The following is a summary of the March 29, 2004 meeting.
1. The meeting was called to order 9:35 a.m. with a quorum. Science Commission
members and Pima County support staff introduced themselves.
Members Present:
Bill Shaw
Paul Fish
Tom Sheridan
Don McGann
Linwood Smith
Frances Werner
Mac Donaldson
Robert Steidl
Jonathan Mabry
Members Absent:
Joseph Joaquin
Others Present:
Carolyn Campbell
Julia Fonseca
Neva Conolly
Sherry Ruther
Paul Fromer
Lori Woods
Jim Veomett
John Regan
Nicole Fyffe
Bill Singleton
George Malesky
2. Adopt Minutes
The February 9 meeting summary was adopted without changes.
3. SDCP Artist Recognition
The Commission invited staff that designed the graphics for the Sonoran Desert
Conservation Plan to attend the meeting. Bill Singleton and George
Malesky attended from Graphic Services. Mr. Singleton explained the process
he
and other artists
had to go through in creating the various graphics for Sonoran Desert
Conservation Plan documents, maps, brochures, bookmarks, etc. The artists
had to conduct
an extensive amount of research on various species, as well as work
with scientists who could verify the look of certain species. Species and
backgrounds were
then
drawn or painted and then scanned into various computer design programs.
The Commission expressed their appreciation for the incredible work
the
artists have done and continue to do, and emphasized how important
it is to have
the
science
expressed through the artwork.
4. New Charter and Continued Discussion of Commission Role
Bill Shaw noted that Dan Robinette resigned from the Commission and
that Joseph Joaquin has not yet attended a meeting. The Commission
discussed
possible replacements
for Mr. Robinette. Julia Fonseca will call Mr. Joaquin to see if
someone may be able to attend in his place.
5. Commissions review comments on MSCP, consultant update on MSCP
application, and implementation
Mac Donaldson submitted written comments regarding implementation
and monitoring. Maeveen Behan discussed the Implementation Agreement
Drafting
and Negotiating
Committee and noted that this group will begin meeting in April.
Ms. Behan also stated that the County has received very few comments
on
the MSCP.
Mr. Donaldson
noted that when planning processes are conducted in an open manner,
issues are worked out before documents are drafted and therefore
fewer comments
are made.
Tom Sheridan asked when the Implementation Committee would meet.
Ms. Behan said that was up to the Team, but she had thought they
would
meet monthly
for approximately
6 months.
Bill Shaw expressed his concern that public interest groups may
be dealing with issues that the experts should really be dealing
with,
and that
he is still unsure
how the MSCP will be implemented. Ms. Behan explained that the
Implementation Committee would likely be concentrating on issues
such as how development
services will implement certain requirements. She also noted
that the Conservation Plan
has never been institutionalized within the County.
Mr. Sheridan stated that someone from the Science and Technical
Advisory Team should talk to the Commission about monitoring.
Mr. Shaw asked
who will monitor
conservation easements and provide enforcement, and he also noted
that land acquisition is not implementation. Other members expressed
an
interest in
discussing these
issues on the Implementation Committee. Ms Behan stated that
other jurisdictions have outsourced monitoring functions. Mr.
Donaldson
noted that ranchers
are going to need funding if the County wants them to participate
in some of
these activities,
and that environmentalists are going to have to accept the fact
that mistakes will happen thats why its called adaptive management.
Paul
Fromer explained
that the County doesnt need a long-term management plan right
away, but the County
will need rangers and other land stewards. Therefore, the question
is, how does Pima County/this commission develop a plan for these
land stewards/rangers.
Mr. Sheridan noted that if land stewardship by ranchers is going
to work, it needs to be handled slowly in order to build trust.
Mr. Donaldson
emphasized that changes to the environment will take some time
to balance out and
that scientists and environmentalists need to allow for this
time. Mr.
Fromer
explained
that
the Implementation Committee could deal with the how the MSCP
will be implemented on the Development Services side, while the
Science
Commission
deals with
the monitoring and enforcement issues, and the Science Technical
Advisory team
deals with biological management issues.
It was noted that Chapter 6 of the MSCP deals with implementation.
For the next meeting agenda, the Commission decided to use this
chapter to
begin
a discussion
on implementation. Mr. Fromer will also bring examples of how
other MSCPs have been implemented.
6. Announcements
Carolyn Campbell provided an update on the open space bond question
and listed groups that support the question. Two public forums
on the Ironwood
Forest
National Monument Management Plan were to be held later that
day. A press conference will
be held at Gates Pass on Monday April 5.
Julia Fonseca noted that all the Commission members have received
fact sheets on all 6 bond questions. An informational forum
on the historic
and cultural
preservation bond project will be held on April 6 at 7p.m.
at the downtown Pima Community College campus. The Sierra
Club is
holding
a meeting
on April 8th.
A conference entitled Biodiversity and Management of the
Madrean Archipelego will be held in Tucson on May 11-15, with a session
on monitoring and
adaptive management in the Sonoran Desert.
7. Land Stewardship Update
Neva Connolly provided an update to a 2000 report that used
GAP analysis to evaluate reserves in Pima County. She presented
a
table that defines
each GAP
status,
a Land Stewardship Update report summary, and a list of
the GAP status for each of the reserves in Pima County. Most
of Pima
County-owned preserves have a GAP
status of 3a or 3b because they are not protected in perpetuity.
Since the
2000 report, the acreage in status 2 has quadrupled due
to the designation
on the
Ironwood National Monument and Las Cienegas National Conservation
Area. County-owned lands in status 3a and 3b increased
dramatically with
the acquisition of
Buckelew and Lords ranches and expansions to Colossal Cave
and Tucson Mountain Park.
There was a discussion whether Buenos Aires Wildlife Refuge
should be moved from a 1a to a 1b because of traffic impacts.
Don McGann noted that these status numbers could be used
as baselines in the State of the Environment report. But
Mr. McGann
also noted
that the
goal should
not be to increase the status of all reserves to 1a, because
some reserves are better suited for intensive recreation
than others.
Tom Sheridan
also noted that
the County and the Commission should be careful with the
language it uses, so as to not alienate potential partners.
Maeveen
Behan added
that when
she attended
the Endangered Species Act at 30 conference, authors of
conference papers noted that Pima County was the only place
to incorporate
working landscapes.
Ms. Connolly explained to the Commission that most Pima
County-owned lands and reserves are not permanently protected.
Without
permanent protection, these lands
could potentially be sold as surplus lands or become locations
for new County facilities. Conservation easements could
be used to permanently
preserve
these lands.
Ms. Connolly also discussed County-owned parcels that fall
within the Conservation Lands System, but are not currently
in a reserve.
337
of these parcels
have been identified for inclusion into the Section 10
reserve system.
8. Next
Meeting
The next meeting was set for May 24th 9:30-12p.m.
9. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 am.