IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING OF

SALMON RECOVERY AND WATERSHED HEALTH EFFORTS

August 2004

1. Background

Since the late 1990s, the state's environmental management has moved toward an interjurisdictional, watershed-based approach, focusing on water quantity, water quality, ESA-listed salmon and steelhead, and fish and wildlife habitat. The state has also moved increasingly toward promoting integrated environmental management, rather than a segregated, program-by-program approach. The primary entities involved with this approach are: planning units (2514); lead entities (2496); sub-basin planning units; regional fisheries enhancement groups (RFEGs); regional salmon recovery organizations; Governor's Salmon Recovery Office; and the Salmon Recovery Funding Board. Based on the experience to date, several challenges are evident in the state's emerging watershed-based approach, among them:

There is an opportunity to advance integrated watershed efforts. Federal, state and local government programs often are organized by specialized programs or are bound by different jurisdictional and funding authorities that do not reflect a watershed-based perspective. There are a number of governance structures that have evolved in watersheds; we need to realize the full potential of these and build on their momentum while moving to a new approach that fully integrates our efforts.

There is a lack of secure funding for implementation of watershed-based plans. Substantial funding for implementing sub-basin plans under the Power and Conservation Council and for RFEG projects is secure. Lead entities, watershed planning units, and regional salmon organizations have received funds to develop plans and strategies, but funding for implementation of these plans and strategies is uncertain. No permanent, sustained funding source at the state level has been provided for watershed planning units and implementation of their respective plans.

Environmental and natural resource management can be made more effective and be more supportive of economic-based activities. The individualized nature of permitting, agency-by-agency, can frustrate the regulated community. Finding new ways to promote integration of permitting and mitigation with watershed-based efforts is a step in the right direction toward sustainable economic development. In addition, sustainability in this sense helps to broaden the support for environment and natural resource management.

There is increasing pressure to move more funds away from planning and administration and more toward projects. Once draft salmon recovery plans are completed in the summer of '05, interest will move toward funding more for projects and less for administration and none for planning. With groups heavily involved in planning, this raises the question of to what extent these groups are needed or used post summer '05; the Power Council has already indicated it will phase out sub-basin groups.

After six years of implementing mandates provided by the Watershed Planning Act, the Salmon Recovery Act, and other closely allied efforts, we have the knowledge to begin addressing these challenges. We are in a position to use our experiences and enact structural, procedural, and policy changes that will help us make better decisions on local and state issues affecting salmon recovery and watershed health. But, by continually evaluating our operations and their successes and failures - by using the principles of adaptive management and making adjustments because of what we have learned - we can ensure our goals are met.

II Topic Areas and Options Discussion

A series of topic areas is presented below, with some initial options and key questions to help frame the issues.

1. To continue to build on momentum of planning units and lead entities, should Watershed Action Councils (WACS) be authorized in each watershed or combination of watersheds? How can a smooth transition be implemented?

• Functions could include to develop a watershed project implementation schedule that integrates 2514 projects with 2496 projects and salmon recovery plan actions; identify and assist local watershed project sponsors willing to undertake watershed projects; coordinate implementation of watershed projects; periodically review and update watershed enhancement plan; develop adaptive management strategy; and provide community participation in these functions.
• Planning units could be transitioned into WACs by July 2010 or one year after initiation of Phase IV, whichever comes first

  Lead entities could also be transitioned to WACs

• Key questions: seat should healthy watershed governance structures look like at a local level? At what scale (WRIA or other) should we organize in local environments? Should the nearshore environment be included? Estuaries? How canfunding coordination for implementation best be achieved? Wat is the scope of the issues these groups should address? "at should be the membership?

  2. Should Regional Salmon Recovery Organizations be authorized to form in statute?

• Much continuing work will be necessary for recovery plans to be implemented, including coordinating completion of gaps; updating components; collecting, maintaining, and reporting monitoring data; negotiating federal assurances, etc.
• Formation would not be dictated - this is a local decision
• Key questions.- What is the relationship between WACs or local watershed groups and regional organizations as we move toward implementation '2 In lieu of a regional organization, how will recovery plans be implemented? How will determinations about priorities across watersheds within the region be made? Should there be "bonus points " or additional money given to projects that come from a list that has been prioritized across a region? What other "rewards" would be appropriate for regionalization?

  3. Should the SRFB be transformed into a watershed-focus funding board?

• Continue with funds appropriated for salmon-related activities
• Planning funds rolled over into project dollars
• Support implementation of watershed-based plans (including salmon recovery)
• Focus on integrating projects and activities developed at local levels to improve watershed health
• Key questions: Do you see problems associated with expanding functions of the SRFB? Should the board fund projects that implement plans approved by regional salmon recovery groups/GSRO, watershed planning units, and WACs if these are created?

  4. Should the Governor's Salmon Recovery Office be continued?

  GSRO is scheduled to sunset in 2006, but most of statutory obligations will have been met by 2005.

• Move remaining activities to IAC?
• Migrate to a Governor Watershed Enhancement Office with responsibilities to include support of WACS, regional organizations, watershed enhancement board, and monitoring forum?
• Key questions.- Is there a need for GSRO-type functions to continue? Is there a need for an independent "office " to advise the governor, work with state and federal agencies, the new board, the monitoring forum, and/or others?

  5. How should monitoring be coordinated and funded?

• Governor's Executive Order created a monitoring forum to coordinate
• Monitoring is an obligation under recovery plans, sub-basin plans, and others
• Key questions: Should monitoring group be created by legislation? no should staff such a group? Should monitoring be funded by direct appropriation or at the discretion of the Watershed Enhancement Board? Should the Independent Science Panel be asked to play a role?

  6. To optimize mitigation funding, should projects be evaluated from a comprehensive and integrated watershed context?

• Encourage use of mitigation dollars as new funding for watershed-based projects.
• Development project proponents work directly with local watershed groups in picking projects for mitigation that have been approved at the local level and that help implement watershed-based plans.
• For this to work, watershed plans should be comprehensive, integrated, and supported by those involved.
• Permit streamlining is the third leg (see #7)

• Key questions: How can this objective be achieved? seat role would local

  groups play, and at what scale?

  7. What kinds of permitting reforms and streamlining should be considered?

• If those involved in development activities are going to contribute mitigation dollars to fund projects based on watershed plans, permitting benefits must be part of the incentive package for their participation,
• State government permitting reforms include coordination to ensure project mitigation requirements help implement watershed plans.
• Local governments are participants, if not lead sponsors, of watershed planning, and presumably will collaborate in this permit reform effort. Although local governments will best decide how to participate in watershed based mitigation, local permit mitigation can be determined at a watershed scale.
• Key questions: Should permitting reform be integrated with recovery plan implementation? "at are your concerns with mitigation funding (out of watershed, out of kind, etc.)? seat contribution do you think

  watershed/regional groups should play in this, if any?

  8. How should salmon and watershed plans be funded?

This page created and maintained by Chehalis River Council
Send comments or questions to the: Chehalis River Council

Search this Chehalis River Council site!