WATERSHED AND FISH HABITAT DEGRADATION 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC LANDS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

WATERSHED AND FISH HABITAT DEGRADATION ON PUBLIC LANDS 

AND NATIONAL FORESTS IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST 

67~3 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC 

MARCH 11, 1993 

Serial No. 103-10 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1993 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-040878-4 
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman 

PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana 

EDWARD J . MARKEY, Massachusetts 

AUSTIN J . MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

RON DE LUGO, Virgin Islands 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, 

American Samoa 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Califoi;nia 

CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

LANE EV ANS, Illinois 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

THOMAS J . BARLOW III, Kentucky 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, 

Ranking Republican Member 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

JOHN J . DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 

DANIEL P. BEARD, Staff Director 

RICHARD MELTZER, General Counsel 

DANIEL VAL KISH, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMI'ITEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC LANDS 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota, Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia Ranking Republican Member 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN J . DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawa,ii JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona KEN CALVERT, California 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

AUSTIN J . MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

RICHARD HEALY, Staff Director 

JAMES BRADLEY, Professional Staff Member 

TONYA MITCHEM, Staff Assistant 

CHARLENE SEAMENS, Clerk 

D. LEE FORSGREN, Republican Counsel on Lands and Forestry 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

Hearing held: March 11, 1993 ............................................................................... . Statements: Opening statement of Chairman Vento ............................................ ... .......... . Hon. James V. Hansen, a U.S. Representative from the State of Utah ..... . Hon. Ken Calvert, a U.S. Representative from the State of California ...... . Hon. Norman D. Dicks, a U.S. Representative from the State of Washington ................................................................................................................. . Panel consisting of: George Leonard, Associate Chief, Forest Service, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, accompanied by Dr. James Sedell and Dr. Frederick 

Swanson, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, 

Corvallis, OR ......................................................................................... . Michael Penfoldi Associate Director, Bureau of Land Management, Department ot the Interior, accompanied by Jack Williams, Bureau 

of Land Management Science Advisor, and Ron Kaufman, District 

M~h:eigF., ¥uf~~~. i~ti~g··oi;~~~;;··om~··~ri>;~;;~~d·· ~~~~;~~~: National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, accom-

~h~~[t ~:i~~sp~~i':~t o~i·~·~· .. ~.~~.i.:~~ .. ~.~.~~~~~.:~~~ .. ~.~~~~~ '. Gary Edwards, Assistant Director of Fisheries, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Department of the Interior .................................................... . Panel consisting of: 

Bob Dop_pelt, executive director, Pacific Rivers Council, Eugene, OR .. Chris Fnssell, researcher, Oak Creek Laboratory, Oregon State University, Corwallis, OR ................................................................... ....... . Pat Higgins, fisheries biologist, the Northwest Chapter of the American Fisheries Society and Pacific Watershed Associates ................. . John F. Palmisano, independent fisheries scientist, representing 

Northwest Forest r.esource Council, Portland, OR ............................ . Reports submitted by Dr. Palmisano: 

1. Summary Presentation of "The Impact of Environmental 

and Management Factors on Washington's Wild Anad- romous Salmon and Trout," March 1993 .......................... . 2. Executive Summary and Comparisons of Two Pacific 

Northwest Studies on the Decline of Wild Anadromous 

Salmon and Trout ............................................................... . Panel consisting of: Thomas J. Cassidy, Jr., general manager, American Rivers, Washington, DC ................................................................................................... . Thane Tiensen, council, Salmon For All, Portland, OR ........................ . 

Raid~~!~w~t~~~ .. ~~~~~~~'.. ~~~~~~~~ .. ~~~~~.~'. ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~'. George G. Ice, forest hydrologist, National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, Philomouth, OR ............... . 

Page 

1 

1 

3 

4 

5 

12 

31 

43 

56 

86 

99 

111 

118 

123 

138 

147 

158 

165 

179 

APPENDIX 

MARCH 11, 1993 

Additional material submitted for the hearing record: Correspondence from Dr. John F. Palmisano dated March 16, 1993, re- gardmg corrections and additions to the hearing of March 11, 1993 . . ..... 197 

(III) 

WATERSHED AND FISH HABITAT DEGRADATION ON PUBLIC LANDS AND NATIONAL 

FORESTS IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST 

TIIURSDAY, MARCH 11, 1993 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON NATURAL 

RESOURCES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m. in room 2253, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bruce F. Vento (chairman of 

the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN VENTO 

Mr. VENTO. The meeting will come to order. We have tight quarters here. In fact these days it is hard to get rooms to hold our 

hearings. I think as a committee we came up short in terms of 

rooms, but I guess we have an historically preserved room. 

In any case, we have an ambitious agenda this morning and into 

the afternoon with a series of votes scheduled on the Floor, and I'm 

sure other Members have business as I do. So we will try to make 

it a successful hearing in terms of listening to our witnesses and 

maybe getting some dialogue on this important topic. 

Yesterday, of course, the President began the season on the topic 

of problems in the Pacific Northwest by keeping his commitment 

to hold a forest summit in early April. So we look forward to that, 

to the administration's positive involvement in bringing together 

all the resources of the national government, all the agencies and 

departments into a coherent policy dealing with the series of problems with the temporate rain forests of the Pacific Northwest. 

Today, of course, we're focusing on one important aspect of that 

in terms of the land management and the impact on the fisheries 

in the Pacific Northwest. 

The American people have a spectacular natural resource, the 

salmon and steelhead runs that extend from the Pacific to central 

Idaho. Two summers ago I stood on the banks of a small stream 

in the Chamberlain Basin, in the heart of Idaho's Frank ChurchRiver of No Return wilderness and watched a Chinook king salmon, a beat-up fish, that had traveled almost a thousand miles from 

the ocean to return to it is birthplace to spawn. I felt a sense of 

awe, as I'm sure most of you would standing in my shoes, witnessing this phenomenon, because this salmon was one of only a few 

left in a salmon run that some time ago numbered in the thou-

(1) 
2 

sands. If we were to go back to that same spot this summer we 

may not see any salmon at all. 

The fact is that the Pacific Northwest is losing forever the salmon and steelhead populations. Races of fish varieties, in scientific 

terms, are being lost forever. Four populations of salmonids are already listed under the Endangered Species Act; 214 populations 

are considered at risk of extinction and may soon be hsted. Steps 

must be taken now to prevent the wholesale loss of this priceless 

fishery. Not only are our anadromous fish valuable as part of the 

Nation's biological diversity and gene pool, but these salmon are a 

big contributor to the economy of the region. 

In the Pacific Northwest, the salmon fishery generates $1 billion 

in annual income and 60,000 jobs. This is a renewable resource 

every year and is better than money in the bank. 

What is causing this tragedy? Some blame the dams and water 

projects in the Columbia River system, which certainly are a significant factor. However, many of the salmon and steelhead runs 

identified by scientists as at risk are found in river systems outside 

of the Columbia Basin, river systems which have no dams at all. 

Other factors besides water projects are apparently contributing to 

the decline. 

This hearing will focus on just such other factors, pointedly the 

destruction and modification of salmon habitat. Without high quality fish spawning and rearing habitat, the remaining populations 

of salmon and steelhead are simply doomed to extinction. The last 

high quality, undergraded habitat remaining in the Pacific Northwest is on lands managed by the Forest Service and the Bureau 

of Land Management. These two agencies have the potential to 

play a major role in saving salmon and steelhead for future genera- tions of Americans. 

Unfortunately, the Forest Service and BLM have not lived up to 

such a role. In fact, their past and current policies and programs 

are contributing on a documented basis to the destruction of habitat for salmonid populations. Logging, road building, and livestock 

grazing in watersheds critical to the survival of salmon and 

steelhead are causing erosion and sedimentation to degrade spawning and rearing habitat. Not only must these practices be arrested 

and/or stopped, but the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land 

Management must launch new programs to stabilize and restore 

the watersheds under their stewardship. As their timberjrogram 

in the Pacific Northwest declines, these two agencies coul refocus 

and give new emphasis to recreation, wilderness, wildlife and fish. 

For every timber job impacted, both within the agencies and in the 

private sector, the Forest Service and BLM could employ workers 

to rehabilitate, restore, and enhance in an environmentally positive 

way our national forests and public domain lands. Studies, in fact, 

show that 11,000 people annually could be put to work just on stabilizing watersheds key to the survival of salmon and steelhead, 

supporting the 60,000 jobs and $1 billion fishery base of the Pacific 

Northwest. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how the Forest 

Service and BLM can protect watersheds and fish. 

As their timber programs in the Pacific Northwest decline, these 

two agencies could refocus and give new emphasis to recreation 
3 

wilderness, wildlife and fish. For every timber job impacted, both 

within the agencies and in the private sector, the Forest Service 

and BLM could employ workers to rehabilitate, restore, and enhance in an environmentally positive way our national forests and 

public domain lands. 

Studies show that 11,000 people annually could be put to work 

just on stabilized watersheds, key to the survival of the salmon and 

the steelhead, supporting the 60,000 jobs and the $1 billion fishery 

base in the Pacific Northwest. So I think this is a prudent way to 

move. 

I must say that as we gain more insight into these problems and 

the scientific data which support them, obviously it is of paramount 

importance that we make the changes in our land management 

plans to reflect that knowledge and to set new goals and a policy path which will, of course, attain the goals and concur or follow the 

laws and policies that we have, such as the Endangered Species 

Act. 

So I think that while we may talk about Forest Service and BLM 

and public land management problems in the past, today we have 

the information, and I think it is imperative that we move and 

craft policy and land management plans on that basis. 

The gentleman from Idaho-from Utah. 

Mr. HANSEN. That was George Hansen. I am not related in any 

way shape or form. And I have a great appreciation for George. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin. It is 

nice to beChairman VENTO. We have always wanted a piece of Wisconsin. 

Mr. HANSEN. We always wanted a piece of Idaho, too, and Arizona if I may be picky about it. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. HANSEN. I don't know how to respond to this. This is ageold stuff we have gone through so many times on this committee. 

We are here to review one species versus something else. When you 

get into this thing, you can accept a lot of premises. It is like going 

to court and listening to people testify about what this witness is 

like. Is it a malingerer or somebody trying to build an unfair case? 

You wonder who is really right. 

I am sure today we will hear testimony that will say that it is 

the logging, that they caused the whole thing; and another person 

will say it is the construction of dams; another person will say it 

is the drought; and another person will probably say it is 

overfished; and another person will say it is hatchery fish versus 

the other one. And it is hard to figure out who is really right in 

these particular situations of who does these things. 

I would hope that the subcommittee is a little hesitant and not 

in a big hurry to start placing blame and pointing fingers. That 

probably wouldn't answer the question adequately and sincerely 

and honestly. I think we have a habit of reacting to things when 

sometimes we are not sure what the problem is that is facing us. 

I look forward to the hearings because similar situations are happening all over the United States. I think we have to move with 
4 

some restraint on a very positive thing with a lot of information before we go out and mess something up. 

I recall when I was speaker of the Utah house and the Governor 

of the State was a man by the name of Scott Mathison. And he 

came up and said, I'd like you guys to pass a law that we don't 

allow any more eggheads from the academic community to come in 

here and tell us what is an endangered species, because they are 

ruining a part of our State; and I think they are wrong, and it is 

so easy to get them listed and hard to get them off. 

I worry about the endangered species law. We have seen very little that have gotten off the list. No disrespect to any particular entity here. I would hope that we move with a sensitive approach and 

not be eager to point a finger and say that they are wrong, and do 

something that would ruin an industry. 

Prices of houses are going up $3,000 to $4,000 a house because 

of the lumber prices. In the little State of Utah we have Kaibab Industries in the Dixie Forest that have closed up. Every time they 

ask for a contract, some environmental group comes up with a 29-

cent appeal. All it costs is a stamp on an envelope and something 

written on the back of it. And I think if we are going to look at 

something, we ought to look at that. 

Thank you for allowing me to vent my emotions on that. 

Mr. VENTO. The way you were going, I thought you were going 

to blame the fishermen. 

Any other opening comments? 

STATEMENT OF HON. KEN CALVERT, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. CALVERT. The issue which we are meeting today is a complex 

one, and in the best economic times, it would be difficult to balance 

the interests of salmon fishermen, home builders, home buyers, the 

spotted owl and numerous fish species. With the economy in the 

shape that it is, the issue becomes even more difficult. 

AB a congressman from California whose district has nearly 10 

percent unemployment, I must confess that my sympathies are 

with those people who need jobs. While I recognize the importance 

of protecting species, I hope we can find ways of doing it without 

throwing hundreds of thousands of workers out of work. 

I certainly have no objections to reviewing past management 

practices of any type. The management of every Federal agency 

and committee, in my opinion, could stand a good review; but I 

hope those from whom we will hear today will include, along with 

their ideas of protecting the salmon, some ideas of how to protect 

and create jobs for the American worker. AB an elected representative of the people, I believe we have an obligation to protect jobs 

as well as species of fish. 

Mr. VENTO. We are pleased to welcome our colleague from Washington, a good friend and classmate of the chairman, Congressman 

Norm Dicks. 
5 

STATEMENT OF HON. NORMAND. DICKS, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and I will start on my testimony and I will try 

to be brief. 

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the subcommittee, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning to 

present my perspective on the subject of watershed restoration and 

the protection of salmon habitat, specifically, as these matters are 

relevant to the lands in the Pacific Northwest. 

We have large areas of Forest Service lands in Washington, and 

large areas of Forest Service-BLM land in Washington. I believe 

that the issue being addressed today is important, critical, and 

timely; and I am supportive of all credible actions that can be 

taken to get ahead of the curve on these concerns. 

As you know, I am a Member of the Appropriations Subcommittee which shares oversight with this committee. I believe that if we 

work together creatively with the new administration in identifying 

opportunities to deal with the problems, progress can be made 

sooner rather than later in reversing the damage on the ground 

and restoring ecological integrity of the watershed. 

I am encouraged by the attitude of the new administration in 

being willing to place on the front burner issues like habitat restoration. I have had the opportunity to speak to President Clinton 

and Vice President Gore and Secretary Babbitt, and I am impressed with their commitment to work with the Congress and concerned citizen organizations to take appropriate responsible action. 

I recognize the urgency to move forward with an action agenda for 

a rehabilitation-oriented initiative, and I have been a long-time 

supporter of on-the-ground approaches to solving the environmental problems of the Northwest. 

I would like to add that my new congressional district, which is 

dominated by Washington State's Olympic Peninsula, is an area in 

great need of qualitative on-the-ground responses to its ecological 

problems. The more that I have been able to be briefed on these 

matters by scientific experts, by Federal and State natural resource 

experts, and to conduct both aerial tours and site visits to damaged 

riparian areas along river corridors, the more I believe that we can 

take positive action and produce a coordinated, scientifically credible approach to rehabilitating our streams, rivers, and watershed 

ecosystems on the Olympic Peninsula in the Northwest. _ I emphasize an on-the-ground response because that is where 

true success must ultimately be measured. I believe that we have 

to start reversing the damage and getting ahead of the problem. 

We need to prevent damage to our remaining salmon habitat. This 

is why I was pleased to include $1 million in the fiscal year 1993 

Interior appropriations bill to begin watershed restoration and 

streambed rehabilitation activities on the Olympic National Forest. This was obviously an initial but necessary investment, and I am 

hopeful that moneys identified through the President's economic 

stimulus package will accelerate the work that has begun on the 

peninsula. And I am pleased that Secretaries Espy and Babbitt 

have been supportive. 
6 

I would add, Mr. Chairman, in regard to the Olympic Peninsula, 

that one of the challenges that we face in providing for a comprehensive response to damaged watersheds, is that the peninsula 

has multiple owners so that a river may begin in the mountains 

in the Olym~ic National Park, then route through lands managed by the States Department of Natural Resources and private sector 

entities that own forests up to the Straits of Juan de Fuca or the 

Pacific Ocean, including a number of our Indian tribes. 

To get at the problem, I endorse an approach which focuses restoration efforts on public lands, but which encourages cooperation with land managers while providing incentives that allow private 

sector participation. This is what I feel is truly needed on the 

Olympic Peninsula that provides a response to watershed restoration. This is a perfect test case in the Northwest to demonstrate 

streambed rehabilitation. 

A major benefit for the Northwest region in initiatin~ and imple- menting a comprehensive strategy for streambed rehabilitation and 

watershed restoration is that salmon habitat will be better pro- tected and stored. 

AB I know this committee is fully aware of, we face a critical situation in the region with depleting wild salmon populations, and 

this requires an aggressive and effective response. There are complex and difficult to quantify reasons for the decline in salmon runs 

in the region. There is no one source of the problem, no one contributor. More importantly, there is no rational value in playing the 

blame game, as we have done on Superfund. Who did it is not the 

problem that we face. What do we do about the problem and how 

do we get started? These are the critical questions and where the 

real focus should be. 

One of the really positive aspects about taking action in the region is that watershed restoration efforts help prevent additional 

endangered listings of salmon species. If we can prevent this by 

taking appropriate action, it should be a goal that is pursued without delay. And by the way, such a conservation plan would allow 

the agencies, if they are in place to say, this is a credible plan, this 

is the best we can do; and not feel constrained to list additional 

species. 

One other additional aspect that I endorse is focusing first on 

protectin~ the healthiest salmon habitat. This is a position that the 

Pacific Rivers Council will present today. But what is most significant about what they will say is that this conclusion is one that 

has undergone scientific peer review, and the science seems to 

argue for a focus on the healthiest habitat. This would have the effect of applying a tourniquet to the problem. We do not need a 

Band-Aid approach to the problem. We need innovative solutions 

that work for the long term. And this is where I hope that the 

agencies, the resource agencies-Forest Service, BLM, Fish and 

Wildlife Service-will consult with people who have been out there 

in the field, who have done this already, rather than trying to create their own programs kind of in a vacuum, because I am fearful 

that what we will get out of that, say, Band-Aid approach is not 

what we need. 

Yesterday, President Clinton announced plans to convene a forestry conference in the Northwest region on April 2 with the Vice 
7 

President and key Cabinet positions attending. We look to the forestry conference with optimism and hope, and see it as an opportunity to define both the problems and solutions related to forestry 

management on the Federal lands in the region. 

My hope is that the President's summit in the region and subsequent action by the Congress will lead to an ecosystems management approach that will be regionwide in application. A watershed 

restoration strategy is an important link to such an approach, ensuring the restoration of habitat that would have a multispecies 

benefit. 

In addition to the clear ecological benefits of habitat restoration 

and ensuring the viability of salmon populations, I am pleased that 

the initiation of comprehensive watershed restoration strategy will 

create jobs in the region-that is what we need-and in rural timber-dependent communities. It is important to emphasize that 

these jobs will concentrate on fixing roads and involve the use of 

heavy equipment. 

The Pacific Rivers Council will testify this morning that between 

7,000 to 11,000 good wage-paying jobs could be created in the 

Northwest if this gets moving, and I ask the committee to give full 

consideration to their arguments. A main point that the rivers 

council will argue, and I agree with, is that we should take a serious look at the watershed initiative from the standpoint that it is 

both job creating and ecologically rehabilitating. 

Finally, let me say that to make a regionwide watershed restoration project work, and to tie it into a meaningful ecosystems management strategy, there has to be credible leadership from the administration. And from my experience so far, I believe that this is 

going to be the case with the President and his team. I expect this 

administration to address forest management concerns through a 

coordinated strategy in which watershed restoration is a component. We know that this kind of effort can be done on the ground with real results, as has already been demonstrated in northern 

California and eastern Oregon. 

I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, as one of the 

really outstanding leaders on these kinds of issues in the Congress. 

With this commitment to helping ensure that this initiative gets 

started in a comprehensive and effective manner, we need your help. 

Mr. VENTO. Thanks, Norm, for an excellent statement. 

Without objection, all of the statements of witnesses' and Members' opening statements, in their entirety, will be made a part of 

the record. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

It is a positive statement and I think indicative of the tremendous work that you have done, I think, in the past years with regard to these Pacific Northwest forests. I observed myself early 

on-and I think others perceived the same--that there was a forest 

full of problems under the spotted owl. I think we are beginning 

to see that now, and I think your embrace and articulation of an 

ecosystem approach is important. 

These are complex issues that need to be addressed in terms of 

water quality. I think the Olympic Peninsula has very few water 

projects; is that correct? 
8 

Mr. DICKS. There are very few water projects; we have one on 

the Elwha and one on the Skokomish River. 

Mr. VENTO. That is on a resolution path, but there are very few 

water projects per se. 

Mr. DICKS. The problem has been the effects of growth. In the 

Puget Sound area we have lost 90 percent of our habitat because 

of the great population growth we have had. Some of it has been 

because of developments; some of it has been because of harvest 

practices, road construction. And that is why I don't think it does 

us any good to waste our time pointing the finger. 

What we should be here to do today is to try to figure out a constructive way to move ahead. And I see this as part of the solution 

in the timber summit, in the forestry conference. This can be a way 

to provide jobs and restore habitat and avoid future listings. We 

have all got a stake in that. 

I looked at the list of the potential species in California. I mean, 

if we don't get ahead of the curve on these things, we are going to 

stop America. I mean, literally, we have got to take a kind of a 

statewide look at habitat. We have got to do a better job of protecting habitat so that we can avoid these listings. Believe me, I want 

to avoid them if possible. 

And I see this approach as trying to get ahead of the curve and 

being a credible approach. It will also help the salmon, which is 

crucially important to the people of the Northwest. 

Mr. VENTO. I think it is good to find a magic bullet. With the 

eagle, it was DDT. But in this case we are looking at a number of 

factors that are impacting, and some of these we control. The only 

reason we are talking to the Forest Service and the BLM is because they have the lands that remain that have the most significant salmon populations, the ones that you point out that we could 

do something to put a tourniquet on to stop the hemorrhaging. 

I think the point made with regard to the mixture of lands, not 

just the BLM that has the mosaic pattern, but in the Olympic Peninsula, that we need to have a program for the agencies if they 

are going to take or build or coordinate with the States or others 

that already have taken action for salmon restoration. 

I know that in Washington State the salmon restoration projects 

have been participated in where elementary schools have adopted 

streams. 

Mr. DICKS. This has been a really g-rassroots type of thing. 

Mr. VENTO. Nothing new for the elementary students, but I 

would hope that some of us inside the Beltway could recognize the 

particular problem and what needs to be done. 

Mr. DICKS. Sometimes it is simple things. People will argue that 

in the old days we used to take all the trees out of the streams. 

Now if you listen to the experts, they say we need the downed trees 

in the pool to stop the gravel, and that helps the entire ecology of 

the area. 

There are some of these things that can be done without massive 

expenditures of money that will really help restore habitat, and 

that is what we are talking about. We have lost our habitat for fish 

and we have problems in the ocean with drift nets and intercepts 

in Canada, et cetera. But if we don't do some things now, I am 
9 

fearful that this could put us in a dangerous decline. And we've 

really got to step up this. 

Mr. VENTO. Let me yield to my colleague. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. I appreciate that. I think as usual, 

Norm Dicks gave an excellent statement, right to the point. I agree 

with your premisses and what you have come up with, especially 

when you talk about avoiding the listing. I think most of us would 

like to avoid a listing like the plague in many areas, but it is so 

easy to list. I think if we have any argument with the Endangered 

Species Act, it would be the point that listing is relatively easy. I 

don't see anything sacred in the Endangered Species Act. 

We go back and look at it again and again and again and try to 

purify and perfect laws. I think we would be wise to take a look 

at the listing of the Endangered Species Act and take the word 

"solely" out. I think that would be a word that would be prudent 

for everyone. 

We could look at other factors of the species in question. I think 

if would make it more palatable and one that, as you stated, 

wouldn't close up America, the way it is going now, if we continue 

to put these things on one after the other. And some rely on 

sketchy and questionable biological information. I am urging my 

people to go to court. If that is the way it is, challenge the~e people. 

Secretary Babbitt is coming up to talk about the Mexican spotted 

owl in Utah, Arizona and others; and the stuff is so sketchy, I have 

put people out to see if they could find it. They found two. The rest 

is circumstantial evidence that couldn't be introduced into a court. 

I think that it would be prudent for Congress to take a look at the 

act and make it better than it is. 

Mr. DICKS. My view is, a species-by-species approach will not 

work. What we are trying to do in the Northwest is take western 

Washington, western Oregon, northern California and take an 

ecosystems approach. Let's deal with the owl, the murrlet, the plover, and the salmon; and we want to do it once, comprehensively. 

We want to have a good, credible plan for habitat protection. And 

then we want to legislate. And that's it. And that seems to me to 

be the approach. Then we could revisit it. 

The failure here is that we wait until the species is in trouble 

before we take action. And, frankly, what we need to do, I think, 

is every State needs to get all of its people together, its resource 

people-and we have some State borders-and work out a plan. 

And then you take it to the Fish and Wildlife Service and say, here 

is our plan. We have looked at economics, science, and everything, 

and this is the plan that we think gives us a chance to protect a 

cross-section of the species with a goal of biodiversity, and we want 

this problem certified so that we don't have to go through this species-by-species problem. 

And we have to be affirmative about that, and once you have 

done that, you are certified, and you review it every five years and 

see if some changes need to be made. 

First of all, a species-by-species approach will never work because there are too many of them and you don't have enough governmental officials to handle them all and you wait until things are 

in trouble. 
10 

Mr. HANSEN. I would agree with that, and I think what you are 

saying is reasonable; but the premise that you have put on the 

table doesn't square with the law that we have now on the books. 

Mr. DICKS. When we do the reauthorizations of the Endangered 

Species Act, we are going to have to look at a new strategy, an ecosystem strategy, some have characterized it, or you do a state-bystate habitat plan. I think that is what we would rather do in 

Washington. 

Mr. HANSEN. That is excellent testimony. I couldn't agree more. 

I think that idea ought to come forth-we ought to do that because 

it sure isn't working the way it is going. Mr. VENTO. Other questions? 

Mr. Dickey. 

Mr. DICKEY. What is the summit? What is the form--

Mr. DICKS. We are calling it a conference now. Mr. DICKEY. What is the conference format? Do you know? 

Mr. DICKS. I think what is going to happen is that the President 

and Vice President and Secretaries are going to work up panels of 

very constructive witnesses, like they did at Little Rock in the Economic Summit, where they come in and lay out the problems, the 

concerns, and the issues so that the administration can be better 

informed, and then--

Mr. DICKEY. Are you going to do that? 

Mr. DICKS. It is going to be on April 2, and we are going to be 

in session on that day. We are working with the administration on 

that, and we are discussing how to work around that. We have already had a chance to sit down. I have had three chances to sit 

down with the President and Vice President Gore, so there is plenty of input. What we want this to be is a chance for the people of the Northwest to talk directly to the leaders of this administration. Where 

we got into trouble, the last administration let the BLM go one 

way, the Forest Service go another way. The White House was 

going another way; the Fish and Wildlife was going four different 

ways, and we never had a comprehensive plan to deal with the 

problem. That is what we need now and that is what they have pledged 

to us, an interagency approach. And then I think we are going to 

have to legislate it. But ultimately, the summit, like the Economic 

Summit, is a chance to have input; and then the administration 

and the Congress is going to have to come up with a plan. 

Mr. DICKEY. Good statement. 

Mr. CALVERT. I was very interested in your testimony regarding 

species-by-species approaches presently being taken by the Fish 

and Wildlife Service. I concur. I am from Riverside, California. We 

have a problem with the Stevenson rat. 

Mr. DICKS. We did this. Congress did this. I can't blame the Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Mr. CALVERT. We have the black-tailed ratcatcher, which may 

have a major impact on our area. We are putting together a 

multihabitat plan now. We have it together. 

I can understand your frustration in that we can't transfer moneys from one place to buy additional habitat, under the existing 
11 

law. So if we could work toward prelisting and working with other 

agencies, where we have a flexibility--

Mr. DICKS. Or prevent listing. 

Mr. CALVERT. When I say prelist, I would hope that it would 

never make the list; but species that are threatened at the present 

time, that we could talk about shared habitat planning, and working towards assuring that those species never make the endangered species list. And I would hope that we could work toward 

that and work with the local a~encies. We sometimes are better 

able to coordinate species protect10n. 

Mr. DICKS. We have started a little program in Washington 

called the Washington State Ecosystems Project, which is being coordinated by the Fish and Wildlife Service and our State department of wildlife. We are going out and restoring habitat, buying 

habitat, leasing habitat, getting farmers to voluntarily contribute 

habitat; and I think we have restored 270,000 acres so far. 

The curve is still coming down, because there is so much development and growth that we are at the same time losing habitat, so 

it is a tough problem, especially in a big State like California. But 

I think you have to do it on a regional approach within the State 

of California. 

Mr. CALVERT. I agree, and I look forward to working with you 

and other people on this committee toward that. 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working with you. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you very much. You are welcome to stay. 

Mr. VENTO. We are pleased to welcome the panel of administration witnesses, George Leonard, a long-time Associate Chief of the 

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. He is accompanied 

by the scientists in the Service, Dr. James Sedell and Dr. Frederick 

Swanson, from the Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station in Corvallis, Oregon. 

We have Mike Penfold, the Associate Director of the Bureau of 

Land Mana~ement, Department of Interior. He is accompanied by Science Advisor, Mr. Jack Williams. 

And we have Dr. Michael Tillman, the Acting Director of the Office of Protected Resources, Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of 

Commerce, accompanied by Nicholas Iadanza, Northwest Region, 

Portland, Oregon. And I see no objection raised at this point, so I 

assume he wouldn't correct me if he wanted to. 

And finally we are pleased to welcome Mr. Gary Edwards, Assistant Director of Fisheries, United States Department of Interior. 

I might say, before I invite you to participate, I note that your 

statements are present, and if you can summarize them, based on 

what we have to do today and the expectation of votes, it would be 

helpful; and I would appreciate that. And then we can get into dialogue to highlight the most important points relevant to land management and the impact on these critical populations. 

Yesterday, in visiting with the President-those few of us that 

were invited, and I know that that list will be broadened as we 

move towards solution of the problem to all of our colleagues on the 

committee-I think that this administration very much is going to 

engage with the Members of Congress in terms of trying to find a 
12 

solution to the serious habitat and other environmental problems 

in the Pacific Northwest. 

But I mentioned to the President that I had a lot of confidence 

in the professionals that work in the land management agencies, 

and that one of the reasons I thought that we were where we were 

today was because we hadn't permitted them to have enough voice, 

and so I hoped that he would-and the Vice President and others 

that were leading this effort would look to the professionals to help 

guide us along the proper policy path. 

And so I am counting on all of you to provide and to make my 

observation a meaningful one with regards to the final solution and 

what we hope to accomplish in that area of land management. 

A13 most of you know, I have relied on people in the Forest Service, in BLM, and other agencies for a long time, to put together 

various proposals, for the last four or five years. And as the knowledge changes, so have my proposals, so I hope that we are at a 

point where we can use this information as a benchmark and go 

forth. And I think, candidly, that many in the House and Congress 

look to that type of help and need that type of help. 

We may take the credit for it, but I certainly understand that 

your help is invaluable in terms of accomplishing our ultimate objectives. 

STATEMENr OF GEORGE LEONARD, ASSOCIATE ClllEF, FOREST SERVICE, U,S. DEPARTMENr OF AGRICULTURE, ACCOMPANIED BY DR. JAMES SEDELL AND DR. FREDERICK SWANSON, PACIFIC NORTHWEST FOREST AND RANGE EXPERIMENr STATION, CORVALLIS, OR; MIKE PENFOLD, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENr, U.S. DEPARTMENr OF THE INrERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY JACK WILLIAMS, BLM SCIENCE ADVISOR AND RON KAUFMAN; DR. MICHAEL TILLMAN, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PROTECTED RESOURCES, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENr OF COMMERCE, ACCOMPANIED BY 

NICHOLAS IADANZA, CHIEF, HABITAT CONSERVATION 

BRANCH, NORTHWEST REGION, PORTLAND, OR; AND GARY 

EDWARDS, ASSISTANr DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, U.S. FISH 

AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENr OF THE INrERIOR 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Leonard, your statement is in the record by previous request. 

STATEMENr OF GEORGE LEONARD 

Mr. LEONARD. A13 you noted, I am accompanied at this time by 

Dr. Sedell and Dr. Swanson from our lab in Corvallis. Dr. Sedell's 

specialties are in the area of aquatic-land interactions, and Dr. 

Swanson has spent most of his research time looking at ecosystem 

processes. 

The Forest Service is responsible for managing 191 million acres 

of land for multiple-use purposes. Our challenge is to manage with 

an ecosystem perspective for all uses while ensuring the/rotection 

of the soil, air, and water; these are crucial to the soun stewardship of fishery as habitat. We are committed to continually improv-
13 

ing our management, consistent with new information, to sustain 

long-term sustainability of the resources under our care. 

The watersheds of the National Forests encompass approximately one-half of the remaining freshwater anadromous fish 

spawning and rearing habitat in the lower 48 States and about 

one-quarter of such habitat in Alaska. Habitat conditions on National Forest System lands are important elements in conserving 

many of the Pacific anadromous fish stocks, and the penalties of 

degraded watersheds extend far beyond just the loss of fish stocks. 

Watershed management and watershed health are related to 

nearly all of our resource programs in National Forests, such as 

fish habitat, timber, range, minerals and recreation. 

Recent assessments made by Forest Service researchers and others have shown the stream systems in many watersheds in the Pacific Northwest have been degraded as a result of human activities. 

The reasons for the decline of the Pacific anadromous fish stocks 

vary by species and geographic area. Stock survival is threatened 

by hydroelectric development and operation, fish harvest, fish 

hatchery influences on disease and genetic fitness, and fish habitat 

conditions. For those stocks primarily affected by habitat factors, 

the management of watersheds to insure good fish habitat is important. 

Management of these lands also can play an important role in 

moderating the decline for stocks affected by hydroelectric development and operations, hatcheries, and fish harvest, and providing a 

buff er against environmental extremes. 

In November 1991, the National Marine Fisheries Service determined that the Snake River sockeye salmon was endangered. In 

April 1992, the Snake River spring/summer and fall Chinook salmon were listed as threatened. The protection the Forest Service has 

further afforded the stocks, because of their inclusion on the Endangered Species Act list, have complemented and built upon 

interregional agency efforts initiated earlier. These efforts were a 

result of the January 1991 Columbia River Basin Anadromous Fish 

Habitat Management Policy and Implementation Guide. This guide 

clearly shows the Forest Service's intent to proactively manage watersheds for the benefit of anadromous fish in the Columbia River 

Basin and to coordinate with other Federal, State, and tribal entities, and the public in these management efforts. 

We have made progress in implementing many of the actions 

provided under the policy and implementation guide, but we recognize that only nine stocks identified by the American fisheries reported as being at risk have received formal protection under the 

Endangered Species Act. We recognize that aggressive preventive 

actions need to be taken to preclude the need for future listing of 

some of these "at risk" stocks. In an effort to address the issue of 

declining fish stocks in the Northwest, we initiated a team effort 

early last spring to undertake an assessment and develop a management strategy that extends beyond the Columbia River Basin 

and addresses the "at risk" stocks in the National Forests. This effort is staffed by technical specialists and managers from the National Forest System and research scientists from our research organization. The Forest Service is focusing on management of entire 

watersheds and will use an ecosystem management approach that 
14 

requires understanding of watershed functions and processes and 

how management activities affect stream channels, water flows, 

water quality, and sediment and woody debris delivery. Changes are needed to improve protection of management in watersheds and Pacific anadromous fish habitat management in certain areas. Priorities will be established to maintain habitats that 

are currently in good condition. The Forest Service is committed and ready to do its part in providing habitat capable of supporting the recovery of listed fish 

stocks and in providin~ the protection necessary to prevent the 

need to list other sensitive stocks in the future. Based on the information from one of the strongest research units in the world, we 

have better knowledge of what is needed to provide good fisheries 

habitat, and how to develop watershed programs. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present that 

statement. We will be prepared to answer any questions. 

Mr. VENTO. And we will have questions. Thank you very much 

for summarizing your statement, Mr. Leonard. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Leonard follows:] 
15 

STATEMENT OF 

GEORGE E. LEONARD, ASSOCIATE CHIEF 

FOREST SERVICE 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Before the 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

United States House of Representatives 

Concerning watershed and fish habitat degradation on public 

lands and National Forests in the Pacific .Northwest. 

March 11, 1993 

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE: 

Thank you for the opportunity to offer our views on the 

conditions of the watersheds and fish habitat on the National 

Forests of the Pacific Northwest. I am accompanied today by 

Drs. James Sedell and Frederick Swanson, research scientists 

from our Forestry Sciences Laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon. 

TBE FOREST SERVICE HAS AN IMPORTANT ROLE TO PLAY IN THE 

MANAGEMENT OF WATERSHEDS AND FISH HABITAT IN THE PACIFIC 

NORTHWEST. 

The Forest Service is responsible for managing for multiple-use 

purposes the 191-million acres of forest and range land that 

comprise the National Forest System. The challenge for the 

Forest Service is to manage with an ecosystem perspective for 

all uses while ensuring the protection of the basic resources of 

soil, water, and air that are crucial to the sound stewardship 

of fisheries habitat. We are committed to continually improving 

our management, consistent with new information, to assure 

long-term sustainability of the resources under our care. 
16 

2 

Our basic mission has not changed since our Agency was created. 

We are responsible for ensuring the protection of watershed 

conditions while managing for multiple-use s~stained yield 

purposes. Our understanding of what is required to comply with 

that mission, however, has evolved and changed with increased 

awareness and understanding of ecosystem processes and 

functions. (A short history is included in a Supplemental 

Statement.) In June 1992, Forest Service Chief Robertson issued 

an ecosystem management policy statement that initiated the 

development of management programs that fully incorporate our 

current understanding of ecosystems, and the impacts of proposed 

activities. We now more fully appreciate that management of the 

aquatic ecosystem must involve a consideration of the whole 

watershed. It is what we do on the entire watershed that shapes 

the characteristics of the stream courses and water bodies that 

lie within its boundaries that provide fish habitat . Rivers of 

the Pacific Northwest traverse a variety of land uses and 

ownership. The headwaters of many river systems lie on the 

National Forests while the remainder of the river is held 

privately. The rivers and their water quality are impinged by 

municipal waste treatment plants, shipping, dredging, mining, 

diversions, hydroelectric impoundments and production, 

agriculture use, and a variety of other uses. Fish habitat on 

the National Forests is but one component of the equation. 
17 

The watersheds on the National Forests encompass approximately 

one-half of the remaining freshwater anadromous fish spawning 

and rearing habitat in the lower 48 states and about one -quarter 

of such habitat in Alaska. Habitat conditions on National 

Forest System lands are an important element in conserving many 

of the Pacific anadromous fish stocks. Forest Service efforts 

to manage this habitat requires commitment within five western 

Regions, encompassing the States of California, Oregon, 

Washington, Idaho, and Alaska . 

THIS ISSUE IS IMPORTANT FOR ECONOMIC, CULTURAL AND ECOLOGICAL 

REASONS. 

Historically, Pacific Coast salmon, steelhead and sea-run 

cutthroat trout resources have provided economic, subsistence, 

cultural, religious, symbolic, recreational, and psychological 

benefits to native people and other residents of the Pacific 

Northwest. In the mid-1980's, annual ex-vessel values of U.S. 

and Canadian commercial salmon landings were over $500 million. 

Expenditures on salmon sport fishing trips for the Pacific 

Northwest averaged about $162 million, and Pacific anadromous 

fishes supported a subsistence fishery in California, the 

Pacific Northwest, and Alaska. Healthy watersheds are a 

prerequisite for long-term sustainability of resources, and the 

penalties of degraded watersheds extend far beyond the loss of 

fish stocks. Watershed management is related to nearly all 

other resource programs on National Forests, such as fish 

habitat, timber, range, minerals and recreation. 

3 
18 

4 

NEW INFORMATION HAS DEFINED THE ANADROMOUS FISH ISSUE. 

In 1991, the American Fisheries Society (AFS) identified 

214 stocks of salmon, steelhead and sea-run cutthroat trout from 

California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho as "at risk" of 

extinction or "of special concern." Of those stocks, nine of 

the stocks were included into four distinct populations by the 

National Marine Fisheries Service and were subsequently listed 

under the Endangered Species Act. The Forest Service has 

designated some of the other stocks as sensitive species for 

management emphasis. Approximately 134 "at risk" stocks 

identified by the AFS report are found on National Forests. Of 

those, 55 judged by AFS to be at "high risk" of extinction, but 

not federally listed, occur in 39 stream systems on 16 National 

Forests. To complete our understanding of the status of Pacific 

anadromous fish stocks, a review similar to the one published by 

AFS is needed for Alaska salmon, steelhead, and sea-run 

cutthroat stocks. Recent information suggests that coho and 

chum salmon, and steelhead stocks in Alaska probably are 

declining. 

Recent assessments made by our own Forest Service research has 

shown that stream systems in many watersheds throughout the 

Pacific Northwest have been degraded and need improvement, as a 

result of the effects of man's activities on watersheds and fish 

habitat. For example, the number of large, deep pools in many 

tributaries of the Columbia River, have decreased in the past 
19 

50 years. This was determined by comparing quantitative habitat 

surveys, completed between 1989 and 1992, with surveys done by 

the Bureau of Fisheries, now the National Marine Fisheries 

Service, between 1936 and 1942. The Bureau of Fisheries surveys 

are unique because they are the only long-term data set that 

quantifies fish habitat in a way that is replicable over time. 

In the Washington and Oregon Cascade Mountains, and Middle Fork 

Salmon River in Idaho, the historical surveys were generally in 

pristine areas that had not been extensively roaded and 

harvested. Over all, there has been a 30 to 70 percent 

reduction in the number of large, deep pools in resurveyed 

streams on National Forests within the range of anadromous fish 

over the last 50 years. 

HYDRO, HATCHERIES, HARVEST, AND HABITAT ARE THE FOUR PRIMARY 

MANAGEMENT FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE DECLINE IN STOCKS. 

The reasons for the decline of the Pacific anadromous fish 

stocks vary by species and geographic area. The depressed 

status of the stocks reflects the interaction of inherent~y 

variable environmental conditions, such as oceanic productivity 

and weather patterns, and a variety of management activities. 

In general, stock survival is threatened by some combination of 

hydroelectric development and operation, fish harvest, fish 

hatchery influences on disease and genetic fitness, and fish 

habitat conditions. For those stocks affected primarily by 

habitat factors, the management of watersheds to ensure good 

fish habitat on National Forest System lands is important. 

Management of National Forest System lands also can play an 

important role in moderating the rate of decline for those 

5 
20 

stocks affected primarily by hydroelectric development and 

operations, hatcheries, and fish ha:r.vest, and providing a buffer 

against environmental extremes. 

THE FOREST SERVICE ALREADY HAS DONE MUCH TO RESPOND TO THE NEEDS 

OF THE LISTED STOCKS IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN. 

In November 1991, the National Marine Fisheries Ser.vice (NMFS) 

determined that the Snake River sockeye salmon was endangered. 

In April 1992, NMFS determined the Snake River spring/ summer and 

fall chinook salmon were threatened. The protections the Forest 

Ser.vice has further afforded the stocks bec ause of their 

inclusion on the Endangered Species Act list, have complemented 

and built upon inter-regional agency efforts initiated earlier. 

These efforts were a result of the January 1991 Co lumbia River 

Basin Anadromous Fish Habitat Management Policy and 

Implementation Guide (CRBPIG), and Agency participation in the 

1990 / 91 Pacific Northwest Salmon Summit sponsored by Senato r 

Hatfield. 

6 

The CRBPIG affects 18 National Forests in the Columbia River 

Basin, and approximately 10,000 miles of anadromous fish habitat 

representing well over 50 percent of the remaining spawning and 

rearing habitat accessible to anadromous fish within the Basin. 

The CRBPIG clearly articulates the Forest Ser.vice's intent to 

proactively manage watersheds for the benefit o f anadromous fish 

in the Columbia River Basin and to coordinate with other 

Federal, State, and tribal entities, and the publ ic in these 

management efforts. 
21 

Consistent with our commitment at the Pacific Northwest Salmon 

Summit, progress on implementing the CRBPIG has been 

substantial. National Forests in the Columbia River Basin have 

delineated forest watersheds, and this year will concentrate on 

descri bing changes in existing protection and management for 

these watersheds, and establishing monitoring programs to ensure 

our management leads to improvement in watershed conditions. 

These efforts are part of the Forest planning process and may 

lead to adjustments in plans as necessary . 

7 

We have made progress on the other commitments made by the 

Forest Service at the conclusion of the Pacific Northwest Salmon 

Summit. We have identified irrigation diversions on National 

Forests and advised the permittees that screening will become a 

requirement of the special use permit on all diversions 

according to criteria established by the respective states. 

Lands appropriate for acquisition by the Agency through the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund, that would enable better management 

of anadromous fish habitat, have been identified. Additionally, 

the Forest Service will be submitting a listing of lands 

available for acquisition to the Northwest Power Planning 

Council, on or before April 1, 1993. The Agency also has 

accelerated its minerals and range management and administration 

to improve watershed conditions with an emphasis on riparian and 

aquatic habitat conditions within the Columbia River Basin. 
22 

The Forest Service has been involved in a major undertaking with 

the NMFS to comply with the consultation provisions of the 

Endangered Species Act for the listed Snake River salmon 

stocks. Pursuant to a procedure jointly developed by the NMFS 

and the Forest Service in May 1992, an evaluation and 

description of all ongoing activities have been completed on 

4,900 projects and submitted to the National Marine Fisheries 

Service for consultation. From that experience, the two 

Agencies developed and agreed to an outline in December 1992 for 

expanding the information provided to complete consultation. In 

January 1993, an interagency protocol was established to 

expedite the consultation process. Following these guidelines, 

the Forest Service will be asking for formal consultation on 

ongoing and proposed projects that "may affect" l i sted stocks. 

The NMFS has agreed to conclude consultations expeditiously to 

ensure that ongoing and proposed actions on National Forests 

will not be unduly delayed by processing bottlenecks. 

THE FOREST SERVICE IS DEVELOPING A NEW STRATEGY--A PROACTIVE 

APPROACH TO ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT OF WATERSHEDS AND ANADROMOUS 

FISH HABITAT ON NATIONAL FORESTS 

Only nine of the stocks identified by the AFS report have 

received formal protection under the Endangered Species Act. 

However, the Forest Service recognizes that aggressive 

preventive actions need to be taken to preclude the need for 

future listing of some of these "at risk" stocks. 

8 
23 

9 

In an effort to address the issue of declining fish stocks in 

the Pacific Northwest, we initiated a team effort early last 

spring to undertake an assessment and develop a management 

strategy that extends beyond the Columbia River Basin and 

addresses the needs of all Pacific anadromous "at risk" stocks 

on National Forests. This effort is staffed with technical 

specialists and managers from our National Forest System and 

research scientists from our Research organization. The Forest 

Service is focusing on management of entire watersheds, and will 

use an ecosystem management approach that requires an intimate 

understanding of watershed functions and processes and how 

management activities effect stream channels, water flows, water 

quality, and sediment and woody debris delivery. 

As part of the assessment, Forest Service research scientists, 

working with fisheries biologists and watershed specialists on 

National Forests with Pacific anadromous fish habitat, have 

characterized current habitat conditions in many watersheds on 

National Forests and other lands in the Pacific Northwest as 

being degraded. Generally, these streams have fewer pools, 

higher fine sediments in spawning gravels, and greater 

disturbance of riparian vegetation resulting in reduced fish 

habitat capabilities. While these downward trends in habitat 

conditions represent the cumulative effects, across all 

ownerships, of past and present land management activities, it 

should be noted the best remaining fish habitat in the Pacific 

Northwest is found on the National Forests. With the help of 

historic inventory and survey data, as well as current research, 
24 

we also have defined "good" anadromous fish habitat conditions. 

Further, our research and management biologists have identified 

how to manage watersheds to maintain "good" habitat where it now 

occurs, and achieve "good" habitat conditions in areas that 

currently are degraded. 

10 

In accord with our ongoing effort to develop a strategy, we are 

identifying key watersheds that provide habitat important to "at 

risk" stocks. We are defining riparian habitat conservation 

areas where particular management sensitivity is warranted that 

goes beyond the traditional riparian corridor along permanent 

fish-bearing stream segments. These areas include areas of 

unstable soils, wetlands, intermittent headwater streams, and 

other areas where proper ecologic functioning is crucial to 

maintenance of the water, sediment, and nutrient delivery 

systems of the river system. Through site. specific watershed 

analyses and building on a strong scientific foundation, the 

Forest Service will establish new criteria as needed for 

adjusting Forest Plans and programs on all National Forests that 

support Pacific anadromous fish stocks. Finally, we are 

evaluating the economic, cultural, and social impacts of our 

management options that are under consideration. We recognize 

that for this effort to be successful it will require the 

extensive involvement of other Federal Agencies, tribal, State 

and local governments, and other interested parties. Our 

specific strategy is being developed in concert with other 

Administration efforts and will be released in the next several 

months. 
25 

HABITAT RESTORATION WILL TAKE TIME AND COMMITMENT. 

Changes are needed to improve protection and management of 

watersheds and Pacific anadromous fish habitat management in 

certain areas. Priorities will be established to maintain 

habitats that are in good condition and restore habitats in 

degraded watersheds. More and better information is needed on 

the watersheds under our care, and careful monitoring of how the 

watersheds respond to management activities will be required. 

It is important to be cognizant of the fact that regardless of 

how well we do our job, or how aggressive and proactive we are 

in our management programs, habitat restoration will take time. 

After restoration projects are completed, we can expect nature 

to take 10 to 60 years for the healing process to result in 

marked improvements in habitat condition. Improvement will 

occur, but it will take time for the watersheds to respond to 

treatment and changes in management programs. 

THE FOREST SERVICE IS READY TO DO ITS PART. 

11 

The Forest Service is committed and ready to do its part in 

providing habitat capable of supporting the recovery of listed 

fish stocks, and in providing the protection necessary to 

prevent the need to list other sensitive stocks in the future. 

Based on information from one of the strongest research units in 

the world, we have better knowledge of what is needed to provide 

for good fisheries habitat, and how to develop watershed 
26 

management programs based on the principles of ecosystem 

management. 

Finally, it must be recognized that habitat problems are only 

one element contributing to the decline of Pacific anadromous 

fish stocks. Impacts associated with hydroelectric development 

and operations, fish hatcheries, and fish harvest, also must be 

addressed to provide for the conservation of the vulnerable 

stocks. 

I thank the members of the Subcommittee for the op portunity t o 

testify on this complex problem and I ask that the supplemental 

statement be made a part of the hearing record. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony . Dr. Sedell, 

12 

Dr. Swanson, and I will be happy to answer any questions you may 

have. 
SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

A Short History of Watershed and 

Fisheries Habitat Management 

on the National Forests 

SINCE ITS ESTABLISHMENT, THE FOREST SERVICE HAS BEEN MANAGING 

WATERSHEDS AND ANADROMOUS FISH HABITAT. 

Providing for favorable condition of water flow and maintaining 

hydrologic function is a primary goal of the Organic 

Administration Act of 1897. The Forest Service's watershed 

management program provides for protectio~ of watershed 

condition in the conduct of other activities by providing 

technical support to ensure that practices are designed to 

minimize impacts to acceptable levels. The Forest Service's 

nonpoint source management strategy is a preventive program 

based on design and application of practices that are expected 

to provide the necessary protection of water dependent • 

resources, monitoring to determine effectiveness of practices, 

mitigation to correct for unforseen problems, and adjustment of 

practice design where appropriate. 

In addition to preventing problems from ongoing activities, the 

Forest Service has a program to restore watersheds impacted by 

past activities. We have a current inventory of those National 

Forest System lands that are in need of improvement. This 

13 
28 

inventory includes watershed improvement needs for all National 

Forest Sy6tem lands. When we have completed our watershed 

analysis and examination of habitat for fish in the Pacific 

Northwest, we expect to find additional acres in need of 

improvement. 

The Forest Service's watershed management program has grown 

significantly since its inception in the early 1960's. 

Environmental legislation passed in the 1970's resulted in an 

expanded Forest Service watershed program related to protection 

of watershed conditions and water quality . Budget allocations 

for watershed management increased along with these new roles 

and responsibilities. This year our watershed budget is 

$68 million. About $13 million is dedicated to improving 

watershed conditions. 

The Forest Service's fish habitat management program also has 

grown significantly since the Agency's inception. Triggered by 

the additional mandate of legislation in the 60's and 70's, 

funds dedicated to fish habitat management grew through the 

early 1980's. In 1987, with the help of State fisheries 

management partners and private constituency groups, specific 

fisheries program goals and objectives were developed and the 

Forest Service "Rise To The Future" fisheries program was 

established . 

Th~ fish habitat management program protects, restores, and 

enhances fish habitat with the benefit of the strong scientific 

14 
29 

underpinning provided by Forest Service's research scientists. 

Fisheries biologists are involved in ensuring that necessary 

protection measures are incorporated in all management 

activities on the National Forests. This year, the Forest 

Service's fisheries budget is just over $46 million, of which 

approximately $27 million is dedicated to anadromous fish 

habitat management. Better ecological knowledge and increased 

funding and staffing have resulted in substantial improvements 

in fish habitat. management and in increased recreational 

opportunities for the public. 

DEMANDS ON THE AGENCY HAVE CHANGED OVER TIME. 

The demands of the American people and their expectations of the 

National Forests have changed over the years. The Forest 

Service has worked hard to adjust to these changes. Prior to 

World War II, the Agency's management activities were primarily 

custodial in nature . Then, from the 1930's to the 1960's, 

timber production increased from approximately 1-billion board 

feet to 10.6-billion board feet, and is now approximately 

8.7-billion board feet . Recreation use increased from 

approximately 10 thousand recreation visitor days in the 1930's 

to 279 thousand recreation visitor days today. Oil and gas 

produced from the National Forests increased almost 99 percent 

from 1930 to 1990. 

15 
30 

In recent years, the Forest Service has attempted to meet 

greatly increased public demands for the full range of goods and 

services while at the same time addressing the growing public 

concern over a broad array of environmental issues. Today, the 

Forest Service, with the involvement of the public and the 

Congress., must make choices between competing resources uses. 

16 

Following the passage of the National Forest Management Act in 

1976, we developed Forest Land and Resource Management Plans 

based on known demands and the best technical information 

available at the time. We now are working to adjust to new 

scientific information and meeting new societal expectations for 

biological diversity and ecosystem management . 

The Forest Service's workforce is changing over time in response 

to the growing awareness of ecosystem and watershed management. 

Responding to the need for technical information, the Forest 

Service hired its first soil scientists in 1958, fisheries 

biologists in the late-1950's, and hydrologists in the 

mid-1960's. By 1980, the Agency employed about 300 soil 

scientists, 200 hydrologist, and 100 fisheries biologists. 

Today we employ 260 soil scientists, 270 hydrologists, and 

nearly 300 fisheries biologists, of which about 75 percent are 

in the field. We will continue to adjust our orgainization and 

strategies to meet changing resource management priorities. 
31 

Mr. VENTO. Let me turn now to the BLM witness, Mr. Penfold. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL PENFOLD 

Mr. PENFOLD. Mr. Chairman, I am very appreciative of the opportunity to be here and thank you very much for your comments 

and constant support for the professional side of the BLM; I have 

a couple of professional staff people with me. Dr. Jack Williams is 

our BLM Science Advisor; Dr. Williams had been head of our fisheries program before taking this new position. He also is the co-author of the American Fishery Society report, Pacific Salmon at the 

Crossroads, which was a definitive document in illustrating the 

problem that we are talking about today. 

I also have with me Mr. Ron Kaufman, who is one of our District 

Managers. He is the District Manager from Eugene, Oregon. Mr. Kaufman has been on the firing line of land management for three 

decades out in the Pacific Northwest, and I brought him in for the 

purposes of making him available for any questions that you might 

have for somebody who has been on that firing line. 

I am going to touch on some of the key and important parts of 

our testimony. The BLM administers approximately 180,000 miles 

of streams and a large number of diverse watersheds. A great number of those are in Alaska, and are salmon streams; but also a 

great number are in Idaho and Oregon. 

We reco~ize the severity and extent of watershed degradation 

in the Pacific Northwest, as well as the environmental, social and 

economic consequences of watershed dysfunction. The July 1992 report, Management of Anadromous Salmon and Trout Habitat and 

Their Status in the Salem District, illustrates the magnitude of the 

issue on BLM public lands. For instance, the BLM's Salem District 

in western Oregon manages 28,000 acres of riparian habitat along 

633 miles of perennial stream. There are 211 miles of streams in 

16 drainage areas containing anadromous salmon and trout, which 

support 33 of the 214 stocks at risk as identified by the 1991 American Fisheries Society report, Pacific Salmon at the Crossroads. Of 

the 28,000 acres of riparian habitat in the district, 41 percent are 

in poor condition, 31 percent we consider fair, and 28 percent optimum. Of the 211 stream miles supporting anadromous fishes, 42 

percent of stream channels are in poor condition, 35 percent fair, 

and 23 optimum. 

This is not good enough. The BLM has been moving in a variety of ways to protect and 

manage these watersheds and the resources upon which they depend. Protection of anadromous fish such as steelhead and salmon 

has been a driving force behind many of our efforts. These fish are 

of critical importance to the cultural, economic, and recreational 

well-being of the Pacific Northwest. The BLM has addressed salmon habitat management through two plans known as the Anadromous Fish Habitat Management Strategic Plan on Public Lands 

and Anadromous Fish Habitat Management Plan for the Columbia 

and Snake River. These plans, which are component plans for 

BLM's Fish and Wildlife 200 initiative, outline habitat projects, acquisition, and management needs. They are designed to enhance 

the productivity of anadromous fish streams on public lands in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. Some $2 million in Oregon and 
32 

Washington has been expended for implementation of habitat enhancement project under these plans. Additional amounts were expended in California and Idaho. 

The BLM currently is developing a series of resource management plans to guide our actions on 2.2 million acres of Oregon and 

California lands in western Oregon. These plans will contain the 

necessary stipulations, standards, and guidelines to conserve "at 

risk" stocks of salmon, steelhead and sea-run cutthroat trout. 

These actions not only will protect fish-bearing streams, but restore 

channel integrity of non-fish-bearing intermittent streams. The 

BLM will strive to incorporate the best scientific information available into the draft RMPs before finalization. Information made 

available through President Clinton's upcoming Forest Conference 

will be an important input as to how these are finalized. 

I might add a side comment. We had American Rivers do a study of our effort across the country recently and they gave us a critical 

critique of our past planning efforts, that they don't adequately 

cover the fish directions that we need in these plans. So that has 

been an important activity. And we now see these two plans that 

I just mentioned as important, to dovetail those closely with the 

Forest Service activities so that these can be more comprehensive than they have been in the past. We think that is an important 

step forward. 

The BLM is also addressing the rising concern for the decline of 

anadromous fish stocks in the Pacific Northwest through a recent 

revision and expansion of its strategy plan entitled Anadromous 

Fish Habitat Management and Funding Strategy for the Columbia 

and Snake River Basins. Full implementation of this plan will dramatically improve habitat conditions for anadromous fish on BLM 

lands in the Willamette, Columbia and Snake River Basins. Restoring habitat eventually will increase the productive capability for 

anadromous salmonids on BLM lands, and if other nonhabitat-related problems are solved, more fish will be available for recreational, commercial and tribal fishing. Major management actions that will be required include stream inventory, watershed 

plan development, watershed restoration, monitoring and project 

maintenance. 

As part of the management approach, we have established showcase areas in each State; demonstration areas are also being used 

for educational and scientific purposes. We understand that our efforts to manage and restore watersheds cannot occur in isolation. 

That is why we actively participate in ongoing interagency efforts 

to restore salmon habitat in the Pacific Northwest. Currently, we 

are updating our National-as I mentioned-the National Marine 

Fishery Service are part of that effort. 

In 1992, the BLM received a $560,000 congressional add-on for 

work in the Columbia River Basin. Work has begun on modifying 

grazing and forestry management plans to address stream improvement issues. Over the next three years, the BLM will revise 

175 grazing allotment plans in Oregon, 90 in Washington, and 85 

in Idaho. Stream improvement work has begun on 57 miles of the 

Salmon, Willamette, John Day, and Walla Walla Rivers. 

In addition to modifying forestry management plans, the BLM is 

incorporating fish habitat and watershed improvement practices 
33 

into the operations practices of timber management. For example, 

new timber sales seek to repair damage done in the past. Improved 

road surfacing and drainage systems are applied to reduce the 

amount of sediments reaching streams. Culvert stream crossings 

are replaced with larger culverts or arched to allow for better fish 

passage. Damage resulting from past road-building practices is 

being mitigated by better road construction. 

Additionally, we have made progress in improving habitat conditions. We have constructed a 3,400-foot-long rearing channel along 

the Trinity River to enhance anadromous fish-rearing habitat. In 

the BLM's Coos Bay District, another 17 miles of spawning habitat 

are now available for coho salmon and steelhead resulting from the 

completion of the Brewster Gorge fish passage project. The BLM's 

Salem District has extensively rehabilitated Upper Lobster Creek. 

The results of restoration efforts have been impressive in other 

areas as well. Stream surface area has more than doubled in the 

Nestucca/Alsea project areas of Oregon, resulting in increased juvenile and adult fish production in treated areas. 

In addition to our efforts for anadromous fish, we are moving 

ahead with a dynamic effort to restore riparian areas, and have 

made considerable progress in this initiative. 

For example, OR/WA has adopted a riparian enhancement plan 

that recognizes the important functions and values of riparian 

areas and directs the BLM's efforts at improving rifarian conditions in eastern Oregon and Washington. Objectives o this plan include improving riparian conditions on 656 miles of the BLM-administered streams. 

BLM also cooperates in the COPE project, which is a fisheriesspecific study in the Pacific Northwest. And we were provided with 

$1.3 million in funding for that activity. 

I would like to also point out the partnership system, a very important part of what we do. We must work with State governments 

and the private sector in carrying out these plans, and we think 

partnerships in working with the private sector are a critically important part of getting a holistic approach to the issues that we are 

here to talk about. We believe that by implementing our plans, we 

can restore watersheds on BLM land. 

We believe that by fully implementing our strategy plans for 

anadromous fish and riparian wetland restoration in the Pacific 

Northwest, we can achieve restored watersheds on the BLM lands. 

Our experience thus far has taught us that the problem of restoring and maintaining sound and productive watershed and fish 

habitat areas requires an approach that transcends agency boundaries and land ownership. We commend the Pacific Rivers Council 

for its efforts toward this end. We've got to work with partners to 

ca!TY out those goals. 

I have copies of the reports, if your committee would like to have 

co1>_ies of them. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And we will be happy to answer questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Penfold follows:] 
34 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL PENFOLD, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, LAND AND 

RENEWABLE RESOURCES, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL 

PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS, COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ON WATERSHED AND FISH 

HABITAT DEGRADATION ON PUBLIC LANDS AND NATIONAL FORESTS IN THE 

PACIFIC NORTHWEST. 

I appreciate the opportunity to address the Committee on the 

Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) efforts in the management and 

recovery of watersheds and fish habitat in the Pacific Northwest. 

The BLM administers approximately 180,000 miles of streams and a 

large number of diverse watersheds. Of the 180,000 miles of 

streams administered by the BLM, approximately 133,000 are in 

Alaska, 1,420 in California, 4,140 in Idaho and 7,639 in Oregon 

and Washington. 

The BLM fully recognizes the severity and extent of watershed 

degradation in the Pacific Northwest as well as the 

environmental, social and economic consequences of watershed 

dysfunction. The July 1992 report, Management of Anadromous 

Salmon and Trout Habitat and Their Status in the Salem District, 

illustrates the magnitude of the issue on BLM public lands. For 

instance, the BLM's Salem District in western Oregon ma~ages 

28,000 acres of riparian habitat along 633 miles of per~nnial 

stream. There are 211 miles of streams in 16 drainage ateas 

containing anadromous salmon and trout, which support 33 \of the 

214 stocks at risk as identified by the 1991 American Fisheries 

Society (AFS) report, Pacific Salmon at the crossroads. Of the 

28,000 acres of riparian habitat in the District, 41% are in poor 

condition, 31% fair, and 28% optimum. Of the 211 stream •iles 
35 

2 

supporting anadromous fishes, 42% of stream channels are in poor 

condition, 35% fair, and 23% optimum. 

Watershed degradation impacts all lands and land uses throughout 

the region. Rangelands and forestlands, agricultural and urban 

lands all need to be considered as restoration proceeds. The BLM 

recognizes its responsibility to i mprove the condition of 

riparian habitats and restore ecological processes and functions 

to the public lands. Such actions are important elements in 

conserving biological diversity, maintaining water quality and 

quantity, and providing long-term continuation of forest and 

rangeland resources. 

The BLM has been moving in a variety of ways to protect and 

manage these watersheds and the resources upon which they depend. 

Protection of anadromous fish such as steelhead and salmon has 

been a driving force behind many of our efforts. These fish are 

of critical importance to the cultural, economic, and 

recreational well-being of the Pacific Northwest. The BLM has 

addressed salmon habitat management through two plans known as 

the Anadromous Fish Hab.itat Management Strategic Plan on Public 

Lands and Anadromous Fish Habitat Management Plan for the 

Columbia and Snake River. These plans, which are component plans 

for BLM's Fish and Wildlife 2000 initiative, outline habitat 

projects, acquisition, and management needs. They are designed 

to enhance the productivity of anadromous fish streams on public 
36 

3 

lands in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. Some $2 million in 

Oregon and Washington (OR\WA) has been expended for 

implementation of habitat enhancement projects under these plans. 

Additional amounts were expended in California and Idaho. 

The BLM currently is developing a series of Resource Management 

Plans (RMP's) to guide our actions on 2.2 million acres of 

Oregon & California (O&C) lands in western Oregon. These plans 

will contain the necessary stipulations, standards, and 

guidelines, to conserve at risk stocks of salmon, steelhead and 

sea-run cutthroat trout. These actions not only will protect 

fish-bearing streams, but restore channel integrity of non fishbearing intermittent streams. The BLM will strive to 

incorporate the best scientific information available into the 

draft RMP's before finalization. Information made available 

through President Clinton's upcoming Forest Summit will also be 

included in the RMPs as appropriate. 

The 1991 AFS report documented the decline of 214 discrete stocks 

of West Coast salmon and steelhead trout. Several of these 

stocks, including runs of sockeye and chinook in the upper 

Columbia and Snake Rivers, are now listed as threatened and 

endangered species. The BLM administers nearly 2,000 miles of 

spawning and rearing habitat for salmon, steelhead, and sea-run 

cutthroat trout in streams of the Pacific Northwest. In that 

region, the BLM manages habitat for 109 of the 214 stocks 
37 

4 

identified in the AFS report. In response to these listings, and 

through the BLM's participation in the Pacific Northwest Salmon 

Summit, the BLM has become an active participant in restoring 

spawning, rearing, and wintering habitat on public lands. 

The BLM is also addressing the rising concern for the decline of 

anadromous fish stocks in the Pacific Northwest through a recent 

revision and expansion of its strategy plan entitled Anadromous 

Fish Habitat Management and Funding Strategy for the Columbia and 

Snake River Basins. Full implementation of this plan will 

dramatically improve habitat conditions for anadromous fish on 

BLM lands in the Willamette, Columbia and Snake River Basins. 

Restoring habitat eventually will increase the productive 

capability for anadromous salmonids on BLM lands, and if other 

non habitat related problems are solved, more fish will be 

available for recreational, commercial and tribal fishing. Major 

management actions that will be required include stream 

inventory, watershed plan development, watershed restoration, 

monitoring and project maintenance. 

In 1992, the BLM received a $560,000 Congressional add-on for 

work in the Columbia River Basin. Work has begun on modifying 

grazing and forestry management plans to address stream 

improvement issues. over the next 3 years, the BLM will revise 

175 grazing allotment plans in Oregon, 90 in Washington, and 85 

in Idaho. stream improvement work has begun on 57 miles of the 
38 

5 

Salmon, Willamette, J o hn Day , and Walla Walla Rivers. 

In addition to modifying forestry management plans, the BLM is 

incorporating fish habitat and watershed i mprovement practices 

into the operational practices of timber management . For 

e xample, new timber sales seek to repair damage done in the past. 

Improved road surfacing and drainage s y stems are applied to 

reduce the amount of sediments reac hing streams . Culvert stream 

crossings are replaced with larger culverts or arched to allow 

for better fish passage. Damage resulting from past road 

building practices is being mitigated by better road 

construction. 

Additionally, we have made progress in improving habitat 

conditions. We have constructed a 3,400 foot long rearing 

channel along the Trinity River to enhance anadromous fish 

rearing habitat . In the BLM's Coos Bay District, another 17 

miles of spawning habitat are now available for coho salmon and 

steelhead resulting from the completion of the Brewster Gorge 

fish passage project. The BLM's Salem District has extensively 

rehabilitated Upper Lobster creek. 

The results of restoration efforts have been impressive in other 

areas as well. Stream surface area has more than doubled in the 

Nestucca/Alsea project areas in Oregon, resulting in increased 

juvenile and adult fish production in treated areas. 
39 

In addition to our efforts for anadromous fish, we are moving 

ahead with a dynamic effort to restore riparian areas, and have 

made considerable progress in this initiative. Our efforts are 

guided by Fish and Wildlife 2000 and by our nationwide strategy 

plan called Riparian-Wetland Initiative for the 1990's. 

6 

For example, OR\WA has adopted a riparian enhancement plan that 

recognizes the important funct i ons and values of riparian areas 

and directs the BLM's efforts at improving riparian conditions in 

eastern Oregon and Washington . Objectives of this plan include 

improving riparian conditions on 656 miles of the BLM 

administered streams by 2010 through grazing management and 

strategically planned enhancement projects. Since 1987, the BLM 

has improved approximately 65% of riparian areas of streams 

included in the OR\WA Riparian Enhancement Plan . Through these 

efforts, the BLM has learned a great deal about riparian areas 

and their role in watershed function. This has helped us develop 

our approach so that it encompasses a watershed-wide view. We 

have increased the riparian areas that will receive attention and 

have included western Oregon O&C lands in the OR\WA Riparian 

Program . We are striving to manage these riparian-wetland areas 

for multiple uses, using the bio-diversity and total ecosystem 

management concepts. 

Fisheries and other values are benefiting as a result of the 

improved riparian conditions. The increased riparian growth 
40 

7 

provides streamsiae shade and cools surface waters. Wood debris 

is added to streams to create valuable pool habitat and decrease 

erosion from strearnbanks . Healthy riparian areas also raise the 

water table, cool streams, and increase the quality and quantity 

of forage for wildlife and livestock. 

Each of our State Offices has specific plans and strategies for 

restoring riparian areas, fish habitat and watersheds in general, 

as funds become available . As a part of our management 

approach, we have established showcase areas in each state. 

These showcase areas demonstrate that well-managed riparian areas 

can produce multiple benefits while remaining healthy . Showcase 

and demonstration areas are also being used for educational and 

scientific purposes . 

We recognize that our efforts to manage and restore watersheds 

cannot occur in isolation. That is why we are an active 

participant in ongoing interagency efforts to restore salmon 

habitat in the Pacific Northwest, as well as many other 

cooperative ventures. Currently, we are updati ng our national 

Anadromous Fish Habitat strategy Plan in collaboration with the 

Forest service. We also are exploring other efforts with the 

Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, and others to ensure a better coordinated 

effort on behalf of salmon habitat and watershed restoration 

throughout the Pacific Northwest. 
41 

8 

The BLM cooperates with and contributes to the Coastal Oregon 

Productivity Enhancement Project (COPE). COPE is a project of 

Oregon State University and is researching ways to manage coastal 

Oregon watersheds to enhance resource values. This research is 

currently part of a 10 year program slated to continue until the 

late 1990's. BLM currently provides $1.3 million per year in 

addition to funds to conduct the operational work on study sites. 

located on land managed by the BLM. 

Partnership agreements are a major cornerstone to the successful 

implementation of our strategy plans. This collaborative 

approach with outside partners enables the BLM to stretch 

Federally appropriated funds and accelerate management and 

recovery of millions of acres of habitat . It also means 

involvement of concerned citizens in the BLM management of fish 

and wildlife, and other elements of watershed restoration. 

We are using a holistic approach to riparian-wetland management 

that, where possible, focuses on the entire ecosystem and 

involves all affected landowners. An example of how the BLM is 

implementing ecosystem management is through coordinated resource 

management planning. This method of group planning considers the 

needs and objectives of all landowners and interest groups 

relating to the watersheds targeted for management. For 

instance, the BLM and the Trout Creek Mountain Working Group in 

Oregon, consisting of several ranchers and environmental groups, 
42 

9 

implemented a management plan to restore Lahontan cutthroat trout 

habitat in 160 miles of stream in southeast Oregon. The BLM is 

involved in a number of similar efforts elsewhere. 

We believe that by fully implementing our strategy plans for 

anadromous fish and riparian wetland restoration in the Pacific 

Northwest, we can achieve restored watersheds dn the BLM lands. 

Our experience thus far has taught us that the problem of 

restoring and maintaining sound and productive watershed and fish 

habitat areas requires an approach that transcends agency 

boundaries and land ownership. We commend the Pacific Rivers 

Council for its efforts toward this end. In recognition of the 

need for mutual cooperation among all interested parties, we plan 

to expand our partnerships in the Pacific Northwest. Working 

partnerships will help us to better carry out our goals of 

improving watershed health. 

Examples of our work that I have discussed are outlined in our 

1992 Report of Accomplishments . I would be happy to supply a 

copy of our report and copies of our Anadromous Fish Habitat 

Strategy Plan and Riparian-Wetland Plan for the 1990's for the 

record. 

This concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to answer 

any questions that the Committee may have . 
43 

Mr. VENTO. Thank ;rou for summarizing your comments and for 

your thoughtful and kind remarks. 

We have two additional witnesses. We have a lot of agencies 

working on these problems, obviously, that influence land use, so 

we are pleased to welcome Dr. Michael Tillman, the Actin~ Director of the Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, NOAA. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL TILLMAN 

Dr. TILLMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to provide the views of the 

Department of Commerce regarding watershed and fish habitat 

degradation on public lands and national forests. I will cover the 

agency's activities addressing this important issue. 

As you requested, I will quickly summarize my testimony. 

The Department has statutory responsibilities which authorize 

it, acting through the National Marine Fisheries Service, to protect, 

mitigate, and enhance anadromous fishery resources for the benefit 

of commercial and recreational fishing industries and tribal fisheries of the United States. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service has Federal conservation 

and management responsibilities for marine, estuarine, and anadromous fishery resources under various laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, the Fish and 

Wildlife Coordination Act, the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act, and the Endangered Species Act. 

Now, as in the past, Pacific coast salmon and steelhead resources 

provide a significant economic, subsistence, cultural, and recreational benefit to the people of the Pacific Northwest. Many of 

these stocks are now at risk. 

The reasons for the declines vary by stock. For some, habitat 

degradation is a serious problem. However, maintaining suitable 

spawning and rearing habitat is vital to all of them. 

Past land use practices have resulted in the degradation of many 

miles of streams that provided anadromous fish habitat. Much of 

the remaining habitat important for anadromous fish production is 

now on public lands. 

Our Northwest Regional Office is currently conducting section 7 

consultations in four major sectors that may or are likely to affect 

adversely the three salmon stocks in the Pacific Northwest that are 

currently listed under the Endangered Species Act. These four sectors, referred to as the four H's, are: hydropower, harvesting, habitat, and hatcheries. 

These four sectors are an integral part of the economic and social 

structure of the Pacific Northwest. Therefore, it is essential that 

the Fisheries Service work with the Federal agencies responsible 

for managing the actions that comprise the four H's in an efficient 

and effective manner. 

With respect to the habitat sector specifically, we are working 

closely with the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Actions from both these agencies include grazing, mining, 

road construction, recreation, fishery enhancement, timber sales, 

and salvage sales. Unless proper safeguards are taken as part of 

their planning and implementation, these actions have the paten-
44 

tial to severely impact the remaining habitat necessary to maintain 

viable anadromous fish populations. 

The Fisheries Service has met with the Forest Service several 

times to develop a more efficient process to review the thousands 

of actions requiring consultation. In January of this year, we jointly 

adopted a more comprehensive process for completing consultations. Basically, this approach will group actions by geographic 

area; that is, by watershed and by resource; and whether it is 

range, grazin~, timber, mining and so on, rather than conducting 

project-by-proJect consultations. 

The Forest Service will prioritize its actions and provide critical 

due dates to us. Also, we have jointly prepared a biological outline 

to ensure that the information we need to complete consultations 

is submitted to us. We are currently working with the Bureau of 

Land Management to adopt a similar approach. Once we have completed the necessary consultations with the Forest Service and 

BLM, we will have a better idea of the effect of their activities on 

listed species, and, to a degree, on other anadromous species as 

well. 

In closing, we are focusing on the conservation of all anadromous 

stocks, not just the listed ones. Efforts to bring about the recovery 

of listed species and restore habitat can be very expensive. AB Congressman Dicks pointed out earlier this morning, it is far more cost 

effective to prevent habitat from being degraded and to prevent 

species from becoming endangered in the first place. 

Existing authorities should be used in a more innovative manner 

to reconcile and integrate human needs with the conservation of 

natural resources and their ecosystems. We need to develop better 

information on species and ecosystem processes to ensure decisions 

are made with the full knowledge of the potential risks. 

Our goal is to maintain salmon and steelhead stocks as a vital 

resource unique to the Northwest that can be utilized and enjoyed 

by all. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes my statement. I 

would be pleased to answer any questions you have. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Dr. Tillman. 

[Prepared statement of Dr. Tillman follows:] 
45 

TESTIMONY 

OF 

-DR. MICHAEL F. TILLMAN 

ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PROTECTED RESOURCES 

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS 

AND PUBLIC LANDS 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 11, 1993 

Mr . Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

My name is Dr. Michael Tillman. I am the Acting Director of the 

National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) Office of Protected 

Resources, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. 

Department of Commerce. I appreciate the opportunity to provide 

the Subcommittee with the views of the Department regarding 

watershed and fish habitat degradation on public lands and 

national forests, and the agency's activities addressing this 

important issue in the broader context of our stewardship 

responsibilities for anadromous fishery resources in the Pacific 

Northwest. 

The Department has statutory responsibilities which authorize it, 

acting through NMFS, to protect, mitigate, and enhance anadromous 

fishery resources for the benefit of the commercial and 

recreational fishing industries and Tribal fisheries of the 

United States. NMFS has Federal conservation and management 
46 

responsibilities for marine, estuarine, and anadromous fishery 

resources under various laws, including the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), the 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Federal Power Act, the 

Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Mitchell 

Act, the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and 

Conservation Act of 1980, the Pacific Salmon Treaty Act of 1985, 

a nd the Endangered Species Act. 

Now, as in the past, Pacific coast salmon and steelhead resources 

provide a significant economic, subsistence, cultural and 

recreational benefit to the people of that region. Many of these 

stocks are now at risk. The reasons for the declines vary by 

stock. For some, habitat degradation is a serious problem. 

Maintaining suitable spawning and rearing habitat is vital to all 

stoc ks. Pa st land use practices have resulted in the degra dation 

of many miles of streams that have provided anadromous fish 

habitat. Much of the remaining habitat importart for anadromous 

fish production is on public lands. The suitability and 

condition of the habitat are affected not only by activities 

within and adjacent to, but also distant from, anadromous fish 

waters -- making habitat issues complex. Furthermore, available 

information is currently inadequate concerning the extent and 

significance of impacts from various human activities. 

2 
47 

Estimates of the historical runs indicate that from 10 t~ 

14 million adult salmon and steelhead entered the Columbia River 

each year. The current run size is approximately 2.5 million. 

Salmon and steelhead habitat in the Columbia River basin above 

Bonneville Dam has decreased from about 11,700 river miles before 

1850 to about 7,600 miles today, a 35 percent reduction. Much of 

the reduction in the numbers of anadromous fish can be attributed 

to blocked access to habitat resulting from hydropower dams and 

passage losses associated with the dams. Other factors, however, 

were also at work. 

Irrigation and flood control, as well as poor logging, grazing, 

and farming practices resulted in depleted streamflows, erosion, 

loss of riparian habitat, and a general degradation of much of 

the remaining habitat. Between 1936 and 1942, more than 5,000 

miles of tributaries to the Columbia River were inventoried by 

the U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (now NMFS) for pool and 

substrate characteristics. These surveys were done in relatively 

undisturbed watersheds to document stream habitat conditions for 

anadromous fish before additional dams were built on the Columbia 

and Snake Rivers. A recent comparison of these data with current 

surveys shows that river systems impacted by human activities on 

public and private lands have lost 50 to 75 percent of their 

large pools during the past 50 years. Large pools are critically 

important for anadromous salmonids, functioning as resting areas 

3 
48 

for adults prior to spawning, preferred rearing areas for 

juveniles, and refuges from drought or winter freeze -up. , While 

the quality of spawning and rearing habitat on managed lands has 

diminished, anadromous fish habitat in wilderness areas remained 

relatively constant or improved during the same time period. 

The most important of the activities which affect fish habitat 

are: 

Timber harvest and road construction - These activities can cause 

loss of riparian zone vegetation, change stream temperatures and 

light regimes, cause loss of rearing cover due to a loss of large 

woody debris, reduce oxygen levels, alter stream flows and 

increase fine sediments in the channels . Sedimentation can lead 

t o a loss of large pools (rearing habitat) and degradation of 

spawning habitat, resulting in reduced survival of eggs and fry. 

Improperly designed stream road crossings may limit access, 

resulting in the elimination of tributary habitat. 

Livestock grazing - This activity may damage riparian habitats 

and has the potential to reduce anadromous fish production 

through stream bank instability and accelerated sediment 

production. Cattle trailing across spawning riffles may cause 

direct mortality of incubating eggs and alevins in the redd. 

studies comparing grazed and ungrazed watersheds have shown that 

4 
49 

fish production in ungrazed streams ranged from 2.4 to 5 times 

greater than grazed streams. 

Mining - This activity may increase sediment transport and 

deposition (erosion), decrease stream flows, change stream 

geomorphic form, decrease vegetative cover, change pH, mobilize 

toxic heavy metals and increase water pollution. Some past 

mining activities had devastating effects on salmon and steelhead 

habitat, altering the streambed and leaving the channel 

unsuitable for anadromous fish. Areas in Idaho, such as Panther 

Creek, upper Southfork Clearwater River, and Bear Valley Creek 

still exhibit degraded habitat caused by earlier mining. 

Hydropower - Proposed hydroelectric projects on public lands may 

reduce and adversely affect available habitat for anadromous fish 

as a result of blocked or limited access, inundation, water 

withdrawal and degradation associated with construction. 

Habitat alteration for enhancement - The effectiveness of methods 

to enhance anadromous fish habitat is mixed. While some 

successes have been noted, these structures can fail, causing 

damage to the streambed or alteration of stream flows. Such 

structures include weirs, deflectors, boulder placement, cover 

structures, bank stabilization and the construction of side 

channels and ponds. 

5 
50 

Recreation - Activities such as boating, off-road vehicles, 

horseback riding, and · camping bring people to the stream~ and 

their banks. Effects include disturbance of spawning redds bank 

erosion, loss of riparian vegetation, and stream pollution. 

Irrigation - Irrigation can reduce access to habitat through 

water diversions and diversion dams, and reduce flows in rivers 

or streams. Agricultural practices associated with irrigation 

may lead to removal of stream corridor vegetation and 

channelization of streams, which lead to erosion and 

sedimentation. This results in higher water temperatures during 

low flow conditions which, when combined with warmer irrigation 

return flows, can inhibit salmon migrations. 

Silviculture - Silvicultural activities, which may include 

prescribed burning, as well as the application of herbicides and 

pesticides, have the potential to result in physical impacts to 

fish habitat, and also cause direct and indirect toxic effects 

when nontarget organisms are exposed. 

Our Northwest Regional Habitat Conservation Branch reviews 

proposed forestry activities on Federal lands that have the 

potential to affect anadromous fish or their habitats, providing 

environmental impact statement recommendations pursuant to NEPA. 

These activities primarily include timber harvesting, livestock 

grazing and mining. We also coordinate with the U.S. Forest 

6 
51 

Service (USFS) an_d National Park Service during pre-J.icensing 

consultation of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FE~C)-

regulated hydroelectric projects. NMFS also comments on U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers Public Notices relating to discharges in 

U.S. waters pursuant to CWA, Section 404, proposed projects on 

public lands. 

Examples of recent actions include the review of timber sales in 

the Willamette and Siskiyou national forests; review of proposed 

mining activities in the Siskiyou, Challis, Payette, and Salmon 

national forests; and involvement in FERC licensing actions in 

Olympic National Park, and Mt. Hood, Payette, Nez Perce, 

Clearwater, Challis, and Boise national forests. 

With respect to those anadromous species most at risk, NMFS has 

developed an active process for involving the public in the 

listing and recovery process under the ESA. Following year-long 

biological status reviews and input. by the public, NMFS 

determined in November 1991, that the Snake River sockeye run was 

endangered, and in April 1992, that Snake River fall and 

spring/summer chinook runs were threatened . 

NMFS is currently consulting on a wide range of activities that 

affect species listed under the ESA. We are working closely 

with all relevant Federal agencies to conduct these consultations 

in an organized manner, addressing broad activities, where 

7 
52 

possible, rather .than individual projects. The Northwest Region 

of NMFS is currently conducting section 7 consultations in four 

major sectors that may or are likely to affect adversely the 

three salmon stocks that are listed under the ESA. These four 

sectors, referred to as the four "H's," are hydropower, 

harvesting, habitat, and hatcheries. The four sectors are an 

integral part of the economic and social structure of the Pacific 

Northwest. Therefore, it is essential that NMFS work with the 

Federal agencies responsible for managing the actions that 

comprise the four H's in an efficient and effective manner. 

For the hydropower sector, NMFS is preparing for the 1993 

consultation on the operations of the Federal Columbia River 

Power System. Consultation activities on the harvesting sector 

are also underway. NMFS is consulting with the Pacific Fisheries 

Management Council on ocean harvest, and has recently completed 

consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs on Columbia River harvest. 

Comprehensive consultations will also be conducted in 1993 to 

address the hatchery sector. Even though consultations are with 

Federal agencies, we have included State and tribal fisheries 

management agencies, since they co-manage the Federal hatcheries. 

The States have also submitted incidental take permit 

applications to cover their state-run mitigation hatcheries. 

8 
53 

With respect to the habitat sector specifically, we are ~orking 

closely with the USFS and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) . 

We are presently working with the USFS on over 70 different 

actions in nine different national forests. The USFS has 

indicated that as many as 10,000 actions may affect listed 

salmon. For the BLM, actions in four districts within three 

States could affect salmon. 

Actions from both these agencies include grazing, mining, road 

construction, recreation, fisheries enhancement, timber sales and 

salvage sales. Unless proper safeguards are taken as part of 

planning and implementation, these actions have the potential to 

severely impact the remaining habitat necessary to maintain 

viable anadromous fish populations. The USFS has notified us 

that over 200 grazing allotments require section 7 consultations. 

The BLM also has several hundred grazing allotments that may 

require consultations. In addition, numerous consultations on 

salvage timber sales must be completed . 

NMFS has met with USFS several times to develop a more efficient 

process to review the thousands of actions requiring 

consultation. In January 1993, NMFS and USFS adopted a more 

comprehensive process for completing consultations. Basically, 

this approach will group actions by geographic area (watershed) 

and resource (e . g . , range, timber, mining), rather than 

9 
conducting project-by-project consultations. USFS will 

prioritize its actionj, and provide critical due dates. Also, 

NMFS and USFS have prepared a biological evaluation outline to 

help ensure that the information needed to complete consultations 

is submitted. We are currently working with BLM to adopt a 

similar approach. Once we have completed the necessary 

consultations with the USFS and BLM, we will have a better idea 

of the effect of the agencies' activities on listed species and, 

to a degree, other anadromous species as well . 

In closing, we are focusing on the conservation of all anadromous 

stocks, not only on listed ones. Efforts to bring about the 

recovery of listed species and restore habitat can be very 

expensive. It is far more cost effective to prevent species from 

becoming endangered and to prevent habitat from being degraded. 

Existing authorities should be used in a more innovative manner 

to reconcile and integrate human needs with the conservation of 

natural resources and ecosystems. We need to develop better 

information on species and ecosystem processes to ensure that 

decisions are made with the full knowledge of the potential 

risks. our goal, which I am sure is shared by most, is to 

maintain salmon and steelhead stocks as a vital resource unique 

to the Northwest that can be utilized and enjoyed by all. 

10 
55 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I will be pl~ased to 

answer any questions you may have about our activities. Thank 

you. 

11 
56 

Mr. VENTO. And finally on this panel, we invite Gary Edwards, 

the Assistant Director for Fisheries, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Welcome, Mr. Edwards. 

STATEMENT OF GARY EDWARDS 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and 

members of the subcommittee. I am Gary Edwards, the Assistant 

Director-Fisheries. I appreciate the opportunity to appear on behalf of the Service before the committee this morning. 

I will begin my testimony with two important points. First, a tremendous variety of fish and wildlife species are dependent on Pacific Northwest watersheds. My comments today, however, will 

focus on how watershed degradation affects salmon and steelhead 

populations. 

Second, as has already been said, land management is but one 

of several factors that have caused the decline of salmon and 

steelhead populations in the Pacific Northwest. Irrigation, hydroelectric dams, and overharvesting have also contributed synergistically with land management practices to reduce the carrying 

capacity for salmon. 

Sometimes even the Service's efforts to restore salmon populations have had unintended negative impacts. No one can say with 

certainty the direct level of contribution to salmon decline of any 

of these impacts. 

Pacific salmon and steelhead trout are well-suited to thrive in 

most river basins of Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Idaho, 

Oregon, and northern California. Each ecosystem component within a watershed, from ridge top to sea, plays an integral role in the 

production of these stocks of fish. Unfortunately, watersheds have 

not been mana~ed as ecosystems. Cumulative impacts to watersheds have gone unmeasured and 

unchecked as many of the multiple jurisdictions overseeing public 

and private land management have taken parochial approaches to 

managing pieces of the whole. We must begin to view watersheds 

as interdependent units, and focus on problem solving using integrated resource management. 

Steelhead trout and all five species of salmon use streams flowing through forested areas for spawning, rearing, and adult holding 

purposes. Thus, the maintenance of healthy forests is an integral 

element in the proper management of salmon and steelhead. 

Logging activities such as the construction of roads, and not the 

actual cutting of timber, are most responsible for increasing the 

sediment load into receiving streams. 

In some areas, timber harvest has necessitated the building of 

thousands of miles of unpaved roads. High levels of sediment loading into watershed streams have resulted from improperly constructed cuts, fills, and cross drainage structures related to road 

building and maintenance. 

The sciences of hydrology, hydraulics, and fishery biology have 

recently been applied together to produce fresh insights that flow 

maintenance is something much more than just providing a base 

minimum flow in a stream. In the Trinity River in northern California, the Service is conducting investigations and evaluations of 

year-round flow patterns that mimic the natural hydrology. 
57 

Those studies and others conclusively show that a productive 

stream ecosystem requires high spring flows to transport sediment, 

to clean spawning gravels, and rescour important side channels, 

which create fish rearing, spawning, and migration habitat needed 

throughout the year. But the most instructive message gleaned 

from such studies is that maintenance of fish production must 

begin with a multi-disciplinary approach to manage entire watersheds. 

The Forest Service and BLM have made progress in the timber 

harvest, grazing, and mining operations under multipurpose management concepts, compared to the single-purpose schemes that 

prevailed in the earlier part of this century. However, private timber harvest, grazing, and farming have typically not been conducted from a multipurpose perspective and thus continue to impact fish habitat at an alarming rate. The bottom line is that we 

may be able to lessen the fishery impacts of land management 

practices on public lands but we will not protect fish habitat unless 

we begin to view and manage watersheds as ecosystems. 

The Service is involved in multiple jurisdiction watershed restoration programs in the Klamath and Trinity river basins in California, and the Chehalis and Elwha River basins in Washington. 

These and other cooperative river basin restoration initiatives are 

helping to correct the effects of past land management practices 

and focus attention on the need to responsibly manage land and 

water resources as a first line of defense. 

What is making these programs effective is the recognition 

among private and public entities that all parties have a stake in 

what others are doing throughout a given watershed. 

After leaving the spawning and rearing habitat in the upper portions of watersheds, salmon and steelhead must then navigate 

through or around dams, through man-made reservoirs, past thriving populations of exotic predators, and past nets and fish hooks. 

No single challenge to salmon and steelhead survival can be viewed 

as the "straw that broke the camel's back." They all must be 

viewed as a whole or we will begin to see the extinction of stocks 

beginning with the upriver population such as the Snake River 

sockeye, currently listed as endangered, and the Sacramento River 

winter run chinook, currently listed as threatened. 

Columbia River salmon and steelhead stocks have declined to 

less than 10 percent of historic levels. Salmon and steelhead production in northern California has declined from 10 million adult 

fish to fewer than two million. All major coastal and Puget Sound 

stocks have declined by 10 to 95 percent. Logging, grazing and 

mining on public and private lands have played a historical role in 

creating each of these resource crises. 

Mr. Chairman, the Service is not advocating the cessation of logging, grazing, or mining in the Pacific Northwest. We recognize the 

need to create a balance in the management of this Nation's natural resources. We know of proven methods to minimize and mitigate many land management impacts to salmon and steelhead populations. The key is to start managing watersheds through cooperative partnerships so that undocumented cumulative impacts do not 

finally show up with the extinction of a fish stock. 
58 

It is time to stop viewing watersheds as short-term sources of 

revenue. Logging, mining, and grazin~ can continue to produce societal benefits on a long-term basis usmg environmentally sensitive 

methods. But we must also develop and implement management 

goals that recognize that fishing, hunting, and other forms of recreation are legitimate and significant revenue and job generators. 

Finally, we need to retain or restore the ecological functions of 

watersheds that can provide millions of dollars' worth of benefits 

related to flood protection, water quality protection, and groundwater recharge. In the past, coal miners didn't wait to become sick 

before checking for a carbon monoxide problem; they used canaries 

as advanced indicators and then took action. 

I submit to you that salmon and steelhead are economically and 

aesthetically valuable in their own right, but they are also canaries 

telling us to take action to protect the ecological and cultural integ- rity of the Pacific Northwest. 

This concludes my formal testimony, and I will certainly be 

happy to answer any questions that you or the committee may 

have. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Edwards, for your statement and we 

will place the entire statement in the record. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Edwards follows:] 
59 

STATEMENT or CARY IDWARDS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR FISHERIES, U.S. FISH AND 

WILDLIFE SIRVICS, BIFORI THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RISOURCIS, 

SUBCOKMITTBI OIi NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS, CONCIRNINC WATERSHED AND 

FISH HABITAT DBCRADATION IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST 

MARCH 11, 1993. 

Good morning Kr. Chairman and member• of the Subc011111ittaa. I am Cary 

Edward•, the Aaaistant Director for Fisheries. I am presenting thi• 

overview ta•timony on behalf of the Director of the Fi• h and Wildlife 

Service. 

Before I begin my te•timony I want to make two vary important point•• · 

Fir•t, a tremendoua variety of fish and wildlife • paciea are dependent on 

Pacific Northweat watersheds. The specific focua of my comment• today, 

however, will be on how watershed degradation affects salmon and staelhead 

trout populations. Second, land management is but one category of the 

several factors that may have caused the decline of salmon and steelhaad 

trout populations in the Pacific Northwest. Irrigation, hydroelectric 

dams, and overharvasting have also contributed synergiatically with land 

management to reduce the carrying capacity for • almonid• in the Pacific 

Northwe•t. For example, dams have made inaccea• ibla to fi• h approximately 

one-third of the historic habitat in the Pacific Northweat. Sometime• even 

our efforts to restore fish populations have had unintended negative 

impacts. No one can • ay with certainty the direct level of contribution to 

• almonid decline of any of these impact• • For purpose• of thia hearing, 

however, we have been aaked to focu• on the aapect of forest management and 

its relationahip to aalmon in the Pacific Northwest. 

Pacific salmon and ateelhead trout are wall-auited to thrive in moat river 

baaina of Alaaka, Britiah Columbia, Waahington, Idaho, Oregon, and Northern 

California. Each ecoaystem component within a watarahad, from ridgetop to 

sea, play• an integral role in the production of these atocka of fi• h. 

Unfortunately, watarahada have not bean managed aa ecoayatema. Cumulative 
60 

impact• to water• hed• have gone unmeasured and unchecked a• many of the 

multiple juri• diction• overseeing public and private land aanagement have 

taken parochial approache• to managing pieces of the whole. We mu• t begi.n 

to view watershed• a• entire interdependent unit•, aa the fi• h do, and 

focua on problem • olving using integrated resource management. Thi• means 

involving federal and state agencies, Tribes, and beneficiaries of our 

natural resources such as loggers, fishermen, farmers, rafters, and miners. 

It can be argued that the moat important terrestrial habitat type 

contributing to •salmon and steelhead" habitat is coniferous forest. 

Steelhead trout and all 5 species of salmon use streams flowing through 

forested areas for spawning, rearing, and adult holding purposes. Thus, 

the maintenance of healthy forests is an integral element in the proper 

management of salmon and ateelhead trout. 

Prior to the latter half of the nineteenth century, the forest communities 

of the Pacific Northwest were in a state of dynamic equilibrium. Natural 

events such as fires, landslides, and erosion have often been important 

processes in the forest ecosystem. When these natural processes are 

disrupted, or artificially accelerated, such as occurs during and after 

poorly managed logging operations, fish habitat is generally impacted and 

fish production generally decreases. 

Timber harvest operations have created deviations from the normal 

functioning of forest ecosystems. Logging activities such as the 

construction of roads and skid trails, and not the actual cutting of 

timber, are most responsible for increasing the sediment load into 

receiving atreama. Often those streams are unable to assimilate this 

increased sediment load. The result i • that stream habitat quality and 

quantity has decreased, at least from the salmon and ateelhead perspective, 

contributing to the decline in salmon and steelhead production in the 

Pacific Northwest. 

2 
61 

In • ome area• , timber harvest ha• necessitated the building of thousands of 

mil•• of unpaved roada. High level• of sediment loading into watershed 

atreams have resulted from improperly constructed cuta, filla, and crosa 

drainage structures related to road building and maintenance. Even when 

atate-of-the-art procedures were used, road construction in steep terrain 

has scarred watersheds, increasing sediment loading into streams for many 

years. 

Sedimentation has impacted salmon and steelhead trout by creating a chain 

reaction of ecological changes. Deep pools that provided cool refuges for 

fish have been partially or totally filled, eli minating critical prespawning and over-summering habitat. Spawning riffles have been choked 

with fine sediment that has prevented spawning, killed eggs and prevented 

newly hatched juvenile fish from emerging into the water column . Sediment 

clogged riffles have reduced or eliminated production of aquatic insects 

that are an important component of the diet of salmon and steelhead. 

Inappropriate timber harvest practices can change the runoff pattern in 

aome watersheds, creating higher flood flows and lower summer base flows. 

Higher peak flows have changed the natural channel morphology (typically 

widening and incising the channel), creating severe overwintering stress on 

juvenile fish. At the other end of the hydrograph, reduced summer low 

flows in the modified channel are not adequate to maintain fish habitat 

during what is typically the bottleneck lifestage . 

Streamside vegetation has too often been cleared during logging or grazing 

operations, reducing stream shading, increasing water temperatures to 

undesirable levela which in turn have caused dissolved oxygen levels to 

decline. In addition, the natural long-term recruitment of large trees and 

root wads into a stream has been curtailed. During the past 20 years, 

aalmonid biologists have become aware that this "large organic debris," in 

appropriate amounts, is one of the most important determinants of fish 

3 
62 

carrying capacity in a stream a• it produce• pool• and meanders, provides 

cover for fi• h, and • arve a • an important medium for the production of 

aquatic insect• that are fad upon by • almonida. 

The impact• of logging, grazing, mining, irrigation, hydropowar production, 

and urbanization on fiah habitat and fiah production can be minimized by 

using method• auch aa helicopter logging, placing roada on ridgetopa, 

out• loping road surfaces, installing and maintaining oversized culverts 

that prevent road washouts, maintaining undisturbed streamaida buffer 

strips, trapping and treating mine tailing runoff, and maintaining flows. 

Many of these methods are "low-tech" and relatively inexpensive. 

The sciences of hydrology, hydraulics, and fishery biology have recently 

been applied together to produce fresh insights that flow maintenance ia 

something much more than just providing a base minimum flow in a stream. 

In the Trinity River in northern California, the Service is conducting 

long-term investigations and evaluations of year-round flow patterns that 

mimic the natural hydrology. Those studies and others conclusively • how 

that a productive stream ecosystem requires high spring flow• to transport 

sediment, to clean spawning gravela, and to re-scour important aide 

channel• -- to create the fish rearing, spawning, and migration habitat 

needed throughout the year. But the moat instructive message gleaned from 

such studies ia that maintenance of fiah production must begin with a 

multi-disciplinary approach to manage entire watersheds. Even unrestricted 

natural flows cannot keep up with the sediment and other water quality 

degradation that occurs as a result of piecemeal, single disciplinary 

oversight of land management practices. 

The U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management have made 

progress in their timber harvest, grazing, and mining operations under 

multi-purpose management concepts, compared to ·the single-purpose scheme 

that prevailed in the earlier part of this century. However, even when the 

4 
63 

"beat management practice•• are incorporated into land management 

operation•, fi• h habitat continue• to be impacted in eteady incremental 

steps. Private timber harvest, grazing, and farming have typically not 

been conducted from a multi-purpose perspective and thus continue to impact 

fi•h habitat at an alarming rate. The bottom line i • that we may be able 

to lessen the fishery impacts of land management practices on public lands 

but we will not protect· fish habitat unlea• ws begin to view and manage 

watersheds as ecosystems. 

The Service is involved in multiple jurisdiction waterehed restoration 

programs in the Klamath and Trinity river basins in California, and the 

Chehalis and Elwha river basins in Washington. These and other cooperative 

river basin restoration initiatives are helping to correct the effects of 

past land management practices and to focus attention on the need to 

responsibly manage land and water resources as the first line of defense. 

What makes these programs effective? Recognition among all private and 

public entities that all parties have a stake in what others are doing 

throughout a given watershed, and agreement among all parties to seek 

conaensue eolutiona to protecting and restoring the watershed for the 

benefit of all and because of the presence of Federal leadership that 

transcends jurisdictional interests. 

After leaving the • pawning and rearing habitat in the upper portion• of 

watersheds, fish must then navigate through or around dam•, through manmade reservoir•, pa•t thriving population• of exotic predator•, and paet 

nets and fieh hook•• No Bingle challenge to salmon and •teelhead survival 

can be viewed a• ~ •straw that broke the camel's back." They all must be 

viewed as a whole or we will begin to see the extinction of stock• 

beginning with upriver populations such a• the Snake River aockeye, 

currently li•ted a• endangered, and the Sacraniento River winter run 

chinook, currently listed as threatened. 

5 
64 

COlwnbia River salmon and • teelhead • tock• have declined to le•• than 10 

percent of historic level•• Mora than half of the fish currently returning 

to the Columbi, River are of hatchery origin. Salmon and • teelhead trout 

production in northern California has declined from 10 million adult fish 

.to fewer than 2 million. In addition, all major coastal and Puget sound 

stocks have declined by 10 to 95 percent. Logging, grazing, and mining on 

public and private lands have played a historical role in creating each of 

these resource crises. 

Kr. Chairman, the Service and other resource management agencies are not 

advocating the cessation of logging, grazing, or mining in t he Pacific 

Northwest. We are strong fish and wildlife advocates by mandate, but we 

also recognize the need to create a balance in the management of this 

Nation's natural resources. We all know of proven methods to minimize and 

mitigate many land management impacts to salmon and eteelhead populations. 

We all are helping to develop new mitigation and compensation methods. And 

we all know that in some cases, the beet management practice is to simply 

preserve natural habitat conditions. But the key is to start managing 

entire watersheds through cooperative partnerships so that undocumented 

cumulative impacts do not finally show up with the extinction of a fish 

stock. 

It'e time to atop viewing watersheds as short term source• of revenue. 

Logging, mining and grazing can continue to produce societal benefits on a 

long-term basis using environmentally sensitive methods. But we must also 

develop and implement management goals that recognize that fishing, 

hunting, and other forms of recreation are legitimate and • ignificant 

revenue and job generator•• Finally, We need to retain or re• tore the 

ecological functions of watersheds that can provide million• of dollars 

worth of bena!its related to flood protection, water quality protection, 

and groundwater recharge. 

6 
65 

In the paat, coal miner• didn't wait to become •ick before checking for a 

carbon monoxide problem; they uaed canaries a• advance indicator• and then 

took action. Salmon and ateelhead are economically and ae• thetically 

valuable in their own right, but they are al• o our canarie• telling ua to 

take action to protect the ecological and cultural integrity of the Pacific 

Northwest. 

Thi• concludes my formal testimony. I would be happy to answer any 

questions you may have . 

7 
66 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Leonard, in most recent years, the Forest Service and the BLM, and this is a question in turn to Mr. Penfold, has 

basically been required to adjust its land management plans for endangered species or for listed or threatened species. 

What has the impact of that been, for instance, on forest plans 

as they affect watersheds, for instance? I know under the habitat 

conservation area plan by Dr. Thomas, that was really focused on 

the owl. What has been the effect of that on these other types of 

species that are either-we are talking about prelisting activities 

here mostly. Everyone is talking about that today. Mr. LEONARD. Certainly, as a result of the northern spotted owl 

measures, progressively increasing measures to protect the owl, we 

have reduced the level of activities on those forests, particularly 

timber harvesting. And so to the extent there is an impact that is 

directly associated with timber harvesting, there has been a major 

reduction in the impacts over the last several years. 

While the harvest levels have been held up a little bit by the volumes of timber under contract, they have dropped substantially 

and so the impacts have been less. 

Now, because we have an evolving process to look at what we 

need to do for the owl, and now we are looking at the murrelet and 

moving very much towards an ecosystem approach, our forest plans 

have not kept up with that process. It doesn't make sense to revise 

a plan with a--

Mr. VENTO. Let me interrupt. I guess the point is how much correlation is there? You have started on the owl, now you are on the 

murrelet. You have these, I guess they are also indicator species 

or keystone species, as they say. But I mean the effect has beenthere is an absolute correlation, in other words. 

Mr. LEONARD. Yes. Mr. VENTO. There is not or thereMr. LEONARD. There is a direct correlation between the level of 

activities we are carrying on out there and the areas of land that 

we set aside to meet the requirements of various species. Mr. VENTO. Mr. Penfold. 

Mr. PENFOLD. I absolutely agree with that. It requires more mitigation measures on grazing activities, reduced timber harvest, 

much stronger mitigation measures relative to timber harvest and 

it causes most of our plans that are not based on an ecosystem approach to be out of date. 

Mr. VENTO. Of the other agencies, Mr. Edwards and Dr. Tillman, 

NOAA and Fish and Wildlife Service have been involved in these 

new planned developments, then, with an eye towards an ecosystem approach or have they specifically, by law, been limited in 

a sense? Especially Mr. Edwards, to the owl or to the murrelet. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that in 

many of those, the Service has been involved in the planning process. I can't give you specifics, but I don't feel that we have been 

excluded from the process. 

Mr. LEONARD. Mr. Chairman, if I could add? 

Mr. VENTO. Certainly. Mr. LEONARD. Congressman Dicks reflected his conversations 

with the President and Vice President and his assurance that there 
67 

was going to be a coordination between the agencies in addressing 

the problems of the Northwest. Looking at it from the perspective of somebody in the agencies, 

it is clear that those coordinating mechanisms are in place and 

that we have teams working across made up of representatives 

from Forest Service, BLM, Fish and Wildlife Service being assembled and at work right now both to plan for the Forestry Conference and the follow-up activities. 

So there is the mechanism being in place to coordinate the activities of certainly the Federal agencies. Mr. VENTO. Dr. Tillman, do you want to comment on that question? 

Dr. TILLMAN. It is true the mechanisms are in place that we 

could do this. In our case, the actions are being handled by our 

Northwest Regional Office, and I am aware ther_e have been staff 

contacts with regard to these things. 

Mr. VENTO. At the 1991 salmon conference, or summit, that I 

think Senator Hatfield organized, the Forest Service committed to 

updating its allotment, its grazing allotment plans to protect salmon from livestock. 

I have here a letter from Regional Forester John Lowe saying the 

Forest Service is backing off from this commitment. Mr. Leonard, can you respond to Mr. Lowe's concern about the 

grazing update? 

Mr. LEONARD. Yes, we recognize the absolute need to get on with 

updating those allotment management plans. However, subsequent 

to the salmon summit, we had the listing of a number of species 

of salmon, and in order to maintain ongoing operations, we have 

had to consult with the National Marine Fishenes Service over literally thousands of ongoing activities. 

We simply had to pull some of our fisheries' biologists and wildlife biologists off of the allotment management plans to keep these 

ongoing programs going. What we have been successful in doing, though, is increasing the ground oversight of grazing activities, so 

that we are, we think that we are making some progress in ensuring that the people are, permittees are managing their wildlife on 

the Federal ranges in an appropriate manner. 

But we absolutely have to get on with that job of getting our allotment management plans in line with the forest plans, but also 

with our current understanding of the requirements that we need 

for fisheries, which are going beyond where weMr. VENTO. Obviously, new requirements would also be involved 

for any type of harvest, I guess. But one of the points is, the gang 

of four that had developed the various recommendations at the behest of the House congressional committees, the three Chairmen of 

Agriculture, Interior and Merchant Marine, they suggested that no 

roads should be built in roadless areas and key watersheds. 

Do the scientists that you have with you today, have they examined that and would they comment on this recommendation from 

the gang of four? 

Mr. LEONARD. I think they have more than examined it. They 

were the participants who made those recommendations. 

Mr. VENTO. Okay. So they are making the recommendations and 

now we just have to get the Forest Service to follow it, I guess. 
68 

Dr. Sedell. 

Dr. SEDELL. The gang of four recommendations for watershed 

and fish were basically an attempt to tie that fish part, at congressional direction, into a solution to old growth jobs and owls. So it 

required a widening of buffer strips. 

We recommended minimizing disturbance by extended rotations 

in watersheds, key watersheds, that were identified. 

Mr. VENTO. One-hundred-and-eighty-year rotations; is that right? 

Dr. SEDELL. Right. And no new roads in roadless areas. That 

strategy was then more and more protection was added by layering 

on old growth reserves. 

Under the strategy that we are working up through our Pacific 

fisheries management, habitat management strategy within the 

Forest Service, that option is one of the options being considered 

in terms of the eight that we are examining. 

And the approach we are taking is more from a watershed processes and functions point of view, again looking at the big gang of 

four as one of those options. But we would be looking at trying to 

maintain watershed processes and functions, primarily maintaining 

those kinds of processes and events that shape and maintain habitat in the long-term. 

We have truncated a lot of those with roads, or we have accelerated the scour or we have cleaned up and whatnot. And so it is 

taken from how fish habitat is created and maintained and then 

managing in accordance with that. 

Mr. VENTO. So you obviously--

Dr. SEDELL. We would be very sensitive to the key watersheds 

and, obviously, you would have to know a lot about, through watershed analysis, your roadless areas. 

Mr. VENTO. You agree with that, Mr. Williams? You are obviously familiar with that, too. 

I am sorry I am not familiar with your work in these areas, Dr. 

Sedell. 

Mr. Williams. Comment? The question was the recommendations 

for the gang of four. Do you want to add anything to what Dr. 

Sedell had commented concerning no roads in watershed areas specifically and roadless watershed areas? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I don't think I really have anything to add. Our 

western Oregon draft RMPs we currently have, I think, deal with 

some road closure areas. We are not as large a player in the 137 

key watersheds as the Forest Service. 

Mr. VENTO. You have some different problems in terms of partnership, as Mr. Penfold pointed out? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Very fragmented land management. 

Mr. VENTO. Let me {ield to my colleague from Utah. He still 

hasn't moved to Idaho, guess. It is on his mind, though. 

Mr. HANSEN. Only during the salmon run when I am fishing. 

Mr. Edwards, I really appreciated your testimony, and on page 

6, where you talked about the idea of a balance, it made a lot of 

sense to you. I think that is probably one of the best statements 

I have heard, when you said the Service and other resource management agencies are not advocating the cessation of logging, grazing, or mining in the Pacific Northwest. We are strong fish and 

wildlife advocates and, by mandate, but we also recognize the need 
69 

to create a balance in the management of this Nation's natural resources. 

I honestly think that hits it right on the head. The question is 

always, like beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder, and what constitutes balance, as we hear from people here, a lot of people feel 

their own particular thing on either side of the spectrum may be 

the balance. 

Here is the question I really want to address: I think Norm Dicks 

gave an outstanding statement this morning when he was talking 

about some of the ways that he looked at what was going to happen in the Northwest. And then as we got into the conversation following that, he made a point about the idea that he felt that we 

should not list one by one on the Endangered Species Act, as has 

been the pattern, but that we should go to a more ecosystem approach, where each State should participate in what they think is 

right. 

I pointed out to him that would cause a change in the particular 

act as it now is, if we were going to go to that and, in fact, a rather 

dramatic change in it. What would be your comment on that? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Hansen, I am certainly not an expert on the Endangered Species Act, but I guess I 

would agree with the statement that we need to take a broader approach. I do think there are some provisions under the act, under 

habitat conservation plans that does allow us to take a look at this 

from an ecosystem approach. And I think in the State of California, 

for example, I think there are places where that has been implemented. 

Other than that, I am not sure that I can really address your 

question. 

Mr. HANSEN. Does it make sense to you? Do you find yourself in 

a position where a certain endangered species is listed and then 

the heartache that goes along with that-I imagine from your department you see it more than probably the other folks do-the 

desert tortoise in Southern California, the red squirrel in California, the squawfish in Colorado, on down the line, the spotted owl 

up in the Northwest. 

Immediately, the media is full of things. We have lost 300,000 

jobs, or we are going to-the price of homes are going up and all 

that sort of thing. Doesn't it seem to you we are creating a lot of 

problems? And maybe Norm Dicks' idea would be a better idea, to 

maybe see how to examine it and how it affects the entire particular area? 

Mr. EDWARDS. I think at times the Endangered Species Act has 

been compared to an Intensive Care Unit, where we bring the patient when he is on his dying last gasp. And I think we all know 

that not only is that an expensive proposition, but also it is frustrating to the people involved with the patient on either side of the 

House. 

I think the trick is, as you and Mr. Dicks have said, we need to 

take a proactive approach. We need to get in front of these issues 

and address them now in some kind of cooperative partnership approach so we don't have the patient there. 

We have heard a lot in the last couple of weeks about national 

health care, and the idea, I think, is preventive medicine, and that 
70 

is what we need to be looking at when it comes to these species, 

and particularly our fisheries species. We need to take action now. 

But we also have to recognize, in the case of fisheries, many of 

these fisheries are very valuable, both socially and economically, to 

this Nation. 

Sometimes I get disturbed that we seem to think when we pro- vide water for fish that somehow the fish are going to use the 

water and, therefore, it can't provide other benefits. But certainly 

the fish themselves provide an awful lot of values. 

I would refer to California. If we would just carry out our current 

plan, that the State developed to try to increase salmon levels by 

just 50 percent of recent levels, not even historical levels, that is 

worth some $190 million annually to the economy of the State. If 

we could get salmon and steelhead back in some of these little communities, the potential there for economic growth for those communities would be tremendous. 

So I think we have to look at all of that when we look at our 

balanced approach. But the key is, as you have said, and certainly 

as Mr. Dicks said, we have to try to get out in front and take a 

proactice approach. 

Mr. HANSEN. But we don't take the intensive care patient and 

put him all over the city; we put him just in the hospital. We don't 

make him affect the rest of the city and bog down our transportation and everything else we do. 

I appreciate your comments. 

Mr. Penfold, would you like to respond to the same question I 

asked Mr. Edwards? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Well, let me say, first, we are going to follow the 

law in BLM. Second, we are working very aggressively on how you implement ecosystem management. My personal feeling is that 

that is the road we need to go on, and we understand the concepts 

of it. But between ourselves and government and the private sector, we are not doing a good job of that right now. 

That is what we must do. We need the help of Congress and the 

private sector and cooperation amongst government agencies to 

make this happen, but that is the road we need to get on as 

promptly as we can. 

Mr. HANSEN. Is there any private interpretation of the law? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Pardon? 

Mr. HANSEN. Is there any private interpretation of the law that 

you are going to follow? 

Mr. PENFOLD. I am sorry, I don't understand. 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, laws come out and we have courts that adjudicate how the law is to be interpreted. I have heard four conflicts 

here this morning on the same law. I wonder which one you are 

going to follow. Mr. PENFOLD. Let me say thatMr. HANSEN. I don't mean to be facetious. I am just saying I see 

different organizations-- Mr. PENFOLD. We will put the best program forward. We are 

going to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National 

Marine Fisheries Service, relative to our programs and as they affect fish, and we are going to make adjustments to those programs 

as the law requires us to do. 
71 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. I appreciate that. I wasn't trying to pin 

you down. I was just saying I sometimes look at different agencies, 

in the way they interpret the law, and it is sometimes different 

than the way it was written. 

In the States' legislative bodies they have something called the 

legislative intent. And when I was Speaker of the Utah House, I 

got so tired of being sued. I was sued every day because that is who 

you sue on a law. We would go over there and the court would say, 

what did you intend, because it is being interpreted differently by 

the regulatory agency. 

Around here, we do report language, which is supposed to say 

this is what we mean by this. It probably is pretty meaninglessI don't mean that the way it was said-but whenever I hear someone say I will follow the law, I can understand that. But beyond 

that, I get a little confused about the way you folks interpret it. 

Mr. PENFOLD. And I have to admit we have had some people 

challenge us on how we have interpreted the law, too. 

Mr. HANSEN. Sure. 

Mr. Leonard, would you like to respond to my comment? I asked 

Mr. Edwards about the comment of what Congressman Dicks said 

before he left about the ecosystem rather than the listing one by 

one. 

Mr. LEONARD. We think definitely the only way to successfully 

maintain species is to deal with them on an ecosystem basis. In 

fact, if you look at the preamble of the Endangered Species Act, the 

authors felt that same way, too. It is when you get into the details 

of the thing you begin to get away from that general concept and 

get into the species-by-species, I think. That is the only way you 

can deal with most of these species. 

And, in particular, the ones that we have been talking about 

here recently-the marbled murrelet, owls and things-those simply are a function of the health of the entire ecosystem and the 

structures that are there. 

You have some other situations, for example, down in the San 

Bernardino Mountains, near your district, Mr. Calvert, where we 

have got some plants that grow almost exclusively at that point on 

limestone formations. And those limestone formations are mining 

claims being developed because they are a particular type of limestone. 

Well, you get away from an ecosystem question there when you 

get to a species, particularly a plant that has just a narrow requirement, that it is found on one side of one mountain in one location. 

So I think we are still going to have some situations like that, but 

of the species that have been of interest and the ones that truly 

impact the economies of the area, there I think you truly do have 

to deal with it on an ecosystems basis. 

Mr. HANSEN. The statements made by the three of you are very 

progressive and you make an awful lot of sense. I hope I can quote 

all three of you when we do the reauthorization of the act. 

Mr. VENTO. New category of endangered ecosystems. Hansen will 

propose. 

Mr. HANSEN. I don't want to do away with these things. They are 

all part and parcel of the things we do and I would compliment you 
72 

on the great work you do, but the extreme application of these 

things is what worries some of us. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have another committee to run to. 

Mr. VENTO. I will have another round here, but I know, Mr. Hansen and Mr. Calvert, I expect we may have a vote. 

Mr. HANSEN. I expect we will, too. Thank you. I appreciate the 

opportunity to respond. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Jim. 

Mr. Calvert. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Certainly, the Endangered Species Act, while we are on this subject, is of great importance in California, since I believe we have 

more endangered species than any other State and have more species that are on the threatened list and coming up toward the endangered category. 

AB some of you may be aware, our area was one of the first areas 

to get involved in species habitat formation and getting into 

multispecies habitat planning. It has been very difficult working 

with various Federal agencies. I believe the interpretation of the 

law does not allow us to do that at the present time . . Going to my question. We have noticed that, for instance, in one 

particular species in our area, the population of the Stevens kangaroo rat has spiked significantly in the last couple of years because of the drought that has, happily, come to an end in California. 

Do you perceive that this drought was a major affect on the 

salmon population in the Pacific Northwest, and do you believe 

that the population in the short-run will significantly increase because of the drought ending? 

I would, I guess, direct that question to Dr. Tillman. 

Dr. TILLMAN. Yes, there is no doubt the drought was a significant 

factor in the listing of the various salmon species. AB far as the 

time frame, we are still reaping the benefits of that problem because of the other four- or five-year life cycle. So we won't be able 

to see any improvements that may come because of the end of the 

drought for another three, four, or five years. 

Mr. CALVERT. I guess the question would be, as I was looking 

through testimony on population, historic population on salmon 

over the years, I looked back 100 years ago and saw the salmon 

run was approximately 14,000,000. It has dropped to 2.5 million. 

The historic trend on salmon populations after periods of 

drought, what would be the typical drop in population of salmon 

after a long period of drought? 

Dr. TILLMAN. I am not aware of any information that would give 

you that figure. All I can say is there have been previous droughts 

in the history, recent history. In the 1950s there were droughts, 

and there was recovery of some small magnitude after that. But 

nonetheless, the downward trends continued through time to where 

we are now. 

Mr. CALVERT. The other question on predatory fish, and I guess 

I am getting to the nub of the issue, which would be in relationship 

to various industries, and I think we all agree we need to do a better job in managing our timber industry and our mining and grazing activities in the Pacific Northwest. But the drought and the ad-
73 

vent of predatory fish into the Pacific Northwest, has this had more 

of an effect on the populations than in other areas? · Dr. TILLMAN. It is a factor in some of these rivers which have 

dams on them. It is clear predators are feeding on the downstream 

migrants of salmon and steelhead trout, but that is only one of the 

factors. I wouldn't exactly consider it a major factor. These other 

factors, the four H's, as we call them, are the primary problem 

areas. 

Mr. CALVERT. And you believe that those are the significant 

problems that have more importance than the drought and of the 

predatory fish, and even the advent of the species, especially mammal marine species, whose populations have managed to increase 

dramatically over the last several years? 

Dr. TILLMAN. Right. Looking at all of these river systems, over 

the long haul, the long-term, the major factors are those four, the 

hatcheries, the habitat degradation, the hydropower developments, 

and so on. The drought is an act of God, if you will, that has come along 

and exacerbated the effects of these other factors. It is not the 

major effect. It has had an impact, yes, but over the long trend of 

these stocks, it is these other factors which have been the most important ones. 

Mr. CALVERT. Do you think it would be helpful-you mentioned 

apparently there has not been any study to look at the drop of populations, of the salmon population, if there is any way to do this 

over recent history-I know you couldn't in the past-to look at the 

drop of population of salmon after a period of drought to see what 

the percentage drop in populations would be? 

Dr. TILLMAN. I am sure there is information available on that, 

on what recoveries were experienced after drought periods. I have 

not reviewed that myself. Mr. Iadanza is with me. Perhaps he knows something about that. 

Mr. VENTO. Would you give your name for the record, please? 

Mr. IADANZA. Yes, my name is Nicholas ladanza, Chief of the 

Habitat Conservation Branch out of Portland. I can take a stab at 

your question. There have been some pretty significant drought occurrences in 

the Pacific Northwest over the past couple of years. 1972 was a 

pretty bad year as was 1977. We did see some drop in population 

then. But since you have multiple year classes of fish, there is usually some compensating mechanism there. And there have been 

fluctuations up and down. But I think in general, over the past 30 

years, there has been a declining trend regardless of the fact 

whether there have been drought years and then good water years. 

There are compensatory mechanisms that occur at times of 

drought. Sometimes you have fewer fish coming down, making it 

down the river because of drought; you have the rearing habitat 

which has been limited; the spawning habitat has been limited, but 

there is potential for more juveniles to survive when they come to 

the estuary. 

So I think the basic response to your comment is the fact that 

even though there have been droughts and there are fluctuations 

in populations, the historic trend is showing there is a downward 

trend in salmon populations. 
74 

Mr. CALVERT. The point I think I am attempting to make is that 

certainly certain commercial interests, the mining interests, the 

timber interests, the grazing activities that take place have had an 

effect. I think we know that from the testimony. But also the 

drought has had a significant effect, I believe, in the populations 

of salmon, and also predatory fish and the advent of marine mammals, which have had a dramatic increase in population over the 

past several years. 

And so when we move forward on this, I would hope that we are 

not too anxious to recognize the importance of the other interests 

that are involved in the Pacific Northwest. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Mr. VENTO. You still have time. I was going to say, sometimes 

ecologists have referred to the factor that is key, in terms of a population, as a limiting factor, and they look at that as being a 

threshold issue, and that there are certain background events-environment-that are within the range of weather and phenomenon. 

Clearly, in this case, I think the issue of having 100 years of documentation is difficult. In fact, I think I will probably suggest they 

would need a lot more money if we are going to document and keep 

all the data records. But I think looking at the question Mr. Calvert asks, is really a question I anticipated in trying to bring out 

the fact there is not enough research, and there is not the 100 

years of information we probably, or 200 years of information, we 

would like on salmon populations, so we have to operate on the information we have. And, hopefully, we will come to a policy that 

has balance in that sense. 

But I think the key here is that if the scientists here, or others, 

could just state for us what the limiting factors are with regard to 

salmon populations that are key, and if it is weather, if it is 

drought, you know, and so forth, then I think we have to know. If 

it is predatory species, if it is the temperatures of the streams due 

to low water flow and so forth, and/or to the surrounding, the lack 

of benthic organisms, the midges, the mayflies, and so forth, the 

cad dis flies and things they feed on. 

So I think we have to know that in order to be able to have a 

halfway intelligent policy-the best folicy-in terms of law. 

Mr. LEONARD. Mr. Chairman, if could, Dr. Sedell, pointed out 

to me that the nature of the degradation on some of the streams 

on the public lands probably has made these streams more vulnerable to the drought circumstances. Because as the comparison of 

the measurements made in the 1930s and 1940s to recent measures have shown the pools are fewer and they are smaller and they 

are shallower. 

And so that when you have less flow through them during a 

drought period, the tendency to warm up and go past critical temperatures is going to be greater. So that as you have had this degradation, your ability to withstand the normal cycle of droughts 

has been reduced. 

Mr. VENTO. Other limiting factors? I guess Dr. Tillman wants a 

chance to make a comment. 

Mr. TILLMAN. Yes, sir, just to respond to one point about the impact of the drought. I want to raise the fact that the American 

Fisheries Society was very concerned about the plight of these 
75 

stocks in the Pacific Northwest and all along the West Coast, indeed well before there was a drought. 

In the 1970s and early 1980s, they were very much on the backs 

of the National Marine Fisheries Service to try to do something 

about that. In fact, it is my understanding that the Congress reacted and passed the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning 

and Conservation Act in 1980 to try to address some of these concerns, and the goal of that act was to try to prevent us from getting 

to the state where we had to list some of these endangered species, and the _problem is that for whatever reasons, we failed to do that. 

So as Mr. Dicks said this morning, there is no sense finger pointing but rather to look at how do we arrive at solutions. And certainly we would agree that looking at things on a watershed basis 

and ecosystem basis is an appropriate way to go to solve these 

problems and prevent us from having to put more species on the 

endangered species list. _ Mr. VENTO. Well, I am making an assumption that the reason 

you are all talking about habitat and land management is we 

asked you to talk about that, but also there is a presumption that 

this is an essential limiting factor; that the land management practices-yes, Mr. Edwards. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, as I said in my opening statement, 

I don't think there really is a silver bullet. I think it varies from 

what part of the ecosystem you are talking about. 

Certainly on the Columbia River, where you have four dams on 

the Snake River that are taking 15 percent of the Salmon smolts 

at each dam, or the Grand Coulee Dam, which has eliminated forever thousands of miles of habitats, one could argue that fish passage and dams have more impact, and then these other things have 

added to it as we get into some of our coastal stocks where hydroelectric does play a bigger factor, but other things such as land 

management practices and all play a factor in that. 

But I don't think we can sit back and specifically identify any 

one thing. It has been a cumulative effect. You have to look at each 

of these systems entirely from a holistic approach if you are going 

to apply your problem solving process to try to address the issue. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I might as well hit a home run on my limiting 

factor question. Mr. Williams. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add, if I could, that 

it is an important point to recall that as the health of these systems, both as the health of the particular stocks and the health of 

the watersheds decline, that they do become more vulnerable to 

these types of droughts and floods and El Nino events and lose 

their resiliency. 

So, for example, as to the winter run chinook salmon in the Sacramento River, the effects of the drought on that population, which 

recently crashed to near just a couple of thousand spawning adults, 

may indeed have been sort of the straw that broke the camel's back 

as compared to the historic ability of that run to have a much higher resiliency and be much less impacted by droughts and floods and 

these sorts of things. 

Mr. CALVERT. Again, I would state that I understand that there 

is some excesses that need to be corrected, but on the other hand, 

there are other factors beyond the mining industry, the timber in-
76 

dustry, and grazing industry that we seemed to spend a lot of our 

time on this morning versus the drought and versus predatory species and marine mammals that are feeding on the various endangered species, that there are other factors. I hope in the quest to find an equitable solution, we don't sacrifice on the alter of the Endangered Species Act very important industries in the Pacific Northwest. 

Mr. VENTO. No, I think the concern is that the normal environment is not something we can legislate on but we can legislate on 

the other issues that impact. 

We have to vote. We will be back for further questions of this 

panel in a moment. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. VENTO. The committee will try and resume its sitting. I 

know that it is a small room, and I appreciate the cooperation and 

apologize for any inconvenience. But we do want to maintain order. 

One of the problems is in terms of the agreements that you 

made, or commitments, at the Salmon Summit. And did BLM make 

similar commitments, Mr. Penfold? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Yes, we did. And as I stated in our testimony, we 

are committed to making those commitments and adjustments in 

our grazing plans. We have had a temporary impact of the consultation process in preparing the documents and getting our information together for consultation. 

Mr. VENTO. I guess the bottom line in terms of land management 

changes, you know, putting aside the other factors, I guess one of 

the predators could be math, I guess, they are talking about seals, 

I gather. But the point is that you think that these actions, in 

terms of new requirements and grazing permits, are relevant to the 

maintenance of the salmonid populations and to get out front of the 

listing of these species. 

Mr. PENFOLD. Very relevant. Mr. VENTO. I think that's the key. If we enter an area, I suppose, 

of public policy, that someone were to suggest that, you know, 

there is a questionable validity in terms of these particular actions 

to maintaining these hundreds of populations of salmonid that 

could be listed, then we should be more concerned; but insofar as 

the actions are relevant. And of course it does follow that many of these deal with mining. 

I think that all of us understand the deterioration of siltation, the 

loss of habitat. And I guess there is a new understanding about the 

dynamics of these salmon streams and steelhead streams in terms 

of what needs to be and how they need to be maintained. 

I note, you pointed out in your testimony, most of the witnesses, 

the tremendous resiliency of the species to put up with a certain 

amounts of adversities or stress. But when you exceed that stressand it is being exceeded-that these species are under stress. And 

then when you have something like an additional loss of water, 

then it carries over into the loss of the species; is that correct, Dr. 

Sedell? 

Dr. SEDELL. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. I didn't hear anyone use that word, "stress." 

Dr. SEDELL. I wouldn't have necessarily used that, but yes, there 

is no question that through a whole combination of factors, hatch-
77 

eries, hydro, and harvest combined with habitats, species just don't 

have the resilience to weather big extremes that we know we are 

going to hit: floods, droughts, volcanoes, or forest fires. All of those 

disturbances, events, are going to go on. And we have been managing for that kind of instance that we cannot predict. 

Mr. VENTO. We cannot legislate it away, either. Although some 

may suggest we can. So we really face a sort of a changed menu 

of what the reactions or actions are, for instance, with the grazing 

permits and new requirements for watershed protection. It may 

make it uneconomic. We understand that. It may make it uneconomic. But I hope that is not the case for the permitting to function. 

And we especially have, of course, an opportunity this year dealing with that matter in terms of the administration's recommendation for modification of the fees and hopefully being able to put a 

positive orientation on that in terms of what steps could be taken 

and what steps are taken in terms of crediting permitees for reduced fee on the basis of that activity, I might add to those on the 

panel and present today. One of the other aspects, of course, is road building. We talk 

about different kinds of harvest of timber, but this is very critical 

because road building or surfacing may, in fact, result in the timber sale, in a sense, if it is a cost to the Forest Service in the terms 

of increasing or enhancing that road as being a deficit timber sale, 

which trips over to some other problems. 

Mr. Leonard or Mr. Penfold, can you talk to the costs associated 

with that and the importance? We are not just talking here about 

not necessarily building new roads, but going back and maintaining existing roads as well. 

Mr. LEONARD. I will start and say that, you know, in a sense, the 

cost is irrelevant in that we are not going to build roads unless we 

feel that we can meet the requirements of good stewardship to the 

land. 

Now, our perception of what that is has changed substantially 

over time, and our standards for surfacing, for culverts, and all 

have evolved as our understanding has changed. 

The real problem that we, frankly, have as our timber harvests 

have dropped and we have major parts of the road system which 

will only have minor timber harvesting or no timber harvesting in 

the long-term, our abilities to utilize the timber values through appraisal adjustments and what not, to get maintenance of those road 

systems is declining very rapidly; and we are not getting other alternative ways to do those. So we have got a big road system without the capability of maintaining it to the standards that we need 

to be sure that culverts don't fail; that surfacing is maintained adequately. So we have a major problem with the existing road system out 

there. 

Mr. PENFOLD. Just briefly, this is same situation we face with 

our checkerboard pattern out there. Most of the areas that we manage are eroded. Where we need new roads we have learned from 

mistakes of the past how to do that and design them so that the 

stream zones and watersheds are protected. The challenge that we 
78 

have is that a lot of the old roads that are out there that need to 

be closed and put to bed are going to be left opened. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Penfold, as long as I have got your attention, one 

of the aspects that you raise-and I think it is important, especially in the OSC lands-was the issue of acquisition and the acqui- sition program to consolidate some land holdings. We asked, at times, for loss studies on that particular-the consolidation of land. But you also raise the points of acquisition in 

some instances. 

What is the status of the acquisition programs in Oregon and 

Washington? 

Mr. PENFOLD. I am going to ask Mr. Kaufman to give you an 

overview of what we called for in our plans. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Kaufman, yes. 

Mr. KAUFMAN. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am Ron Kaufman, 

District Manager. 

We in Eugene, right now, are looking at some key areas to do 

some land exchanges to develop, particularly on our Lake Creek 

Basin, an approach to improve the anadromous fisheries program. 

In general, we have created plans for lands in western Oregon, 

one of the areas where management of those lands is made extremely difficult by the checkerboard pattern. Another way of looking at it is that by having this pattern we can influence the ecological health of much greater pieces of real estate in western Oregon. 

So while we are looking at opportunities to do land exchanges 

and other measures, such as our acquisition of the west Eugene 

wetlands property, by and large we see, long-term, that the checkerboard pattern will largely stay intact; and our plans that we are 

creating don't anticipate any major shift in that effort. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Leonard, do you think the acquisition program 

that you have in effect would not probably be as ambitious or 

present the same problems as BLM? Do you want to comment on 

it? 

Mr. LEONARD. We have, certainly, the same kinds of problems in 

the Bureau of Land Management on many of our National Forests. 

We have a checkerboard pattern on a lot of the National Forests 

in the West along the Central Pacific, Southern Pacific, Northern 

Pacific. 

Mr. VENTO. You have a pattern of State's land, too, do you not, 

in northwestern Oregon? 

Mr. LEONARD. That's right. We have a very active land exchange 

program. And we have been successful in some areas blocking up 

the public ownerships. We have had a significant program-strongly supported by this committee, I will note-for expenditure of land 

and water conservation money. Much of that has been directed toward solving the problems of endangered species habitat. 

Mr. VENTO. I was pleased with Mr. Woodard with his BLM state 

director, I might say, Mr. Leonard, with his programs in terms of 

riparian areas. But it seems that he had an aggressive program in 

spite of local concerns about buying the riparian areas. I want to 

give credit where I can. 

Mr. LEONARD. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Mr. VENTO. I see that my colleague from Oregon has arrived. Mr. 

DeFazio. 
79 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The unfortunate sort of 

imperative around here is that I have not figured out how to be at 

several places at one time. And this committee has a predilection 

to putting issues in which I have a vital interest in several areas 

at the same time. The Secretary of Interior was testifying on mining reform, and I had several questions that I wanted to put to 

him. 

I had one particular and immediate concern, which I understand 

the Chairman raised, but I would like to pursue it a bit more with 

Mr. Leonard, which had to do with the recent revelations that we 

were not moving ahead on the grazing reallocation or allotment in 

some sensitive areas of Oregon as I had understood. 

And I was distressed that it was brought to my attention in the 

press and I had never seen the communication nor had my staff 

from the Forest Service, despite the fact that I had worked with 

Senator Hatfield, and others to get the allocation of funds for the 

Forest Service. 

I understand that part of the reason is having to deal with consultation on other pressing environmental issues with the National 

Fishery Service, and I understand that. But I guess what I want 

to do is make a point and then ask Mr. Leonard to respond, and 

that is these are both imperatives; and I know you have many imperatives. But what I would hope, under the new administration, 

is that we could hear, honestly, from the Forest Service in terms 

of its needs. It is something that I feel the managers were not allowed to do under the last administration. 0MB dictated that, you 

know, you were not basically allowed to honestly voice the true 

needs of the agency. I hope this administration is different. 

And if it is not different, I would like to know that, too. 

And if there is a need now, if the consultation is not complete 

and you need more resources or if the consultation is complete, if 

you would immediately reassign those resources. It is an imperative that we continue along the track of reallocating and revising those grazing allotments to stop the degradation in those critical 

areas. 

And I would ask, Mr. Leonard, given your original time line, 

where are you at now and how do you expect to deal with this? 

Mr. LEONARD. As you have indicated, the problem that we got 

into was the reallocation of grazing sources. We had, probably, 

10,000 ongoing activities in the Forest Service that were affected. 

We had to go back to the National Marine Fisheries to consult with 

them. 

For a large share of those, 6,000 or more, at least the biological 

evaluations and the supporting work is done, and we are in the 

consultation process on those. Most of the biological evaluations 

and what not have been done to support the completion of them, 

and we are in consultation on the rest. 

It is my understanding that we are at the point where those people can now move back and get on with the important job of doing 

the assessments. I am going to be out in the Northwest next week, 

and I will talk to the Regional Forester; and if that's not true, that 

we are not going to be able to get on course, I will get back to you. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I appreciate it. I think I can speak frankly and 

fully with my friend Mr. Panetta and former colleague. And I think 
80 

that we can impress upon the administration that these are areas 

of investment that are needed to avoid other public costs and advocate strongly for you. 

Another question, and I don't know who would most appropriately address it on the panel. But if I could, Mr. Chairman, we 

are going to hear from Mr. Doppelt who represents Pacific Rivers 

Council, and I would like to get a response in advance of that. They 

have taken a contrary-I guess contrary is not the right word-but 

a different view of restoration, watershed restoration. 

And the point that they make is that we have all got limited resources, the needs are great; but we should first deal with ensuring 

that those areas that are still pristine, relatively pristine, or productive are protected against degradation. That may require not 

only enhanced riparian protections but also require some investment in terms of removing a problem or potential problem roads 

or other activities that have gone on in proximity to some of these 

still pristine and productive areas. And then we work down or 

backwards and finally get to those areas that are most blown out 

or degraded or relatively spoiled. 

My understanding or reading of the existing strategy of the agency is more that we begin the restoration activities in those areas 

that are most spoiled and would work the other way. 

And I would like any member of the panel who would like to respond to that rather simplistic view of the position of the government. And I am told that I should ask-particularly since I have 

not been here and I am not full integrated in this-Dr. Swanson's 

thoughts on the Pacific Rivers program; there he is. And then any 

other members of the panel. 

Mr. SWANSON. I believe you could look at the Gang of Four Report and other activities that are now under way as indicating that 

the Forest Service is attentive to identifying the best basins and 

giving them an extra measure of attention. 

I guess I would ask Jim Sedell or George Leonard to comment 

further on that. But I would say that the Forest Service's approach 

is not necessarily one of going from the worst to the best. But some 

activity is dispersed across the range of conditions. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Would anyone else like to respond? 

Mr. LEONARD. Mr. DeFazio, in my prepared statement, I say that 

we will assign priorities to watersheds that are in good condition. 

I don't think it needs to be an absolute priority though because 

some of the stocks most at risk are found only in those habitats 

that are degraded, and it would be a shame if we let them go away 

because we didn't take some timely actions there. So I think we 

have got the resources to do both. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. I just want to be certain that there is some 

awareness. Is there some other? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. DeFazio, I would like to comment that I think 

the Pacific Rivers philosophy, in terms of restoration, is reflecting 

growing consensus in the scientific community and within the 

agencies in terms of a change in approach to fisheries restoration, 

moving from the in-stream work to the more proactive watershed 

phases. Not that I think that necessarily means a complete abandonment of in-stream work, but certainly there needs to be a prerequisite or reliance on overall changes in terms of land manage-
81 

ment. And I think that we are in pretty complete agreement with 

Pacific Rivers in those areas. Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. And if I could put one final question? This 

has to do with looking a little longer term. And I know that things 

are okay on the short term that perhaps it is hard to look at the 

long term; and we have not completed the last cycle of the planning 

process. 

But in legislation I proposed last year, I looked at one of the 

longer-term objectives, in my mind, of determining appropriate activities on Federal lands in the future in planning to, essentially, 

discard, some of our historic boundaries. That is, we drew up forest boundary, ranger districts, depending 

on an archaic standard. You couldn't get over this ridge to that 

area, historically; but we didn't accumulate these on a biological or 

ecological basis. And my idea would be that when we finally move 

forward again with the next cycle of the planning process that we 

can look at reaggregating our planning and doing it on a cumulative watershed basis as opposed to a geographic basis ranger district by ranger district. 

Mr. PENFOLD. Mr. DeFazio, you have completely the right idea. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I appreciate that. You are invited back any time. 

Mr. LEONARD. We are going to have to deal on all kinds of scales. 

We have issues that transcend many watersheds. The owl issue: 

You cannot deal with one watershed on the owl issue. 

But it is absolutely true that our existing forest boundaries are 

not tied to ecosystems management on any scale, and we have got 

to get that in line. 

Ap, you are aware of, there is some real impediments in terms of 

payments and what not that make it difficult to change administrative boundaries. I think we need to pay attention, though, to planning for the resource as opposed to planning by administrative 

boundary. Maybe we can address that without having to address 

the administrative boundary problem. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. In fact, in reflection on this, I haven't yet had this 

discussion with the Secretary of Agriculture; but I have had the 

discussion with the Secretary of Interior and some of his staff. And 

they showed a willingness to begin to look at a more coordinated 

planning approach. 

In part, we are in deep trouble in the courts because BLM went 

this way and the Forest Service said we have a great plan here, 

but it depended on the BLM going this way. The BLM went that way, and the judge had a fit, and we ended 

up under injunction. I think that area, for the next four years, 

hopefully eight, has come to an end; and I would look forward to 

working with you folks in the Forest Service identifying where 

there are statutory barriers and dealing with those. Mr. VENTO. In fact, I had a question to follow up. It is just the 

two of us here; but on planning, I would be happy to yield further 

time to the gentleman from Oregon, because the Forest Service 

today, in their statement, talked about a strategy, and the BLM 

talked about Resource Management Plans. And I would just like to 

know how that is satisfying this particular strategy. Is it done? 

Does it satisfy protecting the salmonid habitat and the role in the 

reversal, in the decline of these populations? 
82 

I have been referenced here that an internal Forest Service analysis of Forest Service plans in the Pacific Northwest estimates that 

these plans do not contain the specifics necessary to determine 

whether or not long-term viability of selected fish stocks is ensured. 

And I raise it because, obviously, the furpose of this is on these 

fish stock populations but also, because thmk, in a broader sense, 

we are dealing with hundreds of species. And so I am interested 

in that and why it does not contain the specifics necessary to determine or to ensure, Mr. Leonard-then I want to go to Mr. Penfold 

with basically the same question-combining two things, strategy, 

and the satisfactory s.tatus of the forest, the Resource Management 

Plans of both the agencies. And why doesn't it do that? 

Mr. LEONARD. Our existing plans are deficient. They really reflected our understanding of the fishery resource as it existed about 

10 or 12 years ago, and our approaches to planning. And we have 

made tremendous strides over this last decade in our understanding of what is required. And the relationship of the ecosystem to 

the aquatic portion of that ecosystem. 

We are just in the process of developing our Pac-fish strate~, 

which is to expand it beyond paying attention just to the Columbia 

River system to the entire anadromous fish areas, a problem on the 

west coast. And it is certainly our expectation that that will provide a strategy for getting habitats up to support restoration of the 

fisheries, including recovery of the listed species insofar as habitat 

is the factor that is involved. 

Mr. VENTO. The strategy is a broader basis than you have specifically applied in the Resource Management Plans? 

Mr. LEONARD. An essential part of that strategy is the idea of 

watershed analysis in which you develop a specific strategy for a 

specific watershed based on what's there, rather than a cookie cutter approach that was laid down over the whole system, which may be appropriate on average but inappropriate as applied. 

Defining watersheds, and then doing an intense analysis there to 

develop prescription standards for activities and identification of 

what restoration activities are needed in that particular watershed. 

Mr. VENTO. This brings more questions. Time frame? 

Mr. LEONARD. This is an ongoing thing we hope to complete this 

year. But all these ideas and concepts are now being brought to the 

table as part of the Forestry Conference in the Northwest and the 

followup. So my expectation, frankly, at this point, is that these strategies 

for this and owls and the murrlets are going to be folded together 

to truly deal with it on an ecosystems basis. 

Mr. VENTO. I think we would feel more comfortable if we know 

that it's been worked ahead. As I said, we can do good things based 

on the work that is behind it. 

Mr. LEONARD. Well, I will say this, that people like Dr. Sedell 

and Dr. Swanson are going to be part of the task force, the interagency task force that is currently being put together to move from 

the actual event there on April 2nd, to a proposed ecosystem approach to dealing with it. 

Mr. VENTO. Let me go to Mr. Penfold. 

Mr. PENFOLD. The American Rivers review of our plans indicated 

that they are deficient relative to that concern. We worked hard in 
83 

the Department of Resource Management Plans to strengthen 

them. We have public comments that we are evaluating now to see 

how these draft _plans can be strengthened. We are working with 

the U.S. Forest Service on strategic plans much in the vision that 

Mr. DeFazio indicated, to provide a more comprehensive umbrella 

and direction for our planning activities on these critical watersheds. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Penfold, you are in the same cycle and the same 

umbrella in terms of looking to resolution in the interagency or 

interagency groups that are working, and we are bringing this to 

the table as we attempt to craft a final policy for, I guess, this 

western slope or at least a policy for the 1990s for this slope, western slope forests. 

Does it fit within the recommendations of the Gang of Four? I 

mean this is more specific, if I understand. I hope that it is more 

specific than the Gang of Four recommendation; but does it fit 

within the parameters of what they are suggesting we do in terms 

of watersheds? 

Mr. PENFOLD. What I think we are going to see is, at the Forest 

Conference, we will be taking a comprehensive look, with all the 

agencies, including Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, and 

BLM scientists, at all of the different planning documents and reports that have been produced so far. 

Mr. VENTO. What I am suggesting is that, for instance, they are 

talking about the rotation lengths, and they are talking about other 

factors within that area. This is more specific in terms of how it 

could be applied within that framework; is that correct? 

Mr. PENFOLD. What you can expect to see is carefully coordinated, final recommendations coming out of that forest conference. 

Mr. VENTO. How about you? Do you want to attach yourself to 

the Gang of Four, Mr. Leonard, or avoid it? 

Mr. LEONARD. The Gang of Four didn't specifically make any recommendations. They came up with a series of alternatives, and I 

think the solution that is going to come up is within there and correlated. 

Mr. VENTO. I didn't say that anyone is making decisions. You 

don't make any decisions either. I guess we hope you will make 

some. 

Mr. LEONARD. Particularly in the fisheries area. The scientists 

that had the input into the Gang of Four are very much--

Mr. VENTO. I wanted you to say, yes, it correlates. That's what 

I wanted you to say. 

Mr. LEONARD. It correlates. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Penfold still hasn't said that. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Just to follow up with Mr. Leonard and the Pacfish, I am curious, the Gang of Four, the American Fisheries Society Review, certified 137 key watersheds; in varying degrees of importance, but being key generally. Is Pac-fish reviewing on those 

same terms? Do you accept those 137 watersheds? 

And what are you doing in reviewing those with Pac-fish, I guess 

is my question? 

Mr. LEONARD. Let me ask Dr. Sedell. 

Dr. SEDELL. Those have been reevaluated in the case of California. Some of those have been added; some have been dropped. We 
84 

added eastern Oregon, Washington, Idaho; and we are doing the 

same effort looking at Alaska. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And what will Pac-fish result in? Will they be put 

into categories, priority, rank, or otherwise commented upon? Or 

what are you developing? 

Dr. SEDELL. Probably the priority rank. The basis for them was 

basically a well-distributed network of key watersheds for these 

anadromous fish. The ones on the Snake River, they are already 

in consultation with Dr. Tillman's agency. And so those, of course, 

worked jointly with them. 

In terms of priorities, those have not been established yet, other 

than on the basis of the 1991 document that indicated the risk 

level for many of those stocks. Many of those stocks are bein~ reevaluated in terms of risk level, and I assume those would be mtegral in terms of importance and priority, we would put on some of 

those watersheds. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. Does anyone else want to add anything else? Mr. 

Penfold. 

I wanted to conclude because I know that there is a suggestion 

about monitoring programs and the status of monitoring programs 

and the lack of 150 years of data-which I guess you would have 

to say you don't have 150 years of data-but can the scientists give 

us a general idea of the importance of that and the adequacy in 

terms of plotting our policies on the existing data and what we 

would have to do in the future in order to be certain that we are 

staying on course and achieving the goals? 

Dr. Sedell, a microphone has been passed to you. Nobody else--

this is obviously not an easy question. 

Dr. SEDELL. No. But in terms of change in the way we have been 

doing some of those things, I think there is enough technical information and science around. 

Our options are kind of limited in some places. In terms of acquiring an information base to see if we are going to do a high-risk 

land management change and be more conservative or protective of 

that and we are going to get the benefits. Yes, I think we have 

that, and we are going to monitor. In the past we have not. 

And we are going to have to do a better job of looking at it not 

only in terms of habitat but some of the biological components that 

we are, obviously, trying to protect. So I think any change of direction is going to have to be figured very, very closely with good, reliable monitoring that has some integrity to the data set and attention to maintaining it through time. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Williams. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Too often I think our monitoring that we have 

done has been limited to a prescriptive monitoring. In other words, 

have we done what we said we were going to do. 

Another important element of that is sort of effectiveness monitoring. Did we do what we said we were going to do, what affect 

did that have on the landscape? 

And I think when we are talking about ecosystem management 

and implementing that, one of the key features and the concept of 

adaptive management and you have got to monitor the landscape 

out there and be committed to being able to change your manage-
85 

ment in response to what we are actually seeing unfold in terms 

of improvement of watersheds or deterioration of that sort of thing. 

I think that is something, like Jim mentioned, that we have recognized that we really have got to pick up on. 

Mr. VENTO. We could go on, I know. Mr. LEONARD. Mr. Chairman, Dr. Swanson would like toDr. SWANSON. From the standpoint of learning what is working 

and what is not and cost effectiveness, I think that if any restoration project is funded that there should be a specific commitment 

to monitoring built into that. In the Pacific Rivers Council proposal, for example, about 15 percent investment is directed that way. Mr. VENTO. It occurs to me that it is important because it is 

something that can easily be excluded. And, if you get all the agencies cooperating so that there is a 

commonality and maybe even other private cooperators and the 

states, I think that it really can help in terms of reducing it and 

make certain that, as you say, you are taking an option that limits 

certain harvests, that does a number of other things, that is not an 

easy step to take. And you want to be certain that you are accomplishing what is intended in terms of the land management policies. So the monitoring, really, is the accountability factor and to 

keep it on course in terms of achieving what we are doing. 

I think that this discussion about the ecosystems is all very interesting in terms of total ecosystems. But so far I think we 

thought we were smart enough to solve this with rifle shots instead 

of classifying entire ecosystem, which is a demonstration we don't 

know about some of the underlies problems of the specific species 

to be able to do it without embracing a broader range of conditions 

in the accomplishment of preservation of biodiversity. I could go on with a lot of questions; but, as you know, gentlemen, I have a long list of witnesses. But I do, very much, as I said, 

appreciate the efforts that you have made and that you will be 

making. And we look forward to benefitting from your input as we 

try and craft this difficult policy in the year ahead. 

Thank you very much. Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. We are going to change groups here. The second 

panel has probably been waiting, and the third panel is waiting. 

We have Mr. Bob Doppelt, the Director of the Pacific Rivers Council, Eugene Oregon; and Dr. Chris Frissell, Oak Creek Laboratory, 

Oregon State University, Corwallis, Oregon; and Mr. Pat Higgins, 

the Northwest Chapter of the American Fisheries Society and Pacific Watershed Associates, Humboldt, California; and, finally, on 

this panel, Dr. J. F. Palmisano, Oregon State University, Corwallis, 

Oregon. 
86 

PANEL CONSISTING OF BOB DOPPELT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

PACIFIC RIVERS COUNCIL, EUGENE, OR; CHRIS FRISSELL, 

OAK CREEK LABORATORY, OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY, 

CORWALLIS, OR; PAT HIGGINS, THE NORTHWEST CHAPTER 

OF THE AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY AND PACIFIC WATERSHED ASSOCIATES, HUMBOLDT, CA; AND JOHN F. PALMISANO, INDEPENDENT FISHERY SCIENTIST . REPRESENTING NORTHWEST FOREST RESOURCES COUNCIL, 

PORTLAND, OR 

Mr. VENTO. Your statements, by previous request, have been 

submitted and placed in the record; since we are under a little time 

constraint, if you will try to summarize your statements in about 

five minutes. I won't keep a clock, because you might get done earlier. But I think what you have got to say is important to the committee. And so we want you to have adequate time so say it; but 

if you could summarize it, it would help us. Dr. Doppelt, welcome. Mr. D0PPELT. I have never been called Dr. Doppelt. I appreciate 

it. 

Mr. VENTO. We do a lot of things but not grant degrees. I am 

sorry. 

STATEMENT OF BOB DOPPELT 

Mr. D0PPELT. Thank you. I am the Executive Director of the Pacific Rivers Council. I am going to shorten my comments today. I 

appreciate Congressman Dicks and Mr. DeFazio's comment. They 

say everything that we need to say. I will try to highlight the key 

points. First of all, the proposal that we have made to Congress is the 

result of a two-year-long project that involved scientists from across 

the country and regional and local scientists to develop, to access, 

the Nation's river protection and restoration strate~es and policies 

and to determine the strengths and weaknesses m those and to 

propose alternatives. 

The end result of our major effort, which is now released in this 

document, "Entering the Watershed: An Action Plan to Protect and 

Restore America's Rivers Ecosystems and Biodiversity." Our conclusion is that, in fact, the Nation's river protection policies have 

failed and that new restoration and protection policies are needed. This specifically addresses the Pacific Northwest where it is clear 

that our river systems and our aquatic biodiversity, salmon in particular, have been depleted and new approaches are needed. Given 

that, I want to make six key points, and then we can discuss the 

rest in the question-and-answer. 

First I want to make it clear that the endangered salmon of the 

Pacific Northwest are just symbolic of the range of river ecosystem 

and biodiversity system problems and losses occurring across the 

region. The crisis is not just with salmon but entire watershed 

ecosystems. I can cite many examples of the riparian species and resident 

fish populations that are at risk. It is not just anadromous 

salmonids. The Northwest is in the midst of an unprecedented crisis. 

Second, although the media has focused on the dams and some 

studies that we may hear about later from this panel, and have 
87 

tried to point the blame everywhere possible including dams. It is 

clear to a number of specific panels and organizations that have 

looked at the issue that the most fundamental issue that underlies 

all of the problems is the cumulative degradation of watershed 

ecosystems and the loss of river habitat. That is the most single 

contributing factor to the loss of these species, the problems with 

their ecosystems. This does not mean that if we fix the habitat and 

fix the species that we can, in fact, save all the salmon. Indeed, we 

are going to have to address a number of other factors; but this is 

the fundamental issue. . Third, there is no quick fix to this problem. We have got to understand that. There is no silver bullet. 

But, fourth, I would like to say that there are some immediate 

steps that we believe can be taken and should be taken and should 

be taken very quickly. And we have heard about some of those 

today. Numerous scientific studies have confirmed that, basically, the remaining pockets, the few remaining pockets, of healthy habitat and healthy river ecosystems are on public lands, primarily in 

the roadless areas, unroaded areas, and primarily in old growth 

areas across the region. These areas, we believe, must be correctly 

identified and protected to form the physical refuges for 

biodiversity and sources for the fisheries to recolonize and restore. 

They are the key to the existing health of the remaining rivers and 

are the anchors for the watershed restoration programs. We believe 

it is imperative in identifying and protecting these areas at the watershed level. 

Following the protection, we think the next step is to secure 

these areas. And we differentiate the word "protect" from "secure." 

What securing them means is to identify, from a full watershed 

level analysis, what the potential threats from either past management activities or future activities are to these areas and to diffuse 

these threats to the extent possible or eliminate the threats if possible, for many, many of the watersheds on the west side of the Pacific Northwest. Scientific studies have indicated that it is, in fact, 

the road systems that form the greatest threat to many of these 

key watersheds. 

And those are the areas that need to be treated. The road systems must be looked at and assessed and a priority system developed to diffuse potential catastrophic debris flows that may go into 

the remaining healthy areas and diffuse chronic sedimentation 

problems. I want to reiterate that to secure the area and protect 

the areas is not going to solve the whole problem. This is just step 

one in a watershed recovery strategy, but we believe it is the first 

step that must be taken quickly. 

When we ran two workshops with scientists in Oregon in the fall, 

we looked at a number of records in the key watersheds and said, 

look, we have not had a major rain event in the Pacific Northwest 

except in the Seattle area since 1990, that many of these road systems are, essentially, a series of loaded guns that could go off. It 

could fall out into the river systems in the next major rain event 

so the time was of the essence to get in there and essentially diffuse these to the extent that we can. 

Fifth. The fifth point I would like to make is that following the 

protection, the identification, protection and securing of these 
88 

areas, then full watershed restoration protection and restoration 

strategies should be developed. 

Let me back up and say that, in addition to protecting and securing the key watersheds simultaneously, we believe that ecologically 

based riparian and flood plan plans must be applied across Federal 

lands. 

Fifth, again, restoration then follows through a full watershed 

level restoration strategies. However, we believe, as Congressman 

DeFazio pointed out, that restoration must take an entirely new 

approach. Our extensive analysis of the traditional prioritization 

strategies documents that these approaches have, for the most 

part, failed. Traditional prioritization strategies, which generally 

focus on treating the most degraded and isolated stream segments 

or to address just water temperature or water chemical pollution 

problems, have failed. They do not address the whole ecological system. 

They often, in fact, as I think we had heard from other members 

of this panel, can lead to further problems in the system and not 

help. At best, these kinds of strategies can be called Band-Aid 

strategies, at worst some have called them "rat hole" strategies, 

meaning that we are throwing our money down a rat hole with 

these strategies. 

We propose pulling together a watershed analysis to identify the 

conditions and needs of the basin first and then focusing on pro- tecting the remaining healthy head waters, key biotic refuges that 

we have been calling the riparian areas across the landscape and 

what we call benchmark watershed. Still, impacted tributary watersheds that exist on Federal lands hold the only hope for longterm research on change in ecosystems and biodiversity over time. 

I think that is going to be vital to hang on to those areas and to 

identify and protect the healthy patches of habitat that are found 

throughout the rest of the system. We call all these biological hot 

spots. This places the approach on preventing further degradation 

rather than on attempting to control problems after they occur. 

Following this restoration would focus on trying to link the 

healthy areas and expand the healthy areas before we plow significant amounts of dollars into the most degraded areas. We are not 

saying to not treat the degraded areas but, as Congressman 

DeFazio said, when dollars are short and limited, we need to make 

sure that we are protecting and building restoration around the 

healthier areas before we sink money into highly speculative attempts to restore the most degraded areas. We can talk about that 

in a minute. 

Finally, we recommend to effectively implement the strategy that 

I have described. A coordinated strategic watershed initiative is 

needed across the Pacific Northwest. In fact it is needed Nationwide on river systems all over the country. This must involve a 

number of points. One, uniform, consistent riparian flood plan and habitat protection standards for all Federal land management agencies based on 

ecological definitions. It must include ecosystem and watershed 

level planning by all Federal agencies. It must include a comprehensive restoration strategy that, again, as I described, includes 

the protection of watershed or river biodiversity watersheds. It 
89 

must focus on linking and securing and expanding the healthy 

areas and habitats and bring in, eventually, the private landowners 

and local communities to the process. 

AB these rivers flow through private lands, we must generate 

local jobs in restoration and other economic benefits to support 

that. And we must also provide long-term funding for this strategy 

because this is goin~ to be a long-term process. 

To implement this in the Pacific Northwest, as has been discussed, we propose a Watershed and Salmon Habitat Restoration 

Act. We believe, as you heard today, that the agencies are going 

to change and do better under this administration. We applaud 

that and support that. 

However, we believe that history shows us that the agencies may 

not do everything that is needed, and administrations come and go. 

Hopefully this administration, from my point of view, will be here 

a long time. But nevertheless the watershed and the health of our 

fisheries cannot be at the whim of the next political change or the 

local district ranger who may decide to apply a specific administrative procedure or not. 

We believe that these policies must be legislatively established to 

make sure that they exist to provide clear direction. This act that 

we looked at, based on the stormproofing strategy of securing the 

watersheds and treating the road systems, we believe, will create 

7,000 to 11,000 family wage jobs, over $81 million of the total cost 

of 156 million which we are projecting will be, in fact, in heavy 

equipment work. 

So these will be family wage jobs that primarily will end up in 

the rural communities. We want to make it clear, again, that the 

sedimentation issue varies by watershed. The sediment delivery 

rate from these road systems varies by watershed. So, consequently, it is not just the roads that need to be looked at. We 

need to look at reinserting woody debris into the system. Those are 

all part of what the watershed level restoration strategy must be. 

In closing, we would like to say that, again, we support the administration's and the agency's attempts to improve their policies. 

But we believe that this will not really happen in an effective way 

without the leadership of Congress and a demonstrated leadership 

to the Pacific Northwest because Congress has acted affirmatively 

to say that this is how the land will be managed in the future. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you. [Prepared statement of Mr. Doppelt follows:] 
90 

Testimony of Bob Doppelt 

Executive Director, Pacific Rivers Council 

before the House Subcommittee On Natural Resources, 

Forests and Public Lands 

March 11, 1993 

The degradation of The Pacific Northwest's riverine ecosystems and the extinction of salmon and other forms of 

riverine-riparian biodiversity have reached alarming levels. Not one river system in the region has been spared. 

Fisheries, healthy water quality and quantity produced by watershed cco,-ystems, and entire aquatic food chains are at 

risk. 

For the past two yeani the Pacific Rivers Council has been involved with a llllljor project to assess the capability of the 

region's (and nation's) riverine system and biodiversity conservation strategies and policies to address this crisis. The 

projc,ct has involved over 35 top scientists, economists and community devclopmenl specialists nationwide. We conclude 

that the region's existing policies have failed . Entirely new strategies and policies must be established quickly to •)live 

off the impending collapse of many riverine syst<:ms and to prevent wholesale biological extinctions. 

THE EXTENT OF THE CRISIS: To realize the breadth of the problems one must first have a template of healthy 

ecosystems and biodiversity. Healthy river ecosystems in the Northwest are characterized by a number of factors 

including: 1) Water quality , 2) Water quantity, 3) Channel Cbancteristics:, 4) Riparian Vegetation, 5) The condition 

of the Slream is a fimction of the cbancteristics of the entire watershed. 

By the same token, healthy biodivcnity requires a wide diversity and abundance of species and organisms, not just the 

presence of few key species . 

. However, whether measured by the health of riverine species, or by physical parameters, the cummt status of the Pacific 

Northwest's riverine ecosystems and fisheries is one of widespread degradation. 

Loss or Fish Species: At least 106 populations of West Coast salmonids (salmon, trou- stcelhead and char) have been 

driven to extinction and over 210 sahnon populatioos are currently at rislc of extinction according to the American 

Fisheries Society. The Sacramento River winter cbinook salmon, and the sockeye and fall, spring, and summer cbinook 

salmon of the Snake River basin are among the Pacific Northwest fishes listed as protected species under the Endangered 

Species Act. Petitions have been filed for sturgeon, bull trou- Colwnbia River coho salmon, Illinois River winter 

stcelhead, and other fishes, whose listing could have widespread consequences for the region. Hundreds of other 

freshwater and anadromous fishes probably qualify for, and could receive, federal protection in the near future. 

However, more than just sahnon are at risk. The endangered salmon are just b)'lDbolic of a range of riverine and riparian 

biodivcnity lo<ses occurring across the Pacif,c Northwest. For example, at least 132 species of riparian associated 

animals, including 3 birds, 4 nwnmals, 12 amphibians, 45 mollusks, 34 anthropods and over 700 out of 1100 native 

fishes (estuarine, resident etc) on 348 streams were found to be at risk of extinction within the range of the Northern 

Spotted Owl from the Cascade Mts. to the ocean (Northern Spotted Owl recovery Plan, Appendix D). Similar patterns 

and levels of depletion can be foond in arid and semi-arid biomes throughout the region. 

The ccooomic and social impacts of degraded riverine systems and lost fisheries and biodivcnity are severe. Just a few 

examples are necessuy lo depict the impacts. Sinoe I 910, annual salmon and stcelhead runs of the Columbia river 

system have declined from approximately 10-16 million to 2-2.5 million. Yet, the fishery still produces over $1 billion a 

year in income and supports 60,000 jobs regionwide (using 1988 figures). How many jobs and economic benefits could a 

healthy fishery produce? Further, diminiahed and polluted water supplies produced by the regions watersheds are 

affecting irrigation and municipal water supplies and threaten public health. 
91 

In short, almost every segmenl of sociel)' bas been affecled by and pays heavy dinocl and indirecl ecological, financial. 

and joo-relaled costs for lbe de~on of the regions riverine systems, fisheries and riverine biodiversily, whelbor Ibey 

are aware of it or not. 

THE CAUSES OF THE PROBLEMS: Although lbe media has generally focused lhe problems on mainstem Colwnbia 

dams, these types of broad ranging problems cannot be blamed exclusively on dams, nor oo excessive fishing, or oo 

predalOrs such u sea lions. Over 175 of lhe 214 al risk salmonids spawn outside of the Columbia basin, mosl in coastal 

rivers unaffected by dams. Most of these species are not subject to commercial harvest. Poor ocean conditions. dams and 

overtwvcst would not explain the vast number of riparian ~ies or resident fish such as BuU Trout that are at risk. 

The cumulative degradation of watershed «osystems and the loss of riverine habitat is the single most consisknt 

contributor to the decline of the region's fisheries and riverine biodiversity . 

The cumulative resull of lbe many human impacts on riverine syst<ms bas been called • ecosystem simplification•: huge 

reductions in the life-supporting complexil)' and diven;il)' of walersbed and riverine ecosyslemS and habitats. 

In brief, riverine ecosystem and babital simplification n,lates IO: I) changes in waler quanlil)' or flow due IO irrigalioo 

and olber withdrawals, 2) lbe modification of channel and riparian ecosystem morphology caused by damming. 

reservoirs, cbannelizatioo, drainage and filling of wetlands, and dmlging for navigatioo, 3) excessive noapoinl•source 

pollution, including erosion and sedimentation caused by damaging land-use practices. including agricullllre, foresuy. 

and urbanizalion, 4) lbe delenoratioo of substrate qualil)' or stabilil)', 5) lbe ~ of chemical waler qualil)' 

through lbe additioo of poinl•source contaminants, 6) lbe decline of native fish and olber species from overbarvest and 

intentional or accidental poisoning, and, 7) lbe inlroduction of exotic species. 

Loss of l'hysic:al habitat: Many scientists have linked lbe fulure of the region's native f,sl,es directly IO the changes in 

lbe lllllDll8emCDI of federal forests and other lands across the region. Loss of physical complexil)' in lowland rivers which 

primarily now through pnvale lands is exlensive. 'iirtually all lowland rivers lbrougbout the n,gion have been 

universally degraded through cbanneliz.ation, diking, leveeing, novelling and ripnpping and excessive waler withdrawals, 

lbenoby disconnecting lbe rivers from !heir floodplains and groundwaler systems. An estimaled 70-9011; of nllUB] 

riparian (streamside) vegetation, vital IO maintaining the in1egril)' of riverine ecosySlemS and biodiversil)', bas already 

been losl due IO hwnan activities. Seven!)' percenl of lbe region's rivers have been impaired by flow allentioo. 

Loss of privale land lowland habitats bas placed much of lbe burden of maintaining lbe health of both riverine 

ec06}'slems and biodiversil)' on lbe federal forest lands in lbe region. While federal fores! habilats have also been 

degraded, lbe besl remaining habitats an, found in lbe federal fonosts primarily in unroaded, steep watersheds dominaled 

by old growth forests. 

Even on 1be federal forests river noacbes an, degraded. Rec<nl n,search bas documenled that fish babital on National 

Forests and other lands currently bas fewer pools, higher fme sediments in spawning gnavels and fragmenled riparian 

vegetation than is healthy. For example, lbe number of large deep pools in many lribotanes of the Columbia river have 

decreued in the past 50 years in resurveys compleh:d between 1989 aod 1992 by Forest Service researcbers. Overall 

there has been a 30 IO 70 percenl reduction in the number of large, deep pools ( > 6ft. deep and > 50 yd surface area) 

on National Forests within anadromous fish in lbe pasl 50 years. A similar !rend bas been found in streams on privale 

lands in coastal and eastern Oregon, Wubington, and Idaho when, large deep pools have decnoued by 60-80 percent 

Large pools are important for anadromous fish as holding .,_; for adults for spawning. refuge from droughl and winier 

icing. mainteoanu of fish community biodivt:rSity and j uvenile fish rearing areas. 

The prmwy reasons for these losses an, increased sediments, loss of stream sinuosil)' by channelization and loss of 

woody debris and other pool forming struclllres. Only in a few watersheds are exceptions IO Ibis !rend: lbe Melbow and 

WCD21Chee riven; in Washington both of which conlain large roadless areas. 

2 
92 

THE NEEDS THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED 

THE ECOLOGICAL NEEDS: Numerous scientific panels have confirmed lhat only a few pockets of healthy habitats 

and ecosystems remain regionwide (Scientific Panel on late Successional Forests. 1992 and American Fisheries Society. 

1993 in press). These "key watersheds" act as physical refuges for fisheries and biodiwrsity and as a source of species to 

recolonize degraded areas once restored. These areas also are the key to maintaining the existing levels of health for the 

systems, and hence are the "anchors" for watershed restoration programs. Jr is imperative that these best remaining key 

watersheds be quickly identified and protected at the watershed level to provide a basis to maintalD and restore the 

region's riverine systems and biodiversity. In addition, ecologically based riparian and floodplain protections must be 

immediately implemented across the landscape on federal lands. 

Once protected, the key watersheds must be "secured" which me.ans threats to the remaining healthy areas must be 

defused or eliminated. 

Watershed level restoration plans should then be crafted and implemented. Each plan should be based on a watershed 

level analysis of the specific needs and varying conditions of the watershed. Long term monitoring is vital to insure that 

the restoration treatments are successful and to provide feedback for strategic changes in restoration goals and strategies 

over time. It is important to note that there are no quick fixes available. Restoration is a long term process. What needs 

doing immediately is to stop the hemorrhaging of the systems by identifying, protecting and securing the remaining 

healthy watersheds and riparian areas. Restoration efforts will provide more effective if built around the healthier areas. 

THE POLICY NEEDS: The National Problem: In part, the problem is symbolic of problems nationwide. For 

example, the United States has no national goal to protect or restore riverine ecosystems or riverine-riparian biodiversity 

and no national policies that mandate coordinated federal, state. and private management and conservation of whole 

riverine systems. Traditional river assessments have been biologically ineffective. No policies require the identification 

and protection of the remaining healthy riverine habitats. No effective riverine restoration JX)licies exist at any level of 

government. Finally, no JX)licies effectively integrate riverine protection and restoration with local job creation and 

community revitalization. 

Internal reviews by the Forest Service concede that mainterwlce of physical riverine habitat on national forest lands 

cannot be assured under current management direction. 

Federal Land Management Policies and Guidelines are Inadequate: Despite the need to quickly identify, protect and 

secure the rest remaining habitats, and to implement watershed level restoration strategies, current federal land 

management policies, standards and guidelines fail to address these needs. 

A complete exposition on the failures of federal land management laws to protect riverine ecosystems and fish habitat at 

the watershed level is beyond the scope of this testimony. Suffice it to say lhat the problem is not lhat federal land 

managers lack some of the authority to protect these resources. The majority of the problem is lhat existing authority 

leaves too much to agency discretion. Some policy gaps do exist however, including legislative mandates to align agency 

missions. goals and management policies within watersheds. We know that the agencies have not used the power they 

clearly have to provide an adequate level of protection and to compel restoration. We conclude that they will not take 

decisive action without stronger, clearer stabJtory guidance requiring specific actions to address the current crisis facing 

river ecosystems and fish habitat on federal lands. A few examples of exlSting authority which bas not been fully 

exercised foUow: 

(I) The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) prohibits timber harvest where "watershed conditions" will be 

"irreversibly damagec:r or where "water conditions or fish habitat" will be "seriously" or "adversely affected." The Act 

also requires the identification of marginal lands deemed "unsuitable for timber production,• such as where "resource 

protection or reforestation cannot be insured." In practice, neither of these provisions has prevented timber harvests 

which significantly degrade water quality and fish habitat. 

3 
93 

(2) NFMA also requires that the agency develop planning guidelines which "provide for diver.;ity of plant and 

animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to mc::et overall multipl~use 

objectives ... "a provision which bas been interpreted in regulations to require: " lf]isb and wildlife habitat shall be 

managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate _species lll the planning area." 

36 CFR U 2 I 9. I 9. The agency bas acknowledged its general duty to maintain a level of biodiversity "at least as great 

as that which would be expected in a natural forest" where "appropriate" and "practicable. but has not developed a 

policy which requires the use of those indicator species most sensitive to land management activities on a regional basis. 

36 CFR U 219.27(g). Nor bas the agency failed to adequately distinguish between species and populations (stocks) in 

determining its viable populations requirements. Litigation is currently underway which could result in judiciaJ 

clarification of the scope of the Forest Service's duties. 

The agency has also generaUy utilizes individual habitat criteria such as water temperatures to evaluate the health of 

streams. These criteria are woefully inadequate. As previously stated. the health of a stream is determined by the 

combination of a multitude of factors. 

(3) The BLM' s primary management statute, the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act, directs the BLM to 

"take any action nocessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the (public] lands, " but there is no statutory 

definition of unnocessary and undue degradation, and it is left entirely up to the agency to determine what actions are 

"necessary." Rather, the BLM may, but is not required, to protect biologicaUy significant "areas of critical 

environmental concern" in developing and revising land use plans. To date, this mechanism has not been widely used to 

protect critical riverine habitat. 

(4) Both agencies are subject to "multiple-use, sustained-yield principles," which require that listed resources, 

including watershed and fish habitat, to be managed for long-term productivity. These principles give the agencies clear 

authority to reject economic optimally as the primarily decision ma.Icing criterion. These principles do not, however, 

provide any bard constrain Le; on land managers, and require that agencies merely give "due consideration" to the various 

competing uses. 

(5) The Clf!afl Water Acl requires the maintenance and preservation of the biological integrity of the nation's waters, 

but, to date, the Act has failed to prevent the massive landslides and stream sedimentation a.ssocl8.ted with logging in 

unstable watersheds - despite the use of "Best Management Practices." 

A Word On Enforceability: We do not overlook the fact that each of the agencies has developed guidance of various 

kinds which applies to the management of rivers and riparian areas. However, except for those few forests or districl'i 

with specific riparian management language in their land management plans, most riparian management guidelines which 

do exist appear as text in agency manuals and handbooks, provisions or technical guides, none of which is binding on the 

agency or legally enforceable by affected parties. 

For example, the Willamette National Forest has promulgated a technical guide entitled "Riparian Management Guide." 

This is generally acknowledged to contain the most contemporary. scientifically defensible riparian protection standards 

in the Forest Service. However, th.is document does not itself contain any directives which are binding on the agency. 

Rather, it ts an informally promulgated document. not subject to the notice and comment procedures of the 

Administrative Procedures Act, and not, therefore, enforce.able against the agency in a court of law. See e.g. Lumber 

Prod. & Indus!. Workers Log Scalers Local 2058 v. United States, 580 F. Supp. 279 (1984) (forest service manual 

provisions not binding because not promulgated by Secretary of Agriculture under a specific statutory provision and APA 

procedures); United States v. Fifty-three Eclectus Parrots, 685 F. 2d I 131 (1982) (agency pronouncement must be 

legislative in nature to have the force and effect of law, and be promulgated under a "!1'1)CCific statutory grant of 

authority" in conformance with Congressionally imposed procedural requirements). 

4 
94 

Comistency: Not only do the BLM and the Forest ~rvice have different riparian policies. the agencies are not 

internally consistent. For example, internal reviews in Forest Service Region 6 reported disparate standards and 

guidelines among foresl plans for fishery resource protection, concluding that none of the plans reviewed ensure the 

continued viability of salmonid populations. (Heller et. al., 1991). As one investigator discovered, "pwming criteria, 

indicators for measuring resource values, modeling assumptions, and analytic procedures varied substantially among 

forests, such that direct quantitative comparisons between plans are of only limited value.• (FrisseU. 1992). Likewise, 

standards and guidelines for riparian management varied considerably among forests: the Willamette (Oregon) and 

Shasta-Trinity (California) National Forests have adopted a no-cut buffer averaging 100 to 200 feet wide, and ranging up 

to 400 feet, on aU class I, ll and Ill streams, while lbe Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie and Olympic National Forests 

(Washington) allow extensive logging in all riparian areas, with a few restrictions to prevent total stand removal. Few 

plans provide any protection at all for Class IV tributaries and fewer stiU protect riparian areas along headwater streams, 

despite their important contributions IO the downstream environment. 

An example of new authorities -.led: I) Inter-Agency Policy Consistency and Alignment to Manage at the Watershed 

level. 

Although a number of federal statues speak to inter-agency coordination, •gencies are stiU aulborized to act based on 

their own statutory goals and mandates and internal agency priorities. Legislation which defmes common missions and 

goals, and aligns agency management policies of riverino,-riparian ecosystems and biodiversity is needed to provide 

watershed level coordination and consistency. 

CONCLUSION: PRC believes that new policies is needed to provide uniform watershed protection and restoration 

directives for all federal land management agencies. These policies must include riparian management directives 

directly from Congress, elevating important issues of riparian policy from the lowest levels of administrative authority to 

lbe highest level of government. 

5 
95 

THE FAILURE OF TRADITIONAL WATERSHED RESTORATION APPROACHES 

A recent American Fisheries Society report found that • In the past IO yean;, many millions of dollar.; have been spent on 

stream habitat management in Western North America. We find little documented evidence of increased abundance of 

salmonids associated with these massive expenditures. " 

Traditional approaches to stream habitat and ecosystem restoration can be characteriud as "band-aid" approaches that 

have several distinguishing features. Fust, the identification and diagnosis of habitat problems tends to be focused on 

finding patches of habitat that are amenable to predetermined, generic techniques. For example, many past and current 

programs rely heavily on installation of log weirs to construct pools in streams. Planning for these p~jects generally 

focuses on identifying reaches of stream that do not mt,et water temperature standards or with gradient and bank 

structure suited physically to the installation of such devices, and that happen to be accessible to the heavy equipment 

needed to do the work. There is little consideration whether the fish community, or the watershed as a whole, are suited 

to the kinds of changes of habitat these structures are intended to induce. It is commonly assumed that all fish benefit 

equally from the plunge pool sequences created by such devices, and that the constnJctioo of weir pools will compensate 

for all of the diverse changes in lhe ecosystem caused by human disturbance. 

Some evaluations of these projects indicate serious shortcomings. For example, where log weirs and other artificial 

structures achieve their physical objectives, their effects on native fish can be insignificant, or even negative. In other 

cases, they may stay in place, but have unintended and damaging physical side effects, such as severe bank erosion or 

blockllges to juvenile fish migration. Finally, in many cases, such structures suffer a high incidence of outright physical 

failure. The results of numerous studies suggest that the effects of such projects are inconsistent and difficult to predict. 

Conditions in the watershed as a whole appear to be more important than structure design in determining whether 

structures will function or fail. Failure rates are especially high in severely damaged watersheds or stream reaches 

where disturbances are ongoing. Furthermore, in some watersheds fish populations are so widely depleted by extensive 

habitat degradation and other factors that few or no fish are available to colonize artificially created habitats. Finally, 

the vast majority of streams are not accessible to heavy equipment or are otherwise unsuited to structural modification. 

Put simply, tniditional techniques fail to address lhe root biological and physical causes of habitat deterioration and 

population decline, and often aggravate, complicate, or add to existing problems. 

Priorities for traditional "band-aid" restoration approaches are typically determined by identifying the worst-degraded or 

ugliest-looking sites, and spending all available resources treating these areas with generic and largely cosmetic structural 

techniques to "bring them up to standards." Once the desired improvements have been made, further habitat-disturbing 

activities in the watershed can be allowed to proceed. 

The result of the "band-aid" strategy is predictable: disturbances are maximally dispersed across lhe landscape, and 

virtually all sites across the landscape are homogeneously degraded. The worst sites may be partially "fixed,• but 

meanwhile disturbance-sensitive species have likely been Jost through the entire stream system. As road networks ll.Dd 

logging units are dispersed across the landscape. virtually every tributary and stream reach becomes vulnerable to 

manage~nt- accelerated disturbance from sedimentation and other effects when the next large storm strikes. Because no 

effort is made to identify and protect key watershed refugia, the most productive and diverse habitats are subject to 

continued disturbance, while the most severely degraded areas (inherently the least amenable k> structural improvemen~ 

and therefore the most likely sites of project failure) receive all the restoration resources. In other words. this strategy is 

a recipe for the degradation of the remaining healthier watersheds and other kinds of secure ecological refugia- leading 

predictably to the cumulative extirpation of formerly abundant, but sensitive species over large areas. 

Past and present approaches to the management of watersheds and riverine-riparian have not only allowed the present 

crisis to develop, they have indeed exacerbated it. For example, the intense fisheries generated during periods when 

hatchery stocks are productive have often driven wild stocks into decline and local extinction. Perhaps worse, reliance 

6 
96 

on increasingly costly, heavily subsidized artificial production of hatchery salmon has facilitated the decline of natural 

populations, by temporarily masklllg their loss. As even the most successful hatchery population.s suffer the ~vitable 

collapse from disease, genetic depletion, or technological failure, natural _populations remain the only sufficient seed 

source to restore artificial production. 

After a century of experimentation, there is little scientific support for the notion that salmon hatcheries are sustainable 

over the long tenn in the absence of wild, natural populations, or that hatchery technology can work to supplement or 

restore remnant wild populations without seriously banning them. Each wild population of salmon and trout is uniquely 

and subtly adapted IO its environment. in ways that are not fully understood by scientists. These adaptations can be 

quickly lost in the hatchery environment or in the presence of large numbers of stray fish of hatchery origin. Therefore 

the viability of the species remains dependent on the conseivation of the diversity of its wild populations and their 

habitats. Beyond this, wild populations adapted to marginal or disturbed habitats could in the future be the only source 

of suitable colonists for re-establishment of populations in an environment where, despite efforu toward r~toratioo, 

human impacts will remain pervasive. 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED RESTORATION PROGRAM 

To protect and restore the Northwest's riverine systems, fisheries and biodiversity, we recommend a new approach 

founded on principles of watershed dynamics, ecosystem function, and conservation biology - a community and 

ecosystem-based strategy that maintains and re&1ores riverine processes and biodiversity at the watershed level. The new 

approach integrates ecologically and economically sustainable restoration strategies in a scientifically defensible and 

conservative way, emphasizing principles of the physical and ecologicaJ functions of watersheds and key spatial and 

temporal asp:x:ts of aquatic ecology . Simple in concept and pragmatic in application, this new approach provides a 

means for prioritizing protection and restoration policies and interventions and for creating mor&rapid and cost-effective 

biotic recovery. This program would involve three interconnected components: 

I) The program begins with a comprehensive effort designed to identify and protect the remaining relatively healthy 

headwaters, key biotic refuges, benchmark watersheds, riparian areas, floodplains, and the network of biological hot 

spots found in patches throughout entire river systeDL~ on federa.1 lands. This cost-efficient approach places the emphasis 

on preventing further degradation rather than on attempting to control problems after they occur. 

2) Following the protection of these areas. watershed level restoration programs should be developed. Restoration 

treabnents should focus initiaJly on •securing" or "storm proofing• the relatively healthy areas on federal lands stated 

alx>ve. After these areas have been secured, restoration would focus on providing better management between the 

protected ardlS and eventually linking and expanding the healthy areas. Privale lands would be brought into the program 

to develop river system wide restoration strategies. 

3) Finally the program calls for the active participation of local communities and citizens in implementing the 

restoration program. Without support from local communities and citizens, any policy will fail. To help generate 

support, local jobs in restoration technologies including the •storm proofing" of the key watersheds, and community 

revitalization projects must be created. These pro_jocts are needed to restore riverine systems, and they offer the henefit 

of providing jobs and economic benefits. Floodplain open space preservation and such economic conversions as new 

crops that are less water- and energy-intensive, and the protection of undeveloped floodplains must also be encouraged. 

Incentives and technical assistance must be providt:d to encourage locaJ involvement in taking these steps and in 

designing and implementing watershed level restoration action plans. 

7 
97 

Necessary Federal Steps: 

To implement the new restoratjon approach, a coordinated strategic watershed restoration initiative is required. We 

recommend that the federal government establish the following: 

* A coordinated strategic watershed protection and restoration initiative in the Northwest. The program must ~ 

a top-level national priority. 

* A single department with clear policymaking authority to coordinate and implement the watershed protection 

and restoration program. Federal land management agencies can align their own policies. We recommend that 

the watershed level program that includes private lands be operated by the Environmental Protection Agency 

(provided EPA is given cabinet status and its petformance is greatly improved.) 

* Uniform, consistent riparian, floodplain and habitat protection and restoration standards for all federal land 

management agencies. 

* Ecosystem and watershed-level planning by all federal agencies. 

* A comprehensive ecosystem-based watershed protection program for all federal land-management agencies. 

This includes the creation of a regional (and nationwide) system of "Watershed (Riverine) Biodiversity 

Management Areas" and "Benchmark Watersheds". 

* A comprehensive ecosystem-based watershed restoration program that focuses initially on securing, linking, 

and expanding the remaining relatively healthy ecosystems and habitats. 

* Coordinated private land and watershed restordtion programs that generate local jobs and community 

revitalization projects, and sapport appropriate economic conversions. 

• A moratorium on new dam construction, a national "protected river" program, and a process to prioritize, 

remove, and alter the most damaging dams and water projects within river systems. 

* Stahle long-tenn funding and sufficient financial and tax incentives for watershed restoration. 

* Amendments to the existing federal land management agency rules, standards and guidelines so that they 

support the protection and restoration strategies, goals, and policies outlined in th.is testimony. 

IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES: To implement the proposed goals and strategies, we recommend two immediate 

policy steps:• the ttlltershed and Sa/,oon Habitat -ration Act and The National ttlltershed RJ,gistry. 

The Federal Lands Strategy: We propose that the strategies and policies proposed in this testimony be immediately 

implemented on federal lands through a Watershed and Salmon Habitat Restoration Act in the Pacific Northwest. 

Over 200 anadromous salmonids (trout, steelhead, char, and salmon) are at risk of extinction, and watershed ecosystems 

are highly degraded regionwide. At the same time, the region is certain to soon protect critical habitat for the Northern 

Spotted Owl and other species. Implementing the new federal land riverine policies in conjunction with the impending 

protection for these species wiU provide a more structured and integrated land protection and management scheme. 

This Act will also provide a short tenn infusion of much needed jobs in rural communities. 

For example. a draft estimate of the costs of securing 137 key public-land watersheds in the Pacific Northwest indicates 

that between 7.000 and 11 ,000 family-wage jobs would be created over the period of implementation. Much of this 

would involve heavy bulldozer and excavator equipment work to remove, upgrade or otherwise alleviate sedimentation 

problems caused by forest roads. 

8 
98 

Ultimately, we recommend that these changes be made on federal land mtion!Mde through a new Ft!deral unds Jlj..,rin, 

MAmge1111:nt Act a comprehensive. unifonn policy that would be applied to all federal lands and that mandates 

watershed-level. ecosystem-based protection and restoration. One uniform federal policy is needed to cut across the many 

conflicting policy fragments that exist today concerning riverine systems and biodiven;ity on federal lands. Federal lands 

are critical to the health of the nation's riven;: much of the remaining nanual ecological capilal and much of the 

remaining biodiversity is found on federal lands, especially in the West. These systems must be protected quickly to 

prevent further degradation and to provide the fundamenlal building blocks for long-term restoration. 

The Privllle Lands Strategy: We propose the concurrent establishment of a National Watershed Registry to support 

existing programs and initiate new voluntary. non-regulatory state and local efforts to recover riverine systems on private 

lands. The National Watershed Registry is needed to support the many ongoing state and local efforts that have sprouted 

across the region but that currently are limited in effectiveness. It should also stimulate the growth of many new local 

efforts regionwide. The NWR would establish DOD-profit local watershed council on priority riverine systems that would 

develop and implemen~ from the bottom-up, Watershed Restoration Action Plans. The federal government would 

provide grants, funding and technical assistance to these programs. The NWR would focus stimulating appropriate 

economic benefits to local communities in three ways: local jobs and restoration technologies, appropriate community 

revitalization projects, and economic conversions such as agricultural changes to less water and energy inlensive crops. 

A complete description of these proposals is found in our recently released report to Congress: EnieJin1 !he Walenlbed· 

An Action Plan To Restore America· s River Ecosystems and Biodiversity. 

THE IMPERATIVE OF CHANGE 

Although we evaluated numerous federal and state riverine policies and programs in preparation for this testimony, we 

have not spent a great deal of time recommending improvements for each. We believe that improving existing policies, 

although important to do, will stiU not provide the strategies, policies and incentives needed to initiate an era of 

comprehensive riverine restoration nationwide. No existing policies appear to be based on contemporary scientific 

1W."U111:ptions or knowledge, or effective implementation strategies and mechanisms. Until new policies are enacted. most 

efforts in improving, properly applying, or enforcing existing policies will remain primarily "rear guard" actions. That 

is, they may (but likely will not) maintain the existing levels of health for some riverine systems for a short time. 

However, they are certain to fail to maintain riverine health in the long run or lead to comprehensive recovery. New 

federal restoration goals, strategies, and policies are needed. 

We hope to see the region and nation turned toward new strategies and p:>licies lhal will protect and restore riverine 

syatems, fisheries and biodiversity. New approaches are cenainly needed. 'Riverine systems are the life-support system 

of our nation. These systems offer important sources of food, timber, fiber, water, and many other products that provide 

both jobs and sustenance. From the remaining healthy riverine systems will come vital genetic resources to recolonize the 

environment for future generations. And it is the natural beauty and recreational opportunities of our region's and 

nation's rivers that uplift the human spirit. 

It is in our self-interest to protect and restore the Northwest's and America's riverine systems and biodiversity. It is 

also our moral responsibility. 

9 
99 

Mr. VENTO. Dr. Frissell. 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS FRISSELL 

Dr. FRISSELL. Thank lou. I am a researcher on the faculty of Oregon State University. have a doctoral degree and a master's degree in fishery science, a bachelors in zoology. Since 1985 I have 

been doing research in southwest Oregon and a couple of other portions of the state of Oregon looking at the cumulative effects of 

human land use activities on salmon habitat and trying to develop 

approaches to ameliorating the effects of those activities. 

My recent work, for the past year has been supported by the Oregon Rivers Council and its supporting foundations; and I have 

been working with them on developing the science behind effective 

restoration strategies, which I would like to emphasize is very different from the way we have been approaching piecemeal in the 

past and fish habitat improvement in the past. And I am here 

today with the support of the Rivers Council. 

I have also been an active member of the American Fisheries Society. And the Oregon chapter of that organization has been active 

in monitoring and actively opposing the land use management 

plans of the BLM and the Forest Service. Many professionals, if not most, in the area are very alarmed at 

the direction that the agencies have been taking for the past 10 

years, at least in this region. And it gladdens me to see that there 

is at least a movement towards reforming the approach that those 

agencies have taken to the management of aquatic ecosystems and 

watersheds. 

I have also been a key member of the subcommittee of the Oregon chapter of American Fisheries that started the ball rolling on 

this concept, and we have been working since 1989 to identify key 

watersheds. Some of our work was used as a template or a prototype for the Gang of Four. 

So this concept of key watersheds and their critical role goes back quite a ways in the scientific community. 

I would like to just share with you some results from the sevenyear study that we just wrapped up; I and my colleagues in Oregon 

State and Southwest Oregon. From the standpoint of the watershed restoration issue that has been talked about a lot today, in 

this region virtually all the native salmonid species are in decline, 

some species precipitous, others more slow and chronic. But the 

most commercially important species, coho and Chinook salmon, 

have been in very serious decline in this region. 

American Fisheries Society has considered them endangered in 

status throughout the area, and there has been a lot of discussion 

that petitions are likely to be seen soon. In this area, the tip of the 

mountains, there are high erosion rates typically in logged lands 

and eroded areas and there has been very extensive logging on private lands and somewhat less extensive but equally devastating 

logging on the public lands. 

One of the reasons, even though the practices on public lands 

have been much higher level of responsibility than those of private 

lands over the past few decades, the incentive of the land, our Federal ownership, is higher depending on how you measure it; but the 

effects of the given area disturbed tends to be far in excess of the 
100 

same types of disturbance on the private lands in the area. This 

is one of the reasons that activities on Federal lands play probably 

as great a role in this region in the declines of salmon runs. 

I might add that this region is not affected by dammed over rivers. The rivers that we studied did not have dams on them. We 

eliminated those two potentially confounding portions of decline in 

this area. There is compelling evidence that habitat changes largely resulting from logging have contributed in large measure to the 

decline of these stocks. Fishing has probably played a role synergistically with that. 

And one of the things I wanted to mention-Dr. Williams mentioned it-the effects of change in the freshwater habitat are synergistic. And you can go to the list of other factors that are causing 

declines of salmon. Of course there are all kinds of species, and we 

have not begun to identify all the species that prey on salmon in 

the ocean. So there is a long list of scapegoats to blame the decline 

of salmon on, but the studies that have looked carefully at the 

salmon ecosystem have demonstrated that "'.hen freshwater 

ecosystems declined, the ability of those species to adapt to the 

changes in the environment is very seriously degraded. And the 

only reason that we still have naturally produced salmon in the Columbia Basin is that we have a few species that are intact and survival rates are able to make it through the gauntlet that they have 

to pass through both up and down river. Something recent in the Columbia River Basin is interesting and 

suggests the same point that in studies where we have been closely 

following fish movements from the river through their system we 

are starting to find that a large share of the mortality is occurring 

before the fish get to the first dam. So somewhere in the freshwater environment above the dams we are losing lots and lots and 

lots of fish. With the widespread loss of salmon habitat due to a range of activities-a lot of this was lost in the early century-salmon and 

other species have been isolated in headwater areas. And now what 

you are seeing suggests a very aggressive program of logging in 

these headwater areas that have come to serve as de facto refugia 

for these species. And that is why we are seeing the dwindling 

numbers that are very, very precarious. So, by default, essentially the way we manage these headwater 

basins, most on public lands and most on the ones where the habitat is going associated with roadless or other undeveloped lands, is 

critical for the future of these fish and particularly the shortrange 

future. 

When we look at a case study, say, on the Siskiyou based on our 

research we have identified probably about 16 and as a matter of 

fact the American Fisheries Society has identified about 16 watersheds around the Siskiyou Forest that seem to have a relatively 

high habitat and diversity of the native fish species. About three 

of those have partial protection in the existing wilderness. And 

many critical lands are not protected in the wilderness. Only three 

or four of those received protection under the spotted owl, the HCA 

designations, that were in the original Thomas plan for spotted 

owls which got some of the aquatic analysts going on identifying 

these for aquatic species. And 10 of those are associated with 
101 

roadless areas, each one of which has been targeted for extensive 

logging and roading in the future. One has an active 10 program 

ready to go when the Dwyer injunction is lifted. But perhaps we 

will see a change on the Forest Service's part there, but we have 

not seen that on the Forest Service level. Things are ready to roll 

by all appearances. These are the steepest most highly erosionprone areas. 

These areas have been stayed out of because of the problems in 

the past relating to logging and road construction. And it appears 

that there are no risk-free kinds of activities that we can do because this is where the last fish are left, and it is also where the 

most sensitive grounds are located. I would be probably more conservative in the recommendations than the Gang of Four about the 

management of those areas because of that sensitive nature of the 

lands; and there really are no risk-free activities. 

So including the proposed changes in logging that have occurred 

under now prospectives or ecosystem management programs, those 

are not free lunch to cut trees on steep lands. We don't know what 

the effect that business will have on the sensitive lands. And we 

don't think that we can afford, from the fish's standpoint, to risk 

the watershed on such experiments. I think they are important experiments. But I think we should do them when their risk to other 

species is probably lower. 

There are a lot of very key and good people in the agencies, Forest Service and BLM; and they are starting to play a more active 

role in the direction that the agencies are taking. But based on the 

past 20 years of direction, we have had 20 years of cooperation. Ostensibly, we have had 20 years of habitat improvement. And it has 

been a failure. And I think it is going to be difficult for the agencies, internally, without direction from outside, to just turn around 

20 years of bad planning and start doing the right thing next year. 

The signs are good, but the signs are not so good in other cases 

when you look at it from what is going on on the ground, which 

is where I have been mostly in the past seven years. 

So Bob basically covered the general aspects of the watershed 

restoration strategy. That was pretty embedded in the Gang of 

Four and seems to be very scientifically defensible. And it is a conservative strategy in that the capital that is invested in that program has the high probability of getting the effect that we want; 

stabilizing the species. But I should point out that it is not going to get us very far to 

restoring the species. So historical abundances or high levels of 

fishery production, that is going to require going into downstream 

areas and Federal areas and habitats that have been, for a long 

time, degraded in the loss of these species. And that is going to require a whole different kind of approach than we have talked about 

today. And I don't think anybody knows how to do that. 

It is going to be a long-term proposition to get that habitat back. 

And it is going to be tricky from the cultural and social standpoint. 

So what we can do now is secure what we have left and make sure 

that we don't lose it. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Dr. Frissell. [Prepared statement of Dr. Frissell follows:] 
102 

Testimony of Christopher A. Frissell 

Before the 

Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Chairman Bruce Vento 

11 March 1993 
103 

Federal Land Management and the Future of Salmon 

and Aquatic Biodiversity in the Pacific Northwest 

Christopher A. Frissell 

Oak Creek Laboratory of Biology 

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife 

104 Nash Hall 

Oregon State University 

Corvallis, Oregon 97331 

Introduction 

The following text documents and elaborates upon oral testimony presented 11 

March 1993 before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on National 

Parks and Public Lands, Washington, D.C. My testimony concerns the role of federal 

land management in the decline and future fate of the Pacific salmon and other native 

aquatic species of the Pacific Coast. 

Due to the general and interdisciplinary nature of this subject, I could refer to 

a very large number of scientific citations for support. For clarity and brevity, .1 cite 

references sparingly in this testimony. Extensive literature citation and more detailed 

discussions occur within the general sources cited herein (copies attached). In this 

text I necessarily generalize about the overall context and patterns of salmon declines 

and the requirements for recovery, deferring detailed discussion of the physical and 

biological processes causing these phenomena to the cited sources. The best way to 

illustrate these processes is with photographs; I would be happy to make a slide 

presentation at a later time at the request of members or committee staff. 

Resume and Qualifications 

As a Research Ecologist on the faculty of Oregon State University since 1985, 

and earlier as a graduate student, I have conducted studies of the effects of human 

land uses on stream habitat and fish populations, and the development of appropriate 

conservation strategies and policies for salmon and other native fishes. I earned Ph.D. 

and M.S. degrees in fisheries science from Oregon State University, and my doctoral 

dissertation and master's thesis both concern the cumulative effects of logging and 
104 

2 

other land uses on stream habitat and fish populations in western Oregon. I am 

principal author or coauthor of numerous journal articles, syrT)posium contributions, 

and reports on this subject. 

My current research ranges in scope from subcontinental-scale analyses of fish 

population distribution and trends in relation to land use activities, to detailed studies 

of fishes and their habitats in specific rivers. Between 1985 and 1992 I coordinated 

a research project investigating the role of human activities, primarily logging, road 

construction, and grazing on private and federal lands, in the deterioration of stream 

habitat and the decline of native salmon and trout populations in three regions of 

Oregon . This research was funded by the state of Oregon and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Federal Aid for Sport Fish Restoration Program. In a related project, 

funded by the National Park Service, I developed a classification system helpful to 

assess the effects of grazing and other land uses on streams and riparian habitat in the 

Great Basin. 

In 1991 I completed a year-long analysis of the effects of proposed 

management plans for the west-side federal lands of California, Oregon, and 

Washington, on water quality, fish, and aquatic biodiversity. That project and an 

ongoing study of the role of federal lands in sustaining salmon and other anadromous 

fish resources in the Pacific Northwest and California were supported by funds from 

The Wilderness Society. During the past year my studies have concentrated on the 

development of scientifically sound strategies for the restoration of riverine habitat, 

focusing on the role of public land watersheds in recovery of Pacific salmon and other 

declining aquatic biota. This work has been conducted with support by Oregon State 

University and the Pacific Rivers Council, with funding from several private 

foundations. 

I am an active member of several scientific and professional organizations, 

including the American Fisheries Society, Ecological Society of America, Society for 

Conservation Biology, and North American Benthological Society. The professional 

societies have long been concerned with the apparent lack of integration and public 

disclosure of key scientific and technical information in the planning process for 

national forest, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and other public lands. Since the 

mid-198O's I have reviewed forest plans and timber sale plans in the western states, 

and have helped prepare numerous detailed analyses, critiques, and appeal documents 

for the Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society's effort to monitor public 

lands. 

have also been involved in efforts by the American Fisheries Society to 

develop proactive approaches to conservation of biological diversity and fishery 

resources on federal lands. For example, I have been a key member of the Oregon 

Chapter's Subcommittee for Biodiversity and Critical Areas, which has prepared a 

scientific protocol, and a state-wide inventory, with supporting maps and data base, 
105 

3 

of watersheds and river reaches having high ecological integrity and high conservation 

value for sustaining sensitive aquatic species. This pioneering effort provided the 

initial prototype and template for the Scientific Panel on Late Successional 

Ecosystems ' "Watershed Option," proposed to Congress in 1991 for protection of 

salmon and other aquatic species on federal lands in the Pacific Northwest. 

Role of Habitat Deterioration in Salmon Declines 

Obviously, salmon and other fishes are adversely impacted by many factors 

other than land use activit ies, from dams and fishing to fluctuations in the marine 

environment. At the least, deterioration of freshwater habitat synergistically 

aggravates problems caused by other factors, by limiting the ability of fish populations 

to adapt to and compensate for stressors elsewhere in their life cycle (see Bisson et 

al. 1991 ). In other cases, fishing and dams are clearly not an issue and it is extremely 

difficult to ascribe declines and extirpation in some fishes and sensitive amphibians to 

causes other than damage to freshwater habitat (Frissell 1991, Frissell in press). 

It is important to keep in mind that the native freshwater fauna of the Pacific 

Northwest evolved under cold, wet conditions that prevailed during the Pleistocene 

period of about the past million years. During this period, forest or cold tundra-type 

conditions existed across most of the region. Fish species and other organisms 

adapted to cold, clean waters--the Pacific salmon and trout species, lampreys, and 

others--became widely distributed. Therefore the native aquatic fauna of this region, 

and thus its fishery resource, is largely dominated by animals that are inherently 

sensitive to the warming of surface waters, sedimentation of streambeds, and loss of 

channel stability and complexity that virtually always occur in response to disturbance 

and depletion of forest cover. Some species requiring extremely cold waters, such as 

the bull trout and tailed frog, were undoubtedly very abundant in the past, but now 

have receded and fragmented into small, isolated populations in mountainous 

headwater areas (see references in Frissell 1991 , Frissell in press). 

During the past century of development by European man, one of the most 

extensive changes on the landscape has been the logging and clearing of what once 

were old-growth and mature forests. Early development was concentrated in lowelevation areas, where many aquatic species were directly impacted by the loss of 

forest cover and simplification or outright destruction of natural estuaries, wetlands, 

floodplains, and riverine habitats. Human disturbance of forests occurs at frequencies 

and a spatial extent far in excess of natural disturbances such as wildfire and floods. 

Deforestation and accelerated forest disturbance, in conjunction with a sensitive native 

fauna , have contributed to widespread decline and fragmentation of the populations 

of fish and other aquatic animals (Frissell in press; Bisson et al. 1991 ). 
106 

4 

With the widespread loss of lowland habitats, salmon and other species have 

become increasingly isolated in less-disturbed headwater areas. Many if not most of 

these are on federally-owned lands. Today the management of lands in these steep, 

headwater basins disproportionately affects not only the sensitive aquatic species that 

find refuge there, but also water quality and habitat conditions in downstream areas. 

An overwhelming portion of the thousands of miles of riverine habitat in the Pacific 

Northwest lies downstream of federal lands, and the fate of these habitats depends 

directly or indirectly on the protection and management of those federal forests 

(Frissell 1991 ). 

Salmon Habitat and Federal Land Management 

Available scientific information strongly indicates that due to the a legacy of 

degraded freshwater habitat and depleted populations on private lands and developed 

public lands at lower elevations (e.g., Sedell and Everest 1990; other references in 

Frissell 1991 ), relatively undeveloped drainage basins and rivers on federal lands are 

critical in sustaining native salmon and other sensitive and declining aquatic species 

(Frissell 1991, and references cited therein; Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries 

Society 1989). 

Unfortunately, federal land management plans developed over the past 15 years 

target most of the last few relatively undeveloped watersheds for road construction 

and logging, with inadequate protection for stream channels, riparian forests and 

floodplains, and unstable or erosion-prone slopes. In most cases, roadless areas 

remain relatively undeveloped today exactly because they are steep and dominated by 

highly sensitive soils. Based on past experience, even with new forest plan standards 

and guidelines, proposed development and the soil loss it promotes is highly likely to 

cause severe degradation of habitat and water quality and to further jeopardize to the 

viability of fish populations both within and downstream of roadless areas and many 

other undeveloped lands (Frissell 1991, and citations therein). On such-sensitive lands 

that serve as critical refugia for regionally depleted salmon and other species, there is 

no guarantee that even the more progressive logging methods proposed under the 

"New Perspectives" program can reduce logging-related damage to acceptable levels 

(Frissell et al: 1992). 

Two critical factors compound the effects of deforestation and forest 

disturbance caused by logging, and also complicate their analysis-1 ) cumulative 

effects of past and new activities, and 2) the long time lag between slope disturbance 

and full expression of impacts to fish. Unfortunately these factors have been often 

overlooked or underestimated in the design of studies to evaluate effects of logging 

on aquatic resources, and in the planning of logging and road development. The first 

factor is that aquatic ecosystems have inherited the long-term, persistent effects of 

past practices, which due to very long recovery periods, cause ongoing or anticipated 
107 

5 

activities to have additional cumulative or even synergistic impacts. For example, the 

depletion of large woody debris from streams due to logging in riparian areas, or the 

scouring and mass deposition in a stream channel caused by a landslide and large, 

downstream-moving debris flow, have effects that are large and irreversible over a 

period of many decades to centuries (Bisson et al, 1991, Frissell 1991 ). Because even 

limited new logging in these riparian areas will deplete what few conifer trees are left 

to replace the natural forest, even a limited activity will now have a large cumulative 

impact. Similarly, because extensive road networks and clearcuts have triggered 

widespread landslides and debris flows in the past, the few remaining undisturbed 

streams have important and increasingly rare values for fish and wildlife; even small 

incursions into these few remaining intact watersheds now can jeopardize a sensitive 

species over a large areas by threatening i.ts only remaining secure habitat (Frissell 

1993). 

The second critical factor is that in many cases, continuing declines of sensitive 

fishes and other species indicate that these species have not yet adjusted to the loss 

of habitat caused by past human and natural disturbance. Even where new human 

disturbance has been abated, streams continue to suffer the effects of past activities. 

Many populations of salmon, for example, have likely been so depleted and 

fragmented by past human disturbance that they are likely to become extinct in the 

next decade or two. What this means is that we have not yet been held accountable 

for our past Indiscretions in the management of rivers and the private and public lands 

in their watersheds. The situation will likely get worse before it gets better. It also 

means that when we err in land management, especially on steep and sensitive forest 

lands, the consequences can be biologically and physically irreversible. Therefore it 

is critical that we be extremely cautious and conservative in how we manage the last 

few streams that support abundant populations and high diversity of salmon and other 

native species. Until we have detected significant and persistent recovery of disturbed 

and degraded habitats elsewhere in the river system, we must jealously guard the last 

intact pieces of the ecosystem that we have left. These last pieces are largely located 

in roadless areas and other less-developed lands under federal ownership. 

Faiue of Federal Agencies to Respond Effaclively 

The problems outlined above have developed due to institutional biases and 

systematic neglect or suppression of scientific data and expert opinion, especially but 

not exclusively at regional offices and higher echelons in the agencies. This has 

occurred despite the best efforts of many local resource professionals. In some cases, 

good information has been assembled and disclosed, but decisions have been made 

heedless of the likely irreversible ecological consequences. In many other cases, 

however, sufficient expertise and institutional support have not been made available 

within the agencies to allow for incorporation and full disclosure of accurate scientific 

information in resource management plans. Such agency dysfunctions lead directly 
108 

6 

to frequent, continuing, and justified disruption of plans and projects by citizen appeals 

and litigation. 

The primary response to date of the Forest Service, BLM, and other agencies 

has been to pour millions of dollars into adding artificial structures in an attempt to 

"fix" streams that have been damaged by logging and other land uses. These 

structures are exceedingly expensive, and most streams, because of cost or limited 

access, can never be treated (Bisson et al. 1991 ). Furthermore, where landslides, road 

failures, and similar watershed problems are persistent or ongoing, such structures 

have high failure rates, and a high incidence of adverse side effects (Frissell and Nawa 

1992). This very expensive program amounts to cosmetic surgery, an unsuccessful 

attempt to treat and/or obscure the serious damage inflicted by logging and other 

development activities on stream ecosystems. In many national forest plans, artificial 

structures are portrayed as the principle driver of fish populations, and a primary 

means of mitigating the adverse effects of damage to water quality and fish habitat 

anticipated from the proposed timber program. Continuing or accelerating declines of 

coho salmon and many of the other target species are testimony to the failure of these 

programs. Funds for these ineffective programs should be transferred to new 

restoration projects that would eliminate the causes of habitat degradation and 

promote the recovery of natural ecological processes (Frissell and Nawa 1992, Frissell 

1993 and references therein, Frissell et al. in press). 

Steps Necessary for Recovery 

To ensure the future of the Pacific salmon and other aquatic species, many 

major changes must be made in public lands management. Most of these changes are 

incorporated in certain alternatives of the 1991 report to Congress of the Scientific 

Panel on Late Successional Ecosystems. Among these changes are: 

1 ) A moratorium on logging and construction of roads in watersheds 

having a major component of roadless area and other "critical areas" 

supporting high diversity or productivity of sensitive species. These 

critical areas should be identified based on (but not limited to) the lists 

and maps in the Scientific Panel on Late Successional Ecosystems' report 

to Congress, the Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society's 

Critical Areas inventory, Dr. Peter Moyle's (University of California at 

Davis, Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology) Aquatic Biodiversity 

Management Areas, and similar scientific sources. 

2) National Forest- and BLM District-scale population viability analyses for 

anadromous fish and other sensitive species, based on historical and 

present-day distribution, abundance, and actual or potential threats to 

specific populations and subpopulations across all land ownerships within 
109 

7 

major drainage basins. These studies should be conducted with the 

cooperation of the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, state wildlife and fish agencies, and university expertise. 

Based on these studies, long-range land management plans should be 

developed for each major river basin, containing provisions to ensure that 

all remaining natural populations of fish and other sensitive species are 

maintained and, where appropriate, recovered. 

3) Improved standards for management of all federal lands, including 

wide, no-logging buffer zones along all streams; provisions for complete 

identification, mapping, and withdrawal from the timber base of all lands 

where logging and road construction are likely to lead to landslides, 

erosion, and damage to adjacent and downstream aquatic habitats; and 

limitations on road construction and re-construction. 

4) Re-allocation of funds within fish habitat improvement, fish 

restoration, and similar programs, away from projects focused on 

installation of artificial structures and fish culture technology, toward 

projects and research focused on restoration of natural processes and 

ecosystem components. Such projects should promote self-restorative 

processes of aquatic habitat, riparian forests, and watershed and 

floodplain functions. Funds in road programs should be reallocated from 

construction and reconstruction to road obliteration and watershed 

restoration. 

5) Improved comunication and between research and management 

branches of federal land management agencies. 
110 

8 

Literature Cited 

Bisson, P.A., T.P. Quinn, G.H. Reeves, and S. V. Gregory. 1991. Best management 

practices, cumulative effects, and long-term trends in fish abundance in Pacific 

Northwest river systems. Pp. 189-232 in R. J. Naiman, editor. Watershed 

Management: Balancing Sustainability and Environmental Change. Springer-Verlag, 

New York. 

Frissell, C.A. 1991. Water quality, fisheries, and aquatic biodiversity under two 

alternative forest management scenarios for the west-side federal lands of 

Washington, Oregon, and Colorado. Report prepared for The Wilderness Society, 

Washington, D.C. 54 pp. 

Frissell, C.A., and R.K. Nawa. 1992. Incidence and causes of physical failure of 

artificial fish habitat structures in streams of western Oregon and Washington. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management 12: 182-197. 

Frissell, R.K. Nawa, and R. Noss. 1992. Is there any conservation biology in "New 

Perspectives?": A response to Salwasser. Conservation Biology 6(3):461-464. 

Frissell, C.A. In press. Topology of decline and extinction of fishes in the Pacific 

Northwest and California. Conservation Biology. 

Frissell, C.A. , 1993. A new strategy for watershed restoration and recovery of Pacific 

salmon in the Pacific northwest. Draft report prepared for the Pacific Rivers Council, 

Eugene, OR. 20 January 1993. 31 pp. 

Frissell, C.A., W.J. Liss, and D. Bayles. In press. An integrated, biophysical strategy 

for ecological restoration of large watersheds. Paper prepared for the proceedings of 

a symposium sponsored by the American Water Resources Association, "Changing 

Roles in Water Resources Management and Policy.• 27-30 June, 1993, Seattle, WA. 

Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society. 1989. The status of threatened 

and rare native fish stocks affected by the Siskiyou National Forest Plan, and 

implications for aquatic biological diversity. Intervenor comment paper prepared for 

the Chief of the Forest Service on the matter of appeal #89-13-00-0130 on the 

Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, filed by Natural 

Resources Defense Council et al. 19 pp. + appendices. 

Sedell, J.R., and F.H. Everest. 1990. Historic changes in pool habitat for Columbia 

River Basin salmon under study fr TES listing. Draft report, USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, OR. 7 pp. 
111 

Mr. VENTO. We would invite Mr. Higgins now to make his statement. 

STATEMENT OF PAT lllGGINS 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you. It is an honor to be here today. I am 

a fisheries biologist from northwestern California, and the case 

studies that I draw on here will illustrate that what Chris Frissell 

has said of areas further north is true in my area. I am active in 

my Humboldt chapter of the American Fisheries Society. I am a 

principal author of "Stocks at Risk in Northern California" which 

chronicles the extinction of Pacific salmon in our region. And the 

stated intent of that was to let people know where our problems 

lie and to win cooperation. 

And the problems, certainly, in habitat in northwest California 

are linked to sediment. We have 60 feet in the Eel River and 30 

to 50 feet in the Klamath. And I helped to write the Klamath River 

Plan and guided over $40 million in the 20-year restoration program, and it takes a similar approach. But there is no funding 

mechanism. 

My trip to Washington has been sponsored by the American Ancient Forest Alliance because there is a growing recognition that 

the last existing salmon are dependent on the last existing forest. 

I am currently working on a restoration action plan for the South 

Fork Trinity River, and why the salmon are becoming extinct. The 

Plumber Creek is the last viable juvenile-rearing habitat in a thousand mile sub-base basin. And the reason that Plumber Creek is 

functioning is that it has an undisturbed sub-basin called Jim's 

Creek. If Jim's Creek were cut, the lifeline for spring Chinook 

salmon in this basin would be severed, and we would lose the seeds 

of tomorrow for a thousand square miles in California, in the largest wild and scenic river. 

There is pressure to cut the trees. Private land has been overcut. 

Six miles of forest in our area that is doing good in terms of watershed restoration models private lands as all-cut, every year and 

that's apt. It's apt. Unfortunately, the U.S. Forest Service lands 

and BLM lands are nested in devastated private timber lands in 

California. And you think you need to look to the EPA to have 

more teeth, but the Federal process has failed in California to protect public trust resources. We need legislative action to protect 

roadless areas because they harbor the seeds of the last remaining 

fish. 

Immediate action is needed, and I am pleased to see that there 

is such strong interest because the threat of flood is real and we 

could lose the fish through sediment impact. But we need specialized inventories. 

And I am going to tum the page and talk about institutional 

problems within the U.S. Forest Service and BLM to meet this 

problem with current staff. It is my understanding that we have 

on the order of 3,500 timber workers employed by the U.S. Forest 

Service at this point in the West; and there is a great temptation 

as timber cutters are reduced to move these key workers. And timber workers are now driving the fish and wildlife programs. These 

guys like to fish, but they are not capable of running these programs. If we do that over a large area, as we get watershed moneys 
112 

coming in, then this program will fail and the moneys will not be 

properly directed. 

The Klamath National Forest got a national award last year for 

taking a proactive approach for keeping spring Chinook from being 

listed as extinct in the river. They spent $325,000 last year on a 

watershed approach to the Salmon River, similar to the approach 

that is being recommended here. They asked for $1.2 milhon this 

year and got $100,000. You've got to have the continuity. 

Now, they are looking at possibly losing key staff because they 

don't have the continuity in budget. I understand that most of the 

money that is available to aquatic resources went to the consultation-type stuff. We have to get out of that box. We have to take a 

proactive approach. And I believe it is necessary that we take a legislative approach to this. 

I have an example at BLM. BLM has holdings within the 

Mattole River watershed where there are stocks of chinook and 

coho salmon and BLM has inventoried the lands and found them 

to be in need of restoration, but yet has no funding. They also lost 

a key employee in that area because they leaned on him too hard 

for a land sale. 

The Forest Service and BLM will now be competing for staff that 

is in really short supply, so they have to nurture that staff. And 

the biggest way to do that is a long-term commitment. I would recommend "no year money". If you give them targets, they will meet 

them artificially. I think PAC-fish is good. It is a founding document. It tells the ranger that there are people looking at the programs other than the people that they are meeting for lunch. But we need-we have new supervisors in our force locally. But 

there is resistance at the staff level to the changes because of bureaucratic inertia. And I think it needs congressional direction. If 

your Republican colleagues were here, they would ask: Where is 

the money going to come from? I would suggest that this is infrastructure. 

Mr. VENTO. The Democrats ask these questions, too. It is a 

changing role these days. 

Mr. HIGGINS. I took a shot at them. I shouldn't do that. 

Mr. VENTO. They may be perfectly willing to spend on every program like this. If you could wind up, because I want to get to Mr. 

Palmisano. 

Mr. HIGGINS. I am. We need to preserve our soil capital to maintain productivity, and these fish are a resource. I am working on 

the South Fork of the Trinity; and in the plan that we are putting 

together there it suggests that fishery restoration can be a key part 

for revitalization in the rural communities. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Higgins follows:] 
..... 

~ 

PACIFIC 

WATERSHED 

ASSCX.IATES 

113 

March 8, 1993 

Honorable Bruce Vento, Chairman 

National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Sub-Committee 

House Natural Resources Committee 

Rayburn Building, Office 2304 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Vento, 

It is an honor and a privilege to be able to address the subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands. I am a 

consulting fisheries biologist with a specialty in salmon and 

steelhead restoration. My current project is to· develop a 

restoration action plan for the South Fork Trinity River, as part 

of the Trinity River Restoration Program. I am a contributing 

author of the plan which guides the 20 year, $40 million federal 

program to restore salmon and steelhead to the Klamath River (USFWS 

1991). As a member of the Humboldt Chapter of the American 

Fisheries Society, I served as the principal author of a white 

paper dealing with stocks of Pacific salmon in northwestern 

California that are at risk of e xtinction (Higgins et al. 1992) . I 

will try to provide insight in my testimony as to how the U.S . 

Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management can prevent loss of 

salmon and steelhead stocks i n northwestern California by embarking 

on an amb itious watershed restoration program. 

In my work for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1991), I 

characterized the Klamath River as "severely ecologically 

stressed." Pools in the lower river have been filled in by 20 - 30 

feet of sediment. The loss of cold wa ter layers, which once existed 

in the depths of pools, now deprives salmon and steelhead of 

critical refuge areas as river temperatures rise to above 75 degree 

Fin l ate summer. The estuary of the Klamath River has also been 

fi lled in resulting in l oss of important rearing habitat for young 

chinook salmon. 

All other major river systems in our area, with the exception 

of the smith River, have similar problems to those described above. 

Sedimentation has occurred as a result of extremely unstable 

geologic. conditions and intense rainfall coupled wi th disturba nces 

related to timber harvest. Road failures during major storm events trigger mass wasting which contributes the bulk of sediment to 

stream channels. While management of U.S. Forest -Service and Bureau 

of Land Management _ timber lands has improved in recent years, 

pressure to "get out the cut" to produce revenue has fragmented the 

forest in most watersheds and elevated erosion risk . Clear cut 

logging on private timber land in northwestern California continues 

on steep , unstable slopes, setting the stage for catastrophic soil 

loss in the event of another major storm. Active and abandoned 

logging roads on public and private land total over 10,000 miles in 

our region alone. 

c ... 1mo•ph,c Stud,1•~ • Ero ,\oon /1. '-t>d,m1•n1,111•,., l'r,1,.·p.-('• • w,ldl.1nd Hvd.,,l,,~1·• £11,"on (on1ml 

P.O . Box 4433· Arca til. Ctliiorn1 <1 • '155 21 · i07-839•5 1l0 
114 

Taking a Watershed Approach to Restoring 

Salmon and Steelhead 

A comprehensive approach to watershed restoration is the only 

sound solution to preventing widespread stock losses of salmon and 

steelhead. Erosion risk must be reduced so that future flood events 

will not damage the last viable stream systems supporting these 

species. I support the concept being advanced by the Pacific Rivers 

Council as put forth by Dr. Chris Frissell, who joins me on this 

panel. Their approach is scientifically sound and very similar to 

the one proposed in the long range plan to restore the Klamath 

River (USFWS 1991). Refuge areas must be secured and then adjacent 

watersheds stabilized. By building on the solid foundation of the 

last good habitat that we have, we stand the best chance of 

achieving success. 

In northwestern California, those streams that flow from 

Wilderness or Roadless Areas on U.S. Forest Service lands such as 

Smith River, Wooley Creek, Dillon Creek, Clear Creek, upper Blue 

Creek, lower Hayfork Creek, New River, and the North Fork Trinity 

River are the only systems that possess high quality fish habitat 

at this time. The undisturbed Roadless Areas surrounding salmon and 

steel head refuge habitats must be protected through legislation 

because they represent the last gene resources available for 

restoring Pacific salmon populations. 

Upper Blue Creek serves as a good illustrat ion of why 

preservation of these areas is absolutely necessary. Blue Creek 

harbored 10,000 fall chinook salmon as recently as 1950. The race 

of fish had long been recognized as unique because of late run 

timing and large size. The creek suffered major damage in past 

floods and the lower watershed, which is on private land, has 

recently been extensively clear cut. In the last several years, the 

population has dropped to only 150 to 500 fall chinook salmon. 

These fish spawn exclusively in the canyon areas immed iately below 

the Roadless Area on Six Rivers National Forest . Chinook have been 

almost completely eliminated from all other lower Klamath 

watersheds which are largely owned by private timber companies. Any 

disturbance in the USFS Roadless Area in the upper Blue Creek 

watershed increases the risk of extinction of lower Klamath fall 

chinook. 

While there is a great deal of urgency because of the risk of 

losing salmon and ste~lhead stocks in future floods, all steps 

taken in erosion control and prevention must be well planned or the 

efforts may fail. Inventories must be conducted by highly skilled 

workers with a background in geology or watershed management . If 

people with no formal education in these discipl i nes are used in 

the field, then they must be extensively trained. Supervisorial 

staff must be adequate to conduct regular field checks to assure 

quality control. If the large amount of money required for this 

task is wasted, it will be tragic. Because of decreased timber 
115 

production, the USFS and BLM currently have a substantial surplus 

of workers that have been associated with timber harvest. These 

agencies must resist the temptation to use the resources allocated 

for watershed restoration to retain staff that is not capable of 

contributing to a successful watershed restoration program. 

Both the USFS and BLM need time for accurate inventories and 

staff development so that watershed restoration can be done 

properly. Budget allocations should not set unrealistic targets 

that would lead to a lack of quality control. Congress should 

stipulate that money allocated for this ambitious watershed 

restoration program is "no year money." This will allow a flexible 

time frame for various National Forests or BLM Districts to build 

a quality program and not be pressed into meeting arbitrary budget 

deadlines. 

The work of pulling culverts and obliterating sections of road 

can be done by displaced timber workers and equipment operators. 

Some stipulation should be made in enabling legislation to favor 

small local contractors. If fisheries restoration creates local 

jobs, then the community as a whole will support it .. In addition to 

short term benefits of job creation, rural economies will 

ultimately be revitalized by tourism related to increased fishing 

opportunities. 

Key Habitats For Salmon and Steelhead m 

Northwestern California 

Discussions regarding refuge habitats for salmon and steelhead 

have largely centered on the work of Johnson et al. (1991). I 

believe that some watersheds critical to the preservation of salmon 

and steelhead stocks in northwestern California have been omitted. 

Conversely, some watersheds included as key habitats are too 

degraded to serve as centers of restoration. on the Klamath 

National Forest, Grider creek needs to be protected as critical 

habitat because its watershed is almost completely intact. Juvenile 

chinook sa~mon of stocks that are at high risk of extinction, such 

as the Shasta River, may currently take refuge in lower Grider 

Creek because of its cool water temperatures. Because of its 

healthy watershed and stream conditions, Grider Creek may offer a 

unique opportunity as a .control in future monitoring programs or 

studies. Beaver Creek, on the other hand, may be too degraded to be 

considered as a key watershed at this time. 

Six Rivers National Forest has jurisdiction over critical 

salmon and steelhead habitat in the Mad River drainage which needs 

to be included in any key watershed designation. This river once 

produced over 5,000 chinook salmon annually but today the number is 

only several hundred. The majority of the watershed below the Six 

Rivers holdings is on private timber land and has been extensively 

clear cut in recent years. The last viable population of fall 

chinook salmon now spawn in the main river alluviated canyon 
116 

habitat below Pilot Creek. Although the Pilot Creek watershed lies 

within extremely erodible terrain, Six Rivers National Fbrest is 

planning a major timber harvest. An extensive road network exists 

already and poses a high erosion risk. It wou ld be prud ent to defer 

timber harvest and immediately implement erosion control in the 

Pilot Creek watershed. Major contributions of sediment from this 

watershed could eliminate the last of chinook salmon in the Mad 

River. 

In the south Fork Trinity River drainage on Shasta Trinity 

National Forest, Miner creek and Bear creek should be designated as 

critical habitats for reasons similar to Grider creek. These 

tributaries of lower Hayfork Creek may provide critical habitat for 

salmon and steelhead juveniles. Hayfork Creek can reach 80 degre es 

F during summer, but remnant runs of spring chinook and summer 

steelhead still hold during summer in some years in deep pools. the 

cold water that Miner and Bear creek provide may be critical to the 

survival of these fish. The Pattison Roadless Area that includes 

Miner Creek and Bear Creek must remain undisturbed. Miner and Bear 

Creeks are also two of the last undisturbed watersheds in the 

entire South Fork Trinity River watersheds so should be preserved 

as control sites for any studies or monitoring programs. 

Opportunities For Pilot Projects Taking a Watershed 

Approach in Northwestern California 

Because a substantial amount of the research a nd testing of 

watershed restoration techniques has taken place in northwestern 

California, both the USFS and BLM may be ready to impl emen, 

programs in the near term. Klamath National Forest ·has already 

formulated a plan to control erosion as an approach to restoring 

the Salmon River, which harbors that last viable population of wild 

spring chinook in the Klamath River. USFS personnel have worked 

closely with the community in developing a restoration plan and the 

community stands ready to participate. The Klamath Forest has also 

acquired help in assessing sediment potential from the Pacifi c 

Forest and Range Experiment Station in Arcata, California so early 

phases of erosion control activity could begin. 

The Bureau of Land Management has also been working closel y 

with community members interested i ·n restoring chinook and coho 

salmon to the Mattole River . The native salmon of the river are 

recognized by the American Fisheries Society to be at high risk of 

extinction. The BLM has assessed the need for erosion control 

measures on land under its jurisdiction and could now proceed on a 

model project. BLM also needs to fi11 · its fisheries ·staff position 

which has been vacated recently vacated. 

Six Rivers National Forest has done erosion control assessment 

for many of its watersheds . This should enable the Forest to begin 

implementation of erosion control measures relatively quick 1 y . 

Recent surveys of existing road networks in Pilot Creek showed that 
117 

there were numerous culverts with high diversion potential. 

Problems identified should be remedied as soon as possible to 

prevent further decline in habitat quality and fall chinook salmon 

in the Mad River. Some key watersheds listed in Johnson et al. 

( 1991) such as Bluff creek and Red Cap Creek have widespread 

disturbance associated with timber harvest. "Storm proofing" these 

wa tersheds is probably prudent to protect fall chinook s tocks and 

summer steelhead. 

The Shasta Trinity National Forest controls a substantial 

portion of the South Fork Trinity River watershed. Spring chinook, 

fall chinook, coho salmon, and summer steelhead are all at 

extremely low levels. A major factor in the decline of these fish 

has been sedimentation. Because the watershed is large and current 

assessments are incomplete, implementation of such a program in 

this basin may require longer lead time. 

We are now faced with the very real prospect of widespread 

extinction of Pacific salmon stocks. As a nation, we are all 

concerned about our current budget deficit and what portion of that 

debt we will leave to our children . If we fail to act decisively, 

to save Pacific salmon, what will be the economic and cultural 

deficit that we leave to future generations? Congress should enact 

legislation to begin an ambitious wa tershed restoration program to 

prevent widespread loss of Pacific salmon stocks. The public 

recognizes the value of Pacific salmon and healthy river systems 

and will support sound solutions. The time for leadership has 

arrived. 

Johnson, K.N., J . F . Franklin, J.W. Thomas, J.Gordon . 1991. 

Alternatives for Management of Late Successional Forests of 

the Pacific Northwest. Report for Merchant Marine and 

Fisheries Committee, U.S. House of Representatives. 

Higgins, P.T., s . Dobush, D. Fuller. Factors Threatening Northern 

California Stocks With Extinction. Humboldt Chapter American 

Fisheries Society, Arcata, Calif. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Long Range Plan for the 

Klamath River Basin Fisheries Conservation Area . Klamath 

Field Office U.S.F.W.S., Yreka, Calif . 
118 

Mr. VENTO. Our concern is that we have to go over there and 

vote. But, Mr. Palmisano, I know it is unfair to ask to you summarize your statement. Please try and do so now, and probably we 

will leave it at that. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN F. PALMISANO 

Mr. PALMISANO. Mr. Chairman and the subcommittee members, 

thank you for the opportunity to address the subcommittee. I am 

an independent fishery scientist from Portland, Oregon. I have a 

Ph.D. in fisheries from the University of Washington in Seattle, 

and I am a certified fishery scientist. I have 20 years of professional experience in consulting, research, and teaching in the Pacific Northwest. 

I am representing the Northwest Forest Resource Council of 

Portland, Oregon. The council and I feel strongly that before solutions can be applied to the salmon problem, the problem must be 

thoroughly defined. Only after knowing the causes can the solutions be proposed and fairly implemented. 

In the last 12 months, I have coauthored two scientific studies 

that reviewed the factors that have adversely affected Pacific 

Northwest salmon stocks. The first report was prepared for the Oregon Forest Industry Council in June 1992. And the second report 

was prepared in January 1993 for the Washington Forest Protection Association and the Washington State Department of.Natural 

Resource. 

The sole objective of both studies was to provide a thorough and 

honest evaluation of all factors that have adversely affected the 

wild anadromous stocks of Pacific Northwest salmon and trout. 

Our finding showed that no single factor but rather a multitude 

of factors, including forestry, contribute to the reduction of abundance of wild anadromous salmon trout. We identified two major categories of factors, environmental and fisheries management. Environmental factors included water-use and land-use practices, natural phenomena, and biological interactions. Fisheries management factors included agency policies and actions, harvest, and hatchery practices. 

We found that wild fish abundance was reduced by lost productivity caused by habitat loss and degradation, by additional mortality caused by environmental and by fisheries management factors, 

and by changes in fish size and genetics caused primarily by fisheries management practices. 

Both reports present a balanced and comprehensive scientific review of the factors that have led to the decline of salmonid runs 

in Oregon and Washington. The reports identify the following as 

significant contributors to the decline of Pacific Northwest salmon 

populations: Permissive salmon management policies; overfishing 

and inadequate spawning escapement; major irrigation, hydropower, and flood control projects; intensive land use practices; predation; and climatic factors. 

If we want to solve the salmon problem, we must be aware of 

very important information. Anadromous salmon and trout of the 

Pacific Northwest have a complex life history. These fish require 

freshwater, marine, and estuary habitat. They are vulnerable to 

adverse impacts in areas other than the freshwater environment. 
119 

The migration takes them out of local jurisdiction and exposes 

them to fisheries and predators in California Oregon, Washington, 

Alaska, Canada, and the high seas. 

No single factor, but a multitude of fisheries management and 

environmental factors affect the abundance and health of these 

fish. 

Industrial and urban development and associated increases in 

human population have contributed to the decline of salmonid populations in the Pacific Northwest. It is unrealistic to expect the 

same number of fish in 1990s as occurred in 1890. 

Of all factors considered, fishing is the most responsible for direct and indirect fish mortality. 

While salmonid populations have been decreasing, populations of 

some major predator species of marine mammals and sea birds, 

which are protected by federal laws, have been increasing. West 

Coast populations of harbor seals and California sea lions has been 

increasing between 4 and 12 percent per year. 

The most productive habitats for fish rearing occur in the flood 

plains and estuaries of rivers. These areas have long been cleared 

of trees and other vegetation and are now altered and used for agriculture, highways, railroads, navigation, ports, marinas, flood 

control, water diversions, and development of urban, industrial, 

and recreational complexes. These areas have relatively new regulations that protect fisheries and little chance of returning to nature. 

The least naturally productive habitats for fish rearing occur in 

streams in upland areas that are normally forested. These areas 

have steep gradients and the streams have narrow channels and 

rapid flow rates. Forest practices are regulated more than any 

other land or water use practice. Yet these areas, although managed, are maintained as vegetated landscapes. 

Further improvements in freshwater habitats may not result in 

increased salmonid abundance unless similar improvements occur 

in important estuarine habitat, which now may be limiting. At the 

same time, similar improvements, which may now be limited in 

some solutions to the salmon problem, have to be based on sound, 

scientific information gathered from all areas inhabited by these 

fishes. 

I thank you for the opportunity, and both reports that I mentioned have been submitted for my testimony. 

[Prepared statement of Dr. Palmisano and reports submitted for 

the record follow:] 
120 

March 11, 1993 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Natural Resources Subcommittee 

Representative Bruce F. Vento, Chairman 

2253 Rayburn 

Washington, D.C. 

RE: Formal Comments on the Impact of Timber Harvest to Pacific Northwest Salmon 

Dear Chairman Vento: 

Thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee. My name is John F. Palmisano. 

I am an independent fisheries scientist from Portland, Oregon. I have a Ph.D. in Fisheries from 

the University of Washington, in Seattle, and I am a Certified Fisheries Scientist. I have 20 

years of professional experience in consulting, research, and teaching in the Pacific Northwest. 

I am representing the Northwest Forest Resource Council (NFRC) of Portland, Oregon. The 

Council's members are timber companies that depend upon natural resources and own and 

manage much salmon habitat in Oregon and Washington. Furthermore, the Council strongly 

believes that the recovery of salmon runs is very important to all residents of the Northwest. 

Accordingly, the Council has an immense interest in the Subcommittee's hearings and believes 

that it is appropriate to comment on the issues that will affect the recovery of salmon runs and 

influence the management of forested lands. 

The Council and I feel strongly that before solutions can be applied to the salmon problem, 

the problem has to be thoroughly and accurately defined. Only after knowing all the major 

causes can the appropriate solutions be proposed and fairly implemented. 

In the last 12 months I have coauthored two scientific studies that reviewed the factors that 

have adversely affected Pacific Northwest stocks of wild anadromous salmon and trout. The 

first report, A Review of Management and Environmental Factors Responsible for the Decline 

and Lack of Recovery of Oregon's Wild Anadromous Salmonids was prepared for the Oregon 

Forest Industry Council in June of 1992 by Drs. V.W. Kaczynski and J.F. Palmisano. The 

second report, The Impact of Environmental and Management Factors on Washington's Wild 

Anadromous Salmon and Trout was prepared in January 1993 by Drs. John F. Palmisano, 

Robert H. Ellis, and Victor W. Kaczynski for the Washington Forest Protection Association and 

the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. We present these reports as part of 

our formal comments and strongly encourage the Subcommittee to read them. 

The sole objective of both studies was to provide a through and honest evaluation of all factors 

that have adversely affected the wild anadromous stocks of Pacific Northwest salmon and 

trout. 
March 11 , 1993 

Chairman Vento 

Page Two 

121 

Not surprisingly, our findings showed that no single factor, but rather a multitude of factors, 

including forestry, contributed to the reduced abundance of wild anadromous salmon and trout 

in Oregon and Washington. We identified two major categories of factors, environmental and 

fisheries management. Environmental factors included water-use and land-use practices, 

natural phenomena, and biological interactions. Fisheries management factors included agency 

policies and actions, harvest, and hatchery practices. 

We found that wild fish abundance was reduced by lost productivity caused by habitat loss and 

degradation, by additional mortality caused by environmental and · fisheries management 

factors, and by changes in fish size and genetics caused primarily by fisheries management 

practices. 

Both reports present a balanced and comprehensive scientific review of the factors that have 

lead to the decline of salmonid runs in Oregon and Washington. The reports identify the 

following as significant contributors to the decline of Pacific Northwest salmon populations: 

o Permissive salmon management policies 

o Overfishing and inadequate spawning escapement 

o Major irrigation, hydropower, and flood control projects 

o Intensive land use practices 

o Predation, and 

o Climatic factors. 

The reports also provide information on impacts such as: 

o Changes in ocean survival of fish 

o Increases in the populations of salmon predators and competitors, such as marine 

mammals, including seals and sea lions, American shad, and northern squawfish o 

Changes in the Columbia-Snake River aquatic environment 

o Loss of river and estuary habitat and food supply, and 

o Large influx of hatchery produced fish into the system. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment. We hope that our findings will be helpful. 

Respectfully, 

J· ::::::-;·Jr . ,I'!' {_ '-' ( , , ..__,>-.-,.,,,.,-~ ,-,:,,,'-{-

Dr. John F. Palmisano 

For The NORTHWEST FORESr RESOURCE COUNCIL 
March 11, 1993 

Chairman Vento 

Page Three 

122 

Important Considerations About Causes Of Decline In Northwest Salmonid Populations 

1. Anadromous salmon and trout of the Pacific Northwest have a complex life history. These 

fish require freshwater, marine, and estuary habitat. (An estuary is an arm of the sea at the 

mouth of a river; it contains a mixture of fresh and salt water.) Thus, they are vulnerable to 

adverse impacts in areas other than the freshwater environment. 

2. The migratory nature of many of these fish takes them out of local jurisdiction and exposes 

them to fisheries in California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Canada, and the high seas. 

3. No single factor, but rather a multitude of fisheries management and environmental factors 

affect the abundance and health of these fish. 

4. Industrial and urban development and associated increases in human population have 

contributed to the decline of salmonid populations in the Pacific Northwest. 

It is unrealistic to expect the same number of fish in the 1990s as occurred in the 1890s. 

5. Of all factors considered, fishing is the most responsible for direct and indirect fish 

mortality. 

6. While salmonid populations have been decreasing, populations of some major predator 

species of marine mammals and sea birds, which are protected by federal laws, have been 

increasing. Since the Marine Mammal Protection Act was passed in 1972, West Coast 

populations of harbor seals and California sea lions have been increasing between 4 and 12 

percent per year. 

7. The most productive habitats for fish rearing occur in the flood plains and estuaries of 

rivers. These areas have long been cleared of trees and other vegetation and are now altered 

and used for agriculture, highways, railroads, navigation, ports, marinas, flood control, water 

diversions, and development of urban, industrial, and recreational complexes. These areas have 

relatively few regulations that protect fisheries and little chance of returning to nature. 

8. The least naturally productive habitats for fish rearing occur in streams in upland areas that 

are normally forested. These areas have steep gradients and the streams have narrow channels 

and rapid flow rates. Forest practices are regulated more than any other land or water use 

practice. Yet these area, although managed, are maintained as vegetated landscapes. 

9. Replacement in streams of large woody debris, previously removed from logged areas by 

agency decree - but now known to be important for fish habitat, will takes years to decades 

to effectively recreate much needed rearing and feeding habitat. 

10. Further improvements in freshwater habitats may not result in increased salmonid 

abundance unless similar improvements occur in important estuarine habitat, which now may 

be limiting. 
123 

Summary Presentation 

The Impact of Environmental and 

Management Factors on 

Washington's Wild Anadromous 

Salmon and Trout 

Prepared for: 

Washington Forest Protection Association and 

The State of Washington Department of Natural Resources, 

Olympia, Washington 

John F. Palmisano, Ph.D. 

Robert H. Ellis, Ph.D. 

Victor W. Kaczynski, Ph.D. 

March 1993 
124 

Abstract 

A review and analysis of available information indicate that several factors, acting now or in 

the past, have reduced the abundance of Washington's native and wild anadromous species of 

salmon and trout in the Columbia River, Puget Sound, and coastal fisheries. Environmental factors, 

which include water- and land-use practices, human-influenced biological interactions, and natural 

phenomena, have affected the success of migration, spawning, growth, and survival of wild fish. 

Management factors, which include fishery agency harvest and hatchery practices, have affected 

the numbers and genetic makeup of wild fish that can return to streams and rivers to spawn. 

Recent fishery statistics, including in-river run size, compliance with established spawning 

escapement goals, and stock composition, confirm these effects. Many, but not all of Washington's 

salmonid stocks have a dominant" hatchery component. Sockeye and pink salmon are almost 

exclusively wild fish. Stocks of chum salmon and sea-run cutthroat trout have more wild than 

hatchery fish, while stocks of coho and chinook salmon and steelhead trout are mostly hatchery 

fish . The reallocation in catch from ocean mixed-stock preterminal fisheries to coastal and Puget 

Sound terminal fisheries has helped protect declining wild stocks even though Canadian interception 

of Washington chinook and coho salmon has increased the total harvest rates for these species 

above desired levels. However, Washington's interception of Canadian sockeye and pink salmon 

has more than compensated for these losses. Pink salmon, whose juveniles spend less than 8 days 

in fresh water, and sockeye salmon, almost exclusively from Canada, account for almost 60 percent 

of Washington's commercial salmon catch. The majority of this catch, therefore, is composed 

of wild fish little influenced by the state's freshwater environment. Thus, the harvest of hatcheryproduced fish and continued interception of Canadian stocks have enabled the statewide commercial 

salmon catch to remain at historical levels of about 50 million pounds per year. 

Columbia basin Esheries have been affected most severely. Water-use practices (primarily dams 

and irrigation diversions) and human-influenced biological interactions are the primary factors 

contributing to stream blockage, degradation of freshwater and estuarine habitat, increased mortality, 

and markedly reduced .run size. Fewer than 25 percent of these salmonids are wild fish. Puget 

Sound fisheries are in somewhat better condition: more than 50 percent of these salmonids are 

wild. However, past water-use and land-use practices, and a growing and sprawling human 

population have eliminated productive lower river and estuarine habitat. Washington's coastal 

fisheries have been least affected, although important freshwater and estuarine habitat has been 

lost. Forest and agricultural practices and localized urban-industrial impacts are the primary adverse 

factors. However, more than 75 percent of coastal salmonids remain wild. 
125 

TYPICAL MIGRATION PATTERN OF PACIFIC NORTHWEST SALMONIDS 
126 

EXHIBIT 1 

FACTORS THAT IMPACT ABUNDANCE OF 

WASHINGTON'S SALMON AND TROUT 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

Water Use 

Hydropower (Dams) 

Irrigation 

Flood Control 

Navigation 

Municipal and Industrial 

Land Use (Road Building) 

Agriculture 

Forestry 

Urban-Industrial 

Mining 

Biological (Natural and Human·lnAuenced) 

Predation 

Competition 

Food Supply 

Disease 

Natural Phenomena 

Climate 

Ocean Currents 

Floods 

Earthquakes 

Volcanic Eruptions 

Landslides 

MANAGEMENT 

Spawning Escapement Goals 

Harvest Levels 

Hatchery Practices 

Treaties and Laws 

REGIONAL IMPACTS 

Environmental Factor Columbia River Puget sound Coastal 

Water-Use Practices 

land-Use Practices 

Primary 

Secondary 

Secondary 

Primary 

Secondary 

Primary 
127 

EXHIBIT 2 

COMPOSITION OF WASHINGTON'S RECENT TOTAL SALMON CATCH 

COMMERCIAL: 86% (37% NONTREAlY; 49% TREATY) SPORT: 14% 

RECENT DISTRIBUTION OF WASHINGTON'S COMMERCIAL SALMONID CATCH 

PUGET SOUND: 81% COAST: 16% COLUMBIA RIVER: 3% (37%)* 

WASHINGTON CANADIAN 

Average Annual Commercial Catch Source Interception 

Pink 1,890,000 31 % 50·75% 

Sockeye 1,670,000 27% 99% 

Coho 1,310,000 21% 1,400,000 

Chum 678,000 11 % 

Chinook 510,000 8% 800,000 

Steelhead 107,000 2% 

Approximate Recent Annual Catch Salmon 

WA Interception of Canadian Salmon 

Canadian Interception of WA Salmon 

Net Washington Gain 

2,900,000 

2,200,000 

+700,000 

• 37% of the Columbia River commercial catch is landed by Washington fishermen 

while 63% is landed by Oregon fishermen 
128 

EXHIBIT 3 

CURRENT WILD AND HATCHERY COMPOSITION OF SAlMONID STOCKS 

IN THE THREE MAJOR BASINS OF WASHINGTON 

Location/Species Wild Hatchery 

State <70% >30% 

Columbia River Basin <25% >75% 

Puget Sound Basin >50% <50% 

Washington Coastal Basins >75% <25% 

Pink and Sockeye Salmon >99°,6 <1% 

Cutthroat Trout >90% <10% 

Chum Salmon >60% <40% 

Chinook and Coho Salmon <50% >50% 

Steelheod Trout <30% >70% 
129 

EXHIBIT 4 

REDUCED BODY SIZE OF SALMON COMMERCIALLY CAUGHT IN WASHINGTON 

20 

18 

16 

VI 

C 

~ 14 

2 

~ 12 

I-

:c 

~ 10 

;: 

w 

~ 8 

w 

~ 6 

4 

2 

0 1935-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 

YEARS 

70-79 80-89 

1111 

Chinook 

(-24%) 

1111 

Chum 

(+3%) 

11111 

Coho 

(-30%) 

1111] 

Sockeye 

(-14%) 

CJ 

Pink 

(-19%) 

Measured Average Weight (in pounds) and Percent Change of five species of Pacific Salmon 

Commercially Caught in Washington• between 1935 and 1989 

Time Period Coho Chinook Pink Sockeye Chum Total 

1935-39 8.8 19.7 5.7 6.6 10.0 8.4 

1940s 8.8 19.7 5.8 6.0 10.0 8.1 

1950s 8.6 16.4 5.8 6.3 11.7 7.8 

1960s 7.8 16.3 5.3 5.8 10.5 7.4 

1970s 7.2 15.3 5.3 6.0 10.9 7.5 

1980s 6.2 14.9 4.7 5.7 10.3 6.5 

1935-1989 Change -29.5% -24.4% -19.0% -13.6% +2.9% -22.6% 

•Coast, Puget Sound, and Columbia River 

Source: WDF, l 991 . 
130 

EXHIBIT 5 

TOTAL COMMERCIAL LANDINGS OF SALMON IN WASHINGTON a 

Weight in millions of pounds 140~-----------'--------------------~ 

120 

100 

80 

Annual 

Average 

Catch 

0-'---------------------------------' 

1890 1900 1910 1920 

Note: 

Average annual catch for the period of record is nearly 50 miUion povnds. 

1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 

Year 

a Round weight in millions of povnds 

Sources: WDF et al., 1973; WDF, 1991, 1992d. 
131 

EXHIBIT 6 

MAP OF COLUMBIA RIVER SYSTEM SHOWING AREA 

ACCESSIBLE TO SALMON AND STEELHEAD 

~ Historically lnocceuible ;IITIITI] Access Blocked ~ Currently Acceu1ble 

Source: PNRSC. 1972 with add11iom. 

LOST PRODUCTIVITY 

Columbia Puget Coastal 

Factor Basin Sound Region 

River Miles Blocked 

River Habitat Degraded 

Estuary Habitat Lost 

17% 

High 

40% 

5% 

Medium 

70% 

<1% 

Low 

<40% 
132 

EXHIBIT 7 

WASHINGTON ADULT SALMONID MORTALITY 

AVERAGE OF 1989 AND 1990 TOTAL SALMON CATCH 7,667,000 FISH 

Summary of Estimated Adult Solmonid losses Percent of Total 

Couse Number lost 2-Year Average Catch 

Total Marine Mammal 983,000 13% 

Seal and Seo Lion Predation (12%) 

Seal Damage of Fish in Nets (1 %) 

Total Indirect Fishery 192,000 2.5% 

Shaker Loss (0.4%) 

Gillnet Dropout (2%) 

Sport Release (0.1%) 

Dam Mortality (C.R.) 164,000 2% 

All 1,339,000 17.5% 

1991-92 TOTAL STEELHEAD TROUT CATCH 200, l 00 FISH 

Estimated Adult Incidental losses 

Couse Number lost Percent of Catch 

Gillnet Dropout 

Sport Release 

All 

3,200 

2,400 

5,600 

2% 

1% 

3% 
133 

EXHIBIT 8 

ATTAINMENT OF ESTABLISHED SPAWNING ESCAPEMENT GOALS IN WASHINGTON 

FOR WILD FISH FOR MOST RECENT PERIOD OF RECORD 

Species Coast • Puget Sound' Columbia River Total 

Total 86% 30% 60% 

Selmon (12/14) (24/79) (3/5) 

Steelhead 80% 25% 50% 

(4/5) (2/8) (li2) 

Totol 84% 30% 57% 

Salmonids (16/19) (26/87) (4/7) 

' Includes Strait of Juan de Fuca 

DEPRESSED STOCKS 

Salmon 

Strait of Juan de Fuca: Chinook, Coho, and Pink 

North Puget Sound: Most Chinook and Skagit River Coho and Sockeye 

South puget Sound: All Coho and Lake Washington Sockeye 

Hood Canal: All Coho and Most Chum 

Columbia River: Summer and Some Fall and Spring Chinook, Wild Coho 

Many Sea·Run Cutthroat and Some Columbia River Steelhead Trout 

40% 

(39/98) 

47% 

(7/15) 

41% 

(46/1 13) 
I 

134 

EXHIBIT 9 

OPTIMUM HARVEST GOALS FOR WILD SALMONIDS: 40 TO 75% 

Recent Harvest Rates 

Washington Stocks Ocean Terminal Total 

Coastal Chinook 48% 34% 65% 

Coastal Coho 51 % 44% 71% 

Puget Sound Chinook 71 % 61% 87% 

Puget Sound Coho 62% 72% 92% 

Puget Sound Pink 37% (37%) 

Puget Sound Chum 70% (70%) 

Total Steelhead 69°~ (69%) 

Recent Harvest Rates 

Ocean Columbia Total 

Columbia River Stocks Canada US Total River Harvest 

Lower River Foll Chinook 

Upper River Foll Chi nook 

Coho 

Nole: 

33% 

32% 

6% 

61% 

61% 

56% 

79°~ 

80% 

64% 

32% 

50% 

55% 

87% 

93% 

89% 

Harve,t rates acres, column, are not additive; the roles depict the percentage of total available fish per stock 

harvested at each fishery lacarion 
135 

EXHIBIT 10 

FREQUENCY OF 5 YEAR FLOOD EVENT IN URBAN VS FORESTED AREAS 

HSPF SIMULATION OF A SAMPLE BASIN IN SW KING COUNTY 

3 

Number of events (40-year simulation) 

Five-Year Forested Discharge 

Fully Forested Land Cover 

2-l---l!Wlill--------------------------i 

0 

2 4 6 8 10 12 

Number of years between 5-year floods 

Note: 

Bars show lhe numbers of years separanng discharge events ol 5-yeor recurrence or greeter. 

14 

Source: Boolh, 1991. 

HSPF SIMULATION OF A SAMPLE BASIN IN SW KING COUNTY 

40 Number of events (40-year simulation) 

30 

20· 

10 

2 

Five· Year Forested Discharge 

Fully Urbanized Lend CcverO 

10 

Number of years between S·year floods 

a About 40 percent effective impervious areo. 

: 2 14 

Source: Booth, 1991. 
Management 

136 

EXHIBIT 11 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

(PARTIAL LIST ONLY) 

• Manage salmonid populations to annually meet numerical spawning escapement goals and 

lo keep harvest rates al levels that will perpetuate the fisheries. 

• Continue to restrict mixed-stock fisheries and lo promote and support terminal fisheries. 

• Continue and expand hatchery production programs that ore complementary to wild fish 

populations. · 

• Expand programs to determine the current degree of salmon id predation and competition by 

marine mammals (seal and sea lion) and American shad, and evaluate potential measures. 

Forestry 

• Continue research effort under the Timber, Fish, and Wildlife Agreement (TFW) and modify 

forest practices regulations as indicated by the results. 

• Actively manage degraded riparian zones, including cattle grazing lands, to encourage 

development o~ characteristics that will promote the reestablishment of a productive habitat. 

• Establish a cooP.erative effort between state agencies and forest landowners to identify, 

prioritze and solve problems related lo past forest practices, including: 

• Culverts hindering upstream passage of fish 

• Abandoned roads in unstable areas 

• Road surface drainage entering fish-bearing streams 

Agriculture 

• Institute management regulations that contain stream and riparian protection rules. 

• Achieve fish-screening protection, especially at pumped water diversions. 

• Encourage irrigation waler conservation and work to increase instreom water for salmonids. 

Municipal-Industrial 

• Encourage water conservatio(l for municipalities and industries. 

• Manasie stream-based water quality, including waste load allocations for both point and 

nonpaml sources. 

Hydropower 

• Improve technologies to minimize operational impacts of hydroelectric projects. 

Dredge,· Fill, and Flood Control 

• Prevent further river and estuary habitat losses. 

Mining 

• Regulate and minimize aggregate extraction from all anodromous salmonid rivers 

and streams. 
137 

JOHN F. PALMISANO, Ph.D. 

FISHERIES BIOLOGISf 

EDUCATION 

Ph.D., Fisheries-Ecology, University of Washington, Seattle. 

M.S., Fisheries Biology, Utah State University, Logan. 

B.S., Biology, University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point. 

B.S., Conservation, University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point. 

EMPLOYMENT 

Dr. Palmisano has almost 20 years of professional fisheries experience in the Pacific Northwest as consultant, 

researcher, and teacher: 

o John F. Palmisano Biological Consultant, Beaverton, Oregon, March 1988 to present, Owner. 

o CH2M IDLL, Bellevue, Washington, January 1978 to October 1988, Fisheries Scientist. 

o National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Laboratory, Auke Bay, Alaska, July 1975 to March 1977, Marine 

Biologist. 

o University of Washington, College of Fisheries, Seattle, Washington, June 1977 to January 1978, Acting 

Professor. 

o Western Washington State University, Department of Biology, Bellingham, Spring: 1975 and 1977, Instructor. 

SELECTED EXPERIENCE 

o Senior author of technical report on impacts to salmonids in Washington. 

o Coauthored technical report on decline of salmonids in Oregon. 

o Reviewed Lower Columbia River environmental factors and their effect on salmonid populations for area Public 

Utilities. 

o Led forebay trap study of downstream migrant salmon and steelhead trout smolts at Rocky Reach Dam. 

o Conducted salmonid fingerling bypass study at Rock Island Dam. 

o Prepared fisheries section for Columbia Basin Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 

o In charge of fish husbandry and rearing technology for the Tulalip Tribes' salmon hatchery near Marysville, 

Washington. 

o Managed testing program for bioassays with juvenile salmon for ARCO's Ferndale, Washington, Plant. 

o Wrote operational manual for the McCall, Idaho, summer chinook salmon hatchery for the Idaho Fish and Game 

Department. 

o Reviewed fisheries resources of the Snake River in Idaho. 

o Designed and conducted salmonid population survey of over 30 streams in the Flathead Indian Reservation in 

Montana. 

o Senior reviewer of technical reports on the impact of the .llll.2D Valdez oil spill on Prince William Sound salmon. 

o Biological liaison to the Alaskan Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association for design of Ketchikan 

salmon hatchery. 

PUBLICATIONS 

Dr. Palmisano has prepared over 100 project reports and bas published several technical and popular papers about 

marine mammals and salmonids injoumals such as~ E£Qw, and Bioscience. 

PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION 

Fisheries Scientist - No. 1,798, by the American Fisheries Society. 

Senior Ecologist, by the Ecological Society of America. 

PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS 

American Fisheries Society 

American Institute of Fisheries Research Biologist, Past Co-President of Seattle Chapter 

Ecological Society of America 

Pacific Estuarine Society 
138 

Executive Summary and Comparisons of Two Pacific Northwest 

Studies on the Decline of Wild Anadromous Salmon and Trout 

TECHNICAL REPORTS REVIEWED: 

A Review of Management and Environmental Factors 

Responsible for the Decline and Lack of Recovery of 

Oregon's Wild Anadromous Salmonids 

Prepared for: Oregon Forest Industries Council, Salem, Oregon 

Prepared by: V.W. Kaczynski, Ph.D. and J.P. Palmisano, Ph.D. 

With Assistance from J.E. Levin, MS 

June 1992 

And 

The Impact of Environmental and Management Factors on 

Washington's Wild Anadromous Salmon and Trout 

Prepared for: Washington Forest Protection Association and the Washington State 

Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington 

Prepared by: J.P. Palmisano, Ph.D., R.H. Ellis, Ph.D. and V.W. Kaczynski, Ph.D. 

January 1993 

Submitted 

by 

John F. Palmisano, Ph.D. 

For The Northwest Forest Resource Council 

March 11, 1993 
139 

2 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

INTRODUCTION 

Results of two studies, one conducted in Oregon and the other in Washington, showed that 

similar conditions have lead to the decline in abundance of native populations of anadromous 

salmon and trout (salmonids). Pacific Northwest salmonid populations have been affected by 

several factors acting in concert. These factors can be grouped into management and 

environmental categories: 

Mana&ement 

o Harvest 

o Agency Policies and Actions 

o Hatchery Policies and Actions 

Environmental 

o Water Use 

o Land Use 

o Natural Phenomena 

In recent times, the management factors are inseparable. 

MANAGEMENT 

Historical overfishing reduced coastal, Puget Sound, and Columbia-Snake River salmonid 

populations. Columbia River stocks have been depleted the most. Overfishing clearly extended 

into the early 1960s and is occurring today. A large hatchery program began in the 1960s and 

has continued development to the present. Many hatcheries were designed to mitigate large areas 

of salmonid habitat Jost to development and operational impacts of water use-projects. Today, 

there is no other way to mitigate such large losses to native salmonid fisheries. Hatcheries were 

also constructed and operated to enhance catch at levels higher than wild-spawning populations 

could sustain. Fish agency policy was to maximize catch and this policy continued through the 

late 1980s. Currently, the harvest policy has been in transition to a wild fish management 

policy. 

Hatchery fish mingle with wild fish in near coastal waters and are caught there in a mixed-stock 

fishery. Coho salmon from hatcheries comprise about 75 percent of the coho salmon in 

nearshore Oregon ocean waters. Columbia River, coastal, and Puget Sound coho and chinook 

salmon have been caught at 70 to 90 percent exploitation rates in the last few decades. These 

rates are sustainable for a hatchery-based fishery by are excessive for a wild-spawning based 

fishery that generally should not exceed 60 percent for maximum sustainable yield. 

The decline of wild coho salmon in the lower Columbia River and coastal streams has been 
140 

3 

attributed to high harvest rates by commercial and sport fishing stimulated by great abundance 

of hatchery coho salmon. From 1970 through 1989, the survival from fisheries to spawning 

escapement of coho salmon in the OPI (Oregon Production Index area form north of the 

Columbia River south into California) for combined ocean and Columbia river fisheries, 

averaged only 16 percent. 

Overfishing of OPI coho salmon stocks was recognized in the late 1970s and a formal 

escapement goal of 200,000 adults was set in 1979. This was based on long term biological 

sustainable yield. The 200,000 spawner goal was met only in one of the past 13 years (1984) 

and was close in two years (1985 and 1986). It is important to note that in each year that the 

spawning escapement goal was not met, catch exceeded the goal by a factor of 2 to 5. 

In contrast to coho salmon underescapement problems, spawning escapement goals for Oregon 

north coastal and Columbia River fall chinook salmon have generally been met. Spawning 

escapement goals for the Klamath River fall chinook, important in southern Oregon ocean 

harvests, have only been met in 2 of the past 13 years. From 1978 through 1990, spawning 

escapement averaged less than half of the biological escapement goal. Harvest rates in the ocean 

have been excessive. In addition, targeted harvest of relatively abundant Columbia fall chinook 

salmon has adversely affected the Snake River fall chinook salmon stock. By comparison, only 

30 percent of Puget Sound stocks have met established spawning escapement goals while 84 

percent of Washington coastal stocks have met their goals. 

In addition to aggravating mixed-stock fishery problems, hatcheries have outplanted fry and 

smolts to various steams and used brood stocks that were from other geographic areas. Hatcheryproduced adults escaped fisheries and hatchery weirs and strayed to other streams. The result 

was hybridization between native and hatchery stocks. The native coho salmon gene pool in 

coastal-OPI-area coho salmon populations is probably near extinction, and the lower Columbia 

River native gene pool is virtually extinct. The estimated percentage of hatchery fish in coastal 

chinook salmon populations ranges from l O to 40 percent. 

Today most, though not all, Pacific Northwest salmonids are hatchery produced fish. Over 75 

percent of all Columbia River salmonids are hatchery fish. In Washington, about 30 percent of 

the fish are from hatcheries. In Puget Sound almost half of the fish are from hatcheries while 

on the coast less than 25 percent are hatchery fish. 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

Water Use 

Of the environmental factors that have adversely affected native salmonid populations, water use 

is clearly the most serious, especially in the Columbia basin. Water use includes flood control, 

irrigation, hydropower, navigation, municipal, industrial, rural household, stock, and 

recreational uses. Our society competes with wild salmonids for limited water supplies 

throughout the state. Flood control, irrigation, and hydropower are inseparable for larger water 
141 

4 

use projects. 

From 30 to 60 percent of historical anadromous salmonid spawning habitat in the Columbia 

basin has been lost forever because of water-use projects. Remaining habitat has been degraded 

by water and land use. About one-third of historical anadromous habitat has been lost in Oregon 

and about 17 percent in Washington. Where upstream passage has been provided, effectiveness 

of this passage is a problem. The best available estimate of upstream passage failure in about 

10 percent per project (dam and reservoir) for the Columbia and Snake rivers. This includes 

direct and indirect mortalities. Cumulative upstream mortality for adult salmon passing six dams 

to return to the Imnaha River in Oregon, as an example, is about 60 percent. 

Downstream passage for juveniles is even more perilous. Cumulative mortalities at ColumbiaSnake River projects for Snake River basin salmonids can exceed 90 percent. Turbine mortalities 

are about 11 percent per project and reservoir mortalities are about I percent per mile of 

reservoir. 

A large percentage of summer runoff is diverted for agriculture irrigation throughout the Pacific 

Northwest. Seasonal availability is insufficient to meet human use demands, and fish needs are 

secondary to human use. Irrigation is the dominant consumptive use. Water flows in streams 

are significantly reduced, which reduces salmonid stream habitats. At present, only 2 percent 

of 56,000 diversions in Oregon that potentially affect fish are screened. Some 3,200 priority 

unscreened diversions have been identified in the state. Although not as bad, the problem does 

exist in Washington. It is difficult to assess juvenile salmonid diversion losses to agriculture and 

other diverted uses, but probably billions of anadromous fish have been lost. In addition, flow 

reductions increase summer temperatures in streams and increase the concentrations of 

pollutants. Warmer temperature cause chronic stress in salmonids and promote pathogen 

infections. Several authors concluded that water developments in the Columbia basin have altered 

the physical-chemical environment so that conditions are now suboptimal for salmonids and more 

optimal for disease pathogens and predators. 

Local flood protection measures have destroyed hundreds of acres of flood plain riverine habitats 

and shallow estuary habitats. Historically, these were very productive nursery habitats. Ninety 

percent of estuary losses were related to diking that was used to create and protect agricultural 

lands. 

Water-use impacts in the Columbia basin have been severe, and these developments have 

seriously reduced the number of native anadromous salmonids and limited their potential 

recovery. The area above Bonneville Dam has the highest proportion of salmonid stocks with 

decreasing spawning escapement trends. 

Land Use 

Land use-impacts are secondary to water use-impacts for native salmonids in the Columbia basin 

but are the major source of impacts in coastal and Puget Sound basins. As the Pacific Northwest 
142 

5 

developed, there was a steady loss of stream habitat for anadromous fish and stream water 

quality was degraded in many areas. Agriculture, forestry, mining, railroads, roads, towns, and 

cities have all taken their toll on our native fish stocks. 

Roads and railroads in the Northwest generally follow streams or flood plains. Many of them 

are located in the riparian zone (trees, brush, and grasses that grow alongside streams and 

benefit from greater soil moisture) of streams. These roads and railroads have directly reduced 

stream habitat and influenced stream hydraulics so that the salmonid habitat has been simplified. 

Sediment loads to streams have been increased by storm-related landslides. 

Land settlement in the Pacific Northwest began in the 1860s and increased rapidly through 1900. 

Almost 10 million acres of crops and 50 million acres of rangeland occur in the area today. 

Irrigated lands comprise about 4 millions acres. Irrigation with associated erosion of sediments 

and runoff of farm chemical and toxins is a serious problem. Gully erosion and drainageway 

bank failures are not uncommon. Agricultural rerun flows adversely affect stream water quality 

in all of our river basins. Water quality sampling identified problem areas, and agricultural lands 

predominated these areas. Parameters and pollutants of concern were temperature, dissolved 

oxygen, turbidity, dissolved gasses, pH, pesticides, and toxins. 

Agricultural sediment runoff into streams is mostly associated with storms. Estimates of 

sediment runoff into streams from agriculture, in comparison to forestry, range from 2: 1 for 

pasture lands in good condition, such as those in the Tillamook Bay basin rivers in Oregon. 

Agricultural soil losses are impossible to prevent. Typical losses range from 0.1 ton per acre per 

year for light pasture use to 16 tons per acre per year for typical crop rotation. Steepness and 

length of slope, plant protection, seasonal precipitation, soil type, and the actual uses of land 

(especially tillage methods and frequency) all affect soil erosion and runoff into streams. 

Grazing significantly affects soil erosion and degrades native salmonid habitat. By 1900, 

overgrazing occurred in most Pacific Northwest valleys, and livestock were concentrated along 

streams. Quality of salmonid stream habitat quickly degraded. Past range practices degraded 

much riparian habitat, especially in range and forest lands east of the Cascade Mountains. 

Major valley areas of western Oregon and Washington had been logged by 1900 and converted 

to farms. Private agricultural lands generally are in the flood plains and these generally were the 

most productive and complex salmonid habitats before European settlement. Beavers were partly 

responsible for the habitat diversity and productivity. Fur trappers quickly reduced beaver 

numbers and settlers converted the complex flood plains into agricultural lands. Trees were cut 

for lumber and firewood . Channels were straightened and armored for flood control. For 

example, about 75 percent of the complex original shorelines of the Willamette River in Oregon 

were lost to agricultural practices and to channelization for local flood control to protect 

agriculture. Similar losses occurred in Washington. 

Chemicals are commonly used in agriculture and ratios of chemical use in agriculture and 

forestry have been recently estimated. Pesticide runoff ratios for agriculture and forestry in 
143 

6 

Oregon were estimated for this study and were found to be about 5,000 to 1. In Washington the 

ratio was about 2000 to 1, in favor of forestry. 

Forestry is the most studied land use in terms of impacts on anadromous salmonids, and impacts 

have occurred. Early logging and lumber production were associated with waterways because 

of transportation constraints. Streams of increasingly smaller size were used to transport logs 

and lumber. Streams were cleared of obstructions and side channels and wetlands were blocked 

off to consolidate flow. Productive off-channel salmonid habitat was significantly reduced. 

Splash dams were common in western Oregon and Washington and operated into the 1950s on 

some streams. 

Stream cleanup of log jams and debris has occurred for over 100 years in the Pacific Northwest. 

Fishery agencies encouraged and conducted debris cleanup from the 1940s into the 1970s. 

Apparently the destructiveness of the 1964-1965 floods caused the land management agencies 

to formally join forces with the fish agencies to vigorously remove woody debris from streams. 

The result was the well-intentioned removal of large debris from many miles of streams, and the 

subsequent loss of stream habitat complexity and productivity. 

Riparian areas along streams were harvested first because of ease of access, good timer stands, 

and the historic use of streams to transport log. Skid trails, roads, and railroads were constructed 

in the riparian rone. Riparian and stream damage did occur in the post. Logging roads and 

associated landslides were a major source of stream sediment, especially older roads. 

Unregulated timber harvest in the riparian rone continued up to 1972, when the 1971 Oregon 

Forest Practices Act, sponsored by the timber industry, came into effect. Forest practice rules 

began to protect streams and the riparian rone along streams. Practices for protection evolved 

periodically, in 1974, 1978, 1983, and 1986. Similar regulations evolved in Washington during 

the 1970s and 1980s. 

In 1987, Oregon state statutes were significantly revised. A formal riparian management area 

(RMA) was administratively created for state Class I streams (having anadromous salmonid or 

other significant game fish). A 50 percent stream canopy rule was added to a 75 percent shade 

rule previously in effect. Trees could be cut in the RMA, but not in the actual riparian rone. For 

state Class II streams (all other than Class I), protection measures included a vegetation buffer 

rone for water quality protection, stream crossing and protection rules, and directional falling 

and yarding restrictions. In 1991, additional industry sponsored forest practices legislation was 

passed. Its intent was the further protection of streams and other natural resources. Nothing was 

deleted from the 1987 rules. Some Class II streams received additional interim protection and 

clearcuts were limited to 120 acres with restrictions to adjacent clearcuts. Reforestation 

requirements were strengthened. A review and improvement of stream protection measures and 

stream classification by the Board of Forestry is underway and will be completed by the end of 

1992. Again, similar regulations occurred in Washington and the most recent rules were enacted 

in June of 1992. 

Evolution of stream and riparian area protection in forestry continues both in Oregon and 
144 

7 

Washington. On balance, significant protective measures are in place today in forestry, more so 

than for any other water-uses or land-use practices. Anadromous fisheries response is expected 

but will take years - perhaps decades - to become apparent. 

Municipal and industrial growth has also affected anadromous fisheries. Most urban and 

industrial centers in the Pacific Northwest are located in Puget Sound in Washington, in the 

Willamette Valley in Oregon, and along coastal bays and the Columbia River in both states. 

Pollution and consumptive water diversions have parallelled population growth. Although all 

major municipal and industrial dischargers meet present technology-based pollution control 

technologies, many river reaches still do not support designated beneficial uses. Toxics are a 

priority concern, and 30 to 50 water bodies in the region have serious toxics problems. Juvenile 

salmonids subject to chronic pollution stress are weakened and fall victim to predators and 

disease. They disappear. This is the effect of water pollution -- subtle, unseen, insidious losses. 

Municipal and industrial developments have removed flood plain and estuary habitat. About IO 

percent of estuary losses in Oregon were caused by filling wetlands to create municipal and 

industrial lands. In total, estuary loss in the Columbia River is about 40 percent, in Puget Sound 

about 70 percent, and along coastal Oregon and Washington about 25 to 40 percent each. 

One can blame the massive Columbia-Snake River flood control projects and, to a large extent, 

the Willamette River flood control projects, on the cities of Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, 

Washington. They are the primary beneficiaries of the flood control projects. 

Natural Phenomena 

Finally, natural phenomena have affected native salmonids. Floods such as those in 1964-1965 

greatly affected salmonid habitat in western Oregon and Washington. Agriculture and forestry 

land uses aggravated these impacts. 

Ocean biological productivity is affected by climatic events. El Nino events brought warmer 

surface waters and wind, as well as current reversals to nearshore ocean waters in Oregon and 

Washington. Upwelling of nutrient-rich deeper waters was depressed. Correlations between 

strong upwelling and good coho salmon growth and survival have been noted. This was dramatic 

up to the mid-1970s in association with increased hatchery productions. Catch surpassed historic 

records. Subsequently catches of coho salmon declined in the ocean as conditions changed with 

the developments of.the 1982-1983 El Nino. Ocean nursery conditions have apparently been 

limiting coho salmon growth and survival since 1976 in the ocean nursery area off Oregon, and 

appear to have also affected Klamath River fall chinook salmon in the OPI area. 

Predation pressures on salmonids have changed in recent decades in response to marine mammal 

protection and to human induced changes in freshwater environmental conditions. The northern 

squawfish is the primary freshwater predator of juvenile salmonids, and reduced river flows and 

warmer temperatures are more optimal for squawfish than for salmonids. Smallmouth bass, 

channel catfish, and walleye are also important juvenile salmonid predators in the Columbia 
145 

8 

River. Perhaps 14 percent of all migrating juvenile salmonids in the Jobn Day Pool of the 

Columbia River are eaten by fish predators. 

Seals and sea lions have been protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act since 1972. 

Harbor seal and California sea lion populations in Pacific Northwest marine waters have steadily 

increased between 4 and 12 percent per year. Based on population estimates and gut and scat 

analysis, seals and sea lions in Oregon and Washington waters may have consumed a combined 

8 million pounds of salmon (about I million fish) in 1990. This was equivalent to about 17 

percent of the two state's combined commercial salmon catch of 5.6 million fish in that year. 

Seals and sea lions also injure fish . Recent studies estimated that almost 20 percent of salmon 

ascending Columbia River dams had "seal bites" . Such wounded fish are more vulnerable to 

disease infection and death and this might help explain part of the 50 percent indirect mortality 

of upstream adult migrants not accounted for by direct structural losses at Columbia-Snake River 

dams. 

Significant flood plain riverine habitat and estuary habitat has been lost in Oregon and 

Washington. Because of these habitat losses, food chain production in the Columbia Estuary has 

shifted from a macrodetritus base, primarily derived from marsh and swamp vegetation, to a 

microdetritus base derived from phytoplankton. Similar changes have probably occurred in other 

coastal rivers and bays. Amphipods and isopods (invertebrates) are detrital feeders and important 

prey for juvenile salmonids. Significant production of these invertebrates has been lost because 

of the change in the food base. Insect production from marshes and swamps has been reduced 

proportionate to area losses. Insects are also important prey for juvenile salmonids. There is a 

strong implication that food supply may now be limiting in the Pacific Northwest in the area of 

river mouths and coastal bays. This is probably aggravated by large releases of hatchery fish. 

In 1990, hatchery releases in the Columbia River system were about 203 million juveniles and 

natural production was about 145 million juveniles. The 348 million juveniles are about 30 

percent more than estimated historical production. 

Seals and sea lions are significant potential competitors as well as predators of salmonids in 

marine waters. Estimated annual consumption of Pacific herring in Oregon and Washington 

waters by seals and sea lions is almost 35 million pounds. If these herring had been consumed 

by salmon they could have produced almost 4 million pounds of salmon flesh. The increase in 

seals and sea lions in nearshore waters could be a significant competitive interaction in years of 

poor biological production, such as the early 1980s and 1990s. 

Another potential competitor for food for juvenile salmonids is the American shad. The 

Columbia River adult shad population has increased to 4 million in 1990 and billions of juvenile 

shad could be produced annually. Shad feed on zooplankton and insect larvae, and dietary 

overlap with juvenile salmonids in the Columbia River is significant. There is inference for food 

competition between shad and juvenile salmonids in the Columbia Estuary. 
146 

9 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

1. MANAGEMENT 

o Manage salmonid populations to meet numeric biological spawning escapement goals. 

o Restrict mixed-stock fisheries 

o Create more terminal fisheries. 

o Reprogram hatchery production to be more complementary 

to wild-spawning populations. 

o Manage freshwater predator populations. 

o Manage American shad in the Columbia River. 

o Institute marine mammal (seal and sea lion) management. 

2. HYDROPOWER AND FWOD CONTROL 

o Improve technologies to minimize operational impacts of hydroelectric operations. 

o Purchase lower Columbia River coastal former flood plain and estuary lands. 

o Restore lost river and estuary habitats. 

3. AGRICULTURE 

o Institute management regulations with stream and riparian protection rules. 

o Achieve fish-screening protection at water diversions. 

o Encourage irrigation water conservation and work to increase in-stream water for 

salmonids. 

4. FORESTRY 

o Improve stream protection measures, including large woody debris and temperature. 

o Encourage salmonid habitat restoration. 

o Manage riparian zone cattle grazing, especially in central and eastern Oregon. 

S. MUNICIPAL-INDUSTRIAL 

o Manage stream-based water quality including waste load allocations for both point and 

non-point sources. 

o Give toxic control more priority. 

o Encourage water conservation for industries and municipalities. 

6. MINING 

o Restrict aggregate extraction from all anadromous salmonid streams. 

7. DREDGE, FILL, AND FWOD CONTROL 

o Prevent further estuary habitat losses. 

o Prevent further flood plain reach riverine habitat losses. 
147 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. They will be put in the committee record or in 

the file. We will have some of the longer documents; and then if 

we choose to reprint, we won't have to reprint the documents. 

I will not be able to return, but Congressman DeFazio has agreed 

to come back at about 2:00 p.m., I think it will be, to hear the last 

panel. That's the best I can do. I regret that we cannot pay more 

attention to questions, but I may submit written questions to the 

panelists that are here. 

We have to go vote now. Thank you for your work in these areas, 

gentlemen. 

[Whereupon, at 1:14 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 2:00 p.m., the same day.] 

PANEL CONSISTING OF THOMAS J. CASSIDY, GENERAL COUNSEL, AMERICAN RIVERS, WASIDNGTON, DC; THANE TIENSEN, 

SALMON FOR ALL, PORTLAND OR; RAY J. WlllTE, PH.D., 

WASIDNGTON CHAPTER, TROUT UNLIMITED, EDMONDS, WA; 

AND GEORGE ICE, PH.D., FOREST HYDROLOGIST, NATIONAL 

COUNCIL OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY FOR AIR AND STREAM 

IMPROVEMENT, PHILOMOUTH, OR 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. CASSIDY 

Mr. DEFAZIO [presiding]. Just go in the order that we have. 

~ain, although I haven't yet had an opportunity to read your 

testimony, I will read it. So I would ask you to summarize the most 

cogent points within a five-minute maximum. 

Mr. Cassidy. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

American Rivers has been intensively involved in the land management planning efforts of both the Forest Service and the Bureau 

of Land Management since 1986. Our efforts have focused on the 

planning for scenic and wild rivers. 

However, in the response to the precipitous decline of aquatic 

ecosystems in the Northwest and across the Nation, we have expanded our mission to include programs to ensure the health of 

aquatic ecosystems. 

Earlier in the hearing Mr. Vento and Mr. Dicks addressed the 

decline of the salmon and the Columbia Basin alone, and the 

Northwest, generally addressing that even though the salmon runs 

are disappearing at alarming rates, they support 60,000 jobs and 

net the regional economy as much as $1 billion annually. 

I think that the hearing we are participating in today is very significant because we have representatives of the land management 

agencies addressing the critical need of restoring salmon habitats 

across the Federal lands in the Northwest. It is certainly our view 

that the Clinton administration and the Congress must assert leadership and develop a set of coordinated strategies that will address 

and correct the causes of the salmon's slide into extinction. 

There has to be a national recognition of the importance of preserving salmon and the regional economies that depend upon them. 

The management of salmon habitat on Federal lands is one critical 

issue. 

I would just refer to part of my written testimony, which is the 

management of the Federal dams and federally licensed dams 
148 

throughout the Northwest, and an essential problem of the decline 

of salmon that needs to be addressed if we are to have a regional 

solution to this major natural resource problem. 

We have at American Rivers recently completed a comprehensive 

compilation of existing planning direction for management of anadromous fish habitat in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management plans throughout the Northwest, California, and Alaska. This 

project was undertaken with the cooperation and support of the 

Forest Service and BLM, and is a reflection of the desire of the 

agencies to identify where their plans are and how they can be improved. 

I think certainly we are lucky in this room now to have some of 

the finest stream scientists in the Nation, many of whom work for 

the Federal agencies. 

Our study has led us to a number of findings, conclusions and 

recommendations that we would briefly like to share with the subcommittee. 

First, the plans neither with the Forest Service nor BLM, adequately address the cumulative effects of land management practices on fisheries and other aquatic resources. The plans do not describe fish habitat in quantitative terms, nor is there a relationship 

between the existing and the historic habitat conditions described 

in a very meaningful manner. It makes it very difficult for land 

managers to predict the response of aquatic ecosystems to land 

management practices. 

The enormous scientific consensus that land management plans 

must identify the relationship between land management activities 

and cumulative effects on a watershed basin has not yet been incorporated into the plans promulgated by the land management agencies. Second, the plans provide only the most general objectives for 

fish habitat conditions. We have recommended that the plans identify the desired physical, biological, and chemical conditions in the 

streams themselves and riparian areas that are necessary to meet 

habitat objectives that are required for the salmonid throughout 

the Northwest. 

A real problem that has been touched on earlier has been the 

fact that the plans have not yet been amended to reflect the threatened, endangered and sensitive status of many salmonid species. 

The Columbia Basin Program Implementation Guide, the PIG 

which was announced with fanfare two years ago, set forth a number of agency actions that should be undertaken to protect salmon. 

That simply has not been implemented. 

I think that the fisheries program staff is working on that. But 

still two years later we have yet to see actual on-the-ground imple- mentation in any kind of binding way of these recommendations. 

Certainly related to that would be the grazing allotment problem, which the Chairman observed earlier this morning. 

I think another problem that really needs to be addressed on a 

regional basis is consistency in plans. Plans that are adjacent in 

geographical locations have very differing standards for the management of species in riparian areas, and if there is to be a coordinated effort, there should be greater consistency in agency planning. 
149 

Mr. DEFAZIO. If you could briefly summarize, that is a little more 

than five minutes. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Probably the most important thing is accountability. Accountability, whether it be in revising grazing allotments, 

but accountability also in ensuring the enforceability of land management practice standards designed to protect salmon. 

It is my opinion that after several years of working with the 

agencies, that we will only really achieve full protection of salmon 

when district rangers and forest supervisors are held as accountable to protect salmon habitat and to restore salmon habitat as 

they are to meeting timber targets. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Cassidy follows:] 
150 

---

American 'Ri!!_ers 

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS J. CASSIDY, JR. 

GENERAL COUNSEL 

AMERICAN RIVERS, INC. 

FOR OVERSIGHT HEARING 

ON FOREST SERVICE AND BLM MANAGEMENT 

OF SALMON HABITAT ON FEDERAL LANDS 

Before: 

THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 

FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

OF THE 

HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

March 11, 1993 

801 PENNSYLVANIA AVE., S.E. 

Sum 400 WASHINGTON, DC 20003 

(202) 547-6900 

(202) 543-6142 (FAX) a member of Earth Share-~ 
151 

Mr. Chair111an, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify today. My name is Thomas Cassidy and I am 

the General Counsel and Director of Federal Lands Programs for 

American Rivers. American Rivers is a 20,000 member organization 

committed to the protect and restore of the nation's outstanding 

rivers. 

American Rivers has been intensively involved in the land 

management planning efforts of the Forest Service and Bureau of 

Land Management since 1986. Our efforts have primarily focused 

on the planning for potential wild and scenic rivers. However, 

in response to the precipitous decline of aquatic ecosystems in 

the Northwest and across the nation, American Rivers has expanded 

our mission to include programs designed to ensure the health of 

aquatic ecosystems. 

In the Columbia/Snake basin alone, historic runs of 16 

million adult salmon now number fewer than 2 million, only a few 

hundred thousand of which are wild. Over 200 native salmon 

stocks in the Columbia basin are already extinct. More than 200 

other native stocks are at risk of extinction. Salmon and 

steelhead are an essential part of the life, culture and economy 

of the Northwest. Even though salmon runs are disappearing at 

alar111ing rates, they still support as many as 60,000 jobs and net 

the regional economy as much as $1 billion annually. sustainable 
152 

--2--

salmon populations are also fundamental to fulfilling the federal 

government's treaty commitments to Tribal governments. 

The Clinton Administration, and the Congress, must develop a 

set of coordinated strategies to address and correct the causes 

of the salmon's slide into extinction. The Subcommittee is 

addressing today one critical issue: the management of salmon 

habitat on federal lands. However, another essential issue that 

must not be overlooked in this debate is the management of 

federal dams and federally licensed dams throughout the 

Northwest. The most visible example is the system of federal 

dams on the Columbia/ Snake River system. While there is still 

habitat available to salmon in Idaho, more than 90% of Idaho's 

salmon are killed by federal dams on the Columbia/ snake. 

Salmon survival on rivers such as the Rogue, Illinois and Yakima 

is also threatened by excessive water withdrawals and inadequate 

flows from federal dams. 

American Rivers has recently completed a comprehensive 

compilation of the existing planning direction for management of 

anadromous fish habitat in Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management land management plans throughout the Northwest, 

Northern California, and Alaska. This project was undertaken in 

cooperation and with the support of the Forest Service and Bureau 

of Land Management. 
153 

--3--

This project evaluated the consistency of individual 

management plans with planning criteria specified by the Forest 

Service and BLM. The criteria were based upon existing agency 

policy and program guidance. 

our study has led us to a number of findings, conclusions 

and recommendations that we would like to share with the 

Subcommittee. 

First, the Forest Service and BLM land management plans do 

not adequately address the cumulative effects of land management 

practices on fisheries and other aquatic resources. Agency 

management plans do not describe existing fish habitat in 

quantitative terms, nor is the relationship between existing and 

historic habitat conditions described in a meaningful manner . 

The result is that managers are unable to predict the response of 

aquatic ecosystems to land management practices, including timber 

harvest and road construction. 

There is an increasing scientific consensus that land 

management plans should identify the relationship between land 

management activities and cumulative effects on watershed 

conditions and fish habitat. This must be done by stressing 

quantitative evaluations of the effects of land management 

activities on aquatic habitats. Existing plans rarely achieve 

this objective and only rarely include quantitative standards 
154 

--4--

that address comprehensively watershed conditions, Including 

riparian habitats and water quality values. 

We recommend that the agencies ensure that each land 

management plan include a quantitative and qualitative analysis 

of past, present and predicted resource use and condition on a 

watershed basis. Such a comprehensive watershed evaluation must 

be the basis of developing measurable objectives and quantitative 

management prescriptions. 

Second, the plans provide only the most general objectives 

for fish habitat conditions. Few plans identify meaningful 

standards for anadromous fish as management indicator species or 

any standards for the conservation of aquatic and biological 

biodiversity. 

We recommend that fisheries standards not merely describe 

"how" to manage fisheries habitats, but they should also identify 

the desired physical, biological and chemical conditions that are 

necessary to meet habitat objectives. This should also include 

water quantity and instream flow assessments. Fisheries 

objectives must be measurable over time and relate directly to 

forest goals, objectives and management plans. 

Third, a very immediate problem is that resource management 

objectives set forth in the plans have not been amended to 
155 

--s--

reflect the status of threatened, endangered and sensitive 

salmonid species. The most glaring example of agency inaction in 

this regard is the continuing failure of the Forest Service to 

address its commitment to implement the Columbia Basin Program 

Implementation Guide ("PIG"). The PIG was announced with much 

fanfare in January, 1991, a time when petitions to list Pacific 

salmon under the Endangered Species Act were emerging as a 

significant regional and national issue. 

The PIG has management objectives that describe physical, 

biological, and chemical characteristics necessary to protect and 

restore salmonid habitats throughout. the Columbia basin. But the 

PIG has not been formally adopted as binding direction upon 

Forest Service activities; it remains merely advisory. 

Implementation of the Columbia Basin PIG, or a further refinement 

of it, would address immediate deficiencies and buy time for the 

implementation of a long-term comprehensive strategy. 

Fourth, the decentralized character of Forest Service and 

BLM planning has resulted in a confusion of planning direction 

and criteria that are inconsistent from Forest to Forest and/or 

Resource Area and makes uniform planning direction difficult if 

not impossible. The inconsistency extends to Forests that are 

adjacent and even which manage fish habitat in the same drainage. 

Although plans acknowledge the importance of coordinating forest 

planning with other related federal, state and Tribal planning 
156 

--6--

efforts, there is very little, if any, effort to integrate 

management strategies with other agencies in the watershed. 

We recommend that federal land managers take the lead to 

develop standardized criteria to ensure coordination of fisheries 

management on federal, state and Tribal lands. In addition, 

management areas need to be established using ecological 

boundaries rather than the zoning map type boundaries that now 

predominate planning. For example, riparian management areas 

need to be ecologically based rather than merely represent an 

arbitrary line on a map. The typical 100 foot wide riparian 

management area is arbitrary and scientifically indefensible. 

Fifth, and the importance of this cannot be understated, 

both the Forest Servi ce and BLM must increase the accountability 

of their fisheries programs to the public. Monitoring of plan 

implementation must become an internally enforceable limitation 

upon management activities. Federal land managers must be as 

a;countable for their actions to preserve and restore aquatic 

resources as they are in meeting timber targets. 

In conclusion, the Forest Service and BLM must develop 

watershed based planning that fully protects salmon and other 

aquatic resources. Agencies need to shift from stream 

restoration strategies designed to mitigate poor management 

practices to programs of watershed restoration. In recent years, 
157 

--7--

agency officials have proclaimed their commitment to ecosystem 

management. Congress and the public should be wary of such 

rhetoric and demand that on the ground decisions actually be 

guided by a new philosophy of ecosystem management. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before the 

Subcommittee today and I would be glad to answer any questions. 
158 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you very much. 

STATEMENT OF THANE TIENSEN 

Mr. TIENSEN. Thank you. 

I am Thane Tiensen. I am Council for Salmon For All, voice of 

the Columbia River commercial fishing industry. And my remarks 

are principally confined to the impact that the tremendous decline 

in the Northwest has had on that industry and on the related 

sports fishing industry, and on the communities that depend on 

salmon for their economic vitality and diversity. 

I was struck by the testimony of Mr. Palmisano in the last panel, 

who talked about the problem, in his perspective, being essentially 

one of overfishing and the failure to recognize the importance of 

fish caught and eaten by marine mammals. I guess the logical conclusion of that is that if we eliminate all fish that catch fish and 

eat them, we won't have a problem anymore. We won't have a person who cares anymore, it seems to me. 

The coastal communities-some of which are in your district, Mr. 

DeFazio-we in the Pacific Northwest who depend on salmon, have 

been frustrated by the inability of our political institution to address salmon habitat problems. The Pacific Fisheries Management 

Council that regulates fisheries harvest can not do that. There is 

no regulatory authority over habitat, it doesn't even have any advisory authority over habitat, and that is true of other institutions 

as well. So recognizing the failure of our institutions, we are struck 

with the existing agency process. 

And certainly the testimony you have heard this morning, the 

testimony that you presumably will hear in the future, and your 

own knowledge of the problem, tells you that we have got to address the problem with habitat on public lands. 

I won't chronicle the abuses. But certainly it is common sense 

and conventional wisdom now that we have to have some kind of 

program that addresses the habitat degradation. And the best way 

to address that problem is through the BLM and through the Forest Service and other Federal public lands agencies that have the 

ability to institute further protective measures through road building, and creating riparian barriers in harvest of timber. And if we 

don't do that, we very simply will not have any salmon stocks left 

on the coast. 

We are talking about this year, conservation groups calling for 

zero harvest. No fish whatsoever or coho this year in the Pacific 

Northwest to take care of those stocks. And apparently there is 

going to be a petition to list all Oregon coho in the Endangered 

Species Act. And regardless of whether that occurs, the fact of the 

matter is that fishing is going to go down. But even if there was 

no harvest, the fish would continue to go down. 

I urge you and implore you through your congressional oversight 

responsibilities to put pressure on these agencies, particularly with 

the new administration. We would all like to believe with the 

quote, "new sheriff in town" that there would be changes in the institution. 

We are going to see the budget requests made and actions taken 

that actually result in increased habitat protection and a return in 

salmon stocks. And if for no other reason than doing that with 
159 

salmon, the reason is that salmon translates into jobs. It translates 

into very real jobs, and it creates economic stability in the coastal 

communities that are still dependent on salmon; $50 million in economic activity that is related to salmon. 

This isn't a proposal that would eliminate jobs. It is a win-win 

for everybody. And I am hoping that the committee would keep that in mind as it weighs its responsibilities. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you for meeting the time line there. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Tienson follows:] 
160 

TESTIMONY BEFORE 11-:IE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

March 11, 1993 by Thane Tienson 

My name is Thane Tienson. I am an attorney with the law firm of 

Copeland, Landye, Bennett and Wolf with offices in Penland, Oregon and 

Anchorage, Alaska. I am a native of Astoria, Oregon which is located at the 

mouth of the Columbia River. Astoria is the headquarters of the Columbia 

River commercial salmon fishing industry. I have represented the industry for 

almost 10 years through its trade organization, Salmon For All. 

We have a salmon crisis in the Pacific Northwest. Over 200 stocks are 

at risk of becoming extinct and overall salmon production is estimated to be 

less than 25 percent of historic levels. The steep decline in the number of fish 

available for commercial and recreational harvest jeopardizes the industry's 

survival and devastates coastal economies. 

The Pacific Northwest is a region in transition. Historically dependent 

upon its abundance of natural resources for its economic and spiritual wellbeing, the region is now engaged in a titanic struggle to balance needed 

economic diversity, population growth and development pressures with the 

desire to preserve our natural resources for the benefit of future generations 

and for the values we hold dear. 

Despite all of the media attention given to the Northern spotted owl and 

to the old growth forests, for which it serves as a surrogate, it is the salmon 

that best symbolizes our struggle to preserve our distinct cultural heritage. 

For Northwesterners, the protection of naturally spawning salmon is a moral, 

social, cultural and economic imperative. No other creature has had such a 

profound impact on the history of an entire geographic region. Virtually every 

community along the Pacific Northwest coast can trace its history and 

economic vitality to this majestic fish. 

The economic contribution of salmon to the Northwest remains 

substantial: Over 50,000 jobs and a billion dollars in annual economic activity 

are thought to be at stake. But these jobs and the communities that depend 

1 
161 

upon them for their lifeblood are in peril. Long overdue Endangered Species 

Act (ESA) listings in the Sacramento and Columbia River b_asins have resulted 

in further restrictions on already minimal harvest allocations and further ESA 

petitions are expected to be filed shortly affecting all coastal salmon stocks. 

While over-fishing occurred in the early years of the industry, it has been the 

unrelenting destruction of salmon spawning habitat that has been the primary 

culprit in the decline of these runs. 

The cause of habitat desrruction varies from river basin to river basin. 

In the Sacramento River, the enormous water diversions associated with the 

irrigation agriculture industry of the Central Valley Project are to blame for 

the Endangered Species Act listing of the Sacramento winter run salmon and, 

just recently, the Delta smelt. Further north, in the Klamath River Basin, and 

along the Oregon and Washington coast, diminished numbers of returning 

salmon can be traced almost exclusively to mismanagement of public lands. 

On the west side of the Cascades, roadbuilding in national forests and the 

failure to provide riparian buffers during commercial harvest of timber has 

destroyed countless miles of prime spawning habitat. On the east side, cattle 

grazing in stream beds and unscreened irrigation diversions have wreaked 

similar havoc. In the Columbia River Basin, where all Snake River salmon 

stocks have now been listed under the Endangered Species Act, improved 

public land management also is essential to salmon recovery efforts together 

with modification of federally operated and licensed hydroelectric darns. 

Regrettably, our existing political institutions are terribly ill-equipped to 

resolve politically charged and complex issues of natural resource management. The life cycle of the salmon, to its detriment, cuts across numerous 

jurisdictional boundaries -- local, state, federal and even international agencies 

and commissions all command some authority over the salmon's biological 

journey or the critical habitat upon which its survival depends. Still, it is 

federal agencies and their land management policies that hold the key to 

salmon recovery effons. 

The abuses associated with public land management in the Northwest 

are legion. While some reforms have been instituted and agencies now claim 

to recognize and understand the importance of fish and wildlife protection 

mandates, aetual measures taken to curb abuses are minimal. This is 

particularly true of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

2 
162 

where the agencies are under tremendous pressure to conduct timber sales to 

restore the cut. For example, in the Columbia River basin, the area I know 

best, the Forest Service has reneged on express promises to the Northwest 

Power Planning Council to revise cattle grazing allotment management plans 

and has yet to assess the adequacy of its forest and resource management 

plans for protecting salmon habitat and rebuilding the runs. It has also failed 

to implement the most vital aspects of the Columbia Basin Fish Habitat 

Management Policy Implementation Guide (PIG) that it held out as being the 

cornerstone of its commitment to help rebuild salmon runs in the Northwest. 

Indeed, with few exceptions, all federal agencies in the region have 

failed to establish specific objectives to protect salmon stocks, have failed to 

establish timelines for accomplishing what vague promises are made and 

failed to establish mechanisms for review or accountability to determine the 

success of their salmon recovery efforts. The Forest Service, regionwide, 

continues to emphasize structural mitigations for degraded or destroyed 

salmon habitat at the expense of more effective preventive measures or 

restoration of degraded habitat as proposed by the Pacific Rivers Council. 

Agency budget requests for salmon protection measures are often not 

made despite commitments made to the contrary. The President's FY 1993 

budget for the Forest Service, BLM, Bureau of Reclamation, NMFS, F&WS and 

Corps of Engineers all included zero funding requests for important components of the regional salmon strategy adopted by the Power Planning Council 

and agreed to by these same agencies. I am confident that practice was 

repeated elsewhere in the region. 

With the call to reduce the federal deficit through reduced federal 

spending, some funding requests will clearly need to be cut -- but hopefully 

not for environmental protection measures that will create jobs, not eliminate 

them. Increased numbers of returning salmon means increased numbers of 

jobs and increased wealth and economic stability for coastal communities, 

virtually all of which are timber-dependent too. 

Contrarily, if we fail to take needed action, there is a corresponding cost 

as well. It is the cost of unemployment, food stamps and welfare and all of 

the accompanying social pathologies. That price Is often hidden from the 

3 
163 

taxpaying public and too often ignored because it is indirect. But it is very 

real, very expensive and very tragic. It is also avoidable. 

The commercial salmon fishing industry has never been politically 

powerful or well organized. Salmon-dependent communities are often small 

in population lμld removed from larger population centers. But there is no 

reason the commercial salmon fishing industry cannot continue to contribute 

significantly to the economic vitality of the Northwest region and continue to 

provide an important and healthy food source for millions of American citizens 

and their families. If we continue to ignore the importance of responsible 

stewardship of our public lands, one of our most valuable and cherished 

natural resources will soon disappear. Biologists are unanimous in recognizing 

the importance of naturally spawning salmon to the health of the resource. 

The genetic diversity upon which salmon survival depends is, in tum, 

dependent upon the preservation and restoration of diverse spawning habitat 

on public lands. 

Those lands can continue to be managed for multiple use. Those lands 

can continue to provide substantial economic benefits to core industries. But 

our public lands must also provide adequate protection of salmon spawning 

habitat. 

The salmon crisis in the Northwest occurred primarily because public 

land management is out of balance and has been for too long. The time to 

redress that imbalance is now. Congressional oversight of public land 

management is an enormous responsibility. To discharge that responsibility 

fairly, prudently and zealously requires great political will and courage. It 

requires saying "No" to powerful special interests and inflicting some 

additional pain on an already depressed timber industry. But the salmon 

fishing industry will also continue to pay a huge price during the transitional 

process. These changes and the dividends they bring cannot occur overnight. 

If the cost of this investment seems high to some, however, I submit the 

payoffs are far greater: 

Predictability in industries that have experienced only chaos; 

Sustainable harvest levels to ensure long-term economic viability 

for industry and resource dependent communities; 

4 
164 

Restoration of balance and fairness in public land management; 

Avoidance of further ESA listings and the accompanying political 

polarization and protracted court fights that are both expensive 

and demoralizing; and 

An elevated quality of life for both present and future generations 

of Northwest residents. 

The challenge presented to this committee is clear. The salmon, salmondependent communities and the salmon fishing industry, both sport and 

commercial, have only one hope: That this committee and the Congress will 

display the political leadership that is required to restore integrity and a sense 

of stewardship to the management of our public lands. 

5 
165 

STATEMENT OF DR. RAY J. WlllTE 

Dr. WHITE. I am an independent stream habitat consultant from 

Edmonds, Washington. I have 35 years experience in analyzing and 

restoring stream habitats, so what we are talking about, I have 

long association with. Including, among other things, service as a 

State fishery biologist in Wisconsin, and most recently teaching at 

Montana State University where I retired a couple of years ago. 

And I have had very close participation with the Forest Service and 

BLM scientists and managers. 

I have long served on Trout Unlimited's Board of Scientific Advisors and I appear today on behalf of that conservation organization. 

I strongly support the initiatives of the Forest Service and BLM 

for better salmonid habitat. There is great potential, as we are 

hearing today, for positive changes in these agencies so that public 

forests and grasslands can better help save the Pacific salmon resource from demise. 

The Forest Service and BLM have developed excellent knowledge 

about aquatic resources on their methods to protect and restore waters. This has been through the work of scientists like Drs. Sedell, 

Swanson and Mr. Williams, who I believe is in the room, and many 

other people in the Forest Service and BLM. 

You can have tremendous faith in those professionals. They are 

some of the world's foremost stream scientists and managers. 

What needs to be done is to free them from certain agency traditions and fund them to do what they know must be done. In particular, I support the watershed approaches like those in the Pacific River Council's proposal and in earlier efforts to forge ecosystem-wide management, such as the so-called "Gang of Four" report. 

I would like to speak to certain attributes of the watershed strategy; it is important because it addresses habitat. That is the basis 

of the fishery. It is important because it is based on science, rather 

than whim. And it is important because it puts top priority on 

keeping the good habitat we have left, places second the priority, 

also very important, on restoring damaged habitat. So I urge you 

to put this watershed approach into effect on Federal lands in the 

Northwest. Why? Because as we've just heard, our Pacific salmon are really 

in bad trouble. Also because past efforts to solve habitat problems 

for them has been inadequate and because the salmon need such 

major coordinated help now. 

That is important to recognize and for us not to beat around the 

bush. It is things people do that have driven the resource to its 

knees. Washington's, Oregon's, Idaho's, and California's wild salmon populations are pitiful, fast-declining remnants of what they 

once were. And as Mr. Tiensen has just mentioned, there is the 

stopping of fishing on some stocks. So a national treasure is collapsing. It is the same mistake we made with the Atlantic salmon 

on the East Coast, and more recently with Great Lakes fisheries 

and many other magnificent fisheries in the United States. 

The question is are we going to complete the mistake on the 

West Coast. The stocking of millions of hatchery salmon per year 

has failed to stem the decline. It has harmed wild populations and 
166 

it has harmed habitat by making people think that they didn't 

have to protect the habitat. 

To avoid completing the disaster then it is essential to protect 

the remaining old-growth forest and better protect the grazing of 

grasslands. The massive living and dead wood in old-growth forests 

and riparian parts of the grasslands makes streams the proper 

place for salmon. 

We need to look ahead to healing damaged watersheds and 

streams. Healing means putting nature in the position to do most 

of the restorative work herself by reducing human activities that 

cause the harm. That is tough to do. 

It also involves replacing the huge logs in streambeds that were 

cleaned of them by old-time logging guides or misguided agency 

logjam removals recently. Correcting the abuse of Federal lands 

will go a long way toward ensuring survival of salmon stocks, but 

we must ultimately address the abuse from non-Federal lands, too. 

To do this, Congress should take a hard look at the Clean Water 

Act. One of that act's objectives is to restore and maintain the biological integrity of all waters of the United States. 

As Congress reauthorizes the Clean Water Act, I ask you to consider strengthenin~ the nonpoint source provisions and keep in 

mind that tbe quality of our waters is more than just clean water. 

It is the structure and some other aspects, too, and the amount of 

water flowin~ in the stream. 

So in looking hard at the Clean Water Act, it should probably 

mean that we could achieve, on a comprehensive basis, some of the 

same objectives that are under consideration here today. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. [Prepared statement of Dr. White follows:] 
167 

Testimony of Trout Unlimited 

before the 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Natural Resources Committee 

Subcommittee on Rational Parks, Forests, and Public Lands 

at a Hearing on the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service 

Land Management Practices 

and Their Effects on Watersheds and Fish 

Prepared by 

Ray J. White, Science Advisor 

March 11, 1993 

My name is Ray J . White. I am an independent stream habitat 

consultant in Edmonds, Washington, near Seattle. I am retired 

from Montana State University but remain on its adjunct faculty. 

My experience in assessing and restoring salmonid habitat covers 

35 years, as a biologist in charge of evaluating Wisconsin's 

stream habitat management, as a visiting scientist in Europe, as 

a professor at two universities, and in consulting on many 

streams. I serve on Trout Unlimited's volunteer Board of 

Scientific Advisors and appear today on behalf of that 

organization and its 70,000 members nationwide. I also work with 

other fishery and conservation groups in the Pacific Northwest, 

and sit on the executive committee of a coalition of 35 

organi zations working to salvage the dwindling salmon resource. 

From close professional association with USFS and BLM scientists 

and managers, I have s ome understanding of their missions and of 

America's Leading Coklwater Fisheries Conservation Organization 

Washington, D.C. Headquarters: 800 Follin Lane, SE, Suite 250 , Vienna, VA 22180-4959 703-281-1100 FAX 703-281-182 
168 

problems and opportunities confronting them--and a great interest 

in today's subject. 

I strongly support the initiatives in the U.S. Forest 

Service and Bureau of Land Management for better salmonid 

habitat, and for greater emphasis on watershed integrity. The 

potential is great for positive change so that our public forests 

and grasslands can do more to help prevent the demise of the wild 

Pacific salmon resource--and help it on the road to recovery. In 

particular, I support the watershed approaches like those 

embodied in the Pacific Rivers Council's proposal and in earlier 

efforts to forge ecosystem-wide management systems like the socalled "Gang of Four" report on late successional forest 

ecosystems. 

As a scientist, I can speak to certain attributes of the 

watershed approach under consideration here today. It is based 

on science, it is geographically comprehensive, and it 

distinguishes between protecting present good habitat and 

restoring abused habitat. It emphasizes that, first and 

foremost, we should hang onto the good habitat that's left: our 

healthy watersheds. And it provides the basis for, as a second 

priority, restoring the various kinds of damaged habitat. I urge 

you to put it into effect on federal lands in the Northwest. 

Why? Because our Pacific salmon are in bad trouble, because 

2 
169 

past efforts· to solve habitat problems have · been inadequate, and 

because the salmon need major, coordinated help !l.Qyl. 

Things people do have driven the resource to its knees. 

Washington's, Oregon's, Idaho's, and California's wild salmon 

populations are pitiful, fast-declining remnants of what they 

once were . In the last two years, fishing has had to be 

virtually stopped on many stocks. If we keep doing what we've 

been doing to our lands, forests and waters, there will soon be 

no economically viable wild salmon fishery. 

Please realize that a national treasure is collapsing. It 

is collapsing because of us--because of what we are doing. We 

can still turn the situation around if we change some of our 

actions, but it will have to be soon. 

Again and again in our history, we have destroyed the 

habitat basis of fisheries and thought that hatchery programs (a 

sort of fish farming) could make up for it. That hasn't worked. 

It has never worked. For fundamental biological and economic 

reasons, it cannot work. Only healthy watershed ecosystems can 

economically produce salmon on a sustained basis. 

In the Pacific Northwest are we going to echo past folly? 

Will we continue to damage our forest and grassland watersheds 

and lose the fisheries that depend on them? 

3 
170 

In our sqqandering of one major American fishery resource 

after another, destruction of virgin forests has played a major 

role. Beginning over 250 years ago, people cleared the East 

Coast forests. Together with overfishing, river damming, and 

pollution, this eradicated our Atlantic salmon by about the year 

1900. Massive artificial breeding and stocking in the late 1800s 

failed to save that magnificent fishery, and recent high-tech 

hatchery programs on somewhat rehabilitated streams have failed 

to recreate a significant Atlantic salmon fishery. 

We took the Midwest's timber, otherwise abused streams and 

lakes there, and devastated that region's fisheries. The oncethriving Michigan grayling dwindled as logging pushed across that 

state, and, by 1932, it vanished. The native Great Lukes fish 

community, much of which spawned in pre-logging streams, largely 

disappeared by 1945 or 1950. In it's place is a grotesque 

assortment of exotics--fishes that don't belong and don't 

function properly there. They don't behave themselves, so to 

speak. Now we have to put up with them and make the best of it. 

The virtual extirpation of beaver, followed by overgrazing, 

environmentally abusive hard-rock mining practices, excessive 

logging, and irrigation diversion, radically changed watersheds 

and streams in the interior West, annihilating many stocks of 

cutthroat trout, that region's primary native salmonid. Hatchery 

programs made the situation worse by genetic disruption and by 

4 
171 

introducing competitor species. 

If we don't act fast and intelligently in the Pacific 

Northwest, we will soon complete a colossal repetition of those 

mistakes. Over 100 locally adapted Pacific anadromous salmon and 

trout stocks are already extinct: over 200 are at risk' of 

extinction. Only a fast-dwindling vestige of the world's once 

most spectacular salmon resource remains. And, as you know, 

several Pacific salmon stocks were recently listed as threatened 

and endangered, and petitions for listing many more stocks are 

imminent unless massive change is accomplished soon. 

Annually stocking millions of hatchery salmon has failed to 

stem the decline; it also has damaged wild salmon populations and 

deluded people into ducking the hard decisions• 3 • • •. Among 

the hard decisions society has all too often avoided are to 

protect intact habitat and to restore abused habitat. If we make 

better choices now, the remnant wild stocks can begin to rebuild 

themselves. 

An essential choice is to manage our federal lands 

differently. We have long tended to emphasize timber cutting and 

livestock grazing. After the Multiple-Use-Sustained-Yield Act of 

1959, more effort toward non-commodity and indirect commodity 

uses of National Forests began. Still, these were too often 

token sidelines. It's easy to set policy, then work around it. 

5 
172 

Where stream habitat work was done in the Pacific Northwest, it 

was at first often without scientific understanding; agencies 

sometimes did not realize how little they knew and proceeded on a 

so called "common sense" basis, doing more harm than good. 

But much has been learned through trial, error, and 

research. USFS and BLM now have excellent knowledge and methods. 

What's needed is to eliminate traditional administrative 

obstacles and provide funding, so the agency stream scientists 

and managers can, in comprehensive, coordinated ways, do the job 

they know has to be done. 

Let's look at some general areas of stream management 

capability that have improved over the years. In the past, some 

stream restoration methods that work wonders in Midwestern creeks 

were applied to steep West Coast streams and did not withstand 

high flows'•, but now methods that are more durable and more in 

keeping with the Northwest's natural stream characteristics are 

used• ' 0 " , and there is profound understanding of the n eeds 

and possibilities for ecological approaches in such work". 

Also, until about 15 years ago common sense said wood debris 

jams in Pacific Northwest streams obstruct salmon runs, and major 

programs were undertaken to remove such material. But as Forest 

Service research revealed, salmon, having lived for millennia in 

streams choked with fallen wood, were well adapted to it; they 

6 
173 

usually could get ov er or around the supposed obstacles, and wood 

debris accumulations (and beaver dams) proved to help produce 

salmon in many ways " . 

Old-growth forest sheds large logs and other woody debris 

into streams, tying their beds together, stabilizing them. The 

downed wood also traps gravel, forming spawning grounds, and 

provides complex cover and diverse pools, where fish hide, rest 

and feed" 15 These effects are especially important on steep 

Northwest streams. 

An unfavorable administrative tendency in the USFS and BLM 

has been toward quick economic yields and technologic fixes 

rather than toward ecologic health and long term productivity of 

lands and waters. It has been a ruin-and-rebuild approach, 

probably self-deceiving from the start, and often less than 

whole-hearted on ·the rebuilding end. Rather than managing 

conservativ ely for sustained natural functioning of forests and 

grasslands, on which such resources as salmon runs depend, there 

has been radical exploitation, giving high short-term profits to 

a narrow range of u s ers and damaging fundamental land-watervegetation functions, followed sometimes by so-called 

"mitigation." Whe never you hea r "mitigation" in connection with 

stream habitat work, an alarm bell should go off in your mind, 

and you should examine for trouble. 

7 
174 

In trying to mitigatively "fix " stream habitat after 

destructive logging, reading and grazing, public land agencies 

have gotten into trouble--applying aspirin while continuing to do 

what causes the underlying cancer. Stream habitat certainly can 

be restored. In small, gently-flowing creeks of the East, of the 

Midwest, and of western mountain valleys, it is relatively easy 

and inexpensive. But on steep, high-force streams of the Pacific 

Northwest, doing it right requires substantial investment of 

resources, something which agencies have too seldom seen fit to 

spend. 

This is not to say that stream habitat restoration should 

not be done in on the Pacific Northwest's streams. There has 

been huge damage, and our land management agencies and others 

should spend the funds needed for healing. And the basic 

approach should be more one of healing than fixing. The selfhealing powers of Nature are tremendous. The main thing is to 

put Nature in position to exert that power. 

To enable healing, the first step is to remove the disease. 

This means halting or reducing the human activities that are 

causing the damage. Once that is done, the actions of water, 

soil and vegetation in shaping stream channels often will do much 

to bring back productivity for salmon . It is a principle of 

salmonid stream habitat management that the greatest gains are 

achieved by alleviating human influences on the worst-abused 

8 
175 

streams. But keep in mind, this is second in priority to 

protecting remaining undamaged habitat. 

In other situations, putting Nature in position to self-heal 

salmon habitat means putting jams of huge logs in streams where 

such "obstructions" were once removed when the channels were used 

to float logs to market--and where second-growth forest has not 

had time to grow and topple enough big trees to restore proper 

channel structure. Hundreds of years may pass before a secondgrowth forest does this, even if left uncut. 

I submit that it will be most rewarding in the long run NOT 

to road and cut the scarce remaining old-growth forest, but to 

manage more conservatively our present timber-harvest forests and 

grazing lands. Thus, needs for costly "mitigation" will be 

reduced while reaping sustained benefits, such as salmon runs AND 

timber AND beef AND wildlife AND recreation. Many of the methods 

for such management have been developed by aquatic ecologists and 

hydrologists within USFS and BLM. The agencies should be 

reformed to enable these people to put into practice what they 

have developed. 

Organizing such reforms according to watersheds will be far 

more effective than according to the present administrative or 

political boundaries. A watershed is a logical unit in terms of 

water catchment and flow and of the plant and animal life 

9 
176 

deriving therefrom. A watershed is an ecosystem encompassing a 

nested system of forest (or grassland) and aquatic ecosystems. 

There is much call of late for "ecosystem" management. This 

makes eminent sense--managing for the function of the system, 

rather than managing parts of it piecemeal, without r egard for 

other parts or the whole system. We do not yet know the forms 

that ecosystem management will take, but managing for ecological 

integrity (in a word, health) of watersheds will surely be a good 

start. The Pacific Rivers Council strategy for hanging onto the 

last best watersheds in the Pacific Northwest and for securing 

them by putting people to work stormproofing the human-affected 

edges of such watersheds would seem to be one helpful first step. 

It is in keeping with the new management thrusts that are 

developing within USFS and BLM, based on scientific understanding 

of interrelationships among land, water and organisms. I urge 

that in guiding USFS and BLM, Congress consider the proposal and 

the ideas presented here. 

Correcting the abuse of federal lands will go a long way 

toward ensuring the survival of many of the salmon stocks that 

are today in great peril. Ultimately, however, we also must 

address the threats that derive from the abuse of the non-federal 

lands that lie within our Pacific Northwest watersheds. To do 

so, Congress will need to take a hard look at the Clean Water 

Act. One of the Clean Water Act's primary objectives is to 

10 
177 

restore and maintain the biological integrity of all waters of 

the United States. As Congress reauthorizes the Clean Water Act, 

I ask you to consider strengthening the Act's "non-point source" 

provisions and creating a strong anti-degradation policy to 

protect all of our nation's outstanding national resource waters. 

Doing so will mean that we can achieve on a comprehensive basis 

the same objectives that are under consideration here today. 

Thank you . I would be happy to answer any questions you 

might have. 

Notes 

1. Nehlsen, W., J. E. Williams, and J. A. Lichatowitch. 1991. 

Pacific salmon at the crossroads: stocks at risk from 

California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. Fisheries 16:4-21. 

2. Goodman, M. L. Preserving the genetic diversity of salmonid 

stocks: a call for federal regulation of hatchery programs. 

Environmental Law: 20:111-166. 

3. Hilborn, R. 1991. Hatcheries and the future of salmon in the 

Northwest. Fisheries 17:5-8. 

4. Meffe, G. K. Techno-arrogance and halfway technologies: 

salmon hatcheries on the Pacific coast of North America. 

Conservation Biology 6:350-354 . 

5. White, R. J. 1992a. Why wild fish matter: a biologist's view. 

~ (Trout Unlimited), Summer 1992:25-33,44-50. 

6. White, R. J. 1992. Why wild fish matter: balancing ecological 

and aquacultural fishery management. Trout (Trout Unlimited), 

Autumn 1992:16-33,44-48. 

7. Hamilton, J. B. 1989. Response of juvenile steelhead to 

instream deflectors in a high gradient stream. Pages 149-158 in 

R. E. Gresswell, B. A. Barton, and J. L . Kershner. Practical 

approaches to riparian resource management: an educational 

workshop. U.S . Bureau of Land Management, Billings, Montana. 

11 
178 

8. Frissell, C. A., and R. K. Nawa. 1992. Incidence and causes of physical failure of artificial fish habitat structures in 

streams of western Oregon and Washington. North American Journal 

of Fisheries Management 12:102-197. 

9. House, R., V. Crispin, and R. Manthey. 1989. Evaluation of 

stream rehabilitation projects--Salem District (1981-1988). 

Technical Note (T/N OR-6), U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management, 

Portland, Oregon. 

10. House, R., and V. Crispin. 1990. Economic analysis of the 

value of large woody debris as salmonid habitat in coastal Oregon 

streams. Technical Note (T/N OR-7), U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land 

Management, Portland, Oregon. 

11. House, R., V. Crispin, and J.M. Suther. 1991. Habitat and 

channel changes after rehabilitation of two coastal streams in 

Oregon. Pages 150-159 in J. Colt and R. J. White, editors. 

Fisheries bioengineering symposium. American Fisheries Society 

Symposium 10, Bethesda, Maryland. 

12. Sedell, J. R., and R. L. Beschta. 1991. Bringing back the 

"bio" in bioengineering. Pages 160-175 in J. Colt and R. J. 

White, editors. Fisheries bioengineering symposium. American 

Fisheries Society Symposium 10, Bethesda, Maryland. 

13. Dolloff, C. A. 1986. Effects of stream cleaning on juvenile 

coho salmon and Dolly Varden in southeast Alaska. Transactions of 

the American Fisheries society 115:743-755. 

14. Bisson, P.A. and eight others. 1987. Large woody debris in 

forested streams in the Pacific Northwest: past, present, and 

future. Pages 143-190 in E. Sale and T. Cundy, editors. 

Proceedings of a symposium on streamside management: forestry and 

fisheries interactions, University of Washington, February 12-14, 

1986. 

15. Sedell, J. R., P.A. Bisson, F. J. Swanson, ands. V. 

Gregory. 1988. What we know about large trees that fall into 

streams and rivers. Pages 47-81 in C. Maser, R. F. Tarrant, J.M. 

Trappe, and J. F. Franklin, editors. From the forest to the sea: as story of fallen trees. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-229. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Portland, Oregon. 

12 
179 

STATEMENT OF DR. GEORGE G. ICE 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Dr. Ice. 

Dr. ICE. Thank you. 

My name is George Ice. I am a forest hydrologist with the National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement and have a Ph.D. from Oregon State University and a Masters from the University of California at Berkeley. And I have some 

materials that I would like to enter along with, to support my 

statement. 

I would like to discuss five key issues. Forest management practices have improved due to the use of Best Management Practices 

and the recognition of riparian areas. Watershed damage observed 

in recent years is tied to past practices and watershed abuses can 

and are being addressed. 

There are some important principals that should be used in watershed analysis and identification of management needs. Forest 

management practices have dramatically improved practices by 

using riparian management techniques. Riparian management 

areas on national forests are now routinely used providing shade 

and providing for recruitment to streams of lost weed debris. Landslides are an important process of sediment delivery to streams. 

Seventy-six percent of the landslide volume came from 9 percent of 

the land area. Recognition of hazards can result in improved performance. 

A study in British Columbia found that because of cautious road 

construction, landslides from roads were less frequent on steep 

areas than areas of moderate gradient. A recent study of landslides 

in the Deschutes Watershed in Washington, near Olympia, found 

that most of the landslides were from roads greater than 15 years 

old. 

Recommendations for maintenance and corrective actions can be 

developed from those types of inventories. There is no shortage of 

management/enhancement techniques to address the problems. Many of these enhancement techniques need more research to determine their value and the proper conditions for their application. 

Watersheds can recover from disturbances as a result of improved management practices and the inherent resiliency of watershed systems to the natural disturbances. The South Fork of the 

Salmon River in Idaho had documented improvements as a result 

of the forest management activities in the watershed. 

A moratorium on management activities in the watershed restoration work, followed by a period of forest management under 

new guidelines, resulted in the cleaning out of vines in the pools, 

and reduced vines in the gravels. 

Work by Andrus and Froehlich has shown that, particularly for 

narrow streams in productive coastal locations, any temperature 

increases resulting from the removal of riparian vegetation by fire 

or harvesting quickly recovers. A group of industry watershed experts has been working on watershed analysis to determine the 

health of watersheds and identify watershed management needs, 

and these guidelines are provided in some of the material that I 

am submitting. 

Each watershed is unique. Watershed assessments need to recognize the important hydrologic and geomorphic processes in the wa-
180 

tershed to achieve maximum management flexibility. A watershed 

assessment is not adequate if it cannot account for how, where and 

when an activity is conducted and the risk to beneficial stream 

uses. 

I would like to say that I couldn't disagree more with the statement that Mr. Higgins made in supporting the Six Rivers National 

Forest application of the model assuming that private lands are 

completely clear-cut every year. I think that is a misapplication of 

flawed model and it is the type of application that makes it difficult 

to have cooperation between private lands and Federal lands. 

I have worked on or visited numerous watersheds in the western 

United States over the past 20 years. I have worked in California 

where the road construction diverted streams. Those are being addressed during the current cutting cycle. 

I have visited Grouse Creek in California where adler is recapturing soil deposits from landslides which occurred during the 1964 

floods. 

I have toured the Middle Santiam Basin in Oregon where intensive harvesting has resulted in little water quality change. I am 

participating in a project in Idaho where corduroy roads up 

streams, flumes, and splash dams were used to yard out trees in 

the 1930s, and today those effects are muted. 

Because of improved operations and the use of Best Management 

Practices, conservative watershed management protection programs, stream and watershed restoration efforts and the natural 

recovery of systems, I conclude that forest watershed health is better today than it has been for 30 years and that it will continue 

to improve. 

[Prepared statement of Dr. Ice follows:] 
181 

Technical Comments of 

George G. Ice, PhD 

Research Forest Hydrologist, 

National Council of the Paper Industry 

for Air and Stream Improvement 

Before the 

Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, 

and Public Lands 

of the 

United States House . of Representatives 

March 11, 1993 
182 

I INTRODUCTION 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss watershed health in 

the Pacific Northwest. I am a forest hydrologist with the National 

Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement 

(NCASI). My responsibilities include the NCASI forest water 

quality program and work on the NCASI CUmulative Watershed Effects 

Program. The mission of the NCASI Forest Water Quality Program is 

to provide technical information and conduct research that creates 

forest management options for achieving water quality and stream 

quality objectives. Specific goals include: 

(1) Develop _or validate management practices that can reduce water 

and stream quality impacts from forest operations and maintain 

sustainable stream quality. 

(2) Develop or validate assessment methods to facilitate adaptive 

management by the forest products industry. 

(3) Develop or validate predictive methods which incorporate a landscape and temporal perspective in water and stream quality 

protection. 

(4) Provide technology transfer of information to the industry on methods to reduce water and stream quality impacts. 

(5) Provide the industry with technical review of proposed 

nonpoint source control strategies. 

I would like to discuss five key issues related to forest 

watershed health on public lands in the Northwest. 

(l) Declines in salmonids in forest areas are not tied solely to 

watershed conditions. 

(2) Forest management practices have dramatically improved through 

the use of Best Management Practices, and recognition of sensitive 

watershed sites including riparian areas. 

(3) Watershed damage observed in recent years is often tied to 

past practices. Watershed hazards created by past practices can and are being addressed. 

(4) Watersheds are resilient and, often show improving conditions as a result of watershed protection and improved practices. 

(5) There are some important principles which .should be used in 

watershed analysis and identification of management needs. 
II 

183 

DECLINES IN SAllfONIDS NOT SOLELY 

TIED TO WATERSHED HEALTH 

Watershed health, tied to logging and forest roads, is often 

considered the primary cause of declines in salmonids in forested areas. However, there are a number of studies and anecdotal 

evidence that other factors are important. 

A. south fork of the salmon 

Research on the South Fork of the Salmon River documented 

significant damage to the watershed as a result of major storm 

events coupled with concentrated jammer logging operations. These 

short cable yarding systems required as much as 30 percent of the 

harvest area to be dedicated to roads. A rapid decline in salmon 

red counts was observed in the South Fork of the Salmon river 

between 1957 and 1966 at a time when sedimentation was occurring in 

the river. However, declines were also observed for salmon redds 

in the Middle Fork of the Salmon, which is in a Wilderness Area. 

Research by Megahan and McIntyre indicates · that the watershed 

health related to forest management may have accelerated the salmon 

declines in the South Fork but that other factors, presumably 

downstream stresses, are contributing to the downward trend in both 

streams (1). 

B. Bull Trout 

Bull trout (Salyelinus confluentus) is being considered for 

listing as an endangered species. Contributing to declines in bull 

trout are habitat damage, dam building, over-harvest, hybridization with brook trout, and competition with non-native species. In 

Crater Lake National Park a precipitous drop in bull trout has been 

tied to the introduction of brook trout. In the Swan Valley in 

Montana, streams in managed forest areas are supporting healthy 

populations of bull trout (2). 

III FOREST BMP'S AND MANAGEMENT ADDRESSING CRITICAL WATERSHED 

CONDITIONS 

NCASI recently contracted with Dr. Dan Brinkley and Lee 

MacDonald of Colorado State University to assess the effectiveness 

of Best Management Practices in controlling non-point source pollution from silviculture. They concluded that: 

"The quality of water draining from forest watersheds is generally the best in the nation. Forest practices, particularly road 

construction and harvesting, have the potential. to degrade water 

and stream quality primarily through increased sediment and changes 

in channel conditions. Intensive research projects have generally found that imJ?lementation of BMPs can p=-::•·-:--, .. · ~·:.'::-':::;_1':.io1l 

degradation of water quality" (3). They also recommended more research into cumulative watershed effects. In nearly all cases, 
184 

dilution, dispersion, and storage reduce the impacts of management 

activities downstream of the managed watersheds ••• [but under some conditions] ••• downstream effects may be more dramatic than on-site 

effects ••. 

Forest management practices have dramatically improved water 

quality protection by using riparian management areas and by 

recognizing and protecting high hazard sites. Riparian areas on National forests, as well as state and private lands, are now managed to protect water quality and stream habitat conditions. 

This includes providing shade, avoiding disturbance by equipment, 

and some retention of trees for recruitment to the stream of large 

woody debris. Studies show that stream temperature increases are avoided and suspended sediment increases minimized by the use of 

riparian zones (4). 

Watershed damage can also occur where high hazard sites are not recognized. Landslides are an important process in sediment 

deli very to streams and potential channel damage ( 5) • An inventory 

in the Siskyou National Forest by Amaranthus et al. found that 76 

percent of the landslide volume came from only 9 percent of the 

land area (6). Two studies show that recognition of hazards can result in improved performance. In the Waldport Ranger District, 

Barnett found that reduced road landsliding in recent years appears 

to be a result of " •.. improved road-building techniques, better 

enforcement of contract specifications, and a reduction in miles of 

roads built each year" (7). MacMillian Bloedel in British Columbia 

found that landslides from roads were actually less frequent in 

steep areas than areas of moderate gradient, probably due to more caution in road construction and design (8). 

IV DAMAGE OFTEN ASSOCIATED WITH PAST PRACTICES 

Observations of watershed damage are often associated with 

past practices rather than current practices. In California I 

visited a timber harvest plan in the Sierra Nevada where channel 

damage had resulted from channel diversions and skidding through 

the channel in the 1960 's (prior to the implementation of the 

Forest Practices Act). This sites was eventually approved for 

harvesting with management measures to improve the stream 

conditions and reduce future sources of sediment resulting from the 

past activities (9). 

A recent study of landslides in the Deschutes Watershed in 

Washington, near Olympia, found that most of the landslides 

experience during a 100+ year storm were from roads greater than 

15-years old (10). "The majority of the problems occurred because 

of steep cutslopes and block culverts." Recommendations for 

maintenance and corrective actions can be developed · from i.:hese 

types of inventories. In the Mapleton Ranger Dist::-ict 1.: the 

S!.us:;,aw Natj_onl\J. """',:,est: nnstablP. s.i.decast: !llateri"'-l fi:'.:;~ -. . --~~ 

creates a potential for 1·andslides. This type of road co_nstruction 

would not be allowed today for these types of conditions. The 
185 

district staff have developed a sidecast pullback rating system to 

determine where high hazard conditions occur and to remove those 

hazards (11). 

Where existing damage exists there is no shortage of 

management/enhancement techniques to address problems (12). These 

include such activities as tree planting in riparian areas, fencing 

of riparian areas (to exclude cattle), log and boulder placement in 

streams for increased spawning and rearing habitat, use of brush 

and tree bundles for stream cover, off-channel pool development, 

construction of instream gabions, use of tree tops for rip rap, 

construction of sediment traps following wildfires, blasting to 

develop pools in rock-bottom channels, removal of fish-passage 

barriers, and construction of fish ladders. Many of these 

enhancement techniques need much more research to determine their 

value and the proper conditions for their application. The recent 

history of woody debris clean-ups and log removals, once recommended and now condemned, suggest the need to be careful about 

"enhancement" approaches. 

V WATERSHED HEALTH CAN RECOVER 

Watersheds can recover from disturbances as a result of 

improved management practices, and the inherent resiliency of the 

watershed systems to natural disturbances. 

A. south Fork of Salmon 

The South Fork of Salmon River, described earlier, had 

documented increases in gravel fines and filling of pools, at least 

partly as a result of management activities in the watershed. A 

moratorium on management activities and watershed restoration work, 

followed by a period forest management under new guidelines, 

resulted in cleaning out of fines in pools and reduced fines in 

gravels ( 13) • 

B. Alsea Watershed study 

The Alsea Watershed in coastal Oregon was one of the first 

experiments on the use of buffers and stream management zones to 

protect water quality. As part of that study one small watershed was nearly completely clearcut to the stream and then burned. 

Stream temperature and sediment increased and dissolved oxygen 

decreased dramatically. Streamwater dissolved oxygen returned to near saturation when fine organic material ~as removed or flushed 

from the stream. Stream temperatures rapidly returned to normal 

following recovery of riparian vegetation (4). Work by Andrus and 

Froehlich has shown that, particularly for narrow stream in 

productive coastal locations, any temperature increases resulting 

from removal of riparian vegetation by fire or harvesting quickly 

n!covers ( 14) . 
186 

VI PRINCIPLES FOR WATERSHED HEALTH ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGEMENT 

NCASI, .through a group of industry watershed experts, has been 

working on a set of guidelines for watershed analysis to determine 

the health of watersheds and identify watershed management needs 

(15,16). These guidelines include: 

(1) Identify the important hydrologic and geomorphic processes of concern. 

(2) Describe the relationships between environmental damage and 

beneficial uses by evaluating the physical processes linking on-site disturbances to downstream effects. 

(3) Provide a measure of the sensitivity of beneficial uses to 

management (thresholds will be included where appropriate). 

(4) Describe effects of land management relative to background 

conditions and develop methods to assess recovery factors. 

(5) Utilize methods that are understandable, reproducible and 

practical, and supported by available resource information. 

(6) Provide evaluations of cumulative watershed effects that are based on measured physical or biological effects rather than 

indirect indicators of change, thus allowing assessment of 

accuracy in actively managed watersheds. 

(7) Describe the uncertainty caused by technical knowledge gaps. 

Watershed assessments needs to recognize the important 

processes of concern to achieve maximum management flexibility. A 

sediment budget contracted by the Forest Service in the Grouse 

Creek Watershed of California indicated that tractor yarded harvest 

units were creating l0x the sediment as cable yarded units. The 

"cumulative effects model" for this area was based on peak flow concerns related to soil compaction, but most experts felt sediment 

production was the major issue. By requiring cable yarding on steep terrains, harvest levels could be increased with less 

sediment delivery to the stream channel. By focusing on the 

important processes, management practices can be designed to 

protect or improve watershed health. A watershed assessment is not 

adequate if it can not account for how, where, and when an activities is conducted as well as how much activity is carried out or if it can not address the r.isks to beneficial stream uses. 

VII SUMMARY 

I have worked on or visited numerous watersheds in the Western 

United States over the past 20 years. I •ve.-worked on ·the Mokelumne 

River in California where poor road_ construction and yarding in the 

1960' s diverted streams. Those .1.inpacts have either i.tabilized 

naturally or are being addressed during the current cutting cycle. 
187 

I've visited Grouse creek in California where alder is recapturing 

soil deposits from landslides which occurred during the 1964 

floods. I •ve seen the remarkable watershed recovery in Needle 

Branch Basin ln Oregon and the careful harvesting in the Bull Run 

Watershed near Portland, Oregon. I've toured the Middle Santiam 

where intensive harvesting has resulted in little water quality change. I'm cooperating on a project in the Mica creek Watershed 

in Idaho where corduroy roads up streams, flumes, and splash dams were used to yard out trees in the 1930's and today those effects are muted, Because of improved operations and use of BMPs, 

conservative watershed management protection programs, stream and 

watershed restoration efforts, and the natural recovery of stream 

and watershed systems, I must conclude that forest watershed health 

is better today than it has been in 30 years and that it will 

continue to improve. 

LITERATURE CITED 

(1) Megahan, W.F . , McIntyre, J., "Some Perspective on the UpriverDownriver Issue in the Columbia Basin -- A Case study from 

Idaho's salmon River" In Material Presented at the west coast 

Regional Meeting September 30. October 1. 1992. General 

Session, 156-157, NCASI Special Report 92-13 (November 1992), 

(2) Thomas, G., "Status Report: Bull Trout in Montana", Prepared for the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, 

Helena, MT (August 1992), 

(3) Binkley, D., MacDonald, L., "Forests as Non-Point Sources of 

Pollution, and Effectiveness of Best Management Practices" 

NCASI Technical Bulletin (in press). 

(4) Moring, J.R., "The Alsea Watershed Study: Effects of Logging on the Aquatic Resources of Three Headwater Streams in the 

Alsea River, Oregon - Part II - Changes in Environmental 

Conditions", Fisheries Rep. 9, Oregon State Dept. of Fish and 

Wildlife, Corvallis, OR (December 1975). 

(5) "Catalog of Landslide Inventories for the Northwest" NCASI 

Technical Bulletin 456 (April 1985). 

(6) Amaranthus, M., Rice, R., Barr, N. Ziemer, R.R., "Logging and 

Forest Roads Related to Increased Debris Slides in Southwest 

Oregon" Jour of Forestry U(4)229-233 (April 1985). 

(7) Barnett, D. D., "A Thirty-Year Inventory of Mass Wasting in the 

Waldport Ranger District of the Siuslaw National Forest," in 

Forest Management Practices and Natural · Events - Their 

Relation to Landslides and Water Quality Protection. Nr.AsI 

T~cn. BuV .. No. 401 (June 1.!1133). 
188 

(8) Bourgeois, W.W., "Timber Harvesting Activities on Steep 

Vancouver Island Terrain," in Forest soils pnd Land Use, 393-

409, Youngberg, C.T., [Ed.] Dept. of Forest and Wood Sci.,_ Fort Collins, co (August 1978). 

(9) Dept. of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 

"Engineering Geologic Review of Timber Harvesting Plan 4-91-

128/ama-14 (September 22, 1992). 

(10) Toth, S., "A Road Damage Inventory for the Upper Deschutes 

River Basin" A Final Report Submitted to the SHAMW Committee 

(January 1991). 

(11) Young, B., Bush, G., Dipert, D., "Pullback of Nonhomogeneous 

Sidecast Material - A methodical Approach to Its Disposition", 

USDA For. Serv., Siuslaw National Forest, On File at 

Headquarters, Corvallis, OR. 

(12) Ice, G.G., "Management/Enhancement Techniques: Getting the Job 

Done in Forestry", Paper Presented at Oregon's 1992 Watershed 

Enhancement Conference, Governor's Watershed Enhancement 

Board, Portland, OR (January 1992). 

(13) Platts, w.s., Torquemada, R.J., McHenry, M.L., Graham, C.K., 

"Changes in Salmon Spawning and Rearing Habitat from Increased 

Delivery of Fine Sediment to the South Fork Salmon River, 

Idaho", in Trans. Am. Fish. soc • .lll: 274-284 (1989). 

(14) "The New Alsea Watershed Study" NCASI Technical Bulletin 602 

(February 1991). 

(15) "Status of the NCASI Cumulative Watershed Effects Program and 

Methodology" NCASI Technical Bulletin 634 (June 1992). 

(16) Ice, G.G., "TMDL, Watershed Analysis, Basin Planning and 

Cumulative Effects" Paper Presented for American Forest and 

Paper Nonpoint Source Work Group and Water Quality Committee 

Meeting, Washington, DC (February 1993). 
189 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Anyone who can stay, come up to the panel. 

I will ask a couple of questions and then we will let you all go. 

Let the record stand corrected on Dr. Ice's place of residence. I 

am sensitive to just living in Springfield versus Eugene, versus 

somebody saying that I live in Washington, D.C. They haven't done 

that to me yet. A couple of questions that I will direct, and then-I wanted to 

follow up on something that Mr. Frissell said, which I didn't quite 

follow or understand fully, which was talking about the tremendous loss of smolts after leaving the spawning area, between the 

spawning area and the damming, and you didn't expand on that. 

In the Columbia system you were talking about. 

Dr. FRISSELL. Nobody quite understands what is going on. We 

know that there have been some recent studies where there have 

been detailed samplings of where the fish are disappearing in the 

system. Formerly we had data at the dam. Now we are able to 

close another gap in that life history and that is in the stream, the 

tributary portion of the base. And I know we are finding that lots 

and lots of fish are disappearing before they get to the spawning 

beds. 

We don't know what is happening to them. They are simply disappearing, and since they are in freshwater habitat, it may be due 

to the quality of that habitat which is known to be severely degraded in those situations. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Anything that you can provide on that-I don't 

know that it is particularly material for this panel, but for the 

hearings that I am going to conduct on the power administration 

and the Columbia River System later this year, it would be useful. 

Because that is the first that I have heard of those statistics. So 

it would be interesting. 

Yes, sir? 

Dr. PALMISANO. My name is John Palmisano, and there is some 

information that I am aware of that claims that because of poor hatchery management, a lot of the fish coming down, smolters that 

are not adequately provided for to make the migration down 

stream. These fish may be released too soon, or something, from 

too crowded conditions, but there is some indication that some of 

the fish that aren't making it are hatchery fish and not natural 

fish. And it could be related to the hatchery conditions. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. You raise a good point, because I was thinking 

wild; are we talking about wild or hatchery, or both? 

Dr. FRISSELL. Primarily of hatchery fish, but these are from the 

latest new hatcheries that are doing everything right, and these 

are first generation hatchery releases. It does raise questions about 

whether the hatcheries are appropriate, even the most state-of-theart hatcheries. But I would have to look at the data to see how wild 

fish are sorted out. They may have figured out through evolution 

ways of getting through the gauntlet. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I am puzzled that neither you nor any of the other 

witnesses mentioned grazing. We focused on grazing. 

Dr. WHITE. I thought I mentioned it. And I thought it was appro- priate to the last issue. When I talk about grasslands, I am talking 

about grazing areas that need attention as watersheds. But isn't 

the point that you were making is that a lot of degraded habitat 
190 

is due to grazing on those upper watersheds and on Forest Service 

lands? 

Dr. FRISSELL. Yes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. We are talking Forest Service grazing versus just 

timber practices. 

Dr. WHITE. Right. And I think there was something in the paper yesterday about the Forest Service reneging on its promise. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I questioned Mr. Leonard earlier on that. Perhaps 

you weren't here, Mr. White. 

Dr. D0PPELT. Our proposal is just a west-side proposal. But we 

are waiting for the key mapping to be done and then we are going 

to extrapolate the strategy, and the job numbers, and the cost to 

the east side. But on the east side, for the most part, a lot of the 

work will be addressing the fazing issue. So that is a key issue 

with both riparian areas an the water-right issues on the east 

side. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. In my discussions with the Secretary of Interior in 

his grazing reform package, the idea is there would be an increase 

of fees and part of it will be dedicated to a mitigation strategy. This 

is an important distinction because we all think timber when we 

say Forest Service. And if you could, wherever we can make the 

changes within Forest Service lands, obviously, grazing permits are 

allowed. And whatever part of the problem that is, it 1s useful to 

make the distinction between timber harvest and grazing practices. 

Dr. FRISSELL. One of the reasons that I hesitate to do that is that 

they are often closely intertwined and these activities tend to occur 

as these areas are entered and are available to the grazers. So it 

is difficult to sort those things out. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I would just ask of anyone, there was a comment 

someone talked about, I think it was commenting on new forestry 

and having a zero level of risk so that we couldn't risk some areas 

with new forestry. And everyone has a different idea of new forestry, what the practices mean, but I can't remember who that was 

who was making that comment; was that you? 

Okay. 

Did you follow or monitor anyone who did the harvest activities 

that took place after the fire at the Siskyou Forest. 

Dr. FRISSELL. I haven't closely followed that, no. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. What we were told by the management agency, 

since I took part in the salvage process, was that they found no 

measurable impact above that that was expected, you know, after 

the event, with those activities, and there were no major slides or 

anything. I am just curious; there is a point at which, you know-Congress 

is going to have to craft the balance here, and everybody would like 

us to say, well, I mean you get to the ultimate point where we don't 

do anything anyway and that is not going to happen. 

When we are making judgment calls, it is useful to have discriminatory information in those areas since I understand in the 

best of all possible worlds there would be no activities in any of 

these areas, but that is not likely to happen anywhere. 

Dr. FRISSELL. I am glad you asked the question, because it raises 

the time point question. There is no way to tell within five or ten 

years after an extensive timber harvest whether it is going to lead 
191 

to long-term effects or not. It may be quite a few years before the 

areas that are cut are vulnerable to decay. And then once that happens, it is often a matter of a decade or more before those affect 

numbers, the headwaters work their way down to the fish-bearing 

streams. It can be misleading to look at the first years after an operation and use that to decide whether it has been successful in 

protecting the environment or not. And of courseMr. DEFAZIO. And if you were only removing the trees that were 

already dead, you would ultimately get the same effect-perhaps, 

in the tree fall it provides an impediment on erosion, but not to 

slope loss or erosion? 

Dr. FRISSELL. Clearly, you are talking about degrees of effect and 

by taking fewer trees, you reduce the impact and you may change the kinds of impacts that you get. I think it is more of what level 

you are willing to accept as far as risk in those areas. 

Dr. ICE. I would like to make a comment on the conditions that 

you are describing. This is what is sort of called conditioning, 

where there is a particular hazard associated with it, and you develop a management strategy to address that risk. You are looking 

at harvesting of those dead trees using a helicopter system, so you 

are conditioning your system to address a particular condition. You 

have minimized the risk, and I would say that the additional risk 

associated with that level of activity is certainly quite low. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Higgins. 

Mr. HIGGINS. I thought Chris was saying that we shouldn't be 

experimenting with forestry in the areas that are last bastions of 

fish. I think we shouldn't be experimenting in the keystone habitats. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. That is a different point. It is good to make that 

distinction if we are talking primarily about roadless areas, but I 

took it as more sort of a global statement regarding forestry practices. 

Dr. FRISSELL. No, I clearly meant that in the context of the critical watershed areas. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. That goes far beyond roadless areas if you look at 

all 137. And there are differing levels of risk. When you say critical, I think of the 137. 

Now, you probably mean some part of 137 is critical. It depends 

on what definition we are using for "critical." Among those critical 

watersheds, many of those are previously harvested managed areas 

and on differing Forest Service and BLM; mostly Forest Service. 

Just in terms of legislating-and I will direct it first to Mr. 

Doppelt, and anybody else can jump in after he responds-I guess, 

first, you know, why don't we need to legislate versus the process, 

you know, the agencies are going through in terms of planning? 

But if you could discuss now how prescriptive these things should 

be and whether or not that is the right direction to go. 

One of the later witnesses made a point that each watershed is 

unique. And the problem with Congress getting prescriptive is it is 

difficult to say we have a bill and there is 111 watersheds, and we 

are going to have 137 different provisions of law, and precriptions 

for 111 different watersheds, versus giving some sort of interpretive authority to apply some standards to the agencies. I would 

pose it that if you look at the southern parts of the range, we are 
192 

talking about roads may be a bigger problem, and in the northern 

part of the range, it may be in stream problems or riparian habitat 

problems. So it would be hard to write a prescription. So I am cautious of anything. I have gone down the road of trying to get prescriptive of solving some of these problems, and I 

don't know that the Congress is capable, or any law is capable of 

getting prescriptive enough. So I would ask to you comment on 

those two points. 

Dr. DOPPELT. Mr. DeFazio, there are two issues there that I will 

talk about, but I think there are at least seven or eight reasons 

why legislation is needed, from our point of view, rather than to 

allow the agencies to do this administratively, and they interrelate 

with the second question you asked. The first reason is that it is 

clear that we need uniform, consistent standards that lead to uniform rules and regulations for the protection and restoration of riparian areas for the definition of a key watersheds, what is allowed 

m a key watershed. 

We have had recent meeting with the BLM and the Forest Service, where it was clear that even to the same river system they still 

don't know what they are doing between the Forest Service and 

BLM. So we may run up into a situation where they do this administratively and where the BLM deals with riparian areas on the 

same rivers different than the Forest Service. So one, we need 

clear, consistent prescriptions, but at the same time, we need to 

make sure that the clarity gets all the way down to the local management level. 

At best, despite almost 15, 20 years of NEPA, now with the mandate to establish rules and regulations for the protection of riparian 

areas, the Forest Service has still not done this. At best, they have 

guidelines which are not a legally binding statementMr. DEFAZIO. Let me give an example to help clarify your thinking on that. 

When we look at the "Gang of Four" prescriptions and riparian 

areas, when you adopt a mandatory setback for a no harvest or 

very limited entry sort of system, it doesn't take into account topography, because you may have gone over a ridge and have absolutely no impact. That is one very practical comment. If the Congress says a mile or quarter of a mile; how do you deal with that? 

Dr. DOPPELT. I think the question is what kind of prescriptions, 

and what we put in our proposal, that it be ecologically determined 

and, therefore, they need to go out into each watershed and measure the 100-year flood plains level. So I think the prescriptions 

need to state unequivocally that it is not arbitrary zones, so to 

speak, but, in fact, it is ecologically determined. There is a couple 

of other things--

Mr. DEFAZIO. One more. If you recall, maybe, one of my first efforts at legislation to resolve this ongoing crisis in the Northwest 

did adopt that approach and perhaps not your group but other 

groups were extraordinarily derogative as to not adopting arbitrary 

distance as opposed to a ecological measurement, because they 

didn't trust the agencies to make ecological measurements. You are 

putting us in a box. 

I am looking for the answers, and I am trying to be helpful. But 

in proposing something I get trashed a year ago and now it looks 
193 

good; is that because we have a different administration and we 

trust them more? 

Dr. D0PPELT. We would trust that it is part of a piece of legislation that sets a new, clear direction. That is the missing link. To 

be candid, Mr. DeFazio, there were other issues that got cumulated. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. That was one thing I heard. I heard that. 

Dr. D0PPELT. We also need interagency planning, consistent 

planning and assessments within the same watershed. That is 

going to require legislation, I think, to create. We are going to have 

to establish some very clear priorities for the agencies to determine 

whether they put their dollars in the resources. If we allow each 

district ranger to make changes, we will not get the best protection 

to the remaining areas. We need budget structure to provide funding for this process that is going to require an act of Congress. 

And finally, we are going to need a restructure and a new infrastructure within the agency to create the planning and the treatments necessary. At this point in time, if we fave the agencies $165 million, and say go down and storm proo it, they wouldn't 

know what to do with that. 

They need a new direction. We are extremely dubious that this 

will ever happen effectively administratively. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I understand your concerns. But somehow there is 

a line to be walked between the Congress attempting to do the day- by-day management and putting some faith and trust, and giving 

a charge to the agencies to come up with some measurable results. 

And perhaps it comes through monitoring or something along those 

lines. 

One other point, if you will address this, and then I will allow 

other panelists to speak. You put emphasis on the interagency 

part, and I agree with that. But how do we begin. I am not as sanguine as Dr. Ice on the private land practices because I think that 

part of what is reflected in all the testimony I have heard on this 

issue over time, is a very conservative viewpoint on the part of the 

people representing your viewpoint on these issues. But part of the 

conservatism is based not necessarily on an assumption quite as 

radical as the one Mr. Higgins offered-that we assume basically clear-cutting everything on the private lands-but the point that 

we are going further on Federal lands because of concern about 

downstream impacts and further losses. I have struggled with this. 

You are recommending Clean Water Act enhancement. The administration seems very interested in market-based incentives to deal 

with some environmental issues. And if you have any thoughts, 

now or at a future date, of incentives that could be offered to adjacent downstream or critical private landowners from the Federal 

Government in order to get those sorts of enhanced management 

activities, or to compensate them for losses that they would incur 

over and above what is required by existing State laws to practice 

on those lands. Mr. Higgins? 

Dr. D0PPELT. I would like to respond to that. 

I would agree that we must first realize that private landowners 

are actin~ rationally, at this point in time, in the way that they 

treat their lands, in that all the direction that they are getting 

from their government at the Federal, State and local level is to 
194 

degrade as quickly as possible. That is the message that we give 

as a society through the kinds of truces we provide, the kinds of incentives and policies that we have. So I don't think anything is 

going to change. 

You are absolutely correct, until Federal leadership is given a 

new set of incentives and direction that, in fact, begins to change 

behaviors. We have a group of folks who have been working on private land strategies, national watershed register strategy, we bring 

them into a watershed restoration program through a set of incentives to prioritize grants from Federal programs for the creation 

and implementation of a restoration plan to provide technical assistance, as we have tried to do in our proposal, to make sure that 

we keep the economic benefits of restoration locally tailored. Not 

only keep the jobs in restoration local, but also the benefits of converting agriculture crops to less water and energy-intensive crops. 

To be sure that accrues to the private landowner. He will use less 

electricity to pump the water, and they may be able to create more 

income from different crops while we leave more water in the 

stream. 

Those are things that are occurring across the country, and we 

need a set of Federal incentives to catalyze them into a comprehensive effort in the Northwest and elsewhere. 

I will go back and say that the other issue here is how long it 

will take the administration to apply new policies; if they even get 

that far. Time is of the essence to stormproof these watersheds to 

eliminate these things. If we go through the full administrative 

process, it could be two to three years. We would like to see this 

happen quicker, although we know sometimes it takes Congress a 

while, too. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Now wait a minute, we are not recommending that 

we short circuit the NEPA or the other process, are we? 

Mr. DOPPELT. No, but Congress can state that this is the law of 

the land and that would short circuit a long, drawn out planning 

process that we may not have time for. 

Mr. HIGGINS. I will defer to my colleagues on the panel on this 

question. 

Mr. PALMISANO. Quickly, I wanted to summarize that we found 

that there was a multitude of factors that cause problems, and we 

don't want to point fingers or spread blame, but if we do all of this 

rehabilitation in the freshwater habitat it is important to know 

that estuaries are just as important. And if there is no work in 

those estuaries, we will have a surplus of fish upstream, and any 

approach we take has to be a balanced approach. And along those 

lines people have mentioned that we have to keep fishing going, because fish translate into jobs. Well, to be fair, timber also translates into jobs, too. 

And again, since everyone was part of the problem, everyone has 

to be a part of the solution. It would be very unfair to blame everything on the dams or everything on the fishermen. Whatever implementation we have to come up with, those have to reflect the life 

history of the fish and be spread across the spectrum of users, not 

just one group. 

Mr. CASSIDY. I just wanted to stress that there is a chance here 

to seize upon change, and for the Forest Service to implement 
195 

plans that are quantitatively based, that do have quantitative 

measures, so that they can have a very real assessment of what effects management in the watershed have on the aquatic habitats. 

That is something that the new Secretary can make a strong pitch 

on and the Congress can demand accountability on the ground. 

I think there is a growing urge for that inside of the agency. And 

it is simply a matter of articulating the national significance of 

that by the administration, with the support of the Congress. That 

would help to get us there. 

Bob has identified some very important elements of the legislative strategy, but there is a lot that the Federal land managers can 

do at the same time that is being developed. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. Dr. Ice. Dr. ICE. I would like to comment on the discussion with private 

companies having an incentive to degrade stream systems. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. We ought to conduct these as planned debates in 

the future. You are giving me interesting ideas here. 

Go ahead. 

Dr. ICE. Excellent examples of attempts of the industry to cooperate in the fisheries program that was jointly signed between the 

Oregon Forest Industry Council, the Oregon Department of Forest, 

and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, where landowners sit down with the Oregon Fish and Wildlife at the beginning of the year and show where they are going to be operating. 

They are operating their equipment and manpower and resources, 

including logs and rocks, to provide stream enhancement activities. 

And 100 projects have been put in place as a result of those efforts, 

and those will be continuing ea.ch year. 

So it is a demonstration that the industry has a commitment to 

work to try to solve these problems. Every company that I know 

of is concerned about their environmental image. They want to be 

recognized as being environmentally friendly. And part of that is 

forest management operations, and they are determined to have 

good practices. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Dr. White. Dr. WHITE. Accountability was mentioned, and part of that is 

monitoring and evaluating what is done. You cannot do that on 

every project or it will double or triple the projects. What Dr. Ice is talking about here, you know, is sticks and 

stones put in the creek. I'd pose the question: How much good has 

it done? That needs to be evaluated. 

I hope that is happening and that is what should be pressed for 

in this legislation, if it takes place, is money earmarked for that 

that cannot be taken out and given to something else. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. 

Mr. Higgins. 

Mr. HIGGINS. I think it is difficult to get private timber, at least 

where I live, to cooperate in a program, because right now their activities are virtually unregulated. They are writing their own rules 

in California. They control the courts in California, the Department 

of Forestry and their Grouse Creek, Six Rivers Forest has looked 

at Grouse Creek because of cumulative effects, and the California 

Department of Forestry has yet to turn down a timber harvest 
196 

practice request from private companies there. They are trying to 

reduce the cumulative effects so that they can get back in national 

forest timbers that is at public expense. But it is difficult until we 

have direct enforcement to get cooperation from private timbers because it is so lucrative just to go in there and get it. 

That is what is going on in California right now. We missed a 

public initiative process to reform California forest practices rules' 

by 52 to 48, and I thought that the private timber industry would 

take that as a bellwether, change their forest practice and come to 

the table and discuss the rules that they can live with, but they 

are liquidating. Dr. Ice and I have a fundamental difference here. 

South Fork Mountain, we have studies after the 1964 flood, it said 

cut out on the ridges. And instead we have massive clear-cuts on 

private lands on soils that are like ice cream. How do you get the 

beneficial use for a creek that is underground because of a 1964 

sediment plug, from 30 percent of the basin being logged? And 

today it is 80 to 90 percent logged. And the land was provided to 

the private forestry and liquidated. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. All right. 

I appreciate the testimony and, you know, this will be, hopefully, 

a part of the comprehensive legislation that will, forever, and with 

great wisdom, divide the baby or make the baby whole, but make 

everybody happy in the Northwest. I don't know. 

Let us tune in later and we will be talking to you all. 

Thanks very much. 

[Whereupon, at 3:08 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
APPENDIX 

MARCH 11, 1993 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMI'ITED FOR THE HEARING RECORD 

John F. Palmisano, Ph.D. • Bio. Consultant• 503/645-5676 • 1990 N.W. 156th Ave. • Beaverton, OR 97006 

March 16, 1993 

The Honorable Bruce F. Vento, Chairman 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forest, and Public Lands 

United States Congress 

House of Representatives 

2304 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

RE: Corrections and Additions to the Oversight Hearing of March 11, 1993 

Dear Chairman Vento: 

I am writing to request that the following corrections and additions be made to the record of the 

March 11 , 1993, Oversight Hearing on Watershed and Fish Habitat Degradation on Public Lands 

and National Forests in the Pacific Northwest. 

My affiliation was incorrectly stated on the Witness List. For the record, I am Dr. John F. 

Palmisano, an independent fisheries scientist from Portland, Oregon. I am not affiliated with 

Oregon State University. 

Mr. Thane Tiensen of Salmon for All from Portland, Oregon, misrepresented my position on 

marine mammal-salmon interactions. Contrary to what he stated or implied, I do not believe that 

marine mammals, such as seals and sea lions, are solely responsible for the current decline of 

salmon in the Pacific Northwest. On the contrary, salmon have coevolved with marine 

mammals, never completely succumbing to these predators or avoiding them. Instead, harbor 

seal and California sea lion populations have been increasing by 4 to 12 percent per year since 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. Thus, current seal and sea lion predation has a 

more significant impact on salmon than in the past because salmon populations have been 

declining while marine mammal populations have been increasing. It is simply a matter of 

arithmetic; larger numbers of predators and smaller numbers of prey increase the current impacts 

of predation. 

I attempted to present a fair and balanced description of the factors that have caused salmon 

populations to decline in the Pacific Northwest. · While I acknowledged that a multitude of 

factors, including forestry, contributed to the decline of salmon, Mr. Tiensen refuses to 

acknowledge that overfishing contributed to these declines. Regardless of what has caused these 

fish to decline, each year insufficient numbers of mature fish escape the fishery to spawn. In 

Washington State, only 41 percent (46 of 1.13 runs) of salmon and steelhead trout stocks meet 

agency established annual spawning escapement goals (see Exhibit I). In addition, annual total 

harvest rates are excessive. Optimum harvest rates for Northwest salmon should be between 40 

and 70 percent. Instead, several salmon runs have annual harvest rates of 80 and 90 percent and 

higher (see Exhibit 2). 

(197) 
March 16, 1993 

Chairman Vento 

Page Two 

198 

THE ASSURANCE OF COMPLETE COMPLIANCE WITII ESTABLISHED ANNUAL 

SPAWNING ESCAPEMENT GOALS AND LIMITING TOTAL ANNUAL HARVEST TO 

70 PERCENT OR LESS IS THE CLOSEST THING THERE IS TO A "filLYEB BULLET" 

FOR THE DECLINING POPULATIONS OF PACIFIC NORIBWEST SALMON. 

In addition, selective fishing gear has routinely reduced body size of commercially caught 

salmon, for example by almost 23 percent in Washington since 1935 (see Exhibit 3). Because 

egg number is related to the size of mature female fish, reduced body size can lead to reduced 

fish abundance even if the population size remained constant over time. (These Exhibits are 

from written testimony I presented to the Subcommittee on Wednesday, March 10, 1993.) 

For the maximum benefit to salmon production, restore lost flood plain riverine and estuary 

habitats. I am compelled to remind the members of the Subcommittee that improvements to 

freshwater habitats will not result in increased salmon abundance unless commensurate 

improvements are made to lost and degraded estuarine habitat. Estuaries provide critical 

physiological transition areas, food, and refuge from predation for several species of Pacific 

Northwest anadromous salmon and trout. Simply stated, restoration projects should be balanced. 

Existing estuarine habitat will serve as a "bottleneck" to salmon production if planned 

improvements occur in upriver and not in estuarine habitat. 

Finally, certain statements made by Mr. Pat Higgins of Humboldt, California, were misleading, 

false, and irresponsible. Mr. Higgins' statements that the state of California has no Forest 

Practice's Acts is untrue and a blatant misrepresentation of fact. California, along with Oregon 

and Washington have some of the most stringent Forest Practice's Acts in the United States. 

To balance the needs of the timber and fishing industries, and accordingly to assure continued 

production of wood products and protection of our salmon resources, state and federal agencies 

should make every effort to update and enforce these acts. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee and to present corrections and 

additions to the record. If I could be of further assistance please do not hesitate to ask. 

Respe(,tfully, 

c,alr;t,~ 

Fisheries Scientist 

cc: Charles H. Burley, Portland, OR. 

Northwest Forest Resource Council 

Mark E. Ray, Washington, D.C. 

American Forest & Paper Association 
March 16, 1993 

Chairman Vento 

Page Three 

199 

EXHIBIT 1 

Percentag~ (and N~bers) or Wild Salmonid Runs, by Species and Major 

Washington Fishery Areas, That Were In Compliance with Established 

Spawning Escapement Goals In the Last Year of Record (I.e., 1985-89, 1990, or 

1991) 

Spcucs Co.1, 1 Pugd SounJ .. Colurnhi.t R1\'a Tol,11 

Pink - S6" . S6" . (S/9) . (S/9) 

Chinook 89" 29" so" S2" 

(8/9) (4/14) (2/4) (14/27) 

Chum . 4S" . 4S" . (13/29) (13/29) 

Sockeyo . o" 100" 33% . (0/2) (Ill) (1/3) 

Coho 80" 8% . 20% 

(4/S) (2/25) . (6/30) 

Total salmon 86" 30" 60" 40" 

(12/14) (24n9) (3/S) (39/98) 

Steelhead 80" 25" so" 47" 

(4/S) (2/8) (1/2) (7/IS) 

Total salmonids 84" 30% S7" 41% 

(16/19) (26/87) (4n) (46/113) 

•Jncludoa Strait of Juan do Fuca. 
March 16, 1993 

Chairman Vento 

Page Four 

200 

EXHIBIT2 

OPTIMUM HARVEST GOALS FOR WILD SAlMONIDS: 40 TO 75% 

Recent Harvest Rates 

Washington Stocks Ocean · Terminal Tatel 

Coastal Chinook 48% 34% 65% 

Coastal Coho 51% 44% 71% 

Pugel Sound Chinook 71% 61% 87% 

Pugel Sound Coho 62% 72% 92% 

,.., 

Pugel Sound Pink 37% (37%) 

Pugel Sound Chum 70% (70%) 

Total Steelhead 69% (69%) 

Recent Harvest Rotes 

Ocean Columbia Total 

Columbia River Stocks Canada US Total River Harvest 

lower River Foll diinook 

Upper River Fall Chinook 

Coho 

Nole: 

33% 

32% 

6% 

61% 

61% 

56% 

79% 

80% 

64% 

32% 

50% 

55% 

87% 

93% 

89% 

HoMUI iotes OCl'OSS colunvu or, not addilivo; tho rotes depict tho porcenlcgo cl lolcl ovoilcblo fish por ,tock 

har,mtecl at oodi Gshory lccorion 
March 16, 1993 

Chainnan Vento 

Page Five 

201 

EXHIBIT3 

REDUCED BODY SIZE OF SALMON COMMERCIAllY CAUGHT IN WASHINGTON 

20 

18 

· 16 

V'I 

a 

~ 14 

l2 

i!: 12 

!c l5 10 

:: 

w 

\!l 8 

~ 

~ 6 

4 

2 

0 

1935-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 

YEARS 

70-79 80-89 

.. 

Chinook 

(-24%) 

Ill 

Chum 

(+3%) 

.. 

Coho 

(-30%) 

Iii] 

Sockeye 

(-14%) 

c::=J 

Pink 

(-19%) 

Measured Average Weight (in pounds) and Percent Change of five species of Pacific Salmon 

Commercially Caught in Washington• between 1935 and 1989 

Time Period Coho Chinook Pink Sockeye Chum Toto! 

1935-39 8.8 19.7 5.7 . 6.6 10.0 8.4 

1940s 8.8 19.7 5.8 6.0 10.0 8.1 

1950s 8.6 16.4 5.8 6.3 11.7 7.8 

1960s 7.8 16.3 . 5.3 5.8 10.5 7.4 

1970s 7.2 15.3 5.3 6.0 10.9 7.5 

1980s 6.2 14.9 4.7 5.7 10.3 6.5 

1935-1989 Change -29.5% -24.4% -19.0% -13.6% +2.9% -22.6% 

•Coo,t, Puget Sound, and Columbia River 

Source: WDF, 1991. 


ISBN 0-16-040878-4 

90000