You are on page 1of 19

Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 357–375

Institutional mapping of Oregon coastal watershed management options
Courtland L. Smith*
Department of Anthropology, Oregon State University, 238 Waldo Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331-6403, USA

Abstract Institutional mapping is a technique that builds on the logic of Geographic Information Systems (GIS). In GIS, coverages placed over a base map show spatial relations. Social institutions are more difficult to ‘‘map’’ physically. Institutional mapping uses three social coverages—scale, power, and capital. Four sets of institutions affecting watershed management—salmon restoration, water quality improvement, forest management, and land-use planning—illustrate the institutional mapping process. Analysis indicates that water quality institutions under the Clean Water Act (CWA) have a slightly higher ranking on scale, power, and capital. Based on these rankings, CWA requirements are predicted to have greater potential for improving watershed health in coastal settings than institutions associated with salmon restoration, forest management, or land-use planning. The differences are not large, and overlapping goals for protecting salmon, improving water quality, sustainable forest management, and effective land-use planning institutions offers the strongest prospect for improved watershed health. r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Many resource-oriented institutions seek to improve coastal watershed health. To help in this process numerous studies map habitats, identify resource distributions, and assess the critical dimensions of watersheds. The institutional dimension for attaining watershed health is an important part of the process but receives less attention. Successful institutions require matching human dimensions and ecological requirements. Imperial and Hennessey [1] conclude, ‘‘A shift toward an ecosystembased approach is fundamentally incompatible with the current fragmented
*Tel.: +1-541-737-3858; fax: +1-541-737-3650. E-mail address: csmith@orst.edu (C.L. Smith). 0964-5691/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 9 6 4 - 5 6 9 1 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 7 5 - 3

358

C.L. Smith / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 357–375

environmental management system.’’ This pessimistic conclusion suggests the institutions in the current management system cannot achieve the social goal for better watershed health. Imperial and Hennessey go on to say, ‘‘Any fundamental ‘reinvention’ based on an ecosystem-based approach will require large-scale institutional changes.’’ Social scientists debate the value of a ‘‘top-down’’ or ‘‘bottom-up’’ approach [2]. In the Oregon coastal region, watershed health is an ecosystem-based goal that is affected by institutions associated with several environmental policy programs having a variety of ‘‘advice giving’’ and ‘‘power sharing’’ approaches [3]. These programs include protecting salmon under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), improving water quality under the Clean Water Act (CWA), preserving forests under the Northwest Forest Management Plan [4], and managing development under Oregon land-use planning laws. Jentoft [5] notes considerable debate among social scientists to determine the value of cooperative and collaborative approaches to ecosystem management. Further, as evaluation of Australian Coastcare [2] shows, the interplay between levels of government, too, is important. The institutional mapping approach evaluates the cluster of institutions that can influence watershed health. Efforts to improve watershed health provide an opportunity to study how institutions affect actions on ecosystem problems. Institutional mapping is proposed as a technique to evaluate the effectiveness of institutions trying to improve watershed health. As used here, institutional mapping builds on the concept of Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Many institutional processes, however, are not spatial, so ‘‘mapping’’ is used in the broader sense of delineating. Institutional mapping delineates the properties of institutions. Three institutional properties used in this analysis are:
* * *

scale, representing the spatial properties of institutions; power, representing the social properties of institutions; and capital, representing the cultural properties of institutions.

Observation of the scale, power, and capital help predict the probability of institutions achieving a socially desirable outcome. To illustrate the institutional mapping approach, several sets of institutions related to coastal watershed health are evaluated.

2. Coverages and variables The three ‘‘coverages’’ for institutional mapping come from introductory social science texts that typically differentiate the basic economic, social, and ideological dimensions of human societies. These dimensions represent the focal areas of social analysis. Nearly all introductory texts begin with a discussion of the physical setting and economy derived from it. Next chapters describe the social system including kinship, marriage, family, associations and interest groups, and social and political order. The latter chapters go into the ideological dimensions of core cultural values,

C.L. Smith / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 357–375

359

Fig. 1. Schematic of the institutional mapping layers for social space. The economic, social, and cultural layers [41] are represented by functional and spatial scale, power for authority and control, and financial and political capital.

religious beliefs, and artistic expression. These three dimensions of social institutions can be thought of as three interacting coverages for the description of society (Fig. 1). For each coverage, key variables have to be identified. In this development of institutional mapping, two variables are chosen for each coverage. As with GIS, one of the flexibilities of institutional mapping is the selection of variables to map in social space. The ‘‘quantification’’ used is three ordinal ranks for each variable. This, too, like GIS can be adjusted for the dimensions of a particular problem. Coverage Scale Power Capital Variables
* * * * * *

Range Narrow (1)–medium (2)–broad (3) Weak (1)–moderate (2)–strong (3) Minimal (1)–fair (2)–optimal (3)

Spatial Functional Authority over decisions Control of decisions Political Financial

2.1. Scale Watershed health focuses on specific land areas. The scale coverage consists of two variables about an institution—its spatial expanse and functional purpose or charter. Some institutions may be very spatially and functionally narrow. The Whiskey Creek

360

C.L. Smith / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 357–375

salmon hatchery is a very specific project on a small creek that empties into Netarts Bay, a very small bay on the Oregon Coast. The hatchery is a project operated by volunteers from the Tillamook Anglers. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) is a government agency, and its fishery interests have broad spatial and functional scale. The ODFW is legislatively mandated to manage all fish and wildlife species in Oregon streams, lakes, and coastal waters. The ODFW even influences the sale of fish in pet stores in order to prevent non-native species from entering Oregon waters. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has a broad spatial scale, but narrower functional one than ODFW. NMFS’ spatial scale is US coastal waters and the historic range of salmon. The functional scale of NMFS is limited to managing specific fisheries and controlling recreational and commercial salmon catches, plus the management of endanger fish species. While endangered species might be thought to give broad authority, this is limited to specific species and their habitats. NMFS has only limited monitoring and enforcement capabilities. Since the use of institutional mapping focuses on watershed health, the spatial scale evaluates how much of the watershed is covered by the institution. Those institutions that have jurisdiction over broad areas and functions are identified as being broad scale. A local project with very limited areas and functions is narrow in scale. Area is the physical territory covered—the spatial scale. The functional scale is the activities the institution controls or influences. 2.2. Power Collaboration, consensus, and cooperation are important for achieving watershed health. Institutions concerned with watershed health, however, need power to change peoples’ behavior and achieve a particular action. Power is the ability to influence the decisions of others. Local, state, and federal legislative bodies pass laws giving agencies the authority to create environmental protection rules. If an agency has no monitoring or enforcement resources and has to continually fight court battles to get desired actions, it has rule-making authority but little power. Thus, two variables for the power coverage are the authority over and power to control decisions. If people do not respect or accept an institution’s authority and do not follow its rules, it has weak power. An institution with proven legal authority, but whose decisions are constantly challenged in the courts, but upheld has moderate power. The strongest measure of power is when people know the institution has the authority and ability to get desired actions. A powerful institution can convince an organization or individual to carry out actions that achieve desired results. 2.3. Capital The health of Oregon coastal watersheds requires both ideological support and monetary investments to achieve restoration goals. Thus, ideological support and the willingness to make capital expenditures are two aspects of capital. Ideological support for an action can be thought of as political capital. This is a large number of

C.L. Smith / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 357–375

361

people or influential political leaders who support a particular action. Political support, however, requires financial resources to get action. Public support can be thought of as ‘‘political’’ capital—the commitment people have for a particular action. Political capital about what people value may be reflected in their willingness to make monetary investments. For example, many surveys show people in the Pacific Northwest are willing to accept higher electricity rates if the money goes to restore salmon [6–10]. Political capital is especially difficult to measure monetarily and is usually a precursor to financial support. Public support helps create a willingness to invest in actions to improve water quality, restore riparian habitats, improve the quality of forests, and increase salmon stocks. This support is the willingness and even enthusiasm to proceed on a course of action. Political capital is reflected in the tradeoffs that people are willing to make. Whitelaw [11] shows how salmon as an indicator of environmental quality is important in drawing high-quality labor to the Pacific Northwest. The value of salmon is that this labor force is willing to trade off salaries prevailing in other areas for a higher quality environment. Watershed protection, rehabilitation, and restoration need financial investments for action to occur. The investments can be monetary, but they can also be volunteer labor. The Oregon Plan relies heavily on the voluntary efforts by landowners to make changes that will restore salmon populations. The Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) invested $30 million during the 1999–2001 biennium in watershed council administration, watershed assessments, and projects.

3. Salmon restoration institutions Many institutions are associated with watershed health. They include federal, regional, state, and local government agencies that have the authority from legislative bodies to manage fish, forest, water, and land resources. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have interests in watershed health, and the NGOs work with or oppose the actions of government agencies. The institutional mapping process illustrated for salmon restoration has three steps—identify scale, assess power, and evaluate capital for the institutions that influence watershed health. The first step identifies the major institutions for salmon restoration and their scale. Next is an assessment of the power of these salmon institutions, and finally, their associated capital is evaluated. From what is learned in these three steps the scale, power, and capital for salmon institutions as they affect watershed health are ranked according to the ranges described for these variables. The approach illustrated is qualitative, using expert opinion and ordinal scales. The technique is similar to one used in the Northwest Forest Plan [4] and the predecessor report of the ‘‘Gang of Four’’ [12]. A knowledgeable person ranked the institutions mapped according to the expert’s perception of the institution’s spatial and functional scale, authority and power, and political and financial capital. An ordinal ranking system enables use of numerical measures to assess similarities and differences based on these mapping coverages. Data for the rankings come from

362

C.L. Smith / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 357–375

observation of meetings, interview with coastal officials, and synthesis of survey data resulting from working in coastal communities from 1994 to 2001. The base year for the rankings in 2000.

3.1. Identify scale Several institutions involved with salmon restoration affect watershed health. The primary institutions are NMFS, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC), the ODFW, The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, watershed councils, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), along with their local partners, soil and water conservation districts (SWCDs). The first institutional mapping step is to identify the functional and spatial scale of these institutions with respect to salmon. The institution with broadest spatial and functional scale is NMFS. It has responsibility for salmon management in US territorial waters and throughout their range. In addition, NMFS manages fish species under the ESA. Under the ESA, NMFS requires activities that could harm endangered salmon to have incidentaltake permits. In 1976, the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA) gave NMFS a role in fishery management. NMFS oversees the activities of eight regional fishery management councils. NMFS’ involvement in endangered species listings resulted in Snake River spring/summer chinook and Snake River fall chinook being listed as threatened species in 1992. Next in spatial and functional scale is the PFMC. The Exclusive Economic Zone off Washington, Oregon, and California is the PFMC’s spatial concern, but the PFMC has a very narrow functional scale, with its concern only for fisheries for which it has a management plan. The salmon fishery has had a management plan since 1978. PFMC recommends salmon management rules to the secretary of commerce—the cabinet officer who oversees the activities of NMFS. The historical concern of the ODFW has been to maintain salmon stocks for the benefit of Oregon residents and visitors. Salmon production has been a major interest. The ODFW has a long history of developing hatchery technology to increase production of salmon. More recently, ODFW has emphasized protection of wild salmon stocks with less emphasis on hatchery production. The ODFW’s spatial scale is limited to the State of Oregon and its coastal waters. Its functional scale is all fish and wildlife within the State. The Oregon Plan is a State-sponsored effort that seeks to gain voluntary compliance with requirements to remove coastal coho salmon populations from their threatened status. The Oregon Plan mission is, ‘‘To restore our coastal salmon populations and fisheries to productive and sustainable levels that will provide substantial environmental, cultural, and economic benefits’’ [13]. Local watershed councils implement The Oregon Plan. According to The Oregon Plan watershed councils play ‘‘the key role for these partners in conducting basin assessments, understanding limiting factors, and involving landowners. Watershed councils are developing action plans and monitoring programs at the local level.’’

C.L. Smith / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 357–375

363

The spatial scale of coastal watershed councils is smaller than a county, but a watershed council may cross county boundaries. A watershed council is supposed to incorporate all the functional interests that have an impact on salmon and watershed health. In 1995, there were 16 coastal watershed councils formed under The Watershed Health Program (ORS 541); in 1997, there were 24 watershed councils covering most coastal watersheds; by 2000 all 13 coastal watershed regions had one or more watershed councils. Each watershed council works closely with the NRCS and local SWCDs. Both these agencies assist farmers to find the management practices that work best for them and for achieving watershed health objectives. Practices include planting trees along streams, developing off-stream watering, improving farm waste management, and proper application and reduction of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. 3.2. Assess power No one agency has the power to implement salmon and watershed planning. NMFS, using the 4(d) rule [14], has the most statutory authority to force landowners to act on requirements to protect salmon as a threatened species. In reality, NMFS uses this authority sparingly. Because of limited public knowledge and respect for NMFS’ rules, NMFS acknowledges that its success depends on the willingness of people to accomplish prescribed actions. ‘‘These new rules are both fish friendly and people friendly,’’ said William Stelle, Northwest regional administrator of NMFS (NOAA 00-R2124, June 20, 2000). Under federal authority of the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the PFMC has no authority, but it recommends rules to the secretary of commerce. The PFMC has power to the extent that its plans derive from a consensus of people throughout its management region. The ODFW has statutory authority to control fish harvest within state waters. While having power over the harvests of fishermen, the ODFW is relatively powerless to affect the forest practices, agricultural activities, and urban development that continually degrade and reduce salmon habitat. The ODFW is consulted, but has only weak power to regulate land uses that affect salmon and fish habitat. Past fishery management decisions are partly responsible for the salmon problem as shown in a number of studies [13,15–17]. Oregon coho harvest impact rate for recreational and commercial fisheries was estimated at 70% for the 1950s and 1960s and reached as high as 90% in 1976 on hatchery coho stocks. Sustained high harvest rates averaging 80% from 1970 to 1983 lead to severe depletion of wild populations (Fig. 2). Because of low returns, in 1994, the ocean recreational and commercial fishery for wild coho salmon was closed to angling and trolling. For 1994–2000, the harvest rate on coho averaged 12%, most of this was in incidental catch in the commercial fishery for chinook salmon. A limited recreational fishery directed at hatchery coho was restored in 1999. This also causes some wild coho mortality. Chinook salmon with a different life history from coho are in better condition and continue to support commercial and recreational fishing. The chinook salmon life history keeps them in the main stem of rivers, while coho depend more on side

364

C.L. Smith / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 357–375

100 80

Coho Exploitation Rate

Percent

60 40 20 0

1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 Year

Fig. 2. Estimated fishery harvest impact rates for Oregon coastal coho from 1970 to 2001. Source of data is the Pacific Fishery Management Council [42].

channels and small streams that are more significantly affected by activities associated with land development and use. A potentially powerful institution for implementing salmon restoration is The Oregon Plan. An objective of The Oregon Plan is to have ‘‘ya large scale, voluntary public–private partnership designed to help save coastal salmon from extinction’’ (Kitzhaber, March 25, 1997, press release). The Oregon Plan has the objective of marshaling this good will into action. It emphasizes grassroots involvement, voluntary (as opposed to regulatory) approaches, restoration of wild salmon populations and habitats, a role for hatcheries, and a recognition that salmon are part of Oregon’s cultural identity [13]. Watershed councils, the major implementing institution for The Oregon Plan, try to enlist landowners, businesses, agencies, and local governments in restoration activities. Watershed councils work with many different government, nongovernmental, and local interests to implement plans for watersheds. Some, like the Coos and Coquille Watershed Councils, have been quite successful [18]. In situations where local people want to work together, the watershed council can be a powerful force. Huntington and Sommarstrom [19] say, ‘‘ypublic expectations for watershed councils often exceed their inherent capabilities as catalysts of voluntary change.’’ Watershed councils try to work with a broad array landowners, but critical landowners can choose not to participate, thus blocking actions. The NRCS and SWCDs work very closely with watershed councils. The NRCS and SWCDs handle many watershed council administrative requirements and consult on agricultural practices. While watershed health affects salmon, The Oregon Plan is weak in its power to correct water quality problems in agricultural areas having nonpoint sources of pollution. To assist, a companion piece of 1997 legislation, the Healthy Streams Partnership, puts agricultural planning for water quality under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) [20]. The Healthy Streams Partnership requires appointment of a local agricultural advisory group ‘‘yto provide the

C.L. Smith / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 357–375

365

maximum amount of local input to the water quality management area (basin) plan.’’ Under the Partnership, local advisory groups create a plan for the lands between forests in the upper basin and urban lands in the lower basin. Affected landowners, members of public interest groups, local officials, and technical experts make up the advisory committee. The plans identify actions that will prevent listings of streams and promote removal of stream segments in a basin from the water quality limited (303 [d]) list [21]. Among this mix of institutions, NMFS has the greatest authority and potential power. Limited staff, a large area to cover, and being new to landscape regulations for endangered species management mean that NMFS’ power is weak. 3.3. Evaluate capital At the present time, the salmon restoration effort has strong political capital. Surveys of Oregon residents suggest they support salmon restoration [7,8,22–24]. Salmon are regarded as a symbol of the quality of life and environmental quality in the Pacific Northwest [25]. Financial resources needed for salmon restoration are substantial. For example, upgrading and decommissioning forest roads requires an investment of hundreds of millions of dollars. For the 1500 km2 Tillamook State Forest alone, the estimate is that between $32 and $74 million is needed to bring the road network up to modern standards and reduce sediment from erosion [26]. Watershed councils, supported mainly by the OWEB, are beginning to leverage more investment for habitat restoration. For FY1995 and FY1996, Oregon received $7.7 million from the Northwest Emergency Assistance Program. Federal investment promised in Oregon for the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) is $250 million. The allocation was made in 1998, but the funds have been slow getting to projects. The State committed $15 million for 2000. Private industrial forest owners are investing at about the same level as the State. 3.4. Rankings for salmon restoration The institution with the broadest spatial and functional scale and most political authority and power for salmon restoration is NMFS. NMFS through its role in the ESA and in regional fishery management bears primary responsibility for recovery of salmon stocks. The spatial and functional scale of NMFS is complicated by the spatial distribution of interests (Fig. 3). The upper reaches of salmon watersheds are controlled by forest practice rules, either state or federal. The largest forest land owner group in the Oregon coastal zone is private industrial and nonindustrial forest producers. Private forest owners are subject to the rules of the Oregon Board of Forestry, which has to have its rules approved by NMFS. A major issue is the width of riparian buffers. Further, ODF and NMFS have limited staff to monitor the actions taking place on private lands. Below the public and private forest lands are agricultural lands (Fig. 3). The Healthy Streams Partnership was created by the Oregon Legislature and allows

366

C.L. Smith / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 357–375

Fig. 3. Schematic of coastal watershed with the top of the coast range at the right and the ocean at the left. The upper reaches of watersheds are to the right and the downstream reaches to the left. The dark area at the right represents public forest management by either federal or state government. The lighter area to the left of the dark area is private forest lands. The dark area near the bay is urban development. Between the urban development and the private forests is agriculture. Table 1 Summary results of rankings for spatial and functional scale, authority and control measures of power, and the political and financial capital variables on the salmon restoration Issue (Law & Primary Institution) Scale Spatial Salmon (ESA & NMFS) Power Functional Authority Control Capital Political Financial

Narrow (1) Narrow (1) Weak (1)

Weak (1) Fair (2) Fair (2)

ODA to deal with salmon and water quality on agricultural lands. Plans are being prepared region-by-region. Priority is given to those watersheds with the poorest water quality. Urban land use is under the spatial control of city and county land-use planning. Watershed councils have spatial interest over their entire watershed, but they have no legal authority. As advisory bodies, watershed councils have limited power. Major land users can chose not to participate. Some forest landowners participate with watershed councils, as do farmers, but both forest and farm interests can go to the state agencies who have authority over forest and farm lands if they do not like the actions of watershed councils. The spatial and functional scale of salmon restoration institutions is narrow because these institutions only control direct impacts on salmon. Authority and power, too, are weak (Table 1). While NMFS has authority through the 4(d) rule to regulate takings, it has little control of all the indirect activities that affect the overall health of watersheds for salmon.

C.L. Smith / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 357–375

367

Political capital for salmon restoration is fair. Surveys show the public supports protection of salmon, although the strength of this support has dropped. Respondents who felt it was ‘‘very important’’ to improve salmon runs have declined consistently since 1996—down from 64% in 1996 to 52% in 2000 [9]. Still, 87% say improving salmon runs is ‘‘somewhat’’ or ‘‘very’’ important. The financial capital picture is improving, but one of the largest sources of investment for riparian habitat improvement, CREP, has been viewed very skeptically by potential recipients. Some evidence suggests that landowners with very strong property rights views will not use these funds [27]. Many recipients fear CREP is a way for the government to take their land. Some landowners see the ODFW closure of hatcheries as a government conspiracy to take their land by further reducing salmon stocks, which will lead to more stringent ESA restrictions on private land [28]. Landowners are very protective of their personal capital and the investment that they have in their land. Nevertheless, the capital picture is improving. The states and federal government are investing to purchase landowner treatments required to restore salmon. Kenney et al. [29] say, ‘‘In comparison with the other parts of the West, not only is the sheer number of groups active in the Pacific Northwest much larger, but the level of funding and administration is generally much greater as well.’’ Overall, the political and financial capital in 2000 was fair relative to the need (Table 1).

4. Water quality, forest, and land-use institutions Salmon restoration does not work independently of other institutions associated with water quality, forests, land-use planning, natural hazards, public health, and food safety. For comparison with the previous section on the institutions for salmon recovery, which have authority under the ESA and are managed by NMFS, this section looks at institutions associated with improvement of water quality, sustainable forest management, and effective land-use planning. Each of these institutions bear on issues of watershed health. Under the CWA, many coastal streams are listed for high temperature and excessive bacteria, both of which adversely affect salmon [30]. High temperatures reduce salmon spawning success, retard growth, increase the incidence of disease, and can be lethal [16]. Forest habitat requirements of listed species such as the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet show a connection between their habit requirements and those for fish and other species [4]. Finally, all these issues are related to city and county land-use planning. Expanding land-use development takes areas needed by salmon for spawning, rearing, and escaping from predators, and development affects runoff into streams and reduces water quality. The following evaluations are summaries of more detailed institutional mapping dealing with improvement of water quality, sustainable forest management, and effective land-use planning [31]. Each summary identifies scale, assesses power, and evaluates capital ranks for the laws and managing institutions associated with water

368

C.L. Smith / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 357–375

Table 2 Summary results of rankings for the scale, power, and capital variables on the salmon restoration, water quality, forestry, and land use planning issues reviewed Issue (Law & Primary Institution) Salmon (ESA & NMFS) Water quality (CWA & EPA) Forestry (OFPA & ODF) Land use (LCDC & County Planning) Scale Narrow (1) Broad (3) Narrow (1) Medium (2) Power Weak (1) Moderate (2) Moderate (2) Moderate (2) Capital Fair (2) Fair (2) Fair (2) Minimal (1) Average Low+ Moderate+ Low moderate Low moderate

quality, forests, and land-use planning. Table 2 compares the results with the same measures for salmon institutions.

4.1. Water quality The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the key regulatory agency and is a major source of funding for research, planning, and monitoring related to water quality. At the state level, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is the primary agency that carries out national and state priorities for water quality. Both the EPA and the DEQ work under the framework of the CWA, which provides the authority for regulations and enforcement. The water quality parameters of interest are aquatic weeds or algae, bacteria, biological condition, chlorophyll a, dissolved oxygen, habitat modification, flow modification, nutrients, pH, sedimentation, temperature, total dissolved gas, toxics, and turbidity [32]. Temperature, biological condition, habitat, flow modification, and sedimentation are water quality parameters of most concern in the coastal area. Temperature is the most common limiting factor in coastal watersheds. The temperature norm is 181C or less where salmon are present. Legal challenges to states and the EPA have forced states to report and correct water quality limited streams more rigorously. Several suits nationwide found the EPA was not exercising its authority under the CWA to find and fix water quality problems [33–35]. Court action required the EPA to improve water quality monitoring and to seek improved water quality conditions. Three other acts create additional institutions with water quality interests. One, the Healthy Streams Partnership, seeks to correct nonpoint pollution resulting from agriculture. The Healthy Streams Partnership was a Legislative compromise with the agricultural industry to have the ODA, which advocates argued better understood the unique situations of agriculture, handle their water quality issues. The ODA must meet the requirements of EPA and DEQ under the CWA. Second is the Coastal Zone Management Act, Section 6217. It requires states to establish coastal water quality standards. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is responsible for coastal zone activities. The State of Oregon Coastal and Ocean Management Program in the Department of Land Conservation and Development manages these concerns for NOAA. So far, the

C.L. Smith / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 357–375

369

CWA has had more impact on coastal water quality than Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. The third federal law that affects water quality planning is the US Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) shellfish water quality standard. The USDA’s limit on fecal coliform is very strict and enforced by the ODA. This affects the Coos, Tillamook, and Yaquina estuaries more than other estuaries because of the oysters grown in each bay. Bacterial contamination closes Tillamook Bay an average 100 days/yr [36]. Institutional mapping for water quality raises the question of which federal law, the ESA or the CWA, is the most effective tool for watershed health. The breadth and specificity of water quality standards under the CWA appears to be a stronger authority for action than the ESA. The CWA has broad spatial and functional scale because it applies to all streams. Water quality is supposed to be monitored in all water bodies of the state for the beneficial uses appropriate to that stream, lake, or coastal water. The DEQ is the state agency with the authority to manage water quality under the CWA. The DEQ’s spatial scale covers the water quality and habitat factors in watersheds affected by urban and industrial development, suburban growth, forest practices, agricultural land use, and a broad range of human activities. Thus, the spatial and functional scale is broad. Authority over water quality and control of peoples’ actions requires scientific research, setting of standards, monitoring, and enforcement. Budgetary constraints limit these activities, which gives only moderate power. Critical to correcting water quality problems to improve watersheds is political and financial capital. Due to public support for water quality, the political capital is high. So far, the strong public support has not translated into the financial resources to correct many of the problems. Overall, political and financial capital is judged to be fair. Water quality has an average score for the three variables of moderate+ (Table 2). 4.2. Forestry The forestry issues related to watersheds are the width and condition of riparian corridors, quantity of large wood in streams, condition of roads, blockages to fish passage, and sediment from harvest practices. The Northwest Forest Plan found that the habitats good for spotted owls and other late-successional forest species were also good for watershed health. Forestry is a mix of four primary land managers. Two are government institutions—federal and state forest agencies, which manage large tracts in the upper reaches of coastal watersheds. Forested lands make up 93% of coastal watersheds. Of the 93%, federal (27%) and state (12%) forest managers control less than half the land [37]. Private industrial and nonindustrial forest owners manage 61% of the coastal area. Private industrial foresters manage a mosaic of ownerships, which are quite dispersed. The main goal of industrial forestry is timber production. The fourth land manager, nonindustrial private forest managers, are small corporations and families. Because of narrow interests, along with incomplete and

370

C.L. Smith / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 357–375

fragmented coverage, public and private forest institutions are narrow in spatial and functional scale. Federal and state forest management plans are designed to avoid endangered species listings and to recover those species that have been listed. Since habitat quality is very important for the restoration of endangered species and for preventing the listing of others, federal and state forest plans pay significant attention to habitat and water quality issues. Federal and State forest managers have the greatest power to influence watershed health. The Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) controls actions in state forests and oversees the activities of private industrial and nonindustrial forest owners. The Oregon Forest Practices Act (OFPA) rules have been revised to give more protection to wildlife and to improve watershed health. While environmental groups monitoring the ODF policies accuse it of catering to the narrow interests of private industrial forest owners, the forest industry has made many improvements. Major industrial forestry corporations in 2000 sought sustainable harvest certifications. Thus, forest institutions have moderate power relative to watershed health. Strong public support for forest protection is driving the industry’s certification requests. Federal forests are receiving much greater protection that improves watershed health, but the financial capital is weak. State and private forests have, through most of the 1990s, had very robust log and lumber prices that allowed investment in future forest productivity and to make riparian, road, and harvest improvements. Private industrial forests, however, are managed more for timber production. Environmental groups voice concern that high prices create the incentive for private forest operators to reduce their natural capital at a rate greater than new investments to maintain or increase it. With relatively good amounts of capital available to private industrial forests, limited capital for public forests, and strong public support for forest health, capital has a fair rank. Balancing public and private, federal and state, and industrial and nonindustrial interests, the overall measure for forest management’s ability to protect, rehabilitate, and restore watershed health is low moderate (Table 2). 4.3. Land-use planning The primary institutions for land-use planning are city and county governments and the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). State land-use planning laws are the major authority for action. City and county land-use plans are reviewed by LCDC for compliance with 19 statewide planning goals [38]. The goals include meeting water and air quality standards, maintaining farm and forest lands, and protecting natural, estuarine, and coastal resources. Land-use planning has had a weak association with watershed health, but this is changing due to The Oregon Plan, endangered species listings, and water quality concerns. On occasion water quality problems have the power to stop land-use development. The primary objective of city and county land-use plans has been to facilitate economic development while protecting the environment. Monitoring of land-use planning most often comes from local citizens when they challenge local

C.L. Smith / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 357–375

371

actions. If not worked out at the local level, an appeals process enables citizens to take their complaint to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Citizen appeals take considerable effort. Negotiation with complainants may resolve the problem. If, however, strong community sentiment goes against a land-use activity, the activity is less likely to receive local government support. City and county land-use plans are spatially limited to the geography of their jurisdiction. Within that jurisdiction the functional scale is broad. Until the growth of endangered species listings and water quality concerns, city and county land-use planning has not paid attention to watershed health. Further, county boundaries crosscut watersheds, and county plans do not apply to federal lands. The spatial and functional scale is medium. Once developed, land-use regulations have considerable power of enforcement. Since watershed health has not been included, and the focus of land-use planning has been more on economic growth, power is moderate. Most coastal communities see their environmental quality as a local asset, but coastal cities and counties have limited budgets and their ability to invest in improved land uses is limited, thus financial capital is minimal. Overall, land-use planning averages low moderate on scale, power, and capital (Table 2).

5. Conclusion Table 2 averages the scale, power, and capital assessments for the institutions associated with salmon restoration, water quality, forest management, and land-use planning. The focus was on how effective institutions are for improving watershed health. The average score predicts the likelihood of the institution improving watershed health. The estimates are qualitative rankings, but they suggest that water quality institutions have slightly greater effectiveness. Comparison of the institutions associated with four environmental issues illustrates the process of institutional mapping. For this example, institutional mapping was of the scale, power, and capital for social institutions that can influence watershed health for salmon. Since social variables do not always map well onto a base map, institutional mapping looks at the social space. In this example spatial and functional scale, authority and power, and political and financial capital were the social dimensions observed. The overall goal is to map the effectiveness of the institutions associated with salmon restoration, improved water quality, forest management, and land-use planning in protecting, rehabilitating, and restoring watershed health. In no case is the predicted effectiveness high. The future is uncertain. One of the hopeful signs for watershed health is that the institutions in each of the areas—salmon, water quality, forestry, and land-use planning—are merging toward a more holistic strategy. Tillamook County is an example of this strategy. More than any other Oregon coastal county, Tillamook is trying to combine resources and plans into one comprehensive organization with the scale, power, and capital to improve watershed health. The Tillamook Bay National Estuary Project, funded by

372

C.L. Smith / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 357–375

the EPA, developed a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) that covers key habitats, flooding, water quality, and sedimentation [26]. To implement the CCMP, Tillamook County Commissioners created the Tillamook County Performance Partnership (TCPP) in 1998 to be a broadly based institution. In addition to implementing the CCMP, the TCPP coordinates actions with The Oregon Plan, initiates programs to remove water quality limited streams from the 303(d) list, assists in achieving the requirements of the Healthy Streams Partnership, cooperates with the ODF Western Oregon State Forests Habitat Conservation Plan and the Northwest Forest Plan, coordinates with the Tillamook County Comprehensive Plan, and participates with the Tillamook County Hazard Mitigation Plan. The TCPP has a 60 member, Stewardship Council. Membership includes all the major local, state, and federal agencies, many community interest groups, and citizen participants. The TCPP is an integrative institution that has the flexibility to set priorities and be judged on the results in achieving improvements [39]. Imperial and Summers [40] say, ‘‘But perhaps the TBNEP’s greatest accomplishment to date is the development of the collaborative organization, the TCPP used to implement the CCMP.’’ They go on to say, ‘‘While the development of the TCPP is a major accomplishment, a number of potential issues surround its design and structure.’’ Thus, the TCPP has the spatial and functional scale to be successful. The TCPP is building a number of outreach activities to increase rapport with local citizens. Further, the TCPP is beginning to get the grants and other investments necessary to address watershed restoration problems. Thus, while broad in functional scale, the TCPP is in the initial stages of development, which give it weak power and minimal capital relative to the size of the watershed health actions developed in the CCMP. Also, at the regional level a more holistic approach is occurring as water quality criteria are being used to improve watershed health and protect salmon. Forest practices increasingly have to take salmon and water quality into account. County land-use planning is coming to incorporate watershed health concerns. As salmon restoration, water quality, forest management, and land-use planning develop a similar focus toward watershed health, this broadens the spatial and functional scale. Authority and the power to act come together to press for action. The convergence on watershed health helps bring the financial resources from many programs. People want water quality, and this is an important element of political capital to protect, rehabilitate, and restore watersheds. A convergence around the watershed as a unit for ecological health means that no one set of rules—endangered species, clean water, sustainable forest management, or land-use planning have to carry the environmental protection burden. When viewed separately, water quality institutions slightly exceed other related institutions such as those for salmon restoration, forest management, and land-use planning. Water quality institutions have an edge based on three factors. One is the use of water quality standards require actions like restoring vegetation to the riparian areas, making roads and highways less intrusive, and improving upland land use to reduce sedimentation. Second, the CWA gives citizens the power to force actions to improve water quality. Clear standards and monitoring of outcomes leads

C.L. Smith / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 357–375

373

to improvements. Third is political capital coming from citizen support for protection of water quality. More importantly, however, the convergence of actions around the watershed is bringing many institutions and programs to bear on watershed health. More and more of the institutional maps overlap one another. As this overlap increases, the scale, power, and capital bear more completely on issues of watershed health.

Acknowledgements This research is funded by Coastal Ocean Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to the University of Washington and by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/National Science Foundation (NSF) Partnership for Environmental Research Water and Watersheds, grant number R-825751-01. This paper is based on a manuscript submitted to the Pacific Northwest Coastal Ecosystems Regional Study, May 1999. Presentations were given at the Northwest Anthropological Conference and the Society for Applied Anthropology meetings, in April 1999. I appreciate the helpful comments of Bob Bailey, Daniel Huppert, Claire Younger, and Susan Sweetwater.

References
[1] Imperial MT, Robadue D, Hennessey T. An evolutionary perspective on the development and assessment of the National Estuary Program. Ocean & Coastal Management 1996;20:311–41. [2] Harvey N, Clarke GD, Carvalho P. The role of the Australian Coastcare program in communitybased coastal management: a case study from South Australia. Ocean & Coastal Management 2001;44:161–81. [3] Cicin-Sain B, Knecht RW. Integrated coastal zone and ocean management: concepts and practices. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1998. [4] Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic and social assessment. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service; USDC National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service; USDI. Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service; Environmental Protection Agency, 1993. [5] Jentoft S. Co-managing the coastal zone: is the task too complex? Ocean & Coastal Management 2000;43:527–35. [6] Loomis JB, White DS. Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and metaanalysis. Ecological Economics 1996;18(3):197–206. [7] Pacific Northwest Coastal Ecosystem Regional Study. Coastal resident survey, basic summary of responses: Tillamook Bay, Tillamook County, Oregon. Seattle, WA: http://www.pncers.org/pdfs/ residentsurveytillamook.pdf, June 18, 2001. [8] Smith CL, Gilden JD, Cone JS, Steel BS. Contrasting views of coastal residents and coastal coho restoration planners. Fisheries 1997;22(12):8–15. [9] Vaidya KL. 2000. Oregon population survey: summary of findings. Salem, OR: Office of Economic Analysis, Department of Administrative Services. http://www.econ.state.or.us/opb/, June 18, 2001. [10] Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife opinion survey. Olympia, WA, 1997. [11] Whitelaw WE. The Columbia river and the economy of the Pacific Northwest. Portland, OR: Lewis & Clark Law School Water Law Project and the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, 1995.

374

C.L. Smith / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 357–375

[12] Johnson KN, Franklin J, Thomas JW, Gordon J. Scientific panel on late-successional forest ecosystems. Alternative for management of late-successional forests of the Pacific Northwest. Washington, DC: a Report to the Agricultural Committee and the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee of the US House of Representatives, 1991. [13] Governor’s Natural Resource Office. The Governor’s coastal salmon restoration initiative. Salem, OR: The Governor’s Natural Resource Office, 255 Capitol Street, NE; http://www.oregon-plan.org/, June 18, 2001. [14] National Marine Fisheries Service. Final 4(d) rules for Pacific salmon. Seattle, WA: http:// www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmesa/final4d.htm, May 5, 2001. [15] Botkin D, Cummins K, Dunne T, Regier H, Sobel M, Talbot L, Simpson L. Status and future of salmon of Western Oregon and Northern California: findings and options, Report 8. Santa Barbara, CA: The Center for the Study of the Environment, 1995. [16] National Research Council. Upstream: salmon and society in the Pacific Northwest. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1996. [17] Stouder D, Bisson PA, Naiman RJ. Pacific salmon and their ecosystems: status and future options. New York, NY: Chapman & Hall, 1995. [18] Hudson WF, Heikkila PA. Integrating public and private restoration strategies: Coquille river of Oregon. In: Williams JE, Wood CA, Dombeck MP, editors. Watershed restoration: principles and practices. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society, 1997. p. 233–50. [19] Huntington CW, Sommarstrom S. An evaluation of selected watershed councils in the Pacific Northwest and Northern California. Eugene, OR: Pacific Rivers Council, 1999. [20] Kitzhaber JA. Healthy streams partnership: principles and agreement. Salem, OR: Governor’s Office, http://www.governor.state.or.us/governor/press/p961118x.htm, August 17, 2002. [21] Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Summary: facts sheets and information on the 1998 lists of water quality limited waterbodies. Portland, OR, 1998. [22] Oregon Progress Board. The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds: summary progress report. Salem, OR: http://www.oregon-plan.org/progress/, June 18, 2001. [23] Smith CL, Steel BS. Values in valuing salmon. In: Stouder DJ, Bisson PA, Naiman RJ, editors. Pacific salmon and their ecosystems: status and future options. New York, NY: Chapman & Hall, 1997. p. 599–616. [24] Sustainable Portland Commission. Workshop on household attitudes and behavior. Portland, OR, 1999. [25] Smith CL. Salmon symbolism. http://www.orst.edu/instruct/anth481/sal/salsym.html, November 30, 2001. [26] Tillamook Bay National Estuary Project. Comprehensive conservation and management plan. Garibaldi, OR, 1999. [27] Habron G. Community-based adaptive watershed management. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 1999. [28] Oregonian, November 10, 1999. p. D5. [29] Kenney DS, McAllister ST, Caile WH, Peckham JS. The new watershed source book: a directory and review of watershed initiatives in the western United States. Boulder, CO: Natural Resources Law Center University of Colorado, 2000. [30] Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Oregon’s 2000 water quality status assessment report: Section 305 (b) Report. Portland, OR, 2000. http://waterquality.deq.state.or.us/wq/305bRpt/ 305bReport00a.pdf, June 12, 2001. [31] Smith CL. Stuck on planning: institutional mapping of activities to restore Oregon coastal ecosystems. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Department of Anthropology Working Paper 99-1, 1999. [32] Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Oregon TMDLs approved by USEPA as of August 2001. http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/TMDLs/ApprovedTMDLs.htm, November 19, 2001. [33] Houck OA. TMDLs: the resurrection of water quality standards-based regulation under the Clean Water Act. ELR 1997;27:10329–44.

C.L. Smith / Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002) 357–375

375

[34] Houck OA. Are we there yet?: The long road toward water quality-based regulation under the Clean Water Act. ELR 1997;27:10391–401. [35] Houck OA. TMDLs III: a new framework for the Clean Water Act’s ambient standards program. ELR 1998;28:10415–43. [36] Tillamook Bay National Estuary Project. Tillamook Bay environmental characterization: a scientific and technical summary. Garibaldi, OR, 1998. [37] Risser PG. Oregon state of the environment report 2000: statewide summary. Salem, OR: Oregon Progress Board, 2000. [38] Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission. http://www.lcd.state.or.us/goalhtml/ goals.html, November 19, 2001. [39] Tillamook County Commissioners. Tillamook County Performance Partnership. Tillamook, OR: http://www.co.tillamook.or.us/service/commissioners/Partners/Performance.html, June 12, 2001. [40] Imperial MT, Summers K. The Tillamook Bay National Estuary Program: using a performance partnership to implement a CCMP. Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration, 2000. [41] Smith CL, Steel BS, List PC, Cordray S. Making forest policy: integrating GIS. Journal of Forestry 1995;93(5):31–6. [42] Pacific Fishery Management Council, Salmon Technical Team and Staff Economist. Review of 2001 ocean salmon fisheries. Portland, OR: Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2002.