[env-trinity] Bush Adminstration Abandons Salmon Protection

[Daniel Bacher]

NOAA Fisheries Abandons Salmon Restoration

by Dan Bacher

At a meeting in Sacramento this fall, Zeke Grader, executive director of the 
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, jokingly renamed NOAA 
Fisheries as “No Fisheries” to describe the damage done to this federal 
agency by the Bush administration.

NOAA Fisheries, a federal agency supposedly “dedicated to providing and 
preserving the nation’s living marine resources and their habitat,” 
definitely lived up to its new nickname on December 1 when it released a 
proposal that would slash habitat protection for endangered and threatened 
salmon stocks in California and the Northwest.

The proposals could reduce up to 90 percent of “critical habitat” set aside 
for the fish in California and as much as 80 percent of the habitat in the 
Pacific Northwest, according to Jim Lecky, the assistant regional manager 
for the Southwest Region of the agency.

“This proposal seeks to protect critical salmon habitats and meet the 
economic needs of the citizens of the Pacifica Northwest and California,” 
said Bill Hogarth, NOAA Fisheries administrator, in spite of the fact that 
the proposal actually reduces, rather than maintaining or expanding 
“critical habitat.”

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires the federal government to 
designate “critical habitat” for any species listed under the federal 
Endangered Species Act. NOAA defines “critical habitat” as “specific areas 
on which are found physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species, and which may require special management 
considerations of protection.”

Fishery and environmental groups fear that increasing reliance on the 
perceived “economic needs” of landowners in making fish habitat decisions 
will result in increased siltation of spawning beds through logging, the 
de-watering of streams through agricultural diversions and the encroachment 
of urban development on pristine watershed. This reduction of “critical 
habitat” will put already precarious salmon and steelhead runs at the edge 
of extinction.

The agency contends that federal restoration efforts have already resulted 
in substantial improvements in salmon runs – and the costs of restoration to 
landowners must be considered in setting aside habitat for salmon.

“This proposal emphasized salmon restoration as a top priority and 
recognized the many voluntary conservation efforts and collaborative 
agreements that are already underway to achieve that goal,” said Bob Long. 
NOAA Fisheries’ northwest regional administrator. “The designations are 
designed to identify the most beneficial biological habitat for salmon, 
while also defining the scope of the costs associated with designating 
certain areas.”

Since 2000, three of four listed Northern and Central California salmon runs 
and 13 of 16 listed Pacific Northwest salmon populations have experienced 
“significant improved numbers. Nearly all salmon populations have increased 
greatly and current levels are now well above ten-year averages,” the agency 
claimed.

However, Glen Spain, Northwest Regional Director of the Pacific Coast 
Federation of Fishermen’s Associations said the proposal would only protect 
stretches of streams already occupied by fish, totally disregarding the 
thousands and thousands of miles of streams where salmon and steelhead have 
been exterminated because of dams, water diversions and habitat degradation.

“NOAA is eliminating plans to recolonize stretches of river where the fish 
have been eliminated because of habitat destruction,” said Spain. “They are 
ignoring the need to protect habitat that was historically occupied by the 
fish – and where the fish could be living again if they were restored.”

Historical habitat where salmonhave been extirpated is most dramatically 
demonstrated in California in the case of the San Joaquin River below Friant 
Dam, where a huge spring run of salmon was completely exterminated to 
provide water for corporate agribusiness.

Also, the Bush administration’s “economic analysis” ignores all of the 
benefits to the sportfishing and commercial fishing industries, only 
considering the benefits to agribusiness, the timber industry and land 
developers. “They use over-inflated costs of protection in their analysis, 
but won’t consider the economic benefits of restoration,” said Spain. “This 
administration has a long history of ignoring the benefits and emphasizing 
the costs of restoration through a biased economic analysis.”

He cited the case of the bull trout where administration political 
appointees  ordered the scientists studying critical habitat to eliminate 
all discussion of the benefits of restoration.

The current proposal is the culmination of a long history of legal battles 
between fish advocates, the “wise use” movement and the federal government. 
In April 2002, NOAA Fisheries withdrew the 2000 critical habitat 
designations, in response to a legal challenge by the National Association 
of Homebuilders, after a federal court ruled that the agency did not 
adequately consider the economic impacts of the critical habitat 
designations.

The PCFFA and other plaintiffs, in turn, filed another lawsuit, arguing that 
the agency had failed to designate in a timely manner critical habitat for 
the 19 Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) for which critical habitat 
had been vacated. The parties entered a settlement where NOAA Fisheries 
ultimately agreed to file the critical habitat designations for the 19 ESU’s 
covered by the vacated rule, plus Northern California steelhead, by November 
30.

Spain noted that the new NOAA proposal is contrary to the stated fishery 
restoration policies of the four Pacific states - to recover salmon and 
steelhead populations as fast as possible to harvestable levels.

“They are trying to do as little as possible as long as possible until the 
problem goes away,” said Spain. “Yes, the problem will go away - when the 
fish become extinct!”

Public hearings on the proposals will be held in January 2005 in various 
locations in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and California to receive comments 
and feedback on the proposal. I encourage everybody concerned about salmon 
and steelhead recovery to attend these hearings and send their comments.

Details of the public hearings will soon be posted on the NOAA Fisheries 
website: www.nwr.noaal.gove/1salmon/salmsa/rithab/Chsite.htm. Following the 
public comment period and hearings, the final rules are slated to be 
completed by June 2005.

On the same day that the administration reduced critical habitat for salmon, 
NOAA Fisheries ruled out the possibility of removing dams on the Columbia 
and Snake rivers to protect 11 endangered runs of salmon and steelhead.

Other recent decisions that favored landowners and water barons over fish 
include the agency’s “no jeopardy” biological opinion regarding endangered 
Central Valley fish, designed to pave the way for more Delta exports, and 
the agency’s inclusion of both hatchery and wild salmon under ESA-protected 
populations of salmon.

There is no doubt that NOAA Fisheries has become the “No Fisheries” agency, 
where the only “science” practiced is political!