Feds claim fish's habitat not critical

By SHERRY DEVLIN of the Missoulian

Montana has such big plans for bull trout, including the restoration of a sport fishery, that the federal government does not need to designate and protect "critical" bull trout habitat here, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ruled Wednesday.

"Given that Montana is taking such important and efficacious steps to restore bull trout habitat, a critical habitat designation would bring very little additional benefit to the species," said Craig Manson, the Interior Department's assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks.

However, Manson said, the decision does not change the status of bull trout as a threatened species - "and that will remain the case for the foreseeable future."

So federal agencies are still obliged "not to take any steps that might endanger the species" and must consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service whenever a project might put bull trout in jeopardy.

"That's something that exists even in Montana and even in the absence of a critical habitat designation," Manson said during a telephone news conference.

But that's not enough, came the counterpoint from Arlene Montgomery, whose Friends of the Wild Swan sued the federal government and won a decision forcing the designation of critical habitat in the Columbia and Klamath river basins.

And, in fact, the Fish and Wildlife Service originally proposed to designate 3,319 miles of streams and 217,577 acres of lakes and reservoirs in western Montana as critical habitat for bull trout.

Wednesday's announcement dropped all Montana waters off the list and reduced the regionwide total by 90 percent. Only waters in Idaho , Washington and Oregon remained on the list: 1,750 miles of streams and 61,235 acres of lakes and reservoirs.

Montgomery promised to sue.

"We've always maintained that the Endangered Species Act has three legs on its stool," she said. "The first is the listing, which provides an initial layer of protection. Then comes the designation of critical habitat, which focuses attention on the really important places bull trout need to recover, and finally comes the recovery plan: the actions that must be taken in order to recover the species."

"You cannot remove one of the legs without toppling the stool," Montgomery said.

"If a judge doesn't overturn this decision, bull trout will go extinct," said Michael Garrity, executive director of Alliance for the Wild Rockies and another of the litigants that forced the designation.

"Now habitat can be degraded in Montana ," he said. "Now it will be gone. Bull trout have lost all of that protection."

Montgomery, a member of the citizens' group that developed the state of Montana 's bull trout restoration plan, said the state plan never was intended as a substitute for federal efforts.

In fact, the first paragraph of the plan says this: "This document is intended to guide state restoration efforts, and complement federal conservation and recovery processes."

"The plan," state officials wrote, "provides general guidance for conservation and protection of those populations that are stable or increasing, as well as recommendations to restore populations that have declined."

"It's general guidance," insisted Montgomery . "It will not recover bull trout to healthy populations."

Keep reading, suggested Manson. " Montana 's state plan to protect bull trout habitat gives as much conservation benefit as would anything we could do by designating critical habitat," he said. "The designation of critical habitat has long been viewed as an artifact which provides only marginal additional conservation benefits."

By setting as its goal the restoration of a sport fishery, Montana set the bar higher than the federal government ever would have, Manson said.

State officials did not return telephone messages Wednesday or respond to the Fish and Wildlife Service's announcement. In the past, though, Montana has advocated state - not federal - management of at-risk species.

"The Endangered Species Act encourages the federal government to take into account efforts being made by states, tribes and local governments," Manson said. "That's exactly what we are doing here."

Source:  http://www.bendbulletin.com/news/story.cfm?story_no=14434

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml