Flying Finns
Uncharacteristic Wildfire Risk and Fish Conservation in Oregon
 |
“Uncharacteristic Wildfire Risk and Fish Conservation in Oregon” is one of the most important peer reviewed papers we’ve ever read. Its co-authors are Steve Mealey, a Forest Service veteran and now Boise Cascade Corporation Manager of Wildlife, Watersheds and Aquatic Ecology and Dr. Jack Ward Thomas, chief emeritus of the Forest Service and now Boone & Crockett Professor of Wildlife Conservation in the School of Forestry at the University of Montana.
Normally we translate such weighty papers into less scientific terms, but we decided to reprint this work verbatim because it makes such a compelling case for assessing the effects of management inaction in areas where the risk of uncharacteristic (unusually destructive) wildfire is considered significant.
Wild fish habitat in Oregon is the focal point of this paper, but the regulatory quagmire it exposes now threatens most of the West’s forests, including privately owned plantations adjacent to neglected federal forests. Last summer in southern Oregon private landowners lost 12,000 acres in the 27,000-acre Timbered Rock Fire, a lightning caused blaze that began on federal land. Counting reforestation costs, private losses were nearly $10 million. Taxpayers spent another $12 million fighting the blaze.
Uncharacteristic wildfires now pose a high or moderate risk on about 24.7 million acres (77 percent) of Oregon’s 32 million acre forestland base. Eighty-six percent of all national forest acres in the state (13.7 of 16 million acres) are in Condition Class 2 (moderate risk, 7 million acres) or Condition Class 3 (high risk, 6.7 million acres).
Although most wild fish species listed as threatened or endangered spawn in watersheds in Oregon’s atrisk forests, biologists with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service continue to oppose thinning because [in their view] the presumed shortterm impacts associated with thinning outweigh the long-term impacts of uncharacteristic wildfire. There is no peer-reviewed science supporting inaction, but there are also no widely accepted analytical tools that support action. Worse, the Endangered Species Act makes no provision for the kind of risk assessment work needed to justify acting before wildfire strikes. Defying common sense, state and federal agencies are thus saddled with the expensive and dubious task of picking up the pieces after wildfires strike.
Uncharacteristic wildfires are devastating fish and wildlife habitat—to say nothing of other intrinsic qualities the public cherishes. Consider the 500,000-acre ($150 million) Biscuit Fire that burned mostly in Oregon’s Siskiyou National Forest last summer. Excluding acres inside the Kalmiopsis Wilderness, 67,500 acres of spotted owl critical habitat and 96,700 acres of marbled murrelet critical habitat were burned, 33 percent at high or moderate severity. 159,500 acres held in protected late successional reserves (old growth) also burned, 38 percent at high or moderate severity. But should habitat losses affecting federally protected species be accepted without first assessing the environmental risks associated with management inaction? And should private property suffer the same fate? Risk assessment is a top priority for the Bush Administration vis-àvis the President’s Healthy Forests Initiative.
A conference focusing on assessment tools and their application in decision-making is planned for Portland, Oregon in October. Intuitively, inaction in the face of inevitable wildfire seems senseless.
 The July, 1989 Tanner Gulch Fire wiped out the entire spring Chinook run in the upper Grande Ronde River in eastern Oregon’s Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Most of the steelhead smolt production for the year was also lost. This tributary stream was stripped to bedrock. |
Uncharacteristic Wildfire Risk...
By Stephen P. Mealey and Jack Ward Thomas
In Oregon’s forests, changes in the structures of both fuels and forests have resulted in a change in fire regime from low-severity to high-severity wildfire (see Chapter 8). The primary vegetation types in which these changes have occurred are the drier, lower-elevation types east of the Cascades and in southwestern Oregon. In response to these changes, Colin Hardy of the USDA Forest Service (USFS) and others (Schmidt and others 2002) have developed coarse-scale maps (Figure 9-1) that project fire hazards and related ecosystem risks in terms of condition classes (Table 9-1).
The status and distribution of wild fish in Oregon are summarized in the 1995 Biennial Report on the Status of Wild Fish in Oregon (ODFW 1995). Thirteen species are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (Table 9-2). In this chapter we explore the relationship between uncharacteristic wildfire (larger, more severe, more intense, and less frequent than normal) and its associated risks to ecosystem function and wild fish, with special focus on steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), which are listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened. We also discuss management implications, including an option for improved decisions.
Fire-Fish Relationships
The condition class map of Oregon (Figure 9-1) shows high and moderate risks to Oregon’s forest ecosystems associated with uncharacteristic wildfire. Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies by multiple return intervals. This causes moderate or dramatic changes to one or more of the following: fire size, frequency, intensity, severity, and patterns in the landscape, resulting in uncharacteristic fires (Table 9-1).
Commenting on results of the broader assessment that included this information for Oregon, Laverty and Williams (2000) and Laverty and others (2000), writing in the strategy document on which the National Fire Plan (USDA and USDI 2000) is based, stated, “Wildfires occurring in the shorter interval fire-adapted ecosystems where fuels have accumulated over several missed fire cycles, often burn beyond the natural range of variability. “Consequently, habitats, soils, and watersheds are burned beyond their adaptive limits. The severity of these fires poses threats to species persistence and watershed integrity. The damage from these fires is often long lasting and, within some ecosystems, may be irretrievable.” They also stated, “...the extent and severity of fire could eventually push declining [fish] populations beyond recovery, especially in the West.”
While this conclusion may not be universally accepted by fisheries experts, we believe most would agree that the likelihood of uncharacteristic wildfire is increasing and negatively affecting depressed, fragmented fish populations, because the larger the fire in size and intensity, the more likely it is that it will have a negative impact on fish and their habitat.
Review and analysis of the status and distribution of wild fish in Oregon have been extensive and detailed. Periodically, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) publishes a statewide assessment of the status and distribution of wild fish (ODFW 1995). McIntosh and others (1994) assessed changes in fish habitat for “eastside ecosystems,” including eastern Oregon, for the 50-year period ending in 1992. Evenson and Hall (1998) prepared an assessment of southern Cascades late-successional reserves, or LSRs [large areas designated for management to preserve and produce latesuccessional forests under the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA and USDI 1994)] that contained a life history and stock status of wild fish in southwestern Oregon. Anadromous fish stocks in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and California were reviewed by Nehlson and others (1991). Williams and others (1989) published an assessment of endangered, threatened, and special concern fishes of North America that included discussion of species in Oregon. All of these authors noted significant declines in many fish species, especially anadromous species, and all attributed declines in anadromous fish populations to habitat loss and degradation related to dams, water diversions, timber harvest, livestock grazing, and mining. Overfishing and introduction of non-native fish and/or hatchery fish also were mentioned as reasons for declining populations/stocks. McIntosh and others (1994) noted a general trend toward loss of anadromous fish habitat on managed lands and stable or improving conditions on unmanaged lands. However, none of these assessments and reviewed literature noted past, present, or potential risks to fish and their habitat from uncharacteristic wildfire.
In southwestern and eastern Oregon, most habitat for anadromous fishes occurs in forests at high risk (Figure 9-2). While less habitat occurs in forests at moderate risk, these forests still present a concern because moderate risk can shift or evolve to high risk as fire frequencies depart from historical levels by multiple return intervals (Table 9-1). Several core areas designated by the Oregon Plan (Kitzhaber 1997) in southwestern Oregon occur in forested areas at high or moderate wildfire risk (Figure 9-3). The Oregon Plan’s goal is to restore salmon and steelhead and associated aquatic systems to a productive and sustainable state, providing enhanced environmental, cultural, and economic benefits.
 |
Oregon Forests At High Or Moderate Fire Risk About 77% of Oregon’s 32 million acres of forestland are at high [35%] or moderate [42%] risk of uncharacteristic wildfire. By definition, the historic range of ecological conditions identified in these forests has been moderately or significantly altered over time. Key ecosystem components could be lost in a wildfire. [USFS Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, Montana, http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/fuelman] |
 |
High-Moderate Fire Risk and Concurrent Distribution of Steelhead, Chinook salmon and Bull Trout Oregon forests at high to moderate risk of uncharacteristic wildfire also provide significant spawning and rearing habitat for several protected fish species—salmon, steelhead and bull trout. The question many wildlife and fisheries biologists are asking is, “Should habitat losses affecting federally protected species be accepted without first assessing the environmental risks associated with management?” [USFS Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, Montana, http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/fuelman and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, http:// rainbow.dfw.state.or.us/data.html] |
 |
High-Moderate Fire Fish & Oregon Plan Core Areas Oregon Core Plan Areas represent reaches or |
Discussion
Several experts have recently commented on the increase in uncharacteristic wildfire in the western United States and Canada. For example, Tom Quigley, USFS scientist with the Pacific Northwest Station and leader of the Science Assessment Team for the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (which covered an area of more than 145 million acres mostly in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho and western Montana), noted in 1997 that the area affected by “lethal fire regimes” had doubled in recent times. This produced an increasing threat to homes and ecological integrity, including water quality and recovery of anadromous fish species (Quigley and Cole 1997).
Barry T. Hill, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. General Accounting Office, has sounded several warnings to Congress about the increased risk posed by uncharacteristic fire regimes. He noted in an April 1999 report that experts consulted, including USFS personnel, expressed concern that uncharacteristic fire regimes would prevent achievement of USFS multipleuse mandates because of permanent, long-term damage to watersheds, soils, and fish and wildlife habitat (Hill 1999).
In a 2001 report, he asserted that susceptibility to uncharacteristic fire on 211 million acres (nearly one-third of all federal lands, including those in Oregon) had increased and covered more acres, increasing probabilities of large, intense wildland fires “beyond any scale yet witnessed.” That, in turn, was anticipated to dramatically increase risks to watersheds, ecosystems, and associated fish and wildlife species, and human communities (Hill 2001).
These warnings seem well supported. Acute environmental impacts immediately after uncharacteristic wildfires have been documented to cause direct mortality to both anadromous and resident fish (Boehne and Gill 1990, Burton 2000). For example, Boehne and Gill (1990) reported the effects on salmonids from the high-intensity burn in the Tanner Gulch Fire, which occurred on the upper Grande Ronde River watershed of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest from July 26 to August 8, 1989. That fire event was judged to have killed all of the 1989 adult spring Chinook salmon in the upper Grande Ronde River (41 adults were found dead along 20 miles of river). It was estimated that the event also eliminated much of the steelhead smolt production, with low dissolved oxygen and high turbidity named as main causes of mortality. Ten years after the fire/flood event, this degraded stream reach finally started to recover (Boehne, personal communication, USDA Forest Service 2001).
Burton (2000) reviewed the effects of uncharacteristic wildfires on native fish on the Boise National Forest in Idaho, where over 525,000 acres burned from 1986 to 1994. About 50% of the ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) forests burned within areas of historically high frequency/low intensity fire. He found that direct mortality resulted when fire occurred at high intensity adjacent to streams occupied by salmonids. The Foothills Fire of 1992 produced localized fish mortality in Sheep Creek and Rattlesnake Creek and resulted in the elimination of fish from some stream reaches; these were interspersed with short stream segments containing some fish. These streams and others in the burned area were also impacted by landslides and floods, which resulted in losses of large woody debris, a decline in bank stability, increased fine sediment, and reduced pool frequency (see also Chapter 5). Burton (2000) found that while populations can be depressed and locally decimated, habitat and trout populations could rebound significantly, sometimes within as little as five years after the fire or flooding event.
| Condition Class 1: Low Risk The risk of uncharacteristic wildfire is low in Condition Class 1 forests. Prescribed fire and mechanical thinning are good tools for maintaining key ecosystem components. The Boise Basin Experimental Forests near Idaho City, Idaho is one of the West’s finest examples of the combined benefits of prescribed fire and periodic thinning. |
 |
| Condition Class 2: Moderate Risk Condition Class 2 forests show evidence of moderate alteration of historic fire regimes. Fire frequency has increased or decreased from its historic occurrence by more than one return interval, resulting in moderate changes in one or more of the following conditions: fire size, frequency, intensity, severity or landscape pattern. Historic vegetation patterns are also changing. Hand or mechanical treatment may be needed before prescribed fire can be reintroduced. The trail to Hemlock Falls in southwest Oregon’s Umpqua National Forest is one such area. |
 |
| Condition Class 3: High Risk Condition Class 3 forests show evidence of significantly altered historic fire regimes. Fire frequencies have departed from their historic range by multiple return intervals, resulting in dramatic changes in one or more of the following conditions: fire size, frequency, intensity, severity or landscape/vegetation patterns. Key ecosystem components will be lost in inevitable wildfire. This over-stocked and diseased stand in the Fort Valley area west of Flagstaff, Arizona is an excellent Condition Class 3 example. |
 |
Permanent downstream barriers to migration, such as logjams, and potential exposure to increased solar radiation resulting in higher water temperatures, were believed to represent the greatest risks to bull trout after uncharacteristic wildfires (Burton 2000).
McMahon and deCalesta (1990), Rieman and others (1997), Gresswell (1999), and Rieman and others (2000) also have discussed the relationships between wildfire and fish. McMahon and deCalesta (1990) found that the longest-lasting and most dramatic negative impacts from fire were associated with the loss of forest cover along streams. The senior author of this chapter has recently observed severely degraded habitat for coho salmon in Flat Creek, a tributary of Elk Creek and the Rogue River and an Oregon Plan Core Area (Figure 9-3). This degradation resulted from the mid-July to early August (2002) Timbered Rock fire, in which many areas, including riparian buffers, burned uncharacteristically in forests withhigh or moderate wildfire risk. Rieman and others (1997) noted that uncharacteristic wildfires sometimes produced localized extinctions of fish populations, particularly those that were of small size and/or isolated.
However, some individual populations are capable of surviving such disturbances. Continued maintenance of diversity of fish populations depends on the existence of large, well-connected populations and spatially complex habitats. Rieman and others (1997) believed that if timber harvesting were increased to reduce risks of fire, it was possible and even likely that streams and salmonid populations would be damaged. They noted tradeoffs between reducing the risks of intense fires through active management and degrading habitat as a result of executing such activities. They made it clear that the risks of uncharacteristic fires to fish, as well as the potential damage to fish and habitat of reducing those risks through management, should be determined through evaluation and study (which can be called relative-risk assessment). Lurching to conclusions one way or another under the force of emotional or political rhetoric should be avoided.
It has been noted (Gresswell 1999) that long-term detrimental impacts on fish populations with resultant declines in native fish populations have been increasingly related to human activities. Rieman and others (2000) noted that although the characteristic low-intensity, more-frequent, smaller wildfires of the past may have contributed to maintenance of aquatic systems, isolated or small fish populations could suffer at least in the short term from uncharacteristic wildfire. Therefore, reducing risks of uncharacteristic wildfires could well be important to short-term survival of some fish populations, particularly in ecosystems that have already been fragmented. They note that while some argue that risks associated with active man-agement may exceed risks of uncharacteristic fire, fish habitat and population recovery may be unlikely without management intervention where aquatic and surrounding terrestrial systems have been significantly changed. They go on to present a list of primary elements that must be integrated to guide successful management intervention.
Forest restoration proposals in support of the National Fire Plan, including silviculture and prescribed fire to reduce hazards and risks associated with uncharacteristic wildfire, entails analyses and decision-making processes required by the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act. Examples of federal-agency approaches to such analyses give a picture of current approaches to management. In discussing timber management and related road systems, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service assumes that any effects of fire on bull trout habitat and populations in the Salmon River Recovery Unit in Idaho are subtle and less damaging than timber management activities to reduce fire risks (USDI 2002). No objective analysis was presented to support this assumption.
A relative-risk assessment such as that suggested by Rieman and others (1997), comparing the long-term risk to bull trout from habitat degradation caused by uncharacteristic wildfire absent active forest restoration, to the near-term risk of habitat degradation caused by forest health treatments, would provide some means of objective analysis. In both cases, the primary factors are increased sedimentation and debris flows in stream channels, and heating of streams owing to removal of streamside cover.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the forest plan revision for the Boise, Payette, and Sawtooth National Forests (USDA 2000) presented a short-term, risk-averse approach to restoration of forests prone to uncharacteristic wildfire. The approach, stated as an assumption on pages 3-52, was developed to guide plan implementation and to be consistent with the minimum protection guides in the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinions for salmon and trout. It also reflects Environmental Protection Agency protocols for delisting waterquality-limited water bodies under Section 303d of the Clean Water Act. The assumption was that short-term, risk-averse management alternatives would best respond to soil, water, riparian, and aquatic concerns. However, no relative-risk assessment was presented to support this assumption.
Brassfield and others (2002) prepared a position paper presenting the views of the Western Montana Level I Bull Trout Team on saving fish through reduction of risks. They concluded that any benefit from management actions to reduce long-term fire risks through large-scale thinning, fuel-break construction, or salvage logging to reduce fuel loading were unsubstantiated. They believed that fish populations would better respond to measures reducing immediate risks (barriers to movement, roads, exotic species, and fire suppression) than to projects undertaken to reduce fire intensity or size. Again, no relative-risk assessment was presented to support that assumption.
There are other examples applicable to Oregon, including insufficient and selective implementation of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy in the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA and USDI 1994) that illustrate the widespread application of the short-term, risk-averse policy throughout the Northwest by federal agencies. There is no evidence of relative-risk assessments associated with implementation of the policy.
Without detailed analysis, these examples either discount or accept the long-term effects of unmitigated risk of uncharacteristic wildfire on wild fish populations/habitat and on long-term ecosystem productivity. They either discount or ignore the observation of Rieman and others (1997) that “There is undoubtedly a point where the risk of fire outweighs the risk of our management, but that point needs to be discovered through careful evaluation and scientific study, not though the opposing powers of emotional or political rhetoric.” They also illustrate the widespread occurrence of effective institutional and philosophical barriers to forest management through silviculture and prescribed fire to reduce risks of uncharacteristic fire.
These barriers make clear that the “precautionary principle”(Morris 2000) is being applied in decision-making related to uncharacteristic wildfire risk and fish conservation in Oregon and elsewhere in the Northwest. The principle demands no action unless there is certainty no harm will result. The embodiment of the principle is the short-term, risk-averse policy of federal agencies that implement the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act. As applied, the principle ignores, without inquiry, the potential harm from inaction. In a real sense, such decisions are based on ignorance rather than on knowledge and experience. An exception is the South Cascades Late Successional Reserve Assessment (Evenson and Hall 1998), which clearly states criteria to be met for silvicultural treatments to take place in LSRs. First, adverse short-term impacts to latesuccessional species must be determined to be less significant than the long-term benefits to those species, and second, such activities must not deteriorate the short-term function of the LSR to sustain species.
Assessment procedures discussed by Harkins and others (1999), Burton and others (1999), and Farris and others (1999) could and should be applied. It seems likely that such assessments would facilitate the necessary relative short- and long-term risk determinations.
Conclusion
This beautiful stream in Oregon’s Mt.
Hood National Forest lies within the
municipal watershed that serves much
of Portland. For years, scientists have
warned that wildfire is inevitable if the
watershed isn’t thinned. But there is
strong resistance to thinning from
residents in the Portland area who
fear thinning would hurt water
quality. No fire yet.
Jack Blackwell (2001) (he was then Regional Forester of the Forest Service Intermountain Region) noted the frustration, anxiety, and feelings of helplessness experienced by personnel in his agency working with current interagency processes to determine impacts of management activities on threatened and endangered species. He also noted that projects anticipated by the USFS to have long-term benefits to ecosystems and species were often rejected by the regulatory agencies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service) because of the overriding concerns of these agencies over short-term effects. The regulatory agencies’ short-term, risk-averse approach, with little attention to the long-term consequences of no action, made it increasingly difficult for managers to bring projects to fruition.
It is our opinion that short-term protection for species and water quality that blocks forest management to reduce long-term hazards and risks from uncharacteristic fire (Figures 9-2 and 9-3) could cause unintended, long-term detrimental effects to those same resources resulting from unmitigated hazards and risks. Ironically, the precautionary principle-driven short-term, risk-averse policy could lead to long-term deterioration of the very resources the laws are intended to protect (New 2001). One remedy is to develop and apply tools designed to compare the relative risks of habitat degradation in the near term caused by forest health treatments to reduce the likelihood of uncharacteristic wildfire, and habitat degradation in the long term from uncharacteristic wildfire that would result in the absence of treatment. Risk assessments should be conducted based on current practices, knowledge, experience, and technology for silviculture, road construction, and fire management. Assessments based on effects of dated and unused practices would distort conclusions about contempory practices.
Conservation biology deals, in part, with protecting declining species (Meffe and Carroll 1997). Experience indicates that one of the greatest threats to such species is the risk of stochastic events such as uncharacteristic wildfire. This aspect of the impacts of uncharacteristic wildfire in Oregon (or elsewhere) has received, with few exceptions, little attention from conservation biologists and from agencies. Lacking needed attention, assessments of long-term risks of habitat degradation caused by uncharacteristic wildfire resulting from “no-action” management are generally absent, while assessments of near-term risks of habitat degradation from treatments to mitigate risks from uncharacteristic wildfire are largely inadequate. The real risks of both approaches must be assessed, compared, and understood in order to sustain federally listed and other species at risk in forests vulnerable to uncharacteristic wildfire. Specific methods and tools are critically needed for assessing the relative far-and nearterm risks and benefits of management treatments in these forests. Primary goals of the Oregon Plan, the Oregon State Board of Forestry, and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife are the protection, maintenance, and restoration of native fish and of biological diversity. These goals seem elusive without methods for analyzing relative risks and applying results.
The requirements of the Endangered Species Act often appear to dictate preservation of habitat, which is likely the easy part. The real test comes in what occurs as the habitat changes over time. This consideration challenges the suitability of near-term, risk-averse preservation. Federal land management decisions liberated from the precautionary principle could be greatly enhanced by comparison of risks of contemporary restoration treatments with those associated with the absence of such treatments. This all presents a paradox, which is perhaps the inherent Achilles heel of the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws. That paradox, unless faced squarely, could ultimately thwart the achievement of the noble purpose of the Act: “…to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species may be conserved…” A paradox is a statement that appears contradictory or unsupported by common sense but is nevertheless true. The common sense underlying most current management actions related to the Endangered Species Act is (1) that preserving habitat for listed species is critical, and (2) that the best or only way to preserve habitat is to preserve the ecosystem(s) on which the species depend. It may seem contradictory to say that altering the habitat is essential to its long-term maintenance. However, it seems that alteration may be exactly what is indicated by at least some assessments of relative risks. In such cases, managers must be prepared to accept the paradox and act.
This discussion should not be interpreted as an assault on the Endangered Species Act. While we concur with its purpose, it is time, and likely far past time, to examine what has evolved over the three decades since its passage, in terms of both judicial interpretation and managerial implementation. In particular, regulatory-agency reliance on the precautionary principle expressed as a short-term, risk-averse policy should be reviewed in context with the absence of relative risk assessments, while the long-term likelihood of uncharacteristic wildfires and resulting harm to listed species and to water quality increases.
In the spirit of adaptive management, particularly in considering short- and longterm risks and benefits, it is time for a new vision and an altered approach that provides an updated ecological context for implementing the Endangered Species Act. More to the point, it is past time to update the ecological context of the Act and its implementing rules and regulations. A requirement for relative risk assessments should be a significant part of the update.
In summary, much of Oregon’s anadromous fish and bull trout habitat occurs in its eastern and southwestern regions where forests are generally at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfires. Precautionary principledriven, short-term protection for listed species and water, coupled with policies that block forest management directed at reducing long-term damage from uncharacteristic fire, may cause long-term harm to those same resources because of unmitigated hazards and risks. Until relative-risk assessments are completed that compare the effects of forest restoration with those of management inaction, the prospects for survival and recovery of a vital part of Oregon’s native fish legacy will remain unknown. Completion of such assessments must become one of the state’s top conservation priorities.
human need to use natural resources is fundamental to our continued presence on earth."