< Back
to Meeting Archives
Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Steering Committee
Meeting 20 June 2007
Attendance:
Jennifer Steger, Rob Koeppen, Hayden Street, Debby Hyde,
Curtis Tanner, Jacques White, Doug Myers, Dick Ecker, James
Schroeder, Bernie Hargrave, Paul Cereghino, Randy Carman,
Andrea Copping, Fred Goetz, Lesley Jantarasami, Michael Rylko,
Mike Ramsey, David Landsman, Dena Nelson, and Debbie Rick
Federal Project Manager’s Report –
Bernie Hargrave
New Contractor: Anchor Environmental, Inc (Seattle
WA) was selected to be the Nearshore Professional Services
contractor. Several excellent firms competed for the contract.
Anchor provided an outstanding, low-cost proposal. They
teamed with at least 21 other firms to provide the staff
we requested. The contract is structured to allow the Nearshore
project managers to negotiate individual task orders - indefinite
future delivery dates and indefinite total number (quantity)
of task orders at the point of contract award-- for discrete,
time-definite work products in support of the investigation.
The contract is valued in a range of a minimum $2,500 and
a maximum of $1,000,000; for each of a base year and three
optional years. Total potential value is $4,000,000. The
first task order will have three parts:
1. Define Data Structure.
2. Define Shoreline and Estuary Accounting Units Sound-wide.
3. Conduct Central Puget Sound Change Analysis.
Partnership: The Corps is poised to sign an agreement
with the Federal Caucus with the caveat that it does not
affect the Corps ability to regulate.
Local Project Manager’s Report –
Curtis Tanner
Contracting: Most of the month was spent on contracting
issues surrounding the end of the state’s fiscal year
money. NOAA Contract for Paul Cereghino; Battelle Contract
for Monitoring Guidelines; Washington SeaGrant for VEC White
Papers.
Retreat Highlights:
Work Plan – Bernie and Curtis walked the participants
through a two-year look ahead of the project and established
target dates.
4/2008 Sound-Wide Change Analysis
6/2008 ?
7/2008 ?
Strategic Needs Assessment
There are still a lot of questions about what needs to
be in the Strategic Needs Assessment. Si’s presentation
was well received. Fred gave an update and Jacques provided
a counterpoint.
Valued Ecosystem Components
Paul Cereghino surmised that currently the Project uses
VECs for
1) Communication for public and
2) Environmental education. A work group was formed to
define what, if not VECs, would provide
3) Decision – support tools and
4) Program goals/objective/metrics.
Assignment – Paul Cereghino and Jacques White to
convene a cross-program work group to a) define program
need for; b) outline development process to deliver these
“tools”; c) test application (in WRIA9) for
#3 & #4. Members of the work group also include Doug
Myers, and Tom Mumford.
Puget Sound Partnership
The Nearshore Partnership should define their role and
set a good role model.
Should also provide more communication between issuaries
If the Nearshore Partnership, does not speak up, the PS
Partnership could decide where the dollars go.
Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program
Paul is developing the Program and the ESRP project list,
including a long list of steps for the evolution of the
project. Mike Ramsey will be staffing the contracting piece
50% time beginning July 1, 2007.
Executive Committee Agenda
- Involve the Executives in more decisions
- Facilitate conversation between the Executives
- Hold meetings on specific issues
Nearshore Science Team – Fred Goetz
Case Studies
A hybrid of the seven case studies was formed from the
proposals. The hybrid includes
1. Megan Dethier’s study on how armoring has affected
beach profiles and biota composition, site dependent; no
sites suggested. Concern: still difficult to draw conclusions
from armoring and changes in shoreform.
2. Si Simenstad which compares emergent marshes and tidal
channel systems and how they differ from dike breach and
dike removal restoration compared to reference sites. Candidate
sites: Elk River, Nisqually, Skagit, Willapa Bay. Concern
that there are few great examples of dike breaches in Puget
Sound.
3. Tom Mumford’s study Point Wilson, Harstene Island,
Case Inlet to document history of bulkheading along 3 ½
mile drift cell; use historical knowledge and local anecdotes
to document changes. Strong social science element to this
study. Aside question is how do you package information
to property owners to demonstrate the affects from armoring?
4. Hugh Shipman’s study on sediment transport north
of Hood Canal Bridge, where sediment drift appears to have
reversed since bridge construction. Concern: not necessarily
a restoration focus, but would increase understanding of
beach processes.
Two workgroups formed: one on Armoring impacts and effects
of, and another on Beach Process (not amoring).
USACE working on a workshop much like the National Acadamie
on armoring. This effort will have The Nature Conservancy’s
support.
Project Management Team and the Implementation Team to
guide the end game for the General Investigation with a
re-definition of the Nearshore Science Team.
Implementation Team – Doug Myers
Given new direction on Strategic Needs Assessment (forming
a workgroup)
SNAR will include case studies
May 23 through June 11 reviewing projects and scoring
June 14-15 ranking projects and drafting project list
Executive Agenda - All
Tom Leschine has a scheduling conflict for the Executive
Committee on July 25. Several suggestions were made to resolve
the conflict.
- Have the goals/objectives work group give a briefing.
- Theresa Mitchell as a former student of Dr. Leschines.
- Or queue up someone else
~ OR ~
Have Si Simenstad present on Ecosystem Services
~ OR ~
FWOP Lite presentation with Justin Boevers or Jen Burke
DRAFT Agenda
VEC/Social Values “white paper”
VEC “white papers”
Four Functions provided by VEC’s to the Nearshore
Partnership
Future direction of “Social Science” in program
Outreach/Landowner Support?
Status of the General Investigation:
Project Managers Report
Products
Timeline
Budget
Corps In-Progress Program Review – Mona Thomason
Status of the Puget Sound Partnership
Federal Caucus contributions…
Nearshore Partnership contribution to the Puget Sound
Partnership
Discussion Among Executives
Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program
Status of ’06 Projects;
Sponsor Comments?
FY ‘07Funding Decisions
August Nearshore Field Trip
Action Identified: A sub-committee of Hayden Street,
Debby Hyde, Andrea Copping and Michael Rylko was formed
to complete the agenda for the Executive Committee for July
25th.
Sub-Basin Map – Doug Myers
The bill forming the Puget Sound Partnership describes
geographic action areas of the Puget Sound, which collectively
encompass the entire Puget Sound basin and include the areas
(seven) draining to the marine waters in these action areas:
a) Strait of Juan de Fuca;
b) The San Juan Islands;
c) Whidbey Island;
d) North central Puget Sound;
e) South central Puget Sound;
f) South Puget Sound; and
g) Hood Canal
Doug and a group of others were concerned that the basins
were listed by name without boundaries. Doug passed out
a map delineating suggested boundaries based on oceanographic,
nearshore, and hydrological processes. Marine boundaries
are based on the PSAMP boundaries that were developed using
Curtis Ebbesmeyer’s sill and circulation mapping work
in the 1980s and other physical demarcations based on the
best professional judgment of University Oceanographers.
Upland areas mainly consider hydrology; however, insertion
points between upland and marine process also consider sediment
transport processes along shorelines. The map represents
eight basins; however, Admiralty Inlet is of a size that
may be more appropriate to combine with a larger adjacent
basin.
Action Identified: Jacques proposed to go with the
legislative language and have the Nearshore Science Team
define boundaries for the Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership
and to communicate. Any input to the Action Agenda needs
to be reasonable consistent for legislature for program
decision at a policy level.
Draft Nearshore Scoping Paper – Curtis
Tanner
Curtis presented a draft of the Nearshore Scoping paper
that is to be given to the Puget Sound Partnership that
will describe progress in specific areas for the 2008 Action
Agenda. This draft paper is about Nearshore Habitat Protection
and Restoration.
The paper needs to identify Necessary Actions.
Rob Koeppen – Monitoring / Adaptive Management and
Guiding Principles. Describe emergin Solutions (GEPS and
Lessons Learned)
Mike Ramsey – Spill it all out with a bulleted list
of what / when. Describe what the Nearshore Partnership
needs to implement the GI.
Action Identified: Members requested to get comments,
edits, suggestions to Curtis ASAP.
Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program –
Paul Cereghino
Project proponents submitted seventy-three proposals before
the close of the RFP with a total request of approximately
$25 million. 21 reviewers were engaged. Each reviewed 34-25
proposals and scored them based on criteria reviewed by
the PSNP Steering Committee at the end of 2006. Reviewers
did not review individual proposals where their review may
have been biased by affiliation with the project. Each proposal
was reviewed by four to seven reviewers; with most proposals
receiving 6-7 reviews.
Each reviewer generated a ranked list of the proposals
reviewed. These ranks were averaged across all projects,
yielding a mean rank for each project. Attached is a ranked
Project List with the monetary request as well as a map
of the basin indicating project location. This method provided
an order in which projects were considered for funding.
While in some ways arbitrary in that there is not an objective
way of determining if project rank 8 is precisely a ‘better
project’ than project rank 9, peer-reviewed ranking
provides a systematic, apolitical, and relatively unbiased
approach to identifying projects to receive additional consideration.
Following ranking, the Implementation Team met for two
days to work through proposals, reviewer comments, score
details, and personal project knowledge to identify strengths
and weaknesses of each project. Consistent with the May
Steering Committee decision, the IT did not reorder projects
but made recommendations regarding funding level and scope
of work for each project. A comprehensive summary of IT
recommendations is attached.
Following evaluation of each project proposal, several
funding scenarios were developed to offer the steering committee
some alternative funding strategies for the 2008 round.
Paul walked the Steering Committee through the top 18 projects
on the list and had developed project descriptions.
1. When do we skip projects?
Balance Portfolios
To reach program goals
2. How much do we spend on high cost projects at the top
of the list?
Nisqually $4.1 million; three acquisitions at $3.52 million
3. How much do we spend?
66% = $5,002.083
75% = $5,627.344
All – but reserve for Federal match - $7,503
Generate a spend it all list
Follow up with strategy session on how to approach getting
additional funds
How much proponents able to spend quickity-quick?
4. Implementation Team recommendations for cutting spending
Consensus to spend down to Camp Kilworth Project Rank
#18
ESRP Draft Policy Documents – Paul Cereghino
(See Attached)
Next Meeting: July 18, 2007 @ Tukwila Community
Center
1.5 hours-Project Managers, NST, and IT Reports
3.0 hours-ESRP Final funding portfolio Steering Committee
Endorsement
1.5 hours-Puget Sound Partnership
- Sub-Basin Map
- Nearshore Habitat Restoration and Protection Paper
- Update on appointments/staffing
Notes from the Wall: Next Meeting a report from the
Project Management Team RE: NST composition and participation.
What is the connection between ESRP and WWRP? Acquisition;
in anticipation of restoration?
The Steering Committee would like a presentation on the Habitat
Work Schedule by Erik Neatherlin |
