Listing paves way for restoration of coho salmon and public
The Oregon coastal coho salmon just can't seem to stay put when it comes to the endangered species list. NOAA Fisheries recently announced that it will once again protect the fish as a "threatened" species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Does it make a difference whether coho are protected under the federal law? Yes.
First, federal listing establishes a standard for scientific review. The latest listing follows a court ruling that the agencys 2006 decision to deny ESA listing of coho was based not on the best available science, but on "alternative science" wheedled by the state of Oregon to make the coho's predicament seem less dire. Oregon's complicity was costly. It compromised a reputation of integrity gained over a decade of research and restoration and breathed new life into old questions about the state's willingness to accurately reckon with its own salmon resources.
Conservation, fishing and scientific organizations have sought protection of Oregon coho since 1993, after it became widely recognized that runs had dropped drastically from historical levels in the millions to dangerously low levels in the few hundred thousands scattered up and down the coast. Dramatic decline precipitated an economic emergency and federal disaster relief on the coast in 1994-1995 after the collapse and shutdown of the commercial fishery. Coho returns in the last few years are consistent with a continued slide downward, and no data have emerged to indicate that habitat for the salmon is generally improving. A previous decision by NOAA not to list the coho capitalized on a short-lived increase in abundance. Oregons analysis, to the alarm of most scientists, assumed that coho would somehow bounce back no matter how low their numbers might get.
Second, listing has a direct and positive effect on how coastal federal lands and federally-funded projects are managed. Healthy freshwater habitat is the ultimate cap on vitality of coho, and affords their only defense against future impacts of climate change and other challenges. The Bush administration has acted on many fronts to try to dismantle salmon protections. BLM's current "Western Oregon Plan Revisions" for example, would bare to logging thousands of streams and unstable slopes in watersheds that are the lifeblood of coastal salmon habitat. Listing of the coho will help ensure that Oregon's public lands are managed to the benefit of water quality and salmon habitat.
Third, federal and other restoration dollars are allocated with priority to listed species. Experience in other states shows listing brings new fiscal resources. The fear that listing somehow cripples restoration efforts is unfounded. Washington, for example, has accepted salmon listings and so leveraged voluntary and regulatory restoration programs -- with strong support from affected industries.
Fourth, listing should encourage habitat protection on private lands. More than two-thirds of the coho's habitat occurs on private ownership, primarily timber and agricultural lands. The Oregon Plan's almost exclusively voluntary initiatives are locally effective, and its important that they continue, but habitat gains from these efforts are too often cancelled out by harm elsewhere. Recovery will require raising baseline management practices on key forest and agricultural lands, where Oregon is now lagging relative to neighboring states.
It's well past time to put rancor over the listing of coho salmon behind us, and give full attention to a sound recovery program that makes the best use of all resources and opportunities available. The opportunity stands before us to restore the trust of all parties in a revitalized and effective recovery effort for the coho.
Chris Frissell, Ph.D., is director of Science and Conservation for the Pacific Rivers Council, headquartered in Eugene. He can be reached at hanfris@centurytel.net. Bill Bakke is executive director of the Native Fish Society in Portland.
