Arrow-right Camera
The Spokesman-Review Newspaper
Spokane, Washington  Est. May 19, 1883

Fish, Water Experts Feel Craig Proposal ‘Needs More Work’

The winners would be loggers and ranchers, and the losers would be streams and native fish, critics say of Sen. Larry Craig’s “Forest Health” bill.

Environmentalists say the two short paragraphs relating to fisheries and streams in the 100-page bill spell doom for both.

Even a timber industry spokesman agrees that the water quality provisions could use some work.

But one congressional staff member said that under Craig’s bill the federal lands would “get the same level of fish and wildlife protection at a lower cost.”

According to the bill, activities on U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands would be in compliance with the federal Clean Water Act if the activities follow state guidelines.

Al Espinoza, former fisheries biologist for the Clearwater National Forest, calls the bill “a free lunch” for industry.

“The state has a long history of not enforcing the Clean Water Act,” he said. “That’s why Larry Craig is trying to keep them in charge of the process.”

But even the state’s oversight would be minimal. The federal agencies would be allowed to judge for themselves whether they’re doing what the Clean Water Act dictates.

Idaho recently was ordered by a federal judge to accelerate its cleanup of streams, lakes and rivers, and establish water quality standards for them under the Clean Water Act.

To rely on the state’s regulations is inadequate protection, Espinoza and other critics said.

“They’re far from what’s needed to protect streams,” said John Rhodes, a hydrologist with the Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission.

Joe Hinson, an executive vice president of the Intermountain Forest Industry Association, agreed that the state’s so-called “best management practices” alone are not enough.

“Just because you’re complying with BMPs does not mean you’re complying with water quality standards,” Hinson said. “It sounds like Sen. Craig’s bill needs more work in that area.”

Recent studies have noted that there’s no evidence that best management practices are helping to significantly improve habitat.

“The (Idaho) state forest practices act is pretty much a joke,” Espinoza said. “They’re too liberal in protecting the watershed.”

Where some federal requirements call for a 300-foot buffer around certain types of streams, the state’s rules would only call for 75 feet or less, he said.

“Essentially what Craig’s doing with this ‘Forest Health’ bill is giving away the forest lands to the industry,” Espinoza said. “He might as well sell it. Then we can have a party or something.”

Fisheries biologists also are concerned about a provision in the bill that would eliminate the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries services ability to manage endangered species on BLM or Forest Service lands.

Hinson is not concerned about that aspect of the bill.

“There’s no question that we need to streamline how we deal with endangered species,” he said. “I would certainly like to think that the biologists of one agency should be able to do that.”

Critics say Craig’s bill excludes those agencies specifically designed to manage fish and wildlife.

Forest Service biologists, they fear, will be under pressure to issue biological opinions that favor industry and allow degradation of important habitat.

“The BLM and Forest Service are not always right or committed to recovering endangered species,” said Cindy Deacon Williams, a fisheries biologist and president-elect of the Idaho chapter of the American Fisheries Society.

“It’s odd to set the federal government up for special treatment that is less onerous than what everyone else has to comply with,” she said.

, DataTimes