The waterways and native fish of the Pacific Northwest are in trouble. Many salmon species are in danger of extinction; many species are already extinct. The reason for their decline is habitat destruction including: hydroelectric dams, logging, grazing and urban development. New studies have shown that damage is even more severe than ever.

Salmon stocks are the basic building blocks of the Pacific salmon species. Salmon are born in specific watersheds as juveniles and return to the same streams to spawn. Stocks are well adapted to the conditions of the stream in which they are born and in which they will spawn. When a local stock becomes extinct, the specific genes of that stock cannot be replaced with hatchery fish or other stocks. Hatchery stocks are fish that are reared in fish hatcheries to replenish and stock streams and lakes. Hatchery stocks are harmful to wild stocks because they weaken the genes that make wild stocks able to survive in their native streams.

There are seven species of fish now classified as Pacific Salmon. They include: chinook or king salmon, coho or silver salmon, coastal sea-run cutthroat, steelhead, chum salmon, pink salmon, and sockeye salmon.1

Pacific salmon are distinguished from other wild fish because of their unique life cycle. Wild salmon are born in small streams where they stay until they are ready for their migration to the ocean. They spend varying lengths of time in the ocean, depending on the species. Coho salmon spend 18 months in the ocean. Chum salmon spend up to seven years at sea, but four years is typical.2

Salmon have the amazing ability to locate the exact stream in which they were born. They return there to spawn unless there are barriers along their path. Salmon require specific habitat for each stage in their life cycle. They require migration paths to the ocean and back upstream which are free from barriers. They require clean streams in which to spawn and incubate embryos. Juveniles need cover and protection from predators during rearing.

Historical perspectives

Prior to the arrival of European settlers to the Pacific Northwest, wild salmon and other fish were abundant. During spawning season, streams and rivers teemed with migrating salmon. Rivers were healthy and so were fish. Many Native American tribes, especially those along the Columbia River, relied on fish as a main source of food. Fish were harvested in numbers that were sustained over the generations that Native Americans inhabited the Pacific Northwest.

Industrial period begins impacting fish

The first treaties were signed with Native American tribes in this area in the 1850s. Shortly after, in 1866, the first Columbia River cannery was opened. In 1883, the harvests of chinook salmon for canneries peaked at 43 million pounds. But in 1894, the U.S. Fish Commission issued a report about an 'alarming' decline of salmon harvest on the Columbia River. At the same time that harvests were increasing rapidly, habitat destruction and barriers to salmon migration were developing. The Bonneville dam was completed in 1938. Fifteen other dams were built along the Columbia River over the next 35 years.

In 1941, the Grand Coulee Dam was built, cutting off several hundred miles of the upper Columbia to salmon migration. All the while logging was accelerating, bringing greater habitat destruction. In 1950, a government report, by the Oregon Fish Commission, was issued. It blamed logging in the Coast Range for salmon declines. Despite this information, throughout the 1950s the U.S. Forest Service accelerated clearcutting of national forests there.3

The 1970s marked the beginning of environmental awareness in many areas. The first Earth Day, in 1970, was a landmark, and a wake-up call to Americans about the severity of environmental degradation. Awareness grew about declining fish populations. State studies announced the decline of wild fish runs in the Northwest and California. In the 1980s the seriousness of the situation became clear. By the mid 1980s nearly all old growth forests on private timberland were gone. In 1986 the Snake River stocks of coho salmon became extinct.4

Current status of waterways and native fish

Since the 1850s, development activities -- such as hydropower, fishing, logging, mining, agriculture, and urban growth -- have caused extensive losses in salmon and steelhead populations and habitats.5

Our waterways are in poor condition. The Columbia/Snake River System (in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho) was named one of the 10 most endangered rivers in 1996.6 This river system has been on this top 10 list every year since 1991.

In 1996, a state study of the Willamette River found deformed fish and elevated levels of toxins. Excessive nutrients, high water temperatures, and bacteria from raw sewage were major problems which contributed to the problem.7 Over 1.2 million pounds of toxic chemicals were reported to have been released into Oregon's waterways in 1994.8 According to Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, over one-half of Oregon's streams are too polluted to fully support aquatic life.9

A newly released decision by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposes to list -- as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act -- another thirteen salmon and steelhead populations in Oregon, Washington and California. The habitats for these species cover thousands of square miles of river drainages and include densely populated areas in the three states.

The NMFS has one year to decide whether to list the thirteen species. Officials pointed to a variety of causes for their decline including hydroelectric dams, municipal water withdrawals, logging along mountain tributaries. Othe major causes include toxic substances from industrial pollution and tainted runoff from chemicals, fertilizers and pesticides from farmlands and urban areas.10

Extinction and risk of extinction

In 1991, the American Fisheries Society identified and reported that at least 106 major Northwest salmon runs are already extinct and that an estimated 214 additional salmon runs in northern California and the Pacific Northwest were at varying degrees of risk of extinction in the near future. One hundred and one were at high risk of extinction, 58 at moderate risk of extinction, and 54 considered "species of concern." Thirty-seven stocks of chinook salmon, 17 stocks of coho salmon, and 27 stocks of steelhead trout were at high risk of extinction.11 The situation has since worsened.

At least 106 major populations of salmon and steelhead on the West Coast are extinct. The Snake River sockeye salmon is now considered to be functionally extinct. Oregon Trout identifies 95 streams where chinook have disappeared, 83 were steelhead have been lost, 17 streams where coho are gone, and 12 Columbia River Basin tributaries where sockeye salmon have been extirpated.12 This report was issued in 1991, and many species continue to decline.

In 1993, the Wilderness Society issued a report announcing that, except for pink salmon, all of the species of Pacific salmon are extinct or at risk of extinction across the majority of their historical ranges. Wild Pacific salmon are entirely extinct in 38% of the region, mostly extinct or at risk of extinction in 56%, and not known to be declining in just 6%.13

Fall chinook are extinct in 19% of their range and endangered or threatened in 25%. Spring/Summer chinook are extinct in 63% of their range, and endangered or threatened in 24% of their range. Coho salmon are extinct in 55% of their range, endangered or threatened in 33%. Sockeye salmon are extinct in nearly 60% of their range. Summer steelhead are extinct in 45% of their range.

The Coastal cutthroat trout is a Candidate Species. There are at least 24 other fish species recognized as Species of Concern.14 (For a comprehensive list of Endangered and Threatened Species in Oregon, see the chart in Chapter 4.)

Populations in the Columbia River Basin declined from an average 10 to 16 million fish, prior to Euro-American development of the basin, to about 2.5 million fish by the late 1970s.15 Most of today's Columbia River system returning salmon are of hatchery origin (about 95 percent of coho, 60 percent of fall chinook, and 80 percent of spring chinook).16

Trout and steelhead populations are also declining. The westslope cutthroat trout's population has dropped from millions in the early 1800s to only thousands today. They are now found in fewer than 10 percent of the streams they once inhabited in the Western U.S.17 Bull trout are extinct in Northern California. As recently as 1990, bull trout disappeared from the Middle Fork of Oregon's Willamette River.18 Habitat destruction is the primary cause. Bold steps must be taken to protect watersheds or further declines will occur.

Coho Salmon

Oregon streams now produce less that 20% of their historic salmon populations, with many producing much less. By 1994 wild coho population in Oregon had declined from between 1-2 million to less than 20,000 returning adults: a 99% decline.19 Coho populations are so depressed that commercial fishing of coho in Oregon and California has been banned since 1994.20 Commercial fishing organizations have joined conservationists to protect and restore coho habitat.

Coho salmon are currently at risk of extinction. On October 19, 1993, twenty-three organizations filed a formal petition with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to list coho under the Endangered Species Act. After delays of more than three years, the NMFS listed the coho salmon as threatened in Northern California and Southern Oregon, but excluded most of Oregon's waterways including the Columbia River Basin. The government is now being sued by conservationists because it is alleged that the decision about whether or not to list the coho salmon was based on politics rather than on scientific data.

Salmon need healthy ecosystems

Salmon need migration paths that are free of barriers. They need spawning habitat with a place for embryos to incubate. Embryos need water that is flowing quickly enough to provide them with oxygen, and water that is clean, not loaded with sediment (which can suffocate the eggs). Juvenile salmon (fry) need food, cover from predators, and cool water.21

Salmon need streams with healthy forests on either side. Stream-side vegetation stabilizes stream banks, provides cover, and keeps stream temperatures cool in the summer and warmer in winter. Trees along streams contribute leaves to the stream, which attract insects for salmon.22 The roots of trees act as a filter for soil particles (sediment) from slopes.23 Logs and branches that fall into streams provide cover and protection from predators, create pools of slow-moving water, trap gravel for spawning, filter sediment in water, and stabilize stream banks.24 These conditions may be irreplaceable. They are critical for healthy riparian ecosystems.

Causes of native fish declines

There are two major ways salmon and other fish can be affected by human land use: habitat degradation and fragmentation of connected habitats that fish use for migration.25 Habitat damage from hydropower dams, logging, mining, agriculture, and urban development affect more than 90% of at risk salmon populations.26 Other factors listed as reasons for decline of threatened and endangered fish in Oregon include habitat degradation from land use practices, logging, road building, interactions with hatchery fish, stream channel changes, lowered stream flows, and barriers to fish migration.27

Logging

Deforestation is a major factor in the decline of wild native salmon in the Pacific Northwest. When stream-side vegetation is removed, water temperatures can rise to levels higher than fish can tolerate, stream beds can straighten which means less diverse habitat for fish and other aquatic life -- including insects that fish eat. After clearcutting, there is more erosion and siltation from slopes above waterways.28

Salmon need clean, cool water in which to lay their eggs. Erosion from clearcut logging -- especially on steep slopes -- can kill salmon. Siltation can cover eggs and suffocate embryos. When trees are removed from slopes above a stream, water flows more quickly to the stream and heavy rains can lead to flooding. In a healthy forest, tree roots slow the flow of water to the stream.29 Stream flow is critical to salmon habitat, and water levels can be affected by logging.30 At times there may be too much water (flooding) and at other times not enough. Clearcut logging can trigger land slides, especially on steep slopes and unstable soils. In the western Cascades, clearcutting accelerated land slide erosion by two to nine times the rate for unlogged land.31

Salmon rest, feed, and spawn in pools which are created by forest debris, such as large fallen trees. Removing woody debris can destabilize channels and reduce the diversity of habitat and protection from predators. Logging can deposit woody debris in streams, but it is usually smaller-sized debris and decays more quickly than naturally-deposited old growth conifers, which are healthier for salmon habitat.32

All of the above factors contribute to the decline of salmon populations. Without an intact forest along stream banks, salmon will not survive. Clearcutting has proven to be disastrous for salmon populations, all of which depend on intact forest ecosystems. Moving from clearcutting to ecological-based methods of selective logging will help protect salmon habitat.

Logging road construction causes erosion

Erosion from road construction can harm salmon and their habitat because of the sediment deposited in streams. The sediment from roads can fill pools where salmon rear, fill spawning beds and suffocate eggs, and change the nature of the stream channel entirely. Roads can increase the severity and frequency of landslides from several to hundreds of times as severe, depending on the location.33 Bridges and culverts can block fish migrations. One poorly designed or installed culvert can affect the fish population of an entire stream drainage. Culverts are the most serious fish migration problem associated with roads.34

Chemical pesticides poison waterways

On private and state lands in Oregon, forests are often sprayed with pesticides and herbicides after a timber harvest. In 1992 the Oregon Department of Forestry estimated that approximately 300,000 acres of forestlands were sprayed with chemical herbicides. Many streams have been contaminated with these toxic chemicals. Many forestry herbicides injure fish.

According to Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, "Salmon fingerlings exposed to Roundup (glyphosate) show stress and increased mortality while trout exposed to hexazinone are lethargic." (They are slower in escaping predators, and slower in their progress toward spawning areas.) "Juvenile salmon exposed to increasing concentrations of a triclopyr product breathe faster, become distressed, and eventually die. Trout exposed to 2,4-D become lethargic."35

Uses of the herbicides hexazinone, triclopyr, and glyphosate have increased. These three chemicals accounted for more than 75% of all herbicides used in 1987-1989.36 Toxic chemicals can affect salmon directly if they contact the fish, or indirectly if they reduce the vegetation at the edge of a stream or river. Loss of vegetation reduces shade necessary for maintaining proper water temperatures for salmon.37 Livestock grazing is another serious cause of loss of shade in riparian areas.

Dams are a major destroyer of salmon

During their downstream migration to the ocean, salmon are often killed by turbines or dam sluices. The slow water behind a dam makes fish more vulnerable to predators.39

Official figures from the Northwest Power Planning Council indicate that the Columbia River dams kill the equivalent of between five million and 11 million adult salmon every year.40 Dams on the Columbia River, alone, have closed off 4000 miles of salmon habitat.41 The construction of the John Day Dam flooded the spawning ground of 30,000 fall chinook.42 Efforts to remove dams are finding more and more support as fish stocks continue to dwindle.

Development and agriculture harm fish

Industrial and residential development have increased pollution of streams with sewage, industrial waste, oil and gas from street runoff, and fertilizers from lawns and gardens. Development can also destroy stream-side habitat. Urban areas magnify stormwater runoff and release metals, oils and other chemicals into nearby waterways.

Industrial agriculture has had a serious impact on water quality in the Pacific Northwest. Irrigation canals can trap young salmon as they migrate to the ocean, and irrigation has left streams depleted or dry. Fertilizers from field runoff pollute waterways with toxic pesticides and herbicides. Overgrazing of cattle and other livestock has stripped stream banks of vegetation, increasing water temperatures and causing silt that can choke salmon eggs. Livestock waste pollutes water. The BLM states that "grazing is a prime factor in destroying watershed values."43

In 1993, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) identified livestock grazing as the state's leading cause of non-point source pollution. Each of Oregon's 1.2 million cows generates an average of 60 pounds of manure every day.44 Much of this 13.2 million tons of livestock waste winds up in our streams.

Of the 12,000 river miles in Oregon that don't meet water quality standards, more than 75% -- or 9,300 miles -- are impacted by livestock pollution.45 According to the BLM, out of 138 anadromous salmonid species on BLM lands in Oregon, 110 of these species are "at risk of extinction."46

Fish and economics

Fishing has been at the heart of the economy for coastal communities in the Pacific Northwest for centuries. The situation is changing as fish become scarce. Harvests are limited, because of the declining populations. Fishing groups are challenging logging practices in order to save fish.

According to Glen Spain, Northwest Regional Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association, "Roughly 47,000 jobs have been lost in the Northwest Pacific salmon fishing industry (including both commercial and recreational) just between 1988 and 1995, with a total of 72,000 fishing-generated family wage jobs lost over the past three decades."47

According to another source, we are experiencing "an economic loss of up to almost $500 million each year in lost personal income, equivalent to the loss of up to approximately 25,000 family wage jobs." If we continue with the current system of mismanaging hydropower dams, and habitat destruction in the Columbia River Basin we will lose up to $13 billion in potential economic benefits.48

Salmon fishing has gone from a $1.4 billion industry in 1985 to less than $300 million in 1994.49 Commercial coho fishing once netted $100 million annually and has been closed since 1994.50 The Pacific Northwest economy relies on healthy fish populations. This is clearly not a "jobs vs. the environment" issue. The jobs of fishers in Oregon are dependent on a sustainable harvest each year. In addition, numerous jobs are lost in the tourism and recreation industries when limits are placed on sportfishing in the state. It is tragic that industries focused on logging, grazing, industrial agriculture and electric generation have caused such serious harm to fish populations and to the fishing industry in the Pacific Northwest.

In addition to the amount of potential income lost from fishing jobs, costs have been borne by taxpayers as local, state, and federal governments have put a great deal of money toward salmon recovery. For 16 years, the Northwest has been working to restore salmon runs. During that time government agencies have expended $3 billion while fish numbers dropped from 1.1 million in 1981 to 909,000 in 1996.51

Oregon Forest Conservation Initiative

OLIFE's statewide ballot measure, the 1998 Oregon Forest Conservation Initiative (OFCI), is a very important solution to the crisis facing Oregon's waterways and fisheries. If passed by the voters, the OFCI will change the way that forestry is practiced in Oregon. Because the federal and state governments are not taking serious enough steps to restore salmon populations, this is a necessary step for forest ecosystem protection. Citizens can make a difference in helping rescue salmon by working with OLIFE to qualify and pass the OFCI.

The OFCI requires that only ecologically sustainable forestry methods be used across the state. Such methods can substantially reduce pollution of waterways caused by toxic chemicals and erosion from careless forestry practices currently prominent throughout Oregon. Because the current Oregon Forest Practices Act is so weak in both its regulations and its enforcement, waterways throughout Oregon have been degraded and the survival of many species of fish are threatened. The OFCI promotes standards which focus on returning cut over lands to native ecosystems that were in place before clearcutting disrupted these habitats.

If passed, the OFCI will prohibit clearcut logging and the use of toxic chemical herbicides and pesticides on Oregon's forestlands. These are two of the most destructive practices now affecting Oregon's waterways and fisheries. The OFCI will require that ecological forestry methods be implemented across the state and that adequate forest restoration plans be put into place. It will also give citizens and state agencies the necessary tools to help monitor and enforce regulations.

The "Oregon Plan" falls way short

On March 25, 1997, Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber's $30 million stream restoration plan was signed into law, after passing both houses of the Oregon legislature. The so- called "Oregon Plan" was a political compromise worked out between the Governor, the Oregon legislature, federal regulatory agencies, and industry representatives from the timber livestock industries, with only minimum input from organizations representing conservation or fishing interests. The plan has run into problems with federal officials concerned about weak state logging rules. Officials are reconsidering whether coho salmon should be listed under the ESA. Currently, coho are not listed along the Oregon or Washington coasts, except in Southern Oregon.

The Oregon Plan proposes to restore salmon populations, particularly coho, primarily through voluntary stream rehabilitation efforts by public and private groups. Under the Oregon Plan, landowners can be given assistance with stream restoration projects. Restoration can include planting trees and shrubs along stream banks, constructing side channels and pools for spawning, and removing migration barriers. The Oregon Plan also establishes watershed councils around the state and a scientific panel of five scientists to evaluate its effectiveness.52 Conservationists are concerned that the trend has been to pack these state panels and councils with individuals representing the timber industry and related interests. One such state panel, the Oregon Board of Forestry, is stacked with members who have direct and indirect ties to the timber industry. This is apparently the case despite legal requirements that the industry's influence on the panel be limited.53

The Oregon Plan was born after environmentalists brought suit to require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list coho salmon under the Endangered Species Act. Kitzhaber developed a so-called "Salmon Rescue Plan." After much behind the scenes bargaining in the Oregon legislature, the State of Oregon agreed to pay about $15 million of the $30 million plan, while the timber industry agreed to pay $15 million if coho salmon were not listed as endangered or threatened in most of Oregon's waterways.

Shortly after agreement was reached among Oregon's politicians, Kitzhaber reached an agreement with the National Marine Fisheries Service that resulted in the listing of coho salmon as threatened in Northern California and Southern Oregon, but excluded listings for most of Oregon's waterways including the Columbia River Basin. The U.S. government is now being sued by environmental groups. The groups allege that the decision about whether or not to list the salmon was based on politics rather than scientific data.

State forest practice rules inadequate

Governor Kitzhaber is currently under fire from both environmentalists and the NMFS to strengthen rules under the Oregon Forest Practices Act to protect riparian areas from logging. Failure to protect these areas could result in listing of both coho and steelhead throughout Oregon under the Endangered Species Act. The federal government has given the State of Oregon until the Spring of 1998 to address concerns about riparian area protections.

Oregon's endangered fisheries need something stronger than a voluntary restoration plan if they are to survive. There are some serious flaws with the "Oregon Plan" including: 1) reliance on Oregon's laws is insufficient when Oregon's forest management laws are far too weak to prevent further habitat loss; 2) some industrial sectors most affecting salmon habitat are contributing the least financially; 3) unless major upstream land uses (such as clearcut logging) that destroy fish habitat are corrected, all downstream recovery efforts may be futile; 4) the standard of the plan should be what is biologically necessary, not what is politically most palatable; 5) voluntary efforts are inherently unreliable; and 6) funding for the plan is not stable.54 Unless these problems are dealt with by the State of Oregon, salmon runs will continue to suffer. The State of Oregon appears to be willing to sacrifice survival of salmon and other threatened and endangered species to political compromises with corporate interests.

The Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) could be a powerful tool in preventing the extinction of salmon. Once a species is listed as endangered or threatened, it is supposed be given full legal protection by the federal government. Under most circumstances it is illegal to kill, harm, harass, posses, or remove protected animals from the wild. The ESA requires that all Federal agencies (including the U.S. Forest Service) conserve listed species on their lands, and ensure that any activity they fund, authorize, or carry out will not jeopardize the survival of a listed species or its habitat.55

There are, however, serious underlying problems with the Clinton Administration's interpretation and implementation of the ESA. The primary problem lies with the administration's interpretation of a clause of the ESA allowing for so-called "Habitat Conservation Plans" or HCPs. A little-known clause in the ESA allows for the "taking" (or killing) of endangered species (individually) if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determines that the taking will not result in decreased chances in the survival of the species. Habitat needs of endangered species are often ignored for economic reasons. Species recovery is often sacrificed in this process. Unfortunately, the Clinton Administration has made extensive used of the HCP option and has approved many HCPs throughout the U.S. Many HCPs have permitted destruction of crucial habitat for endangered species. There are currently negotiations between the Clinton administration and Oregon Governor Kitzhaber regarding the State of Oregon's plan for HCPs for large tracts of state land, including the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests. If approved as currently written, these plans could result in the elimination of a large percentage of habitat for both the threatened Northern spotted owl, the Marbled murrelet and several species of salmon.

A HCP has already been approved for the Elliot State Forest, just inland from the Central Oregon Coast near Reedsport. That plan allows for logging operations that would result in disturbance and destruction of almost 60% of the native forestlands in that area. The plan was accepted based on the unrealistic assumption that these native forests could be regrown over the next 50 years, the time frame of the plan. Clearcutting operations under the plan will double.

The Register-Guard article of October 4, 1995 described this timber cutting plan approved by Governor John Kitzhaber and U.S. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, "Nests of the threatened northern spotted owl no longer will be off-limits to loggers in the Elliot State Forest." The plan allows for the "incidental taking" of approximately 60% of the spotted owl habitat in the forest. Babbitt praised the plan as a "national model." This "model plan" will result in accelerated destruction of one of Oregon's last intact coastal rainforests and is certainly not a "model plan" for the spotted owl, the marbled murrelet, the coho salmon, or the hundreds of other species that rely on intact native forests in the Oregon Coast Range for their survival.

The Clinton administration forest plans

In July 1993, Bill Clinton proposed the Northwest Forest Plan. The plan is focused on the following areas: key watersheds and watershed analysis, forest reserves, riparian areas, fragile lands, roads and roadless areas, and watershed restoration. On the ground, though, we've seen few changes.

The Clinton administration proposal is, arguably, an improvement over policies of the Bush and Reagan administrations, but there are serious flaws nonetheless: 1) requirements for stream-side buffers for protecting valuable riparian areas are inadequate 2) logging is promoted in many unprotected roadless areas that are important salmon habitats, 3) habitat problems resulting from forest destruction east of the Cascades have been ignored in the plan and 4) the plan is costly both to ecosystems and taxpayers. Efforts are extensive to get the Clinton Administration to abide by existing environmental laws. However, the administration continues to push for new laws that would weaken the ESA.

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan

In 1997, the Clinton administration proposed the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan (ICBEMP). According to geologist Ellen Bishop, the ICBEMP calls for doubling the amount of logging currently allowed throughout the 72 million acres covered by the plan. Lands on the eastsides of Oregon and Washington, all of Idaho, and parts of Montana, Wyoming, Utah and Nevada are included. The increase is proposed despite the plan's conclusion that logging led to increased sedimentation in streams, degraded water quality and forest health, and greatly diminished the old growth forest remaining in the region.56 The Clinton Administration extended the comment period for ICBEMP to February 1998. The future of native salmon habitat will be greatly affected by the plan's outcome.

Ultimately, Congressional funding for the plan and agency interpretations of the guidelines outlined in the plan will determine how the plan will be implemented on the ground. Many conservationists fear that based on the political clout of the timber and grazing industries -- and on past practices of the US Forest Service and the BLM -- that the ICBEMP will further threaten species and ecosystems already severely harmed. An alternative management plan has been proposed by a coalition of 40 conservation groups called The Columbia River Bioregion Campaign.

Hatcheries

It is broadly recognized that artificial production, if mishandled, will do great damage to wild fish. Hatchery production may have increased native fish numbers beyond what they'd have been without hatchery production. However, wild stocks are being harvested in greater numbers because fishing limits are set higher than they would have been without large numbers of hatchery-bred fish.57 In addition, when hatchery stocks mix with wild stocks, the genes of the wild stocks are weakened, making fish less able to escape predators and deal with the conditions of their native streams.58

In the 1950s and 1960s state and federal fish agencies launched major hatchery programs in response to the decline of wild salmon. For decades, the hatchery system has allowed government agencies to ignore the decrease in upriver, inland stocks. Huge numbers of fish are produced in hatcheries each year. About 80% of the Columbia Basin salmon runs are now hatchery-produced fish.59

Umatilla Restoration Program

The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation have developed a fisheries restoration program which has been effective in increasing the numbers of fish in the Umatilla River. They have installed new adult fish ladders and juvenile fish screens. They are barging fish, and doing instream and stream-side habitat restoration. Hatcheries are the major component of the program. Where there were once no salmon, there are now 5,000 to 10,000 adults returning each year (500 - 2,000 spring chinook, 500 - 1,000 fall chinook, and 2,000 - 4,500 coho).60

Barging

Because industrial and commercial interests have such a large political and economic stake in the continued operation of giant dams used on the Columbia River for electricity, efforts to remove or alter the dams have met with little success. Instead -- in an act of economic and ecological desperation -- young fish are being placed on barges and boated downriver. The goal is to prevent their destruction when, in their annual migrations to the sea, they must maneuver through heavy machinery in the dams.

There are conflicting studies on whether barging may in some cases be helping fish survive. The National Marine Fisheries Service has recommended that half of the migrating juveniles be barged downriver and that half swim.61 However, even if barging could be a partial solution to the problem of dams as migration barriers, salmon habitat above these dams is often not suitable once the fish get upstream.

The organization called Save Our Wild Salmon (SOS) opposes barging. SOS states, "Young fish are forced by giant mechanical screens into small pipes that shoot them to handling facilities. This dramatic change in water volume, along with physical and mechanical handling, stresses and injures the fish. They are then pumped into barges and trucks, where overcrowding and exposure to disease further stress them. Finally, the artificial downriver journey disrupts the imprinting fish need to return to their native spawning grounds. Independent scientists generally agree that the best way to restore wild salmon and steelhead is to create a more natural river system with improved spawning and rearing habitat. This means replacing the barging and trucking program with a package of habitat improvements."62 Habitat protection and improvement is essential for threatened fish species.

Stream restoration and forest management

Protecting salmon habitat must be the primary goal if we are going to ensure healthy salmon for the future. Stopping destructive forest practices like clearcutting is important for protecting areas that have not already been degraded. However, many areas are already in bad shape. In degraded areas, ecosystem restoration is a necessity if salmon runs are to be restored. Some techniques for stream restoration include: cleaning and trapping gravel for spawning, planting trees along stream-sides, and placing woody debris in streams. Placing artificial structures of woody debris in streams can be expensive and has not been proven effective, especially as a substitute for naturally occurring debris.63 Part of the problem with affecting stream restoration is that where clearcutting is permitted upstream from restoration projects, flooding (caused by erosion on hillsides degraded by clearcutting) destroys in-stream restoration efforts downstream.

Salmon need healthy forests. We must change the way that we manage our forests if salmon are going to survive. In Oregon there is no requirement for a written environmental plan before logging is done on non-federal lands. State forestry regulations require only small stream-side buffers (a maximum of 100 feet) on larger fish bearing waterways.

Many smaller streams have no buffer protections at all. Though federal buffers for waterways are three to fifteen times wider than those required under state regulations, most threatened salmon habitat is on private or state land, not federal land. Additionally, state regulatory agencies are understaffed and not often motivated to pursue violations of the grossly inadequate regulations in place for forestry on private and state lands. Citations for violations of the weak Oregon forest practice rules are few.

If forests are logged, salmon need a large buffer strip of trees on either side of a stream to decrease the harsh impacts of logging. Otherwise, when stream-side vegetation is removed, water temperatures increase in summer, erosion and siltation increase, and sources of woody debris are unavailable. We must change requirements for timber harvest practices to mandate that loggers cut selectively and leave a wide area of undisturbed stream-side trees and native vegetation to retain habitat for salmon and other wildlife.

We can end the practice of clearcut logging in our forests. OLIFE is working to promote a proactive strategy of strengthening state and federal regulations for forestry practices and requiring that ecological standards be the rule, rather than the exception. Passing the Oregon Forest Conservation Initiative in 1998 will take us a big step to protection and restoration of riparian habitats within forests across Oregon. With restored and protected forests, Oregon's native fish populations will have a much better chance of reproducing and recovering.

References and notes
¹ The Institute for Fisheries Resources, "The Economic Burden of Salmon Declines in the Columbia River Basin," October 1996, p. 62. back

² U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Salmon of the Pacific Coast," Sept. 1994. back

³ Lance Robertson, The Register Guard, "Salmon's Falling Fortunes," April 13, 1997, p. A16. back

⁴ Ibid. back

⁵ W. Nehlsen, J.A. Lichatowich, and J.E. Williams, 1992, "Pacific Salmon at the Crossroads: Stocks at Risk from California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington," Fisheries 16 (2): 4-21. back

⁶ American Rivers Annual Report, 1996. back

⁷ Associated Press, "Cleanliness of the Willamette River Ebbs," The Register-Guard, p. C3, July 23, 1996. back

⁸ OSPIRG, Dishonorable Discharge, "Toxic Pollution of America's Waters," Sept. 1996. back

⁹ Robert Montgomery, "A Prescription for Clean Water: How to Meet the Goals of the Clean Water Act," Clean Water Network, Oct. 1997. back

¹⁰ The Register Guard, "Salmon Protection Sought," Feb. 27, 1998, pp. A1 & A9. back

¹¹ Nehlsen, W., J.A. Lichatowich, and J.E. Williams, "Pacific Salmon at the Crossroads," 1992. back

¹² Ibid. back

¹³ The Wilderness Society, The Living Landscape Volume 2, Pacific Salmon and Federal Lands, The Bolle Center for Forest Ecosystem Management, October 1993. back

¹⁴ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federally listed threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate species and species of concern which may occur within Oregon, September 1997. back

¹⁵ The Wilderness Society, The Living Landscape Vol. 2, Pacific Salmon and Federal Lands, October 1993. back

¹⁶ Institute for Fisheries Resources, "Columbia/Snake River Fact Sheet," November 1, 1996. back

¹⁷ Scott Sonner, Associated Press, "Groups Say Trout Species Near Extinction," The Register-Guard, May 21, 1997, p. C6. back

¹⁸ Jeff Barnard, "Two Lawsuits Attempt to Protect Bull Trout," The Register-Guard, March 24, 1997, p. A6. back

¹⁹ Glen Spain, "Oregon Embarks on Bold Recovery Plan for Pacific Salmon: Should It Be Used As an Alternative To an ESA Listing?," Vol. 14, Nos. 5 & 6, 1997 Endangered Species Update. back

²⁰ Oregon Natural Resources Council, "State and Federal Protection for Coho Salmon," position paper, no date. back

²¹ The Wilderness Society, The Living Landscape Vol. 2, Pacific Salmon and Federal Lands, October 1993. back

²² William R. Meehan, Editor, U.S. Forest Service, "Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats," American Fisheries Society Special Publication #19, 1991. back

²³ Mark G. Henjum, et al., Interim Protection for Late-Successional Forests, Fisheries, and Watersheds, Eastside Forests Scientific Society Panel, no date. back

²⁴ U.S. Forest Service, "Fish in the Forest: Large Woody Debris in Streams, A New Management Approach to Fish Habitat," September 1996. back

²⁵ Mark G. Henjum, et al., Interim Protection for Late-Successional Forests, Fisheries, and Watersheds, Eastside Forests Scientific Society Panel, no date. back

²⁶ W. Nehlsen, J.A. Lichatowich, and J.E. Williams, "Pacific Salmon at the Crossroads," 1992. back

²⁷ Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Species at Risk: Threatened and Endangered Vertebrates of Oregon, March 18, 1996. back

²⁸ Glen Spain, Regional Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association, Interview, October 1997. back

²⁹ William R. Meehan, Editor, U.S. Forest Service, "Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats," American Fisheries Society Special Publication #19, 1991. back

³⁰ Mark G. Henjum, et al., Interim Protection for Late-Successional Forests, Fisheries, and Watersheds, Eastside Forests Scientific Society Panel no date. back

³¹ Ibid. back

³² Ibid. back

³³ Ibid. back

³⁴ Ibid. back

³⁵ Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, "No Poisons in My Watershed," pamphlet, no date. back

³⁶ William R. Meehan, editor, U.S. Forest Service, "Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats," American Fisheries Society Special Publication #19, 1991. back

³⁷ Ibid. back

³⁸ Institute for Fisheries Resources, The Cost of Doing Nothing: the Economic Burden of Salmon Declines in the Columbia River Basin, Report No. 1 of 3, October 1996. back

³⁹ Corvallis Environmental Center, Willamette River Water Quality Map, no date. back

⁴⁰ Northwest Power Planning Council, "Strategy for Salmon," Vol. 2, p. 17 and Appendices D & E. back

⁴¹ The Wilderness Society, The Living Landscape Vol. 2, Pacific Salmon and Federal Lands, October 1993. back

⁴² Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, "Bonneville Fish Hatchery" pamphlet, no date. back

⁴³ Bureau of Land Management, "Rangeland Reform Report," 1994. back

⁴⁴ USDA Soil Conservation Service, "Rangeland Watershed Program Fact Sheet," 1994. back

⁴⁵ Oregon Natural Desert Association, "River Notes," January 1998. back

⁴⁶ BLM Anadromous Salmonid Team, "Management of Anadromous Fish Habitat on Public Lands," May 1996. back

⁴⁷ Glen Spain, statement of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman's Associations to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Drinking Water, Fisheries and Wildlife, June 1, 1995. back

⁴⁸ Institute for Fisheries Resources, The Cost of Doing Nothing: the Economic Burden of Salmon Declines in the Columbia River Basin, Report No. 1 of 3, October 1996. back

⁴⁹ Liz Hamilton, Executive Director of the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, quoted in "Fishing Interests, Tribes Unite Against Salmon Plan," The Register-Guard, Feb. 9, 1995, p. C4. back

⁵⁰ Kurt Kamin, "Key Decisions Pending on Salmon Protection," The Other Paper, Feb. 1997, p. 1. back

⁵¹ Jonathan Brinckman, "Power Council Does About-Face on Fish Recovery," The Oregonian, Aug. 28, 1997, p. A15. back

⁵² Harry Esteve, "Group backs off on listing of Coho," The Register-Guard, March 26, 1997, p. A11. back

⁵³ Glen Spain, "Oregon Embarks on Bold Recovery Plan for Pacific Salmon: Should It Be Used as an Alternative to an ESA Listing?" Vol. 14, Nos. 5 & 6, 1997, Endangered Species Update. back

⁵⁴ Joan Laatz Jewett, "Forestry Panel Still Tied to Logging," The Oregonian, Nov. 25, 1997, p. A1. back

⁵⁵ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Endangered Species information pamphlet." back

⁵⁶ Eugene Weekly, Sept. 11, 1997, pp. 10-13. back

⁵⁷ Glen Spain, Regional Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association, Interview, October 1997. back

⁵⁸ The Wilderness Society, The Living Landscape Vol. 2, Pacific Salmon and Federal Lands, October 1993. back

⁵⁹ Bill Crampton, "Focus of Salmon Debate Turns to Hatcheries," The Register-Guard, Aug. 7, 1997. back

⁶⁰ Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, "A Success Story... The Umatilla River Fisheries Restoration Program," Internet, no date. back

⁶¹ Associated Press, "Barging May Help Salmon Survive," The Register-Guard, June 8, 1997, p. C7. back

⁶² From a brochure of Save Our Wild Salmon, 1997. back

⁶³ Mark G. Henjum, , et al., Interim Protection for Late-Successional Forests, Fisheries, and Watersheds," no date. back

Copyright (c) 1997-98 OLIFE -- Oregonians for Labor Intensive Forest Economics.
All rights reserved.