Judge voids federal salmon recovery
plan
Advocates reflect on decision
"I think it’s a good thing to send
everybody back to the table and find out what’s going to save the salmon. We’re
30 miles from one of the longest salmon migrations in the world, and I want them
to keep coming back."
— Andy Munter, Idaho Rivers United
board member
By GREG STAHL
Express Staff Writer
A federal judge ruled last week that
government programs to protect threatened and endangered salmon runs in the
Columbia River Basin do not meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act.
Though Idaho’s environmental groups
welcomed the news Wednesday, May 7, as an opportunity to put breaching of four
lower Snake River dams back on the table, at least one local salmon advocate
took the news with a grain of salt.
"I hope I’m wrong," said Sun Valley salmon
advocate Stephen Pauley. "But I don’t expect we’ll get anything any better out
of the W. Bush administration."
In a 26-page opinion, U.S. District Judge
James A. Redden struck down the so-called biological opinion as violating
federal law. Redden returned the matter to the National Marine Fisheries Service
and told it to develop a plan that complies with the law.
Drafted in December 2000, the salmon
recovery strategy focused on improving habitat and hatchery operations and
limiting harvest without breaching the four dams on the lower Snake River as
many environmentalists and biologists requested.
A coalition of 16 environmental and
fishermen's groups sued in May 2001, claiming the biological opinion
"capriciously and without any rational basis" concluded that the plan would not
put the fish stocks in jeopardy of extinction.
"We have a real opportunity here and we
want to be sure we get a plan adequate to protect the fish," said Todd True, an
attorney for Earthjustice, one of the plaintiffs.
Bill Sedivy of Idaho Rivers United, a
member of the coalition, said the ruling can finally redirect the debate over
salmon recovery to the real problem—four dams on the lower Snake River in
eastern Washington.
"We thought all along that the strategy
behind the plan was a bit like trying to treat cancer with aspirin," Sedivy
said. "Fortunately, the judge saw it that way, too.
"With this ridiculous plan out of the way,
we now have a real opportunity to do something meaningful for Idaho’s wild
salmon and steelhead."
But Pauley pointed out that the 2000
biological opinion would have brought dam breaching back into the limelight if
or when the government’s habitat and hatchery efforts failed. He added that the
process leading up to the 2000 decision took more than five years.
If the ensuing process takes too long, the
fish lose, he said.
But Blaine County resident and Idaho
Rivers United board member Andy Munter said last week’s ruling should help
redirect salmon recovery efforts sooner than would have occurred under the 2000
biological opinion.
"I think it’s a good thing to send
everybody back to the table and find out what’s going to save the salmon,"
Munter said. "We’re 30 miles from one of the longest salmon migrations in the
world, and I want them to keep coming back."
But Munter conceded that the same old
debate could be rehashed yet again.
"Unfortunately, all the politicians say
it’s impossible to breech the dams, and they say it’s impossible to let the
salmon go extinct," he said. "There’s a chance to do something positive here,
and it might be the same old politics, I’m afraid."
Susanne Connor, a steelhead fishing guide
for Lost River Outfitters in Ketchum, said the decision is an opportunity to put
dam breaching back on the table.
"The only way we’ll get our salmon and
steelhead runs back is to do something about the dams," she said. "I think it’s
awesome that they’re going to revisit that."
True argued that the government has a duty
to ensure its actions will not put endangered stocks in jeopardy as opposed to
providing the likelihood that they will not.
"It cannot be based on chance, on the hope
that good things will happen in the future," he said.
The Endangered Species Act, he said, is
"an institutional caution. We don't take chances with species listed as
endangered by extinction."
Samuel Rauch III, arguing for the U.S.
Justice Department, said the government is not required to ensure that the
stocks will not go extinct, only to "not ... diminish the likelihood of
recovery" from a threatened species listing.
The question he said, "is will the
measures (for survival) be in place when the species needs them?" and noted that
salmon runs in recent years have been in relatively good shape.
He said it is not a matter of whether the
government is doing all it possibly can do. "The test is whether it diminishes
the opportunity for recovery," he said, contending that the dam system as
currently managed does not.
Plaintiffs argued that the biological
opinion underestimates the risk of extinction and that conservation measures
that do not affect the dams directly are speculative and voluntary.
"The biological opinion found a lot of
things that might happen, that it hoped would happen, such as improved stream
flows or restoration of habitat in estuaries," True said. "They feel that if all
those things happen, they might be able to protect the fish."
The Associated Press contributed to
this article.