Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership

Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership
Steering Committee Meeting
August 17, 2005

Attendees:

Curtis Tanner, Bernie Hargrave, Tim Smith, John Dohrmann, Beth Coffey, Melissa Paulson, Elaine Kleckner, Dick Ecker, Terry Wright, Debby Hyde, Paula Del Giudice, Jacques White, Naki Stevens, Fred Goetz, Debbie Rick

Report from the Federal Project Manager

Lieutenant General Carl A. Strock, Commander and Chief of Engineers, US Army Corps of Engineers, will not be able to meet with the Partnership as planned. In lieu of that, Bernie had scheduled Colonel Lewis and Colonel Martin to meet the Nearshore Steering committee during lunch for a briefing on the PSNERP General Investigation Study and the Nearshore Partnership, and a site visit to adjacent Capitol Lake. Colonel Martin and Colonel Lewis cancelled at the last minute.

Congressional Activities:

Congress has not enacted a Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) since 2000. During that time, the Nation has engaged in a healthy and constructive debate on the direction of water resources policy and the values that should shape choices in balancing environmental protection with economic growth. The Corps of Engineers has implemented changes in its business processes that capture the best of this debate. WRDA bills in both the House and Senate address reasonable and balanced approaches to these challenges.

Section 2019, HR 2864, the House-passed Water Resources Development Act of 2005, would liberalize cost sharing of watershed assessments by reducing the non-Federal share to 25 percent as originally proposed by the office of Management and Budget in 2000. Sound technical watershed assessments would support our ongoing water resources management. The current higher 50 percent rate of cost sharing makes watershed assessment more difficult as incentives for local governments to cost share in a watershed context are often restricted to projects of local interest or governed by conflicts over water resources uses among multiple political jurisdictions.

Comments: House version is more about Corps reform. This bill has more interest on the East Coast. Allows maximization of all available resources up to eight million dollars.

Question: Is WRDA the only way to a Construction General (CG)?
Answer: Provides Nearshore construction authority and appropriation.

Bernie also reported on S.1224 A bill to protect the oceans, and for other purposes.

SUMMARY:

National Oceans Protection Act of 2005 - Declares the purpose of this Act is to secure for future U.S. generations a full range of benefits of healthy marine ecosystems.

Bernie concluded his report by discussing emerging plans for use of end of year funds. Priorities include:

1. The Nearshore Science Team could spend $8,000 - $12,000 for collaborative software that U of W would have to write the Internet codes for. Several years ago the Corps purchased from Microsoft a product called “Groove.”
Question to NST: Does Groove do what the NST needs it to do?

2. Awarded $140,000 to CommEnSpace to validate the Nearshore typology. They will advance the WRIA 9 change analyses and develop classification rules for the nearshore types that were not found in WRIA9.

3. Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) white papers – Will pay for as many of the white papers as possible with current funds. Working on scope of work for Marine Riparian white paper by Jim Brennan and Beach/bluffs paper by Jim Johanassen. Any additional funds will be directed towards Orca and great blue heron white papers.

4. Technical document editing and publication – Will be completed by Washington SeaGrant and include the Conceptual Model paper and the “Beach Dynamics Report” written by David Finlayson.

5. Future without Project Conditions Analysis – Phase 1: Model Design. University of Washington research scientist Marina Alberti will be contracted to develop a framework for this task. $55,000

Off the Agenda Discussion - All

Jacques asked questions regarding the change analysis process. Curtis reported that Si is developing a presentation that should be available for the November Steering Committee meeting.

The need for improved coordination with Shared Strategy was raised. The idea of a formal coordination meeting with Jim Kramer and other staff of Shared Strategy was raised.

Tim – As Shared Strategy moves into implementation phase, everyone will vote on what is most important to a healthy Puget Sound – contaminants, landscape, storm water, etc. The Nearshore Partnership needs to have conversations about what PSNP is and is not doing. The Partners need to understand, explain, and defend change analysis.

Jacques – He is getting mixed messages from the enviros. The question is why waiting for PSNERP?

Tim – No one needs to wait for the NST to develop a set of actions. Bill Hinesly, remarked that after a five year General Investigation study Louisiana Coastal Areas has received a 20 billion dollar implementation authority. Bill also said the Nearshore Partnership was on a better trajectory.

All – discussed need for an outline of the project’s general direction to use as a communications tool for the upcoming Summit and other purposes.

Steering Committee Action:

Tim Smith, Debby Hyde, John Dohrmann, Jacques White to meet to develop a nearshore process framework one-pager sometime before the summit; for review by the Steering Committee at the next meeting.

Implementation Team Co-Lead Report – Elaine Kleckner and Beth Coffey

The Implementation Team is planning a joint meeting in October with the Nearshore Science Team. Goals for that meeting are to develop a “Strategic Needs” report outline completed; Identify tasks to complete (who/what); have a non-specific solutions map with a GIS initiative.

Interim Nearshore Projects Database Demonstration – Elaine Kleckner

The database is in Microsoft Access 2000 and was developed and is supported by IAC at no cost to the Nearshore Partnership. The database currently resides on the WDFW server. It is currently a single-user application with a PRISM-like architecture and fields to ensure smooth transition to PRISM.

The interim Access database design and installation was completed June 1 with project types, i.e., restoration, acquisition (includes some protection projects), assessment, combinations and project statuses, i.e., proposed, active, closed completed, not completed. The database was populated with data inquiries to Lead Entities and watershed planning groups, Marine Resources Committees and tribes. Over 525 Project records have been populated into the database, with more in progress; 100+ Organization records entered and 100+ Person records entered. Follow-up meetings to verify entries will be ongoing through August.

Elaine and Melissa continue to inquire to RFEGs, NGOs, others for projects to enter. The Implementation Team has initiated development of mapping capabilities.

Elaine then reported on discussions underway between WDFW and IAC about PRISM migration issues, cost and timeline. Details include:

Currently PRISM is managed by IAC/SRFB, Washington state’s consolidated recreation and conservation grant making agency. IAC/SRFB manages 30 different state and federal grant programs and uses PRISM to track over 6,000 projects.
The Technical Stuff: PRISM has a client-server architecture in Microsoft Windows. It requires a Microsoft SQL Database Server, Microsoft Windows 2000 Server, Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0.
The benefits of PRISM are: it is a comprehensive project management tool, online grant applications, contract management and generation, provides accountability, integrated data, reporting capabilities; mapping capabilities, and image and document storage.
PRISM Enhancements include: Monitoring Module for Salmon Programs, Measurements/Metrics, Enhanced Attachment Module (documents, photos, maps, other)
Upcoming Enhancements include: Updated Architecture, Enhanced Mapping Capabilities, Government Management, Accountability and Performance, and Possible Expansion for Use by Other Agencies.
PRISM implementation steps would include performing a comprehensive analysis to see if PRISM meets our needs (vision, scope, requirements, constraints); Convene teams to design modifications required to make the system fit our Project Partnership; Define types and categories used for reporting; work with other agencies and groups for consistency; Install PRISM system. Set up lookup tables. Test; Prototype modifications, have users do acceptance testing, continue working out design details, have developers finalize modifications; Update online help and other documentation, train staff; Convert existing data to new system; Deploy to production environment.

Steering Committee Action:

Start developing an outline of management measures, potential cost, and design. Incorporate a GIS into the Nearshore database. Review with Corps personnel and Action Team.

Decision: Allocate $14,000 to migrating stand-alone database into PRISM.

Capitol Lake Adaptive Management Plan (CLAMP) presentation – Curtis Tanner

During recent State budget process, WDFW received $222,000 for the Deschutes Estuary Feasibility Study. Curtis has been asked to by the Department to serve as the Project Manager. As part of a $900,000 feasibility study, CLAMP is a good example of an Early Action/ Demonstration Project. Early on, the “Guidance” document was used to scope the feasibility study. Potential benefits to PSNERP:

Allows Nearshore Partnership to merge into an already established project
Opportunity to insure use and evaluate benefits of PSNERP approach to restoration
May provide opportunity to “bench test” use of VECs in describing potential restoration project benefits.

Nearshore Science Team Co-Lead Report – Fred Goetz

VEC White Paper Status

Of the nine “White Papers,” four have confirmed authors, with recommendations out on the remainder.

Megan Dethier, shellfish expert, Lead science writer
Tom Mumford, eelgrass expert
Kurt Fresh, Salmon in the Nearshore, dependant upon clearance from NOAA that Kurt has the time and permission.
Dan Pentilla, forage fish expert

The authors of the white papers need to have their work to Megan no later than December; final product in March.

Presentation USGS Research -

At the July 2005 Nearshore Science Team meeting, Guy Gelfenbaum (USGS) used the Lower Elwah River Dams removal and marine area as a case study to illustrate the restoration implications to adjacent nearshore ecosystems. Guy described the key components of fish passage, marine-derived nutrients, fluvial restoration, and sediment supply from the perspective of the on going and anticipated USGS research activities. He also touched on the research that other agencies (i.e., NOAA, tribes) are conducting.

The primary research questions driving the current USGS studies described by Dr. Gelfenbaum relate to sediment transport to nearshore ecosystems. A large amount of sediment is stored in a relatively short system (from headwaters to release point) behind the dams. The two primary sediment sources – erosion within the reservoir and sediments coming down river itself – are perceived to impose potential impacts as well as restoration benefits to nearshore ecosystems. Based on estimates by the Bureau of Reclamation (Randle, et al.) sediments transported through system (three years and 50 years intervals) from the erosion behind the dames are not expected to be a high percentage and most erosion is predicted to occur as a result of notching and hydrologic events.

Considerable work by the Tribe, NPS, and others, have concentrated on historic change in the river channel and the delta that could be interpreted as resulting from the dams effects on sedimentation processes downstream and in the nearshore region. The USGS (Coastal and Marine Geology Group) sediment studies are focusing coastal mapping, process-based spatially explicit morphological modeling, and process measurements. Coastal mapping has illustrated seasonal changes in the delta, illustrating 40m progradation between summer and winter. Sonar and video mapping of bottom substrates indicate extensive and complex variation in sediment sizes and bedforms.

The process studies are linking nearshore current and salinity dynamics to the observed changes in bathymetry and sediment structure, and are using the DELFT3D model with sediment transport. They are also examining the bathymetry of Ediz Hook, to evaluate how much sediment that feeds Ediz Hook originates from river discharge and delta as compared to bluff erosion.

This synthesis of on-going Elwah Dams removal studies illustrated several issues about scientific assessment of demonstration projects: Will the signal be big enough compared to natural variability (in terms of sediment movement, beach morph, and habitat)? May not be able to acquire accurate measures of variability in only two-three years; may be multi-decadal variation. And historic shoreline change “data” is not much data at all and may not account for tidal changes, season, etc.

Final comment based on this discussion of the NST’s approach to learning about and formulating management (restoration/preservation) measures is that, perhaps more than VECs, the PSNERP community could use “white papers” on different management measure to learn about restoration projects.

Status and Action Items

GI Feasibility Report

Fred Goetz led a discussion about purposes and organization of USACE feasibility reports, using the Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) as an example. Important points of NST relevance were: NST has most input 1) problem identification – What are the causes of the problem? 2) Plan formulation – What is it we need to do? What will we get out of it? What are our scales? What are the VEC linkages, i.e., in terms of “benefits”? 3) The NST conceptual model will help justify or explain best available science for basic assumptions behind.

A cost-benefit analysis will have to be an element of the benefits analysis, but NST will have a role in determining how this analysis is conducted especially from the perspective of contingent and other indirect economic benefits. The NST recognized that it needs to create 1) an organization process map (“road map”) and 2) a geospatial map of restoration needs and potential (alternative) solutions.

The end product of immediate need and utility is a “road map” that describes organizational process to get to a “non-specific solution map” (NSSM), that includes: a) steps, linkages to get to viable solutions; b) identifies what nearshore ecosystem processes are broken and where; and c) provides generic solutions that are backed by quantified objective for amount of change desirable (15% more sediment delivery).

Future Without Project Conditions

The Future Without Project Conditions analysis is an extension of trajectories from historic analysis that is framed by a problem statement and is both a projection (from historic trends) and a prediction (based on driving variables) of future conditions if this project is not carried out. Fred Goetz and Bill Hinesley (guest) described this analysis based on the LCA feasibility report.

Dr. Marina Alberti, UW Urban Planning Professor, presented some perspective on how her group would approach a Future Without Project Conditions analysis based on a joint fact finding approach. She described information sources and analyses (i.e., Land Cover Change Model (LCCM) for Central Puget Sound) that are being used presently to address similar sorts of questions. Dr. Alberti and her colleagues are candidates for PSNERP funding to assist in designing approach to Future Without Conditions analyses.

WRIA9 Current Conditions and Change Analysis

For current conditions in WRIA 9, CommEnSpace will proceed to a) complete WRIA9 historic conditions with inclusions of missing data (e.g., upper Duwamish); b) develop rulesets that cover shore types that were not included in WRIA9 (primary candidate area is Whidbey Island Basin); and c) develop different methodology for typing shoreline that will rely on better data sets (higher resolution, bathymetry, etc.) to develop typology, e.g., a data-driven, rather than interpretation, effort.

Pacific Northwest Regional Collaboratory (PNWRC) Coastal Applications Project

Establishing Land Use/Land Cover Linkages to the Nearshore Environment for Restoration Planning in Puget Sound – Dick Ecker

Broad Focus Objective for PNWRC-PSRP Coastal Applications project:
Establish linkages between the terrestrial and aquatic environments that will enhance or inform decisions regarding prioritization of nearshore restoration sites using NASA remote sensing products
Develop project and products on a pilot scale that can be scaled up to the greater Puget Sound region

Implemented Scope and Progress during Year 1: Efforts in FY04 focused on developing a collaboration with the PSRP science team and partnering with the City of Bainbridge Island jurisdiction as a pilot study area to assess the long term planning and restoration needs. A portion of this effort was spent determining how best to support those needs with NASA remote sensing products through the PNWRC. Specific tasks this past year included:

Determining watershed drainage patterns to the nearshore on Bainbridge Island (LiDAR and ArcHydro Hydrologic model)
Developed impervious surface map for Bainbridge (Landsat data)
Determined percent impervious surface in stream buffers and subwatersheds based on the hydrologic model and impervious surface maps

Focus Effort for Year 2: Efforts in FY05 will expand upon work conducted on Bainbridge Island in Year 1 and if funding allows, be applied to a second Puget Sound site for validation. Tasks this year will include:

Determine if impervious surface maps/hydro basin delineations improve the previously conducted Bainbridge Island nearshore assessment ranking process for restoration
Apply product information to selection of long term water quality monitoring sites on Bainbridge Island (recently funded WDOE project)
Apply products to a second validation site (to be determined) in Puget Sound if funding allows.

Existing Funding: $100K of funding from PNWRC was provided in Year 1 (FY04). Approximately $85K of Year 2 funding is available for this project.

Potential Future Funding: Similar funding level for the next 2-3 years is anticipated through the PNWRC. Funding for the PNWRC is presently provided by NASA, and is considered “seed” funding for this collaborative enterprise. The PNWRC intends to maintain NASA funding, and also to obtain longer-term sustaining funding from the end-user community that it serves.

Puget Sound Initiative Presentation – John Dohrmann

Not much progress and Governor has been communicating to her internal policy advisors.

Select Forum on Restoring Puget Sound: A Meeting With National Experts – Naki Stevens

In September, the five sponsoring NGOs will host a two-day Puget Sound Summit of 15 key local NGOs and 15 local tribal, business, communications and political leaders, as well as leaders from the Everglades, coastal Louisiana, and Great Lakes ecosystem restoration projects.

On Day One, they will take visitors on a field trip to deepen their understanding of the issues Puget Sound faces. On Day Two, visitors will meet with the 30 summit participants and will be asked to frame their remarks around two questions:

1. How did you elevate your ecosystem to one of national significance in need of restoration and protection (i.e. how did you market your ecosystem?)?

2. How can we organize ourselves to promote Puget Sound’s status as a national treasure and gain significant new support for Soundwide restoration?

Guest panelist speakers are:

Valsin Marmillion, President Sally Yozell, Vice President
Marmillion + Company Battelle

Mark Davis, Executive Director Jeff Skelding, Great Lakes Campaign Director
Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana National Wildlife Federation

Malia Hale, Director
National Wildlife Federation