Tag Archives: RESTORATION

Salmon Recovery Board Announces $45 Million In Grants For Puget Sound Habitat Work

THE FOLLOWING IS A PRESS RELEASE FROM THE WASHINGTON RECREATION AND CONSERVATION OFFICE

Efforts to restore Chinook salmon, a critical food source for endangered southern resident orcas, and other Puget Sound salmon populations just got a boost thanks to more than $45 million in grants announced today.

AMONG THE $45 MILLION IN PUGET SOUND-RELATED SALMON GRANTS ANNOUNCED BY THE STATE IS $160,000 TO COME UP WITH FINAL DESIGNS TO PLACE LOGJAMS IN JIM CREEK, A TRIBUTARY OF THE SOUTH FORK STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, TO IMPROVE HABITAT FOR CHINOOK AND STEELHEAD. THE STILLY IS ONE OF THE WORST OFF RIVERS IN TERMS OF FISH HABITAT, AND ITS CHRONICALLY LOW RETURNS OF KINGS IMPACT PUGET SOUND FISHERIES, AND TRYING TO INCREASE THE SYSTEM’S HABITAT CAPACITY TO PRODUCE MORE FISH IS ONE WAY OF EASING CONSTRAINTS. (RCO)

The Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board, in partnership with the Puget Sound Partnership, awarded 64 grants in counties surrounding Puget Sound, Washington state’s biggest estuary. The grants focus on improving salmon habitat and conserving pristine shorelines and riverbanks.

“When we invest in salmon recovery, it’s not just salmon that we’re saving,” said Governor Jay Inslee. “Whether you live near, love to play in, or simply care about Puget Sound, this funding is a cornerstone of doing that—and investing in that habitat kick starts a suite of other benefits. We’re also preserving our Pacific Northwest legacy, our way of life, our jobs, our neighborhoods, and our communities.”

“We know that restoring salmon to levels that support our environment, other wildlife, and people, takes time, effort, and of course, sustained funding,” said Kaleen Cottingham, director of the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office, which houses the Salmon Recovery Funding Board. “That’s what makes this continued investment so important, and we’re looking forward to seeing it play out in the shovel-ready projects teed up across Puget Sound.”

“The Puget Sound Partnership is committed to recovering salmon populations in this region and we are thrilled to see this funding come through,” said Laura Blackmore Puget Sound Partnership’s executive director. “Salmon are integral to the identity and traditions of the Pacific Northwest and are a vital part of the Puget Sound food web. This funding will support projects that help recover salmon populations and feed our struggling southern resident orcas.”

Grants were awarded in the following counties (click to see project details):

Clallam County………………………. $6,498,354

Island County……………………………. $342,815

Jefferson County………………………. $601,529

King County…………………………… $7,850,587

Kitsap County………………………… $1,560,967

Mason County……………………….. $3,829,757

Pierce County………………………… $2,254,211

San Juan County………………………. $333,253

Skagit County………………………… $3,771,928

Snohomish County…………………. $4,029,908

Thurston County…………………….. $1,376,658

Whatcom County………………….. $12,953,156

Multiple Counties………………………. $397,969

In 1991, the federal government declared the first salmon in the Pacific Northwest endangered under the Endangered Species Act. In the next few years, 14 additional species of salmon and steelhead and 3 species of bull trout were listed as at-risk of extinction.

By the end of the decade, wild salmon had disappeared from about 40 percent of their historic breeding ranges in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and California. In Washington, the numbers had dwindled so much that salmon, steelhead, and bull trout were listed as threatened or endangered in nearly three-fourths of the state.

Recovery efforts in the past 20 years have started to slow, and in some cases, reference the declines. Puget Sound steelhead populations are showing signs of recovery but Chinook salmon populations continue to decline.

The grants awarded today include projects that will remove a diversion dam to open 37 miles of habitat on the Pilchuck River, reconnect nearly a mile of the Dungeness River with 112 acres of its historic floodplain, and open up 16 miles of habitat on the Nooksack River.

Projects are prioritized by local watershed groups, called lead entities, as well as regionally ranked by the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council. The Puget Sound Partnership, the state agency responsible for leading the Puget Sound recovery effort, coordinates project ranking.

Funding comes from the legislatively approved Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration Fund, supported by the sale of state bonds.

Since its inception in 2007, the Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration Fund has leveraged $78 million federal and other matching funds and created more than 2,600 jobs. Fund investments have protected more than 3,000 acres of estuary, 80 miles of river for migrating fish and 10,000 acres of watershed habitat.

Get a Free NewsLetter Here

Study Finds Side Channel Restoration One Key For Puget Sound Chinook Recovery

THE FOLLOWING IS A NEWS STORY FROM THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

Teasing apart the elements of Puget Sound rivers that matter most to fish, researchers have found that one of the best ways to recover threatened Chinook salmon may be to restore the winding side channels that once gave young fish essential rearing habitat and refuge from high winter flows.

Models were based on fine-scale river mapping and tracking salmon populations across Puget Sound. They showed that habitat restoration projects in the Cedar River southeast of Seattle could boost the number of young Chinook salmon produced by each spawning adult by adding side channel habitat.

BRAIDS OF THE SAUK RIVER BETWEEN DARRINGTON AND ROCKPORT. (ANDY WALGAMOTT)

Additional side channels and other habitat improvements also appear to help stabilize salmon numbers, making them less vulnerable to flooding or other extreme conditions that may come more often with climate change.

“The risk of those extreme catastrophes is lessened because the water can spread out and slow down, with less impact to the fish,” said Correigh Greene, a research biologist at NOAA Fisheries’ Northwest Fisheries Science Center in Seattle and coauthor of the The next link/button will exit from NWFSC web site new research published last week in PLOS ONE. The team of scientists from NOAA Fisheries, Cramer Fish Sciences, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife used aerial photographs to chart and measure each twist and turn of 10 of Puget Sound’s largest rivers, from the Skagit to the Dungeness, and relate them to Chinook salmon populations.

Restoring Habitat Key To Salmon Recovery

The findings also provide important confirmation that restoring Chinook salmon habitat, a key recovery strategy for Puget Sound populations, can deliver real improvements in their survival and productivity.

“We now know that there is a detectable response to habitat restoration that can inform our decisions about how to pursue recovery and dedicate funding where it will do the most good for fish,” said Elizabeth Babcock, Northern Puget Sound Branch Chief in NOAA Fisheries’ West Coast Region, who helps carry out recovery plans for threatened Puget Sound Chinook salmon.

River Complexity Leads to Better Salmon Habitat

Biologists view the braided networks of side channels that are common in natural rivers in the Northwest as evidence of a river’s “complexity,” which also includes deep pools, outcrops, and log jams, all of which provide important habitat for juvenile and adult fish. Generally, the more complexity a river displays, the better habitat it will provide for fish, because they can more easily find refuge and rearing habitat when they need it.

Many Puget Sound rivers have suffered reduced complexity through years of development as dikes, roads, and riprap have hemmed them into straight, narrow channels with far less room. That leaves less refuge for juvenile fish to grow before migrating into the Salish Sea.

A SCREENGRAB FROM GOOGLE MAPS SHOWS A STRAIGHT, DREDGED STRETCH OF THE SAMMAMISH RIVER BETWEEN WOODINVILLE AND REDMOND. (GOOGLE MAPS)

Of all the factors that contribute to a river’s complexity, the researchers found that side channels and the number of junctions among them, and to a lesser extent woody material such as log jams, are most important to Chinook salmon. More complex rivers are generally slower than narrow rivers with impervious banks, so the juvenile salmon aren’t swept downstream faster than they’re ready to go. The more habitat complexity, the researchers found, the higher the productivity of Chinook salmon populations.

Models Can Help Plan and Track Habitat Restoration

“Once we link habitat metrics to meaningful productivity metrics, we can start to answer some of the big questions, such as, “How much restoration achieves recovery, and what qualities do you most want to focus on,” said Jason Hall, a senior scientist at Cramer Fish Sciences and lead author of the new study. He noted that the answers may differ from species to species and river to river. Habitat complexity also appeared to reduce fluctuations in salmon numbers from year to year, “supporting the idea that habitat complexity buffers populations from annual variation in environmental conditions,” the scientists wrote.

Habitat protection and restoration along the Cedar River, which provides much of Seattle’s municipal water, is an example of the kind of restoration that can help recover Puget Sound Chinook salmon in the long run, Greene said. Understanding the habitat qualities most important to fish helps estimate “how much we have to do to move the needle over the whole life cycle.” The same mapping and modeling approach that was demonstrated by the research can help plan and track the benefits of other restoration occurring in estuaries and along Puget Sound’s shorelines, the authors said.

IN A RELATED STORY OUT TODAY, SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES SAYS THAT A  PAIR OF CHINOOK WERE SPOTTED IN A SECTION OF THORNTON CREEK THAT WAS RESTORED IN 2014 TO BE BETTER SPAWNING HABITAT AND THAT THE TWO WERE THE FIRST OF THEIR SPECIES SEEN IN THE URBAN STREAM IN EIGHT YEARS. (SPU)

“If you have funding for restoration, where can you spend it to deliver the best benefit for fish?” Babcock asked. “We’re finally starting to have better answers to that question.”

Reaction To Zinke’s Call To Restore Grizzly Bears To North Cascades

Last Friday morning’s announcement by Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke that he wanted to “accelerate” the federal review of proposals to restore grizzly bears in Washington’s North Cascades led to a spectrum of reaction.

SECRETARY OF INTERIOR RYAN ZINKE SPEAKS BEFORE REPORTERS AND OTHERS ON MARCH 23, 2018, ON RESTORATION OF GRIZZLY BEARS TO THE NORTH CASCADES. (CHASE GUNNELL)

Here is a sampling:

Ethan Lane, executive director, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and Public Lands Council, via AgInfo.net

“We are extremely disappointed with the Department of the Interior’s support to introduce Grizzly Bears to the North Cascades of Washington. For more than a year we have heard the Secretary talk about being a better neighbor, but unfortunately actions speak louder than words. Reintroducing as many as 200 man-eating predators into an area already reeling from exploding gray wolf populations is anything but neighborly. This decision won’t just impact ranchers – it’s a blow for the entire North Cascades ecosystem, the safety of locals and visitors, and the local economy, too. In fact, the only beneficiaries of an action like this will be the radical environmental activists that support this type of ill-advised ecosystem tinkering.”

Mitch Friedman, executive director, Conservation Northwest, via Skagit Valley Herald

“It’s been 30 years — it was in ‘88 that we started advocating for grizzly bear recovery. That’s quite a span of time … to have a horizon for success is astounding.”

Rob Smith, regional director, National Parks Conservation Association, via Seattle PI

“We’ve lost almost a year of progress toward grizzly recovery in the North Cascades, so we’re relieved that Secretary Zinke has decided to take the finger off the pause button and allow park and wildlife experts to continue their work.

“Wildlife science as well as public opinion support restoration of the grizzly bear to the North Cascades for ecosystem health and as a legacy for future generations.”

Sarah Ryan, executive vice president, Washington Cattlemen’s Association, via AgInfo.net

“The idea of dumping man-eating Grizzly Bears from helicopters into Washington National Parks has not been well thought out. Once the Grizzly Bears walk out of the park into rural towns and private and state lands, the communities surrounding the recovery area can be greatly impacted. Already the livestock community has had little to no help with the management and recovery of wolves in the North Cascades, and cannot accept and welcome another federally listed apex predator with no monetary help from the federal government. What is the reasoning behind thinking a recovery like this can be accomplished without the support of the ranching, logging, recreation, and natural resource based communities or consideration for public safety?”

Steven Rinella, The Meateater, via Twitter

If he follows through on this, this is big and great news.

U.S. Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-4), via Yakima Herald Republic

“I am disappointed that Secretary Zinke did not first speak with me about his support of reintroducing grizzly bears in the North Cascades. Local communities in Central Washington thought reintroducing grizzly bears was a bad idea when proposed by the (Obama) administration and it would be just as bad an idea if entertained by the (Trump) administration.”

Chase Gunnell, communications director, Conservation Northwest, via email

As a lifelong Washingtonian and a hunter who carried a mule deer out of the wilderness of the North Cascades last year, alone and in the dark, I welcome the restoration of this iconic native species in this country that remains wild enough to sustain it. Despite high-quality habitat, the science is clear that because of isolation from other grizzly populations in Canada and the Rocky Mountains, grizzlies will not recover in the North Cascades on their own. It will take a few straightforward precautions, and some courage, but the North Cascades is big and rugged enough for both people and grizzly bears.

Salient thoughts from our social media post announcing the news, via facebook.com/NorthwestSportsmanMagazine

Daniel Martin Im one more Skagit valley republican that backcountry hunts and off trail backpacks frequently throughout the year that supports restoration of the grizzly. I’m more worried about wolves then grizzlies, it just comes down to a simple fact of human interference and over trapping, if we ( humans) have impacted the wildlife it’s our duty as humans to be Stewards of that wildlife and balance it as best as possible whether its predator or its prey. Yeah I would like tons more deer and elk walking around so I can hunt them easier but that’s being a little selfish when the last generations of humans over hunted and removed grizzlies from the landscape in the first place. No one knows if deer and elk populations will plummet when grizzlies come back but it seems that Wyoming,Alaska, and Montana are doing just fine with grizzlies around. Yeah I do think wolves need to be hunted and kept in check so they don’t deplete the game population and eventually I would want the grizzly to be managed the same.
Ralph Lane Jr. Well Daniel, we could just all move to Georgia and let the predators and rascally politicians have this place! Would that suit? The West was settled by humans FOR humans. If the populations of the indigenous went down in some cases, so be it. Adding more predatory animals back to the environment now will only result in more confrontation between them and humans and guess who LOSES?
…..
Kari Anne Hirschberger Daniel, that’s fine to be open to grizzlies inhabiting the Cascades, but it’s an entirely different issue regarding introducing them. The population in BC is heathy and they have not taken advantage of the open territory for a reason… and it isn’t due to humans hunting or otherwise minimizing their opportunities; we do NOT have the species of moths they take advantage of for a high protein source like in Montana… with the wildfires the region has seen in the past decade we definitely do not have high enough denisoty of white bark pine, and we don’t have the high density of bison and elk to take advantage of either… so what do you think these critters will eat? The habitat availability isn’t an issue… it’s the quality that has kept the numbers low. I feel introducing them sets them up for failure; either they directly compete with native black bear, or migrate to lowlands where the propensity for negative human interactions is high. Let them migrate back into the Cascades if they choose, but forcing their hand does good for nobody in my opinion. ?????
Daniel Martin Thanks for a well written opinion Kari Anne Hirschberger. I understand your point as I have listened to many a podcast and biologist speaking to your point. As far as moths and large ungulate prey is concerned as a high protein diet ( which they no doubt are) the moth issue as far as white bark Pine goes is two sided. The opinion that it is a big impact on bear diet and not a big impact on a bear diet is a debate. If biologists from our state ( which I have not heard any negatives as far as grizzly obtaining enough protein ) have good facts leading them to say they would survive fine then I trust there opinion. Grizzlies do compete with black bears in a balanced eco system, they displace black bears as they are supposed to do. There are so many meadows in the north cascade range full of bear food, and there is plenty of scavenging opportunities for all bears. I’m not worried that grizzlies will have a lack of food. As you know The reason a brown bear is so large is because of the abundance of marine protein ( salmon, shellfish etc) the brown bear is just a coastal grizzlie. The actual Alaskan grizzly which is a interior bear doesn’t naturally have the same protein access as the coastal bear and survives off vegetation and scavenging. The north Cascade’s grizzly would have a very similar habitat.
Also as a theory wouldn’t it be more of a incentive for wdfw to put more resources into growing our elk herds, mule deer herds.

North Cascades Grizzly Restoration Planning To Push Ahead Again

UPDATED 1:07 p.m. Friday, March 23, 2018

Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke told reporters this morning that the federal review of options to restore grizzlies in Washington’s North Cascades will push forward again.

THE NORTH CASCADES RISE OVER A SHARP TURN ON HIGHWAY 20. (ANDY WALGAMOTT)

Appearing at North Cascades National Park Complex headquarters in Sedro-Woolley, Zinke’s statements came after an apparent pause this past winter of the environmental review of four options for bringing the bears back to this mountainous country.

He said the process should wrap up this year — a Department of Interior press release says by late summer — and that he feels grizzlies can be returned to the recovery region.

“I’m in support of the great bear,” Zinke said in televised comments. “I’m also supportive of doing it right. This is not reintroduction of a rabbit. This is reintroduction of a grizzly, and when done right by professional management, the grizzly can return harmony to the ecosystem and the grizzly can be a great example of how we do it right. Doing it wrong can adversely affect visitor experience and it can also adversely our ability to manage the land.”

Bear advocates were pleased by the news, and it’s likely that local tribes are happy as well, as the Tulalips have supported restoration.

However, national, state cattlemen’s and public-lands ranching associations expressed disappointment.

The four options that the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service put out for comment in January 2017 ranged from no action — allow them to return themselves from southern British Columbia — to expedited reintroduction and a goal of 200 animals between the Canadian border and Snoqualmie Pass.

Zinke said that, not to prejudge the outcome of the review, but “the winds are favorable.”

WDFW participated in coming up with the EIS, but doesn’t have a position on any, a spokesman said.

It’s probable that there are no actual grizzlies in the North Cascades at present, or only one or two.

The secretary appeared for about 12 minutes and spoke for nine of them. He also spoke about his push to reorganize federal natural resource agencies.

$53 Million For Salmon Habitat Projects In 29 WA Counties Awarded

THE FOLLOWING IS A PRESS RELEASE FROM THE WASHINGTON RECREATION AND CONSERVATION OFFICE

The Washington Salmon Recovery Funding Board and the Puget Sound Partnership today announced the award of more than $53 million in grants for projects that will protect and restore salmon habitat statewide.

EXAMPLES OF PAST STREAM RESTORATION PROJECTS INCLUDE REMOVING PERCHED CULVERTS THAT MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR SALMON AND OTHER STOCKS TO SWIM UPSTREAM … (WASHINGTON RECREATION AND CONSERVATION OFFICE)

“Salmon are vitally important to Washington’s economy and to our way of life. They are one of our state’s most precious resources,” said Gov. Jay Inslee. “These projects will help tackle some of the fundamental problems that are destroying our salmon populations. By making these investments we are taking steps to increase the number of salmon so there will be enough fish for future generations, orcas and for the communities and jobs that rely on the fishing industry.”

… REMOVING INVASIVE JAPANESE KNOTWEED AND REPLACING IT WITH NATIVE VEGETATION … (WASHINGTON RECREATION AND CONSERVATION OFFICE)

With the Legislature’s recent approval of the capital budget, grants are being distributed for 163 projects to organizations in 29 of the state’s 39 counties. The grants will be used to remove barriers that prevent salmon from migrating, increase the types and amount of habitat for salmon, protect pristine areas and restore critical habitat so salmon have places to spawn, feed, rest and grow.

… CONSTRUCTING LOGJAMS SO RIVERS CAN REVERT TO MORE NATURAL FLOWS AND PROVIDE FISH PLACES TO REST AND HIDE … (WASHINGTON RECREATION AND CONSERVATION OFFICE)

Grants were given to projects in the counties below. Click to see details on each project:

Asotin County……………………….. $150,110

Chelan County………………….. $1,368,201

Clallam County………………….. $6,142,176

Clark County…………………………. $240,570

Columbia County……………………. $22,000

Cowlitz County…………………… $1,567,061

Garfield County………………………. $83,300

Grays Harbor County……………. $483,911

Island County……………………….. $825,533

Jefferson County……………….. $1,693,673

King County…………………….. $11,671,127

Kitsap County……………………….. $520,558

Kittitas County………………………. $862,119

Klickitat County…………………….. $598,787

Lewis County…………………….. $1,000,794

Mason County……………………. $4,549,648

Okanogan County………………… $487,599

Pacific County………………………. $357,679

Pend Oreille County……………… $342,000

Pierce County……………………. $3,528,850

San Juan County…………………. $745,591

Skagit County…………………….. $5,392,282

Skamania County…………………. $521,548

Snohomish County……………. $2,986,311

Thurston County………………… $1,254,429

Wahkiakum County………………. $507,612

Walla Walla County…………… $1,052,637

Whatcom County……………….. $2,934,300

Yakima County……………………… $228,000

Multiple Counties………………. $1,096,161

“Salmon are the lifeblood of the Pacific Northwest,” said Sheida R. Sahandy, executive director of the Puget Sound Partnership. The Partnership’s Leadership Council is the regional salmon recovery organization for most of Puget Sound’s salmon species. “They feed our families, support our culture and fuel our economy. They are also a critical link in the entire food web of the Puget Sound ecosystem. These funds support projects that will help to renew our salmon populations.”

… ADDING WOODY DEBRIS BACK INTO STREAMS, MANY OF WHICH WERE CLEANED OF WHAT TURNED OUT TO A BE KEY INGREDIENT, PER SE, FOR FISH SEVERAL DECADES BACK … (WASHINGTON RECREATION AND CONSERVATION OFFICE)

What is the Problem?

As people moved to Washington and built cities and towns around the water, many of the places salmon live were destroyed. In 1991, the federal government declared the first salmon as threatened with extinction. By the end of that decade, salmon populations had dwindled so much that salmon and bull trout were listed as threatened or endangered in three-quarters of the state.

… AND INSTALLING WIDER, MORE FISH-FRIENDLY CULVERTS TO OPEN UP MILES AND MILES OF LOST OR POTENTIAL SPAWNING HABITAT. (WASHINGTON RECREATION AND CONSERVATION OFFICE)

“These projects are keeping us from losing salmon entirely,” said David Troutt, chair of the Salmon Recovery Funding Board. “Salmon are in trouble, but we know what to do. We have federally-approved recovery plans in place and the people to make them happen. We must continue these investments if we are to return salmon to healthy and sustainable numbers.”

How Projects are Chosen

Funding for the grants comes from the Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration fund, the state capital budget and federal sources. The projects all are linked to federally-approved recovery plans.

“Projects are thoroughly reviewed by local citizens and regional and state technical experts,” said Kaleen Cottingham, director of the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office, which administers the grants. “This multi-level approach ensures we invest the money in projects that we will know will make a difference and help us recover salmon.”