![]() |
Private Land Reclamation Project Project for The Face of Salmon Kim Brown Deb Graves Sage Jensen Mike Rechner |
A Means to Salmonid Habitat Restoration
Executive Summary
The goal of this policy is to provide monetary incentives in the form of cash payments and property tax adjustments to private property owners for the purpose of maintaining and/or improving the riparian habitat supportive of salmonids in the freshwater stages of their life cycles on their properties.
Salmonids need a stream-riparian habitat in order to recover to sustainable levels in the Pacific Northwest once again. Bodies of water, supportive of salmonids, which run through urban, suburban, and rural areas are often extensively degraded, heavily modified, or simply nonexistent as natural, functioning riparian habitats. Salmonids require certain key elements in the riparian zone, stated in this document, to survive in their freshwater stages of life. Although current buffer zone requirements exist for Washington State, landowners either do not realize the benefits of such buffer zones or may not be aware of minimum buffer requirements. Enforcement of existing policies and laws regarding buffer zones is, at best, under-funded, and educational outreach to these landowners is limited.
The Statewide Salmon Recovery Strategy (SSRC), 'Extinction is Not an Option,' addresses this issue indirectly in the section titled Land Use, as well as referring to the Timber Fish and Wildlife Agreement. None of these sections in the SSRC specifically address the enhancement of riparian habitat on private property, but the principals set forth could apply. Using the Timber Fish and Wildlife Agreement as an example, the SSRC discusses the benefits that will be gained with riparian zones. Unfortunately, in the SSRC there is no mention of how to apply these
riparian buffer zones in a general sense, let alone on private property. There is still no single approach to riparian zone size that has gained universal acceptance and application to date.
This policy is focused on non-corporate, private property landowners in Western Washington. It is applicable to any landowner whose land contains any natural bodies of water, e.g., streams, wetlands, and lakes, which affect native salmonids, or potential salmonid-bearing, habitat. Prioritization of these conservation efforts will be determined by using the criteria defined within the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlifes "Priority Habitats and Species List Habitat Program" and other criteria as stated in this policy. The purpose of focusing this policy on privately owned land is because 55.4% of the land in Washington State is privately owned (Washington Department of Natural Resources, 1983).
Although there are currently 52 grants available in Washington State dedicated to environmental restoration (28 of which are accessible by private landowners), all of these programs either have a specific target area or require a cost share by the landowner. In contrast, our proposed policy will not require any cost share, and aims at motivating private landowners to actively participate in the restoration of salmon habitat in their own backyards.
The Problem
The Wilderness Society (1993) mapped the distribution of at-risk native Pacific salmon populations in California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho using data from Nehlsen et al. (1991) and other sources and concluded that Pacific salmon were either extinct or at risk of extinction across the vast majority of the survey area. It found that in over half of the total freshwater habitat of Pacific salmon, 50 to 100% of the native salmon species were extinct or at risk of extinction; in over one-third of the total freshwater habitat, all Pacific salmon species were extinct; and in only 6% of the freshwater habitat area were no Pacific salmon species known to be declining.
This is partly due to the fact that 50 to 90% of the riparian habitat has been lost or extensively modified (WDFW et al., 1997). Degradation of historic, current, and/or potential salmonid-bearing habitat has occurred due to the effects of water diversion, road construction, damming, urbanization, logging, agriculture, channeling, and other modifications. Such effects include the following:
Currently, there are policies in Washington State in which solutions to the problem of declining salmon runs include raising larger numbers of hatchery fish and enforcement of current laws. However, these policies will not be effective if the salmon have no habitat available when released from hatcheries or when returning upstream to spawn.
The graph to the left illustrates that the majority of land in the state of Washington is privately owned (55.4%). The control the state does have over these properties is lessened somewhat by the lack of enforcement of current rules and regulations. By designing this policy to create an incentive for a private landowner to actively participate in reclamation, we are effectively decreasing the need for enforcement. Most of what is required in this policy is follow-up visits to ensure the landowner is maintaining the property as agreed, and to monitor to see if the project is actually helping to reclaim salmonid habitat. In addition, adaptive management will be employed throughout this policy. This management style will allow for the flexibility that is needed, as there will always be special circumstances. An example of this adaptive management is to adjust the variables of a buffer (e.g., width) for a specific site so as to bring the project and its effectiveness to its fullest possible potential.
Goals and Objectives
Goal: To increase the desire for private landowners to participate in the restoration and preservation of historic, current, and/or potential salmonid-bearing habitat.
Objective: This will be accomplished by monetary incentives. Cash payments will be made to landowners in return for environmental or conservation easements. To offset the cost of maintaining the habitat, incentives in the form of property tax adjustments will be offered.
Goal: Restore and enhance historic, current, and/or potential salmonid-bearing habitat through the use of riparian buffer zones.
Objective: Through the use of the best available, existing studies and scientific research, a minimum riparian buffer zone width is determined. By applying this single buffer width to the participating parcels of land, we are able to provide a riparian habitat for the greatest amount of protection. While greater widths would provide more protection for certain habitat factors, the width used for this policy is a compromise between widths for all factors, thus creating a greater overall enhancement effect.
Goal: Create assurances of long-term salmonid-bearing habitat restoration
Objective: By requiring landowners to initiate long-term environmental or conservation easements as long as 30 years or in perpetuity, long-term habitat restoration and preservation is achieved. It is essential to the success of this policy that all of the goals be long-term as the effects of restoration cannot be seen otherwise. Another reason long-term preservation is essential is so a return on the initial investment of the state, in the form of cash payments, can be realized. The longer the participating parcels of land can be saved from development, the greater the return on the investment.
Proposed Solution
Habitat, Financial Incentives, Education, and Enforcement are the keys to restoring
freshwater salmonid habitats on privately owned property. While this policy is not new in its content, it is new in its approach. This policy will execute a combination of cash payments for conservation easements, property tax adjustments, and assisted implementation of habitat restoration to all non-corporate, private-property owners whose land contains or directly affects (e.g., lands with wetlands that connect to streams) historic, current, and/or potential salmonid-bearing streams. This policy will be available to all eligible landowners in Washington State and implemented through appropriate county agencies.
I. Habitat
In order to live out their freshwater lives, salmonids have specific needs that only a near-continuous, mature, and wide riparian corridor can provide. These include the following:
The following is a summary of reports containing numerous cited sources for riparian buffer zone widths. The sources used are Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife "Priority Habitats and Species" 1990 (WDFW) and King County Surface Water Management "A Literature Review of Recommended Buffer Widths to Maintain Various Functions of Stream Riparian Areas" February 1992 (KCSWM). All widths are in METERS.
Table 1. Riparian Buffer Zone Widths for Various Functions
Function | Range of Widths (M) |
Average (M) |
Source |
Temperature Control | 11 46 |
27 |
WDFW |
Temperature Control | 12 43 |
25 |
KCSWM |
Sediment Filtration* | 8 91 |
42 |
WDFW |
Sediment Filtration* | 3 122 |
41 |
KCSWM |
Erosion Control | 30 38 |
34 |
WDFW |
Recruitment of LWD | 30 61 |
45 |
WDFW |
Recruitment of LWD | 31 |
31 |
KCSWM |
Pollution Filtration | 4 183 |
24 |
WDFW |
Nutrient Reduction Maintenance of Benthic Communities |
4 43 30 |
21 30 |
KCSWM WDFW / KCSWM |
* Sediment refers to many size classes of particles. In general, the wider buffer widths will remove the fines, or smallest dissolved particles.
TOTAL AVERAGE FOR ALL STATED FUNCTIONS: 32 meters ( ~105 feet)
II. Financial Incentives
In order to create a desire by the private landowner to actively participate in habitat reclamation projects on their own land, monetary incentives will be offered. These monetary incentives fall into two categories, cash payments for environmental or conservation easements and property tax adjustments. Both are examined below.
A) Habitat Quality. The salmonid habitat located within a parcel of land being considered for a reduction in assessed value will be evaluated considering the 4 habitat quality parameters as shown below. A determination will be made for each site on the basis of the quality of the existing habitat at each parcel. Because one of the goals of this policy is to preserve existing riparian habitats that are healthy and mature, priority will be given to those sites in optimum condition.
Rating |
Condition |
Optimal |
Mature, diverse vegetation reaching the width of the natural riparian zone, characterized by mature conifers which shade the stream and contribute appropriate amounts of large woody debris. |
Sub-optimal |
Mostly mature vegetation occurring in most of the riparian zone, characterized by a majority of conifers and stands of deciduous trees that shade most of the stream and contribute some large woody debris. |
Marginal |
Mostly immature vegetation occurring in part of the riparian zone and/or fragmented by lawns/exotic plant species; some cover to the stream by deciduous and coniferous trees. |
Poor |
Little or no native vegetation and/or poorly functioning or non-existent buffer zone, characterized by few trees and dominated by exotic vegetation and/or lawn. |
Rating |
Condition |
Optimal |
Appropriate vegetation extending at least 32 meters beyond visible marks of high water and/or the extent of the flood plain, running the length of the property within the riparian zone. |
Sub-optimal |
Appropriate vegetation extending at least 24 meters beyond visible marks of high water and/or the extent of the flood plain, running at least 2/3 of the property within the riparian zone. |
Marginal |
Appropriate vegetation extending at least 16 meters beyond visible marks of high water and/or the extent of the flood plain, running at least 1/2 of the property within the riparian zone. |
Poor |
Appropriate vegetation extending less than 8 meters beyond visible marks of high water and/or the extent of the flood plain, running less than 1/4 of the property within the riparian zone. |
3) Riparian vegetation connectivity
Rating |
Condition |
Optimal |
Appropriate vegetation is optimal as shown above and connects with adjacent critical habitats, such as wetlands, on that property. |
Sub-optimal |
Appropriate vegetation is sub-optimal as shown above and/or connects partially with adjacent critical habitats, such as wetlands, on that property. |
Moderate |
Appropriate vegetation is moderate as shown above and/or connects somewhat (fragmented) with adjacent critical habitats, such as wetlands, on that property. |
Poor |
Appropriate vegetation is poor as shown above and/or shows little or no connection with adjacent critical habitats, such as wetlands, on that property. |
4) Streambank stability
Rating |
Condition |
Optimal |
No bank instability caused by human influence. |
Sub-optimal |
Some or little evidence of streambank stability caused by human influence. |
Moderate |
Moderate streambank instability caused by human influence. |
Poor |
Significant streambank instability caused by human influence. |
B) Cultural Significance. Points will also be awarded to parcels that are known to be historically significant and will be given priority over equally rated properties that have no known historical significance. Each occurrence of a site similar to the ones listed below will receive 2 points. The three types of culturally significant sites are listed below:
C) Permanency of Resource Protection. A permanent environmental/conservation
easement, when combined with at least 20 points accumulated from Habitat
Quality, will result in the maximum tax reduction.
D) Assessed Valuation Reduction. The number of eligibility points received
determines the assessed valuation reduction (percentage) of the property. The
market value of the property is reduced by the following percentages to arrive at the
current-use value.
Point Range |
Percentage Reduction in Market Value Assessment |
0 10 |
0% |
11 25 |
50% |
26 40 |
70% |
41 - 55 |
90% |
Conservation or environmental easement AND at least 20 habitat quality points |
90% |
III. Education
Three teams make up the proposed support for the landowner, and are as follows:
The Education Team will hold workshops in site-specific areas in which those whom are, or potentially are, affected by this policy are invited to learn of this policy, how it affects them, and how they can benefit from it.
At these workshops, landowners will be shown why action is needed to restore/repair the crucial freshwater salmonid habitat. The use of videos, handbooks, brochures, Q & A sessions, and before-and-after pictures will be used as tools to help educate the landowners on the salmonid issue and explain the significance of riparian salmonid habitat.
The Education Team is responsible for communicating to the landowners the options that are available to them as determined and established by the PDPT after the assessment of their land.
The Education Team is to include tribal members that will help explain the cultural importance of salmon to the landowners. This will help to achieve a new, renewed, or deepened appreciation for the salmon and its cultural/symbolic importance to the Pacific Northwest.
Another task of the Education Team is to illustrate the value of salmon as an indicator species (much like the spotted owl), explaining that when the salmon are threatened, the existence of other species will be threatened as well.
In addition, the Education Team will explain to the landowners that, over time, by repairing/restoring/preserving the salmonid-bearing habitat (or potential salmonid-bearing habitat) and establishing a riparian buffer, their land/property value will increase when compared to land containing polluted, dirty, uninhabited, non-vegetated habitat.
IV. Enforcement
The PDPT will perform post-implementation assessment and monitoring of the riparian buffer to ensure initial set-up was successful and progress is being made. This will be held on the schedule as follows:
-- Once every year for the first five years
-- Then once every five years, or until the restoration goals have been achieved*
*Complete defined as until the riparian buffer is grown and healthy, there is excellent water quality (clean and unpolluted), and the land/stream/watershed habitat is in the best possible condition it can be so that it may allow/benefit salmonid runs in those rivers/streams. In addition, large woody debris recruitment will be monitored.
This monitoring and tracking will be done by water and soil samples, analyses of the growth of native vegetation in the buffer, measurements of water level, bank stability, etc. During the post-implementation monitoring of the buffer/easement on the above schedule, the questions to be answered are as follows:
-Is the native habitat growing properly (trees, shrubs, etc. growing)?
-Is the quality of the water improving (clarity, purity, etc.)?
-Are salmonids present? / Are more salmonids present? / Is the land more likely to
support salmonids?
Upon these time interval assessments/monitoring by the PDPT, if the habitat is not improving (when compared to the pre-implementation assessment) due to the direct, intended effects of the landowner, the following steps shall be taken in order:
If upon the next land assessment/follow-up monitoring, after these three steps have been taken, it is still found that the habitat continues to be damaged/degraded due to the continued, direct, intended actions of a landowner, steps 1 through 3 will again be taken. In addition to these steps, however, the Education Team will remind the landowner of the cash benefits/property tax adjustments they receive and will be warned that these benefits will be terminated should they choose not to comply with the original agreement to establish and maintain the buffer. The landowner will also be warned that if these monetary benefits are terminated due to their own actions, all back cash benefits and property tax adjustments will have to be repaid in full.
If upon the next land assessment/follow-up monitoring, the habitat still continues to be damaged/degraded through the continued, direct, intended actions of a landowner, the current cash benefits/property tax adjustments will immediately be terminated, and all monetary benefits previously gained by the landowner must be reimbursed in full.
Cost and Funding
I. Costs
The first area to consider when determining the cost of the policy, is the loss in property tax revenue. The estimated property tax losses shown here are based on the 1994 statistics for the Open Space Tax Program for Thurston County, WA. The specifics of the countys participation are illustrated in the table below.
Table 2. Thurston County Open Space Tax Act Participation
Land type |
Total # of parcels |
Total # of acres |
% of county area |
Average reduction in assessed value |
Average current use based value per acre |
Average market value/acre |
Approx. amount of displaced taxes |
Agriculture Land |
1,335 |
39,814 |
8.4% |
90% |
$259 |
$2,524 |
$1,291,290 |
Open Space Land |
74 |
3,794 |
0.1% |
75% |
$503 |
$2,000 |
$81,317 |
Timber and Forest |
1,616 |
137, 159 |
29.1% |
89% |
$115 |
1,060 |
$1,856,874 |
Totals |
3,025 |
180,767 |
37.6% |
85% |
$213 |
1,403 |
$3,229,281 |
For the purpose of this policy, the statistics for timber and forestland were eliminated, as this is not the focus of the policy. We believe that this will result in a more realistic cost estimate of the project.
From the numbers above, $1,372,607 (3,229,291 1,856,874) was saved by landowners falling into the categories of agriculture land and open space land. These two categories represent only 24% of the land area participating in the program in Thurston County, but account for 42.5% of the total savings. The landowners in these two categories saved an average of $31.78 per acre. With and average parcel size of 31 acres, the landowners saved, on average, $975.88 per year, per parcel.
For Thurston County, the key number is $31.48 per acre per year. This is what it will cost the county for each acre that participates in the program. This number will vary for each county based on the average tax levy used to determine property taxes.
The other area of cost that must be discussed is the cash payments that will be made for the conservation or environmental easements. Also basing this analysis on the 1994 numbers for Thurston County, the average reduction in value per acre in the two categories mentioned above was $2198. An environmental or conservation easement should similarly reduce the market value of the land. But, this would only apply to the land on the acres on which the easement was granted. For example, on a 60-acre parcel, the easement may only affect 3 acres. In this case the payment would be, using the average Thurston county numbers, $6594.
II. Funding
To generate funds to apply toward the costs of this policy, lotto "scratch" tickets will be produced by the Washington State Lottery and distributed for sale throughout the state.
On average, this type of ticket will produce profits amounting to $1 to $2 million every 6 months to a year.
On the ticket, a salmon fact will be hidden under the prize box. This fact will be discovered when the prize box is scratched in order to discover if the ticket is a winning one.
This ticket will help to educate the public on the salmonid habitat issue, as well as being a fun and entertaining way to raise funds toward the restoration/repair of salmonid habitat.
Because this is considered a "special interest" game, funds are available from the state for the promoting and advertising of the ticket. However, the ticket would have to be adopted by the Legislature, passed as a bill, and ultimately approved by Governor Locke and signed into law. Because of this, funding will have to be re-authorized each year.
Due to the current popularity of the salmon issue, it is likely that special interest groups such as "Long Live the Kings" and "Save our Wild Salmon" would also become involved in support of the game.
Existing Laws/Programs
There are currently 52 stewardship programs available to Washington State citizens, but as illustrated below, none of these programs offer incentives for reclamation of salmonid habitat on private property. We believe that the incentives of this policy will be what sets it apart from other programs/policies, not only in method, but also in success.
Total programs: 52
Available for private property: 28
Directed at salmonid habitat: 20
Monetary incentives/full funding: 0
In summary, the state expects people to repair and maintain whatever salmonid habitat exists on their property. It is clear that this approach is not effective as evidenced by the continuing decline in the populations of salmonids.
Examples of existing laws
The Washington State Legislature adopted the Open Space Tax Act in 1970 to "maintain, preserve, conserve, and otherwise continue in existence adequate open space lands for the production of food, fiber, and forest crops, and to assure the use and enjoyment of natural resources and scenic beauty for the economic and social well-being of the state and its citizens."
The Legislature recognized that the market value of land used for farming, timber production, or open space uses is often much lower than its market value for other "higher" uses, such as residences or businesses. Since property taxes must be based on the "highest and best" use under state law, owners of farmland or open space often have difficulty continuing their "natural resource" uses while paying "higher" use taxes. Landowners are often forced to convert their land to the "higher" uses. This reduces the overall supply of farmlands, forest land and open space. In order to address that problem, the Legislature provided a way for county assessors to base property tax assessments on the "current use value" of lands used for natural resource production or protection. Property owners who voluntarily commit to continuing these uses may apply for current use classification in the Open Space Tax Program and have their property assessments based on "current use values," resulting in lower property taxes.
2) The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) is a federally funded, voluntary program to restore and protect wetlands on private property. It is an opportunity for landowners to receive financial incentives to enhance wetlands in exchange for retiring marginal agricultural land.
Congress authorized WRP under the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended by the 1990
and 1996 Farm Bills. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) administers the program in consultation with the Farm
Service Agency (FSA) and other Federal agencies. Funding for WRP comes from the Commodity Credit Corporation.
Landowners who choose to participate in WRP may sell a conservation easement or enter into a cost-share restoration agreement with USDA to restore and protect wetlands. The landowner voluntarily limits future use of the land, yet retains private ownership. The landowner and NRCS develop a plan for the restoration and maintenance of the wetland.
The program offers landowners three options: permanent easements, 30-year easements, and restoration cost-share agreements of a minimum 10-year duration.
Other agencies and private conservation organizations may provide additional assistance for easement payment and wetland restoration costs as a way to reduce the landowner's share of the costs. Such special partnership efforts are encouraged.
Advantages of WRPLandowners receive cash payments for granting conservation easement and maintaining wetland values. Restoration costs are borne by the agency for activities such as the removal of drainage ditches and fencing of streams and wetlands. The landowner retains ownership, the active day-to-day management of the property, and control over public access.
Limitations of WRPIt is limited by the availability of funds as determined on an annual basis. Approximately 10% of the requests receive assistance due to funding limits. There is a cost-share of 25% for restoring wetlands.
One stipulation of a conversation easement is that the landowner must have owned the land for at least one year before implementation or must have inherited the land.
It should be noted that cost-share incentives have a ceiling of $10,000 per year per landowner, up to a total of $50,000.
3) Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP from UDSA) is a federally funded, voluntary program for people who want to develop and improve wildlife habitat primarily on private lands. It provides both technical assistance and cost-share payments to help establish and improve fish and wildlife habitat.
Participants who own or control land agree to prepare and implement a wildlife habitat development plan. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) offers participants technical and financial assistance for the establishment of wildlife habitat development practices. In addition, if the landowner agrees, cooperating State wildlife agencies and nonprofit or private organizations may provide expertise or additional funding to help complete a project.
NRCS helps participants prepare a wildlife habitat development plan in consultation with the local conservation district. The plan describes the landowner's goals for improving wildlife habitat, includes a list of practices and a schedule for installing them, and details the steps necessary to maintain the habitat for the life of the agreement. This plan may or may not be part of a larger conservation plan that addresses other resource needs such as water quality and soil erosion.
USDA and the participant enter into a cost-share agreement for wildlife habitat development. This agreement generally lasts from 5 to 10 years from the date the agreement is signed. Under the agreement, the landowner agrees to install and maintain the WHIP practices and allow NRCS or its agent access to monitor the effectiveness of the practices. The USDA agrees to provide technical assistance and pay up to 75% of the cost of installing the wildlife habitat practices.
Cost-share payments may be used to establish new practices or replace practices that fail for reasons beyond the landowner's control.
In addition, this program has a stipulation that lands currently under federal assistance programs (such as the WRP) are not eligible. Land described as converted wetland is also not eligible.
This program is currently budgeted for $50 million through the year 2002.
Compatibility of this program with Tribal Policies
While we are still researching tribal input to determine our policys compatibility with tribal policies, tribes whom are private landowners are eligible for access to any assistance offered by this policy. However, the tribes are not eligible for property tax breaks since they are exempt from paying any property taxes to begin with.
Recognizing the sovereignty of the tribes and the strong tribal interest in the salmon issue, we will submit our policy for review to the appropriate tribal entities for consideration and feedback before implementation proceeds.
It is the aim of this policy to engender a sense of communication and cooperation between us and the tribal elements so that this policy is, in fact, a joint effort of all involved in the efforts to restore salmonid habitat.
Successful Examples
Wetlands Reserve Program
The federal Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) is one of the many recently created programs designed to help people protect the environment. WRP offers landowners a chance to get something in return for restoring and protecting wetlands on private property, and is proving to be a very rewarding experience to the landowner.
A good example of the success of the Wetlands Reserve Program is Gunnar Holmquist, a private landowner in eastern Washington who became involved in WRP in the summer of 1995. As Mr. Holmquist put it, "our original intent was to provide habitat for wildlife but the project has ended up benefiting us as much as the wildlife. Seeing undisturbed wildlife has been so enjoyable, and has given us great satisfaction to see the results of our efforts." Mr. Holmquist owns 150 acres of mountain meadow in northeast Washington. He has spent the past two years working with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and other agencies to restore the land to its natural state.
It all began when Mr. Holmquist and his mother bought a meadow which was previously a wetland. When he purchased the property, the area of the former wetland was completely drained. Holmquist worked with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to restore the stream that runs through the meadow and to create ponds. His future plans include re-establishing native cutthroat trout in the stream.
Mr. Holmquist became involved with WRP when Jim Gleaton, NRCS District Conservationist for Stevens County, came out to look at a potential dam site. After looking at the land, Gleaton mentioned that a new federal program was established (WRP) to offer landowners payments for restoring and protecting wetlands in exchange for a conservation easement. "It is an absolutely sensible way to entice people to put aside a portion of their lands for wildlife and the environment," said Mr. Holmquist. "You can't ask people to do that for free because people work hard on their land and make a living from it. If you pay them and allow them to own the land and still get a pretty good cash return for the easement, it will make perfect sense to landowners of all types."
After going through the WRP application process, NRCS specialists came out and determined which areas were classified as wetlands and those that were upland. NRCS was helpful, as was the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in identifying non-native plants to eradicate and offering techniques to re-establish native wetland species.
The meadow and wetland have come a long way since Mr. Holmquist first began restoration. However, there is still quite a bit to be done. Now Mr. Holmquist, with help from specialists at the NRCS, is removing about 30 acres of non-native grasses, which make a sod mat so thick it prevents the re-establishment of native trees, shrubs and grasses.
Since beginning restoration of the wetland, Mr. Holmquist reports a huge increase in the wildlife in that area. He has seen a wide variety of bird species, including eagles, hawks, woodpeckers,
humming birds, and owls, to name a few. They compliment other wildlife on the land, such as moose, deer, beaver, elk, and porcupine.
When asked how he feels about WRP, Holmquist replied, "I think it's an excellent program. It's an inexpensive investment for the government to protect land that is very delicate. Once you start changing wetlands, everything falls apart in them, so paying the landowner to leave the wetlands alone is a great idea. I would absolutely encourage other landowners to get involved in WRP," said Mr. Holmquist. "It's a really rewarding, satisfying feeling that people won't anticipate until they actually get involved and see the benefits of habitat that is put aside for other creatures on earth. There's an enormous satisfaction in that."
(Successful Examples Continued)
Stewardship Incentive Program
Fish issues are a hot topic in the Pacific Northwest and many rural landowners have expressed interest in implementing fish habitat improvement projects. One good example is 1992 Clark County Tree Farmer of the Year, Dan DuPuis. DuPuis owns three tree farms in Clark County, including 40 acres along Chelatchic Creek, a salmon-bearing stream, near Amboy, Washington.
DuPuis was concerned about water quality and fish habitat in the creek. With the advent of the Forest Stewardship and Stewardship Incentive Programs, he saw an opportunity to improve fish habitat on his property. He also saw opportunities for upland wildlife habitat, habitat enhancement, and timber stand improvement practices.
Dan called on Forrest Koponen, DNR Southwest Region Forest Stewardship Coordinator, for assistance. Koponen enlisted additional expertise from Forest Stewardship Wildlife Biologist, Ruth Milner. Koponen and Milner worked with DuPuis to develop a Forest Stewardship Plan for the property. DNR Fisheries Scientist, Jeff Cederholm, and Department of Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Ken Mohoric, helped design the specifics of the habitat improvement project.
Using distribution surveys, Cederholm and Mohoric showed the importance of large woody debris in the stream channel. "Fish are attracted to wood like a magnet," Cederholm commented as he surveyed the area under a log to reveal several young fish. Woody debris did not accumulate in this section of the stream, so DuPuis and the biologists agreed that placing and anchoring several large logs in the stream channel would be a big help.
A forested wetland area adjoining the stream was identified as critical fish habitat. "Coho salmon spend the winter in these off-channel wetlands," noted Cederholm. He proved his point using the survey to reveal Coho salmon fry overwintering amongst the skunk cabbage in only a couple of inches of water! Cederholm further explained that this overwintering wetland habitat could be enhanced significantly by placing small logs at strategic intervals to back up shallow pools of water. DuPuis made plans to install several shallow, off-channel pools for the overwintering Coho. Much of the main stream channel was bordered by reed canary grass, which had crowded out other vegetation.
Plans were made to plant riparian tree species to improve the streamside habitat.
Dan applied for Stewardship Incentive Program (SIP) funds at his local Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) office and for a Hydraulics Permit from the Department of Fish and Wildlife. After SIP cost-sharing and the Hydraulics Permit was approved, work began in the summer of 1992. Since then, several logs have been installed in the main channel, several shallow, off-channel pools have been created in the forested wetland, and trees have been planted along the stream.
Was the project successful? "Absolutely," says DuPuis. Biologist Cederholm repeated the survey after the projects were installed and found more fish taking advantage of the newly created habitat.
"It shows that one landowner can make a significant difference," commented Forrest Koponen, when he presented DuPuis with a "Stewardship Forest" property sign in recognition for his efforts. Since the project, Dan has talked to several other area landowners and hosted tours of the property in hopes that others will do similar projects on their property.
References
Brown, T. Planning Manager: Washington State Lottery Commission. Personal Communication. 1998.
Cederholm, C. J. Personal Communication. 1998.
Johnson, A. W., D. M. Ryba: King County Surface Water Management; 1992. A Literature Review Of Recommended Buffer Widths To Maintain Various Functions Of Stream Riparian Areas. Seattle, WA.
Knutson, K. L., V. L. Naef: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; 1997. Priority Habitats and Species. Olympia, W.A. 98501.
Nehlsen W.: "Pacific Salmon Status and Trends A Coastwide Perspective," Pacific Salmon and Their Ecosystems; 1997. New York, N.Y.
Thurston County Planning Commission. Online text. Open Space Taxation Program. Openspac\packets\intro.896.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Natural Resource Conservation Service.1997. USDA 1996 Farm Bill Conservation Provisions, Environmental Quality Incentives Program. Washington, D.C. 20250.
Washington State Department of Ecology. Wetlands Reserve Program. www.wa.gov/ecology/sea/pubs/96-120/96120-ss.html
Washington State Department of Ecology. Stewardship Incentive Program. www.wa.gov/ecology/sea/pubs/96-120-ss.html