Watershed Conservation Plan Guidelines
Discussion Paper
July 7, 2000
Introduction
Washington's watersheds are the freshwater home of salmon. Watersheds provide the habitat where adult salmon return to spawn, salmon eggs are incubated, and young salmon grow until they migrate to our estuaries and the ocean. Watershed management at the scale of Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIAs) is an integral part of long-term salmon recovery and the response of state, local and tribal governments to Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings of salmon. The State of Washington has made a major policy and financial commitment to locally based watershed management and related activities through the Watershed Planning Act (RCW 90.82) and the Salmon Recovery Act (RCW 75.46).
There is now an opportunity to link watershed management in Washington with statewide salmon recovery, voluntary ESA response efforts, and related responsibilities of the federal government. Such a linkage, in the form of state watershed planning guidelines that are federally approved for voluntary use by jurisdictions responsible for watershed planning, would provide the framework whereby locally developed watershed management plans could be recognized by the federal government as species conservation plans that comply with ESA. Development of the guidelines would also be an opportunity to help integrate salmon recovery under ESA with work to improve water quality under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). Guidelines for watershed plans also provide an opportunity to reinforce consistent watershed assessment and monitoring and encourage data integration and the use of science in watershed planning.
Background and Problem Statement
All but a few of the state's 62 WRIAs are affected by one or more ESA listings of salmonid species. As of October 1999, local governments in 37 WRIAs had chosen to engage in watershed planning under RCW 90.82. In most of these WRIAs, the convening local governments and tribes and the planning units they have organized have indicated their intent to address habitat issues as well as the water quality, water resource and instream flow issues affecting their watershed. The three phases of watershed planning under RCW 90.82 are: start up and organizing (Phase I); assessment (Phase II); and plan development (Phase III). Plan development must be completed within four years of the date a planning unit first receives Phase II assessment funding from the state. The law provides statewide organizational and procedural guidelines for watershed planning and provides opportunity for state, federal, and tribal government involvement in the local process. Except for a general directive to comply with state and federal laws, RCW 90.82 leaves substantive decisions to those involved in the local watershed planning process. Governments in WRIAs that choose not to participate in watershed planning under RCW 90.82 have the option of developing equivalent watershed plans. Additionally, 38 WRIAs have been organized into 21 salmon recovery lead entities under RCW 75.46 to plan for salmon habitat preservation and restoration projects.
Currently, there are no statewide guidelines for watershed planning that provide clear guidance on what is needed in watershed plans for salmon recovery or for responding to ESA listings and related CWA requirements. Several circumstances provide incentive for linking watershed management with salmon recovery and response to the ESA through the development of statewide watershed planning guidelines.
These circumstances or drivers are:
· The 4(d) rule adopted by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) provides a limit on take prohibitions for habitat restoration activities provided that the activities are part of a watershed conservation plan. Local plans must be certified as consistent with state "Watershed Conservation Plan Guidelines" that are approved by NMFS in order for any activity to qualify for this limit on take prohibitions.
· The 4(d) rule framework for Puget Sound being proposed by Tri-County and negotiated with NMFS is developing "A Salmon Conservation Planning Framework " to guide WRIA-level planning that would provide an option for long-term compliance with ESA for local governments in Puget Sound.
· The Northwest Power Planning Council (NWPPC) is emphasizing more consistent sub-basin (i.e. watershed) assessment and planning throughout the Columbia River Basin as it revises its Fish and Wildlife Program to ensure effective use of Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) funding for habitat preservation and restoration.
· The Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) has adopted a guiding principle that "local watershed efforts are key to the implementation of salmon recovery and must be supported to increase their effectiveness". The SRFB has also stated that its role is to "fund only projects and programs that are consistent with priorities set by watersheds and recovery regions, and that are consistent with overall statewide goals and guidance".
· The development of watershed management plans, under RCW 90.82 or otherwise, by state, tribal and local interests coming together to identify, assess, and solve water management and habitat issues through a collaborative approach.
· The development of habitat projects lists, limiting factor analyses, and critical path methodology by locally organized lead entities under RCW 75.46.
Although the specific provisions for watershed planning proposed by NMFS in its 4(d) rules may be substantially revised over time, it is clear that watershed planning will be a key part of salmon recovery and response to ESA listings. Developing statewide watershed planning guidelines would create the opportunity to reconcile potentially divergent or dissimilar watershed planning criteria and methodologies and their approaches to monitoring, use of information technologies, adaptive management and other watershed planning issues. Some level of statewide consistency in locally developed watershed plans is needed to achieve statewide goals for salmon recovery and to facilitate federal recognition of the plans under the ESA.
Recommendation
The Governor's Salmon Recovery Office (GSRO) is proposing to work collaboratively with key participants (i.e. other state agencies, NWPPC, Tri-County and other local government representatives, tribal representatives, NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) to: 1) determine the level of need and interest in Watershed Conservation Plan Guidelines; 2) design a process for developing the guidelines, including a proposed decision process for key issues; and, 3) outline the potential scope and content of the guidelines. It is important that development of guidelines take into account the local watershed planning work that has already been accomplished and is underway. Participants in the lead entity groups for salmon recovery and in the watershed planning units will be invited and have the opportunity to participate in this process.
After approval by NMFS and USFWS, Watershed Conservation Plan Guidelines would provide substantive guidance for watershed planning for voluntary use by those jurisdictions that want their plan to be recognized under ESA. A watershed plan that is consistent with the approved guidelines would provide a means for ongoing ESA compliance coverage (i.e. limit on take prohibitions) for actions taken under that plan. The ESA coverage provided to a geographic area through watershed plans would complement any ESA coverage that may be provided to certain state or local programs through related Section 7 consultations, other Section 4(d) rule provisions, or Section 10 incidental take permits.
It is also important for the watershed planning guidelines to be accepted by the institutions that provide funding for habitat preservation and restoration projects (i.e. NWPPC/BPA/Congress, SRFB/Legislature). Watershed plans and projects that are consistent with the accepted guidelines can help project proponents meet project funding criteria and can also help provide assurance to those providing the funding that the funds are being used effectively.
Key Participants and Interests
Key state agency interests related to any process for developing statewide Watershed Conservation Plan Guidelines include:
· Governor's Salmon Recovery Office (GSRO) - coordinate development and implementation of state salmon recovery strategy and state response to ESA;
· Department of Ecology (Ecology) - lead state agency for RCW 90.82 and contributor to development of stream corridor Best Management Practices (BMP) ;
· Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW) - co-manager for fish management, lead agency in stream corridor BMP development, provides technical and science support for local salmon recovery plans and projects;
· Conservation Commission - lead agency for coordinating limiting factors analysis;
· Department of Agriculture - lead agency for Agriculture, Fish and Water process to develop agricultural sector BMP and irrigated agriculture water conservation guidelines for salmon recovery;
· Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED [now the Washington State Department of Commerce]) - lead state agency for GMA and liaison with local governments for GMA plans and regulations;
· Department of Transportation (WSDOT) - major contributor to stream corridor BMP development and proponent of watershed management;
· Puget Sound Action Team (PSAT) - proponent of watershed management for Puget Sound;
· Department of Natural Resources (DNR) - leading agency in use of watershed analyses and plans for forest practices;
· Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) - with staff support from the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC), determines and uses priority-setting and other funding criteria for salmon habitat preservation and restoration projects.
The NWPPC is developing guidance for sub-basin plans within the Columbia River Basin as it revises its Fish and Wildlife Program. Any process for developing statewide Watershed Conservation Plan Guidelines must be coordinated with NWPPC staff to ensure consistency between any statewide guidelines and the NWPPC guidelines for use in the Columbia River Basin and to encourage integration of planning at the local level.
Local governments interested in watershed management and response to ESA would have a major stake in any statewide Watershed Conservation Plan Guidelines. The Tri-County Salmon Recovery and ESA Response is developing, with assistance from NMFS, the state and the tribes, "A Salmon Conservation Planning Framework " that would be available for use at the WRIA level in Puget Sound. Collaboration with Tri-County representatives in the process for developing statewide Watershed Conservation Plan Guidelines will be essential. Other local governments' involvement will be coordinated with the Association of Washington Cities and the Washington Association of Counties.
NMFS and USFWS participation in any development process for Watershed Conservation Plan Guidelines would also be essential to ensure the guidelines are acceptable to them. USEPA also needs to be involved to support integration of salmon recovery under the ESA with water quality activities and requirements under the federal CWA.
Tribes have developed a large amount of watershed assessment information and have a major stake in the effectiveness of watershed management in protecting and restoring productive salmon habitat. As co-managers of fish resources with WDFW, tribes are developing comprehensive plans for salmon species that include assessment of habitat conditions. Many tribes participate as convening governments for watershed planning under RCW 90.82; salmon recovery work under RCW 75.46; and other local watershed planning processes. Tribal participation in any process for Watershed Conservation Plan Guidelines will be solicited in collaboration with the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fisheries Commission.
General Approach, Process and Schedule
Several processes are underway to generate products that could be incorporated in or contribute to Watershed Conservation Plan Guidelines. The development of statewide Watershed Conservation Plan Guidelines could rely upon these existing processes. In that case the development of Watershed Conservation Plan Guidelines would involve coordination with these other processes to synthesize and integrate the results of these other processes into a cohesive package.
Along with representatives of the key participants identified above, lead entity groups engaged in WRIA level salmon recovery activities and local planning units responsible for WRIA level watershed planning will be involved in the determination of whether and how the development of statewide Watershed Conservation Plan Guidelines would proceed. Outreach to lead entity and planning unit members early in the process will be used to: 1)gauge the need for and level of interest in the guidelines; 2) provide information on the key processes that are developing work products that could be built into the guidelines; and 3) help identify issues and options related to the potential guidelines. All persons participating or expressing an interest in the guideline development process will be given opportunities to review and comment on draft guidelines before any guidelines would be proposed for approval.
The key contributing processes and their anticipated work products are:
· NWPPC development of templates/outlines for sub-basin assessments and plans, as part of amending its Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program;
· Tri-County development of the Salmon Conservation Planning Framework, including a watershed assessment framework;
· Development of statewide watershed assessment criteria based upon the NWPPC and Tri-County processes by an interagency science team convened by GSRO;
· Limiting Factor Analysis as it is evolving and being further developed by the Conservation Commission and being linked to statewide watershed assessment criteria;
· Development of BMP guidelines for projects in stream corridors by the Interagency Stream Corridor Workgroup;
· Development of criteria and processes for use by the SRFB for evaluating and prioritizing habitat preservation and restoration projects for funding;
· Development through the Independent Science Panel of standardized monitoring indicators, data quality guidelines and criteria for evaluating monitoring data;
· Cooperative Monitoring, Evaluation and Research (CMER) work originating from the TFW and Forrest and Fish Report processes; and
· Further development of the draft RCW 90.82 manual, "Guide to Watershed Planning and Management", by local government and utility associations working with Ecology.
Relevant timelines that help frame a potential schedule for developing timely Watershed Conservation Plan Guidelines include:
· NMFS 4(d) rule will become effective in 2000 and the limit on take prohibitions for watershed conservation plans cannot be applied until Watershed Conservation Plan Guidelines have been developed by the state and approved by NMFS;
· NWPPC guidance for initial sub-basin plans is nearly completed and the revision of all Columbia Basin sub-basin plans is scheduled for completion in late 2001;
· Tri-County framework proposes to complete watershed assessments within two years of the effective date of the Puget Sound chinook 4(d) rule (late 2002) and to complete watershed plans within five years of the 4(d) rule's effective date (late 2005);
· RCW 90.82 timeline for completion of watershed plans is within four years of spending assessment funds, or the summer of 2002 for WRIAs that are furthest along. Some Phase II watershed assessments are underway and may be completed late in 2000;
· BMPs for certain types of projects in stream corridors have been completed, but additional BMPs for other types of projects are scheduled for completion throughout 2000 and 2001;
· Limiting Factor Analysis is underway in many WRIAs and the first round of analyses is scheduled for completion by July 2001.
After considering these related timelines, it is clear that any Watershed Conservation Plan Guidelines would have be developed quickly in order to provide timely guidance. The extent of watershed planning already underway also underscores the need for any guidelines to take the existing work into account.
Statewide criteria for watershed assessment that build upon existing assessment efforts and are acceptable to the ESA agencies (i.e. NMFS and USFWS) and to funding institutions (i.e. NWPPC/BPA/Congress and SRFB/Legislature) are being developed and should be drafted by October 2000. An overall package of statewide Watershed Conservation Plan Guidelines could be drafted by October 2000 and finalized by the end of 2000.
Possible Scope and Key Elements
If statewide guidelines are developed, they could outline and provide guidance on options that would be available to jurisdictions engaged in watershed planning. GSRO has considered two potential options as a starting point for discussion. Other options may be suggested by participants in the process. Guidelines for any option will need to take into account work on elements of watershed plans that may already be done. The two options identified below differ in terms of the intended scope, focus and potential elements of the watershed plan.
· For Option 1, the watershed plan would focus only on watershed assessment and the identification, prioritization and scheduling of habitat preservation and restoration activities (i.e.projects) within the watershed.
· For Option 2, the watershed plan would focus, in addition to Option 1, on the broader issues in the watershed related to salmon recovery and associated with protecting habitat and the other elements of watershed management addressed by RCW 90.82 (i.e. water quality, water resources, and instream flows).
Depending on the scope of ESA certainty being sought for a given watershed plan, the responsible jurisdictions could choose to follow only the guidelines for Option 1 for watershed plan elements that relate to planning salmon habitat preservation and restoration activities. Or, to gain broader ESA certainty, the jurisdictions could follow those guidelines and the more comprehensive guidelines for Option 2 for plans that would address the broader issues in the watershed related to protecting salmon habitat. Option 1 would be available for any jurisdictions that only seek ESA certainty for habitat preservation and restoration actvities and choose not to use watershed planning to seek broader ESA certainty for other activities within the watershed that may adversely affect salmon.
Guidelines covering Option 1 plan elements would likely need to address:
1) criteria for watershed assessment and the use of assessment in watershed planning, clarifying the relationship among limiting factor analysis and critical path methodology under RCW75.46, watershed analyses for forest practices, and RCW 90.82 watershed assessments;
2) Best Management Practices (BMPs) and guidelines, such as the Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines, applicable to various types of habitat restoration activities;
3) procedures, methods and criteria for developing watershed strategies and identifying and setting priorities and schedules for habitat preservation and restoration activities;
4) protocols and responsibilities for monitoring project implementation and effectiveness;
5) potential relationship of watershed priorities for habitat preservation and restoration to future mitigation requirements and projects; and
6) potential relationship of project priorities within the watershed to the regional scale (e.g. ESU) of salmon recovery.
In addition to issues addressed for Option 1, guidelines for Option 2 plan elements would likely need to address:
1) use of BMPs and state and local programs in regulating development actvities that affect aquatic resources;
2) guidance for land use and other watershed actions and programs affecting habitat, water quality, water resources and instream flows to the extent these actions are relevant to the watershed and affect ESA listed species (e.g. decisions under the Shoreline Management Act and the Growth Management Act); and
3) other elements of watershed plans that may be necessary and relevant, such as:
a) public involvement and decision-making processes;
b) establishing watershed goals, strategies, and priorities;
c) identifying and committing to actions and funding;
d) implementation monitoring;
e) monitoring and evaluating plan effectiveness; and
f) adaptive management.
Next Steps
- Form and convene group of key participants to confirm interest in guideline development, develop outreach to and involvement process for local lead entities and planning units, and provide ongoing participation in designing the process for and the content of the potential guidelines. (June 2000)
- Outreach to lead entities and planning units to gauge level of support for guideline development, share information on related processes, and identify/discuss potential issues. (July/August 2000)
- Clarify potential NMFS and USFWS approval process for guidelines (August 2000)
- Review outreach results, proposed decision process for guidelines and progress in outlining issues with Joint Natural Resources Cabinet (JNRC) and Government Council on Natural Resources. Clarify JNRC's authorization to proceed with drafting guidelines. (September 2000)