< Back
to Meeting Archives
Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Steering Committee
Meeting 15 August 2007
Attendance:
Bernie Hargrave, Curtis Tanner, Paul Cereghino, Rich Doenges,
Debby Hyde, Dick Ecker, Jen Steger (call in), Jim Fox, James
Schroeder (call in), Hayden Street, Jacques White, Fred Goetz,
Rebecca Ponzio, Margen Carlson, Doug Myers, Kirstin Holsman
(call in), Theresa Mitchell, Toni Lick, Erik Neatherlin, Si
Simenstad (call in), Debbie Rick
The agenda was adjusted to accommodate a discussion regarding
the Recovery Council letter.
Rebecca Ponzio, staff person from Shared Strategy to the Recovery
Council, was present to discuss the letter presented at the
Executive Committee.
The Recovery Council and the Watershed Leads are excited
about the ecosystem-based, scientific approach being taken
by the Nearshore Partnership to create the information necessary
to identify what areas across the Puget Sound’s nearshore
need to be restored/protected. Incorporating this information
into the on-going work to implement the Recovery Plan will
strengthen both organizations’ efforts and provide a
cohesive approach to restoring the Puget Sound nearshore.
Specifically, the Recovery Council recognizes the importance
of the Nearshore Partnership’s work to identify what
areas across the nearshore need to be restored and protected
to ensure that the nearshore ecosystem is fully functioning.
The Recovery Council believes that the scientifically rigorous
information on the health and needs of the nearshore across
the Puget Sound being developed by the Nearshore Partnership
should be used to guide recovery efforts in the nearshore
for salmon recovery and formally incorporated into the Puget
Sound Salmon Recovery Plan. The Recovery Council also believes
that the organizational structure that connects regional and
local efforts and priorities developed by the Shared Strategy
process can benefit the Nearshore Partnership by strengthening
the tie with local communities to help prioritize and ultimately
design and build nearshore restoration and protection. Finally,
the Recovery Council recognizes the importance of better linking
our science, priorities, and actions in order to help empower
the new Puget Sound Partnership in coordinating overall recovery
of the Puget Sound, including funding opportunities and public
outreach.
There are two areas the Recovery Council considers key to
significantly advance the work of salmon recovery and capitalize
on the opportunity presented by the convergence of our work:
the General Investigation Study and the Estuary and Salmon
Recovery Grant Program (ESRP). The Recovery Council seeks
the commitment of the Executive Committee to agree to these
first steps as the means to strengthen the connection between
the work being done through the Nearshore Partnership and
Salmon Recovery.
General Investigation
- Scientific collaboration: The Nearshore Partnership
and the Recovery Council are each advised by a scientific
body, the Nearshore Science Team (NST) and Technical Recovery
Team (TRT), respectively. These groups are developing science
that is meant to assist implementation at the local and
regional scale. It is critical that our collaborative processes
provide consistent guidance and support to local groups
and across the region.
- In order to bring the findings of the Nearshore Partnership
into the implementation structure of salmon recovery,
the TRT needs to understand the approach being taken
and concur with basic scientific principles being used.
There is a critical opportunity to share experience,
develop consistent scientific guidance and gain from
lessons-learned between the two groups that is currently
being missed. If issues arise where the groups are operating
from different principles, the two groups should work
together to address these issues or raise them to the
policy groups before conflicting information is provided
regionally or locally.
- To this end, the NST has invited the TRT to their
August meeting. The Recovery Council is encouraged by
this invitation and looks forward to collaborating.
The Recovery Council requests that these two groups
establish a work program by the end of summer 2007.
- Political collaboration: The Recovery Council
depends on the local decision-makers to implement priorities
and strategies. This has resulted in a strong organizational
structure that links together regional and local entities
for recovering the Puget Sound salmon. Our success is based
on ensuring that the local and regional priorities inform
each other. As mentioned above, there is currently a gap
in the Salmon Recovery Plan in terms of a comprehensive
way to direct restoration and protection of the nearshore
for recovery of the Puget Sound salmon. The work being done
by the Nearshore Partnership helps fill this gap. As the
information develops and is ready for local input, the Recovery
Council understands that there are many stakeholder groups
with which the Nearshore Partnership is going to coordinate
and that its timeline allows for significant contributions
to the Action Agenda. The Recovery Council also understands
that the Nearshore Partnership is in the process of developing
an engagement, or outreach, process for talking with stakeholders
for the next phase of work.
- The Recovery Council believes that the organizational
structure established by the Shared Strategy process
can strengthen the engagement process by the Nearshore
Partnership.
- The Recovery Council requests that the Recovery Council
and Watershed Leads, in respect of existing local efforts,
be included in the design of this process at a point
in time that allows them to have meaningful input.
Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program (ESRP)
There is an opportunity to align the efforts of the Nearshore
Partnership through ESRP with the work being done by the Watershed
Leads/Lead Entity to develop annual work plans for recovery.
This opportunity exists in terms of both the actual funding
distributed through the ESRP and the project review process.
- Project Funding: The Recovery Council wishes to
maximize the number and quality of projects at the local
level and to support the Nearshore Partnership in their
administration of ESRP. To enable the Recovery Council to
support the work of the Nearshore Partnership and the watershed
groups, it is critical to have a list of which projects
are being reviewed for funding under ESRP. This information
allows the Recovery Council to enhance the ability of the
Watershed Leads, Lead Entities, and project sponsors to
coordinate project submissions to their multiple funding
sources, including the Partnership Salmon Funds for $42
million and the SRFB Round 8 funds.
- The Recovery Council acknowledges that this coordination
has already begun and is appreciative of how it has
helped provide more predictability to the process.
- The Recovery Council requests that this coordination
continues annually.
- Project Review Process: The Recovery Council understands
that the ESRP process is intended to both fund important
nearshore projects in the short-term and to provide information
for nearshore restoration in the long-term. Understanding
how funding is being reviewed and reassessed for nearshore
projects helps the Recovery Council provide consistent guidance
to the Watershed Leads, Lead Entities, and project sponsors
in order to improve project applications for ESRP and develop
a funding strategy for projects that will not receive funding
through ESRP. This guidance will, in turn, help more nearshore
projects be funded and further advance the long-term evaluation
of nearshore projects.
- The Recovery Council asks the Nearshore Partnership
to communicate its policy objectives for the ESRP funding
program and how funding decisions emphasize those objectives.
Understanding the Nearshore Partnership’s objectives
and funding decisions for ESRP will help improve planning
for nearshore projects.
- In the future, the Recovery Council will seek an opportunity
to weigh in on the Nearshore Partnership’s policy
objectives and how these objectives are being emphasized,
both in the ranking criteria and the project portfolio
criteria.
The Recovery Council would appreciate on-going coordination
and a response regarding the feasibility and timeline of these
requests.
Wall notes:
- Better timing/scheduling during project review to accommodate
participation
- Need for consistency on regional goals ~ nearshore &
salmon; should look at geographic scales other than watersheds.
- Transition from salmon recovery in nearshore to nearshore
ecosystem recovery to benefit species, including salmon
- Should be easy to facilitate a more coordinated approach
- May be more connections between chapter leads and nearshore
participants ~ let’s not limit that.
- Let’s not create work at the restoration level
~ don’t “make work” such that it undermines
ability to get projects done
- Is current overlap sufficient, or do we need a separate
structure/way to coordinate? Is recovery council another
stakeholder?
- Is Recovery Council a policy conduit to the SRFB? Now
that the block grant goes to the PS Partnership?
- What needs to be done in the communication process to
improve transparency of ESRP goals/process?
Action Item: A small subgroup to craft a response
(from Co-Leads) PMT, D. Hyde, Doug O. Jim Fox, PS Partnership
(Doug Myers) with electronic review ASAP. May be others
with whom we coordinate.
Peer Review Proposal - NST
The Nearshore Science Team is proposing that the Puget Sound
Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP) formally
institute both internal (research and product review) and
external (program review) peer review to see the Project through
the completion of the General Investigation. Certain aspects
of the PSNERP governance already receive strict, formalized
peer review (e.g., USACE competitive contractor selection)
or presently have reasonable informal peer review process
(e.g., Valued Ecosystem Component white paper review). The
Project’s strategic science and overall program structure
and direction, especially in the General Investigation development,
has had no peer review. This peer review proposal statement
addresses all levels of peer review, but is particularly focused
at the Project’s needs at the programmatic level.
The integrity and effectiveness of scientific investigations
associated with PSNERP require peer review, preferably in
the multiple programmatic levels described above. The NST
recommends that PSNERP establish peer review at three levels,
with particular emphasis on Program Review:
1) Research Proposal Ranking and Selection
Any decision based on scientific and technical merit, such
as evaluation of research proposals, should be based in
peer review. Through peer review, the difficult decisions
about research funding allocation and dissemination of results
can be objectively based on scientific validity, originality,
and importance.
2) Technical Report and other Product Review
The second internal need for formalized peer review is to
ensure the scientific credibility of PSNERP products, such
as guidance documents, technical reports and data/metadata.
Optimally, peer review is characterized by:
a) Effectiveness – an effective process for peer
review is essential to promote academic integrity
b) Competence – reviewers should have the expertise
to provide an authoritative review.
c) Usefulness – procedures for reviews will be followed
in a timely fashion and those reviewers’ comments
will be constructive.
d) Security – haves confidence that the peer review
process minimizes the risks of bias and those reviewers
will not take unfair advantage of privileged information.
Research Proposal and Product Review (Item 1 & 2 above)
would provide the periodic review required for proposals
and products from and to PSNER. These would be based on
an internal review process conducted by anonymous, independent
experts not associated with the program. To prevent real
or perceived conflict of interest, reviewers would be limited
to individuals not related to any on-going PSNER research
or other direct or contractual activities. The reviewers
and their disciplines would vary depending upon the topic
of the review, but their expertise should overlap extensively
with the proposal or product topic. Review of PSNER products
(e.g., reports, manuscripts, datasets) would typically be
based on mail/e-mail exchanges. Review participants would
be volunteers (as is often the case for proposal and manuscript
review) or be compensated on a review-by-review basis.
3) Scientific Strategy and Direction
Peer review is also a critically important aspect of program
guidance, contributing to pivotal decisions and advising
on strategic directions. Such guidance typically involves
a body (formal committee or panel) of experts from outside
the region, who are completely disassociated with the program,
but familiar with the ecosystems and scientific concepts
required to address the regional issues. Such peer review
can serve internal direction in 1) an advisory role or can
2) provide critical review of program progress and performance.
In addition, these roles may be exercised internally (operating
as an explicit component of the organizational structure)
or externally (operating outside of the organizational structure,
reporting to an overseeing or independent body). There are
some significant differences in the internal advisory vs.
external review roles.
Strategic Science Review would involve a standing panel
or committee of nationally recognized technical experts
that would be incorporated at the early stages of the PSNER.
These experts would be incorporated at the overall program,
particularly at critical stages in formulation and implementation
of science initiatives. Preferably the composition would
be multidisciplinary, including at least the following scientific
disciplines: coastal physical oceanography or wetland hydrology;
geomorphology or sedimentology; coastal systems ecology;
restoration engineering; fish and wildlife ecology; information
management; and socioeconomics. Members would be drawn from
both the region and the nation as available; as in the other
peer review, strict conflict of interest rules would also
apply to Strategic Science Review panelists. They would
meet periodically (e.g., at least twice per year to review
both status of the PSNER science (e.g., a PSNER “all-scientists”
meeting) but also at important junctures in evolution of
the Science Plan. The panel would interact principally with
the PSNER technical staff and participants report their
assessments and recommendations directly to the PSNER steering
and management levels. Participants would be compensated
on an on-going contractual basis.
4) Programmatic Structure
Designing the structure of a complex restoration program,
such as the PSNERP General Investigation, is a difficult
task with seemingly endless alternatives to integrating
and balancing science, management, governance and evaluation.
Peer review, often associated with comparable tasks under
Scientific Strategy and Direction, can also be utilized
to help advise on and shape program structure to maximize
the implementation of “best science.”
Program Review would require a less frequent (e.g., annual?)
assessment than the Strategic Science Review, but would
address the broader goals and purposes of the PSNER on the
scale of a NRC review, but with continued involvement rather
than a one-timer review. It would be composed of both national
(or international?) and regional experts, including representatives
of scientific and technical expertise, social scientists
and stakeholders. Optimally, members would have some experience
in large, ecosystem-scale restoration in other regions (as
might be represented by key individuals involved in the
case study programs reviewed in Van Cleve et al 2003). While
their background should be science based, their perspective
should be programmatic, e.g., to ensure that science is
most effectively deployed and managed toward the goals of
the PSNER. They would report principally to the PSNERP Executive
Committee. Participates would be compensated on an on-going
contractual basis for each review period.
Wall notes:
NST motivation ~ credibility beyond region/project –
formalize peer review.
- Additionally, COE has its own requirement for peer
review for feasibility report. May be a changing environment
around this request, but NST proposal may not exactly
line up with COE requirement.
- Purely advisory review to PMT, etc. vs. reporting to
Exec. Comm. on review (majority and minority reports)
- Not a standing group, Strategic Science Review ~ agency/academic
scientists from disciplines you’d like to see represented
in your program (e.g. tidal hydrologists)
- Program Review – someone who has been involved
in structuring a major restoration program (may not be
practicing scientists) Policy folks, scientists who’ve
been involved at policy/program level
- How to balance quality and cost?
- Is there a role for NST in this – perhaps in
a slightly different role? Role of the NST may be different
during implementation
- Utilize existing nearshore participants and external
folks in choosing peer reviewers.
- Urgency around strategic science review ~ developed
for our program and its specific activities
- Is there a way to utilize PS Partnership scientific
review?
- Let us forward our peer review plan to PS Partnership
as a model
- WA Academy of Sciences has been empowered to empanel
a group to review salmon recovery projects, etc. Utilize
them?
- Other major programs display different levels of scientific
coordination
- Don’t wait for WA Academy of Science –
nominate national reps now.
Action Items
#1 Formalize – white paper Fred Goetz/Si Simenstad
draft a white paper for September meeting with Dick Ecker/Rob
Koeppen.
#2 PMT/NST design implement for October Steering Committee
meeting (operational by 2008)
#3 COE/PMT jointly design, meet both needs, report back
at the October meeting
#4 Cost estimates/ financial considerations
Debby Hyde can provide $
Recreation and Conservation Office Project Review
– Jim Fox
Jim Fox, from the Recreation and Conservation Office attended
the Steering Committee. Jim presented the following information
and was requesting Nearshore Partnership Implementation Team’s
review and coordination and Executive Committee endorsement
of a project list.
The 2007-09 Capital Budget under ESHB1092 SRFB Puget Sound
Appropriation for the IAC (now Recreation and Conservation
Office) is as follows:
NEW SECTION. Sec. 3145. FOR THE INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE FOR
OUTDOOR RECREATION - Puget Sound Restoration and Acquisition
(08-4-004)
The appropriation in this section is subject to the following
conditions and limitations:
(1) Prior to awarding project grants, the salmon recovery
funding board shall provide the Puget Sound partnership,
as created by chapter . . . (Engrossed Substitute Senate
Bill No. 5372), Laws of 2007, the opportunity to review
and provide comment on proposed projects and activities
recommended for funding. This review shall be consistent
with the funding schedule for the program.
(2) All estuary projects shall be submitted for review and
coordination with the executive committee of the Puget Sound
nearshore partnership between the department of fish and
wildlife and the United States army corps of engineers.
Appropriation: |
|
State Building Construction Account--State |
$ 40,750,000 |
Prior Biennia (Expenditures) |
$ 0 |
Future Biennia (Projected Costs) |
$ 160,000,000 |
TOTAL |
$ 200,750,000 |
The objective of the Implementation Team evaluation is
to provide feedback to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board
(SRFB) Review Panel on all Puget Sound nearshore projects
submitted in the 2007 grant cycle. There are two sources
of funding the SRFB will be allocating at its December 13-14,
2007, meeting for the 2007 grant cycle:
- The “traditional” SRFB funding (state and
federal). The Board has set aside $25 million statewide
for the 2007 grant round, with 45% ($11.25 million) earmarked
for Puget Sound. The Board has asked the IT to assist
its Review Panel in evaluating Puget Sound nearshore projects.
- The new Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration (PSAR)
funds ($40.75 million) to be distributed only to Puget
Sound projects. A proviso in the Capital Budget (attached)
requires that all “estuary” PSAR projects
be submitted to the Executive Committee of the Puget Sound
Nearshore Partnership for review.
At its December 13-14, 2007, meeting, the SRFB will award
grants to projects seeking both “traditional”
and PSAR funds. However, in a process agreed to by the SRFB
and Shared Strategy for PSAR fund allocation, design-only
grants will have an expedited review process. These projects
will be submitted to the Nearshore Partnership as required
in the budget proviso, but there may not be time for the
IT to evaluate them prior to the SRFB’s September
27-28 meeting where the design-only grants will be awarded.
Work Plan Outline
1) August 31 –lists of projects from Puget Sound lead
entities seeking both “traditional” and PSAR SRFB
funds are due to Shared Strategy. SRFB staff will obtain a
list of those projects seeking PSAR grant funding for nearshore
design-only projects. The list will be immediately submitted
to the PSNP Project Management Team with a cover letter requesting
comments.
2) September 17 – Final project applications due to
SRFB.
3) September 25 – A CD with all Puget Sound nearshore
projects will be distributed to IT members to begin the review
process. The IT should specifically identify those projects
that are not technically sound, or inconsistent with the evaluation
tools. The IT reviewers will use the following documents guide
the evaluation of projects:
a) ESRP Project Ranking Criteria
b) Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan: Regional Nearshore
and Marine Aspects of Salmon Recovery in Puget Sound
c) Coastal Habitats in Puget Sound: A Research Plan in Support
of the Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership
d) Guidance for Evaluating SRFB Nearshore Assessments
e) Guidance for Protection and Restoration of the Nearshore
Ecosystems of the Puget Sound
4) September 26-27 – the SRFB will award grants to
design-only PSAR projects. Comments from the Nearshore Partnership
will be welcomed if feasible on such a short timeline.
5) October 12 – IT evaluation forms are to be submitted
back to the SRFB for inclusion and consideration in the SRFB
Review Panel evaluation process.
6) October 29 – The Review Panel’s findings will
be sent to lead entities and applicants. This will include
the IT evaluation forms for each nearshore project evaluated.
7) December 13-14 – the SRFB will award grants to projects
seeking both “traditional” and PSAR funds.
Wall Notes:
Habitat Work Schedule Presentation – Erik
Neatherlin
Erik Neatherlin, WDFW, gave a presentation on the Habitat
Work Schedule (HWS). The HWS is a web-based system to track
the implementation of habitat restoration actions from concepts,
to proposals, on-going, and complete. HWS also links potential
funding sources with priority salmon habitat restoration projects.
This system will help Lead Entities meet their legislative
requirement of Habitat Lists, Habitat Work Schedules, and
Critical Pathways. USFWS Federal funds were used to fund this
project.
Goals and Benefits
Identify priority actions/projects (track implementation)
- What are the priority projects?
- How many of the projects have been implemented:
- What still needs to be done?
- How do projects and actions link to the strategy and
plan?
Centralize access to salmon habitat projects
- Promote public access, visibility, and transparency
- History of projects; proposed, ongoing, completed
Increase Opportunities for Funding
- Which projects are priorities, who and how can the
work be funded?
Create a system that meets user needs
Wall Notes
- What (if anything) does the Steering Committee want
to do to track/coordinate/other the HWS project?
- $900/yr for full user login
- What are our expectations for coordination of existing
systems and/or users? (e.g. MRCS, RFEGS…)
Action Item: Revisit at future meetings
Project Managers Reports
Federal Project Manger – Bernie Hargrave
The Corps signed the Puget Sound Federal Caucus Memorandum
of Understanding on August 10 with a formal signing ceremony
scheduled for August 20. Lisa Bellefond invited the Project
Managers to meet The Nature Conservancy’s new federal
programs manager in their office.
New Contractor: The Project Managers have negotiated the first
delivery order with Anchor for “Data Sources, Development
and Derivatives,” which are the preparatory tasks are
leading to change analysis (the second contract delivery order).
The first delivery order basic amount is $410K with an additional
$240K in unawarded options. The basic tasks will take four
months to complete.
Typology Data Sets: Terry Wright alerted the Project
Managers that SSHIAP has recently completed a two year effort
to characterize Puget Sound (and outer Washington coast) shorelines
with a geological typology. Jen Burke’s (UW) first cursory
review shows SSHIAP’s data sets to be similar to what
we would have done with Anchor’s optional tasks. We
will be meeting with SSHIAP later this month to clarify how
we may work closer together. We hope that with some modifications
we can use their typological data sets for change analysis.
Future Without Project (FWOP): The FWOP researchers
have begun the expert panel interviews and have completed
the Communications and Agency teams. Six more panels will
be interviewed next week and three the following week. Once
all of the interviews are complete, the FWOP team will meet
again with the Communications and Agency teams to summarize
their results. “Storylines” for the six future
scenarios will be drafted by mid-September. Bernie hopes to
use the October Steering Committee meeting to bring a Corps
expert and a graphic artist to work with us. They have effective
graphical techniques to help visualize future scenarios. Bernie
would like for the Nearshore Partnership to pilot the tool
and evaluate whether it could be used with Puget Sound stakeholder
groups.
Wall Notes:
Set aside the Thursday after our October 18 meeting to
work on “storyboarding” with an artist
Bernie to come up with work plan for “storyboarding”
for review in time for September meeting
Action Items:
1. Next meeting - discussion of implications of going over
cost share agreement and report about what has taken us
over budget.
2. Reiterate principles and boundary recommendation to the
PS Partnership
Local Project Manager’s Report –
Curtis Tanner
Change Analysis
WRIA 9 Pilot - Final report complete, including appendices;
not planning formal publication as Nearshore Partnership
technical report, post as CommEn Space report on website?
Sound-wide - Invited by Corps to participate in scoping
and negotiations w/ Anchor; Satisfied with outcome, feel
that relationship between PSNERP and Contractor is “on
track”
Monitoring and Adaptive Management –
Project monitoring guidelines - Draft report anticipated
August 15, Monitoring Workgroup scheduled to meet w/ Ron
Thom on August 17 to discuss; Final report due August 31
(per contract, may need to reassess following receipt of
draft report and Monitoring Workgroup review)
Technical Reports –New agreement w/ Sea Grant for
editing, layout, and publication services
VEC White Papers - six completely done; four nearly complete
– waiting for final author feedback; four page summaries
in progress (50%); Typology Report - First technical edit
completed, back to author
Meeting w/ Corps of Engineers Louisiana Coastal Area
Project Manager
Tim, Bernie, Curtis met over two-day period w/ Troy Constance
who’s “been thru all this before.” Discussed
Corps’ policies and procedures for Ecosystem Restoration
Authorities this conversation included Mona Thomason. Toured
Seahurst site; met w/ Nisqually NWR Manager, toured Refuge;
toured Taylor Shellfish; showed Cajun guy that we know what
to do w/ oysters – very successful; toured Skokomish
Restoration site. Useful information exchange with other
Corps District
Tom Leschine and Curtis had teleconference w/ USGS CHiPS
Social Scientists –
Encouraged their participation in Shoreline Armoring Workgroup.
Discussed upcoming stakeholder involvement process. Holly,
Natalie, and Lynn expressed their interest and willingness
to help scope/design this process. Discussed “lessons
learned” from DEFS (aka Capitol Lake) social science
studies. Explored their potential work on “template”
for inclusion of social science in restoration planning.
Coastal Zone 2007 –
Margen Carlson and Curtis Tanner gave presentations on Deschutes
Estuary Feasibility study; Curtis: Part 1, Physical and
biological studies; Margen: Part 2, Social and economic
studies. (Presentations could be repeated for PSNERP if
desired)
FY 2007-09 WDFW allotments –
Toni Lick and Curtis working w/ Tim to develop spending
strategy for biennial allotment.
Nisqually funding strategy –
Tim, Paul, and Curtis working w/ Nisqually NWR to develop
strategy for acquiring funds necessary to fully implement
Nisqually restoration project (~$15M)
Funds necessary to support 2007 engineering design/environmental
compliance “in-hand”, and task underway; Funds
necessary to support 2008 “interior” construction
activities (cross levee construction, water control structure
installation) secured; Funds necessary to support 2009 dike
removal needed, potential sources ID’d.
Section 22 “Planning Assistance to States”
grant –
Corps and WDFW working on §22 grant for Pilot Nearshore
Restoration Manual (to focus on shoreline armoring alternatives)
“in-progress”
National level workshop and Pilot manual with $100K total
project cost, 50/50 cost share.
Nearshore Science Team – Fred Goetz
Si Simenstad provided synopsis of current Change Analysis/SNAR
working groups approach to SNAR; although there will be
time in near future to alter datasets, etc., the approach
as presented in WRIA9 pilot SNAR probably cannot change
too dramatically in scaling up to Sound-wide; this is time
for critical NST feed-back
Current schedule has Miriam presenting WRIA9 CAàSNAR
Approach by August 1st. Strong concern that this is a key
NST product that will not have enough time for internal
review before it is released to external review. Possible
solution is to limit exactly what is released to USACE vertical
team or adjust schedule.
New schematic of PSNERP Change Analysis è Strategic
Needs Assessment “concept map” shows an explicit
role for stakeholder involvement at multiple points of input
and feedback through planning process.
SNAR documents in as quantitative approach as possible
the “known universe of impairment” as an intact/impaired
mosaic based on Shoreline (SPU) and Estuarine Process Units
(EPU).
Suggestion on SNAR presentation to the public: Instead of
presenting a ‘repairing the past’ approach it
might be better to present a ‘fixing the future’
approach. However, to get GI product funded, dire health
of Puget Sound must be communicated.
Four levels (tiers) of change organize change and SNAR:
(1) shoreform transition, (2) shoreline modifications, (3)
adjacent buffer modifications, and (4) drainage (watershed/catchment)
area modifications. When expressed as ranked metrics (1-9),
they can also be expressed in one hierarchical, combined
metric (i.e., X.XXX, where X = each of the four tier ranks).
Ultimate discussion resulted in recommendation to not use
combined assessment ranking initially, or at all. This method
of organizing and ranking change provides a relatively simple,
and easily understood way of displaying impairment at the
four tiers in GIS (i.e., lines and polygons of colors corresponding
of 1-9 classes of impairment).
Impairment metrics are organized by non-metric multi-dimensional
scaling (ordination) technique into nine levels of impairment
based on loss in ecosystem functions, goods and services
(based on Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [MEA]) for shoreform
transition and a variety of metrics (e.g., extent of shoreline
armoring, overwater structures, land cover, etc.) for shoreline,
buffer and drainage unit modification.
If the NST accepts the MEA as a feasible tool of assessing
impairment, it offers a feasible mechanism (template) for
an initial un-weighted (no value attributed to any one MEA
metric) assessment based on science and then stakeholder
input in the form of weighting of MEA metrics or classes
of metrics? Need to evaluate this assessment for use in
GI?
Miles introduced the concept of also incorporating PU adjacency
into the shoreline transition metric; but, there is a need
for a continued discussion on adjacency regarding resolution
and how it will be used in CA.
Miles also offered 11 points of clarification including
there is a numeric problem (adding shoreforms by MEA indicates
magnitude), limited no. of typologies, limited no. of impairments,
table is not a matrix (might be assumed to be so, and should
be able to convert it to one).
Si emphasized that this is a screening process and is not
the ultimate assessment of technical as well as social,
economic and political feasibility. We need to start discussing/deciding
if it is reasonable and feasible to draw stakeholders early
in process: Is it important to provide template for stakeholder
involvement at multiple stages throughout portfolio development
process.
Tom Leschine raised concerns about stage of stakeholder
involvement: it might not be appropriate to bring them in
to weight MEA categories because they will want to know
how it got to that point; stakeholder concerns might not
be reflected in MEA; stakeholders might have a difficult
understanding the impairment rankings—one solution
could be to use pictures of what each number looks like
in reality.
Shoreline Armoring Workgroup (Guy) –
Guy presented SAW update: goal, current limitations, objectives
(two phases), initial tasks, timeline, and estimated budget
requirements. PMT feedback included that nothing presented
is outside of GI scope. SAW will prepare prospectus for
SC meeting (Tim Quinn will present), including fleshing
out workshops, topics of invited papers, order of workshop,
etc. Next SAW meeting, conference call on 8/2
Puget Sound Sub-Basin (Jan) –
Jan Newton sought NST reaction to map of Puget Sound sub-basins
recommended from PSNP, draft criteria for boundaries, and
input to leadership council meeting. PSAMP reaction to map
was positive: sub-divisions within each of seven sub-basins
is inherent, but always will be some debate based on scientific
focus on where to draw lines (e.g., biology vs. geology).
NST reviewed recommended criteria to align boundaries with
natural breaks in nearshore ecosystems and processes:
- shoreline geomorphology and other nearshore structures
(e.g., estuarine deltas)
- basin water residence, turnover and mixing
- freshwater inflow and watersheds
- biotic assemblage community indicators
- resident organism population distributions
- also suggested: wind-wave regime and use of nearshore
(aquaculture, recreational)
Jan will transmit these points to PSP Leadership Council
on part of NST/PSNP: there is not one map that can serve
all purposes; the lines are good for terrestrial purposes,
but don’t highlight nearshore geomorphology and bathymetry;
regional scale is too coarse to show drift cells; political
jurisdiction overlap will complicate scientific basis for
decision-making.
Miscellaneous –
TRT (Mary Ruckelshaus, Bill Graeber) invited to August 22
(morning) NST meeting: NST discussed approach to explore
NST-TRT working relationship, which would involve posing
questions for TRT, such as “What are the perceived
deficiencies in nearshore recovery actions? What are the
expectations of the PSNERP by the TRT? Is there specific
data that TRT expects NST to generate? And, What are the
TRT’s perceived nearshore restoration rules?”
Si will contact Mary to develop an agenda along these lines.
Executive Committee DeBrief
Wall Notes:
Purposes
- Status of GI
- Endorsement of ESRP Process
- Interaction with PS Partnership
- Completion of GI & after
- Participation of execs was improved
- Got ESRP endorsement
- PS Partnership discussion – few answers
- GI: Science is good; find ways to help “us”
and tell us; prioritize by action agenda
- Continue outreach to locals ~ help them understand
value of GI and other nearshore activities
- Ease up on science agenda items
- Eliminate redundancy and listen to the chair
- Too much on the agenda and in the presentations
- Support the project managers
- Meaningful opportunities for execs to learn
- Offer tailored workshops/interactions for some executives
- “Canvas” executives to understand their
communication & learning needs
- Continue to include meaningful Steering Committee involvement
in agendas.
- Dry run at Steering Committee meeting before executive
meeting
- Distinguish executives from other committee members
- Formalize “presenters table”
- Next agenda should start with items identified at last
executive meeting
- Have questions for executives identified on month beforehand
to facilitate prepping executives. (Necessitates roughing
in agenda three months before)
- Steering Committee ground rules RE: Behavior &
expectations.
Next Meeting: September 19, 2007
US Army Corps of Engineers – Edsel Room
4735 East Marginal Way South
Seattle, Washington 98134-2329
Topics: Response to the Recovery Council Letter -
A small subgroup to craft a response (from Co-Leads) PMT,
D. Hyde, Doug O. Jim Fox, PS Partnership (Doug Myers) with
electronic review ASAP. May be others with whom we coordinate.
Fred Goetz/Si Simenstad draft a Peer Review White Paper for
September meeting with Dick Ecker/Rob Koeppen.
Discussion of implications of going over Cost Share Agreement
and report about what has taken us over budget.
Reiterate principles and Boundary Recommendation (Sub Basin)
to the PS Partnership
From the South
I-5 North – Merge onto WA-599 Exit 156 toward Tukwila/W.
Marginal Way which becomes Highway 99 (East Marginal Way).
From the North
I-5 South – Take Exit 165A toward James Street. Stay
straight to go onto 6th Avenue, turn right onto Columbia Street.
Merge onto WA-99 (East Marginal Way) via the ramp on the left.
|
