By BILL CHOY, JOE HAPP, JOSH KULLA and KAREN VITTEK

The News Guard

Last week's decision by federal officials not to return Oregon coastal coho salmon to the threatened species list has met with general – but not complete – approval from officials and members of interest groups in Lincoln and Tillamook counties and throughout the state.

The announcement by NOAA Fisheries officials also credited strong efforts by the state to limit fishing, reform hatchery production and improve freshwater habitat.

"I applaud the hard work of local agriculture, forestry, state, tribal and other federal partners to develop a solid plan for recovery"' said Bob Lohn, the NOAA Fisheries Northwest regional administrator. "This is an encouraging example of the diverse interests that can come together to improve conditions for salmon in the Pacific Northwest."

With no federal protection, there will be fewer regulations on logging, agriculture, land development and restoration work from Astoria to Port Orford.

The state of Oregon will have a draft plan ready this summer detailing how it will continue rebuilding Oregon coastal coho populations,said Ed Bowles, fisheries chief for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Not walking away

"Nothing on the ground is going to change because of this from the fish's perspective,'' Bowles said. "We will still continue doing the good stewardship activities. We will continue to fix things that are broken within the watersheds."

Other local and state agencies agree with that sentiment.

The no-list decision is positive, said Tom Byler, executive director of the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board.

"We view the return of more robust populations of coho on the coast as very good news," Byler said. "We're thrilled with the decision because it means we're starting to see some benefits. We want to continue the Oregon Salmon Plan. That will stay in place as-is."

He said he wants to reassure concerned groups the decision doesn't change the management practices.

"I've read in some media articles about the concern from some folks that a no-list decision means people are just going to walk away and no longer care about the fish," Byler said. "That's not the way the state views this. We'll continue to work with stakeholders to develop a plan."

OWEB will be looking to local groups to help guide the decision on how many salmon communities want back in their streams.

"It could bring great dividends from an ecological and commercial standpoint," Byler said.

Grant funds will not be chopped with the no-list decision, he added, and OWEB's meeting that started Tuesday, Jan. 24 and continued Jan. 25 at the Inn at Otter Crest is partially about funding new monitoring efforts on the coast.

"People are concerned investments are going to dry up in terms of efforts toward restoration, but we're allocating $450,000 for a suite of monitoring activities that either improve or augment current monitoring along the coast," Byler said.

OWEB's funding comes from a dedicated ballot measure designating a portion of lottery funds to watershed enhancement.

"We're thrilled to be part of this and the main point on the no-list decision is that, while it's certainly welcome news, with respect to our local partners, it's not the end for the state of Oregon. Our commitment remains firm to implementing these programs," Byler said.

The coho no-list decision will have little impact on the Siuslaw National Forest's fish biologists' and hydrologist's daily lives and management decisions, said John Sanchez, U.S. Forest Service forest fish program manager.

"The one thing it might do is save us some time," he said. "We won't have to consult with NOAA Fisheries before we do anything. There will be less process time for our biologists."

The Siuslaw National Forest has two fisheries biologists, one hydrologist, a supervisory wildlife biologist and a road engineer who spends a lot of time working on restoration projects.

The forest's primary influence on coastal coho is through its restoration projects, including fish-passage-friendly culverts and placing wood in the streams to help coho-rearing. Recent projects have included wood placement in Samson Creek, a tributary off Drift Creek. Upcoming projects include work on a Devils Lake tributary and work with the Siletz Tribe and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Nestucca Bay providing both rearing habitat and new culverts.

"We will continue our efforts and hopefully won't see any change in funding," Sanchez said. "People are saying it won't affect the funding and we will still see the same kind of emphasis on the coho because we want to prevent any future listings. The state will show the same level of concern as NOAA was able to recognize. However, only time will tell."

Private restoration efforts contributed

More than just government work and funding has gone into the salmon restoration process. Private companies may now feel relief for having spent money meeting the Oregon Plan riparian guidelines.

Shawn Reiersgaard, director of environmental and political affairs for the Tillamook County Creamery Association, praised the no-list decision.

"The science is pretty strong," he said. "It's the right decision."

Reiersgaard noted that the association started its fencing program in 1986, years before coho were listed as threatened, and has spent more than $30,000 a year on projects to keep dairy cows away from streams.

"What we do helps them," he said.

Decision could be premature

Salmon advocates called the decision premature, noting that recent improvements in the number of coastal coho are mainly due to weather patterns producing more food in the ocean – a condition they said is subject to periodic change.

David Moskowitz, director of the Cascadia salmon biodiversity program at the Wild Salmon Center in Portland, said current numbers of coho salmon are encouraging, but he termed their overall condition as a "low rebound."

The population of naturally spawning coastal coho had dropped to around 20,000 in 1997, the year before they were given federal protection. By 2002, their numbers had rebounded to more than 200,000, still well below their historic population levels, but high enough to prompt a report by ODFW saying the fish are likely to survive and don't need federal protection.

Moskowitz praised efforts by some forest interests, specifically Stimson Lumber, which he said maintains buffer strips along streams that are almost triple the size required by state regulations.

"That kind of voluntary action is incredible," he said. "The limiting factor for these fish is in the lowlands," Moskowitz said. "When streams are high, coho have nowhere to hide."

Chuck Willer, of the Coast Range Association, which was instrumental in getting the species listed as threatened, said he believes ocean conditions are the primary reason the species has rebounded.

"Our opinion is it still warrants the threatened listing and protection," he said. "I think there's more political science going on here than biological science."

Paul Katen, president of the Salmon-Drift Creek Watersheds Council, pondered if not listing the coho was the best way to proceed.

Last year, Katen said he saw a lot of coho coming upstream in Rock Creek, near Devils Lake.

Katen said he had seen only three coho in the creek so far this winter. He said conditions at Rock Creek had been very muddy this winter.

Katen said the lack of coho this year could be because the muddy condition at the watersheds could be affecting the coho's spawning. He said the silt coming into the river could be burying eggs and smothering them.

Katen said he has heard stories that, 50 to 75 years ago, there were so many salmon in the D River there were times there were enough fish to practically walk on them across the river. The problem, Katen believes, is salmon habitat has been destroyed and affected over the years, and continued conservation and protection of this habitat needs to take place.

Katie McKenzie, coordinator of the Salmon-Drift Creek Watersheds Council, is also a registered wetland scientist, former board member of the Devils Lake Water Improvement District and former teacher of biology at Oregon Coast Community College.

McKenzie thinks NOAA should have waited at least a few years to ensure the salmon population has stabilized and make sure the last few years of population increases stay steady. She said she would not be surprised if this decision is eventually taken to court.

"I don't think it's far from over at all," she said.

Local angler sees benefits

While the actual effect on federal angling regulations may be limited – state fish and wildlife officials say privately they feel the actual impact will be muted by the existence of already stringent catch limits imposed by NOAA Fisheries – local fishermen feel differently.

Lincoln City-based commercial fisherman Mike Fitzpatrick said last week he was thrilled to see the species he says is resurgent along the Pacific coast not listed. He explained that angling for coho typically requires less-specialized equipment than that needed to seek out and find deep-running chinook salmon throughout the entire season.

The normal coho season starts toward the end of June and runs through the month of July, at the same time as the Oregon's coast tourist season is reaching its peak. The possibility of an increased coho catch, even if limited, gives anglers nothing but positive thoughts.

"Charter-wise, it's been a good revenue producer for us," said Fitzpatrick, who owns and operates the Pastime 2 out of Depoe Bay harbor. "Many boats are not equipped with the ability to fish deep. So by giving us good openers on coho, it has a positive effect on a huge percentage of our charter fleet. You don't have to go so deep with coho, so its a bigger thing than you might think."