Section 1
Chehalis
Basin Salmon Habitat Restoration and Preservation Work
Plan
|
A Framework for Salmon Habitat Restoration in the Chehalis Basin |
|||
|
For an overview of the ESA and ESA Recovery, check out these WWW sites:
Bull trout are the only “threatened” specie in WRIAs 22 & 23. The draft 2002 SaSI lists the following stocks as “depressed”:
A “depressed” stock is a fish whose production level is below expected levels based on available habitat and natural variations in survival rates, but above the level where permanent damage to the stock is likely. For more information see SaSI
For the complete text of Chapter 77.85 RCW, follow this link:
The term “salmon” in Chapter 77.85 RCW “includes all species of the family Salmonidae which are capable of self-sustaining, natural production.
Habitat is the physical, chemical, and biological features of an area that supplies food, water, shelter and space necessary for a particular species existence.
See:
Follow this link to view the report
See RCW 77.85.020 and 2002 State of the Salmon Report
See:
See the SRF Board Mission, Roles, Responsibilities, and Funding Strategy (In .pdf file format)
See:
See Chehalis Basin Partnership Information Depot and Chehalis Basin Partnership Brochure
Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors, Water Resource Inventory Areas 22 & 23
|
To understand the purpose and scope of the Chehalis Basin Salmonid Habitat Restoration and Preservation Work Plan, a brief overview of the federal, state, and local salmonid habitat recovery process is helpful. The Endangered Species Act After decades of declining wild salmonid and steelhead populations in the Pacific Northwest, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) began a comprehensive review process in 1991 to assess the possible listing of salmonids under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The destruction and alteration of habitat, as well as the impacts of hatcheries, hydropower, and harvesting, have placed salmonids into a precarious position within many watersheds in Washington State. The eventual outcome of the review was the listing of several salmonids within several geographic areas as a "threatened" specie under the ESA in March 1999. The US Fish and Wildlife Service added bull trout for all regions of the state the following November 1999. Both agencies will be developing recovery plans in the near future to recover salmonid populations in the Pacific Northwest so they no longer need legal protection to prevent their extinction.
Salmon Recovery, Chapter 77.85 RCW Because an ESA listing could have such a significant economic impact on the state, the Washington Legislature responded to the ESA review process by passing ESHB 2496 in 1998 and 2E2SSB 5595 in 1999. Together, these two laws became Chapter 77.85, Salmon Recovery, under the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). The intent of this chapter was “…to retain primary responsibility for managing the natural resources of the state rather than abdicate those responsibilities to the federal government.” The state would accomplish this by “…integrating local and regional recovery activities into a statewide plan that can make the most effective use of provisions of federal laws allowing for a state lead in salmon recovery.” Furthermore, Chapter 77.85 RCW expands upon the ESA purpose of preventing salmonid extinction by instructing the “…office of the governor to coordinate state strategy to allow for salmon recovery to healthy and sustainable population levels with productive commercial and recreational fisheries.” It is important to note that this state law is not a replacement for the ESA process. Instead, the law seeks to make the state a proactive partner in the ESA recovery planning effort. One of the central themes of Chapter 77.85 RCW focuses on habitat as a vital component of the salmon recovery effort. To do this, the Chapter states that salmon recovery be accomplished “…in a coordinated manner and to develop a structure that allows for the coordinated delivery of federal, state, and local assistance communities for habitat projects that will assist in the recovery and enhancement of salmon stocks.” It is also important to note, however, that the law specifically entrusted voluntary “lead entities” consisting of counties, cities, and tribal governments to develop the projects necessary for restoring and protecting fish habitat within the state’s 62 Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIAs). To institute salmon recovery, Chapter 77.85 RCW set up an organizational framework to guide and implement salmon recovery through salmonid habitat restoration and protection. This framework involves three main participants:
The Salmon Recovery Office Chapter 77.85 RCW established the Salmon Recovery Office within the Office of the Governor for the purpose of establishing and coordinating a statewide strategy for salmon recovery. The Salmon Recovery Office, working with the Governor’s Joint Natural Resources Cabinet, accomplished this initial task in September 1999 when it issued its statewide salmon recovery strategy, Extinction is Not an Option. The focal point of the plan is its vision to: “Restore salmon, steelhead, and trout populations to healthy and harvestable levels and improve habitat on which fish rely.” Implementing this vision rests on four main areas of emphasis – Habitat, Harvest, Hatcheries, and Hydropower. These four areas, under human control, influence the health of salmonids within Washington’s 62 Watershed Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA). The statewide salmon recovery strategy includes analysis about how each of the four areas of emphasis impact salmonids and proposes goals, objectives, and solutions to address them. In addition, Chapter 77.85 RCW also requires the Governor to submit biennially to the Legislature a “State of the Salmon Report.” The most recent one is a three-volume report for 2002. The Salmon Recovery Funding Board The Salmon Recovery Funding (SRF) Board plays a leading role under Chapter 77.85 RCW with its responsibilities for making grants and loans for salmon habitat projects and activities. The SRF Board has 10 members appointed by the Governor and the Interagency Commission for Outdoor Recreation provides staff support and administrative assistance to the board. Chapter 77.85 RCW clearly outlines the procedures and criteria for the SRF Board to evaluate, rank, and fund salmon habitat projects and activities. The SRF Board must give preference to projects that:
In its own strategy, Mission, Roles, Responsibilities, and Funding Strategy, the SRF Board states that it will accomplish this in a manner “…consistent with the state salmon strategy Extinction is Not an Option.” The SRF Board report goes on to add to the Chapter 77.85 RCW criteria by requiring each Lead Entity to have:
Furthermore, the SRF Board requires lead entities to use the best science available to guide all decisions and actions in the development of habitat project lists. Local Lead Entities Chapter 77.85 RCW authorizes counties, cities, and tribal governments to voluntarily join and designate a Lead Entity responsible for submitting habitat project lists to the SRF Board for their funding consideration. The law requires the Lead Entity to establish a committee of people representing counties, cities, conservation districts, tribes, environmental groups, business interests, landowners, citizens, volunteer groups, regional fish enhancement groups, and other habitat interests. The purpose of this Lead Entity committee is “...to provide a citizen-based evaluation of the projects proposed to promote salmon habitat.” The committee is supposed to “...compile a list of habitat projects, establish priorities for individual projects, define the sequence for project implementation, and submit these activities as the habitat project list. The committee shall also identify potential federal, state, local, and private funding sources.” The Lead Entity Committee must develop a habitat project list and habitat work schedule that, according to Chapter 77.85 RCW “…ensures salmon habitat projects will be prioritized and implemented in a logical sequential manner that produces habitat capable of sustaining healthy populations of salmon.” Using the critical pathways methodology, the Lead Entity:
Assisting the Lead Entity Committee in its work is the Technical Advisory Group (TAG), a collection of private, tribal, federal, state, and local government personnel with appropriate scientific expertise. The Conservation Commission invites these TAG members, in consultation with local governments and tribes, to help bring the best available science to the overall local decision-making process. At a minimum, Chapter 77.85 RCW gives the TAG two main jobs in assisting the Lead Entity Committee:
The Chehalis Basin Partnership The Chehalis Basin Partnership designated Grays Harbor County to act as the Lead Entity for WRIAs 22 and 23. The Chehalis Basin Partnership in turn serves as the Lead Entity Committee. In addition, the Chehalis Basin Partnership has a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) who aided in the preparation of the limiting factors analysis and who continues to provide assistance in technical planning, review, and monitoring tasks. The Conservation Commission published in June 2001 Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors, Water Resource Inventory Areas 22 and 23, by Carol Smith PhD. and Mark Wenger. This comprehensive document compiles data and provides technical analysis on limiting factors for wild salmonid habitat in the Chehalis Basin. The Chehalis Basin Partnership published its first Plan for Habitat Restoration in April 2001. That planning effort focused on interpreting data from the limiting factors analysis to prioritize sub-basins in the two WRIAs and provide guidance to future project sponsors as to what type of projects each sub-basin needs to overcome limiting factors and achieve the plan’s goals. Since that time, the Partnership has submitted four project habitat lists for SRF Board consideration to date. These first efforts have proven successful; the SRF Board has funded 20 salmon habitat projects totaling $3.1 million within the two WRIAs. However, the complexity of the process, coupled by experience, has prompted the Lead Entity Committee of the Partnership to revisit and refine the first Plan for Habitat Restoration. The result is this document, the Chehalis Basin Salmon Habitat Restoration and Preservation Work Plan.
|
||
