I received this from Buzz Ramsey today.



Subject: Scientists Urge Bush to Scrap Salmon Plan



Scientists Urge Bush to Scrap Salmon Plan

WASHINGTON, DC, November 24, 2004 (ENS) – The Bush administration’s revisions to the federal salmon plan for the Columbia and Snake Rivers is "scientifically indefensible" and further undermines an already inadequate effort to save the icon of the Pacific Northwest, according to a letter sent to the White House Tuesday by 250 scientists.

The letter signers criticized the plan for breaking with longstanding scientific views and evidence by claiming that Columbia and Snake river dams do not jeopardize federally protected salmon and steelhead.

The signers include fishery biologists, ecologists, hydrologists and other salmon or fishery-related experts from 37 states across the country, including more than 160 from Pacific salmon states.

The salmon plan has long been the source of controversy and litigation as policymakers, federal officials and interested parties wrestle with how to protect and restore wild Pacific salmon.

The plea by the scientists comes a week before the new plan is expected to be finalized.

The Bush administration was forced to rewrite the plan in response to a court order issued in May 2003 by U.S. District Court Judge James Redden, who ruled the plan violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) because there was no certainty the recommended actions would be carried out.

Thirteen different salmon and steelhead populations listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA live in waters impacted by the 14 federal dams on the Columbia River Basin.

A key part of this latest proposal is the decision to allow NOAA Fisheries to ignore the impact of the dams’ existence and instead only evaluate the impacts of dam operations.

Both impacts were considered in the prior biological opinions that lay at the heart of the federal salmon plan.

Bush officials say the change in policy will not jeopardize future of the ESA-listed salmon and steelhead because technology can mitigate the impact of the dams.

They contend the plan balances the energy and water needs of the Northwest with the commitment to increasing healthy salmon stocks.

Critics say the Bush revisions rest on politics, not science.

"If this new plan is adopted in its current form, the recovery of wild Columbia Basin salmon will likely fall farther from our reach," said Jim Lichatowich, the former Chief of Fisheries Research and Assistant Chief of Fisheries for the state of Oregon. "A science-based plan cannot ignore the full impacts of hydroelectric dams on salmon, as this plan does."

Serious concerns about the draft plan were also raised by scientists in documents from the State of Oregon, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Alaska and Idaho Departments of Fish and Game and the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians. Tribal comments have prompted an independent scientific review of the plan by the Western Division of the American Fisheries Society.

"This salmon plan does a poor job of alleviating the symptoms of dam operations that harm juvenile and adult salmon - low river flows, high river temperatures, etc," said Roy Heberger, and Idaho fisheries biologist who retired from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2000 after 33 years of service

"Even worse," Heberger said, "it fails entirely to account for the root problem - the dams and reservoirs themselves. Instead the administration inexplicably treats the concrete as though it were part of the natural environment."

* * *

Tough one here Dave! I wish we where having the conversation 70 or so years ago when the Columbia and Snake rivers where still free flowing.

The article states, "A key part of this latest proposal is the decision to allow NOAA Fisheries to ignore the impact of the dams’ existence and instead only evaluate the impacts of dam operations," and ends with this, "Even worse," Heberger said, "it fails entirely to account for the root problem - the dams and reservoirs themselves. Instead the administration inexplicably treats the concrete as though it were part of the natural environment."

I believe that those dams will never be removed and thus their existance should not be a part of the recovery plan. As someone in his 30's I've never seen or experianced a free flowing Columbia and so it is, essentially, "part of the natural environment." As sucky as that fact is! If dams themselves (read as dam removal) are included than that will be the only solution. That will only create lawsuits for dam removal. In the meantime the dam operators will be trying to make as much money (to defend themselves and their business) no matter how distructive their operating policies are to fish runs. After all the problem is the dams themselves and not how they are operated so why bother discussing how they are operated. Not real sure if that is in the fish's best interest?

I'll admit I usually have all the answers but not on this one. This is an extremely complicated issue. I think we need to admit the reality of the dams existance and do the best we can to mitigate their existance.

Dave..I read this kind of quickly and do not see the corrections recommended. What are they? From what I read, we can take dam removal off the table. What should be done?

I'm with BroodBuster. There is no realistic easy solution to this. Key word being realistic. Remove dams, then what about the power presently being generated and consumed?...address how to replace that loss and we have ourselves a "can do".

It is not "anti-fish" to mitigate impacts of detrimental practices which have become social desires and the accepted norm. It is, in fact, the only reasonable solution. So instead of constantly dinging the "science-based" or "best-available-science" bell solely in support of a return to "Time-Before-Man", perhaps the same science based efforts need to refocus.....solving today's problems with creative solutions.

Don't tell me we can do the most incredible things with medicine, but can't raise a stinking fish.

It is hard to get a handle on this issue. I agree that the Dams are here to stay and that is simple reality; so why not concentrate on mitigating the effects of the Dams? On the other hand omitting the negative effects of Dams from the proposal would seem to make future Dam construction or modification a non issue under the plan because the plan calls for only mitigating the effects of the Dams.

Ultimately I believe that all of the facts have to be considered in any Salmon Recovery plan, rather then pick and choose; or how else can you learn from the mistakes of the past?

The objected to part of the "plan" appears to be the part that directs NOAA not to bother adding the dam's existence into the formula for salmon recovery. To me that is simply stating the obvious and that is that the current dams are here to stay for the forseeable future so let's come up with solutions that do not include removing the dams. We all know that the dams screwed the fish populations when they were first built and continue to have adverse effects today. So the question is not whether they are bad but what we can do about it now. What can we do while coexisting with the dams? Nothing? I don't think that makes sense.

Kind of like the reality I have to face when discussing the significant impact the indian tribes have on our fisheries. What can we do to coexist with the tribes and still help our fish recover? Beats me but I know I have to suck it up and try.

Grandpa,

The existence of the dams as the baseline for analysis seems to be the crux of the issue. I'll leave alone the legal issue that the ESA states the environmental baseline as "all past and present state, federal, and private actions . . ."

If the presence of the dams are a given, then recovery of wild salmon may be impossible. Let's also be clear that not all dams are at issue here. As I understand it, biologists who've made analyses are not saying the lower 4 mainstem Columbia River dams have to be breached. The dam removal, or breaching, issue is usually limited to the 4 lower Snake River dams. These dams produce a small % of the FCRPS energy supply, but they are also thought to be the dams preventing recovery of sustainable wild salmon runs.

If the lower Snake dams stay, that could well be a decision to extirpate wild Snake River sockeye, summer and fall chinook. Some spring chinook may hang on, but I don't think that is even certain. Some wild steelhead are likely to persist in the Snake tributaries, but only if extreme conservation measures are imposed on the other sources of "take," like fishing.

Conservationists should be careful about pushing this issue at this time. If push comes to shove, the ESA case will go to the "God Squad". Under this administration, extirpation is the likely decision. Or, more likely, they will say that unproven measures will recover the fish, even tho the "determination" flies in the face of science. A wise environmental warrior might choose to make do for now, and take up the fight another day when the choices are certain extirpation against potential extirpation.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Like I said, the hand writing is on the wall concerning the dams. The interests that find salmon salvation as a thorn in their side have more clout than we do. So I say again, what can we do within this box we find ourselves in?
Continue to politicize the issue or come up with constructive solutions that work for us?

I was with you Salmo until the little Bush voo doo doll came out of your bag and you started sticking pins in it.

I re-read the Washington State Democratic party's platform tonight and it specifically spells out its opposition to breaching of the dams....not just the 4 main ones but "the dams"...They go on to say that the dams are vital to our economy...Similar to what Bush proclaimed when he was here.

So hold your breath for 4 more years and beyond while the rest of us try to coexist with the dams and come up with solutions to save the salmon runs. Just think what getting rid of the nets would do. Or dealing with the seals...or the tribes....or the terns...

partisan politics should not be at the base of this discussion. Saving Salmon for future generations, either democrat or republican, is the issue? It is easy to blame the other guy but in the end it is going to come down to who wants to pay for it. If no one can agree on a solution these fish WILL disappear.
Sportsmen need to unite and elect officails that represent us.