Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative |
Institutional barriers will be a major impediment to the successful implementation of the OCSRI, and those barriers can arise from two primary sources: Fragmented responsibility and authority among state and federal institutions and the strong inertia against change within individual institutions. These impediments have to be reduced or eliminated if the OCSRI is to be successful. Reducing the effect of institutional barriers will require steps that are unprecedented in the history of salmon restoration programs in Oregon.
As early as 1938, the Oregon State Planning board recognized that salmon management was not able to prevent depletion in part because responsibility and authority for salmon conservation were fragmented among several state and federal agencies. The board viewed the problem from the perspective of salmon management in 1938. At that time, management focused on harvest and artificial propagation, largely independent of the ecosystem and the ecological processes that produced the salmon. Today, nearly 60 years later, the importance of an ecosystem perspective and the maintenance or restoration of ecological processes important to salmon production is recognized. While an ecosystem perspective will in the long term mean more effective restoration programs, it compounds the problem of institutional barriers and institutional fragmentation. Viewing salmon restoration from an ecosystem perspective automatically involves a broader range of private and public institutions whose activities can influence the quality and quantity of salmon habitat and critical ecological processes in Oregon's Coastal watersheds. Salmon management, when viewed from the ecosystem perspective, is even more fragmented today than it was in 1938. Even more problematic is the fact that the primary goals of those institutions do not include healthy salmon populations.
Institutional barriers also arise from within individual institutions. Agency activities are often restrained by the influence of traditional approaches and assumptions whose roots have most likely been forgotten and whose fundamental assumptions may never have been critically evaluated. In some cases tradition may be invalid or inconsistent with current scientific understanding. Some aspects of artificial propagation and harvest management of salmon are examples of these internally derived institutional barriers. The detrimental practice of transferring salmon between hatcheries and watersheds illustrates the power of institutional barriers. In 1939, Hugh G. Mitchell, the Director of the Department of Fish and Culture for the Oregon Fish Commission, realized that interbasin transfers of salmon were detrimental to the long-term health of salmon populations:
"The older system of transferring by truck fish raised at a station on one stream to another stream for liberation is now considered undesirable on account of the resulting disturbance to the homing instinct. With this in mind the policy has been adopted, insofar as the available funds will permit, to establish and operate small stations on such streams of the state as are suitable for salmon runs." (OFC 1939)
Fifty-six years later, Flagg et al. (1995), after reviewing the causes for the extinction of lower Columbia River coho salmon, recommended that inter-hatchery transfers of salmon be restricted. The OCSRI states that there will be a substantial reduction of off-site releases of salmon. From 1939 to the recent past, large numbers of hatchery fish were transferred from their home streams to foreign streams. In 1939, transfers had been the norm for 50 years. It took another 56 years to reduce the institutional barriers and substantially reduce this detrimental practice. Where internal institutional barriers are allowed to persist, adaptive management cannot be implemented.
The OCSRI has taken an important and unprecedented step to reduce institutional barriers. Governor Kitzhaber brought together all the relevant state agencies (Agency Planning Team) to develop and implement the plan to restore salmon in Oregon's coastal basins. In addition, grassroots watershed councils, the Soil and Water Conservation Service, and OSU Cooperative Extension Service will be incorporated into the OCSRI's implementation. Those are unprecedented steps, but they are not enough to resolve the problem of institutional barriers. The OCSRI Implementation Team will help resolve intra-agency barriers, but will do little to correct inter-agency barriers.
Additional action is needed to ensure that institutional barriers do not impede full implementation of the OCSRI and prevent adaptive change and adjustment that will be critical to the long term success of the program. The institutions will, through diligent and conscientious effort, ultimately be responsible for reducing or eliminating barriers to the successful implementation of OCSRI. However, history has demonstrated they will not accomplish that task alone. An additional action independent of the institutions charged with implementing the OCSRI is required. To ensure the greatest possibility of success, Oregon will establish an independent team of scientists to audit the performance of OCSRI's implementation.
In addition to reducing institutional barriers, the independent audit will ensure a high level of accountability for OCSRI's implementation. It will ensure more effective use of adaptive management. The annual audit report will, among other things, synthesize new information emerging from the program and recommend changes - a critical step in the adaptive management process. Monitoring and evaluation have been a major weak point in salmon restoration programs. The commitment to monitoring shown to date by OCSRI and the implementation of the monitoring team are a significant improvement over past plans, but establishing an independent review and assessment of the monitoring program will help to insure continued support The independent audit will provide an important incentive to maintain an effective monitoring and evaluation effort. Too often restoration plans are prepared with a great deal of determination, unveiled with fanfare and enthusiasm, but within months and, at most, a few years, they are relegated to history as agency staff deal with day-to-day crises. The plans end up collecting dust on the shelves of agency staff. The independent audit will ensure the OCSRI maintains a high profile in the implementing agencies.
Oregon cannot let the OCSRI repeat the historical pattern of salmon restoration plans. There is too much at stake for the salmon, for the coastal communities, and for Oregon. Therefore, an independent group of scientists will be appointed to conduct an annual audit of the OCSRI's implementation.
Scientific Assessment Team: Selection, Structure, and Responsibilities
Flagg, T. A., F. W. Waknitz, D. J. Maynard, G. B. Milner and C. V. W. Mahkhen. 1995. The effect of hatcheries on native coho salmon populations in the lower Columbia River. Pages 366-375 in H. L. Schramm, Jr. and R. G. Piper (eds.) Uses and Effects of Cultured Fishes in Aquatic Ecosystems. American Fisheries Society Symposium 15, Bethesda, MD.
Oregon Fish Commission. 1939. Biennial report of the Fish Commission of the State of Oregon to the Governor and the Fortieth Legislative Assembly, 1939. State of Oregon, Salem, OR.
Oregon State Planning Board. 1938. A study of commercial fishing operations on the Columbia River. Report submitted to the Governor of Oregon, Salem, OR.
Independent Scientific Board
Northwest Power Planning Council
and
National Marine Fisheries Service
Terms of Reference
August 1996
The independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB) is jointly established by the Northwest Power Planning Council (Council) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). ISAB will provide independent scientific advice and recommendations regarding scientific issues posed by the respective agencies on matters related to their fish and wildlife programs. The Council has specified a series of tasks in its Fish and Wildlife Program, while NMFS has statutory obligations under the Endangered Species Act and other federal laws requiring independent scientific review.
The ISAB will address scientific and technical issues relating to the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program and the NMFS recovery plans for Snake River salmon and other anadromous fish stocks, including related marine areas. Its purpose is to foster a scientific approach to fish and wildlife recovery and the use of sound scientific methods in research related to the programs of the Northwest Power Planning Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service. It is understood that the interests of the National Marine Fisheries Service relate particularly to anadromous fish conservation and management, while those of the Council include all fish and wildlife populations affected by operation and development of the hydroelectric system.
The ISAB will address scientific and technical issues relating to the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program and the National Marine Fisheries Service Recovery Program for Columbia River Basin salmonids. Principal activities include:
To the extent allowed by time and resources, the group should be responsive to questions and issues posed by the region's management agencies, Indian Tribes and other parties. Questions for consideration by the Board should be submitted to the Science Coordinator as described in (II.D.) below. The Council and NMFS will use the existing policy making bodies within the basin to review work plans, schedules and products for the ISAB. These parties should also use these forums to suggest ideas and issues for consideration by the ISAB.
The ISAB is to review questions that are amenable to scientific analysis and investigation. Questions will be presented to the Board as described below in (II.D.) and the Board may also initiate review of questions that are suggested by its own analysis. Many questions pertaining to the recovery of the Columbia River ecosystem contain both scientific and policy aspects. The ISAB should confine itself to dealing only with scientific aspects of issues. The Board should review questions that are submitted to it and decide if the question is amenable to scientific analysis. If not, the Board may respond that it is unable to address the question or it may suggest aspects of the question for which scientific insight would be useful.
Questions for consideration by the Board should be submitted to the Science Coordinator (III.E.2). The Science Coordinator will bring these to the Board who will discuss the scientific aspects of the question and accept or reject the question or suggest aspects that are amenable to scientific analysis. Questions that are accepted by the Board will go to the Executive Committee (IV.D.2) who will schedule consideration of the issue within the ISAB workplan and identify needed personnel and other resources.
Members of the ISAB should be experienced scientists with demonstrated achievement and high standing in their field. They will be chosen to fill specific, identified areas of expertise that are needed by the group. They will be expected to provide objective scientific advice in a timely and professional manner, and work effectively in a multi-disciplinary setting.
ISAB membership will be open to individuals employed by all agencies, institutions and organizations with the exception that members may not be salaried employees of the Council or NMFS, or be a member of the selection panel discussed below.
Members of the Independent Scientific Advisory Board will be appointed jointly by the chair of the Northwest Power Planning Council and by the Regional Director of the National Marine Fisheries Service. They will use the advice of an ad hoc selection panel who will review nominees and make recommendations to the Council and NMFS. While nominations to the ISAB may come from any of a variety of sources, members of the Board are independent scientists and do not represent the interests of the nominating entity or any other entity.
The following specific criteria should be considered in selecting members:
C. Length of Appointments
Appointment to the ISAB will normally be three years. Appointments can be renewed once using the normal appointment procedures outlined above.
The Council and NMFS can each appoint one Ex-Officio member to the group. Ex- Officio members are excluded from voting membership on the Board. These members should be senior staff scientists who are familiar with the fish and wildlife recovery plans of the Council and NMFS. They will be expected to provide their scientific advice independent of the policies of their employing agencies.
From time to time, it may be necessary to secure the services of outside experts to provide assistance on specific projects. Such appointments can be made by the Chair in consultation with the Science Coordinator and as allowed by budget limitations. Temporary appointees to the group should be selected using the same criteria as for regular members (section III.B) and are subject to the same rules regarding bias and conflict of interest as regular members (IV.C).
The ISAB will meet on a regular basis. Much of the work of the ISAB will be conducted by members responding to assignments from the Chair of the ISAB. Meetings will provide the opportunity to discuss work and formulate Board positions on assignments. Members are expected to place a high priority on attendance and participation in ISAB meetings.
Meetings are normally to be held at a location within the boundaries of the members states of the Council at intervals appropriate to the requirements of business. Summaries of meetings will be prepared by the Chair and will include the agenda, summary of action taken, work assignments and schedules.
The Chair of the ISAB will normally act as spokesperson unless another member is designated by the Chair to speak on specific topics. The ISAB will normally respond to questions or issues in writing, and public statements should be based on written opinions. All written communications shall be submitted to the Science Coordinator who will be responsible for distributing them to the Council and NMFS and other appropriate parties.
The Science Coordinator will act as the point of contact for requests to the ISAB. The Science Coordinator will ensure that these communications are conveyed to the ISAB.
Within the ISAB, a standard protocol for electronic communication of documents and messages will be established. These procedures should be adopted to facilitate development of products between members to maximize work efficiency between meetings.
For the efforts of the ISAB to influential and credible, it must be perceived to be free of any significant conflict of interest, not compromised by bias and untainted by allegations of scientific misconduct. The ISAB will deal with a broad range of issues concerning Council and NMFS fish and wildlife recovery and restoration efforts. For this reason, there is ample opportunity for potential conflicts to arise for members on specific topics. It is imperative that the members of the ISAB are aware of the potential for conflict, and especially aware of the dangers of a perception of conflict. The ISAB will base its definitions of bias and conflict on those developed by the National Academy of Science.
Return to top of page.
Go to Table of Contents page.
Go to Home page.
Created April 4, 1997
Web Page Construction: Janet Demaris (503) 378-3397 x 234