June 6, 2002

Rotary Log Pavilion


Aberdeen, Washington


James Peters                            Olympia

Brenda McMurray                      Yakima

Larry Cassidy                            Vancouver (Acting Chair)

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

Shari Schaftlein                         Designee, Department of Transportation








Call to Order:

Acting Chair, Larry Cassidy, opened the meeting at 8:20 a.m.


The Board was welcomed to Aberdeen by Mayor Mike Wilson and County Commissioner Dan Wood. 


The Mayor commented on the importance of salmon recovery in the Aberdeen area.


Commissioner Dan Wood, WRIA 22, gave a brief history of local groups and involvement in salmon improvements and recovery efforts in WRIA 22 and 23.  Using a non-regulatory approach in this area helps with public involvement.  He also thanked the Board for coming to Grays Harbor.


The May meeting minutes were not ready for approval at this meeting.  They will be brought before the Board at the September meeting for review and approval.



Topic #1:      Management Status Reports

Director’s report:  Laura Johnson expressed Chairman Ruckelshaus’ regrets for being unable to attend today’s meeting.


Director Johnson highlighted a map of the Grays Harbor Lead Entity area that illustrates SRFB funded projects in this watershed.  She also:


·        Advised the Board that the Public Lands Inventory Plan (PLIP) Inventory Data Report had been completed.  This is a companion document to the PLIP Final Report.  Other related documents will follow in the coming months.


·        Met with Congressman Norm Dicks earlier this week.  He is very supportive of what the SRFB is doing and was impressed with the PRISM data system.


·        Explained IAC Biodiversity efforts and explained that the Joint Legislative Audit Review Committee (JLARC) report will be mailed under separate cover.


·        Noted that Curt Smitch announced his retirement from state government at the end of the month, to a private consulting firm.  Curt, Bill Ruckelshaus, and Russ Cahill have met to discuss the Governor’s letter requesting a strategy on salmon related natural resources.  Mr. Ruckelshaus and Mr. Cahill will continue to work on this request after Mr. Smitch retires.


Financial Report:  Written report only.  (See notebook for details.)


Project Management Report:  Rollie Geppert updated the Board on project status.  Good progress is being made in getting the 132 Third Round Grant funded projects into active status.



Topic #2:      2003-05 Budget Requests

Debra Wilhelmi presented this agenda item.  June 30 is the end of the Fiscal Year; travel reimbursement forms need to be turned in as soon as possible to ensure funds are taken from the correct fiscal year account.


Debra explained that the current revenue forecast from the Office of Financial Management (OFM) shows up to a $1.5 billion general fund shortfall in the next biennium.


Agency budgets are due to OFM on September 6.  (See notebook for details.)  Since the next SRFB meeting is not scheduled until after this deadline, the Board will need to make its decisions on both the operating and capital budgets today.


Ms. Wilhelmi presented the operating budget for Board approval.  The items being brought forward by staff will need additional work before presenting to OFM.  Ms. Wilhelmi discussed the seven different budget items brought forward by staff.  (See notebook for details.) 

·        Permits Research/Recommendation (Estimated Cost: $141,340)

·        Natural Resources Data Access Portal (Estimated Cost: $220,000)

·        Project Monitoring and Measures of Success (Estimated Cost: $340,000)

·        Implement Statewide Monitoring Strategy (Estimated Cost: Unknown)

·        Lead Entity Funding (Estimated Cost: $3,250,000 (base) to $5,000,000 (enhanced))

·        Regional Strategies (Estimated Cost: $7,000,000)

·        State Technical Panel Role (Estimated Cost: $500,000)


Larry Cassidy asked about the amount of money budgeted under the Natural Resources Data Access Portal.  The Northwest Power Planning Council (NWPPC) has hired a consultant, for a quarter million dollars, to look at different data across the four states.  This data needs to be married with whatever the state does.  Debra explained the amount listed for this project was just to enhance the portal.


Board Discussion:

Laura Johnson noted that she had a conversation with Chair Ruckelshaus; he was very comfortable with the budget suggestions and hoped the Board wouldn’t get caught up in who would do the work, but what work needs to be done.  He suggested a subcommittee to continue to work on the issues.  He is very comfortable with the capital budget request.


Shari Shaftlein asked about the need for a placeholder for tribal culverts and coordination efforts.  Director Johnson was not aware of any agency placeholder for this issue but was aware of the issue and was sure the Attorney General’s office would appreciate a more coordinated effort.


Brenda McMurray agreed that a subcommittee on some of these items should be developed.


Craig Partridge asked if the regional strategy contracts had been developed yet from the earlier approved funding.  Debra updated the Board on the status on the five regional Boards.  Partial contracts are in place for two (Upper Columbia and the Shared Strategy); long-term contract in place for Snake River; and information has been sent to the other two areas but no materials have been returned as yet (Lower Columbia and Hood Canal).


Brenda McMurray asked what format will be used to communicate the budget updates. Director Johnson mentioned using e-mail and that the subcommittee should include two citizen members.  Chair Ruckelshaus will appoint the subcommittee citizen members.  The state agency members will be using the Joint Cabinet to coordinate efforts.  Laura noted that Chair Ruckelshaus is interested in the data connection.  This is going to be a very hard year to ask for any budget enhancements. 


Steve Tharinger asked for follow-up on Shari’s comment on culvert repair: will this include attorney fees and/or culvert replacement?  Shari noted that currently the litigation process is working to reach agreement between those agencies with culverts on their property on repair/replacement needs and the timeline.  No discussion on how to finance this effort has been started.


Dick Wallace echoed Director Johnson’s concern with requesting any enhancements this year.  He suggested rolling the issues up into one big package.


Capital Budget:

The above-mentioned subcommittee will work with staff to determine the funding level of the request.


Brenda McMurray suggested looking into the costs and requirements of monitoring.



Topic #3:      Lead Entity Advisory Group (LEAG) Report

Jay Watson requested moving this item to public comment period of agenda item #4, Fourth Round Grant Cycle.  Acting Chair, Larry Cassidy, granted this request.



Topic #4:      Fourth Round Grant Cycle

Jim Fox presented this agenda item.  Jim gave an overview of the current grant cycle process and suggestions on possible changes to the Fourth Round.  He reviewed the Fourth Round documents and attachments highlighting changes and issues the Board needs to make decisions on for the Fourth Round.  (See notebook for details.)


Brenda McMurray asked how information gets conveyed to the Board on why the number one project on a lead entity list doesn’t get recommended for funding by the technical panel.  She suggested development of a matrix showing how different projects rank high on social economic order, but not by Technical Panel.  She would like better articulation of what is a high social economic project.


Craig Partridge discussed the possibility that one project type that may have a great social economic value and bring people together may be assessments.  He would like to see some way to bring both the technical merit and the social economic value together at least by the Fifth Round.


Steve Meyer talked about the Independent Science Review Panel (ISRP) and Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA) process and how it may be a model for the SRFB.  ISRP is the technical process and reviews for technical merit.  CBFWA is a membership of project recipients that reviews projects for funding and provides checks and balances.  The NWPPC uses both processes when making its funding decisions.  This may be a model for the SRFB to look at in future grant cycles.


Craig Partridge asked how confident staff is that the questions asked in Attachment 5 (Questions Asked of Lead Entities About the Project List) will give the Board answers on the actual worth of the project.  Response: Jim Fox’s understanding from the last grant cycle, was that these questions were very helpful along with the other information concerning the lead entity projects and project lists.


Steve Meyer requested adding to question 2 on Attachment 5: “Describe the gaps in your community and stakeholder groups and explain why there are gaps.”


Tim Smith talked about the need for a more in-depth look at several issues and that Round Four may not be the time to make changes but to wait for Round Five to make any major changes.


Tim Smith prefers option 2 in the staff recommendation on Nearshore Assessments.  He feels these projects should be funded in the Fourth Round since the nearshore group will have tools ready for project review.


Public Comment:

Jay Watson, Lead Entity Advisory Group (LEAG) chair, Shirley Solomon, vice-chair LEAG, and Doug Osterman, King County WRIA 9 and member of LEAG presented comments for LEAG: 


Jay Watson provided LEAG comments on Assessments:  LEAG disagrees with the staff recommendation and would like to strike the current paragraph and replace it with: “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 strategy.”


Brenda McMurray asked about other sources of funding for assessment projects.  Jay stated he does not have funding for assessments in his area. 


Doug Osterman does know of funding for assessment grants in his area although these assessments haven’t been coordinated.  He feels lucky to be in an area where funding is available but believes other areas may not have funding available.  He would like to use SRFB assessment money to match with local government money to develop a robust assessment of his lead entity area.


Jay noted that assessments are a good way to get the word out to strengthen strategies and involve the public.


LEAG comments on Acquisitions:  LEAG supports the staff recommendation but would like the text to include estuarine and nearshore acquisitions.


Brenda McMurray discussed the need to not inadvertently exclude another type of acquisition by highlighting specific types of acquisitions.  Discussed different ways to word this policy.  Suggested modification for acquisition projects: Reach level acquisitions, as an example, can include freshwater marine nearshore estuarine environments.  This wording would make it less exclusive and more inclusive.  LEAG indicated support for this suggested change. 


LEAG wants to look at the Fourth Round as a transitional round to future rounds. 


LEAG comments on Technical Panel:  LEAG is asking for adequate time with the Technical Panel to make the Panel aware of the local process and see how decisions are made in the different lead entity areas.  The Technical Panel does not need to go on a tour since this doesn’t give them an idea of the process.  The LEAG would like to be able to work with IAC staff to set up a schedule.  LEAG feels strongly enough that they would like the Board to use project budget to supplement the budget for the technical panel.  LEAG would like to see a strategy certification process in place for future grant rounds.


Ms. McMurray stressed the need for LEAG to look at what they really need the Technical Panel to see and how much time is actually needed for Technical Panel review.


Jay Watson noted that for his lead entity area, he can see three different times he would like to have the Technical Panel meet with his group.  As with most things, every lead entity is different, and would need a different amount of time and the Technical Panel involved in different parts of the process.


Public Testimony:

Rhonda Dasher, Pend Oreille Lead Entity – Would like the Board to develop criteria for possible Forest and Fish project funding.  Her area is short-changed in most of the available forest and fish funding.  If the SRFB decided to fund Forest and Fish projects there would only be a handful of projects in key areas in WRIA 62. 


She would also like to see the Board bring the lead entities and Technical Panel together at a workshop to discuss social and economic factors and get to know each other.  This would help to level the playing field.


Doug Osterman, King County WRIA 9 Lead Entity – Discussed the need for funding nearshore projects in the King County area, referring to a letter from County Council Member Dow Constantine.


Guy McMinds, Quinault Indian Nation – Discussed salmon recovery and allocation of money from the tribal standpoint.  The water problem needs to be addressed before the Salmon Recovery Funding Board will be successful.  Need coordination and cooperation on the environmental issues.  The SRFB is in a good position to get the message out and help with this coordination.  The Board members are on the Board to represent their agencies and local communities.  He also wanted to welcome the Board to Aberdeen on behalf of the tribal chair who was unable to attend today.


Public testimony ended.


Role of Technical Panel:  Three recommendations were presented in the Board packet. Jim Fox reviewed the recommendations as well as the LEAG recommendation.


The Board discussed its concern with time demands for Technical Panel members.  Larry Cassidy would be concerned about providing a member to the Technical Panel if there were too many hours away from normal duties.


The Board discussed the future of the Technical Panel and options for changing its composition and role.


Forest and Fish:  Brenda McMurray agrees with staff recommendation but encourage staff to have conversations with the appropriate parties for possible funding in the future and develop criteria. 


Craig Partridge agrees with Brenda and the need to look at this issue and develop criteria for possible future funding in future grant cycles. 


Steve Tharinger would like more feedback from staff on how future policy development process will be undertaken. He feels there could be some wording to possibly fund some projects in this grant cycle. Staff could develop a very narrow set of criteria for funding this time.  Staff responded that if the Board wants to fund some level of Forest and Fish projects in this grant round then staff might be able to develop some criteria for review and approval but it would be rushed this grant round. 


Steve Meyer informed the Board about an United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) farm bill grant.  He suggested checking with the USDA to see if any Forest and Fish (F&F) projects could be funded through this process. 


Dick Wallace noted that there are many moving parts; small landowners are looking at legislative funding and other venues.  He also asked about whether or not the Board would be able to have an additional grant cycle in a year to possibly have a F&F grant cycle.


Director Johnson replied that it may be time for the Board to think about having different grant cycles during the year to fund certain types of projects, Forest and Fish being one.


Brenda McMurray would feel more comfortable in having more feedback from the different groups before deciding to fund F&F projects.  She also wanted to get the word out that the Board will look for other sources of funding. 


Steve Tharinger would like to see the Board get the small forest landowners involved in the salmon recovery process and funding of small landowner F&F projects is a way to do this. 


Craig Partridge suggested asking the lead entities to consider how their strategies open the door appropriately to the small forest landowners.  This is something that could happen readily.


Steve Meyer will help Director Johnson to draft a letter from Chair Ruckelshaus to the USDA requesting coordination of funds for small forest landowners.


Assessments:  LEAG recommendation asks the Board strike the Assessment and Studies paragraph and insert their recommended paragraph.  Jim Fox suggested not striking the full paragraph but amending the third sentence to include “or fill data gaps identified as a priority in the lead entity’s strategy.”


This gives the Board three options: 1) keep original staff recommendation; 2) replace with LEAG recommendation; or 3) amend staff recommendation to include “or fill data gaps identified as a priority in the lead entity’s strategy” in the third sentence.


Brenda McMurray is concerned that this gets the Board back in the position of funding some of the larger watershed assessment studies and she is not sure this is where the Board should be heading.


Marine Nearshore Assessment:  Brenda McMurray suggested option “2.5” including nearshore assessments in the Fourth Round but that during evaluation of the project not only have the lead entities rank the project but also have a statewide review of the nearshore projects by the Puget Sound Nearshore Estuarine Restoration Project (PSNERP) group to rank how these projects fit in Puget Sound wide.  She would like to also make sure our technical panel includes a nearshore expert.


Assessment Guidelines:  Brenda McMurray and Craig Partridge both believe the wording in staff recommendation number 2 is appropriate.


Acquisitions (both large reach and priorities):  Staff will re-word this to not exclude any type of acquisition.


The Acting Chair recommended a motion to move and second adoption of Resolution 2002-10 and then clarify specific items.


Brenda McMurray made a motion to approve Resolution #2002-10.  Steve Tharinger seconded.


Board discussion:

·                   Technical Panel – Adopt staff recommendation as presented.

·                   Forest and Fish – Adopt staff recommendation in continuing to have projects under Forest and Fish be ineligible, with language clarifying that the Board will work on this issue for future grant cycles. 

·                   Assessments – Add suggested wording from LEAG.  Steve Tharinger and Larry Cassidy agreed with this change.  Brenda McMurray did not. (Staff will amend.)

·                   Nearshore Assessment – Will include marine nearshore assessments in the Fourth Round.  Assessments will go through the lead entity process, then go to a nearshore subgroup based on PSNERP guidelines where this group would look at the assessments not only on the WRIA level but Puget Sound wide.

·                   Assessment Guidelines – Support staff recommendation as presented.

·                   Acquisitions – in E and F clarify that it would include fresh water, marine nearshore and estuarine.


Resolution 2002-10 passed unanimously as clarified above.



Topic #5:      Technical Panel Appointments

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


Brenda McMurray would like to make sure there is a nearshore technical person added to the panel.  She also urged staff to contact Board members and others in the recruitment of technical panel members.


Shari Shaftlein would also make sure staff look for people who have mitigation assessment and mitigation science experience.  Laura asked Shari to give staff some names of people fitting this requirement.



Topic #6:      Monitoring Strategy Project Report

Bruce Crawford presented this agenda item.  (See notebook for presentation details.)


Brenda McMurray asked “What are some of the questions the Board needs to start asking project proponents to be looking at, to help measure success and feed into the monitoring strategy?”


Response: A chapter is being developed aimed specifically at funding sources.  The two main entities identified are the SRFB and the NWPPC because these two sources fund a majority of restoration projects in the state.  The hope is to give guidance on protocols and sampling guidelines.


A data survey was conducted to find where data are being gathered, stored, used for monitoring.  Over 500 surveys were sent out.  Of the 500 surveys, 146 salmon recovery and watershed health related data sources were identified.  The project is still in the process of summarizing and publishing results of this survey.



Topic #7:      Index Monitoring

Director Johnson introduced the agenda item noting that this agenda item is a request for funding the remainder of the smolt monitoring project that was left unfunded at the end of the last legislative session.


Jim Scott, chief scientist for WDFW, presented the index monitoring information with assistance from Bill Ehinger, Ecology.  Dr. Scott gave an overview of the index monitoring process so far and how they are looking to improve this program to answer specific project level questions.


Bill Ehinger gave a quick overview of the general approach on intensive monitoring and questions to be addressed.


Bruce Crawford talked about the data portal and the current status of this process.


Jim Scott would like to come back in late fall to give a demonstration on the Fish & Wildlife web pages on index monitoring and spatial monitoring.


Dick Wallace gave a briefing on the new group working on coordination between Ecology and WDFW.


Brenda McMurray moved to adopt Resolution #2002-11 to provide $450,000 for the WDFW Wild Salmonid Production Monitoring Program.  Steve Tharinger seconded.  Resolution #2002-11 passed unanimously.



Topic #9:      People for Salmon Funding Request

Director Johnson presented this agenda item.  She gave the background on past People for Salmon (PFS) funding and discussed the reason for this funding request.  PFS is requesting $500,000 from the SRFB, the first $250,000 as match for a NOAA grant and the second $250,000 for a small grant program.  (Director Johnson handed out a legal sized sheet summarizing the funding request.)  She then discussed five different options presented by staff, noting that there may be other options but in the short timeframe this was all staff had time to develop.  (See notebook for details.)


Public Testimony:

Chantal Stevens, PFS – In last three years, PFS has received $800,000 from the SRFB and $1 million from the Conservation Commission for a total of $1.8 million.  They are asking for an additional $500,000 from the SRFB today.  This funding is for two different purposes ($250,000 to be used for a NOAA matching grant for continuing services and $250,000 for funding small project grants).  Chantal explained that the reason they didn’t have a coordinated scope of work at this time was due to the lack of funds, not due to the lack of wanting to coordinate the scope of work. 


Jay Watson, LEAG – LEAG discussed funding PFS and presented a question from LEAG: “If the Board funds PFS then it needs to be linked back to the lead entities and avoid redundancy.  How will these funds be linked back to the lead entity process?”


Willy O’Neil, Association of General Contractors (AGC) – In support of funding PFS.  Read through the Salmon Recovery Funding Board legislation noting the phrasing of need for local volunteer involvement.  Explained his involvement in the PFS and shared his view of its successes.


Brenda McMurray asked about private funding efforts.  Chantal feels it looks very hopeful but that they need the grant first to get this process in place.  Brenda mentioned that $1.8 million seemed to be an adequate amount to start the process and questioned why this group didn’t use this money for developing a self-sustaining program.  She mentioned other programs that continue to come before the Board and the need to identify how to choose which programs the Board actually wants to fund and what is really needed.  There are many other non-profit groups working in the state and she believes the Board really needs to look how this works.


Steve Tharinger looked at the budget and scope of work and is not comfortable with funding this program.  Administrative expense seems very high.


Chantal explained that they have been very tight with the administrative funds and have never used more than 10% in funding.


Public testimony ended.


Board Discussion:

Larry Cassidy reiterated the purpose of the request and noted that staff provided five options.  He asked the Board for a motion to adopt any of the five options or present other options.


Brenda McMurray talked about the need to discuss programmatic funding and develop criteria to provide programmatic funds.  Option 5 defers funding until the Board develops a long-term programmatic funding approach.


Shari Shaftlein noted how important PFS is to the Department of Transportation’s (WSDOT) Transportation Permit Efficiency and Accountability Committee (TPEAC) and WSDOT would like to see some funding be provided to this group so they can continue to work on the TPEAC.


Larry Cassidy asked again if there was any motion to approve funding.  Brenda asked Shari to have WSDOT help the Board define what funding of PFS means and what this funding is for. 


Steve Tharinger is not ready to make a motion today because he would benefit from additional information.


No action was taken.



Topic #8:      Authority Matrix

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


Brenda McMurray and Dick Wallace gave their perspective on the subcommittee work and authority matrix. 


The Board endorsed the proposal for initial usage.  This proposal will come back before the Board in six months for review and final adoption of the policy.


The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.




________________________                                                                  ________________

William Ruckelshaus, Chair                                                             Date



Future Meetings:       September 13 & 14, 2002 – Ellensburg

                                    November 14 & 15, 2002 - Olympia







WHEREAS, the Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) will begin its fourth grant cycle in July, 2002, and


WHEREAS, the SRFB requested and received public comments to the draft document Fourth Round Grant Cycle Issues; and


WHEREAS, staff incorporated Board comments from the May 23-24, 2002 meeting and took into consideration public comments in developing a revised draft of Fourth Round Grant Cycle Issues; and


WHEREAS, the Board has considered public comments on the revised draft;


NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Salmon Recovery Funding Board approves for use in the Fourth Grant Cycle the recommended policies and guidelines contained in the May 31, 2002 Fourth Round Grant Cycle Issues, including any amendments made by the Board at the June 6, 2002 meeting; and


BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Board authorizes staff to incorporate these policies and guidelines, including any Board amendments, into the Fourth Round grant application materials.




Resolution moved by: _____Brenda McMurray______________


Resolution seconded by: ___Steve Tharinger_______________



Adopted/Defeated/Deferred (underline result)


Date: _____June 6, 2002__________








WHEREAS; in the 2002 session of the Legislature the funding for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife smolt production monitoring program was eliminated; and


WHEREAS, the notes to the 2002 Supplemental Operating Budget state “The Department may apply to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board for funding this activity;” and


WHEREAS, SRFB and GSRO staff and the Outdoor Grant Manager for the development of the state’s Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy have reviewed the proposed smolt monitoring activities; and


WHEREAS, the SRFB has provided funding for this program for FY2002 and part of FY2003;


NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the SRFB provides up to an additional $450,000 for WDFW’s smolt production monitoring program; and,


BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that funding is contingent on the Department’s continued collaboration with the Department of Ecology and the continued compatibility of the sites, methods, and resulting data with the Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy and Salmon Recovery Scorecard.



Resolution moved by: _____Brenda McMurray______________


Resolution seconded by: ___Steve Tharinger_______________



Adopted/Defeated/Deferred (underline result)


Date: _____June 6, 2002__________