NOAA EXPLAINS 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 |