Accessible document
A NEWSLETTER ABOUT SALMON, WATERSHEDS, AND PEOPLE
Issue No. 30
In this Issue
By Steve Greenwood
The Willamette River basin is home to 70 percent of Oregon's population and almost half its farmland, and it accounts for nearly three-quarters of the state's economic output. For many, however, the Willamette has an even greater symbolic importance as a barometer of Oregon's environmental quality-the litmus test, if you will, of Oregon's environmental leadership. Previous generations of Oregonians have passed that test. In the 1930s, the deplorable state of the Willamette prompted some of the first antipollution laws in the nation. In the 1960s, newsman and then Governor Tom McCall led a successful effort to clean up the Willamette that was lauded in a 1972 National Geographic article as a showpiece of water quality restoration.
Nearly 30 years later, in December 2000, the Eugene Register-Guard characterized the river as "a mess . . . an embarrassment to a state that prides itself on its environmental stewardship." Audrey McCall, widow of the late governor, told the Oregonian that her late husband, "would be appalled by the condition of the river [today]."
What happened?
Some observers attribute this seeming reversal of fortune to a variety of perceived sins: years of neglect, political indifference, significant population growth, unchecked development, and lax enforcement of environmental regulations on industrial polluters. We have retreated, they say, to a river that no longer resembles the one Governor McCall proudly touted as a showcase of environmental leadership.
The data, however, tell an entirely different story.
The Willamette River is actually cleaner today than it was in 1972 when Oregonians declared victory in the battle to clean it up. Even during the explosive population growth of the last 15 years, all but one of the state's 44 long-term monitoring sites in the Willamette basin showed the same or improved water quality. (The one exception was a location on the upper McKenzie River with the highest water quality in the basin.) Some monitoring sites on the Willamette, says Greg Pettit, of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), showed dramatic improvements. Of the 10 monitoring sites showing the greatest improvements in water quality in Oregon over the past 10 years, 7 were located in the Willamette basin.
This is not to say that all parts of the Willamette are clean and safe for fish. Quite the contrary. DEQ's assessment of water quality on the Willamette, based on a measurement of eight different pollutants, shows that much of the river continues to have "poor or very poor" water quality. Pettit, who heads DEQ's Water Monitoring Section, says, "Water quality tends to deteriorate from the headwaters to the mouth. The poorest water quality on the main stem of the Willamette, for example, is at Portland Harbor."
Today, 1,550 stream miles in the Willamette basin are listed by EPA as "water quality limited" (not meeting water quality standards). The main stem of the Willamette is listed for violating water quality standards for temperature, bacteria, and mercury in fish tissues. Other subbasins or streams in the basin are listed for temperature, bacteria, dissolved oxygen, pH, and a variety of toxic pollutants.
But what about the much celebrated success of the Willamette River cleanup in the 1970s? If the river was cleaned up in 1972, and water quality has recently improved on most of the river, why does much of it still violate water quality standards? Why has the Oregon Health Department issued fish-consumption warnings on the Willamette? And why was the Portland Harbor area of the Willamette added to the EPA's Superfund list of contaminated sites? The short answer may be that we simply broke out the champagne a little too early. The more complete story is that many of the problems that plague the Willamette today weren't even on our radar screen 30 years ago.
This does not mean that these problems are necessarily worse than they were in the 1970s. Our understanding of river ecology, our ability to detect pollutants, and our standards for what constitutes a healthy river have improved significantly over the past three decades. In 1972 we weren't even able to measure some of the pollutants that today cause the greatest concern.
The effort to clean up the Willamette in the 1960s and early 1970s was waged principally to increase levels of dissolved oxygen. Fish, including salmon, need oxygen in the water to survive. The presence of organic matter in the water increases biochemical oxygen demand, leaving less dissolved oxygen for aquatic life. Nutrients from sources like municipal wastewater exacerbate the problem by creating algal growth and swings in oxygen levels, a process called "eutrophication."
By the early 1960s, the dumping of raw and inadequately treated waste from municipal and industrial sewers had reduced dissolved oxygen levels in the Willamette to the point that there was virtually no oxygen left for the fish. To address this problem, a permitting system was set up to significantly limit discharges of organic material from these "point sources" into the river, and by the 1970s fish began returning.
But we now understand that the battle to fully restore the health of the Willamette must go beyond oxygen and bacteria levels caused by inadequately treated sewage. High stream temperatures and toxic pollutants will be the new battlefronts for cleaning up the Willamette. And these are likely to be much more complex, difficult, and expensive to address than the previous efforts, which focused primarily on a relatively few easily identifiable pipes discharging wastes into the river. According to the Willamette Restoration Initiative's 2001 report to the governor, "The problems that confront the Willamette Basin [today] are far-reaching and complex. Many of them are the cumulative result of small, individual actions over many years." And, although we continue to make progress on oxygen levels, we have barely begun to address temperature and toxics.
Addressing these pollutants will require different types of strategies than in the past. These new strategies will target countless small, dispersed "nonpoint sources" from forest practices, agriculture, and urban development. A 1997 study by the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that 70 to 80 percent of the pollutants entering the Willamette do so via nonpoint sources. A statewide survey by DEQ found that 39 percent of all water pollution came from agricultural sources, 17 percent came from forest practices, and 12 percent from urban runoff. Says Rick Bastasch of the Willamette Restoration Initiative, "There's no handy villain anymore. The villain is all of us."
Addressing stream temperature may be the most critical element and biggest challenge to restoring native salmon runs in the Willamette basin. According to DEQ, warmer temperatures increase fish metabolism, affecting migration, spawning, and hatching and increasing vulnerability to disease and parasites. Salmon species, in particular, need colder water. "Recent studies on the Willamette show a correlation between high temperatures and a high incidence of disease," says Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife biologist Jeff Ziller.
"Bull trout, in particular, are very temperature sensitive."
Though high temperatures are a very different kind of pollution problem than, say, raw sewage, they constitute the most widespread pollution problem on the Willamette. Of the 1,550 stream miles in the Willamette basin listed as water quality limited, 1,435 miles are listed for temperature, and nearly 600 miles are listed exclusively for temperature. The target for stream temperatures is based on the type and activity of fish in a particular stream. For the main stem of the Willamette River below Newberg, the target adopted as Oregon's water quality standard is 68 degrees Fahrenheit. For the rest of the basin, the target is 64 degrees. The standard itself has created a great deal of controversy and scientific debate in the Northwest, and the EPA is currently reviewing the numeric criteria on a regional basis. Several reaches of the Willamette, though, currently exceed temperatures of 80 degrees in the summer. Says DEQ Willamette coordinator Dick Pedersen, "Let's not create gridlock by arguing over whether the correct temperature target is 63 or 64 or 68 degrees.
We have a long way to go to achieve even the higher temperature. Let's get started." Unfortunately, cooling stream temperatures will not be as easy or straightforward as treating municipal sewage. Human activity has raised stream temperatures in the Willamette basin by removing streamside vegetation, which previously provided shade, and by paving large upland areas that previously received, stored, and then discharged rainfall as groundwater in drier seasons.
"Much of the streamside vegetation in the Willamette has been reduced or eliminated," states a 1999 report done for the Willamette Restoration Initiative by the Institute for the Northwest. Human activities have also changed the physical structure of stream channels and reduced water flow through irrigation practices, both of which can increase stream temperatures.
"Society is beginning to understand and tally the unanticipated impacts of past water development and use practices," states the Oregon Progress Board's 2000 State of the Environment Report, "[including] declines in water quality and degradation of aquatic and riparian ecosystems. Seventy-two percent of the original riparian and bottomland forest is gone."
Oregon State University professor Stan Gregory writes in the Oregon Progress Board report, "Land use activities frequently reduce 1) numbers of large trees, 2) amounts of closed canopy stands, and 3) proportion of older forests. In agricultural lands. . . . woody riparian vegetation is likely to be eliminated completely, with little or no regeneration of broadleaf tree species."
Another key challenge to reducing stream temperatures is the amount of water itself and the increasing demand for out-of-stream uses of that water. According to the 2000 State of the Environment Report, "In smaller west-side streams…out of stream uses predominate, and many (streams) suffer from over-allocation during the summer and fall." This means that there is not enough water left in the stream to adequately provide conditions, including cool temperatures, to support fish. How does this happen? "Prior to 1955," the report states, "water left instream was essentially viewed as water wasted. Starting in 1955, the Oregon Legislature designated that water basins establish 'minimum perennial streamflows.'"
Unfortunately, even where these minimum flows have been converted to instream water rights, they are generally junior to out-ofstream water rights. The result, according to the State of the Environment Report, is that in late summer, only about 25 percent of instream allocations (the flow needed to support proper temperatures and other conditions) in the Willamette Valley are met.
Oregon's Water Resources Department, which regulates water usage, recognizes the problem. "Generally, people are not going to get any new water rights on streams that are violating water quality standards," says the department's Dave Jarrett.
Addressing unnaturally high stream temperatures, then, will be less about improving the effluent from discharge pipes and more about protecting and restoring shady areas along stream banks; about reducing impervious surfaces caused by urban development; and about how much water we use for irrigation and other purposes.
None of this will be easy, but at least, for temperature, we know how to measure the extent of the problem. The same can't be said for the other major challenge on the Willamette.
Addressing toxic pollution in the Willamette may well be the most difficult challenge of all, in part because toxics are so difficult to measure. Simply getting a handle on the extent and nature of the problem is extremely difficult. "We have a good understanding of trends for standard pollutants," stated DEQ water quality manager Bob Baumgartner at a recent meeting on the Willamette, "but we have very little knowledge of toxics." "There is a huge deficiency in information about toxic pollutants," agrees DEQ's Pettit. "It is largely a budget issue, because monitoring toxics is quite expensive." Part of the problem is simply the number and variety of toxic pollutants, everything from mercury and other heavy metals, to the 49 separate pesticides detected in a U.S. Geological Survey study of the Willamette in the early 1990s. The science is still developing. There are some toxic pollutants found in the Willamette, such as the pesticide atrazine, for which water quality standards are yet to be developed. Some toxic pollutants, in fact, are not found in the water at all, but only in riverbed sediments or in fish tissues, after having bioaccumulated up the food chain.
What we do know is that the U.S. Geological Survey studies have found 11 pesticides in the Willamette at concentrations that exceed criteria for aquatic life and that the level of pesticides increases as the river goes through agricultural land. John Rineholdt, former OSU professor of agricultural chemistry, says that pesticide application has decreased dramatically from past years in the Willamette Valley, but there are still roughly one million pounds of pesticides applied annually in the basin.
We know that various parts of the Willamette or its tributaries are listed as violating water quality standards for 12 separate toxic pollutants, including dioxin, mercury, and volatile organic compounds such as trichoroethylene. We know that a 1997 DEQ study of mercury in the Willamette found concentrations of mercury in fish tissues that were above the Oregon Health Division's "level of concern."
The December 2000 listing of Portland Harbor by the U.S. EPA greatly raised awareness of toxic pollution in the Willamette. It coincided with an OSU study done in cooperation with the Oregonian, which showed that fish caught in the lower Willamette contained average concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 10 times higher than the Oregon Health Division's warning level for consumption. DEQ is leading the investigation on over 50 separate, contaminated sites that may be contributing to the Portland Harbor problem, according to DEQ project coordinator Eric Blischke. Twenty-nine of those sites have been given a high priority for cleanup. Although significant, and harmful to fish, these levels of toxic pollutants do not make the Willamette, as one Oregon newspaper described it, "one of the ten most polluted rivers in the nation." Dick Pedersen, the Willamette team leader for DEQ cautioned that "the Willamette is not the Hudson River" and that the issue of toxics on the Willamette is very complex. "The numbers are high," says Oregon State University professor Larry Curtis, "but they are hundreds of times lower than levels found in fish in the Great Lakes."
Curtis has been involved in trying to answer questions about another potentially related problem: deformed fish in the calm 30- mile stretch of the Willamette between the city of Newberg and Willamette Falls, known as the "Newberg Pool." Studies from 1992 to 1994 found skeletal deformities of nearly 75 percent in northern pike minnow in Newberg Pool (normal fish deformity rates, according to Curtis, are between 2 and 5 percent). A followup study in 2000, says Curtis, found skeletal deformities in Newberg Pool of more than 25 percent in 10 different species. More work needs to be done, according to Curtis, to determine the extent and causes of the problem.
He cautions that toxic pollution is only one of several possible causes. Because many toxic pollutants get trapped in riverbed sediments and passed along the food chain, they may persist in the river for years, or even decades. The PCBs found in the Oregonian study, for example, were widely used in electrical transformers but were banned by Congress in 1976. Another toxic found in the Willamette is DDT, which was banned in 1972. Therefore, it is difficult to assess with today's data whether the level of toxics in the river is worse now than 30 years ago, or whether we simply know more about the problem.
Also, because toxics might have migrated many miles downstream, their source is less easy to identify. DEQ's Pedersen says he hopes to get EPA funding soon to do further research on the source and transport mechanism of high levels of mercury found in fish tissue on the main stem of the Willamette.
Under the federal Clean Water Act, states are required to develop total daily maximum load (TMDL) allocations, limiting pollutants released into any water that does not meet water quality standards. In the Willamette basin, TMDLs have already been completed for the Coast Fork, Columbia Slough, Pudding River, Rickreall Creek, Tualatin River, and main stem.
The TMDL itself is largely a math exercise. The number comes from identifying the natural background level of a pollutant in the stream, then determining the various human sources of that pollutant and calculating how much pollution must be reduced from each source in order for the stream to meet water quality standards and still allow for future growth.
The 1999 Oregon legislature directed DEQ to complete TMDLs for nine subbasins and the main stem of the Willamette by the end of 2003, with the Pudding and Yamhill subbasins to be completed by the end of 2006. "We are on schedule in terms of data collection, which is the first step," says Pedersen, who is leading the effort for DEQ. To develop TMDLs for temperature on the Willamette, DEQ is looking at seasonal variations in the daily average and maximum stream temperatures and trying to answer questions about sensitivity to reservoir operations, riparian shade, and channel configuration.
"By the end of this calendar year, we'll be able to determine the factors that are really contributing to the temperature problems and where we need to focus our [restoration] efforts," he says.
Pedersen describes the TMDL process as a "cooperative effort," with DEQ working in partnership with local watershed councils, other state agencies, and a host of other organizations. The Association of Clean Water Agencies, Northwest Pulp and Paper Association, the U.S. Geological Survey, Eugene Water and Electric Board, and the U.S. Corps of Engineers are all working together and sharing resources, with Portland State University taking the lead on modeling work. Additionally, DEQ is working with a citizen's advisory panel to develop the TMDL for the main stem of the Willamette.
The TMDLs and accompanying implementation plans will incorporate agricultural water quality plans being developed by the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA), and Forest Practices Act plans. Ray Jaindl, of the Oregon Department of Agriculture, recently reported on the agricultural planning effort at a meeting on the Willamette basin. "We have a long way to go," he said. "We are currently monitoring the effectiveness of the [agricultural water quality] program, but it is difficult to document actual results." David Morman, of the Oregon Department of Forestry, notes that all western cascade streams in the Willamette basin have good water quality. "Today, forest lands are being promptly reforested," says Morman. "Our main focus is on road management, and so far more than 16,000 miles of old forest roads have been surveyed [to detect potential erosion problems]."
Another source of pollutants covered by TMDLs is urban storm-water runoff, which includes rainwater runoff from urban storm drains, industrial areas, and construction sites. Most Oregonians contribute to the problem. Fertilizers and pesticides we apply in our yards, soap suds and grease from washing our car in the driveway-all make their way to the Willamette.
According to DEQ's Rob Burkhart, pollutants found in urban storm water include bacteria, nutrients, oxygen-depleting substances, metals, and pesticides. High temperatures are a problem, too. "The flow and concentrations of pollutants are not constant, like from an operating industrial source or a sewage treatment plant," says Burkhart, "which makes urban storm water very difficult to monitor and regulate." Although urban storm water has so far seen little regulation from the state, "it likely has a large impact on water quality in the Willamette," according to Burkhart.
Ultimately, TMDLs are reviewed and approved by the U.S. EPA, and there is strong evidence that implemented TMDLs produce results. The Tualatin River, in which water quality conditions have historically been very poor, was the subject of one of DEQ's first TMDLs, in 1988. DEQ says that since 1988, "water quality conditions have significantly improved at all Tualatin sites" (and this during a period of rapid development and population growth), with three of the four most improved water quality monitoring sites in the state between 1989 and 1998 on the Tualatin. Growth in the Willamette basin is expected to continue, nearly doubling in the next 50 years, rendering the challenge to restore the Willamette more difficult, but also more important. "How many more Wilsonvilles are we going to be dealing with?" asks DEQ water quality administrator Mike Llewelyn, referring to that city's plan to use the Willamette for its drinking water.
With completion of the TMDL process, continued efforts to regulate discharges from point sources, and increased studies of toxics and fish deformities, the battle for restoring the water quality of the Willamette is at least finally being engaged.
Steve Greenwood is former deputy director of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. He is currently a private consultant on water quantity issues
Why is salmon conservation important?
In addition to philosophical, economic, cultural, and spiritual arguments for conserving biodiversity, there are sound biological reasons. Each species of Pacific salmon exists as a complex of many discrete spawning populations, and a loss of individual populations limits the evolutionary potential and resiliency of the species as a whole.
In addition, different salmonid populations use spawning, rearing, migratory, and oceanic resources in a variety of ways. This interpopulational diversity promotes efficient use of natural resources and buffers total productivity against periodic or unpredictable changes in environmental conditions.
Why is it important to conserve salmonids? Can't we rely on hatcheries instead? Hatcheries can provide many benefits to society, such as increased harvest opportunities and jobs. Although captive propagation can also play a role in salmon conservation, there are several reasons it is not an adequate substitute for conservation of salmon in their natural ecosystems.
First, even today's enormous hatchery program for Pacific salmon and steelhead captures only a fraction of the natural diversity among populations. The numerous hatcheries in the Pacific Northwest are incapable of capturing all of the natural genetic diversity that wild salmon populations exhibit throughout their range. Consequently, some loss will always occur in the number of populations retained in hatcheries. The result is a tendency to replace a wide variety of locally adapted stocks with a smaller number of more homogeneous ones. Collectively, these homogeneous populations may not be as resilient or capable of adapting to changing environmental, climactic, or other conditions as wild stocks are, thereby diminishing the potential of the species to survive over time.
Second, although some hatchery stocks have been maintained for several decades, to rely on hatcheries as the primary, long-term conservation strategy is likely to be very risky. Although salmon hatcheries have been around for over a century, most hatchery populations are often only a few decades old in any given hatchery. This short tenure for hatchery populations is the result of many factors, such as changes in the brood stock used in hatcheries or changes in the management objectives for an individual hatchery. As a result, there is no empirical record showing that we can perpetuate hatchery stocks indefinitely over long periods of time.
Even if we could biologically perpetuate these salmon populations in hatcheries indefinitely, however, another challenge would present itself. Because hatcheries are used to replace most of the early, freshwater stages of salmon and steelhead life cycles, the result is a genetic change in the hatchery fish that is not conducive to survival in the wild. Over time, these salmon and steelhead are likely to become increasingly dependent on the hatchery environment and lose the ability to survive in rivers and streams during the early stages of their life cycles. This decline in fitness corresponds to results that researchers observe in studies of how well hatchery salmon survive in natural environments compared to wild salmon.
This sole reliance on hatcheries would also become increasingly risky if we should lose the region's wild salmon populations. Hatcheries are known to experience catastrophes that eliminate entire salmon populations. Two common examples are the outbreak of disease and the interruption of water sources, because of either human error or problems with theinfrastructure. These catastrophes add to the risk of relying solely on hatcheries. A bigger risk to reliance on hatcheries, however, is that hatcheries are very expensive and constitute a substantial investment by society. If, in the future, society decides that maintaining hatcheries is not a high enough priority to continue to pay the costs involved, or if society is unable to pay for these costs, we could find ourselves in a tenuous position in terms of maintaining the long-term viability of all salmon should we have lost the wild stocks. Finally, anadromous salmonids are keystone species in many terrestrial ecosystems. Even if salmon could be perpetuated indefinitely in captivity, the effects on Northwest ecosystems and biodiversity would be profound. A large body of research points to the important role salmon play in bringing valuable marine-derived nutrients into freshwater aquatic ecosystems [see issue no. 27 of Restoration]. If, as a society, we rely solely on hatcheries to support returning salmon, then the watersheds in the Northwest would no longer experience large numbers of salmon carcasses that release these nutrients into the rivers. The loss of these nutrients would affect many aquatic and terrestrial species, from aquatic insects that young salmon rely on as a food source, to bears, eagles, and even plants in the riparian areas. Salmon have been around for millions of years, and they have managed to persist through many catastrophic events. Forcing salmon to rely solely on hatcheries leaves them vulnerable to future uncertainties. As a result, it would be difficult to have much confidence in perpetuating the species solely by means of hatcheries over long, evolutionary time frames. For many of the societal reasons already noted above, hatcheries are likely to be an integral part of salmon management for the foreseeable future. However, by themselves, hatcheries do not provide society with a sound, long-term, conservation strategy. We need to develop methods that allow hatchery-bred salmon and wild salmon to coexist in a sustainable fashion in the future. To do otherwise prevents us from maximizing our ability to sustain salmon and steelhead over the long term.
By Paul Hoobyar
In a recent decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed that the federal government can set limits on pollution of rivers from runoff, or "nonpoint sources," such as from forestry and agricultural lands. The controversy that led to the Pronsolino v. Nastri case focused on whether agencies have the legal authority to develop and implement what are called "total maximum daily loads" (TMDLs) in watersheds where nonpoint sources are the major, or only, contributor to water quality degradation. (TMDLs are a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet federal and state water quality standards.) In Oregon, this ruling could also affirm the state's authority in overseeing runoff from agricultural lands as a nonpoint source of water pollution.
The court based its decision on the Clean Water Act, which allows the Environmental Protection Agency to mandate that methods to reduce pollution in rivers and waterways contaminated solely by runoff must be developed, either by the states, or by the agency itself. Before the 1990s, the federal agency set pollutant limits mostly on discharges from point sources, such as sewage treatment systems or industrial discharge pipes. However, for more than a decade, the agency has focused on nonpoint source pollution because the agency believes such runoff has become the leading threat to water quality in the United States. Consequently, the agency has developed controls and enforcement mechanisms for nonpoint source polluters.
Although the Clean Water Act creates the expectation that runoff from all land and land uses will be regulated through TMDL allocations, some parties, primarily agricultural landowners with the support of the Farm Bureau and other groups, have argued that nonpoint source runoff from their properties should not be subject to TMDL allocations. These parties argue that they should not be required to develop load allocations or be subject to state or federal water quality oversight through the Clean Water Act's nonpoint source authority. In the California case, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Mendocino County (California) Farm Bureau, and the California Farm Bureau Federation joined two California families (including the Pronsolinos) as plaintiffs.
A similar lawsuit has been filed in Baker County (Oregon) Circuit Court. A ranching family, along with the Baker County Farm Bureau and Baker County Livestock Association, is suing the state of Oregon, the Department of Environmental Quality, the Oregon Department of Agriculture, and others. The lawsuit, Hawes v. Oregon, makes a claim similar to that in the Pronsolino case. Hawes v. Oregon challenges the legal authority of the Department of Environmental Quality and the Oregon Department of Agriculture to apply the Clean Water Act to waters that are impaired only by nonpoint sources. The plaintiffs claim that Oregon has "wrongfully acceded" to the Environmental Protection Agency in agreeing to develop load allocations on nonpoint source contaminants. How the Hawes case will be affected by the Ninth Circuit Court's decision in the Pronsolino case was unknown at press time.
Private forest lands are already subject to TMDLs under Oregon's Forest Practices Act. According to Jim Paul, a policy analyst with the Oregon Department of Forestry, the state's forestry department doesn't expect the Pronsolino case to change any of its current management actions relative to TMDL allocations for runoff. "A TMDL process already is integral to our nonpoint source management process for nonfederal forest lands under the state's Forest Practices Act," Paul said.
The Department of Forestry signed a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Environmental Quality in June 1998, to "improve the coordination between the ODF and the ODEQ in evaluating and proposing possible changes to the forest practice rules as part of the total maximum daily load process. The purpose of the [memorandum of understanding] is also to guide coordination between the ODF and ODEQ regarding water quality limited streams on the 303d [water quality limited streams] list."
The Oregon Department of Agriculture and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality signed a similar memorandum of agreement in 1998. That memorandum established a load allocation process as part of the Department of Agriculture's "Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plans."
Despite this memorandum, however, the real significance of the Pronsolino ruling may be in resolving disputes about whether runoff from agricultural lands will be required to establish load allocations for nonpoint source pollution. The ruling could result in requiring agricultural landowners to create TMDL allocations for runoff from their properties.
Jean Wilkinson, assistant director of governmental affairs at the Oregon Farm Bureau, contends that the issue for the agricultural community and the Farm Bureau is whether TMDLs are a valid enforcement mechanism for nonpoint source pollution.
"We believe that the TMDL requirements were not originally designed to govern agricultural runoff," Wilkinson said, "but to only govern point source discharges into streams. But the agencies have interpreted the TMDL requirements as also requiring regulations on all influences on streams, including runoff. That's the basis of our concerns."
Wilkinson explained that for agriculture and streams influenced by nonpoint sources, using TMDLs as the mechanism to meet state water quality criteria is "awkward," because "we have no way of knowing what our runoff is at any particular point. So to establish load allocations and tell ag we have to comply is a confusing requirement." Wilkinson pointed to the TMDL for temperature, which uses a "surrogate" based on the percentage of shade along the stream to control stream temperatures, as a case in point. "Agricultural landowners are concerned when they see shade criteria at 90 percent, for instance, which is almost 'full canopy' and far more shade than has ever been on the land or is possible to achieve."
Wilkinson also said the other major concern for the Farm Bureau and agricultural landowners is which agency or authorizing document will be used to enforce water quality standards on agricultural lands. According to Wilkinson, the memorandum of agreement between the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and the Department of Agriculture noted above is "wrong."
"Even if TMDLs are going to be done [on agricultural lands], who will have the authority to achieve water quality standards is our question. Are TMDLs advisory, as it's stated in SB 1010, or are they the actual criteria that have to be met? DEQ says TMDLs are mandatory and must be met. We think that the TMDLs are only advisory. This is another reason why we are involved in the Hawes case." The bill to which Wilkinson referred, Senate Bill 1010, became law in 1993. It established a forum for agricultural landowners to engage in addressing nonpoint source pollution from their lands through an advisory committee process promoting voluntary compliance.
According to Tom Rosetta, the nonpoint source coordinator for the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, the Pronsolino decision is consistent with the TMDL process that the state environmental quality department and the Oregon Department of Agriculture are already implementing to reduce runoff from agricultural lands. Rosetta noted that Oregon has established TMDLs that address nonpoint source pollution for rivers and streams affected solely by nonpoint source pollution. For agricultural lands, Rosetta said, "the SB 1010 water quality management planning should not be adversely affected by this decision."
"SB 1010 mandates that ag plans must meet assigned TMDL allocations in their water quality management planning process," Rosetta said, "and the Pronsolino decision reinforces state agency oversight to achieve those goals on streams impacted by agricultural runoff." Rosetta said that the water quality plans developed under Senate Bill 1010 must meet the TMDL criteria for many contaminants, such as temperature, sediment, nutrients, and some bacteria, and in effect, comply with the state water quality standard protections on which the TMDLs are based. For other contaminants, where the state has not currently established TMDLs, these standards will have to be addressed in some other fashion, such as on a site-by-site basis, Rosetta said.
Laura Tesler, at the Department of Agriculture in Salem agreed that the Pronsolino case will have an effect on Senate Bill 1010 water quality management planning for runoff from agricultural lands. "The Pronsolino case will support SB 1010 planning efforts," Tesler said, "because some parties have disagreed with ODA about whether the TMDL planning process can cover nonpoint pollution from agricultural lands." Tesler thinks the Pronsolino decision makes it more difficult for these parties to resist creating TMDL allocations as part of water quality management plans under Senate Bill 1010.
According to Hong Huynh, a lawyer who specializes in water and natural resource issues at the Portland law firm of Miller Nash LLP, some perceive this decision to be a "hollow victory." "Most people agree that nonpoint sources are already subject to TMDL regulations under the Clean Water Act," Huynh noted.
"Although nonpoint sources are exempt from the NPDES [National Pollution Discharge Elimination System] permit program," Huynh said, "they still are obligated under the Clean Water Act to minimize pollution from runoff to meet water quality standards through TMDLs. The Pronsolino court ruling merely clarified that point."
Many assume that the Pronsolino decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel will be appealed either to the full Ninth Circuit Court for review or to the Supreme Court. The Hawes family did not return repeated calls for interviews for this article.
The issue of how to address pesticides in water quality plans may also receive greater scrutiny as a result of a recent order from the U.S. District Court in Seattle. The court ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency must formally consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service on the impacts of 55 listed pesticides on endangered and threatened salmon and steelhead. The court noted that the Environmental Protection Agency's own studies indicate that these pesticides may be harmful to salmonids and that many of these pesticides have been detected in amounts that exceed conservation standards in west coast salmon-bearing rivers. Some of the listed pesticides are common to homeowners as well as commercial operators. For instance, over 13 million pounds of diazinon are applied annually in the United States, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Diazinon is a common pesticide used in agriculture, but it's also widely used for lawn and turf management and as an indoor, household insecticide. This pesticide has been found to affect birds and beneficial insects, and researchers recently discovered that it can impair salmon's sense of smell in very low concentrations in freshwater. This olfactory loss can affect their homing instinct and their ability to detect nearby predators. In addition, in 2002 Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality began a new pesticide program, called the Pesticide Use Reporting System, to help monitor pesticide use for commercial purposes on agricultural lands. Unlike the "community right to know" program for toxics, however, the pesticide program focuses only on what's being used on agricultural lands and not on what pesticides are stored in the state.
Pesticide users will be required to report what pesticides are being applied, how much of the pesticide they use, and where they apply it so that impacts to water quality and other biological effects can be monitored. The law includes a significant privacy clause to protect users from being exposed to the general public. The Department of Agriculture will release an annual report on the total pesticide use. The report will aggregate pesticide use on a watershed, county, and statewide basis. The program has been running since January of this year.
CorrectionIn an article in the last issue, "Bush Administration Drops Salmon Habitat Protections," we incorrectly identified the source for the National Marine Fisheries Service as Steve Smith, in the Habitat Division. The correct name is Steve Stone, in the Protected Resources Division of the fisheries service. |
Going with the Flow: Understanding Effects of Land Management on Rivers, Floods, and Floodplains. by Barbara Ellis-Sugai and Derek C. Godwin. 40 pp. Oregon Sea Grant. $6.75, including postage (paper)
Going with the Flow is targeted to landowners, watershed groups, and others interested in a better understanding of the basics of watershed and river dynamics. The booklet includes suggestions for how to improve aquatic ecosystem functions in order to support fish habitat and water quality.
National Coastal Ecosystem Restoration Manual. 455 pp. Oregon Sea Grant. $30, including postage (paper). Based on the OSU Extension Service publication Watershed Stewardship: A Learning Guide, this book, rather than dealing exclusively with salmon restoration in Oregon, is intended for a national audience and addresses a variety of species. Besides sections on communication and watershed ecosystems, it contains chapters on best management practices in urban settings, at marinas, and in planning for invasive species. Furthermore, it includes case studies of successful restoration projects from across the nation.
Complex Courses from Conflict to Action: A Riparian Management Case. by Courtland L. Smith, Jennifer Gilden, and David Primozich 20 pp. Oregon Sea Grant. No cost (paper)
In Complex Courses from Conflict to Action, the authors review landowners' responses to ordinance revisions proposed by Tillamook County in 1999. Many of the landowners expressed suspicion of the proposed environmental solutions, feeling unheard by managers and scientists alike. Noting that the conflict over the Tillamook riparian ordinance is ready for a collaborative approach, the authors discuss the lessons learned from the conflict between landowners on the one hand and scientists and managers on the other and reflect on the nature of successful collaboration.
The above books are available from Sea Grant Communications, Oregon State University, 322 Kerr Admin. Bldg., Corvallis, OR 97331-2131.
Defenders of Wildlife has released a report entitled Conservation in America: State Government Incentives for Habitat Conservation. The report is the result of research done across the 50 states on a wide range of incentives available to private landowners from state governments. "Private landowners have a vital role to play in the conservation of our nation's wildlife heritage," notes Mark Shaffer, senior vice president for programs at Defenders.
"Until now, there has been no single source of information available to understand the existing tapestry of state incentive programs." Included in the report is information on the wide array of state government incentives available, examples of successful programs, recommendations, and profiles of some of the conservation incentives available across the 50 states. The report also notes the need for increased funding, improved data collection, centralized information, and coordinated planning. Despite these challenges, the report identifies market-based incentives as an important tool for promoting voluntary conservation.
To view the report, go to http:// www.biodiversitypartners.org and click on the report's link.
Thinking about a vacation or planning a convention? The Green Hotels Association lists on its Web site hotels, bed and breakfast inns, and conference centers that promote "green" practices. Almost 20 international hotels and inns are listed, as well as hotels and inns in 42 states. In Oregon, the Mount Bachelor Village Resort in Bend and the Mallory Hotel in Portland are among six establishments recognized. To get more information, go to http:// www.greenhotels.com. The organizers of the Web site explain that "'Green' Hotels are properties whose management is eager to institute programs that save water and energy and reduce solid waste-and help Save Our Planet!"
The Xerces Society is offering workshops this summer that explore the bug life hidden within our streams. The free, one-day workshops focus on ways to evaluate the ecological health of a stream and its watershed by collecting macroinvertebrates. Participants will identify and collect stream invertebrates, learn how these organisms are indicators of stream health, and receive advice on setting up a monitoring program.
Workshops will be held in the following cities on the following dates:
Portland I-August 17 Ashland-August 21 Coos Bay-August 23 Corvallis-August 27 Portland II-August 30
For more information and to register, go to http://www.xerces.org/aquapage/ 2002workshops.htm.
The fourth annual Oregon Watershed Weeks will take place from September 14 through October 13. Registration is now underway for this autumn series of statewide water education, stewardship, and celebration activities. Join other organizations hosting watershed tours, stream restoration projects, workshops, fairs, and many other events.
Sign up online or get more information by visiting http://www.watershedweeks.org.
The Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board's biannual conference, entitled "Listen to the Ripples: Working Together for Watershed Communities," will be held in Redmond, Oregon, November 20-22. Watch for upcoming notices.
Restoration (ISSN 1521-5261) is a quarterly publication of Oregon Sea Grant, a marine research, education, and outreach program based at Oregon State University. The newsletter is partially supported by grant no. NA76RG0476 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and by appropriations made by the Oregon State legislature. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or any of its subagencies.
Return to: Oregon Sea Grant Home | online Publications
Note: This is an accessible version of a document originally produced for the Web in .pdf format. While it contains all significant content of the original print document, it may omit layout and graphic elements which contribute to the look and feel of the original, and make the .pdf version more suitable for printing.
Contact us: sea.grant.web@oregonstate.edu