Wishful thinking in the Klamath Basin

August 15, 2007  

Oregonian Letter to the Editor

Last month, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported completing its review of the Klamath Basin 's shortnose sucker and Lost River sucker. The agency announced its intent to downlist the Lost River sucker from endangered to threatened, while not proposing any change in legal status for the endangered shortnose sucker.

Given the fact that endangered is a more critical designation under the Endangered Species Act than is threatened, such a downlisting in the Lost River sucker's status should signal substantial improvement in the status of this rare fish and its habitat. Unfortunately, in this instance, it does not.

As a member of the independent scientific review panel convened by the government to review the status of both suckers, I was perplexed by the agency's decision to downlist the Lost River sucker and anxious to read why such a decision had been made. After all, our science panel reviewed the latest studies on populations and habitat conditions, and as our August 2005 report detailed, both sucker species still faced numerous and severe threats. The vast majority of us concluded that the best available science showed their endangered status had not changed.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's status review, based on our panel's results plus their own internal appraisal, warns of the same multitude of habitat problems our independent science report described. Of particular note was the agency's detailed description of anticipated impacts on the Lost River sucker from poor water quality in Upper Klamath Lake . Its summary: "[I]t is reasonable to conclude that within the foreseeable future, there is a high probability of multiple mortality events that would greatly reduce LRS population sizes."

Populations of the suckers already are a small fraction of their historic size. There is little successful reproduction. The risk of extinction from "multiple mortality events" is high.

So where is the big improvement?

There is no question that many parties have worked long and hard to improve habitat conditions and address the concerns of tribes and local communities in the Klamath Basin . We all hope the results will pay off. But that is not the issue here.

Regarding the endangered suckers and coho salmon, it is simply too soon to make a judgment concerning the long-term effectiveness of restoration work. The Fish and Wildlife Service agreed with that conclusion in its review --too soon to tell -- yet proposed downlisting anyway.

If the Endangered Species Act is to work, a downlisting to threatened must reflect substantial and quantified improvements in the status of a species. Here it does not. Instead, the agency has rationalized its decision by asserting that the massive die-offs are "unlikely to occur immediately." Extinction, they imply, could be many years down the road.

We all want improvements to the Klamath Basin 's water quality and habitats. But when the government claims improvements, the claims must be backed by credible evidence. A successful future can be mapped only if we accurately depict where we started and honestly assess the progress we've made.

When science and careful stewardship are thrust aside, society suffers.

Jack E. Williams served on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's independent scientific review panel and formerly worked for the agency as an endangered species specialist. He now works for Trout Unlimited in Medford .

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

Source:  http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary/oregonian/index.ssf?/

base/editorial/1187132108225900.xml&coll=7