< Back to Meeting Archives

Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership
Steering Committee Meeting
January 19, 2005

ATTENDEES:

Curtis Tanner, Paula Del Giudice, Jacques White, Debby Hyde, Michael Rylko, Scott Redman, Rob Koeppen, Doug Osterman, Bernie Hargrave, Tim Smith, Debbie Rick.

Bernie provided some edits to the December Notes. Notes approved.

Additional agenda items:

“State of the Sound”
NOAA partnership for demonstration/early action projects
Revise Shared Strategy Summit draft nearshore platform statement

Report from the Federal Project Manager – Bernie Hargrave

Bernie reported that the FY ’05 allocation was $525,000 and that after “Savings and Slippage,” $418,000 would be available from the Corps. Bernie has bid on reprogramming extra dollars toward early progress of the work plan; however this has been unsuccessful.

The Nearshore Science Team has requested that the Steering Committee hire a social scientist. This will be the topic for discussion at the Project Management Team meeting on January 31.

The COE Plan Formulator (Beth Coffey) will be a member of the Implementation Team. However, Beth is currently serving in Iraq and will come on board after some vacation time. PSNERP will have fifty percent of Beth’s time. Scott recommended that Bernie Hargrave be the PSNERP’s representative and lead on PSAW projects, and Beth Coffey be our PSNERP’s representative and lead on the Corps’ General Investigation.

Tim Smith noted that after coming back from the Everglades meeting, there is not a set approach for accomplishing General Investigation Study Project Implementation Reports, Interim Project Reports, Project Feasibility Reports, etc. We should sit down and think about how we move from Stage III to project implementation – there are many different paths. Everglades is putting all their effort into the project feasibility studies for specific projects.

Report from Nearshore Science Team Co-Lead – Doug Myers

Doug Myers was not at the science team meeting, however he reported that a staff graduate student will be hired to work on the project.

There appears to be some confusion surrounding Early Action Projects, Demonstration Projects and what the difference is between these categories of projects The NST is working on priority research questions that could be addressed through Early Action and/or Demonstration projects.

Kurt Fresh will be at the next Steering Committee meeting to present the NST’s preliminary list of priority of research questions. These research questions are different than the Research Plan, which describes broad areas of research. Specific research questions developed by the NST may be included as a “living” appendix to the Research Plan.

At the request of the federal project manager, NST meetings have included discussions about future modeling needs. Preliminary categories of modeling needs discussed have included:

  • Project specific – e.g. Capitol Lake
  • System level – e.g. PRISM
  • Models to improve our understanding

System level nearshore model will have to be developed to determine outcome of large-scale restoration actions

  • NST has continued discussion of peer review. Initial needs include review of three “in progress” technical documents and is estimated to cost the program $3500 - $5000. External peer review is suggested for the Research Plan, Conceptual Model Narrative Report, and the Nearshore Typology. A schedule for editing, review, and publication of these documents has been developed. These documents will not be complete in time for distribution at the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Research Conference, but will be complete June/July of this year. The following Steering Committee members were identified as points of contact to coordinate SC review and comment of these documents, to be completed concurrently with external peer review:
    • Rob Koeppen – Research Plan Comments
    • Michael Rylko – Conceptual Model
    • Scott Redman - Typology

Progress on scoping Change Analysis was reported, including a discussion of the use of a transition matrix approach to document change.

An agenda item for future PMT was identified as the relevance/utility of completed and on-going nearshore assessment efforts to the PSNERP Work Plan. A Workgroup to follow up on this issue was identified (Scott, Debby, Jacques, Curtis).

Regional Nearshore and Marine Chapter for the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan –

Scott Redman Scott reported that the Shared Strategy nearshore summary is focused on the next ten years. Therefore, the focus for restoration is on those actions that are both known to be effective and possible in the near term. Our comments on the draft platform statement were provided to Shared Strategy, and resulted in somewhat stronger language supporting the need for restoration of nearshore and marine ecosystems.

Comments from the Technical Review Team (TRT) to the Puget Sound Action Team on the draft Regional Nearshore Recovery Chapter included the need for a stronger link between hypotheses and strategies, and specific actions, which result. They also commented that the chapter was “juvenile Chinook-centric” and did not sufficiently address Hood Canal summer chum needs/use. Kurt Fresh will help the Puget Sound Action Team with revision of the chapter.

Curtis commented that it was his opinion that one of the key strengths of the PSAT draft chapter is that identifies the fact nearshore serves regional needs, versus focus on natal waters/river mouths inherent in the local chapters.

Executive Committee Meeting Debrief – Tim Smith

Important Issues raised at the January 5, 2005 Executive Committee Meeting.

  • Branding
  • EAP vs. Demonstration
  • Valued Ecosystem Components
  • Work Plan
  • Funding Strategy

Update funding Strategy –

Tim Smith plans to meet with Brad Ack, Dan Evans, David Dicks and Shared Strategy representatives to discuss next steps in a more unified approach to funding requests. The big questions that remains: How do we relate to each other?

There is s need for a caucus or coalition to provide “external” support for Puget Sound restoration issues. Tim repeated earlier suggestions that we also would benefit from a federal “caucus” to highlight interagency cooperation. If PSNERP is indeed going to be responsible for those elements of the Puget Sound Action Team work plan relating to nearshore restoration, then it follows that the Corps should be on the Puget Sound Action Team; however Bernie reminded the PSNERP that for the Corps to have membership on the Puget Sound Action Team requires legislative action. Scott also said that US Geological Survey should have ad hoc membership as they are contributing a good portion to funding to play in the Nearshore.

The draft letter support endorsed by the Executive Committee outlining the range of federal and state programs and agencies that should be highlighted in support of nearshore issues will be sent out to the Executive and Steering Commitees, and the Nearshore Science Team members for their consideration. The request is for each agency/organization to use the letter as a template, modifying it as appropriate for their individual interests and positions, then send to appropriate state and federal legislators.

Work Plan – A schedule for revising the PSNERP Work Plan was agreed upon:

  • Review draft including updated task descriptions and timelines sent to Steering Committee members for review and comment at end of April.
  • Discussion, review, endorsement at May Steering Committee meeting.
  • Revised draft to Executive Committee end of May
  • Adoption by Executive Committee during June/July meeting (TBD)

Deb Rick will begin to work with Executive Committee members to schedule June/July meeting date.

Additional discussion regarding the Work Plan followed. There needs to be discussion at the PMT level to determine what an interim feasibility study would look like or be satisfactory to meet the PSNERP’s need and satisfy the Corps criteria. There needs to be a “Gut Check” about whether we are where we think we are – what are the options for how to get where we need to be.

The Work Plan needs to be laid out piece by piece on the Gantt Chart showing the budget, funding level, resources available and needed, etc. We are getting there as elements of the Work Plan become trackable. Work Plan with budget showing good, better, best scenario.

Phase II is articulated, however phase III is still very abstract.

The need for additional Work Groups was discussed. Suggestions included:

1) Implementation Team

2) How we relate to regulatory review/synthesis programs – Agencies will meet and PSNERP will be invited to share nearshore science.

3) Coalition building network of organizations outside of local/federal government

4) Funding and grants finance committee (propose and compete)

5) Phase III strategy (Jacques White, Debby Hyde, Curtis Tanner)

Tim advised that there is money coming PSNERP’s way to complete Work Plan tasks, and we need to be responsive. The meetings of the Steering Committees have become meetings where the committee identifies tasks, but no one can do the work.

Branding and Program Name – Curtis Tanner/Tim Smith

The recommendation sent to the Executive Committee regarding program logo and name was not endorsed.

Concerns raised by the Executive Committee included:

1. The Executive Committee suggested that the recommended Program name (Puget Sound Restoration Program) was too broad, therefore potentially promoting expectations that the scope of the Program will address all issues contributing to degradation of Puget Sound. We need to retain our focus on “nearshore.”

2. Concern that logo may resemble that of the Tulalip Tribes.

3. Need to adapt a Program tagline that is succinct and expands appropriately upon the Program name to further describe our identity.

After discussing these issues, the Steering Committee came to the following conclusions:

1. The Steering Committee unanimously endorsed a suggested Program name of Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership.

2. Adopted the original Orca artwork prepared for PSNERP by James Madison as our Program logo.

3. After considerable discussion, the Steering Committee settled upon “Restoring Our Ecosystem Health” for the Program tagline. It is our feeling that each word adds value to the Program identity, imparting a sense of shared responsibility and urgency of mission.

These recommendations will be forwarded to the Executive Committee for their endorsement.

Early Action and Demonstration Project Section Language

Revised Work Plan language describing Early Action and Demonstration projects, and their relationship to the program was reviewed and discussed. Topics included:

  • Under the revisions done to the Early Action and Demonstration Project Section of the Work Plan, all Early Action projects can also be Demonstration projects.

Is the primary purpose of a project to advance PSNERP, or was it developed external to PSNERP?

Reformulate Implementation Team

The role and potential composition of the Implementation Team was discussed. Suggested members included:

Michael Rylko
Scott Redman
Bernie Hargrave
Doug Myers

It was noted that the primary role of The Implementation Team (IT) is not coalition building. The IT should develop a list of project opportunities and identify potential projects to inform the GI. The IT should also work on identification of potential early action projects for inclusion in an interim feasibility report.

News

Paul Cereghino has been looking for State Funds to match NOAA restoration funds. On-going discussions with King County and PSAT are occurring. He thinks that The total amount available is around $200,000 - $300,000 (federal and match).