Minutes
June 1 , 2005
Members Present: Laura Arnold, Brian Calvert, David Hoopes, David Loyd, Victoria Parker,
Jim Slocomb, Tina Whitman
Absent: Mike Bertrand, Michael Durland, Terrie Klinger, (Alan) Skeet Lowe, Mary Masters,
Kit Rawson, Joy Sevier, Dennis Willows
Guests: Rachelle Gould, Dr. Don Gunderson and students of FH Labs rockfish/MSA class,
MRC Coordinator Jody Kennedy, Rich Osborne, Elmo Paige, Rowann Tallmon
Guest presenter: Chris Davis, CommEn Space
In the absence of the Chair and Vice Chair, Jim Slocomb served as Chair pro tem. The non-quorum meeting was called to order at 8:30 a.m. in the Community Room at Islanders Bank Annex, Friday Harbor.
Citizens’ Comments:
Dr. Gunderson announced that students from this quarter’s marine fish ecology class will do presentations on their apprenticeship research projects tomorrow at the Labs. The students introduced themselves and gave brief descriptions of their research interests and responded to questions from MRC members. Dr. Gunderson added that the presentations will be available on the Labs’ website.
Minutes:
Review of the minutes of the 5/18/05 meeting was held over to next meeting. There was discussion on the appropriateness of the minutes referring to some, but not all, members’ comments on a given agenda item. Members agreed that the issue of minutes’ content requires a formal group discussion at a future meeting.
Salmon Recovery Plan Chapter:
Laura distributed copies of a draft document on prioritized strategies and associated actions. Prioritized strategies that were identified by the subcommittee include: 1. Assessment; 2. Protection; and 3. Restoration.
These broad priorities will be refined over the next 8-10 months. Laura noted that for purposes of completing the San Juan County chapter, the subcommittee decided that priorities be established by category, rather than specific items which are not yet well defined. She explained that Assessment includes filling data gaps, monitoring, and research; Protection generally means actions that enhance either regulatory effectiveness or voluntary action by knowledgeable citizens or involve things like conservation easements for nearshore areas, acquisitions, and incentives for voluntary conservation; Restoration actions are expected to come to light out of the assessment phase. Laura said there is a very short time frame this year in advance of the funding cycles to decide what to accomplish. She added that there is a lot of data out there and sources of information that have not been assembled in a way that feeds ideas for protective actions. Laura detailed other sections of the draft for member discussion.
Tina added that specific actions and recovery strategies will come out of existing assessment work but until more complete assessment is done, the subcommittee was not ready to identify specific projects. She added that in all the salmon recovery work going on, it has been emphasized that protection is the key strategy here in the San Juans...that the most efficient and effective way to have suitable habitat is protection. Tina said the data supports this as well and there are many ways to achieve measurable protection. She added that the Salmon Recovery Funding Board strategy encourages the bottom up process for determining local strategies that accomplish goals.
Jim said it was important to remember that when the funding cycle begins and members identify which projects are to go forward, the three prioritized strategies in this draft (assessment, protection, restoration) will serve as the primary guideposts if consensus is reached today. Tina emphasized that the strategies are conceptual at this point with detail to come later. The “big picture” prioritization is due on June 15th and applications for projects will go out on June 20th. There was general consensus on adopting the draft strategies.
Laura suggested that UW student project results be incorporated into the more detailed assessment as the Plan develops. Jody said that it will be important to factor community input into the criteria for project selection. Laura said that next MRC meeting’s work will focus on developing criteria for soliciting and ranking proposals. Brian added that one important outreach goal has to be to show people the connection between proposed actions and salmon and Jim said this point is central to grant applications.
Guest presentation:
Chris Davis said that CommEn Space is a non-profit organization that has been providing mapping and spatial analysis services to communities and environmental groups in the Pacific Northwest since 1998. He presented an overview of CommEn Space work and discussed more specifically conservation planning, particularly in the nearshore area. Chris said that he is impressed with the MRC’s work and Jim’s mapping efforts. He pointed out that CommEn is not an advocacy group but operates like a small consulting firm whose mission includes helping organizations get access to mapping, GIS, and other spatial analysis tools; CommEn also helps to facilitate collaboration with other conservation planning groups. Chris said that cartography and graphics can be used in ways that take complex scientific information to public settings. He explained that CommEn Space also does a great deal of modeling work that integrates data and statistical information; he showed examples of how spatial analysis works for conservation planning.
Chris said that CommEn Space was very involved with the Technical Recovery Team on the Shared Strategy nearshore chapter that will be released in June. The Nature Conservancy, Trust for Public Land (Puget Sound Blueprint), Methow Conservancy, and Cascade Land Conservancy are among other conservation groups that the company has worked with, largely on terrestrial, but some nearshore, projects. CommEn’s purpose, Chris said, is to provide direction and communication tools for conservation efforts. By providing data updates CommEn is producing products that will not become obsolete and is trying to build data sets and models that will sustain capacity for organizations over time.
Chris described in detail the role of modeling in identifying priorities. He outlined some of the different ways to assemble various data layers to come up with meaningful composites.
Chris addressed the challenge of how to capture and organize anecdotal data. He suggested that coming up with similar classifications and typology for such qualitative research and for quantitative data can help in developing an organized system that fits the database model and provides feedback to participants. There was discussion on how to evaluate and factor in the relationship of the “value” of a healthy salmon population and the value of property for landowners.
MSA Phase 2 Report:
Copies of the draft Report and draft MSA zone map were distributed. Jim said the Report is due to the BOCC at the end of June and is an NWSC grant deliverable. Jody asked that members review the Report which contains policy recommendations; comments on the draft should be emailed to her and to Jim. Jim said the Report is how you get to the one-page map (zones, proposed policies, and where they are applied).
5-S Planning Process
Jody said that the planning meeting for the June 14th Technical Advisory Panel workshop will be held at the MRC office at 9 a.m. on June 6th; it will provide an orientation and training opportunity for MRC members in the nuts and bolts of the 5-S process. Rachelle said that both the TNC facilitator for the June 14th workshop and Jacques White would be attending the June 6th training; she said that the ecoregional plan that has been produced for the larger area will be presented. The goal of the June 14th workshop, to be held at the Grange, is to select biological targets and to assess their viability (health).
Rachelle distributed copies of the Overall Process Design that outlines typical steps for the Process. She discussed planning options for the MRC to consider and said that the process can be designed to be as broad or as narrow as desired. One option (traditional TNC process) is to set only biological targets (What do we want to protect?), incorporating stakeholder analysis in the process (Who is out there and what are they doing?). Option 2 (experimental) includes social/cultural targets as well as biological targets in a two-track plan. Rachelle said that option 2 would likely be more expensive and leaves the question of how to mesh the two tracks at the end. A third option could be a one-track plan that considers some biological and some social targets.
Jody explained that a draft Memorandum of Understanding between the MRC and TNC is being circulated for legal review. Following member discussion, there was consensus that option 3 makes the most sense for the MSA here. Rachelle pointed out that either a subcommittee could present the draft plan in a large community meeting for approval or a large committed group could be involved throughout the whole process. It was agreed that the June 6th meeting will include a discussion on how to include all stakeholders (marine users) in the larger group of targeted invitees.
Citizens’ comments:
Elmo Paige said that he and Helen are participating on a Board that is attempting to introduce sustainability into county projects, particularly buildings and grounds. The MARS Project (Meaningful Approach to Rehabilitation and Sustainability) would allow local community service workers (ordered by the courts) to work off their fines by receiving training and mentoring from community members in various skills needed to upgrade county buildings and grounds that demonstrate sustainability elements (e.g. rainwater harvest, solar roof panels, organic gardening). Elmo suggested that non-profits and other groups would be invited to participate in a task force to carry out the project’s goal which is to implement the concept of “restorative justice” here, helping to re-integrate offenders back into the community in a healthy, hopeful manner.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 a.m.
Submitted by Helen Venada
