In attendance:
Sarah Dewey, Grand Teton National Park Wildlife Biologist
Louise Lasley, Wildlife Conservation Society
Sharon Mader, JH Wildlife Foundation
Fred Smith, JH Conservation Alliance
Jonathan Schechter, Charture Institute
Lydia Dixon, NRCC

Jonathan gave an overview of the SJH process for this year. The first meeting addresses the question, “where are we?” The second meeting will focus on, “where do we want to be? What qualities do we want to sustain? What is our legacy for future generations?” The third meeting will be oriented around how we want to get there. What are the major issues or major action steps that will move us along? Today, we will talk about what we did last year and how things have progressed. What do we know now that we didn’t know last year?

Jonathan runs the Charture Institute. He sponsored this project last year with NRCC & the Chamber. Sharon Mader introduced herself. JHWF finds ways to live compatibly with wildlife, approaching their mission in a project-based manner. Field work includes roadway mitigation, fence removal, power line marking, and education about wildlife feeding on private lands. They work with a lot of volunteers. Their project area has been limited because the group has chosen to stay small, and would like to have a working board instead of a larger staff. Jonathan asked how they identify a project. They look at the specific impacts and timeliness of the project, and whether anyone else is taking it on. They try to fill niches that other groups may not be working in. For example, when a policy has been implemented that is hard to encourage enforcement of (such as the ban on wildlife feeding), they will assist other organizations in getting people to comply.

Louise Lasley is with WCS. She is working with Joel Berger on his pronghorn work, looking at winter range in the Upper Green. Mainly her objective is to get a permanently protected migration corridor between the Tetons & Trapper’s Point.

Fred gave an overview of the JHCA. They are a bio-regional organization, focusing on the Southern GYE, as well as the Upper Green as the wildlife down there is connected to that up here through migration corridors. They have a tendency to work on too many issues at once. They prioritize based on whether other groups are working on a particular issue or not. Fred works on endangered species & recreation issues, and he has 5-6 grizzly bear issues he is working on at once. They try to be the local leaders on issues, and especially try to work on stuff in GTNP & private lands to uphold the county Comprehensive Plan. Jonathan specified that we would like to determine the state of the environment- what data do we have about the health of the environment? We don’t want to make policy, we want to gather facts. Fred thinks we have a good handle on information- wildlife or recreation related. They have a strong legal background in the office. He was in the recreation group last year and thinks it is easier to gather information then we think.

Sarah is a wildlife biologist at GTNP. She has been there for 2 years. Prior to that, she was a district biologist on the BT. She spends a lot of a time monitoring wildlife population numbers. She has a sense of what the forest has collected over the years in terms of wildlife data.

Jonathan offered an apology- the Environment group is the guinea pig this year as this is our first meeting. To that end, we will look at last year’s report. The conceit was to try to bring people together who were knowledgeable about particular issues. What we would we like the community to know about the environment in JH? In the report, we identified the things we thought would be important for the community to know. We gathered a lot of information; however, if we would make a short presentation about the environment to the community, what would we tell everyone? This year, we would like to know if there is additional information we should collect.

Louise thought that it would be critical to involve a county planner in the group- zoning is a key part of all of the categories. Their input on how things are zoned in the county might affect what we are talking about.

Jonathan replied that one of the suggestions that came out this last year was that the county should have an environment-focused staff member. The planners tend to focus on the Land Use & Housing group. There is some merit here, but we haven’t been able to get at it. To the degree that the Environment group can make recommendations regarding what we want to know or see in the County, we can document it. To that end, with SJH last year, we thought that the best way to do outreach to the community was to do presentations. What we are considering is having a one-day SJH conference in the fall. The idea would be to bring all the decision-makers, business leaders, non-profit leaders together in one place for one day, and give everyone baseline data about where we are as a community. He mentions this because he will ask someone from the group to talk to the conference about the state of the environment in JH. What should people know? What are the critical things? If you had everyone’s attention, what would you tell them?

Sharon thinks that we are missing the availability & quality of habitat, which can sort of be determined by weeds and species counts- but she thinks it is slightly different. It is basically maintaining acreage, which gets to zoning issues. Species’ populations fluctuate depending on many things (i.e., drought, disease). But is the availability of habitat there? Is a golf course real habitat? What do we consider habitat? Fred added that they are planning on remapping the NRO, but how much develop is going on in big game habitat? How much of high quality habitat is still being impacted?

Sharon thinks we talked about it, but it is very difficult to get our hands around. We couldn’t assess it last year. Sarah thinks that Sharon is right on. Sarah said that population counts may not be a good indicator- what does it mean to have 11,000 elk? We have deteriorating & loss of winter range. This would point towards an unhealthy situation. In terms of how to measure this, there are indirect ways. Miles of linear development might be a surrogate for loss of habitat security. A road has a zone of influence on the habitats that it traverses- secure habitat will be lost with new road construction. Sharon suggested using miles of uninterrupted corridors as an indicator. Sarah said that you could look at secure areas. We would have to pick a flagship species- all species are different in their habitat needs. There might be species for a particular habitat type. An assessment of habitat in TC would be a huge task. Sharon talked about assessing diminishing habitat vegetation types as a way of doing this. Fred suggested as an example young cottonwood stands.

Sarah said you could look at aerial photos- compare images from the 70s to a current image to detect changes in vegetation. Sharon said that we should talk to Rich Greenwood about this and see if he has ideas about how it can be documented. Louise said that even if we have a measure of acres, we don’t know if it contiguous or valuable. We would need GIS layers.

Fred would like to show a map of full county build-out to the community, or the development set to occur that hasn’t happened yet. This may be more of land use & housing category. People tend to look at what is out there now, which is a lot more than what will be built and will have a major effect on habitat and connectivity.

Jonathan said that there is some arbitrariness to the groups, and everything is interconnected. The challenge is finding a balance, where we can divide Jackson into enough groups to get some meaningful information, but not have too many groups that it is completely unmanageable. Land use issues are connected to zoning. Hopefully over time we can start making those connections. If this group, and its collective knowledge, thinks that that would be a good next step, we can deal with it as an action item (on the wish list).

Jonathan noted that we structured this project so that the question of where we would like to go would be addressed by the ideal statement. The question is, of what we know, what is important to know? The habitat point is great- but do we know it, and how do we get to it? Sharon suggested talking to Tom Campbell regarding ideas on capturing the habitat question. Fred can speak to what we brought up last year. As far as air quality, it is important to measure air quality here, but also places upwind of us. There are concerns about how air pollution in the Upper Green affects Teton County. Can we measure both? We have measurements of air pollution levels out there to the county over time, especially if we know that TC is not changing much. This could show future air quality impacts in Teton County. This information is out there and quantifiable.

Jonathan went over last year’s indicators. These were the things that the group we knew we had data on, and thought were important. Are there other things we actually know? If so, how important are they to know as broad environmental indicators?

Fred said that the more he thinks that it is amazing how other regions affect our environment here, such as winter range, and migration connectivity, or air quality. There is interdependency, and we are somewhat dependent on other places.

Jonathan asked Sarah what the park knows, and what are they are working on. Sarah said that from a wildlife perspective, they can get a measure of a population over time, but it is difficult to determine what is “good.” What is the desired condition? In order for population counts to be effective, there needs to be a desired condition, or range, that we want to maintain. We need to identify which species are important, which is tough. The MIS concept (of the Forest Service) is flawed. Changes in population need to be linked to changes in habitat for anything to make sense. There needs to be a habitat component. We can artificially keep numbers high by feeding wildlife, but if we keep encroaching on habitats we will start to see declines. We need to identify thresholds, or at least have some measure so we know, for example, the average amount of road in Teton County.

Fred thinks that road density is a good indicator. So many species are negatively affected by increasing road density. Sharon said that FS roads have been mapped. Sharon and Sarah both agreed that miles of road encroachment might be a good indicator to add.

Louise asked if the Forest had vegetation maps. Weed & Pest might have mapping available, at least for exotic species. Jim Ortenberg has a lot of information. Sarah said that there is a WY-wide vegetation map, but it is not detailed, and has some error.

Sharon asked if we should focus on species starting to struggle, such as antelope or moose. Deb Patla was talking about boreal toads at Togwotee Pass. We might focus on species at-risk instead of elk.

Jonathan summarized that if the environment folks were to talk about the state of the environment, the major focus would be on the amount, quality, and change of habitat out there. Louise said that we should have a map of habitat left- where it is located, and how it is zoned. Jonathan said that hearing this, and hearing a slight variation that every species has a different habitat, we should use a filter of species at-risk. What do we actually know about habitat? We know that we want a habitat map, and it would focus on at-risk species. What do we know about the amount & quality of habitat, and the species at-risk?

Sharon suggested that specific people could give data & information on specific species- such as Susan Patla, and Chuck Shneebeck. These people are documenting loss of habitat. Sarah was thinking about certain species- studies are ongoing to determine what is going on with the moose habitat, for example. We don’t have a good handle on the habitat end of things. Jonathan asked what we have a good handle on. Sarah said we have counts of the bison population over time, but it may be artificial. Heavily managed species have a target set by WGF. We are above the elk target. Fred asked if there are studies about density- should elk naturally congregate at a certain density? What is the carrying capacity? Does it drop if we stop feeding? Sarah doesn’t know specific densities on winter range, but the info may be out there. Fred said depending on the species, we could come out with an average number of elk per acre, for example, in TC, and how that number relates to the artificial counts we have now.

Sarah said that species have different habitat requirements. Elk need winter range, which is delineated by WGF. One way to get at the health of winter range for elk is to look at how much winter range is disturbed. Look at the effectiveness of winter range- how many miles of trails or roads go through winter range? We will have to use an indirect measure of habitat. Sarah sees trying to assess the amount & quality of the habitat of species at-risk, is very difficult. Sharon said that it gets back to road density, and loss of open space. These items are easier to measure. Fred said that you pick crucial habitat- such as winter range- and determine road or trail density, or habitat encroachment.

Jonathan noted that we have species’ counts, but if habitat quality is so important, why don’t we have it? What is the rationale behind the studies of stuff we actually know? Sarah said that we know a lot about species that are hunted. We count the numbers of animals that are hunted. Other species that have good data are bald eagles- because they are on the ES list. Fred said that there is disconnect between the state agency measuring the wildlife, and the feds that are managing the land. Louise added that people are now realizing that you have to look more than at just numbers. Many studies are academic and focused on one thing- there hasn’t been an overall look at anything until maybe the past 10 years. Sharon thinks that a lot of this stuff is tricky as well. For example, in 20 years, roadkill rates might be lower, but it could be because there are no migration routes left and animals don’t cross roads.

Sarah said that it is easy to count things. To count the bison herd, it takes two hours in a plane. It’s harder to tease apart how they use the landscape and what areas are important to them. Sharon added that there are disagreements about healthy populations. Mountain lions are a controversial topic. Sarah said that wolves are a good example as well. The populations are going up. If you look at the number of wolves outside parks though, it’s much different. The numbers don’t tell you the whole story.

Jonathan asked if there are numbers or counts that we know that are valuable to include in the report. Sharon said that grizzly bears are sensitive to encroachment, roads, and need a lot of habitat, and might be more valuable. Sarah said that she thinks that if you look at the numbers for grizzlies, though, they are going up, which doesn’t address the concerns. As they expand here, they are going to get into trouble. Jonathan asked if it is important to know if the numbers are growing or declining. Sharon & Sarah agreed that it was. Sarah said that there are good counts for bears in the GY, not necessarily TC. Fred thinks we should focus on species that have been here traditionally. Fred thinks that since they are just coming back, it is hard to have baseline data. Sage grouse might be a good one to work with, since we do have long-term counts. Sharon asked about bighorn sheep. Sarah said that we don’t have data for the Teton segment, but there is good data for the animals in the Gros Ventre. It is a species of concern. Fred asked if habitat was a culprit, or disease or genetics.

Sharon added that pronghorn are interesting too. Louise thinks that they are significant because we may not have them for very long. The only thing that impedes movement is fencing, but they can go under fencing. It is not a matter of eliminating development, just mitigating. It may be easier to deal with them then development-sensitive species. Fred added their movement is indicative of other species that move between TC & other areas. We do have general counts on the number of pronghorn that come to the Park every year. Sarah said that they aren’t great but they exist. They are trend counts. Last year they tried to do a rigorous population estimate by flying transects. Prior to that, they drove roads and counted animals they could see from the road. Sarah said that data does exist over time, and is useful for comparative purposes.

Jonathan asked if roadkill rates are valuable to know. Fred and Sharon said yes. Sharon added that one additional thing that can be measured is where the animals cross, and the value of the habitat in those areas. In five years, you could see if that connectivity still exists, or if habitat still exists. Right now we know that it is valuable and that they use it- it exists & is documented, and it could be reassessed in the future. Sharon will have the new data in a month.

Jonathan asked if it is important to know the acreage of weeds. Fred thinks this is a good indicator of decreasing biodiversity. We can get some trend data from TC Weed & Pest. Sharon said that we are also attracting new weeds that are potentially devastating. We should watch new infestations. Fred suggested the number of exotic species over time, as a subset of the acreage.

Jonathan asked about surface water quality, and whether this is important. Fred thinks it is- air and water are important to know about. The last 2004 indicator was air quality. Fred said that this is a good indicator for preservation of scenic vistas.

Louise said that WCS collared fifty pronghorn and drew blood to see if there is metal or toxins from vegetation they are eating, which would be related to air quality. So air quality impacts more than just scenic vistas.

Fred asked if we had asthma rates or bronchial rates. We could try to match air quality with asthma rates. Sharon suggested that pediatricians might have a good handle on this for anecdotal information. Fred said that we could ask Public Health about this information.

Jonathan asked if there are other things we actually know that we are aware of that are important to inject in the public dialogue. Sharon asked if air traffic noise fell into soundscape data- this has probably increased. There have been different discussions about the level of noise. Sarah said that the park has a sound ecologist who has been collecting data on this in the Park & in Yellowstone as well. Jonathan asked if that is important. We can get the data & include it, but only the most important stuff goes into the chapter (the rest is appendix material). Would it be a valuable use of a minute out of ten to talk about soundscapes? Sharon said probably not, but it could become bigger over time.

Sharon said an additional item would be human-wildlife conflicts, such as bears getting into trash. These numbers could decrease, though, because the wildlife has been driven out of an area. She has been talking to WGF, looking at the positive impacts of having a wildlife-feeding ordinance. The black bear incidents have not gone down at all though. The speculation is that the trash issue is more of an attractant than the feed for that species. Jonathan asked if there are good data on human-wildlife conflicts. Sharon said that there is for bears & mountain lions b/c they have to remove or kill a problem animal. Louise added that we should look at recreational use and how much conflicts between wildlife and recreation has increased, such as wildlife-dog violations. Those numbers are available from the Forest. Sharon said that when you have people representing different recreational aspects of the valley (as in the Recreation WG), the dark side might not be brought up- such as illegal poaching of wilderness or wildlife closures. Sharon said that there is a wildlife enforcement agent in the valley, so there is documentation on human-wildlife conflicts.

Jonathan said that we are gatherers- but if group participants know of data that they would like to see work its way into the study, in the primary chapters or appendix, we need to get it from you because we don’t have time. We just don’t have the internal research capacity.

Fred asked if anyone did fish counts in the Snake River. This might be an adequate representation of impacts of dams & levees. Louise was thinking of acres of wetlands instead of fish counts to look at this topic. Sharon said that WGF shocks fish in the springtime. Sarah said that Rob Gibson at WGF might be a good place to start.

Jonathan said that we can gather this data, and determine whether to add it in the chapter. Sharon said that loss of wetlands should be pretty easy- the county might be responsible. Louise said it might be DEQ. Fred said that he is not sure if they keep up-to-date tallies. The “no Net loss” doesn’t necessarily mean that if wetlands are filled, the new ones have to be put in TC. Sharon said that there was one DEQ violation in Rafter J, where he had to build a wetland on site. Fred said that as development increases, we will see an increase in acreage, but there is no measure of quality. Sharon thinks that TCD might have this info as well.

Lydia mentioned that Jack L. has night sky data.

Jonathan said that we will not draft the final chapter until the group has concluded the meetings. At that point we will do some revision, and ask the group participants to take a look at it on their own time. We will incorporate any changes.

Sharon had a comment on the presentation. If the goal is to persuade decision makers that these are important issues, then there has been so much talk about environmental issues people have begun to glaze over some of the general rhetoric- species loss, habitat loss. We need to make the presentation more concrete, focusing on something precise- like loss of pronghorn migration corridor. Use specific examples to personalize broader topics. That approach is more effective then a general discussion of the problem areas. People have heard about them endlessly, and they are too big to get our hands around.

Jonathan said that his vision of the conference is that we get people involved in running this place in one room for one day. Arguably, as the community has grown, no one understands the breadth or depth of stuff going on in JH. The primary purpose of the day would be to give everyone baseline knowledge of JH, in a uniform way, so that at the end of the day, at a minimum, people would be able to say “where are we? Where do we want to be? How do we get there?” In 10 or 15 minutes, we will have a state of understanding about the environment. The afternoon will focus on making connections. Bridges will start suggesting themselves. What specific things can we work on to move things forward? Jonathan sees this more as an education session than an advocacy session.

Fred noted that advocacy turns people out, and we want people to work together. Jonathan said that advocacy may harm the community’s ability to move forward. Jonathan’s hope is that by bringing different organizations together, and having a consensus opinion, if there are one or two things that the whole environmental community can talk about in the same voice, the chances of something happening will be greater. It may require alliances with educational entities, or government. He would like to find points of commonality to lead to action.

Jonathan said that back to species population counts: recognizing that counts are not the be-all & end all, what counts do we have that are good for what species? Can we get this information? Can we filter to figure out which species we want to include?

Fred asked about counts of mule deer. Sarah said that WGF’s completion report includes the whole Sublette deer herd. Tom did an isolated herd, and Doug Wachob is updating the data for this particular unit of the herd. She thinks WGF wants to do this. Sarah said that there is great data for moose. Fred thinks that there is good data for mule deer. Louise said the numbers on the elk herd might be educational. She wondered if articles have mentioned that the elk are overstocked- having data & commentary about the data is really valuable in the report. Jonathan said that this is a bridge between the specific knowledge we have and the community as a whole. Jonathan’s filter for data is what it tells us and why it’s important. Fred said that if we have elk numbers, and estimates of numbers without feeding, this would be a great indicator.

Jonathan asked about other counts we can get our hands on, and if the group participants can get them back to us. Sarah said that most of the data belongs to WGF. Sarah said that the person to talk would be Doug Brimeyer, and Fred will get in touch with him.

Sharon said that Roger Smith has been keeping roadkill data on birds, which would be interesting to include. Jonathan said once we gather the data, he will leave it to the group to filter. Sharon thought we should get some of these people together at the meeting.

The homework assignment is to reflect on the conversation, and to collect data. Also, any kind of thinking about the conference would be welcomed as well.

Louise asked if the things on the wish list were there due to lack of relevancy or lack of data. Jonathan said that it was lack of data. Things on the wish list were things that people thought that there were no data about, or they weren’t reliable data. The thought about putting the wish list out was to give the reader a sense of what we don’t know about our community. If there was an organization looking for an intern project, or someone needing to do some research, these are what would be important to know.

In attendance:
Fred Smith, JHCA
Barry Reiswig, NER
Emily Hagedorn, TCD
Sharon Mader, JHWF
Deb O’Neill, Biologist
Sarah Dewey, GTNP
Harry Statter, Firewise Landscapes
Jack Liebenthal, Teton Valley Dark Skies
Court Smith,  TSS
Lydia Dixon, NRCC
Jonathan Schechter, The Charture Institute

Jonathan gave an overview of SJH for the newcomers. First, and most importantly, we recognize that everyone is volunteering their time. We will break no later than 3 PM. In the next two hours, we would like to accomplish several things. The fundamental thing shaping this process is the legacy question: what do we want future generations of JH to enjoy that we have today? We have broken down SJH into three questions: Where are we? By that, what we are talking about focusing on data. We are not another forum for opinions. We feel there is a gap in fact-based knowledge. What do we know about the environment, versus what we believe? What do that data tell us? The more our community knows about itself, the better decisions we will make for the future. We have a two-part goal for gathering information: 1. to be as comprehensive as possible in gathering information. The bulk of the information will go into an appendix. Both the report and appendix are published online. In there, we are putting a repository of data about JH. Second, the filter that we will pass all of the information through is the 10-15 minute presentation. If you had 10-15 minutes to present to the community-at-large, what would you want to tell them about the environment? In particular, to make that concept more tangible, on October 29, we will have a one-day conference called “the State of our Community.” This will be in three pieces. In the morning, each of the 12 SJH groups will make a presentation. By the end of the third meeting, we will figure out the content of the chapter to be the basis of the presentation. The conference will be at the new TSS campus; there will be 200 people there. For those things that are less critical, they will go into the appendix.

At the first meeting, we looked at last year’s report. Today we will revisit the “where are we?” question. The second question is “where do we want to be?” This is the heart of the legacy question. Our tool for talking about that question is the statement of ideal, which is like a mission statement. What do we want future generations to enjoy? The third meeting will focus on “how do we get there.” One of the comments that we had last year was that we needed an action component. It was good to gather information, but we needed to apply it. Is there one thing that we can see that we can work together on? We can revisit this next year. One of the conversations we had last week was regarding the quality and amount of habitat. Perhaps the group will work on something relating to habitat assessment, for example.

In today’s meeting we will revisit the information we have and talk about additional information that has come in and what we want to include in the chapter. Jonathan’s job is to keep us on track and make sure that by the end of two hours we have covered the material. If there are things/tangents you want to get off on, let’s run with it.

Finally, the “so what” question. Yesterday Jonathan asked the County Commissioners for money, trying to anticipate the “so what” question. From our website, when we counted the number of downloads from early Oct. to last week, we have had over 2500 downloads of various pieces of the report, ranging from the whole report to individual chapters. The data that we are compiling are getting used. There is a thirst out there to know stuff. The more we can add content and richness to this, the more it will be useful.

Jonathan also went over the minutes from last time. For those of you who were here, do they reflect what went on? Did anyone have any questions or comments? There were none.

Fred asked about habitat quality in the county and the Statewide Conservation Strategies. Sarah said that Susan Patla would be the best source of information. Fred said that the data they have is statewide. Sarah said that the approach has been coarse filter. Deb was involved in this type of planning in AZ; all of the states waited until the 11th hour to work on it. These plans aren’t going to be as useful as we had hoped.

Jonathan will ask the folks who brought data to go over it. At the end of the meetings, we will create a uniform format for each of the 12 groups. We want to make sure that everyone is super comfortable with what is in here. As you listen to information, the filtering question to keep in mind is whether this is super-important for the community to know in 10-15 minutes.

Jack lives over the hill, and what triggered his interest in JH was partly the international map of night sky brightness, which contains information about this area. When you get to Driggs and Victor, looking west towards the Tetons, there is a halo around Jackson that has reached Victor. This is not necessarily data; it’s based on an equation-based model that has been verified in various regions by observations from DSMP (Defense Satellite Monitoring Program). He appreciates the fact that this is a data-driven effort. What he has tried to do is identify what might be done. He has been trying to contact Chad Moore, who is the head of the National Park Service Dark Sky Team. He has data sets for YNP and Fossil Butte in WY that haven’t been processed yet. He does not been able to verify what he knows about Teton Park. The other person is one of the co-authors of the map he presented, Chris Ellbridge out of Boulder, to try and find out what information from that program can identify exactly what is going on and trend it. He has identified two things that can be done locally. In Flagstaff, they have a strict lighting law. The lighting ordinance in this area is good; he wishes that they had the same thing over the hill. Violations are the key problem. Most of the lighting problems (sky glow) are produced by commercial areas. Binoculars were used to determine luminescence, and determine how many lumens/person were being put out in Flagstaff. The amount of light in the sky is in direct proportion to population. How is this changing in JH?

The second type of project occurred in DC, which resulted in the map on the back page of the handout. The Northern VA Astronomy Club got the post to ask subscribers to volunteer for the project. Subscribers, with guidance from the club, looked at magnitude- the dimmest star that could be seen from various areas of DC. Starting in Teton Park, what you can see is about a magnitude 7 star, and as you move down towards town it gets dimmer and dimmer. We could look at the extinguishment of stars. We would have to get the local newspaper to identify this as a project, and get astronomers to help with the project. The number of stars you can count identifies the magnitude; we could report this with GIS coordinates and prepare a map.

Jack wondered whether there is an astronomy club in the valley for the valley. (There is). There is a club in IF as well. The purpose of this project would be to identify trends of lighting growth, sky pollution with increases in population, and improvements that could be made. Jack has also identified changes to the ideal statement. He’d like to introduce a left-field concept to the group, but something that the group could consider.

Jonathan posed the general question of, in our ten-minute threshold, would this be something we would want to include?

Sharon thinks that it is good to include the esoteric quality of life questions. This issue comes down to planning problems- in Rafter J, they had their road redone. Even though the subdivision didn’t want lights, the engineers designed the roads with lights. Luckily it was caught. Jack said that for many people, they don’t feel safe unless they have lights. Jack wondered about effects of lights on wildlife. Deb said that grebes, coming down in a storm, crash into light reflecting and looking like water. She also thinks that it is important to do a project like this to ask for stricter ordinances.

Jonathan threw a couple things out. One outcome of this process is identifying things we would like to know. Between Jonathan and Lydia, herding cats is a fulltime job. We don’t have internal resources to do original resources. In all of these groups, there is a tension between additional information and what we can actually do. Our task is to vacuum existing data and put them into the report. Noting that, we are talking to a couple of schools about integrating SJH as an educational component. In future years, we can have a curriculum component to look at these research projects. This strikes Jonathan as a good project for the Journeys School or Community School.

Fred has been trying to get direct pollution data from the air quality council. Emily does water quality monitoring. Last year they had an intern that had all of the water information of TC. They also did a DNA source tracking study. They should have info next week. TC Weed & Pest has invasive species info; Harry gives info about private land weed infestations. Missoula has human health environmental data trends- rise per capita in asthma/ bronchitis- the group wondered if this was the case here as well.

Fred said that a lot of the stuff we talked about at the last meeting was about wildlife. How far do you go into the wildlife segment of overall environment? Since we don’t know about habitat health and functionality, and population counts for species aren’t a good measure either, he was thinking about keeping more of the wildlife info out of it and focus instead on stuff we have data for.

Jonathan wanted to go over last year’s indicators, with apologies to those who were here last time. First, species population counts: there is nothing there in terms of hard data. How much do we know, and how important is what we have out there in terms of helping the community understand the state of the environment?

Fred said that healthy wildlife populations are based on desired conditions. Sarah added that a lot of the species we have data for are heavily managed, managed to a target. Knowing a number doesn’t tell you about the health of a population. There may be a better way to get at that. Jonathan said that we can measure stuff. The second question is whether it tells us anything, or is it a distraction? Do we want to talk about the number of lions, elk, eagles?

Sharon said we talked about finding indicator species. Court said that they are tough to get. Particularly on smaller scale stuff, grizzly bears are part of the Yellowstone ecosystem. Do they work for here? Do eagles work for here? Sarah said that the bald eagle is a good example. They are basically recovered. Looking at trends, it looks good. But threats to TC eagles are things such as river recreation. You need to measure the threat, and a measure of the population that would reflect that threat- productivity, nest occupancy. The number of eagles doesn’t tell us anything. Are those eagles producing and recruiting into the population? The count numbers aren’t going to get us where we want to be.

Barry agreed. It is hard to tie numbers to environmental health, although, many species are declining. Some of that is not because of TC; it could be something happening in Argentina. Mule deer populations fluctuate significantly where there are no human populations, but we have reached a state of urbanization where populations are declining and not improving. Mule deer can’t deal with subdivisions full of barking dogs, 5- lane highways. But it’s hard to identify that.

Jonathan asked about mule deer. Are there good mule deer population counts? (No). Court said that the Biota dataset has winter survey counts. That report is really near completion. Those data exist, in a rigorous survey. Fred said that whether we use it as a main indicator or not, people want to hear about the wildlife situation.

Deb said that when you say “environment” people ask about wildlife. We have to include it. Jonathan would posit that the goal of the meeting is to give 200 people from around the community a baseline of knowledge. People are going to want to know what’s up with wildlife. We may have to say that we don’t know anything. Jonathan did an informal survey in his column a few years back asking why people moved here. 80 or 90 percent said that environmental stuff- wildlife, etc., was a key to their decision to move here. It is legitimate to say that we don’t know anything just as it is legitimate to say that mule deer are getting wiped out.

Court will find out about mule deer this afternoon.

Deb said that species that use larger areas- wolverine, or cougar, or certain fish species- that need connectivity between habitats, may be the critters to focus on. Fred agreed- fish are directly sensitive to water quality.

Harry said people are drawn by aesthetic appeal. He used a picture of a fly fisherman hanging on the wall of the room. Is that a healthy environment we are looking at on the cover? Look at the forests in the background- what is the condition of the forest? Are the clouds laden with black smoke? Maybe the guy is happy fishing for lake trout. Determining indicator species is like looking for a winning lottery ticket, but there are species that people associate with everyday- on the way to Kelly, to the airport. Maybe these are the ones to address.

Sharon said that we keep landing in the same spot; we need to pick a few species- an insect, an aquatic species, mule deer. Get as much info as possible and deal with trends. Fred said that it might not make the cut for the report, but it is still good to have this information in there. Sharon said that we could pick species that don’t have problems due to natural causes, but are struggling more with the human interactive component- roads, habitat loss. It’s not as precise, but could be the best thing that could come out of what we do. Court cautioned against painting a rosy picture. We can have elk, but highlight their long-term problems- we need the yes BUT factor. The indicator thing is problematic. He doesn’t want people to think that wildlife is great in Jackson. Harry asked if humans are going to be part of the wildlife question. There is a trade-off. Barry said that if you look at environment- is crime an environmental factor? Human safety? Commuting time? Jonathan said that some of these things are picked up in other groups.

Jonathan’s long-term hope is that we could balkanize the process and start from the bottom-up. If he can drone for 3 years at 12 separate groups, we can start aggregating and tie things together. It takes awhile to get thought processes going. The other 11 groups are focused on the human realm. This group is charged with animals and vegetation if they are going to be talked about thoughtfully.

Sharon asked if we could use a prediction approach based on habitat. Do we have enough information to look at aspen groves, for example, and say that if we lose x acres of aspen, we will lose these kind of species.

Fred is seeking funding to do a 3-year natural resources overlay study, to prioritize habitat areas and trends over time.

Harry said that here you are attributing development to aspen groves. Harry noted that if we don’t want fire in a colonized area, we aren’t going to have aspen. Barry agreed; moose, for example, weren’t here 100 years ago. Harry noted that you need to look at how much aspen is planted. You are going to have gains by how much has been planted. When you factor in fire suppression, though, it’s going to be a net loss of aspen.

Jonathan wants to move along- if we start talking about something else, maybe some of the smaller pieces will start adding up. The best we may be able to do is add prose to the indicator in the report instead of data.

Roadkill rates: we can measure it. Sharon will have data through 2004 within a few weeks. Barry said that it is something you can look at, but rates will go down because there are no animals left to kill. Barry asked if they have increased; winter weather determines some of these rates as well. Sharon said that in some areas there is a decrease due to bigger roads, development. There are shifts in the crossing areas- it would be interesting to look at in terms of roadkill when new developments go in. Jonathan asked if they have specific highway sections (they do). There are 12 identified bombproof crossing zones. Jonathan asked if they had data before and after the 5-lane highway, v. somewhere (i.e., Hwy 22) with no change in a physical road but increased traffic. Sharon has the data; it’s not analyzed.

Harry asked if there are any structures in place to mitigate roadkill. Sharon said that there has not been anything put in TC. There is nothing aside from signs. Barry said that crossing structures are hard- they are not panaceas. They have struggled trying to come up with a demonstration project, which has been difficult. Harry asked if a positive result would be less roadkill. Barry said yes or continued movement. Barry said that it is hard to find something that works- either getting drivers to slow down, or a technological thing. On the extreme expense end, you could make a bridge. By trying to get the hwy dept to spend that much is difficult- they ask if we are sure animals are going to use it. Do we have enough animals to make it worthwhile? Some of the reasons for difficulty aren’t necessarily environmental- they are social, economic.

Sharon said that everyone agrees there is a problem, but finding acceptable solutions is difficult. Barry said that the problem is trying to get people to slow down, or get the hwy dept to lower the speed limit.

Jonathan said that one of the most interesting things for him is the angst in each group- obviously the issues are different, but trying to actually figure something out is difficult.

Barry asked what factors would indicate that the environment had gone to hell. Barry thinks that night skies are a key factor. So are air and water quality. If the water is so toxic you can’t put your foot in it, that’s a bad thing.

Jonathan said that we can get roadkill rates, and broken down by crossings. Jonathan said that if we have any data comparing before and after improvements/developments/etc., they would be interesting. Sharon said that the only problem is that we aren’t looking at developments that went in that changed the crossing patterns. It is dangerous to draw the assumptions, but you could do it anecdotally. Jonathan asked Sharon for what she felt comfortable sharing. Anecdotally, elk haven’t crossed the 5-lane to the Porter hayfields. Jonathan said that the data would reflect this. Sharon said that you would have to talk about habitat fragmentation.

Weed data is important, especially if we have trend data. Harry said that the struggle for Weed and Pest is regarding why weeds are bad. Fred said it is a loss of biodiversity, killing native vegetation. Harry said you have to make sure that you qualify this as to WHY weeds are bad.

Jonathan said that other two pieces are water and air. Emily said that the surface water quality is compiled. They are continuing to do surveys through the summer. Emily said that there is trend data, but she is not sure how much.

Sharon talked to Rob Gibson from WGF for fish data. Jonathan gave Sharon a gold star.

Fred will get the updates for air quality.

Jonathan would like to talk about the statement of ideal. Most of us have heard the statement of ideal. A vision or mission statement tends to not be clearly measurable or definable- it tends to be ambiguous. We should be able to look at a statement of ideal and determine whether or not something is happening in a measurable way.

Jonathan picked on the JHCA mission statement, which uses words like “responsible,” “harmony” etc. There is no way you could disagree with this. But it is fraught with ambiguity. An ideal statement has the basic challenge of a mission statement, but structures the language in such a way that it is unambiguous.

Last year’s group went with: Human activities in Teton County will allow for viable populations of all native species, and the preservation of all natural scenic vistas.

Does the group feel that this is acceptable, or is there something that you would like to add/subtract? Fred noted that you could have viable populations of native species, and still have weeds running amok. The comment part is supposed to address this. Thinking about the presentation to the community, does the statement of ideal help you think about what indicators we pick? Are there things here that would make you think in a different way about the types of indicators we should be talking to the community about? Does it work for you guys?

Ideally, the indicators would be directly related to the statement of ideal. Jack had two thoughts: he would change it to natural land and sky vistas. Jack is dealing with physics, not biology, so he has an advantage. A goal, or target state could be set for sky glow. We could take this limited magnitude concept, and say that we will maintain conditions so we can still see a magnitude 6 star here. Another way to put it would be to say that sky glow will not increase. Right now the sky glow is about equal to natural sky glow. We don’t want to increase artificial glow past 150%. Jonathan vetoed; he doesn’t want to hit the target and quit. He always wants to leave room for improvement.

Jonathan asked regarding Jack’s modification, he wondered if we would need to add water as well.

Fred said that he doesn’t see a human health component in the statement of ideal. Sharon asked if it was addressed by another group. Jonathan would state it differently- last year we had social services and health. The question was if these qualities were met, what would be the effect on human health? He brought up the Toyota example- they don’t talk about shareholder value, market value, etc. in their statement of ideal. If they can take care of the main part, everything else falls into place. In that spirit, if the statement of ideal for the environment was met, would one of the byproducts be human health? Fred said yes.

Jonathan wondered if we explicitly needed to state that. Does there need to be a human component in there as well? Fred asked if it is dealt with in human services.

Deb asked if all of the sections strictly related to the environment, wildlife, and habitat, or does it relate to humans? Depending on the answer, even night sky, are we going to address the issue in terms of how it affects wildlife or quality of life?

Jonathan said that from a practical perspective, part of the reason we tried to break it down was to put some bounds on this so we don’t drive ourselves collectively crazy. The hard line would not be drawn on including the human component; however, he would urge the group to focus on the natural environment as it is not being touched on in any other group.

Jack thought about humans being at one with the universe; Fred noted that this is not quantifiable.

Court said that there isn’t a mention of ecosystem processes (fire, flood, nitrogen cycling). Are ecosystems functioning within developed areas? Jonathan asked if you could have a viable population without healthy functioning ecosystems.

Sarah thinks you don’t need it- you can have a viable population of elk in a heavily managed ecosystem. Fred thought that maintaining healthy ecological processes would be part of this.

Barry said that he comes back to what a healthy environment is by seeing places that aren’t. He has a friend who lives in CA- surrounded by intensive agriculture, chemicals used, high crime, and polluted groundwater. The native plant community is nonexistent. When you see something like this, you know that it is the antithesis of what we are talking about. How can we capture the opposite of that so that we can take it to decision-makers to think about their impacts? It may be an incremental impact, but it is an impact. How do we capture that to take it to a commission meeting, a planning meeting, and try to get them to focus on the fact that their decision is a piece of the environmental pie? Very few decisions that people make have a big impact. It is all the little decisions, day-to-day, by many different groups, that add up that swing the quality of the environment. This is a hard thing to capture and lay it out on the table. The factors that we are talking about are hard to quantify and lay on the table. Yet they are no less real. Most of us sense that things are heading in the wrong direction.

Jonathan wants all the decision-makers in one room at the conference. Part one: of the twelve groups last year, 5 of them had the environment as part of their statement of ideal. All of these things bubbled up from different perspectives.

Sharon said that we have gone through so many of these processes, and everyone agrees that preserving wildlife is a key to our economy, etc. This week she was looking for funding and the first elected official she talked to said that they wouldn’t divert money from people to wildlife. When it comes down to funding initiatives to preserve these values, it all falls apart.

Jonathan hopes that these statements of ideal work in two different directions. First, each organization asks itself if their decisions are moving closer to ideal. Over time, we will try to get that mindset going. Working its way up, we wouldn’t want to get involved with the SRA. Part of the reason for gathering decision-makers at the conference is so that they can develop a filter for each of their decisions. Does this human activity move us closer to the ideal that the community is trying to embrace or not? The activity on our website suggests that this information is seeping into the collective consciousness. Next year, Jonathan wants to hold the conference prior to the election. He hopes that in two/three/four years out it becomes a polestar.

Sharon thinks that when we are done with this, we could create a computer model to put all of these factors in there, and get a rating as to whether it conforms to the community values.

Sharon noted that we need the values put into action. How do we force these issues?

Jonathan hopes that the statement of ideal will be the reference point, with an accompanying set of tools to achieve the reference point. As this idea gains currency, people start to make it their reference point. SJH has never been tried anywhere else in the country, but he hopes that it will catch on.

Sarah said that if our measure is population viability, there are rarely any actions that the Forest or Park takes that impact viability. It is the incremental erosion of habitat components that will tip us over the threshold. It is a mismatch of scale to have viability as the measure. The opposite of viability is not, and then what do we do? Jonathan thinks that it may be incremental decisions, but it would help if you can tell the decision-maker the cumulative impacts. Jack thinks that it may be the wrong word- it’s a target that we aren’t going to hit. We need to use “healthy” populations, or close to aboriginal populations- some term that describes a sliding scale. Viability is a misused word. Deb asked about maintaining viable populations, implying that we will be tracking them, instead of just allowing for viability.

Sharon agreed, maintaining is an active word. Fred said we also need to add a healthy ecosystems component. Deb thinks that “healthy ecosystems” is still ambiguous. Fred suggested biologically healthy processes. He doesn’t want to get rid of native species.

Homework assignment: suggestions for modifications on statement of ideal. By the end of the next meeting, we want a rough cut of what to put in the chapter, a working model of the ideal, and we want to think about what kinds of steps we can take to move us closer to the statement of ideal- even trying to identify trends in measuring progress towards ideal. There are disconnects between what we measure and what we care about.

In attendance:
Heather Thomas, Jackson Community Recycling
Louise Lasley, WCS
Fred Smith, JHCA
Brian Remlinger, TCD
Jack Leibenthal, Teton Dark Skies
Deb O’Neill, Grassland Coordinator
Barry Reiswig, NER

Jonathan thanked everyone for coming. This is our third and final meeting for Sustaining Jackson Hole this year. In the next two hours, we are going to accomplish four basic things. First, we will try to generally agree on an outline for the environment chapter. What we want to focus on is a general consensus on what is important to include in the chapter. There are two repositories of information for environmental information. The first is the appendix; this is where the detailed stuff is. The big challenge for this group is to ask itself what the critical stuff that we want to convey to the community as a whole- the “Joe Sixpack” filter. The basic idea in these chapters is to have 5-6 pages to make it accessible to anyone who wants to know about JH. How do you determine what is critical to know? On either Oct. 28 or Oct. 29 we will have a one-day SJH conference. In that 10 minute window, what information do we want people to know? This chapter will contain the essence of the 10 minute speech. The stuff we agree on as critical to the chapter will be presented by someone in this room. Our second task today is to determine who will be making the speech. Third, we would like to settle on a statement of ideal. We came up with a draft last year, and we talked a bit about it in our last meeting to modify it. Over the course of the next 6 weeks, it will be Lydia’s and Jonathan’s job to draft a chapter. We will distribute it to everyone, and it will become an iterative process. By around Labor Day, we hope to have tweaked it and have something that this group will feel comfortable presenting to the public. Everything in the chapter is subject to your approval. The final word is not necessarily what we will have today. The fourth thing is talking about the next step. There have been a lot of issues that have arisen. Jonathan hopes that over the course of the next 9 months or so each group can identify something that is easy to accomplish, and work on it to move the ball along. In terms of timetable and structure, our vision for the SJH conference is that the keynote will be Oct. 27 at Walk Festival Hall, Yvon Chouinard. Our plan on that day is to distribute our Proceedings- a book containing the 12 SJH chapters along with an update of the JH Almanac- a Primer on JH. We will publish a couple thousand copies; we will give one to everyone at the keynote and at the conference. We will also publish it electronically. In order to be ready by Oct. 27, we need to have it to the publisher by Oct. 1.

Heather was wondering about the statement of ideal. Last year, when we talking about the statement of ideal, the idea behind the viable population of all native species, was if those could survive, then humans definitely could. We didn’t put anything about humans in here because of that.

Brian has compiled all of the water quality data for the Snake River basin, anything collected by NPS, TCD, DEQ, etc. There are descriptive stats, and some trend analysis for the data which was sufficient over time. Essentially, what they have collected is that in general, we have excellent water quality. We are a headwaters state. The biggest impact is storm water runoff. You see it on stormy afternoons like this and in the winter. The DEQ has recognized that, and they are working to improve water quality from urban storm water runoff, and working with the county for planning regulations for any construction permit. Currently, any construction permitted through DEQ forbids storm water runoff/erosion, but it is not enforced at all. There is an opportunity for the county to take over enforcement. In general, on the Snake, there were no trends over time, or any spatial trends, so there was no significant difference in water quality leaving the basin v. the upper portions. Flat Creek was the only one that showed significant degradation of water quality.

Brian will compile one page or half a page appropriate for the SJH report. It is still in draft form; hopefully it will be completed by the end of this month. This sets the baseline for what our water quality is at this time. In the future we can compare water quality to this. In order to sustain our water quality we need to eliminate paths of pollution to our water sources. He thinks that current development, some of it, really does address this. Some proposals do a good job of proposing (but whether there is follow-through is questionable). In terms of sustaining water quantity, there was a report through the WY Water Commission projecting water consumption. Based on population, it will go down significantly as lands that are flood irrigated are no longer. In terms of water quantity, unless we have a serious long-term drought or climate change for this basin, there is plenty of water for our needs. Downstream is another story.

Jonathan asked what the boundaries were for the Upper Snake River basin. Essentially Palisades Reservoir. The official definition includes the Salt River, which is the watershed. The basin is above the Grey’s River- above Alpine. There is a fellow with USGS, George Ingersoll, who is completely a 15 year study on snow pack chemistry- deposition of nitrogen, sulfur. There is quite a bit of nitrogen deposition in the Tetons. It flows west, and the geology there cannot absorb it. On this side, the streams can utilize it, so it disappears. On the other side it stays in the water systems.

Jack talked to a guy in Boulder who does sky glow lights. By mapping the paved-over roads in the US he found that the amount of impervious surface area in the US, including parking lots, houses, etc., is equivalent to the state of OH. Jack wondered if the paving/graveling of this valley affects what ends up in the ground. Brian said it affects what ends up in the streams. One of the biggest impacts is street sanding in the wintertime. They use sand with magnesium chloride to keep the sand from freezing. MgCl compared to NaCl and CaCl is more inert in terms of impacts. But the sand that goes into the streams is tremendous. Flat Creek is cemented (embedded), which is one of the impacts. That is what the DEQ, with the Clean Water Act, is working on. They are going to enhance the Karns wetlands, and utilize the runoffs into that wetland. There are also five filtration basins in town that are cleaned out twice a year. That is the biggest impact on water quality. Technology is there for development to cut off pollution paths to our water sources, using ponds and more engineered things. But the natural wetland detention basins, the technology here has improved significantly. The SRA plan had a nice plan to eliminate paths to waterways. Whether or not it was going to be followed through, he doesn’t know. If we could see that kind of plan on all development, and also in the Town of Jackson, we would be better off for it. There is tons of federal funding for storm water improvements.

Brian said that in 2000 and 2001 fecal bacteria samples were very high in Flat Creek. The Flat Creek and Fish Creek stream committee asked where this was coming from with a concern for wildlife. Basically, 17% came from domestic sources- horses, cattle, dogs, humans, and 83% were wildlife. What this tells us is that compared to a highly urbanized area, which is 50-70% domestic, we are good. Domestic sources are associated with pathogens that can cause disease. Pathogens associated with wildlife don’t always cause disease. E. coli is an indicator of fecal contamination because you can’t analyze for all pathogens in the stream. He has that final report out as well. With that, do we need to understand the paths of fecal contamination to our water sources? Heather asked if Flat Creek was elk. Brian said that there was a percentage, but not what you think it is. The elk aren’t standing in the stream pooping. They also didn’t have significant cows- they had 1200 cattle on a sampling areas, but it is so flat that the detention time before e.coli gets to the stream, it is broken down. With an impervious surface, it gets there quicker. The domestic sources, more than half were dogs. They had sewage sources, where they went through some sort of treatment. Generally in the rural areas, over on Fish Creek, you didn’t see the runoff like here. If it can get to the stream quickly, then you have fecal contamination.

Heather has some data on recycling. She had emailed Lydia data on 2004. It’s national recycling rate average over the past 10 years for each year. We also wanted more info from other counties- she has Pitkin & Blaine, but not for 10 years. Jonathan said it was a luxury, not necessity.

Jonathan said that Heather makes a good point- when does water quality stop being an environmental issue to a health issue? None of this is completely cut and dry; hopefully as we continue this process, the groups will start making tighter and tighter links.

Brian will give Lydia a copy of the water quality data, but he will distill it for us. Brian will do a half page; in the appendix we will reference the citation of the report, which will also be online.

Heather said that she, Kelly, and Dan will do a waste audit to determine how much of what is thrown out is actually recyclable. For the stuff that is not recyclable, is there potential to make it a recyclable commodity? They will do it in Sept. or Oct.

Fred will get air quality data to us next week. Jack found out that NOAA is working on data sets to give a fine-grain to the sky glow map. They have big data reduction problems b/c it is an Air Force satellite. They are working on 2003. When they do 2004 and 2005, everyone will be able to track progress of light in their area. Chad Moore has datasets for Yellowstone. They are doing all of this on grants. Maybe the Power Company could help with a project. The Astronomy Club may be interested in doing a survey. He will work on the sky glow data.

Jonathan would like to look at last year’s report. There was general agreement that the categories we had were of value to continue to include even if we couldn’t comment on them directly. We have plants, animals, air, water, and potentially night sky. We have had a lot of talk about habitat and connectivity. Should we weave this into the chapter even if we can’t comment on it thoughtfully? There is not a lot of clear data. Louise thinks that we should mention it. Fred said ask how much is available now compared to 10 years ago. Deb said that if you are going to use WYDOT roadkill data that ties into connectivity. We can say air and water, plants and animals, habitat and connectivity- with roadkill rates as a point of reference. Lydia and Jonathan will drop in the data, form the chapters, and circulate it. Fred thinks night skies show indirect influence of development on the valley. Brian wondered if it was appropriate for the environment group. We don’t have another group looking at it. What impacts does it have on the environment?

So we have seven different categories. Talking about animals and plants, we did species population counts, and as the minutes reflect, there has been a lot of internal discussion about what the values are of population counts, and what to include. The great internal tension is, on the one hand, Joe Sixpack is going to want to know population counts. If you don’t talk about it, it’s a problem. On the other hand, it may not mean anything. The fundamental question is how we handle that dichotomy, and if we choose to put in species counts, which ones do we use? Fred said not game species, because they are heavily managed. Brian said Court has been looking at songbird species, and how development has affected their nesting habits. We should include migratory birds, native trout- which is unique in the lower 48. Fish would probably be one of the better indicators; in the Upper Snake it isn’t heavily managed. Finally, we could use predators.

Heather said anything that is relying upon the health of the environment to survive- a species with a large home range. Brian said that there was a study done by the RAND Corporation on cutthroat trout as an indicator species for environmental health. They produced a GIS model that you could see, based upon trout populations, what the watershed health was. It wasn’t highly adopted by anyone, but it does define why they chose cutthroat as an indicator of watershed health for this model. Brian said that, in this watershed, those non-native species aren’t able to take hold because generally the hydrologic regimes are natural- flushes off the mountains- whereas the Teton River has changed. We do have rainbow, brook, and brown trout here but they can’t take hold here.

Heather asked about population counts to determine water quality- like macro-invertebrates. Brian said that one of the difficulties here is that we have mountain streams to transitional plains streams that you don’t have anything to compare it to. The DEQ uses a control stream to compare macro invertebrate assemblages, but it doesn’t work that way here. There is a baseline assemblage for the entire NW part of WY, but you can’t compare a flat shallow stream in YNP to a mountain stream coming off the Tetons.
Fred asked if we had good data for trout- WGF does. Their populations go up and down. They have trend data over time. There was a significant decrease after the levees went in; since then it has been up and down. It is a good indicator of watershed health.

Fred said that as far as water quality goes, the Upper Snake is pretty healthy, so trout would be a good baseline. Brian said that they are a good indicator of water quality, and basic watershed. If you change your quantity significantly, your non-natives will take over.

Roadkill rates- we have data, and we should include it. We should add the caveat that if rates go down the animals may not be there anymore.

Exotic weed infestations- we can get trend data.

Surface water quality- Brian.

Air quality- we can update this.

Habitat and connectivity- are there other ways to get a handle on it besides roadkill rates? Deb said that we could generically talk about the suite of predators moving back into the area, and we will have an intact ecosystem- wolves, grizzlies, black bears, cougars, coyotes. Brian asked about migration corridors, riparian corridors. Louise thinks we could put in something about disturbed surface area- surface lands that are no longer open. We need a number that could show how this is changing for habitat & connectivity, which goes back to the planning and zoning. How much open space do we have? Acres lost because of development? Fred suggested lands platted. Also, the Natural Resource Overlay is based on crucial winter habitat for game species, but also habitat for trumpeter swan, wetlands, etc. These are all based on what we knew at the time. The NRO doesn’t have teeth in terms of protection. What percentage of the NRO has been eaten up since it was first adopted, if it is an indicator of better quality habitat?

Jonathan and Lydia can’t do original research. We can put this down as a potential indicator. This also holds the potential for a project that this group could do over the next year. Fred said next year we should have someone from Planning & Zoning on this.

Brian said that there are always graduate students looking for GIS projects to evaluate land use over time. This is a great opportunity to get funding for someone to do this. The information is available, and we need to apply someone to perform the process and come up with an evaluation. It would be a great Master’s project.

We have the general outlines, save for indicator species.

The second issue is the speaker. The report itself will provide the general outline about what the group wants to convey to the group. We need someone to represent this group, who can put this info into a 10-15 minute speech. Fred will do this.

Part 3: statement of ideal- Should we include nightscapes, and is there anything else that should be tweaked? Deb reiterated “maintaining” viable populations of native species instead of “allow for.” Jonathan asked about populations that are not necessarily viable. Does “maintain” affect that? Jonathan’s concern about “maintain” is regarding native species that are not currently here, or hanging on. If you use “maintain,” how do you deal with these species? Deb said that perhaps “maintain and allow for” all native species. Sarah’s concern was figuring out if they were viable- if they crash, what are we going to do? That’s why Deb suggested “maintain,” maybe “manage for,” but this is ambiguous.

Fred suggested “ensure.” Jack said that “allow for” says stay out of the way, “maintain” implies activity. Ensure also implies that you have to do something. Heather wondered if it mattered- letting it happen, or actively maintaining, as long as the viable populations are present, whether we are actively maintaining it or not. Deb said that “allow for” sounds like we are going to allow for a species to become viable if it isn’t now. “Allow for” means that we will provide means, but do we need to do something further? Heather said that this is saying that in JH, this is what we want to see as far as the environment goes. There are a lot of organizations that have viable populations as a mission. In Heather’s mind, this is what we want to see, not how we are going to do it, not what it takes to get there.

Fred suggested: Teton County will have viable populations of all native species and preserve scenic vistas. Jack was thinking that it should be nightscapes, landscapes, and then soundscapes- there is danger here. Maybe “scenic vistas” imply the Milky Way. If we have open space and scenic vistas, we will have beautiful night skies.

Jonathan said that there is a commentary in the statement of ideal. We could include in the commentary that natural scenic vistas include the nightscapes. Teton County will have viable populations of all native species and preserve scenic vistas.

The fourth thing is the task. Jonathan said that our internal goal for SJH is to try to have as few meetings as possible is because we recognize that you all have other things to do. If we are to sustain the SJH process, we need to make sure that this feels like a valuable use of your time, and that the 6 hours of your time results in something you feel was a worthwhile use of your time. The focus here is how we get there. We have raised a lot of questions over the past few weeks- indicator species, habitat. What is really meaningful? Is there something that has come up in the course of the discussions that, if we knew it (and it is low-hanging fruit) that we could, without a whole lot of effort, be able to say that we know more about something about understanding our progress towards ideal?

Heather thinks that the amount of open space would be valuable. The Planning Dept. could probably tell us, and we are talking about a small percentage. We could track it year to year. Brian said that we should look at what happens in this open space. This is important too. Three acres of bluegrass v. 3 acres of riparian vegetation is different. That has been on the radar of a lot of people- looking at what is happening to our habitat. We are changing from rural, agricultural ranching to residential. Sometimes that improves habitat, sometimes it depletes habitat and open space. What are the parameters for that evaluation? It would take some work, and it could be done.

Heather thinks that this is one of the biggest factors that will tie into our statement of ideal. If there is no habitat, or viable habitat, we won’t have native populations.

Fred said that ranchland is not necessarily great habitat. How much native habitat do we still have left in the county? Jack said that you could take three categories: developed (not golf courses), agricultural/ranching (monocultures), and then untrammeled.

Jonathan said that there is a desire to determine the relationship between development and open space and habitat. Brian said the question is how development is affecting these issues- nightglow, water, animals. Jonathan said right now we can’t comment on any of this stuff because either data on changing land use patterns don’t exist, or if they do exist we don’t know about it.

Brian said that the other issue is that the land that will be developed generally is monoculture ranchland. What you have to look at is a residential development- does that improve or decrease habitat? There is no evaluation for that generally. In some instances, the change from residential improves habitat. If there was a way to evaluate that, and determine what kinds of residential developments are good for the environment, then we can evaluate whether we are sustaining or improving the environment. We don’t have a grasp on that. The Planning Dept. tries to grasp that with their planning process.

Louise thinks that is the element missing here- how much does everyone know? Think about the people in the community that have no idea of the impacts of their actions, as far as wildlife. There isn’t anything out there to keep people informed of minor things, or non-controversial things that down the road everyone will be sorry for. There needs to be a human component- we need more awareness, either expressed in the ideal statement or one of the indicators. In order to maintain this environment, you have to have a human awareness level.

Jack said that it would be relatively easy to get platted acres and ag land, and subtract how many acres are left. Part of the problem is that it is a finite space. These would be three simple indicators that we could come up with, and get historical data and start tracking it, and subdividing into other categories.

Deb suggested land ownership- if all of the private land was developed tomorrow, how much do we have left? Brian thinks another question is how it is developed. There is going to be more development. Deb said look at the worst case scenario. You won’t have ungulates using a residential area safely, where they might use open land on a ranch.

Fred said, taking a different perspective, before we can encourage better residential practices, is getting a baseline of what is developed and what is native. From there we could make other leaps. Deb thinks the baseline will be easy to get. Jonathan said that of 2.7 million acres in the county, 76,000 acres private. 16% is platted, not developed, 2% commercial, 51% developed. This is 2001 data from JH Almanac- it’s not trend, it’s a snapshot. It might be easy to put together trend data. Jack said that the total acreage makes development look insignificant. Fred thought we could look at the private land in the county.

Jonathan said that another thing that has come up is indicator species. We have left that question begging. Is it because it is not telling us all that much? It might be cutthroat trout, or something terrestrial- who knows? Is there anything out there that is a killer species?

Barry thinks bald eagles are an indicator, to some extent- they are impacted by human activity. Jonathan said that the question is, with the possible exception of cutthroat, are there other species out there? Brian has a CD of a report- cutthroat are more for watershed health- a riparian and water based indicator species. Any disturbance to a watershed will affect your water sources.

Deb said that, in terms of habitat, is ecosystem health. She works with prairie dogs extensively. People just hate them. She is using a grassland ecosystem approach- this is one of the few places on the planet that has this many predators in one area. When we have far-ranging predators, that is interesting because they are generally sensitive to human activity. Grizzlies are moving back down here, for example. It might be better if we used an ecosystem approach. Fred thinks it might be hard to quantify over time, and carnivores have huge ranges. If a mountain lion leaves for a few years, does that mean that our ecosystem is failing?

Jonathan threw out a different proposition. We will circulate the abstract of cutthroat to everyone. But he is uneasy about doing elk, because it is useless. Indicator species are also tricky. Court can get mule deer information. He is reluctant to put into the report anything about an indicator species or a heavily managed species, because we can talk our way out of either one in a compelling fashion.

Jonathan said that he has a friend who has done a lot of work in valley and can do GIS stuff. He also got a call from a grad student in Earth Sciences at Stanford, and she will be doing some research this summer on land use questions. We have two assets now- GIS and a willing grad student type. Is there a particular project, easily definable project we can give these two to work on?

Brian said that the big argument is what kind of development, and how it’s developed. Is it good for the environment and the community? No one can agree on this. There might be an opportunity to do some research and dig into this. He doesn’t know if it is philosophical or hard scientific facts. Some of it is obvious, but someone could inventory different kinds of developments in JH, and what kinds of impacts they have on the environment. Which reduce or minimize impacts, and sustain the ideal that we are talking about? Heather feels like a lot of research has been done on that. Brian said that we don’t have it in our hands.

Barry said that we could look at this from a conservation biology approach, developed by Reed Noss, and pick out a hotspot. Look at groups of species and trend them over time. This is helpful. This county is in tremendous condition compared to other places. Maybe that approach has some merit- the way that conservation biologists assess areas. This could be a good project. Barry thinks we are having trouble coming up with individual species, but look at groups of species- like the suite of carnivores.

Heather said that the situation with wolves- it took human intervention to get them here.

Jonathan said that we are going to duck the species population counts in a more explicit way this year, because counts of highly managed populations won’t tell us anything, and there don’t seem to be reliable data on anything that might be a decent indicator species.

In terms of a project, it would be nice to avoid the teeth gnashing again because we actually know something next year, whether it’s trend data of development patterns over time. He doesn’t hear a readily, easily doable project emerging very quickly. He will put this on hold for a couple of weeks and talk to the intern when she gets here. If everyone here can think about this, we can feel like we have a sense of progress. Lydia and Jonathan will work on the draft chapter and have it crafted and out for your review over the next few weeks. We can spend the month of September doing internal edits and formatting. Our request is that everyone gets us stuff quickly. Brian can put the water stuff together pretty quickly.