Live webcast of todays hearing at 10am.
Anybody watching or going?
Here is the live link TVW HEARING ON WFC vs WDFW & Puget Sound Hatchery decision

Thanks for the link. I'll be watching.

does anyone know if the discussion can be viewed later via archives?

Yes, TVW will have footage available.

I watched the entire 3 hours.

I found it interesting the in-basin genetic studies were never brought up.

I also found it interesting that NOAA is so lackluster in their approach to finalizing the permits. The NOAA rep stated that it was better for NOAA that the state be subject to lawsuits rather than NOAA.

This was an example of bureaucracy at its finest....a ton of finger pointing and nothing to show for it.

In the end I hope the WFC is right, I hope the wild fish return....but over the last 10 years of watching this hatchery vs. wild fight I conclude that there are many bigger issues to tackle than a segregated hatchery program. The time and money being spent on this is time and money that could be effectively used elsewhere.

I think it's just got to the point where everything else has failed except restoring the habitat which is to expensive or impossible.

If you all thought it was excruciating to watch on TV you should have been in the audience!

There's a lot of truth to this...and over the past 60 years while we have mostly ignored habitat and went with technofixes that didn't work, the habitat has been degraded by orders of magnitude...and now it's hundreds...thousands, millions...of times harder and more expensive to do what should have been done decades ago, which is protect the habitat we have and fix what we have destroyed.

Fish on...

Todd

Kind of interesting that WFC cited a 97% reduction in wild fish numbers and a 21% habitat loss.

I attended and came away with these conclusions:

CCA turned this into a mark selective issue for some reason and blamed gill nets.

WFC thinks the habitat is fine.

Jamie Glasgow, the director of science and research for WFC, cannot explain what mechanism causes detrimental effects from introgression. It's not that he thought his audience wouldn't comprehend it, it's that he doesn't know. This is surprising to say the least, since their suits are based on allegations of ESA take caused primarily from the presence of hatchery fish on the spawning grounds.

Despite WFC, NFS, etc. supporters continually saying they don't want all hatcheries gone, Senator Pearson posed the question, "Do you think there are any good hatcheries?" WFC's response: There were 2 or 3 hatcheries that closed within the last few years; those are considered good hatcheries.

The tribes and the angling groups all mentioned the need to work with each other.

NOAA will continue dragging their feet and confirmed that even if the FEIS is published and all HGMPs are approved, this won't stop litigation.

Pretty much on the mark I think. Now the other side which is modern urban populations and salmonids are NOT incompatible. Want fish to recover? Ban harvest, mandatory urban population growth limits, mandatory landscape management for forest lands, and the fish will do fine thank you. Now if we choose not to ( as we will ) then it is about compromise, steady population growth and the thought we can restore habitat when the growth is destroying more than we can or will restore.

Habitat is the most convenient and popular excuse for all fish problems. Particularly for the supporters of hatchery-based fisheries, or harvesters in mixed stock and non selective fisheries. Not to dismiss it as a major factor, but an honest review of the science will show that there are some merits to the WFC position.

Did not get a chance to see the hearings but am looking forward to watching the replay once it is available.

The following comments are based on my understanding on a couple issues and not from info presented at the hearing.

Larry B -
For the Puget Sound rivers the numbers I have seen is that due to habitat loss (for steelhead much more than just spawning areas) has ranged from 50% to as much as 95%. On the average the current conditions ability to produce steelhead is only about 20% of the historic levels. While it is convenient to blame habitat loss it is a very real and significant problem.

During this period of low marine survival steelhead smolts (whether hatchery or wild) are surviving at 10 to 20% of what would be seen during good conditions.

Let's see a 80% in habitat productivity and a 80% reduction in smolt survival and we would expect that current runs would be approximately 4% of historic levels during good times. Could it be that these two factors account for nearly all the decline.

TastySalmon-
While it certainly true that hatchery steelhead (and the fishing for them) does not help wild steelhead eliminating the planting of hatchery steelhead has not resulted in increased wild runs. Across the Salish Sea (Puget Sound and Georgia Straits) wild steelhead number have exhibited a generally consistent decline in numbers of wild fish over the last 30 years. The holds true for those rivers that are being planted with hatchery fish, those PS rivers where hatchery plants were terminated 20 years ago or BC rivers that are not planted at all.

Hardly surprising that WFC can't explain the mechanism for detrimental effects of introgression. To date WFC has won their various suits on procedural issues (failure to get permits etc.) and not based on any "science".

Curt

You're right. Let's build more dams, channelize more rivers, and build more houses on floodplains after we've cleared the riparian timber and vegetation. That pesky quality habitat isn't needed for healthy salmon and steelhead populations.

Smalma - WFC certainly did not get into productivity of lost habitat versus available habitat. Those were simply the numbers they cited. What struck me more than anything was the absence of any acknowledgement of a marine survival problem. While citing the 4 H s they wanted to focus 100% attention on the Bogey Man (hatchery impact) which they also did not explain or quantify. But as you indicated their suit was about procedural failures (shame on WDFW and NOAA) rather than the science.

I attended this hearing. Both sides seemed to have equal attendance. I found it interesting that the WFC attorney presented contradictory information in his presentation and was not called on it. On the one hand he explains how much money is wasted raising hatchery fish with only a very small return rate on the investment. Then turns around and states that hatchery fish are crowding out the wild fish! How can hatchery fish be overly competing with wild fish when only a very small percent return? Total BS! There is not an over abundance of Steelhead anywhere. Hatchery or otherwise. The fish are not coming back because something other than hatcheries is killing them before they make it back. Lack of an adipose fin is not lethal to wild fish!

Retrospectively, two additional observations.

Director Anderson had a representative from the State Attorney's office with him and made the point that he took what he perceived as having been the path of least damage - current and future (based upon legal advice). I'm not sure he adequately considered the perception of his primary stakeholders. Sometimes it is better to simply fight the good fight.

So WFC agreed not to sue for 2 1/2 years? I certainly didn't get the good feeling that WDFW and NOAA/NMFS were going to have all of the HGMPs accomplished by a date certain let alone within the settlement period even using their current approach to consolidate by river/watershed. Here it is the end of July and Jones said in response to a direct question from the Chair that he hoped that they would have the three groups currently in the hopper done by the end of the year. That is five months from now! No one talked about the number of such groupings nor an anticipated completion date for them all to be reviewed and approved. Just remember that WFC's Glasgow didn't discount future lawsuits.....

EXACTLY! In fact, Glasgow said they fully intend to continue filing lawsuits whenever possible.

After the hearing, I asked "what exactly was the purpose of this hearing?" I was told it was to pressure NOAA into action to prevent further lawsuits! Talk about too late!!

There is no pressure on NOAA. They are not named in the lawsuits and the WDFW can't (won't ) fight the lawsuits to bring NOAA into the process.

WE THE SPORTSMEN, WHO ARE THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR THE FISH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM SHOULD EXPECT SOME SORT OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND COMPETENCY FROM THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF OUR RESOURCES! FOR THE DIRECTOR OF WDFW TO ALLOW SUCH A BLATANT OVERSIGHT TO OCCURE WHICH RESULTED IN THIS LAWSUIT IS GROUNDS FOR HIS RESIGNATION!

With regard to NOAA I have to disagree. For a bureaucrat NOAA's Mr. Jones made a very significant statement when he said (paraphrasing him) that the costs, etc. were NOAA's responsibility - a mea culpa if you will.

I do believe that his testimony further established a commitment for a much more timely performance by NOAA; one that they will be held to at least in the court of public opinion.

That said, I am still very concerned about the lack of a specific plan that reasonably calls for completion of all reviews before the agreement with WFC runs out or that there is an alternate plan if achieving that goal with the settlement's time frame cannot be achieved.

The law is supposed to be an expression of the people's desire. Agency bureaucracy is supposed to be an expression of the people's intended action and outcome. The intersection between the law and bureaucracy isn't necessarily a clean one. In the present case it is awkward, complicated, and dynamic, which makes it a moving target.

After 3 1/2 years, NMFS completed the draft EIS a couple of weeks ago that analyzes the 117 Puget Sound region hatchery program anadromous fish stocks. It's on the web if you want to look it up on NMFS' website. It's also 1600 pages long. It examines draft HGMPs dating back to 2002. Quite a few of those HGMPs, although never officially approved, have been updated since the initial drafts were prepared, and the DEIS hasn't evaluated those. I'm left to think that this process can't be completed because hatchery programs are not static. They are always changing in response to new information, changing needs and wants within the fishery management community, program funding, and who knows what else.

This creates ripe fruit for additional lawsuits. But they would be lawsuits based on process and procedural compliance, compliance that might be on a "ya' can't get there from here" pathway. Agencies frequently lose lawsuits for process compliance. I'd kind of like to see what happens if a suit is filed based on scientific analysis. Agencies are in a better position to win when it's based on technical analysis.

Sg

As I understood the situation from NOAA's Mr. Jones' presentation many of the HGMPs previously submitted will have to be updated and resubmitted and maybe this is where he (Jones) stated that NOAA would be moving forward on HGMP reviews rather than waiting to rework the draft EIS leading to a final EIS before dealing with HGMPs. Gad, draft EIS of 1600 pages?

And while I do believe they (NOAA) are feeling the heat there is no question in my mind that they are still trying to shove an elephant through a rat hole (the WFC agreement's timeline). I would like to believe that WDFW and NOAA are working together to find a way to make this happen timely.

Three and a half years, my ass. I was contracted to start work on this starting in 2003. You do the math. Everybody involved in this should be spanked.

OK then, after 11 1/2 years . . .

The upshot is that the DEIS is already out of date, and there doesn't appear to be a path forward where it ever becomes up to date as HGMPs continue to change.

Are you volunteering to be first?

Sure I could be. The main difference is that I did my part of the work.

How about a bit of soothsaying as to where you see this "can't get there from here" situation going given the lawsuit settlement time constraints, ESA listings, ever changing HGMPs, and NOAA/NMFS budgets?

Is Chicken Little right this time?

As long as ESA requires permits and WDFW doesn't have them, there will be lawsuits.

The God Squad could change that paradigm. Or Congress could change the law. Lacking those actions, have to go with what the law currently is.

Larry, I wouldn't lay any money on my ability as a soothsayer. I think Carcassman is right that as long as there is "low hanging legal fruit" that WDFW will be sued for permits it doesn't have. However, if the Columbia River (FCRPS) lawsuit is in a lull for a while, then NMFS might reasonably be able to re-direct resources to getting the PS HGMPs/ NEPA house in order, or as close to that as is humanly possible. I don't know that that is a sure thing tho.

Sg

So, absent God Squad intervention at some point or (not likely) a change in ESA law the slightly illuminated path to success is for NOAA/NMFS to implement what was outlined in Mr. Jones' presentation. That is, to group HGMPs (updated as necessary) and work those as their No. 1 priority (well, he actually said that P.S. is their NO. 1 focal point within their area of responsibility) with the goal of processing those HGMPs and issuing permits before the WDFW/WFC agreement expires (well, he didn't exactly say that either but should have). I also assume WDFW will be working diligently to respond to any NOAA/NMFS requests in order to prevent further unnecessary delays.

1. How realistic is this scenario?

2. If permits are not issued and WFC threatens to go back to court will WDFW cave (again)?

3. Or, will NMFS/NOAA find a way to issue a temporary permit covering HGMPs it has under consideration?

Yes, WDFW will cave as if there is the requirement to have permits and don't there really isn't much of a defense.

Perhaps they should try the following (numbers are made up to serve as an example only)

1. Define clearly the acceptable result. Hatchery introgression into wild spawners, as measured by the following:
a. No more than 5% of total spawners are hatchery.
b. No more than 1% of emergent fry have hatchery parents.
c. No more than 3% of smolts are of hatchery origin.

2. 2 out of 3 of the above need to be met annully.

4. First four years are "free" as those smolts are already out there.

5. Two consecutive years of meeting one or fewer results in complete closure of that particular program for a decade.

6. One year of non-monitoring of any of 1 a,b, or c results in a decade closure of that program.

Look for actual results, not plans.

Just out of curiosity, what do you reckon your criteria will achieve? Some of your criteria roughly coincide with segregated programs, so how would you address integrated and recovery programs? Are you talking about listed species only?

One important aspect to consider is that just because hatchery spawners are present doesn't mean that they're changing the genetic composition of a native, natural stock. For example, spawn timing and reproductive capacity of hatchery fish need to be considered; presence on spawning grounds does not equate to gene flow in other words.

I understand that your proportions are being used as a example, but fish populations are highly elastic and it's exceedingly difficult to set specific objectives when the environment and its effects on fish abundance is so dynamic.

All things considered, I would wager restoration and protection of nearshore and river ecosystems would have a much more significant impact on wild fish populations. Focusing on hatcheries is a distraction and whatever results may come in the next decade regarding hatchery production will likely have zero impact on the health of natural populations. I'm far more concerned that the population of Pugetropolis is expected to grow by the millions in the next decade than what my local hatchery produces.

The intent is to set specific criteria for each program, whether it is production, integrated, segregated, recovery. Not one size fits all but watershed specific based on management goals.

Hatcheries are part of the solution. I am just recommending that if we have a hatchery it should have specific goals as they relate to the natural spawners. And, in order to set up the system so that it should not be subject to performance lawsuits there needs to be teeth in the monitoring.

It seems that what you're suggesting is entirely no different than the guidelines and principals of Hatchery Reform.

My suggestions include teeth.........