Oregon Sea Grant • Issue No. 27 Salmon as Nutrient …library.state.or.us/repository/2012/201207121412364/Sep2001.pdf · terrestrial insects, juvenile salmo-nids, bears, raptors,

Restoration Issue No. 27 1

In this Issue• Legislative Updates .......... 4

• North Umpqua HydroRelicensing ......................... 6

• Media Received ............... 11

Oregon Sea Grant • Issue No. 27

Continued on page 2

Salmon as Nutrient Pumps:New Lessons in Watershed HealthBy Paul Hoobyar

Introduction

Images of silver-sided salmonleaping over improbable falls orswimming against the current

from the ocean to high mountainstreams are central to how we in thePacific Northwest define our region.And the symbolism of a speciesswimming upstream, against theodds, to mate and die reinforces ourvision of ourselves as independent,tenacious, and committed to familyand place. At a conference held inEugene in May, scientists presentedevidence of other, more practical,ways salmon provide benefits.

Over 60 researchers from Europe,Russia, Japan, Alaska, Canada, andthe Pacific Northwest explained howanadromous fish carcasses contrib-ute directly to the health of water-sheds in the Northwest and otherplaces around the world wheresalmon exist.

According to Robert Bilby, ofWeyerhaeuser, 95 percent of asalmon’s body mass accumulates inthe marine environment. Salmon arethe primary mechanism, Bilbynoted, by which marine-derivednutrients are transported intofreshwater habitats. Researchers

know about these nutrient contribu-tions because nitrogen and carbonatoms from oceanic sources haveunique atomic signatures. Thesetelltale atoms, or “isotopes,” arestable and can be traced as they areabsorbed into the flora and fauna ina watershed. (The American Heri-tage Dictionary defines an isotope as“one of two or more atoms, the nucleiof which have the same number ofprotons but different numbers ofneutrons.”) The researchers havetracked how returning salmonrelease a pulse of nutrients into ourregion’s watersheds. Indeed, salmonwere referred to as “nutrient pumps”because of the value they provide inthis capacity.

Watersheds on SteroidsNo matter how many times these

carbon and nitrogen atoms aretransferred and absorbed from asalmon carcass to other aquatic andterrestrial species, researchers cantrack nitrogen 15 (N15) and carbon13 (C13) as they are absorbed byother species. Aquatic insects thatfeed on decaying carcasses, emergingsalmon fry that feed on the aquaticinsects, and eagle and bear predatorswere all found to carry N15 and C13in those watersheds where returningsalmon were abundant.

For instance, Morgan Hocking, auniversity biologist, tracked dispersalof N15 and C13 through bear scat

Scientists are finding that nutrients from salmon carcasses play a pivotal role inwatershed health.

Reg

ion

6, U

.S. F

ores

t Se

rvic

e

2 Restoration Issue No. 27

Salmon as Nutrient PumpsContinued from page 1

and urine in watersheds wheresalmon were present and in thosewhere they were not. Hocking foundthat in those watersheds where anabundance of salmon return, spawn,and die, a corresponding abundanceof marine-derived N15 and C13existed in a host of aquatic andterrestrial insect populations thatfeed on the decaying carcasses or onbear scat and urine.

Several researchers, such as RickEdwards with the U.S. ForestService in Alaska, tracked theabsorption of these marine nutrientsinto the hyporheic zone associatedwith rivers and streams. (Thehyporheic zone is the area under-neath the surface channel of astream that is saturated with water.)Edwards found that salmon nutri-ents were retained in these zones forstorage and subsequent release at alater time of year to insects andother species that live in these areas.

Other researchers described howthese nutrients are absorbed andretained by riparian vegetation andhow the dispersal rates of theseisotopes diminish the further awayfrom the active stream channelresearchers look.

In watersheds where marineisotopes were present, every speciesthat preyed directly or indirectly onsalmon showed statistically signifi-cant, positive effects. Aquatic andterrestrial insects, juvenile salmo-nids, bears, raptors, and otherpredator populations were allenhanced, both in terms of thenumber of individuals in each ofthese populations and, where mea-suring individual specimens waspossible, the size and health ofindividual members. This fact issignificant for salmon. When juve-

nile salmonids attain a larger size,their success in overwinteringincreases. Research shows that N15and C13 supercharge the growth ofjuvenile salmonids.

One presenter characterizedthose watersheds that have anabundance of marine-derived N15and C13 as “watersheds on steroids”because of the measurable increasein the size and abundance of biologi-cal communities in which theseisotopes are present.

Implications forManagement

This research has significantmanagement implications. Commer-cial salmon harvesting and hatcherymanagement in the West has beenbased on managing salmon popula-tions for a maximum sustainableyield. As Eric Knudsen, a researcherwith the USGS Alaska BiologicalScience Center in Anchorage, said inhis presentation at the conference,“Salmon managers have tradition-ally assumed that, as long as suffi-cient spawners ascended streams todeliver the ‘right amount’ of eggs tothe gravel, the salmon populationswould provide an endless supply ofexcess for harvest.”

The flaw in this approach becameapparent with the collapse of salmonpopulations throughout the region inthe 1980s and 1990s. The litany ofwoes that led to this collapse hasbeen well documented: overharvest-ing, degrading of habitat and waterquality, managing hatcheries forsalmon productivity and geneticsimplification, and raising barriersto fish migration. All of these activi-ties, and more, have contributed tosalmon declines.

To counter some of the effects ofthese practices, we have curtailedharvest rates, scaled back ourreliance on hatcheries as the pana-cea for salmon survival, and begunto educate ourselves about water-shed and salmon habitat ecology andrestoration throughout the region.Understanding the role of marine-derived isotopes helps further thegoal of sustaining and recoveringwatershed health and native salmo-nid populations.

To sustain salmon throughout theregion, strong, naturally spawningsalmon populations are needed. To

sustain such populations, we mustprotect and restore the watershedsthat provide the freshwater habitatsand food sources salmon require atvarious stages of their life cycle. Theconference’s presenters underscoredthe role of marine-derived nitrogenand carbon in this recovery processand its management implications.

For instance, Jeff Cederholm, abiologist with the WashingtonDepartment of Natural Resources,noted that commercial fishing hasdiverted “massive amounts ofnutrients” away from Washingtonand Oregon rivers and has been a“management disaster.” Cederholmestimated that only 3 percent of thehistoric marine-derived nutrientbiomass once delivered to theserivers reaches those streams today.Cederholm said that juvenile salmonfeed directly on salmon carcass flesh,salmon eggs, and aquaticmacroinvertebrates that may havepreviously fed on salmon carcasses.Research has discovered significantnutrient contributions from spawn-ing salmon to the collector-gatherermacroinvertebrate community.Caddis flies, stone flies, and midges,for example, process the microbiallyconditioned salmon carcass flesh.Cederholm noted that a recent studyof consumption of salmon by verte-brate wildlife identified 137 speciesof birds, mammals, amphibians, andreptiles that were predators orscavengers of salmon at one or morestages of the salmon life.

“The challenge for salmon,wildlife and land managers,”Cederholm said, “is to recognize andaccount for the importance of salmonnot only as a commodity resource tobe harvested for human consump-tion, but also for their crucial role insupporting overall ecosystemhealth.”

Cederholm suggested that salmonmanagers should begin managingsalmon harvests using “ecologically-based escapement levels” that meet

“THE FLOW OF NUTRIENTS BACK

UPSTREAM VIA SPAWNING

SALMON…PLAYS A SIGNIFICANT

ROLE IN…THE OVERALL PRODUC-TIVITY OF SALMON RUNS”

—JEFF CEDERHOLM

“COMMERCIAL FISHING HAS

DIVERTED MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF

NUTRIENTS AWAY FROM RIVERS.”—JEFF CEDERHOLM


the functional needs of a watershed.Enough salmon should be allowed tosurvive in a watershed that thedecay of their carcasses and con-sumption by predators can contrib-ute to the watershed’s ecologicalhealth, he said. Cederholm con-tended that this model should bedeveloped as an alternative to anescapement model based solely onharvest and human consumptionpurposes.

Research by Robert Bilby indi-cated that a target absorption rate ofmarine-derived isotopes can beprescribed within a watershed.Bilby’s research in the early 1990sbegan the scientific inquiry intomarine-derived nutrients. His latestresearch focused on 26 watershedsin western Washington wherespawning coho salmon carcasseswere present. Bilby’s findingsindicated that N15 rates plateauedat about 0.15 kilogram of carcassmass per square meter of streambedarea. However, he found no absorp-tion increase above this level. Thisthreshold may provide a carcassabundance target for managers toshoot for, at least in watersheds westof the Cascade Range.

Jim Martin, who was the fisher-ies manager for the Oregon Depart-ment of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) inthe 1990s, has thought about themanagement implications of usingan ecologically based approach toescapement. Martin thinks that inthose watersheds that have depletedsalmon populations more escape-ment is needed to meet nutrientgoals. “But it’s not exactly clear,”Martin said, “when enough [nutri-

ent] is enough. From a managementperspective, should you be trying tojam as many nutrients as possibleinto a watershed, or should you tryto find some efficiencies and avoiddiminishing returns?”

Martin suggested that manage-ment may need “to create a matrix,based on a watershed-by-watershedand species-population basis, thatexamines what the needs are for agiven watershed (ecologically and forthe species and populations).”

“For instance,” he explained, “insome watersheds, the managementregime will necessarily be based onecological needs of the ecosystem andthe salmonid populations. However,for managers looking at watershedswhere the ecosystem is in healthycondition and salmon populationsare robust, the emphasis may be onthe economic considerations.”

Where Do We Swimfrom Here?

How policy addresses the nutri-ent findings may influence thesuccess of our restoration efforts overtime. In the meantime, researchersfrom around the globe continue togather data on ways that N15 and

C13 affect how salmon and otherspecies recover and maintainhealthy populations.

In fact, according to BarryMcPherson, of ODFW, the state’sfisheries agency has already madesignificant changes to its manage-ment policy with respect to placingsalmon carcasses in streams. “Thenumber of carcasses placed instreams increased from about 1,000in the 1996–1997 season to over12,000 in the 1999–2000 season for atotal of 25,000 over 5 spawningseasons,” McPherson said. He alsonoted that salmon carcass placementduring the 2000–01 season exceededplacement for any other year, butthose numbers won’t be availableuntil later this year. Thedepartment’s decision to place somany salmon carcasses in streamsin western Oregon, McPherson said,is based on the research that “hasshown the benefit of salmon car-casses in natural cycles of nutrientsin watersheds.”

Scientists are learning thatnutrients move in a cyclical patternin watersheds. Although the largestvolume of a watershed’s nutrients—those from the leaves, needles,branches, bark, and trunks of trees,as well as from terrestrial animalsources—move downhill and down-stream, scientists are finding outthat the comparatively small volumeof marine-derived nutrients broughtinto a watershed by salmon plays apivotal role in the overall health andvitality of a watershed. What impactthis will have on hatchery andharvest policies remains to be seen.

WATERSHEDS WITH AN ABUN-DANCE OF MARINE-DERIVED

NUTRIENTS ACT LIKE THEY’RE ON

STEROIDS

The dispersal of salmon carcasses by bears and other predators has spread marine-derived nutrients through much of the watershed. (Courtesy of BPA.)


Legislative Updates

Editor’s Note: The following billspassed the legislature and weresigned by the governor. For a com-plete description of the bills, contactyour legislator or check the legisla-tive Web site at www.leg.state.or.us/billsset.htm.

House BillsHB 2156The bill directs the Department ofAgriculture to assume all responsi-bility for permitting and enforce-ment for confined animal feedingoperations if the EPA approves theNPDES transfer from the Depart-ment of Environmental Quality. Theamount of waste that is permitted or“allowed” to enter streams will havea correlating effect on nearby water-sheds.

HB 2181Creates the Invasive Species Councilto study how to better promotereporting of invasive speciessightings, increase education aboutinvasive species, and provide grantsor loans for eradicating new intro-ductions of them.

HB 2536Requires that land purchasedthrough a grant agreement with theWatershed Enhancement Board besubject to title restrictions that allowthe board to approve, condition, ordeny the sale or transfer of land.

HB 2713Establishes a Water MeasurementCost Share Program RevolvingFund. Specifies that money in thefund is to be used for sharing thecost of installing, substantiallyrepairing, or replacing stream flowgauges, measuring devices, andheadgates with measuring devices.

HB 3002This bill (1) requires fish passage inall waters of the state in whichnative migratory fish are currentlyor have historically been present,

with exceptions; (2) prohibits aperson owning or operating anartificial obstruction from construct-ing or maintaining the artificialobstruction without providingpassage for native migratory fish,with exceptions; (3) requires thecommission to review exemptions atleast once every seven years; (4)requires the state Department ofFish and Wildlife to complete astatewide inventory of artificialobstructions and to establish a list ofpriority projects for enforcementpurposes; (5) requires the state Fishand Wildlife director to establish aFish Passage Task Force to advisethe director and the department; (6)creates the Salmon Recovery TaskForce to define recovery for anadro-mous salmonid populations, estab-lish criteria for evaluation of recov-ery, and develop legislation forrecommendation to the legislativeassembly. Sunsets December 31,2002.

HB 3007Prohibits or limits the manufacture,sale, installation, or disposal ofspecified mercury-containing items,providing civil penalties.

HB 3057Allows cities and counties to autho-rize a partial property tax exemptionfor riparian designations on landthat is located within the boundariesof a city and an urban growthboundary.

HB 3105Creates a tax credit for agriculturalriparian lands.

HB 3451Directs the Land Conservation andDevelopment Commission to evalu-ate whether the dredging of materi-als from estuaries to mitigateflooding should be authorized. Atpresent, dredging for flood control isnot authorized. LCDC will report theresults to the 72nd legislature.

HB 3564Expands the Department of Fish andWildlife habitat conservation planprogram.

HB 3637Modifies membership of the stateFish and Wildlife Commission.Provides that members serve at thepleasure of the governor. Requiresthat the commission hold meetingsat least once every two months ingeographically diverse areas. Pro-vides temporary confirmationauthority to the senate for appoint-ment of the state Fish and Wildlifedirector by the commission.

HB 3808Repeals permission for the U.S. toacquire lands for the purpose ofmigratory waterfowl refuges. With-out this permission, the U.S. facesmore hurdles to acquire such lands.Less unproductive farmland is takenout of rotation, and thus, morepesticides and fertilizers enterwatersheds.

HB 3815Directs the Oregon Department ofAgriculture to inspect fertilizerproducts for harmful substancessuch as heavy metals that pose athreat to streams, wildlife, or people.Adds labeling requirements tofertilizer so people know exactlywhat they’re paying for.

HB 3948Creates a Sustainability Board toevaluate and propose incentives forthe purpose of encouraging activitiesthat sustain, protect, and enhancethe quality of the environment, theeconomy, and communities.

HB 3956Requires the Department of Envi-ronmental Quality to develop andimplement a pollutant-reductiontrading program, with certainrequirements. Allows the depart-ment to collect reasonable fees fromtraders for the administrative cost ofthe program. Requires the depart-ment to seek federal funding for theprogram.

HB 3981Specifies that the state Fish andWildlife Commission consider a hostof social and economic factors thatlisting a species as threatened or


endangered will have on the affectedcommunities and the state once.Further, the state will be required tohelp mitigate these costs when“practicable.”

HJM 4Urges Congress to amend theMarine Mammal Protection Act soOregon can “remove” certain pinni-peds preying on endangered salmo-nids.

HM 2Requests amendment of the Endan-gered Species Act, a reevaluation ofLost River sucker fish biologicalopinion, development of long-termwater storage solutions for KlamathBasin, and declaration of KlamathCounty as a natural disaster area.

Senate BillsSB 50Would require ODFW to relocate toSalem.

SB 172Would amend removal and fillstatutes in the event that the Divi-sion of State Lands assumes admin-istration of the federal dredge andfill permitting program (Section 404)of the Clean Water Act.

SB 214Repeals the sunset clause for plansfor natural production of anadro-mous fish runs. The basins for whichplans may be adopted are Hood,Deschutes, Fifteenmile Creek, JohnDay, Umatilla, Walla Walla, GrandeRonde, and Imnaha. The plans shallinclude a risk-versus-benefit analy-sis to wild fish.

SB 319Ensures the ability of the WaterResources Department to participatein decommissioning of a hydroelec-tric project for purposes of protecting

public health, public safety, and theenvironment.

SB 529This bill is a companion to SB 172,which attempts to streamline theDivision of State Land’s permittingprocedures. The bill would requirethe director of DSL to determinewhether the application is completewithin 40 days and to issue or denythe permit within 90 days, after thedetermination is complete.

SB 606Invalidates permits for recreationalplacer mining within scenic water-ways after December 31, 2003 if themandated review requested by thisact is not completed. Such recre-ational mining in scenic waterwaysis currently not allowed. This billwould allow recreational mining inscenic waterways and, at the sametime, require that a study be done todetermine the effects of the concur-rent new mining taking place. Scenicwaterways compose only 1 percent ofall the rivers in Oregon, and recre-ational placer mining is allowed onthe other 99 percent.

Tom

Wee

ks il

lust

rati

on

SB 764Extends to 2007 the pollution controltax credit, which was set to expire in2001. The pollution control tax creditfunnels millions of dollars to compa-nies for obeying pollution laws,effectively subsidizing heavilypolluting companies.

SB 895Attempts to ward off invasivespecies in Oregon by means ofballast water regulations and a taskforce to study the issue. The billprohibits ships from enteringOregon’s ports without performingballast water exchange and requiresa reporting system to track how wellballast water exchange is beingperformed.

SB 945Attempts to improve implementationof the Oregon Plan by requiringOWEB to perform a biennial assess-ment of activities undertaken ineach of the state’s 18 drainagebasins to implement the OregonPlan, and to report on the progressand challenges facing the plan’simplementation.


OPINION

North Umpqua Hydropower Relicensing:Rhetoric or Reality?By Jeffrey J. Dose

ment regarding the hydro project,one that was made without publicrepresentation and involvement. Theannouncement included statementsby Governor John Kitzhaber andother officials. All expressed greatoptimism for the future as a result ofthe agreement and praised thecooperative spirit in which it wasreached.

Is this optimism justified? Willthe agreement, if it actually becomesthe basis for the new license, resultin a substantial restoration of theNorth Umpqua River that willgreatly benefit the people of Oregonand the nation? Sadly, the answer isno.

Although some relatively minorimprovement over the currentsituation will be achieved, mandat-ing more ecologically based mea-sures using principles from restora-tion ecology and conservation biologywould provide far better results.These are the same scientific prin-ciples, based on natural processesand disturbance regimes, used todevelop the Aquatic ConservationStrategy that provides managementdirection for the U.S. Forest Serviceon many federal lands in the PacificNorthwest. Additionally, theseprinciples are found in the Wild andScenic River Plan for the NorthUmpqua, where the overall goal for

fisheries (an Outstandingly Remark-able Value, a priority of the act) is “ahealthy, diverse aquatic system innear natural condition.” The plan’sguidelines direct federal agencies to“provide leadership to the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission re-license process, rehabilitate streamsthat are below potential with appro-priate measures, and modify orremove existing facilities or eliminateuses in order to achieve fisheriesgoals” (emphasis added).

The aquatic resource measuresproposed in the recently announcedagreement will not restore water-shed processes. Many of the pro-posed measures are still conceptual(for example, they require morestudy or design work), are techno-fixes of dubious or no value, andrequire generous funding. Some willlikely have continuing adverseimpacts.

Numerous alternative measures,including those proposed in thesettlement agreement, have beenextensively studied and are welldocumented in the watershedanalysis produced in response to therelicensing process. The most con-tentious of these measures is theremoval of Soda Springs Dam, thelowest of the eight project dams. It isthe only alternative that wouldbegin to reverse the physical, biologi-cal, and water-quality effects of theproject. Removing this dam wouldcertainly have economic impacts onthe utility. It is the only alternativeanalyzed that would reduce thegenerating capacity (by 11 mega-watts, or about 6 percent) of theproject, which is apparently why itbecame politically untenable.

One way for public officials andpolicymakers to arrive at (andjustify) overly optimistic predictionsfrom what are really minor, yetexpensive, tweaks of the status quo

Decisions about appropriatelevels of environmentalprotection and restoration

are usually complex: information isoften missing or incomplete, and theatmosphere is often contentious.Special interests, driven by economicand political factors, abound. Fewenvironmental issues in the PacificNorthwest are as complex andcontroversial as those surroundingsalmon and hydroelectric dams. Anexample is the recently announcedsettlement “agreement” for therelicensing of the expired NorthUmpqua Hydropower Project be-tween Scottish Power (the owners)and a consortium of state andfederal agencies.

The hydro project, first licensedin 1947, consists of eight dam-reservoir-powerhouse complexes,over 30 miles of flumes and canals, 6miles of penstocks and tunnels, andapproximately 100 miles of project-related roads. The 185-megawattproject covers about 2,800 acres andlies on public land completely withinthe boundaries of the UmpquaNational Forest. It also forms theupper terminus of the 34-mile NorthUmpqua Wild and Scenic River.

The project was designed andconstructed with little thought formaintaining ecological processessuch as sediment and large woodtransport, adequate bypass flows, orpassage facilities for fish or otheraquatic- and riparian-dependentorganisms. As a result, the hydroproject has caused substantialadverse impacts to aquatic ecosys-tem processes and resource values,including several anadromous fishstocks indigenous to the NorthUmpqua River basin.

On June 13, 2001 in Salem,Pacificorp CEO Judi Johansen andU.S. Forest Service regional foresterHarv Forsgren announced an agree-

WE NEED THE POLITICAL LEADER-SHIP TO PROMOTE THE GENUINE

RESTORATION OF NATURAL SYS-TEMS, INSTEAD OF ACTIONS AIMED

AT PRESERVING AGENCIES AND

INSTITUTIONS.


Continued on page 8

is by deceiving the public about thefull range of options available toresolve an issue (see sidebar, p. 9).One way this is accomplished is byarbitrarily restricting the range ofalternative courses of action. Whenan alternative that is relatively“high” on this narrowly confinedscale is selected, it can (falsely) beportrayed as having highly beneficialresults.

For the portion of the NorthUmpqua hydro project locatedwithin the historical distribution ofanadromous fish (the lower one-third), the true range of optionsavailable for restoration of thewatershed includes, at one end of thespectrum, maintaining the statusquo (no passage of any kind) and, atthe other end, complete removal ofthe lowest two dams, Soda Springsand Slide Creek Dams. Providingfish passage using ladders andscreens at one dam or two dams isanother option. In terms of restoringecological integrity, habitat quality,and watershed processes, damremoval is far superior to merelyproviding fish passage for a narrowlyselected suite of species and lifestages. Additionally, because of therespective physical characteristicsand location of the two dams, theexisting impacts and potentialbenefits from restoration at SodaSprings Dam would be of far greaterconsequence than at Slide CreekDam. See figure 1.

At the announcement in Salem,Governor Kitzhaber was quoted assaying “Taking the dam out simply isnot an option.” It appears that atsome point in the negotiations, therange of alternatives was severelynarrowed. At that point, all the damremoval options were portrayed asbeing unrealistic for social, eco-nomic, and political reasons andwere summarily dismissed.

Once that premise was accepted,the scale of analysis—and conse-quently the entire focus of negotia-tions—was substantially changed.The focus and debate became re-stricted to whether, and by whatmeans, fish passage facilities wouldbe constructed at one or both of thedams and what types of habitat“improvements” could be imple-mented. Compared with the truerange of options available for restor-ing ecological integrity and habitat

quality, the terms that were dis-cussed represented only about thelowest 20 percent of the potentialecological benefits available. Thecompromise arrived at through thesettlement achieved only about 10percent of the full range. See figure2.

Whether a decision at this lowlevel, based on a narrowly restrictedscale of the total options available, isadequate to meet the responsibili-ties, mandates, and societal expecta-tions for restoration of places such asthe North Umpqua River is worthyof discussion and further review.

How did we get to the conclusionthat “removal is not an option” fromprevious negotiations less than twoyears ago, when dam removal wasthe preferred option by the U.S.Forest Service, the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, and over half adozen fishing and conservationgroups? Local, state, and evennational groups arrived at thatpreferred alternative after two yearsof intensive negotiation that in-cluded both an independent sciencecomponent and strong public repre-sentation. This alternative wouldhave accomplished far more inrestoring ecological integrity andimproving fish habitat than theproposed settlement agreement.Also, it would have done so with onlya 6 percent decrease in generationcapacity for the entire project.

The “how” question is easy toanswer. After two years, ScottishPower pulled out of that first roundof negotiations and went to worklobbying at much higher agency andgovernmental levels. After a briefsecond round of negotiations failed,one that saw the positions of thefederal agencies waver, the fishingand conservation groups refused toenter into yet another round ofnegotiations (the existing license hadexpired in 1997) and requested thatthe Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission move ahead with the“traditional” licensing process. Thatset the stage for the third, and final,round of negotiations. This roundsaw a new cast of players and a verydifferent process from the previoustwo rounds.1. These negotiations had no public

representation.2. Many agency representatives

were replaced by or supplementedwith personnel who were almostuniversally people higher up theline. These people were far lessfamiliar with the project, butmuch more closely aligned to thepolitical arena.

3. The process also changed.

In the first two rounds, indepen-dent science teams conducted atechnical analysis of the relativemerits of the alternative actions,

Soda Springs Dam, shown here shortly after construction in 1952, is at the heart ofthe controversy over the North Umpqua River. Source: J.C. Boyle/Copco.


using a peer-review, consensus-basedprocess. In the third round, some ofthe most knowledgeable, indepen-dent scientists (those who were notpart of the negotiations or employedby the utility) ceased to participate.As a result, some of the analyticaltools and conclusions that had beenrejected in the earlier negotiationsresurfaced as “fact” and were usedby the later negotiators to justifytheir positions. All of this wasconducted without public participa-tion.

Answering the “why” question is,of course, far more difficult. There isno doubt that a tremendous incen-tive existed for the state and federalagencies to reach an agreement.Public bureaucracies are nearlyalways perceived as “better” whenviewed as “agreeable,” versus thealternative. The electrical powerindustry also has considerablefinancial and legal resources as wellas enormous political influence.Finally, substantial political and, forsome state agencies—for example,the Oregon Department of Fish andWildlife (ODFW)—financial benefitsidentified in the settlement agree-

ment could not be achieved any otherway.

[Editor’s Note: The ODFW NorthUmpqua Hydropower memorandumof understanding can be reviewedon-line at http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/InfoCntrHbt/moupage.html.]

The federal agencies, particularlythe Forest Service (which is the onlyagency with mandatory conditioningauthority), might also have fearedlegal action by the utility if they hadprescribed conditions beyond thosereached in the settlement. This fearof litigation from the utility wasprobably greater than the agencies’fear of legal action from the public.

In their landmark 1993 Sciencearticle, “Uncertainty, ResourceExploitation, and Conservation:Lessons from History,” Ludwig et al.suggested that human motivationneeds to be included as part of anysystem to be studied and managed.They also suggested that the short-sightedness and greed of humansoften underlie difficulties in themanagement of natural resources.The authors found that a consistentpattern exists throughout historyregarding the use of natural re-sources: resources are inevitablyoverexploited. They suggest that this

pattern is due to several commonfeatures, one of which is that wealthor the prospect of wealth generatespolitical and social power that is usedto promote further resource exploita-tion.

The rhetoric of the proposedagreement is that there has been alandmark change, that resourceexploitation need not interfere with,in fact can even improve on, naturalsystems. This sounds wonderful. It’swhat most of us want to hear. Unfor-tunately, in the case of salmon andother natural resource issues, thisconspiracy of optimism is far toocommon and rarely withstandscredible challenge, as recent courtcases can attest.

This proposal is built on a para-digm of short-term economic desires,four-year political cycles, and ever-increasing growth. It is a paradigmbetter suited to preserving agenciesand institutions than preservingnative flora and fauna that haveexisted for billions of years.

The reality is that, despite theattendant fanfare that accompaniedthe signing of the settlement agree-ment, there will be only minor im-provements to the ecological integrityof the North Umpqua River. Physicaland biological connectivity will not be

North Umpqua HydropowerContinued from page 7

Figure 1. Ecological Integrity Continuum

0% 10% 20% 75% 90% 100% |—–—–—x———–x———————————————————————x————–x————–—|Status Fish Fish Remove Remove Remove

quo pass pass dam 1; dam 1; bothdam 1 both nothing fish passonly dam 2 dam 2

|<———————————––———Original decision space——–—————————————‡|

Figure 2. “New” Ecological Integrity Continuum

|(——————————— Original decision space ————————————(||——x————x———————————————————————————x————x——| Original continuum|(————(|New decision space

0% 20% 40% 75% 100%|——–————––––—x—————––––––——x—————————–———x——————–––——–——|

Status quo Passage only Only passage Passage @ both, Passage @ both,(nothing) @ dam 1, low @ dam 1, mod mod baseflows, high baseflows,

baseflows, high baseflows, mod mod fluctuation, low fluctuation,fluctuations, much fluctuations, less “state of art” “state of art”less than “state of than “state of art” ladders/screens ladders/screens

art” ladders/screens ladders/screens


Deception of Scale: How to ReachFaulty Decisions Without Even TryingBy Jeffrey J. Dose

Those whose interests are best served by main-taining the status quo of hydro systems in thePacific Northwest have been very successful in

using arguments based on “burden of proof” and“inadequate science” to prevent change in the region.Another, less obvious, strategy to prevent change is toalter the scale of analysis to minimize (or preclude)meaningful change.

At least two different strategies exist in whichchanging analysis scales can influence decisions. Thefirst is to artificially truncate the temporal scale of theanalysis. This is frequently done when assessingspecies population status. Decision makers select atime period when a target species’ population is stableor showing an increasing trend. Based on such limiteddata, an argument can be made to either preclude anychanges at all (“things are fine!”) or set arbitrarily lowrecovery thresholds.

A second way that changing the scale of analysiscan influence natural resource decisions is to artifi-cially change the decision “space” itself. This methodgenerally proceeds according to the following steps.

Step 1. First, reviewers develop a full suite ofpossible project modifications (alternatives) andprobable ecological outcomes. From this analysis, onthe basis of actual data, the literature review, and aconsensus of professional opinion, reviewers completean assessment for “ecological integrity.” Evaluationfactors include the degree of restoration of importantphysical attributes (that is, sediment regime, flowregime, water quality, and so on), and the degree ofrestoration of the biological attributes (that is, connec-tivity, habitat quality and quantity, diversity, and soforth).

The potential decision points range from maintain-ing the status quo (no change) to taking the mostaggressive action (for example, removing a dam).

Step 2. At this point, the most aggressive action(removal of the dam) is portrayed as being unrealistic

because of social, economic, and political reasons andare summarily dismissed. (Note: At this point, thedecision process has left the physical and biologicalsciences.) Once the label “unrealistic” has beenaccepted, the scale of analysis—and consequently thedecision space—has been substantially changed.

Step 3. The physical and biological sciences arethen re-engaged to discuss the various alternativesand combinations. It is crucial that these discussionsand ultimate conclusions be restricted to within the“new” decision space. Related factors—factors thatwere relatively unimportant at the larger decisionscale—are now the primary points of discussion andare used to determine ecological integrity. In the caseof the debate over a dam, for example, the discussionmoves from actual dam removal to such topics as theamount of base flow and the rate and magnitude offlow fluctuation.

Step 4. Using a consensual decision-makingprocess, policymakers select an alternative thatrepresents a “compromise” decision (from the “new”continuum). On the surface, the decision appears fairand balanced and will contain a relatively high degreeof consistency with ecological objectives. This is oftenreferred to as a “win-win” situation. Those entitieswith responsibilities for fish or other ecologicalresources might conclude that they fared pretty wellin the compromise decision-making process. Whencompared to the original continuum, however, that“win” is marginal, at best.

Society at large and decision makers at all levelsdeserve credible, objective science—as open and asblunt as it can be—if the enormous amounts of publicresources that have been, and will be, expended are toachieve our objective of healthy, self-sustainingaquatic ecosystems and their ultimate symbol: abun-dant, well distributed runs of wild salmon.

restored, high-quality habitat “hotspots” will not be recovered, flowfluctuations and instream flows willremain far outside natural regimes,and sediment transport and riparianvegetation will remain substantiallyaltered.

Relicensing the North UmpquaHydropower Project is a rare oppor-tunity to make substantive changesto the North Umpqua River ecosys-tem. In fact, it is the first opportu-nity in over 50 years and the last forat least the next 35 years, perhaps

ever. Absent successful intervention,through litigation (which is likely) orother means, this opportunity will besquandered. We need the politicalleadership and courage to promotethe genuine restoration of naturalsystems and disturbance regimes,instead of actions aimed at preserv-ing agencies and institutions. Recov-ery grounded in the natural resil-ience of biological systems should beour goal. In the long run, it will beless painful, far less expensive, andinfinitely more durable than depen-

dence on the treadmill of halfwaytechnology.

Jeffrey J. Dose has been a professionalfish biologist for over 23 years, the last 20of which he has spent in the UmpquaRiver basin with two federal land man-agement agencies. He has been involved inthe North Umpqua Hydropowerrelicensing for the past decade. The aboveopinions are his own. Dose is not autho-rized to speak for the Umpqua NationalForest or the Forest Service and does not,under any circumstances, intend to implysuch.


Quantifying the Effects of NewDevelopment on Salmon Habitat:We Need to, but Can We?By Paul Hoobyar

Population growth in Oregon isprojected to increase by ap-proximately two million by

2050. Over half this growth (1.3million) will occur in the WillametteValley. Given the demand for newhousing and roads and the increasedpressure on land use these numbersportend, planners and scientists areasking how the additional popula-tion—and the infrastructure neededto accommodate it—will affect fishand wildlife habitat and watershedhealth.

In the summer 2000 issue ofRestoration, we described howseveral agencies and groups aredeveloping assessment and guidancetools that encourage the kind ofurban and residential developmentthat supports healthy fish habitatand clean water. For instance,Portland Metro has been working onnew riparian setbacks, stormwatermanagement, and low-impactbuilding codes in its Title 3 programfor water quality and fish andwildlife. Likewise, the NationalMarine Fisheries Service, in its 4(d)ruling last year, included a “Munici-pal, Residential, Commercial andIndustrial Limit” to guide munici-palities in establishing ordinancesfor new development that avoidsdegrading salmonid habitat. Thepurpose of the guidelines is toprotect cities from liability under theEndangered Species Act for newurban development.

At the state level, the OregonDepartment of EnvironmentalQuality and the Oregon Departmentof Land Conservation and Develop-ment have released a new publica-tion, the Water Quality Model Codeand Guidebook (available atwww.lcd.state.or.us/coast/waterguidebook/watergb.html),which also addresses water qualityand habitat needs in urban areas.

Now, the consulting firm of S. P.Kramer and Associates is developinga new tool that it hopes will answer

whether, and how much, develop-ment can occur in a watershedwithout adversely affecting in-stream habitat, water quality, or fishproduction. The OregonHomebuilder’s Association andothers are supporting this effort.

The STREAM tool (Salmon andTrout Response to EnvironmentalAlteration Model) focuses on specificcomponents of a watershed’s ecosys-tem to help predict impacts of futuredevelopment on fish habitat andpopulations.

One assessment used in theSTREAM tool looks at how newdevelopment may change surfacerunoff pathways and the amount ofsediment delivered to a stream whenmore surface is paved. The goal is todevelop an assessment that canshow what changes will occur in awatershed under different develop-ment scenarios. The consultantshope this assessment will determinethe amount of new development awatershed can sustain withoutadversely changing the patterns andspeed of runoff or without increasingthe amount of sediment delivered toa stream.

Another of the STREAM tool’sassessments is site-specific withinthe watershed. This assessmentlooks at the stream channel, riparianzone, and floodplain to determinehow much new development canoccur in a specific area withoutadversely affecting stream habitatand fish production.

The STREAM tool also has aforestry component. The forestryassessment looks at large woodrecruitment to the stream and itsrole in creating habitat, the condi-tion of the riparian zones and treestands near the stream, and thechanges in stream temperature thatcan result from alterations in theriparian zone, streambed configura-tion, or streamflow.

Most of the STREAM tool’sassessments use protocols that are

standard in other methods of analyz-ing watershed and natural re-sources. The STREAM tool startswith an assessment of historicalconditions and then analyzes exist-ing conditions before trying toquantify how proposed developmentmay affect the watershed processesnoted above. What’s different aboutthis approach, and what causes someconcern for the National MarineFisheries Service, according tobiologist Spencer Hovekamp, is thatthe STREAM tool attempts toanticipate and quantify the effects ofnew development actions and toestablish fixed salmon productionnumbers. Nevertheless, Hovekampsaid, NMFS encouraged Kramer’sgroup to develop and test the modelbecause “We’re always looking foralternative analytical tools, and theurban sector is important. We justhaven’t had successful experiencewith quantifying fixed productionnumbers yet.”

Other concerns about theSTREAM tool also exist. For ErniePlatt, of the Homebuilder’s Associa-tion, the National Marine FisheriesService’s 4(d) ruling itself is nothelpful in giving developers usabletools for how to proceed with futuredevelopment while avoiding harmfulimpacts. “There’s a belief that NMFShas overstated the habitats,” Plattsaid, “so we need to determinewhether threatened and endangeredspecies exist in a particular stream,and if so, which ones, and whatneeds and conditions . . . thesespecies have. Then we can assesswhat impacts are possible in aspecific area from proposed develop-ment and look for ways to mitigatethat.”

Questions also exist about howthe tool will be used. For instance,what if the tool predicts that devel-opment in a given area will nega-tively affect salmon habitat andproduction? Will developers thenstop development in that area?


Media Received

New Water QualityModel Code andGuidebook CD

The Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality and theOregon Department of Land Conser-vation and Development havepublished a new resource for localgovernments striving to protect localwater quality. The Water QualityModel Code and Guidebook willassist cities and counties interestedin reducing impacts on water qualityfrom urban development activities.

The Willamette RestorationInitiative anticipates that the WaterQuality Model Code will help tofulfill Action 26 of the WillametteRestoration Strategy (increase theusefulness of land-use planningmanagement programs for water-shed issues). The model ordinancesaddress urban nonpoint pollutantsources identified by the Environ-mental Protection Agency and theNational Marine Fisheries Serviceas risks to surface water, groundwa-ter, or aquatic habitat.

The document is designed todovetail with the Model DevelopmentCode for Small Cities, developed bythe state’s Transportation andGrowth Management Program,which is included on the CD.

The Water Quality Model Codeand Guidebook is available on CDfor local planning officials. Forinformation, contact Amanda Puntonat [email protected] orvisit http://www.lcd.state.or.us/coast/waterguidebook/watergb.html.

The Oregon Plan forSalmon and Watersheds2001 Annual Report

The editors of the annual reportcontinue to experiment with innova-tive ways to present a large amountof information in a 45-page docu-ment. New features this year includesections on fiscal resources and stateagency use of Oregon Plan funds.

Both sections give a concise overviewof where the money to support theplan comes from and how stateagencies are spending most of thosefunds. They also contain a page ofgraphics showing how funds areallocated around the state, as well asthe usual sections on restorationwork accomplished, monitoring, andeducation. To receive a copy of thereport, contact Teresa Trump 503-378-3589, x 821.

Web Sites of InterestThe Willamette Restoration

Strategy (Full Report), with moredetailed issue documentation andtask identification, is now on-line athttp://www.oregonwri.org/basin_strat.html. The full report isalso available in limited quantitiesin both CD and hard copy.

Stream Crossing Web SitesA number of on-line resources are

available for landowners, watershedgroups, and others interested inaddressing or learning more aboutfish passage and stream-crossingproblems and techniques.

Oregon Road/Stream CrossingRestoration Guide. For the Sake ofthe Salmon has a new guide explain-ing how landowners in Oregon canassess and restore fish passage atroad-stream crossings. The siteprovides a guide for how to deter-mine whether a problem exists andwhat action to take to fix it (that is,whether to replace, repair, or aban-don the stream crossing). The URLis http://www.4sos.org/wssupport/ws_rest/OregonRestGuide/index.html

Fish Passage Short Course.This Web site includes the shortcourse developed last year forwatershed groups, landowners, andothers who address fish passageissues. It includes a presentation bya team of professionals on variousissues associated with fish passage.The URL is http://www.4sos.org/wssupport/ws_rest/fpsc/index.html

Fish Passage Technical Assis-tance. This site is an on-line manualthat gives a broad overview ofbarriers to fish passage and tellshow to establish priorities for whichpassage problems to address first.The URL is http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/engineer/fishbarr.htm

When asked that question, Plattwas not sure how the STREAM toolwould affect development decisions.“Will it lead to better developmentpractices, smaller developments,green site building techniques, orpre-treatment of a site? I don’t know.Maybe it’s a timing situation, so thatwhat won’t work during the [salmon]migration period will not be aproblem at another time. One thingwe know is it will lead to rethinkingwhat the developer can do for a site.What we hope is to isolate theproblem at the site level and try anddeal with that specific problem. Thatwould be helpful to a developer.”

The Homebuilders Associationand the consulting firm have tar-geted three subbasins to test andrefine the STREAM tool. All threebasins face development pressures inthe near future. One of thesubbasins is Pringle Creek, anentirely urban stream in the city ofSalem. Tina Schweickert, with thecity of Salem, said, “We see potentialvalue in what Kramer has come upwith in terms of the limiting factorsanalysis for salmon habitat and thephysical characteristics assessmentof streams. The city has no plans atthis point, however, for participatingin the testing of the model.”

Platt summed up why the devel-opers support Kramer’s effort.“NMFS has gone down a road that,frankly, they don’t know wherethey’re going. They’ve dealt withcommercial fisheries, and nowthey’re involved in consultation ondevelopment permits. . . . We thinkwe’re helping NMFS by developing atool that will do that analysis,” Plattsaid.

Oregon Sea GrantOregon State University322 Kerr AdministrationCorvallis, OR 97331-2131

PRSRT STDU.S. Postage

PAIDCorvallis, OR

Permit No. 200

Calendar of Events RestorationRestorationRestorationRestorationRestorationRestoration (ISSN 1521-5261) isa quarterly publication of OregonSea Grant, a marine research,education, and outreach programbased at Oregon State University. Thenewsletter was partially supported by grantno. NA76RG0476 from the National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) andby appropriations made by the Oregon Statelegislature. The views expressed herein arethose of the authors and do not necessarilyreflect the views of NOAA or any of itssubagencies.

Editor in Chief: Joseph ConeEditor: Paul HoobyarManaging Editor: Sandy RidlingtonProduction: Rick CooperCirculation: Cynthia NewberryBanner photograph by Trygve Steen

Office phone: 541-737-2716E-mail: [email protected] issues of Restoration:http://seagrant.orst.edu/communications/restore.html

September 2001Oregon Sea Grant acknowledges the partnership of the Governor’s NaturalResources Office and the Oregon State Office of the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService for Salmon and Watersheds in supporting the printing of Restoration.

Watershed Restoration Work-shop 2001: Integrating PracticalApproaches

The Oregon chapter of the Ameri-can Fisheries Society’s watershedrestoration workshop, “IntegratingPractical Approaches,” will be heldNovember 13–15, 2001 in Eugene,Oregon. The workshop will conveylessons valuable to anyone involvedin watershed restoration planning,education, field activities, andevaluations. Registration is $130.The agenda, registration form, andtrade show application are availableon-line at www.osu.orst. edu/groups/orafs/wrw and via Richard Grost atrgrost@ compuserve.com, 541-496-4580.

Symposium on ForestSustainability

The Oregon Board of Forestryand the Oregon State UniversityCollege of Forestry will cosponsor asymposium on October 18, 2001entitled “A Landmark Assessment ofOregon’s Forest Sustainability.” Thisfree, one-day symposium will provideup-do-date information from ongoingassessments of conditions inOregon’s forests, using internationalcriteria of sustainability. For moreinformation, call Casey Norton,Oregon Department of Forestry, at503-945-7407.

Documents

Oregon Sea Grant • Issue No. 27 Salmon as Nutrient …library.state.or.us/repository/2012/201207121412364/Sep2001.pdf · terrestrial insects, juvenile salmo-nids, bears, raptors,