Preventing a Catastrophe in Cascadia

William D. Ruckelshaus is a Board Member of Discovery Institute and serves as the chairman of the Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board, to which position he was appointed by Gov. Gary Locke. He served twice as Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, was Deputy Attorney General of the U.S. Department of Justice, a Senior Vice President of Weyerhaeuser Company and chairman and CEO of Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. He currently is a principal in Madrona Investment Group and a strategic partner in the Madrona Venture Fund in Seattle. This paper is derived from a recent speech by Mr. Ruckelshaus.

Up and down the Northwest coast of North America swims a wonderful creature: the salmon. Some believe, that like all creatures on Earth, God created it. I prefer to believe it has evolved in harmony with its aquatic and terrestrial environment. At some point, God may have intervened, but in the mean time nature did its work. The salmon adjusted over millennia to the changing conditions it would face brought on by ocean conditions that, at intervals, warmed and cooled. While looking out for predators and prey that varied with the sea’s changes, it was dependent on rivers that bucked and heaved with the geologically active crust of the earth.

The fish is a marvel of evolutionary adaptation. In fact, the salmon have been an inspiration to me ever since I moved here 25 years ago and first witnessed their heroic journey up the river to reproduce and die. Indeed, they have inspired all of us–whether as citizens, poets, biologists, fisherman or keepers of tribal cultures. They are delicious to eat, fun to catch and awesome to behold, even at the misshapen end of their life’s journey. There are a surprising number of kinds of pacific salmon from the smallest to the largest, they are – cutthroat trout, pink, sockeye, silver, chum, steelhead and King. They go by many different names, but those are the most popular. Some rivers have only one species, while others have all seven. There are even rivers that once had all seven and now have none.

Over the last several years, pursuant to its duties under the Endangered Species Act, the National Marine Fisheries Service has been examining all of the salmon in our Northwest waters. Rather than label each run up a given river as a “species,” NMFS has expanded the geography of the waters in which the salmon spawn to allow for more manageable policies to affect their recovery. So the summer, spring, and fall runs of Chinook that spawn in the Skagit River are not separate species, instead, all of the Chinook in Puget Sound are bundled together in what NMFS calls an “evolutionarily significant unit,” or ESU, and listed as one “species.” This may sacrifice some taxonomic exactitude but it is that rare governmental phenomenon: the triumph of common sense over unwieldy precision.

For all of the salmon from the Canadian border to California and east to Idaho and Montana, NMFS has identified 58 ESU’s and listed 26 of them as either threatened or endangered. Several ESU’s have not been listed and several more are still under study. This means that swimming among the endangered are those whose relative health remains strong. It also means that fishing for the healthy can result in the death of the endangered. For instance, in southeast Alaska, Chinook that spawn within sight of the boats that catch them are taken along with the fish that spawn fifteen hundred kilometers up the Columbia River.

The story for the fish in Canada is much the same as in the United States. Although Canada does not have an Endangered Species Act, they have become much more serious about looking after their fish in the last two years, and have virtually cut off harvest for many species in parts of British Columbia. In Alaska, the stocks of salmon are quite healthy because of much less habitat degradation or human pressure coupled with wiser fish management policies. Last season 215 million salmon were caught in Alaska with no apparent impact on the health of the stocks.

Two years ago this March, here in the Puget Sound region, the Chinook were proposed by NMFS to be listed. This same month, a year ago, NMFS listed the fish as officially threatened. It is easy to see why. In 1908, the estimated run size of Puget Sound Chinook was 690,000 fish. By the mid-1990s, this had dwindled to about 17,500. (The figure is 38,000 if you include hatchery fish that spawn in the rivers with the wild fish.)

How did this come about? The causes of decline for the Puget Sound Chinook are essentially the same as for the rest of the salmon: The so-called four H’s, or harvest, hatcheries, habitat, and hydropower. If we added a fifth H–humans–we probably would have located the uncaused causer.

Harvest is a global problem. The food and agriculture organization of the United Nations estimates that 40 of the world’s 60 major fisheries are in terrible shape; they are either extinct or seriously depleted. The remaining 20 could soon follow. The pattern is distressingly similar. A fishery, say the Atlantic cod or Peruvian anchovy, is “discovered.” It becomes a preferred food fish. More and more fishers, using ever more sophisticated gear often subsidized by governments, pursue the fish. Rules regulating the catch by those same governments are late in coming and subject to weakening by intense political pressure from the fishers. The stocks decline and then crash, causing economic havoc to fishing communities who then call for more subsidies to retrain the fishers or buyback the previously subsidized boats or gear. It is a classic tragedy of the commons. In the absence of rules, everyone pursuing their immediate self-interest in the common resource causes the availability of the resource itself to be lost to all.

Our failure to control harvest has affected the salmon like so many other fisheries. One difference between the salmon and the cod is that the salmon are anadromous fish. They are born and reared in fresh water, spend their maturing years in salt water, return to the fresh water of their origin, spawn and die (most of the time that is–steelhead, cutthroat do not always die).

This difference has profound effects when a species gets official protection under the law. The ESA prohibits a “take” of any threatened fish. A take is defined under the law as any action to “harass, harm, pursue, hurt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture of collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Because the alteration of land abutting estuaries or rivers or land in river basins can affect anadromous fish, some ongoing habitat alterations, whether aquatic or terrestrial, must stop and in some cases past changes must be undone or modified.

These prohibitions generally do not apply on private land until NMFS issues a regulation known as a 4(d) rule. This rule more closely defines what actions constitute a “take” and what actions will be sanctioned. Those activities not generically approved under the 4(d) rule are prohibited unless after consultation NMFS lets the action proceed. The 4(d) rule for Puget Sound Chinook was due this June and has now been put off for some time. (If proposed, it will not take effect until after the election.)

But make no mistake about it; the ESA has an inexorable quality about it. It keeps marching along. If you think it is bad this week, it will be worse next. There were several opportunities for the timber companies in the Northwest to settle the spotted owl controversy. They believed they could get a better deal in court or politically. As each opportunity to settle passed, the next settlement became more onerous until finally the worst one of all became the deal. The worst one of all in the eyes of the timber companies, that is.
So, in the future, there will be restrictions on the way we use land or rivers or water if the use interferes with the spawning, rearing, or migration of the fish. These interferences can be anything from siltation of gravel beds, to water quality impairment, to water quantity reduction, to temperature enhancement, or any of countless things that NMFS decides constitutes a “take” of the fish. The governmental restrictions could encompass everything from major to minor developments, from highway construction to putting an extra step on a stair leading to the water from your land. Many people will find the freedom to use their land as they see fit curtailed by the “take” prohibition of the ESA. These curtailments are starting and they will grow.

Hatcheries were first offered as a supplement or replacement for the wild fish displaced by things like dams and cities. The theory was well meaning, but it has not worked. In fact, most scientists believe hatchery fish, if not carefully controlled, displace wild fish by spawning naturally and crowding out the wild fish–or at least diluting their gene pool, which has made them so adaptable to their aquatic environment over time. Hatchery fish goes the complaint, are weaker, more disease prone, and less adaptable than wild fish. Strictly as a substitute, they are fool’s gold.

Hydropower dams block fish, churn up the fry or smelts when they return to the sea, and generally wreck havoc with an anadromous fish’s habitat. There are over 240 dams on the Columbia River system alone, and close to 100 in the Puget Sound freshwater system. In the Columbia pre-dam era, there were 14-16 million salmon spawning annually. Now, there are around a million. (This does not mean the dams have caused this entire decline.)

There are other causes of decline. Ocean conditions shift dramatically every few decades, sending colder water north to Alaska and warmer water into our coasts and Puget Sound. This phenomenon is called the pacific decadal oscillation. Salmon prey like colder water and salmon predators like warmer water; bad news for Puget Sound Chinook. We have been in a fish decline in the southern part of the salmon’s range for the last 10 to 12 years. Alaska has experienced just the opposite.

And there are nature’s own harvesters. There are seals at the Ballard Locks and mackerel at the mouth of the Columbia River, both snagging smolts. There is a colony of Caspian terns in the lower Columbia River, on an island created by dredge spoil, gorging themselves on salmon smolts rushing to the sea. It has so angered and focused the opponents of dam removal on the Columbia that they have bumper stickers recommending, “Leave no tern unstoned.”

Virtually everything I have said so far can be, and indeed is, challenged by someone. In these fishery disputes everyone blames everyone else and the result is almost always too little for the fish until it is too late for the fish.

Our decision making process for salmon recovery is badly diffused, and in the case of harvest, virtually invisible even to a close observer. Hatchery reform efforts are going on but they too are lacking in transparency. The only official in our state who could coordinate a response to the salmon’s decline and the Endangered Species Act mandate is the Governor, and so far his attention span has been limited.

So what is happening? What should happen if there is hope for success? Can we save the salmon? I think the answer is clearly ‘yes,’ and I believe we should try even in the absence of consistent political leadership.

In the first place, most people in the Northwest don’t want the salmon to disappear, but they aren’t sure what it will take. They want to know more about what they are expected to do to save salmon and why. And they want to know how their actions fit into an overall strategy for salmon recovery.

There are people all over the state and Puget Sound working in their watersheds on habitat restoration projects to help the salmon recover. Their energy and enthusiasm is inspiring. I happen to believe their ongoing effort and high spirits are absolutely necessary if the fish are to recover. Habitat preservation and restoration will not happen unless the people affected are willing participants in its realization. You cannot force landowners to change their habits you have to entice them. We can’t sue our way to salmon heaven–even though there are currently more lawyers than Chinook in the Puget Sound area.
So, we have an uninformed, but friendly to the salmon, public, and a committed core of support in watershed after watershed in the state–a tremendous asset that must be encouraged and nurtured.

In addition, we have a Washington state statute passed in 1998 that mandates that salmon habitat be preserved or restored by working through a “lead entity” designated as such by governmental bodies located in the watershed. Citizen committees broadly representative of all the relevant interests in the watershed were legislatively mandated to support these lead entities.

The lead entities’ primary role is to generate and prioritize habitat recovery projects for submission for funding to the Salmon Recovery Funding (SRF) Board, a board created by the legislature to guide spending for recovery activities and projects. There are 21 lead entities up and functioning in the state, and they cover all but the Yakima River Basin and the North Eastern Columbia River area. These areas will have lead entities soon, or they will receive no habitat recovery funds from the board.

The SRF board is insisting that the lead entities have broad and inclusive public participation processes, and that they base their requests for project funds on a strategic analysis of their watershed. Their project priority lists must follow their analysis and strategy to be eligible for funds. We are working hard with these lead entities to increase their capacity to do the analysis, create the strategy, and productively involve the people in their watersheds.

The lead entities need a lot of things to succeed. First, they need goals. How many spawning wild fish are required for NMFS to declare the fish recovered, and where and when do they have to show up? Over a five-year average, about 70-75% of the wild Chinook spawning in Puget Sound were found in two rivers: the Skagit (with about 8,000) and the Snohomish (with about 4,000). NMFS is concerned that the Chinook are too concentrated in those two rivers. However, over this same five-year period, there are 9 other rivers with average wild populations ranging from 38 in the Dungeness to 1,589 in the Elwha. If a numerical goal could be established for Puget Sound, distributed river basin by river basin, with the full participation of the people in the lead entities, and if the habitat needed to support that goal could be identified, we would have a strong framework for channeling citizen enthusiasm into watershed restoration.

None of this will work unless the governmental agencies involved develop a coordinated plan – a shared strategy to recover the fish–that is, agreed to by all, and clearly communicated to the public and the energized citizens in the watersheds.

There is bad news, and good news. The bad news is that asking the agency and tribal leaders, absent political direction, to work in concert, is to ask human beings to perform an unnatural act. The good news is they are currently doing just that.

Last October, Dan Evans and I invited 250 people, engaged in salmon recovery activities from around Puget Sound, to gather for two days at Port Ludlow to discuss the possibility of developing a shared strategy. They all came, politicians (including the Governor, who spoke at the end) scientists, agency heads, fisherman, environmentalists, business leaders, tribal leaders, and citizens from the creeks. We made inspirational speeches (the rhetoric of saving salmon is wonderful–it’s doing it that’s tough). We fought, laughed, broke into smaller groups, and finally agreed to try to create a shared strategy for recovery.

For the last seven months the tribal and governmental leaders at all levels have been meeting to construct such a framework, a template for proceeding. We are getting closer. We are not there yet, but we have a chance. We have agreed to try and coordinate and sequence our actions so that we maximize the chances for the fish, and don’t destroy the regions economy in the process.

So, a number of things need to happen for ultimate success to become a reality. To name one, the harvest process needs to open up. Data covering the number of fish harvested, where and by whom, are closely held and inadequate. And the decision about who catches which fish where comes out of the mist of federal, state, tribal and international procedures that are nearly impenetrable. The fish allocation process badly needs some sunlight. This may be a classic syndrome of fish managers not managing to sustain the fish, but rather the fishing industry, and in turn presiding over a process that further decimates a diminishing resource. We can’t tell because these negotiations operate out of the sunshine.

What should happen is scientists unimpeded by political pressures should set the total allowable catch for Chinook, or any other salmon for that matter, based on what is needed to insure a sustainable fish population. That scientific action should dictate the size of the catchable pie. That pie should then be divided among the claimants to it by some equitable political or economic process (negotiations, tradable quotas, historic claims, etc.). The fish managers should then watch the impact on the affected fish during the fishing season and if the allowable catch does not provide the requisite number of spawners to sustain the fish then cut off fishing immediately. Too Pollyannaish you say? It is what they do in Iceland for the cod and that is the only remaining healthy cod fishery in the Atlantic. It is what they do for several fisheries in New Zealand, and it works there too. It is what is done today in Alaska for their own salmon, and they have far and away the healthiest salmon fishery in North America.

So, we have a chance if we seize the moment, and it is just a moment. The most fragile part of this whole effort is also the most essential: the energy and enthusiasm of the people in the watersheds. If we can chart a course for success we can capture that watershed dedication and channel it in a constructive direction. Through governmental delay, inaction, and infighting we can just as easily squash and disillusion those people.

Let me finish by saying. Why do we need to worry about this at all? The fish if left alone might come back. After all, most of them have survived centuries of geologic change and more than a century of man-induced impediments to their survival. Why not let well enough alone. I think it would be a terrible mistake to leave all this to chance.

As we enter this century, our world faces an ever-accelerating set of problems involving our shared natural resources. The combination of population and economic growth pressures, coupled with technological advancement, is going to put increasing stress on air, water and land–to name just three resources necessary for the sustaining of life itself. We are already seeing the manifestation of these stresses in regional strife in Africa and parts of Asia.

Free societies, led by America, are ascendant on the world stage. Are those societies capable of not only promising political and economic freedom but also providing it? Can we cope within the context of freedom, with the threats to our environment and natural resource base that ultimately underpin both economic and political freedom? I would submit that in the year 2000 those are open questions.

If the answer to these questions has a chance of being yes, the most powerful nation on earth must lead, and the best way to lead is still by example.

How can we lead the world in addressing far more complex, important problems for human survival, if we cannot solve this one?

Saving the salmon is something we should do to earn the trust of the world necessary to lead it into this century.

We can do it. We know how to do it. The political will and political leadership is all that is needed. I believe the political will is not missing from the people of the Northwest. It is up to us to recognize that will is there, and to galvanize it for the sake of the salmon, and ultimately for the sake of freedom itself.