Call to Order and Introduction
Background on SDCP (Behan)
Maeveen Behan discussed the Board of Supervisors' interest in growth management. She said the listing of Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) could result in liability under Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In summary, Section 9 says "no". This produces the need for a Section 10 permit (Section 10 of the ESA says "unless..."), so that Pima County can move forward on its bond projects and other day-to-day maintenance and operations work. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service will extend its Section 10 permit to the community so it requests participation in developing the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP).The SDCP will be developed by a Steering Committee, made up of 75 members from the local community with varying interests. The Science Technical Advisory Team (STAT) is one of several technical advisory teams that will be used to define the technical aspects of the SDCP. A Project Management Team has been created to serve as a mediator between the Steering Committee and the technical advisory teams. The SDCP Concept Plan is just that, subject to change through consideration of new technical information and the public process.
Charter for STAT (Fonseca)
STAT members should focus on what we do not know, in addition to what is known. Decisions will be made by a consensus of the team members. STAT is not subject to open meeting laws, but will follow the open meeting process to allow the public to be involved. Meeting dates and agendas will be posted for the public prior to each meeting. Minutes from each meeting will also be posted on the website (www.co.pima.az.us/cmo/sdcp). Meetings of the STAT can be closed to the public, if necessary, for sensitive issues such as discussions of critical habitat for threatened and endangered species.
Tentative Timetable for STAT Activities (Shaw)
Bill Shaw reviewed the following timetable:
May 1999Identify focal species for the Multi-species Conservation Plan (MSCP) and the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP)May - June 1999Assist Pima County in defining objectives and scope-of-work for the biological consultant, who will be developing the biological element of the SDCP.
July 1999 Review proposals and recommend biological consultant to develop the SDCP
July 1999 Establish process for outside peer review
Oct. 1999 - Oversee development of the SDCP by the biological consultant
Sept. 2000Sept. 2000 Recommend species and conditions for the Section 10 Permit
USFWS Guidelines (Fonseca)
Materials that have been provided to STAT members include Frayed Safety Nets and other HCP guidelines. These materials, which critique other HCP's and MSCP's, will be useful in an effort to strengthen the SDCP process.
Cautions and Recommendations for STAT (Shaw)
The SDCP should be based on adequate biological information. The plan must be "adaptive" (i.e. respond to future environmental or knowledge changes). The STAT must believe the plan will lead to recovery, not just protection of species. The plan must also include measurable goals (e.g. protection of critical habitat or population increases for the threatened and endangered species).Independent review of the planning process is essential at multiple stages. STAT will be responsible for reviewing RFP objectives, the SDCP process midway during the development of the plan and the draft SDCP and draft Section 10 Permit.
The following discussion was based on the preliminary lists and
categories of species prepared in advance of the meeting. The
purpose of developing these lists was to provide for discussion
groupings of species or habitats which should be the focus of
the wildlife habitats element of the SDCP. After refinement by
staff and further discussion at the next STAT meeting, these lists
will be used in developing the scope of work for the environmental
consulting firm which will prepare the SDCP.
Extirpated species are included to provide an historical record of species in Pima County. Some of these species may return (reintroduction or natural expansion) due to conservation actions provided under the SDCP. Species discussed by STAT for inclusion onto this list are the Mesquite Mouse, River Otter and Black-tailed Prairie Dog. [According to species experts interviewed, the Mesquite Mouse still exists in Pima County in small numbers. It is already on Table 4B. Hoffmeister's Mammals of Arizona shows no historic records of the River Otter or Black-tailed Prairie Dog in Pima County. For the present, these two species will not be placed on the extirpated list, but they will be put on the species discussed list (Appendix B of the "Species of Concern" report)].
While going over the federally listed species, a question was
brought up concerning the absence of the Grizzly Bear. No one
present could answer why the Grizzly Bear is not considered a
threatened or endangered species within Pima County.
Some changes were suggested for the "Species
of Concern" lists (Tables 4A-4D). The Mexican Garter
Snake is not likely to be listed as endangered, so the wording
in the comment section will be deleted. The scientific name for
the Dahlia Rooted Cereus will be changed from Neoevansia striata
to Peniocereus striata. A column will be added to Table
4D, explaining why the species should be included within the SDCP.
A number of species were discussed to be added to one of the four "Species of Concern" tables (4A-4D). These species include the following:
Apache Goshawk - occurs in the Rincon Mountains
Northern Shrike
Peniocereus greggii - strongly associated with ironwood
Bursera fagoroides - associated with ironwood and is also of cultural significance
Olneya tesota - at risk in Mexico; Pima County specimen may be more protected
Rothschildia cintus (moth) - may be in Pima County
Beargrass and Yucca arizonica - of cultural significance for Tohono O'Odham
Big Horn Sheep, Mountain Lion, Mule Deer and White-tailed Deer - key species for long term monitoring of wildlife corridor health
Bronze Cowbird and Brown-headed Cowbird noted because they are nest parasites (put eggs in nests of other species).
Staff is currently in the process of determining which categories these species will fall into. Copies of the changed tables will be posted on the website.
A couple of changes were made regarding the exotic species list (Appendix C). The Mexican Opossum's occurrence in Pima County is considered a natural expansion and will be dropped from the exotics list and place on the species discussed list (Appendix B). The scientific name for domestic dogs has been changed to from Canis spp. to Canis familiaris. Species added to the exotics list are feral goats, House Sparrow, Rock Dove (Pigeon), and exotic turtles and tortoises.
Habitats of Concern which were added to the list include Relict
Mixed Conifer and Talus Slopes. The presence of roadside habitat
on this list needs explanation. Roadside habitats are considered
to be corridors for the introduction of exotic species.
Other comments to the report include:
Report should provide an historical overview of ecosystem and
landscape changes.
Some people need more time to review the tables (Sherry Ruther
for AGFD and Mima Falk for the plant working group). All comments,
additions and changes to the tables are due by June 1.
Information is needed on species which occur in Mexico to help
make decisions for protection in Pima County.
Need a comprehensive assessment of risks posed by exotic species.
This should be included in the request for proposal (RFP) to be
handled by the contractor.
A policy statement is needed to explain what to do when species
are only protected in Pima County, not in Mexico
A guidance statement is needed for disjunct species
Need a statement on how to handle species which occur near the
fringes of Pima County, but have not yet been sighted in the County
itself.
Report should include a species-to-watch list for monitoring purposes.
The STAT approved (by consensus) the categories of species, subject
to minor adjustments of the species withing the categories, as
discussed. Staff and the committee chair will revise the lists
in consideration of these comments in preparation for the next
STAT meeting.
Vegetative Mapping (Fonseca)
A brief description was provided on the difference between the GAP Analysis, which displays regional coverage of plant associations, and mapping provided by Arid Lands/Pima Association of Governments and other efforts which provide more detailed information. Input is needed from STAT members on what level of detail is needed.
Public Comment
Would like to see a larger list of species which includes categories such as "charismatic", "wide-ranging" and "symbionts."
Individual HCP's should not be allowed.
ATTENDANCE LIST
STAT Members Present:
William Shaw School of Natural Renewable Resources, University of Arizona
Mima Falk Coronado National Forest
Natasha Kline Saguaro National Park
Steve Prchal Sonoran Arthropod Studies Institute
Gary Nabhan Arizona Sonora Desert Museum
Sherry Ruther Arizona Game and Fish Department
Cecil Schwalbe U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division
Steve DeStefano School of Natural Renewable Resources, University of Arizona
Staff:
Julia Fonseca Pima County Flood Control District
David Scalero Pima County Flood Control District
Others:
Maeveen Behan County Administrator's Office
Gail C. Kobetich Department of Interior
Leslie Dierauf U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Peter Stine U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division
Sarah Schmidt Citizen
Dale Turner Citizen
Andra S. Ewton Defenders of Wildlife
Barbara Rose Citizen
John Regan Pima County Department of Transportation - Technical Services
Trevor Hare Tucson Herpetological Society
Links Endangered Species in Pima County Species of Concern - A discussion paper for the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan