The big forest that once covered the Yaquina watershed is gone. That's a fact. Because the big forest is gone, watershed processes have been changed in ways that no longer support abundant salmon and trout. The complex habitat of braided channels, streams dotted with deep pools and tangled with large wood has disappeared and the Yaquina salmon have crashed.
The people of the Yaquina valley can restore their great salmon runs. But doing so requires restoring much of the mighty forest that once covered the land. Here is the good news: while the restoration process may be painful for big timber owners, the result will be a more productive forest for timber workers and a secure future for native salmon and local communities.
The Yaquina River basin covers an area of approximately 157,105 acres. In the past -- as with all coastal watersheds--the Yaquina basin contained the big forests of Western Oregon. No other factor shaped and maintained Yaquina stream habitat for salmon as greatly as the forest. Unlike nearby coastal watersheds that were fully lost to 19th century fires, it was not until well into the 20th century that the last of the Yaquina old-growth forest was lost to logging.
The Yaquina forest supplied streams with plentiful large wood, moderated sediment and stream flows,
and buffered the watershed from the effects of intense winter storms. Today, the forest of the Yaquina is much different, and so is the story of native fish populations. The forest is dramatically younger, big logs in the streams are all but nonexistent (something the scientists say is essential for salmon) and populations of native salmon and steelhead are a fraction of their former numbers. The threat of
native salmon extinction has come to the Yaquina.
| Major Sub-Watersheds of the Yaquina Basin | ||
| Name | Acres | Dominant Owner Type |
|---|---|---|
| Upper Yaquina River | 53,127 | Private Industrial |
| Big Elk Creek | 56,979 | Private Industrial |
| Lower Yaquina River | 48,584 | Private Industrial |
Scientists tell us that salmon and their habitat must be thought of as one thing. Recently, the state of Oregon appointed a blue-ribbon Independent Multi-disciplinary Science Team (IMST) to make recommendations for recovering Western Oregon's salmon. The IMST emphasized the connection between habitat and salmon by saying "Salmonids and their habitat comprise a single coevolved unit that cannot be separated for management purposes" (IMST p. 12). In other words, if we are to restore salmon populations we must restore habitat.
The best available science says that to save and recover coastal salmon--particularly coho--people must return the land closer to its historic forest condition. As the IMST stated, "the goal of [forest] management and policy should be to emulate (not duplicate) natural processes within their historic range" (IMST Preface, p. v). "We believe emulation of the historic range and distribution of conditions at the landscape level is essential to accomplishing the mission of the Oregon Plan" (IMST p. 34).
Scientists also say that each basin's unique family of salmon is necessary for the survival of the larger community of salmon along the whole Oregon coast. This means working to restore forest conditions in each basin and improving each watershed's stream habitat. Therefore, we can't write off the Yaquina basin or any other Oregon watershed -- every watershed and every local population of salmon is important for long term recovery.
Recently, new information has made it possible to accurately compare historic forest conditions to current forest conditions. For example, newly published studies indicate that, historically up to half of Oregon's Coast Range forests were old growth, characterized by trees over 200 years old, and that as much as 76 percent of the land consisted of forests that were more than 80 years old. Yet, today's Yaquina forest lands are dominated by plantations of seedling, saplings, or pole-size trees less than 10" at their base. What a huge change! The Yaquina watershed is an example of how a very big change in forest conditions lies at the heart of today's salmon crisis.
The Report on the Yaquina:
(1) Explains how forested lands provided for native salmon;
(2) Presents important facts about Yaquina basin forests, salmon habitat, and ownership; and
(3) Recommends changes in the way we do forestry in the Yaquina so that native salmon will be restored, communities sustained, and jobs protected.
While all of the information in this report has been widely available to researchers, much of it has
never been brought to the public's attention. The numbers are dramatic and explain much of what has happened to the Yaquina native salmon. Although the situation appears bleak, there is hope because now we have a clear picture of how forestry must change. One thing is beyond debate: fundamental changes to Yaquina forestry--particularly those forest lands owned by the big timber companies--must occur if salmon are to be saved. Private forestry can change — and must change — for the people of the Yaquina watershed, the local economy, and native salmon.
The best scientific estimates of what the original Coast Range and Yaquina forest was like are based
on studies of fire scars and pollen and charcoal taken from lake sediments. These site-specific analyses indicate that before European settlement, the forest was much older and contained much larger trees than today's forest. More often than not throughout its natural history, the Yaquina forest was old growth, filled with trees more than 200 years old. For example, in the Coast Range in the mid-1800s old growth ranged from 40 percent to as high as 61 percent (Wimberly/Spies, p. 5). Given the close proximity to the ocean and high rainfall it is very likely that the percentage of old growth in the Yaquina was higher than the regional average.
Recent analysis by researchers at Oregon State University and the U.S. Forest Service's Pacific Northwest Research Station provide powerful evidence to support these numbers. Their analysis of pollen and charcoal in lake sediment suggests that old growth covered an average of 48 percent of
the Coast Range over the past 3,000 years, and that forests containing trees greater than 80 years old covered an average of 71 percent of the land. (Wimberly/ Spies, p. 31). Timber industry "information" stating that Coast Range fires occurred frequently and that the natural forest was lacking a substantial amount of old growth and late-successional forest is, at best, less than helpful and, at worse, downright misleading.
Pause a moment and think about the above numbers. The change to the Yaquina forest has been nothing less than dramatic.
Large forests slow sediments moving from the hillsides to the streams. When landslides in forests or debris torrents in upper-watershed streams occur, they both may deliver large wood along with coarse sediment (rocks and gravel) to lower watershed streams. In the lower, gentler streams, large wood interacts with sediment to create the complex channels that provide good rearing habitat for juvenile salmon. The complex habitat created by the interaction of sediment and large wood provides the safe habitat necessary during relentless coastal winter rains.
Large wood also controls the way sediment moves through the stream system. Large wood and coarse sediment, including rocks and small boulders, are the building materials of stream beds that enable a stream to connect with its flood plain, form side channels, and exchange nutrients with riparian vegetation and the flood plain water table. Beavers add to the complexity by creating pools within the low-gradient streams. The important point to remember is that the complex habitat created by large wood and sediment plays an important protective role during winter storms — storms that may prove fatal for salmon in today's simplified stream conditions.
Our brief description of how forests provide for salmon habitat is well established in the technical literature and is familiar to many folks working in the Mid-Coast Watershed Council. The role of large wood in salmon habitat is well described in numerous credible publications and the state's Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual (Watershed Professionals Network, 1999).
Coho salmon and steelhead trout require a variety of stream conditions for reproducing and rearing. Spawning and rearing generally take place in tributary streams, usually with a gradient of less than 3 percent. For spawning, coho require clean gravel, ranging from the size of a pea to the size of an orange. Rearing requires cool water temperatures: the fish prefer the water between 53 degrees and 58 degrees Fahrenheit, but may tolerate temperatures up to 68 degrees. Young coho and steelhead (fry) emerge between February and early June, and occupy backwater pools and the margins of streams. During summer, coho prefer pools in small streams. In winter, they prefer off-channel alcoves, beaver ponds and dam pools.
Large Wood
The critical component in creating good salmon habitat — clean gravel, backwater pools, side channels, and off-channel alcoves — is the large conifer wood provided by forests that are older than 80 years. The importance of large wood for coastal streams can hardly be overstated. According to Upstream: Salmon and Society in the Pacific Northwest, a 1996 report produced by the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, "Perhaps no other structural component of the environment is as important to salmon habitat as is large woody debris, particularly in [Northwest] coastal watersheds…" (Upstream, p. 194).
A forest of large trees is the key element that creates coastal stream habitat. In ways that are complex and not completely understood, a mature forest landscape moderates sediment, provides nutrients, supports water insects, and allows for pockets of cool water that give salmon places to hide from the heat (IMST p. 18; NMFS White Paper, p. 17-18). The National Marine Fisheries Service suggests that at least 80 pieces of wood larger than 24" in diameter and 20 feet long, considered key large wood, should be present in each mile of stream. Poor habitat has fewer than 30 pieces of key large wood per mile, and sections with fewer than 15 such pieces per mile are considered nonfunctioning. Take a look at any Yaquina stream and see if 24" or larger logs are present. Chances are you will not see one piece.
Locally, large wood enters Yaquina streams when trees die from disease, are knocked down by wind, come rushing down steep slopes in landslides or are released from steep upper streams in debris torrents. Not all large wood is the same. Very large pieces are particularly important and come from the big spruce, hemlocks and Douglas firs. Large wood enters streams primarily from within 300 feet (98 meters) of the water. But scientists note that unstable upper slopes and stream beds are also an important source of large wood (IMST p. 23).
The regional shift from an abundant forest to a small timber-poor forest is clear in the Yaquina watershed. An analysis of forest vegetation conducted in 1995 by the Coastal Landscape Analysis and Modeling Study (CLAMS) project of the Forest Service's Pacific Northwest (PNW) research office in Corvallis--offers a bleak picture of the Yaquina.
Of the basin's 156,434 potential forested acres, 69 percent is covered with trees less than 10" in diameter at breast height (DBH), or by non-conifer trees of all DBH sizes. Lands that are covered with non- conifer or small conifer trees are a poor source of large wood for streams. Another 10 percent of the landscape is covered with conifers and mixed stands between 10" and 20" DBH, which have only a moderate potential to recruit large-wood. Only 21 percent of the basin's land contains conifer or mixed stands over 20" DBH. We consider forests with trees 20" and larger DBH good land for recruiting large wood to streams.
It is worth noting that the Yaquina basin sub-watershed with the least potential to recruit large wood is the Lower Yaquina. 76 percent of the Lower Yaquina rates a poor forest condition. Not surprisingly, the Lower Yaquina is also the area with the highest percentage of private industrial ownership at 57 percent. The numbers makes sense since private industrial owners practice the most intensive forestry. Public land ownership is the highest in the Big Elk sub-watershed at 27 percent and that sub-watershed has the best potential to recruit large wood.
Current stream habitat conditions mirror the change to the Yaquina forest. Over the past decade the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) conducted 89 stream habitat surveys within the Yaquina, and the Siuslaw National Forest conducted 38 stream surveys. While both the Siuslaw National Forest and ODFW used similar survey methods, results were not reported in identical fashion. This is unfortunate because it complicates the process of merging the data and achieving a coherent view of habitat conditions. Fortunately, on several elements that are crucial indicators of stream habitat quality, both the ODFW and the Siuslaw National Forest reported in the same fashion.
When ODFW stream survey data is interpreted using the standards described in the Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual, Yaquina stream habitat appears to be in severe trouble. Of 28 Surveys that measured for key large wood, results show that only one stream reach contained a desirable level!
Of the remaining 27 surveys, 97 percent had an undesirable level. The same pattern held for complex pools--pools with a large wood component-- where 98 percent of the 46 reaches surveyed were found to be undesirable. In the two remaining large wood habitat elements, 92 percent were undesirable in large wood volume and 66 percent were undesirable in large wood pieces. Such numbers lead to only one conclusion, the Yaquina is a watershed with a severe large wood crisis.
Unfortunately, the problems with stream habitat aren't limited to large wood. Of the seven non-large wood habitat elements benchmarked above, the Yaquina ranked best in shade. The high marks for shade, however, appear to be an artifact of where ODFW chose to conduct their surveys. This is disturbing, because it appears that the surveys were conducted in areas chosen for better habitat conditions. The habitat element rated second best is percentage of pools, where 57 percent were found to be in desirable condition. In five other critical habitat elements-pool depth, pool ratio, stream bottom, width to depth ratio, and percent gravel-the Yaquina was deficient 65 percent to 86 percent of the time.
It is important to stop for a moment and review what the above numbers mean. Habitat elements
failing at 97 and 98 percent levels isn't the kind of information for scratching one's head and saying
"gee, I don't know." These are locomotive size numbers that shout to private land owners and the Board of Forestry "do something to restore large wood to Yaquina streams!" We suggest the reader review carefully the ODFW and Siuslaw habitat condition forms. The numbers are astounding
What Was the Original Yaquina Forest Like?
How Does the Forest Shape Salmon Habitat?
What Do Salmon and Trout Need to Thrive?
The Condition of the Yaquina Forest
A Coast Range Association interpretation of the 1995 CLAMS vegetation layer for stream large wood recruitment
Potential for Yaquina Forest Land
to Recruit Large Wood into Streams
Poor
Moderate
Good
Total Acres
107,282
15,785
33,367
Percentage
69%
10%
21%
Upper Yaquina
37,246
5,671
10,263
Percentage
70%
11%
19%
Big Elk
34,908
7,085
14,837
Percentage
61%
12%
26%
Lower Yaquina
35,128
3,029
8,267
Percentage
76%
6%
18%
Yaquina Stream Habitat Conditions
89 Total Stream Surveys (1991-1998)
| Habitat Element | Undesirable | At Risk | Desirable | Percent Desirable |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Stream Wood Conditions |
||||
| Complex Pools | 27 | 0 | 1 | 3% |
| Large Wood | 59 | 27 | 3 | 3% |
| Wood Volume | 82 | 3 | 4 | 4% |
| Key Large Wood | 45 | 0 | 1 | 2% |
Stream Pool Conditions |
||||
| Percent Pools | 16 | 22 | 61 | 57% |
| Pool Depth | 12 | 63 | 60 | 16% |
| Pool Ratio | 23 | 36 | 18 | 21% |
Other Stream Habitat Conditions |
||||
| Stream Bottom (silt, sand, etc.) |
39 | 27 | 66 | 20% |
| Width to Depth Ratio | 27 | 35 | 46 | 30% |
| Percent Gravel | 11 | 46 | 69 | 35% |
| Shade | 1 | 0 | 88 | 99% |
38 Total Stream Surveys (1991-1998)
| Habitat Element | Not Properly Functioning | At Risk | Properly Functioning | Percent Properly Functioning |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Stream Wood Conditions |
||||
| Key Large Wood | 29 | 9 | 0 | 0% |
Stream Pool Conditions |
||||
| Pool Area | 8 | 17 | 13 | 34% |
| Pool Frequency | 0 | 12 | 26 | 68% |
| Pool Quality | 24 | 6 | 8 | 21% |
Other Stream Habitat Conditions |
||||
| Side Channel (Habitat) |
36 | 1 | 1 | <3% |
| Width to Depth Ratio | 25 | 4 | 4 | 12% |
| Percent Gravel | 10 | 16 | 12 | 35% |
The above federal habitat data is not much more encouraging than the ODFW data. We employ the descriptive standards used by the federal government for characterizing habitat of not properly functioning, at risk and functioning. The habitat elements we report in the Siuslaw table are those that the agency provided quantitative values for.
The Siuslaw surveys mirror the disastrous habitat values of the ODFW surveys. For example, key large wood was found to be properly functioning or at risk in 100 percent of surveyed reaches. Pool quality, a measurement of pool depth, was deficient in 79 percent of the surveyed reaches. Side channel habitat, a habitat element not included in the ODFW form but particularly important as an indicator of good winter rearing habitat, was found not properly functioning or at risk in 97 percent of the surveys.
A note on habitat integrity
The state and federal government's use of habitat characterizations for quantitative data i.e. desirable, properly functioning, etc., are potentially misleading. We know that Coast Range streams once had abundant habitat. No one knows exactly how reduced habitat affects salmon abundance. We do know that as habitat declines fish populations decline. Its probably an error to assume that in a single watershed, lower levels of habitat will support a proportionally lower level of fish. This is most likely not the case. We believe, the whole benchmark system needs to be approached very cautiously. For example, we all live in houses or apartments. Imagine if some part of your house was removed, for example 25% of the roof. Then 10% of the outer walls were removed. We would quickly see the integrity of the house undermined, and its suitability as long term living habitat compromised.
An adequate assessment of salmon habitat would look at all habitat elements for a stream segment and presume a combined habitat threshold for ecological integrity. Whole stream segments would then be characterized as functioning, at risk or not properly functioning. Such an approach to the survey data is beyond the capacity of the Coast Range Association, but we felt it important to point out. We believe habitat integrity is the real issue for Coast Range streams and the lack of overall habitat integrity explains much of the decline in salmon populations.
The state of native fish abundance for the Yaquina watershed shows the predictable effect of extreme habitat loss. Scientists say they can't be certain exactly how many fish returned to coastal basins a century or more ago, but canning records offer us a hint. In 1981 the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife published a report on the historic cannery catch for coastal Oregon and the lower Columbia (Mullen, 1981). Cannery records give an indication of the number of salmon returning to the local watersheds. Recently, the journal Fisheries published an article on historic and current salmon abundance for the Northwest and British Columbia (Gresh, 2000). In that report the authors indicate that the commercial catch rate for coastal Oregon was, on average, 40 percent of total salmon abundance. A Coast Range Association analysis of the aforementioned two reports indicates that approximately 4.5 acres of coastal watershed land area provided for 1 returning coho salmon.
Based on the above 4.5 to 1 ratio it appears that the Yaquina watersheds had a native coho salmon abundance of approximately 34,912 fish. This calculation holds if we look at the actual Yaquina cannery records and assume it was 40 percent of abundance. From 1923 to 1940 the average number of coho packed at the Yaquina cannery was 18,700 fish. Using the 40 percent figure total Yaquina abundance calculates out to 46,750 coho. Whether coho abundance was 46,750 based on a cannery to abundance ratio or 34,912 based on the CRA's 4.5 acre per coho ratio--the fact remains--the once abundant Yaquina native coho population has declined catastrophically.
How many coho salmon are left?
During the 1990s the ODFW conducted surveys of returning native coho for coastal streams. ODFW random fish surveys for the Yaquina during the years 1990 to 1999 counted, on average, 1,853 spawning coho each year. In 1998, the watershed saw its lowest coho return for the decade, counting only 365 wild fish. Even the 5,668 wild coho that returned to the watershed in 1995--that decade's high--are but a shadow of historic numbers.
| Collapse of the Yaquina Native Coho | ||
| Estimated Historic Yearly Abundance of Coho | 1990 to 1999 Average Annual Coho Return | |
| 34,912 to 46,715 Range | 1,853 | |
The above numbers reflect a loss of native coho within the Yaquina of approximately 95 to 97 percent of historic abundance. Is this what Oregon is about? Is this the heritage we are going to leave to our children?
Current Salmon Distribution
The remaining Yaquina native coho are not evenly present throughout the watershed. This is borne out by the Rapid Bio-Assessment of fish presence conducted by Steve Trask during summer months under the auspices of the Midcoast Watershed Council. According to that assessment coho and other native salmon appear to be concentrated in limited watershed stream areas. Most likely, fry and juvenile coho are congregating in the few best remaining stream areas for summer conditions. Low population numbers and concentration in small portions of the stream system expose the population to catastrophic loss from a singular event such as a landslide or debris torrent. That's why the scientists tell us it is important to identify the best remaining places, known as refugia, and protect the landscape from any further destabilizing activity that threatens the fish.
It's no secret why forest health, salmon habitat, and fish numbers look so bleak on the Yaquina: past industrial, small woodlot and public lands forestry has radically transformed the landscape upsetting natural patterns that are key to salmon survival — and a sustainable human economy. According to Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) records, 43 percent of the Yaquina basin's acreage is owned by private, industrial forest companies. Industrial ownership dominate the Lower Yaquina lands owning 57 percent of the forest area. Industrial owners have the least presence in the Big Elk drainage owning 29 percent of the forest.
Not all Yaquina lands are owned by private industrial forest owners. 29 percent of the watershed is owned by private, non-industrial owners, defined as those owning less than 5,000 acres. These are the folks generally referred to as small woodlot owners. The federal government owns 15 percent of the watershed with their ownership concentrated in the Big Elk sub-watershed. The state of Oregon owns 12 percent of the Yaquina forest with ownership about evenly divided between the Big Elk and Upper Yaquina sub-watersheds. The ODF data classifies less than 1 percent of the remaining ownership as "miscellaneous". Given the predominance of private industrial forest ownership in the Yaquina, industrial forest management is a critical issue of concern.
| Total Yaquina Forest Ownership = 165,083 Acres | ||||||
| Private | Federal | State & Other | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Private Industrial | Private Non- Industrial |
BLM | Forest Service |
State | Misc. | |
| 26,244 | 15,370 | 40 | 3,653 | 264 | 487 | Lower Yaquina |
| 57% | 33% | 0% | 8% | <1% | 1% | Percent |
| 24,858 | 18,638 | 417 | 0 | 8,879 | 394 | Upper Yaquina |
| 47% | 35% | <1% | 0% | 17% | <1% | Percent |
| 16,737 | 11,834 | 2,830 | 16,197 | 9,232 | 9 | Big Elk |
| 29% | 21% | 5% | 28% | 16% | <1% | Percent |
| 67,839 | 45,842 | 3,287 | 19,850 | 18,375 | 890 | Total Yaquina |
| 43% | 29% | 2% | 13% | 12% | <1% | Percent |
Because the Yaquina has such fertile timberlands, private industrial owners can grow a marketable log in a very short time. Industrial owners generally cut their forests on extremely short rotations of 30 to 60 years. If we assume Yaquina industrial owners manage for a forty-five year rotation, the average age of a Yaquina basin industrial tree is twenty two and half years of age. This means that on at least 43 percent of the basin's forest land area, the age and size of the forest has been shifted radically — from one that averaged hundreds of years of age to a forest one-tenth as old, whose trees are primarily saplings and pole-stand size. Given that 76 percent of the Yaquina forest is non-conifer or conifer trees less than 10" DBH, it is fair to assume that non-industrial owners are also managing on very short rotations. However, it should be noted that in the recent past both state and federal lands within the Yaquina have also been intensively managed.
Watershed Disturbance
Short rotations not only maintain the forest in a permanent small tree size, the frequency of clearcutting creates a disturbance regime far in excess of past natural levels. In the past, watershed disturbance was driven by large, infrequent replacements of stands by fires and periodic, intense storms. In either case -- storm or fire -- the huge wood volume of large trees remained. Today, clearcutting leaves the land barren of large wood while at the same time exposing the freshly cut-over land to the impact of intense storms.
Given the prior discussion of the role of large wood in salmon habitat, the condition of stream habitat becomes fully understandable in light of the land management practices of private forest land owners. The Yaquina forest has been transformed by a handful of profit-seeking companies and individuals from a huge old growth forest to one of small plantations. The watershed's forest has been changed to the detriment of public values. No one fully knew or was able to explain what the consequences of this redesigned forest would eventually be. We are now paying the price in disastrous stream habitat conditions, poor water quality and a threatened natural heritage.
With the source of large wood for Yaquina streams depleted, the prospect for native salmon recovery is grim. The IMST concluded that "Oregon streams and adjacent forests currently contain much lower levels of larger wood than they did historically, and under current management practices, the potential for recruitment will not result in its replacement (IMST p. 22). Habitat so radically different from historical conditions, the team continued, "is seriously hindering the recovery of wild salmonids" (IMST p. 23).
Logging practices in the Yaquina are directly responsible for reducing the size of wood in streams; and the size of wood in streams is directly related to how much habitat is available for salmon. Studies have found that juvenile coho are more abundant in areas where large pools are abundant. But as logging increases sediments and reduces large wood in streams, the large pools are disappearing. One study on federal lands found a 60 percent reduction in large pools in western Oregon and Washington. In Oregon, those losses approached 80 percent (Upstream, p. 181). Another study found that the size of wood moving into streams decreased as logging increased. According to the IMST, "Since the size of wood in the channel is directly related to pool size, this represented a direct loss of critical salmon habitat" (IMST p. 72).
The rock-bottom loss of old, mature forest in the Yaquina — and resulting loss of salmon habitat — is unprecedented. Scientists say natural conditions and processes are the best for fish; unnatural conditions and processes such as those we see in the Yaquina, eventually will drive the native salmon to extinction. While salmon may be able to survive unnatural conditions in the short term, "the longer the habitat stays in a reduced state, the greater the risk to the population" (Wimberly/Spies, p. 20). In other words, chronic habitat loss can drive — and is driving — Yaquina native coho salmon to extinction.
The numbers we have cited are powerful and challenge the Board of Forestry to respond and uphold the public's interests in the Yaquina watershed. Forest condition and stream habitat reflect an unprecedented degradation of the environment. The main burden to recover Yaquina salmon rests on private industrial and non-industrial timber owners as well as with the Board of Forestry. Current forestry is destructive beyond anything a watershed can withstand. Today's private forest owners, even if not directly responsible for the liquidation of the Yaquina forests, must accept the burden of recovering the forest and stream habitat.
Some people within the watershed, Lincoln County and the timber industry believe it isn't worth the effort to recover salmon in damaged watersheds like the Yaquina. They argue that the cost to land owners of restoring the forest to more natural conditions is too great to save the few remaining native fish. At the same time, many scientists urge the government to save the best remaining habitat through the immediate and strict protection of select watersheds. Special watersheds that are rich in habitat and highly protected are referred to as refugia areas. Between the need for refugia, the noise of the timber industry and legitimate concerns voiced by threatened small woodlot owners, someone unfamiliar with the overall science might think the Yaquina is not a political priority for restoration. This isn't the case at all.
Recovering native salmon within the Yaquina watershed is necessary for maintaining salmon coast wide. According to the National Research Council's Upstream report, if the salmon runs on individual rivers are lost, so too will be the larger population of salmon along the Oregon Coast: "An adequate number of returning adults for every local breeding population is needed to ensure persistence of all the reproductive units… The result of regulating fishing on a metapopulation basis [i.e.., all coho along the Oregon Coast] and ignoring the reproductive units that make up a metapopulation [i.e., Yaquina River coho] is the disappearance or extirpation of some of the local breeding populations and the eventual collapse of the metapopulation's production" (Upstream, p. 363).
While the above Upstream quote is addressing fishery management, the message is clear: -- not only does a salmon population need a certain amount of abundance to reproduce, it also needs to be well distributed between watersheds and within watersheds. When habitat declines, not only does the total number of fish decline but their distribution may become concentrated in the few best remaining watersheds or sub-basins. Concentration cuts them off genetically and exposes the small remaining population to potential destruction by natural and human caused threats.
We know that salmon are immutably linked to the condition of the land through watershed processes that create and maintain habitat. In the same way that maintaining each river's native salmon is critical to the survival of the species as a whole, maintaining and restoring each basin's salmon habitat is crucial to the survival of salmon as a whole. That means that native Oregon coast salmon cannot be sustained by protecting watersheds dominated by publicly owned land and walking away from stream habitat on privately owned watersheds. Private lands therefore bear no less of a burden than public lands in ensuring the long-term survival of salmon runs as a whole.
Every salmon stock in every basin is a key brick in the house of its species as a whole. Top scientists say "emulation of the historic range and distribution of conditions at the landscape level is essential to accomplishing the mission of the Oregon Plan" (IMST p. 34)— in other words, restoring salmon. Returning the forests to more natural conditions so that salmon populations can thrive requires fundamental change to the dominant land use in the Yaquina--industrial and non-industrial forestry. In basins dominated by private lands, such as the Yaquina, no one is talking about going back to an old growth forest. A private forest that is sufficient to restore native salmon will likely be a far cry from natural conditions. However, we must move very quickly and far from the current model of intensive short rotation forestry in order to save native salmon.
The following recommendations for changing private forestry are tied to the current discussion occurring before the Board of Forestry in Salem. This list is based on the main points of the IMST report and other key documents.
1. Manage forestry at a whole basin scale and not at the scale of one activity.
Forest harvest must be planned at the basin scale through local planning, either through voluntary effort or regulatory mandate. Cowboy forestry must end and watershed forestry must begin. Oregon's forest practices rules must consider the entire landscape — including the cumulative effects of forest practices on private, state, and federal lands. A landscape perspective is critical for determining where and how much disturbance (i.e., clearcutting) may occur locally (one site), and how large an area may be impacted.
2. Include the recovery goals of the Oregon Plan for landscape level forest management in the Oregon Forest Practices Act.
The state's rules governing forestry are primarily intended to ensure sustainable timber harvest. Oregon's forests and native salmon are so closely linked that the practice of forestry must sustain native salmon and their habitat.
3. Increase forest harvest rotation time.
A huge opportunity exists here because current rotation times are occurring far before trees are reaching the size that maximizes log production. Increasing rotation times is a win-win for communities, the timber industry, and salmon. Increasing rotation lengths on commercial forest lands moves forest management closer to natural disturbance regimes and helps reduce — but not eliminate — many impacts to salmon habitat associated with commercial logging. By allowing forests to grow older, and therefore bigger, longer rotation management will provide large wood for streams and understory vegetation for a variety of wildlife and plants. Long rotations mean fewer acres are logged each year, reducing other cumulative impacts while helping to keep habitat connected across the landscape.
A Win-Win Strategy
A Coast Range Association report-- Forests That Work --indicates that moving to 140-year rotations from 45-year rotations may increase timber inventories by more than 500 percent, reduce acres clearcut annually by 68 percent, increase the volume of timber harvested by 40 percent, and increase positive cash-flow off the land for owners by as much as 100 percent. (See the web site www.coastrange.org/ ftw_frame.htm). We need not fear a reduction in clearcutting because current overcutting is wasting much productive timber capacity. Industrial landowners will harvest more sellable logs and more valuable logs by cutting less.
4. Approximate the size and pattern of natural disturbance regimes in logging areas.
For management to emulate natural landscape patterns, logging must shift to more closely resemble the size and frequency of local natural disturbance. In basins like the Yaquina, fire disturbance occurred infrequently, but often affected a large swath of land. Logging will act more like a natural disturbance if timber harvest occurs in fewer places but perhaps at larger scales. While this recommendation of the IMST appears to have merit, the potential for abuse exists. More information and specificity is needed for this recommendation to be implemented.
5. Manage logging for both upslope and riparian areas.
In coastal watersheds, it is necessary to eliminate the regulatory distinction between riparian buffers and the upslope lands that feed streams. We must overcome the failed management strategy in which the buffers (comprising a small percent of the landscape) were expected to substitute for the land conditions under which salmon thrived. Integrating the upper slopes into a salmon protection strategy shifts timber management from the needs of industry to one defined by the needs of riparian biological and physical functions (IMST pp. 19-20). "Analysis and adjustment in management practices must occur in upslope forests throughout the watershed" (IMST p. 13). Such integration emulates historic disturbance patterns, is based on "our best understanding of ecosystem structure and function," and therefore helps recover imperiled salmon.
6. Protect small, high gradient streams, with or without fish.
All streams make important contributions to fish habitat — large wood, sediment, and gravel — even if they don't run throughout the year and even if they don't contain fish themselves. The IMST stresses that non-fish-bearing streams make important contributions to downstream processes (IMST p. 31). A stream that shows no fish during modern surveys may have contained them before industrial forestry wrought havoc on the land. Protecting those streams may have direct habitat benefits for salmon, or may protect salmon that stream surveys missed. Harvest rotations of 100 to 200 years will increase the watershed's amount of intact forest and will greatly protect small streams.
7. Require all landowners in all basins to restore fish habitat.
The cumulative effects of logging on all Coast Range forests has been a major factor in the salmon's demise. Restoring each basin — and each basin's salmon population — will be critical to the species' recovery. The bulk of the Yaquina basin, and the Coast Range's forests in general, is in private, industrial ownership. Since the entire land area in a basin is critical to restoring individual salmon populations, and since individual salmon runs are critical to restoring the overall health of the larger salmon population, all landowners in all basins must take major steps toward restoring the landscape. The industrial timber companies whose practices brought the Coast Range forest to its knees face the biggest burden, both technically and morally.
8. Implement a scientifically valid monitoring program.
As Jack Ward Thomas, the former head of the U.S. Forest Service once said, "Ecosystems are not only more complex than we know, they are more complex than we can know." The science of salmon and their ecosystems is evolving. As we change forestry, it is extremely important to monitor the effectiveness of each improvement in management. The wise integration of the changes in scientific information with land management practices requires consistent, thorough, and scientifically sound monitoring.
9. Protect all existing core habitats while the above changes are put in place.
Immediate protection for the most important functioning or potential habitat (refugia watersheds) is critical to prevent continued losses of salmonid genetic diversity. There is no substitute for immediate protection as a hedge against the impacts of current practices and of future ones. This includes specific areas in basins such as the Yaquina.
The Yaquina River's once-great coho salmon now risk extinction because the forest that maintained stream habitat is greatly reduced. Through the best current science, we know much about how forests naturally function and we know much about what salmon need. This report has presented solid data on Yaquina forest, stream habitat and salmon populations. We now know the general features of what's wrong on the landscape, why it's wrong and who made it that way. We also know much of how to undo it. We have a crisis of unprecedented proportions,
one that harms the land and the fish as well as the human community and its economy. The direction we need to go is clear. Road map in hand, we need only build the political will to change the timber industry and restore the forest and salmon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright © Coast Range Association
Last updated: November 9, 2000