Science and Technical Advisory Committee
Science and Technical Advisory Committee Partnership for the Delaware Estuary: A National Estuary Program www.DelawareEstuary.org
Annual Joint Meeting of the Estuary Implementation Committee and Science and Technical Advisory Committee Wednesday, September 30th, 2009; 9:30 A.M. to 2:30 P.M. Cusano Center at the Heinz National Wildlife Refuge, Philadelphia, PA Notes:
acronym definitions are provided at the end of these minutes action items are shown in bold italics font
Participants:
Jen Adkins – PDE Susan Kilham – Drexel University (STAC) Ed Ambrogio‐ EPA Region 3 John Kraueter – Rutgers University (STAC) Chris Bason‐ DE CIB Danielle Kreeger – PDE (STAC) Gregory Breese‐ USFWS Jerre Mohler‐ USFWS Gerald Bright‐ PWD Kerry Pflugh‐NJ DEP (EIC) Kathy Bunting‐Howarth‐ DE DNREC Irene Purdy – US EPA Region 2 David Burke– PADEP (STAC) Janice Rollwagen‐ EPA Region 2 (EIC) Lance H. Butler – PWD (STAC) Dave Russell – EPA Region 3 (STAC) Priscilla Cole – PDE Ken Strait‐ PSEG Paula Connolly‐ PWD Bob Tudor‐ DRBC Tom Fikslin – DRBC (STAC) Laura Whalen – PDE Dorina Frizzera‐ NJDEP CZM Anne Witt‐ NJ DEP Jack Gallagher‐ U of D David Wolanski‐ DE DNREC (STAC) Jeff Gebert – ACOE (STAC) Leigh Wood‐ NJ DEP CZM Desmond Kahn‐ DE DFW Andy Zemba‐ PA DEP John Kennel‐ DE DNREC 1) Call to Order & Introductions • Jen Adkins introduced Sue Kilham as the new STAC chair • Moved agenda item 6‐ ‘EIC/STAC feedback on emerging issues in the Estuary’ to the end of agenda 2) STAC Updates • Sue Kilham reviewed STAC minutes from August 14th STAC meeting. i. at August 14th meeting, STAC discussed the STAC Vice‐chair position a. Pg. 4 of August 14th minutes and updated STAC Charter describe chair and vice‐chair positions and length of terms (4 year commitment total).
1
STAC‐EIC Meeting Minutes – September 30th, 2009
3) Review/Approval of STAC Vice‐Chair Position • Lance Butler accepted nomination to be vice‐chair i. Approval: STAC approved first and EIC second a. STAC all in favor‐ unanimous b. EIC all in favor‐ unanimous ii. Side discussion: c. John Kennel stated that the EIC works by consensus. d. Jen Adkins asked if EIC should use Robert’s Rules for meetings and EIC agreed that they should. e. Tom Fikslin made point that need new list of updated members for voting purposes. f. Greg Breese suggested that, if using Robert’s Rules, EIC should make sure there is a quorum at the meeting to vote. g. Jen Adkins will circulate EIC list for everyone to review and update members. 4) Approve Plans for the next State of the Estuary Report (SOE) • Danielle Kreeger updated STAC and EIC about the working plan for the next State of the Estuary (SOE) Report, resulting from the last several STAC and MAC meetings ‐ referred to handout, ‘Conceptual Framework for Content and Partner Roles,’ which can be downloaded from http://www.delawareestuary.org/science_stac_meetings.asp • Timeframe for completing SOE: STAC will lead technical report and complete at the end of 2011 and PDE staff will do the public piece in 2010. • Discussion of role of PDE STAC and potential partners, costs and timing: i. John Kraeuter stated that there should be an end date of 2010 for collecting all data in order to complete the report in 2011. ii. Danielle Kreeger stated that the technical report can be as long and as technical as STAC wants (it was a struggle to fit everything into the last 2008 SOE report). iii. Bob Tudor asked if number 4 on the Conceptual Framework handout stating, “PDE will work with partners and the EIC to draft a MOA defining PDE, STAC, and other partner roles for preparing the report,” is overkill. Suggested that STAC should only have contracts with those being paid for work on SOE. iv. John Kraeuter agreed with Bob because the process of drafting MOAs could hinder the group from finishing the report in the set timeframe. v. Danielle Kreeger agreed that maybe MOAs are not necessary if STAC is careful with the timeline and works together to complete the SOE. Danielle will change the wording of number 4 on Conceptual Framework to reflect this decision to not use MOAs. vi. Jen Adkins suggested that a substitute for formal MOAs would be to get the EIC to approve the STAC timeline.
2
STAC‐EIC Meeting Minutes – September 30th, 2009
•
3
Review draft table of contents for SOE Technical Report: vii. Desmond Kahn asked why “Watersheds and Landscapes” Report Section is separate from the “Water Quality” Section? viii. Bob Tudor stated that if DRBC works on the “Watersheds and Landscapes” Section, they will report out and get approval from STAC on the indicators. ix. Danielle Kreeger stated that leads of each subgroup will report out and STAC members should focus on the DE Estuary and not the entire basin. x. Greg Breese suggested making the indicator list shorter and more clear. xi. Danielle Kreeger responded that the indicator chart is still in flux, but the main categories are set and the leads of each group can focus on making the final decision about primary and secondary indicators. xii. Bob Tudor suggested that after the primary and secondary indicators columns, there should be one final list for each group with their doable indicators, to be discussed and approved by the EIC. xiii. Jen Adkins stated that by the next STAC meeting (Jan 2010), each group should come with their list of indicators that they will be working on and draft a budget. xiv. Bob Tudor‐ Typo at top of Conceptual Framework handout‐ Change 2012 to 2011 xv. Discuss each section of SOE table of contents (this list is not necessarily the order it will be in the report). Changes noted below to be incorporated into revised table by Danielle Kreeger. i. Watersheds and Landscapes ‐ DRBC will lead. o Bob Tudor thought that ‘Restoration Activity’ under secondary indicators should be moved to Habitats and Living Resources instead because it’s a RRWG and would make it easier for DRBC. Also, why isn’t there a habitat category? o Kerry Pflugh and Greg Breese thought that ‘Restoration’ should be a separate category and possibly make it Tier 3. o Jen Adkins agreed that DRBC should not take that on and asked how we will report on Restoration Activities. Jen also brought up adding CCMP actions to the SOE. o Group decided to move “Restoration” up to overall PDE work o Bob Tudor said that DRBC will have a lead for each indicator (ex. Jessica Sanchez will work on Watersheds indicator, John Yagecic will work on Land Use, Tom Fikslin will be reporting at STAC meetings) b. Aquatic o Subtidal‐ PDE‐ Angela Padeletti will lead group with Doug Miller and Dave Russell. o Intertidal‐ PDE‐ Leads will be Ken Strait, Sue Kilham, and Danielle Kreeger. STAC‐EIC Meeting Minutes – September 30th, 2009
o Non‐Tidal‐ DRBC‐ Bob Tudor will lead and Paula Connelly (PWD) will lead the Schuylkill River section. o Bob would like to involve NFWF as well as Jerry Kauffman at UDel. o Move dam removal to new “Restoration Activity” category. o Move hydrologic impacts from Aquatic Habitats to Living Resources category or possibly the System Function indicator. c. Living Resources o Tidal Estuary ‐ Greg Breese will take the lead for tidal living resources, and said that each state should have a representative (Des Kahn and Jerry Mohler). o Non‐tidal Estuary ‐ PWD did not initially feel comfortable taking the lead on the indicator because states have 303d list and other information that PWD does not have. ‐ PWD monitors Schuylkill for juveniles, etc., DRBC has macroinvertebrate data above Trenton, PA DEP has macroinvertebrate data as well. ‐ The 3 states need to meet to normalize data, but PWD (Gerald Bright) will take the lead to coordinate (depending on STAC help). ‐ Jerre Mohler and possibly Glen Beck could be STAC leads. o Bob Tudor noted that we are always looking for a story to tell, and a good living resources story may be about the American Eel as a tidal and non‐tidal living resource story. If we have a healthy eel population, which mussels love as a host species and all cycles back to the fact that we don’t have dams, this could be a unique feature of the Delaware Estuary because there are few mussels in the Susquehanna. o This would be a “System Function” story, possibly an emerging story because of data gaps‐ no data on emigrating eels on the east coast. o Tom Fikslin thought this could be discussed under the Restoration category. o Use these stories in the public piece and Estuary News to promote these projects for funding. d. Water Quality o Tidal and Non‐Tidal‐ DRBC will lead (John Yagecic). o Currently have 2008 data and will have 2010 data by the 2011 report. e. Water Quantity o DRBC will provide name of lead. o Sediment Budget‐ Jeff Gebert, Army Corp of Engineers (PDE may convene a Sediment Workshop in January). o Source Water‐ USGS lead?.
4
STAC‐EIC Meeting Minutes – September 30th, 2009
f. Climate Change o PDE will lead (Danielle Kreeger, Sue Kilham, David Velinsky, and Ray Najjar) because similar work as Climate Ready Estuaries efforts. Will also ask Carol Collier of DRBC to help. o Sue Kilham mentioned that sea level rise projection has been increased to minimum of 1 meter by 2050 by intergovernmental report and the arctic could increase by 18₀C in next 30 years. o Therefore, Danielle Kreeger and Dorina Frizzera suggested including model projection data along with top climate indicators. Tom Fikslin suggested looking in the past as well. g. Systems Functions o PDE will lead, Jonathan Sharp or Danielle Kreeger. o Priscilla Cole and Sue Kilham will help. o Add States to Technical Assistance. h. Other Comments o Missing a Management Section‐ but is this the right report for this? Ideas: • Discuss how we are doing on managing the system. • Need to define “management” and ID metric to measure. o CCMP actions items • Jen Adkins proposed new section to the SOE. • Work with EIC to decide on process. • Need to do better job at reporting out on CCMP. o Every section should have a ‘Data Needed’ blurb, like last SOE. o Army Corp may be developing an indicators “Toolbox”‐ need feedback o Can any of the Federal Agencies help push through our data requests, such as Landsat, National Wetlands Inventory, etc. o Last NWI was clipped to the estuary and it took 1 person 2 months to develop (Breese.) o Stay with same watershed geographic areas from the last SOE and SOB, and maybe feature some areas. o Determine what time period the SOE will report on for trends – perhaps compare conditions to both short term changes (since time of last SOE in 2008) and also long‐term trends (relative to oldest data available per indicator). o Look at other reports such as the “Annual Environmental Management System Report” for examples i.
5
Costs for SOE Report
STAC‐EIC Meeting Minutes – September 30th, 2009
o o o o o o o
j.
20K of STAC funds could be allocated for SOE data development in 2010, but we will need more than 20K. Must decide which indicators need funds in order to collect or develop data. STAC to prepare section budgets asap. Last SOE probably took a few hundred thousand $. States have tight budget right now, so maybe partner with NOAA? Section leads should decide on indicators, provide a basis, and summarize any resources needed. PDE/STAC may be able to tap into FY11 funds as well. Need to come up with a SOE budget before winter Board meeting where budget is decided. Use STAC meeting in January to prepare budget, and then seek EIC approval and support in February.
Summary of SOE Action Items o Leads for each SOE report section should lay out indicators, why they were chosen, and note any resources and funding needed. o Standardize and revise indicator list, and determine what each group should report on at the January meeting. o Prepare timeline for SOE tech report completion and highlight deadlines.
Break for Lunch 5)
ACES Presentation‐ Jennifer Adkins • Jen presented a Powerpoint describing the Alliance for Comprehensive Ecosystem Solutions and its role in the Regional Restoration Initiative. Highlighted were the roles of the Regional Restoration Work Group (RRWG) and STAC, which are developing science‐based decision support tools for project analysis and prioritization. • Comments and questions i. Page 28 of Blueprint Report‐ Bob Tudor suggested that ‘Polluters’ should not be first on the list of funding sources chart. ii. Flow chart on Pg. 15 of Blueprint‐ Can Alliance go to stakeholders to get projects as well as STAC and RRWG? Yes, but will still go through project registry. iii. Danielle Kreeger explained that there are other values of the RRWG besides the project registry and RRI tools, such as identifying project gaps for high value activities. iv. For the steering committee meeting, Kerry Pflugh suggested to be better prepared to give this presentation to the steering committee because it will be the first time they are hearing about any of this. Tell them exactly what they are committing to‐ 3 to 4 projects for 1st round of funding.
6
STAC‐EIC Meeting Minutes – September 30th, 2009
v.
•
Dorina Frizzera stated that there are things that should be going on parallel with RRWG efforts such as determining wetlands available for restoration and land owner willingness. She suggested that regional priorities also be assessed for project selection instead of just 15 projects. vi. Goal of RRWG and ACES for first round of project funding: • 3 or 4 projects ($50,000‐$100,000 each) to be funded on a regional scale vii. Bob Tudor asked how we will get that funding? viii. Kerry Pflugh‐ loves the approach but we must consider that states don’t have money and there will be hesitation because of changes in administration. ix. Look at the Harbor Estuary Program which has compelling projects x. Jen Adkins replied that this is a way to promote projects even though it’s a big ask. xi. Bob Tudor suggested asking for letters of support from Governors and that is something the steering committee can help with. xii. Janice Rollwagen noted that the Puerto Rico NEP couldn’t use their 319 money the past 2 years so it went back to EPA Region 2, which decided to use money for projects in NY and NJ. So they could use the registry to find projects for instances like that. xiii. Sue Kilham suggested that we could also focus on an umbrella project with sub‐projects underneath. Draft letters of support and hand them out because our goal is to be prepared for grant opportunities
•
6)
Approve Plans for formation of PDE ACES Formal EIC approval to proceed granted by consensus. EIC Business • EIC approved May 7th meeting minutes by consensus. i. EIC approved change in minutes that Board approved before lunch. • Reviewed results of EPA Program evaluation/letter. i. Jen Adkins received the draft final letter and hoped to have the final version by the Steering Committee meeting on October 8th. ii. PDE passed the review which means PDE is still eligible for funding. o Strengths‐ examples were the oyster restoration project and regional restoration. o Suggested Improvements‐ setting meaningful goals and tracking CCMP actions. iii. Jen Adkins will send EIC the draft final EPA review letter. iv. Finalized agenda and preparations for Oct. 8th Steering Committee meeting • Ask Steering Committee to meet annually as they do with other NEPs.
7
STAC‐EIC Meeting Minutes – September 30th, 2009
•
7)
Andy Zemba stated that a question might come up about what to do if the NEP does not meet measurable goals, and Danielle Kreeger suggested adaptive management as a solution. Add a discussion about climate change to the agenda.
• STAC Business • Approve August meeting minutes ‐ John Kraeuter made motion to accept minutes ‐ Vote: Unanimous agreement to accept STAC meeting minutes from 8/14. • Sue Kilham will send out action items and agenda as well as dates for a January STAC meeting. • Bob Tudor suggested that the STAC should also set the next April STAC meeting date with draft agenda.
•
Upcoming events: i. ii. iii.
October 15th AWRA Philadelphia Section meeting‐ Carol Collier will be discussing the Marcellas Shale issue. PDE may hold a Sediment Workshop in January and a Wetland Workshop in February 2010. Dorina Frizzera announced that a NJ DEP Climate Change Workshop will be held in February or March 2010.
8) EIC/STAC feedback on emerging issues in the Estuary • Marcellas Shale i. Two concerns‐ water withdrawals and wastewater. ii. Have a meeting with the Secretary of Interior to discuss that this project will affect a National Wild & Scenic River and will be draining 3 million gallons of water per month per well. iii. STAC could write a letter with the information we have, but the issue is complex and should get more information first. iv. Jen Adkins will put out call to STAC to get paper together on shale issue. • Delaware Bay Wind Farm i. Kerry Pflugh stated that the permit application is available to the public on the NJ DEP website, and the STAC or PDE could also write a letter with the information that we have currently. 9) Next meeting
8
STAC‐EIC Meeting Minutes – September 30th, 2009
•
Adjourn
STAC should meet in early January to receive an update on the RRWG and to further prepare for SOE Tech Report ‐ Danielle Kreeger will send out a Doodle to choose a date. 3:00
List of Acronyms ACES: Alliance for Comprehensive Ecosystem Solutions CCMP: Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan STAC – MAC Meeting Minutes – 4/2/09 8 CMES: College of Marine and Earth Sciences (University of Delaware) DEBI: Delaware Estuary Benthic Inventory DEWOOS: Delaware Estuary Watershed to Ocean Observing System DEWWG: Delaware Estuary Wetland Work Group DNREC: Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (Delaware) DRBC: Delaware River Basin Commission EPA: Environmental Protection Agency (US) EIC: Estuary Implementation Committee NEP: National Estuary Program NJDEP: New Jersey Department of the Environment NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPS: National Park Service NVCS: Natural Vegetation Classification System NWQMN: National Water Quality Monitoring Network PADEP: Pennsylvania Department of the Environment PA CZM: Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management program PDE: Partnership for the Delaware Estuary PSEG: Public Service Electric & Gas (New Jersey) PWD: Philadelphia Water Department RARE: Regional Applied Research Effort RRI: Regional Restoration Initiative RRWG: Regional Restoration Work Group SOE: State of the Estuary STAC: Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee USFWS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS: U.S. Geological Survey
9
STAC‐EIC Meeting Minutes – September 30th, 2009
Annual Joint Meeting of the Estuary Implementation Committee and Science and Technical Advisory Committee Wednesday, September 30th, 2009; 9:30 A.M. to 2:30 P.M. Cusano Center at the Heinz National Wildlife Refuge, Philadelphia, PA Notes:
acronym definitions are provided at the end of these minutes action items are shown in bold italics font
Participants:
Jen Adkins – PDE Susan Kilham – Drexel University (STAC) Ed Ambrogio‐ EPA Region 3 John Kraueter – Rutgers University (STAC) Chris Bason‐ DE CIB Danielle Kreeger – PDE (STAC) Gregory Breese‐ USFWS Jerre Mohler‐ USFWS Gerald Bright‐ PWD Kerry Pflugh‐NJ DEP (EIC) Kathy Bunting‐Howarth‐ DE DNREC Irene Purdy – US EPA Region 2 David Burke– PADEP (STAC) Janice Rollwagen‐ EPA Region 2 (EIC) Lance H. Butler – PWD (STAC) Dave Russell – EPA Region 3 (STAC) Priscilla Cole – PDE Ken Strait‐ PSEG Paula Connolly‐ PWD Bob Tudor‐ DRBC Tom Fikslin – DRBC (STAC) Laura Whalen – PDE Dorina Frizzera‐ NJDEP CZM Anne Witt‐ NJ DEP Jack Gallagher‐ U of D David Wolanski‐ DE DNREC (STAC) Jeff Gebert – ACOE (STAC) Leigh Wood‐ NJ DEP CZM Desmond Kahn‐ DE DFW Andy Zemba‐ PA DEP John Kennel‐ DE DNREC 1) Call to Order & Introductions • Jen Adkins introduced Sue Kilham as the new STAC chair • Moved agenda item 6‐ ‘EIC/STAC feedback on emerging issues in the Estuary’ to the end of agenda 2) STAC Updates • Sue Kilham reviewed STAC minutes from August 14th STAC meeting. i. at August 14th meeting, STAC discussed the STAC Vice‐chair position a. Pg. 4 of August 14th minutes and updated STAC Charter describe chair and vice‐chair positions and length of terms (4 year commitment total).
1
STAC‐EIC Meeting Minutes – September 30th, 2009
3) Review/Approval of STAC Vice‐Chair Position • Lance Butler accepted nomination to be vice‐chair i. Approval: STAC approved first and EIC second a. STAC all in favor‐ unanimous b. EIC all in favor‐ unanimous ii. Side discussion: c. John Kennel stated that the EIC works by consensus. d. Jen Adkins asked if EIC should use Robert’s Rules for meetings and EIC agreed that they should. e. Tom Fikslin made point that need new list of updated members for voting purposes. f. Greg Breese suggested that, if using Robert’s Rules, EIC should make sure there is a quorum at the meeting to vote. g. Jen Adkins will circulate EIC list for everyone to review and update members. 4) Approve Plans for the next State of the Estuary Report (SOE) • Danielle Kreeger updated STAC and EIC about the working plan for the next State of the Estuary (SOE) Report, resulting from the last several STAC and MAC meetings ‐ referred to handout, ‘Conceptual Framework for Content and Partner Roles,’ which can be downloaded from http://www.delawareestuary.org/science_stac_meetings.asp • Timeframe for completing SOE: STAC will lead technical report and complete at the end of 2011 and PDE staff will do the public piece in 2010. • Discussion of role of PDE STAC and potential partners, costs and timing: i. John Kraeuter stated that there should be an end date of 2010 for collecting all data in order to complete the report in 2011. ii. Danielle Kreeger stated that the technical report can be as long and as technical as STAC wants (it was a struggle to fit everything into the last 2008 SOE report). iii. Bob Tudor asked if number 4 on the Conceptual Framework handout stating, “PDE will work with partners and the EIC to draft a MOA defining PDE, STAC, and other partner roles for preparing the report,” is overkill. Suggested that STAC should only have contracts with those being paid for work on SOE. iv. John Kraeuter agreed with Bob because the process of drafting MOAs could hinder the group from finishing the report in the set timeframe. v. Danielle Kreeger agreed that maybe MOAs are not necessary if STAC is careful with the timeline and works together to complete the SOE. Danielle will change the wording of number 4 on Conceptual Framework to reflect this decision to not use MOAs. vi. Jen Adkins suggested that a substitute for formal MOAs would be to get the EIC to approve the STAC timeline.
2
STAC‐EIC Meeting Minutes – September 30th, 2009
•
3
Review draft table of contents for SOE Technical Report: vii. Desmond Kahn asked why “Watersheds and Landscapes” Report Section is separate from the “Water Quality” Section? viii. Bob Tudor stated that if DRBC works on the “Watersheds and Landscapes” Section, they will report out and get approval from STAC on the indicators. ix. Danielle Kreeger stated that leads of each subgroup will report out and STAC members should focus on the DE Estuary and not the entire basin. x. Greg Breese suggested making the indicator list shorter and more clear. xi. Danielle Kreeger responded that the indicator chart is still in flux, but the main categories are set and the leads of each group can focus on making the final decision about primary and secondary indicators. xii. Bob Tudor suggested that after the primary and secondary indicators columns, there should be one final list for each group with their doable indicators, to be discussed and approved by the EIC. xiii. Jen Adkins stated that by the next STAC meeting (Jan 2010), each group should come with their list of indicators that they will be working on and draft a budget. xiv. Bob Tudor‐ Typo at top of Conceptual Framework handout‐ Change 2012 to 2011 xv. Discuss each section of SOE table of contents (this list is not necessarily the order it will be in the report). Changes noted below to be incorporated into revised table by Danielle Kreeger. i. Watersheds and Landscapes ‐ DRBC will lead. o Bob Tudor thought that ‘Restoration Activity’ under secondary indicators should be moved to Habitats and Living Resources instead because it’s a RRWG and would make it easier for DRBC. Also, why isn’t there a habitat category? o Kerry Pflugh and Greg Breese thought that ‘Restoration’ should be a separate category and possibly make it Tier 3. o Jen Adkins agreed that DRBC should not take that on and asked how we will report on Restoration Activities. Jen also brought up adding CCMP actions to the SOE. o Group decided to move “Restoration” up to overall PDE work o Bob Tudor said that DRBC will have a lead for each indicator (ex. Jessica Sanchez will work on Watersheds indicator, John Yagecic will work on Land Use, Tom Fikslin will be reporting at STAC meetings) b. Aquatic o Subtidal‐ PDE‐ Angela Padeletti will lead group with Doug Miller and Dave Russell. o Intertidal‐ PDE‐ Leads will be Ken Strait, Sue Kilham, and Danielle Kreeger. STAC‐EIC Meeting Minutes – September 30th, 2009
o Non‐Tidal‐ DRBC‐ Bob Tudor will lead and Paula Connelly (PWD) will lead the Schuylkill River section. o Bob would like to involve NFWF as well as Jerry Kauffman at UDel. o Move dam removal to new “Restoration Activity” category. o Move hydrologic impacts from Aquatic Habitats to Living Resources category or possibly the System Function indicator. c. Living Resources o Tidal Estuary ‐ Greg Breese will take the lead for tidal living resources, and said that each state should have a representative (Des Kahn and Jerry Mohler). o Non‐tidal Estuary ‐ PWD did not initially feel comfortable taking the lead on the indicator because states have 303d list and other information that PWD does not have. ‐ PWD monitors Schuylkill for juveniles, etc., DRBC has macroinvertebrate data above Trenton, PA DEP has macroinvertebrate data as well. ‐ The 3 states need to meet to normalize data, but PWD (Gerald Bright) will take the lead to coordinate (depending on STAC help). ‐ Jerre Mohler and possibly Glen Beck could be STAC leads. o Bob Tudor noted that we are always looking for a story to tell, and a good living resources story may be about the American Eel as a tidal and non‐tidal living resource story. If we have a healthy eel population, which mussels love as a host species and all cycles back to the fact that we don’t have dams, this could be a unique feature of the Delaware Estuary because there are few mussels in the Susquehanna. o This would be a “System Function” story, possibly an emerging story because of data gaps‐ no data on emigrating eels on the east coast. o Tom Fikslin thought this could be discussed under the Restoration category. o Use these stories in the public piece and Estuary News to promote these projects for funding. d. Water Quality o Tidal and Non‐Tidal‐ DRBC will lead (John Yagecic). o Currently have 2008 data and will have 2010 data by the 2011 report. e. Water Quantity o DRBC will provide name of lead. o Sediment Budget‐ Jeff Gebert, Army Corp of Engineers (PDE may convene a Sediment Workshop in January). o Source Water‐ USGS lead?.
4
STAC‐EIC Meeting Minutes – September 30th, 2009
f. Climate Change o PDE will lead (Danielle Kreeger, Sue Kilham, David Velinsky, and Ray Najjar) because similar work as Climate Ready Estuaries efforts. Will also ask Carol Collier of DRBC to help. o Sue Kilham mentioned that sea level rise projection has been increased to minimum of 1 meter by 2050 by intergovernmental report and the arctic could increase by 18₀C in next 30 years. o Therefore, Danielle Kreeger and Dorina Frizzera suggested including model projection data along with top climate indicators. Tom Fikslin suggested looking in the past as well. g. Systems Functions o PDE will lead, Jonathan Sharp or Danielle Kreeger. o Priscilla Cole and Sue Kilham will help. o Add States to Technical Assistance. h. Other Comments o Missing a Management Section‐ but is this the right report for this? Ideas: • Discuss how we are doing on managing the system. • Need to define “management” and ID metric to measure. o CCMP actions items • Jen Adkins proposed new section to the SOE. • Work with EIC to decide on process. • Need to do better job at reporting out on CCMP. o Every section should have a ‘Data Needed’ blurb, like last SOE. o Army Corp may be developing an indicators “Toolbox”‐ need feedback o Can any of the Federal Agencies help push through our data requests, such as Landsat, National Wetlands Inventory, etc. o Last NWI was clipped to the estuary and it took 1 person 2 months to develop (Breese.) o Stay with same watershed geographic areas from the last SOE and SOB, and maybe feature some areas. o Determine what time period the SOE will report on for trends – perhaps compare conditions to both short term changes (since time of last SOE in 2008) and also long‐term trends (relative to oldest data available per indicator). o Look at other reports such as the “Annual Environmental Management System Report” for examples i.
5
Costs for SOE Report
STAC‐EIC Meeting Minutes – September 30th, 2009
o o o o o o o
j.
20K of STAC funds could be allocated for SOE data development in 2010, but we will need more than 20K. Must decide which indicators need funds in order to collect or develop data. STAC to prepare section budgets asap. Last SOE probably took a few hundred thousand $. States have tight budget right now, so maybe partner with NOAA? Section leads should decide on indicators, provide a basis, and summarize any resources needed. PDE/STAC may be able to tap into FY11 funds as well. Need to come up with a SOE budget before winter Board meeting where budget is decided. Use STAC meeting in January to prepare budget, and then seek EIC approval and support in February.
Summary of SOE Action Items o Leads for each SOE report section should lay out indicators, why they were chosen, and note any resources and funding needed. o Standardize and revise indicator list, and determine what each group should report on at the January meeting. o Prepare timeline for SOE tech report completion and highlight deadlines.
Break for Lunch 5)
ACES Presentation‐ Jennifer Adkins • Jen presented a Powerpoint describing the Alliance for Comprehensive Ecosystem Solutions and its role in the Regional Restoration Initiative. Highlighted were the roles of the Regional Restoration Work Group (RRWG) and STAC, which are developing science‐based decision support tools for project analysis and prioritization. • Comments and questions i. Page 28 of Blueprint Report‐ Bob Tudor suggested that ‘Polluters’ should not be first on the list of funding sources chart. ii. Flow chart on Pg. 15 of Blueprint‐ Can Alliance go to stakeholders to get projects as well as STAC and RRWG? Yes, but will still go through project registry. iii. Danielle Kreeger explained that there are other values of the RRWG besides the project registry and RRI tools, such as identifying project gaps for high value activities. iv. For the steering committee meeting, Kerry Pflugh suggested to be better prepared to give this presentation to the steering committee because it will be the first time they are hearing about any of this. Tell them exactly what they are committing to‐ 3 to 4 projects for 1st round of funding.
6
STAC‐EIC Meeting Minutes – September 30th, 2009
v.
•
Dorina Frizzera stated that there are things that should be going on parallel with RRWG efforts such as determining wetlands available for restoration and land owner willingness. She suggested that regional priorities also be assessed for project selection instead of just 15 projects. vi. Goal of RRWG and ACES for first round of project funding: • 3 or 4 projects ($50,000‐$100,000 each) to be funded on a regional scale vii. Bob Tudor asked how we will get that funding? viii. Kerry Pflugh‐ loves the approach but we must consider that states don’t have money and there will be hesitation because of changes in administration. ix. Look at the Harbor Estuary Program which has compelling projects x. Jen Adkins replied that this is a way to promote projects even though it’s a big ask. xi. Bob Tudor suggested asking for letters of support from Governors and that is something the steering committee can help with. xii. Janice Rollwagen noted that the Puerto Rico NEP couldn’t use their 319 money the past 2 years so it went back to EPA Region 2, which decided to use money for projects in NY and NJ. So they could use the registry to find projects for instances like that. xiii. Sue Kilham suggested that we could also focus on an umbrella project with sub‐projects underneath. Draft letters of support and hand them out because our goal is to be prepared for grant opportunities
•
6)
Approve Plans for formation of PDE ACES Formal EIC approval to proceed granted by consensus. EIC Business • EIC approved May 7th meeting minutes by consensus. i. EIC approved change in minutes that Board approved before lunch. • Reviewed results of EPA Program evaluation/letter. i. Jen Adkins received the draft final letter and hoped to have the final version by the Steering Committee meeting on October 8th. ii. PDE passed the review which means PDE is still eligible for funding. o Strengths‐ examples were the oyster restoration project and regional restoration. o Suggested Improvements‐ setting meaningful goals and tracking CCMP actions. iii. Jen Adkins will send EIC the draft final EPA review letter. iv. Finalized agenda and preparations for Oct. 8th Steering Committee meeting • Ask Steering Committee to meet annually as they do with other NEPs.
7
STAC‐EIC Meeting Minutes – September 30th, 2009
•
7)
Andy Zemba stated that a question might come up about what to do if the NEP does not meet measurable goals, and Danielle Kreeger suggested adaptive management as a solution. Add a discussion about climate change to the agenda.
• STAC Business • Approve August meeting minutes ‐ John Kraeuter made motion to accept minutes ‐ Vote: Unanimous agreement to accept STAC meeting minutes from 8/14. • Sue Kilham will send out action items and agenda as well as dates for a January STAC meeting. • Bob Tudor suggested that the STAC should also set the next April STAC meeting date with draft agenda.
•
Upcoming events: i. ii. iii.
October 15th AWRA Philadelphia Section meeting‐ Carol Collier will be discussing the Marcellas Shale issue. PDE may hold a Sediment Workshop in January and a Wetland Workshop in February 2010. Dorina Frizzera announced that a NJ DEP Climate Change Workshop will be held in February or March 2010.
8) EIC/STAC feedback on emerging issues in the Estuary • Marcellas Shale i. Two concerns‐ water withdrawals and wastewater. ii. Have a meeting with the Secretary of Interior to discuss that this project will affect a National Wild & Scenic River and will be draining 3 million gallons of water per month per well. iii. STAC could write a letter with the information we have, but the issue is complex and should get more information first. iv. Jen Adkins will put out call to STAC to get paper together on shale issue. • Delaware Bay Wind Farm i. Kerry Pflugh stated that the permit application is available to the public on the NJ DEP website, and the STAC or PDE could also write a letter with the information that we have currently. 9) Next meeting
8
STAC‐EIC Meeting Minutes – September 30th, 2009
•
Adjourn
STAC should meet in early January to receive an update on the RRWG and to further prepare for SOE Tech Report ‐ Danielle Kreeger will send out a Doodle to choose a date. 3:00
List of Acronyms ACES: Alliance for Comprehensive Ecosystem Solutions CCMP: Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan STAC – MAC Meeting Minutes – 4/2/09 8 CMES: College of Marine and Earth Sciences (University of Delaware) DEBI: Delaware Estuary Benthic Inventory DEWOOS: Delaware Estuary Watershed to Ocean Observing System DEWWG: Delaware Estuary Wetland Work Group DNREC: Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (Delaware) DRBC: Delaware River Basin Commission EPA: Environmental Protection Agency (US) EIC: Estuary Implementation Committee NEP: National Estuary Program NJDEP: New Jersey Department of the Environment NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPS: National Park Service NVCS: Natural Vegetation Classification System NWQMN: National Water Quality Monitoring Network PADEP: Pennsylvania Department of the Environment PA CZM: Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management program PDE: Partnership for the Delaware Estuary PSEG: Public Service Electric & Gas (New Jersey) PWD: Philadelphia Water Department RARE: Regional Applied Research Effort RRI: Regional Restoration Initiative RRWG: Regional Restoration Work Group SOE: State of the Estuary STAC: Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee USFWS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS: U.S. Geological Survey
9
STAC‐EIC Meeting Minutes – September 30th, 2009
