 |
1994 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program |
| Council document 94-55 | |
 |
|
7.7 Cooperative Habitat Protection and Improvement with Private Landowners
The Council has adopted the following as a program habitat goal: Ensure human activities affecting production of salmon and steelhead in each subbasin are coordinated on a comprehensive watershed management basis. The Council does not view comprehensive watershed management as a planning process. It is a way of doing business that allows for coordination of the goals and objectives of all interests in order to use available natural, human and fiscal resources in the most beneficial manner. Thereby, investments in development and usage of resources in a subbasin, including production of salmon and steelhead, will benefit.
Comprehensive watershed management should enhance and expedite implementation of actions by clearly identifying gaps in programs and knowledge, by striving over time to resolve conflicts, and by keying on activities that address priorities. A long-term commitment from all local, state and regional entities interested in each subbasin will be necessary. This effort cannot be viewed as something to be accomplished quickly or having an endpoint. It will need to evolve over time to become truly comprehensive. To succeed, it must become institutionalized in each subbasin.
The Council believes that protection and improvement of habitat on private lands is an essential component of comprehensive watershed management. A key to this approach is the voluntary action of the owners of these lands. Without explicit, direct involvement of private landowners in identification and implementation of habitat actions, protection and improvement of habitat on private lands has little chance of success.
During investigation of habitat issues, the Council was impressed with the number of private initiatives to protect the fisheries habitat in the region. These include activities to prevent erosion, as typified in the Tucannon River Subbasin, as well as other programs conducted by local conservation districts, Oregon governor's Watershed Enhancement Board, Trout Unlimited, Long Live the Kings, the Adopt-a-Stream Foundation, Wallowa Basin Salmon Recovery Plan, Grande Ronde Model Watershed Action Plan, Asotin Creek Model Watershed Plan, Upper Salmon Model Watershed, Tucannon/Pataha Model Watershed, and others. The Council applauds these worthy efforts to involve different affected interests in development, implementation and funding of coordinated habitat protection and improvement activities. These types of activities need to occur in every subbasin and on a more comprehensive level.
The Council recognizes that some public lands are held under constitutionally imposed trust obligations. For example, the Washington Department of Natural Resources is obligated to manage lands to provide funds for schools as set forth in Skamania County v. Department of Natural Resources. Similarly, the Oregon Constitution mandates the state to manage its forest lands primarily to replenish the state's common school fund. In such cases, the Council urges the trustee to develop habitat conservation plans to the full extent of its authority in order to address applicable trust obligations. These plans should be coordinated and consistent with watershed approaches developed for the subbasin in which it occurs.
In addition, the Council is aware that in urban, suburban and areas of developed small plot ownership, the habitat objectives set forth in this rule may not be fully attainable. An example is riparian areas covered substantially by structures. In such cases, watershed approaches developed under this program should seek to obtain the maximum habitat protection and restoration that is possible under programs such as the Natural Resource Conservation Service's best management practices.
- Local role: A locally based, bottom-up, voluntary approach for protection and improvement of habitat on private lands is needed. The coordinated resource management approach is an example of the type of program that might provide the basis for such an approach. This process brings together local landowners and key interests in a facilitated forum to identify goals for improving and managing lands within a geographic area of common interest.
- State role: Statewide lead entities, such as the state conservation commissions or other appropriate bodies, should be identified to facilitate coordinated habitat protection and improvement with private landowners. Collaborate with local watershed committees in watershed planning and implementation, and provide funding, technical advice and assistance. In addition, the Council's model watersheds should complement these efforts.
- Federal role: Coordination of watershed activities will include an important role for federal agencies, in collaboration with state, local and tribal authorities and local watershed committees. Activities on federal and private lands must be coordinated and consistent to achieve comprehensive watershed management. In addition, federal funding of activities on private and public lands must continue and at increased levels. The Council is committed to supporting efforts in this regard. Also, it is expected that coordination of activities on private lands will result in approaches that complement and comply with the requirements for habitat recovery plans under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act. This will require coordination of watershed activities with the National Marine Fisheries Service.
- Tribal role: In the last century, individual tribes ceded large tracts of traditional lands in the Columbia River Basin to the federal government. During this process, the tribes retained rights, among others, to harvest fish, wildlife and plants. Management of watersheds in a manner that continues to produce these resources is critical to tribal cultures and to obligations to comply with tribal rights. Therefore, the full involvement of tribes in developing and maintaining local and regional watershed approaches on reservation and ceded lands should occur. The experience of tribes as stewards of watersheds for thousands of years will also be important to the ultimate success of watershed approaches.
- Council role: The Council expects that coordination of watershed activities will result in identification of projects to improve and protect habitat on private lands. These projects should be submitted directly to the Council to allow for the necessary subbasin and regional coordination. The Council will review these submissions to identify appropriate funding sources and to help ensure prompt, coordinated implementation of appropriate projects. The Council, in identifying funding sources for private-landowner projects, will take into consideration, to the extent possible, whether the private land is being managed in accordance with applicable federal and state laws such as the Endangered Species Act and state water quality standards.
7.7A Coordination of Watershed Activities
Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington
7.7A.1 Each state should select a lead entity, such as the state conservation commission or other appropriate entity, to support local subbasin efforts to coordinate watershed activities. This support should include providing technical or other resources, coordinating state agencies involvement and ensuring consistency with state law and policies. The local subbasin efforts should include all interested parties and work with appropriate model watershed groups. They should develop and implement approaches, such as the coordinated resource management approach, for coordinating watershed activities. These efforts should include consideration of the salmon and steelhead integrated and subbasin plans and other relevant documents. Report on these efforts to the Council, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service for review.
Bonneville
7.7A.2 Provide initial funding for one or more coordinators in each of the states of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington to initiate efforts to coordinate watershed activities. These coordinators may also coordinate development of model watersheds (see Section 7.7B, below). Appropriate coordinating entities include tribes, conservation districts, county governments, as well as other entities.
Council, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service
7.7A.3 Coordinate review of local watershed coordination effort reports for consistency with other activities in the appropriate subbasin and the region. Identify funding sources and assist in obtaining funding for appropriate activities. Appendix A contains a listing of potential funding sources.
Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington
7.7A.4 Each state should identify at least one focus subbasin to apply the approaches developed in the model watersheds (Section 7.7B) for implementation starting in 1995. Submit proposed focus subbasins by the end of March 1995. In addition, each state submit by the end of August 1996 at least one additional focus subbasin for implementation starting in 1997. Upon Council approval, implement watershed approaches in these focus subbasins. Implement watershed approaches applying the requirements of Section 7.7B and in a manner that ensures the sustainability of ongoing model watersheds and other watershed approaches. Focus subbasins will be coordinated by coordinators identified through measure 7.7A.2.
National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
7.7A.5 In consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency, Bonneville, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Soil Conservation Service, Council and other appropriate entities, continue to develop an approach to habitat conservation plans that will satisfy the mandate of the Endangered Species Act. Report to the Council regarding this approach by March 31, 1995.
Soil Conservation Service
7.7A.6 Compile a report documenting the implementation of all watershed restoration approaches involving private lands in the Columbia River Basin. Include in the report identification of entities involved, approaches used, funding sources and other pertinent information. Submit report to the Council by April 30, 1995, and by January 15 annually thereafter.
7.7B Model Watersheds
Bonneville
7.7B.1 Provide initial funding for at least one model watershed coordinator selected by each respective state. These coordinators may also coordinate watershed activities described in Section 7.7A.
Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington
7.7B.2 Each state should select a coordinating entity for each model watershed project, such as the state conservation commission, a tribe or other appropriate entity. The Council expects that the experience gained in the model watersheds will result in progress toward implementing a watershed approach for other subbasins. The Council understands that fully attaining a watershed approach will take decades, but incremental progress toward this end should be apparent every year. At the same time, the Council encourages experimenting with these approaches and recognizes that not all experiments will provide positive results. This is the essence of adaptive management, which is a basic premise of the program. The Council believes that accomplishment of certain elements in the first year of implementation of each model is critical to success. It expects the coordinating entity to ensure that each model accomplishes the following critical elements during the first year of implementation:
- Identify all parties with an interest in each model watershed. Set up procedures to ensure that all these parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the development and implementation of the model watershed. Convene a watershed conference that includes all parties with an interest in the model watershed.
- Compile all existing plans, programs, policies, laws and other appropriate authorities that relate to comprehensive watershed management in each model watershed.
- Identify gaps and conflicts in the existing plans, programs, policies, laws and other appropriate authorities that hinder comprehensive watershed management in each model watershed.
- Set out a path and procedures for filling gaps and addressing conflicts.
- Identify key factors limiting salmon and steelhead productivity.
- Identify priority on-the-ground actions to address key limiting factors.
- Compile a list of all human and fiscal resources that are potentially available for protection and improvement of habitat for the model watershed. Include on the list all potential federal, state, local government, and other public sources as well as private sources such as local businesses that rely on natural resources in those watersheds. Coordinate this activity on a regional and state level, as appropriate.
- Provide for the involvement of volunteers and educational institutions in the implementation of projects.
7.7B.3 By the second year, begin implementation of priority on-the-ground actions that address key limiting factors for salmon and steelhead production through the implementation planning process (see Section 3.1B). In addition, initiate procedures for filling gaps and addressing conflicts.
7.7B.4 Each state should report individually to the Council annually by October 15 on progress in each model watershed. Include in the report an overview prepared by the coordinating entity for each model watershed. Detail knowledge gained through experience in the subbasin that could be useful for developing comprehensive watershed management in other subbasins. Specifically address progress and accomplishments for each item bulleted in Section 7.7B.2.