More
than 20,000 volunteers are working with state agencies on habitat restoration
and water pollution prevention, and taking other actions to support salmon
survival. Thousands more work through county and city governments, conservation
districts and civic groups.
The
state resource and education agencies offer programs to help citizens develop
knowledge and skills necessary to take personal responsibility for protecting
salmon. The state is committed to helping build local knowledge in communities
and among landowners, and to couple that with scientific information,
education, skill-building and technical support.
Every
one of the state’s resource and educational agencies has responded to the
growing salmonid crisis by increasing educational efforts, placing additional
emphasis on salmon in current education and volunteer programs, and developing
new tools for education and public participation in salmon recovery.
To
expand these efforts, the state proposes to:
·
Expand the Governor’s Council on Environmental Education to
include a Volunteers and Education committee to coordinate state agency
volunteer activities.
·
Create a program to train volunteers.
·
Support a statewide information clearinghouse on salmon
recovery and related volunteer activities.
·
To inform, build support, involve and mobilize citizens to
assist in restoration, conservation and enhancement of salmon habitat.
·
Organize a statewide coalition of individuals, groups,
associations and governments that will work together to educate the public
about salmon recovery.
·
Inform the public about the condition of steelhead and
salmon, and how the public can be involved in their recovery.
·
Inform the public about the ramifications of having
Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed salmon, steelhead and trout in their
watersheds.
·
Promote and enhance volunteer resources needed to implement
recovery efforts.
·
The Governor’s Council on Environmental Education will be
expanded to include a Volunteers and Education committee, reflecting the key
element of successful environmental education: giving people the knowledge,
skills and support to do something positive about salmon recovery.
·
The Governor’s Salmon Team has played the key role in
organizing a broad collaboration of agency and civic groups to work on
education and outreach statewide. (The coalition is described in the next
section of this chapter.)
·
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is the
agency with primary responsibility for fish, and considers salmon education a
major priority in its continuing programs.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife provides
technical assistance and other resources to fisheries enhancement groups —
volunteers whose major focus is salmonid restoration and propagation. These
enhancement groups are eligible for funds from the Aquatic Lands Enhancement
Account to undertake projects ranging from removal of fish passage barriers to
habitat restoration.
WDFW
also maintains a “Salmon in the Classroom” program, which puts refrigerated
aquaria and salmon eggs into classrooms to help students learn about salmon
life cycles and help restore habitat. In some cases, this has led to salmon
returning to streams after absences as long as 30 years.
The
agency continues to offer angling education, with a heavy emphasis on water
quality and other habitat aspects. This program focuses on training adults who
then teach other adults and youth.
Under
WDFW’s Education and Outreach theme of “Helping People Help Fish and Wildlife,”
the following education activities are completed or underway:
·
Selective fisheries brochure
·
Salmon Volunteer Management: Tips on How to Make it Easier
·
“Salmon Smart,” the WDFW volunteer manual.
·
Aquatic WILD Teacher training: Offering more than 15
workshops to teachers per year with emphasis on wild salmon
·
“Your Impact on Salmon,” a salmon self-assessment tool for
multiple audiences to examine how they impact salmon and determine how they can
change their behavior to help salmon.
·
Salmon Education Trunks: With three themes: Salmon Are
Essential, Salmon Are Endangered, and Salmon Recovery with WDFW, these are
activity packets with materials provided for the educator/employee to use to
teach children, youth and novice adults.
·
Speaker’s Bureau on Salmon Recovery: including a WDFW slide
show on salmon recovery for eastern and western Washington audiences.
·
Salmon Rescue: a children’s coloring book on salmon in
danger, and what individuals and communities can do for salmon.
·
WDFW’s Salmon Recovery Display: a 7’x9' salmon recovery
display which is interactive and appeals to multiple audiences.
New
initiatives include:
·
Master Watershed Stewards: a volunteer training and
management program that WDFW has successfully piloted with WSU Cooperative
Extension over the past three years and wants to now develop into a full
extension and outreach program.
·
Nature Mapping for Fish and Streams: Complements the WDFW
“Nature Mapping for Wildlife” program which has citizens (youth and adults)
collecting data and monitoring wildlife. The WDFW priority is to find out which
salmon recovery monitoring data are needed that volunteers can collect, and
incorporate this into the volunteer program and the Master Watershed Stewards
training.
·
Hatcheries as Salmon Environmental Learning Centers: WDFW
will be working to provide educational programs to school groups and adults
visiting hatcheries.
The Department of Ecology is the agency
with primary responsibility for water. Ecology supports watershed education for
adults in select counties, provides technical education for small businesses
which deal with hazardous chemicals (photo shops, dry cleaners, auto service
businesses, etc.), and underwrites community education through many Centennial
Clean Water Fund grants to local groups.
For
teachers and youth, Ecology offers training to teachers in using Project WET, a
watershed education program for classrooms, and two other classroom-oriented
curricula on wetlands, waste reduction and recycling. Ecology has helped launch
water festivals in several communities, which include teaching about and
celebrating salmon.
Ecology
also maintains Watch Over Washington, an electronic Web site aimed at
environmental volunteers who monitor water quality, wildlife, fish and wildlife
habitat, and other environmental parameters.
Ecology
offers a wide range of public educational programs at Padilla Bay National
Estuarine Research Reserve, teaching people of all ages about natural
environmental processes, including salmon. Ecology is a key partner with local
agencies in using posters and ads on all media about pollution prevention in Puget
Sound.
Finally,
Ecology leads an annual autumn interagency and civic collaboration called
WaterWeeks, which supports and publicizes community education and events
focused on water and watersheds.
The Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team (PSWQAT) coordinates
efforts to clean up Puget Sound. Through the Public Information and Education
(PIE) program, contracts are awarded to local governments, tribes, businesses,
civic and neighborhood groups to educate about local problems and bring about
local solutions.
Contractors
have organized and trained volunteers and professionals to restore salmon
habitat by:
·
replanting riparian areas
·
building fish ladders
·
removing fish passage barriers in selected streams
·
adding large woody debris to salmon streams
·
stopping or preventing water pollution from on-site sewage
systems
·
reducing chemical use in homes and private and public
gardens
·
adopting streams
·
using best methods during construction to reduce run-off and
pollution from building sites
·
monitoring chemical and biological water quality
·
inventorying wetlands and streams and nearshore areas for
restoration and protection
·
planting eelgrass for fish habitat
·
reducing water use in businesses and homes
·
enabling citizens to bring sewage treatment systems into
communities to replace failing septic systems
PSWQAT
will continue a special effort to educate local government officials on the
importance of nearshore areas to salmonids and ecosystem health.
The State Parks and Recreation Commission provides
environmental education and training on park lands, often in cooperation with
local environmental education and natural science groups. As a result, trained
volunteers now monitor intertidal zones on beaches, manage nature centers and
offer science and local history programs to the general public, undertake beach
and park clean-ups, and teach restoration to others in their communities.
The Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has
several efforts relevant to salmon recovery. The Environmental Affairs Office
trains college students to monitor wetlands created as mitigation for road
construction, and provide data to WSDOT. This new program is being expanded
from a single university to others in the state. WSDOT is also a major
supporter and participant in planning WaterWeeks with the Department of
Ecology.
The Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) educates
and trains youth and adults about forest ecosystems, geology, agriculture, fire
ecology, aquatic lands and many other topics.
DNR’s
volunteer coordination program works with civic groups to have them adopt
trails, revegetate lands and other actions. DNR provides training, staff
support and tools. For example, DNR works on a continuing basis with students,
schools and communities in the Hood Canal area to map, revegetate and restore
riparian areas and streams where wild salmonids still exist, and to monitor
those efforts for success.
Educational
components of existing programs include teaching stewardship to small woodlot
owners, supporting school programs which integrate environmental knowledge and
skills, and coordinating and promoting Arbor Day tree-planting programs. In
addition, DNR offers workshops and classroom materials to teachers of sixth
through twelfth grade, called “Discover Washington’s Natural Resources.” The
curriculum focuses on the integration of natural resource topics, including
salmon, and offers suggestions for stewardship projects.
DNR
provides grants through the Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account to local
governments and tribes, ports and state agencies for improving public access to
water, habitat improvement and acquisition. The current grant cycle criteria
will prioritize projects focused on critical components of salmon habitat.
The Washington Department of Health (DOH) is
preparing new water conservation materials for distribution by water purveyors
and users who lack access to other information sources. The materials will be
given to water companies and others for distribution to the general public
through mailings and at public meetings and events. DOH supports protection of
water quality by educating water purveyors, county health departments, private
and public owners of beaches and swimming waters, and other entities whose
activities are related to human environmental health and which influence
salmonid health.
Washington State University Cooperative Extension offers adult
education about watersheds, soil and water, agriculture and home gardening,
forest stewardship and salmonids, and other aspects of environmental and human
health. Cooperative Extension has a team of water quality agents who specialize
in water-related education.
In
several counties, WSU Cooperative Extension provides comprehensive watershed
courses tailored to the local ecosystem to teach about local environmental
processes, economics and society. These classes, known generically as Master
Watershed Stewards, require students to share their knowledge after completing
the classes. Stewards subsequently undertake habitat restoration, water quality
monitoring and nearshore monitoring, and provide education to others in
conjunction with local, state and federal agencies, and civic groups.
WSU
Cooperative Extension has also established an Email listserver as a source of
good information on salmon including restoration, ESA, meetings and
conferences, workshops, grants and other resources and events.
Washington Sea Grant (based at the University of Washington),
and Cooperative Extension are jointly sponsoring classes in basic knowledge
about salmon for professionals who are teaching adults and youth, and who need
to incorporate salmon knowledge into their own teaching.
Washington State University’s Center for Environmental
Education works with schools, communities and tribes on habitat
restoration and water quality protection in the Snake River watershed and in
other parts of the Columbia watershed.
Under
the Government Council on Natural Resources (GCNR), an Education and Outreach
Committee was created to develop comprehensive and cooperative public education
and volunteer support programs. The committee is made up of representatives of
state, federal and local government agencies and councils, tribes, public
utilities, regional fisheries enhancement groups, non-profit groups, and others
working on education, volunteer efforts, information and public involvement
activities for salmon recovery.
The
coalition’s overall mission is to inform, build support, involve and mobilize
citizens to assist in restoration, conservation and enhancement of salmon
habitat. The three main goals are:
·
Inform the public about the condition of steelhead and
salmon, how it affects their own lives and how they can be involved in salmon
recovery.
·
Inform the public about the impacts of the Endangered
Species Act — listed salmon, steelhead and trout in their watersheds.
·
Promote, expand and enhance volunteer resources needed to
implement recovery efforts.
The
coalition has established a Puget Sound area information clearinghouse on
salmon recovery, with a toll-free phone number and a Website for the general
public.
Effectiveness
measures will be developed and monitored by the coalition, based on the
following intended results:
·
An informed public that understands:
o
The condition of wild salmonids
o
The consequences of having ESA-listed salmonids in their
watersheds
·
A mobilized public that:
o
Works in support of salmon restoration
o
Contributes resources toward salmon restoration
o
Changes current practices and behaviors to support
restoration and preservation
The
GCNR Education and Outreach Committee has recommended a model for measuring
program effectiveness. This model would:
·
Establish criteria to evaluate the end result (changes in
the factors that impact salmon recovery, such as habitat restoration).
·
Identify the audience(s) and document and evaluate responses
to the activities of programs provided.
·
Assess the ability of the strategy and programs to acquire
the necessary resources (staff time, volunteer time, money, materials, etc.) to
offer the educational activities or tools to audiences.
A
subgroup of the coalition is working on a plan to implement the model as the
evaluation tool for the education and outreach strategy.
The
State of Washington faces major challenges relating to salmon and trout
resources that, if not effectively addressed, will have serious ecological,
economic and social consequences. Accelerated declines in fish populations are
occurring throughout the state. Habitat loss, environmental degradation, and
significant illegal activities, including illegal harvest, are among the most
significant factors that have contributed to precipitous declines in fish
populations and have led to Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings. (See
Background: Setting the Context chapter.)
Successful
recovery and restoration of salmon will hinge upon implementation of, and
compliance with, state environmental and resource regulations. However,
enforcement efforts by the regulatory agencies is highly variable, leading to
significant compliance problems in a number of critical environmental and
resource programs. The various natural resource compliance programs (water
resources, nonpoint water quality, forest practices, hydraulic permits, harvest
and mineral resources) reflect a broad range of staffing levels and approaches,
ranging from complaint-based responses to having dedicated staff located
throughout the state providing variable levels of service (education,
monitoring, enforcement, etc.).
Recent
court decisions in Washington and the Pacific Northwest make it clear that
voluntary programs and good intentions alone will not be enough to satisfy
federal standards and species protection and recovery. The state must have a
credible compliance and enforcement element in any salmon recovery strategy
(statewide, regional or watershed).
Natural
resource law enforcement at Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife:
Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) carries out its hydraulics permit
issuance through biologists in the field, who also handle first response to
problems. Enforcement programs are carried out by the Department’s commissioned
officers working in communities around the state. These officers are
responsible for enforcing all of Department of Fish and Wildlife’s programs
including: Hydraulic Project Approvals, fishing and hunting regulations,
habitat protection, and resolving potentially dangerous human and wildlife
conflicts. The Department’s enforcement philosophy is to seek voluntary
compliance through education, outreach, and technical assistance before using
direct enforcement mechanisms.
Environmental
law enforcement at Washington Department of Ecology: Ecology is generally
organized by environmental programs such as air and water. Enforcement
personnel are located in each program in four regional offices, and typically
carry out several other responsibilities (write permits, conduct facility
inspections). In recent years, emphasis has been placed on using education and
technical assistance to gain compliance with environmental laws.
Natural
resource law enforcement at Washington Department of Natural Resources:
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) carries out its forest practices
compliance program through field foresters in the seven DNR regions, as well as
technical specialists in regions and in Olympia headquarters. Compliance
philosophy emphasizes a graduated approach starting with education and
assistance but including civil penalties for repeat offenders. DNR also carries
out regulatory programs related to surface mining land reclamation and outdoor
burning.
The
Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Ecology, and Natural Resources set and
enforce the majority of Washington’s statewide natural resource programs. These
programs authorize the agencies to protect, regulate and control use of waters
of the state, discharge of pollutants into state waters, forest practices,
outdoor burning, surface mining, construction in state waters, fish passage,
screening of water diversions and harvesting of fish. In some cases the
responsibility is shared with local governments. The authorizing statutes and
programs to implement the statutes are described below. Further description of
these programs can be found in the chapters discussing the core elements.
·
Implementation and enforcement of the Shoreline Management
Act is a joint cooperative responsibility of counties and cities and Department
of Ecology (Ecology).
·
Counties and Ecology have a role in monitoring compliance
with Shoreline Master Plans.
·
Primary responsibility to regulate and control waters of the
state rests with Ecology.
·
Violations addressed through educational efforts, technical
assistance, regulatory orders and field citations. Civil penalties and criminal
sanctions sought through court action.
·
Primary responsibility for implementation and enforcement
rests with Ecology in managing point source and non-point discharges and
protecting water quality standards, both surface and ground water.
·
Violations addressed through education and technical assistance,
notice of violation, regulatory orders and civil penalties. Resource damages
may be recovered from the violator.
·
Primary responsibility for implementation and enforcement
rests with DNR.
·
Enforcement occurs through voluntary compliance, remedial
enforcement, and civil and criminal statute.
·
WDFW is responsible for ensuring compliance with state
statutes and rules of the Fish and Wildlife Commission and Director.
·
Violations may trigger technical assistance, warnings and
penalties.
·
When acting within the scope of these authorities and when
an offense occurs in the presence of a Fish and Wildlife Enforcement Officer,
the Officer can enforce all criminal laws of the State of Washington.
State
natural resource agencies play the lead role in efforts to achieve a high
degree of compliance with environmental and natural resource regulations. This
includes compliance with laws and regulations designed to protect water quality
and instream flows, regulate alteration of riparian, forest and stream habitat,
and prevent illegal take through harvest or other methods.
A
fundamental principle of the Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon is that
agencies will promote collaborative, incentive-based approaches, coupled with
enforcement of existing authorities, to protect salmonid species and salmonid
habitat. Programs will strive first to use voluntary compliance and support
through comprehensive interaction and problem-solving at the community level. However,
collaborative problem-solving takes time and is not always successful.
Immediate enforcement actions will be taken in ESA areas to protect and prevent
further harm to salmon. In the meantime, long-term strategies for compliance
will be developed and implemented statewide. Default enforcement actions will
also be defined and will be taken if collaboration is unsuccessful.
The
enforcement strategy includes:
·
Increase coordination and collaboration among the three
principle state regulatory agencies — Departments of Fish and Wildlife,
Ecology, and Natural Resources.
·
Prioritize compliance and enforcement programs to improve
the least effective enforcement programs and build credibility. Also, target
enforcement to geographical areas with ESA listings and potential listings,
where limited effort is being made to comply with existing laws, or where
performance measures are not being met after a reasonable period of time.
·
Encourage continued support and commitment to compliance
from a wide variety of interests. Also increase public awareness and
understanding of applicable laws and regulations.
·
Enhance enforcement of natural resources laws and
regulations where necessary to improve compliance and enforcement of existing
environmental and resources laws.
·
Enhance resources to build capacity within state agencies.
·
Assist local governments to improve performance and increase
compliance. Land use laws need to be better enforced at the local level.
·
Enhance compliance with environmental and resource laws that
support salmon protection and restoration.
·
Maintain and strengthen existing laws and regulations to
reduce illegal activities.
·
Implement statewide enforcement that is predictable and
consistent in application, but targeted first to priority areas and problems.
·
Coordinate enforcement responsibilities among agencies.
·
Generate public support and commitment to compliance.
Compliance
and enforcement are approaches that use a mix of cooperative/voluntary tools
and traditional regulatory techniques. Voluntary compliance efforts include the
use of educational, technical assistance, economic and market-based incentives.
When voluntary compliance efforts are unsuccessful, enforcement tools will be
employed that include administrative processes such as inspections, warnings,
orders, sanctions, injunctions, and civil penalties and criminal sanctions.
Efforts
by state and local agencies to improve compliance will consist of a variety of
actions:
·
First, efforts are needed to enhance monitoring and
tracking, coordination of compliance programs, technical assistance, public
awareness and community involvement, and use of legal instruments as
deterrents.
·
Second, efforts will be prioritized and targeted across
geographic regions, among a variety of resource protection programs, and
throughout all stages of a regulatory system.
·
Third, while most of the natural resources agencies have
generally adequate authorities to enforce their laws and regulations,
enhancement of the authorities and tools is needed for some programs.
·
Finally, because there is a very limited enforcement
capability to handle the growing number of apparent violations, additional
resources are needed to increase effectiveness in achieving salmon protection
and recovery.
Currently,
Ecology and WDFW carry out their compliance monitoring and enforcement
responsibilities independently but with some interaction between the agencies.
DNR and WDFW coordinate permit issuance and, to some degree, compliance
activities. WDFW occasionally files complaints with Ecology regarding possible
water right violations, or regarding the need to protect instream flows by
enforcing water right conditions imposed on junior water right holders.
Increased
coordination and collaboration among the three regulatory agencies will be
carried out by developing and implementing consistent enforcement terminology,
agreements to coordinate technical assistance and compliance monitoring, and
work sharing.
Consistent
enforcement terminology: Natural resource violations often involve multiple
jurisdictional issues regulated by the Departments of Fish and Wildlife,
Ecology, and Natural Resources. Each agency has its own enforcement language
and uses various enforcement tools differently. Often, terminology and
applications unique to agencies is confusing to the public and does not always
result in appropriate responses.
Enforcement
tools could include standardized names, form use, and application within
intended guidelines. The three main natural resource agencies will develop
standard enforcement terminology and protocols to improve public understanding,
enhance the ability of agency field representatives to respond, interpret and
react consistently statewide.
Improved coordination of technical assistance and compliance
monitoring: Interaction between the agencies does occur but
cross-agency coordination needs to be significantly enhanced for the following
reasons:
·
Solutions to the natural resource problems related to the
decline of salmon are inherently cross-agency in nature.
·
All agencies have limited resources and must prioritize
activities.
·
Coordinated actions will solve problems more efficiently.
To
improve coordination among each other the agencies will implement the
following:
·
Coordinate salmon-related activities. The activities
to be coordinated include compliance monitoring, data exchange and technical
assistance to achieve compliance and enforcement.
·
Implement geographic scale of coordination. Activities
could be coordinated at a county, Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA),
multi-WRIA, or Evolutionary Significant Units (ESU) level. Coordination at the
watershed level (e.g., WDFW watershed districts and Ecology watershed
management areas) is recommended.
·
Process proposed for coordination. Strong initial
and on-going endorsement by agency directors/commissioners is needed to
address:
o
Key problems and limiting factors that could improve compliance
with natural resource laws;
o
Options for solving compliance problems, including options
on how to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate the problems generated from
non-compliance;
o
Development of a strategy considering education, technical
assistance, civil enforcement, criminal enforcement; and
o
Role of each agency in implementing enforcement strategies.
·
Products:
o
Enforcement strategies will be agreed upon by the agencies
and will be built into each agency’s work plans.
o
Agreements may be drawn among the agencies to share
education, technical assistance, compliance monitoring and enforcement
responsibilities.
o
Agencies will produce performance reports.
If
the process proves to be successful the coordination may be expanded to include
tribal and local governments that have enforcement responsibilities related to
natural resources.
Work sharing:
Work
sharing among natural resources agencies is necessary for three reasons:
·
Enforcement of natural resource laws should be as efficient
as possible to maximize use of state resources.
·
The unique aspects of each agency’s enforcement program
should be considered to develop the most effective overall program.
·
Because new resources are being considered for enforcement
programs, now is the time to consider where to place the resources and what
enforcement powers to confer.
The
initiative to implement work sharing among the three natural resource
management agencies includes:
·
Expand the role of WDFW Enforcement Officers in
environmental enforcement:
o
The WDFW enforcement program could be easily adapted to
other natural resources law enforcement needs.
o
WDFW has an existing law enforcement infrastructure, which
would maximize the efficient use of state resources. Their involvement can
significantly improve compliance with existing laws and restoration of
federally listed and proposed to be listed fish species.
Given the limited current effort on compliance and enforcement within the water resources and water quality programs in Ecology, options for long-term work sharing will be first explored between Ecology and WDFW. Future interagency agreements, possibly including DNR, will be considered as progress is monitored.
·
Options for work sharing
All options considered call for Fish and Wildlife Officers to play an enhanced role in Department of Ecology habitat protection responsibilities. Four different “levels of involvement” for Fish and Wildlife Officers are related to Ecology’s key habitat related statutes. They are:
o
Level 1: education
Act
as educational liaisons, informing local constituencies of the need for and
benefits of compliance with habitat related regulations.
o
Level 2: compliance monitoring
Conduct
systematic and routine field monitoring and tracking to determine compliance
with regulations and permits. Report instances of non-compliance to Ecology for
necessary follow-up.
o
Level 3: compliance monitoring with case report
Conduct
Level 2 compliance monitoring plus, based on guidance from Ecology, prepare a
detailed case report to document a formal enforcement action. Possible role as
expert witness if action is appealed.
o
Level 4: coordinated enforcement
Conduct
compliance monitoring plus participate in a jointly developed strategy to
resolve significant non-compliance. This could include Fish and Wildlife
officers directly enforcing habitat-related laws and regulations, if statutory
authority were expanded by the Legislature.
Given
the limited resources available, it is critical to prioritize compliance and
enforcement programs to improve the least effective enforcement programs (e.g.,
water resources) and build credibility. Also, enforcement must be targeted to
geographical areas with ESA listings and potential listings, where limited
effort is being made to comply with existing laws, or where performance
measures are not being met after a reasonable period of time.
Some
areas of the state have a significant amount of water being used (1) without
authorization from Ecology; (2) in excess of the quantities allowed under a
water right; (3) in excess of the acreage allowed to be irrigated; and/or (4)
outside the authorized place of use. Ecology has found these forms of illegal
activity to some degree in most areas of the state that it has investigated.
Much
water use in the state occurs under water right claims rather than under state
issued rights. One problem is that many claims are erroneous, clearly invalid,
or claim a right for future use. Ecology believes that it can under the law
make a tentative determination as to the validity and quantification of a claim
for purposes of determining whether the use is illegal or excessive. However,
the state Supreme Court has disallowed Ecology from making such a determination
for purposes of regulating among conflicting uses.
Another
major problem for regaining control over illegal and excessive use is the lack
of compliance resources within Ecology’s Water Resources Program. Major budget
cuts in 1994 caused the near elimination of the water rights compliance
program. New resources and statutory authority are necessary to allow for
coordinated enforcement employing WDFW enforcement officers.
Strategic
enforcement against illegal uses will be taken in prioritized and targeted
areas starting first in the “highest priority basins” for protection and
restoration of instream flows.
For
each basin with ESA listings or likely listings and with known illegal
activities, an action plan will be developed and fully implemented according to
the priorities outlined in the chapter on Ensuring Adequate Water in Streams
for Fish. These plans will address all or some of the following items:
·
Requiring installation of meters to measure and report water
use.
·
Restricting quantity and timing of water use, and requirement
of all water supply utilities (e.g., irrigation districts and municipal
suppliers) to develop a water conservation plan and identify the potential for
saved water.
·
Identifying alternative water sources such as use of
reclaimed water.
·
Enforcing standards for beneficial use and waste.
·
Enforcement actions to be taken by the state to stop any
further water withdrawal.
·
Assigning “water masters” or “stream patrollers” to deter
future violations.
·
Increasing geographically dispersed enforcement presence
(e.g., contracting with uniformed Fish and Wildlife Officers).
·
Linking funding and financial assistance to compliance.
·
Coordinating enforcement activities and consolidating field
compliance monitoring to ensure consistency by state, federal, tribal and local
governments.
·
Educating and involving the public in watershed planning and
restoration.
·
Providing additional enforcement resources for local
enforcement.
The
ultimate success of salmon recovery will rest on the hidden dimension — the
human element. Drafting the Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon will not
automatically lead to successful actions. Success will depend more upon the
human interactions and behaviors among the diverse groups that have a stake in
salmon recovery. To that end, agencies need to design programs to inform and
involve the public in salmon recovery.
Many
citizens have questions about compliance with natural resources laws in their
neighborhoods; sometimes citizens also have information useful to agencies.
Often there are not efficient ways for agency compliance staff and citizens to
communicate. Citizen complaints or questions based on poor information about
the requirements of environmental laws can lead to wasted time. On the other
hand, well-informed citizens can provide valuable information both to agency
staff and to other citizens.
Most
natural resource regulatory programs experience regular involvement by
representatives of key citizen interest groups, who over time become
well-informed both about the regulatory requirements of the program and about
local on-the-ground practices. Agencies should find ways to make better use of
that citizen expertise in the overall compliance effort.
Agencies
need to generate support and commitment to compliance from a wide variety of
interests. They also need to increase public involvement in environmental and
resource management and protection activities. It is critical for the agencies
to empower the public to take action to improve salmon conditions. The
following initiatives are proposed:
·
Build collaboration between the agencies and communities to
solve natural resource problems by placing emphasis on community outreach and
involvement and on voluntary compliance.
·
Facilitate grassroots efforts through volunteer monitoring
and tracking. This is a way for the public to help agencies track trends on the
health of a watershed and it is a proven path to natural resource stewardship
by groups of citizens.
·
Develop local stakeholder groups within watersheds and
salmon recovery units.
Agencies
will need to develop strategies to reach broad-based and diverse constituency
groups that actively participate in decisions and implementation. Based upon
legal, fiscal and geographic demands of salmon recovery, state and local
officials will act as the specialists that facilitate formation of stakeholder
groups.
Group
participants will need to represent a cross section of interest groups
including: state, federal, city and county officials, agricultural and
industrial organizations, sport and commercial salmon groups, environmental
groups, key influential and other identified stakeholders. Because of the
complexity and diversity of recovery issues, formation of unique stakeholder
groups within each recovery unit would be beneficial.
Generally,
agencies have the authority to enforce natural resource laws to protect salmon.
However, certain laws may need to be enhanced to improve and streamline
compliance and enforcement efforts. The following are changes to existing
statutes that are needed:
·
Authority to enforce among competing water rights.
·
Penalty for violations of the Water Code. Currently Ecology
is authorized to levy civil penalties up to $100 per day for violations of the
Water Code. Penalties are too low to deter some violators. Changes are needed
to establish a graduated structure with three categories of violations — minor,
serious and major — depending on the severity of the violation.
·
Add requirements for performance bonds for shoreline permits
and possibly other permits as well. Performance bonds will be used as incentive
for permit holders to comply with conditions of permits and ensure that
environmental protection is implemented on the ground.
·
Expand the appointment of stream patrollers and water
masters. Stream patrollers and water masters are appointed by Ecology to
divide, regulate and control the use of water and prevent illegal uses of
excess use of water. Legislative changes are needed to remove barriers to the
appointment of stream patrollers.
The
level of resources devoted to compliance and enforcement efforts among several
major regulatory programs related to salmon is highly variable. Some programs
carry out a moderate level of compliance and enforcement activities, while
other programs with regulatory powers currently do little enforcement.
The
1999-2001 state budget recognizes the importance of enhancing enforcement of
existing natural resources laws to protecting and recovering salmon and
provides a modest increase in staff and resources to WDFW, Ecology and DNR.
Performance
measures for compliance and enforcement programs are needed as part of the
Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon and to use in producing the State of the
Salmon Report. A combination of measures both quantitative and qualitative,
statistical and narrative must be used.
Effectiveness
of compliance and enforcement activities will be measured as follows:
·
The levels of compliance or rates of noncompliance in areas
that are inspected, or targeted for special initiatives, or designated as high
priority area or sector;
·
Improvement by the regulated entities, such as amount of
water conserved, amount of pollutant reduced, numbers of fish present;
·
Responses to significant violations such as average number
of days for significant violators to comply, or enter into enforceable plans
and agreements, and number of recurring violations;
·
General information on number of inspections, responses to
complaints, investigations conducted, number of notices of violations issued,
civil and criminal enforcement actions initiated and concluded and number of
individuals or entities reached through compliance tools; and
·
Effective coordination and building capacity such as number
of agreements or delegation orders signed, and number of cross-agency training
programs.
Land
development, transportation and many other types of projects that involve work
in or near streams, estuaries, or nearshore marine waters have inherent risks
to salmon habitat. Projects for the sole purpose of protecting or restoring
salmon habitat can also create incidental risks of harm to salmon. Because of
these risks, projects that involve work in or near aquatic resources are highly
regulated through a large number of federal, state and local permit programs.
It is essential to salmon recovery that these permit programs be
well-coordinated and provide a consistent level of protection to prevent or
mitigate the potential impacts on salmon habitat. Effective and efficient
permit programs also benefit project sponsors, including sponsors of habitat
protection and restoration projects.
Many
agencies have programs that either sponsor or regulate habitat protection and
restoration projects. Until the Salmon Recovery Planning Act (1998) and the
Salmon Recovery Funding Act (1999), there was no overall program framework for
undertaking salmon habitat protection and restoration projects. The design
review and regulation of these projects has not been consistent and, all too
often, permit procedures have been time-consuming and expensive.
This
chapter addresses two strategies related to permitting and are part of
protecting and restoring salmon habitat: 1) streamlining permit procedures for
habitat protection and restoration projects, and other projects affecting
aquatic resources; and 2) developing and applying design guidelines for habitat
protection and restoration projects, and other projects affecting stream
corridors.
These
strategies have a direct bearing on the implementation of habitat protection
and restoration projects. The results of these efforts will be more efficient
processes for approving habitat protection and restoration projects and greater
assurance that on-the-ground or in-the-stream projects will achieve results
beneficial for habitat.
Examples
of major state programs involved in reviewing and permitting projects that may
impact aquatic resources include:
·
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) — SEPA checklist,
project reviews, assessments and impact statements, use of substantive
authority.
·
Hydraulic Project Approvals (HPA) — for projects that
propose to use, obstruct, divert or change stream beds or flows.
·
401 Water Quality and Coastal Zone Management Consistency
Certifications — address project compliance with state water quality standards
and state coastal zone management policies for federal projects or projects
requiring federal permits.
·
Forest Practices Permits — for timber harvest and other
practices involved in forestry operations.
·
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permits — for projects that discharge wastewater or stormwater to surface
waters.
·
Pesticide Application and Management — for applying or
supervising the use of pesticides for commercial agriculture.
·
Surface and Ground Water Withdrawals — for review and
approval of water rights to use surface or ground water.
A
new statewide framework for habitat protection and restoration projects has
been established through the Salmon Recovery Planning Act of 1998 (ESHB 2496)
and the Salmon Recovery Funding Act of 1999 (2E2SSB 5595). These new laws have
established a framework and process for habitat protection and restoration
projects.
This
framework includes: using state and local technical expertise to identify and
assess limiting habitat factors and potential projects within a region (i.e.,
one or more Water Resource Inventory Areas); designating local leadership as
lead entities to establish local priorities; and allocating resources and
approving projects for funding based upon statewide objectives. These
objectives will be established through the Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon
and by the Salmon Recovery Funding Board.
Other
legislation passed in 1998 laid a foundation for improved permit processes for
habitat protection and restoration projects. An Act Facilitating the Review and
Approval of Fish Enhancement Projects (2SHB 2879) authorized approaches to
streamline state and local permit requirements for habitat protection and
restoration projects.
The
strategies to address permit streamlining and design guidelines for habitat
protection and restoration projects have a common theme of building upon
existing efforts that have been underway for some time. The solutions being
undertaken are intended to increase the level of support for these efforts and
make them more effective. As these separate but interrelated efforts proceed,
it is also important for them to be well coordinated. That need is acknowledged
and is an integral part of the strategy.
·
Ensure projects affecting waters of the state, including
habitat protection and restoration projects, are designed to be fish-friendly
and are reviewed consistently.
·
Ensure permit decisions for projects affecting waters of the
state, including habitat protection and restoration projects, are made
efficiently.
·
Make permit requirements and procedures for projects
affecting waters of the state, including habitat protection and restoration
projects, more effective and efficient. Continue to improve permit processes to
ensure that beneficial habitat enhancement and restoration projects, and
projects that incorporate effective habitat protection measures and flood hazard
reduction features can proceed efficiently.
·
Provide consistent and specific guidelines for the design
and review of projects affecting waters of the state, including salmon habitat
protection and restoration projects.
Overview
of 2SHB 2879
2SHB
2879 provides for streamlined permitting for certain types of fish habitat enhancement and restoration
projects. Projects that meet the criteria established in the law, and which do
not have adverse environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated by a Hydraulic
Project Approval (HPA), are exempt from local permits and fees and do not
require review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
Fish
habitat enhancement projects eligible for streamlined review are limited to
those that:
·
Eliminate human-made fish passage barriers;
·
Restore eroded or unstable stream banks, using
bioengineering; or
·
Provide instream structures that benefit naturally
reproducing fish stocks.
The
legislation streamlines permitting for many habitat enhancement and restoration
projects. There are projects, however, that do not meet the criteria and so
cannot take advantage of the streamlined process. In addition, projects may
meet the criteria, but may require federal permits or local permits (e.g., road
construction) and may have significant adverse environmental impacts requiring
review under SEPA. This type of project would not qualify for the streamlined
process.
There
are, or course, many projects that are not “enhancement” or “restoration”
projects that create impacts to fish and habitat. It may be possible in some
cases to provide incentives, including streamlined permitting, to encourage
project proponents to make choices that cause less impact.
Emergency
permitting
Criteria
and procedures for emergency permit exemptions and funding can lead to projects
that adversely impact fish and habitat. The ability to get emergency permit
exemptions and emergency funding can drive project decisions, including
construction alternatives and timing, that harm fish and habitat. To be
eligible for emergency funding from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal
Emergency Management Agency or Natural Resource Conservation Service, for
example, projects typically must be completed within 40 - 180 days of the
emergency event. Also, projects must include only the amount of work necessary
to correct the damages caused by the event.
Past
and current activities contributing to permit streamlining
Ecology,
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) worked with cities, counties and federal agencies to develop a
single joint permit application form to combine what was originally seven to
nine different application forms and more than ten different permit actions.
The
use of Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) is expected to become
more widespread. Its use in eastern Washington, rural western Washington and
southern Puget Sound is almost universal, but some communities with major
populations aren’t using JARPA. The application use to date strongly suggests a
consolidated permit process could be developed for well-designed,
watershed-based stream rehabilitation and fish habitat recovery proposals as a
first step toward more widespread permit streamlining. Such consolidation could
be made under multiple current authorities, with appropriate legislation.
However, use of rigorous watershed-based stream corridor management criteria
and guidelines is essential to the success of permit consolidation.
An
Interagency Permit Streamlining Workgroup (IPSW), which includes staff from the
Department of Ecology (Ecology), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW), Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT), local governments, and
federal regulatory and resource agencies, has been meeting informally for more
than two years. The IPSW has identified problems and solutions that would
streamline all required permits for projects that affect waters of the state,
including salmon habitat protection and restoration projects. It has long been
recognized that there needs to be more consistent guidelines for designing,
reviewing and approving projects in stream corridors.
The
context for salmon habitat restoration work is provided by completion of a
comprehensive characterization of the watershed. Such a characterization
identifies resource issues within the watershed as they relate to salmon
habitat recovery. This characterization is an essential step because it will
help watershed communities direct limited financial and human resources to the
projects that best address the habitat needs of at-risk salmon stocks within
the overall basin or sub-basins. An early emphasis on watershed
characterization can save time and expense.
Areas
that, if restored, would best address known habitat deficiencies for salmon
(such as limited winter rearing habitat, providing base flow support to
streams, or alleviating flood impacts) can be identified and targeted for
project sponsorship and funding.
Following
an understanding of the watershed through characterization and limiting factors
analysis, the next level of guidance needed is specific to the type(s) of
habitat protection and restoration work being implemented. These protection and
restoration actions cover a range of habitat elements and processes, including
such areas as headwater spawning beds, stream corridors, wetlands and
shorelines. All of these features require specialized guidelines to provide
ecologically sound and consistent direction for the design of habitat
protection and restoration activities.
Salmon
habitat restoration or rehabilitation projects will be done by programs and
projects that may focus on various scales: specific habitat needs, stream
corridor function, and/or ecological health of watersheds or river segments.
There is a pressing need to assure these efforts are based on a good
understanding of the physical and biological dynamics of stream corridors to:
·
successfully recover salmon stocks;
·
avoid inadvertent damage to existing riparian and fish
habitat;
·
avoid causing undesirable new flooding impacts elsewhere on
the stream.
Regardless
of the scale of restoration, it is more likely to be successful if done through
a process of four restoration elements: 1) watershed characterization and
assessment; 2) protection of existing habitat; 3) science-based remedial
action; and 4) monitoring, evaluation and feedback.
The
approach being recommended addresses the need for integrated guidelines for
carrying out salmon habitat restoration and fully mitigating habitat damage by
in-stream and stream corridor modifications, construction and developments.
Such guidelines would address the technical details that people can apply in
the field to restore or rehabilitate habitat or stream corridor function, or
minimize future damage.
Restoration
elements, such as watershed characterization and assessment, remedial action
and feedback, must be developed concurrently so they can relate and interact.
Characterization, assessment and monitoring protocols must relate directly to
the guidelines that tie them together. A common analogy is the patient with
clogged arteries: it does the patient no good to apply a band-aid over his
heart and then monitor his condition by taking his temperature. A patient
assessment is needed that leads to specific remedial actions and monitoring
that are relevant to the case along with maintaining healthy body functions.
Restoration
is considered to be restoration of natural conditions. This is not possible in
most situations. Rehabilitation is considered to be the modification of
habitats to achieve a functional goal. Stock recovery can be achieved without
necessarily meeting the desired condition of some habitat parameters. The
“goal” is a standard that a rehabilitation project must accomplish to
effectively recover a specific stock; it is likely a watershed and species
specific parameter. For example, the optimum width of a floodplain for
restoration of a specific stream type might be 200 feet but, based on the
topography and geomorphology of the channel and floodplain, a specific goal
might vary and be substantially more or less than 200 feet in places.
It
is important to remember that it will be crucial to fund, schedule and carry
out performance monitoring of restoration projects to assure success of the
project and the techniques and technologies utilized.
There
are numerous stream habitat elements for which habitat restoration guidelines
are needed.
Integrated stream corridor management guidebook. This would
consist of a series of specific documents that provide detailed guidelines for
all significant restoration and protection activities. The stream corridor
management guidelines must mesh with and be complemented by larger scale and
more broadly scoped ecosystem and watershed protection approaches and
strategies. Other future activities that will need to be coordinated with this
proposal include:
·
Review and amendment of federal standards, such as Natural
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Field Office Technical Guides (FOTGs);
·
Habitat Conservation Plan developed by WDFW for its
Hydraulic Project Approval permitting program;
·
Design and approval process for projects under 2SHB 2879
permit streamlining;
·
Rule changes as necessary under the Shoreline Management
Act, Floodplain Management Act, and the Hydraulics Code; and
·
Project selection and funding for habitat restoration.
An
example of habitat protection guidelines is WDFW’s Integrated Streambank
Protection Guidelines (ISPG). These draft Guidelines describe a process for
bank erosion assessment and stabilization design. While it is generally agreed
that streambank stabilization can be detrimental to fish, some stream reaches
will continue to be stabilized. Therefore it is necessary to develop habitat
mitigation and restoration guidelines for this activity. Some restoration
activities may also require streambank stabilization to which these guidelines
would apply directly.
The
Integrated Stream Corridor Management Guidelines will be implemented through a
variety of means, such as:
·
“Best available science” for interpretation of permit
conditions and mitigation under the Shoreline Management Act and the Hydraulics
Code;
·
Minimum standards for permit streamlining; and
·
The basis for state-federal agreements on interpretation of
the Natural Resource Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Field Office Technical
Guides (FOTG).
A
workplan has been developed building upon the on-going efforts of the
Interagency Stream Corridor Workgroup. The ISCW includes members from WDFW,
Ecology, WSDOT, and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The
long-term goal of achieving integrated stream corridor management guidelines
for the state, which are also agreed to by federal agencies, will require
additional funding to enable continuation and timely completion of the work of
the Interagency Stream Corridor Workgroup. The ISCW will be seeking funding for
these activities through the Salmon Recovery Funding Board.
Twelve
general project types have tentatively been identified as needing technical
guidelines. Specific guidelines will be identified through a technical scoping
process and workshops that will include design engineers, resource managers,
contractors, regulators, interested parties and other technical experts.
Guiding
principles will first be developed as a basis for the technical guidelines. The
proposal includes development of the guidelines themselves, integration with
related standards and rules at other levels of government, initial and
continued technical outreach and training, and periodic updates as information
comes in from restoration monitoring activities.
In
addition to providing the best science for specific project design, the
guidelines will be used in the evaluation of projects for funding decisions,
permit streamlining, and in making permit decisions more consistent and
predictable.
The
general success of project permitting, permit streamlining and integrated
stream corridor guidelines will be measured by monitoring positive or negative
changes in habitat conditions as part of the overall Statewide Strategy to
Recover Salmon.
The
specific success can be monitored through a coordinated tracking and reporting
system for habitat protection and restoration projects being developed by the
Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation and the Governor’s Salmon Recovery
Office.