HomeMy WebLinkAbout051 09
f( \).~
- ~, ,\.,
1\- ((k':,
1 q \ ?.. '(',\CI'1
./
STATE OF WASHINGTON
County of Jefferson
In the matter of Implementing the Statewide}
Salmon Recovery Strategies through the }
Hood Canal Coordinating Council Lead }
Entity }
RESOLUTION NO. 51- 09
WHEREAS, in 1999 the State Legislature established a Salmon Recovery
Office codified under Chapter 77.85 RCW; and
WHEREAS, the Governor's Recreation and Conservation Funding Board and
the Salmon Recovery Funding Board administer grants for projects to benefit salmon
habitat; and
WHEREAS, the Hood Canal Coordinating Council Lead Entity, established
under Chapter 77.85 RCW, is responsible for the development of strategies, project lists,
and schedules designed to produce habitat capable of sustaining healthy populations of
salmon; and
WHEREAS, Jefferson County is a member of the Hood Canal Coordinating
Council; and
WHEREAS, Hood Canal had supported abundant salmonid populations until
the recent past; and
WHEREAS, several salmonid stocks in Hood Canal are now listed as
threatened with extinction under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), including the
Puget Sound Chinook, the Hood Canal Summer Chum, Puget Sound Steelhead and bull
trout; and
WHEREAS, other salmonid stocks in Hood Canal are relatively healthy but
are vulnerable to harvest and habitat loss and many of the same factors that have
compromised listed stocks; and
WHEREAS, Puget Sound's Southern Resident Killer Whale, which feed on
salmon, is listed under the ESA as endangered and is at risk of extinction; and
WHEREAS, Jefferson County's economic and cultural ties to salmon endure
and are indicative of our human condition despite fish population declines; and
WHEREAS, climate change, water quality issues and low stream flows
continue to pose a threat to the viability of salmonid stocks; and
RESOLUTION No. 51-09
Page 2
WHEREAS, the 2004 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan prepared under
the authority of the Growth Management Act provides goals and policies in support of
Salmon Recovery efforts specifically found in chapter eight of the plan and stating:
. Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat throughout Jefferson County
. Participate in habitat conservation planning
. Recognize the priority of protection and enhancement for species listed under
the ESA
. Use best available science for habitat protection
. Promote best management practices
. Coordinate with agencies to avoid adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
. Cooperate and coordinate in habitat restoration efforts with regional
organizations; and
WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan provides goals and
policies for shoreline protection and restoration stating:
. Preserve the long term benefit of shoreline resources
. Protect statewide over local interests
. Achieve long term over short term benefits
. Promote public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines
. Preserve historic, cultural, scientific and archaeological values; and
WHEREAS, Jefferson County completed an update to the development
regulations for protection of critical areas in May of 2009; and
WHEREAS, a draft development regulation referred to as the Shoreline
Master Program is currently before the Board of County Commissioners for public
comment and consideration with possible adoption pursuit to the guidelines provided by the
legislators; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners have adopted the
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plans for the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers,
the Dosewallips River and the Duckabush River recommending floodplain acquisitions
from willing sellers and other activities to protect fish habitat; and
WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Conservation Futures Ordinance No. 06-
0708-02 encourages the use of program funds for the protection of fish habitat; and
WHEREAS, the Recreation and Conservation Funding Board requires, as a
RESOLUTION No. 51-09
Page 3
condition of funding, that plans include capital improvement/facility programs that list land
acquisition, development, and renovation projects by year of anticipated implementation;
including funding source.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Jefferson County approves the
Process Guide and the Three Year Work Program project lists ofthe Hood Canal
Coordinating Council.
,~ ..
APPROVED AND ADOPTED thisdX. day ohS.., /df:~~k1 ,2009 in Port Townsend,
Washington. '
.~........". .," al,'~
---, ,
:~ . .~ .. ,'t'. rJ
S :" ",' - --'.',,", 0 \
t'. 1 .
"\ t' "'. : "
A
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
D'~~ " Cfiw'~
" J . ~I
. \ I. .
.~!.. _~" .~~',~~A'
ATg~~
ECt~ndknitr ~1fv(J
Deputy Clerk ofthe Board
/'{
~ J nson, Member
~;:~
LEAD ENTITY PROCESS GUIDE
DEVELOPING SALMON HABITAT RECOVERY PROJECTS IN
HOOD CANAL Be THE EASTERN STRAIT OF JUAN DE FuCA
iJ~
~~_. .,0', .',
",~",,---,
""". .
i"fi:"',c, .
G ..
FOR USE DURING SALMON RECOVERY FUNDING
BOARD'S 2009 GRANT CYCLE
6/1/2009
Hood Canal Coordinating Council
Richard Brocksmith, Lead Entity Coordinator
rbrocksmith@hccc.wa.gov
17791 Fjord DR NE, Box HH
Poulsbo, Washington 98370-8481
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
PHASE I: 3 YEAR WORK PROGRAM 4
PHASE II: PREAPPLlCA TlON & APPLICATION 4
PHASE III: TECHNICAL REVIEW & RANKING 7
PHASE IV: HPLC REVIEW & FINAL RANKING 8
PHASE V: HCCC ADMINISTRATION 9
PHASE VI: SRFB REVIEW AND FUNDING 10
APPENDIX A: 2009 PROCESS TlMELlNE 11
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL TEAM EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR 2009 SRFB
GRANT ROUND 12
APPENDIX C: 2004 SRFB TECHNICAL CRITERIA 15
APPENDIX D: PROPOSED HABITAT PROJECT LIST COMMITTEE
EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR 2009 GRANT ROUND 18
APPENDIX E: 2009 LEAD ENTITY GROUNDRULES 19
APPENDIX F: 2008 SRFB LEAD ENTITY PARTICIPANTS 23
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following Process Guide is an illustration of the Hood Canal Coordinating
Council (HCCC) Lead Entity 1 procedure for developing projects and forwarding to
the Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) for review and funding. The Guide
incorporates the recommendations of the consensus body Lead Entity members
and member governments of the Regional Recovery Organization into each
phase of the local process for the 2009 SRFB grant cycle. This Process Guide
also serves as a reference that will assist all Lead Entity participants (project
sponsors, committee members, staff, reviewers, etc.) throughout the process,
from project development to final presentation to the SRFB.
A significant change adopted by the SRFB to be performed by lead entities is the
implementation of Endangered Species Act (ESA) salmon recovery plans, which
in our region exist for chinook salmon, summer chum salmon and bull trout, with
a plan for steel head trout to be developed in the near future. The Hood Canal
Coordinating Council is the designated Regional Recovery Organization for
summer chum salmon as well as the Lead Entity for salmon recovery of all
species in the Lead Entity area, including portions of Jefferson, Mason, and
Kitsap Counties flowing into Hood Canal and the Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca.
In addition, we are developing partnerships with the North Olympic Peninsula
Lead Entity and its participants to expand this work into all summer chum salmon
habitat areas.
The local process is divided into six phases that include the 3 Year Work
Program update, preapplication & application, technical review & ranking, Habitat
Project List Committee review & final ranking, HCCC administration, and SRFB
review and funding. This Guide describes each of these phases and what
participants can expect. The SRFB produces an updated Grants Manual each
year that outlines state-wide processes that is a companion to this Process
Guide. This information may be supplemented by additional material once the
2009 funding round begins. The Appendices in this Guide represent current and
previous decisions that together strive to make the local process as effective and
efficient as possible in light of the continuing recognition of the need for salmon
recovery.
1 Pursuant to Chapter 77.85 RCWand SRFB policies, all projects seeking funds administered by
the SRFB must be reviewed and prioritized by a lead entity group in order to be considered for
funding by the SRFB.
3
PHASE I:
3 YEAR WORK PROGRAM
Need for a Multi-Year Work Program
The Hood Canal Coordinating Council (HCCC) Lead Entity began developing a 3
Year Work Program in 2006 in order to improve efficiencies with implementing a
large capital improvement program (CIP) over several years, to increase the
strategic focus of our proposed projects, to create a platform to begin to outline
atypical projects other than habitat, and to facilitate multiple levels of review
which occur in this process. This move from an annual project review process
towards a CIP approach allows us to more fully integrate priorities, sequencing,
phasing, life history modeling, and H-integration.
Update Process
Each year we will strive to:
1. Revise existing projects to reflect the last year's worth of work,
2. Add any new projects and document their relative priorities,
3. Update timelines for each project,
4. Update project phasing,
5. Update funding amount and sources,
6. Update likely sponsors and partners,
7. Improve sequencing,
8. Improve performance measures,
9. Improve project descriptions where needed,
10. Update non-capital programs, and
11. Improve H-integration efforts as appropriate.
This phase of the HCCC process is extremely time-consuming given the large
area and number of watersheds, large number of project sponsors, and
significant amount of work being undertaken at any given time. Thus this phase
is undertaken each year with the caveat that it is completed with limited
resources, updated voluntarily, and may not be completely comprehensive.
The 3 Year Work Program is updated and posted at the HCCC website before
the preapplication phase begins.
PHASE II:
PREAPPLlCATION & APPLICATION
Timeline
A timeline is extremely important to establish early in a funding process.
Appendix A includes the final timeline for the 2009 grant cycle.
4
The SRFB has adopted the 2009 Policies and Application Instructions (Manual
18), marking the beginning of the grant cycle. These materials are available on
their website http://www.rco.wa.qov/srfb/docs.htm.
Process Review and Update
The local process, committees, groundrules, criteria, etc. documented within this
Process Guide have been developed through multiple years of collaborative
efforts of interested participants. All members of the Lead Entity are requested to
attend each meeting so that we can reach consensus on process documentation
materials and continue essential discussions on other pending regional issues.
The Process Guide, Salmon Recovery Plans, and Three Year Work Program are
all available from the HCCC website (www,hccc.wa.qov).
During this phase, the Lead Entity will advertise for and select participants for the
Technical Advisory Group (TAG) (Phase III - Technical Review & Ranking) and
the Habitat Project List Committee (HPLC) (Phase IV - HPLC Review & Final
Ranking).
Ranking Criteria and Groundrules
The technical criteria (Appendix B) were developed from all previous rounds and
SRFB's revised criteria for benefits to salmon and certainty of success for the 5th
round (Appendix C). The Habitat Project List Committee evaluation and ranking
criteria are presented in Appendix D.
The Lead Entity established groundrules to which all parties must agree
(Appendix E), or change through a consensus process for the 2009 round.
Changes to the ground rules can only be made via consensus of all participants.
Preapplications
A significant difference in recent grant rounds is that project proposals must be
either taken directly from the 3 Year Work Program or be consistent with that
Program. Project sponsors may choose to discuss their project ideas with the
lead entity coordinator before submitting a preapplication in order for both parties
to understand how the project fits within salmon recovery plans and potential for
funding.
Project sponsors will electronically submit preapplication materials between June
1 and 19,2009 into the SRFB's Project Information System (PRISM)
(http://www.rco.wa.qov/rco/prism/prism.htm).Aminimum amount of information
is needed by the lead entity committees and the SRFB Review Panel to
comment on these preapplication materials, which is documented in SRFB
Manual 18. However, the more complete the preapplication, the more thorough
project review and comments can be. The minimum set of materials must
include:
1. A project name, type, and sponsor,
2. A project location map,
5
3. A site or parcel map,
4. A preliminary design plan or sketch for restoration projects,
5, A project description,
6. An estimated budget,
7. And evidence that the project is part of a salmon recovery plan and/or the
3 Year Work Program.
Preapplication materials will be available for download at the HCCC website by
June 23, 2009. These materials should be reviewed by all lead entity
participants before attending the workshops.
Workshops
After project sponsors submit preapplications, the Lead Entity
will hold a two day project presentation and development
workshop on July 1 and 2, 2009. This workshop will consist of
presentations from sponsors on the goals, details, and merits
of their proposal, in addition to site visits where needed. Lead
Entity committees and other reviewers will also work during
these days to continue to provide specific improvements that should be pursued
for the final application submittal and opportunities for cooperation across the
region, in both oral and written format.
Workshops will be organized, agendas developed, and meeting locations
communicated after preapplications are submitted. Some projects, such as
assessments, may not benefit from a field visit and will be excluded unless there
is a special request by the project proponent to visit the site. Project sponsor
attendance at these workshops is a requirement.
Final Applications
Final applications are due between July 3 and 15,2009 to PRISM. It is important
to remember when assembling final applications that they should be as thorough
and accurate as possible as they are sometimes the only informational material
the TAG, HPLC, SRFB Review Panel, and federal review teams will initially have
to assess the merits of each application. Section 4 of SRFB Manual 18
documents the checklist and scopes of work required for all project types. In
addition to completing any blanks in the PRISM preapplication, several
documents must be attached to complete the application process, including the
project proposal (download at http://www.rco.wa.qov/srfb/docs.htm). landowner
acknowledgement form(s), project partnership contribution form(s), maps,
photos, and long-term stewardship outline. Questions about completing this
process should be submitted to the lead entity coordinator and/or the SRFB
project manager.
Final application materials will be available for download at the HCCC website by
July 16, 2009.
6
PHASE III:
TECHNICAL REVIEW & RANKING
Technical Advisory Group Participation
Technical Advisory Group members are identified in Phase I and are selected
from the surrounding communities with specific technical expertise related to
salmon habitat recovery such as planning, hydrology, biology and other scientific
concentrations. There is no limit on the number of TAG members that can be
selected to participate. Technical Team members cannot also sit on the HPLC.
The list of all local participants from the 2008 grant round is included as Appendix
F. An updated roster for the 2009 grant round will be finalized and provided to
the lead entity, SRFB, and WDFW electronically. SRFB Review Panel and
federal review team members will be invited to participate on the TAG to facilitate
an integrated review of projects and their fit to the salmon recovery plans.
Once final SRFB applications are submitted to the HCCC they are posted on the
HCCC web site (www.hccc.wa.qov)formembers of the TAG and HPLC to
download. Hard copies will be provided to those committee members that
request them. TAG members are also provided a score sheet based on the
technical evaluation criteria (Appendix B). TAG members evaluate and score
projects independently with pre-determined technical criteria for the 2009 round
on the basis of the information provided in the SRFB applications. We also ask
the TAG to provide comments in written format so that information can be
collated and shared with the HPLC. Evaluations and scores are due back to the
HCCC Lead Entity Coordinator via email on July 24, 2009.
Technical Advisory Group Meeting Structure
Scores are normalized to present an initial ranking of projects for the TAG to use
as a basis for their discussions at the formal ranking meeting. Comments are
considered at the meeting only from those Technical Team members who scored
projects.
Given that the HCCC Lead Entity is part of a Regional Recovery Organization for
summer chum salmon within a Regional Recovery Organization (Puget Sound
Partnership) for Puget Sound Chinook salmon, we are responsible for prioritizing
two lists of projects, one for each of these species. This extra step for the 2009
grant round will be performed by the TAG at the ranking meeting, and then
reassessed by the HPLC.
On July 29,2009, the TAG meets to discuss the merits of each project, then the
lists in their entirety. Projects may be moved up or down on the lists based only
on technical criteria. At the end of the meeting, the TAG will present final
technical ranked lists of projects that are forwarded to the HPLC for their
consideration and final ranking. A list of TAG recommendations to the project
sponsors will be included in the meeting summary. These recommendations are
elective, not mandatory, but are believed to be in the best interest of the projects.
7
The TAG may also develop and forward recommendations on fine-tuning project
components relative to the target funding allocation given to our area.
The meeting is open to the public, and a period for public comment is reserved at
the beginning and end of the meeting for those wishing to address the TAG
directly. The TAG will not respond directly to any comments at the meeting, but
comments will be both considered in the process and included as part of the
meeting summary.
For the 2009 grant round we will conduct the TAG and HPLC meetings on the
same day, July 29, to improve communications between the two committees.
The TAG will meet in the morning and early afternoon, before the HPLC meets in
the later afternoon and early evening. Committee members are strongly
encouraged to attend both meetings.
PHASE IV:
HPLC REVIEW & FINAL RANKING
HPLC Composition
The Habitat Project List Committee (HPLC) is comprised of citizen members from
the surrounding communities with an interest in salmon habitat recovery projects,
as well as one representative from each of the project sponsors who have
submitted applications during any previous or current funding rounds. Citizen
member representation must be balanced between each of our geographic
regions. No Technical Advisory Group members are allowed to participate or
vote on the HPLC. However, they will be present to provide technical input if
asked, or to clarify inaccurate information. The list of all local participants from
the 8th round is included as Appendix F. As with the TAG roster, the 2009 round
HPLC roster will be finalized and provided to the lead entity, SRFB, and WDFW.
HPLC Meeting Structure
The HPLC will meet to review and rank projects on July 29, 2009. At the HPLC
meeting, the members will use the technically-ranked lists as a starting point to
determine the final ranked lists. HPLC members will use a separate set of
ranking criteria (Appendix D) that is based on social and economic factors, and
does not reconsider any technical aspects of a project. HPLC members must
use the criteria as a reference when recommending a change in the order of the
initial ranked lists.
In addition, the HPLC will consider the lists as a whole in answering the question
of whether or not we are progressing towards delisting of federally-listed salmon
species. This qualitative review can not change the lists or their components, but
can be used in affirming a positive overall direction and/or in providing input for
the project development process for subsequent rounds.
8
The final ranked lists are forwarded to the SRFB (for summer chum) and the
Puget Sound Partnership (for Chinook) with the Lead Entity application submittal
packet. All Lead Entity participants will receive a summary of the HPLC meeting
proceedings and final ranked lists via email and website posting.
PHASE V:
HCCC ADMINISTRATION
During this phase, the Lead Entity will work with the SRFB project manager to
review all final applications to check for errors and ensure applications are
complete (i.e. signatures, landowner forms, stewardship plans, photos, maps,
etc). The HCCC will complete both Lead Entity and Regional Area submittal
packets (described in Section 5 of SRFB Manual 18) that list our projects in rank
order for both summer chum salmon and chinook salmon, summarizes the
nature of the projects submitted to the SRFB from the Lead Entity and Regional
Recovery Organization, and addresses the project lists' fit to the salmon recovery
plans. The Lead Entity will prepare presentations on the project list for the
SRFB, SRFB Review Panel, HCCC, Puget Sound Partnership, and any other
regional bodies based on their specific interests and policies.
Similar to the last grant round, the HCCC is required to forward habitat project
lists that meet precisely the allocation funding target provided for our region.
This step in the process will be discussed by the TAG and HPLC committees and
will be finalized administratively through discussions between the HCCC and
affected project sponsors. These affected project sponsors will be required at
this time to go back to PRISM to update their final project applications to reflect
any and all financial and/or design changes.
Finally, the HCCC will seek an independent, federal review of how well our
proposed summer chum salmon project list fits the Summer Chum Salmon
Recovery Plan. Results will be distributed to the HCCC, HCCC Lead Entity,
NOPLE, and SRFB for their consideration.
Authority to Remove Projects from the List
The Lead Entity has the authority to remove projects from the lists that do not
meet eligibility requirements for SRFB funding.2 In addition, SRFB has a new
policy that lead entities should only submit projects that "the lead entity wants to
be evaluated for funding consideration." This fact, taken together with SRFB's
increasing focus on ESA-listed fish/salmon recovery plans, may lead to culling
lower priority projects from the project list before it is submitted as final.
2 RCW 77.85,050 and 77.85.130.
9
PHASE VI:
SRFB REVIEW AND FUNDING
In the final phase of the HCCC funding process, the project sponsors and Lead
Entity Coordinator will respond as appropriate to information requests on each
project and the package as a whole. Special teams from the SRFB, WDFW, and
the Puget Sound Nearshore Restoration Partnership will conduct assessment,
passage, and nearshore project reviews, while the SRFB Review Panel will
conduct a final "project of concern" review and determination. The Lead Entity
Coordinator and committee members will present to the SRFB Review Panel,
regional recovery organizations (Puget Sound Partnership and Hood Canal
Coordinating Council), and SRFB as needed to answer any clarifying questions
or address requests for more information. Final project scopes may need to be
altered again during this phase.
10
APPENDIX A: 2009 Process Timeline
2009 HCCC REGIONAL PROCESS TIMELlNE
- Meeti nq
- Deadline
April/May - Update 3-Year Work Program (3-YWP) by phone/email
May 15 - 3-YWP due to Recovery Implementation Technical Team NOAA
May - HCCC effort to update/finalize Process Guide; review completed by email
May 27 - SRFB Application Workshops in Olympia (1 - 4 p.m.)
June 1 to 19 - Preapplications entered by applicants into RCO PRISM database
June 9 - Hood Canal/Straits Summer Chum Salmon Recovery Symposium
June 23 - Preapplications distributed to Technical Advisory Group (TAG) and
Citizen Committee via HCCC website
Julv 1 and 2 - Proposed project presentations and site visits, including TAG,
Citizen Committee, SRFB RP members, and federal reviewers; Agenda TBD
July 3 to 15 - Final applications entered by applicants into RCO PRISM
database; HCCC TAG and SRFB RP available for technical assistance on
project re-scoping if needed
July 16 - Final applications distributed to TAG and Citizens via HCCC website
July 16 to July 24 - Expanded TAG individually reviews and scores each project
application while Citizen Committee reviews projects and criteria
July 24 - TAG scores and written comments due electronically to LE Coordinator
July 29 - Joint Committee (TAG & Citizen Committees) Ranking Meeting;
. Expanded TAG meeting to review projects in light of independent reviews
and complete preliminary ranked project list
. Citizen Committee listens to technical discussion, then proceeds
subsequently with developing final ranked project list using criteria
. Island Lake Community Center, 9 a.m. - 5 p.m.; Agenda to be detennnined
August 1 to 31 - HCCC administrative processing and submittal package
preparation; HCCC management of final list to meet allocation; federal reviewers
complete independent review for SRFB
September 1 - HCCC final project submittal package due to PS Partnership
(chinook) and SRFB (chum); Project sponsors responsible for final application
updates to SRFB's PRISM, as communicated with LE Coordinator
September/October - SRFB staff reviews applications for completeness. SRFB
RP and subcommittees review projects for final "Project of Concern"; HCCC and
sponsors work to address any unresolved issues.
October 13-16 - HCCC meets with SRFB RP & staff for regional presentations
October 30 - Draft SRFB RP comment forms available
November 13 - Public comments due by 5pm on above
November 20 - Final SRFB Funding Recommendation Report available for
public review
December 10 and 11. 2009 - SRFB funding decisions at public meeting; open
comment period available to the public and project sponsors
11
APPENDIX B: Technical Team Evaluation Criteria for
2009 SRFB Grant Round
Hood Canal Coordinating Council- Salmon Recovery Lead Entity
Technical Evaluation Criteria
Version 6.1.2008
. Domain Priorities From 3 Year Work Program (35 points possible)
o Domain 1 = 35 points
o Domain 2 = 25 points
o Domain 3 = 15 points
o Domain 4 = 5 points
o Note that Domains are defined on the following 2 pages and that
points for this category are pre-assigned by the 3 year work
program
. Benefit to Salmon (30 points possible, up to 5 points for each criteria)
o SRFB definition of high, medium, and low benefits
o Project scale is appropriate/sufficient
o Project addresses key limiting factors
o Protects or restores natural functions and processes
o Integration or association with other salmon recovery projects and
assessments in the watershed
o Duration of biological benefits
. Certainty of Success (30 points possible, up to 6 points for each criteria)
o SRFB definition of high, medium, and low certainty
o Adequacy and appropriateness of project design
o Sequence is appropriate for watershed conditions
o Project proponent and their partners' experience and capability
o Certainty that objectives can be achieved
. Cost Appropriateness (5 points possible)
12
Domain Definitions Established for Prioritization of the 3 Year Work Program for 2009
Hood Canal Coordinating Council (HCCC) Lead Entity
TABLE 1 - Domain Definitions (adooted from Summer Chum Plan 2005)
Domain Definition
1 Natal freshwater and sub-estuarine habitats for 7 extant summer chum subpopulations, 2
extant chinook populations, and 1 extant bull trout subpopulation in the HCCC LE area
2 Natal freshwater and sub-estuarine habitats for 3 re-introduced extinct summer chum
subpopulations and all si.nificant nearshore habitats in the HCCC LE area
3 Natal freshwater and sub-estuarine habitats for all remaining extinct summer chum and
chinook subponulations in the HCCC LE area
4 All other habitats includin. nearshore areas not labeled as si.nificant
Domain terminology is specific to the 3 year work program and is meant to integrate, not renlace, multiple
Salmon Recovery Plan priorities (Co-managers 2005: HCCC 2005; USFWS 2004; Skokomish in progress).
Domain terminology replaces Tier terminology from the HCCC Salmon Habitat Recovery Strategy
(9.2005), but can still be further refined by the priority habitat and nearshore habitat regimes developed in
the Strategy (Tables 2 and 3 below). Priority habitats discern spawning and rearing habitats (and the
processes that support those habitats) for ESA-listed species from habitats for non-listed salmonid species
and for habitats without salmonid species into Priority 1,2, and 3, respectively. Priority 1 and 2 nearshore
habitat areas from the Strategy are termed "significant" for inclusion in the domain terminology, while
priority 3 and 4 nearshore hahitat areas are oot termed "significant". Steelhead stocks are not yet
incorporated into the priorities in the 3 year work program due to their relatively recent listing under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and lack of a population analysis. This regime builds on information we
hold with some certainty, while our long-tenn approach is to research juvenile salmonid habitat preferences
to further refine this approach in the recovery planning processes and thus the lead entity process.
Domain 1
. 7 extant summer chum salmon subpopulations include the Union, Lilliwaup, Hama Hama,
Duckabush, Dosewa\lips, Quilcenes, and Snow/Salmon.
. 2 extant chinook salmon populations include the Skokomish and Mid-Hood Canal, an aggregate of
Hama Hama, Duckabush, and Dosewallips.
. 1 extant bull trout subpopulation includes the Skokomish.
. Natal freshwater and sub-estuarine habitats refer to the freshwater watershed and the associated
sub-estuarine habitats within 1 mile of that freshwater watershed. These areas are called out in the
Salmon Recovery Plans due to the high level of confidence in their importance to rearing for ESA-
listed salmon juveniles.
. The HCCC Lead Entity area is defined through RCW 77,85 as the waters of Hood Canal and the
Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca through the Jefferson County boundary line.
Domain 2
. 3 fe-introduced extinct summer chum salmon subpopulations include Chimacum, Big Beef, and
Tahuya. The Summer Chum Salmon Recovery Plan (HCCC 2005) notes these as extinct hut both
it and the Technical Recovery Team Viability Analysis (2007) notes their importance.
. Significant nearshore habitats were adopted from the HCCC Salmon Habitat Recovery Strategy
(9.2005), and are further defined in the tables below.
Domain 3
. Remaining watersheds which held extinct summer chum salmon subpopulations are defined in
multiple documents including the Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative (Co-managers
2000), Summer Chum Salmon Recovery Plan (HCCC 2005), Summer Chum Salmon Viability
Analysis (TRT 2007), and the WDFW spawner survey database.
Domain 4
. This Domain includes remaining watersheds that are not known to have held summer chum
salmon, chinook salmon, or bull trout.
. Nearshore habitats not noted as "significant" were adopted from the HCCC Salmon Habitat
Recovery Strategy (9.2005), and are further defined in the tables below.
13
TABLE 2 - Priority Natal Habitat Areas by Domain (adopted from Strategy 9.2005)
Domain 1, 2, and 3 Domain 4
. Listed salmonid distribution
. Contributing processes to P-1
se ments
. Non-listed salmonid distribution not
identified in P-1
. Contributing processes to P-2
se ments
. Other freshwater habitats
Priority-1
Priority-2
Priori -3
.
Non-listed salmonid distribution
Contributing processes to P-2
segments
.
.
Other freshwater habitats
TABLE 3 - Priority Nearshore Habitat Areas (adopted from Strategy 9.2005)
Domain Nearshore Habitats
Priority
Strate
"Significant" Priority-1
"Significant" Priority-2
Not
IISignificant"
Not
llSignificant"
Priority-3
Priority-4
.
Estuarine deltas associated with Domain 1 watersheds
Tidal marsh complexes and eel grass meadows
historically contiguous and within 1 mile of Domain 1
estuarine deltas
Estuarine deltas associated with Domain 2&3
watersheds
All other tidal marsh complexes and eel grass meadows
Kelp forests and shallow-water shorelines within 1 mile
of Domain 1, 2, & 3 estuarine deltas
All other estuarine delta habitat
Kelp forests and shallow-water shorelines farther than 1
mile from Domain 1, 2, & 3 estuarine deltas
Non vegetated sub tidal habitats
Non shallow-water shorelines
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
]4
APPENDIX C: 2004 SRFB Technical Criteria
Definitions: Benefits to Salmon and Certainty of
Success
Fifth Round SRFB Grant Cycle
Identified & High Benefit Project Draft, Jan. 5, 2004
Prioritized in tbe
Strategy
Watershed Addresses high priority habitat features and/or watershed process that significantly
Processes & protects or limits the salmonid productivity in the area.
Habitat Features Acauisition:
More than 60% of the total project area is intact habitat, or ifless than 60% project must
be a combination that includes restoration.
Assessment:
Crucial to understanding watershed processes, is directly relevant to project development
or sequencing, and will clearly lead to new projects in high priority areas.
Is a high priority action located in a high priority geographic area.
Areas & Actions Assessment:
Fills an important data gap in a high priority area.
Is identified through a documented habitat assessment.
Scientific
Addresses multiple species or unique populations of salmonids essential for recovery or
Species ESA-listed fish species or non-listed populations primarily supported by natural spawning.
Fish use has been documented.
Life History Addresses an important life history stage or habitat type that limits the productivity ofthe
salmonid species in the area and/or project addresses multiple life history requirements.
Costs Has a low cost relative to the predicted benefits for the project type in that location.
Identified & Medium Benefit Project
Prioritized in tbe
Strate""
Watershed May not address the most important limiting factor but will improve habitat conditions.
Processes & Acouisition: 40-60% of the total project area is intact habitat, or ifless than 40-60% project
Habitat Features must be a combination that includes restoration.
Assessments:
Will lead to new projects in moderate priority areas and is independent of other key
conditions beiof! addressed first.
15
Areas & Actions
Scientific
Species
Life History
Costs
Identified &
Prioritized in the
Strate
Watershed
Processes &
Habitat Features
Areas & Actions
Scientific
Species
Life H isto
Costs
Identified &
Prioritized in the
Strat
Appropriate
Approach
Sequence
Threat
Stewardshi
Landowner
Implementation
May be an important action but in a moderate priority geographic area.
Assessment:
Fills an irn ortant data a ,but is in a moderate non area.
Is identified through a documented habitat assessment or scientific opinion.
Addresses a moderate number of species or unique populations of salmonids essential for
recovery or ESA-listed fish species or non-listed populations primarily supported by natural
s awn in . Fish use has been documented.
Addresses fewer life history stages or habitat types that limits the productivity of the
salmonid s ecies in the area and/or artiall addresses fewer life histo re uirements.
Has a reasonable cost relative to the redicted benefits for the ro' eet e in that location.
Low Benefit Project
Has not been proven to address an important habitat condition in the area.
Addresses a lower priority action or geographic area.
Is WlcIear or lacks scientific information about the problem being addressed.
Addresses a single species of a lower priority. Fish use may not have been documented.
Is unclear about the salmonid life histo bein addressed.
Has a high cost relative to the predicted benefits for that particular project type in that
location.
High Certainty Project
Scope is appropriate to meet its goals and objectives.
Is consistent with proven scientific methods.
Assessment:
Methodology will effectively address an information/data gap or lead to effective
im lementation of rioritized ro'ects within one-to-two ears of com letion.
Is in the correct sequence and is independent of other actions being taken first.
Addresses a high potential threat to salmonid habitat.
Clear! describes and funds stewardshi of the area or faciIi . for more than 10 ears.
Landowners are willin to have work done.
Actions are scheduled, funded, and ready to take place and have few or no known
constraints to successful implementation as well as other projects that may result from this
ro"ect.
16
Identified & Medium Certainty Project
Prioritized in the
Stratel!V
Is moderately appropriate to meet its goals and objectives.
Appropriate
Uses scientific methods that may have been tested but the results are incomplete.
Approach Assessment:
Methods will effectively address an information/data gap or lead to effective
implementation of prioritized proiects witbin three-to-five years of comnletion.
Is dependent on other actions being taken first that are outside the scope of this project.
Sequence
Threat Addresses a moderate potential threat to salmonid habitat.
Stewardship Clearly describes but does not fund stewardship of the area or facility for more than 10
vears,
Landowner Landowners may have been contacted and are likelv to allow work to be done.
Implementation Has few or no known constraints to successful implementation as well as other projects that
mav result from this proiect.
Identified & Low Certainty Project
Prioritized in the
Stratel!V
It is unclear how the goals and objectives will be met.
Appropriate
Uses methods that have not been tested or proven to be effective in past uses.
Approach
May be in the wrong sequence with other protection and restoration actions.
Sequence
Threat Addresses a low Dotential for a threat to salmonid habitat.
StewardshiD Does not describe or fund stewardshio of the area or facility.
Landowner Landowner willingness is unknown.
Implementation Actions are unscheduled, unfunded, and not ready to take place and has several constraints
to successful imolementation.
17
APPENDIX D: Proposed Habitat Project List Committee
Evaluation Criteria for 2009 Grant Round
HOOD CANAL COORDINATING COUNCIL LEAD ENTITY
The following criteria will be used by the Habitat Project List Committee (HPLC) to
evaluate, affirm or re-rank the Technical Advisory Group's draft prioritized project lists
into the final prioritized lists for submission to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board
(SRFB). The HPLC will not reconsider or use the TAG technical criteria, The objective
of the HPLC is to consider those non-technical factors of community impact, educational
value and relative project cost, while certifying that the final project list is moving steadily
and directly towards habitat recovery.
These criteria have been taken from our local process over the past funding rounds and
are consistent with the direction of the SRFB towards consideration of socioeconomic
factors of salmon recovery projects.
COMMUNITY IMPACT & EDUCATION ISSUES
. Does the surrounding community support this project? Who is that community and
how can you substantiate that support?
. Is there any community opposition to this project? Who is opposed and how will you
address that opposition?
. Does this project have any educational value? Who is being educated, what are
they being educated about, and how can you substantiate that? Will this project
educate the public and raise their awareness about salmon and habitat
protection/restoration issues?
. Will this project receive any publicity/visibility? How and whose attention will it gain?
Will publicity be helpful to salmon recovery efforts?
. Will this project elicit more support in the future? From whom and how?
PROJECT COST ISSUES
. Is this project expensive relative to other projects on the list? Is that expense
justified? How did you determine the expense is justified?
. If this project is funded, will it bump other (or several other) good projects out of
probable contention for funding, based on historical HCCC Lead Entity SRFB
funding?
. Is this project appropriate for SRFB Partnership Salmon Funds?
PROGRESS TOWARDS SALMON HABITAT RECOVERY
. Is the cumulative effect of the list of projects moving us closer to federal delisting of
salmon?
18
APPENDIX E: 2009 Lead Entity Groundrules
GROUND RULES
Hood Canal Coordinating Council Lead Entity
Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) Process
The purpose of ground rules is to provide a framework for fruitful discussion and
exchange that guides rather than constrains interactions and make explicit the
common expectations with which the participants undertake the lead entity
salmon recovery funding process and participate on the Hood Canal
Coordinating Council (HCCC) Lead Entity Committees. The Lead Entity
Committees include both the Technical Team (Tech Team) and the Habitat
Project List Committee (HPLC). These rules describe the purpose of the
process, the manner in which the several interests are structured for effective
participation, the decision-making process, the responsibilities of the participants
to one another and to the constituents, and the conduct for decision-making.
These ground rules are intended to facilitate discussions and salmon recovery
efforts under the lead entity organization legislation (RCW 77.85). Should a
conflict with that legislation arise from these ground rules, the legislation will
prevail.
Participating in the lead entity process as a member of the Lead Entity Joint
Committee signals an understanding and acceptance of the ground rules, as
adopted by the Lead Entity Committees. The ground rules are described below:
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of the Lead Entity Committees are to collectively assess the
portfolio of salmon recovery projects submitted to the Lead Entity and
develop a final ranked project list for funding to the SRFB. The final
ranked list must be consistent with the current salmon recovery plans and
3 year work program for Hood Canal & the Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca,
and the current funding cycle policies developed by the SRFB, including
any changes or additions made to these documents that are pertinent to
this cycle of funding.
II. DEFINITIONS
Conflict of Interest: A condition where a lead entity member directly benefits
financially or otherwise by forwarding a project, sits on the applicant's Board of
Advisors, and/or is significantly involved in the development of a project.
Consensus: The explicit concurrence of all caucus members. Consensus is
defined as a decision that allows each member to say, "The group I represent
can live with the decision and accept it, whether or not it is exactly what we
want." While consensus is generally unanimous agreement on a topic, it can
19
also include formal disagreement with the decision for the record, while agreeing
to accept the majority decision. To achieve consensus, group members typically
try to address concerns and objections, make adjustments and concessions,
rather than argue for their point of view.
HCCC: Hood Canal Coordinating Council
HPLC: Habitat Project List Committee. The HPLC is responsible for the final
ranking of projects for funding request submitted to the SRFB using technical
rankings from the Tech Team as their starting base. From there, the HPLC will
use a set of criteria that incorporates social and cost factors, as well as linkage
to the ESA Salmon Recovery Plans and 3 Year Work Program.
Maioritv: A majority, representing at least 51 % of the total caucus, will rule voting
decisions by the Lead Entity Committees.
SRFB: Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board.
Tech Team: Members of the Technical Team responsible for ranking the
projects based on an established set of technical criteria.
VotinQ member: Voting members on the Tech Team are those that sit on the
Tech Team to evaluate projects based on established technical criteria. Voting
members of the HPLC will be citizen members and one project sponsor
representing each past and present sponsor group. A voting decision can either
be through unanimous consensus or through majority vote, though we will
always strive to reach consensus if at all possible.
III. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE LEAD ENTITY COMMITTEES
. Team members agree that the overall HCCC Lead Entity process is
evolving each year, but that in the given year, the process is identified, set
and cannot be changed mid-process.
. Team members will collaborate to establish a final ranked list of projects,
consistent with the HCCC Summer Chum Salmon Recovery Plan, the
Chinook Salmon Recovery Plans, and the Draft Bull Trout Recovery Plan,
as well as SRFB policies.
. Disagreement should be constructive and focused on the issues rather
than on perceptions of motives or relationships and personalities.
. Everyone must have a chance to be heard, Side conversations are
discouraged and should be taken out of the room if necessary. Questions
are encouraged to solve problems or educate others. Team members are
expected to state their interests and not just their positions.
. Team members should be sensitive of the length of their comments in
order to encourage equal participation from the Team.
. Once the agenda is set, team members will stick to topic and time.
20
. The building block process is focused on earlier work, so the HPLC will
use as a foundation the work and prioritization of the Tech Team.
IV. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FACILITATORS
. The facilitators are impartial individuals who guide committees through
their meeting objectives.
. The responsibility of the facilitators is to keep the group focused on the
agreed upon tasks, to suggest alternatives, and to encourage participation
by all team members.
. The facilitators will adhere to these ground rules.
V. TECHNICAL TEAM MEMBERS
. Tech Team members will score projects based on a set of criteria
developed from multiple years of evaluation of habitat projects.
. Tech Team members will hold their results confidential during their
independent evaluation process from July 21 to July 30. The specific
individual technical rankings will not be released, nor will individual
statements or comments by the Tech Team.
. Tech Team members are not representatives of a caucus and therefore
hold impartial analysis of each project based solely on technical merit.
. In the event of a conflict of interest during a meeting, either real or
perceived, the affected Tech Team member will make their interest known
to the rest of the Team and the group will determine by consensus that
person's level of participation in evaluating and ranking that project or set
of projects. In addition, conflicted reviewers can not provide project
evaluations and scores for their projects during the independent review
phase.
. Tech Team members cannot participate on the HPLC.
. At least one Tech Team member will be present at the HPLC meeting to
answer clarifying questions and correct technical inaccuracies.
VI.
.
HABITAT PROJECT LIST COMMITTEE MEMBERS
HPLC members consist of balanced number of citizens from each of our
geographic regions, and one representative from each past and present
project sponsor organization.
In the event of a conflict of interest, either real or perceived, the affected
H PLC member will make their interest known to the rest of the committee
and the group will detennnine by consensus that person's level of
participation in evaluating and ranking that project or set of projects.
HPLC members will develop a final ranked list of projects from the draft
preliminary list, based on previously established criteria, largely focused
on social and cost issues as well as linkage with the salmon recovery
plans.
HPLC members will not re-evaluate projects based upon technical criteria.
.
.
.
21
. The desire is for the HPLC to reach consensus on the final ranked lists
with the option of using majority vote on those issues for which consensus
is not possible.
. Ultimate decisions of the HPLC are made by the voting member caucus
and cannot be changed.
VII. DECISION-MAKING
. Agreement on ranked project lists is by consensus or voting of the Tech
Team and HPLC. However, it is our intent to avoid voting if at all possible.
. At the HPLC, to move a project up or down on a list, an HPLC member
must make a motion regarding which specific project is to be moved,
specifically where on the list it is to be moved, and what the rationale is for
moving that project (related to the previously stated review criteria).
. In the event of a tie vote, the particular motion to move a project up or
down the list will not be approved.
VIII. AMENDMENT OF THE GROUNDRULES
These ground rules may be amended by consensus of the members of the Lead
Entity Committees as the particular section pertains to them.
22
Appendix F: 2008 SRFB Lead Entity Participants
Hood Canal Coordinating Council
Habitat Project List Committee and Technical Advisory Group Roster
*Note that Committee Rosters are updated during each grant ronnd.
Technical Advisory Group
. Peter Bahls, Northwest Watershed
Institute
. Susan Bishop, NOAA
. Richard Brocksmith, HCCC
. John Cambalik, Puget Sound
Partnership
. Luke Cherney, HCCC
. Carrie Cook-Tabor, US Fish &
Wildlife Service
. Hans Daubenberger, Port Gamble
S'Klallam Tribe
. Marty Ereth, Skokomish Tribe
. Dan Hannafious, Hood Canal
Salmon Enhancement Group
. Thorn Hooper, NOAA
. Thom Johnson, WDFW
. Matt Longenbaugh, NOAA
. Marc McHenry, US Forest Service
. Kathy Peters, Kitsap County
. Tami Pokorney, Jefferson County
. Doris Small, WDFW
. Tim Tynan, NOAA
. Micah Wait, Wild Fish Conservancy
Habitat Proiect List
Committee
Citizen Representatives
. Phil Best
. Vern Rutter
. Richard Wojt
. Tom Springer
Project Sponsors
. Cascade Land Conservancy
. Great Peninsula Conservancy
. Hood Canal Coordinating Council
. HCSEG
. Jefferson CD
. Jefferson County
. Jefferson Land Trust
. Kitsap CD
. Kitsap County
. Mason CD
. Mason County
. North Olympic Salmon Coalition
. NWI
. Pacific Northwest Salmon Center
. Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe
. Skokomish Tribe
. Wild Fish Conservancy
. Various state agencies
23
.~ " ~'f-l~ ~-~-J~- ~ I; -;~ 03
-- ~ ,--- --r--- I"
'''':~'~ e g ~~ ::; ~;: g :::''''
- .~
.tU t J ~I>I ill I,m ,II wfJ
,rill If J g! hH i' hI! !t~ Lt.
~~ ~-~;o - !J.~!J.-a. ~! ;'~.8. .,,~ .~i
tt · t I 'I [ [! -, !'~l I ~ It
I ! III"!' 1! 'I!!! U!~f Ii!!!!'!!!
.. Itll J~-; g ~~ti 'i"~' iT .1l~ ~t, I.r~
, I. :18 8 < "" "g , ! g 8 ·
_ + _~ _! '_.! ~_ 8 ,g ---88
1.I;i,/;,;, ,;.liO~ )I! ;,1,;. ~~.
,Tmf ~". ~ir, f:--1'~
~E ~[F i ~
n: q ~ ~
,. r
, j
- ~ --+--- . ---~-
"
J . ~
fI !l?
!
.
l
,
_~ "8 <
n ~
i i
I
, I
,I
,
, II
, I'
. _ L~___._
:':] '8
H
r~~
U.
, ,
ji
i!H!(
_8"~!i.
l'~ !" F
ii' ~
! I
I'
~ ~ i.~
~ 8 , ~
IqH!r-
g'~ if t l'~
.'
f i 8
n ~ !
I}
l!
.
~ ~-H- ~_L..~--+
, c: C:>:l :E 'tr.
I ' ~ '"
--+----.--..
i i 'f ,::; <;;'
~i ~ €
& ii [ ~
,
,
8 ~ 'i ~ $'~
-- ~
.' ! IHf'Ft1 '.J'1 'j- i1.
IJ '1P<,~I" 'I t
"[' 'W({ hIt ;
I - l --;
I~ i ~!l~ i,~ ~ ::l!
~ ~ ~ ].;:u g @ \3r
q ~ ~ s:A
I ~~ ~~~ ~2~ H.~ [,
f _~.____. J f r _~_,~ ~______ _J ~ ~'
mi' !
@ ]~ b g
q~... j;
l 1.1. .!. fUn ! P fHf
~. <fl~' g~!,~' !~""~ ::!Z'i-!;_l-
, PI' if lip
--t
I :;
::;~
"
~
"
" w
.
"
h H
If lr
u
i ~ 5 t
,
[
I~
,
,
f
]f
w
go ~ ?
[<
I -,
&.g-
. ,-
.i'
~
~ a
I @ g-
t 'rip
, l.'!: ~m,
:f -t ~ --!r-~~~F
IE " Il-!>,
gl ~ i i~
, H
<-..
lHl
~ [~ g
~ ~ ;c
~'i~-. '['
. 'i ! ~ '
~l rr !: ~ 3
,I. 'l Ii'
, L ~
'.~~
'!
"
,.
;g.i'
,
g
i
:-~I~
,
.
"
.~
~
,
urru mUHCi
I. '" '. ~I'>.i
___; .....; 'J
~
.
::;~
,
.,
"
'"
"
w
.?
lIt
th
"I'
" ~ ~
l
gn~H
P L-
o .
c
~. ~
l~
"
i!
.'g.'"
I'
-l
.
g
~
!
,
~
~
~i~j ![f 'lp
i I!' . i. g
'f'I ! fl. Jf ,I.
Ii, !
I . j
1 " g
"
i i 8
1 " IH ." r
, , r ,
, , :i< ' ~Il j
~ , w r
, ,
'H,'
i-! ~ ~:
::!l"'~"
l,l
_L___
i2F
~! ,
,I ~..
IJ
"
,
"
!--
,
i
g I'
_1_-"-_ ----~--------- 1__.
1'; r ~-; l ~.:-
i ; I~:; ~
0\ I '[ ~ ~ Ii ~
~
em.
;";.;0
------j..-.,.-...-
if !tn 'it tn
.. 1 ,I
\{~ \~:?
<;;
c
<
,
I
elf"'''' <I
r'
r,. .~
,
i r
. .
.,
-- -
.'
~
."
"
, ,!,- 'I I Ii,. I '
,~ I ~ nil g !I ! ~I j jt "~,]!,!
, -t-' "'U --1. · " I 0 ,M g, I, .
r ~r: '\t' n jutilll -L ULL tJ ~lll[!
11 ' -"i 11 t fl'fll~' ;1 illt=l- '
nlJ J -' r' -- - -. ." ...u... " -, -
~ T -+- r 8 8 !I'
!' .! ' " '" ~ i ~ I ' . ,
;; "" I ....
,iT Ii" i~! '~'H'l;- f,l~-; - 'i'
:,_! ' _ill _1T_1.J'1 !.~ ;1 J_ "Ij'hl}l _~ L)J J.lr!
, I t I ' I ti, 1 t 6 6 'I'" 1 L I ;, l 1
, ,,~~ ~ l~ is ~"'~ i ~ 1 ~~ J! i.g~ g ~i ~ ~ ]
" i, 1'11_ 'll! i' I ! i!IJi.! g 8 ! t"
f~ ! ~ i .. . a' ., ~ ~I · ~ " ! ~ ~ ~ ~',_ ! _ l OI.
~r-- ~ ~~~ I - ~ I ".d E g; ,.
~ ~ I e l ~ 1 ~ r G"' ~~ Ji ig~ 1 J r ~
~, il ~ ego- i e[g ;; E ~ U ~ i ~E j~ ~~j E 5~ ~]
~ g.@ ~ 8 ! ~ g 8 ~t;;
, ~, ' -", t" ii . · . a' ! ~ ~ "
I _ _
'- .
~ "- _ a '5 ~ I !t ~
~ ~ ~ ~ <: <3 i:5 ~ r ~ ~ll~ .! "
- ... i r i h ~ E' :; :,jj ~ ~ l "n II e ~ ~ ~ leg
" ,L -ICI~+-1 ~I~I' "It-.Jt'I--
J h I c~l, tl ~,_ll t,~ ~.-i-" ,lHtl ~ lW I h ~ ,illl
q, j-- ~l l, I JS ~,L 0" ~ ! ~l' d II h, I 1<" f,t'l
-=..:. ""..:. 1':"'''''''" :~ ;z;,,~"'~ '" ~8 8" "'~ 13' 1!",~ -",,~ ]"'.c '"
. -toe' : ~ . " . -f e , . ~ .
~l : lill -I iT ! -ml! I!~: I-I !+11I'~j [~l~~
i ; I ;-m!1 jil !} I ! I. I HI! 'll /' ! !.I i ! i I !~ ; I.~
'1' 0 t . < It=!" I, 1'1 "I. 'oh~1 r +- f--- ~
*~~ g l' 11 1 31 ~ ~,~ ~ ~ ,~Jl~l ~~.1~ -1' ",'~ _.g . ~_lc.' 11-<].... ~....I !....;J<'.
;.,,~j]jf i~f'" J~i~ j~~~. .1; ~,~ j .i~.c!~,' ~!i..~~ji~i' ~i ~ ~~.~~ 1[ ~ ~.~; ~~ ~.~I. @~I ~g~~i~
,,!:~'" "'..... "'...."'1-< "'...."'. .....__ "", r'" ~ ,",r'" ',r ",~" -m-------r -is .._ rm_j1_ .
wI!,! I 1, 'P" H 'j 1 ~ 6 d. ,. l i; !; I
,,;; '~i '~," !', ~ ~,r, j rj, g ~lll,iN ~f ~~ i ]~, n fji ~,:i .~ .~~ j' :, ~
:,.'.:,'.r..... il H l.~ II ill i. ~;l:.~t~!.'; ~. 'lijH~1 ii. it 11'i,iV~~.~i~. H.11'.li HIli HI i \.
." n" .!" "' . Q. .". l,.. j" q. ", ] 11 I ! . 1 ,", 'I ' ,
/.; 0 ~ S '" i' ~ -:r -{! I.... "" s:ii '?: '" v,;: ",i e; ~ <t S '" I .i!.. ,::) ~
\X >>4<:> ~ '5 -' 0' ~ ~I ~ ~ i... , ~ ,.ll ~ ,;; . i!:' ~!3] ~
~ \ I" ',. _,':. :. \ 4'=rrr2i' 1,'1 _ nort'; .~.. jd'/ , . 'o, " , , " "
....':.,.. ;.~. .... " "-'h-. ....:\ ~. "~., '.... 'h" . " : j :. '.: j..-++-;. '.'1 ; :.:;
1~;'ltT-iI'I'fT ". ," . ,. . 1~IL--rIT']
i~'n-t~I" -~H- - - dti~H 'f7J---~1 - I I J - '=-=~'J---t'-
1-
- I.
.; I ~
, '
i
,
i
,
i
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
~ i: g j ~
" , , ,
.. ....;"'''-'''+w-zi..
.. ; ~[~Ii ~Pll~
~ '::! _"'" ~ ...,.. OJ' ~
~ ;:'i ~ ---L-<:;'S~','"
=I~' J!fiT I'
I I I [ .,
I "_~I::'
;-!l!.I.lm,:[I~ lr-iti-
~~.. ["Ii- ,"" ~.~
c~"- ~ll~ ,I' is ~ ~
=- & I ~ ! ~ ~
_R. I ~ ~
! ,
, I
8
,
I~ p
" ,
rl
~
~
F--..
'.j i I~-
'l!t!
~~ '" ~
II -- i
1--':'- "--+-
8
,
~
I
I' ,
!i '1.11
ii
!
.1
l
!
[
i
I
.. [
II I
~~ ~
!
'-"-- -
~ ~ ~
I -! - ~- -- .. i-
:-1-' ----,-
----J.-.
-;1 ~
,
,.. - I- I. . I..
,
___n I
, _! -! . ...~ -t ~t. ..,i,
I . c., ~
+-1--.-. . "
.. ~ ~? ~ i""
.. ~ ~ . !; , i
l[ U f I ri ~ n i
I' ,~ · .. ! !! !'
~i f Iii!, '~g
, ]';'1~8'Ki-"-TS~',-[,"
t:!" C) " d cO" :<> ~ w.~ .. w
~ '~~,i'i!.Q".' ~ 02 ~ '"'~ ~
o ~~ ~ .~i ~ ~
. , o+-=i c---
;Iill~ ; I 'g~
-,.
I ,
.! i
,
,
,
j '.
,
i
I
"
,
,
i
,
I~
,
!
i I~ @ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s
'~. ~iml- ",', -'". ""..-'-'-'''.' ! _0
~li ii'" ~~ m.~ ; H~ . ~.
~~. t' ~ ~:"; ~ 2 ~, Q .~ i ~ ..,
,I 8rl .
I q ~!; i
, 1: 11
,
I I
-\-
i
I
i
I
i
,
!I
'. ~
-----r---- -.~
I
I
Lc.--
c;l t
^
.
.,
1: c -, g.,..
i i tl f [ P
lit [fr ~f
i _ ! Ii ....
~! '-pn\'
~ Il
~ i ! ~
"
~ I ~.. {
II i p!~ f
1< q !I n
, ~ f "! - i i ! I
- . l!' ~..' il-
~!'r.2Il
I...~~I..'
~ICH' ~..lH" II
; I" I ~, ,. 'i
'" :E" "
~ "! I
8 ~ i ;
~
~
I
"' i II
I !
"
"
" "
,
.. i:l ~ l::l ! ..
1'2 .~ 8;;; 'P l; ~
8 ffi'! 1 8
;] ~-r:-.'. -' >'i ~ ~ '. ;}l ~if a '
:0 ~ ~~ !' i! '" cij' "'! ~ ;.., ;
~~tt! ~- .. r~ ;..
5~ .;: "I' ~ i:l '"
__L' ~
Ii U 1.[.. i
is'5 it., ~
I! liJ 1'1' I
'.,
.
~ ]
.
,.
!o
I
8
1
!
- T T-'- -e--- f
Ii j, " !
'i.'ll' ,
~- ~, :
- f-":""! _uf_
i i
, I
!
I !
, I
- -+--
~
1
.
!
~
"
i
.
'"
I
i
f I
I
f
!
I
!
!
Ifl
~.
.
"
!i
t
,
I
,
I
i
II I
1
1i
1
~ ~
I' !
.
g
!
"
;;
1
i
I
"
I
ti!!
IHIH
,f'!l :;r
I
!
Iff
!.
Ii I
II
,
1
!
i
,
8
1
"~~ "I'
I'
i
,
. .
o !
,
! I'I
"1
PI
8
!
.
I
Ill.
~ !,
1
,',-
I. ,i
'h'
1-+
8 I'
,
I :
If I
I
iPll
I
I
,
I I
. ~.
. l i Ii
1 i ~I
<, nH I rl)
II! PH IS.
Iii.' 'S"
~ ~ ~ C'
I---._~ f--t---
i
. "
8 ,;; 1'2
g --L- .
i Ij!'~
1 Ii! I
n
'I
J
"
.
~
r
.
Ii
"
,
;;
I
, '
,; i
I
'; II t-
Ii
I
U
"
I
,
,
.
;;
i
,
I
I
,
!
'j b
, I' ,
:,1 'lH
t.....-
;;
1
,
i
I
if
q
I
i
!
,
i~
~ i< ~ ~
I ,I
- r--T-"I- -
~ I s ~"
;" I ~ ! ,
-~ .._-~ _.~- , -, -- --,"- ----1---- ~; _,'
'" 1<' r-:;::, 0:: -.'" r- "': i< '" '''': co"
i --, fl, -~ri l--rl t -II I
i I il ,I i 11 .I:!
~ '~:' ~i ~ ~; i ~I; I I ~
.- ....-- ..- ..--
i h~ '
->1.
" ~.
f !
. dl
rl 11
, 'i
,
- ----
- t:--" ~-'~--
f i i f
I ~ ~ I'
.:j !::
II I
f-T,
, ~
i
~
[ ~
,
,
,
,
,
;
._.._-~
, ,I !
~ i ~
,
I
i
!
i
,
i
[
i
,
.
j
I~
r
,
, ,
IIIi !
!- .' ,
.
I
---
~
.
,
!
,
:
"~
,
~
~
.
, ~ ~',,', -.-.t- ,,-, .. -', ""-~,- 0 ~tl,~ .~',L_'_' ~._-
~-i ! -- '1 ~ I f . " ',' . ,'~ . ' , . ~~ .,~ ,I . ,I
: , .! i !! il,. I I 1 :', , I. I
I' !!r! I I I I I ,. I I I:~, 1.1 '
'"' ~ ~ gM fM 8 8 :3 '" <- ~'" ~ 81 ~ <> Iii '"'. ~ 8 I ~
--=-!~ .+ ',~ ~_ " . ] ." _:... .. f -...',--" ., ; ;,-, ~" -;~- .,.
~ ~ ~~, S < ~ ~ , ] ~ f ~ Ii
'3 ~ ~ ..., 11 4 . e E "'g ~! I I ' "I I "
.,~ ~ ~ 4\ S".. % ~1~ ~.!:8. ~ 1'" ~>: .. 't )( :~ ..-a.~ ~"..!!l
Ii! I ~! ! n It!~l,l Hi "" H Hi ill r ' lH j JI1,
-1'1' +; ~'I ~ .. "1 n".,. "hi /;'=+"1 .. '~:. r--h' , - I
"' "" ~ '0>, ~ ~ $ 5! '" 'I .
~ :il ~ J;t '" _ ~ ~ ::l lj' ~ :;;
- ',,;'t I ~j -,j'; . d . i f- ~-l!. 1- I,
I ! I ~=J= --1 ~ . ~~ I -%- ~ I ':-' ,
- t~, 1 - t ., l! I hi I IjWI ~ I ~ ~ H
11 1~ Ii II {It'll" Ii! ';; hir f'
...-----11 _ 1 .i J. tl +_0., . _ ----t<- f"- .... H ,.---'
, ~1~' ~ f:!.!--.:I! [ .!},' ; d.J IE I I ;"'1' [, m
· I !t-' i i 1 ~ I' Il ~ I ~~1 J.' · ~ 1.1 i Ii!: II~ ~- I 'f'
_~n~; '-1 ,t, 1, ~ i;, r; ~ .I! 1,1-;- 1 C ~- ;-- . - I
~ a . ~ iF ~ ~ ~ . ! a ;U ~ ., ~ I a I" .~; ,'. l I
!
I
.. , ":0 :;, ~2 ~ ~ :0<."!l;;5 "" ::;: 1;-1 ~;~ 1f
- i <5'~ t' ,... ~ !fj:"';1l ,~ '"
, "-,' ~, ..... " I! ~' "" " , lit;'.. . '.
'~' . .ti~'L ". r l'~
"
"
J,
II
&0
!
~
"
~
o
j
t
+-.--
!
1
-j
'_
tl~
,',,'to
:%ti
~N~
""
~
,~
;ft: