Print
EmailCan this BiOp be saved? That's the underlying question this morning when the usual suspects appear in federal court to argue for what may (but probably won't) be the last time over the government's biological opinion on operation of its Columbia River dam system.
Over the last two weeks, U.S. District Judge James Redden, who has already tossed two prior BiOps, sent the parties a couple of letters outlining the questions he wanted addressed and perhaps providing a glimpse into his thinking. Redden had already made it clear that he didn't want to see the federal government go back and try yet again, but he wasn't eager to dictate how the feds ran their dam system. This is the fifth BiOp since the first Columbia River system salmon were listed more than 15 years ago, and not one has been approved by the federal courts, The Bush administration cranked out this BiOp late last year. The Obama administration has clung to it but, in an effort to rectify its more obvious legal shortcomings, has issued an Adaptive Management Implementation Plan. The trouble is, Redden acknowledged, the AMIP isn't part of the BiOp. And it isn't part of a negotiated settlement. “Do federal defendants have the discretion to unilaterally modify the 2008 Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion ("2008 BiOp") at any time?” Redden asked. More pointedly, he wondered: “Is the AMIP part of the BiOp, or an impermissible post hoc rationalization?”
Whatever the adaptive management plan is, the judge pressed the plaintiffs to concede that it at least represented a step forward: “Do they acknowledge that the AMIP contains positive measures,” he asked. “[W]hat additional measures do they suggest that federal defendants implement? As a practical matter, what more can federal defendants do?”
Well, for one thing, they can stop hiding the ball. “As you know,” Redden wrote, “federal defendants have an affirmative duty to use the 'best' available science.” Although they “assert that the AMIP is based on the best available science, they continue to withhold from public review the documents that may, or may not support that assertion.”
Still, he wound up last Wednesday's message to the parties by accentuating the positive. “We have come a long way since the 2004 BiOp,” he wrote. “Federal Defendants have finally made a good faith effort to address the flaws in the 2000 BiOp; they deserve credit for working with local, tribal, and state entities to attempt to ensure that this BiOp's tributary and estuary habitat mitigation measures are reasonably certain to occur.” He didn't let the feds entirely off the hook. Instead, he said that (just as the plaintiffs have argued) “Federal defendants can do more to ensure that those habitat actions are reasonably certain to result in the predicted benefits."
Redden still pushed the parties to sit down and reason together. "After we discuss whether the AMIP is properly before the court" he wrote, "I want the parties to focus on its positive attributes, and suggest additional measures to further improve the BiOp (through negotiation, or the appropriate procedural avenues).”
It's a nice idea. Stay tuned.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Mon, Nov 23, 7:58 a.m. Inappropriate
I really hope that the judge will see past the misleading PR effort being propagated by federal agencies that this latest plan is going to do what's needed to keep salmon from going extinct. It seems that every time they have tried to put together a Columbia/Snake salmon plan, they refuse to address the elephant in the room: the best available science shows that the surest way to recover endangered salmon and steelhead is to breach the four federal dams on the lower Snake River in eastern Washington. The reason the federal government has been so resistant to this idea is purely political. The hydropower industry has enormous sway with our regional politicians, most notably our Washington Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell. This is why tribes, fishermen, salmon advocates and scientists have been left ignored. We can't rely on the federal government to deal with this issue in a meaningful way, but hopefully the judge will do what the feds refuse to and order a negotiated settlement process that forces real collaboration on fixing the salmon crisis.
Posted Mon, Nov 23, 9:24 a.m. Inappropriate
Knocking down the dams would be the stupidest, most idiotic "solution" to a problem that is not even a problem. Hatchery salmon are essentially identical to "wild" salmon and the runs are not what they were 100 years ago -- but what is? And how would all that renewable hydropower be replaced? By the way, that's the real elephant in the room -- the ridiculous notion pushed by environmental extremists that hydro is not renewable.
Posted Tue, Nov 24, 4:33 p.m. Inappropriate
If only hatchery fish WERE the answer. The science is compelling, though, that hatchery fish don't survive well. See, for instance, "Carryover effect of captive breeding reduces reproductive fitness of wild-born descendants in the wild" (Araki et al., 2009, Biol. Ltrs), which shows that even when hatchery fish survive to spawn in the wild - which happens at a much lower rate than wild fish survival - their wild-born offspring are MUCH less likely to survive to spawn. 37% as likely, in fact. As NOAA Fisheries said in two recent biological opinions, "There is no evidence that populations consisting predominantly of hatchery-produced fish can persist over the long-term."
Maybe hatcheries can help get through the short term, but their genetics make them much more susceptible to stochastic events and less fit overall for survival. That's not my opinion; that's NOAA and lots of scientists conclusions based on evidence.
Posted Tue, Nov 24, 4:50 p.m. Inappropriate
As for energy, hydro is obviously renewable. And it's carbon-free. But it's not "clean" when its causing the extinction of these fish, which have been able to endure calamities for 10,000 years. As for what replaces it, the NW Power & Conservation Council shows that we can easily replace the four lower Snake dams'power - as well as meet ALL new load growth, and end ALL coal-based power - using carbon-free sources. See http://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/powerplan/6/Default.htm
So, in the 20-plus years that scientists have been studying salmon and the lower Snake River dams, they've actually learned a few things.
BTW: Since the first Snake River salmon run was listed in 1991, 12 more Columbia Basin runs have been listed. One has gone extinct. Not one has recovered. Seems pretty clear that the barge-and-pray method isn't bringing back salmon. The Snake River ALONE used to produce as many as 6 million chinook each year; now, the entire Columbia Basin, draining an area the size of France, averages 1.2 million salmon of all kinds (average over last ten years).