Land Use

Tuesday, May 21, 2013 in Comments Off on Land Use
Begin improving in-channel stream conditions for anadromous fish by improving or eliminating land-use practices that degrade watershed quality.

Note: The land use problem statement, hypothesis, and recommended actions in the 1995 Spirit of the Salmon Plan remain relevant and applicable. Also see Biological Perspective, Habitat of Anadromous Fish in the Columbia River Basin.

Current Status

Some land-use practices have been altered to improve in-channel stream conditions in tributary watersheds in recent years. For example, forestry actions on federal lands have emphasized reduction of forest fragmentation; support of ecosystems as well as Endangered Species Act-listed species; culvert replacement with structures that promote natural stream bottoms; large-woody-debris movement; fish passage; recognition of connections of forest productivity with marine productivity; recognition of geomorphic processes producing high-quality fish habitat; and better treatment of roads to reduce landslides and sediment delivery. However, numerous land use practices that degrade watershed quality have not been sufficiently controlled. An important example is the continuing impact from agricultural practices that result in significant soil erosion and loss of riparian cover and livestock grazing damage to streambanks.

Assessment

Past land use recommendations made by CRITFC relied heavily on an extensive review of literature available to land management effects on streams and fish habitat (Rhodes, McCullough, and Espinosa 1994). Rhodes et al. developed the Coarse Screening Process in 1994. (See Table 5B.2 and Table 5B.3.) The Coarse Screening Process has been a significant reference in the Pacific Northwest used by land and fish managers (e.g., Muck 2010, Elliott et al. 2010, NMFS 1996, 1999) and in environmental appeals of federal actions having likely impacts to anadromous fish resources (e.g., ONRC/NEDC 2004).

Useful land management recommendations were similarly proposed by Henjum et al. 1994, USFS 1994, and Spence et al. 1995. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have proposed very useful guides for evaluating proper function of salmon and bull trout habitats and highlight the need to improve conditions before permitting habitat-disturbing actions (NMFS 1996, USFWS and NMFS 2000).

In all Northwest states, the standards established for protecting riparian habitat are routinely weak: Different standards are applied to fish- and non-fishing bearing streams, even though non-fish-bearing streams transport sediment, large woody debris, and thermal loads downstream to fish-bearing streams. Standards are inadequately monitored and enforced and do not reflect the latest scientific findings, among numerous other shortcomings.

Currently, Best Management Practices in agricultural management programs designed to meet the states’ water quality standards under the Clean Water Act non-point-source provisions are only weakly linked to instream performance criteria, are not sufficiently responsive to needed rates of habitat and water quality recovery, and are essentially voluntary (see McCullough 2010).

Improving land use activities will have the added benefit of making terrestrial/aquatic systems more resilient to perturbation caused by climate change (ISAB 2007) and helping to prevent introduction and spread of exotic plant and animal species into watersheds of the Columbia River Basin. (See the new technical recommendation Invasive Species.)

New and Modified Actions

Modified institutional actions:

 

Comments are closed.

Back to Top Back to Top