Note: The following is a summary of the November 4, 2003 meeting. Audio tapes
of the meeting are available upon request.
1. The meeting was called to order 2:15 p.m. Science Commission members and
Pima County support staff introduced themselves.
Members Present:
Bill Shaw
Jonathan Mabry
Tom Sheridan
Don McCann
Linwood Smith
Frances Werner
Mac Donaldson
Members Absent:
Robert Steidl
Paul Fish
Joseph Joaquin
Dan Robinett
Others Present:
Julia Fonseca, Pima County Flood Control
David Scalero, Pima County Flood Control
Linda Mayro, Pima County Cultural Resources
David Cushman, Pima County Cultural Resources
Paul Fromer, RECON
Lori Woods, RECON
Maeveen Behan, Pima County Adminstator's Office
Nicole Fyffe, Pima County Administrator's Office
Jim Veomett, Pima County Planning
2. Role of the Science Commission
Bill Shaw began by stating 3 possible roles he saw for this Commission: 1)
to ensure the integration of elements (biological conservation, ranch
conservation, cultural resources, recreation resources, etc.) within the
SDCP; 2) to
assist the County in making scientific information available and easily
understandable, to be helpful in land use decisions; and 3) to oversee
production of a
State
of the Environment document to help monitor implementation of the SDCP
(and to
meet U.S. Fish and Wildlife Section 10 Permit requirements) on an annual
or bi-annual basis. Dr. Shaw asked that other members submit ideas
for what roles
they feel
are appropriate for this Commission.
Tom Sheridan responded by stating that this Commission could assist
the County in developing monitoring programs that will measure the
success
of the Conservation
Land System, and be compatible with the monitoring ranchers already
do. Mac Donaldson added that a monitoring system would only work if
you admit
that
mistakes will
be made and you alter your management based on the monitoring to correct
for those mistakes. France Werner commented that the public needs to
have baseline
knowledge of the Conservation Plan, and that public education is very
important. Jonathan Mabry stated that there needs to be more information
known about
the condition of and level of threat to cultural resource sites to
establish a
true baseline before monitoring changes. Aerial photography may help.
Linwood Smith
added that this is also true for biological resources. Bill Shaw agreed
and added that establishing this baseline will likely be the first
step in this
state of
the environment report. Tom Sheridan stated that education of the public
is very important, especially for those who want to see the 2004 conservation
bond pass.
Bill Shaw noted that another possible role for the Commission could
be to lend credibility to the bond issue. This would have to be done
carefully
because
so that this Commission does not assume the role of political advocacy.
A
discussion followed about the need for education, due to misunderstandings
in the newspapers.
It was asked whether the Commission take on this role or if this should
be handled
by pure advocacy groups like Friends of the Sonoran Desert. It was
stated that this may be an appropriate role for the Commission since
the bond
is so intertwined
with the Commissions mission. A public informational forum was discussed,
including the possibility of producing a brief informational report
or pamphlet, and
following up with a jointly authored op-ed piece representing the different
interests on
this Commission. This could help to education the public about the
5-year SDCP process and all those reports that were written. It was
noted that
people do
need a reminder as to why this SDCP process started in the first place.
The educational aspect that will likely be associated with the state
land reform
effort was briefly
discussed. Staff was asked to take the idea of an educational forum
to Jim Barry, Coordinator for the 2004 bond election, and bring back
comments.
3. Habitat Conservation Plan: Status of plan and monitoring needs
Paul Fromer went through a power point presentation (see attached).
4. SDCP Update
Maeveen Behan explained that the Board of Supervisors will hear recommendations
for the 2004 bond election on December 2. At the same time, the
Board will also have on their agenda the adoption of the SDCP, therefore
establishing it as a
County Program. This means that whether the bond passes on not,
the SDCP will be an established program. Mac Donaldson questioned whether
the
County
had
enough funds to acquire a Section 10 Permit without bond funds.
Ms.
Behan responded by explaining the level of take that the County
will be required
to mitigate
for, could be managed during this early phase. Tom Sheridan added
that Ms. Behan
had previously stated that the more land preserved up front, the
cheaper it'll be and less of a burden will be place on the community to
provide funding at
higher levels in the future.
5. State of the Environment Report
Bill Shaw had previously sent Commission members a rough outline
for a State of the Environment Report. Dr. Shaw began by discussing
a report
that used
to be published by Pima Association of Governments, which provided
basic statistical data for the County. This could be a model
for the Commissions
report. The
report
could have different chapters on the elements of the SDCP, and
could show
changes to the environment by these elements every year or two.
The County staff also
put together a summary of state of the environment type reports.
US Fish and Wildlife puts out something similar every 5 years.
The goal
would
be to put
something together that is useful and easy to read.
Commission members need to decide what information should be
in this report, along with what information we dont currently
have
but really
do need to
establish a good baseline. Then the report can be updated every
year to reflect changes.
It was suggested that population data from Dave Taylor, City
of Tucson's Planning department, would be important to include.
It
was noted
that once a framework
is established for the report, it will be relatively easy to
update.
The need for a really good land cover map would help to establish
a baseline for the biological monitoring. The interrelationship
between recreation
and the biological environment could be assessed through monitoring
and adaptive
management.
Linda Mayro, Cultural Resources, suggested that the Commission
decide what factoids are necessary to track. Then start at a
baseline year,
say 2000,
or whenever
that data was available, and then update that data incrementally
over 1, 2 or 5 years depending on what makes sense for each type
of data.
In addition,
the
report should look at how land consumption impacts the biological,
cultural, and recreational resources, in addition to population
increases.
Jonathan Mabry stated that more information was needed on the
priority cultural resource sites in order to be confident with
baseline
data. There was also
discussion of preparing a top 10 or 20 list to prioritize protection
of areas or sites for
each element.
The discussion then moved to what this State of the Environment
document may look like. For example, Bill Shaw asked members
to think about
what environmental and socio-demographic parameters would be
important to
include in each SDCP
element. Each member could have a certain number of pages to
provide expert knowledge
on their particular element, with data tables as appendices.
Various methods for monitoring changes were discussed. Paul Fromer
clarified that aerial photography could be used to see where
changes occurred,
then more detailed monitoring methods could be focused on those
areas where
a change
occurred. Mr. Fromer also noted that funding will have to be
guaranteed for biological
monitoring as required in the Section 10 Permit. Therefore, if
the monitoring needs for cultural resources can be combined with
the
biological monitoring,
there will be a greater chance of that cultural resource monitoring
will be funded.
6. Future Meetings
Bill Shaw suggested that he send out some questions to get commission
members thinking about the various data sources or indices
that could be useful
for each element. In addition, Nicole Fyffe will discuss a
possible informational forum
with Jim Barry, County Administrator's office, and report back.
Commission members will decided on at date in January via email
for the next
meeting.
Meeting was adjourned at 4:30 pm.