| NOAA, Groups agree to critical
habitat designation schedule
(Note: Time to remind readers about 'critical habitat designation,' straight from the horse's 'mouth:' "When we make critical habitat designations, we just designate everything as critical, without an analysis of how much habitat an evolutionary significant unit needs." - Donna Darm, the acting NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) Regional Administrator for the Northwest, in a 1998 intra-agency memorandum. NMFS is the DOI agency that is now known as NOAA.) September 19, 2003 By Mike O'Bryant Columbia Basin Bulletin: "Weekly Fish & Wildlife News" Bend, Oregon NOAA Fisheries, conservation and fishing groups agreed to a schedule that the fisheries agency must follow to reestablish critical habitat for 19 salmon and steelhead evolutionarily significant units. The agency and groups signed the consent decree, which affects ESUs in California, Oregon, Idaho and Washington, on Sept. 12. The agreement puts NOAA Fisheries on a timeline to complete a status report on its progress in reestablishing critical habitat by March 1, 2004; to complete the draft critical habitat designations for the 19 ESUs by June 30, 2004; and to issue final critical habitat designations by January 18, 2005. The agreement does not mandate boundaries for critical habitat. Previous critical habitat designations for the ESUs were withdrawn by NOAA Fisheries as a result of a court challenge by the National Association of Homebuilders, which said that NOAA Fisheries had failed to include economic analyses along with the critical habitat designations. Although that lawsuit was not settled, similar court action against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in New Mexico that ruled an economic analysis was needed, caused NOAA Fisheries to sign a consent decree in April 2002 to set aside the critical habitat designations while conducting additional economic analyses. That has left the 19 ESUs without critical habitat protection for more than a year. NOAA Fisheries said it withdrew the habitat designations because of its failure to include the economic analyses in those designations, although the agency may have been unaware of the requirement when it first completed those designations. "We signed a consent decree about one year ago to withdraw the critical habitats for the ESUs," said Brian Gorman, a spokesman for NOAA Fisheries. "It was over our failure to include economic analyses." He added that the economic analysis, something the agency has never done before, is not a requirement of the federal Endangered Species Act, "but apparently we are supposed to consider the economics of critical habitat once the listing is in place," he said. The conservation and fishing groups claim that the Bush Administration had failed in April 2002 to defend the designations. "We're pleased to finally have a schedule for protecting important salmon and steelhead habitat," said David Hogan, Rivers Program coordinator for the Center for Biological Diversity. "But the Bush administration was far too eager to strip the salmon of earlier habitat protection. We should never have come to this point." The conservation groups said the failure to defend the critical habitat designations is just one example of the Administration's "larger assault" on ESA protections. They said the Administration has also encouraged legislation that undermines the ESA, underfunded habitat designations and sought delays to protect habitat. Since April 2002, NOAA Fisheries hasn't completed any of the critical habitat designations, which prompted the conservation and fishing groups to file a petition before U.S. District Court to put the agency on a timeline. The groups said the designations play "a vital role in the workings" of the ESA. "Indeed, recent evidence indicates that species with designated habitat are not only less likely to be suffering a decline but are twice as likely to be recovering," the groups said. The groups joining in the court action are the Center for Biological Diversity, Earthjustice, Pacific Rivers Council, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Oregon Natural Resources Council, the Environmental Protection Information Center, and the Institute for Fisheries Resources. Although the consent decree allows changes to the timeline with 60 days notice to the other parties, and with the consent of the court, Gorman said the fisheries agency has every intention of holding to the timing outlined by the court. Link information: NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Fisheries Office: Additional news stories: http://znetprime.znetsolutions.com/cbb.nsf/cbbView Another quote: "In 30 years of implementing the Endangered Species Act, the Service has found that the designation of critical habitat provides little additional protection to most listed species, while preventing the Service from using scarce conservation resources for activities with greater conservation benefits. In almost all cases, recovery of listed species will come through voluntary cooperative partnerships, not regulatory measures such as critical habitat. Habitat is also protected through cooperative measures under the Endangered Species Act including Habitat Conservation Plans, Safe Harbor Agreements, Candidate Conservation Agreements and state programs. In addition, voluntary partnership programs such as the Service's Private Stewardship Grants and Partners for Fish and Wildlife program also restore habitat. Habitat for endangered species is provided on many national wildlife refuges managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state lands administered by the Department of Land and Natural Resources." - From: Joan_Jewett@r1.fws.gov. You can cite the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as the source of the critical habitat language. June 23, 2003 (On June 19, 2003, the comment to my inquiry as to the author of this quote was: "These statements were written in Interior Secretary Gale Norton's office. I do not know the exact author.") |