Home What's New? Process Overview Lead Entity Organizations Lead Entity Accomplishments LEAG (Lead Entity Advisory Group) Information and Meeting LEAG Executive Committee Membership Related Planning Efforts Links Puget Sound Nearshore Project Priorities 2007 Directory of Lead Entities for Salmon Recovery 2008 Lead Entity Coordinator Welcome Packet 2002 Program Report Contacts For further information about the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Lead Entity Program, contact one of the program staff. Lauri Vigue Lead Entity/Watershed Steward Coordinator Environmental Services Division/ Habitat Program Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife 600 Capitol Way North Olympia, WA 98501-1091 (360) 902-2549 Fax: (360) 902-2946 viguelav@dfw.wa.gov To access the contact information of specific Lead Entities, use the Recreation and Conservation Office's Salmon Recovery Funding Board website, or Lead Entities Contact Information

Lead Entity Program Related Planning Efforts Watershed Planning | Subbasin Planning Comprehensive Monitoring | ESA Regional Recovery Planning Watershed Planning Authorized by the Washington Legislature in 1998, the Watershed Planning Act (ESHB 2514) provides for locally led, cooperative efforts to assess water resource needs and develop comprehensive and effective solutions at the watershed scale. The Planning Units can address three optional elements of watershed planning: instream flows, water quality, and fish and wildlife habitat. Lead Entities can play an important role in the Watershed Planning program, especially where the local planning units have elected to pursue the fish and wildlife habitat element. For example, Planning Units can utilize a Lead Entity’s habitat restoration strategy to address the habitat element and even as a basis for developing recommended instream flows. Conversely, Lead Entities can consider projects identified in the watershed management plan such as stream gauging, instream flow studies, water conservation projects, and purchase or leasing of water leasing. Hence, there is potential for considerable interaction between these two processes. The majority of Lead Entities surveyed this summer indicated that they share participants and data as well as coordinate at the staff level with the Watershed Planning Unit(s) within their boundaries. While there is room to tighten the connections to ensure good communication and sharing of data, it is important to note that the greatest link between the two programs will be through Regional Recovery Plans. Subbasin Planning The Northwest Power Planning Council’s (Council) 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program establishes a basinwide vision for fish and wildlife along with biological objectives and action strategies that are consistent with its vision. Ultimately, the program will be implemented through subbasin plans developed locally in the more than 50 tributary subbasins of the Columbia and amended into the program by the Council. These plans will be consistent with the Council’s basinwide vision and objectives, and its underlying foundation of ecological science. In Washington State, the Council has directed $4.1 million over two years for subbasin plan development. The final group of these plans is due by May 2004. Regional recovery boards are working within the boundaries set by the Council to produce Subbasin plans that will be part of their regional recovery plans. Lead Entities play an important role in the development and implementation of subbasin plans. Similar to the watershed planning process, the habitat restoration and protection strategies developed by the Lead Entities can inform the subbasin planning process. To the extent that subbasin plans build upon the efforts of Lead Entities, local project sponsors will be well positioned to compete for additional fish and wildlife funds administered through the Bonneville Power Administration. Comprehensive Monitoring The 2001 Washington State Legislature passed Substitute Senate Bill 5637 requiring the development of a comprehensive strategy and action plan for measuring success in recovering salmon and maintaining watershed health. Those involved in salmon recovery efforts often refer to this type of measuring as “monitoring.” Monitoring is a required element of any salmon recovery plan submitted to the federal government for approval under the Endangered Species Act. While numerous agencies and citizen organizations are engaged in monitoring a wide range of salmon recovery activities, there is a greater need for coordination of these efforts. A comprehensive monitoring strategy and action plan for measuring the success of salmon recovery is due to the legislature in December 2002. The comprehensive monitoring strategy will include guidelines for carrying out monitoring activities, incorporating adaptive management principles into decisions and incorporating agency assistance. ESA Regional Recovery Planning Since state ESA listings became pandemic, the State has supported a major paradigm shift away from federal control of recovery planning toward an approach that involves state, tribal and local government agencies and local citizens. Five regional recovery boards are already taking the challenge of coordinating the development of regional salmon recovery plans for their region of the state. The plans for species in their area will integrate all the “h” factors (habitat, hatcheries, hydro and harvest) in meeting recovery goals and involve local citizens, landowners, city and county governments and local salmon recovery groups, as well as state, federal and tribal governments in the development. This extraordinary effort – development of multi-species recovery plans at the watershed and regional level by everyone who has a stake in the outcome and the actions – is monumental. To accomplish it, the regional boards will compile and coordinate information, planning results and actions at the watershed and regional as well as state level that can feed into creating a successful regional plan. To support this citizen-based recovery planning effort, WDFW published a model guiding writers on the necessary contents of a recovery plan, and the SRFB made substantial grant awards to a number of these regional recovery boards. Lead Entities operating in each of those regions are key to the success of recovery planning, not only through their contribution of habitat restoration strategies and project lists, but also because the Lead Entities already comprise many salmon recovery stakeholders. Similarly, 2514 Watershed Planning Units, Regional Fish Enhancement Groups, marine resource groups will make valuable contributions to regional plans. For example, watershed restoration strategies developed by the Lead Entities, as well as their prioritized project lists, contribute a major piece to the recovery plan for that watershed. The potential contributions from the 2514 Watershed Planning activities include assessments of a basin’s water needs (for people and for fish), potential instream flow recommendations for adoption by the Department of Ecology, and lists of projects to improve water supply, storage, or fish passage. Each of these pieces is critical to both local and regional salmon recovery, and the structures under which these activities occur help ensure these products will be available for recovery planning use. Clearly, the success of recovery planning lies in strong connections between local efforts and the regional perspective.