Oregon and Washington are widely regarded as leading states in utilizing watershed approaches to address aquatic habitat degradation, impacts of changing land use, and other environmental problems. However, coming efforts to reverse the decline of salmon and steelhead populations may really boost watershed-thinking into the public and political consciousness of the Pacific Northwest. For several years, local watershed group organized in diverse ways have proliferated throughout the region. The state governments have a variety of programs organized on a watershed basis. Washington's Forest Practices Board created one of the two main modes of conducting watershed analyses. Federal agencies in both Oregon and Washington have been more successful at incorporating watershed perspectives into their activities than in most other regions of the country. Nevertheless, now that salmon decline has attained a crisis level, watersheds are likely to play a more prominent role than ever in the region's affairs.
Despite concern about the status of salmon among fishermen, fisheries biologists, and conservationists for decades, the problem finally boiled over this spring when the Endangered Species Act was invoked yet again. On March 16, 1999, the National Marine Fisheries Service designated eight species of salmon and steelhead as threatened and one as endangered. The listings were to go into effect in mid-May. Although 15 other species (or "evolutionary significant units" [ESU]) of salmon and steelhead have been listed as threatened or endangered between 1991 and 1998, the simultaneous listing of another nine species, including some that spawn in heavily-populated areas, was a turning point in governmental actions for the fishes of the Pacific Northwest. Decisions on listing four additional chinook salmon ESUs (Snake River fall-run, southern Oregon and California coastal, California Central Valley fall-run, and California Central Valley spring-run) were deferred until September 1999 to resolve scientific disagreements.
After the listings go into effect, the first things to change are those involving federal authority or money. Most federal activity (e.g., road construction, modification of wetlands, dredging, construction of federally-subsidized housing, etc.) in the region will be subject to review by biologists to ensure it doesn't harm the fish. Later, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) will adopt plans and regulations leading to recovery of the species. One option the Service can take is to adopt a rule, pursuant to Section 4(d) of the ESA, that prohibits "take" of the species. Under Section 9 of the ESA, a take is defined as any actions that harass, harm, pursue, kill, collect, or modify the habitat to impair essential behaviors including breeding, feeding or sheltering of any threatened species. Such a general prohibition of take could alter a wide variety of government activities. Federal money may also come flowing into the region. In January, prior to the listings, the Administration proposed $100 million in funds for state and local agencies and tribes to support efforts to restore these fish to sustainable populations.
The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 is often viewed as a big stick of public policy. Once a species is designated under the ESA, any citizen can ask the courts to force an end to behavior that harms the threatened species. Under the Act, there is the potential for severe measures to be imposed by federal agencies and courts to limit further decline of the listed species and ultimately restore sustainable populations. Although the economic impacts of ESA listings have rarely been as dire as forecast (the northern spotted owl is a notable exception), there is widespread concern that an ESA listing can devastate regional economies. Such fears have driven state and local governments into action to avoid a formal listing or federally-imposed measures associated with a listing: "we'd better do something to save this duck before some judge rides into town and starts telling us what to do." Thus, the implied threats of the ESA have leveraged a lot of action for conserving species and affected habitats. As a result of the salmon listings, state and local agencies are preparing a variety of salmon recovery plans, in part to avoid federally-imposed conservation measures. The designation of the Puget Sound chinook salmon as threatened in the latest round of listings caught widespread attention. This event was the first ESA listing in an urban area or in any region shared by such a large human populationabout 3 million. These salmon migrate through and spawn in Seattle, Tacoma, Bellevue, and associated suburbs. Despite concerns about impacts to the region's economy, the local news media report widespread support for the listings. Much of the salmon recovery effort is focused on aquatic habitat rehabilitation, which is where watershed management has a major role to play. Any recovery plan must address the full range of habitats that the fish depend on, including headwater streams, connecting tributaries, major rivers, estuaries, and the ocean. In each of the freshwater habitat types, critical attributes such as volume, timing, temperature, and chemical quality of the water, sediment movement and storage, channel morphology, organic matter, and food resources have been altered by human activities. In theory, restoring the basic processes and functions of the aquatic habitats that salmon are adapted to should lead to recovery of salmon populations. Many of the principal tools to protect and restore habitat, such as zoning, building and grading codes, management of dikes and levees, operation of water, sanitation, and storm-water systems, and regulation of logging, are wielded by states and local agencies. The local levels of government, as well as volunteer-citizens groups, operate at the appropriate scale for habitat work. If these efforts can be coordinated in an ecosystem and watershed-based framework, the recovery efforts will have a greater chance of success.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (1996, Coastal Salmon Conservation: Working Guidance for Comprehensive Salmon Restoration Initiatives on the Pacific Coast) provided five principles for ecosystem management that are central to salmon conservation:
The three states directly affected by the salmon listings have adopted different approaches to recovery of the endangered species.
Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds
The state of Oregon attempted to develop a collaborative approach to avoid an ESA listing of coho salmon. A lawsuit forced the listing anyway, but the cooperative efforts seem to be progressing and, perhaps, even strengthening. By the mid-1990s, the dramatic decline of the southern ESUs of coho salmon had become obvious to most observers. The central California ESU was listed as threatened in October 1996, and the southern Oregon / northern California coast ESU followed in May 1997. Meanwhile, Governor John Kitzhaber and others in his administration were seeking an alternative to further ESA actions on the Oregon coast. The Governor's office initiated a series of discussions among landowners, fisherman, scientists, and environmental groups to begin voluntary habitat-restoration activities. Much of the talk and the work was organized by watersheds. Initial funding of about $10 million per year for restoration work was provided by the legislature and a tax on timber. The NMFS accepted the habitat conservation plan (that became known as the Oregon Plan) and decided against a formal listing of the Oregon coast coho ESU after some last-minute negotiations. That decision in April 1997 was the first time the federal government had approved a state's recovery plan in lieu of a listing under the ESA. However, environmental and fisherman's groups, suspicious of voluntary actions and concerned about precedent, filed a lawsuit against the NFMS that asserted the Service could not assume the Oregon Plan was sufficient for coho recovery. The courts forced the NMFS to list the Oregon coast coho ESU as threatened in August 1998. Governor Kitzhaber initially believed the listing would unravel the coalition that he had developed, but most of the parties have stayed with the program. As state agencies, timber companies, ranchers, and citizens get down to work, enthusiasm for the Oregon Plan appears to be growing.
In January 1999, Governor Kitzhaber issued an executive orderto expand the Oregon Plan from its original coastal focus to salmon-habitat throughout the state. The order directs state agencies to establish goals for protection and recovery of aquatic habitat and fish by river basins, to make salmon recovery a top priority for all relevant state agencies, and to improve monitoring efforts. Although state agencies do not answer directly to the governor under Oregon law, response to the directives by agency staff and their advisory boards has been positive. Nevertheless, during May 1999, there was a variety of legislative activity that seemed intended to impede some of the salmon recovery efforts, including a reduction in funding for restoration that was approved by the voters last fall.
The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds is based on voluntary actions because the majority of coastal habitat is on private land. Most of the basic decisions are made by watershed councils composed of volunteers. The ESA has few provisions to require private landowners to help with habitat rehabilitation, which is what is necessary for salmon recovery. The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management could restore their lands to near-pristine conditions if forced to do so by rules under the ESA, and the remaining two-thirds of the area of coastal Oregon would remain in its present condition. In individual watersheds, the mix of public and private land would lead to a piecemeal, disconnected effort, destined to fail. In watersheds where cooperation can be fostered among all landowners and managers, there is great potential to improve degraded aquatic habitat. In the first year of the Oregon Plan's implementation (before it was rejected by the U.S. District Court), more than 1,200 watershed restoration projects were completed. More than 300 miles of fence were erected to rest riparian areas from overgrazing, many damaged riparian corridors were revegetated, and blockages to fish passage were removed from about 400 miles of streams. These projects made a fine start, but there is so much to do. Roy Hemmingway, a chief assistant to the governor on salmon issues, estimates that about one-third of the salmon habitat on the Oregon coast is blocked by bad culverts.
A new thrust of salmon recovery efforts in Oregon addresses water quality from urban areas. Following the ESA listings of the Lower Columbia and Upper Williamette steelhead ESUs in March 1999, Portland became directly affected by fisheries problems. Although Portland lacks the spawning habitat that is an urban issue in Puget Sound, the city's waste products have polluted the waters that the fish must pass through. Individuals, businesses, and utilities must drastically reduce their contributions to water pollution.
Dams, large and small, are a major cause of salmon decline. The structural blockage of creeks and rivers throughout the Pacific Northwest has eliminated vast areas of spawning habitat. Although the big dams on the Columbia and Snake rivers have received most of the attention, hundreds of small dams are equally effective in blocking salmon migration. Removal of some of these dams is beginning to command serious consideration. An 8-foot tall irrigation dam near Medford was removed last summer. In late May 1999, the electric utility that serves Portland agreed to remove two of its older dams. Their demolition would open up 22 miles of spawning habitat on the Sandy and Little Sandy rivers. The complicated agreement would allow additional water to be removed from Bull Run, the primary water supply for Portland, and allow Portland General Electric to avoid costly repairs to these dams. When water systems are viewed as a integrated whole within a watershed or river basin, there is considerable potential for creative alternatives to historical water management that can benefit the endangered fish. More holistic thinking is even extending to the Columbia River basin. The governors of Idaho, Oregon, Montana, and Washington met in early May 1999 to consider adopting a more coordinated approach to hydroelectric power production and salmon recovery in the Columbia system. Governor Kitzhaber has been championing a Columbia River Basin Forum to address water management issues, but his counterparts in Idaho and Montana have been reluctant to lose any control of water in their states
Until this year, Washington's salmon-recovery effort primarily attempted to control timber harvests as a means of improving stream environments. Further efforts were directed at removing obstacles to migration, such as poorly-designed culverts and small dams. A program adopted by the legislature in 1998 called for scientific analysis of all salmon streams and restoration projects executed primarily by volunteers. It also called for better enforcement of existing environmental laws. Washington has spent about $140 million in past two years on programs related to salmon recovery.
In 1999, Governor Gary Locke proposed a new plan that sought to offer more comprehensive approaches to salmon conservation. However, the proposal met vigorous opposition in the legislature, and only a portion of it has been enacted so far. In a special session, the legislature passed two bills dealing with salmon restoration on May 19, 1999. One creates a $119 million fund to pay for salmon conservation activities and a five member independent board to oversee it. The second bill establishes buffer zones along all salmon-bearing streams that cross private timber lands. The width of the buffers was a subject of great debate, reflecting the trade-offs between diminishing returns in protection with greater width and removal of more land from the commercial timber base. In compensation for removing property from active timber management, the state excise tax on timber was lowered from 5 percent to 4 percent, small land owners receive some payment for the conservation easements, and the regulations are stable for a period of 50 years. There is some provision for increasing buffer width if there is strong scientific justification. The legislation establishes new standards for forest-road construction and mandates repair of poorly designed and constructed roads.
The original proposal was called "Water for People and Fish" and included many controversial reforms in state water policy. It called for a statewide water conservation effort intended to keep streamflows sufficient for salmon, even at times of low natural runoff and peak demand. Growers were concerned that the new water conservation rules could prevent them from expanding their farms or adequately irrigating. New limitations on the amount of contaminants permitted in streams and ground water could have restricted pesticide use. There was also a concern that buffer zones along streams could take a great deal of tillable land out of production. Some of these potential losses would have been partially offset by a new federal program that is already paying some to set aside buffers along salmon streams and restore native riparian vegetation. Dairies would have been required to limit nutrient release into streams and ground water. The dairy industry is already under regulatory pressure to implement manure-management practices and about 60 percent of the state's dairies have started such programs. Proposals for new wells would have had to account for their potential impact on streams. New hydropower projects (16 are currently proposed throughout Washington) would have had to prove that they would not impact salmon. The state would also take a critical look at impacts of existing hydropower dams during relicensing proceedings. In addition, the impacts of about 1,000 smaller dams across the state would be evaluated. Locke's proposal would have also tightened enforcement of illegal water withdrawls from streams. State water law fell into chaos in 1993 when the Washington Supreme Court ruled in its "Sinking Creek" decision that the state was authorized to issue water rights but not to enforce them in the instance of conflicts. The legislature has been unable to deal with the problem.
Although the timber industry seems to have recognized the difficult realities of the salmon situation and was fully engaged in negotiations to produce reasonable legislation, water interests seem to be avoiding any responsibility. Many politicians are still arguing that the more important threats to salmon are harvest, birds, sea lions, and ocean conditions.
Meanwhile, local authorities are developing comprehensive habitat restoration plans. The most ambitious to date seems to be the "Tri-County Initiative to Recover the Puget Sound Chinook." This joint proposal by King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties is a coordinated, adaptive-management approach to conservation through the watershed conservation plans. The core of the proposal relies on restricting further development of sensitive areas (wetlands and steep slopes), better control of grading, and improvements in storm water management. New development projects will be subject to a more stringent environmental review than exists today. Regulation of residential pesticide and fertilizer application is expected. Discharge of warm water from industrial and commercial operations could be regulated.
So far, the region's residents have been supportive of the recovery efforts and the modest costs associated with the programs, as long as these costs have been distributed equitably. King county has spent $310 million in the past 20 years buying open space, restoring habitat, evaluating watersheds, and developing salmon programs. An additional $150 million worth of stream improvements, such as culvert replacement and removal of concrete from channels, are planned and could be funded through new utility taxes or a new tax assessment. Other regional efforts to conserve water, clean up effluent, and remove barriers to fish will require increases in water, sewer, and electricity bills. Bellevue is considering a 50-cent-per-residence monthly water bill increase; Seattle already has incorporated a 12-cent increase for salmon. Eventually, the costs of modifying hydroelectric generating plants and waste-treatment plants for the benefit of salmon will be passed on to consumers.
Recent news has been mixed. On April 26, 1999, the Seattle City Council issued a moratorium on one construction project on the tidelands of Salmon Bay. The ordinance was the first salmon-related action by the council since the listing of the Puget Sound chinook. In late May 1999, Snohomish County decided to require 150-foot buffers around chinook habitat instead of the 250-foor buffers recommended by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. On May 25, 1999, Seattle proposed a revision of a Habitat Conservation Plan for the Cedar River, which supplies more than 70% of water used by about 1.3 million Seattle area homes and businesses. The proposal would designate the entire 90,000 acre watershed as an ecological reserve and would commit an additional 100 to 150 million gallons of water per day (up to half of Seattle's historical claim) to remain in the river for fish. The plan would also require the removal of one-third of the logging roads in the watershed.
California seems to have the least coordinated approach to salmon recovery, perhaps because the state has little experience in watershed management compared to its neighbors to the north. Nevertheless, the NMFS completed an agreement with state of California in March 1998 to develop conservation plans to protect two species of West Coast steelhead (along the northern California coast and in the Klamath Mountains along the Oregon border). For its part, the state is expected to provide properly functioning aquatic habitat for the long-term survival of salmon and steelhead. The Department of Fish and Game must address several factors contributing to steelhead declines: water diversions, hydropower operations, gravel mining, timber harvesting, farming, urbanization, recreational angling, and hatchery practices. The state has committed to reviewing its forest practice rules and to change practices that may be damaging habitat for anadromous fish.
In 1997, the California legislature authorized $43 million for the Department of Fish and Game's Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Account over the next 6 years. These funds will be targeted to habitat and watershed restoration planning and projects. Projects funded by this account must emphasize development of coordinated watershed improvement activities, require the consent of willing landowners, and treat causes rather than symptoms of aquatic habitat degradation. Up to 35 percent of the project grants shall be allocated to watershed organization support and assistance, assessment, monitoring, and education. Specific restoration actions in the state steelhead strategic management plan include:
In the Central Valley, salmon and steelhead no longer have access to their natural range because of blockage by dams. The CalFed Bay-Delta process is struggling with alternative water allocations and reservoir operations to improve flow and habitat conditions for the anadromous fish. The CalFed process offered sufficient promise to allow the NFMS to list the Central Valley steelhead ESU as threatened, rather than endangered. That decision forestalls major modifications to agricultural and municipal water diversions that negatively impact steelhead migration routes and spawning habitats.
Watershed management has been a critical part of salmon recovery efforts to date, but its potential is just beginning to be realized. The big-picture viewpoint afforded by a watershed perspective allows the opportunities and limitations for action to be more easily identified. Focusing on small pieces of a complex problem misdirects limited resources and avoids opportunities for collaboration and synergy. In the case of salmon, not every tributary has equal value or equal potential for recovery. A watershed perspective is essential for identifying the best prospects for restoration. It can also help persuade landowners to become involved in restoration by demonstrating how the individual pieces of the landscape contribute to the whole of the watershed. Even though the Endangered Species Act prevents property owners from damaging habitat needed by listed species, the federal government can not require landowners to restore previously-degraded habitat. As the watershed concept becomes more familiar, rural landowners and urban dwellers may more easily recognize how their actions, negative and positive, affect aquatic habitat and endangered species.
A Snapshot of Salmon in Oregon, 24-page tabloid available from Publication Orders, Extension and Station Communications, 422 Kerr Administration, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331-2119; 800/561-6719, ask for EM 8722.
For the Sake of Salmon - www.4sos.org
NW Fishletter
www.newsdata.com/enernet/fishletter/index.html
NW Power Planning Council - www.nwppc.org
King County
www.metrokc.gov/exec/esa/background.htm#rok
National Marine Fisheries Service - www.nmfs.gov
www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmesa/index.htm
Oregon Plan - www.oregon-plan.org/index.html
Salmon Information Center - www.salmon.gen.wa.us
State of Washington
www.wa.gov/esa/strategy/strategy.htm
www.wa.gov/governor/budpol/polbrief.htm
