Will The Obama Administration Act on Behalf Of Orcas And Salmon?

- a three part series by Howard Garrett

1) How Can Dams in Eastern Washington Affect Puget Sound Orcas?

2) We Can Replace 1000 Megawatts. We Can't Replace Salmon And Orcas.

3) If Hydropower Wins Then Salmon And Orcas Lose

Free the Science!

Taking a closer look at the Obama Salmon Plan for the Columbia and Snake Rivers


Download Page 1
Download Page 2

In his inaugural speech in January 2009, President Obama made a clear and explicit commitment to “restore science to its rightful place” in policy-making. Since then, several officials in his administration have echoed this call.

In the Pacific Northwest, however, this is not what salmon advocates and fishing communities have experienced. Despite the campaign promises, inaugural pledges and presidential speeches, the Obama administration recently decided to adopt a flawed 2008 NOAA Fisheries salmon plan for the Columbia and Snake Rivers that was originally crafted by the Bush Administration. This September 2009 decision followed an extended review period and a great opportunity to get it right. During this review, the Obama team received thousands of calls for a new approach from national and international scientists, Members of Congress, former and current governors, regional and national newspapers, and salmon and fishing advocates from across the country.

By failing to live up to its promises in the Columbia-Snake River Basin, the Obama administration has brought yet more uncertainty for endangered salmon and struggling salmon-dependent communities, as well as American taxpayers and Northwest ratepayers.

Neither open nor honest.

“I am also signing a Presidential Memorandum directing the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy… to ensure that in this new Administration, we base our public policies on the soundest science; that we appoint scientific advisors based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology; and that we are open and honest with the American people about the science behind our decisions."

- President Obama



In the Columbia and Snake Rivers, the Obama administration has been anything but open and honest. This past summer’s review of the Bush salmon plan included a so-called independent scientific review, the bulk of which took the form of a two-day workshop held in Washington, DC. The workshop was not publicized nor was public input sought; the eight scientists who participated were required to sign confidentiality agreements; none of those eight were federal biologists outside NOAA Fisheries; and it appears that views different from NOAA were not presented to these reviewers. So much for transparency! Only after several months, a request from a coalition of conservation and fishing groups, and the urging from federal Judge James Redden did the government grudgingly release a limited number of documents related to this review.

What does assuming do?

Less than a third of the documents associated with this review have been released to date, but they still help paint a clear picture. The scientists who participated in the review had extensive concerns about the 2008 salmon plan, helping confirm that the Obama administration’s tweaks ultimately fail to create a legal and scientifically sound plan. Much of this concern stems from the plan’s reliance on many underlying assumptions – regarding everything from climate change to habitat to river operations. Any scientist can tell you that science-guided policy based on flawed assumptions puts the credibility – and in this case, the legality – of that science, at risk.
Download the top 10 quotes from panel scientists.


AMIP or A Map of More Decline?

On September 15, 2009, when the Obama Administration announced its decision to adopt the 2008 Bush Plan, officials added a new document, known as the 'AMIP' (Adaptive Management Implementation Plan). The AMIP contains a number of rather undefined and largely in-the-distant-future studies and potential plans to make plans (really!) that will be triggered for consideration if and when our already-endangered salmon and steelhead populations decline even further – in some cases to near-extinction levels. As for consideration of lower Snake River dam removal? The AMIP indicates that this already viable option – the one measure that scientists say offers the best chance of recovering Snake River salmon -- might possibly be studied sometime in the distant and still undefined future...maybe.

Unfortunately, this addendum to the 2008 salmon plan does nothing to bolster the original plan’s validity under the Endangered Species Act. Planning for possible additional measures in the years to come can’t mask the 2008 salmon plan’s very real scientific and legal flaws.



Scientists speak out

“We scientists believed the President when he said he would protect science and strengthen the ESA, but Secretary Locke and Dr. Lubchenco have seemingly allowed political pressure to circumvent a decision based on sound science.”

- Bill Shake, retired Assistant Regional Director for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Since the salmon plan was released in September, hundreds of scientists have continued speaking out against another federal failure of science and the law. In a letter to Judge James Redden, the American Fisheries Society’s Oregon Chapter outlines several key problems with NOAA’s latest plan:

1) Maintains obscure language relating to salmonid recovery (e.g., “trending toward recovery”)
2) Fails to directly and comprehensively address dam breaching as a key component of salmonid recovery
3) Does not specify which body/entity will evaluate the study of the efficacy of dam breaching
4) Proposes several indicators of failure (i.e., “triggers” for management action) but does not clearly specify the remedial actions or offer timelines for remedial actions to occur
5) Offers no benchmarks for success (or how to measure success)
6) Fails to deal with the underlying pressures of human population growth and per capita resource consumption (together producing economic growth) as substantial drivers of salmon extirpation.

What’s Next

The Obama Administration's decision to perpetuate the failed policies of the past, and its opposition to participating in substantive discussions that could develop a legal, science-based salmon plan that works for both salmon and people, is a major disappointment to salmon and fishing advocates, Northwest ratepayers, and taxpayers nationwide. In 2010, advocates from across the country will be continuing the call for real leadership and real change.

Stay tuned for more ways to get involved this year.
For more information, please contact Bobby Hayden, bobby@wildsalmon.org, 541.359.4818

Where do we go from here?

After 15 years of fighting tooth and nail in federal court, fishing and conservation groups left U.S. District Court Judge Redden's Courtroom yesterday ready to wait at least an additional 2 weeks for an answer. Will the federal agencies step up and do what is needed to save Columbia-Snake River salmon?

We sure hope so because protecting this iconic species is about more than just saving a fish. It's about family-wage jobs in communities throughout the Northwest. It's about saving a healthy food source, a cultural icon, and a way of life. It's about policy guided by science and the law, not politics. What we really need is for our elected leaders to demand and execute a solid salmon recovery plan for all our rivers. Right now. Today. Not next year. And unfortunately, this plan is nowhere near that.


Outside the federal courthouse, scores of commercial and recreational fishermen came with a clear message, many in their own fishing boats: to remind Dr. Lubchenco and the Obama administration that their jobs matter; that healthy salmon runs mean healthy businesses and strong communities; and that science, not politics, should be at the center of the government’s decisions on this matter.

Check out an interview about the hearing with renowned steelhead guide and Sierra Club Hunter-Angler liaison Jeff Hickman on the Oregon Fly Fishing Blog.

Matt Preusch's Oregonian story this morning says this about Lubchenco's position:

Speaking after the hearing, Lubchenco said she supported the science behind the plan “100 percent.” “We paid attention to the science; we paid attention to the law,” she said.

What Matt doesn't point out is that Dr. Lubchenco and NOAA's plan runs counter to the science and advice of experts in the field — regional Forest Service, Department of Fish and Wildlife and American Fisheries Society scientists.

In October, the Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society wrote a letter to Judge Redden outlining their concerns:

On February 17, 2000, the Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society (ORAFS) unanimously passed a resolution (attached) that breaching of the four lower Snake River dams should be considered as an essential component of the recovery of Snake River salmon and steelhead*. When the revised (2008) Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) Biological Opinion (BiOp) was issued, ORAFS members reviewed it and reaffirmed our position that dam breaching should remain an essential element of salmonid restoration. We write today to further reaffirm this position and suggest that it is not adequately addressed in the NOAA Fisheries’ September 15, 2009 Adaptive Management Implementation Plan (AMIP).

While the AMIP is an improvement to earlier BiOp versions, it contains several crucial, but correctable, shortcomings...

The Oregon AFS is comprised of over 450 fisheries and aquatic science professionals from federal, state, and tribal agencies, colleges and universities, diverse private employers, college students, and retirees.

Some folks said that having Lubchenco in the Courtroom would sway the judge, but I think Jeff Hickman says it best here:

As you know this “plan” is an ugly leftover from the Bush days. It has a couple bits of fluff added by the Obama folks, but it would effectively shovel dirt onto the casket of wild Columbia River salmon and steelhead.

I am confident that the judge will decide this case based on the law and the evidence, period.

FISHERMEN, CONSERVATIONISTS RETURN TO COURT TO CHALLENGE OBAMA’S COLUMBIA-SNAKE SALMON PLAN

FISHERMEN, CONSERVATIONISTS RETURN TO COURT TODAY TO CHALLENGE OBAMA’S COLUMBIA-SNAKE SALMON PLAN
Federal salmon plan fails to follow science, law

PORTLAND, Ore. — Salmon advocates returned to federal court today to fight for the people of the Pacific Northwest.

Represented by a diverse, nationwide coalition, they are challenging a woefully inadequate 2008 federal salmon plan, which does little for the people of the Northwest and too much to protect the status quo.

On Sept. 15 the Obama administration became the most recent architect of this long-standing federal failure when it embraced a 2008 Bush administration plan to mitigate the harmful impacts of dams on endangered salmon and steelhead populations.

"We look forward to explaining to the court just how little this latest effort actually accomplishes," said Todd True, lead attorney for the fishing and conservation groups. "This is not Groundhog Day — we don’t have to keep doing the same old thing over and over and over. It's time to stop the repetition and start to do what these fish need and what the law and science requires. Our fishing communities deserve nothing less. And our Northwest way of life depends on it."

The Obama team adopted a discredited scientific analysis and legal standard despite strong objections from fisheries biologists, former Northwest governors, and people and businesses across the nation. The groups are joined in the litigation by the state of Oregon and the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho.

“It’s a sad commentary that we even have to be here today to try once again to get the government to follow the law and the science. They should do that on their own,” said Dan Parnel, owner of Leisure Sales, which represents several fishing brands in 14 Western states and the President of the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association. “But the Judge’s decision in this case has serious economic implications for our industries’ jobs, our families and our communities. We’re hoping that Judge Redden will help this region finally produce a successful salmon plan and put us on a legal path to protecting our resources, our communities and our way of life.”

Salmon fishing still brings tens of millions of dollars into the regional economy each year and supports thousands of jobs. However, commercial fishing-dependent communities have already lost more than 25,000 salmon fishing jobs because of salmon declines in the Columbia and Snake Rivers over the past three decades. Regional sport and recreational fishing communities have lost tens of thousands more.
“This was a test for Commerce Secretary Gary Locke — on economics and science — and this plan fails on both accounts,” said Zeke Grader, Executive Director of Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations. “The Obama administration should be embarrassed that it allowed regional bureaucrats, intent on protecting the status quo, to convince it to buy into this badly flawed plan. We remain convinced that the law and science are on our side and we look forward to working with the administration to get things on the right track.”

Commercial and sportfishing representatives from up and down the Pacific Coast sent a letter to Secretary Locke in September urging him to begin a dialogue on how to address the salmon crisis that has plagued coastal communities over the last eight years. Secretary Locke has not yet met with fishermen since the request was made almost three months ago.

Salmon advocates have long argued that the 2008 plan remains illegal under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and largely ignores the impact federal dams have on ESA-listed threatened and endangered salmon and steelhead in the Columbia-Snake River Basin. In fact, the plan allows a rollback of in-river salmon protections. U.S. District Court Judge James Redden has agreed with salmon advocates in challenges to two very similar prior plans.

“We scientists believed the President when he said he would protect science and strengthen the ESA, but Secretary Locke and Dr. Lubchenco have seemingly allowed political pressure to circumvent a decision based on sound science,” said Bill Shake, retired Assistant Regional Director for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “Tell a salmon biologist that you don’t want to remove the four lower Snake River dams or that you don’t want to spill water over the dams, but don’t tell them those actions aren’t necessary for these imperiled fish. We know better; we know what the science says. We come to Court with hope for more because the fish need more than this plan, and fishing families and communities deserve more.”

The Obama administration’s September 15 plan adopted the old Bush salmon plan with minor tweaks. The administration’s plan does allow for a multi-year study — at some uncertain point in the future — of what is already known to be a viable salmon restoration option — lower Snake River dam removal — and then only if already-depressed endangered salmon numbers plunge even further. Other than this, and some re-arranged monitoring and habitat measures that have been on the table for more than a year, the Obama plan is unchanged from the 2008 plan that has been challenged in court by fishing and conservation interests.

Opponents of following the science have criticized the idea of removing dams, especially in light of climate change concerns. Salmon advocates, however, point to a recent expert analysis from the NW Energy Coalition and an analysis from the Northwest Power and Conservation Council to show that protecting salmon and providing for a clean energy future is both eminently doable and affordable.
“We truly can have both clean, affordable energy and healthy salmon runs in the Pacific Northwest,” said NW Energy Coalition Executive Director Sara Patton. “It’s not an either/or question — the Northwest needs and deserves both, and both are 100 percent possible with the right vision, planning and leadership. We have the technology; now let’s find the political will to make it happen. The Northwest can show the rest of the country how to do this right while creating jobs and providing for a better future.”

Snake River Salmon Do It At Altitude

Snake River salmon spawn at the highest habitat in the world in the rugged Sawtooth Mountains of Idaho. They swim nearly 1,000 miles inland and climb more than 6,500 feet in elevation — the longest, highest salmon migration in the world. Yep, Snake River salmon do it at altitude.