Minutes
July 6, 2005
Members Present: Laura Arnold, David Loyd, Mary Masters, Victoria Parker, Kit Rawson, Jim Slocomb, Tina Whitman
Staff: Jody Kennedy, Helen Venada
Absent: Mike Bertrand, Brian Calvert, Michael Durland, Terrie Klinger, (Alan) Skeet Lowe,
Joy Sevier, Dennis Willows
Guests: Joel Breems, Kathleen Foley, Debbie Giles, Phil Green, Kari Koski, Rowann Tallmon, Jonathan White
Chair Kit Rawson called the non-quorum meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. in the Community Room at Islanders Bank Annex, Friday Harbor.
Citizens’ Comments:
Kari Koski introduced Debbie Giles, UC Davis graduate student, who will be working as an intern with Soundwatch this summer.
Minutes:
Tina noted that in the 6/15/05 minutes there needs to be clarification of Terrie’s comments on page 3, in the last sentence of the paragraph before the final motion under “Whale Rocks.”
Managers’ Checklist Exercise:
Kit said that the San Juan Preservation Trust has agreed to complete the MSA Management Measure Checklist regarding the Trust’s recent proposal for Whale Rocks. Kathleen Foley, Education Volunteer Coordinator for the Juan Preservation Trust, distributed copies of a map indicating the location of Whale Rocks. [Jim offered, for future reference, to print materials in color for anyone by email request to him.] Copies of the MSA checklist were distributed. Kathleen said that she was on a whale watching vessel with Kari a few months ago near Whale Rocks and the question of who owns the Rocks came up. Kathleen clarified that the Trust has partial ownership of the grouping. Kari expressed the concern that she regularly sees both commercial and private vessel traffic closely approaching the Rocks in order to view wildlife.
The following is a summary of the Trust’s responses to the Checklist questions.
#1 - The Trust would like to establish a voluntary 200-yard no go zone around the perimeter of the Whale Rocks grouping.
#2 - The goal would be to ease the pressure on the marine mammal haul out areas; Whale Rocks is a well known site for Stellar sea lions, harbor seals, and brooding, roosting marine sea birds.
#3 - The objective would be to get information to wildlife watch operators and the general public on the sensitivity of the area so that they will respect the no go zone. Kathleen said that she sent out letters from the Trust to commercial wildlife operators in June and is hoping that the MRC will send out a follow-up letter to them supporting the no go zone proposal. Tina suggested that the buffer could also be added to the MSA map.
#4 - The threat triggering the proposed management measure, Kathleen said, comes from anecdotal eye witness accounts, from people on shore and from the Soundwatch boat, of commercial and private vessels cruising very close to the shore. Kit reiterated that a lot of haul out areas are in restricted refuges so that these boaters tend to concentrate in the Whale Rocks area to view wildlife. Kari said Soundwatch has vessel data from monitoring efforts over several years. She said there can be heavy traffic there with or without whales or sea lions present; people also like to witness seals pupping. Kathleen added that it is assumed this is happening because the public may not know better and whale watch operators likely do know better but are not breaking any regulations by getting close.
#5 - Ownership breaks down as follows: the largest Rock of the grouping is owned outright by the Trust which was deeded the property by a former owner; the second largest is owned by Landowner A who has not paid property taxes on it for some time (the Trust has paid the taxes for at least the past five years); the third Rock is owned by Landowner B who has been contacted by the Trust about the protection proposal and is fully in support of it (the same letter was sent to Landowner A with no response as yet). The Trust would like to get full ownership of Whale Rocks. The desired future status then would be to keep the Rocks solely as a wildlife refuge, with no access to people, in perpetuity and “forever wild.”
#6 - Specific goals and objectives include keeping vessel traffic away to reduce the pressure that boat presence can put on marine mammals.
#7 - Although the Trust records do not include reports of disturbance events, Kathleen said, Soundwatch’s data can provide a baseline documentation of vessel traffic that will allow for a comparison of future boater behavior resulting from the proposed measure.
#8 - The Trust has 36 preserves, 169 conservation easements, and over 9,000 acres in its care. Kathleen said, the Trust does yearly monitoring and collects ecological data for all of these lands. The file for Whale Rocks is small, however, due to the fact that the Trust does not own a boat and has not had access to the property. Questions about which species use the Rocks, how they are using them, how long they are present, and what times of the year they are present remain unanswered. One proposal, therefore, is for the Trust and other interested parties to do monitoring throughout the first year and then have the Trust add the Rocks to their regular monitoring schedule.
#9 - The upland area would be put into the Trust’s preserve network, either deeded to the Trust or as conservation easement; if full ownership is given, then the “forever wild” status, with no people access to the Rocks, would be created and no harvesting would be allowed. David said that urchin and sea cucumbers are harvested in the area now; Kari added that this is a big sportfishing area and she has viewed fishing boats within 200 yards of the Rocks.
#10 - The two private ownerships represent the only known legal impediment to the designation that could occur; Kathleen said this is not expected to happen, however. Jim said that DNR would likely withdraw the tide and bottom lands from leasing if the Trust took ownership.
#11 - Although measuring success could be difficult, Kathleen said the outcome looks good. She does not anticipate any problems with the other owners and there has been no response to the Trust’s letter to the whale watch operators. The hope is that if the information gets out to the public effectively, particularly with the MRC’s follow-up endorsement, Whale Rocks will be protected in perpetuity.
Kit thanked Kathleen and the Trust for completing the Checklist. There was discussion on general public response to adding more haul out zone protection. It was acknowledged that the Stellars are recognized as special. Should zones be prioritized by level of concern? Kari said that refuge management is important for wildlife, not for property owners. She noted that even barnacles on rocks can be seen with binoculars! Discussion continued on using a regional approach (Cattle Pass being a highly productive area). The question arose of what minimum buffer distance would be effective. Kari suggested that the 200-yard standard buffer for refuges might be appropriate for the whole area since it is already in place by other management measures in the area, including the bottomfish zones. With respect to air traffic, it was pointed out that FFA regulations call for 1000 feet altitude over marine mammals (no circling pattern 500 feet over people) but that most pilots are unaware of the regulation.
There was discussion about adding the Rocks to the MSA map and to Phase 2 work. Kit noted that this proposal could be part of the Phase 2 MSA work or could happen sooner. Something to consider, he added, was the question of whether there would be impacts to wildlife watching, general recreational boating, sportfishing, and possibly dive fishing. Kathleen said that if a species inventory is needed, the Trust could comply. She would like to bring information back to the Trust on whether the Rocks could be added to the MSA map and a summary of the breadth and scope of the MRC mission and work. David suggested that
the wildlife watch operators consider their role as stewards. Rowann said that trained naturalists onboard
wildlife watch boats could engage in data collection; another option would be for the Trust to have someone do monitoring on wildlife watch boat trips. Kathleen will give Jody a summary of Kari’s biological data, traffic counts, records of resulting large wake, and any records of observed fishing around Whale Rocks. Mary suggested that members could begin to have conversations with users to gain their perspective on the
proposed management measure. Jody said that Terrie has offered to begin drafting a follow-up letter to the wildlife watch operators from the MRC to respond to the Trust’s request; review of the draft will be added to the next meeting’s agenda.
Draft Memorandum of Understanding between the County and the Nature Conservancy:
Copies of the 7/1/05 draft were distributed and Mary explained that it lays out the basic relationship between the MRC and TNC, with the SeaDoc Society and NWSC as partners. There was discussion on the content of the draft MOU. The next steps in the process are: (1) the MRC Executive Subcommittee will do a final review and editing; (2) the final draft will be presented to TNC for its edits and approval; (3) the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office and Commissioner Kevin Ranker (BOCC liaison to the MRC) will do a review for approval; and, (4) a discussion on content (committed staffing, scheduling, financial responsibilities) will follow. Laura suggested that the BOCC be sent a memo and copy of the draft in advance of their meeting, including a summary of why they are being asked to sign the MOU. She said that a paragraph should be added to the MOU about the funding commitment with specific dollar dedication for each organization, as well as specific reference in the Scope of Work about a sunset clause, review, and renewal as needed. The BOCC will be added to the signature block. Tina suggested that a list of November workshop invitees be started now; members were asked to send the names of users to Jody.
Letter to State Parks regarding new mooring buoy design:
Copies of the 7/1/05 draft letter from the MRC to WA State Parks were distributed for discussion. It was agreed that the two sentences recently added to address concerns about possible no-anchor zones do not reflect the intent of previous discussion and vote (5/18/05 and 6/15/05 minutes) to send the letter without reference to the boating community. It was agreed, however, that it is important to consider the concerns of boaters and other stakeholders throughout the MSA process. The last two sentences of the second paragraph were deleted by consensus, removing any reference to no-anchor zones. Laura said that a separate letter from the MRC could address the no anchor zone issue.
Jody requested that specific timelines for sending such letters in the future need to be stated. It was agreed that prioritizing of such comment letters needs to be made clear to guarantee timely response; it is also important to assign a member or staff person to write each draft letter.
MRC vacancy:
Kit reported that David Hoopes’ resignation from the MRC was now official. There was discussion of whether the Planning Director, or designee, as liaison from the county to the MRC, should occupy one of the voting member positions. Laura said the matter is unclear in the Charter and should be addressed. Jody will email the Charter and any subsequent resolution to members for future discussion. Once this is resolved, the MRC can take up the issue of whom to recommend to the BOCC to fill the vacant position.
Salmon Recovery Update:
Kit said that Barbara Rosenkotter has been hired as the new Lead Entity Coordinator. He added that a subcommittee (Tina, Laura, Kit) needs to review the policies between SRF Board and the MRC as well as submitted proposals; the Salmon Technical Advisory Group (STAG) needs to be appointed.
MRC Outreach Subcommittee Report:
Jody said that she emailed the subcommittee meeting minutes to members.
NWSC Education Committee Report:
Victoria said that the NWSC formed an Education Committee in 2000 that has worked to help the Commission and MRCs to communicate with diverse audiences about the Initiative and regional marine issues. The NWSC invited MRCs to participate in a half-day session to discuss the Education Committee’s work and its future direction and goals; the Commission’s Communications Strategy and future role of the Education Committee were the focus of the session. A second meeting is planned for July 12 in which specific recommendations will be developed for presentation to the NWSC.
Victoria added these observations: that the NWSC intends to focus on regional issues and to offer help to the MRCs as requested; that Beachwatcher programs are closely tied to several of the MRCs (e.g. as the “on the ground” group for Jefferson, Skagit, and Island County MRCs); that there should be breakout groups at the NWSC Fall training to address media relations; that the NWSC representative (Ginny Broadhurst) who attends this MRCs meetings might sit at the table to keep members better informed of NWSC happenings (as well as the PSAT representative, Hillary Culverwell); that the information on the back of the NW Maritime Trade page in the sportfishing regulations would be better placed opposite the regulations content page, acknowledging the difficulty of displacing the current advertiser.
Victoria suggested that it would be good to meet members of other MRCs and to make better use of the NWSC representative. She added that the relationship with the local Beachwatchers group be explored with respect to outreach. Victoria proposed an education event scheduled to coincide with the upcoming anniversary in January of 2006 of the MSA signing; she will email members and the full outreach subcommittee details of her proposal for discussion at the August 1st meeting. Tina said she liked the idea of using the 5-S process as an outreach tool.
NWSC Regional Project:
Jody reported that the NWSC is still working on the selection of one regional project. She said that data collection is by far the #1 choice of the MRCs surveyed. In partnership with PSAT, marine managers, all the MRCs, USGS, USFWS, DNR, the NWSC is reviewing how well the data from northern Puget Sound is meshing and how it might be better done to serve as a valuable regional database. NWSC will further describe the project and then make its final decision and proposal. Jim asked if the database would be programmatic or one-time. $88,000 is budgeted for the project.
Jody said that the NWSC administration grant ended last week; she distributed handouts describing where the money went, noting that a more detailed breakout is available.
Citizens’ Comments:
Rowann gave a brief update on the Beachwatchers Program. She said that since there was not enough time to drum up sufficient interest in this summer’s training, recruitment for the January and April 2006 trainings will continue, including an effort at the County Fair. She said that a Fall workshop (e.g. on invasives) is possible. Rowann said it is important for Beachwatcher Programs to build good partnerships with the MRCs and that this relationship varies by county. There will be a meeting on July 12th of all the Beachwatcher Programs in the region.
Kari added that since there is some overlap with Soundwatch and Beachwatchers’ monitoring and education efforts, she and Rowann are partnering to address the beach and water components effectively. Kari said that she got a grant from National Wildlife Refuges to do data entry of human use. She thanked the MRC for its recent support letter.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:43 a.m.
Submitted by Helen Venada
