Critical habitats for Lower Columbia Coho Salmon | Puget Sound Steelhead 

The proposal that is going to be commented on is one related to the designation and implementation of critical habitats for Lower Columbia Coho Salmon as well as Puget Sound Steelhead fish that are both endangered species and are considered to be nearing extinction within the region. The proposal has been submitted by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) who believe that the endangerment of these species has a number of factors that can affect the economy of the country in numerous ways, urging the country to think about the various impacts that could occur in light of the endangerment predictions in relation to the fish that are being proposed to receive designated critical habitats.

Critical habitats are somewhat a solution that many agencies try to ignore in today’s world simply because a critical habitat is also bound to have somewhat economic impacts on the country and its economic activity. However, the benefits of designating a critical habitat may only arrive after a few years, once the endangered species, for which the critical habitats are being designated, become available for economic purposes and do not fall under the category of endangered species anymore (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2013). There are many impacts that have been analyzed and will be analyzed yet again for the purpose of this public interest comment.

Firstly, the economic analysis will take place and indicate as to whether or not an economic cost outweighs he economic benefits of the proposal for critical habitat designations or that the critical habitat designations are bound to have a more authoritative outweighing cost to the weighing benefits of such a proposal. NMFS has also made clear that its new proposal of designated critical habitat zones is based on previous proposals, only improving the previous proposals so as to minimize the costs and maximize the benefits out of this proposal. This leads to the fact that perhaps, the proposal that has been made now is far more analytical in nature and is far more beneficial in terms of all prospects within the proposal.

Secondly, the exclusion of some areas within the critical habitat zone has been implemented as well so as to reduce the incoming costs of other land loss and other project management loss within the process. The fact that economic development in terms of other projects has been kept in mind and has been allowed to progress at an unprecedented rate is enough to make sense about the fact that this proposal is intended to have more benefits than perceived costs. This goes to show that while the project may have been seen as a more consistent project with costs included in it far more than the benefits, the proposal has become one that is more inclined toward benefits rather than costs and has been successful in terms of economic impact so far.

Thirdly, while there is exclusion of many outstanding land projects and land distributions in terms of the designated critical habitat zones, there has been inclusion of other critical habitat land zones since inclusion of land in this proposal is pertinent and cannot be withdrawn at all. However, the inclusion of and that is now demonstrated in the proposal in terms of the designated critical habitat for the lower Columbia River Coho Salmon and the Puget Sound Steelhead have become less variable and do not cause threat to any other lands that could increase costs and reduce benefits (Breslow, 2014). In this manner, it can also be said that the proposal protects the endangered species while keeping costs at a minimum.

Fourthly, the exclusion of such land in the critical habitat designation of these two endangered species in question within the proposal cause more benefits rather than costs to the overall land in question and therefore, it can be said that the economic activities are much more concise and regulated by the agency’s proposal rather than hampered or halted in progression. This goes on to show that the proposal is indeed carefully thought out, researched upon, and analyzed over and again until the results were reliable and repeated numerous times.

Fourthly, there are no national security costs. This is because the proposal does not cover any kind of land in its designated critical habitat land that could hamper any military production or any other kind of state and federal production in any perceivable way (Menzies & Butler, 2007). Moreover, this also goes to show that the project is indeed more capable of allowing a rather solemn proposal to continue as the designated critical habitat lands do not encompass or crossover with other productions and projects that can be seen as a threat to the national security of the country and in turn, a threat to overall benefits that the country is already trying to gain in a more revised and credible manner.

Fifthly, it is seen as a fact that majority costs include transportation as a basic impact on the proposal. Transportation for the fish to be transported from one designated location to the designated critical habitat lands will induce temporary costs for the proposal project and these would be seen as minor costs incurred in return for the majority of benefits that will be achieved in the long run, such as the revamp of the endangered species and the possibility that such species can be regenerated quickly over a course of couple years.

Sixthly, the proposal also includes a cost for water supply as the designated critical habitat lands for the lower Columbia River Coho Salmon would be 2,238 miles in length and area while the designated critical habitat lands for the Puget Sound Steelhead would be 1,880 miles in length and area. Therefore, these large areas of land would need immediate water supplies of freshwater since both endangered species are ones that survive in freshwater and breed in freshwater as well, being highly fatal when it comes to surviving in salt water areas.

Seventhly, as it can be noticed, the designated critical land for the lower Columbia River Coho Salmon would be 2,238 miles in length and area while the designated critical habitat lands for the Puget Sound Steelhead would be 1,880 miles in length and area. This means that not only would the costs include transportation of fish and water, as well as the transportation or purifying of water supply in the designated critical habitat lands, but it will also come notice that the designated critical habitat lands will be in need of maintenance over the years that the endangered species are revamped and brought back to a more credible amount (Khangaonkar & Yang, 2011). For this, it can be said that there will be implementation of in-stream activities that will allow for both endangered species that are meant to be kept in a more sophisticated environment so that they can reproduce at a designated pace and to deter from such reproduction or survival methods. In order for this to be achieved, the in-stream activities will incur costs and these costs need to be taken under serious suggestions so as to make it clear that the costs will not be forgotten or misplaced within the proposal. This also goes on to show as to how strongly the proposal has been analyzed in terms of economic impact.

Eighthly, No military land is crossed over with designated critical habitats so no military land impacts and costs are incurred in the long run of the implementation of the proposal. Since both endangered species have been given designated critical habitat lands in the states of Oregon and Washington, it comes to notice that these designated critical habitat lands are far away from any possible threat of crossing over with a military occupied base or land that needs to go through military construction. This means that no sort of costs would be incurred in terms of paying military occupants for the land that would need to be taken away from such organizations. It would also mean that since no military land is crossed or even comes in touch with the designated critical habitat lads, there will be no threat to the national security as no military base can be compromised from the implementation of the proposal. Furthermore, this would mean that the proposal also has vast benefits in terms of allowing the nation to survive without any national security costs or threats being implied in between. This also goes to show as to how carefully the lands have been designed and designated so as to avoid such costs and increase the overall benefits of the proposal in return.

Lastly, the Incremental economic costs reach $357,815 dollars for Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon and $460,924 dollars for Puget Sound Steelhead in terms of the combined costs that are made in relation to the in-stream activities, the water supply costs, the costs of transportation, as well as other costs that will be detailed in terms of the consultations that will be needed in order to gain the proposal legitimacy in the country and so as to begin the implementation of the project. The consultation costs come in the presence of the laws that have been situated in the Endangered Species ACT (ESA). The ESA article 7 asks for consultations that will be necessary so as to bring a more in-depth and legitimate beginning to the proposal. This is necessary as it will allow the designated critical habitat land for the endangered species to be implemented and brought into a drastic process so as to bring a more decisive aspect of benefits to the proposal, which will significantly outweigh the projected costs.

The species’ reproduction will only lead to a more serious claim for the redistribution and generation of similar proposals throughout other countries so as to bring a far more important economic impact to the world and to bring a more varied response in the manner that the rest of the countries also follow in bringing the benefits of such a proposal to life in their own nations and therefore, diminishing the prospect of extinction for this given species.

Hence, it can be concluded that the proposal has benefits that outweigh the costs of the proposal and allow the proposal to be one that can easily gain approval from any regulatory body since it is one that has focused on severe impacts to the environment and economic prospects of the nation, and has found ways to solve such problems.

References

Breslow, S. J. (2014). Tribal Science and Farmers’ Resistance: A Political Ecology of Salmon Habitat Restoration in the American Northwest. Anthropological Quarterly, 727-758.

Khangaonkar, T., & Yang, Z. (2011). A High-Resolution Hydrodynamic Model of Puget Sound to Support Nearshore Restoration Feasibility Analysis and Design. Ecological Restoration, 173-184.

Menzies, C. R., & Butler, C. F. (2007). Returning to Selective Fishing through Indigenous Fisheries Knowledge: The Example of K’moda, Gitxaala Territory. The American Indian Quarterly, 441-464.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2013, January 14). Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon and Puget Sound Steelhead. Retrieved from Federal Register: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/01/14/2013-00241/endangered-and-threatened-species-designation-of-critical-habitat-for-lower-columbia-river-coho#h-23