HABITAT WORK GROUP
Lewis County Conservation District
Chehalis, WA
November 19, 2010
1:30 p.m.
Meeting Summary
PRESENT
Lee Napier, Grays Harbor County
Bob Amrine, Lewis County Conservation District
Chanele Holbrook-Shaw, Citizen, Thurston County
Janet Strong, Chehalis River Basin Land Trust
Bob Burkle, Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife
(WDFW)
Craig Swanson, Lewis County
Debbie Holden, Creative Community Solutions
Miranda Plumb, US Fish & Wildlife Service
Lonnie Crumley, StreamWorks Consulting
Bob Thomas, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Janel Spaulding, Chehalis Basin Partnership
Chris Conklin, Quinault Indian Tribe
Mike Kuttel Jr., Thurston Conservation District
John Kleim, Creative Community Solutions
Tom Gow, Puget Sound Meeting Services
Welcome & Introductions
Chair Bob Amrine called the November 19, 2010 meeting of the Chehalis Basin Partnership (CBP)
Habitat Work Group (HWG) to order at 1:31 p.m. Everyone present provided self-introductions.
Lead Entity Update
Lee Napier reported there are several minor changes to Manual 18. Those changes will be released
January 3. There will be an informational workshop on how to apply for grants. Although grant sponsors
have done a good job of preparing grant applications, there may be a need to attend a workshop to
become better acquainted with recent changes. She urged project sponsors to attend the workshop.
Another change for this funding round is the early submission date. Applications to the Washington State
Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) are due by August 26, 2011. The early deadline for the Lead
Entity will likely be by the end of June. The Lead Entity will follow similar deadlines as last year. The
early application is due to Ms. Napier by the end of March. The committee typically allows time to
review the early application as well as conducting field trips, which helps sponsors improve and finalize
their applications.
Ms. Napier said RCO is also including an optional early submittal date of August 12. That will entail the
sponsors submitting the application in PRISM two weeks earlier to afford RCO extra time for preparation
for the review panel. Final funding decisions will be released in December.
Approximately every two years, RCO sponsors a project conference. Ms. Napier said she’s attended all
the conferences as it offers a good opportunity to network, listen to presentations, and ask questions about
projects involving lessons learned, what works and things that don’t work. The next conference is
scheduled for April 26-27, 2011, at the Great Wolf Lodge. There is a fee and if members are interested in
attending, Ms. Napier offered to pay the registration fee. Because the conference was such a success, the
attendance is limited to 500 people. She encouraged members to let her know if they are interested in
attending.
As members may certainly know, the budget deficit continues to grow with a likely 1% to 2% reduction
in funding. Natural resource programs statewide have been asked to reduce budgets by that percentage.
Habitat Work Group
Minutes of Meeting
November 19, 2010 Page 2 of 7
John Kleim and Debbie Holden arrived.
Ms. Napier distributed some information on the Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) involving the
expansion of eligible project types. It appears RCO staff proposes expanding the types of projects
eligible for SRFB funding pertaining to recovery focus hatchery projects and specific monitoring projects.
She said she previously emailed the information and did not receive any responses.
Craig Swanson arrived.
Chanele Holbrook-Shaw asked whether it pertains to private, state, or non-profit hatcheries. Ms. Napier
said it generally pertains to hatcheries. There is still some disconnect between hatcheries and salmon
recovery.
Ms. Napier was asked if there is any guidance on the types of hatchery projects. Ms. Napier advised that
not much direction is provided, but information included in the material points to hatchery related special
projects addressing issues that have adverse effects on wild fish, consistent with the Scientific Review
Group priorities that may be a capital start up. Hatchery operators must be a project sponsor or cosponsors and proposal must indicate why SRFB is the appropriate funding body.
Miranda Plumb said she believes the Lead Entity has some discretion. Ms. Napier said it’s unclear as the
region could elect to pursue some of the projects. Not much guidance has been provided.
The group discussed the intent of the proposal and why the proposal was prompted. Ms. Napier advised
she will re-forward the information. She asked interested members to respond to the SRFB directly and
copy her with the comments. She invited members to also attend the next SRFB meeting.
Ms. Napier referred to information on changes to the Farmland Program that she previously forwarded in
October. No comments were received from members. Letters from The Puget Sound Partnership and
from Yakima indicated that the proposal hasn’t been thoroughly considered and that prior to taking any
action, the SRFB might want to reconsider. The change requires project sponsors acquiring farm lands to
contact local conservation districts so that the district knows how agriculture lands are being impacted.
More information was revealed during yesterday’s meeting, which appeared to point to a land use issue.
Bob Burkle arrived.
Another issue discussed within the region is the Pacific Salmon Stronghold Conservation Act of 2009 (S.
817; H.R. 2055). It appears likely that it will be a congressional act that will receive some momentum
and some funding. The issue is whether the Washington Coast Sustainable Salmon Partnership (WCSSP)
will take a position based on lead entity input. The Act is an effort to address frustrations with
Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings. The Act takes a different approach by identifying strong and
healthy populations and supporting those areas through legislation, awareness, and funding. There are
many supporters within and outside the state.
Ms. Napier provided an update on her status with the Partnership. Ms. Spaulding has assumed all
Partnership responsibilities related to watershed planning. Ms. Napier said she will remain the fiscal
agent for the Partnership and will provide assistance to Ms. Spaulding. She will remain a Boardmember
with WCSSP and the Lead Entity Coordinator until June 30, 2011.
Habitat Work Group
Minutes of Meeting
November 19, 2010 Page 3 of 7
Work Plan for Lead Entity
Mr. Kleim reported on the next steps for moving forward with the strategy especially in terms of keeping
pace with other activities occurring in Puget Sound and the Puget Sound Partnership. Lead Entities in
Puget Sound are taking a more active role in the Puget Sound Partnership through the development of
three-year work programs of projects. The Grays Harbor Lead Entity calls for project applications each
year and moves forward to complete funded projects. Other Puget Sound Lead Entities are forecasting
years in advance by identifying potential projects the group as a whole can focus on.
Bob Burkle said it’s not only projects, but it also entails project reaches and recovery priorities. For
example, Pierce County took elements of its levee system along the Puyallup River and included it within
the three-year work plan to help position those projects in the event a project sponsor was identified or
funding became available.
Mr. Kleim added that the region was able to strategically identify key projects of importance to move
forward without impacting other important projects, such as culvert replacements. Other similar projects
include the Nisqually restoration project and the recent acquisition of Devils Head that were projects
included as milestone projects to complete. That same kind of process is under consideration for the
Grays Harbor Lead Entity. The effort will take several months of work. The intent is to update members
on the concept and how it ties in with the Habitat Work Schedule and the recent work WCSSP is
completing on the regional plan. Several members have participated in that model. Development of the
regional plan is nearing 75% completion. It’s important for WRIAs 22 and 23 to take the lead and begin
using the regional model because it will benefit the Lead Entity. The effort will involve discussions over
the course of several meetings as well as establishing a small subcommittee to develop recommendations
for the HWG.
Debbie Holden shared a sample of a page on the Habitat Work Schedule. All projects in the Grays
Harbor Lead Entity have been entered into the Habitat Work Schedule. A missing color is yellow on the
chart, which designates conceptual projects that lead entities would like to implement but lack project
sponsors. She distributed information on the Preacher’s Slough project. Currently, the SRFB requires
project sponsors to enter projects in PRISM and then to the Habitat Work Schedule. Eventually, PRISM
will be eliminated and replaced with the Habitat Work Schedule, which will be a substantial improvement
as it incorporates GIS capability.
Mr. Kleim said the goal is to begin populating conceptual project data throughout the Lead Entity. An
important reason for including data is to assist sponsors who may be seeking mitigation and other types of
projects. The objective is involving and informing as many people as possible within WRIAs 22 and 23
about projects that are available beyond projects proposed to the SRFB or that have been completed.
Ms. Holbrook-Shaw asked about a list of projects developed many years ago. Ms. Napier said the Habitat
Work Schedule was populated by taking what was entered into PRISM and exporting it. She and Ms.
Holden have taken some time and refined that information. That is the minimum Lead Entity contract
requirement. Whatever has been submitted to SRFB and funded must be entered into the Habitat Work
Schedule. There are different levels of projects – funded, active, and unfunded. It’s also possible to
include mitigation projects for the Twin Cities project.
Mr. Burkle commented that there are many Twin Cities projects at the 10% design level for potential
mitigation for the levee project that could be entered. Another list is the top 10 culvert projects that could
be added to the Habitat Work Schedule as well.
Habitat Work Group
Minutes of Meeting
November 19, 2010 Page 4 of 7
Ms. Napier asked members to provide some input and direction on the number of projects that should be
included. Mr. Kleim said it’s likely the information will come from several different sources. There
appears to be a running list of projects as well as considering the use of the WCSSP model to consider
other conceptual projects. For example, there are some acquisition projects that could be considered
during the process. It’s important to consider types of projects that are not on any list.
Chris Conklin suggested considering another project level for projects of regional significance. Mr.
Kleim acknowledged that the group could consider the request. Ms. Holden commented that the regional
model is more conducive for including regional projects of significance.
Mr. Kleim provided a demonstration of the WCSSP model. Through conservation action planning,
WCSSP identified areas of fish habitat as targets. Tributaries were one of the water body types the model
uses to capture how salmon use each habitat, identifies life stages, and identifying species that are key to
each area of water body. The process was developed through a series of spreadsheets or rollouts. For
each of the eight water bodies, layers were created of understand how fish in different life stages use each
one of the habitats. For tributaries, life stages identified included:




Spawning and Incubation
Juvenile & rearing foraging
Juvenile outmigration
Adult migration
Ms. Holden said the next step of the model is identifying the way to measure the health of the habitat
relative to the life stages. One way of measure is through attributes, such as water quality, riparian
conditions, sediment needs, and floodplain and connectivity. It is recognized that tributaries are places
where salmon spawn and incubate. To live, thrive, and have healthy returns, certain factors are necessary.
Mr. Kleim said the next step is identifying the attributes that support various species spawning and
incubation and consider indicators and measures. The exercise is performed for each fish species in each
type of water body. Indicators for water quality are temperature, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity.
Mr. Kleim said at some point the strategy will conform to the model, which will help to align all regional
strategies.
Ms. Holden said based on the outcome of that data, WCSSP developed a list of threats that it believes are
region-wide threats to the populations of salmonids within the five WRIAs.
Mr. Kleim reported WCSSP considered how to react to the threats by developing strategies:






Organize, promote, and maintain broad partnerships that support salmon sustainability
Educate the community to protect, maintain, and restore ecosystem values
Support hatchery and harvest practices that are compatible with wild salmon sustainability.
Use economic values to protect, restore, and maintain ecosystem values
Restore and protect salmonid habitat function
Improve regulatory effectiveness to achieve salmon sustainability by identifying conflicts,
impediments, and gaps in current regulations.
Habitat Work Group
Minutes of Meeting
November 19, 2010 Page 5 of 7
Mr. Kleim said WCSSP believes that by supporting the broad strategies it’s able to address the threats.
Actions and conceptual projects will be developed from the strategies. WCSSP defined the strategies at
its last workshop and is focusing efforts on developing work plans specific to the strategies. The model
provides a good framework for this area.
Mr. Burkle advised that the WCSSP also has some tools. One is NetMap, which is computer model
similar to the EDT model. It uses topography of the streams, such as types, gradients, riparian areas,
blockages, etc., and models what’s wrong with the stream, calculates present capacity, and potential
capacity if restored. The tool helps identify where the best restoration opportunities are located. The tool
is generally developed region-wide. Part of the reason is because the Parks Service and the Forest Service
collaborated to develop all the metrics to add to NetMap for all national forest plans. The firm is working
on an estuary model. It is one tool to begin planning in a more strategic, systematic, and consistent
method. It should be possible to take the Lead Entity strategy and determine what actions and projects
are necessary for the basin.
Mr. Kleim suggested the effort shouldn’t entail starting over for the HWG. He suggested using many of
the existing strategies within the watershed plan as a starting point. As the group considers conceptual
projects, it will entail taking general actions and taking them one step further and developing future
projects, establish targets and projects that the region wants to pursue.
Mr. Conklin questioned the effort if the region has the ability to break everything down with NetMap and
quantify what needs to occur. Mr. Burkle replied that the capability is there with the availability of
NetMap. However, WCSSP is not going to complete the effort for each Lead Entity. Ms. Holden said it
is likely that someone from WCSSP could provide training on NetMap for each Lead Entity. Mr. Burkle
said there was some conversation of creating a GIS specialist position to assist Lead Entities.
Ms. Holbrook-Shaw asked about the ownership of the WCSSP model. Ms. Napier replied that WCSSP
has a license for the software. Lead Entities have populated the data. In relationship to the strategy and
data collected through the planning process, WCSSP staff enters the data.
Ms. Holbrook-Shaw expressed some reservations with the process because of the ever-present obstacles
of sponsorship, multiple landowners, large landowners, floodplains, and other project issues. The reality
of pursuing any project is whether it’s possible to happen. Mr. Kleim noted it’s dependent on the work
effort by the group. There are many other complex projects occurring elsewhere because work plans have
been developed. He cited projects completed in Puget Sound as an example. Mr. Holbrook-Shaw
responded that Puget Sound has no difficulty securing funds for any project, which doesn’t compare to
the Chehalis basin. Mr. Kleim disagreed and said if good projects are developed, people will respond.
Several members pointed out that the issue relates to the Salmon Stronghold Initiative providing funding
to the Lead Entity. The focus in the basin is on prevention, which is much different than Puget Sound.
The strategy is a tool to demonstrate due diligence. Miranda Plumb cited the Nisqually watershed as an
example of a watershed with a three-year work plan with one project remaining. It’s a good example of a
successful watershed because it had a work plan. Mr. Burkle said the idea is to restore an entire
watershed that’s operational for salmon. Janet Strong agreed that strategic plans are effective as it brings
resources.
Bob Thomas said he’s seen many years of expensive wetland mitigation that contributed nothing and cost
millions of dollars. There is a new federal rule on mitigation and the strategy is very compatible with the
language in the federal rule on mitigation that requires a certain sequence of criteria for acceptable
wetland mitigation including water basin mitigation where information is utilized from the watershed
Habitat Work Group
Minutes of Meeting
November 19, 2010 Page 6 of 7
plan. Some of the watersheds in King County have very sophisticated watershed plans. It’s possible to
present proposals that connect the dots that will likely open up avenues for receiving funds. It also
reduces opposition from the regulatory community.
Mr. Kleim assured members that they will receive assistance in pursuing the process to develop a wellthought plan for the future. The process will help members consider what to do in each of the subbasins
to restore habitat.
Mr. Kleim reviewed the proposed schedule. He asked for several members with some technical
experience with the WCSSP model to form a subcommittee and develop some recommendations for the
committee. That meeting will refine the approach for developing the Habitat Work Schedule to include
conceptual projects and creating a template for soliciting conceptual projects, as well as suggesting an
approach for using the current strategy and method for soliciting project ideas.
Ms. Holbrook-Shaw asked whether the effort replaces the process the HWG completes for submittal of
projects or whether it creates ranking criteria. Mr. Kleim said the work plan/Habitat Work Schedule will
eventually be replaced with something similar to the WCSSP model. In the meantime, it’s important not
to delay work on conceptual projects. Ms. Holbrook-Shaw asked whether the idea is to eliminate the
subbasin prioritization. Mr. Kleim said the process helps refine and produce a more comprehensive
product as current strategy is somewhat simplistic and excludes some projects. This model could be more
inclusive of adding projects that are higher on the priority that were never previously considered. The
process supports completing projects supporting the types of habitat for the priority species, whereas the
current process focuses on the watershed.
Mr. Kleim reviewed the proposed timeline and indicated the subcommittee may need to schedule two
meetings in December. The committee will review the subcommittee’s work at its January meeting.
After the basic information is developed, it could be possible to solicit for conceptual projects in early
February. The work plan must be completed by the end of June 2011.
Mr. Kleim commented on the potential sources of future projects. Ms. Strong said it’s likely that more
educational efforts will be incorporated within the projects. One example is culvert projects where she’s
often wondered if there has been any educational follow-up with landowners to maintain culverts. There
are many groups in a focused area that could be in great need of education thereby increasing the
technical effectiveness of the projects. Mr. Kleim acknowledged that although the SRFB doesn’t
necessarily fund educational programs, other grant programs are available. It’s important to consider
those issues in advance. Ms. Plumb commented that the process is not necessarily meant to drastically
change existing practices but to identify potential projects to include in the Habitat Work Schedule.
Mr. Kleim reviewed the remaining schedule.
Miranda Plumb, Bob Amrine, Janel Spaulding, Lonnie Crumley, and Bob Burkle offered to serve on the
subcommittee. Ms. Napier said Jamie Glasgow also wants to participate. She suggested following up
with Birdie Davenport as well. It is likely a training session will be held as well.
Members shared comments on the benefits of the effort in terms of securing funds to protect salmon.
Adjournment
With there being no further business, Mr. Amrine adjourned the meeting at 3:17 p.m.
Habitat Work Group
Minutes of Meeting
November 19, 2010 Page 7 of 7
Prepared by Valerie L. Gow, Recording Secretary/President
Puget Sound Meeting Services