Commission action on Chinook plan

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

January 23, 2018

Contact: Commission Office, 360-902-2267

Commission advises WDFW on chinook plan
that would guide Puget Sound salmon fisheries

OLYMPIA – The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission advised state fishery managers to strike a better balance between conservation and harvest opportunities as they work with tribal co-managers to revise a proposed plan for managing chinook harvest in Puget Sound.

During a conference call Tuesday, the commission – a citizen panel appointed by the governor to set policy for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) – instructed state fishery managers to explore a variety of options as they revisit catch rates and other pieces of the updated Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan.

The plan defines conservation goals for state and tribal fisheries that have an impact on wild Puget Sound chinook salmon, which are listed for protection under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Under that law, no fisheries affecting Puget Sound chinook can occur without a conservation plan approved by NOAA Fisheries.

"Ultimately, we would all like to see salmon runs restored in Puget Sound, but severely restricting fisheries isn't the only path to achieving that goal," said Brad Smith, chair of the commission. "For that reason, we advised WDFW staff to explore other salmon recovery options, including improvements to habitat and hatchery operations."

State and treaty tribal co-managers initially submitted the proposed plan to NOAA Fisheries on Dec. 1, 2017. The plan would reduce state and tribal fisheries in Washington, especially in years with expected low salmon returns. For example, increased protections for wild chinook salmon returning to the Stillaguamish and Snohomish rivers would likely restrict numerous fisheries because those fish are caught in many areas of Puget Sound.

Despite the restrictive nature of the plan, NOAA has already informed the state and treaty tribes that the plan is insufficient, noting that several key salmon stocks would not meet new — more restrictive — federal conservation objectives.

"Over the last few weeks, we've heard from many people who are concerned this plan could result in the closure of all Puget Sound sport fisheries, but that's not the case," Smith said. "Yes, the plan does call for reductions to some fisheries, especially in years of low salmon abundance. But we have an opportunity – given the need to revise the plan – to use various mitigation tools to offset impacts from fisheries when and where appropriate."

Mitigation tools the commission asked WDFW to explore include:

Increasing habitat restoration efforts.
Improving hatchery operations, including increasing production to support salmon recovery efforts.
Reducing populations of predators, such as seals and sea lions.
NOAA has indicated its review process will take 18 months once the federal agency deems the plan is sufficient for a full review, making it likely the 10-year plan won't be in place until the 2020-2021 fishing season. There will be opportunities for public comment during that review process.

State fishery managers believe that a long-term management plan will reduce uncertainty in the annual salmon season-setting process, providing more stability for recreational and commercial fisheries.

In the meantime, state and tribal co-managers are working on conservation objectives to guide this year's salmon season-setting process. During its call Tuesday, the commission asked state fishery managers to continue to discuss the possibility of using the 2017 conservation objectives for this year's upcoming planning efforts.

The commission directed state fishery managers to provide regular updates as the negotiations of this year's objectives and the 10-year plan continue. State fishery managers will also provide updates throughout the process to citizen advisors during open public meetings.

The plan, along with feedback from NOAA, is available on WDFW's website at https://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/chinook/.

Persons with disabilities who need to receive this information in an alternative format or who need reasonable accommodations to participate in WDFW-sponsored public meetings or other activities may contact Dolores Noyes by phone (3

Well that's somewhat encouraging!

If you are at all interested in this matter I strongly recommend you listen to the audio recording when it is posted by the WDFW Commission. In fact, I hope the Commission will make a version available as a Word doc.

Commissioner McIssac made a great presentation to include a recommendation for a new Conservation Hatchery with a secure water source to be available to assist at risk stocks (think Oso mud slide and its impact on an already questionable river habitat) and jump start their recovery.

The posted announcement does not mirror the emphasis Commission McIssac put on the need to control predators and particularly seals with their now documented predation rate on smolts. Finally!! Now, will WDFW take that to the table and co-ordinate with the co-managers to push NOAA into action?

... seems like potential good news for 2018.

... seems not super likely to help the real 2019-2029 problem, which is NOAA thinking it can recover salmon by cutting harvest further. We all have to be speaking with unified voices -- there ARE PLENTY of spawners on all these rivers to recover the salmon--salmon are amazing at rebuilding their own numbers. The ESA populations will not grow until the habitat improves.

B

Audio goes into an exasperating infinite loop a few minutes into the presentation... WORTHLESS!

Had the same problem with another WFWC audio feed a couple months ago

Kudos to the commission for tell WDFW leadership that their behind the doors agreement doesn’t cut the mustard and to get back to the drawing board.
SF

Granted habitat that can support salmon is necessary for their survival but as someone else on this board has already pointed out if the fish can not get here because they are intercepted in Alaska, California, Oregon, and Canada, our efforts may give us a different environment and while that may be good for our species but it may not yield more fish.

I just went through the first ten minutes without a hiccup.

Hope that means they fixed whatever problem they had as this is truly important stuff and not just for the Plan. I am hoping that it resets the prescribed role of the Commission to provide oversight and direction to the Department. Commissioner McIssac is very pointed in addressing that issue and the need to re-establish the trust of constituents.

I agree that McIssac put forward some interesting ideas but they seemed outside the scope of the management plan.
There was very little discussion about the numbers in the plan. I expect it to move forward as written or close to.

"Despite the restrictive nature of the plan, NOAA has already informed the state and treaty tribes that the plan is insufficient, noting that several key salmon stocks would not meet new — more restrictive — federal conservation objectives"

Great to see predators thrown in the mix. Hope they include the cormorant population. This quote from the news release leads me to believe we are in for some major restrictions from the status quo. I am still expecting hits on opportunity.

For that plan, or any recovery plan, too work, more fish have to survive AND spawn. Numbers of spawners have to go UP.

Habitat is critical, it is being fixed, and it will be years, if not decades before that work will show up in increased spawner numbers.

The two areas that continue to kill fish are predation and harvest. NOAA, for whatever political reasons, is fixated on harvest south of the BC/WA border. While it is probably the least effective place to act, it seems to be the only place they are willing to act. Perhaps it is the only place the Tribes are willing to exert influence.

As much as folks want to kill fish, until the stocks rebound there really is no justification to keep on what we have been doing as it doesn't work.

ESA had the "Gad Squad" where a species can be delisted because it "can't (read won't) be saved." Do we really want to do that? Species are listed under ESA because choices we have made are driving them to extinction. When keeping them around becomes too inconvenient why do we even try to save them at all? We caused this problem. Are we (society) simply saying that nothing is worth saving of it is inconvenient or doesn't allow me to do as I wish?

Am I the only person who has read this plan, read NOAA's feedback to WDFW about the plan, and feel that the Commissions remarks fall short of what is expected by NOAA, or don't do enough to save the fish and rec seasons?

It's clear we will have a round-robin effect of 5-6 critical stocks that will be forecasted with low abundances affecting all harvest year-to-year. One year it may be stocks 1, 4, and 5. The next it may be 2, 3, and 1. All of these stocks have the potential to negatively affect recreation and tribal seasons based upon their locations. All of these stocks require Habitat intervention dollars and various hatchery solutions.

Why are we talking about just the Stilly?

Any solution needs to recognize the problem for what it is, first.

That's "weak stock management". Essentially, some stock is having some issues. Even if a miracle occurred and every PS Chinook stock was achieving optimum escapement one or more of those stocks would control fishing. Each stock has its own productivity. in some, R/S might be 1.2, in another 1.5, and third 2.0. The mixed stock fisheries should still be controlled by the needs of the least productive.

In the heyday of salmon fishing there were some stocks being overfished. Now that habitat is less productive, the ocean is changing, and so on there is no way to support those levels of mixed stock harvest and preserve wild stocks.

I have a handle on those concepts Carcassman. My point is, the proposed solution is too narrow based upon the information we already have. Why proceed with a proposed solution that ultimately wont hold water?

It seems clear that reducing mixed stock fishing is going to happen. The question is why would WDFW agree to take the brunt of that and not force change north of the border where most harvest occurs?

What I have gleaned is that the Stilly is the poster child but recall that NOAA clearly indicated that they wanted the co-managers to readdress several other stocks.

Furthermore, comments from Commission McIssac also recognized those other stocks and that further negotiations would be required and that Staff remains tasked to try and balance ESA related conservation and the goal of having a managed fishery.

Does the Department have an impossible task? Maybe. But what I can say with certainty is that SUS fisheries are taking the brunt of impacts versus CA and NUS while Nero (oops, meant NOAA) fiddles.

Why would Canada give a rats ass when the good 'ol USA damned up a million square miles of their best salmon habitat and Washington flagged commercials are trolling north of their border?

It's a race to the bottom of the barrel with PS in the lead .

My simplistic little mind says that if NOAA/NMFS were to impose restrictions on AK that took pressure off of CA (as well as SUS) stocks it would provide a basis for CA to reduce pressure on SUS stocks.

But NOAA seems to be on the sidelines when it comes to exercising its authority beyond restricting SUS fisheries.

WDFW and the Tribes really can't "force" change north of the border. To deal with Canada, it would take the Federal Government taking the lead. Canada will argue that the fish they take are balanced by Canadian fish the US takes. They will, maybe, give up our Chinook, coho, and chum if we pass on their sockeye and pink. Since nobody else harvests AK fish, there is no hammer unless the Feds wants to strongly impose ESA.

Screwing over the NI fisheries in WA is the path of least resistance. When that fails, then they will have to try something else.

I don't really think that the folks in charge really want to see recovery. Recovery requires that the pre-existing problems are permanently removed. We are not going to stop growing our human population, we are not going stop habitat destruction, we are not going to stop the mixed stock fisheries. We are just buying time until extinction occurs. Keping things listed actually prolongs survival of the species because we kill it by cuts instead of nuking it.

Force was perhaps too strong of a word. What I was attempting to convey is that WDFW sure isn't pushing the issue by agreeing to take the brunt of the harvest cuts.

NOAA wants this deal in place to stop the fighting and make the review process easy each year. The feds (DOJ) pushed for this after the tribes and WDFW didn't reach agreement in 2016. WDFW should make it difficult instead of easy. Like everything year at NOF, WDFW lacks the gumption to represent their constituents when things get tough.

In presentations to the Commission, WDFW indicated that the Dec. 1 plan exceeded NOAA's rebuilding exploitation rates (RER) for all P.S. Chinook populations except for the N.F. Stilly. There is no way NOAA can approve and hope to defend a plan in federal court that exceeds its RERs for all but one population.

(RERs are the maximum exploitation rates that populations can withstand without adding risk to their survival or rebuilding according to NOAA's calculations. Salmo g or others with more technical knowledge can probably explain this better.)

Evidently, there is some additional technical work that needs to be done to square NOAA's RFRs (which I understand are based on coded wire tag data used by the PST Chinook technical committee) with the exploitation rates used in the Dec. 1 plan (which I understand are based on the FRAM model used by WDFW and the Tribes).

I think the RER issue is going to be a key one, not only for the P.S. plan, but also in PST negotiations.

Keep the Big Picture in focus...we are not yet out of the 1st inning of this "ball game". There are a good many at-bats, runs, hits, errors, sacrifices, double plays, men left on base, etc. in the innings that remain.

Two very important achievements at this point--1) the Rec fishermen have a pulse and are not collectively dead as many believe, and 2) The Commission has publicly established their rightful leadership and oversight of the resource. The countless years of "our hands are tied", and "the problem is the Tribes and the Feds " are now simply excuses, rather than reasons, for the Fisheries Management's lack of action on the stakeholder's behalf. I can predict with confidence that no Director will ever again ignore and bypass the authority of the Board of Commissioners.

A critical concern at present is renewing and maintaining the public scrutiny that was the catalyst in bringing this about. More than ever, the need for greater transparency along with restructuring policy have proven to be of the highest priority. Your Father's WDFW simply can't and won't cut it any more...

One last point. Not to be pessimistic, but . . .

I looked back at the P.S. Chinook Recovery plan. Back in about 2006, about $60 million a year (since ESA listing in 1999) was being spent on P.S. Chinook recovery, and there were pleas at the time to increase that amount.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but if the same annual amount was spent from 2006 to 2017, that equals over one billion dollars spent since listing on recovery of P.S. Chinook.

Yet, according to NOAA, the Tribes, and WDFW, the ESU as a whole, many of the populations in the ESU, and the habitat supporting the ESU continues to decline, in some cases significantly.

While I applaud Commissioners McIssac and Carpenter and the rest of the Commission for trying to find a solution that conserves the species while not resulting in significant cuts in sport fishing opportunity, I fear the mitigation measures listed in WDFW's press release are "too little to late" and that significant harvest cuts somewhere may be unavoidable.

Hope I'm wrong (it wouldn't be the first time).

Probably a dumb question, but it won't be my first....
Does the ESA listing of PS Chinook only apply to wild chinook or all chinook, whether wild or hatchery?

Thanks,
SF

All natural-origin Puget Sound Chinook are part of the ESA-listed species. Many PS Hatchery Chinook are also part of the listed species.

Here's a report that shows which hatchery programs are part of the listed salmon ans steelhead species. Look for the Puget Sound programs.

http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/...jones-et-al.pdf

Thank you for the link.
SF

How do we get change north of the border?
If we came out with a management plan similar to the status quo, how would it get approved by NOAA? Why would those up north reduce there 71.1% of Stilly mortality?

We had to make drastic cuts here to expect any change. We are unlikely to see any change, but just slight reductions on SUS stocks north of the border could have big effects on all our Salmon runs.

In two weeks there will be an Acting Director at WDFW. With little to lose, it would be an opportune time for the AD to review a bullet point summary of PS Chinook stocks ER by fishery. If my cursory review is correct, most harvest pressure happens north of WA state. Perfect timing for the WDFW AD to advise NMFS that since the ESA is federal law, since the PST is federal, and since inter-state matters of ESA are federal (i.e. AK, the rogue nation), when NMFS gets Dept. of State to obtain cuts in WA Chinook exploitation from AK and CA, then come back and talk to WA. Meanwhile WA will continue to steer the conservative course it has in recent years. Time to fish or cut bait. Well, maybe that's a poor phrase. Call the bluff. It can't get any worse. Oh, and if NMFS pulls the federal LE trigger (different than threatening), then WA cuts all hatchery Chinook production immediately on that day. Cuz if it gets that bad, WA license buyers and taxpayers should stop funding the bleeding. It's just business at that point.

Since NMFS appears to be violating the ESA by allowing the exploitation up north, maybe we can get Bobby to sue them and get them to stop it. He certainly has no qualms about suing the government. Perhaps someone can try to create the angle that it is the conservatives and big business teaming up to steal from Washington Citizens. That should get him a real excited.

You left out that the MMPA falls under NOAA. Furthermore, I haven't read anything even suggesting that the ESA listed Orcas don't treat wild and hatchery Chinook exactly the same. And if they are starving now the public needs to connect the dots as to the potential impact of additional hatchery closures (as I recall WA chinook production has been reduced 60+% since the mid-80s).

Anyway, the Nuclear Option is an interesting thought.

Might have to get the public involved as to which they would rather have. Wild chinook or resident Killer Whales. Given what has been going on since Chinook listing, NOAA prefers wild salmon.

Or a seal/sea lion on every rock which was the intent of my MMPA reference. Aarf Aarf

Absolutely. Restoration of salmon is too politically inconvenient.

Notice how well ESA has worked (it has, actually) on some species like Grizzly, wolves, Condors, Peregrines, Whooping Cranes, gators ... They don't have big consumptive harvests associated with them and they appeal to a broader audience. They also are "watchable" so a non-consumptive industry can grow up around them.

I listened again to AAG MIke Grossman's defense of the PSCHMP to the Commission.
One thing he harps on is that the plan must meet the standard:

"mitigation has to be reasonably certain to occur"

Which I guess is a stipulation by NOAA. My question is, and I know this has been covered many times over, how could ANYONE (including NOAA) look at the last 30 years of declines, harvest cuts, more declines, more harvest cuts...then look at the PSCHMP and say:

"yep - more harvest cuts, that's definitely gonna do it this time!"

It's the one thing that we are fairly certain that if deployed on its own, will NOT work.

It definitely and clearly doesn't meet NOAA's standard and it doesn't meet the standard of COMMON SENSE

My point is, we are so deep in the weeds with policy and a a plethora of different bureaucratic agencies (all seemingly driven by a single thing - the fear of litigation), we've completely and totally departed from common sense.

He belabors, "we are doing things that harm chinook". I agree that harvest DOES harm chinook, But it's been verified that the #3 and #4 spots (#1 and #2 being tribal) on the stilly chinook impact list - area 7 summer/winter sport seasons - ACCOUNT FOR ONLY 3.4 FISH

Total departure from reason!

Setting aside all the policy BS and trying to look at it from a macro perspective...if a harvest-cuts-only route were to be taken, logically sportfishing would be the LAST place to look because that would provide the LEAST BENEFIT.

Yeah hands are tied by Boldt, PST, AK, BC blah blah blah. Circular arguments back to why it's sportfishing that has to be the one to suck it up.

And here's where the economic value SHOULD come into play. Is the juice worth the squeeze? What are the measures that will maximize the benefit for fish and minimize the impact on the economy? Once again, sportfishing would logically be the LAST stop because it's the lowest impact and generates the most dollars. Specifically WA sportfishing because it's mark-selective.

So how about some leadership? We need a Ted Stevens of WA
(OK maybe not *exactly* like Ted Stevens, but somebody who can get stuff done instead of quake in fear of getting sued)

I think experts can punch holes in McIsaac's proposal all day long, but even just the skeleton plan he laid out would (seems to me) come ALOT closer to meeting NOAA's standard than the same 'ol harvest cuts. It at least has a precedent.