://www.oregon.gov/OPSW/archives/ocsri1996peer/ocsri1996peer.pdf. It's a snapshot of the page taken as our search engine crawled the Web.
The web site itself may have changed. You can check the current page or check for previous versions at the Internet Archive. Yahoo! is not affiliated with the authors of this page or responsible for its content.
PEER REVIEW 1996 PEER REVIEW 1996
COASTAL SALMON
RESTORATION INITIATIVE
December, 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OSU
Contact: Jay Nicholas
College of Ag Sciences, Dept of Rangeland Resources
College of Liberal Arts
College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences
College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences
Coos County Extension
Curry County Extension
Oregon State University Forest Engineering Dept.
Oregon State University Sea Grant Extension
Oregon State University Sea Grant Extension
Oregon State University Dept. of Fisheries & Wildlife
Oregon State University Marine Science Center
Mike Borman
Assoc Dean Wm G Robbins
, Professor Emeritus
WG Pearcy
, Professor
Jim Good
, Agent
Paul Heikkila
, Watershed Management
Derek Godwin
2/20/97
Paul W. Adams
2/20/97
Pat Corcoran
2/20/97
Tim Waldvogel
2/20/97
Dr. Stan Gregory 2/20/97
Bruce Mate
Go to home page
October 22, 1996
To: Mr. Jay Nicholas, Science Team, OCSRI
Dr. L.J. Koong, Assoc. Dean, College of Agricultural Sciences, OSU
From: M. Borman, Department of Rangeland Resources
Subj: Review of Oregon's Plan for Conservation and Restoration of Anadromous Salmonids in Coastal River
Basins
My approach to reviewing this draft plan will be to address specific sections, proposals, etc. within the plan
itself and then to provide an overall assessment.
On the first page of the Introduction (vi), the following statement is written: ';Many populations of salmon,
steel]head, and trout are extinct today; may populations are at risk of extinction; and relatively few are in a
condition that may be considered healthy. The number of populations currently in each of these three
categories is not known, and a debate over accuracy of the numbers only distracts people's attention from the
seriousness of the problem." I disagree with the last sentence. For the sake of credibility, I think it is
important to have at least an idea of the numbers in each category. Too many people question the credibility
of those who are proclaiming pending disaster to assume that a general statement of need will motivate them
to support recovery activities. Not everyone attributes a great deal of credibility to fish biologists or to the
"environmental" groups that have petitioned for a listing. For those populations in trouble, it is important to
identify and prioritize the factors responsible. It will then be possible to identify and prioritize solutions.
Introduction, page x: Of particular value to the OCSRI effort are the attempts to focus on 1 )
intergovernmental and community based collaboration and partnerships, 2) recognition that improving
conditions for salmon will only be successful if the effort represents grassroots involvement, ownership, and
commitment in a cooperative work environment, and 3) the process will emphasize a voluntary versus a
regulatory approach. A listing under ESA will not likely generate the grassroots, local ownership and
commitment, and voluntary efforts that are far more likely to result in near-term efforts to initiate
management to induce long-term habitat improvement that is suggested as necessary for increasing
populations to sustainable levels. An ESA listing is much more likely to result in confrontation, litigation and
delay in implementing habitat improvement programs and projects on a watershed by watershed basis.
Page xii (Historic Perspective of Coho Abundance): The number of 1.25 million adult coastal coho at the turn
of the century is based on an assumption of a 40% harvest rate by gill-netters and an average of 500,000
harvested. What is the basis for the 40% harvest rate assumption? If projections based on other assumptions
also result in estimates of 1 million plus fish, an identification and justification for the bases of those
assumptions should be included in the discussion. Throwing these kinds of numbers around without justifying
them taxes your credibility.
Page xii (Goals for Coastal Coho Salmon): These production goals based on assumption laden models merit
discussion. Refer to my discussion on Section V (Listing).
Page xii (Life History and Habitat Requirements of Coho Salmon): It is noted that Oregon lies near the
southern boundary of the range of coho salmon in North America. It should be noted that population
fluctuations are more likely to occur near the boundaries of ranges of any given species if conditions that
influence habitat are changing. It has been noted in the literature that climatic changes have been occurring in
the interior northwest and that we are in a relatively rare (historically) warm and dry period. If the same
situation is occurring on the coast, then it would be expected that temperatures would be higher than
historically occurred and that a natural reduction in fish abundance should be expected due to adverse rearing
conditions. An evaluation of climate influences and changes should be part of this analysis and factored into
plans for goals. Page xiii ((Life History and Habitat Requirements of Coho Salmon): On what basis has ODFW identified 94
populations of wild coho salmon on the Oregon Coast? Again, credibility is an issue.
If spawning during mid-November through February during periods of high flows has any influence on
spawning success rates, that should be discussed. Presumably coho have evolved with the ability to spawn
under high flow conditions. Not everyone reading and attempting to make sense of this draft plan has a fish
biology background. It is important to explain the implications of timing of various aspects of the life cycle
for those of us who are not fish biologists. This is more completely addressed on page IV-4, but not
completely enough or with enough explanation.
Page xiv (Habitat Requirements): Cool temperature requirements for rearing are described.
Repeating from above, it has been noted in the literature that climatic changes have been occurring in the
interior northwest and that we are in a relatively rare warm and dry period. If the same situation is occurring
on the coast, then it would be expected that temperatures would be higher than historically occurred and that a
natural reduction in fish should be expected due to adverse rearing conditions. An evaluation of climate
influences and changes should be part of this analysis and factored into plans for goals.
Page xiv (Analysis of Risks to Oregon Coho ESUs): What is the relative magnitude of the factors identified
with respect to their influences in reducing salmon production?
Page xv (Hatchery Risks): Are egg collections being made from wild stocks? If so, is that having a negative
impact on natural spawning of those wild stocks?
Page xvi (Public Expectations for Quick-Fix): The education and outreach programs must be factual rather
than emotional. Reasonable management objectives and actions must be clearly articulated based on quality
information relating to resource needs. If demands are not reasonable or cannot be justified, then compliance
is not likely.
Page xvii: It is stated that the leadership that has brought the Plan to this state of development must be
continued. Is this a political statement? Are you lobbying for retention of the current administration? If so, is
it appropriate? It needs clarification.
Page I-2 (paragraph 3): It is stated that "Data have been sufficient to demonstrate that freshwater rearing
environments have been significantly altered from historic conditions and from conditions that are optimum
for the species. The current adverse effect of the ocean environment has been well documented and appears to
be consistent with large-scale climate and oceanic cyclic events."
Large-scale climate changes also occur over the land. Such changes have been documented for the interior
northwest. Perhaps such an evaluation should be attempted for coastal systems with respect to a potential
adverse impact. I am also wondering about describing historical conditions as having been "optimum" for
coho. Given continual climatic change, I doubt that conditions were often, if ever, optimum.
Page I-2: The statement that limiting factors must be identified and addressed watershed-by-watershed is
appropriate. That is much more likely to occur more quickly under this plan than under an ESA listing. An
ESA listing is likely to delay collaborative, cooperative efforts that are necessary for the watershed councils
or other collaborative efforts to function appropriately.
Page I-5 (Element 3): Establishing quantitative objectives for habitat improvement will require watershed-by-
watershed evaluation. Management of contiguous landscapes will require a great deal of landowner
cooperation. Incentives and a positive social environment will be necessary to elicit broad scale landowner
cooperation. An ESA listing will not generate a positive social environment. This plan, if properly fleshed out
and administered, is much more likely to achie