[env-trinity] Federal Government Puts Hatchery And Wild Salmon Under Same Umbrella

[Daniel Bacher]

Bush Administration Puts Hatchery And Wild Salmon Under Same Umbrella

by Dan Bacher

The federal government on June 16 issued its final policy for considering 
hatchery salmon in making Endangered Species Act listing determinations, 
putting 131 strains of hatchery fish under the same protection as their wild 
“cousins.”

NOAA Fisheries also determined that 15 populations of Pacific salmon and 
steelhead would remain protected under the ESA, while it added lower 
Colombia river coho salmon to the “threatened” list. In addition, the agency 
changed the central California coho listing from “threatened” to 
“endangered” status, which “better reflects California’s endangered listing 
under state law.”

The agency also delayed for six months a final decision on 10 listed 
steelhead populations and Oregon coho salmon. These steelhead populations 
include five populations in California from Southern California to the 
Oregon Border, as well as populations of the Columbia, Snake and Upper 
Willamette rivers.

The ESA provides for a 6-month extension of a final listing determination 
“if there is substantial disagreement on the sufficiency or accuracy of the 
available data relevant to the determination.”
The agency considered more than 300 strains of hatchery fish in making the 
determination, spurred by a review of policy mandated by the Hogan federal 
court decision of 2001, according to Brian Gorman, NOAA Fisheries spokesman.

The decision, Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, said the federal government’s 
exclusion of hatchery salmon in the listing of Oregon coast coho under the 
ESA was illegal. The ruling forced NOAA Fisheries to develop a new policy 
for listing salmon throughout the Pacific Northwest and California.

The federal government heralded the final decision as a big victory for 
salmon recovery efforts in the Pacific Northwest and California. “This 
policy reinforces our commitment to protect naturally spawning salmon and 
their ecosystem,” said retired Navy Vice-Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, 
Jr., undersecretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA 
administrator.

“A properly managed hatchery program can provide a great boost to natural 
populations of fish. We intend to use this as a key component of our salmon 
recovery efforts, which, along with favorable ocean conditions, have 
contributed to record returns over the past few years,” he said.

Trout Unlimited, a nationwide conservation group, said the feds’ new 
hatchery policy “defies science and common sense,” although they were 
relieved that 16 stocks of salmon previously listed under the ESA would 
remain protected.  They forecasted that the new policy would “lead to more 
controversy and lawsuits and ultimately diminish the protection and hinder 
the recovery of salmon and steelhead.”

“They chose the most complicated, nonsensical and non-scientific option that 
they could have,” said Caitlin Lovell, “NOAA Fisheries could have done the 
right thing and followed the scientists’ recommendation to separate wild and 
hatchery populations, but they didn’t. They had no reason not to do that… 
what NOAA is doing is very suspicious.”

Dr. Jack Williams, senior scientist for Trout Unlimited, concurred. “The 
conclusion of the vast majority of fisheries science’s finest minds who’ve 
studied this problem is that hatchery fish and wild fish are different 
animals and must be managed accordingly, especially under the auspices of 
the ESA. It’s puzzling that NOAA Fisheries would issue a policy that 
contradicts the advice of its own scientists.”
The groups cited scientific reports by the Salmon Recovery Panel and the 
Independent Scientific Advisory Board that concluded that hatchery fish 
should be excluded from ESA listings to properly manage them.

In addition, NOAA Fisheries also ruled against the sentiment of the vast 
majority of the public. Over 90 percent of public comments that NOAA 
received supported listing only the wild component of individual salmon 
stocks.

Glen Spain, Northwest Regional Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of 
Fishermen’s Associations, said that the agency “overall did a fairly solid 
job” in their decision.

“The agency is walking a careful line between extremes,” said Spain. “In 
taking a stock-by-stock analysis, the agency is doing a reasonable job at 
looking at the differences as well as the similarities between hatchery and 
wild fish. However, I’m not sure that the Hogan decision required them to 
lump hatchery and wild stocks together.”

The NOAA decision occurs in the context of the increasing attacks by the 
Bush administration and Congress on the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species 
Act and other laws that protect fish and wildlife habitat. The timber 
industry, agribusiness and mining industry, united under the banner of the 
“wise use” movement, have been fighting fish habitat protections 
relentlessly in court and in Congress.

The Pacific Legal Foundation, an organization that represents property 
rights activists, won the Hogan Case that resulted in the recent decision by 
NOA Fisheries. Russell Brooks, PLF lawyer, was unhappy with the federal 
agency’s ruling – and plans to file another lawsuit.

"What amazes me most is that after the agency lists hatchery salmon as 
threatened with extinction, which is crazy in itself, it then exempts 
hatchery salmon from ESA protection," Brooks said in an Associated Press 
article by Jeff Barnard on June 17.

The mixing of wild and hatchery fish in the 131 stocks could in the future 
create problems for commercial fishermen and recreational anglers pursuing 
salmon along the California, Oregon and Washington coast.

“Now that the hatchery and wild fish are included in the same evolutionarily 
significant unit, the states will have to file hatchery management plans, 
creating more bureaucracy,” said Lovell. “Anglers will still be able to 
harvest fish, but sportfishing and commercial fishing regulations will have 
to go through more hurdles.”

By putting hatchery and wild fish under the same umbrella, the burden of 
restoration is put on commercial and recreational fishermen, rather on the 
bad timber, agribusiness, mining and development practices that resulted in 
the dramatic decline of salmon throughout California and the Northwest. And 
fishing and conservation groups fear that the new policy will result in more 
habitat destruction by allowing abundant hatchery fish to count the same as 
the less common wild fish.

“We’re pleased that the wild fish that were protected before will have 
continued protection in the near term under this policy,” concluded Lovell. 
“But as the same time, it’s disappointing that NOAA has seemingly squandered 
the opportunity to adhere to the science, address wild salmon recovery 
head-on and resolve the issues that landed us all in litigation the first 
time around. There’s little in this policy to give us hope that we won’t end 
up there again.”