SALMON RECOVERY FUNDING BOARD

MINUTES - REGULAR MEETING

 

May 23 & 24, 2002

Everett Station 4th Floor Multi-purpose Room

 

Everett, Washington

 

 


SALMON RECOVERY FUNDING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:

William Ruckelshaus, Chair        Seattle

James Peters                            Olympia

Brenda McMurray                      Yakima

Larry Cassidy                            Vancouver

Steve Tharinger                          Clallam County

Steve Meyer                              Executive Director, Conservation Commission

Tim Smith                                 Designee, Department of Fish and Wildlife

Dick Wallace                             Designee, Department of Ecology

Craig Partridge                           Designee, Department of Natural Resources

Jerry Alb                                   Designee, Department of Transportation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Call to Order

The Board was welcomed by Snohomish County Executive Bob Drewel and Terry Williams of the Tulalip Tribe.  Mr. Drewel shared his thoughts on salmon recovery and other environmental efforts in Snohomish County.

 

Terry Williams welcomed the Board on behalf of the Tulalip Tribe and shared his views on salmon recovery in the area and explained the coordination efforts happening in the Snohomish and Stillaguamish watersheds.

 

Chair Bill Ruckelshaus opened the meeting at 9:45 a.m.

 

The agenda was reviewed and approved.

 

 

Topic #1:      Review and Approval of the SRFB Meeting Minutes

Larry Cassidy moved to accept the April 2002 meeting minutes.  Steve Tharinger seconded.

 

Brenda also requested that the April minutes be amended to reflect that she voted to oppose the motion to add Project 4 Collaborative Integrative Instream Flow under the Upper Columbia Recovery Region (page 17).

 

The April 2002 meeting minutes were approved as clarified and amended.

 

 


Topic #2:      Management and Status Reports

Director’s Report:  Director Johnson presented this portion of the agenda.  She told about her testimony on the Boxer bill in Washington, D.C.  (See notebook for details.)

 

She also updated the Board on the Monitoring Oversight Committee activities and the Legislative Steering Committee meeting.  Bruce Crawford will be presenting an update for the Board at the June meeting, if time permits.

 

The salmon project staff was recognized for their hard work.  Rollie and his team have been conducting Successful Applicant Workshops around the state.

 

Financial Report:  Debra Wilhelmi presented this agenda item.  (See notebook for details.)

 

Debra explained the process of assigning either state or federal funds toward the projects.  Should have about $10 million left for the next grant cycle along with any additional federal funds.

 

Project Status Report:  Rollie Geppert presented this agenda item.  He first provided a status report and then he and Marc Duboiski gave a Power Point presentation on closed projects.  (See notebook for details and attached Power Point printout.)

 

Staff reported that the Quinault Indian Nation Upper Quinault River Geomorphic Reach Study, project #01-1274, was reviewed by Technical Panel members, who revised the level of certainty from “low” to “medium”.  Because of the change, the project will be brought back before the Board after lunch for possible action.

 

 

Topic #3:      GSRO Report

Chair Ruckelshaus reviewed the Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office written report, no GSRO representation was present.  (See notebook for details.)

 

Chair Ruckelshaus also discussed a letter he, Curt Smitch, and Russ Cahill, WDFW Commission Chair, received from the Governor concerning direction on salmon recovery efforts in both policy and budgetary aspects.

 

Steve Tharinger discussed the differences in watersheds and how it will be easier to coordinate some watersheds but harder for others.

 

Dick Wallace discussed Ecology’s watershed planning group and that this group would be a good source of ideas for Bill, Russ, and Curt to use as a sounding board.

 

Jim Peters supports this effort.  Suggested linkage with the NWIFC or some of the Tribes.

 

Larry Cassidy mentioned that this type of effort is very important for the NWPPC.  They will be using a coordinated effort with their basin planning efforts.

 


Steve Tharinger reviewed the three points the Governor’s letter highlighted:

1)     Increase coordination among the state agencies in order to ensure that we are efficiently spending state and federal salmon recovery funds;

2)     Improve the technical and policy support that state agencies provide to regional salmon recovery boards, such as the Shared Strategy; and

3)     Guarantee improved coordination among local watershed groups receiving state funds through HB 2514 or HB 2496 processes.

He sees several overarching issues to be addressed by this group.

 

Jay Watson stressed the need to clearly identify the problems with coordination first since each area is different and it may be localized and the solution may be different from place to place. 

 

 

Topic #4:      LEAG Report

Jay Watson presented the LEAG report.  He pointed out four items the LEAG worked on at the May 22 meeting:

·        Lead entity funding request (see notebook for details)

 

Dan Wrye discussed the lead entity survey and what Fish and Wildlife would like to get from this survey.  This survey will be targeted to the lead entity coordinator and technical and citizen committee members.

 

Steve Meyer asked if this survey would be going to project sponsors to ask about communication and funding.

 

Dan responded that it is WDFW’s intention to keep this survey focused with additional assessments later in the year.

 

Jay reported on Debra Wilhelmi’s presentation on use of PRISM and noted that lead entities will be looking to using PRISM in Round 5 if some changes can be made to PRISM to help lead entities feel more confident in its use.

 

 

Additional Agenda Item:

Director Johnson reported on the funding of the Upper Quinault River Geomorphic Reach project #01-1274.  The Technical Panel has met with the lead entity and the certainty rating was changed from low to medium.  Staff recommends the Board approve the project funding at $165,633.  Steve Tharinger moved to approve the funding award.  Jim Peters seconded.  Motion approved.

 

 

Topic #5:      Lead Entity Workshop Steering Committee Report

Jim Fox introduced this agenda item and highlighted some of the recommendations from this meeting.

 

Jagoda Perich-Anderson, JPA Associates and facilitator for the meeting, provided her views from the workshop and need for follow through with many of the recommendations identified at this workshop.

 

Dan Wrye discussed next steps. On June 14, WDFW is sponsoring a workshop on recovery planning for the Yakima Recovery Board.

 

Brenda McMurray had several questions and concerns about the LE workshop.  She noticed that monitoring was mentioned several times in the write-up and encouraged the Board to help recognize some of the things that need to be done to get the information out to lead entities.

 

 

Topic #6:      Lead Entity Funding Request

Director Johnson introduced this agenda item.  (See notebook for details.)

 

Public Testimony:

David Hoopes, San Juan Island Lead Entity Coordinator (WRIA 2), thanked the Board in advance for funding lead entities and for its support.

 

Willie O’Neil, Environmental Affairs Manager for Associated General Contractors, supports lead entity funding.  He is concerned that science will discourage citizen involvement.  Need to guard against this.  When HB 2496 and SB 5595 were developed they intended for the lead entities’ project lists to grow.  It is important to grow the list so projects are available for other funding sources.  Need to encourage citizen involvement.

 

Brenda McMurray asked about the $1 million in WDFW, will that be used to assist lead entities?

 

Response:  Dan Wrye noted that the use of the money was targeted to develop regional salmon recovery plans.

 

Laura Johnson clarified that today’s request is for base funding for the 26 lead entity groups.

 

Steve Tharinger supports funding of the lead entities but sees how this discussion highlights the need for a coordinated effort.

 

Larry Cassidy moved to adopt Resolution #2002-06.  Steve Tharinger seconded the motion.  Approved Resolution #2002-06.

 

 

Topic #7:      4th Round Preparation

Today is designed to get Board discussion on the different issues and give staff direction for the decision-making meeting on June 6 & 7.

 


Jim Fox and Debra Wilhelmi presented this agenda item, using the May 21, 2002, draft of this topic.  They reviewed the major issues needing Board direction:

·        Role of the Technical Panel – One of the biggest issues, needs a decision at July’s meeting.  (See notebook for details.)

 

·        Grant Cycle-Timeline – Recommendation to keep with the basic schedule as was used last year.  A couple of changes: the technical panel visits, letters of intent, and two different application deadlines (one for paper applications and a different time for those submitted on-line through the computer system PRISM).

 

·        Evaluation Questions - (See notebook for details.)

 

·        Application forms – (See notebook for details.)

 

·        Forest and Fish Assessments Reach Level Acquisitions – (See notebook for details.)

 

LEAG Comments:

Jay Watson addressed four issues -- Technical Panel Role, socio-cultural criteria, assessments, and acquisitions.

 

·        Technical Panel Role – Recommends that two Technical Panel members attend the technical and citizen meetings for total of 80 hours.

 

Brenda McMurray is not comfortable with Technical Panel members performing specific project evaluations, possibly giving an unfair advantage to some project proponents.

 

Jay is looking at the Technical Panel becoming more familiar with the local process. The LEAG does not want to have a social scientist on the Technical Panel.

 

·        Socio-economic values – LEAG is not sure what the SRFB is looking for.  LEAG will gather ideas for the questions that should be addressed under the socio-economic review for project lists.  LEAG does not support the Technical Panel looking at socio-economic issues.

 

Chair Ruckelshaus questioned if the SRFB should be making the socio-economic decisions.  He doesn’t want to second guess what the lead entities are doing when it comes to socio-economic decisions.

 

Steve Meyer suggested adding a third column with a high, medium, low for social or political rating.

 

·        Assessments -- Jay gave the LEAG’s suggestion for assessment wording -- “Assessment projects may include assessments that directly lead to identification, siting or design of habitat protection or restoration projects or fill data gaps identified as a priority in the lead entity’s strategy”.

 

Steve Meyer has concerns with assessments; they can be tools in a battle in science.  Those who don’t get the information they want with existing data call it a data gap and ask to do more studies or assessments.

 

·        Acquisitions – LEAG endorses the three recommendations under C.  (See notebook for details.)

 

Steve Tharinger asked more about the socio-economic aspect and what weight should be given to this category.  Jay will provide a LEAG response to that question to the Board.

 

Dick Wallace asked if there should be a limit on those projects that are higher in the socio-economic ranking but lower on the technical rating.

 

Jay will be working directly with Jim Fox to provide the recommendations to the Board at its next meeting.

 

Public Comment:

Rhonda Dasher, Pend Oreille Lead Entity Coordinator, discussed the Pend Oreille area and concern with the Forest and Fish requirements.  She is working hard for community support in an area with a lot of government distrust.  Supports some SRFB assistance.

 

Larry Cassidy suggested Rhonda contact the NWPPC since there should be funds available through the NWPPC watershed planning process.

 

Keith Wolf and Teresa Ryan, Upper Columbia Fish Recovery Board, discussed the Upper Columbia group and how it is beginning to address socio-political-economic impacts.  Concerned that in the 3rd Round their number one project was not funded or addressed during the funding meeting.  The SRFB needs to develop criteria for socio-political-economic impacts.  Teresa believes it will be about a year before the Upper Columbia group will be able to identify the socio-economic-political impacts in its area.  They are having a difficult time with the public outreach aspects of the salmon recovery work without sufficient funding.  They are asking for recommendations and assistance from the SRFB.

 

Elizabeth Good, city of Duvall, talked about the wastewater treatment needs in Duvall and how a new method would assist with salmon recovery.  Written comments provided also.

 

Chair Ruckelshaus suggested she work with the lead entities and see if there is a way to address this issue.

 

Maggie Coon and Betsy Lyons, The Nature Conservancy, support a recommendation for large reach level acquisitions.  Feels the socio-economic portion does need to be included in the decision making process.  Written comments also provided.

 


Forest and Fish Projects

Craig Partridge indicated that there may be a project that falls under the forest and fish guidelines that may be eligible for funding.  Would like staff to bring back cases that may fall into that category.  TFW policy group and other sources would be able to assist SRFB staff with this.

 

Jim Peters feels that the TFW process requires landowners to provide certain actions on its own.  He is concerned that the media has overblown the amount of money this is costing landowners.

 

Steve Meyer discussed the Federal Farm Bill which would provide funding for landowners -- possibly $18 million to fund this type of project.  Need to encourage USDA to have small forest landowners eligible for this funding.  Some of the costs still need to be the landowner’s responsibility since some value is to the landowner and to address the private-use-of-public-fund issues.

 

Dick Wallace volunteered to contact Bill Wilkerson and to work with staff to provide options to the Board for the June meeting.

 

Steve Tharinger proposed allowing the funding of culverts this year, with a higher match amount provided by the landowner.

 

The chair asked, how big is this problem? 

 

Brenda feels the Board shouldn’t change the eligibility of funding forest and fish projects in this round but review and look to funding during a future grant cycle.

 

Dick will ask the TFW policy group and see what can be agreed upon at the June meeting.

 

Jerry Alb talked about how DOT and WDFW have developed the priority index that is used to decide which culvert projects should be constructed first and how the project fits with the rest of the watershed.  Staff stated this process is already being used for all culvert projects.

 

Following these discussions, staff commented it has received good guidance and sideboards for the 4th Round guidelines.

 

SRFB Technical Panel Role – Continued Discussion

Recommendation by the LEAG is to have two panel members visit each lead entity for a total of 80 hours.  Staff noted this could at least double the cost of current Technical Panel funding.

 

Jay Watson would like to have a breakdown of how many Panel manhours were used in the previous grant cycles.

 

Jim Peters asked what this would mean for SRFB staff.  In past grant cycles the Board has sent staff to take notes, etc.  How will this new process affect staff?

 

Brenda McMurray commented that it was never the intention to have a full-time technical panel.

 

Jay Watson explained what lead entities want, longer-term, is the technical panel to certify the local process and have funds allocated to lead entity areas.

 

The chair noted he didn’t hear objections to having two panel members attending meetings with each lead entity.  It is just finding the amount of hours and how to spend this time.

 

Grant Cycle Timeline

No change

 

Application Forms

No change

 

Assessment Guidelines

Discussed the need to require the GSRO Assessment Guidelines. 

 

Chair Ruckelshaus would like to have Steve Leider form a group to discuss the guidelines and need.

 

The Board will address the rest of the items at tomorrow’s meeting.

 

Recessed for the evening at 4:15 p.m.  A tour is scheduled to begin at 5:00 p.m. 

 


Day 2

 


SALMON RECOVERY FUNDING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:

William Ruckelshaus, Chair        Seattle

James Peters                            Olympia

Brenda McMurray                      Yakima

Steve Tharinger                          Clallam County

Steve Meyer                              Executive Director, Conservation Commission

Tim Smith                                 Designee, Department of Fish and Wildlife

Dick Wallace                             Designee, Department of Ecology

Craig Partridge                           Designee, Department of Natural Resources

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meeting reconvened at 8:10 a.m.

 

 

Topic #8:      03-05 Budget and 2003 Legislative Planning

Debra Wilhelmi presented the budget portion of this agenda item.  Budget is due to Governor’s office September 6.  (See notebook for details.)  Debra explained the differences between the capital and operating budgets and stressed the need, although it is a tight budget year, to present the best budget possible.

 

Director Johnson introduced Jim Skalski.  Jim is the SRFB’s OFM budget analyst.

 

Chair Ruckelshaus would like the Board to develop measures of success to be able to identify Board successes when funding projects.

 

For the capital budget, should the Board ask the lead entities and LEAG what they believe is needed?  This would require some sideboards since there’s not enough money to fund all the projects the lead entities may want funded.

 

The data portal is needed but should it go into the Board’s budget?  Further issues need to be addressed.

 

Brenda McMurray -- What products will need to be developed to meet the upcoming monitoring strategy?  We should be working with the MOC to try and identify what those needs may be.  We should also be looking at the regionalization and salmon recovery strategies that the Board has been funding.

 

Steve Meyer suggested asking the lead entities if they were going to do the top 10 projects in the next five years, what would the projects cost?  What would they need for assessments?

 

How much of the new USDA money will be used for salmon recovery and will any of it come to the Board for distribution?

 

Dick Wallace agreed with the Chair on data and assessments, also the need for instream flows and other water issues, forest and fish, etc.  This comes from many different funding sources but needs to be coordinated.  Need to document Board assumptions over the next five years.

 

The Chair suggested the need for a research agenda to determine funding needs, although this shouldn’t be part of the SRFB. 

 

We should look at the big picture for salmon recovery and then let the Governor, the Cabinet and others decide where the funding should be and if it is needed.

 

Tim Smith suggested that the role the SRFB decides to play in the programmatic funding should be coordinated between IAC/SRFB and agencies. 

 

The Chair noted that the Board never asked for, or even wanted, the programmatic funding for the agencies, but that the legislature keeps giving it back to the Board.

 

Brenda thinks the state should look into public information opportunities to get more citizens involved, both volunteers and public outreach.

 

Jim Fox presented the legislative portion of this agenda item.  (See notebook for details.)

 

 

Topic #9:      Nearshore Presentation

Tim Smith and Dr. Tom Mumford, DNR, presented this agenda item. (See notebook for details.)  Their presentation was an update on the information presented in the notebook.

 

Nearshore assessment project evaluation tools should be integrated into SRFB 4th Round process.

 

Brenda McMurray questioned the scale of the nearshore projects, are they at a watershed scale or a small distinct area?  The Chair had the same concern and asked “if you had a million dollars for nearshore work, would you fund five separate projects or one larger-scale project?”

 

Dr. Mumford responded that we aren’t ready to identify the large scale project to get the answers.  The protection of remaining high quality habitat is key.

 

Discussed how to identify nearshore projects and should the Board fund a larger-scale search before funding individual assessment projects.

 

In response to a question, what assessments are not worth funding, Mumford stated: Projects that have no game plan for what to do with the data gathered or any plan to share the data.

 

Mike Ramsey presented the staff recommendation for funding four of the five nearshore projects received in the third grant round.

 


Public Testimony:

David Hoopes, San Juan County Lead Entity Coordinator, shared a story about a fox as a metaphor of eelgrass protection for the salmon.  Urged the Board to fund project #01-1222 San Juan County Eelgrass Survey Phase 2.

 

Stephanie Buffum, Executive Director, Friends of the San Juan, urged the Board to fund project #01-1222 San Juan County Eelgrass Survey Phase 2 and stressed the need for assessments.

 

Janet Kearsley, Island County Lead Entity Coordinator, stressed the need to fund nearshore projects and urged the Board to fund project #01-1252 Island County Assessment and Coordination.  This project will finish both the eelgrass survey and forage fish study.

 

Jeff Dickison, Squaxin Island Tribe, appreciates all the work the SRFB has done on the nearshore issues.  Discussed different activities going on in the southern Puget Sound that are related to nearshore projects before the Board.  Would like the Board to fund project #01-1241 Greater Mason County Nearshore Habitat.

 

The Board discussed the pros and cons of funding nearshore assessments and how important nearshore projects are.

 

The understanding is that if these projects are funded, they need to continue to work with the PSNERP project and local entities to include findings into regulatory efforts in the area.

 

Brenda McMurray agrees with the staff recommendation but suggests the Board step back and evaluate how to fund nearshore projects in the future and not fund nearshore assessments in the next round.

 

Steve Tharinger asked about the Liberty Bay project and why staff didn’t recommend this project for funding since it has a substantial match and leads to projects.

Mike Ramsey informed the Board that he has not been able to contact the group to work on details on this project.  The Board asked staff to continue working on this project.

 

Steve Tharinger moved to adopt Resolution #2002-07.  Brenda McMurray seconded. 

 

Jim Fox recommended conditioning the portion of the Island County grant earmarked for a coordinator until staff can meet with the forage fish assessment project sponsors to review the need for further coordination.

 

Jim Peters recused himself from voting on the motion.

 

Resolution #2002-07 approved unanimously, with the condition that the groups work with PSNERP.

 

 


Topic #10:    Agency Funding Requests

Director Johnson presented this agenda item: Funding requests for DOE Instream and CC Limiting Factors.  (See notebook for details.)  Staff recommends funding both Resolutions #2002-08 and #2002-09. 

 

Dick Wallace presented information on Resolution #2002-08, Funding Instream Flow Program.  (See notebook for details.)  This is a one-time request.

 

Public Testimony:

Guy McMinds, Quinault Indian Nation, has concerns about funding both the instream flow and limiting factors analysis proposals.  His concern is that this is going to compete with, rather than support, those who are working on their projects at the local level.

 

Board Discussion:

Brenda McMurray feels instream flows are very high in priority but is concerned with the lack of on-the-ground proposals from lead entities.  Some local groups may not be able to deal with the complexities of setting instream flows.

 

Brenda moved to adopt Resolution #2002-08.  Steve Tharinger seconded.  Approved.

 

Steve Meyer introduced the Limiting Factors Analysis portion of this agenda item.  (See notebook for details.)  Steve reminded the Board that these are a snapshot in time and will need to be updated in the future if they are to continue to be useful.

 

Public Testimony:

Willie O’Neil, Executive Director, AGC, testified in support of the limiting factors analysis reports for both project identification and for use with the transportation efficiency committee for funding the highest level projects statewide in mitigation.

 

Jim Peters moved to adopt Resolution #2002-09.  Steve Tharinger seconded.  Approved.

 

Chairman Ruckelshaus reiterated that providing funding for on-going state agency programs is not the appropriate role for the Board and that the Board needs to make sure the Legislature is aware of the Board’s concerns.

 

Steve Tharinger noted that if the legislature wants the Board to make these decisions, he is willing to step up to the challenge but would want to see how the agencies are spending their money and how money is appropriated.

 

Director Johnson mentioned that this summer’s coordination efforts requested by the Governor will help inform the legislature.

 

 

Continuation on Topic #7:       4th Round Preparation

Staff will continue to work on the 4th Round issues for decision at the June meeting.  Please send comments to Jim Fox.  Due to the close proximity to the next meeting we will use e-mail and the internet to get meeting information out to the Board and other interested parties.

 

Business meeting will be on Thursday, June 6.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m.

 

SRFB APPROVAL: 

 

________________________                                                                  ________________

William Ruckelshaus, Chair                                                             Date

 

                                   

Future Meetings:       June 6, 2002 – Aberdeen

                                    September 13 & 14, 2002 – Ellensburg


SALMON RECOVERY FUNDING BOARD

RESOLUTION #2002-06

 

          FUNDING THE WDFW LEAD ENTITY GRANT PROGRAM

 

WHEREAS; lead entities play a crucial role in salmon recovery by developing habitat recovery strategies at the watershed level, identifying and prioritizing habit protection and restoration projects, and bring these projects to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) for funding; and

 

WHEREAS, lead entities also play a crucial role in salmon recovery by engaging communities in the salmon recovery process and incorporating community values and goals in the recovery process; and

 

WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature eliminated funding for the lead entity grant program and directed the Salmon Recovery Funding Board to consider providing funding for the program; and

 

WHEREAS, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has provided administration of the lead entity grant program; and

 

WHEREAS, the lead entities have stated that it is important to maintain continuity in lead entity funding and the administration of that funding; and

 

WHEREAS, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Salmon Recovery Funding Board both recognize the importance of coordinating the agencies’ support to lead entities and project implementers;

 

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the SRFB provides a $3,250,000 grant to WDFW for the 2001-03 lead entity grant program; and,

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the SRFB sees this action as an opportunity to increase coordination between programs providing support to lead entities and project implementers.  The Board therefore requests WDFW and SRFB staff involved in these programs, together with the Department of Ecology, Conservation Commission and the Salmon Recovery Office to continue to work collaboratively at the program level in Olympia and at the lead entity (watershed) and regional level to provide complementary, consistent and coordinated services.

 

 

 

__Larry Cassidy_________Moved   __Steve Tharinger______Seconded

 

 

                                                                                                         MOTION CARRIED / FAILED


SALMON RECOVERY FUNDING BOARD

RESOLUTION #2002-07

 

          FUNDING MARINE NEARSHORE ASSESSMENTS

 

 

WHEREAS; five marine nearshore assessments were submitted by lead entities as part of the Third Round grant cycle; and

 

WHEREAS, applicants, the SRFB Technical Panel, and SRFB staff found it difficult to clearly demonstrate how the results of the proposed assessments would be used to identify and prioritize projects beneficial to salmon; and

 

WHEREAS, at its April 11-12, 2002 meeting the Board deferred decision on these projects until members of the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP) Nearshore Science Team and marine nearshore experts from WDOE and DNR could assist SRFB staff in providing additional review and recommendations; and

 

WHEREAS, the PSNERP Nearshore Science Team and other marine nearshore experts have reviewed the proposals and provided analysis and recommendations to the Board;

 

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board hereby authorizes funding for the following projects:

 

Proj. #

Name

Amount

 

 

 

01-1252

Island County Assessment and Coordination

$227,000

01-1285

Liberty Bay Nearshore Habitat Evaluation

$0

01-1241

Greater Mason County Nearshore Habitat

$276,375

01-1222

San Juan County Eelgrass Survey Phase 2

$211,229

01-1250

Thurston Co. Nearshore Assessment of Forage Fish

$179,530

 

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Director be authorized, upon satisfactory resolution of issues identified by the Board, execute all project agreements necessary to facilitate prompt project implementation.

 

 

____Steve Tharinger________Moved   ___Brenda McMurray______Seconded

 

 

                                                                                                         MOTION CARRIED / FAILED

 

 

 


SRFB RESOLUTION #2002-08

Funding Instream Flow

 

 

WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature’s Supplemental Operating Budget reduced the Department of Ecology’s Instream Flow program funding by $900,00; and

 

WHEREAS, the Supplemental Budge Note states”. . . The Department may apply to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board for resources to fund instream flow components of watershed plans for watersheds where flows are a limiting factor for salmon.”; and

 

WHEREAS, insuring adequate instream flows is a key habitat requirement for sustainable fish production; and

 

WHEREAS, in conjunction with the $2.5 million (federal) approved by the SRFB in February 2002 to augment watershed planning activities budgeted to Ecology, the approval of an additional $900,000 will allow Ecology to continue to accelerate and/or enhance the setting of instream flow in 38 basins statewide;

 

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Salmon Recovery Funding Board approves funding to the Department of Ecology of not more than $900,000 (state funds) for setting instream flows in priority basins across the state; and

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Ecology, together with other agencies and SRFB staff, will continue to work to identify opportunities to ensure coordination with and/or use of any relevant SRFB-funded assessments in the instream flow process, as well as to continue to identify opportunities in the processes which could enhance related watershed assessments or collaborative efforts for salmon recovery.

 

 

 

Resolution moved by:  ______Brenda McMurray__________________

 

Resolution seconded by:  ____Steve Tharinger___________________

 

 

Adopted/Defeated/Deferred (underline result)

 

Date:  ______5/24/02___________

 


SRFB RESOLUTION #2002-09

Salmon Habitat Limiting Factors

 

 

WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature’s Supplemental Operating Budget reduced the Conservation Commission’s Limiting Factors Analysis Development program funding by $800,00; and

 

WHEREAS, the Supplemental Budge Note states ”Funding for Limiting Factors Analysis for fiscal year 2003 is eliminated.  The Conservation Commission may apply to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board to fund this activity for fiscal year 2003.”; and

 

WHEREAS, the habitat limiting factors reports are to be used by the lead entities for the purpose of developing habitat project lists to be submitted to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board for funding consideration; and

 

WHEREAS, the state of Washington contains 62 separate Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA).  Limiting factors reports are needed in the forty-three naturally spawning salmon and steelhead WRIAs and in one WRIA containing bull trout only.  Of the forty-four possible reports statewide, 35 have been completed and nine remain.

 

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Salmon Recovery Funding Board approves funding $800,00 for completion of the remaining nine habitat limiting factors reports statewide.

 

 

 

Resolution moved by:  _____Jim Peters_________________________

 

Resolution seconded by:  ____Steve Tharinger___________________

 

 

Adopted/Defeated/Deferred (underline result)

 

Date:  ___5/24/02_______