SDCP - Steering Committee Study Session
Sheraton Tucson 6pm to 8:30pm
Wednesday, February 20, 2002
Meeting Notes
Participants: See attached sign-in sheet, members of the public, Maeveen Behan, David Steele and SIMG staff.
Speakers: John Regan, Pima County Geographic Information Systems, (GIS).
Documents made available to the Steering Committee members at the meeting:
* Meeting notes from the February 7, 2002 Ad-Hoc Subcommittee meeting.
* Extra copies of mailed information packets
* Board of Supervisors Agenda Item Summary
* Letter from David Steele to Katharina Richter dated February 11, 2002
* Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan Steering Committee Issues February 2, 2002
* Sonoran Desert Conservation Steering Committee Decision Flow
* Requirements for Habitat Conservation Plans
* List of Business Community Stakeholders Interviewed by the Morrison Institute
* Extra Agendas
* Copy of Lucy Vitale's presentation
Meeting Commenced at 6:00pm
Meeting commenced with 37 Steering Committee members and 8 members of the general public present.
Introductory Comments and Logistics
* David Steele opened up the meeting by announcing the logistics for the next Steering Committee meeting and the next Study Session:Meeting: Wednesday, March 6, 6pm to 9pm
Pima County Public Works Building
201 North Stone, Conference Room C
Study Session: Saturday, March 16, 8:30am to 11:30am
Casas Adobes Baptist Church
10801 N. La Cholla Blvd.
Ground Rules, as they would apply to this meeting only:
1. Only Steering Committee members can participate in the discussion of issues on the agenda.
2. General public will participate at the Call to the Public.
3. One minute per person per agenda topic.
4. Can only speak a second minute if everyone else has spoken.
5. At appointed time, move to decision making or next topic
6. Start and end on time.
Discussion:
* None.Ground rules should apply to this agenda.
Old Business:
Report on February 5th Board of Supervisors Action: Resolution provided the following three
Directives to the Steering Committee:
1. Regarding attendance: Any member that misses three meetings will be removed from the Steering Committee.
2. Regarding replacements: Any member of the Steering Committee that is dismissed will not be replaced.
3. Regarding quorum: If the Steering Committee is going to make a recommendation, the Board of Supervisors will consider the recommendation from the Steering Committee regardless if there is a quorum or not.
Review of Steering Committee Member Input:
At the February 2nd meeting we handed out index cards so the Steering Committee members could write down issues that they would like to see addressed by the Steering Committee. David compiled a list of these issues and divided the list by topic. The list was handed out to the Steering Committee members so they could see all the issues and consider what will be addressed at future meetings.
Discussion: None.
Steering Committee Issues:
* Steering Committee member, Lucy Vitale made a presentation on how she thought the Steering Committee should proceed towards choosing a preferred alternative. Copies were made and handed out to the Steering Committee.
Discussion Overview of available maps and how the Steering Committee can work with them as it formulates alternatives:
Guest Speaker: John Regan from Pima County Geographic Information Systems Department
Mr. Regan: I have a short presentation and then I will show you the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan Map Guide site. When we get into the map guide site I would like to ask you to be thinking about what other data layers you want to see on these maps. Right now we are putting the 55 priority vulnerable species on there, but if there's other layers that you think would be useful for you, please let me know so that I can get those on there for you.
Ø GIS, Geographic Information Systems, is a computer-based technology combining geographic data and other types of information to produce maps and reports. The maps are the result of analysis and research.
Ø The GIS mission is to provide timely and accurate information to decision makers.
Ø The planning process begins with collecting data, these days there are a lot of digital data available from other sources, occasionally we still use digitized paper maps inputted into the system. All this goes into our data management programs. We retrieve that data, apply an analytical program to it, crunch the numbers and come up with a map and or report that go to the decision makers that take action on these maps and that action is applied in the real world.
Ø We break up the data layers and turn them into separate layers rather than trying to represent them as attributes. By breaking them out into individual layers we can combine them to represent various scenarios as necessary.
Ø What we manipulate are the non-spatial attributes that are tied to the spatial features.
Ø One of the main things we do is called Topological Overlay, where we take different maps and we combine them topologically where the spatial features are joined and the attributes of those features are joined, this is what we manipulate. All this does is produce different ways of looking at the same data.
Ø Another source we have is our Parcel Base. Every parcel of land in the county is mapped and has a database attached to it. Owner, dimensions, tax code, property taxes, sewer service area, zoning code, full cash value, improvements, but we can also come up with population estimates. Data has improved since 1999.
Ø For the biologist, we provide maps that show all the information we have on the species that inhabit that area. They take those maps out to the area, add their data tothe maps, and bring it back to us where we input that data into the system, and then various types of analysis can be done with that information.
Ø We have maps that show archeological sensitivity at a high, medium and low level.
Ø We use satellite imagery, but we usually use that as background or for regional views to give the viewer an idea of what is actually on the ground.
Ø For more detailed work we use Digital-ortho-photography, the one-meter cells, we actually generate data from these.
Ø The Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan Map Site Guide is at: http://www.dot.co.pima.az.us/cmo/sdcpmaps/
o There are tips on how to navigate around the site and I recommend that you use these.
o The data cannot be manipulated, but you can view the data so that you can see what has been happening.
o Presently we have maps for 4 species, we intend to have maps for rest within the next couple of weeks.
Discussion:
Question: Can you identify location by lat/long?
Mr. Regan: No, not really, but if you know one of the following: parcel code, street, owner, township range section, you can find a location that way.
Question: Do you have a layer for mines locations and where did the data come from?
Mr. Regan: Yes, we do and I don't know where that data came from.
Question: Where do we call for further information or to ask questions?
Mr. Reagan: We like to keep one point of contact, so if you call the County Administrators office they will direct the calls to the proper department.
Question: Do you have a topographical map and what is the resolution?
Mr. Regan: It varies between quads, we go anywhere from ten to forty feet.
Question: How do we identify state trust fund land as opposed to other lands?
Mr. Regan: You go to the layer called: Land Ownership, and there you will see the State Lands.
Question: Do you have an overlay showing motorized recreational zones?
Mr. Regan: No.
Question: Do you have a critical habitat map for the fish in the San Pedro?
Mr. Regan: Presently we don't have that.
Steering Committee Issues:
Presentation by Lucy Vitale: Critical Path of Steering Committee Choosing Preferred Alternative(s).
Lucy: My plan fulfills all the requirements of meeting the objectives of varied groups, adhering to the open meeting laws, addressing the concerns of the public, in addition to being efficient and cost effective. It incorporates a time-line that gives us the option of several iterations, before the final adoption. It is my hope you will accept it as the basis for how we can successfully accomplish our mission. I am asking GIS staff and the four individuals I have named to accept the plan, as they will bear the brunt of the work.
* Leaders: Environmentalists - Carolyn Campbell, Land developers and builders - Allen Lurie, Ranchers and rural community - Pat King and the private landowners - Mike Zimet. Key executives of their stakeholder groups impacted by the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. This entails that those four stakeholders groups present their individual preferred alternative.
* Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan Steering Committee Parameters for Preferred Alternative(s).
* Immediately after the four initial groups present their plans to the Steering Committee at the same meeting, the GIS staff will show us the map overlays, color-coded; to show what is in agreement and what is in divergence. Areas in agreement-- incorporate them into the final alternative. Areas of disagreement-- begin discussing at that first meeting of what could be as compromises or solutions from the Steering Committee.
* The four individual members are representatives of private groups so they can pay for their own consultants and advisors such as economists and legal counsel to tell them what they should do; and because they are private groups they do not have to have public input.
* This is the time line we will follow:
* April 6th to May 18th the groups work alone. If they want the Steering Committee to have any copies of what they are doing they need to send it to us. Otherwise we don't see anything of what they are doing until they make their presentation to the Steering Committee.
* After May 18th the Ad-hoc committee together with SIMG will begin to prepare a composite plan of all the stakeholder presentations and the compromises reached by the Steering Committee. The Ad-Hoc will present the composite plan to all the Steering Committee members.
* At the June 1st meeting we discuss compromises.
* Between June 1st and June 19th the Ad-hoc Committee along with SIMG, will come up with the final alternative(s) and GIS staff will prepare the final composite map(s).
On June 19th we take the final vote. July 1st SIMG presents our preferred alternative to the Board of Supervisors.
Discussion and development of recommendation to Steering Committee on decision-making flow:
David reviewed the chart showing the Decision Flow that the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee developed. He also reviewed the checklist showing the requirements for Habitat Conservation Plans.
Discussion:
Ø I hope that at we can recommend at the next Steering Committee meeting, that the 'No Action' alternative be rejected.
Ø The county is moving ahead with us or without us so it is incumbent upon us to give them some sort of recommendation. So beginning with this meeting and finalizing with the March 6th meeting, I would hope that we could move through the first two boxes of this chart and focus our attention on the third box.
Ø I don't think that the first two boxes are very controversial. Let's just make the recommendation for the March 6th meeting agenda that we concentrate our efforts on coming up with a recommendation based on box three, because implementation of the recommendation we make is where we are really going to see the results of our efforts.
Ø Are the bullets points in the first box different proposed actions from the County and we are supposed to come up with recommendations for these proposed actions? Are these different alternatives in which case the No Action Alternative is legally required?
Ø These have been characterized as Alternatives. We have to make a decision on the scope of the plan, but we also are going to make a decision on the preferred alternative with respect to the design of the reserve and the implementation issue.
Ø I was told that there would be no decisions made at these meetings, but it is starting to sound as though we are getting very close to making a decision right now.
Ø There will be no decisions voted on at this meeting, but if there is consensus on a proposed item for the agenda that comes out of this meeting then that will be noted on the agenda for the next meeting for a definitive decision.
Ø We are here to get a Section Ten Permit. I would like to suggest that we throw out all this other stuff and obtain a Section Ten Permit for the entire community.
Ø I would recommend strongly that the funding be examined at the bottom of the first box.
Ø The more I look at this the more I believe the only way this is going to work for anyone is to begin with focusing our attention in getting the Section Ten Permit for county projects, permits and other entities within the county.
Ø This is an incredible opportunity for us to plan how our community is going to grow. Fiscally we don't know all the money issues, but we can decide a lot of where that money comes from.
Ø We're giving ourselves a little more power than we have, we are simply an advisory committee, here to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, not tell them what to do.
Ø Until we have looked at each alternative and seen what each one entails, we have no business throwing one out.
Ø Looking at all these alternatives the only one that we are required to have by NEPA is the No Action Alternative, the other alternatives, we can do whatever we want, but we are required by NEPA to have a No Action Alternative.
Ø We are not required by anyone to do anything. The County is required by NEPA to have a No Action Alternative with at least one other alternative, but this Steering Committee has no legal bound to have a No Action Alternative.
Issues for future meeting agendas and new business:
Ø I recommend that the following three issues be on the March 6th agenda:
1. What the Scope of the plan is going to be
2. Which map are we going to approve, 8 or 55 species?
3. How are we going to implement the plan?
Ø I would like to see the Ad-hoc's Decision Flow chart of as an expanded presentation at the March 6th Steering Committee meeting that shows only one item per screen.
Ø Any Stakeholder group that wants to make a presentation of alternatives to the Steering Committee should do so at the April 6th meeting.
Ø Can we get members of the Steering Committee to make presentations to the full Steering Committee representing the following points of view:
1. Rule out no action, + County Projects permits and other entities within the county. Mike Zimet
2. County projects + in process and future permits. Alan Lurie was going to make this presentation, but declined after reviewing his schedule.
3. Coverage for either 8 species or 55 species. Jenny Neely agreed to make a presentation for 55 species.
Call to the Public:
No members of the public asked to speak.
Meeting adjourned at 8:10pm