Minutes
November 2, 2005
Members Present: Laura Arnold, Michael Durland, (Alan) Skeet Lowe, David Loyd, Victoria Parker,
Kit Rawson, Jim Slocomb, Jonathan White, Tina Whitman
Staff: Helen Venada, Candace VerBrugghen
Absent: Mike Bertrand, Brian Calvert, Terrie Klinger, Mary Masters, Joy Sevier
Guests: Kirsten Evans, Phil Green, Birgit Kriete, Kari Koski, Rich Osborne, Commissioner Kevin Ranker, Howie Rosenfeld
Chair Kit Rawson called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. in the Community Room at Islanders Bank Annex, Friday Harbor.
Minutes:
Minutes of the 10/19/05 meeting were approved with the correction on page 1, 7th line under “Letter of Support,” that “...they divided up the field” be changed to “they agreed they would work together....”
Actions:
Kit discussed the draft letter from the MRC to the Pacific Salmon Commission, Vancouver, B.C. in support of a research proposal on juvenile salmon stock identification in north Puget Sound by Eric Beamer and Paul Moran of Skagit River System Cooperative and Kurt Fresh of NOAA Fisheries. Laura said that this proposal is fundamental to the salmon recovery strategy. Kit had emailed the letter and his suggested revisions to members before the meeting.
Motion: Jim moved, and David seconded, that the draft letter be sent, with suggested edits. The motion passed unanimously.
Membership: Kit reported that Dr. Ken Sebens has officially been appointed to MRC membership and will begin attending meetings in December due to a teaching conflict this fall. Kit welcomed Howie Rosenfeld who has been recommended by the Town of Friday Harbor as a new member.
Motion: Jim moved and Laura seconded that the MRC send a letter of support
for Howie’s membership to the BOCC. The motion passed unanimously.
Work Session:
Review of “Sources, Strategies, Stresses” Workshop: Kirsten Evans presented a summary of the MSA workshop and distributed copies of her summarized results: two new targets were added (“Water” and “Human Benefits from the Marine Environment”). Also, the “Bottomfish” target was changed to “Rockfish, lingcod and greenling.” Kirsten asked for feedback from those members who attended the workshop.
Tina thought the workshop went very well with excellent facilitation by the TNC coordinator; she wondered how communication can be maintained with users. Tina suggested that three times as many users as agency representatives should be invited to future workshops and noted that many attendees were unfamiliar with the 5-S process. Tina said that the general public should be informed of the results of the workshop.
Jonathan agreed that the workshop was very well organized and had good focus. He noted that there should be follow-up to the workshop to keep users involved. Kirsten said she will compile notes and then do a summary that will be sent to all parties and the science team. She added that the “TBDs” in the draft status report will be updated and fleshed out; other changes to targets’ status will also be done. Kirsten said that the next step in the planning process is to define the goal (desired future condition) for each target; there will be more strategy development followed by a strategy assessment phase, evaluating each strategy in terms of its feasibility, potential funding, etc. Jim suggested that defining the desired future condition is a critical discussion for the MRC and that some work session time needs to be devoted to it. He noted that the human social picture is his favorite issue. David suggested that the “Human Benefits” target needs to be tightened up; he added that the number of representatives attending the workshop was good but there were not many “on the ground” people. Laura noted that there were very few stakeholders and members of the general public in attendance; she wondered how to get MSA information out to them. Victoria said that opposing views were under-represented and the small number of them were not well heard; she suggested that the MSA Celebration may be a way to capture minority opinion.
Phil echoed that the workshop was very well done and that there was a good range of people there considering that attendance was limited to 40 people. He was able to hear from constituents he doesn’t usually meet. Kit appreciated that MRC members blended in with stakeholders and was happy with the large number of MRC members there and with the connections they made with stakeholders. He said that some people misunderstood what “targets” mean. Kit noted that the promise to get back to the public after the managers’ workshop (a “reality check”) needs to be kept. David would like to hear feedback from the NGOs attending (e.g. Sea Doc Society) as well as from stakeholders; outreach meetings on other islands could help in groundtruthing, he said. Tina said that people at the earlier outreach meetings presented some innovative strategies and the public should be given the chance to put their strategies on the table as the process develops.
Howie said, that as a new MRC member, he can for the time being represent the public. He said that he found the workshop notes and review very interesting. He suggested expanding information under each threat to include “possible solutions” that would involve the public since everyone will have responsibility for implementation.
Laura said that the MRC needs to identify and go to groups (e.g. boaters, fishers, yacht clubs) to expand the stakeholder list, presenting them with a more graphic description. Victoria suggested that, instead of MRC outreach meetings, the message could be brought to regularly-scheduled meetings of other organizations. Kari pointed out that it would be advisable to include marina staff to hear their voices on the issues. Michael concurred that more of the public should be given the opportunity to comment and to add their own strategies. Tina said that Kirsten’s draft notes should be sent to all workshop participants for their review, comments, and additions; all agreed that the MRC members and other participants are still in the brainstorming stage. Kit emphasized that review should include which strategies are effective and doable.
Victoria said that she was recently appointed to the education committee of the Orcas Island Yacht Club. If other MRC members were to become education advocates within selected groups, the message could be more easily spread. She added that the January anniversary event is not just a celebration, but an educational opportunity with media, state and federal presence. There was discussion of using the MRC webpage and the press to invite public input on identifying threats.
Kit said that “desired future goal” needs more specificity. An MRC task is to relate MSA objectives (vision/goals) to specific targets. Tina suggested that Kirsten facilitate a full MRC work session, following comments from the TNC coordinator on the workshop. Skeet said that public surveys on the local online newspapers, using a yes/no format, would be useful feedback. Howie added that the survey could include an invitation to join the MRC email list.
Kit announced that Amy Mathews-Amos wrote that she would like to interview MRC members on ecosystem-based management (i.e. the 5-S process). She is doing this project under contract from the Packard Foundation and Islands Press. Kirsten said the Foundation is interested in funding ecosystem-based management (EBM) projects; it is also looking ahead to funded projects generating ideas on how to
do EBM so that it can catch on as a way to do things. She said the Foundation had a summer intern
developing case studies on different examples of EBM; the MRC was chosen as one of the case studies. Kirsten added that a new intern (a PEW consultant) is specifically interested in MSA planning. She suggested that the MRC ask how interviewees’ comments are to be used; if they are anonymous; and what returns there might be for the MRC. There are advantages to being a case study, she added. Kit said that he will pose these questions to Amy and get back to the MRC with the answers at the next meeting. The Packard Foundation is currently funding projects in California, Baja Mexico, and the Pacific Islands.
2006 MRC Budget:
Kit said there was a subcommittee meeting, resulting in Jim writing a draft budget request to the BOCC, copies of which were distributed. Tina noted that the MRC budget was not presented to the BOCC as part of the Community Development & Planning Department’s budget and Laura said the MRC was not consulted. The request includes restoring the traditional $20,000 for regular MRC work and adding $30,000 ($15,000 for the SRFB process and $15,000 to fund other core MRC projects and staff support for the MSA 5-S workload). Kit pointed out that the Shared Strategy is an unfunded mandate.
Discussion followed with Jim reiterating that, with the personnel turnover at CDPD and with all new BOCC members, it is advisable for the MRC to lay out its request to them and to illuminate the problem. This educational letter could include an introduction (i.e. MRC Charter) and an appended document with an update on the range of recent activities. A letter from the MRC is necessary since there is currently no county spokesperson for the MRC. All agreed that the MRC has been “orphaned” by the County and that support from CDPD administrative staff is very important and the relationship should be a priority. It should also include a reminder of the importance of the role of the BOCC liaison to the committee. The public hearing on the 2006 budget is scheduled for November 15th. Rich Osborne noted that the newly-formed Agricultural Resources Committee has been funded in the 2006 budget. Jim asked that members send him brief paragraphs on specific additions to the draft. Helen suggested some mention in the letter narrative of the significance of the January 10-year MRC anniversary celebration event.
Kit reported that he attended a hatchery forum meeting last week and Billy Frank from the NW Indian Fisheries Commission gave one of his impassioned speeches. One topic of his talk was the concept of the “A-Team” that gets things done. Kit said that to him the MRC and its meeting audiences are the A-Team in the County.
Mooring buoys discussion:
Jim said that he had an interesting talk at the workshop with David Roberts from DNR about the agency’s position on mooring buoys. Tina said that an informal sub-group of Michael, Laura, Mary, and she discussed the option of researching who does what and then perhaps drafting a policy or specific language recommendations. Dave and Joanne from DNR and Joanruth Baumann from the Public Works Department met with them at the MRC office to try to find out who does what. Tina said the County issues a permit; DFW issues a permit; the Army Corps issues a permit; and then DNR provides a lease on the land. They learned that the County has a huge authority in the process and that the DNR process for removing a buoy becomes a civil court trespass issue. There is a lot of assumption that someone is doing the checking, she added. DNR is doing some mapping and tagging of buoys in problem areas in response to San Juan residents’ reports. Only 150 out of the 5,000 estimated buoys in the county are registered and many are of unknown design. Tina suggested that some notice be sent that the MRC is working on the issue. She said that DNR is tagging buoys without boats (=‘s revenue for DNR). Laura said that MRC’s interest in the issue is policy, not enforcement and the goal is to get this on the BOCC docket by March 1st. Jim said he heard that installers can fill out the permit.
Laura explained County regulations regarding mooring buoys: under the Shoreline Management Act and the local Shoreline Master program, mooring buoys are generally exempt from shoreline permit require-ments only because of the cost (under $5,000)...in the case of a single buoy, not a batch. They still need a
statement of exemption, she added. Another appropriate standard that applies under the law along with cost
being under $5,000 it that it doesn’t interfere with normal public use of the water. If the location and density
of mooring buoys are acceptable under review, exemption is allowable. For a water body in Friday Harbor
within County jurisdiction, any mooring buoy would interfere with normal public use and, therefore, would require a shoreline substantial development permit, a longer process with significant review; with this precedent, Laura added, the same restriction could be considered for areas like upper Deer Harbor, Fishermans Bay, or other places.
Kit added that the County does not seem to be doing any assessment of existing buoys to see if they have exemptions. Jim said that apparently DNR, although it is involved in the paperwork, doesn’t seem at this point to be very strict about making sure that there’s a local jurisdiction signoff. DNR does have specific design requirements (e.g. dragging chain) in its permit application. Tina said that there will soon be maps of the priority bays that DNR tagged and, potentially for MSA discussion, areas could be identified where mooring buoys are appropriate and allowed.
Kit said that MRC is much less concerned about the buoys than about the moorings. He wondered why a person would have to have a mooring buoy in this day and age when GPS is available. Jim said that if too much pressure is put on mooring, then more people will anchor. He has a book on the complex issues found on the East Coast where there is proliferation of anchoring, docks, overlapping jurisdictions, and other factors, up and down the coast; he added that anchoring rights are sacrosanct under international law, within modifications. Tina suggested that the issue be examined in the context of the big picture and the MSA; she said it would be nice to work towards having approved legal mooring buoys of appropriate design.
Laura said that Commissioner Ranker’s issue with mooring buoys is a job for the CDPD enforcement officer and is a community planning issue; the Department could give more specific direction that is appropriate for the MRC to look into, she said. Laura added that the bigger picture issue is a lot of work that could be extremely contentious. Michael suggested a letter from the MRC to inform the BOCC of what is known on the issue at this point and to discuss next steps. Kit said that the letter should include regulatory background, identifying who has authority; a discussion on unintended consequences; and consideration of design ideas for anchoring and docks. Tina suggested adding an update of MRC work-to-date. Laura suggested looking at how to develop better location standards for mooring facilities of any type.
David said that this may be a very good outreach issue. Kit asked if people who have worked on this issue could put information together; Laura, Mary, and Tina will work on a draft letter for the next meeting to include issue background, permitting information, etc. Jim pointed out that this issue is not part of the MRC workplan and constitutes a lot of work; Tina wondered if the MRC might look into a future grant to continue work on the issue since the MRC is an advisory body to the BOCC and will be working on the critical areas update issue.
Meeting reports:
Jonathan said he attended the recent Whale Watch Operators Association meeting, representing the MRC and the SJ Preservation Trust. He said that Kari was very helpful in answering operators’ questions on issues they will be considering in executive committee, such as, if you’re asking us to do this, what about recreational boaters who often get too close to Whale Rocks, for instance. Kari said the group’s objective is to update their guidelines and they will look into marine sensitive areas and seal haulouts such as Whale Rocks. The approach is to work with all stakeholders, she added. Jonathan pointed out that the SJ Preservation Trust owns one of the three Whale Rocks and pays taxes on it; the Trust is interested in taking over ownership of the other two rocks and possibly donating Whale Rocks to WDFW for a refuge. He added that any disturbance of Stellar sea lions is a federal offense. Tina noted that Joe Gaydos recently did a spot on NPR about seabirds and boat impacts. Kari said that Soundwatch talks to about 4,000 boaters each year and hands out the MSA maps; she suggested adding Whale Rocks to the maps to educate boaters.
Kit said that the salmon sub-committee met and discussed that the budget is not nearly enough to cover all of Barbara’s work. Tina suggested there be an annual review with county staff of the funding.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 am. Submitted by Helen Venada
