Dungeness Watershed Salmon Recovery Planning Notebook A Response to the Six Questions from the Development Committee of the Shared Strategy for Puget Sound Submitted by Clallam County and the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe June 30, 2004 Dungeness River Management Team Cooperative Management of Our Watershed’s Resources Coordinated by Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe and Clallam County 1033 Old Blyn Hwy. Sequim, WA 98382 (360) 683-1109 April 30, 2005 Jim Kramer Shared Strategy for Puget Sound Development Committee 1411 4th Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 RE: Update to Dungeness Watershed Salmon Recovery Notebook and Response to Technical Review Team Feedback Dear Mr. Kramer: On behalf of the partners of the Dungeness Watershed, the Dungeness River Management Team is pleased to enclose revisions to the Dungeness Watershed Salmon Recovery Notebook now known as the Dungeness Watershed Salmonid Recovery Notebook and a response to key issues raised by the Technical Review Team. This additional material has been developed through a collaborative effort by staff from Clallam County, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Point No Point Treaty Council. The enclosed response is organized around the six questions posed by the Shared Strategy Development Committee. An Executive Summary serves as a road map to highlight the revisions and steer the Technical Review Team to the response for each key issue. As you know, the Dungeness River has been the subject of significant watershed planning efforts since the formation of the Dungeness River Management Team in the 1980’s. Our June 2004 submittal was largely a compilation of this existing work. Since the June 2004 submittal, the Dungeness River Management Team has devoted time to both the Ecosystem Diagnostic Treatment (EDT) Analysis and to considering local commitments necessary to achieve salmonid recovery. Last fall, the Dungeness River Management Team reviewed the EDT Analysis with technical staff who contributed to the model development. The Team is pleased that the results largely affirm our current strategy and indicate that our action plan brings us close to achieving the Viable Salmon Population planning targets (noting that assumptions embedded in the planning targets – such as a pristine estuary – make it almost impossible to fully achieve the targets). Since the June 2004 submittal, the Dungeness River Management Team has discussed Question F: What commitments (policy level decisions, funding, etc.) will be necessary for implementation, and what conditions need to be in place for the commitments to be made? Much of this discussion is based on technical recommendations about what will be necessary from local-decision makers to come close to our Viable Salmon Population planning targets. Statements of commitment from local decision-makers were requested by June 30, 2005. Question F is now being considered by local decision makers and will be sent under separate cover. We are aware that the Shared Strategy Technical Review Team may have questions regarding this submittal. Please contact Cathy Lear, Planning Biologist for Clallam County, (360) 417-2361 if questions arise. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the Dungeness Watershed portion of the Puget Sound salmonid recovery plan. The Dungeness River Management Team will continue to work to ensure broad stakeholder participation and strong citizen and technical involvement in recovery planning and implementation. Sincerely, Steve Tharinger, Chair Dungeness River Management Team Dungeness Salmonid Recovery Planning Notebook Contributors Contributors to 2005 submittal • Dungeness River Management Team • Dungeness Salmonid Recovery Group Selinda Barkhuis - North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity John Cambalik – Puget Sound Action Team Scott Chitwood - Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe Pat Crain – Olympic National Park Carol Creasey - Clallam County Bill Freymond - Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Manuel Farinas - Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Hansi Hals – Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe Randy Johnson – Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Cathy Lear – Clallam County Byron Rot – Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe Ann Seiter – under contract with Jamestown S’Klallam tribe Chris Weller – Point No Point Treaty Council • US Forest Service Marc McHenry Larry Ogg • US Fish and Wildlife Service Shelley Spaulding Dungeness Watershed Salmonid Recovery Planning Notebook Table of Contents April 30, 2005 COVER LETTERS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ADDENDUM A ADDENDUM B I. INTRODUCTION A. Overview of the Dungeness Salmonid Recovery Planning Notebook B. Background and Status of Dungeness Chinook Population C. Background and Status of Dungeness Bull Trout Population II. RESPONSE TO THE SIX SHARED STRATEGY QUESTIONS A. What will it take to achieve the planning targets or properly functioning conditions for independent spawning salmonid populations, including the protection of existing habitat functions and restoration? In areas without independent spawning populations, what will it take to protect existing functions and where are there good opportunities for enhancement and restoration? 1. Habitat/ Working Hypothesis and Summary of Restoration Strategies 2. Habitat/ Land Use Analysis 3. Hatcheries Management 4. Harvest Management: a. Fish Harvest Management within Dungeness River and Bay b. Fish Harvest Management within the State of Washington c. Harvest Management within Alaska and Canada (under the Pacific Salmon Treaty) d. Harvest and Escapement of Dungeness Chinook References for Question A Attachments to Question A: • Restoring the Dungeness (Newberry/Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, 2003) • EDT report – Key Points in Understanding the EDT Action Analysis for Dungeness Chinook • EDT River Reach Analysis • Review of the Critical Areas Ordinance (Hals, 2004) B. What is the watershed vision for salmonid recovery and other interests and needs in the watershed? How do you envision balancing and complementing the various needs and the interests of your watershed? 1. Habitat a. Summary of Dungeness watershed planning efforts b. DRMT letter endorsing "Restoring the Dungeness" c. Relevant excerpts from 2514 Watershed Management Plan 2. Hatchery Management 3. Harvest Management 4. Integration of harvest, hatcheries and habitat Attachments to Question B: • Letter from DRMT endorsing "Restoring the Dungeness" • Excerpts from 2514 Watershed Management Plan – replace with change to 3.1.1. C. What are your measurable Dungeness Chinook and bull trout recovery goals and the timeframe to achieve them? What has already been accomplished toward achieving them? 1. Dungeness Chinook Recovery Goals 2. Dungeness Bull Trout Recovery Goals 3. Habitat Restoration Activities and Accomplishments o Highlights of restoration activities o Maps showing plans and studies, restoration project sites, and lands purchased for conservation since 1989 4. Hatchery Restoration Activities and Accomplishments o Dungeness Chinook Captive Brood Program o Dungeness Non-Chinook Hatchery Programs o Dungeness Chinook Hatchery Management Programs Under ESA o Hatchery Reform 5. Harvest Management Attachments to Question C: • Dungeness Watershed Restoration Plans & Activities 1989 to Present • Annual "Milestone" Reports of the Dungeness River Management Team for 2001-2003 D. What on-the-ground actions can be accomplished in the next 5 to 10 years and what will be the result for populations and habitat functions (i.e. actions to turn the negative trend around)? What are the next steps to advance other changes that cannot be addressed in the shorter timeframe? 1. Habitat Restoration Actions a. Project List and Supplement b. Barriers to Implementation c. Nearshore Restoration Actions d. Habitat Monitoring/ Adaptive Management 2. Hatchery Management Activities/ Next Steps a. New Chinook Hatchery Program b. Hatchery Program Monitoring c. New Hatchery Water Sources d. Screening Hatchery Intakes e. Adaptive Management of Hatchery Programs 3. Harvest Management Attachments to Question D: • Dungeness Project List Supplement – replace with Table D-1 • Excerpt from the North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity Group - Nearshore Restoration Strategy – replace with Draft NOPLE Nearshore Restoration Strategy. E. What are the preliminary estimates for cost of actions (i.e. projects, acquisition, regulations, incentives, etc.) and ongoing operations in the next 5 to 10 years? • Summary of Cost Estimates for Projects in the 10-Year Timeframe • Notes/ basis for cost estimates: Restoration Projects Other Habitat-Related Projects Hatchery Management Harvest Management Attachments to Question E: WDFW Proposal for Comprehensive Monitoring US Forest Service Estimate for Road Stabilization and Decommissioning F. What commitments (policy level decisions, funding, etc.) will be necessary for implementation, and what conditions need to be in place for the commitments to be made? Statements of commitment are expected from local decision-makers by June 2005. 1. Habitat Management a. Land Use b. Watershed Planning and Management c. Water Quality d. Nearshore Habitat e. Water Resource Management f. Funding Considerations 2. Hatchery Management 3. Harvest Management Attachments to Question F: o "Toward Recovery" (Clallam County, 2000) o Excerpts from draft WRIA 18 Watershed Plan o Table F-1 III. ADDITIONAL APPENDICES (on disk, except for primary copy) o Recommended Land Protection Strategies for the Dungeness Riparian Area, (Hals/DRRWG, 2003) o Recommended Restoration Projects for the Dungeness River (DRRWG,