WDFW LogoWashington Department of Fish & Wildlife
  HELP | EMPLOYMENT | NEWS | CONTACT  
WDFW LogoPublications

You will need Adobe Reader to view and print publications.

Get Adobe Reader
Get Adobe® Reader

Archived Publications
contain dated information
that do not reflect current
WDFW regulations or policy.
These documents are provided
for archival purposes only.


 

    Advanced Search
  Search Tips

 
Download PDF Download Document

Get Adobe® Reader

Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative: Supplemental Report No. 2, Public Review Comments on Draft Habitat Sections of the Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative

Category: Fish/Shellfish Research and Management - Management and Conservation

Date Published: April 2000

Number of Pages: 108

Author(s): Point No Point Treaty Tribes and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

INTRODUCTION:

The Point No Point Treaty (PNPT) Tribes and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) published a comprehensive salmon recovery plan  titled "Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative – An Implementation Plan to Recover Summer Chum in the Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Region" in April of 2000. During the late winter of 1999, a draft of the habitat sections being prepared for inclusion in the plan (section 3.4, and Appendix Reports 3.5-3.8) underwent external review by independent scientists, state agencies, local jurisdictions, and members of the public. The draft was distributed through the Hood Canal Coordination Council, a coalition of regional Tribal and county governments. The PNPT Tribes and WDFW biologists that wrote the plane then reviewed these comments and revised the plan. This process allowed the authors to improve the plan based on the strong feedback and critical review they received.

Written comments on the plan were submitted by approximately thirty different individuals, organizations, or agencies. Representatives of city and county governments, utility and conservation districts, private corporations, environmental groups, tribes, and individual citizens participated in this review. The breadth of comments makes generalizations difficult. However, many of the comments were quite detailed and focused on elements of the plan that needed clarification. In several instances, comments stimulated discussion among the authors that led to reevaluation of assumptions, methodologies, and protection/restoration strategies.

Most comments focused on Section 3.4.4, the "Tool Kit of Protection and Restoration Strategies". There were also many comments on individual watershed narratives (Appendix Report 3.6). The detailed comments on particular watersheds proved helpful, highlighting gaps in our knowledge and drawing attention to additional pertinent data. The comments received are provided here as a supplement to the overall plan.