Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership

Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership
Steering Committee Meeting
16 May 2007

Attendance:

Margen Carlson, Rebecca Ponzio, Terry Wright, Hayden Street, Jacques White, Jeff Compton, Fred Goetz, Curtis Tanner, Doug Myers, Debbie Rick, Mike Ramsey, James Schroeder, Debby Hyde, Andrea Copping, Michael Rylko, Tim Smith, Kirstin Holsman, Paul Cereghino.

All Hands Retreat Update - Debbie Rick / Curtis Tanner

The 2007 All Hands Retreat is scheduled for June 5-7, 2007 at Fort Worden State Park Conference Center. 38 Nearshore team members including support staff have registered for the retreat. The Project Management Team will host a BBQ on the beach the first night.

Federal Project Manager’s Report – Bernie Hargrave

Change Analysis – The request for proposals (RFPs) for a contractor closed on April 16 and the Technical Evaluation Team spent intense days evaluating the competitive proposals. The supporting documents necessary for contract award are in final preparation. Once the firm is selected, we will negotiate the first task order. Our task order scope of work for change analysis is largely done since last fall and we are tentatively scheduling award before the Ft Worden Retreat.

The Second National Ecosystem Restoration Conference was held in Kansas City on April 23-27, 2007. The project managers presented emerging Nearshore project results and Nearshore Science Team presented their strategies for adaptive management. The conference purposely emphasized riverine ecosystem restoration with its central location in the Mississippi River watershed, yet many members of Everglades, Chesapeake, CalFed and coastal Louisiana representing policy-makers, researchers and practitioners were present. The conference was a good forum to hear about pending federal legislation, which will directly or indirectly affect the Nearshore project.

The Illinois River Project is a very good example of what the final feasibility report “should” look like for the Puget Sound. Bernie is trying to get a copy of that to distribute elements to the Steering Committee that would portray PSNERP.

The final feasibility report would also include Economics and Engineering appendices.

Documents should be distributed to inform the Nearshore Partnership of ongoing restoration projects and the Corps process.

Strategic Needs Assessment Report (SNAR) – The Implementation Team is preparing a next draft of the SNAR based on their earlier work, the WRIA 9 Change Analysis, and the UW class results where they examined future drivers along the WRIA9 shoreline. The project managers view this effort as the 2nd of four SNAR drafts to be prepared by summer of 2008. The final Strategic Needs Assessment Report will be a culmination of the Change Analysis and Future Without Project investigations and complete Stage 2.

Strategic Work Plan: The project managers are revising the work plan to show the tasks necessary to finish the Strategic Needs Assessment Report (Stage 2) and to accomplish the Feasibility Report (Stage 3). We expect the work plan will be a central part of the discussions at the Nearshore Project retreat to be held at Ft. Worden.

Local Project Manager – Curtis Tanner

Paul Cereghino is on board at Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife as the Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program Manager.

Technical Reports – The Nearshore Partnership has a new agreement with Washington Sea Grant for editing, layout, and publication services of the VEC White Papers (All 10 (9 VECs plus “human values” by Leschine). Hugh Shipman delivered the final version of the Typology Report. It is “In the queue” with Sea Grant for technical editor review, Peer review, final author review, and incorporation of review comments before layout and publication.

Monitoring and Adaptive Management – Project monitoring guidelines: Battelle Marine Sciences Lab selected to complete project. Ron Thom is lead. Draft report due June 29 on monitoring guidelines at a project level. A high level report would be “Guidelines for Restoration.”

NOTE: Lower Columbia River anticipates project to programmatic restoration monitoring.

Other issues

Cascade Land Conservancy re. BNSF restoration opportunities: Hugh Shipman working on general types of restoration needs in specific places.

Executive Summary Fact sheets

Marketing strategies for ESRP and Lead Entities

Shared Strategy Watershed Recover Implementation Leads re. Coordination/collaboration issues

DNR Nearshore Group re. ShoreZone future activities

PSAT staff re. Shoreline armoring data development – Tim Strickler collection data regarding existing sources of shoreline armoring Identifying data gaps.

Data gap repository – critical things that need to be done by somebody; analysis without information; how much is worth to get that information. Notes from the wall: Creation of a research ideas catalog/repository to track and pursue valuable data gaps. Appendix to CHiPS?

Nearshore Science Team – Fred Goetz

Monitoring initiatives: (1) develop guidance for ESRP and other project-scale monitoring, and (2) evaluate large-scale, programmatic monitoring for GI and long-term Puget Sound restoration.

Project-scale monitoring being approached by small ($19,000) RFP that is due back to WDFW (sponsor) on April 20th, with notice to proceed on May 7th; despite it being directed to ~five firms, only two consulting firms appear to be submitting (Battelle; Lucinda Tear); selected contractor to meet with Monitoring Work Group May 14 or 21, and with NST on June 27 or 28.

Assessment and design of programmatic monitoring will be initiated with “lessons learned,” primarily with primary help of the NST Research Assistant, Justin Boevers patterned after original Brie VanCleve “Lessons Learned” model, he will be developing “Lessons Learned” study of how other major restoration projects designed and managed their monitoring programs primary NST liaisons with Justin will be Tom Leschine (his SMA graduate committee chair), Tom Mumford and Si Simenstad

Deliverables:

Living, annotated biography

Draft set of questions

Definitions used in prior programs; recommendations to NST for operational definition

Change analysis for WRIA9 will very likely be simpler than change analysis for the rest of Puget Sound; there are more complex features outside of WRIA9. It was also identified that one of the concerns with the change analysis are the errors from several different sources of data.

The Change Analysis Work Group reviewed results of AU-by-AU Fly-By, along with relevant results from Future Without Project Lite, and start to prepare recommendations for revising change analysis methods, protocols and data sources for scaling up to Sound-wide change analysis. NST members who participated in the exercise considered the “AU-by-AU Fly-By” exercise extremely valuable. Significant insight appeared to be that the coarse-scale approach in change analysis can miss smaller details such as streams, and small details may cumulatively add-up to a significant contribution, but could be easily overlooked.

General NST agreement that the following should be included in the Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program’s Request for Proposal language: “[The PSNERP NST]…encourages restoration projects that devote significant effort to monitoring and assessment of nearshore ecosystem responses to the management action, involving rigorous scientific sampling / experimental design, appropriate replication, use of comparable reference sites, statistical tests of significance……..” and that NST members reviewing the ESRP proposals (as individuals) would likely have a consensus on how to judge these criteria – much of NST guidance is already reflected extensively in Research Plan Appendix.

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?

Legislative Report – Tim Smith

Puget Sound Partnership – ESSB 5372 Creating the Puget Sound Partnership

1. Creates new state agency, the Puget Sound Partnership;
2. Establishes citizen Leadership Council to oversee recovery of Puget Sound; Bill Ruckelshaus appointed Chair, other six by the end of May.
3. Establishes an Ecosystem Coordination Board comprised state, local, tribal governments and stakeholders appointed by the Council to advise and consult with the council;
4. Establishes a Science Panel to advise the council on development of an Action Agenda;
5. Assigns Leadership Council accountability for implementation of the Action Agenda;
6. Establishes a “partner” designation for local entities meeting certain criteria that provides a “preference” across a variety of state grants programs.

Martha Neuman – creating scoping groups and developing an outline to the Action Agenda which will be adopted by September 2008 (final draft March 2008). The Nearshore Partnership has been asked to present a paper describing the Nearshore Partnership’s commitment to the new agency with a scope and timeframe of the program.

Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program (ESRP)
ESRP was awarded $12 million in state construction dollars, $1 million in Federal Authority (contract through NOAA Community Based Restoration.). Includes protection projects (acquisition). The program should look at other ways to combine requests for proposals with USFWS and/or NWIFC?

Puget Sound Marine Resource Committees
Certain counties bordering Puget Sound (five), and all coastal counties (Clallam, Jefferson, Grays Harbor, Pacific, and Wahkiakum), are authorized to establish an MRC to address the needs of the marine ecosystem local to that county. A county legislative authority, in cooperation with tribes, cities, and local special districts, may only create a MRC. A county may delegate management and oversight of an MRC to a coastal city within its boundaries. Residents may petition their county legislative authority for the establishment of an MRC, and the county must respond to that petition within 60 days of receipt.

Other Budget Related Items

$ 737,000 for GI advances towards completion; not for management/administration but for on the ground projects.

$ 800,000 for administration and management (Operating Budget)

$40,000,000 Puget Sound Salmon Fund to Salmon Recovery Funding Board (ESRP review through Nearshore Partnership.

$ 325,000 Spin-off Nearshore guidelines

Washington DC Trip

There is an interest to have Legislative and Congressional Tours in July and August.

Habitat Work Schedule has enough funding to be fully operational by the end of the calendar year.

Major Corps project for Ecosystem Based Restoration to influence new Corps process.

The Steering Committee would like a presentation on the Habitat Work Schedule by Erik Neatherlin.

Stakeholder Integration (ESRP/LE/MRCs) - Curtis Tanner / Tim Smith

The Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project is in the latter stages of Phase 2 and entering into Phase 3. As the Project moves forward, it needs to identify restoration needs – what is broken and where. Also need to identify stakeholder’s interest, goods and services. Adjust and balance restoration portfolios and get stakeholders involvement in the Future With and Future Without scenarios. Flesh out with stakeholders at a sub-basin level.
Recovery Council wishes to endorse the Nearshore Partnership science. They have requested to be involved in the Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program and endorse the project list. A policy decision needs to be made.

Wall Note: Tim addresses ESRP context and objectives with the Recovery Council and other coordination items to be resolved at the June Steering Committee meeting.

Alliance for Puget Sound Shorelines - Jeff Compton / Jacques White

Jacques White introduced Jeff Compton of The Nature Conservancy who in turn gave a presentation on MudUp, an Alliance for Puget Sound Shorelines campaign – a joint effort of The Trust for Public Land, The Nature Conservancy, and People for Puget Sound.

MudUp is a bold new campaign to engage the public in conserving and improving Puget Sound. While MudUp has at its foundation the serious issue of protecting and restoring Puget Sound’s shorelines, what makes the approach special is its broad appeal through the spirit of play and engagement. The Alliance’s goal is to build a cultural movement around the idea of “having fun and getting your hands dirty for a good cause.” http://mudup.org

The Alliance’s goal is to create ten new parks, restore 100 miles of shoreline, and protect 1,000 miles of shoreline by the summer of 2009.

ESRP Status Report – Paul Cereghino

73 proposals were received in response to the 2007 RFP for a total request of approximately $21 million. This is a first information grab and these proposals are currently under technical review.

1. A review schedule has been updated and is attached.
2. The Team appears to be on schedule and on track for the 2008 review.
3. Members of the Nearshore Science Team have been invited to review.
4. NOAA CRP partnership with WDFW is under negotiation
5. Paul attended the Watershed Lead meeting on the request of Shared Strategy. Their interest was in clarifying the relationship between the Recovery Council structure and PSNERP/ESRP. The Nearshore Partnership agreed to share our list of proposals with Watershed Leads as part of our stakeholder outreach. The role of Nearshore Steering Committee and Executive Commitee as the same as last year. The following ideas were part of the dialog:

a. Need to clarify policy in general (document being drafted)
b. Need to define what criteria Steering Committee uses to reorder projects after technical ranking (see below).
c. Suggestion to host a post award debrief to diffuse and frustration over process (good idea)
d. Desire for continued dialog about specific topics (part of stakeholder development)
e. Need to allow time for proponents to work with LEs/MRCs to maximize benefits of these entities (related to first action item below)

Decision Point – The Steering Committee chose Option B - $3,746,875 will be retained for four listed projects, and the remainder of $8,253,125 distributed in two rounds – first year 66% of funds threshold.

Wall Notes:

Acquisition eligible

Indirect ineligible

Up to 66% spent in first year

Policy objective: balanced portfolio with various phases.

June agenda item – Paul bring back a set of core values about the projects and guiding principles. Select group review prior to presenting to the Steering Committee consists of Terry Wright, Debby Hyde, Jennifer Steger, Andrea Copping and the Implementation Team.

Federal Caucus & Future Without Project - Michael Rylko / Fred Goetz

The Steering Committee was presented with a “Future Without Project Analysis – Synopsis and Phase III Description” (attached) for PSNERP. This scoping paper describes how PSNERP has undertaken a Puget Sound-wide Change Analysis of the nearshore comparing changes in marine and estuary shoreforms from 1850 (historic) to 2005 (current conditions). The futures analysis requires two conditions – scenarios that include nearshore conditions with and without federal restoration projects. These two conditions provide the basis for federal requirements (Corps and EPA) to conduct cumulative effects and alternative plan analysis for NEPA and for benefits assessment under the Corps GI feasibility study. The future without project (FWOP) plan assessment is considered the no action condition – analyzing impacts over a project timeline with no federal restoration investment.

There will be a ’07 federal/state cooperative agreement with a $100,000 match from the state. Open the Request For Proposal June ’07. With the $100K comes an associated task list through Puget Sound Action Team (PSP after June 30) to develop the Future Without Project Analysis and Report. The focus of this work is to design and implement the future without project assessment. The approach uses a collaborative process with the partners to scope and define the analysis to develop a set of scenarios without restoration.

Wall Notes: Follow existing process to scope RFP, and engage with the Environmental Protection Agency and Puget Sound Action Team on Future Without Project.

Federal Caucus
The Federal Caucus represents the Federal interest on Puget Sound. A Memorandum of understanding has been signed between NOAA, US Geological Survey, and EPA. Not much structure and seems to be influenced by the federal interest at the table. Needs more commitment and staffing to shape this effort and complement existing state efforts.

Tim is speaking at the May 30th Federal Caucus meeting. The caucus did form to help the Puget Sound Partnership.

Wall Notes:

Need Vision, Mission, what’s working well, tools, and tasks

Motivation for Corps engagement and participation

Phone call from Tim and Jeff to Colonel McCormick

Project Management Team to address with Bernie on May 17 (meeting)

Next Meeting: June 20, 2007 @ Pierce County Environmental Services (9:00 – 5:00) We will provide lunch.

1.5 hours Project Managers, NST, and IT Reports - IDIQ Contractor

.5 hours Tim Smith - Executive Committee Agenda

.5 hours Doug Myers – Sub-basin Map

1 hour Martha Neuman – creating scoping groups and developing an outline to the Action Agenda which will be adopted by September 2008 (final draft March 2008). The Nearshore Partnership has been asked to present a paper describing the Nearshore Partnership’s commitment to the new agency with a scope and timeframe of the program.

3.5 hours ESRP Project Review and Ranking

. 5 hours June agenda item – Paul bring back a set of core values about the projects and guiding principles. Select group review prior to presenting to the Steering Committee consists of Terry Wright, Debby Hyde, Jennifer Steger, Andrea Copping and the Implementation Team.