< Back to Meeting Archives

Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership
Steering Committee Meeting
February 16, 2005

Attendees:

Michael Rylko, Doug Myers, Tim Smith, Jacques White, Scott Redman, Rob Koeppen, Jon Nessler, Debby Hyde, Paula Del Guidice, Curtis Tanner

Review notes from January 19, 2005, Steering Committee Meeting
Meeting notes from last Steering Committee were reviewed. It was noted that Terry Wright expressed interest in participating in the Implementation Team.

Announcements

Several announcements were made:

Tim – WDFW will support an Implementation Team (IT) co-lead thru the end of the current state fiscal year. He has an agreement in principle with IAC to develop a nearshore module within PRISM to manage the PSNERP list of potential projects. The first task of the soon-to-be reformulated IT would be the population of this database. Steering Committee members with suggestions of individuals who could fill the role of IT co-lead should contact Curtis.

Tim – The Northwest Straits Commission and Marine Resource Committees were zeroed out in the President’s FY 2006 budget proposal. Individual SC members were encouraged to indicate their support for NWSC/MRCs as appropriate to elected officials. Tim will meet with Office of Financial Management staff to discuss the potential for developing a state base of financial support with which to leverage the Federal request.

Jacques – TNC has developed some informational products that it is using to support PSNERP/PSAW. He will provide copies to interested individuals upon request.

Scott – Senate Bill 5895 proposes to reform PSAT into the “Puget Sound Partnership”. SC members were encouraged to review this bill and provide comments as appropriate.

Curtis – The King Conservation District Board of Supervisors approved the PSNERP proposal for $60K in WRIA 9 forum funds. The funds will be used to advance our Change Analysis approach in WRIA 9. Curtis noted that KCD would soon face a review of their property tax assessment, the source of their operating funds. PSNERP should make take efforts to acknowledge the important contribution of KCD and WRIA 9 wherever possible.

Report from the Federal Project Manager

Bernie Hargrave was absent from the meeting. His time on the agenda was given to Jon Nessler to provide information on discussions he has had regarding the modeling needs of PSNERP, and how his organization ERDC (Engineering Research and Development Center) may contribute.

Jon apprised the group of his on-going work with the Louisiana Coastal Areas (LCA) and Upper Mississippi River Ecosystem Restoration Programs.

Jon and a senior modeler from ERDC, Jane Smith, recently met with the PMT. From these discussions, Jon suggests considering potential projects in three broad categories for the purpose of identifying modeling needs:

  • “No brainers” – where the conceptual model linking intended action and desired outcome appears to be conclusive and uncertainty low;
  • Demonstration projects – where reasonable confidence in the conceptual model exists, but uncertainty remains leading to a need for monitoring and evaluation of project outcome;
  • Study sites – significant gaps in the conceptual model and a high degree of risk and uncertainty point to the need for advanced modeling and focused research.

Jane and Jon are planning to revise proposals prepared last year at the request of the federal project manager, based on their improved understanding of Program needs, and our currently limited capacity for support of their work. One area of potential need is for “open shoreline” (beach) ecosystem types, and improved understanding of bulkhead impacts on nearshore processes.

  • Steering Committee comments included:
    • Questions about how these proposals support/advance specific Work Plan tasks:
    • Questions about the links/relationships between proposed numeric models and the NST conceptual model(s);
    • Need for modeling (conceptual and numeric) efforts to proceed to help us understand the “so what” relationships between nearshore processes and valued ecosystem components (VECs);
    • There is a need for a more comprehensive evaluation of program modeling needs before specific proposals can be fully evaluated.
  • Specific follow up tasks included:
    • on will provide copy of LCA Science Plan for distribution to PSNERP members to understand how modeling is being used;
    • Need to form cross program work group to focus on program modeling needs;
    • Request to NST to prioritize completion of Conceptual Model Narrative Report so Steering Committee can better understand “next steps”

Report from the Nearshore Science Team Co-lead

Update on recent NST activities:

The first day of recent NST meeting focused on resolving outstanding issues regarding Nearshore Typology. Hugh Shipman and the NST have agreed upon a document revision and review schedule.

  • Tim inquired about the status of other tasks related to typology
    • Nested planning units
    • Ecosystem process related to nearshore types
  • Doug replied that the document will explicitly address the second (processes) and lay the ground work for the first (planning units) NST has had extensive discussions regarding issue of peer review. The next set of Technical Reports (Research Plan, Conceptual Model, Typology) will undergo the peer review process. NST has formed Work Group (Gelfenbaum, Mumford, Simenstad) to develop proposal to Steering Committee for Program peer review process.
    • Rob Koeppen agreed to participate in this Peer Review Work Group as SC representative.
    • Tim reported that he has been involved in early discussions regarding the proposed Washington Academy of Science, indicating its potential utility to PSNERP as a potential source of reviewers

NST membership was discussed.

With the exception of Jim Brennan, all current NST members have reaffirmed their interest and ability to continue their participation. Some members, including Jan Newton and Randy Shuman, acknowledge that their participation will be limited by their other duties. The NST feels that Jan and Randy bring important expertise to the team, and that despite limitations on their ability to participate fully, they should remain active NST members.

The NST suggested that, in addition to the previously identified need for Social Science expertise, the Steering Committee should consider adding the following capacity to the team:

  • Contaminants expertise
  • Wildlife (especially marine bird) ecology
  • Lead Scientists – the NST believes that over-time, we should develop the capacity to support an individual at 51-100% to provide program science leadership

The Steering Committee discussed NST membership issues, including:

  • Brian Grantham as potential individual to mitigate for diminishing oceanographer expertise.
  • Jim Simonds (King Co.) as potential individual to provide contaminants expertise.
  • Jan Newton’s continued participation was identified as important to keep link with on-going Hood Canal research.
  • Possibility of moving Randy Shuman from NST to SC was discussed. Tim will follow up with Randy.
  • Tim will initiate discussion within WDFW to determine if a suitable individual with Wildlife Ecology expertise may be available to join the NST.

Presentation of Draft Research questions

Doug presented the “in progress” list of research questions being developed by the NST. SC response to this effort was favorable. The list is currently organized by management measure (i.e., questions related to bulkhead removal, dike breaching, etc.). It was agreed that this approach was consistent with the Steering Committee’s interest in identifying on-going projects for addressing priority research questions.

Future NST meetings will be devoted to further evaluating management measure specific research questions (March – bulkhead removal; April – dike breaching/removal).

Jacques noted that the list would need additional prioritization and need to distinguish between essential information needs and areas of “intellectual curiosity.” He reported that in recent discussion with CommEn Space staff, two areas of priority information needs were identified:

  • Spatially explicit diagrams of juvenile salmonids in nearshore ecosystems throughout Puget Sound
  • Detailed characterization of drift cells

NST Social Scientist

Using a list developed by the NST of social scientists potentially suited for providing this expertise, PMT has sent inquiries of interest to six individuals. Affirmative responses and resumes/CVs have been received from five of those solicited. Review of qualifications, interviews, and selection of a social scientist was discussed by the Steering Committee.

In the absence of our anticipated Corps Plan Formulator, it was suggested that we “borrow” an individual with this perspective. Linda Smith was suggested as an appropriate person to ask.

There was some concern raised that the NST may not be the most important/appropriate use of social science expertise. The Steering Committee acknowledged this concern, but decided to start by implementing the NSTs request for this added area of expertise.

The purpose and role of the individual was discussed. We decided that their purpose was not to “answer all of the questions raised by social science issues,” but rather to be a team builder – to recognize and assemble expertise when needed; to provide a window and guide to social sciences and what it can/should offer to our understanding of nearshore issues. Potential issue areas identified included:

  • Understanding and reconciling conflicts between user groups associated with individual VECs
  • How social (human) drivers effect nearshore processes
  • Resource economics and the quantification of ecosystem benefits

A Social Scientist Selection Work Group was identified:

  • Debby Hyde, Doug Myers, Andrea Copping, Michael Rylko, Curtis Tanner
  • Their first meeting will be focused on understanding and better defining the expectations, roles, and responsibilities of the NST social scientists. They are tasked with reporting back to the Steering Committee with their recommendation on March 16.

Branding and Program Name

The SC reviewed draft layouts of cover pages from Technical Reports 1-3 that were distributed and discussed. A hearty discussion of the distinction between “PSNERP” and the Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership followed. Some relevant conclusions

  • Documents should be cited as “Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Technical Document No. XX.” Where appropriate, an acknowledgement stating that the document was prepared in support of PSNERP should be included. It is possible that future Nearshore Partnership documents could be produced without a direct tie to PSNERP.
  • A list of partners (or logos) should appear on the inside back cover. Curtis will prepare a brief description of PSNERP, the Nearshore Partnership, and the relationship between them.
  • Some members noted an overemphasis of Sea Grant contribution to the publication of the documents. It is appropriate to show this in the acknowledgement, but otherwise needs to be “toned down.”

Valued Ecosystem Components Revisited

Progress on VECs was discussed, as was a re-visitation of their purpose in the program. Jon Nessler noted that other programs (i.e. LCA) use their own analog of VECs as an important part of their “report card.”

  • Possible uses of VECs in PSNERP include:
    • Explanation of project benefits.
    • As endpoints in alternative future scenario modeling exercises.
    • To evaluate the benefits of various project portfolio alternatives.
  • Jon suggested that VECs be viewed not as individual species/habitats, but in terms of maximizing appropriate (optimal) “blends” that are desirable and sustainable.
  • Jacques discussed TNC’s approach to identifying VECs.
  • The Steering Committee agreed to hold a work session dedicated to advancing our efforts to developing a VEC list

    March 2, 12:30 – 4:30 p.m.
    Location: Pierce County ESD
    Potential NST representatives: Simenstad, Logsdon, Mumford
    May need facilitator, will definitely need recorder

Report on Demonstration Projects

Funding from NOAA Restoration Center NW for Regional Priority Projects announced at last Steering Committee meeting has catalyzed important opportunities for PSNERP support of the Skokomish River estuary project.

Curtis reported on the joint NOAA/PSNERP (Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership?) decision to dedicate resources to the Shine estuary and Skokomish dike removal projects.

The Steering Committee provided consensus support on the proposal to devote Program resources to the Skokomish project:

  • $25K from USFWS for Early Action Project
  • $10K in in-kind support for monitoring plan development

The importance of addressing water quality issues in the monitoring plan was discussed. Sara Brace was identified as a potential resource person on this issue.

Next Steering Committee Meeting

The next Steering Committee meeting will be held March 16 at the Tukwila Community Center. Potential agenda items identified for that meeting include:

  • NST membership
  • VEC work session report
  • Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Research Conference – plans for PSNERP participation
  • GANTT chart update/review
  • Status of Technical Documents 1-6