Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2026

Time: 9 a.m. to noon

Location: Elwha Heritage Center, Port Angeles, WA

Virtual option: Zoom

Page Contents

May 12, 2026 Technical Review Group Meeting Agenda

  1. Introductions
  2. Review of scoring data and analysis
  3. Project scoring review
  4. Make a project ranking recommendation for the LEG
  5. Break
  6. Riparian Pilot Project recommendation
  7. Planned Project Forecast List
  8. Fish report and project updates
  9. Coordinator updates and thank you
  10. Anything else for the good of the order?

Join the Zoom Meeting


Join the May 12, 2026 Zoom meeting

Meeting ID: 850 8602 9588

Passcode: 831248

One-Tap Mobile

  • +1 253 205 0468,,85086029588#,,,,*831248# US
  • +1 253 215 8782,,85086029588#,,,,*831248# US (Tacoma)

Join by SIP


View Zoom join instructions

Return to page contents

May 12, 2026 Technical Review Group Meeting Summary

Meeting Details

Organization
North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity for Salmon
Address
Clallam County Courthouse, 223 East Fourth Street, No. 5, Port Angeles, WA 98362
Phone
360-417-2326
Date
Tuesday, May 12, 2026
Meeting
Technical Review Group Scoring Meeting
Location
Elwha Heritage Center and virtual
Time
9 a.m. to noon

TRG Members in Attendance

  • David Allen, citizen
  • Mike Auger, North Olympic Land Trust
  • Steve Barclay, citizen
  • Coleman Byrnes, citizen
  • Eric Carlsen, citizen
  • Sean Halberg, citizen
  • Rebecca Mahan, Clallam County
  • Jamie Michel, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe
  • Ian Miller, Washington Sea Grant
  • Nate Roberts, North Olympic Salmon Coalition
  • Latrisha Suggs, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe

Others in Attendance

  • Angela Gloor, Strait Ecosystem Recovery Network
  • Cheryl Baumann, Lead Entity Coordinator
  • Shannon Weaver, Lead Entity Consultant

Virtual Attendees

  • Danielle Zitomer, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
  • Owen French, Department of Ecology

Others Attending Virtually

  • Alissa Ferrell, RCO Senior Grant Manager
  • Randy Johnson, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe

Review of Scoring Data and Analysis

Shannon Weaver walked participants through her scoring compilation and analysis. Discussion takeaways included:

  • Scores were quite close. There were 17 scorers, which is a healthy amount and higher than last year. Shannon recalled a previous Walt Pearson recommendation of 14 to 18 scorers.
  • Very limited comments were provided on the scoresheets. Comments are useful because they provide sponsors with additional information about how their projects were perceived.
  • A comment expressed concern about potential overengineering of rivers. It was noted that in rivers such as the Elwha, where more than 100 years of human alterations occurred because of the dams, some restoration engineering can help kickstart desired ecological changes. A lakebed created by a dam for more than 100 years takes time to transition to riverine functions.
  • It was suggested that when orientation occurs for new members, it would be helpful to offer it to existing TRG members as well, especially as it relates to scoring. Shannon did walk people through the scoring worksheet before the final project presentations, which is standard practice.
  • No project had a scorer who scored the project more than two standard deviations from the mean. The group discussed how some scorers are more concrete and linear, while others view things with more nuance. That is acceptable.
  • Criteria 7, Protects High Quality Fish Habitat, and Criteria 8, Restores Formerly Productive Habitat, both had higher coefficient of variation, calculated as standard deviation divided by mean as a percentage. This is consistent with scores for these two criteria in past years. The protection criterion was intended to speak to acquisition projects. It may be helpful to consider definitions within the scoring matrix.
  • Kudos were given to all project sponsors for a job well done.

Project Ranking Recommendation for the Lead Entity Group

Discussion about the project ranking recommendation included:

  • The TRG reached consensus that all of the projects are technically sound, advance needed restoration and protection, and are worthy of funding.
  • The close project scoring was noted.
  • The top-ranked project is competing for Puget Sound Large Cap PSAR dollars, which can be noted in the final grant application.
  • The Large Cap project needed to be vetted and scored, but it is competing in a larger regional Puget Sound pool for larger funding. Puget Sound Partnership will rank the PSAR Large Cap project list later this summer for consideration during the 2027 session of the Washington State Legislature. Puget Sound Partnership will also select two projects on the PSAR Large Cap list for possible Target Investment Funds.
  • Project sponsor Randy Johnson of Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe said that his project is competing for funding in the Large Cap realm and should not hold up funding for the other three projects competing for SRFB and regular PSAR funding.
  • There was a motion and a second to move the top four projects to the Lead Entity for its funding decision. There was discussion about how to ensure the fourth-ranked acquisition project could be funded, weighing the value of protection versus restoration. The TRG did not support reordering the list.
  • The TRG reached unanimous consensus to forward the list as ranked and leave the funding decision to the Lead Entity Group.

Riparian Pilot Project Recommendation

The Washington Department of Ecology requested Lead Entity input by May 29 on four alternatives for a riparian pilot project funded with federal Environmental Protection Agency money that supports riparian protection and restoration in the Puget Sound Basin. Funding for the pilot, if selected, is approximately $2 million. The pilot connects with a Climate Resilience Initiative.

Pilot objective: Work collaboratively with the Salmon Recovery Lead Entities to establish a riparian stewardship framework that will be the basis for funding crews to implement priority stewardship actions in riparian areas that have been established by publicly funded sources.

Problem being addressed: There is a lack of funding for long-term stewardship and maintenance on previously restored riparian lands and restoration project sites paid for with public resources.

Alternatives Discussed

  • Alternative A: Maximize Phase 1 investment. Alternative A focuses mostly on inventory and in-depth riparian planning.
  • Alternative B: Semi-competitive process to allocate Phase 2 funds and WCC crew time based upon successful completion of Phase 1. Alternative B includes both inventory and assessment work, followed by WCC crew time after Phase 1 completion.
  • Alternative C: Full-Cycle Competitive Solicitation.
  • Alternative D: WCC Crew Deployment Only.

Definitions for the alternatives are included in the proposal section below. Deployment of crew time would involve the Department of Ecology deploying and funding WCC crews, with local involvement regarding what work is needed and where, and likely some partner oversight.

There was discussion about Alternative D and the desire to have boots on the ground to implement needed stewardship. The group also recognized that Alternative D is a Phase 2 action and precludes Phase 1 efforts. Alternative D involves 8 to 10 weeks per Lead Entity.

It was noted that Alternative C appears to provide maximum flexibility. It was also noted that there may be more emphasis and funding for riparian work in the future, making it helpful to establish an overall riparian framework.

TRG recommendation: The TRG reached consensus on Alternative C because of the flexibility it provides. Alternative C will be the recommendation to the Lead Entity Group.

Project Updates

  • Danielle Zitomer of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife provided an update on a project to improve the fish screen and point of diversion at Highland Irrigation that grew out of work on the Dungeness Reservoir. An assessment is being conducted for that fish passage project.
  • Mike Auger of the North Olympic Land Trust discussed a grant proposal to the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program and the National Coastal Wetlands Grant that could expand the Lyre Conservation Area, as well as an upcoming capital campaign to raise funding.
  • Nate Roberts of the North Olympic Salmon Coalition reported that the Upper Cowan Ranch Large Wood Project is at 60 percent design according to Kevin Long. Review comments from tribes, the county, and anyone in this group are welcome.
  • Rebecca Mahan of Clallam County reported that she has Estuary and Salmon Restoration Grant money for a Lower Morse Creek estuary restoration feasibility study, with match money from Puget Sound Partnership through the Strait Ecosystem Recovery Network.
  • The coordinator indicated that the hiring process is getting underway for the new coordinator.