FINAL DRAFT 12/10/04

ElkhornSlough Tidal Wetland Plan

Strategic Planning Team (SPT) Meeting Summary

Meeting Date and Time: November 18, 2004, 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.

Meeting Location: ElkhornSlough National Estuarine Research Reserve

Prepared by: Kerstin Wasson and Barb Peichel

Attendees: Karen Berresford, John Callaway, Jeff Cann, Becky Christensen, Ross Clark, Andrew DeVogelaere, Sarah Fischer, Kaitilin Gaffney, Jim Harvey, Scott Hennessy, Cheryl McGovern, Barb Peichel, Larry Serpa, Mark Silberstein, Charles Wahle, Kerstin Wasson

Purpose of Meeting: Revise the planning framework and select guiding principles to prioritize habitat goals

Next meeting date and agenda items

  • The next Strategic Planning Team meeting will be held on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 at the Elkhorn Slough Reserve from 9:15 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. (you are encouraged to come at 9 a.m. for coffee and networking so we can begin the meeting promptly at 9:15 a.m.). Please remember to bring your notebooks.
  • The next full Science Panel meeting will be held onThursday, January 6, 2005 at the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories in Moss Landing from 9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Consensus Decisions

  1. Agreement on astrategy for consensus decision-making.
  2. Agreement on the overall planning process framework.
  3. Agreement on involving the public in the planning process through forums and smaller group presentations.

Future Action Items (by email)

  1. Review meeting notes.
  2. Review the decision-making document.
  3. Review and rank the guiding principles.
  4. Review the detailed planning process steps.
  5. Provide feedback on agenda items.

A. Decision-Making Process

  1. The overall draft consensus decision-making framework was approved. Barb will revise the decision-making document and ask for revisions in December by SPT members. A final version will be available by January’s meeting for inclusion in the notebooks.
  2. The decision-making document needs to clearly distinguish between the approval of an agency representative on the SPT and the more formal regulatory approval by their agency for those entities having jurisdiction.
  3. Strategic Planning Team members should discuss with their agencies the best way to involvekey managers and staff in the decision-making process.
  4. At the beginning of each meeting, Barb will review the decisions made at the last meeting. Only if there is new and relevant information made available can members request revisiting the past decisions. This is based on the premise that if there is only the same information available, additional discussion won’t change the outcomebut will only stall the process.

B. Geological Perspective (Doug Smith, CSUMB)

  1. The presentation by Doug Smith on geological processes will be made available onthe web pages.
  2. The main take-home message was that planningteam members should consider ongoing and future geological and climatic changes such as tectonic processes and sea level rise.
  3. Other interesting items to note was that MontereyCanyonacts asa largesediment sink and there is possible evidence for a historic link to PajaroRiver.

C. Planning Process Framework & Budget

  1. The planning process framework was summarized in handouts and reviewed in more detail by a presentation.
  2. There was a suggestion that the summary/trends document should become part of the plan.
  3. There is concern that setting habitat goals will be controversial and instead we should focus on how to put the system back into equilibrium.
  4. May want to consider ecosystem process goals as well as habitat goals.
  5. There is concern about using history as a guiding principle because their will be endless debate about it; better to use common sense and aim for a sustainable mix of habitats.
  6. We should remember that we need to make decisions with approximatelythe current knowledge because there isn’t time to wait for much more in the way of new research.
  7. It would be nice to capture the “research needs” or list of projects that should be completed before the revision of the next plan.
  8. There is concern that this framework is too ambitious with limited staff and too little funding.
  9. A prediction of a no-action alternative is urgently needed now. Future scenarios also need to be predicted under different alternatives. It is very worthwhile to spend funding soon on hiring somebody to help make the no action alternative prediction.
  10. The SPT needs to understand the bounds of uncertainty in order to make decision.
  11. We need to know what it takes to get permits and convince the public - that is how certain you need to be.
  12. The SPT needs to challenge the Science Panel to make guesses given current knowledge (e.g., with certain assumptions about erodibility of sediments, current speeds, etc.): may have range of visions, but if they all trend in the same direction, that information will inform decision-making.
  13. We need to recognize that there are big gaps in our knowledge, ones we recognize and ones we don’t.
  14. We need to map out uncertainty associated with each alternative scenario and recognize the need for adaptive management.
  15. The range of uncertainties can be clarified; monitoring after we alter things is important.
  16. Reiterate that we need to stop the Science Panel from collecting new data and ask them to model, predict, and synthesize what is known now.
  17. There is concern that if we delay critical decision-making, then the data comes in late in the process. We need to set goals and define needs from the Science Panel as early as possible so they can start working on different strategies.
  18. There is a question about when the permitting process begins; the answer is we’ll begin in a general way by engaging the agencies providing the permits, but until we have a concrete proposal we can’t start the process officially.
  19. We need to capture regulatory constraints (sea otter needs, etc.) early on, so we get data in these necessary areas; keep in mind regulatory compliance needs all along the way.
  20. Try to identify early action items that could be done before full knowledge, as a part of draft strategies.
  21. We need to identify the organizational structure (advisory council, etc.) of who will continue to oversee implementation after the plan is written.
  22. The group approved the planning process framework and timeline with the understanding that the more detailed description of each step will evolve over time.

D. Selection of Guiding Principles (Criteria)

Kerstin gave a presentation outlining the potential scope of hydrological modifications and possible strategieswith a very simplistic model for creating habitat goals as maps.

  1. The group brainstormed a list of various guiding principles.
  2. Barb will send a new draft document of guiding principles for review in December to SPT members. Each team member will be asked to rank each guiding principle on a scale of 1-3 (1 being the highest) by email. This ranking will serve as basic guidance for the SPT to understand how each principle is valued by other SPT members.
  3. We should set “ideal” habitat goals soon so that this vision provides guidance to the working groups so they can develop alternatives and maps.
  4. Various members have discomfort with making decisions about history vs. regional vs. threatened species and would like more guidance from scientists (a joint working group was mentioned). On the other hand, scientists don’t see this as their role, so SPT has to make policy choices about habitats and strategies.
  5. We may need to broaden principles in such a way as that they are not in direct conflict with each other. We need way of dealing with the difficulty of having contradictory guiding principles (which wins if they result in different habitat goals).

E. Role of other Panels and Review Teams

  1. Barb reviewed the document that now includes opportunities for public outreach and input. There was agreement that special forums should be given but there should also continue to be smaller presentations to groups such as the Reserve Advisory Committee (RAC) and Docents and at meetings such as the Sanctuary Currents.
  2. We should consider a stronger role for the RAC as a body to review the documents.
  3. We should direct interested parties to the public forums, rather than inviting them to attend SPTmeetings (there are concerns about the group getting too big, meeting space issues, and the process slowing down).
  4. We could consider having a couple slots open for public observers(e.g. for interns).
  5. For now, we will stick with attendance of SPT by members only, and discuss exceptions as needed.
  6. Any SPT member interested in helping with public outreach please contact Barb.

F. Select Next Meeting Dates and Agenda Items

  1. The next Strategic Planning Team meeting will be held on Wednesday, January 26th at the Elkhorn Slough Reserve from 9:15 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. (you are encouraged to come at 9 a.m. for coffee and networking so we can begin the meeting promptly at 9:15 a.m.).
  2. Possible agenda items include setting different percentages of habitat goals, brainstorming or reviewing potential large scale alternatives, a presentation from Science Panel members providing updated materials and information, a field trip of upper Slough habitats, revising the chapters of the plan and details of the next steps of the process, identifying opportunities and constraints of habitat goals, alternatives, and hydrological strategies.

G. Science Panel meeting

  1. The October 13th Science Panel notes were included in the notebooks.
  2. There was a recommendation to get a sense of how much habitat each threatened species needs (minimum and optimum), e.g. Plovers like high mud, but would probably not benefit form increase beyond a certain size, because the population is small.
  3. There was a request to have percentages of different habitat types from 1850, etc.
  4. We need a synthesis of Science Panel findings presented to SPT as oral briefings.
  5. We could be emailed Science Panel documents to allow us to get up to speed on findings between meetings.

H. Action items from September’s meeting revisited

  1. Old reports and management plans are being scanned in electronically so they can be available on web pages.
  2. Barb and Becky will attend a meeting with Union Pacific representatives on January 21st if anyone else wants to attend.
  3. Based on previous discussions, Scott Hennessey, Monterey County Planning and Building Inspection, was invited and has agreed to be on the SPT. He provided a draft list of potential relevant policies in the existing North County Land Use Plan.
  4. The question of freshwater influence is being addressed by the Science Panel’s Historical Ecology Working Group.

I. Final Comments

  1. There is concern that we are not making tidal erosion enough of a focus.
  2. We would like more updates from Science Panel working groups.
  3. It would be nice to start the meetings later for those that drive far distances.
  4. Please email a table of contents to put in front page of notebook.
  5. Provide maps for the notebook of current vs. 1850 distribution of habitat types.
  6. More fieldtrips would be helpful.
  7. Put clear headings on emails so you know which group (SPT or Science Panel) so we know who they are intended for.

1

Final Draft, Strategic Planning Team, 11-18-04 Meeting Summary