NOAA EXPLAINS SALMON CRITICAL
HABITAT PROPOSAL IN PUBLIC MEETINGS
|
|
A crowd of about 50 property owners,
conservationists and tribal representatives gathered Tuesday to quiz NOAA
Fisheries officials regarding its November proposal to designate some
29,000 stream miles in Idaho, Oregon and Washington as "critical
habitat" for 13 salmon and steelhead stocks listed under the
Endangered Species Act "Is there anyone out there that likes
this proposal?" Donna Darm, NOAA deputy regional administrator"
asked in an early attempt to put the participants at ease. Not a single hand sprouted. NOAA Fisheries in November released
proposals to designate specific areas of in-stream and estuarine habitat
as "critical" to the conservation of 13 Northwest and seven
California salmon and steelhead stocks. The ESA-required task has been the focus of
legal tussles. Designations created in 2000 for the listed fish were
challenged in court by the National Association of Homebuilders, which
said the economic impacts of the decision were not adequately considered.
The federal government agreed to withdraw the designations and produce new
proposals. Another lawsuit filed by the Pacific Coast
Federation of Fishermen's Association and others accused the federal
agency of not completing the habitat designations within the time required
under the ESA. NOAA Fisheries agreed to develop new proposals by Nov. 30. Landowners and other economic interests
fear the costs and red tape that the designations might represent. Fish
advocates say the designations provide an extra layer of protection that
the listed salmon and steelhead need. The ESA requires federal agencies to ensure
they do not fund, authorize or carry out any actions that will destroy or
adversely modify the critical habitat. That includes permitting
non-federal activities. The agency is conducting public meetings to
provide better background information to those interested in the proposed
critical habitat designations, and to offer opportunities for both oral
and written public testimony. Darm opened Tuesday's meeting with an
explanation of the process and the rationale behind its proposed
conclusion. Those attending were then given the chance to meet with agency
staff at several "information stations" to discuss specific
elements of the critical habitat proposal and their particular interests. She noted that news headlines announcing
the proposal emphasized the fact that the new proposal marked an
80-percent reduction in the number of stream miles as compared to the 2000
proposal. The 2000 critical habitat proposal was, essentially, a guess as
to how many stream miles might be occupied or potentially accessed by the
listed stocks. "We had no way of knowing how many of
those miles were actually occupied" by the listed fish, Darm said.
Since that time, actual fish distribution has been ascertained using
information developed by state fish and wildlife agencies. "This time around things were a little
bit different, in part because we had better information," Darm said.
"We were able to pinpoint where the occupied areas are." "That 80 percent reduction is not
real," Darm said. One of the purposes of the comment period is to
"ground-truth" those distribution maps by drawing out,
potentially, additional information about fish distributions. "There's an opportunity right now to
get information to the agency," Darm said. Critical habitat is defined in the
ESA as areas occupied by the species on which are found physical or
biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species
and which may require special management considerations or protections.
The agency can also designate unoccupied areas that are "essential
for the conservation of the species." The Secretary of Commerce can exclude
occupied areas if it is determines that the benefits of such exclusion
outweigh the benefits of designation unless such an exclusion would drive
a species toward extinction. The proposal would exclude 1,500 occupied
miles because of economic reasons. The proposed rule in the Dec. 14 Federal
Register said that the 27,553 stream miles proposed for designation
represented the "upper bound" being considered. The rule lists as "other potential
exclusions" being considered by the secretary the entire critical
habitat for four of the listed species -- Oregon Coast coho, Snake River
and Mi-Columbia steelhead and Upper Columbia chinook. In each case the
agency notes levels of protections through other mechanisms that make
imposing designation of critical habitat potentially detrimental. As an
example, much of the Snake River steelhead habit has protection under
federal PACFISH management standards and the fishes' Columbia/Snake
mainstem habitat has "the most comprehensive federal salmonid
management strategy of any area…." The state of Idaho and individuals are also
stepping up conservation efforts, the proposed rule notes. Meanwhile,
"the economy in the affected region of all three states is primarily
rural in nature, and is especially sensitive to additional land management
burdens." Also being considered for exclusion are
areas that are subject to other federal land management plans such as the
Northwest Forest Plan, PACFISH and INFISH and the mainstem area directly
affected by the operation of the federal dams. Other potential exclusions
include areas covered by conservation commitments by state and private
landowners such as Washington's state forest practice rules, Habitat
Conservation Plans certified by NOAA and non-federal timber lands covered
by the term sheet in the Snake River Basin Adjudication. Economic impacts are a part of the
equation. Overall, NOAA Fisheries has estimated that the annual economic
impact associated with ESA Section 7 consultation requirements to be $223
million per year. That includes permitting non-federal activities. The
economic study did not separate costs exclusively incurred because of
critical habitat designation from those associated with other consultation
activities. Most of that cost is already imbedded because of the listings. "Critical habitat isn't adding
anything" in terms of additional costs, Darm said. One participant in Tuesday's hearing argued
that the economic analysis should include benefits gained by sport and
commercial fishing industries if habitat designations are imposed the
result is restored fish populations and fishing opportunities. A public hearing was also held in
Kennewick, Wash., this week. Two hearings are scheduled next week. -- Jan. 18, from 6:30 to 9:30 pm at the
Radisson Hotel Seattle Airport, 17001 Pacific Highway South in Seattle,
Wash., and -- Jan 25, from 6:30 to 9:30 pm at the Red
Lion Hotel Boise Downtown, 1800 Fairview Avenue in Boise, Idaho. Comments on the critical habitat
proposal are due by 5 p.m. Pacific Standard Time on Feb. 14. Written
comments should be sent to Chief, NMFS Protected Resources Division, NOAA intends to adopt a "final
rule" on critical habitat by June 15. For more information on the proposed
critical habitat designations and the public meetings go to: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmesa/crithab/CHsite.htm |
Source: Columbia Basin Bulletin