III. A Road Map to Recovery
The Statewide
Strategy to Recover Salmon focuses on salmon, but at the same time recognizes
and addresses the importance of providing adequate and clean water for the
people of the state and healthy watersheds. The task at hand is about more than
protecting and restoring fish — it’s also about sustaining the quality of life
we have come to expect.
This chapter
describes how activities addressing human threats can fit together into a
comprehensive salmon recovery strategy. The factors limiting recovery vary,
however, from watershed to watershed, from river to river, and even from river
reach to river reach. Any one of the “four Hs” — habitat, harvest, hatcheries
and hydropower —
can be the main
cause limiting recovery of a particular salmon population. Regional, watershed,
and site-specific efforts are the appropriate level of response to address
human factors and to design salmon protection and recovery programs. A
framework is outlined for development and implementation of comprehensive
regional salmon recovery plans; state, federal and local watershed management
initiatives; and ESA compliance approaches.
This chapter also
examines the role of science, the various contexts for application of “best
available science,” and outlines a scientifically-based conceptual framework
for the strategy. The Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon and its related
regional and watershed plans should be viewed as adaptive management —
experiments on a large and long-term scale. The specific problems faced by
different salmon species and populations are being identified, and objectives
and actions to address them are being defined. Monitoring and evaluation plans
are being developed. The approach used by the Strategy sets deliberate courses
of action to address key questions and to generate needed information to
improve decision-making.
Current
Conditions
Regulatory Framework
Although there are
many laws with mandates that either directly or indirectly attempt to protect
or restore salmon and their habitats, the troubling status of these fish is an
indication that our existing regulatory framework and implementing agencies
have been unable to protect salmon populations and their ecosystems. Some of
the failures are due to the complexity and difficulty in addressing ecosystems
— interconnections are either ignored or not well understood. Decisions may
have been made in the past which favor development or the status quo because of
scientific uncertainty or the inability to resolve conflicts between economic
development and environmental protection. Other problems arise due to lack of
enforceability, coordination, comprehensiveness, resources for implementation,
data and scientific information, and public support. Fortunately, salmon are
very adaptive and have incredible survival skills.
Following are some
examples of current laws which affect salmon:
·
Laws dealing
with land and water use and development — State: Environmental Policy Act,
Shoreline Management Act, Growth Management Act, Floodplain Management Act,
Forest Practices Act, Water Pollution Control Act, Hydraulic Project Approval,
Aquatic Lands Act, Water Code and Water Resources Act; Federal: National
Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water Act, Federal Reclamation Act, Coastal
Zone Management Act, Rivers and Harbors Act, Food Security Act, Federal Power
Act, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and many more.
·
Laws pertinent
to fish and wildlife protection — In addition to some of the above, such as
State Environmental Policy Act and Hydraulic Project Approval: the federal Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act, The Northwest Power Act, the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation Act, The Endangered Species Act, and the Marine Mammal
Protection Act .
·
Recently
enacted legislation — Three acts passed in the last year were designed
specifically to improve conditions for salmon recovery. These key pieces of
legislation recognized the need for comprehensive, scientifically-based,
coordinated, collaborative, incentive-based and locally-implemented solutions:
o
Salmon Recovery
Planning Act (ESHB 2496): Passed in 1998, the Act provides the framework for
developing restoration projects. It requires a limiting factors analysis for
habitat restoration be completed, and establishes a funding mechanism for local
habitat restoration projects. It also creates the Governor’s Salmon Recovery
Office. The office’s primary purpose is to coordinate and assist in the
development of salmon recovery plans for Evolutionary Significant Units (ESUs)
and submit those plans to NMFS, USFWS and appropriate tribal governments. The
Salmon Recovery Office is obligated to prepare a State of the Salmon Report by
December 2000. The bill also calls for the creation of an Independent Science
Panel to provide scientific review of salmon recovery efforts in the state. The
panel will provide independent and objective scientific advice to inform
decision-making, separated as much as possible from economic, historic,
cultural or political factors. This will help increase the level of credibility
and public trust in Washington’s salmon strategy and regional
conservation/restoration responses.
o
Watershed
Planning Act (ESHB 2514): This legislation, created in 1998, encourages
voluntary planning by local governments, citizens, and tribes for water supply
and use, water quality, and habitat at the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA)
or multi-WRIA level. Grants are available to conduct assessments of water
resources and develop goals and objectives for future water resource
management.
o
Salmon Recovery
Funding Act (2E2SSB 5595): This legislation further developed concepts
established in ESHB 2496. A Salmon Recovery Funding Board is established to
localize salmon funding in one board. This Board will make decisions about base
level allocations across regions, and will deliver funds for projects and
activities based on a science-driven, competitive process. The legislation
further clarified what must be considered in a Statewide Strategy to Recover
Salmon, and directs the Governor, with the assistance of the Salmon Recovery
Office, to submit this document to NMFS and USFWS.
·
Pacific Salmon
Treaty — This Treaty is negotiated among Washington, Oregon, Alaska, tribes,
and the federal governments of the U.S. and Canada. The outcomes of these
discussions impact fish stocks and harvest in both western Washington and the
Columbia Basin.
Cooperative Efforts by fisheries
CO-Managers
Since 1992, the
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the tribal co-managers have been
implementing a Wild Stock Recovery Initiative, including Stock Inventories
(SASSI and SaSI) and a Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Inventory Project (SSHIAP).
The co-managers are nearing completion of comprehensive species management
plans for Puget Sound coho and chinook, Hood Canal and the Strait of Juan de
Fuca summer chum and Lake Ozette sockeye. Each of these plans examines limiting
factors and identifies needed habitat activities, but they concentrate on
actions in the harvest and hatcheries areas, including comprehensive hatcheries
planning. In December 1997 the WDFW and some western Washington treaty tribes
adopted a Wild Salmonid Policy to provide general policy guidance to managers
on fish harvest, hatchery operations, and habitat protection and restoration
measures to better protect wild salmon runs.
Regional Response
Regional and local
salmon recovery plans are the way the Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon will
be put to work and make salmon recovery a reality, now and for the future.
Every one of the salmon recovery regions is different and unique, but they hold
one thing in common: each is required to recover salmon within its boundaries
and to make decisions about what needs to be done in the area. All across the
state, new partnerships to recover salmon are emerging. Federal, state and
local governments, tribes, businesses and citizen groups are crafting plans,
implementing restoration projects, collecting data and monitoring habitat
conditions.
Washington State Salmon Recovery Regions
In consultation with
the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the National Marine Fisheries
Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Governor’s Salmon Recovery
Office has identified seven salmon recovery regions in the state; the Puget
Sound Region has been further divided into three sub-regions. Each salmon
recovery region is based on the salmon recovery needs within a specific
geographic area and includes existing Endangered Species Act listings, proposed
listings, and where there is a strong likelihood for future listings.
Regional
Salmon Recovery Entities
Although at this
time there are not many incentives for the various governmental jurisdictions
to pool their salmon recovery resources and create regional entities to oversee
effort, some regional efforts are underway. These include:
·
Salmon Recovery
Management Board (also known
as the Lower Columbia Fish Management Board) — ESHB 2836 created this fifteen
member Board to participate in the development of recovery plans for the Lower
Columbia Salmon Recovery Region. Members include a legislator; commissioners
from Cowlitz, Lewis, Wahkiakum, and Skamania Counties; a tribal representative;
a mayor; and citizen designees.
·
Hood Canal
Coordinating Council — This
group is coordinating the development of a habitat-related salmon recovery plan
for the ESA listed Hood Canal summer chum.
·
Tri-County
Executive Committee — Salmon
recovery efforts for the Central sub-region of the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery
Region are being coordinated by this group.
·
Douglas,
Okanogan, Chelan Counties and Tribes Habitat Recovery Board — Recently appointed by stakeholders to
coordinate habitat components of salmon recovery, this entity represents the
Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Region.
SALMON RECOVERY REGIONS
Science is Our Guide Role of Science Science is not an
outcome; it’s an approach to the pursuit of knowledge. Knowledge can be
acquired in various ways, but science typically operates under a series of
guiding concepts or rules. Scientists’ work includes developing a broad
understanding of the scientific literature on topics of interest and performing
rigorous empirical research or observations leading to theoretical analyses and
sound interpretations. This process is by nature self-correcting, where
hypotheses are formed based on clearly articulated assumptions and then are
systematically tested and either supported or rejected. The ability to build
upon previous work, to change course based on new findings or theories, and to
be able to test and re-test hypotheses and reproduce findings is a fundamental
aspect of science. High quality work that has passed the scrutiny of
independent peer review is published in scientific journals, books or other
scientific media. It is important to
emphasize that science is not a panacea for salmon recovery. Science can help
provide direction and answer some key questions, but should not be expected to
solve all problems. Science may simply not be able to answer some questions; in
some cases suitable technologies may not exist, and in others, results from
needed scientific investigations may take too long to be of help with current
problems. Uncertainty will always be a part of natural resource management. Best Available Science References to the
use of the “best available science” appear in various sections of the Statewide
Strategy to Recover Salmon. In addition, various state and federal laws and
regulations call for the use of “best available science.” In the context of the
Strategy, this means that the best scientific information available on a
subject will be used to inform related public policy decisions. Science-based Conceptual Foundation for the Salmon Strategy To ensure the
conservation strategies and actions of the Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon
have the best chance of achieving the desired outcomes, a strong conceptual
scientific foundation is required. A conceptual scientific foundation helps
clarify what is known and not known about watershed and ecosystem dynamics in
relation to salmon conservation and recovery. It provides a way to view needs
and issues using a more holistic, ecosystem approach, rather than in piecemeal
or single-issue fashion. A conceptual foundation provides the basis for
adaptive management and monitoring that links conservation strategies, critical
uncertainties, and related objectives and risks to key questions that can be
addressed with improved decision-making. It provides the lens through which
principles and approaches for recovery actions and decisions can be viewed. Scientific
principles will help guide a wide range of monitoring planning needs and
decisions, and will promote their integration. The principles will influence
identification of key questions and the relative priority of their answers to
salmon recovery, will shape the appropriate scale(s) of monitoring and
evaluation efforts, will help identify gaps and redundancies in monitoring
attributes, and will guide the selection of appropriate methods and analytical
approaches. Ultimately, use of the scientific framework will facilitate
understanding, coordination and cooperation among partners involved in the
salmon strategy. Scientific Review The five-member
Independent Science Panel, created to provide scientific review and oversight
of the state’s recovery effort, will review recovery plans at the request of
the Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office and will report to the Governor’s Office
and the Legislature. The panel will focus on scientific issues and will not
have authority to make policy decisions. Members were appointed by the Governor
in May, 1999. Science reviews, particularly at the project level, are
anticipated in 2E2SSB 5595 and plans are underway for integrating these with
other efforts. For example, the Northwest Power Planning Council uses an
Independent Scientific Advisory Board to provide scientific guidance on issues
associated with fish and wildlife restoration in the Columbia River Basin, and
an Independent Scientific Review Panel to assist with project review and
selection. The State of Oregon has formed an Independent Multidisciplinary
Science Team to advise on matters of science for the Oregon Salmon Plan.
Formation of a science panel is also being explored by parties in the central
Puget Sound area to address questions pertinent to recovery of fish in the
Puget Sound ecosystem. It will be in the best interests of parties in all areas
to ensure science panels are coordinated to achieve efficiencies, avoid
unnecessary duplication, and share relevant information in a timely manner. As will be discussed
further in the strategy, the use of scientific review groups is not the only
mechanism through which the Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon will receive
and use scientific information. State agencies and other partners can draw upon
their scientific resources in developing recovery strategies and plans.
Federal, tribal, state and local agencies have staff resources and existing
mechanisms for including scientific information in their processes and methods. Adaptive Management and Monitoring Science has a key
role to play in making decisions associated with salmon recovery. Decisions
will be informed by the best available scientific information. Information
obtained from monitoring the implementation and consequences of activities will
help determine whether strategies and actions are producing the desired results
so that decision-makers can affirm or change course as needed. Coordinated and
integrated data and information management systems will be implemented to help
make salmon recovery decisions and support adaptive management. To help meet
this need, 2E2SSB 5595 requires that salmon monitoring data be provided to the
Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Inventory and Assessment Project (SSHIAP). This
system will be used and expanded to acquire and integrate salmon habitat data
from a wide variety of sources, and streamline access to the data by all
interested parties. It will also integrate habitat information with stock
status information available from SaSI efforts. More information on adaptive
management and monitoring strategies can be found in a later chapter of this
document. Building Blocks for Salmon Recovery People of Washington
tend to agree that salmon recovery is an important goal to achieve, but there
is little consensus about how to get there. Current systems are particularly
criticized for their failures: lack of collective agreement on goals (“Where
are we going?”), inability to define success (“How will we know when we get
there?”), as well as general chaos of structure (“Who’s in charge?”). It is the
intent of the Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon to provide a coherent framework
— the foundation — upon which to lay other crucial building blocks so that we
may collectively build salmon recovery. Salmon recovery and
ESA response require partnerships at all levels. Certain actions are,
necessarily, state-initiated while others are local. The state building blocks
which locals will rely upon include those covered in the following chapters. It
is the intent of the state strategy that these partnerships reduce duplication
of efforts wherever possible; for example, when the state has achieved a level
of ESA protection for an action, and where locals are in conformance with state
standards and guidelines, then the same ESA protection will be extended to the
locals. It is this “umbrella effect,” combined with geographically-tailored actions,
which will make ESA compliance and salmon recovery achievable with the least
disruption. Essential building blocks for recovery include: Federal Recovery Plans and ESA Response National Marine
Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the Services) are
required by the Endangered Species Act to develop recovery plans for listed
species under their jurisdiction. They will also review the plans and actions
taken by state and local governments and grant certain protections under the
ESA. The Services are required to develop the biological standards that fish
require from each of the “4 Hs” — habitat, hatcheries, harvest and hydropower —
and also to describe how they will determine when fish are recovered — which is
the pinnacle of the pyramid (see p.34). The degree of protection granted state
and local governments will depend on how well the plans do in meeting recovery
goals developed by these federal agencies. NMFS’ “Working Guidance for
Comprehensive Salmon Restoration Initiatives on the Pacific Coast” identifies
three overarching components of a successful restoration strategy: ·
Its substantive
protective and conservation elements; ·
A high level of
certainty that the strategy will be reliably implemented, including necessary
authorities, commitments, funding, staffing and enforcement measures; and, ·
A comprehensive
monitoring program. NMFS further has
stated that the strategy will “greatly benefit from the existence of explicit
default measures whose implementation is certain should reasonable time frames
or other expectations not be met.” Statewide Strategy and Early Action Plans The Statewide
Strategy to Recover Salmon is the state vision of what needs to be done to
recover salmon. It is intended to present major elements of an agenda for
protection and restoration of salmon and aquatic resources. If these elements
are not successful or are not implemented, default measures have been
identified for some sections. Where they are not indicated, the state is still
debating options, from increasing enforcement, tightening restrictions on
important permits, or seeking new legislative authorities to correct the
problems.
BUILDING BLOCKS OF SALMON RECOVERY The
strategy is intended to: ·
Provide a forum
to address all factors, within state control, limiting salmon recovery. ·
Set statewide
goals and objectives for protection and restoration. ·
Identify major
policy and program changes and actions related to the “4 Hs.” ·
Identify
statewide initiatives, and regional and local watershed initiatives as the
mechanism for implementing the strategy. ·
Provide a
framework to effectively coordinate and integrate changes and actions to be
taken under all “4 Hs.” ·
Set joint
objectives for state agencies’ activities, such as cooperation to fully
integrate enforcement, monitoring and data collection activities. ·
Set framework
for priority setting and decision making. ·
Identify
actions, options or programmatic approaches that could lead to conservation of
salmon and protection of state, local, and/or private actions from legal
exposure under ESA. ·
Guide the formulation
and evaluation of early actions and long-term state implementation plans, and
regional and local responses. ·
Guide and
endorse the use of good science, adaptive management whenever significant
uncertainties exist about the best action or its effect, and implementation of
monitoring programs. Goal and Objectives of the Statewide Strategy to Recover
Salmon Goal ·
Restore salmon,
steelhead, and trout populations to healthy and harvestable levels and improve
habitats on which fish rely. Objectives ·
Develop and
implement a coordinated and balanced statewide strategy that moves aggressively
toward the goal while maintaining a healthy economy. ·
Use sound
scientific concepts, principles, and design approaches to guide development,
implementation, monitoring, and revision of statewide and regional conservation
frameworks and plans. ·
Collaborate
with tribes, local governments, and the private sector to integrate local
knowledge with flexibility and control at the local level into quantifiable
state and regional salmon recovery plans. Regional plans should detail the
desired future condition of the salmon resource and the future habitat
conditions needed to support it. Incentives will be provided to assist and
encourage development and implementation of regional structures. ·
Provide
guidelines and standards for use by local governments, which, if implemented,
will extend any ESA protections granted the state. ·
Monitor
progress of state agencies and regional bodies in developing and implementing
salmon recovery plans. In doing so, the state will provide technical,
enforcement, and financial support in the highest priority areas. ·
Compile
relevant components of state and regional salmon recovery and species
management plans into responses to NMFS for specific ESU listings. The outcome of
achieving these recovery objectives is not only healthy salmon runs that
support fisheries, but also healthy streams and rivers we all depend on. This,
in turn, will lead to compliance with the Endangered Species Act, which is
vital to state and local economies. Strong ownership in the locally-based,
geographic-specific regional salmon recovery plans is the key to achieving
these objectives. Guiding
Principles The Statewide
Strategy to Recover Salmon is being shaped using a wide range of fundamental
principles: ·
Use
collaborative, incentive-based approaches to recover salmon. Coupled with this,
the state will enhance enforcement of existing authorities to protect salmon
habitat. ·
Science will be
a guide, performance measures for recovery will be established, time lines for
achieving these measures will be clarified, and progress toward salmon recovery
goals will be monitored. ·
Where resource
risks are severe, take early and immediate actions as necessary to address key
factors for decline. ·
Where
insufficient effort is made to recover salmon or where performance measures are
not met after a reasonable period, the state should be prepared to take
necessary default actions. Early
Action Plan The strategy is the
guide to state agencies’ long-term implementation plans. An additional volume,
The Early Action Plan, contains specific activities state agencies will
undertake in the 1999-2001 biennium and the expected outcomes from those
actions. Many of those activities will directly benefit local recovery efforts.
These early actions form the first chapter in long-term implementation plans
currently under development, and are the foundation for ESA compliance
strategies. Although these compliance actions will require a mosaic of federal,
state, and local conservation and protection measures to be taken, pursuit of
these actions will proceed concurrently with recovery activities. The state
approach to achieving ESA compliance is: ·
Pursue
programmatic (instead of project-by-project) approaches, grouping activities,
projects, programs, and/or entities whenever possible. ·
Focus the
state’s compliance efforts first on programs under direct state jurisdiction. ·
Avoid doing
further harm to listed species by strengthening regulatory policies and
activities to avoid, minimize and mitigate human impacts on salmon habitat;
adopting standards and conditions to address impacts — including incremental
effects — and providing consistency in decisions; implementing early actions to
provide immediate and substantial salmon protection; and enforcing existing
regulatory programs. Setting
Priorities Determining how
priorities will be set is a fundamental issue in developing the Statewide
Strategy to Recover Salmon. The Strategy cannot be implemented to the same
extent in all places at the same time. Given the nature and extent of the
problems faced by Washington’s salmon, the need for funding and other resources
will always be greater than what’s available. Decisions must and will be made
to allocate available resources to specific activities and areas over time. At
the state level, priority decisions for each program related to salmon recovery
are now made independently by each agency using program-specific criteria on a
case-by-case, project-by-project basis. In the future, coordination will occur
to effectively set priorities for the “four Hs” of salmon recovery — habitat,
harvest, hatcheries and hydropower. The Joint Natural
Resources Cabinet adopted the following guidance for allocating resources for
salmon habitat protection and restoration: ·
Allocate a
greater portion of new state and federal funds to habitat protection than to
habitat restoration. ·
Use scientific
principles and information consistent with recovery of healthy salmon
populations as the basis to identify and establish geographic priorities for
habitat protection and restoration. ·
Allocate most
new state and federal funds for salmon habitat protection and restoration to
higher priority geographic areas. ·
Provide
continuing technical and financial support to ensure that decisions within high
priority areas are scientifically sound. ·
Prioritization
approaches should be based on scientific principles and information that
emphasize salmon recovery in high priority areas, while also addressing
potential Endangered Species Act (ESA) liabilities of local governments and
others. 2E2SSB 5595 created
a Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) which will be comprised of ten members,
five of which are voting members appointed by the Governor, subject to Senate confirmation. The other five members
will represent the Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Transportation, Ecology,
Natural Resources and the Washington State Conservation Commission. The Board
will be responsible for developing procedures and criteria for the allocation
of funds, including priorities and geographic distribution. It will also make
grants and loans for salmon habitat projects and recovery activities. The Board will
develop, refine and implement the framework for prioritization, and rely on
scientific information to ensure funds are allocated for use on the highest
priority activities. However, many details pertaining to the implementation of
the legislation and related activities are still under development. Local planning and
decisions developed under the Watershed Management Act (ESHB 2514), the 1998
Salmon Recovery Planning Act (ESHB 2496), and 2E2SSB 5595 will determine
priorities for habitat protection and restoration projects and actions within
WRIAs or watersheds. To ensure coverage of marine as well as freshwater habitat
issues, planning processes for WRIAs that discharge to saltwater should also
set priorities for local estuaries and nearshore marine areas. State agencies
will provide technical and financial support to local decision processes. To ensure a level of
statewide consistency in setting priorities, the state may also provide
guidance on the minimum elements that should be present in a local WRIA or
watershed priority-setting process. These minimum elements include: 1)
consideration of science-based principles and analyses; 2) use of best
available data; and 3) a collaborative and open public process. The science-based
principles include: 1) freedom for stream channel movement; 2) consideration of
the time needed for regeneration of the natural processes that salmon are
dependent upon at various life stages; 3) maintaining biological diversity; 4)
improving connectivity of critical habitats; 5) analysis of the overall
landscape context of the watershed; and 6) incorporating the needs and impacts
of people in the analysis and priority-setting process. Monitoring
and Adaptive Management The Governor’s
Salmon Recovery Office will coordinate and assist in the development of state
and regional salmon recovery responses. Monitoring the implementation and
effectiveness of these is essential at both a regional and at a watershed
scale. It is important to remember that regional salmon recovery will reflect
an ongoing and evolving process, not an endpoint. Regional
Recovery Responses To achieve recovery
objectives, regional salmon recovery plans are needed that build upon watershed
plans and data to address all of the factors necessary for salmon recovery
within each region. The number of fish caught both commercially and
recreationally, as well as hatchery management, must be coordinated with
habitat protection and restoration. Priorities for actions and funding must be
set. The more this is coordinated, the more efficient and effective the effort
will be. Discussions are
on-going to develop incentives which encourage “regionalizing” salmon recovery
efforts. Some possibilities include: ·
Improved
efficiency of state-region actions. As problems arise within a recovery region,
the state will more quickly and effectively assist a regional council than a
number of competing jurisdictions. ·
Increased
effectiveness of regional councils in legislative and congressional
discussions. ·
Funding through
block grants or other mechanisms may be encouraged for regional councils. ·
Federal
agencies reviewing regional response plans for contributions to salmonid
recovery and for ESA compliance require planning to address all issues across
an ESU. The likelihood of swifter review and a favorable response is increased
when all levels of government agree on a course of action that does not contain
competing plans. Watershed
Biological Assessments, Monitoring Plans and Activities It is important to
recognize that local habitat protection and restoration projects are proceeding
concurrent with watershed assessment and the development of the broader
regional planning framework. Watershed assessment, planning and management
provide an opportunity to improve and protect water quality, habitat and
instream flows. All partners will need to ensure these local processes use resources
effectively, monitor implementation effectiveness, identify local needs and
opportunities, and coordinate existing as well as new efforts. Extinction is Not an Option Restoring and
protecting wild salmon populations and their habitats in perpetuity, with or
without ESA listings, will not be easy or inexpensive. Effective conservation
and recovery of wild salmon stocks and their watersheds must occur as specific
critical factors or ecosystem functions and processes limiting natural
production are identified. Several recurring
themes underlie the Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon. All of Washington’s
citizens and governments have a role to play. To accomplish the goal of the
Strategy: ·
We need to
determine our own future If we do not act to save our salmon we will be depending on the federal
government and federal courts to decide the future — not only of salmon but
also of our watersheds and the communities within them. ·
We must make
tough choices We are not going to save salmon by talking about it. We must make
changes in the way we conduct our lives in our communities and our watersheds.
These changes must result in improvement to salmon habitat, and include how we
use our water, where we build our homes, how we harvest our timber and how we farm.
We are also going to have to change how we manage harvests of salmon. ·
We must
undertake significant effort and provide adequate funding It is going to take a lot of hard work to protect and restore our
salmon. The kinds of change that are needed will not and cannot happen without
extraordinary efforts. In addition, saving our salmon will not be free.
Protecting and restoring salmon habitat will require substantial investments. ·
We are all
in this together Saving our salmon is not about blaming anyone. We are all part of the
problem and we must all be part of the solution. Each of us must come to
understand the impacts we have on salmon and the opportunities we have to
contribute to their protection and restoration. Most importantly, a
successful strategy will require four key ingredients: use of science as a
guide, collaborative decision-making, increased public understanding and
engagement, and collective energy to challenge the status quo.
Areas with Salmon, trout, or steelhead that are listed, proposed for listing, or have a high potential for future listing under the Endangered Species Act.
Back to Summary Contents