| |
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
The Honorable Jim Saxton, Chairman
Testimony submitted by Dr. Jeff Koenings
Director, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
May 18, 2000
Introduction
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee for inviting me here today. My name is Jeff Koenings and I am director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to testify on the proposed Pacific Salmon Recovery Act, which would authorize the Secretary of Commerce to provide financial assistance to the states of Washington, Oregon, California and Alaska for salmon habitat restoration in coastal and upland drainages.
My department unequivocally supports the act, and believes the guidelines it sets forth are compatible with salmon recovery efforts now underway in Washington state.
As you know, Washington state is facing one of the biggest public policy challenges of its history - how to restore the health of a Pacific Northwest icon, wild salmon.
This challenge involves not only the state and federal government, but countless counties, cities, tribes, businesses, farmers, environmentalists, citizens groups and others from across Washington.
The issue literally has the potential to touch, in some way, big or small, the lives of all our citizens.
No one, myself included, would pretend to have all the answers on how we are going to meet this challenge. We are presently wrestling with a number of issues.
For example, how do we make sure citizen volunteer groups, our front-line soldiers in the salmon recovery war, receive the support they need from the state in order to be successful? And how do we ensure shared recovery goals are carried out under shared leadership?
Despite these issues, though, I believe we have made significant progress. Already, numerous public and private entities have joined under Governor Gary Locke's Salmon Recovery Strategy to put in place the foundation for a collaborative, bottom-up approach to salmon recovery that, ultimately, should ensure accountability for public monies spent to restore wild salmon populations.
This foundation recognizes the vital role watershed habitat restoration must play, the vital role local citizens must play, and the vital role science must play in recovery efforts.
The Challenge
Our challenge is immense.
Presently, Washington has 16 stocks of salmon listed as either threatened or endangered. Still more have been proposed for listing. These listings geographically cover nearly 75 percent of the state. And that area contains about 93 percent of our citizens.
Recovery of these species would be difficult under any circumstances, but the widespread alteration -and outright destruction- of salmon and other fish and wildlife habitat has made the job of rebuilding our wild salmon runs even more difficult.
A recent federal study concluded that approximately 70,000 acres of private, undeveloped lands in Washington state are annually converted to urban, industrial and other human uses. It's estimated we have already lost 90 to 98 percent of our estuaries and wetlands to development in coastal urban areas. And in Puget Sound alone, 70 percent of the tidal wetlands have been destroyed.
Given this metamorphosis of Washington's physical landscape, rebuilding wild salmon stocks would seem a daunting task. But the added complexities posed by the political landscape make it an even more daunting task.
Consider the Puget Sound chinook. A little over a year ago, the National Marine Fisheries Service listed the chinook as threatened. At the turn of the century, nearly 700,000 of these remarkable fish annually returned to the cold, clear, clean water of Puget Sound.
Today, however, their number has dwindled to fewer that 18,000. The habitat these fish depend on -much of which has been altered for industrial and other purposes- lies in the middle of one of the most populous and prosperous urban centers in the United States, the Seattle/King County metropolitan area.
Not only must the chinook pass through some of the most highly-utilized waterways in the state to make it to its spawning grounds, some must weave their way through the waters of six, and perhaps up to a dozen, different federal, state and local jurisdictions.
And each of these jurisdictions can -and often do- have their own land use and other laws that can affect the salmon's chances to spawn, rear as juveniles and then to migrate to sea. It is here in the freshwater habitats that most of the salmon mortality takes place.
Meeting the challenge
So it is against this dynamic backdrop that the people of Washington state are proceeding with salmon recovery.
Regional recovery planning efforts involving local government officials, the tribes, citizens and others are now taking place in various parts of the state, including the Upper and Lower Columbia River regions and what we called the Tri-County area -or the heavily urbanized counties of King, Pierce and Snohomish. ( Appendix 1).
On the state level and in my own agency, we have made major changes in recent years in the way we manage harvests and hatcheries to meet our goal of providing harvest opportunities on hatchery fish and healthy runs of wild salmon, while making sure weak or listed wild salmon make it to their spawning grounds.
Working in tandem with our co-managers, the treaty tribes, we have implemented changes in harvest practices ranging from fishing area closures and gear modifications, to marking hatchery fish so they can be distinguished from wild stocks.
We have increased monitoring of catches; we have stepped up enforcement efforts to ensure compliance with regulations; we have dramatically reduced the number of commercial fishing licenses; and we have curtailed some fisheries and reduced seasons and quotas.
We have also started the complicated and very expensive task of transforming our hatcheries. Originally built as fish factories to provide fish for commercial and recreational harvest, we are repositioning them to serve the dual purpose of recovering wild salmon runs and providing sustainable fisheries.
Currently, a third of the Department's 90 hatcheries are used for wild fish recovery, but the number is expected to grow. With strong support from Senator Slade Gorton and Congressman Norm Dicks, we are in the early stages of developing a comprehensive hatchery reform strategy for state, tribal and federal hatcheries in Puget Sound and western Washington. The underpinnings for the strategy will be based on science and led by an independent Hatchery Scientific Review Group charged with reviewing current processes and policies and identifying scientific needs.
State lawmakers response, local citizens role
Even with changes in harvest and hatchery practices, it has long been realized by state policymakers and others that for wild salmon recovery to become a reality, Washington would have to focus on the loss of spawning and rearing habitat in our watersheds.
To address the issue -and to spur local interest and involvement in salmon recovery- Washington state lawmakers adopted the Salmon Recovery Act and created so-called "lead entities" -or local citizen groups- to promote and coordinate salmon recovery activities in their communities and watersheds.
At present the state has 21 lead entities responsible for using limiting factor analysis and other watershed assessment tools to identify and scientifically prioritize projects that benefit salmon habitat within local watersheds. Lead entities are also charged with developing an overall salmon habitat restoration strategy within their local area.
In addition to lead entities, state lawmakers also created the Governor's Salmon Recovery Office to provide a forum to develop a statewide salmon recovery strategy. The state also formed the Joint Natural Resources Cabinet for state agencies to collaborate on and streamline salmon recovery areas and regions. And they next created the Salmon Recovery Fund Board, chaired by Bill Ruckelshaus, to develop statewide procedures and criteria for allocating funds to state agencies, lead entities and others for salmon habitat projects and recovery activities.
The funding board is comprised of 10 members -five citizens and five directors from state natural resource agencies, including myself. Last March, the board, which meets periodically in public session, used both state and federal monies to fund more than 100 projects worth over $13 million. Projects ranged from culvert and fish ladder improvements to wetlands and flood plain restoration. Grants ranged from less than $3,000 to well over $1 million. The board expects to award another round of grants at the end of this year.
The administrative arm of the Salmon Recovery Board is the Interagency Committee on Outdoor Recreation, which ensures compliance with grant agreements as well as performing other duties.
Washington lawmakers have also recognized the importance of science to salmon recovery and created an Independent Science panel comprised of five members selected by the Governor.
The purpose of the panel is to provide an external review of the comprehensive salmon recovery plans before they are submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and make sure sound science is being applied. The panel does not review individual recovery projects.
The Department and salmon recovery technical and scientific assistance
I can think of no individual who has sounded off more than myself on the need to provide sound technical and scientific assistance to lead entities, and to make sure science is our compass in all our salmon recovery efforts. I know that to some, particularly those who work with me on a regular basis, I must sound like a broken record on these two fronts.
To meet the need to supply technical assistance to lead entity personnel in the field, my Department recently formed what we call a Watershed Stewardship Team. Comprised of Department personnel, team members are responsible for helping lead entities prioritize projects and then monitor these projects for their effectiveness.
Team members are also charged with facilitating long-term planning efforts that address land use, human population growth and the effect of both on salmon resources.
On the science front, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, through its Wild Salmonid Policy, provides broad, scientific guidance for ensuring the needs of wild salmon are met in our fisheries habitat and hatchery management activities.
The policy, which is now part of the Governor's statewide Salmon Recovery Strategy, provides guidance in such areas as genetic diversity, spawner escapement, ecological interactions and the use of selective fisheries.
In addition to this policy, the department and the tribes are also in the process of updating our population status reports for all salmonid stocks in the state, and are continuing work on comprehensive management plans for coho and chinook -plans that take into account the myriad of harvest, hatchery and habitat issues affecting the stocks.
With funding provided by Salmon Recovery Funding Board, the Department and tribes are also continuing work on a habitat inventory assessment project that provides detailed data on salmon habitat conditions in specific geographic areas. This data collection, generated at the local watershed level, can be "rolled up" to mark progress toward achieving salmon recovery goals or de-listing criteria.
Science and technical data derived from these and other projects can be invaluable. It can go a long way towards ensuring recovery efforts carried out in watersheds are effective for generations to come.
All too often, though, science is developed and then not used or used improperly by people attempting to solve real problems in the real world. Or, if it is used, it is applied inconsistently in a haphazard fashion.
That is why I advocate the formation of a separate state Science Review Team that would work with lead entities and the Salmon Recovery Funding Board to make sure recovery planning is science-driven and that the right science is reaching the right people in a comprehensible and timely fashion.
Such a team could, I believe, help develop consistent scientific criteria for screening grant proposals and provide a forum to promote information exchange among scientists and technicians and ordinary citizens working at different levels in salmon recovery.
The team could also oversee the continued development of analytical tools used in various watersheds, and help determine the effectiveness of proposed habitat projects across watersheds within Evolutionary Significant Units.
Conclusion
Despite the challenges still before us in the state of Washington, I believe, as I said that the outset of my remarks, that the process we have put in place is largely sound and that we are on the right track. We have built the foundation for our recovery efforts.
We are now dependent not just on the continued efforts of state and local leaders, but our citizens, whose enthusiasm and dedication to make salmon recovery a reality has to be our anchor.
On the federal level, we are dependent on the efforts of members of this subcommittee and many others for our success. We appreciate your efforts and thank you.
Oral Testimony
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee for inviting me here today. Department of Fish and Wildlife, along with our tribal co-managers, is directly involved in the state's efforts to restore its wild salmon and trout populations.
A brief review of my background will provide context to the comments that follow. I hold a Ph.D. in Natural Resources from the University of Michigan. I spent 20+ years with the Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game in various capacities, all related to either the science, management, or politics of salmon. And with that experience was selected for my present position.
Salmon recovery is a "big deal" in the State of Washington. And 78% of its geographic area and 93% of the states ever-expanding population is affected by federal listings under the Endangered Species Act.
The state's existing statewide salmon recovery framework has three basic tenets:
- it is based on the best available science
- it is dependent on the knowledge and support of local citizens working through cooperative watershed groups
- it is fully accountable, providing for cost-effective use of both state and federal dollars.
As evidenced by this legislation, salmon recovery will not take place in Washington, D.C. Nor, do we believe, it will take place in Olympia, Washington's capital. Both Congress and our state legislature have recognized the need to drive salmon down into the local watersheds. This is critical to our success because the vast majority of the mortality salmon face occurs in poorly functioning fresh and estuarine habitats.
The state has recognized the need to tap into the tremendous reservoir of energy and expertise that exists at the local level by creating Lead Entity groups to prioritize watershed restoration activities. These twenty-three Lead Entities coordinate and assist citizens willing to volunteer their time and expertise toward salmon recovery.
The conditions and provisions of this bill are very consistent and compatible with the habitat restoration approach to salmon recovery adopted by the state legislature in 1998. My department has reorganized to support Lead Entity efforts at the local watershed level by providing access to the best available scientific and technical expertise for citizens working toward salmon recovery. Private citizens, state and local governments then utilize this science to identify priority projects that correct those factors limiting salmon recovery in their local watershed. In 1999, the state legislature created the State Salmon Recovery Funding Board, Chaired by Mr. Bill Ruckelshaus, which funds Lead Entity projects based upon stringent, science-based criteria. The federal funds appropriated through this act will flow through this same process, insuring both consistence and accountability for habitat restoration activities funded by state and federal dollars.
Our experience in the State of Washington leads us to believe it is critically important that all projects are monitored and evaluated in order to judge their effectiveness in terms of actual numbers of salmon. This helps us to identify the best, most cost-effective projects, and to use adaptive management to better project performance toward recovering salmon.
I do have several specific comments on HR 2798 - the Pacific Salmon Recovery Act and will provide subcommittee staff with specific language where appropriate:
I would suggest specific language requiring the performance monitoring, measuring, and reporting for activities funded under this act.
I would suggest that the bill carefully define "habitat restoration activities" (e.g., fish screening) to assure that these valuable federal funds are truly benefitting priority salmon needs.
I would request that "Bull Trout," a listed species in Washington State, be included under the definition of "Salmon."
And I would suggest that the exemption provided these funds from consultation under Section 5 of this bill be extended to include both Section 7 and Section 10 of the ESA; and that the exemption also is extended to any state dollars used to match these federal salmon recovery funds.
Finally, thank you for the three percent allowance for administrative expenses. While none of those funds come to my department, I know that they will support several hundred individual project agreements, each of which needs to be fully accountable. And that accountability has a cost that should not be under-valued.
In closing, we support this bill. Habitat restoration is a critical component of salmon recovery. Other components that are being addressed and funded under concurrent processes are harvest management, through the Pacific Salmon Treaty and Pacific Fishery management Council negotiations; and hatchery reform through the Hatchery Scientific Review Group, sponsored by Senator Slade Gorton and Congressman Norm Dicks. These efforts, combined with aggressive state and federal initiatives to address the impacts of hydro-power operations on salmon stocks, provide a comprehensive approach to salmon recovery in the State of Washington.
Unfortunately, there are many examples of failure, such as in our own Columbia River where 38 separate entities vie for control. However, our experience in the State of Washington, under a different model, has convinced me that the science-based process we have established, with defined roles and responsibilities and inclusive of local residents, can be successful in preventing the extinction of this icon of the Pacific Northwest.
Thank you again for this opportunity. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Back to index