Three Santa Barbara County, CA, organizations are asking the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to remove a portion of the Santa Maria River from the Southern California steelhead’s critical habitat designation, arguing the fish haven’t occupied the river for decades and the restrictions impose unnecessary costs on farmers, ranchers and other businesses.
The petition was filed by Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) on behalf of the Coalition of Labor, Agriculture & Business–Santa Barbara County, Santa Barbara County Farm Bureau and Santa Barbara County Cattlemen’s Association.
The petition seeks to remove approximately 25 miles of the Santa Maria River, which forms part of the boundary between Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties, from the federal designation established under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 2005.
Damien Schiff, senior attorney at PLF, told WLJ the petition rests on three arguments: insufficient evidence that steelhead occupied the river when the species was federally listed in 1997, the river’s inability to support steelhead migration and the economic costs of maintaining the designation.
“Our lead argument is the basic one that there’s no hard evidence that the fish has been found in the river for approaching a century,” Schiff said.
According to the petition, no conclusive evidence shows that adult steelhead migrating from the ocean have entered the Santa Maria River since the early 1940s. Schiff said earlier studies relied on observations that could not reliably distinguish steelhead from rainbow trout. Although genetically indistinguishable, steelhead migrate to the ocean and return to freshwater to reproduce, while rainbow trout remain in freshwater.
Schiff said historical California Department of Fish and Wildlife records also indicate steelhead runs declined during the 1940s, partly because of wildfire-related watershed changes.
The petition further argues that the river lacks the physical conditions necessary to support steelhead.
Schiff said the river flows only about 5-10% of the year. According to the petition, erosion and wildfires upstream leave the river muddy when water does flow, making it difficult for steelhead to migrate. The shallow, sandy riverbed also provides few places for fish to rest, while sediment can damage their gills and make breathing difficult.
NMFS originally rated the Santa Maria River as having low conservation value but subsequently raised its rating because it considered the river an important migration corridor to spawning and rearing areas in the upstream Sisquoc River watershed.
Schiff disputes that assessment, arguing the river cannot provide reliable passage to those areas.
“That was essentially a piggyback analysis,” Schiff said, explaining that NMFS was “tacking on the Santa Maria River to these other areas that the agency thought were valuable from a conservation perspective.”
The petition also challenges the economic justification for retaining the designation.
In 2005, NMFS estimated that the designation would impose annual economic costs of $463,000-627,000 in the Santa Maria River area. Across the entire Southern California steelhead critical habitat designation, the agency projected annual costs ranging from approximately $9.2 million to $29.6 million.
The petition argues those estimates understated the effects on agriculture and other industries.
For grazing, NMFS estimated annual costs below $1,000, based largely on restrictions involving federal lands. However, the petition states that state and local regulators have since required local ranchers to install expensive fencing to keep livestock from entering the river. The petition also notes substantial permitting and mitigation costs for sand and gravel operations, where regulatory requirements tied to the steelhead habitat designation can significantly increase project costs along the river.
The petition cites a recent NMFS decision involving the Santa Clara River watershed as precedent.
In June, NMFS determined that approximately nine miles of the Santa Clara River and Piru Creek should be removed from the steelhead critical habitat designation. The agency cited insufficient evidence of steelhead occupancy, altered river conditions and previously underestimated economic impacts.
Schiff said the similarities strengthened the case for reconsidering the Santa Maria River designation.
“We think the same analysis works here to the same conclusion,” he said, referring to NMFS’ decision to reconsider the evidence supporting the Santa Clara River designation.
The petition also asks NMFS to consider whether the economic benefits of removing the designation outweigh its conservation benefits.
Schiff said the petition process includes an initial 90-day review period and a one-year deadline for the agency to determine whether sufficient information warrants further consideration. If NMFS agrees to pursue removal, it would follow a formal rulemaking process, including opportunities for public comment.
Schiff acknowledged that environmental organizations could challenge a final decision removing the designation. Conversely, the petitioners could pursue litigation if NMFS rejects their request. He said the relatively small portion of habitat involved could reduce the likelihood of opposition, although litigation remains possible.
For now, the designation remains in place while NMFS considers the petition. — Charles Wallace, WLJ contributing editor
