Minutes
October 20, 2004
Members Present: Laura Arnold, David Loyd, Mary Masters, Kit Rawson, Kevin Ranker, Dennis Willows
Absent: Kelley Balcomb-Bartok, Mike Bertrand, Brian Calvert, Peter Fromm, David Hoopes, Terrie Klinger, DJ Sessner, Jim Slocomb
Guests: Isabel Athmann, Russel Barsh, Mark Billington, Kevin Britton-Simmons, Ginny Broadhurst,
Ken Brown, Joseph Garcia, Joe Gaydos, Jody Kennedy, Kari Koski, Claudia Mills, Chris Ogle, Rich Osborne,
Tillie Scruton, Tina Whitman, Jason Wood
Vice Chair, Mary Masters, called the non-quorum meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. in the Community Room at Islanders Bank Annex, Friday Harbor.
Citizens’ Comments:
Mark Billington said that, as follow-up to Mark Tompkins’ presentation to the MRC at the last meeting, he would suggest that the MRC review recommended strategies relevant to the water quality component of the county’s newly-adopted Watershed Management Plan. Laura added that, for the work plan discussion, she would like to bring back the Westcott/Garrison Bay issue.
Tina Whitman said there will be an abalone workshop on October 29th, from 10 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., at Rosario Resort on Orcas Island. Jody said that Claudia Mills will be attending and will present a brief synopsis to the committee.
Minutes: Review of the minutes of the 10/6/04 meeting was held over to the next full-quorum meeting.
Marine Enhancement Protocol:
It was agreed that a cover letter be drafted, incorporating edits suggested today and by email, so that the Protocol can be presented to the BOCC on November 9th, following review by the Community Development and Planning Department.
MSA Work Session:
Mary said that the MSA Initiative data and maps remain to be “truthed” by citizen review and input. She added that proposals will be sought to activate and implement the initiative. Mary introduced Jody’s PowerPoint presentation that looks at ways to move the process from the data stage to policy development stage.
Jody distributed folders containing MSA printed materials and said the proposed GIS contractor will be collecting and prioritizing data and identifying any missing or incorrect data. She noted that the upcoming Managers Work Session in Friday Harbor is an opportunity for the MRC offer input and to get suggestions and guidance from the various agencies. There was discussion on the draft process diagram designed to help guide the identification of data gaps, to develop criteria, and to evaluate “no” and “yes” zones.
Russel Barsh pointed out that past experience shows that identifying sensitive areas does attract unwelcome attention and more visitors; therefore, he suggests directing attention to other enhanced areas to provide options. Kit agreed, noting that the Bolt Decision attempted to reduce salmon take but increased rockfish take. Ginny Broadhurst suggested identifying threats, areas that most need protection. Claudia Mills said that shoreline intertidal parks have been over-used, trampled by schools and other visitors, which leads to unintentional habitat destruction. Kevin said that it has also been shown that visitors will follow clearly marked trails and good signage or kiosks that encourage good stewardship in order to allow an area to recover.
Tina Whitman said, in terms of the kinds of questions to ask at public meetings, that the Gulf Islands maps are very good on science and also include great categories that identify areas of importance (e.g. for economic, spiritual, cultural, and recreational reasons), which can then be layered with ecologically-sensitive areas.
Jody asked for suggestions on how to look at existing data in terms of appropriate management strategies. Mary said she’d like to see the committee benefit from others’ experiences. Ginny suggested developing partnerships to assist in the process and Rich Osborne said it was important to look at existing agency regulations to ask if they are actually enforced or even enforceable. Ken Brown said that the laminated MSA maps are an excellent endpoint to explain the MSA goal and he suggested more distribution of them at Deer Harbor and other marinas.
Kit suggested that to move the process along the first step is for the committee to look at the differences between current realities and the MSA vision; step two is to identify what caused the differences, and step three is to identify what can be changed to bring reality closer to the vision. Dennis said that there is harvest data for about 15 species for the last 30 or 40 years, with clear scientific evidence that these 15, at least, have been hammered to almost zero; he said the time has come to stop rationalizing that existing charts reflect abundance. He added that it is denial to ignore the science and changes must be supported that will reverse the direction of the curves.
David said that his expectation for the upcoming Waldron community meeting is that MRC members in attendance will ask if there are some Waldron residents who want to be in charge of a voluntary stewardship area. Using science and local knowledge, species can be identified as being depleted by past human intervention (e.g. Quillbacks); programs can then be put in place to provide protection of such species and then, if the population rebounds, next steps will need to be decided (e.g. harvest management through regulatory agencies). David emphasized that the issue is habitat protection.
Tina suggested that the MRC use their advisory role to comment on the critical areas re-evaluation by the BOCC in January, 2005; she said that new data should be submitted and there are models out there with meaningful multiple species habitat overlaps. Rich said it is important to decide if the evaluations will be biology driven or human “needs” driven, noting that critical areas designations in the county are essentially MPA’s! He said the reality is that ecosystems are continuously changing but cannot revert to what they were a hundred years ago. Kevin reiterated Rich’s reminder that there are existing rules and mechanisms already in place on the state and federal levels that can be leveraged to advance the MSA initiative so some pilot projects can move forward; he added that the county could also address an update of the Shoreline Master Program at the same time as the critical areas re-evaluation.
Ginny said that the hope is that more agencies will be open to working with the MRC and, to that end, the committee needs to offer a shared, clearly articulated vision that helps agencies identify where they fit in (e.g. suggestions to change fishing regulations).
Russel spoke about the ongoing Skagit County bottomfish zones process. It provides for continuing biological assessment and reviews of various human uses in very specific locations. Last year’s deep water survey was quite disturbing, he said, in that a lot fewer fish were found than anticipated; also, there was not a very close fit between where fish were found and where people like to fish so that there was an interesting disconnect between distribution of fish and human activity, reflecting other factors like nearness to marinas, water conditions, etc. On the other hand, there is optimism that there are many places not very interesting to users that could be targeted for recovery. Russel suggested that more site specific biological assessments are needed. He said there are many identified areas in San Juan County that, because of physical characteristics, are unfishable.
Jody said that in identifying some focused priorities, the MRC could look at projects already happening (e.g. Waldron and Deer Harbor) to see how the committee could assist and how they fit in with the MSA vision. Other pilot areas could be identified, using either species or ecosystem approaches. Kevin agreed with Kit that this is not just about fishing; the process needs to include a look at water quality overlay districts, land-sea connections, trophic linkages, and recreational assets. Rich added that the hope is that a“community,” such as that at Deer Harbor and on Waldron, can take care of itself ecosystem-wide.
Joe Gaydos said that the MSA process could become the critical areas update! He suggested going forward on both science and citizen-based tracks, each of which are significant. Joe said that the San Juan County MSA initiative is looked upon as an innovative model by other areas trying to develop protection efforts. He added that if some species or ecosystem recovery could be accomplished here with careful documentation, given the limited funding resources available, other communities could also buy in on recovery.
Kevin said that the San Juan Islands and the Gulf of Maine have been highlighted as pilot Regional Ocean Councils by the U.S. Commission on Oceans Policy follow-up. He said that this can provide more opportunities for private and federal funding for productive, cooperative community-based advanced science projects. Kit noted that feasibility of an effort seems to be a significant guideline in determining MSA criteria for site selection. The Sucia Island situation was discussed as an example of property owners who don’t necessarily live on the Islands but who might be interested in participating in MSA efforts. Kevin pointed out that many such islands are state parks and Patos is a national wilderness area, which, he said, can add exciting opportunities for partnering with state and federal agencies.
Isabel said that the Deer Harbor estuary has been identified by DNR as critical habitat for Dungeness crab.
Russel said that the Iceberg Point area on Lopez Island is a great place to talk about terrestrial/marine linkages; private landowners and BLM are looking at terrestrial management and also the health and productivity of the nearshore. There is high interest on Lopez, he said, in this area as a social, cultural, recreational and spiritual place.
Tina pointed out that, in terms of outreach, it is good to remember that a given geographical area is often used by more than just the neighborhood or property owners.
Kit suggested, in developing hotspots and strategies, that biology come first, to be complemented by human use factors and community input. Kevin said that an area of focus should be limited in order to provide successful pilot projects. He also noted that the Orca Pass work of two years ago produced numerous datasets that could be useful here as a starting point for hotspot mapping. Isabel said that community-based projects do work and can be transforming experiences for all who participate; she added that each community is different but methodologies can be based on behavioral science.
Dennis recommended that all the county waters be treated as one ecosystem. He added that it has been shown that harvest management (single species-oriented) does not work and community focus won’t work either because recent scientific studies indicate, for instance, that the larvae of most of the species discussed are widely dispersed over areas larger than the county. Therefore, he predicts no progress in solving the problem of destructive removal of most vertebrate and invertebrate species that have been harvested here unless a truly visionary approach is used. He suggests bringing the data to citizens and then asking how many would be willing, on a voluntary basis, to not take any of the identified species.
Ginny suggested that the message (ethics and MRC rationale for species recovery outside of harvest) be brought to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Commission. Claudia said a list of ten simple “do’s and don’ts” should be developed to motivate people to be better stewards. Helen said that getting people to sign a pledge to improve their stewardship behaviors does seem to have positive effects. The role of the MRC in community-driven projects was discussed.
Russel said that local action should be put into regional context, emphasizing how such stewardship efforts serve others and how outside fishing does impact a local area. Kevin added that what goes on here is part of a broader network of stewardship. Dennis suggested that a well-developed concept of a county-wide voluntary effort (defining recovery) needs to be brought to the BOCC sooner rather than later. It was agreed that there should be a vote at the next meeting on how to accomplish this.
Isabel said that it is important to consider that there is an ongoing grant with the Army Corps of Engineers to study
watersheds on Orcas and to look at how to be included in this effort. Ken suggested drawing lines on maps that reflect watersheds. Jody asked what data needs to be included in the final analysis; she suggested a panel, made up of MRC members and others, to set priorities and criteria (e.g. adding watersheds, drift cells, and seal haul outs in the layering). Kit said that the end result of a county-wide delineation for stewardship can be a change in the natural ecosystem.
Mary thanked the audience for its great participation in today’s meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m
