SONORAN DESERT CONSERVATION PLAN
MINUTES FROM THE RANCH CONSERVATION TECHNICAL ADVISORY TEAM
Meeting of February 14, 2000 (3:30-5:00PM)
Arizona State Museum
University of Arizona Room 309
Tucson, Arizona 85721
________________________________________________________
Present: Tom Sheridan, Linda Mayro, Carl Jones, Tom Chilton, Dan Robinett, Wally Alexander, Nathan Sayre, Micaela McGibbon, Bill Shaw, Elsa Pesqueira, Bart McGuire, Harold Barnett, Lori Woods, Julia Fonseca, Neva Connolly, Mikaila Milton, Mima Falk, and Sherry Barrett.
1. CALL TO ORDER & INTRODUCTIONS
T. Sheridan called the meeting to order at 3:32 p.m. The aforementioned members and attendees introduced themselves.
2. REVIEW OF MINUTES FROM 1/10/00 MEETING
After review, T. Sheridan called for a motion to accept the Minutes. W. Alexander made a motion to accept the Minutes. C. Jones seconded the motion. Minutes accepted.
3. SONORAN DESERT CONSERVATION PLAN: Update
Maeveen Behan was scheduled to report on the item; however she was unable to attend. L. Mayro gave a brief update. L. Mayro presented the meeting agenda for the March 25, 2000 Meeting, Desert Museum (9:00-1:00). Three areas will be presented: data concerning the Altar Valley; the Cienega-Rincon Watershed; and Upper San Pedro Watershed will be presented that morning.
Each of the six elements of the SDCP will be addressed there, including economic and ownership issues. There will be a brief presentation by staff to the Steering Committee on what data staff has been able to compile that characterizes that element. These will be brief presentations with handouts that describe some of the statistical summaries that make up the GIS covers and databases. The meeting is open to the public, members of the Steering Committee, and technical team members. L. Mayro stated that the preliminary synthesis on the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan should be ready in July 2000.
T. Sheridan asked when the formal EIS process might go forward. L. Mayro stated it would probably take 12 to 18 months to complete the process.Staff is still compiling data and land-based groups will be meeting through July. It is still unknown whether Udall Center will facilitate sub-area meetings. There is no complete schedule at this time for all the meetings that might occur.
L. Mayro distributed the following handouts:
1. Letter regarding the Draft Cooperative Agreement for the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, dated February 8, 2000 signed by C.H. Huckelberry and,
2. Draft Cooperative Agreement Between Pima County Government and other agencies and jurisdictions.
4. SUB-AREA PRESENTATIONS to STEERING COMMITTEE Maps & Outline
L. Mayro distributed an outline titled, "Ranching: A Conservation Objective of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan." This will be the outline for the reports on each of the subareas, and it is based on the objectives that the Ranch team approved and staff quantified for each valley or sub-area. She and M. McGibbon have been able to create GIS layers with data staff has gathered and these data will provide the information for the summary statistics to be provided in each report.L. Mayro proceeded to go through the outline and give more details on each specific line. Under 5.b T. Sheridan asked about high density zoning.. L. Mayro answered the question by saying that these are either Specific Plans have already been approved by the Board of Supervisors, such as Rocking K or areas that have already been zoned or subdivided but not yet developed. Under 5.e, W. Alexander questioned the term "disposal" under lands for disposal or trade and stated that ASLD would rather "lease" for commercial purposes to receive a longer return. L. Mayro said she would clarify that item in the discussion in the reports. T. Sheridan asked under Section 6 if Ranch task force would have input. L. Mayro stated yes, and that drafts would be prepared for their review and comment.
After this presentation, L. Mayro and M. McGibbon went through a set of maps showing some of the GIS covers that are available at this time. Brief explanations were given to each layer. These are still working models and can be changed based on new data.
5. SCIENCE TECHNICAL ADVISORY TEAM PRESENTATION
B. Shaw started the presentation by stating the Science Technical Advisory Team (STAT) goals. STAT is trying to put on the table the best information possible to assist in making decisions in incorporating conservation into a comprehensive planning process. The STAT general mission is to find the best information possible that is useful in making decisions for the survival of native species of both plants and animals. STAT secondary goal is, if the plan addresses these goals adequately, it will lead to a Section 10 permit and will relieve some of the pressures of the Endangered Species Act in Pima County. Staff has been trying to pull together all the relevant information from a variety of sources to make these decisions.J. Fonseca gave a presentation on the maps the STAT has put together. Land covers, grasslands, were discussed. C. Jones had a question about sacaton and mesquite bosque. Consultants were asked to differentiate. There was some discussion on the terminology. B. Shaw acknowledged that the term "pest species" is not appropriate. B. Shaw discussed other words, such as: "potential problematic species" and "not native." D. Robinett stated that terminology has to be appropriate.
B. Shaw further noted that the various conservation plan elements would result in prioritized areas that would overlap. Decisions will have to be made on tradeoffs and on how one element might benefit the other. T. Sheridan brought up looking at different species for tolerance to disturbances or other land uses. L. Woods spoke about threat assessment. Threat assessment is being looked at from different perspectives. B. Shaw posed the question how can we put a positive spin on the intersection of cattle with threatened species.
B. Shaw handed out the timeline for STAT.
N. Sayre distributed a set of observations and "summary findings" that he prepared based on data presented and his own research, for the purposes of discussion with the Ranch and Science team members. T. Sheridan made a statement that the Ranch task force has not had a chance to review this first draft. H e stated that this needs to be discussed. T. Sheridan reiterated that this is simply a document to begin discussion. This is not a decision/recommendation of the Ranch Conservation Technical Advisory Team. This needs to be discussed among the members first.T. Sheridan said the Ranch Conservation Technical Advisory Team would like to make a similar presentation to the STAT members at their next regular meeting. If possible, he would like this meeting to take place in the next month or so. He believes that the sooner areas of controversy and cooperation are identified the more productive this whole process will be.
There was more discussion on the riparian areas, stewardship, and creative alternatives to what might be viewed as conflicts. T. Sheridan stressed the importance of continuing to talk or else decisions will be made without input.
6. NEXT MEETING & AGENDA
Next meeting tentatively set for March 23, 2000 pending M. Behan's schedule so that she could give update. L. Mayro to confirm.
7. ADJOURN
Meeting adjourned at 5:10PM.