Salmon recovery: County gets answers, but questions persist

Although the Okanogan County commissioners learned a lot about enhancing habitat for endangered fish, volunteer efforts that reduce erosion, and upgrades to fish screens that benefit irrigators, it is too early to answer the commissioners’ most pressing questions about salmon recovery—how much is enough, and how is success measured?

Despite a recent surge in local projects, the region is only seven years into a 30-year salmon-recovery plan, so it’s not possible to assess the long-term effect of intervention, said Derek Van Marter, executive director of the Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board (UCSRB).

Van Marter was one of almost a dozen representatives from government and tribal agencies and nonprofits that focus on salmon recovery who were invited by the county commissioners early this month to talk about their work to improve conditions for endangered spring Chinook, steelhead and bull trout.

Everyone hopes fish populations recover so the fish can be removed from the endangered species list, said Van Marter. But the decision about when that goal has been met rests with two federal agencies, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The recovery plan also sets a high bar, since all three listed species must meet population targets in all Upper Columbia watersheds, from the Methow to the Entiat, he said.

Van Marter and other speakers also pointed to the complex ingredients of salmon recovery, which relies not only on biological science, but also on social and political science—that is, on the voluntary cooperation of property owners and land-use planners, and on the commitment of four key “H” sectors to recovery efforts—habitat, hydropower, hatcheries and harvest.

Okanogan County Commissioner Ray Campbell works with Van Marter as the county’s ....http://methowvalleynews.com/2014/01/23/salmon-recovery-county-gets-answers-but-questions-persist/