SALMON RECOVERY FUNDING BOARD

MINUTES - REGULAR MEETING

As Revised During May Meeting.

April 11 & 12, 2002	Natural Resources Building
	Olympia, Washington

SALMON RECOVERY FUNDING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:

William Ruckelshaus, Chair Seattle

Larry Cassidy Vancouver

Brenda McMurray Yakima

James Peters Olympia

Steve Tharinger Clallam County

Steve Meyer Executive Director, Conservation Commission

Tim Smith Designee, Department of Fish and Wildlife

Craig Partridge Designee, Department of Natural Resources

Dick Wallace Designee, Department of Ecology

Shari Schaftlein Designee, Department of Transportation

CALL TO ORDER

Meeting opened by Chair at 8:20 a.m. Agenda was reviewed and approved.

Opening comments from the Chair:

“This is an important two-day session of the Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) – it’s the culmination of a lot of work by many of you out in the public seating area, as well as the staff of the IAC and the SRFB Technical Panel. The work that has been done by the lead entities, the citizen committees, their technical advisory groups, the staff of the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) and our own technical panel has been outstanding. The write-ups of the projects and the rationale for the ranking system are clear. We are allotting the federal and state money in ways that will maximize the benefit to the resource that we’re all trying to preserve. I’m greatly encouraged by what we’re seeing here, about the progress that we’ve made. I’ve thought back to the first round of grants that we made and the overall impression is that these are better projects, they are better justified, and they are going to do better things for the fish as a result of all of the effort that was made on the part of everybody. So let me, on behalf of the board, commend all of you for having participated in this process, and in particular, the staff of the IAC and our own technical panel for the assistance that they’ve given us in coming to this point.”

REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY MEETING MINUTES

Larry Cassidy moved to accept the February meeting minutes. Steve Tharinger seconded the motion. Approved by the Board.

MANAGEMENT AND STATUS REPORTS

Director’s Report:

Laura Johnson gave the director’s report. Director Johnson reminded the Board members that April 15 is not only tax filing day but also the due date for the Personal Financial Affairs Report which the citizen Board members are required to file this year.

Director Johnson reviewed activities that will be happening in the next several months including preparation for the 2003-2005-budget submittal. Ms. Johnson also reviewed legislative items and changes since publishing of the Director’s report.

Director Johnson handed out copies of the Chair’s Comments to Congress, March 2002. (See notebook for details.)

Budget Update:

Debra Wilhelmi presented the financial report and reviewed the notebook information. There have been some changes to the budget and Ms. Wilhelmi will be getting an update to the Board shortly. (See notebook for details.)

Legislative Update:

Jim Fox gave the legislative report. (See notebook for details.)

GSRO REPORT

Chair Ruckelshaus reviewed the Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office (GSRO) written report noting that Chris Drivdahl was available to answer any questions. (See notebook for details.)

Brenda McMurray asked about the status of the GSRO. Chris Drivdahl reported that the office will be smaller and will not be developing reports as in the past but focusing more on regional coordination efforts.

Mr. Ruckelshaus discussed the federal budget situation and need for continuing federal funds. Mr. Ruckelshaus wanted to make sure everyone presents a common face in the need for salmon recovery so the federal government will continue to provide funding.

In future reports, the Board needs to have visual results as well as financial and social results. Pictures showing the return of salmon are needed to include in reports.

LEAG UPDATE

Jay Watson provided the Lead Entity Advisory Group (LEAG) Report.

LEAG has met twice since the Board last met. The LEAG is concerned with lead entity funding.

There was a lead entity strategy workshop in early April. A report from this workshop will be developed and provided to the Board.

LEAG is currently crafting options to modify the grant process. They will present to the Board at the May meeting.

Statement in support of the Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group (RFEG) funding was presented to the Board. (See handout)

The LEAG is struggling with, and have been discussing for quite awhile, lead entity success measures. Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is working on an assessment tool identify where the lead entities are in developing and implementing strategies.

Dan Wrye highlighted what the WDFW is doing to assist and fund lead entities.

Larry Cassidy asked about the need for additional lead entities in areas not currently covered. The Board will discuss this issue at the May SRFB meeting.

Chair Ruckelshaus agreed that the lead entity strategy workshop was a very successful event. He stressed the need for strategies and how good strategies lead to good projects.

Larry Cassidy highlighted the fact that National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has agreed to give lead entity areas, which have developed a strategy that has been accepted by the NWPPC, mini-HCP status. This should be a huge incentive for groups to develop strategies.

THIRD ROUND GRANT APPLICATIONS

Staff Report:

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

Kramer reviewed the Technical Panel process. The Technical Panel reviewed projects on the lead entity list for technical merit on benefit to salmon and certainty of success. They did not review the lists for social and economic benefits. Jim Kramer highlighted Technical Panel and lead entity concerns with the current process and changes that may need to be made in the future.

Jim Kramer went over the Technical Panel observations and changes the Panel would like to see made in the future.

Technical Panel members present at the meeting were Paul DeVries, Jeanette Smith, and Steve Toth.

Other Technical Panel members include: Brian Allee, Tim Beechie, Blake Feist, Carol Smith, and Kate Terrell.

Technical Panel Comments:

Paul DeVries – Paul presented his insights on the SRFB grant process and his concern with the funding of assessments and studies. He is concerned that assessments will not lead to actual on-the-ground projects. The best strategies have been developed by the lead entities not by consultants. He has noticed that the consultant-developed strategies, for the most part, are large and difficult to understand. He would like to see the Board fund more projects and fewer assessments and studies. Paul is concerned that many of the lead entities are focusing on what they don’t know rather than what they do know about their areas. Paul made several suggestions on how the Board could better fund the assessment projects.

Jeanette Smith agreed with Paul about the difficulty of evaluating assessments.

The Board discussed its concerns with assessments and studies.

The Chair discussed the need for guidance – the GSRO has developed an assessment guideline document. The Board did not require lead entities to use this guidance in the Third Round but requested that they use it as much as possible.

Brenda McMurray asked the panel if they thought it would be worthwhile for the Board to adopt or "endorse" particular monitoring/assessment methods such as EDT, IFIM, etc. to assist project proponents in knowing what kinds of assessment methods and scope would be acceptable to the board.

Paul DeVries reiterated that there would never be one process that all groups will agree with to evaluate processes.

Steve Meyer asked if staff could review the last three years to see if the projects have changed in focus or if the lead entity is still continuing to work on low hanging fruit.

Steve Toth – This was his first year on the Panel. He believes the lead entity strategies played a larger role this year than in the past. Thought that groups that had developed their strategies and had them in place and used them in the community had better projects. He believes there needs to be more citizen involvement in the strategies. Would like to see more one-on-one interaction of the Panel with the lead entities up front during the process. Some strategies included social and economic values and lay out the different priority tier levels.

Jeanette Smith suggested not having all the Technical Panel members grounded in salmon issues but to include social aspects.

Timing needs to be looked at for when the SRFB Technical Panel meets with the lead entities.

Jeanette Smith – Wants to caution the Board to make sure the lead entities are willing and supportive of the Technical Panel spending more time in the local lead entity area.

Role and scope of the Technical Panel will be discussed at the May SRFB meeting. Will also need to include comments/views/concerns from the other Technical Panel members not present at today’s meeting.

The Chair asked what was meant in the Technical Panel Evaluation of Lead Entity Projects Lists and Staff Analysis report by the Technical Panel observation E. Rating Acquisition Projects. Especially the last sentence “One issue that was specifically raised was how to assess the level of threat to a proposed acquisition, including consideration of current environmental regulatory protection.” Kramer explained that some areas believe Forest and Fish rules will protect riparian areas, others don’t. When evaluating acquisition projects, should the Panel take existing regulations into consideration?

Shari Schaftlein is hearing the same concerns during the Department of Transportation (WSDOT) permitting and mitigation meetings. She suggested including a person from the mitigation and permitting world on the Technical Panel next round.

WSDOT is reviewing cost effectiveness and would like to share their study with the Board.

Some lead entities are doing a cost benefit exercise when evaluating their projects.

Staff Recommendation

Jim Fox presented the staff recommendation for the two different funding approaches and outlined the differences between the two.

Craig Partridge asked if the difference in a high and a medium rating should be a concern when deciding which approach to use.

Response by Jim Kramer: There is not always a clear distinction between high and medium projects. If this is the process we keep using, the Board should continue to get more and more high projects making the Board’s job even more difficult. Medium projects are important to do but may not be the most important at this time.

Jim Fox reviewed the Special Issues portion of the report highlighting the Marine Nearshore Assessments. The Board does not need to make a decision now but staff wanted to make sure the Board was aware of the issues.

Jim Peters had a question concerning the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) nearshore project coordinator and how this project is working. Mr. Peters heard that an engineer had replaced the original science-based Outdoor Grant Manager. Has this caused problems or changes in the overall project?

Response by Tim Smith: Yes the original Outdoor Grant Manager (Laurie Morris) on the Corps side was replaced with Bernie Hargrove. Laurie had a scientific background while Bernie is an engineer. Bernie has been attending all the scientific meetings and has knowledge of the process and project needs. The timeline has been pushed back somewhat but everyone is still working on the project.

Some concern was voiced with the timing of the ACOE Nearshore Project and the timeframe of the next round. Tim Smith will update the Board at the May SRFB meeting.

Assessment framework will be developed sooner. It is the project evaluation document that will be developed at a later date and may not be available for the next grant round.

Lead Entity Testimony

Pend Oreille Conservation District:

Spokesperson(s): Rhonda Dasher and Joe Maroney

This lead entity submitted a list containing 5 projects requesting a total of $593,285 in SRFB funds.

Okay with either Approach 1 or 2. Feel their projects fit well into the lead entity plan and strategy.

Snake River Salmon Recovery Board:

Spokesperson(s): Brad Johnson, Steve Martin, Mark Wachtel, and Terry Bruegman

This lead entity submitted a list containing 11 projects requesting a total of $1,287,746 in SRFB funds.

Brad thanked everyone for good work.

Inquires: concerning the CREP program and 15 year funding of these projects.

Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board:

Spokesperson(s): Teresa Ryan, Julie Dagnon, Keith Wolf, Mike Kaputa, and Kathleen Bartu

This lead entity submitted a list containing 28 projects requesting a total of $8,058,305 in SRFB funds.

Keith Wolf discussed assessments and categorization. The Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board (UCSRB) selected assessments strategically. The SRFB assessment categories are broad and not all of their assessments fall into the same category. This area covers 6 watersheds. Biological strategy is a draft strategy and is not ready for full usage yet. The proposed assessments are meant to feed the strategy.

Kathleen Bartu discussed Foster and Moses Coulee Watershed Assessment project #01-1368. This project has been widely accepted by the community and ranked #1 in the regional process. It meets the area’s strategic plan and will produce projects. Also supported by 2514 watershed group. Urged the Board to fund this project.

Mike Kaputa questions Project 4 Collaborative Integrative Instream Flow Study #01-1432. When addressed about looking at the criteria for certainty of success, he understands why the project was rated low, but would like to explain this project more fully and answer some of the questions on certainty of success. This project will be using IFIM for instream flow work. IFIM is the recognized method of determining instream flows in Washington State. The UCSRB disagrees with the low certainty but agree with the high benefit rating.

Steve Meyer asked about budget for their 2514 planning process. Mike Kaputa replied that they are using 2514 money as match money.

Steve Tharinger questioned the use of SRFB funds for instream flow work and how this money relates to the $6 million the Board supplied Ecology for water rights and instream flow work at its last meeting.

Brenda McMurray asked if the money granted to the Department of Ecology for instream flows could be used for funding this instream project.

Keith Wolf supports funding project 7 of 30 (Ecosystem Diagnostic and Treatment Assessment).

Julie Dagnon supports Approach 2 down to project 19 and gave supporting testimony for projects 13 Enhance Salmon Habitat – Salmon Creek, 17 CIPV Water Use and Reduction and Wastewater, and 19 Methow/Chewuch Confluence Bulkhead.

Yakima River Basin Salmon Recovery Board:

Spokesperson(s): Leo Bowman

This lead entity submitted a list containing 10 projects requesting a total of $1,302,205 in SRFB funds.

Leo Bowman provided oral and written testimony for this lead entity.

Mr. Bowman used his time to explain the Yakima River Basin Salmon Recovery Board and the process they are using.

This is the first year they have been in existence. They submitted 10 projects to the SRFB for funding.

Larry Cassidy welcomed Mr. Bowman and thanked him for his work.

Klickitat County:

Spokesperson(s): No one present for testimony

This lead entity submitted a list containing 3 projects requesting a total of $703,725 in SRFB funds.

Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board:

Spokesperson(s): Jeff Breckel

This lead entity submitted a list containing 6 projects requesting a total of $2,709,588 in SRFB funds.

Jeff explained the LCFRB’s strategy and how they developed their project list.

Prefers Approach 2 for funding.

Question from Brenda McMurray on why all the projects mention need for more details on monitoring.

Response: No problem with monitoring, just that the projects all came in with a different level of monitoring and the LCFRB would like to have a consistent plan.

The Chair congratulated the LCFRB on the good list and noted how this group has a list that closely aligns with the Technical Panel ratings.

Pacific County:

Spokesperson(s): Mike Johnson, Ron Craig, and Don Aiman

This lead entity submitted a list containing 5 projects requesting a total of $718,174 in SRFB funds.

Both Approach 1 and 2 fund all projects on the list.

Honey Creek is on a county road and DNR property is downstream.

Trap Creek is part of a project funded by the SRFB last year. This project is a continuation of last year’s project, downstream, not along the road.

Grays Harbor County:

Spokesperson(s): Lee Napier and Chad Stussy

This lead entity submitted a list containing 14 projects requesting a total of $2,336,403 in SRFB funds.

They brought the full list of projects to the Board so the Board could see the full array of projects in the area.

Lee Napier feels very good that the comments that came from the Technical Panel match closely with the comments the local technical group brought forward. The list had projects that weren’t quite ready but will be ready in future grant cycles.

Quinault Nation:

Spokesperson(s): John Sims

This lead entity submitted a list containing 1 project requesting a total of $305,701 in SRFB funds.

The project submitted by the Quinault is a sockeye area. The technical expert who was planning to provide testimony was unable to attend the meeting today.

Mr. Sims gave an overview of the project and stressed the need to fund this project.

North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity:

Spokesperson(s): John Cambalik, Andy Brastad, Randy Johnson, Ann Seiter

This lead entity submitted a list containing 7 projects requesting a total of $2,874,333 in SRFB funds.

Disagrees with some of the Technical Panel’s assessment of their list on projects 5, Siebert Ecosystem Habitat Protection, 6, Clallam River Ecosystem Assessment and Management, and 8, North Fork Calawah Blockage Assessment. Feels all projects on the list are good projects and that they are all consistent with the strategy.

Would like to support Approach 2 with adding the Clallam River project to the list.

Jim Peters ask about project #2 barrier and if it would be under the Forest and Fish agreement.

Randy Johnson replied - No this project does not fall under this mandate. The project sponsor will be paying for the culvert replacement – that is the in-kind portion.

Steve Tharinger discussed and supports the projects in this area.

Hood Canal Coordinating Council:

Spokesperson(s): Jay Watson, Ginna Correa, Neil Werner, and Randy Johnson

This lead entity submitted a list containing 21 projects requesting a total of $4,302,065 in SRFB funds.

Thanked Kramer, Technical Panel and SRFB staff for all the work.

Prefer Approach 3 since the Hood Canal Coordinating Council (HCCC) didn’t feel they did very well in either Approach 1 or 2. Some of the projects (14 Hood Canal Ghost Net Survey, 15 Tarboo Creek Habitat Restoration Project, and 18 Seabeck Creek Culvert Replacement and Weir) are not recommended for funding but eligible for funding under the Approach 2 (medium or high rating).

Projects 12 Skokomish River Reach Analysis Project, 13 Big Beef Estuary Restoration Feasibility, and 16 Lower Hood Canal Eelgrass Restoration Study are not recommended for funding because they are rated low in certainty.

A mistake was made in the list in that they did not note that project 5 Chimacum Creek Estuary Riparian Acquisition is a tier 1 area and should be funded.

They would also like the Board to fund projects 9 Seabeck Harbor Nearshore Restoration, 12 Skokomish River Reach Analysis, 13 Big Beef Estuary Restoration Feasibility, 14 Hood Canal Ghost Net Survey and Pilot Removal, and 15 Tarboo Creek Habitat Restoration Project.

Questioned why staff recommended funding of some of the projects but not others and recommends funding the projects that meet the criteria for Approach 2 and assessments as a group.

Brenda McMurray and Steve Tharinger both would like more definition for an Approach 3. Brenda also suggested conditioning projects especially project 10 Hood Canal Watershed Habitat Inventory and Restoration.

Whatcom County:

Spokesperson(s): John Thompson

This lead entity submitted a list containing 19 projects requesting a total of $4,949,202 in SRFB funds.

John discussed the local process and addressed assessments. For assessments, need to have a better set of rules to work off of.

Supports Approach 2 and feels the project list meets the strategy for WRIA 1 and would appreciate it if the Board funds farther down the list.

San Juan Conservation District:

Spokesperson(s): David Hoopes

This lead entity submitted a list containing 2 projects requesting a total of $285,029 in SRFB funds.

Provided written comments.

Skagit Watershed Council:

Spokesperson(s): Shirley Solomon and Ben Perkowski

This lead entity submitted a list containing 17 projects requesting a total of $4,247,871 in SRFB funds.

Shirley thanked the staff, Board, and technical panel for the hard work.

Supports Approach 3 but if the Board doesn’t go with Approach 3 they support Approach 2.

Brenda McMurray asked if water rights were included in the Skagit strategy.

Response: No, water rights are not included in the Skagit strategy but will be taken under consideration in future updates.

Stillaguamish Tribe/Snohomish County WRIA 5:

Spokesperson(s): Aaron Waller

This lead entity submitted a list containing 6 projects requesting a total of $2,413,204 in SRFB funds.

Strongly supports Approach 2.

Island County:

Spokesperson(s): Gary Wood, Duane Fagergren, and Don Meehan

This lead entity submitted a list containing 1 project requesting a total of $227,000 in SRFB funds.

Would like an Approach 3 to get their project funded.

Duane addressed the need for funding the Island County Assessment. This project would work as match to the Nearshore Project with the Corps.

Snohomish County WRIA 7:

Spokesperson(s): Martha Neuman

This lead entity submitted a list containing 7 projects requesting a total of $3,170,146 in SRFB funds.

Martha thanked SRFB and staff for the hard work. Supports Approach 2 although either Approach would fund the same number of projects in this lead entity but Approach 2 funds more projects in the Stillaquamish.

King County WRIA 9:

Spokesperson(s): Doug Osterman and Jennifer Rice

This lead entity submitted a list containing 4 projects requesting a total of $3,401,955 in SRFB funds.

This watershed has been busy completing several documents to assist in evaluating and choosing projects in the WRIA.

Discussed project 4 Middle Green River and need to fund it.

King County WRIA 8:

Spokesperson(s): Jean White, Keith Curco and Fred Getz

This lead entity submitted a list containing 10 projects requesting a total of $2,422,454 in SRFB funds.

Would like to encourage the Board about funding their number 1 ranked project, Salmon Bay Natural Area. This project is near the Ballard Locks, which is a checkpoint for juvenile salmon. Projects in this area are running in the millions of dollars per acre.

Pierce County:

Spokesperson(s): David Renstrom and David Swindahl

This lead entity submitted a list containing 4 projects requesting a total of $1,885,947 in SRFB funds.

Supports Approach 2.

Citizen committee addressed social economic impacts of projects.

Nisqually River Salmon Recovery:

Spokesperson(s): Jeanette Dorner

This lead entity submitted a list containing 11 projects requesting a total of $1,406,695 in SRFB funds.

Feel this was a pretty good cycle but have submitted suggestions for process changes.

Support Approach 2 since it will enable them to move forward in their overall salmon recovery plan.

Thanked the Board for making sure funds are distributed for benefit to salmon and with respect to the local processes.

Thurston Conservation District:

Spokesperson(s): Kim Toal (new lead entity coordinator for this lead entity)

This lead entity submitted a list containing 7 projects requesting a total of $880,455 in SRFB funds.

Supports Approach 2

Mason Conservation District:

Spokesperson(s): Amy Hatch, Jeff Dickison, and Chad Stussy

This lead entity submitted a list containing 6 projects requesting a total of $1,387,426 in SRFB funds.

Thanked the Board for the hard work of the staff, the Board, and Technical Panel.

Support Approach 2.

Jeff Dickison commented on project #2 conditions on the Greater Mason County Nearshore Habitat. He is concerned about conditioning of the nearshore funding. He would like the Board to consider waiting to make a funding decision on this project until after the Nearshore Technical Group meets again in a month.

Brenda suggested holding funding for the nearshore projects and see how they fit in the overall nearshore work being done.

Jim Peters asked about the timing needed for this project.

Amy said there is a window of time they will need to do this project and they may need to take a couple windows of time to get this project completed.

Jim Peters asked about the Port Blakely project and if releasing this property from timber activities also releases from the Forest and Fish requirements?

Response: Staff looked at this project and determined it was eligible and was not out of Forest and Fish compliance.

Kitsap County:

Spokesperson(s): Roger Fuller and Paul Dorn

This lead entity submitted a list containing 11 projects requesting a total of $5,339,802 in SRFB funds.

Encouraged the Board to fund project 6 Liberty Bay Nearshore Habitat Evaluation, project 7 Johnson Creek Fish Passage Improvement, and project 8 Acquisition Strategy/Landowner Contacts.

Larry Cassidy asked staff to look into the Yakima River Basin Salmon Recovery Board Lead Entity’s project 2 of 12 Big Creek Fish Passage prior to Board funding decisions. He believes this project was funded through the recent BPA grant cycle.

Open Public Comment:

Davidya Kasperzyk, Chuck Nafziger, and Dave Boyd – Groundswell NW - King 8 project 1 Salmon Bay Natural Area Acquisition - Ballard group requesting funding of this acquisition as a very critical place. This is the last undeveloped area in an urban area. We need all the salmon estuary areas as possible. Social economic impact of this area is strong. Educational opportunity is enormous, just two blocks from the Locks and very visible spot with an opportunity for a viewpoint and signage.

Gordon Congdon, Chelan Douglas Land Trust – talking about project #01-1214 Icicle Wenatchee Habitat Acquisition. This project was ranked number 15 of 30 on the Upper Columbia project list. Mr. Congdon wanted to make a correction to the Technical Panel report. The Regional Technical Panel ranked this project 3^rd. Mr. Congdon sent in a supporting letter along with supporting letters from many other entities. Looking for other funding sources to augment the funds to make this project a success.

Gil Lujan, Private Home Owner – Supports funding of NOPLE project 1 Phase 1 Dungeness Estuary Restoration.

Peter Becker, Clallam County Science, Technology, and Manufacturers Association – Elwha Development Tribe. Recovery project. Requests funding of project 6 of 8 on NOPLE list Project #01-1212 Clallam River Ecosystem Assessment and Management.

Joe Maroney, Kalispel Tribe – Not here to talk about any specific project. Mr. Maroney voiced his concern on recent state budget cuts and the funding of specific programs in state agencies. He hates to see money that should go to on-the-ground projects going to state agency programs.

Mary Peck (Pacific Woodrush) and Ann Seiter (Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe) – Supports funding the 4^th project in NOPLE list Project #01-1402 Salt Creek Habitat Project Assessment. This project is supported by the community and exciting for local groups.

Stephen Lamphear (city of Burien and WRIA 9 Steering Committee) and Scott Thomas –Support funding project #01-1288 Nearshore Acquisition Branson Property. They stressed the need to fund this project and need to respect the local ranking process; this project was ranked 2 on the WRIA 9 list and is supported by the community. There is a willing buyer and a willing seller for this project. They believe this project does have benefit for salmon as there is no perfect feeder bluff but this is the best one in WRIA 9. There are only four such parcels in King County and this is the largest of the four.

Bob Warfield, Citizen WRIA 12 Pierce County – Testifying in support of project 4 for Pierce County Project #01-1336 Leach Creek Culvert Replacement.

End of public testimony.

Recessed for the night at 6:05 p.m. to reconvene at 8:15 a.m. April 12.

Day 2

SALMON RECOVERY FUNDING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:

William Ruckelshaus, Chair Seattle

Larry Cassidy Vancouver

Brenda McMurray Yakima

James Peters Olympia

Steve Tharinger Clallam County

Steve Meyer Executive Director, Conservation Commission

Tim Smith Designee, Department of Fish and Wildlife

Craig Partridge Designee, Department of Natural Resources

Dick Wallace Designee, Department of Ecology

Shari Schaftlein Designee, Department of Transportation

Meeting reconvened at 8:25 a.m.

RFEG Funding

Jim Fox introduced this agenda item. (See notebook for details.)

Panel reporting on this agenda item included: Larry Peck, Deputy Director Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW); Krystyna Wolniakowski, Director, Pacific Northwest Region, Nation Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF); and Terry Wright, Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group (RFEG) representative.

Terry gave an overview of the RFEG process and funding structure. Terry encouraged the Board to adopt Resolution #2002-03.

Krystyna gave an overview of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and its relationship with the RFEGs. The Foundation funds on-the-ground projects and supports the network of RFEGs across the state. The NFWF believes the RFEGs are a good resource for community outreach and small-scale on-the-ground projects. The NFWF would like to help the RFEGs during this budget shortfall. Krystyna is offering to cover the administration of the funding to the RFEGs and report back to the SRFB on the spending and progress. Krystyna also encourages the Board to provide funding to assist the RFEGs in its work.

Larry Peck, Deputy Director WDFW, the Fish and Wildlife Commission and the Department of Fish and Wildlife both fully support the SRFB funding the RFEGs and having the NFWF administer this funding.

Chair Ruckelshaus talked about the good work being done by both the Foundation and the RFEGs. He also discussed how important it is for all the groups to work together to protect and restore salmon in Washington State. RFEGs have been around for a long time.

Larry Cassidy moved to adopt Resolution #2002-03. Seconded by Brenda McMurray.

Discussion:

Ms. McMurray appreciates Terry’s patience in waiting for the SRFB to act on this item.

Shari Shaftlein reported that the WSDOT workgroup voted to support the RFEG group.

Public Comment:

Brad Johnson would like to have the RFEGs held to the same standards as the lead entities.

Larry Cassidy: The RFEGs will need to demonstrate the connection to the lead entity strategy.

Krystyna noted that the NFWF also has a rigorous approval process and they will also encourage the groups to present projects that are complimentary to the lead entity strategy.

Resolution #2002-03 approved by the Board.

Topic #6b – Early Action on Budget Shift Items

Laura Johnson presented this agenda item. (See handout for details.)

Ms. Johnson gave an overview of the legislative budget shifts. There are several budget notes directing agencies to seek funding from the SRFB. Staff has yet to get the final wording on all the budget notes. There are five programs with budget notes. There is one item that needs immediate action: index monitoring for the salmon recovery scorecard.

Jim Peters voiced his frustration in the legislature’s lack of funding to natural resource agencies. The issue we are facing today is what the state faces every year through lack of action. We are now needing to be reactive instead of proactive and this costs more funds. When the state cuts valuable state programs, the tribes, Trout Unlimited and other organizations step forward to bail out the state. As Director Johnson noted, several of these programs are critical to the salmon recovery process. Jim thanked staff for the work in bringing forward a list of options and approaches so the Board is able to make a good decision.

The Chair agreed with the frustration and the need to be prepared with a strategy next year when the legislature is back in town.

Larry Cassidy echoed Jim’s frustration.

Steve Meyer noted that this is a chance for the Board to step forward with a plan to take care of these problems in the future.

Staff recommendation is presenting a proposal that tries not to micromanage but to provide more coordination between the different entities.

The five programs with budget requests include:

Ecology – instream flow – $900,000 - needs to be considered at the May meeting

Conservation Commission – limiting factors – 9 watersheds that would not have limiting factors analysis – $801,000 - May meeting

WDFW – lead entities – $3,250,000 - May meeting

Ecology – monitoring – $182,000 - recommendation today

WDFW – monitoring – $1,100,000 - recommendation today

Staff recommends contracting with WDFW for not more than $650,000 and with Ecology for between $100,000 and $182,000 to continue with the monitoring efforts currently underway.

Larry Cassidy made a motion to adopt Resolution #2002-05. Seconded by Jim Peters.

Board discussion:

The chair noted that the monitoring activities need to be coordinated with the Monitoring Oversight Committee’s (MOC) activities and actions.

Laura Johnson assured the Board that this will be coordinated with the MOC and the topic has already been discussed with Bruce Crawford, MOC Outdoor Grant Manager.

Brenda McMurray asked for more budget details at the May meeting.

Resolution #2002-05 approved by the Board.

Chair Ruckelshaus commented that funding of these programmatic activities should not be interpreted as taking away from the lead entities. They should actually provide more support to the lead entities.

Staff will bring detailed information before the Board at the May meeting.

THIRD ROUND GRANT CYCLE - DECISIONS

Larry Cassidy made a motion to adopt the Approach 2 funding level for all lead entities subject to amendments made on a lead entity-by-lead entity basis. Seconded by Steve Tharinger. Adopted by the Board.

Tim Smith recommends the following for the Nearshore projects: Over the next 6 weeks he will look at the nearshore projects presented in Approach 2, talk to project sponsors to see how the projects fit into the Nearshore Project template, and bring a recommendation on which projects to fund to the June SRFB meeting. This proposal would apply to the 3 projects proposed for funding under Approach 2 (Island County 2 of 2, Mason County 2 of 6, San Juan Conservation District 1 of 2) and the two projects that were not recommended for funding under Approach 2 (Kitsap County 6 of 11 and Thurston Conservation District 6 of 8). He will also review the Stillaguamish Tribe number 4 of 6 and Whatcom County 2 of 20. In total, 7 projects for further review.

Staff clarified that the Stillaguamish and Whatcom projects are not nearshore projects and do not need to be reviewed with the nearshore projects. This leaves five projects for review and decision at the June Board meeting (Island, Mason, San Juan, Kitsap, and Thurston lead entities).

Tim Smith will bring a recommendation to the June meeting.

Larry Cassidy moved to pull the five above mentioned nearshore projects (three recommended for funding and two not recommended for funding under Approach 2) for further review and final decision at the June meeting. Brenda McMurray seconded. Approved by the Board.

Upper Columbia Recovery Region Lead Entity:

Board Discussion:

Larry Cassidy moved to condition the appropriation of funds to project 9 of 30 Final Phase Chumstick Culvert Replacement until the issue of the third and remaining culvert project at North Road is resolved as this project is near the mouth of the river and blocks fish passage to the upper reaches. Resolved means an application has been received and approved for funding to proceed with removal of this culvert. Seconded by Steve Tharinger. Approved.

Dick Wallace proposed funding of project 4 Collaborative Integrative Instream Flow. This is a good collaboration project that will provide water to the fish in the long run.

Larry Cassidy moved to add project 4 Collaborative Integrative Instream Flow. Jim Peters seconded.

Steve Tharinger is concerned with the approval of adding this project until the Ecology instream flow study and funding to Ecology has been resolved. Larry Cassidy said this is a project highly supported by the community and should be funded. The Board discussed the need for this assessment and whether it is eligible for funding under the current grant cycle. Jim Kramer noted the concern the Technical Panel had was that this study would not lead to specific projects.

The Chair proposed pulling the assessment projects from funding and have staff review and bring a recommendation to the May meeting.