FISH, FLOATBOATS & FEDS: “Directions and Disparities in Policy Surrounding the ESA and listed Snake River Chinook salmon on the SNRA” by D. E. Fornander,

FISH, FLOATBOATS & FISH, FLOATBOATS & FEDS:FEDS:

““Directions and Directions and Disparities in Policy Disparities in Policy

Surrounding the ESA and Surrounding the ESA and listed Snake River Chinook listed Snake River Chinook

salmon on the SNRA”salmon on the SNRA”by

D. E. Fornander, University of Arizona

AN INTRODUCTIONAN INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUNDBACKGROUND

Abundance & DeclineAbundance & Decline

““I have seen the salmon so numerous on the shoal water of the I have seen the salmon so numerous on the shoal water of the channel as to literally touch each other. It is utterly impossible to channel as to literally touch each other. It is utterly impossible to

wade across without touching the fish”wade across without touching the fish”

Ezra Meeker, Washington Territory, 1850sEzra Meeker, Washington Territory, 1850s Number of Spring Chinook Salmon redds counted in the

Salmon River drainage 1957-2000

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

1957 1960 1963 1966 1969 1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999

Return Year

Re

dd

Co

un

ts

Annual index count

5-yr sums

Data from IDFG (2002)

BACKGROUNDBACKGROUND

Anthropogenic AffectsAnthropogenic Affects

• Habitat

• Hydro

• Hatchery

• Harvest

NOAA Fisheries

BACKGROUNDBACKGROUND

RangeRange

Map provided by Save our Wild Salmon, www.wildsalmon.org

BACKGROUNDBACKGROUND

Protection and RecoveryProtection and Recovery

listed as endangered under the ESA in 1992

“to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species

and threatened species depend may be conserved” (Section 2, ESA Act, 1973)

Federal Actors: NOAA Fisheries (Regulatory Agency)

Forest Service (USFS), Sawtooth National Forest (SNF)

State Actors: Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR)

BACKGROUNDBACKGROUND

Power, Policy and GovernancePower, Policy and Governance• Clarke and McCool (1996) cite:

1. diverse ways of thinking across agencies and the agents within them

2. large constituent bodies specific to each agency that may direct certain actions and agency direction

3. overlapping mandates across agencies that may or may not be compatible

• Grumbine (1994) “the Act’s (ESA) shortcomings in biodiversity conservation lie within the

political process and implementation”

• Burgess (2001) recognized that although the ESA has proven to be a positive conservation tool, it’s utility is drastically limited by interpretation and varied levels of enforcement

FOCUS AREAFOCUS AREA

Sawtooth National Recreation AreaSawtooth National Recreation Area

(SNRA)(SNRA)In June of 1972 the Sawtooth National Recreation Area (SNRA) Act was established

“in order to assure the preservation and protection

of the natural, scenic, historic, pastoral, and fish and wildlife values and to

provide for the enhancement of the

recreation values associated therewith.”

(Section 1, SNRA Act, 1972) “administer the recreation area in accordance with the laws, rules and regulations

applicable to the national forests in such a manner as will best provide (1) the protection

and conservation of the salmon and other fisheries “

Map provided by USGS

RESEARCH QUESTIONSRESEARCH QUESTIONS

The main questions of concern in this work are; The main questions of concern in this work are;

1.1.Are there disparities in the management and regulation of Are there disparities in the management and regulation of activities that are likely to adversely affect Snake River activities that are likely to adversely affect Snake River Chinook salmon on the SNRA? Chinook salmon on the SNRA?

1.1.If so, what are these disparities and what is/are recognized If so, what are these disparities and what is/are recognized as the main contributing factor(s) to their existence?as the main contributing factor(s) to their existence?

1.1.How do recognized “experts” perceive these directions How do recognized “experts” perceive these directions relative to the overarching goals of recovery?relative to the overarching goals of recovery?

METHODSMETHODS

Recognized “experts”: Fish & Game, Forest Service & NOAA Fisheries

INTERVIEWS: USFS (7), NOAA Fisheries in Idaho (8), IDFG (6) (28 in Total) ”experts” in the greater Pacific Northwest Region (7)

QUESTIONAIRES: USFS (9), NOAA Fisheries in Idaho (13), NOAA Fisheries in (37 in Total) the Pacific Northwest (6), iDFG (6), and local outfitters (3)

Additional Analysis of: Agency structure, Policy records, & Issuance of take

RESULTSRESULTS

Main contributors to disparities : 1) levels of governance associated with management of specific actions, 2) political power of land user

constituents, and 3) public visibility and awareness of the activities and impacts.

Specific to recreation, primary disparities cited included:

1) The closure of outfitted floatboating on the upper Salmon River, while recreational fishing remained open, despite known effects

2) No closure of outfitted floatboating on the Middle Fork Salmon River

3) Unregulated water diversion and irrigation taking place on both private and public lands within the SNRA boundaries

82% - considered these (and other) disparities in management and regulation an issue of major concern.

“it is inconsequential, dams are the real issue!” Agency “expert”

RESULTSRESULTS

“The ESA was written, with the direct intent of Congress, for the feds to shoulder the burden of protection”

“Public land users under federal management are hit the hardest by ESA interpretation”

“Regulatory measures do not appear to be consistent with recovery goals. We tend to regulate those that will allow it-

the smaller groups with less power. In turn we are only addressing the smaller issues and ignoring the larger scale-long term effects. There are huge disparities in the degree

of management within the government.”

RESULTSRESULTS

Figure 5 Land Use, Management and Regulatory framework on the Upper Salmon River, Sawtooth National Recreation Area

(SNRA).

USFS

Commercial

Floatboating

IDFG

IDWR

Water Use:

diversions &

irrigation

Sustainable

Fisheries Division

Habitat Conservat

ion Division

Recreational

Fishing

Management Agencies

Land Use Actions

Regulatory Branch (within NOAA)

FEDERAL STATE

NO “TAKE” ISSUED

“TAKE” ISSUED

OVER REGULATE

D

PROPERLY REGULATE

D

UNDER REGULATE

D

RESULTSRESULTS

 Managem

ent Agency

Regulatory

Branch

Known effects

to Salmo

n

 Take

Issued

Area Restrictio

ns

Level of Regulatio

n

 Commerc

ial Floatboat

ing

 SNRA

(Federal)

 HCD

(NOAA)

 None

No

Quiet zones,

portages and

seasonal closure

 OVER

 Recreatio

nal Fishing

 IDFG

(State)

 SFD

(NOAA)

 Trampling of

redds & increased juvenile mortality

 Yes

(Based on

returns)

None

PROPER

Water Use:

diversions

and irrigation

 IDWR

(State)

 HCD

(NOAA)

 Adult and juvenile mortality through

dewatering, …

No

 Limited,

if any

UNDER

Table 1 Regulatory, managerial and scientific concerns associated with

current policy on the SNRA

RESULTSRESULTS

“It is extremely discouraging when doing portages with clients and discussing the importance of protecting

salmon, to walk past anglers standing on top of redds as they cast at spawning salmon and attempt to snag them

out of the water!”

-local outfitter

“We tend to regulate those that will allow themselves to be regulated. You never pick a fight

with the biggest dog on the block!”

Agency “expert”

RESULTSRESULTS

In summary we can conclude from these findings that:

1. There are large disparities that currently exist in the management and

regulation of listed Snake River Chinook salmon on the SNRA in central

Idaho.

2. a) Specific examples include commercial floatboating, recreational

fishing and water use/irrigation.

b) These disparities are recognized in large part by experts in the field to

be associated with the level of governance of the agency managing the

action in question (state vs. federal), as well as the power held by

various agents, actions and their constituent bodies.

3. These governance level disparities are largely attributed to current

interpretation of the ESA and result in the over and/or under

regulation of various land use strategies that are inconsistent with

associative affects and in turn considered to be counterintuitive to the

goals of recovery.

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONSCONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

“any State law or regulation respecting the taking of an endangered species or threatened species may be more

restrictive than the exemptions or permits provided for in this Act or in any regulation which implements this Act but not less restrictive than prohibitions so defined”

ESA, Section 6

.

Regulatory efforts need to extend to the ecosystem scale and focus must be placed upon the action and affect associated with

conservation goals, regardless of associative governance.

“encouraging the States and other interested parties, through Federal financial assistance and a system of incentives, to

develop and maintain conservation programs is a key to meeting the Nation’s international commitments and to better safe-

guarding, for the benefit of all citizens, the Nation’s heritage in fish, wildlife, and plants”

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONSCONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS1) Establish uniform goals to recovery that bridge the

various levels of governance at the state, local and federal level, holding all accountable.

2) Implement holistic science that recognizes social, cultural, political and ecological systems as not being mutually exclusive.

3) Develop conservation strategies toward long-term solutions and sustainability at a regional watershed and/or landscape scale.

4) Create partnerships in management and regulation that integrate agents at the state, local and federal level.

Government

less represented agents (such as floatboaters, in this case) should pool their efforts and work toward developing larger constituent bodies that extends across the greater region of the Pacific Northwest

Local

Questions & CommentsQuestions & Comments