Meeting Minutes
Oct. 3, 2001 meeting

Heller Road Fire Hall, Oak Harbor 4 pm - 6 pm

MRC MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Tom Campbell, Phyllis Kind, Hi Bronson, Mike Gallion, Roger Sherman, Exec. Director Gary Wood, Advisory Member Julie Buktenica, Admin. Assist. Kate Poss. Excused: Dick Toft, Sayed El-Sayed, Jeff Tate, Matt Klope, Don Meehan, Tom Roehl/Jim Hawley

Visitors: Mike Sato, director of People for Puget Sound; Michael Kyte of Golder Associates; Frank Roberts of Lagoon Point; Tom Cowan, Northwest Straits Commission or NWSC director; Todd & Ann Jennings, Greenbank residents and members of UW Marine Affairs; John Small and Stephanie Lund of Anchor Environmental, Seattle

The meeting was called to order at 4 p.m. A quorum was never established; there were only five MRC members present. All proposed business--such as awarding a contract for Phase II of our Eelgrass Survey and approval of the 9/19 minutes-was postponed to the Oct. 17 meeting when, hopefully, a quorum will be present.

Copies of the Whidbey News Times 9/22/01 Salmon Recovery article featuring State Fisheries Dept. Marine Biologist Dan Penttila and his work studying forage fish were passed around. Our MRC has received grants to study forage fish habitat. Part of the grants help pay for Penttila's work. Island County is one of 6 north Puget Sound counties participating in the forage fish grant.

Presentation by Anchor Environmental @ 4:15 p.m.
· Seattle-based Anchor Environmental (206-287-9130; web: www.anchorenv.com email address: slund@anchorenv.com) is contracted by the Northwest Straits Commission to coordinate existing data sources on nearshore habitat throughout the Puget Sound. In addition Anchor Environmental is creating a GIS map that can be used by MRCs and other agencies to pinpoint areas that may be prime candidates for conservation or restoration. Today was Island County MRCs chance to provide feedback to NWSC.
· Speaker Stephanie Lund handed out packets (on file) containing:
o NW Straits Nearshore Habitat Inventory table
o Example format of how Anchor Environmental will update data sources
· The 10/3 presentation will be sent to D.Meehan in PowerPoint format
· The current inventory table has some gaps such as: lacking complete coverage; detailed subtidal vegetation; lack of information of benthic nearshore species; limited resolution and specific sites.
· MRCs will receive a CD in GIS format that requires a GIS system; data output in .jpg format to print and a bibliographic data base.
· Once the data is collected and organized, it can be used to justify areas for conservation and/or restoration. The information can be custom-tailored according to individual MRC interpretation and application.
· Island County can expect a report by year's end from Anchor Environmental.
· Is there any GIS software that is free or shared so that MRC members can look at the data on their own? Can it be downloaded to a CD? No. While there is free GIS software it takes a lot on the part of the end-user to make Anchor's CD work. MRC members who want to see the data prepared by Anchor Environmental will need to visit their county office, Tom Cowan explained.
· Jeff Tate was selected, though he was not here today, to be the liaison between our MRC and Anchor Environmental.

MRC Letter of Intent to NWSC for year 2002 Action Grants at 5:15 p.m.
· Wood asked for input from those assigned to various grants.
· Wants nearshore grants to include one feeder bluff for monitoring in the $10,000 grant which will be supplemented by other grantors.
· Estuaries-the grant will include examination of available data on Island County's estuaries and evaluate whether they need our attention. All types of agencies own them. NWSC's grant will add a layer of information for nearshore research; the Salmon Recovery Funding Board or SRFB wants specific information for site acquisition and protection. Hi Bronson knows a UW grad student who could help on this project
· Wood said we've got "sure dollars" in different projects-from derelict gear-and that the NWSC funds will be used as a match for other grant sources. There are new grant sources he is looking at.
· Penttila's data needs to be entered in a computer. Doug Kelly, Island County hydrologist, said his wife will enter the data for $1,000. Due to the lack of a quorum, Campbell suggested voting on giving Gary the OK to give Mrs. Kelly the $1,000 to enter all the data Penttila generates.
· It was requested that Doug Kelly make a presentation to the MRC in the near future on Island County's hydrology.

Phase II award of Eelgrass Contract @ 5:28 p.m.
· Proposals from Golder Associates (sonar-generated data at $35,000 for 6-8 days) and Marine Resources Consultants (which we used for the Phase I project; proposes videography to cost $46,000 for 14 days.) Golder and Marine Resources Consultants were determined as the two most qualified candidates submitting bids.
· The proposals were sent to the Dept. of Natural Resources for review. DNR has worked with Marine Resources Consultants in the past. DNR reports it would be to our advantage to use Marine Resources Consultants (which did Phase I of our Eelgrass Survey at Oak Harbor, Utsulady Bay, Penn Cove, Holmes Harbor and Maxwelton Creek outfall area) because existing protocol is in place. They say using the same contractor as before makes for a more reliable and seamless data stream. The question could be asked if we went with Golder: "What went wrong with the first contractor?"
· What are the advantages of sonar over videography?
· Campbell advised MRC members to consider each proposal and email his or her thoughts to Wood. If a quorum is present at the Oct. 17 meeting, Campbell recommended that members vote to award the contract.
· Wood was asked to make a simple matrix comparing the two proposals.

MRC Year 2002 Workplan suggestions @ 5:40 pm
· Have the crab guy come-contact Steve Burton in Mill Creek
· Visit the Langley Marina and learn about its new commercial project between the City of Langley and the marina's owner Linda Moore

Frank Roberts questions about Big Mind Media @ 5:45 pm
· Frank said open public meetings warrant his looking at our new web site being prepared by Langley-based Big Mind Media. Wood contracted with Big Mind to create a web site featuring the data collected by our granted projects. San Juan County is helping with the cost.
· There seems to be confusion on Roberts' part: he wants to see what goes on in the "rooms" where, for instance, Penttila's data is being prepared into a readable form. Wood told Roberts that the site is currently under construction; that when it is complete, Roberts and the public will be able to read the information presented in the site. However the sites will be "read only," meaning that the public cannot alter the data contained in the sites. Wood assured Roberts that he, Wood, Big Mind Media and Roberts are all in agreement-the web will be available for viewing in a "read only" format-once construction is complete.
· However Roberts said he believes decisions are being made by the MRC without public input; he says that decisions are made in the "rooms" on Big Mind Media's web pages, (which are still under construction). Campbell said that the MRC meetings are where the decisions are made.
· The law pertaining to open meetings and public access will be discussed at the Oct. 17 meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:05 pm.
The next meeting is Oct. 17 from 4 pm to 6 pm at Trinity Lutheran Church, Freeland.

UPDATE Letter to MRC from Gary Wood, MRC Executive Director

Hello MRC!

The Phase II Eelgrass contract was not awarded last meeting due to a lack of quorum. Hoping this does not repeat, I supply the following summary of my previous comments regarding the DNR review of the two proposals. We must decide on this contract.

To refresh you all after many weeks, I advised the MRC for the 9/5 Meeting as follows:

"Eelgrass Phase II: Many requests came in for this RFP, and three entries were submitted (vs. only one last year). The are from Golder Associates (Mike Kyle); Marine Resources Consultants (Norris, et al=Phase I); and Wilson Engineering. There are hard copies of all three for review, please ask ASAP. Comparisons: Wilson submitted a standard statement of qualifications and price list, without any specific reference to our project. Golder proposes to use its "Nearshore Habitat Assessment Technique or NHAT" combining acoustic and video techniques. Their estimate is to do the nine listed sites in 6 - 8 survey days, plus a report, for an approximate max. of $38,594. We can save $$ if we use a boat we provide. The remaining shoreline would be on an as-agreed basis, at the same daily rates, depending on our needs & budget. They can do the listed site work in September '01, if notified by 9/7/01. Norris proposes to maintain the UV methods of Phase I, and include some acoustic sampling (he has been testing it.) Norris' bid is higher, and takes longer, at 14 estimated sampling days, totaling $46,240, for the listed areas and a report. Norris also provides two additional break-downs for Task 2 (Fringe sites with previously observed eelgrass, 11 days, $35,310) and Task 3 (Fringe sites without previously observed eelgrass, 13 days, $35,730 with report). NOTE: The MRC has approximately $60,000 in SRFB funds earmarked for this RFP, and can seek more for this work in year two. We divide the work among the two bidders, or select one to do it all. There are a range of opinions re the relative merits of acoustic vs. UV, and it would appear that both Golder and Norris would perform competently." [ED Rept for 9/5 MRC]

After some discussion on 9/5, the MRC opted to submit the two options to DNR for agency review. I then sent both the Golder and Norris materials, plus the final Phase I report, to Amy Sewell and Tom Mumford for such consideration. Drs. Sewell and Mumford are the DNR's Nearshore Habitat program specialists, and Mumford reviewed and approved our Phase I plans beforehand. They designed and managed the Puget Sound eelgrass survey DNR has undertaken.
Their subsequent advice to me, as I partially reported to the non-quorum last meeting, was that the Norris proposal most clearly matched the Phase I level of work, and that Norris' DNR sampling rendered his MRC work wholly compatible with the DNR sampling/monitoring project. I will relate the full DNR conference here for your weighing.
Dr. Mumford noted that the SRFB had approved and funded our Phase II on the basis of Norris' Phase I UV methodology. [Mumford advises SRFB on Nearshore issues.] The MRC SRFB proposal specifically used UV in its design, and our RFP asked for UV mapping.
Unless we wished to cast unwarranted doubt on Phase I, they could not understand why a change of PI's would be merited for Phase II, as Norris was the listed PI in the SRFB application (his Phase I work was underway). The DNR stresses consistency of research, wherever possible. As an example, the DNR has used one investigator for 12 years on a coastal assessment to ensure uniformity of data and methodology, though the cost is higher. Norris' firm is the standard setter in UV surveys, per DNR. (Battelle labs and one other firm have advised us of that same opinion in response to our RFP.)
The DNR has not yet approved side-scan sonar to isolate or map individual seagrass species. UV is used (by Norris) in their sampling surveys. In short, if we could get Norrris for phase II, we were "lucky." While they could not and would not "make a selection" for us, in their opinions, the Phase I report is a perfect fit with their own eelgrass monitoring, except much more thorough. We get maps in wholly greater detail. They believed the Phase I report was "remarkable work for under $25,000."
In all, they were very pleased with the MRC project, and reminded me that DNR had reviewed the Norris proposal for Phase I prior to its acceptance, to comply with our 'DNR-approved-protocol' condition set on Phase I by the NWSC. Since Norris also prepared the winning DNR sampling protocol, they were very pleased with the usable/'good fit' of the data from both efforts. They also praised our addition of forage fish resources, etc. to the overall assessment. You all would have been proud.
If cost were no object they suggested that we might divide Phase III or later areas and have Golder's team do an overlapping portion, to 'ground-truth' the two methods.
I hope that this information is helpful.

Gary Wood, Intertidal Consulting and Executive Director Island County MRC