Minutes
September 7, 2005
Members Present: Laura Arnold, Michael Durland, David Loyd, Mary Masters, Victoria Parker,
Joy Sevier, Jonathan White, Tina Whitman
Staff: Jody Kennedy, Barbara Rosenkotter, Helen Venada
Absent: Mike Bertrand, Brian Calvert, Terrie Klinger, (Alan) Skeet Lowe, Kit Rawson, Jim Slocomb, Dennis Willows
Guests: Hilary Culverwell, Shannon Davis, Phil Green, Kari Koski, Camilla Loyd, Rowann Tollman, Sandy Wyllie-Echeverria, Scott Veirs and UW Friday Harbor Labs’ class members
Vice Chair Mary Masters called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. in the Community Room at Islanders Bank Annex, Friday Harbor. Mary announced that this meeting will primarily be a work session for MRC members.
Scott Veirs introduced the first six students who will be on board for the next five weeks in the Labs’ Marine Science and Sustainability class.
Citizen comments: Hilary Culverwell said that Puget Sound Action Team is co-hosting a transborder spartina workshop sometime in late winter, 2005 or in early spring of next year. She pointed out that there have been several spartina outbreaks in the San Juans, as well as in Birch Bay in Whatcom County and Boundary Bay in British Columbia. There has been a huge eradication effort by the B.C. provincial government and Ducks Unlimited of Canada, Hilary added, and they are wanting to partner more closely with U.S. counterparts on addressing new outbreaks. This workshop would provide opportunities to share resources and response experiences as well as to improve future communications. Hilary said that the spartina issue is one that we thought we had a handle on but the new outbreaks prove otherwise. She asked if the MRC would like to have input on the workshop agenda or otherwise participate; Hilary will provide follow up information as it becomes available.
Rowann Tollman said that spartina has been identified at Spencer Spit marsh on Lopez Island; she suggested that PSAT contact Judy Jackson of the SJC Noxious Weed Board. Phil Green said that Roger Fuller of The Nature Conservancy should also be contacted.
Minutes:
Minutes of the 8/17/05 meeting were approved with the correction on page 1 under “Guest Presenter” that “Evans” be changed to “Wagoner.”
Action item:
Mary said that Jon Shannon of Public Works and Matt Zybas of the Community Development and Planning Department have been trying to muster strong support for a comprehensive stormwater management plan. She noted that there are several important deadlines approaching that should provide incentives for San Juan County to put a comprehensive stormwater management plan in place. The County is now out of compliance with the Growth Management Act because of its lack of stormwater planning. Mary added that the Eastsound Urban Growth Area Stormwater Management Plan has been severely criticized because it is woefully inadequate.
Mary distributed copies of a draft support letter to the BOCC, encouraging them to implement a comprehensive approach to stormwater management that “...protects marine resources, encourages the use of Low Impact Development techniques, and complies with federal and state regulations (Clean Water Act, WA State Water Pollution Control Act).” Mary noted that there are hurdles, including a lack of money and policy guidance. There are some critical deadlines coming up, she said, one being the Eastsound Urban Growth Area plan which will come before the BOCC on October 11th, even though the stormwater management plan requires complete revision. Mary suggested that not much can be done at this time, except perhaps for the BOCC to do an emergency ordinance to extend the deadline. Barbara added that in the Shared Strategy Plan, one of the potential threats specifically outlined is stormwater runoff which is high on the list of things to be identified and corrected at some point.
Motion: David moved, and Victoria seconded, that the draft letter to the BOCC, in support of a county-wide comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan being moved along in a timely manner, be approved and sent.
Discussion followed. Laura asked about the effort by Public Works and CD&PD to update the local stormwater rule and manual, wondering if it had been sidelined for political reasons. Tina said that the 2003 Stormwater Plan was found to be inadequate following the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office review and has, therefore, been moved to this year’s docket. She noted that the Comprehensive Plan process is underway and may be over-riding the stormwater plan. Kevin said that he met with Jon Shannon and Matt Zybas on this issue last week. Public Works is taking the lead, he said, and the Eastsound problem will be addressed first. The strategy is to look at the stormwater issue county-wide, not just for hamlets. He added that this is one of many items on the BOCC radar screen.
The motion passed unanimously.
Mooring Buoys:
Commissioner Kevin Ranker said that he has been in contact with the Department of Natural Resources and is very frustrated with DNR tagging illegal buoys without first discussing carrying capacity for buoys in the waters here. Kevin’s understanding is that tagged illegal buoys would need to be removed but instead the tags say that you have 30 days to call the DNR and then the buoys will be legal. He said that DNR has said it has no capacity to remove buoys because they don’t have the resources to do it; it also has no protocols to determine where buoys can be sited. The agency told Kevin that it is not inclined to not approve buoys and that DNR’s review depends on county review. He said that the county CD&PD told him that they assume that DNR has scrutinized buoy permits when the Department receives applications so that the permits are passed on to DNR. Kevin suggested that the MRC take on the discussion of the need to develop a strategy of where buoys should be sited, suggesting that Barbara take the lead on this when the salmon issue slows down. Kevin said that here is a precedent in the county to limit the number of mooring buoys (e.g. Friday Harbor) and regulations are already in place. He added that the BOCC is hesitant at this time to even discuss another moratorium. Mary noted that the issue of buoys will be looked at as part of the MSA recommendations process. Laura said that this needs to be addressed separately from MSA and that there is clear authority in shoreline law for the CD&PD to take a policy approach on the issue. She offered to work with Barbara to get the issue on the October MRC agenda. Barbara added that buoys are a shoreline concern.
Membership item:
Mary said that Dennis Willows’ replacement as FH Labs Director (Ken Steebens) will be onboard this month. Dennis would like to hear from other MRC members about whether he should remain on the committee, since he originally qualified for membership as the Labs Director. Members agreed that Dennis’ active participation has been a valuable asset to the MRC for many years (it was pointed out that he may be the last remaining original member). There was a straw vote of confidence for him continuing on the committee and Mary will email Dennis to notify him of this.
MSA Anniversary Event:
Victoria distributed copies of the draft summary goal/project description and the draft budget estimates for the “Envision Stewardship: Marine Stewardship Area In Action” 2006 celebration of the MSA. She outlined the key activities being discussed in sub-committee and their associated budget items and costs.
Victoria asked that the committee review and discuss the documents. Jody pointed out that the outreach budget covers two years and Victoria said that it is likely that outreach for this event will be less expensive after the first year.
Motion: David moved, and Jonathan seconded, that a project manager be hired, per the specifics of the draft budget. The motion passed unanimously.
Salmon Technical Advisory Group (STAG) proposals review:
Barbara distributed copies of the results of STAG’s review and asked STAG members present (4 out of 8) to introduce themselves: Kari, Sandy, Phil, and Hilary. Barbara said that the spreadsheet provides a summary of SJC (WRIA 2) 2005, 6th Round, SRF Board scores for the 5 proposals reviewed and their associated projected budgets. She discussed the technical scoring process and presented a brief synopsis of each proposal and STAG’s comments, noting that the scoring was based on a project’s benefit to salmon, its supporting data, its certainty of success, beneficial partnerships (e.g. industry/ state/ academia), its leverage as an exemplary restoration project, best usage of funds, scientific assessment value, motivation to do the work, and socio-economics (to be discussed at greater length by the MRC on September 21st).
Barbara said that the strategy as it is lined out today was used to score the projects; STAG, therefore, looked at how well a project fit the strategy for San Juan County, not how well it fit the whole world.
Comments on each project from STAG and MRC are summarized below:
1. Thatcher Bay Nearshore Restoration and Assessment Design - relatively low benefit to salmon restoration but relatively high socio-economic benefit due to partnership with state, industry, and Seattle Pacific University; set up as pilot but there may be no similar areas in the San Juans; may not be best usage of matching funds.
2. Assessment and Protection of Kelp in SJC - good fit, makes sense, may have short shelf life, freshwater impacts?, how well would data sets match up with earlier survey, ultimate value of data?, real benefit to salmon?, FOSJ has great nearshore data sets on presence of kelp, kelp is specifically noted as supportive habitat in critical areas, relationship of kelp and salmon? (Shared Salmon Strategy’s focus is on nearshore as a whole), matches strategy perfectly and is a state project of concern.
[Barbara interjected that, in terms of the “project of concern” issue, the state’s technical review was done prior to STAG’s review; also, some STAG comments were re-addressed by proponents. She added that SRFB has to take into account SJC’s strategy. A Strategy Project Team will do another iteration of ranking strategy in the Fall.]
There was discussion on socio-economic comments for project #2 and how they could be incorporated into County data and translated into direct action / policy. How will additional technical assistance be provided to the County to do so?
3. SJC Salmon Habitat Protection Blueprint - the matrix for the evaluation process could be updated and therefore needs to be more flexible; has high community involvement with good outreach/education potential, fits strategy, are properties those most threatened or “convenient?”, emphasis seems to be on private land and maybe different levels of protection would be appropriate for public and private lands, difficult to tie salmon viability with conservation assessments, matrix is a good tool for the Land Bank and SJ Preservation Trust (but with the caution that tools not be used dogmatically).
4. Freshwater Quality: Status and Protection Requirements - doesn’t fit criteria well, a good project but may not be an appropriate proposal for SRFB; question of scientific credibility, might not be accepted by greater scientific community and isn’t compatible (techniques and methodology) with other data being collected by agencies and others; needs to either be a scientific study or a high school project (can’t be both); no
coordination with the SJ Conservation District, which is specifically called out in the Strategy; socio-
economic benefit is the involvement of students; questions DOE data to get a better understanding of water quality than we have now; recommendation that MRC takes the ideas in the project to try to make it happen.
5. Genetic Stock Identification of San Juan Juvenile Salmon - strong project; some concerns with small sample; inadequate results to be conclusive; critical component of Strategy but needs to be done on a comprehensive scale; could start the process of stock identification, which is important; socio-economic scoring is high if new stocks are identified.
Barbara explained that following STAG’s review, it’s up to the MRC to score projects for socio-economic impacts; MRC has the ultimate authority on rankng proposals for SRFB. David wondered if STAG members felt constrained by the set scoring protocols; he invited additional comments outside those categories. Phil said that it would be good to consider a new category, “biggest bang for the buck.” The process is out of order, he said, i.e. SRFB reviews should have come out earlier. Tina said that when the MRC goes back to addressing strategies, outside funding sources should be considered. Barbara said that at the last SRFB strategy meeting, two weeks ago, there was concern that assessment of shoreline problems seem to be more important to the MRC at this time than actual restoration efforts; after discussion, Barbara added, SRFB seemed to better understand SJC’s position. Sandy added that the importance of the nearshore here is only just now being recognized at the SRFB level. Barbara emphasized that the MRC will have more input into next year’s process.
Barbara said that SJC is likely to receive about $200,000 from SRFB through this process, which is less than was available last year. There will be funds left over that will be distributed through another (competitive) funding process at the SRFB level on a regular basis. Discussion followed with the committee agreeing that the best projects for San Juan County, thought to be important and not only thought to be fundable, should be put forward. Barbara recommended that it would be very educational for MRC members to attend next year’s SRFB technical review meeting, which, hopefully, would be scheduled at a more convenient time for more people.
Barbara suggested holding the discussion on socio-economic benefits until the next MRC meeting. The MRC’s socio-economic scores will be added to the STAG’s scores and then the proposals will be ranked. The MRC could choose to rank proposals according to arithmetic scores or according to STAG review; it could remove a project from the ranking list and/or define its own ranking process. The ranking justification must be clearly described. She asked that members think about who wants to be on the strategy project team in the future. The process to start updating the strategy will begin in early October.
Citizen Comments:
Tina said that Barbara is to be commended for doing an amazing job. Mary added that San Juan County MRC presenters (Jody, Kirsten, Kit, and Victoria) at the Northwest Straits Commission meeting on Lopez also did great work.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 am.
Submitted by Helen Venada and Jody Kennedy
