Peter Neurath Staff Writer, Puget Sound Business Journal
With the specter of a federal agency listing nearly all wild salmon in Washington as threatened or endangered, the state Department of Ecology plans to propose a preemptive solution to the Legislature in January.
To prevent the federal action, the state must devise its own salmon recovery plan that meets approval by the National Marine Fisheries Service.
But whether the state or the Fisheries Service undertakes to save the region's salmon from extinction, everyone agrees the economic costs will be considerable -- though apparently no one has tried to quantify the overall impact on development, agriculture, timber, river transportation and industry.
Department of Ecology director Tom Fitzsimmons said local watershed management is the best state tool to achieve a sustainable balance among competing uses of water. Basically, he said, the issue is one of water for people versus water for fish.
Fitzsimmons, speaking last week before the annual meeting of the Washington Public Utility Districts Association, said he's optimistic that his department, together with four legislators representing each of the Legislature's caucuses, will draft a planning bill by late this month.
The bill would set a framework for solving the state's water problems, he said. It would set up a collaborative planning process, involving the state, municipalities, Indian tribes and all other interested parties, all of whom would have to reach consensus on any watershed plan. If they fail to do that within a specified time, the Department of Ecology or some other state agency would do the plan.
Fitzsimmons said pilot watershed planning projects have not worked because the Legislature has not been committed to the process.
He said Gov. Locke will not agree to any other water-planning bill during the coming legislative session, beginning Jan. 12.
The business community generally will support watershed-planning legislation, "given certain considerations," said Scott Hazlegrove, environmental policy director with the Association of Washington Business. "The biggest concern is trying to balance strategies for protecting salmon with a system that guarantees continued economic growth."
Separately, a group of 23 legislators, called The Salmon Restoration Task Force, has been gathering information about what is being done and what should be done to save Puget Sound salmon. More broadly, it aims to get legislative leaders up to speed on policy and financial issues tied to fish habitat and water, said task force co-chair Rep. Dave Mastin, R-Walla Walla.
In January, the Fisheries Service will propose salmon listings for Puget Sound. In August, it listed steelhead from Pasco to the Canadian border as an endangered species, and in the Snake River Basin as a threatened species.
In 1991, Snake River sockeye salmon were listed as endangered, as were chinook salmon in 1994. As a result, said Fisheries spokesman Brian Gorman, the entire Columbia River Basin is under federal control to avoid further jeopardizing the fish. That's having "a profound effect" on agriculture and power production, he said.
There's more to come. "It's safe to say," said Gorman, "that virtually all salmon species on the West Coast will be listed by the end of the decade, though some individual population groups may not be."
Under the federal Endangered Species Act, the salmon will be listed as endangered -- likely to become extinct -- or threatened, meaning likely to become endangered.
Anyone can petition the Fisheries Service for a listing, and the agency has 90 days to respond. Then it has a year to decide whether to propose a listing and, if it does, another 12 months to decide.
If it decides to act, then all other federal agencies proposing to do anything that could jeopardize the listed fish must first gain approval from the Fisheries Service. And one way or another, a listing also affects various state agencies.
Mastin said any activity affecting fish and requiring a permit -- logging, water withdrawals, water discharge, storm water and wetland changes, for instance -- would entail an impact assessment and possible mitigation measures. Anything that destroys fish habitat, moreover, would lead to fines.
To avert a listing, the state must come up with a salmon recovery plan approved by the Fisheries Service.
Any recovery plan, whether state or federal, will be "painful and intrusive," observed Kathleen Collins, the lobbyist for the Water Policy Alliance, representing municipal, agricultural and business groups.
Just how much pain depends on whether preservation or restoration is the aim. The Fisheries Service deems a fish species recovered if it can "sustain its numbers such that it will not slip into the threatened category," Gorman said.
But Gov. Gary Locke may have much more in mind. Collins said Locke's goal is to restore a salmon to "a harvestable level."
Mastin noted that listings prevent further destruction but do not improve fish habitat. The Legislature could take steps to create standards, financial incentives and technical assistance for improving habitat, he said. "The state has a tremendous opportunity to recreate how we do environmental protection."