SCIENCE TECHNICAL ADVISORY TEAM
DRAFT MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 19, 2005
STAT Members Present: Bill Shaw, Cecil Schwalbe, Natasha Kline, Sherry Ruther, and Tom Van
Devender
STAT Members Absent: Doug Duncan, Mima Falk, George Ruyle, Rick Brusca, and Robert Steidl
Other Attendees: Julia Fonseca, Jean Emory,
John Regan, Kerry Baldwin, David Scalero, Neva Connolly, Jason Douglas, Marty
Tuegel, Paul Fromer, Lori Woods, Ken Kingsley, Carolyn Campbell, Christie
McVie,
Call to Order and Opening Remarks
Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at
approximately 9:10 A.M.
Approval of May 13, 2005 Minutes
Minutes were approved as written.
Introductions
Julia Fonseca introduced Kerry Baldwin and
Jean Emory, both from Pima County Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation. They will have the responsibility of
managing the lands acquired by Pima County for the purposes of conservation
through the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan.
Conservation Land System (CLS) Guidelines
Memo
This memorandum provides comments from the
STAT to the recent modifications and clarifications to the CLS Definitions and
Guidelines proposed as part an amendment to the Pima County Comprehensive Plan,
which is scheduled for presentation to the Board of Supervisors at their
meeting of June 21, 2005.
John Regan commented that CLS stands for
Conservation Lands System, not the Conservation Land System. This error did not show up in the subject
memo, but did show up in the memo regarding Pima Pineapple Cactus Conservation.
Julia Fonseca stated that she has received
comments from both Doug Duncan and Robert Steidl, which pertained to wording of
the text rather than content.
A typographical error was located in the
footnote to Bullet #1: 66 1/3% was changed to 66 2/3% as the alternative amount
of land not to be developed within the areas designated as Multiple-Use
Lands. Sherry Ruther suggested that the
wording be changed to indicate that this new percentage is a preference of
STAT, not an alternative. The word
“maximum” was added to the last sentence of this bullet, before the phrase
“extent possible…”
A motion to accept the memorandum as modified
was seconded and approved by all members present. Sherry Ruther recommended that a copy be sent to Pima County
Development Services.
Pima Pineapple Cactus Memo
This memorandum summarizes the STAT’s
evaluation of the CLS as it pertains to conservation of the Pima Pineapple
Cactus and provides additional measures that have been developed to meet the
conservation goals of this species.
Sherry Ruther presented her comments to
Measure #3 of the memo, regarding the establishment of a Special Species
Management Area (SSMA).
Natasha Kline asked if there was now only one
Priority Conservation Area (PCA) for the Pima Pineapple Cactus. It was mentioned that the subcommittee had
decided to consolidate the PCA 2 areas into the PCA 1. Paul Fromer displayed a map of the new PCA 1
area, as developed by the subcommittee at their May 18th meeting,
which includes connections along the southern boundary of the PCA and at the
Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge.
The subcommittee is working on developing a northern connection as well,
but the “build-out” area does not appear to allow for any meaningful connection
in this area.
Bill Shaw suggested that the main objective
of the memorandum should be to package the new PPC conservation measures in
such a way as to avoid any political conflicts for making changes in the late
stages of the MSCP.
Sherry Ruther pointed out that the CLS is not
the only method for protecting the species.
The statement in Measure #2, regarding revisions to the Native Plant
Protection Ordinance, could help conserve this species.
Paul Fromer mentioned that there is also some
time to plan and manage for this species, since build out of the area will take
decades.
Another point of concern was that there was
no percentage of conservation applied to lands within the established SSMA for
the PPC. Julia noted that there was no
percentage because there was no guidance by the subcommittee members or science
community. Sherry Ruther stated that
Pima County Development Services will need a level of conservation applied to
the SSMA, otherwise they will use 80%.
A motion was made and approved by STAT to
adopt the new PPC PCA. The SSMA, with appropriate terminology changes made by
Sherry Ruther, will be kept in the memo as a tool.
More discussion is required by the STAT to
help resolve the conservation issues for the PPC. This item will be placed on the agenda for the next STAT
meeting.
Other Species
This discussion addressed the issue of
changing the status of those species listed as “provisionally covered” under
the Multiple Species Conservation Plan to either “covered” or “not
covered.” A package of tables and
species evaluations were provided by RECON for this task. The following species were discussed:
California leaf-nosed bat
Natasha Kline asked if the western portion of
Pima County was considered in developing the permit area. It was mentioned that the permit area did
not consider western Pima County, since this area consists predominantly of
Federal Lands and Indian Reservation.
Bill Shaw asked about the advantages and
disadvantages of covering these species under the MSCP. Paul Fromer stated that the primary
advantage is to cover for incidental take in case the species is ever listed
under the Endangered Species Act. A
secondary advantage would allow for money to be spent on conservation
management and special studies for the species. Advantage of covering the California leaf-nosed bat would include
that the species already occurs on public lands and is very close to meeting
the conservation goals set by the STAT.
STAT’s decision: Include as a species covered
under the Permit.
Paul Fromer stated that a species evaluation
will need to be completed for each species covered under the MSCP. Kerry Baldwin provided a copy of a recent
report on inventory and monitoring of mines in the Tucson Mountains. Lori Woods will incorporate any
recommendations from that study into the species page for this and other bat
species, including any recommendations for additional inventory and monitoring
of roost sites and other protective measures.
Arizona shrew
Reasons for covering this species:
· The species’ mapped habitat is currently not in danger of being developed
· Coverage could provide funding for studies on the distribution and taxonomy of this species, which are not greatly know at this time.
· Pima County has influence on development of private lands in the Santa Catalina Mountains, which could be an important area for the species.
· Maintaining the importance of the species as being vulnerable to extinction
Reasons for not covering this species:
· This species may not occur in Pima County, according to the best available information.
· There is nothing Pima County could do to protect this species based on its currently known distribution and potential habitat (higher elevations in Santa Rita Mountains, within USFS lands).
· There are other species within the CLS in which funding would forseeably achieve higher conservation results
· Species will still hold its status of importance by being listed as a Priority Vulnerable Species of the PCMSCP
STAT’s decision: Not Covered
Lesser long-nosed bat
Reasons for covering this species:
· The PCAs mostly occur on public lands and are not threatened by development
· The species is federally listed
STAT’s decision: Include as a species covered
under the Permit.
Mexican long-tongued bat
Reasons for covering the species are the same
as for the lesser long-nosed bat.
STAT’s decision: Include as a species covered
under the Permit.
Southern yellow bat
The reason for not covering this species is
that occurs entirely within the footprint of development, urbanized areas.
STAT’s decision: Not Covered
Burrowing owl
Reasons for covering this species:
· Species occurs on public lands for which conservation management strategies are needed
· Would help provide guidance to the County regarding its maintenance activities
STAT’s decision: Include as a species covered
under the Permit.
Red-backed whiptail
Reasons for covering this species:
· Protection of known habitat within the CLS, a large portion of which is already protected within Cabeza Prieta and Organ Pipe Cactus National Park, can be accomplished.
· Studies would be helpful to determine the distribution of the species in Eastern Pima County. Paul will have the impact analysis re-run to determine if a conservation level higher than 83% is met.
Reasons for not covering this species:
· Status of species cannot be affected by coverage under the MSCP.
· Species occurs predominantly outside the CLS, in federally protected areas and on tribal lands.
STAT’s decision: Include as a species covered
under the Permit.
Mexican garter snake
Coverage of this species can be addressed
through the Riparian and Aquatic Species Management/ Restoration Program that
is under development.
STAT’s decision: Include as a species covered
under the Permit.
Tucson shovel-nosed snake
Reasons for covering this species:
· Coverage under the MSCP could greatly help the recovery of this rare species
· There may be substantial coverage of its potential habitat through the CLS
· Strong likelihood of this species being federally listed in near future
Reasons for not covering this species:
· Species may no longer occur in Pima County
· The taxonomic status in Pima County is uncertain
· Coverage will not do anything for species recovery
· There may not be substantial coverage of its potential habitat through the CLS
STAT’s decision: Include as a species covered
under the Permit.
Groundsnake
The species does not occur in any areas that
can be influenced by Pima County. It is
very widely distributed and extremely variable in color patterns.
STAT’s decision: Not Covered
Desert Pupfish
Coverage of this species can be addressed
through the Riparian and Aquatic Species Management/ Restoration Program that
is under development.
STAT’s decision: Include as a species covered
under the Permit and include language in the PCMSCP that Pima County will
pursue use of this species for mosquito control.
Gila Topminnow
Coverage of this species can be addressed
through the Riparian and Aquatic Species Management/ Restoration Program that
is under development.
STAT’s decision: Include as a species covered
under the Permit and include language in the PCMSCP that Pima County will
pursue use of this species for mosquito control.
Huachuca water umbel
Coverage of this species can be addressed
through the Riparian and Aquatic Species Management/ Restoration Program that
is under development.
STAT’s decision: Include as a species covered
under the Permit.
Needle-spined and Nichol Turk’s head cacti
STAT’s decision on these two cactus species
was to hold off discussions until the expert opinion from the subcommittee can
be heard. This item will be placed on a
future meeting agenda.
Tumamoc globeberry
Reasons for covering this species:
· There is not enough confidence as to the status of this species in Pima County.
· Maintenance of invasive buffelgrass may help this species
· A large portion of its habitat may occur within the CLS
· Further studies may answer questions of its habitat and distribution
Reasons for not covering this species:
· It is widespread throughout Pima County and not endangered.
· Buffelgrass may not be establishing in native environments where this species occurs.
STAT’s decision: Include as a species covered
under the Permit.
Sonorella snails
Reasons to cover these species:
· The cost to cover these species may be very low due to their limited distribution.
·