|
Kitsap County, WA - 2/4/02 -
Everyone in Washington appreciates salmon, right? Currently, Puget
Sound Chinook and Hood Canal Chum salmon are listed as a
threatened under a provision of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Why,
then, are Chinook and Chum salmon being clubbed in mass for sale
and stopped from spawning?
The
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) will tell you that it is
because hatchery stocks are not “natural” fish, despite the
fact that they define hatchery stock as members of the same
Endangered Species Unit (ESU).
Why, if there are no “natural” salmon in
hatcheries, are property owners upstream from hatcheries subject
to property setbacks? The NMFS will tell you that it is because
some hatchery stock are allowed to spawn, and the new born salmon
will become “natural” fish, protected under the ESA. The
truth, then, is that no genetic difference exists between hatchery
salmon and “natural” salmon. This we already know; the NMFS
recognizes both under the same ESU.
With this background, it becomes easy to
understand why Federal District Court Judge Michael Hogan found
the NMFS has acted “capriciously” and “unlawfully” with
regard to its salmon policies in the Pacific Northwest. The Sept.
13 Oregon ruling (Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans) affirms
that hatchery-spawned salmon are “biologically
indistinguishable” from naturally spawned salmon. NMFS
must now count hatchery stock when determining whether salmon are
indeed threatened. Chinook salmon runs all over Puget Sound were
supposedly “threatened”, according to the bogus NMFS
definition.
This Alsea decision is expected to help private
property owners in Washington’s wetlands (most of Kitsap County
is wetlands) avoid overly restrictive setbacks to protect a
species that can no longer be legally deemed as “threatened.”
Most importantly, the appropriateness of the 4(d) exemption
currently being negotiated between Kitsap County and NMFS must now
be called into question as a result of the recent Federal
decision.
Kitsap County has opposed an October petition to
de-list its salmon from ESA protection. Kitsap County had
submitted a Salmon Habitat Protection Plan to NMFS for 4(d)
protection. 4(d) is a section of the ESA that requires the federal
government draft “protective regulations” to safeguard
threatened species. It states, “Whenever any species is a listed
as a threatened species, the Secretary shall issue such
regulations as he deems advisable to provide for the conservation
of such species.”
Vivian Henderson, Director, Kitsap Alliance of
Property Owners, writes about the response NMFS employee Dan Guy
gave when questioned about 200’ setbacks proposed for each side
of local streams. The
question was proposed by Tom Stansbery, Port Orchard City
Councilman, “Who is going to compensate property owners when we
take 400’ of their property away from them?” The answer from
Guy was “Who’s going to compensate the fish.”
Such was the attitude of the NMFS prior to the
recent Federal Court ruling against its practices. Catherine
Lewers of the U.S. Department of Justice reports that NMFS has
filed a pleading in the case notifying the court that it will not
appeal Judge Hogan’s decision. In addition, NMFS has filed a
plan of action with the court.
NMFS will be taking four steps:
1) NMFS will immediately begin a public rulemaking process,
including public hearings, to determine what ESA listing standards
should be applied to salmon populations that include fish reared
in hatcheries.
2) When completed, these standards will be applied promptly
to all ESA-listed salmon and steelhead populations and not just
the Oregon Coast coho ESU which was the subject of the Alsea
decision.
3) In the meantime, it is vital that the regions efforts to
protect and rebuild these populations, which are beginning to show
signs of success, be continued to assure a full recovery of
healthy salmon and steelhead runs. NMFS will increase its support
for local planning efforts to rebuild salmon runs, and will
provide interim planning targets for the areas with listed salmon
and steelhead populations.
4) Except for the Oregon Coast coho, where the Court
ordered delisting, no other salmon or steelhead populations will
be delisted at this time. The current protections of the
Endangered Species Act will continue in force until appropriate
standards are developed and the status of each listed population
has been reviewed under the new standards, using the most recent
data about the populations.
In addition, NMFS will conduct rulemaking on
artificial propagation impacts, according to a report by Karen L.
Smith, Environmental Policy Analyst, National Association of Home
Builders.
Smith reports, “Proposed rules will be
published by February, 2002, with a 60-day comment period and
public hearings. Final rules will be published by September, 2002.
This will be an open proceeding with public hearings and comment
about how the ESA should be applied to those salmon populations
that include fish reared in hatcheries. NMFS will also re-initiate
status reviews of all similarly situated ESUs and propose listing
determinations for all 24 potentially affected ESUs within 45 days
of completion of artificial propagation rulemaking.”
NMFS further proposes increased support for
local planning efforts. The Kitsap County 4(d) exemption is one
example of such an effort.
“State and regional planning processes are
being organized to develop comprehensive sub basin plans. NMFS
believes that these plans are a critical next step toward salmon
recovery,” noted Smith. “We will work with states, tribes,
other federal agencies, and regional agencies such as the
Northwest Power Planning Council to assure that the local efforts
have adequate resources and technical assistance. However, the
plans cannot move ahead very far without some tangible goals. Providing
interim goals will give planners a target to shoot for while this
rulemaking and status review are underway, and will help to keep
the physical recovery efforts moving forward in a practical
way. These targets, and the plans that address them, should also
help to reduce the uncertainty, and the costs associated with it,
that would otherwise occur for landowners and other stakeholders
affected by the habitat-related impacts.”
In other
words, NMFS is not changing its philosophy in response to the
Federal Court finding that its ESA processes are “illegal.”
Rather, NMFS will maintain protection for ESUs, which are based
upon subsets of subspecies, while “status reviews” and
“rulemaking” are underway. Protected status will continue for
all currently listed populations during the review. Property
owners in wetlands are advised to remain alert through these
processes.
According to Henderson, Kitsap County Citizens
wishing to guard against future “capricious” and “illegal”
NMFS actions, and overly restrictive setbacks on salmon streams,
would be wise to question County Commissioners on the 4(d)
exemption and get involved at the local and state levels. She said
her group believes that state and local management of salmon
habitat is preferable to NMFS controls based upon illegal
definitions of endangered species.
(Editor’s Note: Steven Kaczor is a noted environmental writer
with ties to both the Northwest and the desert Southwest. He may
be reached at imr@az.org.)
|