76 Congressmen Try to Teach Dubya How to Count

[JoseCuervo]

Another update on the efforts to stop Dubya's goal of extincting all Wild Salmon in Idaho...

76 House Representatives Call for NOAA Fisheries to Abandon Hatchery Policy

From Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition
Friday, May 21, 2004

Washington, DC - Today more than 70 Representatives from both sides of the aisle joined Representative Mike Thompson (D-CA) called on NOAA Fisheries to abandon their current proposed policy to include hatchery fish when deciding federal protections for wild salmon - a move that could remove some species from the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Representatives charge that such a policy change is without scientific support and should not be made before a formal public review could take place.

"Representative Thompson and his colleagues have shown real leadership to ensure that our salmon and the communities that depend upon them are not harmed by potentially misguided political maneuvering," said Liz Hamilton, executive director NW Sportfishing Industry Association. "When you protect our salmon, you protect our salmon-dependent jobs here in the Pacific Northwest, a region that cannot afford to lose any more jobs."

In the letter to Vice Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher, Jr., the undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, Representatives cite NOAA Fisheries' own scientists' conclusions that "counting hatchery fish is no way to judge the health of wild salmon runs." In addition, numerous independent scientists have agreed that this policy change could prove devastating to wild salmon populations and their hopes of long-term recovery.

"The Endangered Species Act was intended to protect and restore species in the wild, not in concrete tanks," said Glen Spain, NW regional director Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA), a fishing industry trade association. "A policy that lumps hatchery fish and wild fish together under the ESA would give habitat destroyers a free pass, so long as more fish can be artificially produced. Calling that any kind of progress toward 'recovery' flies in the face of 100 years of conservation biology as well as common sense."

Salmon in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and California were once the cornerstone of this region's resource-related jobs, economy and culture. However in recent years, the commercial and sportfishing industries have endured the loss of more than 35,000 jobs while watching salmon numbers dwindle to less than ten percent of their historical numbers. In addition, both industries have seen more and more restrictions placed on fishing seasons and catch limits in order to make up for the pressures put on the already overstressed river system.

"The scientific community is telling us that a policy combining hatchery fish and wild fish would jeopardize the work that we've been doing to ensure that wild salmon make a long-term recovery," said Jeff Curtis, Western conservation director Trout Unlimited. "Salmon cannot afford any more agency blunders. We must finally do what is right for wild salmon and leave the politics at the door."

 

[pawclaws]

"We must finally do what is right for wild salmon and leave the politics at the door." Use your imagination! This is probably the second or third dumbest statement I ever heard come out of a politician's mouth.

Anybody know where I can get some rubber fish hooks?? ;P

 

[JoseCuervo]

This ought to be great....

Hey Paws,

Can you please explain why we should manage our Wild Salmon stocks via politics instead of science????

We will all wait for this genius reply....

 

[BuzzH]

Gunner,

With his 3000 wpm reading and 95% comprehension, you would think he could come up with a decent reply...unless of course he's just plumb full of crap.

 

[JoseCuervo]

My guess is he is just "plumb full of crap", but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt as he tries to explain how politics should be used to managed Salmon, instead of science.

 

[pawclaws]

Why manage them at all? I think in any case there bubba that they are a Natural Resource of the state rather than the Nation. Not the Federals business to be concerned about state resources. Feds need to butt out entirely in that jurisdiction. Pay attention and you will soon discover that all resource management is done by politics anyway; so don't go blaming Bush for doing the job he was elected to do. Buzz; don't lbite the hand that feeds! Might show up on your next performance appraisal!!

 

[BuzzH]

Paws, I'm not in the least bit concerned with my performance appraisal, you shouldnt be either.

In case you forgot, the ESA is not a state program. Its a federal program.

Also, anadromous fish are managed by the NATIONAL Marine Fisheries Service, not the states, just like waterfowl.

So, between the dams, managed by the BPA, the anadromous fish managed by the NMFS, and the fact that many wild runs of fish now fall under the ESA...the feds have most of the control.

Believe me, if anadromous fish were solely the responsibility of the states, there would have never been dams, hatcheries, or a single run listed under the ESA.

The federal involvement is the problem, I agree with that, but they're the responsible entity.

 

[pawclaws]

Buzz; how it is doesn't make it how it should be! In MHO, state resources should be managed by state funds; not federal. I really don't care what pork barrel programs were sold to congress by any gilb tongued representative or lobby. Doesn't change my perspective nor what is or isn't right or wrong. Make you a deal there Buzz; I won't worry about your performance appraisal if you won't worry about my physical traits, characteristics, medical condition, age, or any other little thing I might perceive to be personal territory which is absolutely none of your impudent business! Deal??

 

[BuzzH]

Paws, reality is what we have to deal with, not your HO on how anadromous fish are managed.

The states were promised things by the feds that they've never delivered in regard to anadromous fish.

The feds never have even come close to giving management to the the states, never. They've kept control because the fish, like waterfowl, migrate through many states and live a good portion of their lives in the ocean.

It kind of makes sense, as it would be impossible for a single state to have much, if any control, over their management. They almost HAVE to be controlled by a central agency.

 

[pawclaws]

I agree completely and that is exactly what the federal government is supposed to be doing for us Buzz; that is, filling in the gap where states can not conveniently or easily care for issues. I think it should be the priority of the elected state officials to raise the issue collectively to the federal governing bodies. The system will work, and so will the people elected into it, if we the citizens make it work. Whining about it, belitteling the officials, and the kinds of crap I see here isn't going to solve anything. Spreading rumors and highly inflamatory propoganda doesn't do anything except cause the officials to gird up their loins. In the long run it really makes our delegate bodies look plumb foolish.

 

[BuzzH]

Paws, theres one problem though, one big problem, you're leaving out.

The states where anadromous fish are a concern, have very little "pull" on a national level. It does MT, WY, ID, OR, WA, etc. very little good to seek relief from their elected state representatives. Further, when you have a majority of the representatives in line with the likes of Larry Craig, Helen Chenoweth, Gov. Dirk Kempthorne, and other Republicans, you're dead in the water on fish recovery and proper management.

When the science identifies the very obvious problems with anadromous fish, and the Bush administration fails to act on that science, its a done deal.

The problem is not knowing knowing how to fix it...the problem is finding a candidate in the whitehouse that has the courage, foresight, and ability to do the right thing. We havent found one yet, and likely wont.

So, sadly, anadromous fish are about guaranteed to become the next California Condor.

 

[Washington Hunter]

Paws, I just have to wonder...do you know ANYTHING about salmon and why wild runs are going extinct? Being from Ohio, and from what you have said here, I'm guessing you don't know much, and if you do, it sounds as if you just don't care. Maybe you should do a little reading on the subject. When you're done please let us know if you still feel it is acceptable to count hatchery produced salmon as if they were the same as wild salmon. It is so obvioulsy wrong, I am curious how anybody could come up with a logical reason why that practice would be ok.

 

[pawclaws]

Very little WH! My expertise is systems, organizational structures, how they work , etc. I'm afraid that I am among the masses who don't find salmon to be a "hot" issue. Maybe that is the entire problem Buzz. I mean if you list every possible issue that the white house must deal with in priority order; where do you think salmon might end up? I'd venture to bet that the "problem" priority probably increases the closer to the salmon habitat one moves. In any case I'd bet that a group of folk who could put their heads together from the affected area who "do" know the problem would come much closer to solving it than current attempts are. Problem solving is one thing that I am very good at. I am willing to offer my facilitation skills and services in approaching this issue if you are willing to work with a group of concerned folk who might be able to share knowledge about the problem and are willing to work out a solution. Gratis; including two round rips out your way to develop the approach, facilitate the problem solving group and structure a formal reporting document.

 

[BuzzH]

Paws,

Thats a very sincere offer, really it is, no wise guy comment.

I just honestly dont see how it could help, I really dont. Theres all sorts of groups that are doing exactly what you're proposing. You just flat hit a brick wall when you get involved with the Federal agencies, its sad really. The federal agencies variou staff know what the problems are and what the correct approach is. They just cant act on it for fear of their jobs, the dirty part of politics.

The anadromous fish issue has been a hot topic for a long time, and I believe the fed. Government thinks so too. They've spent a ton of money on them, more than any other threatened species. Obviously it isnt currently the priority of the Bush Administration...and maybe rightfully so.

The thing that really frustrates me, as well as many other people is that the Administration is showing a disregard for the salmon/steelhead, the people of the NW, the ESA, and being very fiscally irresponsible. On top of that they thought it was a big enough issue to spend a ton of money consulting the best of the best in fisheries experts from 20-30 agencies to compile a list of problems and solutions. Currently, the administration has not acted on the advice of the best science and scientists in the business.

You, me, and every other tax payer is being bilked big time, for no improvement in runs or the economy the runs will surely bring to the NW.

But, if you really honestly think you have an angle that would work...I'm all ears.

By the way, this kind of discussion is great.

 

[pawclaws]

Well Buzz I always like to start with a two fold supposition; (1) "If we keep on doing things the same way, we get the same results" and (2)"Everyone really does want to do the right thing!" I believe that what I have in mind could make a real difference on how the problem is approched, identified, and solved. This is a no BS offer. I normally charge a flat fee of $3,000.00 per week plus first class expenses for this type of a venture. If you are game to give it a go let me know and I'll give you a run down of what I'm thinking. It will take a good deal of organization effort on someone's part near your area and a lot of cooperative volunteers willing to invest three or four days of their lives in a worthwhile effort. I figure about forty folk total. Thirty or so who are well versed in the problem issue; horsepower doesn't really matter. And another 10 or 12 who know as little about the issue as possible. Kind of honest brokers you might say.

 

[BuzzH]

Paws, maybe it would be wise to see whats already been done and by whom?

I'm not doubting you have honest ideas, just wondering if they've already been tried?

For what its worth, I think the tribes have the best chance of making changes based on their sovereign rights, treaties, and court cases.

 

[BuzzH]

Heres some recent news...

Columbia River Basin Salmon and Steelhead Recovery: No Easy Answers
The Latest from the Pacific Northwest
Scott B. Yates, J.D.


On July 27, 2000, the federal government released the latest Pacific Northwest salmon and steelhead recovery plan. The plan is made up of the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Federal Columbia River Power System draft Biological Opinion1 and joint federal agency (CITE agencies) Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish Draft Basin-wide Salmon Recovery Strategy, known as the All-H Paper2. In addition, earlier the same month, the governors of Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Washington released joint recommendations “for the protection and restoration of fish in the Columbia River Basin.”3 These federal and state documents are expected to play a large part in the future management of ESA-listed stocks and ensure not only short-term survival but also long-term recovery. However, the jury regarding the substance and legality of the plans is still out. With no easy answers and sparse talk in terms of substantive stakeholder negotiations, there is little doubt that the latest salmon recovery plans will be the subject of numerous lawsuits and endless political wrangling for years to come.

History
Over the last twenty years, billions of dollars have been allocated to Columbia River Basin anadromous fish recovery efforts. During this time period, salmon and steelhead numbers continued to decline and local extinctions were common. Six years ago after reviewing the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) 1993 Federal Columbia River Power System draft Biological Opinion (FCRPS BiOp), U.S. District Court Judge Malcolm Marsh admonished the NMFS for piecemeal and inadequate ESA recovery efforts.4 Judge Marsh explicitly stated that the federal program was “too heavily geared towards the status quo” and that the “situation literally cries out for a major overhaul.5 Against this legal backdrop, NMFS has worked since 1994 to develop a long-term recovery plan for ESA-listed stocks throughout the Columbia River Basin.6 While NMFS issued an amended 1995 BiOp and won subsequent litigation, the agency’s victory was based in part on the interim nature of the 1995 plan, and the fact that the agency had promised to put forth a more extensive and long-term recovery plan by the end of 1999.7

Science has played an increasingly large role in regional long-term recovery plan deliberations in recent years. Following Judge Marsh’s 1994 BiOp decision, NMFS established a collaborative federal, state, and tribal science team to model possible recovery options. Referred to as the “Plan for Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses” (PATH) Team, these agency and tribal biologists and scientists toiled for over four years with the majority of the participants concluding both that the hydrosystem is the likely cause of delayed mortality for Snake River stocks and that dam breaching was the management alternative most likely to recover Snake River spring/summer and fall chinook and steelhead.8 The PATH findings are cited by conservation groups, Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber, and the Idaho and Oregon chapters and Western Division of the American Fisheries Society (AFS) to defend dam breaching as the most scientifically defensible Snake River fish recovery mechanism. NMFS, on the other hand, has recently tried to distance itself from PATH findings. The agency has established an in-house program referred to as the “Cumulative Risk Initiative “ (CRI). According to NMFS, the CRI is a “network of NMFS scientists working to synthesize information and provide clear, consistent and scientifically rigorous decision support for salmonid conservation.”9 The NMFS has relied primarily on initial CRI modeling and risk assessment results to support specific measures outlined in the draft BiOp.

The NMFS BiOp and federal All-H Paper
The NMFS draft BiOp and federal All-H Paper are separate and distinct documents. The draft BiOp is a decision document that once final, is subject to judicial review. The All-H Paper is meant to provide a generic basin-wide plan for recovery, and it also applies to federal agencies not part of FCRPS operations. The All-H Paper is incorporated by reference throughout the BiOp.

The general theme of the proposed BiOp and federal program is to prioritize recovery actions based on the likelihood that all ESA-listed stocks would benefit from a particular action. The general consensus is that the framework set forth in the draft BiOp for species recovery – deal with species-specific mortality factors in a systematic and coordinated manner – is workable. However, while the federal documents claim to deal with each of the major “Hs” – hydroelectric, habitat, hatcheries, and harvest – the specific management activities delineated in the plan illustrate otherwise. For instance, important biological performance measures are left undefined, many of the management actions are merely plans for more planning, and perhaps most alarming, the BiOp’s reasonable and prudent alternatives for hydro operations look strikingly similar to those outlined in the 1995 BiOp.10 Further, in light of the federal decision to tread lightly on structural and operational changes to FCRPS projects, the document is extremely quiet in terms of utilizing regulatory authority to ensure federal Clean Water Act compliance or other identifiable “hard choice” recovery mechanisms such as disallowing or shutting down certain land or water use activities on federal, state, and private lands.11

The decision to prioritize management activities based on the likelihood that all stocks will benefit makes theoretical sense as part of a comprehensive recovery plan. However, it is doubtful that such approach relieves the legal burden for the federal government to ensure survival and recovery for each of the listed stocks in the Columbia River basin. For instance, while Snake River fish will undoubtedly benefit from estuary and tributary habitat restoration, hatchery reforms, and status quo harvest curtailments, it is difficult to imagine a legally defensible recovery strategy that fails to deal with the primary mortality factor for Snake River spring/summer and fall chinook, sockeye, and steelhead: the four lower Snake River dams. While there are certainly few if any silver bullet recovery measures for anadromous fish in the Columbia River Basin, dam breaching for Snake River fish – especially fall chinook – is an essential component of a long-term species recovery program. So the burden is on the federal government to show that improvement to tributary or estuary life stage survival for Snake River fish will in fact both ensure survival and recovery for Snake River fish.

In fairness to NMFS, the agency has not ruled out dam breaching as a viable recovery alternative for Snake River fish. The BiOp includes a requirement for periodic check-ins to ensure performance standards are met and life stage improvements attained, with dam removal as the back-up plan for Snake River stocks if other efforts fail. However, while the check-in points are clear, the consequences for failing to meet certain goals are not clearly identified. Further, the draft BiOp does not include a specific timeline for dam breaching engineering and implementation studies to be complete so that such measures can be implemented in a timely fashion if the “anything but hydro” plan doesn’t work.

The Four-Governor’s Joint Recommendations
Amidst the restlessness in the weeks prior to the release of the federal draft recovery documents, the governors of Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Washington issued a relatively tame document detailing recommendations to protect and restore fish in the Columbia River Basin. Like the federal BiOp and All-H paper, the Governor’s plan categorizes reforms according to the four Hs. However, unlike the federal documents, the state recommendations are general in nature and designed to highlight areas where consensus already exists for key elements of a multi-species recovery plan that can serve as a “nucleus of a regional approach to the recovery of ESA-listed aquatic species.”12 Obviously, the state recommendations are not heavy handed; it is clearly stated that the four governor’s joint recommendations are intended to merely advise the federal decision-making process, and help streamline recovery plan implementation by identifying areas where government stakeholders all agree something should be done.13

The general nature of the state recommendations does not discount the significance of the quad state agreement. The four Columbia River Basin states rarely reach consensus on anything let alone long-term salmon recovery issues. In fact, just months earlier as the keynote speaker at the annual Oregon AFS meeting Governor Kitzhaber broke ranks with the other three states by declaring that breaching the four lower Snake River dams is the most scientifically defensible measure to ensure Snake River salmon and steelhead recovery.14 In the AFS speech, the Oregon governor emphasized that any legally and biologically defensible non-breaching recovery plan must be extraordinarily aggressive and may actually have more economic impact than the breaching alternative.15
While the governors of Idaho, Montana, and Washington continue to disagree with Governor Kitzhaber regarding the breaching issue, the joint state recommendations identify some common ground on less volatile subjects such as establishing science-based performance standards to measure the success of salmon recovery actions, the importance of instream flows and creating and funding state law programs to encourage voluntary water exchanges and banks, the need to study possible reintroduction programs above massive multi-purpose Columbia and Snake River projects such as Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee dams and the Hells Canyon Complex, and implementing the Lower Columbia River National Estuary Program.16 Further, the states call for continued research, study, and aggressive actions in regards to difficult hatchery and harvest issues.17

Conclusion
Establishing a multi-species conservation program that benefits all ESA-listed salmon and steelhead stocks sounds good on paper, but providing such a plan removes neither the legal burden to ensure both the survival and recovery of Snake River fish, nor the duty to identify and develop a program to address the specific mortality factors affecting each listed stock in the Columbia River Basin. For some stocks, such as Snake River chinook and sockeye salmon and steelhead, this means squarely addressing the primary life history bottleneck – hydro mortality – and not merely turning to off-site mitigation to ensure species recovery. The draft federal documents were released in the middle of an election year, and the content of the final versions will undoubtedly depend on the outcome and tenor of the November elections. Fortunately for the fish, there isn’t necessarily a nexus between what is politically palatable and what is legally defensible. Sooner or later the federal government must defend their plan in front of a judge that is cognizant of past federal failures and decades of tinkering with little or no benefits accrued to listed species.

Scott Yates is the Western Legal and Policy Analyst for Trout Unlimited in Portland, Oregon.

ENDNOTES
1. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Consultation, Draft Biological Opinion, Operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System and Juvenile Transportation Program (July 27, 2000) [hereinafter Draft BiOp].
2. National Marine Fisheries Service, Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish: Draft Basin- Wide Salmon Recovery Strategy (July 27, 2000) [hereinafter All-H Paper]. The All-H Paper was prepared by NMFS in consultation with the other members of the “federal caucus” including the Army Corps of Engineers, Bonneville Power Administration, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Environmental Protection Agency, Fish & Wildlife Service, and Forest Service.
3. Offices of the Governors, Recommendations of the Governors of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington for the Protection and Restoration of Fish in the Columbia River Basin (July 2000) [hereinafter Governors Plan].
4. Idaho Department of Fish & Game v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 850 F. Supp. 886 (D. Or. 1994), remanded with instructions to vacate and dismiss as moot, 56 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 1995).
5. Id. at 900. Judge Marsh also asserted that “NMFS and the other action agencies have narrowly focused their attention on what the establishment is capable of handling with minimal disruption.” Id.
6. Thirteen Columbia River anadromous fish stocks are now listed as threatened or endangered under the federal ESA including Snake River (fall and spring/summer), Lower Columbia River, Upper Willamette, and Upper Columbia River (spring) chinook, Snake River sockeye; and chum salmon; and Upper Columbia, Snake River, Lower Columbia, Upper Willamette, and Middle Columbia steelhead and lower Columbia River sea-run cutthroat trout.
7. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Consultation, Biological Opinion, Reinitiation of Consultation on 1994-1998 Operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System and Juvenile Transportation Program in 1995 and future years (1995) (noting that BiOp measures will eventually be combined with a long-term recovery plan to ensure the survival and recovery of listed species).
8. Plan for Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses (PATH): Final Report for Fiscal Year 1998 (DR. Marmorek & C.N. Peters eds. 1998). See also Margaret Hollenbach, PATH Presents FY 1998 Final Report, Columbia Basin Bulletin (Dec. 11, 1998) http://www.nwppc.org/bulletin/bull_25.htm#2.
9. See http://research.nwfsc.noaa.gov/cri/.
10. For instance, the Draft BiOp proposes hydrosystem incidental take levels for Snake River fish up to 88% for fall chinook, 54% for steelhead, and 43% for spring/summer chinook. See Draft BiOp, at 10- 3.
11. It is debatable whether NMFS can rely on "off-site" mitigation measure to compensate for action agency hydro impacts. Section 7 of the ESA requires NMFS to “suggest those reasonable and prudent alternatives which [it] believes would not violate subsection (a)(2) of this section and can be taken by the Federal agency or applicant in implementing the agency action. 16 U.S.C. § 153(b)(3)(A); see also Aluminum Company of America v. Bonneville Power Administration, 175 F.3d 1156, 1159 (9th Cir. 1999)(defining reasonable and prudent alternatives as measures that NMFS “believes would not violate section 7(a)(2) and that can be implemented by the action agency”).
12. Governors Plan, at 1.
13. Id.
14. See www.governor.state.or.us/governor/speeches.htm.
15. Id.
16. Id. at 2-7.
17. Id. at 10-13.

 

[pawclaws]

OK, I got the picture. The forty to fifty folk involved in the actual "idea generation acrtivities" would ideally come from occupations or activities involved in the management of the fish from the states involved and from various levels in the heiarchy. Not absolutely necessary; but, ideal. One other really nice thing to do would be to seek a vote of confidence for the report end product from each of the four governors. A pre-event briefing for the group would really be nice on the activities leading up to the event. The focus on what is to be done is not "can it be done"; but "how can it be done." The terms "we always did it that way" or "we already tried that" are non-existant.

"Do you wish to know more??" -- Starship Troopers 2000

 

[BuzzH]

Paws,

You are aware what the findings of the various "reports" said, I assume?

The number one problem is 4 dams on the Snake River.

The number one solution is removing the 4 dams on the Snake, anything less than that wont do anything to improve or keep anadromous fish from further decline, evidenced by the couple billion thats already been spent.

You're also aware the Bush Admnistration, and Dubya himself, has stated, they will not allow a dam to be breached?

Not putting things off, but I wonder if a more appropriate time to put serious energy into this problem would be with an administration that hasnt already made up its mind???

Thoughts???

 

[pawclaws]

Depends! The work to develop initiatives is rather short compared to the work required to rais/elevate the initiatives to the level where action can be taken. Trying to time the thing to fall on the desk of an amenable administration might be the most difficult part of the project. Good thoughts though. As I understand the problem in generic terms the fish are not free to traverse the river because of the dams. Does that pretty much sum it up? If it does I want you to start thinking in terms of just what it is that the dams prevent or block from happening. That portion of the "Problem Statement or Identification" must be very accurate to focus the effort. I'll put a propolsal together that explains the technique used and put it in a PM for you. It'll take a couple days to write since I don't have anything canned.