Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council
January 23, 2013/ 10:00 am – 3:00 pm/Edmonds City Hall
Meeting Attendees
Members & Alternates / Representing / Members & Alternates / RepresentingAlan Chapman / Lummi Nation / Josh Baldi / Ecology
Alicia Olivas / Hood Canal Coordinating Council / Kathy Peters / WSWC
Allen Rozema / Skagitonians to Preserve Farm Land / Kirk Lakey / RITT/WDFW
Andy Rheaume / WRIA 8 / Margaret Clancy / WEC
Bill Blake / Stillaguamish Watershed / Pat Stevenson / Stillaguamish Watershed
Cecilia Gobin / NWIFC / Paul McCollum / Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe
Chris Ellings / Nisqually Tribe / Randy Kinley / Lummi Nation
Cindy Wilson / South Sound Watershed / Rick Parkin / EPA
Dan Wrye / Pierce County / Rob Purser / Suquamish Tribe
David Herrera / Skokomish Tribe / Ron Shultz / WSCC
David Troutt / Nisqually Indian Tribe / Sandra Romero / Thurston County
Dawn Pucci / Island County / Scott Brewer / Hood Canal Coordinating Council
Dennis Robertson / WRIA 9 / Scott Chitwood / Dungeness-Elwha Watershed
Don Davidson / Washington Policy Center / Scott Powell / Snohomish Watershed
Doug Osterman / WRIA 9 / Todd Myers / Washington Policy Center
Elizabeth Babcock / NOAA Fisheries / Tom Ostrom / Suquamish Tribe
Jacques White / Long Live The Kings
Staff / Representing / Observers & Guests / Representing
Dana Golden / Cascadia Consulting / Bob Carey / TNC
Gretchen Glaub / PSP / Jim Weber / NWIFC
Heather Cole / PSP / Kathy Minsch / Seattle
Jeanette Dorner / PSP / Lloyd Moody / Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office
Laura Blackmore / Cascadia Consulting
Michael Blanton / PSP
Scott Williamson / PSP
Stephanie Suter / PSP
Stacy Vynne / PSP
Suzanna Stoike / PSP
Tristan Peter-Contesse / PSP
Opening and Introductions
David Troutt welcomed everyone, and all meeting attendees introduced themselves.
Review Meeting Summary
The Council reviewed the December 6, 2013 Meeting Summary. Lloyd Moody’s name should be moved to “Observers and Guests” in the “Meeting Attendees” section.
Decision: Scott Chitwood moved to approve the meeting summary as amended. Jacques White seconded. The December 6 Meeting Summary was approved as amended with no abstentions.
Chairman’s Report and Updates
David Troutt noted that in the meeting packet, there is a draft letter to the Mid-Hood Canal Watershed. Watershed partners working on the monitoring and adaptive management project asked the Recovery Council for a letter affirming support for them to move forward with the project.
Decision: The Recovery Council unanimously agreed to send the letter as written.
David also talked about the update from Leah Kintner, provided in the meeting packet, on the process to identify best management practices. Leah is looking for 2-3 people from each watershed to participate in the process. Council members should get in touch with her if they are interested.
Approach to Steelhead Recovery Planning
Elizabeth Babcock presented an update to NOAA’s approach to steelhead recovery planning. NOAA is working on assembling a Recovery Team with both technical and management expertise. There will be a group of standing members and sub-groups called in at different times. The recovery planning process is expected to take about three years. Jeanette Dorner and Tristan Peter-Contesse will be standing members, and NOAA is open to ideas about how to determine other Recovery Council representation on the Recovery Team.
The Recovery Team will help to build a Distinct Population Segment (DPS) level plan while simultaneous pilot watershed-level plans are created in Hood Canal and Nisqually. After that, a template will be created to be used by watersheds to help them build their chapters.
Comments and Questions:
· Alan Chapman: Will NOAA set guidelines, and will there be focus on priority recovery or recovery in every place?
o Elizabeth: It has not been determined if key areas would be addressed first. The Science Center will play a role in this decision. Ultimately, NOAA will make final decisions on the plan but it’s important to have watershed ownership and inclusion in decision making.
· Jacques White: The Recovery Council will need to have a strategic discussion about how to prioritize steelhead recovery funding in relation to other priorities.
· Josh Baldi: Will the Steelhead Plan build upon the Chinook Plan and avoid its shortcomings?
o Elizabeth: There will be a gap analysis to determine what is already in place for Chinook and Summer Chum. NOAA wants to build off of existing work that’s been done in both science and infrastructure. Habitat will be a big focus of this plan.
· Chris Ellings: How will co-managers be included in the process?
o Elizabeth: The co-managers would likely lead the goal development process like they did for Chinook recovery planning.
· Jacques White: I’m concerned that steelhead isn’t listed as an endpoint/component in the Sound Wide Pressure Assessment. We need a strategy for how to address this.
· Jacques White: In the Chinook M&AM project we’ve learned that often, local government staff and officials aren’t well versed in the recovery plans from their watersheds. The steelhead planning should make sure to engage local governments, and watersheds should continue to engage local governments in the Chinook work.
· Rick Parkin: Would it be possible for the Recovery Council to send a letter to NOAA with recommendations on the steelhead recovery planning process?
o The Recovery Council agreed this would be a good idea. The letter will include that the Recovery Council is excited about the steelhead recovery planning process, and hopes that it will address habitat issues and add funding. The critical habitat designations shouldn’t limit the geographic reach of the steelhead plan. In addition, the Council hopes that the plan will build off of the lessons learned from Chinook recovery planning and other projects such as the Marine Survival project.
o A draft letter will be generated and distributed soon.
EPA Buffer Width Policy Update
Jim Weber from the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission NWIFC provided background on the buffer widths issue. The goal of the buffer width program is to create incentives for positive behavior and educate landowners about what they can do to promote salmon recovery.
Elizabeth Babcock said the incentive is part of a federal agency response to the Treaty Rights at Risk paper. In January 2013, NOAA recommended using the Science panel’s buffer table as a guide to condition funding for voluntary buffer programs on agricultural lands.
Rick Parkin (EPA) and Josh Baldi (Ecology) presented a handout on the program. It is an interim effort as other tools are being developed. Fish and Wildlife are currently looking at different approaches to the science of buffer widths. Applications and projects will be analyzed to learn from and improve implementation. The EPA is dedicated to making buffers meet salmon recovery needs.
Comments and Questions
· Doug Osterman: This is a key opportunity to communicate effectively with local governments and work through local government forums.
· Elizabeth: These buffer guidelines would be used on an interim basis until the PHS update is available (aquatic will be 2015).
· Margaret Clancy: It might be helpful to make a crosswalk to the state’s system for buffer widths. Could the grant money go to a local government?
o Rick Parkin: Yes, but there would have to be agreement from landowners to put in the buffers first.
Proposed 3YWP Policies
Jeanette Dorner introduced three proposed Three-Year Work Plan policies. The goal of the policies is to improve internal accountability and consistency, and strengthen the region’s proposals to the SRF Board. The policies were drafted by the SRC Executive Committee and were reviewed by the Watershed Leads in January.
Policy 1: Three-Year Work Plan Submittal
Policy 1 (approved as proposed): Three-Year Work Plan Submittal
Each year, the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council will review and implement a formula for allocating SRFB and PSAR funding to the watersheds. The Recovery Council also will approve the requirements and deadlines for three-year work plan submittals. To be eligible to receive an annual allocation, watersheds must submit a completed three-year work plan (or its successor, such as a completed annual cycle report and project spreadsheet) to the Puget Sound Partnership by the deadline set by the Recovery Council.
Comments and Questions
· Dawn Pucci: Is the late turn-in of Three-Year Work Plans a problem?
o Jeanette: This year two watersheds never turned in their Three-Year Work Plans. It was the first time it had happened, and we had no policy in place to address the problem.
· Several council members asked about the amount of work expected in the Three-Year Work plan updates. David Troutt commented that the Three Year Work Plan is in the contracts for lead entities. Jason Mulvihill-Kuntz noted that it has been a requirement, and helps the region build a stronger case to ask for funding.
· Kirk Lakey noted that if a watershed is struggling to get their Three-Year Workplan in, they should talk to their RITT member about what needs to be included.
· Several council members expressed the importance of working with watersheds as much as possible prior to an issue arising. It’s to the benefit of the region for the Three-Year Work Plans to be submitted and the policy is not meant to be punitive.
Decision: Paul McCollum motioned to approve Policy 1 as proposed and Ron Shultz seconded. Policy 1 was approved unanimously as proposed.
Policy 2: RITT Consistency Review
Jeanette noted that the goal of this policy is to make sure watershed strategies and project lists are consistent. If the RITT finds discrepancies, there will be an opportunity to resolve projects so that they are clearly aligned.
Policy 2 (as proposed): RITT Consistency Review
Each year, the RITT will review the watersheds’ strategies and SRFB/PSAR project lists. If the RITT finds that a watershed’s proposed SRFB/PSAR project is inconsistent with the priorities in its strategy[1], the RITT will meet with the watershed to discuss ways to improve the project’s fit with the strategy. If the watershed does not choose to adjust the project but wishes to keep it on its proposed project list, the watershed representatives can make an appeal to the Recovery Council at its September or November meeting to review the project and the RITT’s findings. If the Recovery Council agrees with the RITT’s conclusion, the Recovery Council will consider reducing the watershed’s funding allocation by the amount of the proposed project.
Policy 2 (as amended and approved): RITT Consistency Review
Each year, the RITT will review the watersheds’ strategies and SRFB/PSAR project lists to determine consistency with the watersheds’ strategies and support if consistent. If the RITT finds that a watershed’s proposed SRFB/PSAR project is inconsistent with the priorities in its strategy[2], the RITT will meet with the watershed to discuss ways to improve the project’s fit with the strategy. If the watershed does not choose to adjust the project but wishes to keep it on its proposed project list, the watershed representatives can make an appeal to the Recovery Council at its September or November meeting to review the project and the RITT’s findings. If the Recovery Council agrees with the RITT’s conclusion, the Recovery Council will consider reducing the watershed’s funding allocation by the amount of the proposed project.
Comments and Questions:
· Several Council members expressed concern about removing funding completely rather than just for one inconsistent project.
o David Troutt: There needs to be some risk to limit the submittal of too many projects.
· Bill Kingman: The RITT review should be in person.
· Doug Osterman: I support the policy as written. It addresses the issue directly, creates accountability, and allows for the RITT to provide feedback.
Decision: Ron Shultz made a motion to approve Policy 2 with an amendment to add at the end of the first sentence “lists to determine consistency with the watershed strategies and support if consistent.” Dennis Robertson seconded, and Policy 2 was approved unanimously as amended.
Policy 3: Projects Benefiting Species other than Chinook or Summer Chum
David Troutt noted that this policy would allow for the inclusion of projects beneficial to important species besides Chinook and Summer Chum that help to promote Treaty Rights.
Policy 3 (as proposed): Projects Benefiting Species other than Chinook or Summer Chum
Lead Entities may include projects that benefit salmonid species other than Chinook or summer chum in their three-year work plan project spreadsheets and SRFB/PSAR project lists. However, to do so, the Lead Entity must submit to the region a clear, science-based strategy [3]for any other priority salmonid populations they wish to do projects for and to clearly identify in their project spreadsheet projects that address that population.
Policy 3 (as amended and approved): Projects Benefiting Species other than Chinook or Summer Chum
Lead entities may include projects that benefit treaty rights or ESA listed species in their three year work plan project spreadsheets and SRFB/PSAR project lists. However, to do so, the Lead Entity must submit to the Puget Sound Partnership a clear, science based strategy for populations that benefit treaty rights or ESA listed species they wish to do projects for and to clearly identify in their project spreadsheet projects that address that population. The Executive Committee will work with the RITT to better define what constitutes a “clear, science-based strategy.” However, we expect that the definition will include any documented strategy that a watershed is currently using for species other than Chinook and summer chum.
Comments and Questions
· Jason Mulvihill-Kuntz: I don’t want to dilute the effort focused on Chinook. We also need to be clear about what scientific basis means. The footnote about scientific basis should be included in the policy.
· Doug Osterman: This policy could cause problems and undermine watershed authority because more people will ask for the same amount of funding.
· Scott Powell: We’ve already invested in the concept of multi species benefits, and I don’t think projects for other species will take away from that.
· David Troutt: Watersheds are already submitting projects that benefit treaty rights but aren’t listed species. There will be no requirement for watersheds to develop additional plans.