Habitat Is the Key to Wild Salmon Recovery in Western Washington

Billy Frank Jr. is chairman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.

The title to this article states why the treaty tribes who have always called this region home were surprised by the Bush Administration’s plan to reduce by more than 80 percent the critical habitat needed to recover wild salmon.

We know that harvest and hatcheries also are critical to recovering wild salmon stocks, of which three in western Washington have been listed as “threatened” under the federal Endangered Species Act. Tribes have stepped up to the challenge by reducing their harvests up to 80 percent over the past two decades. Together with our co-managers, the state of Washington, we are in the fifth year of a hatchery reform project that is helping to recover wild salmon while supporting sustainable fisheries.

Unfortunately, the same level of effort and sacrifice has not occurred when it comes to habitat. We can no longer make up for lost natural production of wild salmon by reducing harvest or simply producing more hatchery fish. Those days are gone. We are left with the difficult and costly task of protecting and restoring the salmon’s home.

The plan to reduce the amount of critical habitat deemed necessary for the recovery of wild salmon will be finalized this summer. It’s hundreds of pages long, and will require extensive analysis to fully determine possible impacts to wild salmon recovery efforts in western Washington.

Among those efforts is the Shared Strategy for Puget Sound Salmon Recovery. This cooperative wild salmon recovery effort—endorsed by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the federal agencies in charge of implementing the ESA—is bringing together tribal, state, local and federal governments, developers, environmental organizations, and many others to develop a recovery plan for wild Puget Sound chinook. That plan is due next summer, too.

Some will say the federal government’s move to reduce the amount of critical habitat means salmon need a lot less habitat protection than previously thought. That’s the wrong message. It tells county governments that they don’t need to do as much for salmon. It discourages the public from taking the small steps needed to help salmon. Critical habitat is just that—critical. Weakening its definition will not help us achieve wild salmon recovery.

The Bush Administration says that the critical habitat reduction is warranted because those lands are already protected by other conservation plans. But what are the standards being used to evaluate the effectiveness of those plans to protect salmon? We don’t know because they don’t say.

Protection of riparian areas, the land alongside critical habitat streams, would be eliminated or sharply reduced under the government’s plan. Only the stream itself would receive protection, and that’s wrong. Development, agriculture and many other upland activities can have a huge impact on streams—and the wild salmon we are trying to restore.

The habitat reduction plan also removes so-called “unoccupied” waters from protection. These are waters where salmon don’t live, either because there is no suitable habitat, or access is blocked by dikes or tide gates. Just because salmon might not live in these waters right now, doesn’t mean they couldn’t if they had access, or if the habitat was improved. These were once important salmon habitat, and may still affect healthy salmon habitat nearby. Removing these waters from critical habitat designation also removes incentives for their restoration and protection.

For wild salmon to thrive, four basic biological needs must be met:

•An adequate supply of clean, cold water;

•Access to and from the sea;

•A sufficient number of adult salmon returning to spawn;

•Properly functioning spawning and rearing habitat.

Providing these basic requirements, however, is proving to be one of the most difficult environmental, economic, political and social challenges ever faced by the United States.

One thing is clear. There is no such thing as unnecessary critical habitat. All habitat is critical to the wild salmon’s recovery and survival. §