What do Northwest salmon really need? By TODD D. TRUE Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund Nothing represents the history and heritage of the Pacific Northwest more than salmon. For hundreds, even thousands, of years, these remarkable fish have sparked the imagination and symbolized much that is special about this region. Yet, sadly, in many of our rivers and streams, this icon of Northwest life is facing a grave risk of extinction. In 1991 the Endangered Species Committee of the American Fisheries Society identified 214 native, naturally-spawning salmon stocks in California, Oregon, Washington and Idaho needing special protection because of the eminent threat of extinction. Of the 214 stocks, 101 were reported to be at high risk of extinction, 58 at moderate risk and 54 of special concern. At least 106 major populations of salmon and steelhead were reported as already extirpated on the West Coast, most from the rivers in the Columbia Basin. The most current and thorough region-wide review (completed by The Wilderness Society in 1993) concludes that all but one of the ocean-going salmonid species in the Pacific Northwest are extinct or at risk of extinction over the majority of their historical range. Decisions are due this winter on listing Washington populations of Chinook, sockeye and chum salmon as threatened or endangered. Photo BY JON SAVELLE This alarming study confirms the continuing serious and rapid decline of the fish and their aquatic ecosystems. Washington state is no exception to this pattern. Across the state, populations of steelhead, chinook, sockeye, chum and sea-run cutthroat trout have disappeared or are dwindling rapidly. The disappearance of these fish represents more than the loss of an irreplaceable natural heritage. The Institute for Fisheries Resources in Eugene, Ore., estimates that $500 million in annual economic benefits and 25,000 jobs in the commercial and sportfishing industry have been eliminated in the Northwest through the loss of salmon. Not surprisingly, human activity in the last century -- and especially in the last few decades -- is the primary culprit in the salmons' demise. First, the laws, regulations and policies we have adopted over the years have favored timber harvesting, agricultural and urban development, hydropower operations, fish hatcheries, and fish harvest all at the expense of our native salmon, their habitat, and the businesses that depend on healthy salmon stocks. Second, we have failed to enforce consistently those laws and regulations aimed at protecting water quality, salmon and other natural resources. Together, these two problems have led to the loss of the clean, cold water salmon need to spawn, the instream flows they need for their migration, and the broader ecosystems on which they and many other species depend. The mudslides emanating from clearcuts and logging roads and the downstream floods and property loss this past winter, which created silt-choked and scoured streams, are but the most recent illustration of our failure to take the steps necessary to protect both the salmon and ourselves. Fortunately, there is a legal safety net that can help all of us meet the major challenges -- and changes -- ahead if we and the salmon are to continue to live together in the Northwest. In 1991, the National Marine Fisheries Service listed the first Northwest salmon stocks -- populations of sockeye and chinook salmon in the Columbia/Snake River basin -- as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. This legal protection of last resort has now been invoked for other salmon in the region -- coho salmon on the California and Oregon coast and, just this month, populations of steelhead in Washington, Oregon and California. Other listings appear imminent: the Fisheries Service is reviewing numerous populations of chinook, sockeye and chum salmon in Washington for possible listing as threatened or endangered with decisions due later this year and in 1998. Removing dams an obvious step Even now, before these fish are listed -- and certainly once they are listed -- we have an opportunity to move from behind the curve to ahead of it. Taking the obvious steps of removing a couple of out-dated, salmon-killing dams on the Olympic Peninsula, or even four similarly lethal dams on the lower Snake River, as numerous scientific studies have proposed and as the Idaho Statesman recently endorsed, are critical steps to be sure. Indeed, these steps, like many others we can take, make good economic sense. Congressional budget writers have termed removal of the two Olympic Peninsula dams a cost-effective way of restoring salmon to the Elwha River, and the Idaho Statesman has explained that the economic benefits of removing the four lower Snake dams exceed the costs of removal by nearly $200 million annually. Land uses changes are needed But these steps are not the end of the story of change -- or the story of economic benefits that will accrue -- here and elsewhere if we take the steps that are necessary to ensure the survival and recovery of our vanishing salmon. These same steps will also assure us that our water supplies remain clean and useable for fish and for people far into the future. They include a significant overhaul of state forest practice rules and regulations to protect not just the immediate streambanks and watercourses but to modify upland activities that affect water quality, temperature, and flow. Similarly, the rules and practices for agriculture, irrigation and urban growth all are likely to need improvements aimed at protecting water quality, quantity and, in turn, salmon. The good news is that while the alarm sounded by the current and likely future listing of salmon stocks under the ESA is disconcerting, for those willing to work ahead of the curve and undertake specific, measurable, science-based protection of streams and aquatic habitat, the Endangered Species Act already provides considerable flexibility and incentive for creative change. On the other hand, if we wait and engage in a game of brinkmanship to see who will blink first, those charged with protecting the salmon or those who are reluctant to make real changes, the law offers considerably less leeway. First, the Legal Defense Fund and the organizations with whom we work will step in, as we have when necessary in the past, to enforce the law. This includes holding the government accountable for what the law requires of it and preventing actions that seek to circumvent the law. Second, the ESA itself is clear and unambiguous in prohibiting any action by anyone that would "take" salmon listed as threatened or endangered. And as the U.S. Supreme Court has recently confirmed in another setting, this proscription against taking a listed species covers not just those activities that kill or injure members of a species directly, but also destruction of the species' habitat that indirectly results in injury or death. Forest practices, agriculture, urban development and many other activities can affect -- and take -- salmon in this way. As usual, the choice of how best to protect and restore the salmon is ours -- and it is far from draconian. We know that across the Northwest people want to see the salmon recover. We also know that there are steps we can take to bring about their return to stable and healthy population levels. These changes will undoubtedly add costs for some industries that have benefited in the past from laws and policies that allowed the salmon to decline. At the same time, though, the economic benefits of protecting the salmon and their habitat will be widespread. The beneficiaries will include not just the sport and commercial fishing industry, but also the many, many businesses and jobs that have come to Washington and the Northwest recently because of the quality of the environment and the quality of life available here. In short, if you look at all closely at the issue of salmon protection, you will find that the only thing we can't afford to do is lose the salmon. If we do that, we also will lose the very qualities that brought and keep many of us here -- forested mountains inhabited by diverse wildlife, clear, cold streams, and that unique fish, the salmon, that so often symbolizes it all. Todd True is the managing attorney for the Northwest office of the Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund (formerly Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund) based in Seattle. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, he and his colleagues prosecuted a series of successful cases to protect the Northern spotted owl and old-growth forests on federal lands in the Pacific Northwest. True also has represented environmental and fishing interests in successful lawsuits to protect salmon and enforce federal and state environmental laws.