< Back to Meeting Archives

Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Steering Committee
Meeting 18 July 2007

Attendance:

Andrea Copping, Dick Ecker, Bernie Hargrave, Debby Hyde, Doug Osterman, Mike Ramsey, Tim Smith, Jennifer Steger, Hayden Street, Curtis Tanner, Jacques White, Fred Goetz, Miriam Gilmer, Toni Lick, Theresa Mitchell, Margen Carlson, Paul Cereghino, and Debbie Rick

ESRP Final Funding Portfolio - Paul Cereghino

Paul presented a summary draft budget for the Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program as follows:

Notes for the above table:

• The function of the reserve would be to allow for changes in project scope, leverage federal funds in FY 2008-9, and funding of substantial projects in a 2008 RFP.
  
• The Implementation team divided up potential projects for additional fact finding. A range of changes has occurred over the course of investigation. Some uncertainties remain to be resolved.
  
• TPL withdrew its $1M Green Point acquisition while providing a commitment for $1M cash match for Pilot Point.
  
• WDFW has formally requested that USACE to participate in Stilliguamish design under its existing general investigation authority.
  
• A meeting with Nisqually Partners and WDFW discussion resulted in preference for a $2 million funding level. The goal was to assemble sufficient funds to initiate construction in 2008 and leverage federal FY 2009 funds to complete dike removal. A Second meeting is scheduled July 31 to better frame collaborative funding strategy among partners.
  
• The NOAA Partnership Portfolio: $350 in NOAA funds would be matched with $824k state match to fund 3 projects: Red Salmon Slough Revegetation, Dungeness Estuary Tidal Reconnection, Smugglers Slough Tidal Reconnection.
  
• Camp Kilworth should be skipped. They are holding a state earmark sufficient for acquisition and are trying to raise funds to transfer these resources to park improvements.
  
• Many minor changes are pending; many projects are anticipating short-term budget refinements that will clarify appropriate funding level.

Proposed portfolio.

Some savings could be found in cells highlight yellow pending final budgets. Awards where there still is substantial uncertainty are lit in orange

Click table to enlarge

The Steering Committee recommended that these points be made regarding the summary table:

* Match be identified
* Total project cost
* Phase of Project
* Major funders
* Region

• Show all earmarked projects separately ~ “off the top”
• Distinguish “hold back” $$ and “enhancement” $$
• Show executive a full project list (73) projects and their ranking.
• Jacques proposal is to hold back $650,000 for NOAA; $500,000 for Enhancements; remainder on projects further down list
• Draw line on table for funding limit
• Highlight rational for “pink” projects for executives
• Consider “enhancements” asterisk next to Hood Canal design

A future conversation should be “Current methods don’t allow us to fund bulkhead removal.”
Resolve policy issue of poorly written grant applications.

Executive Committee Agenda – Tim Smith

1) Are we on the right trajectory to implement large-scale restoration with the Corps and all other partners?

2) Is this the right time for this question? 6 months ~ a year

Project Manager’s Report #1

- Place for stakeholder involvement
- General approach to GI completion
- Introduce Anchor Environmental Project Manager for the IDIQ

Project Manager’s Report #2

- Completion of GI
- How we implement from study to construction
- How we coordinate with other folks in Puget Sound

ESRP first?

Critical agenda elements

- ESRP Approval
- Clarity with executives RE: PSP and Nearshore’s relationship to it
- Status of the GI (we have a path to and resources for completion)

Future Discussion: Peer review of Nearshore’s Science approach.

Contribution to Regional Programs

#1 How do we ensure the Nearshore’s process-based restoration approach is endorsed by Puget Sound Partnership (PSP)? We want this to happen because…

- Is implemented through various structures of PSP.
- Neashore scoping paper sets up our understanding of our relationship to PSP

#2 Nearshore Partnership is bigger and broader than a COE GI …How to utilize.

Do executives have advice about how to effectively discuss #1 & #2

- Have executive presenters address questions about Nearshore Partnership from perspective of their organization
- How can Nearshore Partnership support [PSP} regional initiatives and vice versa?
- discussion leaders?
- Scoping pre-read frames conversation

After much discussion about the Executive Committee agenda, the Steering Committee members asked Tim Smith to work it out and have it sent electronically on Thursday, July 19.

Federal Project Manager - Bernie Hargrave

Bernie talked about a couple of agreements with WDFW that the Corps has; 1) Stillaguamish, a design project, and 2) Port Susan. Bernie gave the Woodward Bay – sediment analysis as an example of a Section 22 agreement recently signed with Washington Department of Natural Resources. A Section 22 agreement allows a 50/50 cost-share between the sponsor and Corps. The sponsor's portion can be provided as 50% in-kind services and 50% cash; or some lesser portion of in-kind and greater portion cash. Money flows backwards to the federal grant cycles, that is, away from the state and to the feds. There are two other proposals to WDFW for a Marine Resources Committees and a Restoration Manual.

The following News Release was not sent as a read-ahead.

Senator Murray Secures Millions in Funding to Help Washington State Water Projects
Funding will go to habitat restoration, flood control, erosion mitigation, dredging and dam reconstruction - For Immediate Release: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 - (Washington, D.C.) –
Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) included millions in funding for Washington state waterways in an annual Senate spending bill. The funding will be used on habitat restoration, flood control, erosion mitigation, dredging and dam reconstruction projects. The funding was unveiled in the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations bill. Senator Murray is a senior member of the Energy and Water Subcommittee.

"These funds will help restore species' habitats, protect communities from flooding, dredge economically vital waterways, and improve the overall health and vitality of our state's waterways," said Senator Murray. "I am proud to support the vital work that the Army Corp of Engineers and local communities are undertaking to keep our environment clean, our citizens safe, and our economy moving. I am committed to protecting and preserving our state's water resources."

Washington state projects slated to receive funding include:

Elliot Bay Seawall Study- $750,000

This funding will go toward a study to document the problems and opportunities associated with the seawall and formulate potential plans for a solution. The 70-year-old Alaskan Way Seawall is failing and needs to be replaced. Tiny marine organisms, known as gribbles, are attacking and significantly weakening the wood timbers that make up the structural support of the seawall.

Puget Sound Nearshore – $1.5 million

These funds will support identification, design and construction of the best habitat restoration sites in the areas along the bank of the Puget Sound.

Walla Walla Watershed Restoration - $100,000

This funding will go toward addressing water supply and fish habitat issues in the Walla Walla Watershed. This project is supported by environmental, tribal, farming, and irrigation interests as well as The National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Natural Resource Conservation Service. The Walla Walla Watershed includes three main river systems the Walla Walla, Touchet, and Mill Creek.

Lake Washington Ship Canal Restoration - $400,000

These funds will support habitat and ecosystem restoration efforts in the Lake Washington Ship Canal watershed. This is critical to the region’s environmental and economic future.

Centralia Flood Control – $150,000

These funds will go toward finding a solution to flooding in the Chehalis River basin.
These funds will continue critical efforts to design and construct a flood control project that would help to stop closure of Interstate 5 during flood season.

Shoalwater Bay Shoreline - $1.5 million

These funds will fund a critical erosion protection project near Willapa Bay. Currently, shoreline erosion is progressing at an alarming rate at the Shoalwater Tribe’s reservation. This loss includes tidal areas that include shellfish beds, which provide a major portion of the tribe’s livelihood. The project Murray is funding will go toward a barrier to help mitigate the effects of erosion.

Lower Columbia River Ecosystem Restoration - $1.5 million

This funding will provide habitat restoration in the Lower Columbia River. This will benefit endangered salmon, steelhead, and various other species.

Mud Mountain Dam Construction – $15.3 million

These funds will be used to replace the 100-year old diversion dam on the White River near Seattle and will enable the Corps to meet ongoing fish passage needs. It will also be used for operations of the current facility.

Mt. St. Helens Sediment Control - $10.2 million

These funds will be used to continue to control sediment flows in the Cowlitz and Toutle Rivers. In February, Senator Murray visited this project to receive a status briefing from the Army Corp of Engineers. Murray also held a community roundtable to discuss the project with local residents.

Swinomish Channel Dredging - $500,000

This funding will be used to dredge Swinomish Channel in Northwest Washington. The Swinomish Channel needs to be dredged every three to four years to prevent groundings. The channel is used for commercial and recreation purposes including: boat builders, log-tow companies, fishermen, dry boat operators and boaters. The channel needs to be dredged to a depth of 12 feet.

Murray Provides $700,000 in Funding for Skagit River Flood Control Study

For Immediate Release: Tuesday, June 26, 2007
(Washington, D.C.) – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) announced that she has included $700,000 in funding for an Army Corp of Engineers study on Skagit River flooding in an annual Senate spending bill. The Corp study is looking at the best way to proceed with a flood control plan in the region. The funding was included in the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations bill. Senator Murray is a senior member of the Energy and Water Subcommittee.

"The Washington state residents who live in the Skagit River floodplain deserve a long term solution to the flooding problems along the river," said Senator Murray. "These funds will be used to identify problems, and generate potential solutions that will reduce the chance of a flood catastrophe."

The funding Murray has provided will be used to support the Skagit General Investigation Study which is examining the flooding problems of the Skagit River. Risk of flooding in the Skagit basin is the largest on the West Coast.

The Skagit River floodplain includes the cities of Mount Vernon, Burlington, and Sedro-Woolley. Mount Vernon and Burlington are currently protected by levees that are inadequate for the large floods that have occurred in the past and are predicted to recur. Catastrophic levee failure would result in a huge economic disaster and potential loss of human life. According to the Corps’ Economic Baseline Report, damage estimates to Burlington and Mount Vernon are over $1.9 billion for a large flood.

A significant Skagit River flood would also close critical Washington state transportation routes including Interstate 5, State Highway 20, and the BNSF Railroad. This would result in limiting emergency response and would have a damaging economic impact.

Senator Murray Provides $5 Million in Funding for Water Restoration Projects in Puget Sound and Green and Duwamish Rivers

$3 million to restore Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters; $2 million for Green and Duwamish River Restoration

For Immediate Release: Tuesday, June 26, 2007
(Washington D.C.) – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) announced that she has included $5 million in funding for water restoration projects in Western Washington. The funding will go toward projects in the Puget Sound and Green and Duwamish Rivers. The funding was included in the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations bill. Senator Murray is a senior member of the Energy and Water Subcommittee.

The projects Murray secured funding for will be performed by the Army Corp of Engineers. The President did not include any funding for either of these critical Washington state projects in his 2008 budget request.

Green and Duwamish River Ecosystem Restoration - $2 million

This funding will go toward river basin restoration that is supported by King County, the cities of Kent, Tukwilla, Covington, Renton, and numerous other cities and communities. The Green/Duwamish basin has experienced vast changes due to urbanization of the lower watershed, filling of the estuary, construction of dams, and heavy industrial and residential development in the area. Natural habitats for fish and wildlife have been destroyed. This restoration project is a comprehensive program for the entire Green/Duwamish ecosystem from the tidal estuaries to the spawning and wildlife habitat areas in the upper basin.

“This funding will improve our environment, assist in the recovery of endangered salmon, and advance the economic interests of the area," said Senator Murray. "I am glad that I have been able to support the efforts of King County and the many communities along these rivers who are committed to restoration efforts."

Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters - $3 million

These funds will continue a habitat restoration program throughout the Puget Sound basin. The goal of the Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters Restoration Program is to recover ecosystem processes and habitats that have been altered or destroyed through development within the basin. To achieve this goal, projects will be prioritized based on criteria developed in consultation with tribal governments, Federal, state, and local agencies and stakeholders.

"It is so important that we invest in counteracting the environmental impacts that industrialization and urbanization have had on state treasures like the Puget Sound," said Senator Murray. "These funds will go toward restoring the habitats of many vital species in the Puget Sound basin."

Nearshore Science Team - Fred Goetz

Sub Basin Map

The NST submitted PSNERP recommended delineations as follows – “This map is an adaptation of nine oceanographic basins originally identified by the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program. The adaptations include the combination of the east and West Straits of Juan de Fuca sub basins into a single Strait of Juan de Fuca sub basin; the combination of the Georgia Strait and San Juan Archipelago sub basins into a single San Juan Islands sub basin; the extension of the southeast boundary of the San Juan basin following the sill that extends from near the southwest portion of Lopez Island to near Point Partridge on Whidbey Island to better represent the influence of the Fraser River; the extension of the southern boundary of Admiralty Inlet (North Central Puget Sound) to a line from Point No Point on the Kitsap Peninsula to near Possession Point on the southern end of Whidbey Island to better address the Triple Junction, and; the extension of the Hood Canal sub basin to include all waters south of Tala point and Foulweather Bluff per RCW90.88.005(4) that identifies this as the Hood Canal Rehabilitation Zone and serves as the framework for programs directed at the recovery of Hood Canal. Upland regions of each area were delineated based on freshwater drainages with slight adjustments to boundaries between marine basins to match littoral drift processes.”

Action Items from the Wall Notes:

• Steering Committee endorsement of map? Send to PSP as a recommendation
• E-copies of map to steering committee members
• Thank you to NST
• Send Map and accompanying materials to PSP and federal caucus under JPK’s letterhead ~ point out consistency among us as a value

NST Peer-Review Recommendation to PMT

Si Simenstad resubmitted for consideration a recommendation to identify NST desire for a formal peer review process to be submitted to Project Management Team and Executive

Committee. The NST is in full agreement about the need for a peer review process, including a programmatic review panel/committee; and, for peer review to be effective it needs to be implemented early enough in the process that the results can still affect constructive change in GI, and not just a rubber stamp. The most pressing needs for peer review are to evaluate PSNERP science strategy and direction, and programmatic structure. Si will try to condense recommendation into 2-pg document in time for PMT/SC/EC review this summer.

Draft NST Perspective on PSNERP Peer Review attached.

Action Items from Wall Notes

• Steering Committee comments on proposed methodology to Bernie & Curtis by 8/06
• Note DOE review process is distinct from NST proposal
• Action Item Next Steering Committee - Any action related to peer review proposal?

Reformulation of Change Analysis/SNAR Workgroups

Change analysis needs to start to develop/morph into SNAR, but there is some concern about a full transition from CA into SNAR, CA group still has some unfinished business (e.g., EAU, CA work plan needs to address data gaps such as 700 miles of shoreline without armoring data).
Some tasks should be ready for contractor (Anchor Environmental) to move ahead with; Jen Burke will act as liaison. The other activities will need closer inspection by the NST. It was suggested that we maintain a merged SNAR workgroup, with a CA (subcommittee) component. This should help to structure contractor’s work and provide opportunities to check-in. Monthly meetings at a minimum. Anchor’s main role will be CA, Anchor can observe meetings and assist with SNAR as process moves along.

Formulating Goals and Objectives

Based on the Retreat, Jacques, Doug, and Tom M. would form a group to define how goals and objectives will be defined, used, etc. First task is to draft a scoping paper. Goals and Objectives might be more defined by social preferences as opposed to scientific/ecological preferences. There is not a technical answer to ‘how much restoration needs to be done?’ Instead ask question ‘how much restoration needs to be done in order to (fill-in the blank)?’ NST has not been clear to-date on establishing processes as goals and this is how to measure them. Restoration of processes is not the ultimate goal; it is the means to an end, the end being a social value. But, NST needs to be explicit on why objectives can not be framed in quantitative terms, if this is the case.

New Shoreline Armoring Workgroup (SAW)

Guy Gelfenbaum has drafted prospectus for group. It is proposed that this be an interdisciplinary team of coastal scientists to review existing science on coastal ecosystem processes related to shoreline armoring in Puget Sound (much information exists on open coasts, but not protected waters). Before moving much further, need resolution on budgets, NST recommendations, and PMT support. PMT supports idea, but needs specifics before writing checks. There was some concerned expressed that resources might be taken away from GI to work on armoring studies; conversely, there was some anticipation that the USGS should fund this study. Si has given approval to proceed as planned until final decisions come from PMT or SC.

Implementation Team - Miriam Gilmer / Doug Myers

In addition to what was reported by Fred Goetz in the NST report, the Implementation Team is looking at the methods that Si put together for the SNAR and reconfiguring the first two chapters. First review will be August 1, with the Crops Team review in mid-August.

The PM’s have asked the IT to apply Corps plan formulation process to the ESRP criteria and ranking data. We hope to evolve ESRP more toward what is expected from early actions of the future large-scale construction authority and to better formulate future large-scale projects from what we learn through ESRP.

Mike Ramsey reported that the Recreation and Conservation Office (IAC) received $40.75 million for Habitat Restoration. The legislation states that Nearshore/Estuary projects be coordinated/approved by the Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership.

Action Item: List of projects from RCO for review, coordination, approval.

Next Meeting: August 15, 2007
@ Olympia, Attorney General’s Office at Capitol Court

1.0 hours Project Managers, NST, and IT Reports
1.5 hour Executive Committee De-Brief
1.5 hours Presentation on the Habitat Work Schedule by Erik Neatherlin
1.0 hour Any action related to peer review proposal?
.5 hour List of projects from RCO for review, coordination, approval
.5 hour Puget Sound Partnership Update (if any)