Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative |
Note: Part I (the first 14 pages) of this chapter is identical to material provided in the August 1996 Draft Conservation Plan. The remainder of the chapter is an enhanced strategy to improve compliance with environmental protection laws that are relevant to the conservation Plan.
A goal of the OCSRI is to improve compliance with existing environmental laws, which is viewed as an essential element needed to conserve and restore salmon. The purpose of this section is to explain the importance of enforcement to protecting and enhancing natural resource values, and to describe how the various agencies enforce environmental laws to protect resources under their management .
Enforcement brings accountability to management measures and goals. Many of the natural resource agencies are attempting to gain compliance from their constituents with regulatory techniques and are reluctant to engage the services of a law enforcement agency to raise the level of accountability. The prospect of raising the level of accountability seems remote when people involved in habitat alteration do not face the possibility of significant sanctions for not complying with laws and regulations. Civil penalties are sometimes viewed as a cost of doing business.
Several reasons exist for enforcing existing laws, rules, and regulations in support of the efforts to restore coastal salmon stocks. Some are listed below:
With the limited resources available for enforcement, it is essential that the effort be focused to gain the most results in restoring salmon. Some needs recognized in respect to prioritizing enforcement are listed below:
Agency Positions Regarding the Role of Enforcement
in Support of Oregon's CSRI
Members of the Planning Team were asked to consider their agency's potential enforcement role of environmental laws in supporting achievement of OCSRI goals. Specifically, they were asked to prepare written responses indicating that their respective state agency had considered the possible role of enforcement of existing laws and also describing changes, if any, that might be warranted in their approach to compliance enforcement activities. Responses received to date are reproduced in this section.
In general, the department prefers to handle enforcement issues internally to maintain credibility with stakeholders and peace of mind within the agricultural community. The Oregon Department of Agriculture does not, for the most part, seek law enforcement support from the Oregon State Police for fulfilling its mission and/or assisting with its normal enforcement efforts. ODA appreciates the availability of enforcement support from the OSP, and has utilized their assistance in a limited number of cases in the past where ODA staff were denied private property access when conducting investigation activities.
Oregon State Police support may likely by requested to give assistance during a difficulty ODA investigation, particularly where an uncooperative landowner has denied ODA access to their property. The OSP has always responded to requests for support when the safety of public officials (e.g., state employees) was in question. The ODA's most frequent use of Oregon State Police has been when we believed a hostile landowner was capable of posing a serious threat to department personnel.
ODA may also request OSP support in cases where an investigation has turned criminal (e.g., landowners falsifying records), or where flagrant water quality violations have caused imminent danger to public health and safety (e.g., certain pesticide application violations or field burning activities).
The following program summary outlines the approach of the Department of Environmental Quality to enforcement of current statutory authorities.
Water quality permitting activities are based on regulations (Oregon Administrative Rules, Division 45) and constitute the major implementing element in the water quality program. Approximately 3,000 water quality permits are enforced in Oregon, including state (WPCF) and federal (NPDES) permits. NPDES permits are required for sources that discharge wastewater to surface waters of the state. Oregon has been delegated NPDES permit issuance authority by EPA. State WPCF permits are issued to sources that do not discharge to surface waters.
The process of issuing water quality permits and monitoring permit compliance is relatively straightforward. A permit application and applicable fee must be submitted to the program for new permits, permit renewals and permit modifications. A permit and public notice are drafted and mailed to the applicant. The applicant has two weeks to review and make comments on draft documents. After the applicant has reviewed the draft permits, a public notice is circulated by mail to a broad mailing list. A public hearing may be held at the discretion of the Director. A hearing is normally held only if the proposed new permit covers a major new discharge, or if there is considerable controversy surrounding the proposed permit. Then, 30 days following the public notice (or after a pubic hearing), the permit is finalized and issued. EPA reviews major source permits during the public participation period.
The permitting process involves other major elements of the water quality program. A field inspection may be conducted prior to permit issuance. Mixing zone surveys may be undertaken to provide input to establishing permit conditions. The effluent limits in the Statewide Water Quality Management Plan are utilized in the permit conditions for new and expanded sources. Discharge monitoring reports, sewer system evaluation surveys, sludge management and pretreatment programs, and other indications of source performance and compliance are evaluated. Comments from the applicant or the public may also be utilized. Permit requirements may vary but generally include: conditions, effluent limitations, monitoring, and reporting requirements (discharge monitoring reports and spill response).
Permit compliance assurance is an ongoing permit activity. Periodic inspections are made of all permitted sources with individual permits at least once each year. Additional inspections are made on sources found in noncompliance and sources experiencing operation problems. Priorities are based on:
Where permit violations are found, the ODEQ does follow-up with appropriate enforcement action.
ODEQ rules contain an enforcement policy and civil penalty procedure, with violation classifications based on risk of harm to public health or the environment. The classification of the violation, its magnitude, and other factors are considered to arrive at an appropriate enforcement action against the violator, which may include a civil penalty. The enforcement policy uses a civil penalty matrix to establish penalty amounts.
While agreeing that the success of OCSRI Plan hinges in part on all participating agencies having a full complement of regulatory and non-regulatory tools, ODEQ also sees need for the will and the dedicated resources to apply them.
From the regulatory standpoint, the ODEQ has both administrative civil penalty authority and criminal enforcement powers. Our records show that we have not been reluctant to use either of these tools, and further we are prepared to use them in support of the OCSRI. Although we have several hundred field staff across the state, we agree that this initiative will require all affected agencies to work more closely to not only share our eyes and ears, but to share our respective (and diverse) areas of expertise. For example, where DEQ may detect stream contamination by water sampling, the department may not be able to immediately identify the source. By communicating with the local OSP Fish and Game officer or the local ODFW biologist (who may have more intimate knowledge of the stream), DEQ may be able to more quickly identify a contamination source.
With its current resources, ODEQ will need to develop a prioritization mechanism for focusing on those areas of immediate concern. We expect that the success we would have on a selected high priority stream would serve as a model to be applied in other areas; this approach would be the most efficient and effective use of our limited resources.
It is also our opinion that in building across-agency teams to implement the OCSRI, some training is necessary to educate the participants about the roles, responsibilities, and authorities of the various agencies and, too, how to establish working relationships, set direction and make timely decisions. DEQ is prepared to participate and contribute to such training.
Enforcement is a key component of assuring compliance with laws and rules established to protect fish and wildlife and their habitats. Within the areas of authority for ODFW (primarily harvest regulation and distribution of animals), we rely on Oregon State Police to carry out the needed enforcement. Formal planning for coordinating enforcement is conducted annually, and a Coordinated Enforcement Plan is prepared. It is through this process that needs for additional enforcement effort are identified.
Since OSP is a cooperator with ODFW in the Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative, and is already our partner for enforcement and familiar with our needs, we are relying on OSP to submit the enforcement needs relating to ODFW's areas of responsibility.
While additional enforcement capability is needed, it is also important to note that a significant enforcement effort is already in place to address compliance with the laws and rules relating to controlling harvest and use of fish and wildlife. Coastal salmon would benefit from increased levels of enforcement on harvest, but greater impacts could be obtained by increasing the enforcement on rules where there presently is only a low level of enforcement, such as environmental and land use regulations. These, however, are outside the scope of ODFW responsibility.
The ODF implements its programs through a balanced program of rules, education, technology transfer, and enforcement. Compliance is first achieved through education, pre-operation planning, and effective communication. For operations within 100 feet of most streams, or carrying a potential risk of material entering a stream, written plans are used as one planning and communication tool. Approved written plans are enforceable documents.
Ongoing random inspections of forest operations are provided, using a priority system based on the potential for resource damage. Core areas identified in the OCSRI Plan will become a new basis for setting inspection priorities.
Enforcement of the Oregon Forest Practices Act occurs through the efforts of 54 Forest Practices Foresters (FPFs). Requests for "Stewardship Foresters" and administrative support have been added to ODF's budget proposal to provide additional program response in both education and inspection programs. Between 15,000 and 20,000 onsite inspections of operations are made annually.
Violation complaints are given high priority, with inspection occurring within 48 hours. It is ODF's policy to undertake enforcement when there is noncompliance of a rule that has resulted in some type of damage. If damage has not yet occurred, the operator is given written direction to come into compliance. If the operator complies and avoids damage, a citation may be avoided.
Enforcement action always includes an enforceable order to cease further violation. Enforceable orders to repair damage are issued whenever damage can be reduced or prevented. When citations are issued, ODF can choose either civil penalties or criminal prosecution, with civil penalties being the primary mechanism. Failure to comply with an order to cease further violation or to repair damage results in a minimum civil penalty of $2,500; the order is still pursued as well. All penalties carry a potential maximum of $5,000 per violation.
The ODF cooperates with OSP in taking enforcement action when the situation requires their professional expertise. However, the department has been actively enforcing the Forest Practices Act for 25 years and has trained professionals to administer both the technical forestry and enforcement aspects of the program. Since ODF's relationship with landowners in administering the forestry program is successful, relying in part on the department's enforcement policies and attitudes, ODF does not anticipate directing enforcement towards OSP efforts. Both agencies will continue to cooperate on reporting activities of concern to each other and sharing appropriate training.
Our program relating to the OCSRI Plan is our Mined Land Reclamation Program (MLR). The enforcement hinge pin of the program is a strong field presence by expert staff to prevent violations before they occur. For fiscal year 1995-96, we completed 725 inspections. Violations identified during an inspection are noticed to the operator in an inspection report and notice of violation. Mine closure orders are issued if the site is not brought into compliance within 30 days. The program issued 78 closure orders for 1995-96. Sites that don't comply with the conditions of the closure orders may be issued a notice of abandonment, and a demand may be put on the financial security for MLR to use to complete reclamation and close the site. Of the 725 sites inspected in FY 95-96, 23 sites were issued abandonment notices. The vast majority of these then complied with the conditions of the closure order. Additional methods at our disposal, although rarely used, are civil and criminal penalties.
The use of OSP for enforcement may be a negative for our program due to the lack of familiarity of OSP with mining, which could lead to confusion on the part of the enforcer and the enforcee. The strong authoritative presence of the OSP would be overkill for our program. Where a threat to personnel safety is a concern, we use the local sheriff's office to accompany staff.
Response on Enforcement Role From The Department of Land Conservation and Development
The DLCD's statutory responsibility and authority are to oversee the development and implementation of comprehensive land use plans by local governments. Every jurisdiction in the state has developed a comprehensive plan according to the requirements of Statewide Planning goals, which are spelled out in Oregon Administrative rules. The Land Conservation and Development Commission has acknowledged all of the plans as being in compliance with the goals. Once plans are acknowledged to comply with the goals, the Department monitors certain local government decisions to ensure that the plans continue to comply with the goals. The normal mechanism for monitoring implementation is 1) by reviewing amendments to local plans, and 2) by reviewing local permits to place dwellings on farm and forest lands. Local jurisdictions are required to report all plan amendments and all farm/forest dwelling decisions to the Department.
The DLCD may institute enforcement action against a jurisdiction where it has evidence the jurisdiction routinely violates their plan. DLCD does not anticipate increased monitoring or enforcement of local government decisions as part of its work related to salmon recovery.
Monitoring
The DSL does not have a formal monitoring program for removal-fill permits. Some permits
include specific monitoring requirements (e.g., for water quality parameters) that the permittee is
responsible for conducting. Projects that include wetland creation, restoration, or enhancement as
compensatory mitigation must have a site-specific monitoring plan designed to track the success
of mitigation.
DSL field staff conduct "spot-check" monitoring of removal-fill permits in the following circumstances:
In addition, monitoring of specific projects may also be conducted by ODFW District Biologists, Watermasters, DEQ field staff, soil and Water Conservation Districts, NRCS personnel, and others.
Enforcement
Enforcement of the Removal-Fill Law generally is based on complaints received. These may be
from casual observers such as neighbors, or from agency personnel such as ODFW and OSP.
When a complaint is logged, DSL calls the alleged violator to confirm the details and inform them
of the law's requirements. Staff visit the site as soon as possible after receiving the complaint
(sometimes the same day, usually within a day or two). Sometimes ODFW or DEQ staff will go
along. If, based on the phone contact, we believe the violator will be uncooperative (or worse),
we request OSP to accompany us on the site visit.
Program Measures
DSL has three OCSRI program measures that will improve our monitoring and enforcement capability:
The Scenic Waterway Program was created to protect and enhance the scenic beauty, recreation, fish and wildlife, botanical, geologic, historic, archaeologic and scientific values of selected waterways in Oregon. Nineteen rivers and one lake (Waldo) have been designated as state scenic waterways. The rivers include all or parts of: Nestucca, Walker Creek, Elk, Sandy, Clackamas, Little North Santiam, McKenzie, North Fork of the Middle Fork Willamette, North Umpqua, Rogue, Illinois, Metolius, Deschutes, John Day, Minam, Wallowa, Grande Ronde, Owyhee and Klamath.
The Oregon Parks and Recreation Department is the primary administrator of the Scenic Waterway Program. However, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, Division of State Lands, and Water Resources Department have specific authority set forth in the Scenic Waterway Act. The Act explicitly directs OPRD to adopt rules regulating the management of related adjacent lands. Related adjacent lands are defined as those lands within 0.25 miles of either bank of the scenic waterway.
The law requires owners of related adjacent lands to "notify" OPRD prior to making improvements or developing lands within designated scenic waterways. OPRD has one year in which to approve, deny, or negotiate an acceptable resolution to a landowner's proposal. Any change in the use of the land requires the landowner to go through the "notification" process. Common improvements and developments include such things as: timber harvest, mining, road building, houses, garages, and other structures. Some activities (e.g., firewood cutting, hazard tree removal, fence building, and crop changes) are exempt from notification.
Failure to go through the notification process before changing the use of related adjacent lands is a violation of the Scenic Waterways Act. ORS 390.925 vests OPRD with the power to obtain injunctions and other appropriate relief against violations of any scenic waterway statute, rule, or agreement made under the Scenic Waterway Act. ORS 390.990 (5) declares a violation of any of OPRD's scenic waterway land management rules as a Class A park and recreation infraction.
Prosecution of scenic waterway violations is rarely done, largely because the bail for a Class A park and recreation infraction is minimal, while the legal costs to OPRD for obtaining an injunction or an order for restitution are high. It is not uncommon for OPRD's legal costs to substantially exceed the cost of restitution by the violating party.
The following information from the Marine Board is divided into three separate program parts:
State Marine Board: Program on Registration of Outfitters and Guides
Description: Over 1,200 guides and outfitters are registered with the Marine Board, ranging from horse packers to whitewater rafting companies. Fishing guides are one of the most numerous types of registrations. To be registered with the Marine Board, a guide must have proof of insurance, a current first-aid card, pay a $50 fee, and sign an affidavit relating to convictions or sanctions under federal or state laws.
Authority: ORS Chapter 704; amended 1995 by HB 2093 B-Engrossed.
Status: The 1995 amendments added significant sanctions authority to this program. The law now requires all guides operating on federally navigable waterways to possess a valid Coast Guard operator's license; requires all guided boats to display a valid decal; makes violation of state or federal wildlife, hunting, angling or commercial fishing laws grounds to deny state registration; makes revocation of a permit or denial to issue a permit by a federal agency grounds to deny state registration; and provides for reprimands, suspensions, and revocations of guide/outfitter registration for serious repeated violations of certain state or federal laws including fishing violations. Administrative Rules to implement these changes were adopted by the Board in early April of 1996.
Proposed Program Enhancements
Habitat Impacts: None
Harvest Impacts: No significant impact.
State Marine Board: Marine Law Enforcement Program
Description: The Marine Board contracts with Oregon State Police and county sheriffs to enforce boating laws and regulations statewide. Marine patrol officers are trained and certified through an instructional course operated by Board staff and certified instructors. Contracts pay for personnel costs, boats and other equipment, supplies, fuel, and maintenance and repair necessary to operate a basic program. Counties provide varying degrees of matching funds or in- kind services to complement the contract dollars. Marine programs typically have a core of full- time officers and add seasonal deputies during the busy summer months. During the off-season, deputies are encouraged to conduct in-school water safety education classes in elementary schools. At present, nearly half of all counties are providing in-school education.
Authority: The Board contracts with OSP and 31 counties. There are approximately 29 full-time officers assigned year-round to marine patrol duties. Another 100 are employed throughout the state during the summer. Besides conducting boat inspections, officers issue warnings and citations for violations of equipment requirements or operating restrictions (e.g., speed limits, no- wake zones, reckless operation, and operating under the influence of intoxicants). Marine patrol officers also do extensive education of the water with boaters, stressing courtesy, safe operation, and proper boat handling.
Proposed Program Enhancements
Habitat Impacts: None anticipated.
Harvest Impacts: Law enforcement presence on waters at certain times of year may reduce illegal
harvest.
State Marine Board Program: Submersible Polystyrene Regulation
Description: Prohibits the installation of a submersible polystyrene (foam) device on a dock, buoy, or float unless fully encapsulated by a protective covering. In accordance with Administrative Rules, the Board issues permits for encapsulated foam flotation in new docks and significant expansions or renovations of older docks or floats built before January 1, 1992.
Authority: ORS 830.950 enacted by 1991 Laws, Chapter 759, Sections 3,4, and 5.
Status: Since its passage in 1991, permits have been issued for legal foam flotation.
Proposed Program Enhancements
Habitat Impacts: Unencapsulated submersible polystyrene can break down to the foam cell level and pose a risk to fish and wildlife through unintentional ingestion. Properly encapsulated foam leads to an overall improvement in water quality.
Harvest Impacts: None
Harvest Law Enforcement
The traditional role of fish and wildlife enforcement has been to ensure compliance of harvest measures. Harvest measures were recognized in the early years as the most appropriate method of managing fish and wildlife populations. Therefore,the role of game wardenwas tied to harvest laws, rules and regulations. This is still a vital part of the role of the fish and wildlife officer but not the total role.
The Oregon State Police Fish and Wildlife Division is involved in gaining compliance with the following harvest measures :
Environment and Habitat Law Enforcement
As anadromous fish populations began to decline in the face of more restrictive harvest regulations, it soon was recognized that suitable habitat is the key to preserving and sustaining viable fish and wildlife populations. This increased the importance of protecting and enhancing habitat required for fish and wildlife to thrive. As the importance of habitat protection and ecosystem management were recognized as the key issues that would protect, sustain and enhance fish and wildlife populations, the enforcement component of fish and wildlife management began to expand its efforts into the arena of habitat and environmental protection. Law enforcement identified habitat and environmental protection as the area in which it could exert the greatest influence for maximum results in protecting and, more importantly, enhancing fish and wildlife populations. In contemporary times, this area of enforcement presents the most potential for law enforcement to achieve maximum results.
In accordance with the needs of fish and wildlife management, the Oregon State Police Fish and Wildlife Division has shifted away from the traditional role of harvest enforcement to include enforcement of habitat and environmental law. The Oregon State Police Fish and Wildlife Division is a contemporary contributor to restoration of coastal anadromous fish.
Program Enhancements
OSP's enforcement contributions will be enhanced when the following actions are endorsed by all
natural resource agencies :
Enhancement of proactive enforcement to protect depleted fish stocks and the critical habitat upon which they depend can be achieved through analysis of various databases and use of Geographical Information System (GIS) technology to identify the potential threats and vulnerability. Use of this technology will enable proactive measures to be taken before resources suffer damage or loss. It is essential that cooperating agencies possessing the databases and GIS capability share these resources with law enforcement to accelerate the restoration of coastal salmon.
Natural resource management has long been aware that management of people is the key to managing natural resources. Harvest regulations, season regulations, land use regulations, forest practices laws, water quality regulations, and environmental laws set by legislature and Oregon's natural resource commissions are all devised to manage the behavior of people. Enforcement of these laws and rules is a police function. In this respect, with natural resource enforcement being a police function and knowing that policing has a direct effect on people's behavior, the Fish and Wildlife Division of the Oregon State Police plays a vital role in supporting natural resource management by effecting voluntary compliance with Oregon's natural resource laws.
The future of natural resources in Oregon will be largely dependent upon enforcement of habitat and environmental laws and regulations and enforcement of protection laws over those species which are classified as sensitive,threatened,or endangered.
The Oregon State Police Fish and Wildlife Division has shifted from its traditional role and has moved away from doing the same thing and expecting different results. Endorsement of this role by the natural resource agencies, forming partnerships, and strengthening cooperation will serve to raise accountability and create voluntary compliance.
It is important for natural resource agencies to identify the law enforcement support needed for their agency missions to be attained. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified the role of enforcement through the Cooperative Enforcement Plan (CEP), which is a process of prioritizing enforcement efforts directed towards conservation and resource issues. It would be a simple task to incorporate the other natural resource agencies into the same process.
Watermasters and assistant watermasters are the primary enforcement personnel for the Water Resources Department. The Oregon State Police (OSP) provides backup assistance as needed, and they also report violations to the department.
In response to the coastal salmon situation, the WRD has increased its enforcement presence. New watermaster offices were established this summer in Newport and Florence, and the presence in the Tillamook office was significantly increased. The offices also increased public service on water right and water management assistance. An additional 15 person-days/month of monitoring and enforcement activities has been occurring in the north and mid-coast region. Thirteen stream-walkers were hired for summer 1996 to locate points of diversions on priority streams, and WRD is seeking funding to hire 10 stream-walkers during the 1997-1999 biennium. While these stream-walkers are not involved in enforcement activities, their work can significantly improve the ability for watermasters to efficiently monitor and enforce water use.
Program Enhancements
Introduction
This strategy endorses the original philosophy of fish and wildlife management, which is simply enforcement protection of existing fish and wildlife populations. It was recognized early in the planning stages of the Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative that enforcement of existing laws and regulations was necessary in order to bring accountability to fish and wildlife management implementation. Increased funding of additional enforcement personnel is critically important to ensure compliance of existing laws and regulations is sufficient to allow restoration of Oregon's coastal salmonids.
Overview
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) [1973 16 USC 1531to 1543] provides for the protection of species of fish, wildlife and plants that are designated as becoming endangered or threatened to become endangered. The act prohibits persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States from committing specific acts. Under the ESA, the general prohibition states that persons may not take species of fish, wildlife or plants so listed. "Take" is defined as harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct within the United States. Further,"taking" includes destruction or significant alteration of habitat on which protected species depend.
Objectives of the ESA are to conserve endangered or threatened species and provide a means to conserve the ecosystem upon which these species depend. (The ultimate goal of the ESA is to make itself obsolete through conservation and by returning species to levels at which protective statutes are no longer needed.) Conservation involves the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which these measures are no longer necessary. [§1532(3)]
Further, a species may be listed as endangered or threatened if the species is jeopardized by the present or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of the species' habitat or range; over- utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific or educational purposes; disease or predation; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, or other factors affecting the species' continued existence. [§1533(A)(1)] In addition,any efforts by the state or foreign government to protect the species must be considered if a species is to be listed. [§1533(D)(1)(A)]
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has provided a working guidance document for a comprehensive salmon restoration initiative on the Pacific Coast. Three significant components to this restoration strategy include critical and desirable elements:
The Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative consists of many elements designed to conserve and restore populations of salmon and trout in Oregon. Elements include actions to conserve "core" populations of salmon; procedures to provide continuing leadership and improve interagency cooperation; adjustments in harvest and hatchery programs; opportunities to improve compliance with existing environmental laws; public education programs, and comprehensive monitoring programs.
The Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative recognizes that voluntary compliance should be emphasized and efforts made to improve compliance with existing environmental protection laws. The intent is to make the existing system work better, not establish new laws and regulations. It is the position of the State of Oregon that current statutes and administrative rules governing the protection of Oregon's natural resources, when complied with, are sufficient to meet the listing criteria of regulatory mechanism as outlined by NMFS. [§Draft Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative 8/26/96.]
The traditional role of the Oregon State Police Fish and Wildlife Enforcement Division is to ensure compliance with both recreational and commercial fish harvest management regulations, which had been recognized in the past as the most appropriate method to manage fish and wildlife populations. As fish stocks declined, more restrictive harvest regulations were introduced, and management emphasis began shifting toward maintenance of viable habitat and environmental protection. It is now recognized that habitat and the environment play major roles in preserving and enhancing fish and wildlife populations. The importance and appreciation of environment and ecosystem management has caused and will continue to cause the role of the Fish and Wildlife Enforcement Division to expand.
Law enforcement directed at ensuring compliance with existing habitat and environmental regulations enhances both credibility and accountability of regulatory programs. It can exert a positive influence for obtaining maximum protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources. Enforcement presence fosters voluntary compliance which, in turn, creates longevity and ownership. Enforcement is a critical component of regulatory authority. The Fish and Wildlife Enforcement Division is an enforcement component of fish, wildlife, their habitat, and environmental regulation compliance.
As Oregon's demographics become more complex and urban, habitat and environmental issues and concerns will become more complex and important. As the consequences and effects resulting from violations of laws will become greater; correspondingly, so will sanctions against those who violate the law. The State Police can bring its investigative expertise and criminal justice resources to bear on such violators. State statutes and administrative rules governing harvest, habitat, and environmental law that carry criminal penalties must be enforced with due regard to laws of evidence and search and seizure. Facts documented during criminal investigations can also result in compelling evidence for civil and administrative litigation.
Education is recognized as the means to bring understanding and appreciation to Oregon's natural resource laws as well as an understanding of the impact and consequences of regulatory statutes and administrative rules. The Fish and Wildlife Enforcement Division has years of experience and expertise in efforts to educate and outreach to citizens of Oregon. People are more willing to comply with regulations when those regulations are understandable, have validity and merit, and are uniformly enforced. The Division has demonstrated its ability to ensure equitable, fair, and uniform enforcement for Oregon's citizens. The Division stands ready to assist natural resource regulatory agencies in educating and enforcing the regulatory and conservation components of the Salmon Restoration Initiative.
Agency Role/Responsibility Law Enforcement Support for the Coastal Salmon Restoration
Initiative
Oregon Department of Agriculture
The Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) utilizes Oregon State Police enforcement to assist in situations where ODA staff have been denied access to private property when conducting investigative activities or when safety to state agency personnel is a concern (dealing with hostile landowners). Also, ODA may turn to the State Police for support in cases that may result in criminal prosecution. (Refer to memorandum dated February 3, 1997, by Mark Peters, ODA - Natural Resources Division - Appendix A.)
The Oregon State Police offers assistance to ODA that would include:
[Example: The Fish and Wildlife Enforcement Division's Tenmile Lake watershed involvement with the Department of Environmental Quality (water quality limited issues and non-point pollution of Tenmile Lakes watershed).]
Oregon Division of State Lands
The Division of State Lands (DSL) does not have a formal monitoring program for removal-fill permits, although some permits contain specific monitoring requirements. Projects including wetland creation, restoration or enhancement as compensatory mitigation must have a site-specific monitoring plan. Monitoring of removal-fill projects may be conducted by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD), SWCD, NRCS personnel and others. Enforcement of removal-fill is generally based upon complaints received from the public or state agency personnel.
DSL has three Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative program measures that will improve their monitoring and enforcement capability:
(Refer to memorandum dated February 3, 1997, by Jenifer Robison, DSL - Appendix B.)
The Oregon State Police proposes to partner with DSL to assist with inventory and assessment f