Terry’s ECB Meeting Notes

February 3, 2011

An agenda with related documents is available on the PSP’s website.

Legislative Update – Gerry O’Keefe

  • Met with Norm Dicks on Monday – the good news is that we are not an earmark. It is going to be difficult to hold on to the current $50M appropriation, but that is the strategy.
  • The Puget Sound Legislation will be re-introduced in February
  • Paying closer attention to the Farm Bill this year – to try and get money to help implement BMPs
  • Martha going back to D.C. next week
  • Need to identify the “program” that the $50M comes from so others can support it.
  • Dave Somers/David Troutt discussed some of the inconsistencies of farm work and Puget Sound Recovery – they agreed to tee it up as a future discussion of the ECB
  • Michael Grayum – largely doing introductions around and talking about implementing the AA
  • Supporting budget issues
  • Some new issues coming up –
  • Ban copper bottom paint
  • Reduce Phosphorous in home products
  • Will continue providing Bill update and send him any info on other issues

Lead Organization Work Plan

  • Series of 6 LO’s in Puget Sound in various stages of implementation
  • PSP, NWIFC, Commerce, DOE, WDFW/WDNR
  • Josh provided the overview of the overall system and the 6 year strategies
  • 5 handouts on the different LO programs provided
  • Discussions about how the LOs will be coordinating and ensuring that the monitoring and reporting fit into a single system.
  • Dan Wrye trying to get commitment from Josh that “majority” of funds will be passed through to local implementers.
  • David Troutt emphasized the need to allow LIOs to identify the most important elements in their areas. Josh says that each LO is setting aside 10% for crosscutting projects of high importance.
  • Margen – identified unique things about the Marine Nearshore Protection
  • Proposal includes five areas of investment
  • Bob Woolridge on Pathogens – Direct awards - DOH will be taking a chunk for upgrading their internal data management system, Beach monitoring, scoping no discharge zone, Ag. Waste program – confusing budget because it was for $12M for two years, when at best they would have $6M.
  • Josh confirmed that a lot of these funds will be used by agencies for programmatic issues.
  • Randy again emphasized the need to tackle big, tough issues.
  • Josh went through Watershed Protection and Restoration proposal – not well defined yet how to focus funding within each of the defined categories
  • Scott lead a discussion about regional engagement with the NEP Management Conference
  • Three pronged approach to gathering input: ECB; Advisory committees/workgroups; and local input through LIOs.
  • Proposed 2 committees be authorized and convened by LO staff – Martha asked if these groups could fulfill a function as “resident experts” on their topics – Scott was unsure, but certainly it would do a lot of that.
  • Lots of discussion about the various roles and responsibilities of ECB, LIOs and LC regarding tough issues.
  • Several folks want to engage the ECB to wrestle with tough issues – even if you have to have majority and minority positions

Action Agenda Revision Update – Martha Neuman

  • Review of Process and Schedule (handout)
  • Finalized by LC in December
  • First full draft available in July
  • Local revisions will be included before July
  • There is a cross-partnership workgroup set up to help coordinate consistency
  • DT brought up that LIOs need money now to provide input – if don’t get local funds out until July 1, they can’t participate very effectively.
  • Martha says lots of coordination needed as this work progresses.
  • Dan says we need a robust process in SPS to enable the development of more detailed strategies.
  • Decision schedule for adoption of revised AA
  • Lots of discussion about how you develop strategies without having targets first.
  • Scott stated that they are having to be run in parallel and will require lots of coordination as draft products become available
  • Lots of discussion about how to do this integration – some LIOs are already moving forward to set their own targets.

Target Setting Process and Status – Scott Redman

  • Scott provided two handouts related to target setting processes
  • 20 indicator champions are being directed to do the work on each of the indicators

Shellfish Bed - Acres of shellfish beds re-opened - as an indicator – Scott Berbells(DOH)

  • Concern that the shellfish metric did not clearly enough articulate the relationship to water quality and not get hung up by proximity to outfalls and marinas.
  • David Troutt specified a tribal goal of having all areas harvestable – and also wanted to ensure that a lesser goal not be regionally biased.
  • Kathy F. also backed not including lesser goals than total recovery
  • Colonel Wright proposes ECB adopt a goal that all areas not subject to mandatory goal are open
  • David Troutt added zero discharge as part of the goal.
  • ECB adopted goal of opening all areas that are closed due to water quality issues (14,000 acres) and also agreed to continue discussions about closing point sources – no desire to close marinas.
  • David Troutt pushing very hard to adopt an additional goal for reducing acres due to treatment discharge.

Eelgrass target – Pete Dowty (DNR)

  • Naki provided background on how DNR set targets
  • Lots of discussion about the lack of knowledge about the stressors effecting eelgrass
  • Not much certainty about target to set.
  • Chris Davis thinks it is good for ECB to have the opportunity to discuss each indicator, but also to be realistic about how that input is utilized by staff – he suggests that the LO & LIOs groups weigh-in on indicators.

Discussion on Ecosystem Monitoring Program

  • Nathalie used a PPT to walk through the Launch Committees work and products.
  • Dave Peeler brought up the independent option, but did not provide any additional information about how it would be funded or launched.
  • Mike Fraidenburg offered to take input from audience about this discussion/then ECB
  • Sono – offered a comment that the nature of the steering committee was essential and she suggested that it should be more independent rather than representing an agency or organization. Also could help in setting targets and evaluation and adaptive management
  • Dan Wrye weighed in supporting an independent entity. Suggested that coordinating NPDES monitoring could be very effective at reducing unnecessary monitoring and providing more coordinated monitoring.
  • Dave stated that without new funds neither model will be successful.
  • Nathalie suggested that further delay waiting for a decision is not acceptable and we should move forward and adapt later if needed.
  • Martha relayed that this topic will be on the next LC agenda. May want to engage a different launch committee to address the independent model. Not clear yet what the real issues are.
  • Dan O’Neal wants to get going – no problem with independent model, but does not see any mechanism for funding it. We have to be able to measure progress.

ECB Priority Actions – delayed this discussion