Salmon Series

	Part 1 Introduction: Bringing Back the Salmon	Part 2 This Place Called Home: Restoring Salmon By Restoring Watersheds
	A White Paper By Eileen McLellan, Senior Associate, Will & Carlson
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: THE GEOGRAPHY OF HOPE: A REGIONAL STEWARDSHIP STRATEGY FOR PACIFIC SALMON
Pacific salmon are both valuable and imperiled. They are valuable not only for their cultural significance to the Pacific Northwest region, but also for their contributions to regional ecosystems and their importance to the regional and national economy. Although the importance of salmon is recognized in Federal law and treaties, many salmon runs have gone extinct and many more are at risk of extinction. These declines represent both a biological and an economic crisis, as demonstrated by this year’s events in the Klamath Basin. Salmon extinctions, and the effect of efforts to avoid them, constitute a ‘salmon crisis’ with national and international implications. For some time, salmon scientists and government officials have known that four factors – hatcheries, hydropower, harvest and habitat – played a role in the decline of salmon runs. Efforts to reverse salmon declines have been both costly – by some estimates, close to $1 billion per year – and ineffective. Past efforts have focused on technological fixes – improving fish passage at dams on the mainstem Columbia River and increasing run sizes through hatchery production. Habitat, though vitally important to the salmon, was largely ignored as a component of recovery efforts. This series of papers remedies that past neglect, and suggests that an approach based on protecting and restoring habitat in salmon-bearing watersheds in California, Idaho, Oregon and Washington is key to successful salmon restoration. However, simply shifting the emphasis from hatcheries and hydropower to habitat will not be enough to recover salmon unless past and present institutional failures are recognized and addressed. These papers explore options for institutional reform. A habitat-based strategy for restoring salmon offers several advantages over previous approaches. First, scientific analysis indicates that improving habitat in the tributaries and estuaries offers the greatest opportunity to improve salmon survival. Second, by helping to protect drinking water supplies and reduce flood damage, a habitat-based strategy provides environmental benefits for people. Third, such a strategy can strengthen the regional economy by encouraging resource use that is both more efficient and more sustainable. For example, water conservation measures can increase stream flows for salmon, improve water quality and ensure more reliable supplies for water users. Habitat restoration provides a way to save salmon, save dollars and save resource-dependent communities. A habitat-based strategy will have three components: protection of existing high-quality habitat and healthy fish populations; conservation of altered habitat to prevent further degradation; and restoration of degraded habitat. Opportunities for each of these will vary across the landscape; for this reason, there will be no single ‘master-plan’, but rather an array of plans which are tailored to local circumstances and integrated with one another across broad areas. A habitat-based strategy is a fundamental departure from past efforts. Rather than seeking to substitute engineered solutions for natural processes, a habitat strategy relies on the protection and restoration of natural processes. It is founded in the concepts of ecosystem management, and consequently emphasizes the connections between land and water, between upstream and downstream, between rivers and floodplains. Equally important, it emphasizes the connection between people and the watersheds in which they live and work. Salmon habitat is also human habitat; as a result, the key to successful salmon restoration is to cultivate a stewardship ethic in which the region’s citizens accept responsibility for the health of the landscapes which they and the salmon share. The watershed councils and similar groups which flourish throughout the Pacific Northwest illustrate the willingness of the region’s citizens to take an active role in salmon recovery. In order to encourage this stewardship ethic, the strategy recommends using a wide array of management tools – education, technical assistance, and incentives (financial, regulatory and social) – to supplement existing regulatory tools. Recognizing that the existing regulatory system has failed to prevent salmon declines, these papers propose to add a complementary performance-based system that emphasizes environmental outcome over regulatory process. In such a system, citizens, businesses, communities and government entities commit to meeting specific environmental goals. A number of options, such as performance contracts and cooperative agreements (including the Oregon Agreement), can be used to formalize these commitments on scales ranging from individual landowners to the whole region. In exchange for these commitments, signatories are given flexibility to meet specified goals in the most cost-effective and socially-acceptable way. Rewards (financial and regulatory incentives) are scaled to the level of commitment in a two-tier system. A ‘green tier’ rewards those who incorporate ‘salmon-friendly’ practices into the working landscape, and a ‘gold tier’ provides additional benefits to those who undertake additional activities such as preserving or restoring habitat. Participants in the ‘green tier’ would receive cost-share assistance for adopting conservation practices, and would receive “no-take” assurances under the Endangered Species Act. Participants could access cost-share funding and technical assistance, and receive regulatory assurance, through adoption of an approved conservation plan developed according to agency guidelines. This “one-stop-shopping” approach would make it easier for citizens to comply with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act, and would free up agency resources for other activities. Participants in the ‘gold tier’ would sign contracts committing to specific habitat protection and restoration activities that would contribute to salmon recovery. In exchange they would receive grants, annual payments and tax incentives, and would be granted additional regulatory assurances. Through this system of ‘green payments’ the region could link economic vitality with environmental protection to create a ‘conservation economy’ in parallel with the present industrial economy. A performance-based management system, like the habitat strategy itself, is a radical departure from the status quo. Instead of managing within a legal framework with limited applicability to salmon recovery, the management focus is on the condition of the ecosystem. Rather than regulatory compliance, a performance-based approach emphasizes information, innovation and accountability. Instead of a one-size-fits-all approach, it focuses on identifying the actions - preservation, conservation and restoration of habitat - which will be most biologically effective in a particular area and directing resources to them. Incentives, and perhaps statutory authority, will be needed to encourage institutions and individuals to adopt this approach. Barriers, such as fear of litigation and overlapping and conflicting mandates, will need to be identified and addressed. In addition, new tools will be needed to measure success. Indicators will need to be developed to track changes in the status of salmon and their habitat, monitoring protocols will be needed to measure these indicators, and mechanisms will be needed to link management actions to monitoring results. Clearly there is a need for new science, not only to develop indicators and monitoring protocols, but to provide feedback on the success of management actions. Adaptive management must be a linchpin of the strategy. The importance of “learning–by–doing” means that the strategy will need to be phased over time. The effects of some possible actions are well enough understood that they should be undertaken as soon as resources are made available, but the effects of others are long-term, uncertain, or await detailed watershed assessment. More and better science is not enough. A review of existing salmon recovery efforts shows that there is an equally pressing need to overcome institutional obstacles. Chief among these is the problem of fragmentation. Salmon in their migrations pass through landscapes that are fragmented by land ownership and land use, managed under myriad and incompatible regulations designed for purposes that may be unrelated to salmon recovery. The Federal government, States, tribes, local governments and private landowners each hold pieces of the salmon recovery puzzle, but rarely are these pieces fitted together. The key to effective salmon restoration is to integrate efforts on a landscape scale. Integration should even extend to statutory and regulatory requirements, such as providing landowners the opportunity to use conservation plans to meet the overlapping requirements of the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act. Integrating – bringing the puzzle pieces together – can be best done through partnerships. There is no need – in fact, it would be counter-productive – to create a new over-arching salmon bureaucracy. Instead, the proposed strategy emphasizes cooperation between existing institutions and reconciliation of existing programs. Two types of partnerships are needed: public-private partnerships are critical to engage citizens in salmon recovery; and intergovernmental partnerships are essential in order to use resources efficiently and effectively. This series of papers envisions a nested hierarchy of partnerships that correspond to a nested hierarchy of landscape units: watershed, “salmonshed”, province and region. At the watershed level, public-private partnerships such as watershed groups allow citizens, supported by agency staff, to identify and remedy problems at the local level. The ‘watershed approach’ provides ecological, economic and social benefits. By examining a watershed as an integrated system rather than a series of discrete projects, it focuses attention on environmental outcomes and the cumulative effects of projects. Recognizing the connections between different parts of the natural system encourages regulations to become at once more streamlined and more effective, while stimulating innovative problem-solving. Including citizens in decision-making both increases the legitimacy of agency efforts and makes it more likely that salmon plans will actually be implemented. Developing and supporting the watershed approach and watershed groups is the foundation of the proposed strategy. In order for individual watershed efforts to cumulatively address the barriers to salmon recovery, they must go beyond ‘random acts of kindness’ and be integrated on the scale of a ‘salmonshed’, an imaginary geographic unit that encompasses the range of a particular population. At this scale, State, tribal and local governments coordinate their efforts with one another and with the efforts of local watershed groups and Federal agencies, assessing the cumulative effects of many efforts and identifying and filling in gaps in recovery measures. In many cases, salmon populations will share migratory corridors in large rivers such as the Columbia; the corresponding ‘salmonsheds’ are aggregated into provinces. At the provincial scale, States, in collaboration with one another and with the tribes and Federal government, will be responsible for supporting and overseeing ‘salmonshed’ and ‘watershed’ efforts. A regional partnership is also needed to address interstate issues, balance regional and local needs, coordinate and support local efforts, and obtain resources. This regional partnership must include representatives from State, tribal and Federal governments. The potential benefits of a regional approach, which include statutory recognition, regulatory flexibility and increased Federal funding, can be seen by comparison with other ecosystem restoration efforts such as the Chesapeake Bay Program, Upper Colorado River Fish Recovery Program and Platte River Endangered Species Partnership, which also provide alternative models for institutional structure and authority. States play a particularly crucial role in the strategy for several reasons. They are a pivot point between Federal and local governments; in many cases, responsibility for Federal statutes has been delegated to the States, and local government ordinances in turn are built around State requirements. Much of the authority for land and water use resides at the State level, and the States themselves are large landowners. Several of the States have developed, or are in the process of developing, programs to gather data on habitat types, distribution and condition that can be used to prioritize areas for preservation or restoration. Oregon and Washington have developed salmon recovery plans to coordinate agency actions and guide local efforts. In addition, the states have the authority and capacity to administer funding made available through existing Federal programs, and are themselves significant sources of funding. No strategy will succeed without adequate resources. These resources must include funding that will enable easements to be purchased, Best Management Practices to be installed and restoration projects to be undertaken. They must also include support personnel from agencies, the private sector and academia, who can conduct research, provide technical assistance, supply leadership and help educate citizens about their role in salmon recovery. One of the great challenges for salmon recovery is that awareness of the ‘salmon crisis’ has come at a time of declining Federal and State budgets for environmental and natural resource programs. This series examines a variety of options to address this problem, including the use of pollution trading, habitat banking and water marketing to maximize environmental benefits at minimum cost. It also examines the possible role of the private and non-profit sectors in supplying needed services and generating funding for ecosystem restoration. To be successful, a habitat strategy must direct resources to solving the most significant habitat problems. To date, most of the funding available for salmon habitat work has been made available through Federal agricultural programs. These programs have produced many successes, but their effectiveness has been limited by eligibility requirements, limited resources and, in many cases, limited applicability to salmon recovery. At the watershed and regional level, projects follow the money; constrained by the directives of grant programs, they may or may not meet the most pressing needs. Funding gaps exist: for example, improving the management of rangelands and stormwater are both important components of a habitat strategy, yet both are relatively under-funded through existing State and Federal programs. These papers will describe the successes and challenges of existing programs and identify opportunities both to improve existing programs and to create new ones to better meet salmon needs. Another challenge that must be addressed is managing the patchwork of funding options. One possibility is to make certain existing categories of funds (for example, for agricultural programs) available as block grants to the states. To the extent that Federal dollars are committed to salmon recovery, Congress will impose accountability requirements; funding must be tied to environmental outcomes in a way that permits State and local flexibility in program design but meets national goals for endangered species and water quality protection. A habitat-based strategy may require an investment of $6 – 8 billion over the next 15 years. This investment will not only be substantially cheaper than the likely costs of salmon extinction, but it will also return benefits to the region in the form of jobs, revitalized rural communities, more livable urban areas and more efficient industries. Achieving this vision of sustainable fisheries, healthy communities and a vibrant economy will require that local, State and tribal governments, together with the Federal government, commit to a series of actions. Some of these actions can be best undertaken by the public sector; some provide a framework and stimulus for private sector initiatives. These papers present a roadmap, in the form of a description of necessary actions and timelines for undertaking them, that link public and private actions together over a 15-year time-frame to form a blueprint for regional salmon restoration.