Agriculture and the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Director, Jeffrey P. Koenings
Remarks before the Farm Bureau, February 1, 2000

Thank you. I know you've already heard from the Governor and other agency directors today ­ and I'm sure there was some discussion of what last year's ESA listings will mean to agriculture in this state.

• I know ESA isn't a popular topic ­ and I assure you it isn't popular in the fishing industry either.

• But it's one that none of us can afford to ignore.

• I'm sure you all remember the episode last year when the National Marine Fisheries Service closed down several irrigation ditches crossing federal lands in the Methow Valley over screening and water concerns.

• That's what can happen if we leave ESA implementation to the National Marine Fisheries Service.

My agency -- and a lot of other folks -- are in the same boat.

• Unless we have plans in place that meet federal approval, we can lose control over fishing seasons, hatchery operations, lands management ­ even the operation of boat docks on public lakes.

• I can assure you that we are working very hard to develop plans that meet federal approval and still allow us to conduct our business.

• The Governor's Statewide Salmon Recovery Strategy provides an opportunity for the agriculture industry to strike similar agreements with NMFS and the US Fish and Wildlife Service by developing conservation strategies you ­ and the fish ­ can actually live with.

I would urge you all here today not to pass up that opportunity.

• Because, like it or not, agriculture -- like fisheries -- is part of this ESA puzzle, and it's a puzzle with very serious consequences.

Before I go further, I should tell you that, like yourselves, I am still learning how to deal with ESA issues myself.

• Before taking the job last year as director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, I worked for 20 years as a fisheries manager in Alaska.

• In Alaska, there ARE no ESA listings, despite the fact that there is a very active fishing industry.

• By way of comparison, Alaska fishermen caught 213 million salmon last year compared to about 1½ million in Washington.

• I recognize that Alaska is a bigger state with more coastline. But the biggest difference is that the habitat is relatively pristine: Little urban development, virtually no dams, little impact from land use practices.

• In that environment, we could allow fishermen to harvest 60% to 70% of a wild salmon run without affecting the long-term viability of the stock. The harvest of hatchery fish could go as high as 95% with no long-term impact.

There are still healthy salmon stocks in Washington, but we seldom harvest them at that level because they often mix with weaker stocks.

• Under our "weak stock" management, fishing seasons are set to conserve weak stocks rather than maximize harvesting healthy ones.

• There are no directed fisheries on threatened or endangered stocks, and fishing seasons are tailored to minimize any bycatch of weak stocks ­ whether or not they are "listed."

• Instead of the historical harvest of 60% to 70%, the coastwide harvest now takes only 20% to 30% of the fish.

Why? Implementation of weak stock management and other measures has led to a dramatic reduction in fishing effort over the past 25 years.

• In the ocean fishery, the Chinook catch for both commercial and sport fisheries has dropped 96% in that time ­ from 560,000 fish in 1974 to 23,000 in 1998.

• The coho catch has also declined by 98% during that time.

• One result is that many commercial fishers have left the industry: There are fewer than half as many commercial salmon licenses in circulation as there were 15 years ago. Moreover, many of those licenses left are inactive.

The sport fishery has also been significantly curtailed.

• The sport catch in Puget Sound has dropped 70% in the past 25 years as we've continued to reduce fishing seasons.

• And as you may know, the Fish and Wildlife Commission is scheduled to act this week on a proposal to close a number of rivers in northcentral Washington to anglers next summer. Proposed for closure are the Methow River, the Little Wenatchee, portions of Icicle River and a number of others.

• Those closures were specifically proposed to further reduce impacts on Upper Columbia Steelhead, one of the 3 species in ESUs listed last year with implications for agriculture in Eastern Washington.

There are some who say that we should just shut down ALL fishing ­ commercial and recreational ­ until the listings are removed. There are 3 reasons why I oppose that approach.

• First, it would be a huge waste of resources. There are stocks of fish that can be harvested using strategies that protect weak stocks.

• Second, it would put a lot more people out of work. The 62% disapproval vote on I-696 indicates that the public doesn't support making one industry the "scapegoat" for a shared problem.

• And finally, it wouldn't solve the problem. Incidental harvest is just one pressure on listed stocks, and hardly the most significant. While there is no denying that fishing pressure was once a problem, that simply isn't the case anymore.

Poorly functioning freshwater habitats are "taking" fish ­ in some cases, much more than incidental harvest.

• This is why federal fish managers are focused on Habitat as well as Harvest in recovering wild salmon, and why eliminating fisheries is not the solution.

That isn't to say that we don't recognize our responsibility to meet federal requirements in responding to listed species.

• Like you, we don't really have any other options.

• But like the timber industry, municipalities (like Seattle) and others, we are working with NMFS to develop plans that will exempt us from certain sections of the ESA and allow us to continue our basic operations.

Our agency has identified 14 areas of "liability" under the ESA, where we will need federal approval to continue such basic activities as:

• Fisheries management

• Hatchery operations

• Research activities

• Granting of hydraulics permits

• Game management

• Lands management

One of our agency's highest priorities is to secure federal approval for our plans in these areas, so we can stay in business.

But that's not our only priority. We have the scientific and technological capability to help landowners, state agencies and others in this state meet the collective challenge presented by the ESA. And we are working hard to provide that assistance. I would like to mention 3 examples:

• Salmon Steelhead Habitat Assessment Project: Stream restoration is critical to salmon recovery, and we have been working with the tribes to develop a database that can identify where stream restoration will do the most good. Known as SSHIAP, this tool provides a section-by-section snapshot of riparian and in-stream habitat that can be used to target restoration activities.

• Federal assistance: As many of you know, our agency has worked closely with the USDA to help farmers qualify for federal assistance under such programs as CRP, CREP and the Wetlands Reserve Program. All of these programs provide compensation for farmers to dedicate part of their land to habitat improvements. We will continue to advocate for farmers who want to make use of these programs.

• Technical Services: Our agency also provides on-the-ground advice to property owners on how to make irrigation ditches more fish-friendly and other matters. As you know, irrigation diversions are a major issue under the ESA and our field staff is available to provide any technical assistance you may need.

Whether or not you make use of our agency's advisory services, I would urge you to join in the so-called "Agriculture, Fish and Water Process" to develop a unified plan on ESA issues.

• I can't say it's been a lot of fun negotiating with the feds, but consider the alternative . . .

• A decade ago, the timber industry faced a federal listing for the spotted owl.

• Instead of agreeing to make changes, the industry fought the feds ­ and lost big. Forced to live by federal rules, the industry lost thousands of acres to production and thousands of jobs.

When a new round of ESA listings for salmon loomed a few years ago, the timber industry took a different approach. They negotiated.

• I understand that wasn't a popular decision in the agricultural community.

• But the new rules exempt the industry from Section 9 "taking" provisions and allow logging operations to continue.

• They also include an "adaptive management" program that allows science to guide changes to logging regulations in the years ahead.

• The rules package will cost the industry close to $2 billion and impose tougher logging restrictions for the next 50 years.

• Yet the newspapers reported that negotiators "sent up a cheer" after the new "Forest and Fish" rules were adopted.

• I don't know how "cheerful" the industry really is about the new rules, but ­ by negotiating ­ it did manage to avoid another round of devastating federal rules and third-party lawsuits.

One of the four stated goals of the "Forest and Fish" agreement with the feds was to "keep the industry viable in the state of Washington."

• I know I want that for the fishing industry, and I want that for agriculture too.

• Agriculture is an important industry in this state and ­ like fishing ­ a way of life. I don't want to see either one lost.

• Certainly the green fields of growing crops are a lot more fish friendly than move paved parking lots.

• But the ESA is a powerful law and these listings are not going to go away by themselves.

• We can waste time pointing fingers, or we can work together and try to come up with an approach we can all live with.

• I'm here today to tell you that we at the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife are working hard to hold up our end of the bargain by working for our mutual interests of water for people AND for fish.

Back to index