SCIENCE AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY TEAM
DRAFT MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 29, 2005
Attendees:
Bill Shaw, Marit Alanen, Sherry Barrett, Cathy Blasch, Neva Connolly,
Susanne Cotty, Diana Durazo, Mima Falk, Julia Fonseca, Paul Fromer, Thomas
Helfrich, Natasha Kline, Jessica Lee, John Regan, Sherry Ruther, Bob Schmalzel,
Cecil Schwalbe, Tom Van Devender, Lori Woods, and Annette Plicato
Absent: Rick
Brusca, Doug Duncan, George Ruyle, and Bob Steidl
Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 9:10
a.m.
The minutes were approved subject to a correction on
Page 2 under Announcements.
Sherry Barrett requested that the words, ‘Recovery Plan’ be changed to
‘Critical Habitat Designation’. [Annette Plicato made the correction before sending the minutes
for posting onto the SDCP website.]
Julia Fonseca reminded STAT members that the next
draft of the MSCP must be finalized by mid-December. Paul Fromer stated the final version should be submitted in the
spring of 2006. Lori Woods delineated
the differences between the current draft and the one issued in September. Some of them were that the Desert Tortoise
was added, the focus is species by species, Pima County’s acquired properties
were added, changes to the Pima Pineapple Cactus concerning bees pollinating
the cactus, and the tentative $45M approved by the transportation plan.
Sherry Ruther distributed a draft memo to the
implementation committee for use in development of a monitoring program as part
of the MSCP. The Chairman asked team
members to review the memo for discussion/decision at the next meeting.
Bill Shaw thanked the group working to put all the
information concerning the Pima Pineapple Cactus together.
Julia then discussed the information provided in the
agenda package. The cactus depends on
the Diadasia rinconis bees for survival.
Pima County and the University of Arizona met on November 7. Also, PCA No. 3 has been extended.
The PPC model uses positive data to correlate four
environmental circumstances for the species: alluvial soil, gentle slopes,
aspect, and elevation. Since the last
STAT meeting, Paul checked the fit of the model to the new observations by Marc
Baker, and all of the new locations fell into the areas where all four
conditions for the species were met.
Recommendation regarding PPC Permit Conditions
The Chairman asked team members to study the two
November 28, 2005 information sheets carefully. At the end of Julia and Sherry Ruther’s presentations, he will be
asking for a motion and a vote on the conditions for each cactus. The
conditions presented in the handouts illustrated property acquisitions,
management/monitoring needs, regulation guidelines, and coordination with other
agencies, developers, and ranchers.
Julia began her presentation by speaking on the
Needle-spined cactus. Distribution is
limited. There is a lot in Vail and the
San Pedro Basin. The cactus prefers
limey soils.
The Pima Pineapple Cactus conditions are similar to
the Needle-spined cactus except in the following areas. The acquisition approach is distinct. We are looking at high value areas for
PPC. Pima County will be surveying the
Sierrita Mountains and will encourage future studies. We will also be working to establish mitigation banks. Sherry Ruther handed out a diagram that
detailed a conceptual strategy for how the revised Native Plant Preservation
Ordinance might work and discussed it.
STAT members passed a motion to endorse in principle
the conditions detailed in the two draft memos dated November 28, 2005 for the
Needle-spined and Pima Pineapple cacti subject to minor revisions.
Neva Connolly distributed information concerning the
conservation of vegetation in Pima County by Brown, Lowe and Pase series and
total conserved acres. This data will
be used in the State of the Environment Report. This analysis used the composite vegetation layer that has been
refined over the years. Neva also
distributed information concerning grasslands with reserves. Although many acres of scrub-grassland have
been added to the reserve system, Pima County has not acquired any high-quality
grasslands since 1998.
Staff has continued work on the tool to analyze
fragmentation by adding land use and increasing the resolution of the area
analyzed, in the manner of the Theobald paper in the 2003 issue of Conservation
Biology. The criteria included road
impacts, occupied land more dense than SR, land within 2K of above land
use. The next direction will probably
come from the statewide Linkages committee.
Neva summarized the findings in SWCA’s
Heritage-funded report, now in review at Arizona Game and Fish Department. She displayed a map showing collection
points, potential habitat areas, and suitable habitat areas for the Cactus and
Mesquite mice. Habitat for the Mesquite
mouse is more broadly distributed than previously believed, and a number of
historic locations showed that the mouse was still present. Three urban locations lacked any rodents
whatsoever.
The next meeting is scheduled for January 12, 2006
at 9:00 a.m. in the Water Resources Research Center, 350 N. Campbell Avenue. Agenda items will include the MSCP
Implementation Committee memo, Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy Owls, and the draft
MSCP.
Gila Chub was listed with Critical Habitat on the
USFWS website.
Meeting adjourned at 11:35 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Annette Plicato