Puget Sound Partnership

Ecosystem Coordination Board

Meeting Summary

September 19, 2013

Page 1

Puget Sound Partnership Ecosystem Coordination Board

Meeting Summary

September 19, 2013

Kitsap County Commissioners Chambers, Port Orchard

San Juan - Alternate / Marta / Branch
Whidbey Basin / Ron / Wesen
Hood Canal / Teri / King
South Central Puget Sound – Designee / Fred / Jarrett
North Central Puget Sound / Linda / Berry-Mariast
South Puget Sound / Dan / Wrye
Environmental Interest / Joan / Crooks
Environmental Interest / Chris / Davis
Cities / Will / Hall
Tribal Government / David / Troutt
Tribal Government / Dave / Herrera
Legislative caucus / Christine / Rolfes
Federal Government / Col. / Estok
Federal Government / Rick / Parkin
Washington State Agencies - Designee / Josh / Baldi
Washington State Agencies - Designee / Margen / Carlson
Washington State Agencies - Designee / Naki / Stevens
Northwest Straits Commission / Ginny / Broadhurst

It is intended that this summary be used along with notebook materials provided for the meeting. A recording of this meeting is also retained by the Partnership as part of the formal record.

Action Items:

  • Approval of June 20, 2013, Meeting Summary

Meeting Summary:

  • Open meeting
  • Local perspectives
  • General public comment
  • Engagement with the Science Panel
  • Management Conference membership
  • 2014 state and federal legislative updates and plans
  • 2013 State of the Sound
  • ECB subcommittees update
  • Action Agenda planning
  • Shellfish Strategic Initiative
  • Shellfish Initiative update
  • No Discharge Zone
  • Habitat Strategic Initiative
  • Floodplains
  • Update on Nearshore Habitat Report Card
  • Stormwater Strategic Initiative
  • Fish Consumption Rate
  • Update on Stormwater funding
  • Partner Updates
  • Adjourn

CALL TO ORDER

Ecosystem Coordination Board (ECB) Vice Chair Dave Hererra called the meeting to order at 10:13 a.m.

Introductions were made and the agenda approved.

APPROVAL OF JUNE 20, 2013 MEETING SUMMARY

The June 20, 2013, ECB meeting summary was APPROVEDas presented.

LOCAL PERSPECTIVES

Kitsap County Commissioner Rob Gelder welcomed the Board andprovided an overview of the recovery work being done in Kitsap County. Commissioner Josh Brownwas unable to attend as originally planned.

OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT

Sandy Charbonneau, local business owner of The Candy Shoppe, LLC, noted that she saw thismeeting notice in the newspaper.She was born and raised in Port Orchard andshe cares deeply for the environment. She wanted to offer her appreciation for the ECB and its work.

Leadership Council Chair Martha Kongsgaardsummarized how far we’ve come over the last 6 years.She commented that we still have a long way to go.

Linda Berry Mariastdescribed some local work being done. She agreed with Marthathat we need torecognize both ouraccomplishmentsand what still needs to be done.

ENGAGEMENT WITH THE SCIENCE PANEL

Science Panel member Ken Currens presented this portion of the agenda. (See meeting materials for details.)

Ken reviewed the pressure assessment work done in 2009. He shared the history and criticisms from the last time the Partnership ranked pressures. He explained that the Science Panel has been developing a new process under the direction of Dr. Bill Labiosa. The process and methodology areavailable for review.

Ken’srequest for the ECB is forsuggesting technical experts to assist with the process. The ECB was very helpful last round in providing the experts to complete the ranking process. The process timeline has two places needing expert involvement. The first step is reviewing the process, and the second step is eliciting knowledge from the experts to make this useful to everyone.

Dan Wrye asked about scale. Ken reported this review will be at the watershed scale.If we need to roll up to a regional average, we can also do that.

Josh Baldi expressed his appreciationfor the revisions but would also like more information. He asked for the names of the experts and how others can stay connected with the process. He also asked if the problem with discounting some programs has been fixed. Ken explained the list of experts is just now being developed. We will find a way to keep everyone informed but that process is not in place yet. As for the discounting question, we are using a two-step process this time and that should help.

Marc Daily reminded Ken of the need to have a close connection with the Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring program and tomake sure the watershed adaptive management process and local efforts are coordinated. Ken explained how the two processes should be able to work together. Marc just wants to make sure we aren’t going to people multiple times for the same information.

Scott Redman reported there was a 6-page FAQ that was not included in the meeting packet but it is available in the back of the room.That should answer some of the questions.

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE MEMBERSHIP

Michael Rylko provided this presentation. (See meeting materials for details.)

National Estuary Program (NEP) Evaluation

Michael explained the NEP is reviewed every four years. The last program evaluation was in 2010 just as the first Action Agenda was completed. The next evaluation is scheduled for 2014. The scoping is about to begin (late November or early December). A written report is scheduled for February and a tour of Puget Sound will be held in the spring.

We want to make the most of the funds that come to this region so we want to have a positive evaluation. There will be additional work needed from management conference members. This issue will come back to the ECB at future meetings.

Management Conference Representation

Michael explained that the ways we have connected with Canada in the past don’t meet Management Conference requirements. We are interdependent with the Canadian groups.

Naki Stevens thinks this is a good idea and supports the inclusion.

Joan Crooks provided environmental caucussupport and emphasized the need for coordination on oil transport issues.

Teri King asked about the groups represented by the Frazer Basin Council. Michael will provide the Frazer Basin membership list. The Board suggested the need for Canadian business representation.

Dan Wrye supported adding them but wanted to know if the ex officio status meets Management Conference guidelines and is ECB the only board needing toadd Canadian representation?Michael explained that the Science Panel is also being asked for representation, and having ex officio representation on boththe ECB and Science Panel does meet the intent.

Josh Baldi would like the representation to be more than a gesture and suggested a cross-border NTA (or other ways to connect). Rick Parkin agreed that a cross-border NTA is a good idea.

Will Hall made the MOTIONto send a recommendation to the Leadership Council to support adding a Canadian Representative to the Management Conference.Teri King SECONDED.The Board APPROVED.

2014 STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE AND PLANS

Dave Herrera introduced this agenda item by acknowledging the successes of the most recent legislative session. He noted that the development of good processes resulted in successful outcomes. He thanked everyone for their good work and then stressed the need to keep the momentum going.

Lisa Bellefond opened her report by informing Board members of the 25th anniversary of the National Estuary Program on September 28. As part of the 25th Anniversary, the National Estuary Programs are promoting a "Toast the Coast" campaign where partners and citizens are encouraged to raise a glass to “celebrate the coast.” Puget Sound is one of the nation’s first estuary programs and Lisa would like to have the ECB toast Puget Sound and promote the campaign’s goals to increase national awareness of estuaries. Lisa invitedeveryone to gather before the lunch break for a photo opportunity. The Partnership will then post this photo, along with other photos, of partners raising their toasts.

She then reminded the group that at the June meeting we were at the edge of state government shutdown.Now we are in the same position with the federal government. Fortunately,in the interim we’ve had a lot of success. She listedthe events where the Partnership assisted. (See meeting materials for details.)

The Partnership is not introducing any legislation next session. However, many partners have issues to move forward.We want to gather that information, prioritize, and develop a 2014 Puget Sound legislative packet for Leadership Council approval and support.

Linda Berry Mariastdescribed a letter that the West Sound LIO willpresent to the Leadership Council. It requests support for the sediment issue. She also described her role on the Growth Management policy board and some of the issues this group faces.

Joan would like to hear what state agencies are putting forward. Due to the long legislative session, they and others within the environmental community feel behind. They are looking at two items:oil spill prevention andfunding.She agreed that by joining together this year we were successful overall. Futureplansshould be to move forward funding options necessaryfor Puget Sound.

The Board then discussed funding concerns. These include:

  • Independent taxing districts and increasing the number of government entities
  • Conditioned or restricted funding where we wouldn’t be able to focus efforts on our priority projects
  • Burdensome processes that inhibit or preventprogressive work

Lisa will also share this information with the Salmon Recovery Council and will ask for their input. It was agreed to have a call or meeting in October to review the proposals. She asked everyone if the proposed schedule works, including a call or meeting to finalize the recommendation to go to the ECB in November. The state agency partnersweren’t sure they would be ready. Lisa will schedule a meeting with the state agency partners to check on their status.

Chris Davis asked about Results Washington andif this group should or could be involved.It is critical that we provide input on any concerns. Chris thought it would be more powerful for the ECB to send a comment letter instead of each caucus sending its own. Marc will check on the timing for comments on Results Washington. He also informed the group that the Governor has included the Puget Sound as one of his priorities. Marc explained that the Partnership has been working with the Governor’s office on indicators and targets. Joan Crooksbelieves comments on Results Washington are due the third week in October.

Martha Kongsgaard reported that Ross Hunter asked if the Partnership could provide an overview ofrecovery efforts, possibly a 2-hour or half day presentation of our work. This would include ECB members and be an opportunity to showcase our accomplishments.

Lisa will return for the November 21, 2013 ECB meeting to present the suite of legislative issues proposed by the partners.

2013 STATE OF THE SOUND

Alana Knaster and Alex Mitchell provided this presentation. (See meeting materials for details.)

Alana explained that many people have been involved in the creation of the State of the Sound document. We have receivedthoughtfulresponsesandsuccess storiesfor inclusion. She noted the review draft will be released next Wednesday or Thursday.

Alana then reviewed the various chapters. She reported that she included Climate Change in the “barriers to implementation” chapter. (This was not included in the meeting packet information.)

Christine Rolfes asked what Alana meant by climate change. Is it ocean acidification or more?She suggested Alana be more specific and not use the words“climate change.”

Marc asked if it would be better to include sea levelrise and ocean acidification. Christine agreed but also wants to change the title.

Will Hall agreed with the need to refine the climate change wording. Also, the last paragraph concerning behavior change says “it also requires our leaders to make tough decisions.” He feels it needs to be worded more strongly.We should alsopoint out that a healthy Sound adds jobs and boosts the economy.

Alana agreed that the behavior change paragraph is awkward and noted the sentence had been a stand-alone bullet.She will consider reformatting.

Dave Herrera had asked about regulatory loop holes insalmon recovery, water quality, shellfish, and other critters, too.

David Troutt believes this report is couched in terms of whether the glass is half empty or half full. He offered the perspective that perhaps it is a lot of glasses all at different levels.

Alana explained she is still working on completing the fiscal section.We received a lot of funding this year and although it is much appreciated and needed, it isstill not enough.

David Troutt commented that we aren’t doing wellin all areas.Indeed, some are going in the wrong direction and we need to be truthful. Wemust express urgency.

Naki Stevens pointed out that funding isn’t the only barrier.Someincentives and subsidiesactually hurt Puget Sound by rewarding bad behavior. She suggested we all read John Lombard’s book Saving Puget Sound.

The members discussed how to maintain the balance between showing progress without losing urgency. Some areas are going in the wrong direction and the Sound is in crisis. However, there are places where we are making progress. Fred Jarrett reminded the group of Bill Ruckelshaus’ direction to create a learning environment.We still need to do that. We are making strategic funding decisions with multiple benefits and that is due to the Action Agenda.

The State of the Sound is not just a report to the Legislature.It will also be used for outreach to the community to show we are making progress but the problem is huge and we need to do more. We purposely set stretch goals for2020 but they make it hard to communicate progress.

Linda Owens expressed the need to be realistic andstill be positive.

ECB SUBCOMMITTEES UPDATE

Jim Bolger introduced two new staff: planning manager Brian Walshand environmental planner Libby Hudson. Both have extensive backgrounds in environmental planning.(See meeting materials for details.)

Jim explained their first task is helping ECB subcommittees. There have been no subcommittee meetings over the summer.

Regulatory Subcommittee Update

The Regulatory Subcommittee has been developing a work plan and recommendations will be presented to the full ECB. EPA funds have been set aside to help facilitate this work.SeaGrant has been selected as the facilitator.

Funding Subcommittee Update

TheFundingsubcommittee has been working over the last few years to develop recommendations. EPA funding has also been set aside to assist facilitation of this group. The contractor needs to be selected.

Jim, Brian and Libby will work with the facilitatorsand subcommittees.

Fred Jarrett noted that the funding group is already energized and on a good path. Now we need to complete the work quickly.

ACTION AGENDA PLANNING

Jim Bolger provided this agenda item. He described the plan to focus on the Department of Health’s shellfish Lead Organization workplan. The Local Integrating Organizations (LIO’s)will coordinate efforts and definitions so that we can consistently track the information. (See meeting materials for details.)

Teri King reported that her group is working with DOH on shellfish. She pointed out the need for data to move things forward.

The group discussed the need for a report card to move us from the local level to the regional targets.

Jim introduced incorporating Ocean Acidification into the Action Agenda. The Blue Ribbon Panel was being convened when the initial Action Agenda was released. Now we need to incorporate the Panel’s recommendations intoour future plans.

Will agrees with the need to incorporate Ocean Acidification, but he thinks we should also includetopics such as Growth Management, carbon footprints, and transit issues. If we want to decrease CO2 emissions, then we need to go straight to the sources.

SHELLFISH STRATEGIC INITATIVE

Shellfish Update

Jerrod Davis provided this agenda item. He distributed handouts about the shellfish report card and a chart of work in progress. He talked about the work plan. He then provided a third handout on sustainable funding for onsite septic systems and a fourth, an overview of the Whatcom Clean Water Program. Jerrod described the work being done in Whatcom and Skagit Counties and what needs to happen to meet the 10,000 acre target. (See meeting handouts for details.)

Chris Davis asked about the targeted nutrient program (NTA) and if it provides incentives to local landowners. Alana reported that she has talked to Ron Schultzof theConservation Commission.According to him, they have identified priority areas but still need to come up with an incentives program. Josh Baldi agreed that they are making progress but have much work to do.