Local watershed councils are the focal point of Oregon's decision making and local involvement in habitat protection and restoration for the Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative (CSRI). This includes:

Assessing and addressing specific limiting factors to salmon recovery;
Assessing entire watersheds across ownership lines;
Integrating the role of local landowners;
Prioritizing and implementing on the ground work through action plan development and implementation;
Making habitat improvement decisions based on the best available science;
Receiving and disseminating technical habitat information; and
Monitoring the effectiveness of action plan implementation.

A comprehensive watershed management program was initiated in Oregon in 1993 to address the complex natural resource issues facing Oregon. This strategy entails a long-term commitment by local, state and federal land managers, private landowners, and private citizens to address watershed protection, enhancement, and restoration in an effort to restore watershed health throughout Oregon. The formation of cooperative partnerships to seek common solutions to protect and restore the health of Oregon's ecosystems, support sustainable resource use, and enhance local economies is essential. The most effective means to mobilize, educate, and involve local citizens in this effort is through the creation and support of watershed councils.

Since 1993, over 60 watershed councils have been formed in Oregon. The entire Oregon Coast is now represented with local watershed councils. These councils have brought together diverse interests within a watershed, including timber, agriculture, mining, conservation, recreation and business interests with representatives from all levels of government, in partnerships that are working toward a common goal of restoring watershed health and the species dependent on healthy watersheds. Stakeholder groups and individual landowners representing all landownerships in each watershed have made commitments of their own time and resources to match public resources in an effort to address watershed issues in a more holistic manner.

Local watershed councils are tackling a number of issues, including but not limited to, fish and wildlife species and their habitats, fish passage, water quality and quantity, land use including rural and urban development, recreation, and resources extraction issues. Better coordination and integration of social, economic, and ecological issues is taking place within the watershed council process. Partnerships have been formed where none previously existed. Former adversaries are working together toward a common goal.

Background

In 1993, the Oregon Legislature created the Watershed Health Program as part of a natural resources strategy based on recognition of the critical importance of watersheds to Oregon's livability and economic health. The cornerstone of the program was the creation of local watershed councils to work in partnership with local, tribal, state, and federal agencies and interests to help collectively solve watershed problems. Under House Bill 2215 and Senate Bill 81, which created and funded the Watershed Health Program, the Grande Ronde River Basin and the South Coast and Rogue River Basins were targeted for funding and technical support contingent upon the formation of watershed councils and the development of watershed assessments and action plans.

This legislation started a program that has gained in strength and effectiveness over the last three years. A number of changes have occurred as a result of this program. Better coordination among and between agencies at all levels of government is occurring. This coordination is occurring in the areas of data collection and watershed assessment, project design, and implementation and monitoring protocols among others. Coordination between public and private interests is improving as well. Many large industrial timber owners are sharing information about assessments, road inventories, and restoration projects with watershed councils. Also, Soil and Water Conservation Districts are considering the work of watershed councils in their Coordinated Resource Management Plans.

Watershed councils bring together diverse interests around a common goal of watershed health. In many councils, it is no longer apparent which individuals represent which stakeholder group. As council partners spend more time working through issues and alternative strategies to resolve those issues, the more common ground is found among former adversaries.

Based on actions identified in watershed plans within the South Coast, approximately $3.2 million raised through the Oregon Lottery was spent on council support, instream, riparian and upslope restoration projects, education, and outreach. Councils were able to leverage an additional $3.5 million to match watershed health dollars. This included both in-kind and cash contributions.

Accomplishments in the South Coast/Rogue:

12 watershed councils were formed and officially recognized by the state.

12 watershed action plans and assessments were developed.

3.2 Million invested in on the ground, watershed council support, and education projects.

As a result of the large infusion of watershed health money into the South Coast, creation of watershed councils and the ability to do watershed work in that area is far ahead of other watersheds on the coast. See the attached Gene Conservation Unit document to see the current status of efforts by South Coast councils.

In addition, the Umpqua Basin Fisheries Restoration Initiative (UBFRI) has been in place since 1993, using mostly private resources to fund habitat and species inventories in the Umpqua Watershed. UBFRI recently completed a reorganization process, which broadened representation on the council. The council is in the beginning stages of an assessment process using ongoing efforts in the watershed as the basis of their assessment.

Many mid and north coast watershed councils have been formed within the past year. Many are in the process of conducting watershed assessments and developing action plans for their respective watersheds. Many of these newer councils were able to form as a result of Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board (GWEB) and Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) grants funding coordinator positions in critical areas of need in coastal watersheds.

In addition to watershed council efforts, other salmon restoration efforts have been ongoing in coastal areas. The Wildlife Heritage Foundation is leading an effort with private industrial forest owners on major watershed restoration work. Federal programs such as Jobs-in-the-Woods and Hire-the-Fishers provide trained workers in watershed restoration for assessment and project work. All of these groups, as well as the Soil and Water Conservation Districts, are expected to be major players in watershed councils.

In 1995, the Oregon legislature passed HB 3441, which merged the watershed council principle created by HB 2215 along with other successes of the Watershed Health Program into the Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board (GWEB).

Surveys completed by each of watershed council in the range of coho on the Oregon Coast are attached. These surveys provide information about the current status of each council's efforts as well as work plans for the upcoming year.

Definition of a Watershed Council

A watershed council is a locally organized, voluntary, non-regulatory group established to assess the condition of their watershed and build a work plan to implement enhancement and protection activities within their watershed. Watershed councils offer local residents the opportunity to be involved in making decisions at the local level that affect their watershed. Each watershed council is unique, as is each watershed. The statute provides for flexibility in council representation in recognition of the uniqueness of each watershed.

Watershed Council Recognition

A watershed council becomes an official entity when it is recognized by a local government, usually the County Board of Commissioners. This official recognition makes the councils better candidates for other federal and private grants. Under requirements in HB 3441, watershed councils are to include representatives from a broad range of stakeholder interests including conservation, recreational, timber, agricultural, and other interests within their basin.

The state encourages councils to be as inclusive as possible of the various stakeholder groups within each watershed. Where problems have arisen with representation issues, the state has worked with local representatives to resolve these issues.

Partnerships

The strength of watershed councils is the formation of partnerships between residents, local, state, and federal agencies, private landowners, and other interested groups. These partnerships result in integration of local efforts including improved coordination and communication. This understanding results in the ability to accomplish long-term watershed management planning and project implementation at the watershed scale across land ownerships.

Among the most important partners in the local watershed council process are Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs). The Districts provide watershed councils with the critical link to private landowners. In addition, they have the infrastructure in place to support staff and act as fiscal agents for many watershed councils. Local watershed councils provide SWCDs with a broader watershed context for their work with private landowners and bring a broader base of stakeholder support to the efforts of SWCDs. SWCDs and watershed councils have both benefited from these partnerships created at the local level. One of the outcomes of this growing relationship was the training of coastal watershed council coordinators in the Coordinated Resources Management Plan (CRMP) process which the SWCDs have long used to develop and implement projects and resolve resource conflicts on private lands.

Other partners include timber, agriculture, aggregate, conservation, recreation, federal, state and local government including irrigation/drainage districts and city and county planning departments, residents, as well as the business community.

Integration and Coordination

Watershed councils are expected to be the backbone of the habitat portion of the CSRI. An important aspect of long-term salmon recovery is the ability to integrate watershed assessments and to implement recovery efforts throughout all ownerships in the watershed. The ability to coordinate across federal, state and private ownership boundaries is a goal of all watershed councils. They have had varying degrees of success, depending on the strength of the council and the willingness of all partners to work together.

Three watersheds will be used as model integration projects for the CSRI. Two of these, the Applegate and the Coquille, already have strong integration programs. They will now work towards a coordinated assessment in one document, which will be used as a template for the other councils on the coast.

The Siuslaw is a newly formed council. The rationale for choosing this as a sample watershed is to develop a template for new councils. The Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, state resource agencies, and private landowners in the watershed have committed money and resources to developing a full watershed assessment and work plan from the ground up. The federal agencies and some timber companies already have assessments and are willing to work to meld them into a common plan.

Regional Coordination and Planning

The CSRI recognizes that there are state, regional, and watershed level protection and restoration issues (strategies, plans, and priorities) that need to be considered by watershed groups and state, federal, and local agencies and governments in a coordinated effort. Regional planning and coordination efforts are an essential part of the CSRI process and are needed to help ensure successful implementation of coordinated state, federal, and private CSRI efforts at the regional level. There will be continued emphasis on developing additional regional coordination and planning efforts.

Current regional planning and coordination efforts include:

Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board works to coordinate watershed efforts across the state.

For Sake of the Salmon funded California/Oregon (Klamath Province ESU) Coordinator positions to help bring Oregon and California initiatives together.

South Coast Salmon Restoration Initiative, including Rogue Basin Steering Committee, South Coast Coordinating Council, and Rogue Valley Council of Governments, coordinates the efforts of over a dozen watershed councils in the South Coast.

Soil and Water Conservation Districts, whose boundaries cross watershed boundaries, work with watershed councils and landowners throughout the coast region. Many fund watershed council coordinators through grants from GWEB and the Oregon Department of Agriculture. In addition the Hire the Fishers crew work on watershed projects is coordinated between SWCDs and watershed councils throughout much of the coastal region.

Mid-Coast Watershed Council coordinates activities is 6 mid-coast watersheds.

Clatsop County Watershed Coordinating Council oversees coordination of all watershed council activities in Clatsop County.

Tillamook County watersheds share a coordinator who provides communication and coordination links.

Coos County watershed councils formed a countywide TAC which provides technical and planning coordination for Coos County watershed councils.

Northwest Forest Plan Provincial Interagency Executive Committees and Provincial Advisory Committees are working to coordinate Forest Plan activities (Job in the Woods, Aquatic Conservation Strategy, etc.) with local watershed councils.

The state and 10 federal agencies are in the process of signing an MOU which commits the parties to coordinate and integrate social, economic and ecological efforts at the local watershed level.

Rules and Responsibilities of Local Watershed Councils

Foster communication and cooperation among all interests within a watershed. Council members should represent a balance of interested and affected people within the watershed.
Provide local involvement, awareness, decision making, and coordination for watershed planning and activities.
Provide a forum for conflict resolution and decision making in order to resolve critical resource management issues and shape the watershed's future. Provide the community information regarding all aspects of decision making. Conduct all meetings as open public meetings.
Prepare and implement a watershed action plan which identifies issues, sets goals and priorities for actions to protect and enhance the watershed.
Develop and implement solutions to address problems identified in their watershed action plan.
Promote basin-wide monitoring of watershed conditions.
Seek financial commitments from government, private and local community sources.
Promote watershed education within the community.
Foster political understanding, support, and involvement within the watershed. Work with local community leaders to support and obtain funding for council activities.
Provide information to and involve the community in technical watershed assessment issues.
Working with landowners to come into compliance with existing regulations in order to avoid costly enforcement actions.

Watershed Analysis/Assessment

A watershed analysis/assessment documents existing conditions and evaluates natural processes, human activities, and land uses within the watershed. A variety of assessment methodologies have been developed in recent years. Included among these is the federal watershed analysis process developed under the Northwest Forest Plan which is currently being used by both the BLM and Forest Service on federally owned lands within the range of the spotted owl. In addition, GWEB provided grant funds to the Pacific Rivers Council to write and publish Healing the Watershed, A Guide to the Restoration of Watersheds and Native Fish in the West which includes a chapter on watershed analysis. This workbook has been provided to all of Oregon's watershed councils for their use. The National Marine Fisheries Services' Working Guidance is also being used by watershed councils in the South Coast to more thoroughly assess limiting factors for coho.

The GWEB conference held in November 1996 included a module on watershed analysis. Over 300 people attended this session which included presentations by a number of watershed analysis experts. Materials presented were distributed in a booklet to all the participants in the session as well.

Finally, GWEB recently approved contracting with someone to begin development of a standardized watershed assessment protocol for use by watershed councils. It is expected that the work currently being done to develop the monitoring program will assist with the development of an assessment tool for use by watershed councils and others. GWEB will link its effort with Monitoring Program Task 13: Watershed Assessment for Mixed Ownerships. The Watershed Assessment Guidance Manual for Watershed Councils will be completed by September 1, 1997.

The Watershed Action Plan

The action plan is a working document that characterizes the conditions in the watershed, identifies priority areas (based on the watershed assessment) for restoration and protection, sets out public involvement strategies, and identifies funding sources to implement the plan. It is developed by the council or its technical committee and is based on the watershed assessment.

The watershed action plan is intended to be a public document that involves input and participation by all interests within the watershed. Watershed action plans form the basis for understanding watershed conditions, identifying priority actions, and coordinating local, state, and federal efforts to implement those actions.

The action plans are intended to serve as the strategic blueprint for watershed restoration, enhancement, and protection based on specific issues that have been identified through currently available information. In addition they identify data gaps and recommend strategies for filling these gaps. Watershed action plans are living or working documents, subject to change and updating as more information becomes available.

Watershed action plans are intended to address all watershed conditions and features from a "ridgetop-to-ridgetop" perspective. The plan is intended to identify areas in need of enhancement as well as those areas in need of protection, establish priorities, and develop a workable strategy for addressing priority issues.

While watershed assessments and action plans identify priority subbasins and sites for projects it is recognized that it may not always be possible to implement projects in priority order unless the councils, SWCDs and others are effective in securing landowner cooperation. In some areas this may mean starting with demonstration projects in lower priority areas as a way of educating other landowners about the potential benefits and impacts of project work on their property. In several watersheds this process has led to cooperation from previously unwilling landowners to allow projects to be implemented on their land.

Current Status of Action Plans

Under the Watershed Health Program, South Coast councils conducted watershed assessments based on currently available information and data. These assessments were then used as the foundation for the development of Action Plans. Eleven Action Plans were developed for the South Coast area. The action plan developed by the South Coast Coordinating watershed Council covered the six subcouncils under it's jurisdiction. The first cut of these assessment and action plans, although primarily focusing in a general manner on factors relating to anadromous fish, provided a partnership building exercise which was of great value to the formation and continued existence of these watershed councils.

Action Plans by their very nature are "living " documents, constantly subject to updating and change. GWEB provided funding to the South Coast Councils, including the Siuslaw and Umpqua, from April 1996 through September 1996. Each council developed a work plan under which the coordinator and council would operate during this time frame. One action item identified by these councils was updating their action plan and assessment to specifically key in on coho habitat conditions and needs within their respective watershed.

Currently, councils within the Rogue/South Coast watersheds are participating in an effort to develop a guidance document that will address the decline of salmon in the basins from a regional perspective. A key to this process is the identification of current conditions and trends and an understanding of the causes of current conditions and problems in the Rogue/South Coast areas. The guidance document, once fully developed will allow the watershed councils to update their action plans and assessments from a regional perspective.

GWEB considers projects for funding from watershed councils relating to assessment and action plan development and updating. Examples of projects funded are: funding was provided to the Coquille for a technical writer to update their action plan and funding was provided to support GIS work. Another example is funding provided to Rogue Valley Council of Governments to help support the technical team working on the Rogue/South Coast Coho Guidance Document. Coordinator grants have a component in their work plan for updating action plans and assessments.

Suggested Watershed Action Plan Contents (as developed by the Oregon Watershed Health Program)

Statement of documents purpose and goals
This section defines the scope of the plan (ridgetop-to-ridgetop, headwaters to mouth) and emphasizes consideration of all watershed processes and biological components with emphasis on issues of critical concern including social, economic, and political realities.
Linkages to existing programs
This section identifies players relevant (local and non-local) to watershed action plan development and implementation, and how the watershed council will involve and interact with each.
Complying with regulations and ordinances
This section identifies regulations and ordinances (local, state, federal), along with permitting requirements and timelines involved.
Involving and educating the public
This section identifies and discusses tools available to the council for outreaching to, educating, and involving the public in the watershed council process. This section should identify goals and objectives as well as identifying target audiences and methods to reach them. The development of a timeline that identifies and targets specifics as well as a method of measuring and evaluating the effectiveness of outreach activities is recommended.
Working Assessment
The assessment is the result of a compilation, review, and interpretation of currently available watershed information. The document identifies landowners, jurisdictions, and pertinent regulations; identifies information gaps; identifies and ranks priority issues and areas; examines baseline monitoring activities; identifies monitoring gaps; and identifies benchmarks to measure progress of strategies. The working assessment is the product of the combined efforts of all interests found within a watershed.
Watershed Health Strategy
This section identifies specific areas for specific action (protection, management, or restoration) based on prioritization of critical areas and resources, and spells out how actions will be implemented, the effects that will be expected, and the monitoring efforts that will be needed.
Monitoring: Basin-wide and Project-specific
This section looks at two types of monitoring issues: basin-wide and project-specific. The plan should examine basin-wide monitoring efforts by agencies and other groups, and how this information can be coordinated or made more efficient. It identifies where gaps exist and develops plans to fill them. It also develops protocols to ensure consistent monitoring efforts. Benchmarks to measure overall progress of enhancing watershed health should be established and methods to evaluate them developed. Monitoring protocols for specific projects should also be developed allowing consistent and useful information to be obtained.
Updating the Action Plan
The plan is a living document subject to change and updating as new information becomes available. The plan should have a method and timetable for periodic review and updating along with a method of accomplishing this.
Dispute Resolution
Description of how council will resolve disputes over watershed health issues and the action plan.
Building Local Capabilities
Long-term success of councils will depend on developing local capabilities to sustain the council and its efforts. This section should identify sources of funds for council support and its efforts, sources of technical support for the council and its activities, and sources of other support necessary for the council to function.

Monitoring for Watershed Health and Project Effectiveness

Watershed councils will play an important role in monitoring both the overall effectiveness of the CSRI in achieving salmon recovery as well as monitoring the effectiveness of individual projects which are implemented under their action plans. The monitoring program, addressed in a separate chapter, indicates that agencies will not have the resources by themselves to implement a comprehensive monitoring program. The plan calls for the use of watershed councils, SWCDs, and others to assist with CSRI monitoring efforts using the protocols designed in the CSRI monitoring plan. Volunteers will be trained by qualified agency personnel in proper monitoring procedures in order to meet quality assurance/quality control standards. This coordinated agency/volunteer effort will provide the framework for a comprehensive look at the effectiveness of the CSRI.

Technical Advisory Committees (TAC)

Councils generally request participation from local, state, federal, and private resource professionals to participate in a Technical Advisory Committee. The TAC is a voluntary, scientific, interdisciplinary, nonpolitical group whose purpose is to provide advice and guidance on technical issues. There are no guidelines or defined composition for a TAC. The TAC advises councils on completing a watershed assessment, developing strategic plans, setting priorities, designing and implementing projects, and developing and implementing monitoring programs.

TAC Accomplishments:

Since 1994, coastal watershed council TACs have been involved in reviewing, designing, and implementing over 250 projects (including one riparian restoration project that involved over 200 private land owners). TACs have also been heavily involved in the development of 11 watershed assessments and action plans for watershed councils. The process is continuing with the development of TACs for new councils, the involvement of a TAC in the CSRI, the updating of watershed council action plans and assessments, the development of new watershed council action plans and assessments, and the continued efforts in developing, designing, and implementing on the ground projects.

Current TAC Status:

Technical support for projects and consultation is in short supply and high demand. State and federal agencies are currently undergoing downsizing related to decreased funding levels. This translates to fewer resource professionals available to meet the increasing demand by watershed councils for technical input, project design, and implementation.
Future of TACs:

The future success of watershed councils depends on many factors including strong TACs. State agencies have made working with watershed councils a priority. The increasing number of councils forming have stretched current agency staff to the limits making them prioritize where they become directly involved rather then being able to meet all council requests. Under the CSRI, state agencies and the Governor have requested new budget packages that will enable agencies to better meet the increased council demands through additional field staff.

The vision for watershed councils is to continue to have strong TACs, representing the spectrum of resource professionals, to work cooperatively on developing comprehensive watershed assessments and action plans and implementing actions that protect and enhance watershed resources.

The Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board is working in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation, the USFS, and BLM to place a field engineer in the South Coast (Medford). This position will work directly with watershed councils designing water conservation projects, developing alternatives to pushup dams, and fish passage projects.

Role of GWEB

Since 1987, GWEB has taken a strong lead in the promoting and funding of demonstration watershed enhancement and education projects. With the passage of HB 3441 during the 1995 legislature, GWEB continues its role as a grant program and takes on the additional, stronger role of providing technical support and stable funding for watershed council infrastructure.

GWEB provides councils with information relating to watersheds and continues to coordinate the efforts of these councils. GWEB staff have divided the state into 4 regions with a staff member assigned to each to provide field services to local watershed councils. Councils are assisted with fiscal, organizational, decision-making and technical issues.

In addition GWEB provides educational opportunities for those engaged in watershed enhancement efforts. A biennial conference brings together watershed experts from around Oregon and the nation to present information of the latest innovations and techniques in watershed protection and restoration. Over 600 people attended the latest conference in November 1996. In addition GWEB funds landowner workshops presented by Soil and Water Conservation Districts which teach landowners about new land management techniques which are benign or beneficial to watershed health.

GWEB just completed a Watershed Curriculum for use by teachers throughout Oregon. In-services will be provided beginning this spring to those wishing to use the curriculum. In addition, GWEB developed "Stream Scene" in cooperation with ODFW which reaches over 500 high school classrooms each year. "Stream Scene" is a curriculum for stream/aquatic resource education targeted to secondary education.

GWEB Advisory Committees

The GWEB Board has two advisory committees, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the Educational Advisory Committee (EAC).

TAC:

The TAC is made up of representatives from each of the agencies represented on the Board. The TAC drafted rules governing project evaluation and selection criteria. These rules were adopted by the board in October 1987.

The TAC evaluates resource management project applications and makes annual recommendations to the Board on procedures and the selection of projects for funding.

EAC:

The EAC consists of federal and state agency staff persons and members of the general public representing environmental, natural resources and industry groups, and Native Americans. The EAC evaluates educational project applications and also makes recommendations to the board on procedures and selection of projects for funding. The EAC's objective is to increase public awareness of the benefits of watershed enhancement.`

Project application materials and criteria currently being used by the TAC and EAC is attached as well as a list of the current TAC and EAC members.

GWEB Projects Monitoring Requirements

GWEB requires that every project include a minimum 5 year monitoring component to assess progress towards meeting project goals. Watershed improvement projects include a monitoring plan which assesses changes in the resources the project is addressing over time and how well the changes meet project objectives.

The Board now accepts applications for projects which involve only monitoring components. These projects must include other funding sources, must include specific objectives and desired outcomes from the data to be gathered, and must identify data being gathered by other agencies and describe how the proposed monitoring data will be used to augment existing data gathering.

Current and Future Funding

Currently GWEB is funded at $2.6 million for the 1995-97 biennium. This includes project money and a staff of six. All project money has been allocated for the current biennium using GWEB's competitive grant program as well as ODA's grant program for council coordinators and small grants to SWCDs. GWEB funds have leveraged an average of $3 for every $1 in GWEB funds allocated. These leveraged funds include both public and private funds as well as in-kind services of landowners and others.

The Governor's Natural Resources Investment Budget proposal for the 1997-99 biennium requests $10 million for additional staff positions at Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), ODA, Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), and Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to provide more technical assistance to watershed councils at the local level and $20 million in grant funds for the CSRI, Healthy Streams Partnership and GWEB projects. These funds will be used to help provide councils with technical assistance necessary to create more comprehensive watershed assessments, action plans and projects. The budget proposal also requests a new staffing

position at GWEB that will be responsible for setting up and coordinating statewide monitoring efforts. In addition, creation of the Watershed Improvement Grant Fund will allow GWEB to receive funds from private and federal sources on a continuing basis.

In addition to these state resources, For The Sake of the Salmon (a Pacific Northwest organization created to provide support to watershed councils engaged in salmon recovery efforts) was successful in securing $1 million in funding through EPA for watershed council coordinators in Oregon, Washington and California. Eight coordinators will be funded in Oregon in 1997-98 as a result of this funding.

Also GWEB received an additional $345,000 in federal funds targeted to coastal watersheds to fund additional watershed coordinators and projects during early 1997.

GWEB Role in Monitoring of the CSRI

In Phase Two of the CSRI, GWEB will take on a major role in monitoring the progress of the restoration initiative. Assigning this role to GWEB recognizes the need for an independent review of the results of watershed work. GWEB will also develop a standardized reporting format that will have a common data base and simplify the reporting and assessment task.

This task will entail summarizing the actions and monitoring results of agencies, watershed councils and other local entities on an annual basis. This evaluation will be the gauge of progress and success of the habitat portion of the CSRI. This will be the time to re-evaluate the plan or to supplement monitoring programs.

Current staffing will not be adequate to do this large, additional task. As a result the Governor's budget proposal includes an additional position at GWEB to oversee this effort.

Factors Currently Limiting Watershed Council Process

1. Currently watershed councils lack long-term stable funding sources to maintain necessary infrastructure.

The strength of watershed councils is in their leadership and their ability to galvanize

local support for watershed protection and restoration. In order to be effective leaders councils must be able to develop a stable infrastructure.

The foundation for this infrastructure is in the form of a paid council coordinator. Volunteer coordinators can be effective, but it is evident that the ability to coordinate projects, work with a technical team and raise funding to the levels needed to sustain a viable, long term program, such as needed for the CSRI, is not realistic on a volunteer basis. The most effective councils have paid coordinators.

Stable long-term funding for watershed councils and in particular for coordinators is an issue that remains unsolved.

To retain the local autonomy needed to be effective, councils must work at becoming self-supporting by obtaining funding through local governments, local business, industry and grants from state, federal and private sources. Most established councils have become very proficient at raising money for watershed projects. Only a few councils have been able to obtain a sustainable funding base for operations.

At this point councils rely heavily on state funding. GWEB has provided some base funding for council coordinators. For the CSRI, the Governor made a grant from his discretionary fund of $240,000 for continuation of south coast coordinators for six months. However, there is very little stable, long term funding for councils.

Heavy reliance is being placed on coastal watershed councils to lead the habitat portion of the restoration effort. As a result of this, sources of funding, both public and private, are increasing. Up to this time, most of this money has been for work on the ground directed for specific projects. In many cases the grant regulations prohibit the use of this money for hiring of people. In other situations grantors have shown a reluctance to fund infrastructure. This fails to recognize that support for paid coordinators may be one of the best investments because a coordinator has the ability to leverage money from many sources.

2. Technical support for projects and consultation is in short supply and high demand.

State and federal agencies are currently undergoing downsizing related to decreased funding levels. This translates to fewer resource professionals available to meet the increasing demand by watershed councils for technical input, project design and implementation.

Current budget packages before the Oregon legislature attempt to address this issue at the state level through a call for increased field staff for several natural resource agencies. Federal agencies have reaffirmed their commitment to supporting watershed councils through technical support at the local level and have identified this as a part of the federal measures submitted as a part of this plan. One example of this is the Bureau of Reclamation and GWEB cost sharing an engineering position which will be placed in the South Coast to assist in fish passage and water conservation projects this spring.

3. Current action plans are not holistic, comprehensive documents.

The first action plans and assessments played a critical role in the early development of watershed councils. The development process created an opportunity for the newly emerging councils to develop strong partnerships with stakeholders and landowners within their watershed. The first renditions of action plans overall addressed general habitat conditions and needs for anadromous salmonids in general. Currently, watershed councils are updating their action plans and assessments to address broader watershed functions in greater detail. The South Coast Initiative submitted with this plan is an example of this broader assessment.

4. Watershed councils generally have not reached out to and received the support of all landowners and stakeholders within their watersheds.

Watershed councils are still a fairly new forum with most only being two years old. The outreach process is still being developed and implemented through processes identified within watershed council action plans. Some councils, such as the Applegate River Watershed Council have been able to launch intensive outreach programs that have been very successful.

Outlook For the Future

The future of the watershed council process in Oregon hinges on development of long-term secure funding sources for council support and activities.

Planning, prioritizing, and strategizing is currently not at the desired level. The state is proposing to key in on three councils (Applegate Coquille and Siuslaw) and work with these groups to develop comprehensive, all inclusive watershed assessments and plans to address critical watershed issues, resources and areas. The process once developed will be gradually applied statewide.

The GWEB Program will continue to assist and support watershed councils to the level the program receives future funding. We have reason to be optimistic about the future of the State's efforts:

Because of the high interest in watershed management and the expectations of watershed councils to accomplish this task, increased funding is available for projects from state and federal agencies and private foundations. Because funding of the CSRI is a high priority, it is expected that much of this money will go to this effort.
State funding, including money for coordinators, is being requested for 1997-99. Projects which include cost share by private, local or federal interests will continue to be given higher priority for funding.
Federal resource agencies are recognizing the need to fund infrastructure in the future and are budgeting for this.
For Sake of Salmon (4SoS), a group formed to protect salmon in California, Oregon and Washington, has made funding and support of watershed councils a top priority. They have been successful in getting a federal appropriation for FY97 for support of watershed council coordinators. Another request for additional funding has been made for FY98. In addition, For Sake of Salmon has secured funding to conduct workshops at the watershed level in 5 watersheds in Oregon. One workshop was held in the Umpqua watershed in November 1996 and another was held in the California portion of the shared ESU in January 1997.
Watershed councils will continue over the long term to serve as the focal point for integration and coordination of watershed activities in the state of Oregon. New ones are being formed on a regular basis. Even councils without paid staff are finding ways to accomplish needed work, although at a slower pace than desired. They will continue to be effective at varying levels and will reach their full potential when they have a stable, long term funding base and standardized technical tools such as assessment and monitoring protocols available to them. The state is committed to making the tools and resources available in the long term.

Attachments

List of Currently Recognized Watershed Councils

Completed Local Watershed Council Surveys for All Coastal Watersheds

GWEB's TAC & EAC Membership Lists

GWEB Board List

GWEB Staff List

GWEB Project Application & Selection Criteria Used by the TAC/EAC

South Coast Gene Conservation Units Descriptions

Pushup Dam Final Report

ISSUES RAISED BY PUBLIC/PEER REVIEW OF DRAFT CSRI PLAN RELATING TO GWEB/LOCAL WATERSHED COUNCILS

Five major issues need to be addressed in light of the peer/public review comments received on Section VI-C Watershed Council Process and Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board of the Draft CSRI Plan.

ISSUE 1: How can the state ensure scientific credibility (quality assurance) of habitat measures implemented by coastal watershed councils?

RESPONSE: Several procedures currently exist to address this issue. New tools needed to address this issue are being developed or will be developed with new budget resources.

First, all of the coastal local watershed councils make use of technical advisors, either formally through a standing technical advisory committee or through ad hoc advisory committees as issues warrant. The technical advisors assist these councils with watershed assessments, development and implementation of watershed action plans and monitoring efforts. The technical advisory committees are made up of local, state and federal agency personnel as well as private interests with the expertise to provide technical assistance needed by councils. A broad range of expertise is used by various councils depending on the priority issues within each watershed. ODFW district biologists who are most familiar with fishery issues in each basin are involved in each TAC.

Second, the Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board (GWEB) has had in place since 1987 (as required by statute) a technical review process for all grant monies awarded. Two committees, a Technical Advisory Committee and an Educational Advisory Committee, review, rank using established criteria, and recommend to the Board applications for funding. In addition they provide policy guidance to the Board on technical issues. These committees are made up of agency representatives and private interests with a broad range of technical expertise. It is expected that as the amount of grant funds increases and the types of projects funded is expanded that the advisory committee structure will be adapted to deal with the increased workload.

Third, the natural resource agencies in Oregon have included in their budgets requests or in the Governor's Natural Resources Investment Budget for 1997-99 staff positions in coastal communities to meet the increasing demand in the field for technical assistance.

Fourth, a part of the CSRI includes development of a standardized monitoring program which will allow agencies and watershed councils to monitor the effectiveness of projects in meeting state and local benchmarks. In addition, the Governor's budget proposal includes 6 FTE in ODFW for biological monitoring and an additional staff position to oversee implementation of a statewide monitoring program in GWEB in order to assess annually or biennially the state of state's watersheds.

Fifth, GWEB has committed to developing a standardized assessment tool for use by local watershed councils. Councils and others have expressed a strong need for an assessment methodology usable by local groups.

Finally, many watershed councils who did rapid assessments in 1993 and 1994 under the watershed health program are working on more detailed assessments using the NMFS Working Guidance, including the entire South Coast area. Most of these assessments incorporate the work completed by the BLM and Forest Service under the Northwest Forest Plan.

We believe that all of these efforts together will ensure the scientific credibility of the work of local watershed councils, soil and water conservation districts and others as they implement actions to protect and restore salmon habitat throughout Oregon's coastal watersheds.

ISSUE 2: How will the state provide the tools, funding and technical staff support needed for local watershed councils to effectively implement the habitat components of CSRI?

RESPONSE: The Governor has proposed for the 1997-99 biennium a Natural Resources Investment Budget, which calls for new investment of resources for staff and grants for the CSRI, Healthy Streams Partnership and GWEB as well as funding for state parks. This $60 million budget would provide funds necessary to provide additional technical support to watershed councils, development of tools needed by local watershed councils to implement the habitat components of the CSRI as well as grant funds to fund council infrastructure needs, watershed assessment and monitoring, education and outreach, and watershed action development and implementation. Early response from the legislature indicates that they understand the need to fund this effort but may look at another funding source rather than using an excise tax on returnable cans and bottles.

GWEB has developed an interagency agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation to provide water resource engineering assistance in the Rogue Basin.

ISSUE 3: How will the state balance agency regulatory approaches to salmon recovery versus local watershed council volunteer approaches?

RESPONSE: The CSRI proposes a two pronged attack with regard to habitat measures. First, the regulatory agencies have committed to better enforcement of existing regulation. This is based on the assumption that the current regulatory scheme, with

heightened enforcement, provides the regulatory framework needed to maintain existing habitat for coho and other salmonids. In addition agencies may seek additional authorities which would assist with salmon recovery efforts, if necessary.

Second, the state believes that local watershed councils, soil and water conservation districts and others who have been working at the local level with private landowners on a voluntary basis can achieve on the ground actions necessary to achieve salmon recovery and habitat restoration using existing and developing relationships within their watersheds. These entities have empowered and energized local citizens and property owners to the point where demand for resources to implement projects far outweigh our current capacity to deliver those needed resources.

Watershed councils are also working with landowners to provide alternatives to bring them into compliance with existing regulations in order to avoid costly enforcement action. A prime example of this is the development of the Interagency Action Plan for Southwest Region Push-Up Dams which is attached. In addition, under Senate Bill 1010, SWCDs and watershed councils will assist in the development and implementation of water quality plans for agricultural lands as required by the Clean Water Act. Watershed councils will also work with DEQ staff to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads for coastal subbasins.

ISSUE 4: How will the state achieve its objectives and regional objectives while maintaining autonomy at the local watershed council level?

RESPONSE: The state has the responsibility to establish statewide and regional goals and quantifiable objectives. Local watershed councils, in designing action plans, can identify a number of strategies targeted to local conditions, that will work to achieve the desired goals and objectives.

ISSUE 5: How can the state better incorporate wetlands planning into the CSRI and watershed/protection efforts?

RESPONSE: The issue of wetland restoration as a part of watershed restoration has been clearly raised in the Draft Report for the Division of State Lands. The report raises an important question of the inclusion of wetlands as a part of the aquatic resource sites evaluated and identified for restoration or enhancement in a watershed. Federal guidance for watershed assessment discusses wetlands, however, few federal watershed analyses include an analysis of wetland status and historic conditions.

The Watershed Health program has funded a wetland restoration project for water quality improvement. The GWEB proposal to develop a watershed assessment manual will include explicit description of wetland functions as they relate to watershed conditions. In 1992 GWEB adopted the policy: "Development of specific GWEB guidelines and standards for wetlands will be deferred until such time as other agencies develop and adopt their guidelines. In the meantime, wetland project applications will be evaluated through the rating process currently used for other types of projects." This policy was developed during a time of concern about the regulatory status of wetlands. With the development of the DSL policy and approach, the GWEB will revisit the 1992 policy during rulemaking later this year.

ADDITIONAL ISSUES: In addition to the five broad issues addressed above, a number of concerns were raised about the accuracy of information provided in the draft plan with regard to specific watersheds. This information has been corrected and/or updated to accurately reflect the current situation in each of these watersheds.

Section VI-C of the CSRI Plan has been revised to include additional information which we believe will address the issues raised through the peer/public review process.

GENE CONSERVATION UNITS

SOUTH COAST/ROGUE GENE CONSERVATION UNIT

Four counties make up the bulk of the South Coast and Rogue drainage basins: Jackson, Josephine, Coos, and Curry counties. The two basins comprise geographically and socioeconomically diverse areas, including coastal zones and the rugged Siskiyou/Klamath mountains. Twelve watershed councils have been recognized representing sub-basins in this area. Two larger groups, the Rogue Basin Steering Committee (RBSC) and the South Coast Coordinating Watershed Council (SCCWC) provide forums for communication and coordination between watershed councils.

SOUTH COAST COORDINATING WATERSHED COUNCIL

Description of the Watershed

The South Coast Coordinating Watershed Council's function is to coordinate activities undertaken by six watershed councils. This includes development, implementation, and assistance in locating funding for projects, developing assessments, and coordinating activities undertaken by the Floras Creek Watershed Council, Elk and Sixes River Watershed Council, Port Orford Watershed Council, Euchre Creek Watershed Council, Chetco River Watershed Council, and Winchuck River Watershed Council. Hunter Creek and Pistol River Watershed Councils are in the formation stages.

South Coast Coordinating Watershed Council members represent a broad range of interests. There are approximately 20 members, including local commissioners, forestry representatives, environmental interests, interested citizens, fishermen, ranching interests, and representatives from each sub-basin. The council operates on consensus and works hard at accommodating members' concerns.

Mission Statement

The mission of the South Coast Coordinating Watershed Council is to act as a coordinating link between all of Curry County's watershed councils and as a conduit to GWEB.

Goals

Identify and protect existing watershed resources.
Enhance and restore a watershed's resources for all species, including humans.
Obtain a long-term balance of biological and economic stability.
Promote and provide educational opportunities.
Increase community involvement in watershed protection and restoration activities.
Develop goals for future watershed conditions based on assessments of past and current watershed conditions.
Rank educational and restoration objectives.
Structure avenues for accomplishing the objectives.

Watershed Action Plan

The SCCWC has completed a watershed assessment and developed an action plan. Currently, the SCCWC is participating in the South Coast Initiative and is updating its assessment and action plan.

THE ROGUE BASIN WATERSHED STEERING COMMITTEE

An umbrella organization, the Rogue Basin Watershed Steering Committee, was formed to coordinate the seven smaller watershed councils in the Rogue basin (South Coast, Evans Creek, Little Butte Creek, Lower Rogue, Middle Rogue, Upper Rogue, and Applegate). The committee was formed to help address watershed management issues and to provide a framework for support, coordination, and cooperation among key interests in the entire Rogue Basin.

The mission of the group is to help foster, develop, and coordinate a basin-wide approach to resource planning and management; to protect, enhance, and restore the natural resources of the Rogue River Basin for beneficial economic, environmental, and social uses; to serve as a conduit for information; and to provide a regional voice on watershed issues.

The steering committee includes two commissioners each from Jackson, Josephine, and Curry Counties; one city representative each from Ashland, Medford, Gold Beach, and Grants Pass, plus two representatives from small cities appointed by the mayors of the region; and one representative from each of the seven watershed councils.

The steering committee plays an advisory role in relation to established decision-making bodies and community interests. It makes recommendations concerning the protection, restoration, and enhancement of the quality of the watershed within the Rogue Basin.

ROGUE BASIN WATERSHED COUNCILS

Lower Rogue

Mission Statement

To help foster, develop, and coordinate a basin-wide approach to resource planning and management so as to protect, enhance, and restore the natural resources of the entire Rogue Basin through a framework of assessing the Lower Rogue watershed's conditions, implementing and monitoring proven management practices, and testing new management practices that are designed to support environmental integrity and economic stability for the communities of the Lower Rogue watershed.

Goals and Objectives

To facilitate communication between affected landowners, citizens, political organizations, associations, and agencies within the Lower Rogue.
To provide a framework to coordinate projects and management practices that improve the overall health of the Lower Rogue watershed.
To coordinate comprehensive programs for the strategic management of the Lower Rogue watershed.
To provide opportunity to resolve problems and conflicts arising over the management and management practices within the Lower Rogue watershed.
To provide opportunities for community-based education on the values and functions of the Lower Rogue watershed.
To encourage the enhancement and restoration of salmonids and salmonid habitat within the Lower Rogue watershed.
To monitor and evaluate activities coordinated through the Lower Rogue Watershed Council.
To solicit funding and other resources to implement the objectives of the Lower Rogue Watershed Council.

Watershed Action Plan

The Lower Rogue Council has completed a watershed assessment and developed an action plan. Currently, the Lower Rogue is participating in the South Coast Initiative and is updating its assessment and action plan.

Illinois Valley

Mission Statement

To implement a consistent and integrated process to guide watershed based resource planning and management to protect, enhance, and restore the state's watershed ecosystems in order to optimize the natural resources of the state for all beneficial economic, environmental, and social uses. The process will involve local, state, federal, and private land and water managers and interested citizens in the development, implementation, and monitoring of watershed action programs.

Goals and Objectives

To facilitate communication between affected landowners, citizens, political organizations, associations, and agencies within the Illinois Valley watershed.
To provide a framework to coordinate projects and management practices that improve the overall health of the Illinois Valley watershed.
To coordinate comprehensive programs for the strategic management of the Illinois Valley watershed.
To provide the environment an opportunity for positive solutions to resolve conflicts/problems by providing pro-active information on agronomic, management, and structural measures.
To provide opportunities for community-based education on the values and functions of the Illinois Valley watershed.
To monitor and evaluate activities coordinated through the Illinois Valley Watershed Council.
To obtain funding and other resources to implement the objectives and goals of the Illinois Valley Watershed Council.

Watershed Action Plan

The Illinois Valley Watershed Council has completed a watershed assessment and developed an action plan. Currently, the Council is participating in the South Coast Initiative and is updating its assessment and action plan.

Applegate

Please refer to previously submitted Profile of Applegate Watershed Council.

Evans Creek

Mission Statement

The mission of the Evans Creek Watershed Council is to help foster, develop and coordinate a basin-wide approach to resource planning and management so as to protect, enhance and restore the natural resources of the Evans Creek watershed for beneficial economic, environmental and social uses.

Goals and Objective

Improve communication among affected private individuals, citizens, and state, federal, and local agencies.

Establish a framework for coordination and involvement in watershed stewardship issues, especially water quality and quantity issues.

Provide a forum for resolving problems related to the council's mission when parties involved agree to refer the matter to the council.

Develop a comprehensive watershed management plan, including an action plan, to achieve and maintain watershed health.

Develop cooperative agreements with federal, state and local organizations to utilize the watershed's resources to facilitate water shed health projects.

Goals of the Action Plan

Enhance and restore the watershed for all species, including humans.

Promote the recovery of anadromous fish stocks.
Involve the community in caring for their watershed. We recognize the importance of considering the interconnectivity of all components of the watershed. This approach means that the cooperation of all landowners, managers, and involved citizens is critical.

Provide educational opportunities.

Create sustainable jobs for residents.

Provide avenues to accomplish these goals.

Watershed Action Plan

The Evans Creek Watershed Council has completed a watershed assessment and developed an action plan. Currently, the Council is participating in the South Coast Initiative and is updating its assessment and action plan. The Council has also undertaken developing a landscape-based ecosystem approach to addressing watershed issues.

Bear Creek

Mission Statement

To help foster, develop, and coordinate a basin-wide approach to resource planning and management so as to protect, enhance, and restore the natural resources of Bear Creek and the Rogue River Basin for beneficial economic, environmental, and social uses.

Goals and Objectives

Improve communication among affected private individuals, interested citizens, and representatives of local, state, and federal agencies.
Establish a framework for coordination, cooperation, and citizen involvement in water resource issues, including their integration with planning issues such as land use, urbanization, transportation, and air quality.
Provide a forum for resolving problems and conflicts related to the council's mission when parties to problems or conflicts agree to refer the matter to the council.
Develop an integrated, comprehensive watershed management program, which includes an action plan, to achieve and maintain watershed health.

Watershed Action Plan

The Bear Creek Council has completed a watershed assessment and developed an action plan. Currently, the Council is participating in the South Coast Initiative and is updating its assessment and action plan.

Little Butte

Mission Statement

To improve and maintain the general health, beauty, productivity, and environmental quality of Little Butte Creek and its tributaries for the economic, aesthetic, and environmental value of the region.

Goals and Objectives

Improve communication among affected private individuals, interested citizens, and representatives of local, state, and federal agencies.
Establish a framework for coordination, cooperation, and citizen involvement.
Provide a forum for resolving problems and conflicts related to the council's mission when parties to problems or conflicts agree to refer the matter to the council.
Develop and implement plans to protect, promote, and enhance fish and wildlife within the Little Butte Creek Watershed while recognizing the need for economic growth and utilization of the communities involved.
Develop an integrated, comprehensive watershed management program that includes an action plan to achieve and maintain watershed health.

Watershed Action Plan

The Council has completed a watershed assessment and developed an action plan. Currently, the Council is participating in The South Coast Initiative and is updating its assessment and action plan.

Middle Rogue

Mission Statement

The Josephine County Water Resources Advisory Committee/Middle Rogue Watershed Council is community-based, involving industry, local and state agencies, conservation groups, and concerned citizens cooperating to develop and implement a watershed action program. The program will be developed and coordinated to protect, enhance, and restore the natural resources of the Rogue Basin for beneficial economic, environmental, and social uses.

Goals and Objectives

Develop an integrated, comprehensive watershed management program, which includes an action plan to achieve and maintain watershed health.
Improve communication among affected private individuals, interested citizens, and representatives of local, state, and federal agencies.
Establish a framework for coordination, cooperation, and citizen involvement.
Provide a forum for resolving problems and conflicts related to the council's mission when parties to problems or conflicts agree to refer the matter to the council.
Inform the public through media coverage and education by involving local schools in watershed projects.

Watershed Action Plan

The Council has completed a watershed assessment and developed an action plan. Currently, the Council is included in The South Coast Initiative.

Currently, the Watershed Council is in a state of reorganization through Josephine County and is not now active.

Upper Rogue

Mission Statement

To help foster, develop, and coordinate a regional approach to resource planning and management so as to protect, enhance, conserve, and restore the water resources of the Upper Rogue region for beneficial economic, environmental, and social use.

Goals and Objectives

Establish a framework for coordination, cooperation, and citizen involvement in water resource issues including, but not limited to, multiple use, ecosystem health, economic opportunity, outreach and education, research and monitoring, wise resource stewardship, community well being, and water quality.
Foster and improve communication among affected private individuals, interested citizens, and representatives of local, state, and federal agencies.
Provide a forum for discussion and resolution of conflicts related to the Council's mission when parties to problems or conflicts agree to refer the matter to the Council.

Watershed Action Plan

The Council has completed a watershed assessment and developed an action plan. Currently, the Council is participating in The South Coast Initiative and is updating its assessment and action plan.

THE COOS/COQUILLE GENE CONSERVATION UNIT

Two counties comprise the Coquille/Coos Gene Conservation Unit: Coos and Curry counties. There are three recognized watershed councils covering five watersheds in this area.

WATERSHED COUNCILS:

Tenmile

Mission Statement

"Through community involvement and education, supports management of all land and water in a manner that sustains natural resources and that, in turn, will contribute to environmental vitality and community betterment within the Tenmile basin from the farthest reaches of the watershed to the Pacific." The Tenmile Watershed Council is a community-based, cooperative endeavor to protect, encourage, and enhance the use of natural resource principles that promote ecosystem health and diversity.

Goals and Objectives

Promote the present and improve the expectation for tomorrow.
Improve communication among all parties interested in the future of the Tenmile Lakes Basin.
Provide a framework for coordination, cooperation and participation of diverse elements holding varying points of view.
Develop and implement plans to protect, promote, and enhance fish and wildlife within the basin, while recognizing the need for economic growth and utilization of the community.
Promote ongoing monitoring of the health of the Tenmile Lakes Basin.
Serve as a mechanism for representing the basin's interest before regional, state and federal bodies.

Watershed Action Plan

The council has developed a watershed assessment and action plan.

Coos

Mission Statement

The purpose of the Coos Watershed Association is "to provide a framework to coordinate and implement proven management practices, and test promising new management practices, designed to support environmental integrity and economical stability for communities of the Coos Watershed."

Goals

Foster and encourage landowner action in the interest of watershed health.
Foster public awareness of watershed processes and activities and opportunities for action.
Foster scientific understanding through a program of experimental watershed research and focused monitoring.
Serve as an information clearinghouse and coordinator of watershed activities.
Provide an organizational framework to accomplish the Association's mission.

The Coos Association is designed to coordinate and assist in implementation of enhancement and restoration activities, to develop and apply new techniques, and to be a source of accurate information concerning the state of the watershed. The Association was formed to create a mechanism through which the people of the Coos watershed can work together to achieve both environmental integrity and economic stability. The five landowners/managers who control all of this watershed's headwaters are charter members of the Association and are active participants in current projects and plans.

Watershed Action Plan

The Council has developed a watershed assessment and action plan.

Coquille

Mission Statement

The Coquille Watershed Association has a vision of the Coquille system in which commercial activities occur so that resource values are integrated. The vision includes the following:

Create water quality conditions that will meet the Clean Water Act standards.

Enhance native fish survival and production. Increase salmonid production in the basin.

Create understanding and acceptance of the need for sustainable economic activities representing long-term resource conservation.

Goals

The goal of the group is to "provide an organizational framework to coordinate the assessment of the watershed's conditions, implement and monitor proven management practices, and test new management practices that are designed to support environmental integrity and economic stability for the communities of the Coquille Watershed."

Objectives

To facilitate communication between affected landowners, citizens, political organizations, associations, and agencies within the Coquille Watershed.

To provide a framework to coordinate projects and management practices within the Coquille Watershed that will improve its overall health.

To coordinate comprehensive programs for the strategic management of the Coquille Watershed.

To provide the opportunity to resolve problems and conflicts arising over the management of, and management practices within the Coquille Watershed.

To provide opportunities for community-based education on the values and functions of the Coquille Watershed.

To encourage the enhancement and restoration of salmonids in the Coquille Basin.

To monitor and evaluate activities coordinated through the Coquille Watershed Association.

To solicit funding and other resources to implement the objectives of the Coquille Watershed Association.

Watershed Action Plan

The council has developed a watershed assessment and action plan. Currently, the watershed council is updating the action plan and assessment.

South Coast

Description of the Watershed

The South Coast watershed is located in the southwest corner of the state in Coos and Curry Counties. It includes all watersheds that empty directly into the Pacific Ocean south of the Coquille River to the California border. These watersheds make up an area of 1,100 square miles along the coastal crest, which extends inland up to 30 miles northward from the California border to the Coquille River Basin. The area includes the Chetco, Winchuck, Elk, New, Pistol, and Sixes Rivers, Hubbard and Floras and nine other creeks, and smaller watersheds that empty directly into the Pacific Ocean along l00 miles of coastline. The Elk/Sixes Watershed Council and the Floras Creek Council are part of the Coos/Coquille Gene Conservation Unit. As the umbrella council over the Elk/Sixes and Floras Creek Watershed Councils, the South Coast Coordinating Watershed Council also has jurisdiction.

Mission Statement

The mission of the South Coast Coordinating Watershed Council is to act as a coordinating link between all of Curry County's watershed councils and as a conduit to GWEB.

Goals

Enhance and restore a watershed's resources for all species, including humans.
Obtain a long-term balance of biological and economic stability.
Promote and provide educational opportunities.
Increase community involvement in watershed protection and restoration activities.
Develop goals for future watershed conditions based on assessments of past and current watershed conditions.
Rank educational and restoration objectives.
Structure avenues for accomplishing the objectives.

Watershed Action Plan

The watershed councils have developed a watershed assessment and action plan. This information has also been incorporated into the South Coast Coordinating Watershed Council's Action Plan. Copies of watershed assessments and action plans may be obtained by contacting GWEB or the watershed council directly.

Locally Organized Watershed Councils In Oregon

10-Feb-97

Organization First Name Last Name Address City State Zip Telephone

APPLEGATE RVR WSC JAN PERTTU 2816 UPPER APPLEGATE RD JACKSONVILLE OR 97530 (541) 899-8036

BAKEOVEN WTRSHD CNCL ED HAGEN HC71 BOX 66 MAUPIN OR 97037 (541) 395-2521

BLUE FAIRVW LKS LND TRST JANE GRAYBILL 21029 NE INTERLACHEN LANE TROUTDALE OR 97060 (503) 667-0879

BRIDGE CRK WTRSHD CNCL PAT GEER 31444 W BRANCH RD MITCHELL OR 97750 (541) 462-3882

BULLY CK WTRSHD CNCL ELLEN HAMMOND 2200 SIXTH AVE VALE OR 97918 (541) 473-3365

CHETCO WTRSHD CNCL STEVE NICHOLSON PO BOX 6

Organization	First Name	Last Name	Address	City	State	Zip	Telephone
APPLEGATE RVR WSC	JAN	PERTTU	2816 UPPER APPLEGATE RD	JACKSONVILLE	OR	97530	(541) 899-8036
BAKEOVEN WTRSHD CNCL	ED	HAGEN	HC71 BOX 66	MAUPIN	OR	97037	(541) 395-2521
BLUE FAIRVW LKS LND TRST	JANE	GRAYBILL	21029 NE INTERLACHEN LANE	TROUTDALE	OR	97060	(503) 667-0879
BRIDGE CRK WTRSHD CNCL	PAT	GEER	31444 W BRANCH RD	MITCHELL	OR	97750	(541) 462-3882
BULLY CK WTRSHD CNCL	ELLEN	HAMMOND	2200 SIXTH AVE	VALE	OR	97918	(541) 473-3365
CHETCO WTRSHD CNCL	STEVE	NICHOLSON	PO BOX 6