Minutes
June 15, 2005
Members Present: Laura Arnold, Michael Durland, David Hoopes, Terrie Klinger, (Alan) Skeet Lowe, David Loyd, Mary Masters, Victoria Parker , Kit Rawson, Jim Slocomb, Tina Whitman
Absent : Mike Bertrand, Brian Calvert, Joy Sevier, Dennis Willows
Guests: Hilary Culverwell, Kirsten Evans, Kat Fennell, MRC Coordinator Jody Kennedy, Kari Koski, Rowann Tallmon, Jonathan White
Chair Kit Rawson called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. in the Community Room at Islanders Bank Annex, Friday Harbor . He announced that Vice Chair Mary Masters would chair the meeting after 9:45 am since he and David Hoopes will be attending the SRF Board proposal preparation workshop in Mount Vernon later today. David said the meeting will focus on how to do proposals for Round 6.
Citizens' Comments:
David Hoopes announced that today would be his last MRC meeting as a committee member, noting that it has been an enjoyable hiatus; he encouraged the committee to continue with its good work. Kit led members in thanking David for his service and valued input.
Kari Koski said that she distributed MSA packets at the annual Bayliner Festival held at Roche Harbor last weekend.
Minutes : Minutes of the 5/18/05 meeting were reviewed and approved as revised. Mary pointed out that minutes of the 6/1/05 non-quorum meeting should be changed as follows: on page 2, under “MSA Phase 2 Report,” delete reference to BOCC.
Salmon Recovery Protocols:
Copies of the 6/13/05 draft document, “ San Juan Islands ' SRFB Scoring Criteria” were distributed. Kit said this meets the need to have criteria for scoring proposals and is meant to be keyed to Part VIII of the WRIA 2 plan, a copy of which is appended to the hand-out. Kit pointed out that references to the tribal process were derived from WRIA V, VI, and VII. This work, Kit said, was meant to be done by the not-yet-hired lead entity coordinator with assistance from David Hoopes. Weighting in the scoring for “Benefit to Salmon” is 65%; for “Certainty of Success,” 20%; and, for “Socio-economic Impact,” 15% in the draft criteria.
Following discussion, these edits were suggested:
- delete the 3rd sentence on the first page (“While the SRFB...”) and capitalize the “r” in “reviewers;”
- change “soliciting” in the 1st line of “Restoration” to “accepting.”
Tina said she is concerned that the current draft could totally close the door to restoration projects; following discussion on priorities, there was agreement that proponents could apply this year for projects to assess areas as potential restoration sites, and that acceptance of restoration projects in future years is not precluded.
Motion: Jim moved, and David Hoopes seconded, that the draft scoring criteria be adopted with the above corrections. The motion passed unanimously.
Skeet Lowe noted that the issue of the effect of sustainable sea lion and seal populations on salmon needs to be addressed. Kit pointed out that, although this interaction is recognized, the WRIA 2 strategy does not currently address this issue. Jim said that there should be discussion on finding a mechanism to assure that such concerns are addressed in the plan. Victoria suggested that a list of concerns be developed for guidance.
Kit said that the Shared Strategy plan will be completed by the end of today and that it is a dynamic document, subject to updates and revisions. He suggested that the MRC set a schedule, tentatively by February 1st of each year, to review plan strategies for revisions. Jim said that this information should be on the MRC webpage to inform the public.
MSA Phase 2 Report:
Copies of the draft Report and draft MSA zone map were distributed. Jim presented an overview of the Report and map; he said that he did conflict resolution for overlapped layers to provide a higher level of protection. He said the last policy has not been discussed by the committee; it recommends no sportfishing in any WDFW marine reserves or Bottom Fish Recovery zones. The intent, he added, is to eliminate bottomfish as bycatch for lingcod or salmon fishermen; this voluntary measure has been presented at two public meetings. Jim said the boxed suggested policies for zones is also new. Kit suggested that the language in both the report and map describing a preservation zone should read “no recreational fishing” to eliminate confusion.
There was discussion on expanding the public input and outreach section. Jody said that there will be a separate report on public input in the packet for the NWSC grant; Jim's report will refer to the forthcoming full report. Mary suggested that Jim's report include a cover letter stating clearly that his work is an example of a zone scheme and is not a final product.
Kit said the zones are based on data analysis and Jim added that the basic zone descriptions came out of previously adopted MRC work. Kit suggested that all the zones and management measures be run through the checklist. (Kari and Jim have already completed the checklist for the whale and wake issues.) Copies of the checklist and of the practice runs will be appended to Jim's report as another product. Victoria noted that since so much of the data is quite old (e.g. 20 years old for salmon), the need for assessment updates is supportable. Jim reiterated that the zone descriptions are general now, with specifics to follow later. It was agreed that the concept of “no harvest” needs to be consistent with other agencies' policies.
Motion: David Loyd moved, and Terrie seconded, that the draft be sent to the NWSC, with suggested amendments, and a cover letter as discussed. The motion passed unanimously.
The executive subcommittee will review a copy of the final before it is sent. Kit noted that now that there is something in writing, it can be presented to various groups for feedback (e.g. to the science advisory group, fisheries resource managers, such as the tribes, etc.). Jim offered to compile feedback comments so that they can be worked into the process.
Whale Rocks:
Jody explained that the San Juan Preservation Trust has asked for MRC endorsement of its letter to whale watch operators, requesting that they respect the voluntary measures for stewardship at Whale Rocks and expressing the concern that boating traffic has negative impacts if they come close to the Rocks when whales or birds are present there. Mary noted that the letter says that the national wildlife refuges require that boats must stay 200 yards off the shoreline. Terrie said that the 200 yard buffer is a guideline in the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act, not a regulation. Jody said she will clarify this issue with the Preservation Trust. Kari said that the Trust owns some of the Whale Rocks and some are privately owned; the Rocks constitute the biggest marine bird aggregates and seal haulout in the area, she added. Kit suggested that the Trust be asked to run their proposal through the MSA checklist. Jody pointed out that the Trust would like to get this letter out soon, with MRC support; a separate issue, she said, is whether the MRC wants to add Whale Rocks to the MSA reserves list. She has invited Kathleen of the Trust to speak at a future MRC meeting.
Motion: Tina moved, and Victoria seconded, that the MRC suggest that the Trust change “must” to “should” in the letter's reference to the 200 yard buffer and that the MRC include a cover letter to the Trust saying that the MRC supports the intent of the letter and is interested in putting it through the MSA process.
Terrie suggested that the MRC write a letter supporting the concept, but noting that there is some concern so that the MSA checklist and understanding of the regulations need to be applied first before full support can be given. Tina withdrew the motion.
[At 9:45 am Kit and David left to attend the SRF Board proposal prparation workshop and Mary took over chairing this meeting.]
Victoria said that it is important to build a strong partnership with groups such as the Trust and a written letter of support from the MRC would help to move that forward. Jonathan White said that, as a member of the Board of Directors of the Trust, he echoes Victoria 's comment that this could be a positive step in building a bridge between the MRC and the Trust. He proposed that there be a joint meeting of the groups in the near future to discuss their mutual goals. Terrie suggested that this is a good opportunity offered to begin the process of applying the checklist ; she said she'd also like to see existing documents strengthened by adding other significant sites, such as Whale Rocks.
Motion: Terrie moved, and Michael seconded, that Jody craft a letter to the Trust indicating support for the concept (without an explicit endorsement of their letter to the whale watch operators.) The motion passed unanimously. Jody will contact the Trust to make the suggestion that the “must” be changed to “should” as discussed earlier.
Sucia Island State Park :
Victoria had a question about the MRC sending a letter of support about State Parks' mooring buoy proposal for Sucia Island State Park . Following discussion, there was consensus that the letter should include the statement that the MRC supports the new design and experiment of assessment-based mooring and that the MRC's focus is on eelgrass displacement. Tina will write a draft and send it to Jody for MRC review.
NWSC regional project:
Jody circulated copies of a list of potential ecosystem projects that could be funded by the NWSC; the list contains suggestions from 5 of the 7 MRCs. A list of ranking criteria that was agreed upon by the Commission at its May meeting was also included as was an updated description of each of the proposed projects. The NWSC would like the MRCs to resubmit their preference for a regional project. There was discussion about the description of the rockfish surveys project, which is seen as a misinterpretation relative to San Juan County 's goal. David Loyd suggested that members send their comments to Jody for the next NWSC meeting stating the importance of continued rockfish studies and requesting re-definition of the project. Terrie pointed out that “dispersion” should be replaced with “dispersal.” Jody will go through past minutes to try to recapture the earlier description of the rockfish research project. Discussion on the data coordination proposal followed. Jim said that much of it can be done without added cost. Hillary Culverell reported that data coordination was Whatcom County MRC's first pick and that PSAT will be supporting NWSC's GIS work.
Motion: Terrie moved, and David Loyd seconded, that the MRC resubmit its same ranked list of potential NWSC regional projects, including redefinition of the rockfish studies project per the above discussion. The motion passed unanimously.
Report on the MSA Technical Advisory Panel Workshop:
Terrie acknowledged Kirsten's excellent preparatory work for the workshop; attendees noted that facilitation of the targets workshop was challenging, but at the end of the day, the group completed the target-setting exercise and the MRC now has a list of conservation targets. There was discussion about TNC's experience of applying the 5-S process to terrestrial, not marine, projects. Jody noted that the 5-S process provides a useful framework that can benefit the MSA effort; she proposed that the sub-committee continue the discussion. Jim asked how the large amount of work can be funded.
Mary said that the draft scope of work needs revision; Jim will send his recommendations regarding the MOU. A final will be presented to the MRC at its meeting for review before it goes to the BOCC. Kirsten, Jim, and Mary will begin the discussion today after the meeting.
Jody suggested that the MRC submit a proposal for structuring a future workshop; she said the workshop resulted in good products and feedback from participants. A thank you letter will be sent. Kirsten noted that the target setting process is challenging. Terrie recommended that targets set at the workshop are preliminary. Jody will send out the list of targets. Rowann pointed out that the workshop needed more than one day.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 am
Submitted by Helen Venada
