Search this Chehalis River Council site!To: Chehalis Basin Partnership
From: Lee Napier,, Deputy Director of Community Development
Date: 12/17/2004
Re: Salmon and Watersheds Concept Paper (i.e, the Bob Nichols' Paper)
I reviewed the Discussion Draft Salmon and Watershed Enhancement Concept Paper, dated November 23,, 2004, prepared by Bob Nichols. This version contains significantly more details than the previous version, dated August 2004, introduced to the CBP last month. Due to the numerous changes that more clearly articulate the proposal, I recommend the CBP disregard comments I made last month.
The following highlights my thoughts regarding this paper.
Section One: Findings and Intent- The text summarizes the efforts by both the legislators and the various categories of stakeholders actively engaged in watershed based activities. This language should be used as a point of reference for all of us to periodically review and to remind us of our own intent.
Section Two: Definitions- Item 2 introduces and recognizes the concepts of salmon recovery planning and watershed planning as separate efforts under certain circumstances. This is important to the Chehalis Basin because we do not intend to pursue salmon recovery planning. Should this type of language be construed to mean a changing in philosophy at a higher level that investments should be made in areas to prevent degradation?
Item 3 defines watershed projects in broader terms. This language will allow for implementation of projects beyond the habitat restoration type of work primarily funded by the Salmon Recovery Funding Board. On paper this seems like the logical next step; however., some members of the CBP might find this approach objectionable and question not only the source of funding, but how it would effect exiscing program funding.
Section Three: Implementation of Salmon and Watershed Enhancement Plans Items 1 and 2 propose merging the watershed planning and salmon habitat restoration efforts and creating an implementation structure called the Salmon and Watershed Action Council (Council). This seems to compliment the vision for future/long term organizational structure of the CBP.
Item 3 describes formation and representation of the Council, which differs from the process used to form the Planning Units and Lead Entities. This may be of concern to the CBP because it describes initiating county gov . ernments as those that constitutes 15% or more of the geographic area. In the Chehalis Basin, only Lewis and Grays Harbor Counties constitute 15% or more of the area.
Item 6 describes a funding allocation which mirrors the process used by the SRFB. As long as the criterion does not benefit areas with listed species, this approach would favor the Chehalis Basin, The CBP should request more information to better understand the statement that additional staff may be provided where pooling of resources and economy of scale is demonstrated,
Section Four: Washington Salmon and Watershed Enhancement Board Essentially morphs the SRFB into a group that funds watershed projects with preference to salmon-related projects.
Item 3-If by July 2005, the Board begins to fund projects, but also needs to develop eligibility cciteria how will this occur without jeopardizing what should be the ip SRFB Round? I suspect the Board will defer the round until later in the year or into 2006, Would this be an issue for CBP project sponsors? This section includes ranking across watershed within a salmon recovery region as a criteria and allows the Board to establish further incentives for Regional Councils. This is not acceptable to the CBP and it conflicts with statements from the SRFB during the December 2, 2004 meeting.
Section Five: Salmon and Watershed Enhancement Ofrice-Acknowledges the sunset of the Governor's Salmon Recovery Office and creates a single office to promote and support implementation of watershed based projects.
Section Six: Instream Flows- The CBP opted to accept the instream flows established in accordance with the RCW with the caveat that we would continue to examine this issue as our planning process progressed and more flow data was gathered, The CBP will need to spend more time discussing its expectation regarding this issue,
Section Seven: Study Section-No comment
Section Eight: Mitigation Optimization: This section begins to formalize a process that has realized some successes already in the Chehalis Basin. If implemented, this section would encourage integrations of mitigation requirements into the water-shed and habitat implementation work of the Chehalis Basin. Trans Alta followed a similar process and worked with the Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force to develop and implement habitat restoration projects as part of their required mitigation,
Section Nine: Local Option Funding: No comment until the language is further
developed.
Section Ten: State Funding for Watershed Implementation: No comment until the
language is further developed.
At this time, I am not certain of the direction this concept paper may take, I am told that is will NOT be a Governor's request bill. It will become an "interagency concept paper" and potentially a transit tool for the new administration, With that stated, I am not certain how timely the CBP should be if they intend to submit comments,
This page created and maintained by Chehalis River Council
Send comments or questions to the: Chehalis River Council