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.....