective of what the Steering Committee
does and what the Steering Committee does won't change that.
What the Steering Committee can do and what is within their purview
is what they did on February 1st.
* Other members stated that if the 55 species were included then
that would protect species that were listed and others that were
not listed. It would protect indicator species that serve as a
sign of the habitat conditions, thus preventing future listings.
* Further, members pointed out that the ecosystem approach affords
an opportunity for much greater flexibility whereas the species
by species basis would end up requiring stricter and more restrictive
enforcement of the ESA by the Fish & Wildlife Service.
* The final point made was that the case that Alan presented by
the federal court does not deal with whether the Steering Committee
should consider 55 or 8, and it does not deal with whether the
Steering Committee should consider a habitat approach or a species
approach.
Motion: That the Steering Committee reconsider Group X motion
from February 1st as it specifically relates to the scope
of the plan.
Action: Motion failed.
Mary Miller, Recommended Motions and Concerns:
* Mary presented the following motion that she offered as a compilation
of the materials various members have presented to the Steering
Committee.
* Initially she had asked Alan Lurie's permission to introduce
this motion during his presentation, but it was noted that there
was already a motion on the floor and as a result, Mary's motion
was brought in as a separate entry.
* Mary accepted a friendly amendment from Jonathan DuHamel, which
became the fifth alternative in the motion.
* Mary Miller also accepted a friendly amendment from Mary Darling
that changed the second alternative.
* The final motion presented is as follows:
Motion: That given that we have recommended the adoption
of an ecosystem approach that we now recommend that there be five
alternatives considered in the EIS for the MSHCP.
1. The 55 priority vulnerable species and the conservation
measures enacted for their protection.
2. The 9 listed species plus those that would be adequately
addressed by the conservation measures enacted for the 8.
3. A combination somewhere between 8 and 55.
4. The no action alternative as required by law.
5. The species within the 55 that are currently listed as threatened
and endangered or are candidates or proposals for listing.
This would include an economic analysis of all 5 alternatives.
Other important analysis topics would include, but not be limited
to, reserve requirements and regulatory requirements.
Action: Motion passed.
* While Mary Miller did not wish to continue with the review of
her presentation, she did make the following motion:
Motion: That the Steering Committee add a section to the
Board of Supervisors report where issues lacking agreement are
highlighted.
Action: Motion passed by consensus.
David Goldstein Motions Regarding the Habitat Conservation Plan
Outline:
· David
Goldstein went through the Habitat Conservation Plan outline prepared
by the US
Fish & Wildlife that Maeveen Behan handed out on January 8th.
The purpose was to come up with recommendations that he put in
the form of motions.
Motion: That the permit should be voluntary in nature, meaning
individual projects may elect to either participate in the MSHCP
or go in for their own ESA authorizations.
Action: Motion failed.
Motion: That landowners will have the option to buy mitigation
and disturb, or develop in a low impact way.
Action: Motion failed.
· David
Goldstein's original motion; County to monitor with a technical
advisory team with broad participation. Participants would
be a technical team and citizens team. There would be a
peer review element, received a friendly amendment from David
Hogan. The motion presented was motion 11 from the Working Group's
revised draft. David Goldstein accepted the amendment.
Motion: Pre-approval and Periodic Independent Review
of Compliance and Progress. Independent review of the MSHCP
is critical to ensure sound science, legal compliance, program
transparency, public trust and to improve the likelihood that
program goals and objectives will be fully achieved. Independent
review of the MSHCP document should be conducted prior to program
approval. The MSHCP implementation should also be reviewed
independently over the life of the program. Both levels
of independent review should be conditions of the take permit
and related assurances. Periodic independent review of the
MSHCP implementation should occur at years 3 and 6, with subsequent
reviews at intervals not to exceed 5 years. The review committee
should include citizens and individuals with professional qualifications
or experience to address results generated by the adaptive management
and monitoring program.
Action: Motion passed.
Motion: That funding should be 80% public finance and 20% fee
structure.
Action: Motion failed.
Motion: The plan should include the full no surprise coverage
for covered species with phasing the amount of impact and mitigation
stay in balance through the term of the plan.
Action: Motion failed.
Working Group's Revised Draft 3/5/2003:
· This
group is comprised of Steering Committee members from different
stakeholder groups. They chose Bill Arnold and Larry Berlin as
spokesmen to make their presentation, which was offered as one
motion.
· Various
members of the Steering Committee presented friendly amendments,
one which is noted in the motion in David Goldstein's presentation
changed Section Eleven.
· One that
changed the last sentence of Section Six to read: The various
Conservation Lands System approach should guide mitigation
bank acquisition priorities.
· Two that
changed Section Eight to read:
VIII.
Protective Management and Monitoring of Conservation Lands
Protective management and monitoring is necessary to carry out
MSHCP goals
and objectives and to ensure long-term maintenance of biological
resource
values as mandated by the US Fish & Wildlife Service.
A protective management and monitoring plan should be prepared
and approved by all participating agencies, with specifics of
the plan included as conditions of the take permit and assurances.
The following are important components of the plan:
· Methods
to identify non-profit stewardship organizations
· Measures
to minimize the harmful edge effects of development in and adjacent
to the Conservation Lands System.
· Measures
to conserve covered species populations and habitats
· Measures
to identify necessary management adjustments
See attached.
Motion: That the Steering Committee accept the presented motions,
with the accepted amendments.
Action: Motion passed.
Gayle Hartmann and Debbie Hecht: Funding the MSHCP:
This presentation was deferred to the April 5th meeting.
Future meeting schedules and issues for future meeting agendas
and new business:
* The next meeting of the Steering Committee will be Saturday,
April 5th. Location and time will be announced.
* Remaining issues will be presented on April 5th
* The issue of membership will be brought before the Board of
Supervisors and addressed at the April 5th meeting.
* An Ad-Hoc date will also be set in the near future and members
will be notified.
Call to the Public: None
Meeting Adjourned:
9:10pm