South Central Action Area Caucus Workshop August 12, 2015 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. City of Renton Fire Station 13 18002 108 th Ave SE, Renton 98055 AGENDA Meeting Purposes: Review Caucus’ work products and how they connect to EPA Funding Model and Action Agenda development. Review Caucus work group’s progress on draft results chains. Identify areas of focus for Caucus over next 5 years. Time Topic Lead/Action 10:00 – 10:15 Welcome & Introductions Gretchen Muller 10:15 – 10:45 Local Integrating Organization (LIO) Strategic Recovery Plan Elements/Results Chains Update Gretchen Muller/Susan O’Neil 10:45 – 11:50 ACTIVITY Moving forward – Where Can Our Caucus Have the Most Impact Over the Next 5 Years Gretchen Muller 11:50 – 12:00 Wrap‐Up & Adjourn Gretchen Muller Next Meetings: Schematics working session – late August September 9 Caucus Meeting
Transcript
South Central Action Area Caucus Workshop August 12, 2015
10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. City of Renton Fire Station 13
18002 108th Ave SE, Renton 98055
AGENDA
Meeting Purposes:
Review Caucus’ work products and how they connect to EPA Funding Model and Action Agenda development.
Review Caucus work group’s progress on draft results chains.
Identify areas of focus for Caucus over next 5 years.
Time Topic Lead/Action
10:00 – 10:15 Welcome & Introductions
Gretchen Muller
10:15 – 10:45 Local Integrating Organization (LIO) Strategic Recovery Plan Elements/Results Chains Update
Gretchen Muller/Susan O’Neil
10:45 – 11:50 ACTIVITY Moving forward – Where Can Our Caucus Have the Most Impact Over the Next 5 Years
Gretchen Muller
11:50 – 12:00 Wrap‐Up & Adjourn Gretchen Muller
Next Meetings:
Schematics working session – late August
September 9 Caucus Meeting
2015
201610/2RFP Released for NTAs
10/28Responses
Received
7/28WORK
SESSIONto draft results chains
8/12 WORKSHOP
to review results chains
8/4 WORK
SESSIONto draft results chains 9/6
FULL CAUCUSto approve
results chains, narratives, schematics
9/30 LIO Strategic
Recovery Plan: 5-Year Ecosystem Recovery
Plan (Draft)
10/14 FULL CAUCUS
to review evaluation
matrix
11/6 WORKSHOP
to review prioritization of proposed NTAs
12/9FULL CAUCUSto adopt 2016
NTAs
10/30 WORKSHOPto rank and prioritize
NTAs
12/312-Year
Implementation Plan (Draft)
2/28/162016 NTAs Finalized
9/12/16LIO Strategic
Recovery Plan: 5-Year Ecosystem Recovery Plan
Finalized
JAN - FEBRevise NTAs as needed
MAR - AUGAdditional planning as needed
Implementation
LIO road to implementation (and funding)
DRAFT
FINAL
FINALDRAFT
12/312016 NTAs
(Draft)
DRAFT
1
Approach to Update, Prioritize, & Sequence Near‐Term Actions July 30, 2015
For creation of the 2014 Action Agenda, PSP provided a guidance document called Guidance for
Structuring, Selecting and Prioritizing Near‐Term Actions for Improved Ecosystem Outcomes for 2016
(Anderson et al., 2014). This document still stands as the framework or advice for developing strategic
NTAs.
With the announcement of the new funding model, EPA and PSP have stated that they will require two
products from LIOs for the 2016 Action Agenda:
1. A 5‐year Strategic Recovery Plan 2. A 2‐year Implementation Plan
At the May 5 LIO Coordinators’ meeting, PSP presented a draft timeline for creation of these products.
These dates were then revised at the June 9 LIO Coordinators’ meeting with the following deadlines:
Initial 5‐Year Strategic Recovery Plans developed by September 30, 2015, for Strategic Initiative Transition Team1 review. These initial plans should document the LIO’s current strategy. Deliverables:
o Results Chains o Short narrative o Communication schematic depicting the plan’s approach
2‐Year Implementation Plan (NTAs) developed by December 31, 2015 for Strategic Initiative Transition Team review. Deliverables for each NTA, in the form of a pre‐proposal:
o Description o Expected outcomes o Owners o Estimated cost o Location o Possibly other items
The Strategic Initiative Transition Teams will endorse certain of our pre‐proposals based on their review,
which will consider consistency with our 5‐Year Strategic Recovery Plan, technical feasibility, owner
capacity, and other criteria. The LIO will develop full proposals for those endorsed NTAs that will allow
funding decisions to be made.
The table below attempts to line up the instructions in Anderson et al. (2014) with the deliverables
identified on June 9, and proposes a South Central approach to creating these products so that our NTAs
may be funded.
1 PSP will create Strategic Initiative Transition Teams to review regional and local strategic priorities as well as NTAs. They are transitional because EPA will not select the new Strategic Initiative Leads until 2016; the Leads will be responsible for creating the permanent teams. However, PSP needs these groups set up now to help develop content for the 2016 Action Agenda. Hence, these are the transitional teams.
2
Anderson et al. (2014) Guidance 2016 AA Product Proposed South Central Approach
Step 1: Identify the ecosystem outcomes you will address in 2016. NTAs (developed or refined in step 3) must explicitly address desired ecosystem objectives.
Select 5‐7 ecosystem outcomes that reflect LIO and/or PSP priorities and strategic initiatives.
Use quantitative, measurable measures of ecosystem condition to define the desired performance or progress on the ecosystem objectives.
5‐Year Strategic Recovery Plan
1. Discuss draft ecosystem outcomes at June 10 workshop. EPA/PSP recommends choosing 4‐6 Vital Signs. Focus on the three Strategic Initiatives.
2. Adopt final ecosystem outcomes at July 2 Caucus Group meeting.
3. If desired, where quantitative measures of ecosystem condition or status exist (such as in salmon recovery plans), use those.
Step 2: Determine where an action is necessary to achieve ecosystem outcomes. NTAs (developed or refined in step 3) must explicitly target one or more aspects of the system to achieve desired ecosystem objectives.
Identify key stressors or threats to the ecosystem and their sources (i.e., pressures)
Prioritize pressures based on their impact on the ecosystem objectives and your ability to affect them
Develop a suite of strategies for reducing these key pressures
Identify a suite of steps (if, then statements – also called results chains or logic models) that describe how these strategies achieve ecosystem objectives
Identify additional (and potentially competing) ecosystem or non‐ecosystem objectives that may be
affected by each of these strategies.
5‐Year Strategic Recovery Plan
1. Discuss draft pressures prioritization approach on May 13. 2. Ask for additional pressures review by June 1. 3. Discuss revised draft results at June 10 workshop. 4. Discuss and adopt final pressures prioritization at July 2
Caucus Group meeting. 5. Discuss and adopt final approach to prioritizing NTAs at July
2 Caucus Group meeting. 6. Hold a workshop on July 8 to begin discussion of how LIO
will contribute to the achievement of our chosen PSP Vital Sign recovery targets.
7. Hold two small group work sessions to refine results chains and develop narratives.
8. Hold a workshop on August 12 to agree upon results chains and review the narratives.
9. At September 9 Caucus Group, discuss and adopt results chains and narratives. Approve the final results for submission to PSP as 5‐Year Strategic Recovery Plan and discuss draft schematics.
Step 3: Develop a range of proposed NTAs that enact components of key strategies and move towards ecosystem objectives.
2‐Year Implementation Plan
1. At the workshop in mid to late September, agree upon the format and contents of a request for NTA pre‐proposals.
3
Anderson et al. (2014) Guidance 2016 AA Product Proposed South Central Approach Proposed NTAs should reflect different approaches for implementing the above strategies.
Develop a portfolio of proposed NTAs that reflects a diversity of strategies to achieve outcomes and objectives
Identify performance measures for each proposed NTA that track its impact on ecological, economic, political social and human health objectives.
Distribute the call for pre‐proposals in early October and ask for pre‐proposals by November 3.
2. At October 14 Caucus Group, work to develop NTAs for LIO ownership.
3. At November 6 workshop, discuss proposal ranking.
Step 4: Evaluate, prioritize, and select potential NTA’s Selecting NTA’s requires rigorous, transparent evaluation of trade‐offs in uncertainty, cost, and impact on objectives.
Specify the likely magnitude of impact of an NTA on the desired ecosystem component.
Estimate the uncertainty of the impact of the NTA to an ecosystem component.
Specify the likely magnitude of impact of each NTA on economic, social, and human health performance measures
Estimate the uncertainty of the impact of each NTA on these non‐ecosystem performance measures
Use a prioritization approach to select NTAs that balance achieving desired ecosystem outcomes, while minimizing impacts to non‐ecosystem objectives and uncertainty.
2‐Year Implementation Plan
1. At November 6 workshop, review and create draft prioritization of the NTAs. a. Ideally, prioritize NTAs within each Strategic Initiative
(habitat, stormwater, shellfish) or within each 5‐Year Strategic Recovery Plan results chain, rather than across initiatives or results chains.
b. Consider criteria such as the magnitude of impact on the ecosystem, magnitude of impact on human well‐being, urgency, and cost‐effectiveness.
2. At December 9 Caucus Group meeting, discuss and adopt final set of prioritized NTAs.
3. At January – February 2016 meetings, respond to comments received by the Strategic Initiative Transition Team on 2‐year Implementation Plan and revise, as needed. Submit final 2016 NTAs by February 28.
4. At March – August 2016 meetings, focus on additional planning efforts (TBD) not accomplished by September 30.
5. At September Caucus meeting, approve LIO Strategic Recovery Plan and submit.
Risks/Major Uncertainties:
1. August 12 is an important decision‐making workshop – and many LIO members are likely to be on vacation. 2. We should think about how to structure the RFP for NTAs so that we get a smaller number of high quality NTAs. 3. This schedule uses all of our available meeting time for group planning work; it doesn’t provide time to meet with the Coordinating
Group or other work group to develop draft products for full Caucus Group review.
cover, soil development, critical areas, reductions in shoreline armoring, and
specific actions identified in sub-strategy D5.1
New
D6.1. Implement a long-term, highly visible, coordinated public-awareness effort
using the Puget Sound Starts Here brand to increase public understanding of
Puget Sound’s health, status, and threats. Conduct regionally-scaled
communications to provide a foundation for local communications efforts.
Conduct locally-scaled communications to engage residents in local issues
and recovery efforts
New Tier 2 Retained
D6.2. Incorporate and expand Puget Sound related content in diverse delivery
settings (e.g., recreation, education institutions, local government,
neighborhood and community groups, nonprofit organizations, businesses).
Connect residents with public engagement and volunteer programs
New Tier 2
D6.3. Incorporate Puget Sound place-based content into K-12 curricula throughout
the Puget Sound region. Connect schools with technical assistance, inquiry-
based learning opportunities, and community resources. Implement student
service projects connected to ecosystem recovery. Link schools to
organizations with structured volunteer opportunities
New Tier 2
D7.4. Provide public information conduits connecting individuals to local activities,
resources and decision-making processes—including cost-share programs,
technical assistance, volunteer experiences and ways to engage in civic
structures and processes
New Tier 2
Science
Monitoring
Behavior Change
Communication - Outreach and Education
2016
Status
Also in another Initiative…
Page 4
King County
King County Executive Office401 Fifth Avenue, Room 800Seattle, WA 98104206-263-9600 Fax206.296.0194www.kingcounty.gov
July 7, 2015
Jim BolgerProgram Director, Policy and Planning
Puget Sound Partnership326 East D StreetTacoma,WA 98421-1801
Dear Mr. Bolger:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the 2016/2017 Action Agenda Strategic InitiativeUpdate, with workgroup recommendations on "sub-strategies" to include for the three StrategicInitiatives (Habitat, Stormwater, and Shellfish). We understand that these will form the basis of
the Action Agenda Update this year and help guide the development of Near Term Actions(NTA's) across Puget Sound as well as for each Local Integrating Organization.
We appreciate and support the Partnership's efforts to prioritize work through the Strategic
Initiatives, and to narrow the list of sub-strategies assigned to each Strategic Initiative to focus on
work that could be completed within the next two years. We also appreciate the opportunity to
participate in the Partnership's collaborative process to develop these recommendations.
We support the overall approach and believe that the broad language used for the sub-strategieswould cover the range of potential NTAs we suspect will be needed for the Update. However,we have two general concerns:
I. The need to incorporate work done in 2014 to develop the Funding Strategy. In 2014, a
subcommittee of the Ecosystem Coordination Board developed a Funding Strategy for
the Strategic Initiatives from the 2012-2013 Puget Sound Action Agenda, and it is notclear if that work is or will be included in the Strategic Initiative Update process. We
believe the recommendations in that report (pg. 11-12) are critical to making progress in
the next two years. The recommendations include specific next steps for each of the
three Strategies based on the different scope, institutional responsibilities, and critical
needs of each. They call for better integration of funding sources and restoration actions
across the three Initiatives, and even across public policy goals — for example, aligningPuget Sound protection priorities within transportation funding packages and state
infrastructure funding. And the document specifically recommends that the Partnership
Jim BolgerJuly 7, 2015Page 2
review and revise the funding strategy during the future updates to the Action Agenda
process.
II. The need to emphasize the importance of cross-cutting approaches. The final section ofthe draft Strategic Initiative Update contains "cross-cutting" sub-strategies for science,
monitoring, behavior change, and communication. While these are warranted, the need
to pursue an integrated approach should be emphasized to a greater extent. Some sub-strategies contribute to several Strategic Initiatives - stormwater controls, for example,may be needed to protect habitat or shellfish. Actions for all to address all three
Initiatives will require consideration of climate change. Recent experience has shownthat explicit multi-objective approaches such as "floodplains by design" projects can be
very successful and visible, generating broad stakeholder support. Moreover, thecontinued development of the overall funding strategy itself might be considered a cross-
cutting issue. In any event, the Partnership's role as an integrating agency suggests itemphasize the need for integrated or cross-cutting actions even more in the Strategic
Initiative Action Agenda Update process.
In general, the sub-strategies appear to be comprehensive and capture the range of actions likelyneeded to make progress toward achieving the vital signs. However, we have a few specific
comments on the three Initiatives:
Habitat
Many counties including King County are participating in several projects or initiativesthat seek to accomplish flood protection, salmon and other habitat restoration, andagricultural or other economic/quality of life objectives simultaneously. Support for
these multi-objective approaches should be more explicitly stated in the sub-strategies.
Sustainable agricultural and forestry activities within the Puget Sound region can work to
protect habitat, as they are less detrimental to habitat than urban development or other
land uses, and they are important to our regional quality of life. Support for this should
be more explicitly stated in the sub-strategies.
Stormwater
Several recent studies have suggested that the scale of stormwater controls needed to
restore Puget Sound is very large, yet the science, funding and institutional capacity isstill developing. This suggests the need to prioritize implementation of actions
considered most likely to be cost-effective first (such as removal of legacy loads, high
efficiency street sweeping), while working on a long term strategy. It also suggestscontinued support for completion of standardized tools and best practices for stormwater
management (operations and maintenance, spill reporting, and capital planning). The
sub-strategies should highlight these priorities.
The sub-strategies should emphasize the need to pursue an integrated watershed approach
to addressing stormwater. Stormwater management activities of various jurisdictions and
Jim BolgerJuly 7, 2015Page 3
agencies can be better aligned and integrated with other actions that affect water quality
and habitat across a watershed-such as floodplain management, salmon protection,
wastewater, and even recreation. The work of an interagency task force in 2014 todevelop "Recommendations for Improving Water Quality Assessment and TotalMaximum Daily Loads in Washington State" should be considered where appropriate to
improve the effectiveness of existing programs.
We note that "eelgrass" and "estuaries" are not included on the list of relevant vital signs
affected by stormwater (pg. 8). The pollutants and flow volume effects on stormwater
affect each of these, and they should be included on the list.
Shellfish
We particularly support the sub-strategies to address on-site sewage (OSS) systems(C5.1) and C.9.4 (to develop local and tribal pollution identification and correction
programs), but note the funding challenges associated with these, particularly given thatthe Legislature did not pass proposed legislation to require local governments to charge a
fee to support OS S work. Long term, stable funding from a combination of federal and
state grants and local county authority will be needed to make consistent progress acrossthe Sound.
While we appreciate the work to align the sub-strategies with the Governor's WashingtonShellfish Initiative, several of the "Tier 2" sub-strategies (recommendations for science,
planning, monitoring, and communication) appear redundant with similar "cross cutting"
sub-strategies that relate to all three Strategic Initiatives. We suggest these be combined.
Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in this process. We applaud the Partnership -
and all its partners - for its work to continue to refine the Action Agenda and make progress
toward implementing actions needed to restore Puget Sound.
If you have any questions regarding our comments, contact Dave White, Manager of King
County's Science and Technical Support Section, at 206-477-4847.
Sincerely,
Fred Jarrett
Deputy King County Executive
ec: Christie True, Director, King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks
(DNRP)Megan Smith, Environmental Policy Advisor, King County Executive OfficeMark Isaacson, Division Director, Water and Land Resources Division (WLRD), DNRP
Dave White, Environmental Programs Section Manager, WLRD, DNRP
Sara Hemphill – King Conservation District General Comments Any and all actions considered, or recommended that would affect both private and public lands, in particular, working lands including (but not limited to, farms, commercial forest operations, shellfish beds and adjacent uplands, marine industrial and mining operations), must be protected and supported with a minimum of interference with, or diminishment of, the operations and their viability, of same. Any and all recommended actions, including regulations, must be congruent with updated BAS of the altered, built environment. Habitat General Habitat Comment Recommend the following PSSCLIO sub-strategies and NTAs be added to the Habitat Strategic Initiative:
A2.1 - Protect and conserve ecologically important at risk of conversion and associated NTAs: A2.1.SC2 - Identify and protect high value salmon recovery habitat and lands at immediate risk of conversion; and NTA A2.1.SC 14 - Retain forest canopy cover and soils to attenuate storm water run-off;
A5.2 Align policies regs, planning, coordination to support multi-benefit floodplain management NTA A5.2 SC 5 - Improve floodplains management by creating partnerships of interested parties
A1.2 – All actions considered or recommended for both public and private lands, in particular all working lands, including: farms, forested lands, shellfish beds and adjacent uplands, marine industrial and mining operations must be protected and supported with a minimum of interference with operations and must be congruent with updated BAS that takes into account the challenges of the altered built environment of both public and private parcels. NOTE: This statement attaches as my response to each of the following recommended actions. Stormwater NOTE: the PSSC LIO NTA A2.1.SC 14 - Retain forest canopy cover and soils to attenuate storm water run-off. Recommend adding to the Stormwater Strategic Initiative. Shellfish NOTE: The following PSSCLIO sub-strategy and NTA should be added to the shellfish strategic initiative: Sub-strategy A5.2 Align policies regs, planning, coordination to support multi-benefit floodplain management NTA A5.2 SC 5 - Improve floodplains management by creating partnerships of interested parties
