SDCP - Steering Committee
Pima County Public Works Building, Conference Room 'C'
6:00pm to 9:00 pm
Wednesday, March 6, 2002
Meeting Notes
 
Participants:  See attached sign-in sheet, Maeveen Behan, Lori Woods-RECON, David Steele and SIMG staff.
 
 Documents made available to the Steering Committee members at the meeting:
* Carolyn Campbell's presentation
* Ernie Cohen's presentation
* Lucy Vitale's proposal
* Updated Agendas
* GIS Powerpoint presentation made by John Regan on February 20th.

 

WEBSITE ADDRESS FOR GIS MAPS AND OVERLAYS:
http://www.dot.co.pima.az.us/cmo/sdcpmaps/
* Additional Maps

 
Meeting Commenced at 6:00 pm
Meeting commenced with 40 Steering Committee members and 16 members of the general public that signed in, but more were present. David Steele opened up the meeting by introducing himself and reviewing the agenda. At 8pm there were 54 Steering Committee members present.
 
Logistics for the next meeting:
Saturday, March 16, 2002
8:30 am to 11:30 am
Casas Adobes Baptist Church-Palo Verde Building
10801 N. La Cholla Blvd
 
Old Business:
Approval of meeting notes from previous meetings:
Meeting notes previously deferred pursuant to the County Attorney's letter, as a quorum had been not achieved to do this.
Discussion:
* December 1st meeting notes approved.

* January 9th meeting notes approved
* February 2nd meeting notes approved 

* Correction to the spelling of N E P A
* Are the meeting notes from the Study Sessions considered actionable items? If they are then they must be noticed on the agenda of a future meeting.

* Place the meeting notes from the February 20th Study Session as an actionable item on the next meeting agenda.

* A Study Session, as previously discussed, is an opportunity for the Steering Committee to have information. There's a need for information so we ought to have our regular scheduled meetings where we can make decisions and recommendations where we require a quorum and then we'll have the study sessions where a quorum won't be required and there won't be decisions made. However, the meeting notes for the study session need to be considered.

 
Board of Supervisors Attendance Policy:
Board of Supervisors' adopted a resolution on February 5th.  Any member that misses more than three scheduled and noticed meetings of the Committee shall no longer be qualified to serve as a member of the Committee and any vacancy created by the application of the attendants' policy shall not be filled. The attendance policy does not apply to the study sessions and that it be prospective forward from February 5th.
Discussion:
* I propose that the study sessions not apply. We're going to lose members if we're expected to come twice a month. Especially now that we're asked to attend study sessions that you've scheduled in the last month.
* Please clarify when the three meeting missed rule begins to apply to our attendance. Is it three meetings per year, through the entire history of the Steering Committee, or from now until July? 
* It's not for us but for the Board of Supervisors to determine who is eligible to be on the Steering Committee and the Board of Supervisors took action and we've decided to tell them what our understanding is of their action. They will tell us whether they agree with it or not. It is appropriate that we proceed to tell them that we understand that it is prospective in terms of the three meetings and that it does not apply to study sessions and if they tell us it's different then whatever they tell us governs.
* Does anybody object to David Steele expressing the sentiment on behalf of the Steering Committee that the policy should be prospective from February 5th from the date of enactment and study sessions should not count in terms of the three missed meetings?
* With what the Board has directed us to do by July 1st; what happened at the study session a couple of weeks ago and what's happening here is a lot of repeat work because we can't make any decisions and I'm just afraid that we're not going to have enough meetings.  We only have three meetings left after tonight ­ official meetings -before we have to report to the Board of Supervisors.  Ask the Board of Supervisors what they want us to do as opposed to giving them a suggestion.
* Based upon needed workloads ­ we can convert the meetings from the study sessions to meetings if it's needed.  The Ad Hoc Committee is recommending that.  Obviously we'll do it with the concurrence of the Steering Committee. 
* We appreciate the fact that all these people have invested all this time and we're not supposed to be looking for ways to dump people out.
* Encourage everybody to come to those meetings and to the extent that we don't make any decisions at those meetings you could report to the Steering Committee what happened in those study sessions so that we don't waste a lot of time when we do need to make decisions

Course of Action:
David Steele will ask an open ended question from the Board of Supervisors and let them tell the SC whether or not the study sessions count in the attendance policy. 20 members supported this action.
Express a sentiment on the part of the Steering Committee that study sessions do not count on the three meeting policy.  22 members support this action.
 
Discuss objection by member of the public and clarify Committee's February 2 action, which was to take formal action on issues previously considered at times for Committee meetings, but at which less than a quorum was present:
On February 2nd the Steering Committee considered and retroactively approved its previous decisions based upon counsel from the county attorney. The country attorney asked me to inform you that we could not, based upon their first interpretation, take an action that was retroactive and that the action that we took on February 2nd was only from that day forward.  Given the fact that it was just our government's process, I think it's my view and others that it's really the same net effect; that the decision that we took on February 2nd was from that day forward.  The country attorney said that there was no additional action necessary.
 
Call to the public:
* I hope you incorporate the public's participation when you make decisions.

 
 
 
 
 
Decision-making flow to arrive at a preferred alternative recommendation by July 1st
Introduction ­ Carolyn Campbell:
At the Ad Hoc Committee meeting and the February 20th study session, we talked about coming up with a decision making flow so we could actually start to get moving and make some decisions.  The county is going to be moving ahead with us or without us.  They have given us a deadline of July 1st to give them a recommended alternative. If we don't give them anything or if we don't come up with something together then we really aren't going to have any input.  I don't think that we've wasted our time here for the last three years in order not to have any input. The biological goal of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan that the county adopted is to ensure the long-term survival of the full spectrum of plants and animals that are indigenous to Pima County through sustaining or improving the habitat condition and eco system functions necessary for their survival. It would behoove us to look at that biological goal and continue to check ourselves against this as we're developing an alternative. Why do the environmentalists care that we have all the stakeholders there?  We can't have implementation of this plan unless we have all of the stakeholders.  A lot of people are represented in this room; we've got a broad spectrum, we call come up with something together. In talking with some of the folks here, I don't think we're really that far apart.  Now as far as the charts ­ this is what we came up with.  We wanted to focus on what we're trying to do and see if we can get past some of these.  We've broken it down into WHAT, WHERE, and HOW. 
We're not here to get the county a permit.  My purpose is to try to get us past the things that we don't need to be stuck in. Another issue discussed at length at the February 20th study session was whether it should be the threatened and endangered species that Fish and Wild Life Service and the county will have to deal with or whether we use the STAT method.  The Steering Committee should get to the how of the regulatory issues, the funding issues, and the mitigating ratios. Regarding the maps -- we know that the county is moving ­ they have made the decision, apparently because the comprehensive plan to go with the 55 species map, we can come up with a different recommendation from this committee but I would rather focus on the things that we actually can have some affect on.  I've got a feeling that if we go with the 55 species map we're going to have more of an effect, we really should focus on this. I'm not very good at remembering quotes but it's something like God give me the courage to change the things that I can and not change the things that I cannot, and have the wisdom to know the difference. We should focus on the things that we as a group can change and have and effect on this plan and again, we have to do it by July and I hope we're not going to get stuck in rhetoric and we can start moving forward.
Questions:
* Perhaps the best thing to do is go parcel to parcel and ask if they want to be part of the plan, State lands didn't opt in, Oro Valley didn't opt in. How do we deal with that?
* State trust land is owned by the state, is not going to be developed by the state trust fund, it's going to be sold.  Once it's sold it comes under whatever the county's plans are so that if we adopt the Sonoran Desert conservation plan as soon as that land is out of state hands and is subject to development it then is subject to whatever restrictions we have adopted.

 
Scope of the Plan ­ Discussion and Action
No Action ­ County Projects Only -At the February 20th study session we talked about these options at length, and the Ad Hoc Committee talked about them as well.  We were looking for individuals to get up and advocate for the various options here and we found there was a strong sentiment for county projects, DSD permits, and other entities within the county.  We didn't find anyone specifically that was willing to get up and articulate for the no action alternative.
 
County projects, permits and other entities within County ­ Michael Zimet:
My sense is that we're spending our valuable time on the Steering Committee in order to obtain a Section 10 permit that will benefit all private and government, quasi government development projects undertaken in Pima County with the proviso that no additional development or building permit fees will be charged to reimburse any government agencies for the cost of obtaining the Section 10 permit.  In the county's budget Pima County's state program goal for the SDCP is to obtain a Section 10 permit under the Endangered Species Act from the US Fish and Wild Life Service by December 2002.  This stated goal means the that Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan needs to produce the documentation required to obtain that permit but it doesn't say how many species that permit should cover nor who should benefit from that permit.  I cannot support the county's far-reaching preferred reserve, which is intended to cover a total of 55 endangered and other species that I'll call the maximum plan.  The fact is that we're still waiting for the economic analysis on this plan and because of this fact and many unanswered questions that exist today, the county's plan is unsupportable.  However, I can support a plan that would do the minimum required to obtain the Section 10 permit for Pima County.  The Board of Supervisors has directed our Steering Committee to come up with our preferred biological reserve in order to obtain a Section 10 permit but has given us only their plan to work with.  This means, in my mind, that we either accept their plan or come off that benchmark and create our own plan.  We don't have the resources as individuals to create our own plan in my mind.  In order to create our plan I believe that it's imperative that we have an alternative plan that would do the minimum required to obtain a Section 10 permit that I'll call a minimum plan.  Then we could compare that minimum plan with the county's maximum plan and hopefully find sufficient common ground to develop a consensus as to a preferred final plan that will satisfy all stakeholders.  There are some folks who have suggested that the best way to advance their interest is to develop their interests outside the Steering Committee process.  However, I believe that all interest will be best served by developing alternatives within our existing process since the policy makers will not seriously consider any alternatives developed outside our process.  Accordingly, I simply propose that we request of the Board of Supervisors and county staff to provide us with the necessary resources and funds to develop a plan that will provide for minimum compliance with the requirements to obtain the Section 10 permit for Pima County.  I now would like to ask that we poll the Steering Committee tonight to consider and accept this proposal.  Thank you for your courtesy in listening to me and giving serious consideration to my proposal.
Questions:
* If the state lands and the incorporated areas are not willing participants we cannot do this alternative.
* I'm in agreement with Michael's general perspective that we want something that includes, as much as possible. I would like to move that we spend no further time discussing or considering a no action alternative or an alternative that considers only county projects on the grounds that neither of those will get us a Section 10 permit.
* In terms of other entities, we have absolute ability to determine what happens to the state lands when they come out of the trust and we have no need to make a decision as to what happens to the state lands while they're in trust because they are the best reserve you can have,
* Amendment motion to further exclude county projects and in process DSD permits and county projects plus in process and further DSD permits so that if this amendment is approved in addition to the main motion we will have approved by default county projects and DSD permits and other entities within Pima County.  If we don't; we've wasted three years of time. 
* Will this amendment mean that we will shift our attention more towards looking at alternative ways of getting to a recommendation?
* I would like to propose that instead of dealing with motions we come to consensus that this group would like to pursue a Section Ten Permit that deals with County projects, development services permits and any other willing entities within Pima County and see if anybody has objections to that.

 
Course of Action:  The Steering Committee will recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the scope of the Section Ten Permit cover County projects, development service permits and other willing entities within the County.
 
 
Reserve Design Alternatives (Map)
Additional Information is needed before a decision can be made-Ernie Cohen:
Thanks to Mike Zimet for his presentation which has presented a mechanism for agreeing on a Reserve Design Alternative, ultimately for dealing with our most important issues, which are restriction on use within the biologically reserve map. The nature of the restrictions on use are the most important issues that we are going to be dealing with, but the reserve design is also of significance and ask any land owners whose land is included in the reserve design and any land owner whose land is not included with the reserve design and I am sure that they will concur that this is a decision that has an impact on them albeit it is not as important as the decision concerning restriction on use of those within the design alternatives. What Michael has proposed is that we take the resources that the County has put into designing the biologically preferred to alternative put them into designing a minimum biological reserve that would still afford a Section 10 Permit success possibility then look and see where the two maps agree and disagree and measure then measure the disagreements against a common set of objectives which hopefully we can develop together to the extent that we can preserve 55 species that would be wonderful. To the extent that we could protect as much of the property rights of landowners as possible, that would be wonderful. If the minimum and the biologically preferred alternatives aren't terribly different, we may be fighting shadows. We also need to take into account other objectives such as the economic consequences, because part of the quality of life, which I think we as the representatives of the wide divergent group of stakeholders and of the public need to take into account, is how this plan will effect the quality of life today and in the future and there you must have some economic input it would sending the wrong signal to potential stakeholders and the public if we foreclose the discussion of which is going to be our preferred map today. We have to make that decision, and we have to make it quickly and today we have to develop a timetable for making that decision, and we have to request the resource so that that decision can be made effective. But it is premature to make that decision today. Although I think we must give ourselves a fairly short time period because most of our time needs to be spent on the issue of what restrictions there will be on use. I urge you to take a couple of minutes to read the paper and see why I put forward these arguments and they have been furthered by the actions we just took on the scope and by Michaels presentation as far as a possible alternative and also possibly a second alternative which would take into account both the maximum, the minimum, and a set of objectives which might help us to resolve whatever differences may appear between the two designs. 
Questions:
·         The Morrison Institute can't give us any hard facts and figures.  Unless they must know what the real implementation is going to be associated with the reserve design.  So reserve design doesn't mean anything financially speaking and that's what the Morrison Institute is going to be looking at.  Unless they know exactly what restrictions within the reserve if there is one, etc. outside of the reserve.  They're not going to be able to give us any hard facts unless we give them hard facts and we're not going to be able to do that by April.
·         To me they reflect a political map and not a biological map.  The Tortolita Mountains for the most part are in another county.  The Indian Nation is a great space.  Mexico doesn't exist and either neither does Santa Cruz County in terms of species.  I think that the biologists have taken this into account but we don't know, we don't see it, we cannot justify it until we see it on a map.
·         When you say this can best be accomplished by hearing from stakeholders, are you referring to stakeholders presenting in April and then we work from them?
 
Ernie:   I do not believe that it is our role to define who should lead various groups of stakeholders and who the stakeholders should be.  Many of you have accepted that but it's in the paper that people may have read.  I want to make it clear that I'm talking about inviting stakeholders to come forward with proposals in April and inviting the various groups who have been studying this process and who have been working on this process to assist those stakeholders so that they can have the benefit of that information anduse it as they see fit.
 
·         I don't think the discussion of the reserve design is the same as implementation ­ is what I think you're talking about ­ and that's again kind of the next step.  I think what we're trying to do in Ernie's discussion and what Larry Berlin is going to say and Mitch and Jenny, is have some simple discussions about species ­ how many species we're going to look at and then move to that step.
 
·         There's an awful lot less that could be considered in order to get a Section 10 permit and what we have in front of us that's called a preferred biological reserve.  I don't mean necessarily that we're dealing with 8 species or 10 species or 150 species.  Whatever the minimum is that will allow for that Section 10 permit is what I'm trying to have the country bring forward to us.
 
Comparing the 8 and 55 species maps ­ Larry Berlin:
How do we reasonably rationally compare the map that's been proposed for the 8 listed species with the map that's been proposed for the 55 species including the 8.  The answer is that they don't compare directly.  The way to work with them is through determinations about land use restrictions and management.  Once we determine what the uses will be, the level of use.  Then to determine how those uses will be managed and supervised.  The process that I went through was really simply discussion with Paul Fromer on the science team first or on the RECON team first with Sherry Barrett with Fish and Wildlife next.  The obvious question, and one that a bunch of us who have been working this wanted answered is what's the minimum?  Give us a baseline, what are the minimum requirements for us to get a Section 10 permit.  And the answer is, that depends upon what species we want it for or it depends on which land we want it for.  And so the ball gets thrown back to us again.  You're going to see here again the circular situation we've gotten into with Morrison and others where everybody wants somebody else.  Give them the data to work with.  Skipping sort of to the bottom line is, mechanically, how do we go forward.  The suggestion from both Paul and Sherry was that this an iterative process.  We need to tell them what uses we want to make of particular uses of land or tell them what species we want to protect or tell them how we want to manage a particular area.  They will come back and tell us, yes you can do these parts of what you want to do but some of these other parts are problematic and in identifying those issues or conflicts, we then get focused on what we need to resolve.  Now there's some good news and bad news in all of this for everybody.  To the environmentalists I would say be careful what you wish for.  What appears to be the much more inclusive, broader map for the 55 species actually may provide somewhat less protection for the 8 species that are already listed as threatened and endangered.  The process that RECON went through in developing the 2 maps is one in which for the 55 species they included, they captured, in their words, any of the habitat that included at least 3 of the 55 species.  Because there weren't enough species involved and not enough overlap involved to use that same protocol with the 8 listed species what they did was to go through it on a species by species basis and to reserve or to map out a reserve of most of the best habitat for each of those species.  If you go into the map of 55 some of that best habitat for those 8 listed species is left out.  That causes a concern for Fish and Wildlife.  The selling point, in response to Fish and Wildlife, is although we may not be preserving in that way, may not be preserving all of the best habitat for those 8, by preserving the broader landscape and in the configuration that they've created for the 55, that it nets out to be better protection for those 8 species anyway.  When I asked Sherry about this morning, her response was that they just don't know yet and, here's the kicker, it's going to depend largely on what uses we want to put the land to and how it's going to be managed.  The statute requires, a direct quote here, "requires that we mitigate harm to the species to the maximum extent practicable."  That does not include tradeoffs.  So if, for example, there is an area that we would like to set up for use for development on the least dense zoning that the county has in place at the time, which would be 1 house for 4 acres.  That may be just fine for 54 species but it is not fine for the Pima pineapple cactus.  Problems with pets, with children, with roads, apparently it's a very vulnerable species.  And for the Pima pineapple cactus, we will not get the permit for that particular area.  However, if we can show that the use of a broader area will be such that it won't have the kinds of roads or children or whatever it is that's going to be so detrimental to this poor pineapple cactus.  Then maybe the best practicable preservation and we'll get it anyway.  The questions of how many species is a red herring and the question of where to draw the lines on the map is a red herrings.  The issues that matter to us are how can we use the land and how are we going to manage the land in accordance with those uses.  Just as I offer a caveat for environmentalists whose concern may be heavily balanced to the endangered species, let me offer a suggestion as well.  Luck is the ability to recognize your opportunities.  Just cause a piece of land is going to be included within a reserve, doesn't mean it can't be developed.  The question becomes, how do we develop it and how do we manage it for some of the parcels. 
Questions:
·         If we don't have sufficient coverage on the 55 - 56 species map for the 8 listed species, what might make more sense then is to overlap those two maps and include everything in the 8 species map and the larger map.  Then we're covered, we know we're going to get the Section 10 permit depending on implementation.  And if we do anything less then that we don't know whether or not we're going to get a Section 10 permit anyway. 
 
Larry:  Apparently I've been unclear on one point and left out another.  If indeed it's not that we're not going to get adequate coverage for the 8 on the 55 species map, it's that the adequacy of the coverage will depend on the use decisions and on the management decisions.  Also, the 8 species map, with only a few exceptions, doesn't seem to cut to anybody's advantage.  One of the places ­ the two maps are not congruent to each other and one of the places that 8 species goes and creates restrictions that the 55 species does not, is on to a lot of property that in the path of development in the southeastern part of the valley.  Another similar point is that the 8 species map would restrict more private property.  The solutions  - I wish the solutions were as simple as, give us another alternative to measure.  It's not.  The solutions lie in what both Paul and Sherry describe as the iterative process.  Going back and forth we would like to use the land for these purposes.  Can we do it?  How would we have to manage it if we do it that way?  We get an answer back.  If there's no conflict, Bingo, that's in the plan.  If there is conflict then we need to work that one out.  How to adjust it and how to resolve it.  It's a back and forth proposition.
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
 
The eight species map-Mitch McClaran:
The blue is the listed species reserve, the green is the biologically preferred reserve, the beige is both and then the crosshatch is the current reserve.  I am not necessarily an advocate for this approach.  I'm an advocate for analyzing this approach compared to others.  I am proposing that we take a look at what areas would be covered, what would be the value of those lands, how could we coordinate uses of those lands with some other alternative.  I think this should be one of the alternatives we send forward to Morrison in comparison with others.  Another would be the STAT team's approach.  With that said that I'm not necessarily for this approach, but proposing we at least look at it in comparison to others.  That's where I'm coming from.  Secondly, I think that these maps are inaccurate, but I don't think it's impossible to get the data.  The blue area is supposed to represent some amalgamation of all 8 currently listed species.  I know that part of this Santa Rita experimental range includes area for the Pima pineapple cactus.   It's not shown as being part of the reserve.  The blue is missing some coverage.  I'm not saying this to say let's get rid of these things, I'm saying they're a little inaccurate.  We can get the accurate data.   I also disagree that the brown being both.  If you look at the map above it,  the biological preserve is green, so when you put those two together they ought to be something different than beige.  Beige is like everything else except that.  I'm confused with what is being displayed as both.  If I look at the map above that says listed species reserve, biologically preferred reserve, and current preserves, and blue is listed species reserve, green is biologically preferred reserve, and the both is everything in between.  I'm having a hard time thinking that much of the county is covered by both of them together.  Something is amiss here.  It's a correctable thing.  If we had somebody from RECON to assure us that these are accurate, I would feel better.  It doesn't negate the approach of asking what would the distribution of 8 species look like, what proportion of the 55 species is covered by that 8 species.  What proportion of the 8 species are covered in existing reserve and what would it cost.  What's the value of the lands outside the existing reserves that include the remainder of the distribution of those 8 species. Let's just imagine that these are our alternatives; we have alternatives running down and they become roads.  We ask ourselves what proportion or what percent of any species is habitat.  The percent of the species habitat is covered by that alternative.  We could have an alternative the STAT team's alternative.  And then we have 55 species including the 8 we find out what proportion of any one those 55 species is that habitat accounted for in the reserve design.  Now we have that for 55 of these.  8 listed and under statutory protection, the other 47 of some sort of biological significance to the STAT team members.  Under here we'd want to ask what proportion of that is in existing reserves, what proportion of that is in some sort of reserve forest service state parks, Santa Rita experimental range, some BLM land and then not reserved.  You do that for each alternative; put the 55 and then the 8.  So now you have this table of all the 55 species, what proportion of that is captured in existing reserves in a design like this and what proportion of their habitat is captured under a reserve design that looks like this.   Then under this non-reserve, you ask Morrison to assemble value of those lands.  How much are they valued today?  What's their property value.  That begins to give us the tool to ask the question what would it cost to acquire easements?  What would it cost to reduce densities of development as a tool for deciding where we might target those types of things.  This is a framework for asking what's the difference between a 55 species plan and an 8 species plan.  I'm not advocating that we take any one of these as the one we want to take, but I'm advocating that we at least compare the 2 and then we go on and talk about land use within them.  Until we put lines on a map we can't even begin to talk about land use where.  I do think I agree with you everywhere except for the fact that you got to put some lines on a map before you start talking about what are you allow in certain places.  You need to have some place on the map to talk about.  That's all I have to say about 8 species. 
Question:
·         Can we also weigh the habitat as to whether it's exceptionally good habitat or marginal habitat for each of the species?
 
Mitch:  I was assuming we were only going to look at the most high potential habitat.  On that map that you see blue, I went up and talked to Fromer after our February 2nd meeting and asked him, how did you come up with blue?  He said it was the high suitability habitat for those species.  I would suggest that we stick with high suitability habitat across the board rather then mixing those up because then it becomes 5 dimensional table and I can't handle that.
 
·         Are you suggesting that we can ask the county to come up with another baseline from which to compare?  To use with, if you will, the plan that we have in front of us now.  Are you suggesting that we can ask the county or Fromer or both to come up with something else that we can put along side that plan?
 
Mitch:  They have already done that.  That's that blue area.  The beauty of what the STAT team has done for decision making is they've assembled all this information into thegeographic information data base and you can ask the questions.  What proportions of overlap occur when you put 2 species' distributions over one another.  It's simple. You just tell them what you want and they should be able to give it to you ­ a map like that ­ they should be able to give it to you in a matter of days.
 
·         But you're not saying 16 species.
 
Mitch:  No I'm not saying 16 species.  I think the place to start this process is the 8 versus the 55 because the 8 have some statutory significance.  They are already listed.  And the question is, if you do 8, what proportion of this comes with it?  If you do 55, what proportion of this comes with it?  And then the iteration process begins, but until we start something other than 55 ---  But they haven't given us this.  They've given us these maps and, frankly, I can't interpret them.  I question their accuracy and there are simply visual things.  It would be nice to see something tabular to go with the visual to look at proportions of overlap, something numeric in addition  to this visual thing which, frankly, to me is really hard to understand.
 
·         It is my understanding that a lot of that data has already been prepared in the priority vulnerable species assessment and in the process of doing that and there was a gap analysis done by species and a reserve gap analysis where it was in a reserve and where it wasn't and I would think Dr. Steidel could help you with that because they did all that and was handed out, many hand outs, many drafts, to each STAT meeting I attended. A lot of that data is already done and we do have someone from RECON who can clarify that for you.
 
Mitch:   Let me answer what I've gotten from RECON.  Bob is just down the hall from me, Bill Shaw is just down the hall from me, and Bill Manner.  All team members the STAT team and when I asked them to do that, they had never done an 8 species map until I asked them to do it in January.  They'd been focusing their attention ­ when they did a STAT map it was where can we get 3 species, the distribution of 3 species to overlap any 3 of the 55.  That's what their design is.  Where do you find any 3 of the 55 overlapping in space put that in as part of the reserve.  And then when they tried to do connecting areas of vulnerability they starting adding on to those 3 species overlaps.  It didn't matter if they were listed species or not.  That's new to them.  They've never done that analysis, but they have the data to do the analysis.
 
·         Is it fair to summarize what you have been presenting as a pro 8 species exploration is really a need for more information before we make these decisions? 
 
Mitch:  I'll characterize this as an alternative worth investigating.
 
·         Why would numbers from inaccurate maps be more accurate?
 
Mitch:  I'm pretty confident about their data, but I think they could clean up their numbers. I don't know what makes the Steering Committee think that they have to come up with all the answers. I am suggesting that we tell them what we want to know. Starting with gross and some other technique other than purchase, they are the ones that we want to have do that work not us.
 
 
The 55 Species Map-Jenny Neeley:
I would like us to look at the listed species reserve boundary that the STAT came up with. I think they would stand behind that map as well as the biologically preferred  reserve map, which we all know they would stand behind that because we listened to them in February explain how that came to be. Just so it's really clear I am going to  be advocating that we adopt the  55 Species map tonight. So that we can start deciding uses. The listed species reserve map is larger than the biologically preferred reserve and I think it's going to be easier to you folks to note this if you at the maps.  The listed species reserve map includes more lands closer to the built out areas of Tucson and Green Valley. This would come into play with what Mitch was saying as far as the value of the land. I think that we could expect, for sure, that the listed species map would result in higher land values. The reason that the listed species reserve is larger than the biologically preferred reserve is because the listed species reserve would need to take into account the specific habitat needs of each of the eight species that are threatened or endangered. It does not look at the landscape at an eco-system level. In contrast the biologically preferred reserve takes a landscape eco-system approach to the reserve design. Also notice that the biologically preferred map uses much more,  already protected land, meaning existing reserves. The species specific map also going to be effected if we're going to be looking at land values. The STAT started with over 200 species to be considered for coverage, through the process they ended up with 55. This type of design responds to the broadest variety of needs without focusing on any one species and assumes that a landscape approach would encompass all the habitat needs necessary for the vast majority of species that occur within the County. This corresponds to the stated biological goal of the County and the STAT. Using this approach is going to benefit from a conservation perspective because the ecosystem approach the STAT has taken will protect the integrity the ecosystem. Any land manager will tell you that ecosystem management rather than species by species management is really the only meaningful way to ensure long term conservation of species and habitat. What I would like to talk about now is how listing 55 species on the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan is going to benefit landowners and other permittees that are going to be covered by the Section Ten Permit, because this is what I think has escaped a lot of peoples' attention. The landscape approach is more efficient, because it is able to encompass the habitats of more species in a smaller area. Since doing it this way does not require that the entire habitat for each species be protected. Doing more with less is the ultimate definition of efficiency, as any economist will tell you. Because of this efficiency, it is very logical to assume that the landscape reserve design will ultimately end up being more economically efficient because management strategies could potentially also overlap in much the same fashion and instead of managing species by species basis, the County and landowners can manage on a more holistic fashion, saving time and money. With the landscape approach there will also be more flexibility in protection measures, I would imagine. The biggest benefit to covering more species rather than less, to landowners and others covered by the Section Ten Permit, is that once the landowners have agreed to terms of the Habitat Conservation Plan and the incidental take permit is issued, the landowner cannot be required to take additional mitigation measures for any of the species covered under the plan. This policy is called 'The No Surprises Policy'; it was added to the Habitat Conservation Plan process in 1994 to provide certainty to applicants so that once  the Habitat Conservation Plan was in place the federal government would not come knocking on their door demanding more mitigation measures or requirements if unforeseen circumstances should arise. By protecting unlisted species with our Habitat Conservation Plan  we can reduce the likelihood that any additional listings will be needed, and if it turns out that one of those species takes a turn for the worse, the County and all of those covered under this permit will have no liability under the Endangered Species Act as long as they are complying with the  terms of the Habitat Conservation Plan, whatever those terms might be. I have to be honest with you here, Larry Berlin hit the nail on the head when he said that environmentalists need to beware because from a conservationist perspective there are serious problems with the Habitat Conservation Plan program overall because for the most part Habitat Conservation Plans that have been implemented around the country have failed at protecting covered species and their habitats. In fact, many Habitat Conservation Plan and Multiple Species Conservation Plans, which is what we are working on, have made the situation worse because they allow a substantial loss of habitat, do not have a clearly stated biological goal, have inadequate mitigation requirements and have inadequate monitoring programs in place. So from a conservation perspective, up until now, adding more species to a Habitat Conservation Plan just spells trouble for those species, especially considering that these plans are in place for decades at a time. So traditionally conservationists are for less species to be covered not more. What is different about the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan is that Pima County is committed to creating an effective Habitat Conservation Plan that does better than the rest, and so far the process that has be utilized has clearly demonstrated that they are serious about it. The conservation community for the most part embraces the STAT approach as the most scientifically sound approach we have ever seen any Habitat Conservation Plan take. The science is not necessarily perfect, but science will never be perfect. This is the best science available which is mandated under the Endangered Species Act and therefore, it should be utilized. We are anticipating the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan will have more clearly defined biological goals, better monitoring systems in place and will utilize better adaptive management strategies to respond to the information that we get from monitoring. In short, as a conservationist, I am taking a huge leap of faith that this multi-species conservation plan is going to do right by the species it covers and it will be more effective than plans in the past. Even though unfortunately for us, this could eventually lead to more take of imperiled speices, whether they are endangered right now or they become endangered later. I advocate that we adopt the 55 species map because it is the best available science, has a higher level of efficiency and will provide more  certainty to the County that Endangered Species Act liability issues won't come back to haunt them later.
How this plan succeed will be measure by how this plan is managed and what land uses are allowed in each area of the reserve, not where on the map the reserve lies. Once we adopt a map we then get to decide what happens in each part of the reserve, whether we allow grazing to continue in some or all of the reserve or whether we continue to allow housing to be built, whether, frankly anything changes at all in some areas that are on this map. Those are the things that we need to start deciding. There is no cost to adopting this map. I am confused by the call for an economic analysis before we adopt a map.  If we adopt a map it doesn't cost anybody anything. While I understand land use values, I don't understand how we can do an economic analysis until we have determined land use. One thing that needs to be considered besides the 55 species or the 8 species, is the rational for the number of species that are covered. We have to provide the STAT with some sort of criteria to use to come up with a new map. I don't know if we will be able to look at anything but the eight or 55 species map, because I don't know if we have time to come up with new criteria. I understand landowners being concerned when their land shows up on these maps. But just because it is on the map doesn't mean the land uses are going to change. That is what we need to get to-deciding what is going to change, if anything, but we need a map first to determine what uses we decide to keep, ban and manage. There will be a negative impact if we adopt this map tonight. The most contentious part is coming up when we begin to decide the uses, the management, etc. if all we do is go round and round debating on whether to use the 8 or the 55 species maps, then the county is going to move ahead, the plan is going to be adopted, uses and management will be decided and we will still be sitting in this room. So I say let's use the 55 species map because, again, it is the best available science and let's get down to the issues of management and implementation.
Questions:
·        If I read that map correctly the listed species reserve boundaries 75% or more of Pima County. Could you clarify the quality of this habitat?
 
Jenny:  That would be a question for the STAT. I wasn't there the day they came up with this map.
 
Lori Woods-RECON:  The most useful bit of information to take away from these maps is this:  The blue areas are areas that would be incorporated into the eight listed species reserve that would not otherwise be incorporated into the 55 species. This is high potential habitat.
·        Would it be possible to get an overlap map using the 8 species?
 
Jenny:  My understanding is that there is not enough overlap with the eight species being considered to create such a map. So we have to look at all of the habitat for all of the species, but when you put 55 species in there then there is quite a bit of overlap because with 55 species there is more land to consider, presenting more overlap of habitat.
·        Please clarify what is meant by landscape.
Jenny:  By landscape, I mean on a large level rather than looking at it piece meal. I am using the words landscape and ecosystem interchangeably, so I hope that clarifies this, if this incorrect then everytime I said landscape, replace it with ecosystem, because that is what I meant.
·        Do species follow political lines, for example the Indian lands.
Jenny:  There is no way to compel the Tohono O'Odham Nation to participate or even provide us with information. This plan cannot compel another jurisdiction to participate, so if Marana and Oro Valley decided not to come on board, there is nothing we can do.
·        Which of the two,  55 species map or 8 species map,  cover more land?
Larry Berlin:  The 55 species map reserves 2.9 million acres, the 8 species map, 2.4 million acres. It appears to be more intrusive even though it's a half million acres less, because it intrudes more on private property and the path of growth.
Jenny: So the 55 species map uses more land that has already been preserved and the 8 species map, while smaller is going to use a lot more land that does not yet have management controls or other restrictions on it.
·        If we had an overlay map with the existing roads and improvements we would get a better sense of the economics involved. Land values vary from location to location even in a small area.
·        Assigning value to the lands is useless, clearly not all the land in Pima County is going to be or can be developed, so this may be an exercise in futility.
·        We need larger scaled maps and maps with overlays so we can examine the routes that are feasible and practical.
·        Because a determination has been made regarding the species in my area without anyone going out there, I feel that this study can include the Tohono O'Odham lands and other places they have not been to.
Jenny:  Any habitat that falls within another nation, or jurisdiction, is not going to make a difference towards Pima County getting a Section Ten Permit.
·        Should landowners be compensated if their land is subject to regulations and therefore a reduction in uses under this 55 species map?
Jenny:  While I, as a landowner understand the concerns, I am not effected by the this because my property does not fall under the reserve. Therefore I may not understand the breath of them as well as a landowner in the midst of the reserve. But those decisions have yet to be made, so while it may seem scary that one's property is in question if we adopt this big map, nothing else has been decided so be assured that nothing else has been done with this map other than establishing a starting point from which we can start discussing these issues and other things.
·        Could you mention again the GIS website that we can go to and look at all of these different overlays?
 
David:  We have made copies of the GIS presentation and the website address will be given out here and in the meeting notes so folks can refer to it as needed.
 
WEBSITE ADDRESS FOR GIS MAPS AND OVERLAYS:
http://www.dot.co.pima.az.us/cmo/sdcpmaps/
 
·        Could Larry Berlin please clarify-would the 55 species map be the preferable map requiring at the end special land use maps for some areas for some species?
 
Larry Berlin:  I only referred to the 55 as 'preferred' because that is the label it has been given. I personally don't assign a preference to it. No matter how we look at it, ecosystem or species by species, Fish and Wildlife is going to look at species by species and grant the permit species by species. STAT and RECON got from the 200 to the 55 through an elimination process that left them with the species that effectively reflected the species in the County. When you slice this down further, to the eight that is where it becomes marginal and at this point it is too close to call on whether the Fish and Wildlife will pass on the 55 species map with respect to those eight. That is going to depend on what the land use levels are and the quality and level of management and supervision.  For my money the most practical thing I have heard tonight is Gerald's suggestion that we get larger scale maps so we can identify the areas where we have use issues and management issues and we can bring those questions to the Science team, find out where there are conflicts that we can work on resolving. To adopt any map tonight would be paradoxically empty and controversial. The map is meaningless without the use assignments and the management assignments to go with it. All it will do is create more discussion than we want. Many among us have had the feeling that the county is cramming a 55 species map down our throats. Whether that's so or not, RECON now is working on what the use restrictions, use levels and management will be. They would like our help and input. This is not predetermined. This is where both RECON and Fish and Wildlife have said that we can help them steer the outcome of this plan; this is where we can be most effective.
·        I would like to see the analysis that Mitch is  recommending. Could we have the county maps that I last saw at the open houses the County is holding?
·        Why don't we submit to David a list of the maps that we would like to see?
·        With all due respect to Jenny's presentation, using words like banning and grazing restrictions with ranchers, puts them on the defense.
 
Jenny:  My apologies to any of the members from the ranching community if they got the impression that I was advocating for grazing restriction. The point of my entire presentation was advocating for the 55 species map as a starting point from which we could begin to make decisions.
 
David:  We discussed previously the cost associated with making color copies of the maps from the RECON presentation, which is why we provided cd's for each Steering Committee member so you could make as many maps, as big or small as you would like. We will certainly work with the GIS department to get as many of the maps as we can for you to see. The website information that we have handed out enables you to do all kinds of map overlays.
 
Moving forward with developing alternatives
 
Jenny Neeley proposed that the Steering Committee  adopt the 55 species map at this meeting.
Ernie Cohen and Larry Berlin seem to be agreement that map selection needs to be concurrent with the other alternative developments. Stakeholders need to organize themselves, find out what they want and don't want in terms of lines on the maps.
Mitch is proposing a flowchart that looks at the distribution of the species within the existing reserves and within the new reserves.
Perhaps we should try to get a sense of where the Steering Committee members are on these.
Discussion:
·        You only have two decisions, decide for or against adopting the 55 species map tonight.
·        We could actually choose 55 species and ignore the map.
·        It was worth a try to try to deal with the maps tonight. Every map is going to have some sort of biological core. The one thing that I keep hearing though, is that we have to start moving on these issues.
·        It would have been helpful to be able to decide on a map tonight.
·        I'm ready to talk about the number of species and then everything else I think will fall in line. We should move now, on 55 species and not the map.
·        What if we put it in terms of endeavoring to develop a map with the goal of including all 55 species dependent upon on information to be developed on the uses and management
 
Proposal for Steering Committee consideration-Lucy Vitale:
At the February meeting the Ad Hoc Committee set up for review and discussion as part of the general flow of actions and decisions to be taken which Caroline has spoken about.  If you refer to your three page plan, the first page is that one.  At the February 20th Steering Committee meetings I presented a three part strategic plan that will help us achieve our goal of preferred alternatives.  A copy of that plan is before you.  In evaluating the merits of this plan keep in mind some of the constraints the Steering Committee is working under.  We have a looming deadline before us, we are a large and diverse group with differing needs and objectives, we must operate within the Arizona Open Meeting Law guidelines, and we must at all times try to incorporate the suggestions of the community at large.  I believe this plan fulfils all these requirements with the added benefits of being efficient and cost effective.  It is a win win strategy for all.  It also incorporates a timeline which is page three that gives us the option of several iterations before final adoption.  I would again repeat what I said before at the last meeting.  Attitude reflects leadership.  As members of the Steering Committee we have been placed in a leadership role.  Let us then act as leaders and work together to help the county in achieving all of the SVCP goals not just the Section 10 permit.  Now in front of you, if you see that your paper that was handed out ­ that is my original plan.  I started out with four large stakeholders and I named some members simply to say that it should involve some of the Steering Committee members.  When I named the stakeholder groups I was just trying to identify large stakeholder groups, but there was anobjective last time and it seemed to be mired on that top line.  So I changed it, if you look up there you'll see that I changed it.  And by the way, it's not just professors who use this, it's also business people.  So here are the five, I put five simply because on an 8-1/2 x 11 it just becomes untidy to use five.  You can have as low as two groups who will then take eight and then 55 or you can go as high as ten, twenty, as many stakeholders who want to present to us.  Then the presentation would be, if you look at page three, you will see the first presentations should be on April 6th.  At the same time that the presentations are being made those groups are going to present should ask the county GIS to give them color coded maps so that when they present we can then have up there overlays of all the alternatives and right away we would see what is in agreement and what is not.  If there is agreement we would come down and put it in this included in this final plan any part that there is agreement on.  If there is no agreement we would then have a discussion like we just did on each plan presented and then maybe have offer them some solutions or compromises and if there is further agreement we would put it in the final plan.  If not we would go back into the first, second, and third reiterations.  On page two are the parameters within we must all work.  The first of it is STAT map of 55 species.  Right there and then it tells you work with the 55 species map.  If you don't agree it tells you can go either 55 or 8 or some other number if you want in between.  OK.  So that as long as you do you work within all of the parameters of page two. Okay, so I also wanted to say ­ here's page two if you could put it up please that way I can refer to it.  If you go to the fourth from the bottom where it says groups to present reasons, that means valid justification.  The US Fish and Wildlife demands of any alternative plan that we offer that there is valid justification.  So for any of you that want to present on April 6th or a date later you need to give us the valid justification of what why you're using that plan and why you're using the configuration on the different maps.  I only request that when you ask GIS to do your maps to have it color coded so that we come and put them up with the overlays we can see immediately where the disagreements and agreements occur.  And finally, on the final one, no majority of the Steering Committee membership and any individual group it's because of the Open Meeting laws.  If you remember the lawyer told us back in November that no large group of the Steering Committee membership or a percentage should agree beforehand on one alternative because that would be presetting the vote.  So that's what I said about the final point.  Now we go to the ­ do you have any questions, by the way, as I'm presenting?  About the first page.  If you go to the third page, which is the timeline, I took it to be March 6th is supposed to be when we would adopt this plan of how, not what we are going to plan or anything.  Just what the process is going to be.  If we decide to adopt it then everybody needs to ­ whoever wants to present ­whatever stakeholder group wants to present then needs to work because by April 6th we need to make the presentations.  When I put that it was assumed at the time that March 6th and March 16th were going to be the RecTAT, the cultural, the historical, the ranch team, and the mining teams were going to present.  But now we have one, the ranch team is going to present on April 6th so instead of three hours we will only have two.  So we are already late people.  Between April 6th and June 1st is when we have to have the final plan, the final discussion and adoption because then SIMG has to take that plan with the GIS Department and prepare it for our final vote on June 19th so that July 1st we present the Board of Supervisors.  Now in between the gray areas are the times between meetings and what the groups are supposed to do.  It says four groups, but actually ignore that and just as many groups or as few groups as we present to us.  If you have any questions, that's the plan.
Discussion:
·        It's up to us to divide ourselves into groups however we see fit and to come up with an alternative. Each of these groups, should request assistance from perhaps a Fish and Wildlife person or someone who works with RECON to sit with us and help go through and figure out how to do this. We may need to flip one meeting's work because of the change in presentation.  Perhaps we'll do this on April 17th instead of the 6th. 
Lucy: April 6th can be some of those members that are ready because they will have a longer time of discussion and iteration.
 
·        We need to ask for the information that tells us what the consequences of these decisions are to be put in map form simple enough that we can understand it
Lucy: Part of that is that whoever  is presenting, going to present, can ask - go and ask the county, ask RECON.  In other words, whoever want, whoever is presenting, that's part of it, that's why I broke it up away from all 75 of us.
·        My proposal is to accept Lucy's process that she has presented to us, in concept, and we can work with it and tweak it as we go along and put it into action.  We can make some changes to it and make some new suggestions. With the expectation that stakeholder groups would organize themselves by the April 6th meeting to be able to present not the details, not the final details, but the framework of their alternatives.  So we can identify who the stakeholder groups are.
·        No, I don't think that's the right way to go.  Period. until these group identifies, until they get organized-- just to say we're  going to make them up, and everybody has to come to the table by the 6th is sort of silly.  Who are these stakeholder groups?
·        If for example you are a developer, you simply get together with Alan Lurie and Chris Sheafe and whomever else you want to on the committee and then draw from other people who are on the committee who you think have the same opinion and come up with an alternative. 
·        Call to question.  Who disagrees with the proposal to accept this proposal in concept with refinement as we move forward. Stakeholders can identify themselves between now and April 6th to be in a position to prevent the framework of their proposal and alternative.
 
·     Disagree, we can't have a presentation ready by April 6th.
Lucy:  I started with April 6th but if you're not ready, you don't have to present April 6th.  If she is ready, she can present and we can discuss it.  You can come later.
 
 
 
 
Issues for future meeting agendas and new business:
·        Make the April 17th study session a meeting and then we do it  by mid-April.  Between now and April 6th the stakeholder groups that want to organize themselves and at some point present alternatives, let David know who you are and he will work with arranging the connections between the Fish and Wildlife Service, between RECON, and between the other resources needed to develop a presentation pending county approval.  Obviously only the county can commit money. A status report of support on that process will be made at the April 6th meeting.
 
 
Call to the Public:
·        The Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan website needs to be much more informative with regards to meeting announcements and agendas.
·        It would be a good idea to find out what happens if the County is not granted a Section 10 Permit.
·        Could we receive more information on how the department of Fish and Wildlife tracks these diverse species?
 
Meeting Adjourned  11:30 am