WDFW NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/

July 7, 2015
Contact: Annette Hoffmann, (425) 775-1311 ext. 120

Public input sought on wild steelhead
management zones in Puget Sound rivers

OLYMPIA - The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is seeking public input on the selection of at least three Puget Sound rivers where hatchery steelhead would not be released by the department in an additional effort to conserve wild fish.

WDFW will designate at least one wild steelhead management zone or "gene bank" in each of three Puget Sound regions:

Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca;
Central and South Puget Sound;
North Puget Sound (North Cascades rivers).
Studies have shown that steelhead produced at a hatchery can compete with wild steelhead, and that interbreeding can reduce survival rates for wild steelhead, said Jim Scott, director of WDFW's fish program.

"We're seeking public input on which rivers within each region should be selected for establishing a wild steelhead gene bank," Scott said.

More information is available online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/steelhead/gene_bank/ , where a comment form will be available by July 13. Comments provided at public meetings or through the online form by Aug. 13 will be used by WDFW to inform the selection of the wild steelhead management zones.

Gene banks are one of a number of management strategies identified by the department's Statewide Steelhead Management Plan, adopted by the Fish and Wildlife Commission in 2008. Last year, the department designated three tributaries of the lower Columbia River as wild steelhead gene banks.

An informational workshop will be held from 5 to 9 p.m., July 13 at the Phinney Center, 6532 Phinney Ave. N., Seattle. At the workshop, the public can learn more about the Statewide Steelhead Management Plan, WDFW's hatchery programs and the status of Puget Sound steelhead.

The department also is hosting three public meetings in July to discuss the proposal and take public comments. Each meeting will be held from 6 to 9 p.m. on the following dates at these locations:

Seattle - July 21, Phinney Center (room 7), 6532 Phinney Ave. N.
Mount Vernon - July 27, Skagit PUD, 1415 Freeway Dr.
Sequim - July 28, Trinity Methodist Church, 100 S. Blake Ave.
The department will make a decision later this year after reviewing public comments and discussing the proposals with tribal co-managers.

Let's see. The Elwah would be a good start.

My suggestions, for what it's worth...

Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca:

The Elwha. Let's see what it can do...I think the genetics for those wild steelhead have been locked in the "trout" above the dams for a long time, and they are on the loose now

Central and South Puget Sound:

Not sure where the line is for this one, but it's a tough one either way, for a few reasons, not the least of which is that there doesn't seem to be schit left for wild steelhead in any of them anyway. Hard to have a "gene bank" if there aren't any genes.

Maybe the Nisqually is the best bet for this one?

North Puget Sound (North Cascades rivers):

This one's as easy as the Elwha for me...the Skagit/Sauk. The Sauk is already free of plants, and the Skagit is, too...and it has the healthiest run of wild steelhead outside the OP (and maybe including the OP, to be honest) right now.

Thoughts?

Fish on...

Todd

Seems odd,
We already have the Nisqually in Olympia. I am not sure how much goes on in the upper Chehalis but you also have the Black river that I do not believe has stocking. Remember, they used the Green (Toutle) so upper river tributaries should count. I think they stopped stocking the Puyallup system and I don't think they ever stocked the White or upper Puyallup. The Hood canal rivers have a very minimal stocking and I believe the Union and Tahuya are Hatchery free. One look at the stocking report shows many smaller rivers that have no stocking.

So, what I am afraid they are saying is, where can we cut production that would save the most money and screw the recreational fisherman the most.

The Chehalis, Black, and Green (Toutle) are not Puget Sound streams.

The White has, at least recently, a wild broomstick program.

The Dungeness is another Straits option.

The Chehalis, Black, and Green (Toutle) are not Puget Sound streams.

The White has, at least recently, a wild broomstick program.

The Dungeness is another Straits option.

Don't think the Chehalis system qualifies as a Puget Sound river.

Looking at this from another perspective why is the Department pressing ahead with this before NOAA/NMFS completes its hatchery permitting process during which all of the current scientific data will be available for review and analysis?

After all, pending the granting of permit(s) there will be no EWSH releases in P.S. rivers except within the Snohomish System (as I understand the current status).

Could it be that they want those selected gene bank rivers established before pertinent facts are revealed which might undermine that 2008 gene bank decision?

There are several PS rivers that all ready are defacto "gene banks" -

The Samish was last planted in 2006 - winter runs.
Sauk- last planted in 2008 - winter runs
Skagit - last planted in 2013 - winter runs
Deer Creek - hasn't been planted in more than 50 years -summer runs
Pilchuck River - lasted planted in 2008 -winter steelhead
NF Skykomish - lasted planted in 2006 -summer and winters
Tolt - last planted in 2008 -summers and winters
Nisqually -hasn't been planted in over 20 years - winters

I think Chambers Creek hatchery steelhead were last planted in Hood Canal rivers in 2004. However there are a number of wild brood stock programs on those rivers.

Curt

Stupid question, but outside of these "gene banks" will they plant all other ri ers agian that were planted pre-listing/lawsuit?

This is what would work for me in a perfect world.
Skagit/sauk- gene bank - winter
Stilly main and North - winter only, plant summers way above Deer Crk
South fork stilly - plant winter and summers above barrier
South fork Sky - plant summers above falls
North fork sky- gene bank
Wallace- winters at hatchery
Sultan- plant summers only
Chuckie- plant winters, evaluate on impacts to natives yearly, create gene bank if necessary
Crummy- plant summer and winters
Tolt- gene bank
Raging - plant winters and evaluate, same as the Chuck'

At the end of the day I think WDFW will get out of all hatchery steelhead production in PS. Lots of reason but they generally begin and end with money.

Do the tribes have to agree on the designated streams? And will they have to comply with the no hatch directive?

I'll echo that Elwha, Skagit, and Nisqually should be at the top of the list.

One would think that the Tribes would have to agree, what with they're being Co-Managers and all. But, since WDFW unilaterally made those agreements with WFC I am not sure what they would do.

Sue WDFW and NOAA? That might open the wound about what prevails, ESA or Treaty Law. One has to prevail and the Tribes may not want to litigate that.

In 2013 the Puget Sound Steelhead Technical Recovery Team produced a report looking at historical populations.

In that report they suggested that Puget Sound steelhead could be divided into what they called Demographically Independent Populations (DIPs). There are 32 DIPs -27 winters and 5 summers. By my count of those 32 populations currently only 7 are planted with non-rescue hatchery fish. One would think the State would have little trouble finding suitable candidates for their "gene banks".

In those DIPs were the planting of Chamber's or Skamania hatchery were terminated none have shown any corresponding increase in wild fish abundance. If WDFW us truly concern about Puget Sound wild steelhead consideration might be given to expanding this idea of "gene banks" to one of Wild Salmonid Management Zones (WSMZ). One example of such management is the Sauk which has managed under WSMZ type regulations since 2008.

Or as some has suggested they could move to eliminate hatchery fish from the Puget Sound basin. It would then quickly follow that all the rivers could be closed to steelhead fishing. Such actions would eliminate any steelhead fishing related mortalities from the equation and allow society to use any productivity the various PS rivers may have to support non-fishing uses. Under current regulations having ESA listed fish is not a huge issue and as long we as a society can keep population levels above the razor edge of extinction full advantage can be taken of "non-essential habitats" for such things as water, power, logging, farming, development, etc. Not the future I had hoped for Puget Sound steelhead but it seems to be the default position we are creeping towards.

Curt

Yes and yes. Once a party agrees to an action like this, it would be difficult to change direction down the road.

Sad but true analysis.

My suggestion of the Elwah was strictly tongue in cheek. Don't expect any tribe with fishing rights to go along. Maybe I'm missing something. What would compel them too? JK tribe can't wait to get hatch in the Elwah, why would the others give up the right to maintain/establish Federal hatcheries or even their own? Seems like another lawsuit opportunity to me, state loses.

While probably not important to many here something to keep in mind in thinking about appropriate streams for a steelhead "gene bank" (no hatchery fish) is that we are talking about steelhead management in the Puget Sound. Unlike other areas of the state under current policies and ESA take provisions and stream selected as a "gene bank" will also become be closed to fisheries targeting steelhead.

Curt

Time for major change. From a different perspective.... designate a few P.S. rivers as "Hatchery Factory Rivers". The Cowlitz should be that way now! Those locations that have the weekest wild populations and nearest to population centers. Could offer the greatest economic return/benefit. A few examples: Green (King County) Puyallup, Snoqualmie, Pilchuck, Nooksack? Provides local opportunities that takes pressure off OP and GH rivers. Design different run timing to last entire season. Desinate restrictions on wild rivers to artificial lures or flies. Have a couple for Fly fishing only. My 2 cents.

I like this idea. A lot. Smalma's been telling us for years that the available habitat may well be producing all the wild steelhead it possibly can. In the case of the Skagit drainage, that production's none too shabby. Elsewhere, well, the writing's kind of on the wall. It's sad to behold, but it seems pretty clear that any notion of wild steelhead recovery in Central and Southern PS (let alone Hood Canal) amounts to little more than a very expensive pipe dream.

Closing sport fisheries is not only an ineffective means of recovery/conservation (I think we've proven that, in just about every case) and an undue burden on license-buying sport fishers, but it also, as RnG points out, increases impacts to other, relatively more stable wild populations in whatever fisheries remain. Before too long, the relatively healthy wild populations will be next on the list for closure.

We've also proven that hatchery fish do nothing to help wild stocks recover, and in fact, they may do more harm than good in that capacity. If that's true, and we're trying to protect wild stocks, why should we continue the hatchery supplementation experiment any further? Managing rivers for either wild or hatchery fish would simplify rulemaking, season setting, and enforcement. It should also provide local fishing opportunities to more of our largest population centers, thereby spreading out pressure and reducing impacts on the far off locations Puget Sounders have been forced to default to in recent years.

Obviously, this is no silver bullet, and there would be significant political (impacts to affected native tribes would need to be mitigated, for example) and scientific issues to address, but I do think it's time we stop thinking of hatchery steelhead as a recovery tool and start thinking of them as a way to provide opportunity where none could exist otherwise. Whether or not a wholesale change in the hatchery paradigm makes sense everywhere is very much up for debate, but in the case of Puget Sound, I think it makes a lot more sense than what we've been doing.

No, you're not missing the 800 pound gorilla. What may well be tested is the idea that the State has an obligation to continue to provide fish for tribal harvest. And if the State leaves a void how might the tribes take advantage? Will the State effectively abandon its position and leave the tribes to develop their own resources independent of any State control (the concept of co-management already seems to operate in a heavily one-sided manner)?

On the other hand there is the vision of WFC suing the tribes.....

PLEASE keep the Nooksack off that list. I don't think it's wild population is one of the weakest and there is very little economic value provided the hatchery (actually a huge negative economic impact if you count the cost of the hatchery itself).

One of teal disconnects in WDFW is that they have to sell licenses to survive. This also seems to be lost on WFC. At the same time, they have to provide for wild fish.

Time is rapidly running out for WDFW to make conscious triage decisions. Some streams/watersheds should be purely wild for all fish. And, the land and water should then receive the protection necessary to maintain the stocks. Other watersheds would be there for people to live in, consumptively fish in, and so on. Large hatchery operations because the land and water are serving multiple purposes.

But, I have high confidence that we won't go there. We will try to do everything everywhere and end up with nothing anywhere.

This is not entirely a WDFW conundrum; any and all discussions/criticisms need to consider how the 800 pound gorilla will respond. Your vision???

In wild managed areas the Tribes would some sort of base number. Say (made up numbers) that they got the first 500 Skagit steelhead, all taken as incidental to other fisheries. Directed fisheries begin at 501 harvestable and are shared 50:50.

In the zones managed for maximum total production (hatcheries) the fish are shared 50:50.

So they would promise to quit fishing for their targeted species when they hit the magic number of wild steelhead?

Sorry if I don't share your confidence in that type of deal.

As an example, in 2012 the NIsqually tribe agreed to a Dungeness crab harvest number yet its members took three times that agreed upon number. In 2013 the tribe agreed to a number and their fishers exceeded it by two times. Their answer in 2014 was to not sign an agreement; same in 2015. Did someone mention setting up the Nisqually River as a gene bank?

Sorry to say, but a serious case of rose tinted glasses my friends.

It would take oversight with balls. The idea is that the Tribes would get first call on some level of harvest since they are owed actual, real fish and not paper fish.

What will likely happen is the State will simply abandon steelhead and then salmon and then crab to the tribes in order to allow continued growth and habitat destruction. That, and to continue the flow of campaign funds.

Oh really? Where does this proof exist? I'd be interested in seeing the evidence, as would thousands of other people.

The Nooksack likely has the second strongest wild steelhead population in Puget Sound, but the past steelhead program could have been increased substantially given the non-existent rate of introgression. Sometimes the best of both worlds can be had. Otherwise, I agree with your idea except for the fact that localized fishing opportunity would diminish for a large number of people.

Carcassman, no offense but this statement is entirely backwards. WDFW is not dependent on license sales to survive, which is exactly the reason why they could care less about providing fishing and hunting opportunities to WA residents. States that do depend on license sales are well-known for having exceptional opportunity, seasons and quality.

All WDFW revenue goes into the state's general fund and gets divvied up among the plethora of state departments. The WA legislature decides how much money WDFW gets.

If WDFW was partially dependent on license and permit revenue, I can guarantee you that fishing (and hunting) opportunity would be several fold better, they wouldn't back down during negotiations, and there would be more fish available for harvest.

TastySalmon, I just checked the 2013 - 2015 WDFW budget, and general fund money only makes up 16% of the department's budget. 27% comes from the state wildlife account which is mostly from the sale of fishing and hunting licenses. The remaining budget is made up as follows: federal funding - 29%; local funding - 16%; and other funding 12%.

Thanks Oncy. That license funding is further leveraged on a 4 for 1 basis (I think) with DJ and PR. So, with the loss of a license dollar used as DJ/PR match another 4 Federal dollars go away.

Oversight by whom? Clearly the State has no control/authority over the Tribes and the Federal Gov't seems to have forgotten that it entered into the treaties on behalf of its citizens at the time. It would be nice if they (the Feds) grew a set and ensured that the tribal Governments adhered to the terms of the Treaties and subsequent Federal Court rulings.

Sorry to be such a naysayer but I seriously doubt that any of the individual tribes will relinquish any of their actual or perceived treaty rights.

In fact, just look at how the Suquamish Tribe has delayed the Point No Point ramp development for over a year by merely objecting to the issuance of a Corps of Engineers permit on the basis that usage would adversely impact the Tribe's ability to exercise its treaty rights. No details, just the assertion is enough for the Corps to withhold the permit.

This scenario is not allowed by the Stevens treaties, though. This is what the tribes have been saying for years and put in writing in their "Treaty Rights at Risk" white paper in 2011. The tribes have continued to say that habitat must bear its fair share of the burden of conservation (see http://bit.ly/1J7EcWu). Eliminating or reducing fishing or hatchery programs will do no good unless habitat is protected and restored at the same time. Anyone interested in a future that includes fishing has to agree with this. Maybe, finally, we will see some alliances formed to make some big changes in how habitat is managed.

A long time ago Sam Wright opined that non-Indian habitat destruction could be considered as a type of harvest. Society makes a choice to take water out of streams to drink rather than grow fish. The fish are still just as dead. It is the same when we debate nest vs. hook and line vs. subsistence , etc. To the fish, and the ecosystem, they are still dead and don't spawn. So, as Smalma said, we can choose to take our share of dead fish as development.

Removing the taxpayers and license buyers from the equation of direct harvest would probably decrease interest in having the fish around but I suspect there are many in overall society who would see justice in giving the harvest back to the Indians.

And, regarding habitat, until we deal with actually dealing with human population on a local, state, national, and international basis the wild resources will lose. Just how well are wild native salmonids doing in most of Europe, Asia, and the Eastern coast of North America? If you're unsure, read Dave Montgomery's "King of Fish".

A pretty good description of the state of many populations, however, he misses really badly when he describes how healthy and robust the Chinook run is in the Nisqually River. He somehow managed to miss the fact that all those thousands of fish are from the tribal hatcheries.

If we are going to discuss societal demands which impact our natural resources it is reasonable to recognize and consider that tribal peoples are now a part of that society and contribute to those adverse impacts.

Absolutely Larry. But, they make up what fraction of the population. The treaties guarantee them half the fish. I suspect their "share" of development is what they use.

Easy there, Tasty. While I don't subscribe to any theory suggesting that hatchery fish are among the greatest obstacles to wild steelhead recovery, I think several decades of planting hatchery fish, without wild runs recovering, is pretty solid evidence that they haven't made any meaningful, positive impact on recovery. I suppose I should stop short of calling that "proof," but....

My point, like RUNnGUN's, was that it's probably time to rethink the purpose behind producing hatchery fish. I think they have significant value in places where degraded habitat makes in-river spawning largely non-productive. I can't prove it, but I have come to believe that their presence in systems with self-sustaining wild runs, while it does provide meaningful harvest opportunity, can have only negative impacts on the wild fish, if for no other reason than that they justify fisheries that impact wild fish, no matter how hard we try to avoid that result.

I don't advocate closing rivers designated as wild gene banks, but I do think C&R should be the only type of fishing allowed on wild stocks, regardless of how "stable" those stocks may appear. The rules would be much easier to write (and follow) without having to make exceptions for the sake of weeding out hatchery fish.

"They" to include casinos, hotels, and water parks, etc. ??? Point being it is not a simple divvying up of impact based upon discreet population numbers.

Again, I doubt very much if any tribe will give up any of its treaty rights and even if there was some sort of agreement there currently is no mechanism in place to monitor and enforce any such agreement. Proceed with eyes wide open to those realities.

Which gets us back to the point that WA is really not concerned about salmon, steelhead, or recovery. No money, no balls.

I believe that the Boldt Decision placed the conservation responsibility with the State. That was why the State issues Conservation Closures. This was negotiated away in the Spirit of Port Ludlow and Centennial Accords.

To the extent that a river system does not have a wild early steelhead run the planting of EWSH fills a nitch and provides both recreational opportunity and tribal commercial harvest values.

Any potential adverse impact upon wild fish by those fishing for EWSH can and is mitigated by early season closures on the EWSH.

Now, here is the rub. Your position is that any adverse impact on wild fish created by the presence of EWSH is unacceptable yet you propose a C&R fishery on those same wild fish which we all realize has some mortality as well as potential adverse impact on vitality.

Is there any watershed, anywhere, where a robust wild run of any salmonid coexists with a robust run of the same species produced in a hatchery? If not, then it might just be that biologically, ecologically, genetically, and politically they can't coexist IN THE SAME STREAM.

Where FW habitat is compromised then we can mitigate that loss with hatchery fish so long as they are harvested in that watershed. Our problem is that we put highly productive hatchery stocks (low escapement produces large adult runs) into the same areas where lower productivity wild runs exist and then fish at the hatchery rate.

Recovery won't take place until all marine mixed stock fisheries are closed. Once we have moved well towards recovery the marine fisheries can be re-opened as long as they don't impede the recovery of the weakest wild stock.

Dead on correct! However, there are huge differences in productivity even between wild stocks. So even a very modest mixed-stock fishery is likely to harvest those low productivity stocks to the point where they may not be sustainable.

Not sure how to get around that issue, except to close the ocean fishery, and to leave it closed. Permanently. But how realistic is that?

Not much until a federal judge says "You shall". Then the jig will be up. Until then not so much as the mixed stock harvesters will take a huge hit. It is not if that will happen but rather when. Our focus on habitat ( which is needed ) rather than come to Jesus and recognize the harvest has a huge impact on weak stocks. Depending on location either can be the driver we choose to not recognize this. Our bad and we all will pay right along with the fish on down the road.

How many steelhead supplementation programs currently exist or have existed in the past? I can't think of very many.

If you believe that hatchery steelhead programs exist to bolster natural origin populations, your method of thinking is no different than that of a toothless redneck snagger. If you make the convoluted argument that wild steelhead have not recovered because of hatchery _______________ (insert statement) without a consideration for atrocious habitat conditions and extreme marine mortality, you're no better than a feather flicking douche.

Wild Steelhead need to be protected at all costs, they seem to be the most fragile stock in Puget Sound rivers, but balancing conservation with a directed fishery on hatchery plants is important too.

I thought WDFW already made up their mind that they would plant hatchery fish in rivers where the hatchery had an excellent collection facility, ie Wallace, Reiter, Tokul, NF Stilly.

Everyone has the "Not In My Backyard" mentality when offering up no hatchery zones, but realistically let's give Wild Steelhead a chance everywhere and only plant fish where they can be either harvested or collected efficiently.

Wild Gene Banks: Nisqually, Puyallup, White, Tolt, Raging, Sultan, NF/SF Sky, Pilchuck, SF Stilly, Sauk, Nooksack. But I thought that was their plan since they decided to screw Steelhead fishermen back in 2008?