SDCP - Steering Committee Meeting Notes April 6, 2002

SDCP - Steering Committee Meeting
Tucson Estates Multi-Purpose Room
Saturday, April 6, 2002 8:30am to 11:30am
Meeting Notes

Participants: See attached sign-in sheet, David Steele Maeveen Behan, and SIMG staff.
Speakers: Dr. Tom Sheridan, Dr. Nathan Sayre, Mac Donaldson, Dan Robinett, and Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry.

Documents made available to the Steering Committee members at the meeting:
* Presentation and maps from Jonathan DuHamel
* Meeting Notes from March 27 Ad-Hoc Subcommittee meeting
* Presentations from Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan Ranch Technical Advisory Team
* CD's and printed copies of Pima County reports.
* Draft of the RFP
* Comparison of Multi-Species Conservation Plans and Implementing Agreements
* Agendas

Meeting Commenced at 8:30am
Meeting commenced with 47 Steering Committee members and 23 members of the general public. David Steele opened up the meeting by introducing himself and reviewing the agenda.

Logistics for the next meeting:
Wednesday, April 17, 2002
6:00pm to 9:00pm
Windmill Inn at St. Phillips Plaza
4250 N. Campbell Avenue

Old Business-Discussion and Action:
Approve minutes of
February 20 Steering Committee Study Session:
* Lucy Vitale wanted to call SIMG and make her changes to her presentation on February 20th.

March 6 Steering Committee Meeting:
* Bill Arnold made the motion that the 55 species be accepted and not the map, but it failed. The motion was amended by Larry Berlin, but failed again. Gayle Hartman seconded motion; it was voted on and failed. Larry Berlin made a backup presentation to the motion, the motion was resubmitted and it failed again.

March 16 Steering Committee Study Session:
* Lucy Vitale wants the minutes changed to read: As of this meeting there have been no other requests from other special interest groups to make presentations. However, there was concern from a few Steering Committee members that there would not be enough time for presentations on the schedule proposed by Lucy which has been modified in or will be modified in light of the developments of the economic analysis

Pima County Board of Supervisors attendance Policy:
Discussion:
* At the February 5th Board of Supervisors meeting, the Board reiterated their attendance policy for boards and commissions that said if you miss 3 meetings you're off the Steering Committee. At the last study session, there were a couple of issues and questions raised about that and the Ad Hoc Committee raised some questions as well.
* Chuck Huckleberry came to the March 27th Ad Hoc Subcommittee meeting and suggested that if a Steering Committee member needs to be absent from a meeting they should send SIMG a letter in fairly close proximity of the meeting within a week or so and it will be attached to the official attendance record. It is the Board's decision who is on or off the committee. They will be informed in the attendance record of your reason for missing a meeting and they will decide whether or not it's an excused absence or otherwise.
* Clerk of the Board, Lori Godoshian indicated in her letter the attendance policy prospective from the date of enactment of the recent Board resolution February 5th. This is our second "meeting" since that point in time.
* Whether this policy applies to study sessions has not been resolved. The Chairman of the Board, Sharon Bronson, is going to put that on the agenda for the April 16th Board of Supervisors meeting.

Questions:
* Was that policy prospective from February 5th or do the absences prior to that count against the attendance policy?
* What about study sessions; do they count towards the attendance policy because decisions are not made and consequently we don't need a quorum.
* Can you elaborate as to when the attendance is necessary?
* Can you clarify if the language states more than three meetings, meaning four?

Steering Committee Quarterly Report to the Board of Supervisors:
First Quarterly report was presented to the Board of Supervisors on December 4, 2001.
David presented a draft copy to the Steering Committee of the second Quarterly Report.
Discussion:
* Second quarter ended on March 31, 2002. The report should be given to the Board of Supervisors within the next two weeks.
* Report to include agendas and minutes and some of the other supplementary materials used by the Steering Committee.

Course of Action: Steering Committee members should get any comments, questions, or changes on the Quarterly Report to David Steele by April 9th and these will be presented to the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee on April 10th.

Call to the Public:
* The merger of the two lands involved in the 55 species plan and 8 species plan is a third alternative that should be considered.

Ranch Technical Advisory Team:
The members of the Ranch Technical Advisory Team made presentations.

Dr. Tom Sheridan, Chair:
* Mission statement: To facilitate the goal of "keeping ranchers ranching" through the preparation of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, which will recognize how sustainable ranching can facilitate healthy and diverse ecosystems, open space conservation, the preservation of historic, traditional, and current land uses, including food and fiber production, and property rights."
* The principle of a shared, sustainable landscape includes a cultural and biological dimension and economic and ecological sustainability.
* The SDCP has both open space and biological goals.

Open space goals seek to preserve large areas of unfragmented and undeveloped land for aesthetic, recreational, and environmental purposes.
Biological goals seek to preserve, restore, and enhance habitat, especially for threatened and endangered species.

·     Open space is dependent on ownership, land use, and providing economic incentives to not subdivide land.
·     Biological goals are dependent on good management.
·    Good stewardship and management by ranchers helps retain habitat critical for maintaining sustainable and diverse ecosystems and wildlife corridors.
*

Mac Donaldson: Mr. Donaldson is currently ranching on the Bureau of Land Management's Empire Ranch north of Sonoita where he works in close cooperation with the BLM, wildlife biologists and others to make sure that grazing is compatible with protection of endangered species and other goals of the BLM.
·        Mr. Donaldson made a presentation on the Economic Viability of Ranching.
* He presented three different scenarios on the economics involved in running a ranch in eastern Pima County. (See Attached)

Dr. Nathan Sayre: Has a PhD in Anthropology from the University of Chicago. He is the author of The New Ranch Handbook: A Guide to Restoring Western Rangeland, and Ranching, Endangered Species and Urbanization in the Southwest. His areas of expertise include, southwest environmental history, ranch science and endangered speices conservation. Presently he works as a Post Doctoral Research Associate with USDA-ARS-Jornada Experimental Range in Las Cruces, NM.
·        Dr. Sayre recommended the following book for reference and reading: Ranching West of the 100th Meridian; Culture, Ecology, and Economics
·        He quoted from one of the chapters written by Dr. Richard Knight who is a member of the editorial board of Conservation Biology, and a wildlife biologist at Colorado State University.
·        The other chapter Dr. Sayre quoted from was written by William Weeks, Vice President for the Nature Conservancy and involved in bio diversity conservation for many years.
·        Dr. Sayre's presentation had four main points:
o        The importance of understanding the imperfect and incomplete knowledge that scientists and the science team have about these issues because of their magnitude.
o        The complexity of the eco systems in question. Everything from the termite to the cattle. The importance of variability temp variability over time spatial variability the incredible topographical and vegetative and many different factors that play together.
o        The importance of the historical perspective on these issues from the fact that there has been domestic livestock in Pima County for more than 300 years to grazing during the cattle boom from about 1880 occurred through 1920.
o        The fallacy of rest: The simple solution that is frequently offered is getting rid of the cattle and let the land rest. Rest has seldom proved to be the solution, however, even over decades of time. This was a central principal in ecology from the outset and from the beginning of the 20th century, however in the last 25 years it has been proven that this theory does not work in our arid and semi arid eco systems.

Dan Robinett: Mr. Robinett is a Rangeland Management Specialist with the Natural Resources Conservation Service; an agency established in the 1930's to provide technical and financial assistance to farmers and ranchers, on non-federal lands, for conservation practices and help with management systems. Mr. Robinett addressed the management of non-federal rangelands in Pima County.
* Range Management: Most ranches in eastern Pima County have existing range management plans that have been developed with the assistance of the NRCS, the NRCDs and the Arizona State Land Department.
* Monitoring: Monitoring information helps the ranchers make adjustments to grazing on a seasonal basis. While NRCS does not do monitoring for the County, or threatened species, they do monitor at the request of any landowner who wishes to improve management of the rangeland resources they own and control.
* Sustainability: Research from range science institutions like the Santa Rita Experimental Range show that grazing in a manner and at levels that maintain or enhance plant and animal communities, protects soils from accelerated erosion and allows natural ecosystem processes to continue.
* The only way a county program will work to conserve open space is if it helps ranchers on non federal lands achieve a sustainable level of grazing and works to protect the integrity of their operations.

County Administrator Chuck Huckleberry:
* The importance of ranching is obvious. In 1987 Pima county assisting in the acquisition and conservation of Empire Cienega Empirita Posta Quemada, and a number of ranges in the eastern Pima County.
* We have done some things in the Altar Valley, in the drought program through our flood control district. Pima County also purchased a ranch down in Green Valley called Canoa.
* Pima County supports ranching now, in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. That is why Ranching is listed as the first element of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan.
* We are very pleased with the work that's been done by the Ranch Technical Advisory Team, we're willing to give financial support for the requests of the team and monitoring and we continue to and want to work through the Natural Resource Conservation District that exist within Pima County.
* I've already met with San Pedro District and will be entering into an agreement with them regarding monitoring, etc.
* Pima county has had a series of technical teams working in parallel but somewhat independent with regard to the Conservation Plan. What we have done is form an overarching science commission, made up of three members selected by the teams into what is called a Science Conservation Commission to provide an overarching view of the whole issue of conservation and how all of those things can be integrated to get balance among all of the elements.

Questions:
* Has the team attempted to do any projections as to the possible costs involved in the purchase of development rights and mitigation banking?

Dr. Sheridan: The Ranch Team has not projected costs, that's not really our charge, I think that as the economic analysis of the plan proceeds, that certainly will have to be factored into it.
* How do you determine the capacity of any given coordinates, what is capacity in animal units per square mile?

Dr. Sheridan: Capacity is determined by elevation, vegetation, precipitation and all of the natural factors that determine how many animal units you can safely run on that land.
* Why is there no mention of feed, supplemental feed and effects of the severe drought on this situation in your report?

Dr. Sheridan: Except during drought, a lot of ranchers don't need supplemental feed.
Dr. Sayre: Supplemental feeding for ranchers is almost never economical. It almost never makes them money. Certain nutrient supplements, yes, but bringing in hay is almost a money losing proposition.
* Have you had a good relation with members of the science team on the principle that you that grazing is harmful to the environment?

Dr. Sheridan: Basically, we're advocating and encouraging monitoring because it is absolutely essential. It has to be monitoring that meets the needs both for the wildlife, monitoring for biodiversity and habitat and for the needs of ranchers.
* I have yet to see a plan that allows for fire in the presence of even very scattered residential developments, how does your team address this?

Answer: We need fire and on these landscapes owned by a lot of different agencies, being able to integrate a management unit across different ownership categories, federal, state, private, and manage it as a landscape and permit is a process likely to occur as a prerequisite to the preservation of desert grasslands.
* Is there a consideration of the fact that mesquite beans produce flour that sells for ten to twenty dollars per pound?

Answer: Sure, as rancher, anything that you can do, via wood, mesquite beans, you look at the different diversity. What your question really relates to is, do people produce their numbers in times of drought to protect their resource? I think its been shown by what Dan Robinett said that we're down ninety percent from some of our use in this area.
* Is the Ranch Technical Advisory Team addressing the small horse ranch owners?

Answer: the same pressures that are squeezing ranchers are squeezing equestrian activities. Open spaces disappearing and horsemen and women need open space to do all the different things they do on horseback. We're not specifically addressing their needs because a lot of that is within the urban boundaries and I think would probably be better addressed by the Recreational Technical Advisory Team.

Resolution proposed: The Steering Committee adopts the recommendation to the Board of Supervisors that economically viable, responsible ranching be used as an element of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan to preserve wildlife habitat and open space.
Objections were voiced.
Discussion:
·        This should be discussed by the Ad-Hoc committee
·        This would be better suited for a future agenda.
·        Since it is a matter of great concern to us in the ranching community I recommend that this item be placed on an agenda for a Saturday meeting.
·        We don't have numbers for the ranching community, and that doesn't seem to stop us but we keep continually asking what's the economical impact of biological preservation, and that asymmetry needs to be addressed.

Area Reports:
Altar Valley-Mary Miller: Ms. Miller is a Steering Committee member and a member of the Altar Valley Conservation Alliance. Her presentation was on behalf of the Alliance regarding what they would like to see in the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan.
·        Goal: to maintain and enhance rural culture and economic livelihood in an open, unfragmented landscape for future generations. Her talk focused on three areas:
1.       Watershed restoration and enhancement:
Main focus is erosion control through building dams and spreader dikes. Currently seeking partners and funding to construct a large soil retention structure at the north end of the valley. Along with erosion control is vegetation control through controlled fires which clear unwanted woody shrubs and encourage grassland health.
2.       Protection of private property rights and opportunities:
They feel these are critical and that land protection can complement ranching as long as it is accomplished with incentives such as providing avenues for ranch real estate to be sold into continued ranching at a price economically feasible for ranching.
3.       Protection and stewardship of State School Trust and private land:
The Alliance's position is that leases could be paired with conservation easements of a similar duration for a rancher with a conservation minded management plan. They commingling of State and private land has been carefully established and improved since Statehood to balance the establishment and preservation of income for the School Trust, rural economic livelihoods, and enhancement and protection of private property.
Question:
·        While the commitment to sustaining plant life through fire is appreciated, please consider native grasses before going to fire.
·        Would the Altar Valley ranchers support, if this committee were to pass a resolution urging that the State constitution be changed to prohibit that State land trust from being sold to the highest bidder but rather to be retained as open space?
Ms. Miller: I can't comment specifically on whether we support a constitutional amendment.

Steering Committee Preferred Alternative Development Schedule-Discussion and Action:
Economic Analysis Status-Chuck Huckelberry: The Board of Supervisors approved this draft RFP subject to review by the Steering Committee. After we've taken into consideration comments from the Steering Committee, we will respond to those comments, and interim process to approve the quality of the RFP.    Once it goes out on the open market, which means two weeks of comment, a week to take into consideration comments and revise about three weeks from now it gets advertised in a paper of general circulation In the county, as well as sent to a number of professional contractors who have probably done an economic analyses of habitat conservation plans before to get the widest array of responses from those individuals qualified to do the work, We will put the RFP out for at least a thirty day response period, maybe a little longer depending how many potential service vendors are out there that can do this type of work, and so it comes back, and in about three or four weeks, goes out for preparation for proposals that come back for evaluation probably thirty to forty-five days. Once received it will go into an evaluation process. That evaluation process will consist of a couple of staff, a couple of outside experts and probably a couple of members of the Steering Committee, and obviously we need to figure out which two. If we get ten proposals when we get all of them evaluated, ranked and ultimately the firm would be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for selection. That selection, probably from receiving an RFP proposal to an evaluation recommendation, is another thirty days, at least consumed in time, and once the Board receives it, they can act on it in a week or two weeks and once notice for contract selected, notice received go to that contractor they perform the work probably the work is going to take, my guess is six months but we'll find a little of that when the firms out there submit their RFP. They're going to tell us what's possible, what are the tasks, how long they think they're going to take and then we'll know. So, my guess, is probably six months depending on how complicated we want to believe the economic analysis is for a Section Ten Permit. It is fairly straightforward and simple, based on the number of alternatives we discussed in the RFP. So, give it six months of time to get the information back, probably another three months in time to get the process going, out back awarded and vendor working, I think you're looking at getting economic answers probably nine months from today.
Questions and comments:
* Would you want the Steering Committee to send their responses to SIMG and then SIMG will forward them to the county and, what kind of time frame would you be looking at to get those back?

Mr. Huckleberry: I would request that Steering Committee members have their comments to you within fourteen days, then we could take a look and see which ones would actually affect the RFP, modify the RFP and if we believe there is no what we would call lingering controversy or major divide in the RFP then we can issue it if we think there are some real philosophical problems based on the comments versus the RFP, I think probably we ought to just bring it back to the Steering Committee.
·        Would it create a problem if we were to agendize this issue for our next meeting?
Mr. Huckleberry: Not at all.
·        Can we assume that nine months from today would be when you expect the preferred alternative on the Board?
Mr. Huckleberry: We set a timeline out of July 1st, based on the setback with the economic analysis, its clear that this preferred recommendation out of the Steering Committee on the Section Ten Permit, the preferred alternative is probably set back at least nine months from the July date and could be the July of the following year, because the issue is that you obviously are going to want to have some time in order to deliberate what might be coming out of the economic analysis.
* I would suggest instead of two weeks that the Steering Committee could get comments back to David and Chuck in less than a week then a week from Tuesday it can go back on the Board so that it can get out.

·        It is my understanding that our goal is to continue to move forward as a Steering Committee to resolve and come to consensus on as many issues as we can, as quickly as possible so that the iterative process, that I understand is RFP calls for, can go forward in a more timely manner.

Develop schedule for Stakeholder alternatives Presentations:
The Steering Committee discussed the issue of providing Steering Committee comments to the Board of Supervisors or to the County on the RFP.
* Agendize this item for our next meeting. Convert the April 17th meeting from a study session to a meeting. Steering Committee members provide comments to David Steele and he will prepare them for the Steering Committee to review and come to consensus at the April 17th meeting, then a recommendation is given to the Board of Supervisors. 13 of the Steering Committee members present supported this option.
* Individual comments are sent directly to the county or to SIMG to get it on the agenda for the Board as soon as possible. 25 of the Steering Committee members present supported this option.
* The issue of providing comments to SIMG by Wednesday, April 10 so it can be placed on the Board of Supervisors agenda. 22 of the Steering Committee members present supported this option.
* The issue of letting the Steering Committee members review the RFP, and get recommendations to SIMG by Wednesday, April 17th and David to forward these same to Chuck Huckleberry's office. 18 of the Steering Committee members present supported this option.

Course of Action: Individual comments regarding the RFP, are to be sent directly to the county or to SIMG by April 10th. David will forward same to County Administrator Chuck Huckleberry's office.
**Action was rescinded**
Amended Course of Action: Individual comments regarding the RFP, are to be sent to the SIMG by Wednesday, April 17, 2002 and same forwarded to County Administrator Chuck Huckleberry.

Stakeholder Preferred Alternative Proposal Presentations:
Time will be reserved at the April 17th meeting but also at the May 1st meeting for Stockholder's to present the framework for their preferred alternative. Stakeholders should contact David Steele prior to the meeting so the agenda can reflect the presentations.
Carolyn Campbell and David Hogan: Presented the Conservation Community Preferred Alternative framework. The three main issues addressed, concerning Conservation Land Systems were:
1. Assembly: Should consist of protection of priority conservation lands(meaning 'hard-lined areas specifically identified for conservation), existing County, State and Federal properties and conservation through land use and development planning-to include biological surveys, avoidance, minimization, and mitigation.
2. Management: Should be adaptive, detailed protective management and monitoring plans for all lands dedicated to the CLS with adjustments in management based on results of monitoring.
3. Funding: HCPs require assured local funding for protection of priority conservation lands, adaptive/protective management, monitoring and contingency funding for unforeseen and/or changed circumstances.

This Stakeholder group feels their proposal outlines the necessary steps to meet the goals of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, Federal Endangered Species requirements and enhance the quality of life for all residents of Pima County.

Larry Berlin: Mr. Berlin gave a pre-progress report for the Steering Committee on a process started by two stakeholder groups; 1) influential members of the business community, smaller property rights advocates, some larger developers, and realtors; and 2) influential members of the environmentalists community.
* The purpose initially was to identify differences assigned to an area and what compromises could be reached.
* While Mr. Berlin has ties to both communities outside of Pima County, he noted that he had no authority over either group and that he was part of a large group, within the Steering Committee, that sees a rather broad range of reasonable possibilities.
* The process has been to carry the identification of the issues and communication on possible issues, back and forth, between these two factions. There has been surprisingly little disagreement and surprisingly little disconnect between these two groups.
* The toughest part has been communication, perceptions, misconceptions about each other, and about what the plan is itself. County has been very useful in clearing much of this.
* Part of his approach had been to request that the Steering Committee begins with the 55 species, "preferred biological map" and to ask what the business community would need to buy into that map. The issues that surfaced were property rights, and setting up some form of an alternate dispute resolution that can reasonably and efficiently compensate property holders for their losses that may fall short of the constitutional taking and that definitely keep out lengthy and expensive litigation procedures.
* Mitigation banking devices that have been brought upon the table, the county officials have been very helpful with respect to their willingness to help establish significant mitigation.

Issues for future meeting agendas and new business:
* At the last study session, the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee was asked to consider one central location for future meetings. Meeting places have been locked in and deposits paid for the meetings scheduled through June19th. A central location for the meetings after June 19th will be identified.
* Ad-Hoc Subcommittee will select some central locations at the April 10th meeting.
* It's important to talk about the schedule that's been laid out in light of the requirement not to go ahead and investigate how to do economic assessment, economic evaluation and do we want to continue to meet every 2 weeks when it may not serve any great purpose?
* Stakeholders are asked to contact David Steele if they are going to make a presentation to the Steering Committee at the April 17th meeting.

Call to the Public:
* I would like to urge the Board of Supervisors to get the issue of attendance on the agenda and resolved as quickly as possible.
* If ranchers are going to lose land in one area they should be reimbursed with lands in another area.

Adjourn 11:30 am