Following is some ideas that I have been thinking about and am interested in the thoughts of the members here.
At the time of statehood a number of western states were deeded significant chunks of federal lands to be used for the pubic good (trust lands). Here in Washington the state has approximately 3 million acres of trust lands managed by the Department of Natural Resources. About half of that land is forested which is largely managed for timber harvest with the income going to help fund public schools. Is that still the best public use of that land?
Some back ground observations -
1) I have noticed that water always flows down hill.
2) Our rivers are the sum of all their tributaries.
3) The rivers with the most intact tributaries tend to have the more robust Chinook and steelhead populations; the Skagit would be an example.
4) In the Puget Sound region for the ESA listed southern resident killer whales, steelhead and Chinook the current recovery efforts are failing; populations continue to decline.
Since north Puget Sound resources are what I know the best I'm going to use the Stillaguamish as an example of how the management of the State's trust land could be changed to benefit public by forcing a major change in the current ESA Puget Sound recovery paradigm.
Currently the Stillaguamish is unraveling from its headwaters down to Puget Sound. This has resulted in excessive bed load material (too much sand and silt) from numerous land failures. That excessive material has destabilized the stream channel resulting in a channel widening, simplification of the salmonid habitats, unstable spawning gravels, elevated stream temperatures, more frequent flooding, etc. all leading to decreased freshwater survival of the listed fish and a greatly reduced carrying capacity of the basin to produced those fish.. Much of that destabilization can be attributed to the effects from timber harvest. The majority of the 684 square miles that comprise the Stillaguamish basin remains forested with that majority of that forested land being public. Some 268 square miles (39% of the basin) is US forest lands and 81 square miles (11%) are state trust lands.
I'm suggesting that instead of managing the Stillaguamish state trust lands for school income that they be management for the return to mature forests to support the recovery of various ESA species. Yes I realize that funding for schools will have to come elsewhere but if recovery of the ESA listed species is to remain a viable objective in basins like the Stillaguamish how those trust lands are managed may be the best option. Over the last couple decades much of the salmon habitat recovery projects have focused around public lands; the estuary recovery projects are examples of this approach. Several years I reviewed a variety north Sound estuary recovery projects the reason for the focus on public lands was obvious. On a per acre cost restoring private lands were roughly 10 times more expensive than those on public lands; the difference of course was the cost of land acquisition.
Since the public all ready owns the state lands all that is needed is the will to change how that land is managed and find an alternate funding source for the schools. If the state were to start down this path they would be in a position to lobby for similar land manage changes on the federal lands. In addition a review of land owner ship patterns in the basin would also provide direction for other land acquisition to form connected blocks of mature forests in key tributaries.. Obviously the above is only a bare bones proposal but I will be more than willing to answer any questions.
Seems to me that such an approach might actually something that environmentalist, fish advocates, orca advocates, etc. could all get behind and might actually have a chance to change the recovery paradigm from extinction is the only option.
A viable path to actually achieving recovery or a unrealistic dream?
Curt
At the time of statehood a number of western states were deeded significant chunks of federal lands to be used for the pubic good (trust lands). Here in Washington the state has approximately 3 million acres of trust lands managed by the Department of Natural Resources. About half of that land is forested which is largely managed for timber harvest with the income going to help fund public schools. Is that still the best public use of that land?
Some back ground observations -
1) I have noticed that water always flows down hill.
2) Our rivers are the sum of all their tributaries.
3) The rivers with the most intact tributaries tend to have the more robust Chinook and steelhead populations; the Skagit would be an example.
4) In the Puget Sound region for the ESA listed southern resident killer whales, steelhead and Chinook the current recovery efforts are failing; populations continue to decline.
Since north Puget Sound resources are what I know the best I'm going to use the Stillaguamish as an example of how the management of the State's trust land could be changed to benefit public by forcing a major change in the current ESA Puget Sound recovery paradigm.
Currently the Stillaguamish is unraveling from its headwaters down to Puget Sound. This has resulted in excessive bed load material (too much sand and silt) from numerous land failures. That excessive material has destabilized the stream channel resulting in a channel widening, simplification of the salmonid habitats, unstable spawning gravels, elevated stream temperatures, more frequent flooding, etc. all leading to decreased freshwater survival of the listed fish and a greatly reduced carrying capacity of the basin to produced those fish.. Much of that destabilization can be attributed to the effects from timber harvest. The majority of the 684 square miles that comprise the Stillaguamish basin remains forested with that majority of that forested land being public. Some 268 square miles (39% of the basin) is US forest lands and 81 square miles (11%) are state trust lands.
I'm suggesting that instead of managing the Stillaguamish state trust lands for school income that they be management for the return to mature forests to support the recovery of various ESA species. Yes I realize that funding for schools will have to come elsewhere but if recovery of the ESA listed species is to remain a viable objective in basins like the Stillaguamish how those trust lands are managed may be the best option. Over the last couple decades much of the salmon habitat recovery projects have focused around public lands; the estuary recovery projects are examples of this approach. Several years I reviewed a variety north Sound estuary recovery projects the reason for the focus on public lands was obvious. On a per acre cost restoring private lands were roughly 10 times more expensive than those on public lands; the difference of course was the cost of land acquisition.
Since the public all ready owns the state lands all that is needed is the will to change how that land is managed and find an alternate funding source for the schools. If the state were to start down this path they would be in a position to lobby for similar land manage changes on the federal lands. In addition a review of land owner ship patterns in the basin would also provide direction for other land acquisition to form connected blocks of mature forests in key tributaries.. Obviously the above is only a bare bones proposal but I will be more than willing to answer any questions.
Seems to me that such an approach might actually something that environmentalist, fish advocates, orca advocates, etc. could all get behind and might actually have a chance to change the recovery paradigm from extinction is the only option.
A viable path to actually achieving recovery or a unrealistic dream?
Curt
