Anacostia Watershed Restoration Partnership

Anacostia Steering CommitteeSummary

June 5, 2008

Page 1 of 12

-Draft-

STEERING COMMITTEE

OF THE

ANACOSTIA WATERSHED RESTORATION PARTNERSHIP

Thursday, June 5, 2008

1. Call to Order; Approval of April 3, 2008 Meeting Summary; Review of Agenda:

Steve Pattison (MDE), SC Chair, called the meeting to order at approximately 10:10 am.

1. Introduction of Ms. Nancy Stoner:

Chair Pattison introduced Ms. Nancy Stoner (NRDC) as a new committee member. Ms. Stoner spoke briefly about her work with NRDC and environmental education experiences, then praised the draft Action Agenda and explained that she looked forward to working with the Partnership.

1. Approval of Meeting Summary:

The April 3, 2008 meeting minutes were approved unanimously.

1. Executive Director’s Second Year ContractPerformance review:

Chair Pattison noted that the ED review sub-committee received positive feedback from the SC membership, and wished to extend thanks to Ms. Dana Minerva for all her hard work on behalf of the Partnership. The ED’s contract has been extended for another year, including new goals. Chair Pattison then pointed out that the funding for the position came from both the Summit Fund of Washington and EPA. As this funding support will cease near the end of FY09,additional and future funding options need to be considered.

Ms. Linda Howard (Summit Fund) added that $180,000 was recently approved (by the Summit Fund Board) for the ED position for FY09.

1. Follow up on Action Items from April Meeting

Chair Pattison provided a brief overviewon SC/MC roles, and distributed a table which he developed in consultation with COG staff. The language regarding the SC roles was pulled directly from the committee bylaws, but came up with some language for the MC because the bylaws were less specific. Chair Pattison hoped that the table would spur a clear discussion of specific work that should be done by each committee. A lengthy discussion followed:

• Ms. Howard stated that she thought the Leadership Council would set the agenda, and then the SC would look at interim targets and policies to implement what the Councilrecommended, while the MC would be responsible for actual implementation. She did not feel that the draft table specified this type of relationship with the Leadership Council.

• Dr. Hamid Karimi (DDOE) thought that the SCdefinitely needs to finalize the MCs role to efficiently continue its work. Also, he felt that the jurisdictions do a lot of work on their own, sometimes connected to what members do in their respective jurisdictions. He then recommended that there needs to be a comprehensive examination of how everything fits together.

• Chair Pattisonreplied that such a conversation was what he hoped the table would start. After such finalization, we can set up task forces to get the work done and better know the needs of meeting frequency (etc.). Coordination and communication is only part of it.

• Ms. Carole Hearle(UofM)said that capitalizing on the‘cross fertilization’occurringat the MC is important. However, if the language and roles are not cleared up, as the plan proceeds the MC’s work will get complicated and be much less efficient.

• Ms. Dana Minerva suggested that the MC review the table and bring suggestions back to the SC. She questioned the extent to which individual members should work to restorethe watershed and to what extentthe Partnership should.

• Mr. Steve Shofar (MCDEP) felt that the key challenge was to move from ‘story-telling’ to collaboration on things that need to be done. While it ishard to make that conversation happen, itis very important that it occur. Chair Pattison stated that the conversation before implementation is just as important. Mr. Shofar agreed, but said that for that to happen there needs to be more high level people going to the SC meetings.

• Mr. Stewart Freudberg (COG) suggested the addition of language to the bylaws specifying the rank/authority level of people who should sit on the SC and MC.

• Mr. Robert Pace (USACE) asked that languagepertaining to the responsibilityfor developing the Restoration Plan be clarified. He added that the MC is supposed to provide input into developing the Plan, but it isspecifically theresponsibility of the Corps, COG, and the three jurisdictional members to develop it (i.e., the scope for the Plan was establishedprior tothe official creation of the SC). A final point was that he requested that the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Plan be titled consistently in all SC/MC documents (e.g., it should not be referred to as the Ecological Restoration Plan or any other variant).

Action/Outcome:

*SCmembers should provide comments on the Roles & Responsibilities draft to Chair Steve Pattison (cc to COG staff) by 6/19/08. Chair Pattison will finalize the draft for SC approval.

1. Executive Director’s Report

1. Action Agenda

Ms. Minerva outlined updates to the Action Agenda. The updates contain progress toward 2010 goals, which was put together by COG staff and simplified. Ms. Minerva noted that there has been progress in some areas, but still lots of work to do. Some holes in the analysis exist, for example the EPA still needs to clarify the connection between Wildlife and Bacteria before bacteriological issues and be included. Other issues such as Low DO, Trash and TSS have also not been controlled. A short discussion followed.

• Ms. Howard stated that the additions made the action agenda much stronger. However, she felt that each section (topic) should begin and end in the same manner, which would give more consistency between topics.

• Mr. Pace suggested graphically showing the results, to which Ms. Minerva pointed out the monitoring data is not continuous and could be misleading if graphed.

• Ms. Nancy Stoner (NRDC) thought that the key indicators are very helpful but other way to depict should be considered.

• Chair Pattison then formally thanked the Summit Fund for helping format the Action Agenda, and asked all present to introduce themselves.

Action/Outcome:

*Ms. Minerva will add comments to the Action Agenda from the SC, as well as any additional action items sent to her within the next week. A final draft will be sent to the Partnership withintwo weeks (by 6/20/08), after which, the final draft will be sent to the Summit Fund for formatting/printing.

1. Draft Funding Strategy

Ms. Minerva presented a rough draft funding strategy, explaining that it took a tactical approach and thought efforts should be continuous. Her recommendations included three parts: 1) Standing Funding Subcommitteeto meet 2 or 4 times to finalize the strategy. 2) Draft interim funding strategy for 1 FY, actually including this year, next and the year after that. 3) Detailed work plan for funding strategy, including tasks for SC, ED, MC. She requested the funding committee be appointed and meet by June. As ARP is completed, the financialCommittee should help fund projects. A short discussion followed:

• Chair Pattison said that the strategy was a great first draft. Felt like funding committee makes sense to keep it going. He suggested the committee be small consisting of four members: Federal, state, local government, and one at large. He then suggested himself, Mr. Jon Capacasa, George Hawkins, and Linda Howard for the committee. There was general comfort with the idea.

• Dr. Mary Barber (AWCAC) said that specific assistance/roles needed from the rest of SC and MC should be spelled out. Ms. Minerva replied that there are some specific MC actions in the draft strategy and hopes the MC could look at what types of LID/restoration actually have scientific value (i.e. are beneficial).

• Ms. Hearle pointed out that climate change (i.e. adaptation issue) is not being addressed and should be considered.

• Mr. John Galli (COG) thought it was a good idea to ask the MC to do such work, and suggested that the MC consider what it can do with current staffing. He also added that each jurisdiction should follow DC’s lead in regards to self taxation to pay for monitoring/restoration.

ACTION/OUTCOME:

*Chair Pattison will contact proposed funding sub-committee members (i.e., Mr. Jon Capacasa, Mr. George Hawkins, and Ms. Linda Howard) to confirm their participation.

*Ms. Minerva will schedule a meeting for the funding SC sub-committee by the end of June to provide oversight and review of ARF-funded work.

1. Trash Summit

Ms. Minerva reminded everyone of the upcoming June 17thTrash Summit being put on by the Alison Ferguson Foundation. The trash TMDL will be highlighted in the morning. Ms. Tracy Bowen (Alison Ferguson Foundation) then gave a short recap of the summit’s agenda.

ACTION/OUTCOME:

Ms. Tracy Bowen (AFF) will provide survey resultson the public’s perception of trash and recommendations based on this at the next MC meeting.

1. Leadership Council Event

Leadership Council members could not agree on the date that worked with CongressmanHoyer’s schedule. The Governor will identify a date later this summer.

Ms. Howard asked if the Governor doesn’t come, will the Leadership Councilevent be cancelled? She would like to set a hard date soon, but wondered if the SC was hostage to the Governor’s schedule. Chair Pattison replied that the SC should wait, and ask the Lieutenant Governor to attend, if the schedule still doesn’t work.

1. Miscellaneous Announcements and Dates

DC WASA held LTCP user fee-related hearings, but has delayed their implementation, Ms. Minerva explained. They are still in the process of holdingpublic meetings, and she proposed to testify in support of the needfor a rate increase on behalf of the SC.She then offered to assistDC WASA to continue their work and to usethe auspices of the SC for further potential assistance. Ms. Minerva also suggested that the SCrequest an update from WSSC.

Dr. Karimicommented that the fee issue was a regulatory problem, and that the delay was not reflective of their opinion. He also felt that SC advocacy is a good idea, but it is critical that itbe done across the entire watershed.

Chair Pattison asked if people were OK with Ms. Minerva going to the meeting. Mr. StewartFreudberg (COG) replied yes, but underscored that it is important to conveythat this is not being done through COG, since the COG Board has taken no official position on it.

Action/Outcome:

*Ms. Minerva will provide testimony in support of funding for the Long-Term Control Plan at an upcoming public hearing. Her testimony will be on behalf of the SC, but not COG.

*Chair Pattison will secure a commitment from the Governor’s office to hold a Leadership Council meeting later this summer.

1. Management Committee Report

1. Monitoring

Mr. Steve Shofar explained the FYO9 monitoring recommendation table he handed out. He pointed out that the last comments show what is/isn’t being accomplished. The MC has not completed a long-term management plan, but is in the process of doing so. A discussion followed:

• Chair Pattisonnoted that that this was the outcome of a recent SC request, and it would be useful for the new funding sub-committee. He then requested that the MC prioritize the monitoring needs.

• Dr. Karimi said that ultimately the monitoring needs to show if the watershed is improving over time. He then commented that he is not sure if the SC will be able to show if specific projects are making it better.However, it is important to have and provide dataso as to be able to secureadditional restoration funding.

• Dr. Mary Barber pointed out that the 12 key indicatorsshould show if progress is occurring. Ms. Minerva also felt that such concerns are being addressed. This is the perfect thing for our partnership to work on, we are all monitoring, and we are working on how this will all fit together.

• Mr. Frank Dawson (MD DNR) said the Bay effort has had difficulty demonstrating cause and effect. Anything we can be done to monitor specific projects is KEY and goes a long way when asking for money. Another issue is that we collectively have a wealth of data, and do annual report cards which show thatthe Bay is getting worse. The report cards suggest that we can’t do anything to improve conditions; thereby, contributing to public apathy.

• Mr. Shofar pointed out that the SC needs to find some sort of balance between transparency and losing interest.

• Dr. Harriet Phelps recommended creating an Anacostia scientific advisory board to give the restoration effort more credibility.

ACTION/OUTCOME:

* The MC will prioritize the list of monitoring needs and explicitly link these needs to the Key Indicators.

1. Inter-CountyConnector

Mr. Shofar briefly reviewed a MDDNR presentation given by MDDNR trout biologist, Mr. Charles Gougeon,concerning the status of the Upper Paint Branchbrown trout fishery. Basically, there are unavoidable consequences related to major construction projects like the ICC. The MC has decided to engage SHA and others involved with the ICC to get regular updates.

1. Transition of Management Committee Leadership

Mr. Ken Yetman (MDDNR) will take over as chair of the MC in September 2008. Chair Pattison expressed his thanksto Mr. Shofar for his leadership and to Mr. Dawson for allowing Ken to take on the MC chair responsibilities.

1. Report on the AWCAC Stormwater Summit

Dr. Phil Faverroprovided an overview on AWCAC’s March 22nd second annual, Stormwater Summit. He explained that the topic arose fromlast year’sAWCAC summit. He next notedthat the objectives of the Stormwater Summit included: 1) highlighting stormwater runoff-related problems/impacts, 2) the 2007 MD Stormwater Act, and 3) promoting communication between subwatershed groups. From the outcomes of the Summit, Mr. Faverro identified three major outcomes: 1) all publicofficials would like more citizen involvement, 2) there is a need to expand the youth component/involvement and 3) additional technical information is needed by subwatershed groups. In the future, concurrent summit sessions might be a good approach. Some suggestions followed for gaining additional public participation:

• Chair Pattison said engaging youth is important. He suggested reaching out to boy/girl scouts, but noted that the format of future summitswill need to change to maintain a broad interest. Additional thoughts included tapping into both the Green School Program and garden clubs.

• Dr. Barberreplied that AWCAC was currently considering such issues. AWCAC is also considering having anAnacostia festival.

• Mr. Dawson commented that MDDNRreceived lots of great feedback on the recent Bay festival held at SandyPointState Park.

• Ms. Hearle suggested taking advantage of greenroofs for outreach, since they are in the public spotlight now.

• Dr. Barber relayed AWCAC’s gratitude for Mr. Faverro’s work on behalf of AWCAC. Chair Pattison agreed and extended thanks to the Summit Fund for funding the event.

1. Standing Update Reports

1. Progress on the Toxics Remediation Plan

Ms. Catherine King (EPA) said therewere no updates on the “White Paper,” and it was still stalled due to lack of funding. She added that EPA is continuing its searchfor funding.

1. Progress on the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Plan

Mr. Robert Pace (Corps) gave a brief update on the status of the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Plan, saying that the Team is moving forward in developing the Sligo Creek Case Study and Interim Report. Interms of pubic involvement, the partners will: 1) continue to have bimonthly fact sheets, 2) hold three additional public meetings, and 3) AWCAC will continue to participate in all Team meetings. Mr. Paceadded that he is not convinced that public meetings arethe best way to engage the public.

At the May 12thpublic meeting, subwatershed groups were involved. However, participation by other watershed groups and non-affiliated citizens was very low. The meeting format includeddisplays, discussion, and presentation. The meetingalso includedboth a Q&A session and survey. Major comments/questions included:1) the Plan should be tied to MS4 and other permit requirements, 2) the need for more public involvement, 3) a date(s) as to when restoration project-related implementation is expected to occur, 4) why is the Sligo Creek subwatershed being studied first, 5) Dr. Phelpsraised the issueoftributary-related toxics in addition to hotspots,and 6)others felt that clear restoration goals were needed. The Team will be meeting next week and will consider many of these topics. The Interim Report is due to Congress this fall.

Ms. Minerva said that she would like to work with the Partnership and Team members to coordinate the development of new restoration goals that are inline with the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Plan goals. Mr. Pace agreed, and Chair Pattison suggested that at thenext SC meeting a draft concept to formalize the process to develop these goals be presented. Ms. Nancy Stoner added that it’s important to think about including in future public meeting presentations, the reasons for taking these restoration actions, as wellas ways to increase public

interest in the overall effort.

ACTION/OUTCOME:

*Ms. Minerva will develop a proposed post-2010 goals development process for SC consideration at the August SC meeting.

*Ms. Minerva and Mr. Pace will prepare and conduct a joint briefing for congressional staff.