Call to Order and opening remarks:
Bill Shaw called the meeting to order at 1:10 p.m.
He said the reason for the meeting was the Multi-Species Conservation Plan (MSCP)
review and a discussion by the group working on developing biological monitoring
issues.
Minutes from the August 26, 2003 STAT Meeting:
Minutes from the August 26, 2003 were approved and accepted. The attendance
list for the August 26, 2003 meeting was handed out to complete the package.
In addition,
minutes of the April 22, 2003 STAT were also approved and accepted as they had
been omitted at the previous meeting.
MSCP Review:
The draft MSCP is out and has been given to the STAT members.
Lori handed out a two-page summary table of discussion points taken from different
sections of the MSCP report. She highlighted the points and asked the STAT for
comments. Julia Fonseca volunteered to collect the comments. Comments are needed
by March 18, 2004.
Discussion points covered were:
Permit Area, which covers the un-incorporated areas of Pima County.
Permit Periods are set by decades to respond to projections in the economic analysis
of years 1 through 10, 11 through 20, and 21 through build-out. The plan will
have phased milestones that correspond with 10-year projections.
Funding will depend on the outcome of the May bond election. RECON developed
a list of ideas based on funding, and identified a range of funding opportunities
from the bond, taxes, and lottery.
Implementation strategy is a collaborative effort working with the different
agencies and local jurisdictions.
Species Covered included all the priority venerable species identified by SDCP.
Species-specific Surveys did not identify which species would require species-specific
surveys. This will be developed from species by species analysis based on coverage
needed for the different species and management strategies.
Conservation vs. Mitigation is goal oriented and more toward building the conservation
land system than dealing with mitigation ratios. They are tied to land areas
that are projected for development or disturbance in the first and second decade
of the economic analysis.
Management framework is organized around desired future conditions, which are
different for each agency. Pima County will work with the agencies to develop
management plans for areas within the reserve systems.
Monitoring Framework, which allows a two-year time period for developing the
adaptive management and monitoring program. The MSCP will identify the basic
framework.
Role of the Science Commission is to oversee the implementation of the MSCP as
a component of the SDCP, to set the agenda for monitoring, and to inform the
Board of Supervisors of the permit status.
Role of the Science Team has not been determined as yet. This needs to be addressed
and included.
Paul Fromer said the role of STAT has changed. STATs new role should be to review
the technical aspects of the MSCP for biological resources and vulnerable species,
and how the plan deals with the individual species from the Section 10a aspect
as well as from an overall biological perspective of what the SDCP wants to accomplish.
RECONs next step is to improve the draft using input from STAT. The bond election
will determine what the proposed action will be. At that point, the draft can
be finalized along with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service draft Environmental
Impact Statement process.
Paul said the next challenge for STAT will be to develop the monitoring program,
determine the scale of environmental parameters, and test it against the requirements
of the Section 10 permit.
National Park Service Monitoring:
Steve Cornelius, Sonoran Institute, gave a brief history of the process of developing
an ecosystem-monitoring program that started with a series of meetings in 1998-99.
Several independent and isolated initiatives were ongoing and had a common theme
of ecosystem monitoring.
A series of workshops were held to explore if there was interest in collaborating
in someway a collection of indicators, protocols, and management of data. The
group concluded that the requirements needed to develop a good system were; it
had to be considered a good idea, the parties had to be committed to the idea,
a political opening had to be there, and it had to be funded.
About two years ago, Andy Hubbard (National Park Service Inventory and Monitoring
Program) started working with other government agency people with some monitoring
experience to develop a monitoring framework for National Parks in the Southwest.
The task was to determine who was equipped with the science to go forward. This
brings the process up to present.
Currently, the NPS is emphasizing ecosystem monitoring beyond compliance level
monitoring. Parks have been grouped based on ecological similarities. Andys group
found there was no good eco-region monitoring examples available, generally because
reasons for goals had not been clearly defined, there were no realistic assessment
of objectives, and no long-term commitments.
They are currently developing a monitoring plan in three phases as outlined on
the handout Sonoran Desert Monitoring Plan Development. The first was to identify
key issues for each Park. This is finished. The second was an assessment of candidate
or vital signs. The handout diagram shows how they got to this point. The third
was a series of discussions with the science community. These meetings found
the scale of monitoring was generally at the park or local level and did not
extend outside the units. Partnerships were then looked at to find out what was
occurring at a larger scale. The decision was made to look for partnerships where
monitoring indicators exist, and to organize standing groups of general ecologists
with knowledge of the Sonoran Desert. Their task was to identify some key issues
specific to the Sonoran Desert based on goals for the land management units and
evaluate the indicators to see if there was overlap between the agencies. This
is the current effort.
Bill Shaw proposed a STAT subcommittee to work with Andys group. Subcommittee
members will be Bob Steidle, Natasha Kline, and Cecil Schwalbe. They will look
at the SDCP and determine its main indicators. The intent is to approach this
from both the Section 10a Permit and the SDCP.
Steve Prchals resignation / vacancy:
Steve announced his resignation and plans to start an insect farm and research
facility.
He was presented a plaque and certificate for his efforts on the STAT.
Rich Brusca (Arizona-Sonoran Desert Museum) and George Ruyle (School of Natural
Resources, University of Arizona) were nominated and approved to serve as new
STAT members. Bill will contact both and they will be sent letters inviting
them to the STAT.
SDCP and CLS update:
Sherry Ruther gave an update on work done by the subcommittee working on the
Comprehensive Plan and CLS map. Recovery areas were changed to Special Species
Management Areas on the map and the guidelines were revised on the back of
the map. Development Services has approved STATs recommendations and is preparing
a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved
the
recommendations and the revised map at a public hearing. Development Services
will hold public hearings on the amendment in March and forward it to the Board
of Supervisors in April. STAT members will get an invitation to participate
in the public hearing.
CFPO and PPC status:
Sherry Barrett said the pygmy owl is still listed, and the critical habitat
is still proposed. The U.S. District Court is in the process of ruling on the
status
of the owl. Bill Shaw said the decision would not affect the SDCP. Sherry added
that in the event the owl is de-listed, Pima County would need to decide if
it becomes one of the unlisted species of concern.
Mima Falk gave an update on the Pima Pineapple Cactus. The recovery plan will
be delayed until 2005 because of the question of taxonomic validity for the
variety. The FWS has now funded genetic studies focused on determining if the
three varieties
found in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas are the same or different.
Call to audience:
Trevor Hare asked if the Arizona Game and Fish Department was represented on
the STAT. Julia Fonseca responded that agencies are not represented, only individuals
with subject expertise.
Carolyn Campbell announced the Science Commission now has a well-organized
campaign for the Open Space Bond election. It now has a manager, office, and
funding.
They will be getting out information on the bond election in the next few weeks.
Sherry Barrett asked if it would be appropriate to set up a STAT subcommittee
to start developing a mechanism to implement the development ordinance and
asked how Pima County was dealing with new development requests. Sherry Ruther
said
projects still need the required surveys for cultural and biological issues.
Where this goes in the future depends on the outcome of the bond election and
commitments made in the Section 10 Permit. Paul Fromer suggested Sherry Barrett,
Sherry Ruther, and Lori Woods review the existing ordinance and look at the
path Pima County might take.
Set next meeting date:
The next STAT meeting is scheduled for Monday, March 29, 2004 at the Water
Resources Research Center, 350 N. Campbell Ave., Tucson Arizona. The time is
1:00 to 5:00
p.m.
ATTENDANCE LIST FOR THE STAT MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 20004
STAT Members Present:
William Shaw, School of Natural Resources, University of Arizona
Robert Steidl, School of Natural Resources, University of Arizona
Cecil Schwalbe, School of Natural Resources, University of Arizona And U. S.
Geological Survey
Doug Duncan, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tucson, Arizona
Mima Falk, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tucson, Arizona
Natasha Kline, Saguaro National Park
Steve Prchal, Sonoran Arthropod Studies Institute
Sherry Ruther, Pima County Development Services
Tom Van Devender, Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum
Staff:
Julia Fonseca, Pima County Flood Control District
Donald Ward, Pima County Flood Control District
Others:
Paul Fromer, RECON Consultants Inc.
Lori Woods, RECON Environmental Inc.
Sherry Barrett, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tucson, Arizona
Sean Sullivan, Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection
Carolyn Campbell, Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection
Ken Kingsley, SWCA
Brian Powell, University of Arizona
Eric Albrecht, University of Arizona
Theresa Mau-Crimmins, NPS I&M
Emily Dellinger, Sonoran Institute & NPS
Cecilia Schmidt, NPS I&M
Steven Cohn, BLM
Leslie Liberti, Town of Marana
Marit Alanen, Arizona Game and Fish Department
Steve Cornelius, Sonoran Institute
Nathan Sayre, University of Arizona
Linwood Smith, EPG, Inc.
Trevor Hare, Sky Island Alliance
Andy Hubbard, NPS I&M
Brian Powell, NPS I&M