Recently news broke in Grist of an agreement brokered by the Bush administration and several Northwest tribes affecting endangered salmon, litigation, and dam operations on the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Now that the dust has settled, here is one view of this deal's details and implications.
First, it is worth highlighting that this deal came during the same week that a government council decided on unprecedented closures for salmon fishing on the West Coast in response to another precipitous drop in salmon stocks, this time on the Sacramento River.
Salmon populations and coastal communities have suffered under the current administration's science-free salmon policy. This year's declines on the Sacramento, like recent declines on the other big salmon rivers -- the Klamath and Columbia-Snake -- can be traced to harmful dams, habitat destruction, and politically driven management decisions and illegal plans by our federal government.
So, what will this agreement mean for Columbia Basin populations and the decades-long courtroom battles?
Like most deals, this one delivers things to both parties. For the tribes, it means $1 billion over 10 years for habitat and hatchery projects. The list suggests a series of laudable projects that will have positive impacts on habitat -- mainly for healthy salmon populations, with about 25 percent of the funds to go toward imperiled species. In addition, some funding will go toward studying lamprey restoration (which is extremely important to tribal communities) in the Columbia Basin.
And what does the administration get? In exchange for this funding, the feds acquire a very new alliance in the courtroom: the tribes agree to not litigate the administration's latest salmon plan any further, and to join the administration to "affirmatively support" the current dam operations. This includes submitting official documents supporting the salmon plan. (In January of this year, these same tribes delivered 140 pages of public comment strenuously opposing this administration's plan for dam operations and its harmful impact on endangered stocks.) With 13 ESA-listed stocks spiraling toward extinction, after more than $8 billion in federal monies and nearly 20 years of litigation, the feds' approach to salmon protection has proven both very expensive and deeply flawed.
For the next 10 years, the tribes also agree to not advocate for removing the four costly, outdated lower Snake River dams -- the one measure that most scientists insist is needed to protect salmon from extinction. For example, up to 92 percent of juvenile Snake River salmon are killed by federal dams before they ever reach the ocean.
The agreement is unlikely to end the litigation over the operation and existence of certain dams in the Snake River. While it changes the mix of the litigants and ensures that the tribes will not publicly advocate for their previously long-held, science-based recovery measures, the deal does not protect our most endangered wild salmon in the Snake and Columbia rivers. With less than 25 percent of the funding going toward those stocks, it is clear that this deal wasn't intended to address the actual ESA issues facing the Northwest. With this deal, the administration shows it is more focused on solving their courtroom crisis than solving the real, on-the-ground crises facing endangered salmon and endangered fishing communities.
It doesn't have to be this way. Solutions exist that are based both in good science and responsible fiscal policy. In order to get there, however, it looks like we are depending on leadership from Congress starting today and a new administration in 2009.
This Halloween, cut flesh for the climate
WWF finds tons of new species about to be wiped out by climate change [slideshow]
Taras Grescoe on factory salmon farming
Comments
View as Flat
CM521 Posted 9:05 am
23 Apr 2008
Your comment "With less than 25 percent of the funding going toward those stocks, it is clear that this deal wasn't intended to address the actual ESA issues facing the Northwest," is troubling to me because it treats salmon as an independent component rather than a part of the entire system. Logic tells me that if you do something to help the ecosystem for non-listed salmon, lamprey, sturgeon, trout and the many other species this MOA benefits-you will also benefit ESA-listed salmon. They all require the same quality habitat, clean water and cool temperatures. It seems terribly ignorant to think salmon exist in a vacuum and independent of anything else. Ecosystems are a series of complex relationships. One can not look to a single species and a single solution. Doing so misses the big picture.
Permalink
phyzzi Posted 12:00 pm
23 Apr 2008
Permalink
JMG Posted 1:34 pm
23 Apr 2008
There are many ways to look at this.
As you say, maybe they think it's a lost cause.
Maybe the tribes who settled are accepting the notion that hatchery fish are an OK substitute for wild fish, and that they can do better by focusing on hatcheries and their output.
Maybe they are cynical enough to say that since the existing runs in the mainstem Columbia (i.e., the product of hatcheries and the natural fish from the Hanford reach) are doing OK, let's take the free money and run, and screw the upstream runs and the tribes that care about them.
As you originally hypothesized, maybe they believe Judge Redden still won't buy the phony science and solutions being proposed by BPA, and he will do the heavy lifting by forcing BPA to manage water and maybe even remove dams.
Maybe they think the projects funded by the $900 million will solve the problems and will restore healthy runs.
Who knows which is right. More to the point, who knows how it will play out over the next decade (2.5 fish generations).
Save your community: Cut greenhouse gas emissions 5% per year.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:08 pm
24 Apr 2008
Or at least those four (allegedly all-wise) tribes who agreed to this decision are now partners in making the neglect institutional. The Nez Perce, up the Snake in Idaho, rejected the agreement. That the tribes cannot find a common position on this huge issue suggests that their decision-making is not necessarily any wiser or better than anyone else's.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:28 pm
24 Apr 2008
I do not know enough to say that JMG's friend's second point is likely to be right. But I am prepared to be cynical and accept the third point.
Here is a somewhat more detailed report by an AP writer, essentially agreeing with Bogaard, with comments on the relative needs of different species of salmon, and of lampreys, and how much money each of the four tribes is getting:
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=116&sid=1382432
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink