There has been a lot of discussion here about when something happened, who did it?, who didn’t do it?, who’s responsible, etc. Some of the information provided has been accurate as far as dates. Some has not. To try to put things in perspective, I will try here to provide all the dates of actions or inactions about hatchery permits in Puget Sound of which I am aware. Hold on folks, the action you're going to see will be amazing!

1999 - Puget Sound Chinook listed as threatened under the ESA

1999 - Puget Sound Tribes through the Bureau of Indian Affairs provide NMFS with a Biological Assessment of their hatchery programs and begin Section 7 consultation

2002 - Washington Trout and other plaintiffs sue WDFW claiming that operations of certain WDFW Puget Sound Chinook hatcheries violated the ESA

2002 – WDFW and Tribes provide NMFS with a hatchery resource management plan (RMP) for Puget Sound Chinook hatcheries along with hatchery and genetic management plans (HGMP’s) for each program

2003 - Washington Trout filed a Complaint against WDFW claiming that operations of certain WDFW Puget Sound Coho and Steelhead hatcheries violated the ESA

2003 – WDFW and Tribes provide NMFS with a hatchery RMP for non-chinook hatchery programs along with HGMP’s for each program

2003 – NMFS begins draft Environment Impact Statement (EIS) to guide review of RMP’s and HGMP’s. EIS is to be completed by 2005.

2004 – NMFS files notice of intent to prepare a Puget Sound hatchery EIS in the Federal Register

2007 – Puget Sound steelhead listed as threatened under the ESA

2008 – WDFW Commission adopts statewide steelhead management plan that addresses natural production, fishery management and artificial production among other things. Requires the development of regional management plans with tribal co-managers.

2009 – WDFW Commission adopts Hatchery and Fishery Reform Policy. Requires hatchery programs to meet HSRG broodstock management standards by 2015, develop wild salmonid management zones and watershed management plans to meet conservation and harvest goals at the ESU and watershed levels.

2011 – NMFS again files notice of intent to prepare a Puget Sound hatchery EIS in the Federal Register. EIS to be completed by 2013.

Time Passes

Lawsuits are filed

To date as of April 2014 – No comments from NMFS on EA provided by Tribes in 1999, RMP and HGMP’s provided in 2002 and 2003. NMFS EIS that was going to be developed in 2004 and 2011 to guide review of Puget Sound hatchery programs is not complete.

April 2014 – WDFW director blames NMFS, saying WDFW provide them the information in 2005 (actually provided in 2003). A day or so later, WDFW Fish Program Manager says that on or about April 10th WDFW provided NMFS with updated HGMP’s for 6 of the 7 WDFW steelhead programs. At this moment I cannot say if NMFS has received an updated HGMP for Marblemount hatchery on the Skagit River (the largest steelhead program in Puget Sound?)

So what happened? Who is to blame? Feel free to make the call.

In summary:

1) NMFS has not responded to program evaluations beginning in 1999, and following in 2002 and 2003. NMFS has not completed the EIS that was going to guide hatchery reviews even after starting in 2003 and re-starting in 2011.

2) What is the most definitive thing you can find that NMFS has to say about hatchery programs 15 years after listing Puget Sound Chinook and 7 years after listing Puget Sound steelhead? Well here it is:

“Based on the current scientific information, NOAA Fisheries believes that artificial breeding and rearing of salmon and steelhead is likely to result in some degree of genetic change and fitness reduction in hatchery fish and their progeny when they interbreed with fish from natural populations. Hatchery best management practices harmonize conservation goals with the implementation of treaty Indian fishing rights and other applicable laws and policies.”

3) On WDFW’s side, (in my opinion) the RMP and HGMP’s provided to NMFS early in the process were nothing more than a description of how the programs currently operated and really did not reflect any effort to modify hatchery programs to reduce risks to listed population. The steelhead HGMP’s that WDFW provided NMFS just a few days ago, probably finally reflect the changes that they made in response to the two commission policies identified above. Under the commission directions they have one year to complete watershed management plans with tribal co-managers to meet conservation and harvest goals and to meet HSRG broodstock management standards.

Personally, given the break-neck speed that things have been accomplished since 1999, I won’t hold my breath for anybody to get it together.