Why do Coho Need Federal Protection?
Some questions and answers
Oregon has put a lot of effort into its own salmon plan, so why do coho need federal protection?
Oregon’s plan alone is insufficient to protect wild coho salmon for three main reasons:
- It relies too heavily on voluntary measures;
- It fails to adequately restrict land uses that have caused the coho’s decline, such as logging and roadbuilding in steep and fragile watersheds; and
- It does not govern actions on federal lands.
Why aren’t voluntary efforts enough?
Voluntary measures vary widely between landowners in their implementation and efficacy, are highly dependent on funding levels for incentives, and are susceptible to changes in market conditions with respect to participation levels. They simply cannot be relied on at this point in time to contribute any particular level of benefit to coho, and it will take a good deal more time for the State of Oregon to assess their efficacy. Thus, while voluntary efforts can be extremely effective, and have undoubtedly benefited coho in some locations, there is simply no evidence at this point that they have produced, or are capable of producing, the kinds of habitat improvements that are necessary for the species continued survival and future recovery.
In the important case of logging on private lands – affecting over 56% of Oregon coho habitat – the State’s own studies show that landowners have extremely high compliance rates. This demonstrates that when land uses are constrained through legally enforceable policies, a solid foundation of baseline conservation can be provided, to which voluntary programs can be added.
What are the land uses that are causing problems for coho habitat under current Oregon State policies?
While Oregon is making efforts to address the coho’s decline, they do not justify removal of federal protection. There is no evidence that actions taken to date are adequate to remedy threats to the viability of coho salmon in the foreseeable future. Intensive timber harvest continues at high levels on private lands, with adverse impacts to coho and their habitats, as reflected by research data demonstrating lack of stream complexity and poor water quality. Sediment and other impacts from forest roads continue at unacceptable levels in many coho watersheds. Agriculture continues on lowlands that, due to dikes and tidegates, no longer are suited or available as coho habitat. Water withdrawals lead to over-appropriation on many streams, posing a primary risk factor for certain coho populations.
Why is it important to have oversight over federal actions, and how does an ESA listing address them?
With a listing, the ESA’s “no jeopardy” standard can be enforced by either the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) or citizens in relation to numerous critical decisions that are routinely made by federal agencies (e.g., permits for new water withdraws). “No jeopardy” means an action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of coho or result in the destruction or adverse modification of its habitat.
About 35% of freshwater habitat for Oregon’s coho salmon is managed by the United States Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, and although these areas may not always be the ones that historically produced the highest numbers of coho, they represent some of the highest quality habitat currently available. Since coho are listed under the Endangered Species Act, these agencies have a stronger duty to “conserve” coho, and are further required to take advice from the National Marine Fisheries Service about how to modify management activities to avoid “jeopardizing” the protected species. Although other federal laws remain to protect public natural resources on federal lands, the ESA’s “no jeopardy” standard provides a clear and directly enforceable constraint on how much federal management may adversely impact protected species.
The consultation and “no jeopardy” requirements also apply to Clean Water Act permitting and other decisions made by federal agencies about activities that may or may not take place on federal lands – activities that can have significant effects on coho salmon. These include decisions about whether to allow dredging in waterways, development in wetlands, discharges of pollutants into rivers and streams, and many others.
Is federal protection a substitute for local voluntary efforts?
Absolutely not – these efforts are critical to continued public support for coho recovery and to accelerating important land use changes and restoration actions on the ground. Federal protection provides needed regulatory, financial, and expert support for these important efforts.
What does a listing mean for private landowners?
Landowners are prohibited from “taking” coho, which is defined as killing or harming them or adversely modifying their habitat to the extent that “essential behaviors” such as spawning and feeding are significantly impaired. Although the law authorizes criminal penalties against private landowners, enforcement actions are extremely rare. It is PRC’s desire to address risks to coho from private actions through reasonable policy changes at the state level where possible, rather than through enforcement against individual landowners.
Is there a picture that illustrates any of this?
As the picture below indicates, under Oregon Forest practices, inadequate protections can lead to increase sediment into fish bearing streams. This is a road-related landslide and delivers to a tributary of the Upper Nehalem. Photo by Peter Bahls, Lighthawk, and PRC, 2002.
