MRC narrows 2025–27 grant shortlist; derelict-gear removal and ROV purchase face questions

The Clallam County Marine Resources Committee on Monday reviewed three candidate projects for its 2025–27 grant application and debated whether to remove the derelict-gear proposal after a volunteer lead said they must step away.

The committee’s remaining new-project candidates were nearshore restoration at a wildlife refuge, debris removal at Edith’s Hook, and derelict crab-pot removal. Committee members discussed implementation details, permitting and cost, and how to allocate any unspent grant funds.

Why it matters: derelict fishing gear kills commercial and recreational shellfish and can damage habitat; how the MRC funds and implements removals affects local fisheries, volunteer workload and long-term monitoring.

Committee staff member Amelia (MRC staff) outlined the three projects for the group and noted administrative constraints: equipment purchases—such as an ROV (remotely operated vehicle)—would be treated as capital and need county-level approval before the MRC could buy them. Amelia said contracting for ROV work is a common short-term approach.

Chris (MRC member) told the committee he intends to step away from the derelict-crab-pot project for family reasons; staff and other members said the proposal had been a multi-person effort. "To support one another, and I think since Chris is deciding to step away due to family, I think it would make the most sense to, at this point, remove it," one member said during the discussion (speaker name not specified in the record). Multiple members urged the group to seek a new project lead before dropping the work.

Kathy (MRC staff) and Amelia described trade-offs between contracting for underwater surveys or buying an ROV. Amelia said contracting gives access to expertise and data-analysis capacity without the upfront cost and unknowns of owning and maintaining equipment. Kathy added that, because equipment would be classified as county-owned, the MRC would need to coordinate with the county and the Northwest Straits Commission before purchasing.

Members also raised administrative capacity as a limiting factor. One member said that if the MRC lacks a volunteer or member lead for a project, staff cannot run it on their own; staff time and onboarding requirements were noted as constraints. Sasha (Northwest Straits Foundation staff) told the committee that funds can be amended later in the year if projects change, and offered to help coordinate adjustments if the MRC decides to reallocate money.

Committee discussion touched on alternatives if a project is removed: (1) seek a new lead within the MRC, (2) contract the work out, or (3) retain funds and later amend the grant to support a different, feasible project. Several members urged outreach to neighboring MRCs and local colleges (Jefferson County examples were cited) to learn from others who have run ROV and derelict-gear programs.

The committee did not finalize the project list at the meeting; members asked staff to confirm permit windows (an HPA for one shoreline project expires in October 2025) and to reach out to possible co-leads or partner agencies before the next meeting.

Votes at a glance: The meeting recorded two administrative votes connected to proceeding with business — approval of the March 2025 minutes (voice vote; passed) and an extension of the meeting by 10 minutes to complete business (motion and second recorded; passed). Neither vote was recorded with a formal tally of named voters in the transcript.