November 14, 2002

Nisqually Wildlife Refuge Conference Room


Olympia, Washington


William Ruckelshaus, Chair        Seattle

James Peters                            Olympia

Brenda McMurray                      Yakima

Steve Tharinger                          Clallam County

Tim Smith                                 Designee, Department of Fish and Wildlife

Craig Partridge                           Designee, Department of Natural Resources

Shari Schaftlein                         Designee, Department of Transportation

Dick Wallace                             Designee, Department of Ecology

Ed Manary                                Designee, Conservation Commission









Topic #1:  Engineered Log Jam Presentation:

The meeting opened with the first annual report on the engineered logjam projects at 11:40 a.m.


Marc Duboiski introduced this agenda item.  Panel members included: George Pess, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); Pat Stevenson, Stillaguamish Tribe; Michael McHenry, Lower Elwha Tribe; Mary Lou White, Trout Unlimited; and Tim Abbe, Consultant for Herrera Environmental.


George Pess and Mary Lou White gave PowerPoint presentations on the status of the log jams projects being monitored.


The Board asked questions of the panel regarding monitoring protocols, findings, and the next steps.


With engineered log jams each system is unique and there is no one size fits all solution, although some findings from these log jams could be used at other sites.  Also there are other study designs that bring about different answers to questions.



Call to Order:

Chair Bill Ruckelshaus opened the regular meeting at 1:03 p.m. 


The agenda was approved as presented.



Topic #2:      Management and Status Reports

Approval of Minutes:  Steve Tharinger moved to approve the September 2002 SRFB Meeting Minutes as presented.  Brenda McMurray seconded the motion.  Minutes were approved as presented.


Management Status Reports:  Laura Johnson gave a brief report on office activities since the last SRFB meeting.  Mark Jarasitis was available for questions on the financial report.


Brenda McMurray asked about the data portal and how it fits in with the monitoring oversight committee.  Director Johnson provided information on the data portal and how it is progressing.


Project Changes Report:  Dick Wallace gave the report on project request changes.  The sub-committee of Brenda McMurray and Dick Wallace reviewed six requests for project changes.  Staff provided the sub-committee with background data and information.  Dick and Brenda approved some of the projects and asked for additional follow-up on a couple of the requests.  Overall the process seemed to work well.  Dick reported that in the future the subcommittee may bring projects before the Board for additional input and decision-making.


Lead Entity Advisory Group (LEAG) Report:  Brian Walsh, new lead entity program coordinator for the Department of Fish and Wildlife, gave the LEAG report.  Brian introduced himself and provided background information on his experience.  He has been on the job about one month now and is still going through a learning curve.


Brian gave an update on what the LEAG is doing and how the Department of Fish and Wildlife is working with LEAG and the lead entities.


A survey was provided to the lead entity coordinators.  Board members will receive a copy of this report, soon to be released.


Chair Ruckelshaus welcomed Brian to his new position and expressed how important the lead entities are to the SRFB and how the LEAG is the group designed to be the go between for the SRFB and lead entities to help with coordination and to keep everyone on the same page.



Topic #3:      Final Approval of 2003 SRFB Meeting Schedule

Steve Tharinger moved to approve Resolution #2002-14, the 2003 SRFB meeting schedule.  Brenda McMurray seconded the motion.  Resolution #2002-14 approved.



Topic #4:      4th Round Technical Panel Update

Rollie Geppert gave the Board an update on Technical Panel activities.  Forty-seven pre-application meetings were scheduled with the lead entities; 44 of 47 meetings have been completed.


The estimated number of projects to be presented for the 4th Round is 225, requesting a total of about $54 million.


Jeanette Smith and Pat Klavas, two of the SRFB Technical Panel members, were present at the SRFB meeting.  Jeanette believes that the lead entity and technical panel meetings have helped improve the quality of the projects by giving the additional time up-front with the project sponsors.


Pat Klavas noted that there is always room for improvement.  The Board needs to work closely with the lead entities on how to improve the process for the 5th round.



Topic #5:      Measuring Success – Effectiveness of Habitat Restoration Projects

Jim Fox introduced this agenda item.  See notebook for details and copies of both reports being discussed.  Panel members included Ken Currens, ISP chair, George Pess, NMFS, and Bruce Crawford, Monitoring Outdoor Grant Manager.  Panel members had been presented five questions to answer during their presentation:

·          What do we mean when we use the term “project effectiveness” for habitat restoration projects?

·          Are benefits of restoration actions to salmon “unproven” or simply unproven to a high level of statistical certainty? Which types of restoration actions have been shown to be successful in improving salmon abundance? Which have not?

·          Should the SRFB limit funding to projects with scientifically demonstrated benefits to habitat? To salmon?

·          Are there types of projects for which the effort and investment required to demonstrate effectiveness are greater than the benefits expected?

·          What would it take to demonstrate scientifically the effectiveness of restoration projects? Should the SRFB participate in an undertaking to accomplish this?


Ken Currens led off the panel discussion giving an overview of a report by Dr. Peter Bayley of Oregon State University titled Responses of Salmon and Trout to Habitat Changes.


Dr. Bayley’s report infers that it is difficult to demonstrate the cause and effect of salmon habitat protection and restoration projects.  Just because there are more fish in a segment of the river may or may not be the result of the habitat change.


Another point from the report is that studies will need to be conducted over a long period of time and that monitoring is essential to the success of future projects.


Dr. Currens noted that consistent continued funding over a long period of time is key to a successful monitoring program.


Ed Manary pointed out that it isn’t quick and it isn’t cheap to monitor these projects.  The legislature needs to know this up front when they are discussing the future of project monitoring and the monitoring program.


Dr. Currens discussed the possibility of assessing watersheds to identify the best watersheds to intensively monitor.


George Pess provided an overview of the Philip Roni, et al report titled A Review of Stream Restoration Techniques and a Hierarchical Strategy for Prioritizing Restoration in Pacific Northwest Watersheds. 


There are two definitions of restoration.  One being returning the land to the original pristine condition.  The other form of restoration is the enhancement of habitat by making structural or functional changes to the land.  People usually think of both definitions when talking about restoration.  It has become widely accepted that in order to restore salmon populations there is a need to restore watershed processes.  There has been a lot of money spent on restoration at two different levels – project level and reach level.  The Roni report tries to help prioritize the different types of restoration and identify the best level to use when using different restoration techniques.


Bruce Crawford gave an overview of the next steps for monitoring in Washington State and recommendations being made by the Monitoring Oversight Committee. 


·          Recommends the SRFB and NWPPC continue spending money for implementation monitoring.


·          Effectiveness monitoring – develop standard formats and reporting mechanisms.  Set aside a portion of the money for effectiveness monitoring of a sampling of the different types of funding for a longer time.


·          Recommending creating one or more intensively monitored watersheds.  Need to measure all the parameters over a long period of time. 


The Board discussed the costs of monitoring and whether volunteers could be used more extensively.  Some aspects of monitoring aren’t conducive for volunteers but there are other aspects where volunteers could be used and are currently being used such as stream-keepers and nature mapping efforts.


Jim Fox closed the topic out by asking the Board for direction on next steps.  Likely items include:

·          Convene a workgroup

·          Look into a recommendation for monitoring of SRFB funded projects. 

·          Work on a policy on how to approach intensive monitoring. 


Staff needs to provide a preliminary recommendation to the Board prior to the 5th Grant Round.  The second tier to look at is who needs to do what.  This will depend on the follow through of the Monitoring Oversight Committee report.



Topic #6:      GSRO Report

Steve Meyer, Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office Director, provided the SRFB with an update on the joint response by the GSRO, SRFB, and the Fish and Wildlife Commission to the Governor’s September 23, 2002, letter as well as other activities by the GSRO. 


Steve reported that the Independent Science Panel (ISP) is currently reviewing the Department of Ecology’s Storm Water Manual to make sure it addresses the needs of fish.


The GSRO has been assisting with the development of three documents:

·          Bill Ruckelshaus’ letter to Commerce Secretary Donald J. Evans,

·          The previously mentioned joint response letter to the Governor, and

·          The State of the Salmon Report



Topic #7a:    5th Round Follow-up Discussion

Jim Fox presented this agenda item.  See notebook for details.


Discussed how to proceed with next steps for the 5th Round Grant cycle. 


The Board will have the next three meetings to focus on 5th Round issues.  The staff is requesting direction on what the Board would like the staff to develop recommendations on.


Brenda McMurray would like to define what the Board is willing to fund.  This gives people a chance to put proposals together and bring it before the Board.  She supports the “25th list” proposal development.  Discussed the timing of this process and whether it should be during the regular grant cycle or a separate annual grant cycle.


Steve Tharinger is not comfortable with the “25th list” proposal. 


Ed Manary noted the need to lay out the process and the timeline for making these decisions.


Chair Ruckelshaus would like to have the Board decide what types of projects it will look at, timing, process, and criteria/guidelines, without losing the ability to consider emergency proposals.


Brenda McMurray would like to see if staff could have a proposal on volunteer strategies, monitoring, lead entity support, etc. and bring before the Board at the next meeting.


Jim Fox thinks staff could have most of this ready to bring before the Board at the next meeting on January 29, 2003.



Topic #7b:    5th Round Process

Director Johnson presented this agenda item.  She outlined the proposed schedule for the Board and staff recommendation on how to proceed.  See notebook for details.


Ms. Johnson asked if the Board felt anything was missing?  Any topic the Board would like removed?  And any questions on the process?


Bill Ruckelshaus would like the effectiveness monitoring issue to wait for the results of the legislature on the Monitoring Strategy.


Ed Manary would like to be included in the Forest and Fish working group.


Craig Partridge likes the approach but is concerned with the workload for staff.


Mr. Ruckelshaus discussed the need to coordinate with the Northwest Power Planning Council (NWPPC) on funding of watershed planning and regional councils.  The Board needs to be involved in this discussion.


Staff will continue working through the 5th Round Process and report the status to the Board at the January 29, 2003, SRFB meeting.



There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.




________________________                                                                  ________________

William Ruckelshaus, Chair                                                             Date



Future Meetings:                   January 29, 2003 – West Coast SeaTac Hotel






BE IT RESOLVED, the schedule for 2003 Regular Meetings of the Salmon Recovery Funding Board is hereby adopted; and,


BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, staff is directed to publish notice in the State Register accordingly.


Note: Unless otherwise announced, all sessions of the Board identified below shall be regular sessions of the Board, and may include from time to time site tours and workshop format sessions.


Wednesday, January 29



Thursday, March 6



Thursday, May 1

Friday, May 2


Location to be determined – somewhere mid-state

Wednesday, June 4

Thursday, June 5


Eastern Washington

Wednesday, July 2



Thursday, September 25

Friday, September 26



Wednesday, October 29

Thursday, October 30




Resolution moved by:  Steve Tharinger


Resolution seconded by:  Brenda McMurray


Adopted / Declined (underline result)


Date:  November 14, 2002