Strengths and Weaknesses of the Endangered Species Act: Some Insights from the Columbia Basin

During the 1990’s various fish stocks in the Columbia Basin were listed as threatened or endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) (NMFS 1995, 2000, Lohr et al. 2001). These listings included sockeye, spring/summer Chinook, fall Chinook, steelhead and bull trout. My perspective on the ESA is a function of four sets of related experiences over the last decade, all of which have involved facilitating multi-agency efforts to recover fish populations at risk: 1) data analyses and modeling of listed Snake River Chinook salmon to support ESA decisions (Marmorek and Peters 2001, Peters and Marmorek 2001, Deriso et al. 2001, Peters et al. 2001); 2) designing monitoring and evaluation approaches to determine the status of listed species and their responses to management actions (ESSA 2002, CBFWA 2002, ESSA 2001); 3) analyzing the factors limiting unlisted Okanagan sockeye populations that spawn in the Canadian portion of the Columbia Basin (Parnell et al. 2002) and 4) restoration efforts on listed and unlisted salmon populations in Northern California and British Columbia (Alexander et al. 2003, Marmorek and Parnell 2002). While these experiences have provided some interesting contrasts in processes – some driven by ESA and some not, my subjective opinions are naturally sculpted by my particular set of experiences. In considering the strengths and weaknesses of the ESA, I also speak from a particular perspective – that of an aquatic ecologist and facilitator, not that of a lawyer, government regulator or direct user of water and fish resources.