NEWS RELEASE
NORTHWEST INDIAN FISHERIES COMMISSION
6730 Martin Way E., Olympia, Washington, 98506
Internet Address: http://www.nwifc.wa.gov/
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington, 98501-1091
Internet Address: http://www.wa.gov/wdfw

Sept. 24, 2002

Contact: Tim Waters WDFW (360) 902-2262
Tony Meyer, NWIFC (360) 438-1181, ext. 325

State, tribes complete major review of
Puget Sound chinook hatchery operations

Olympia - State and tribal fisheries officials have completed a major, two-year review of Puget Sound chinook salmon hatcheries that provides a comprehensive scientific framework for operations. The review, called a Resource Management Plan, marks the first time that treaty Indian tribes on Puget Sound and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) have jointly developed specific, scientific criteria for chinook hatchery operations on a regional basis. The plan documents changes that have already been made, and provides guidance for future changes. The document is expected to serve as a framework for efforts to recover naturally spawning chinook populations, fisheries officials said. "This plan is a major step in achieving the assessment necessary to thoroughly modernize our joint operations and facilities," said WDFW Director Jeff Koenings
"The state and tribes have worked very hard over the past two years to do the assessments necessary to correct any deficiencies, Koenings added. "These corrections will take both time and money. I believe completing this major review demonstrates our commitment to move forward as expeditiously as possible while continuing to operate much needed facilities."
"Hatchery programs are essential to the recovery of many severely depressed wild chinook runs," said Billy Frank, Jr., chairman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. "Hatchery production is necessary to provide an opportunity for the tribes to exercise their treaty-reserved fishing rights. Hatcheries will continue to play an important role in salmon management."
WDFW and the tribes have provided the plan to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the federal agency responsible for overseeing recovery of the federally listed Puget Sound chinook. A companion review by the state and tribes of chinook harvest practices was previously submitted to NMFS and approved. While the findings and recommendations in the review are expected to assist in naturally spawning chinook recovery efforts, they are also expected to be used extensively in the broader effort now underway to reform all hatchery practices in Puget Sound and coastal Washington. The goal is to ensure the facilities meet the dual mandate of helping recover naturally spawning salmon as well as providing for sustainable fisheries.
The hatchery reform effort, launched in 2000 by the state, tribes, federal government and facilitated by the conservation group Long Live the Kings, is being led by a group of independent scientists and is supported by Congressman Norm Dicks, U.S. Senator Patty Murray and Governor Gary Locke. "While a lot of everyone's efforts these days is rightfully focused on restoring threatened chinook populations in Puget Sound, it's also important that the broader, hatchery reform movement continue to move forward," Koenings said. "We're entering a new era for hatchery operations in Washington state, one that will require a tremendous commitment from many quarters." WDFW and the Puget Sound treaty Indian tribes operate more than 40 chinook hatcheries in Puget Sound that produce chinook for recreational and commercial purposes. Most of those hatcheries have been operating for decades as ongoing mitigation for lost fish-producing habitat. In fact, about 85 per cent of fish production from state facilities is for long term mitigation. Over the past decade the state and treaty tribes have substantially reduced hatchery production in watersheds with indigenous chinook populations. Hatchery production has increased only in watersheds where a hatchery is being used to recover a threatened population through a captive broodstock program. In addition, the co-managers have largely eliminated the use of non-local stocks for hatchery programs. State and tribal managers believe the plan is a significant step towards improving hatchery operations while recognizing the role hatcheries play in mitigating for land and water-use decisions that have resulted in the permanent loss and degradation of salmon producing habitat. The plan also is significant because state and tribal chinook production programs are, in many respects, operationally linked. For example, the facilities often operate in the same watersheds, exchange eggs and share rearing space to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of the hatchery programs. The plan includes a host of specific improvements at several facilities to minimize any adverse impacts of hatchery operations on naturally spawning fish populations, and calls for substantial commitments to research and monitoring to answer further questions on the impacts of hatchery origin salmon. Until such studies are complete, the plan calls for a number of actions to minimize risks posed by ecological interactions, including terminating net pen operations at a number of locations and changing production levels and operations at some hatcheries. Other immediate changes will be put in place to reduce potential risks posed by interactions between hatchery origin and naturally spawning fish, including changes in hatchery release practices. The plan also calls for maintaining state-of-the art fish health monitoring, facility disinfecting and disease management procedures presently used during hatchery operations. In addition to providing the hatchery plan to NMFS, WDFW and the tribes have prepared individual Hatchery Genetic Management Plans (HGMPs) for each chinook production program in the Puget Sound area. The HGMPs outline specific production practices for each chinook production program, and are being reviewed by NMFS as part of the chinook recovery process.
Koenings emphasized that "a robust, viable science-based hatchery program not only will continue, but is essential in our state's efforts to provide for sustainable recreational and commercial opportunity while restoring cherished chinook populations and their habitats." # # #

This is not the first RMP that has been developed for PS Chinook Hatcheries since the ESA listing, though it may be the first one to be officially submitted for NMFS approval.

Since approval of the plan essentially amounts to a pre-approval that activities won't violate the ESA, or a permit to violate the ESA within certain parameters, it still requires the approval of the NMFS. Simply submitting the plan is not enough.

Here's to hoping it is of sufficient quality to get approved. If it is, then WT, WDFW, NWIFC, NMFS, sportfishermen, and commercial fishermen all get what they wanted, which is an effective, legally operated, hatchery system.

Fish on...

Todd.

My hat is off to the tribes and the people At WDFW that are making this work to keep those Washington Trout ***gots from taking our fish!!!!
[Bleeeeep!] YOU WA. Trout !!!!!

Peace Superfly

In my opinion, though I don't necessarily agree with WT 's strategy, seems like WT succeded and got the state to do what they were suspose to do, too bad it took a lawsuit to get the state off the dime. Unless I'm missing something here?

Rich,

I think you nailed it...assuming the plan gets approved (two years late), then everyone gets what they want and what is required by the ESA.

Joe,

I'm not understanding why you resent WT using the legal system to force WDFW to follow the law. None of us who fish want to see hatcheries that provide scientifically sound fisheries to close, but don't we all have a stake in properly and legally run hatcheries? Ones that aren't subject to legal challenges, and thereby supply a reliable source of fish and fishing?

Whatever WT's motivation was in filing the lawsuit, they can't stop hatchery operations that are legal just because of their perceived dislike of hatcheries in general.

And lastly, don't forget where the root of this problem lies. It lies in the imposition of the ESA on PS Chinook, and it lies at the feet of WDFW for not creating an RMP that was either timely or sufficient to satisfy the ESA. Neither of those were WT's fault.

Would it be better to allow WDFW's continuing violation of the ESA, trusting them to eventually create a legal RMP for running the chinook hatcheries? Would you trust them to "eventually" create a legal plan for the tangle net fishery on the Columbia springers, or would you rather push hard to force them either to make it legal or quit it?

If you answer differently to those questions, why? What is the difference?

FIsh on...

Todd.

Joe, Jonbull?

Any comments?

Fish on...

Todd

Well...six days without an answer...

At the risk of being a little cynical, I'll take a shot at answering my own question, though I'd rather hear it from those who hold the opinion, rather than me guessing what it is...

The answer is that there is no difference.

Why, then, would there be a difference in opinion as to why the hatcheries should be allowed to run illegally, while the tangle tooth net fishery should be stopped immediately?

The answer is obvious (to me)...the difference is that WT's lawsuit has the potential to take away some of our fish and fishing, which is unacceptable, while stopping or modifying the tangle tooth fishery takes away someone else's and gives them to us, which is not only acceptable, but is preferable.

It's a fine opinion to hold, if your interest is fish for you, but it doesn't hold water in either legality or consistency.

I'm not trying to speak for anyone here, I'd still much rather hear it from those who hold their own opinions. I'm sure there are other opinions than the one I outlined, but like I said, I'm being a bit cynical.

Fish on...

Todd.

Todd thanks.....I'd argue my points regarding WT's actions but you've heard them and I'm tired from fishing. One thought though....you do realize the immensity of creating the huge and complex document that was needed by WDFW and the Tribes to meet the needs of ESA? Do you believe you could come up with that document in 90 days, six months, a year...maybe the truth could be that the time it took was what it took? Anyway the game continues.

Washington Trout wants to restore wild salmon runs -- thats a great thing to shoot for, and in most paces a very doable goal. Heck, in Washington, most wild salmon runs are healthy. But, there are some chinook rivers out there, the Puyallup, Green, Skokomish (if the dams stay) that will never see a significant or sustainable return of wild chinook ever again.

Or for as long as Seattle and Tacoma are around. As long as the habitat stays screwed on those river systems, or unless we're ready to make some really hard choices, the habitat will stay bad, the only chinook we'll ever catch on them will be hatchery chinook.

WT wants restored wild runs, and they have no solution to the habitat question. So, they attack chinook hatcheries cause God knows, they don't do wild runs any favors either. Their solution is to shut down chinook hatcheries now and as we can, solve the habitat problem. Well, that means there won't be any chinook to catch in the mean time. That isn't a solution.

Just read the article in todays Seattle Times that WT is going after the proposed permanent Sockeye hatchery on the Cedar River. The temporary hatchery handles about 14 million eggs a year and the permanent one would handle upwards of 30+ million. I can't believe that they are going after this one!

Fishing report: Big sockeye run aided by temporary hatchery

By Mark Yuasa
Seattle Times staff reporter

This summer's Lake Washington sockeye sport fishery came as a sweet surprise to state Fish and Wildlife biologists, and to anglers, too.

Because the preseason estimate called for about 190,000 sockeye to return, very few expected one of the most unique urban freshwater salmon fisheries in the United States to actually happen.

To have any type of fishery, more than 350,000 sockeye must enter the lake to meet the spawning escapement goal.

The preseason figure was based on the number of fry (juvenile fish) entering the lake in 1999 from the Cedar and Sammamish rivers and tributaries; plus the assumed survival rates in the lake and ocean.

This year's return of about 410,000 sockeye to the Lake Washington watershed included 80,000 to 100,000 fish that began their lives in a temporary hatchery located on the Cedar River about 22 miles above Lake Washington. Built in 1991 to maintain hatchery sockeye production, the facility has produced about 17 million juvenile fish yearly.

While the sport fishery lasted only from July 26-28, about 36,000 sockeye were caught, and catch rates were better than 1½ fish per boat during each day, with many anglers catching their two-fish daily limit fairly easily.

"It surprised the heck out of us that we even got a fishery on the lake this year after preseason estimates indicated that we were far from the escapement goal," said Dick Geist, a state Fish and Wildlife fish manager.

Many salmon runs that return to Puget Sound are driven by hatchery production, and without it there would be very few salmon available for harvest by any type of fishery.

Back in mid-July, when the season was announced, Frank Urabeck, a member of the state Fish and Wildlife sportfishing advisory council and sportfishing director for the Northwest Marine Trade Association, indicated about 20 to 30 percent were produced in the temporary hatchery.

During this past summer's sockeye fishery on the lake, state Fish and Wildlife biologists collected heads of sockeye caught by sport anglers, and found 25 percent had originated from the temporary hatchery.

"I used my best judgment in trying to figure out how many had come from the hatchery and it looks like I wasn't too far off," Urabeck said. "The importance of the (temporary) hatchery and a planned permanent hatchery in the future will allow us to keep this fishery alive for years to come."

In 1999, the City of Seattle planned to include a new federally approved permanent hatchery on the Cedar River, which would be able to produce 34 million juvenile sockeye per year, twice the number the temporary hatchery produces.

The decision to build the permanent hatchery facility — expected to be completed by 2005 — has moved into the final stages.

Opponents such as Washington Trout are seeking to block the hatchery facility. Washington Trout is the same organization that recently sued the National Marine Fisheries Service in regard to Puget Sound salmon management, chinook hatchery production and a no fishery option in Puget Sound.

An environmental draft impact statement was released last month. Public comments, postmarked by Oct. 23, can be sent to the Cedar River Sockeye Hatchery Environmental Impact Statement Comments, Cindy Holtz, Seattle Public Utilities, Key Tower, 700 Fifth Ave., Suite 4900, Seattle, WA. 98104.

Scheduled public hearings: Oct. 16, at the Seattle Center House, Conference Room A-305, 6 to 9:30 p.m.; and Oct. 17, at the Renton Technical College Convention Building, Room H-102, 3000 N.E. Fourth St.

I heard that about the Landsburg Dam hatchery stuff, too.

I don't have any information about what the deal is there, but I thought that this project would include fish passage systems at the dams that would open up more pristine habitat to endangered chinook.

Anyone know what WT's issue is with this?

Fish on...

Todd

Ramon Vanden Brulle, Oh Ramon, are you out there? What's the scoop? Please fill us in.

I can't speak to WT intentions, but the City of Seattle is currently in the process of constructing fish passage at the Landsburg Dam on the Cedar River to open up 17.5 miles of habitat to endangered chinook that has not been available since 1900. Construction began this summer and passage improvements have already been completed at the pipline crossing fish blockage 1/2 mile downstream of the dam. Construction of a ladder at the dam is underway and will be completed in time for the fall 2003 runs. The sockeye hatchery is to follow the fish passage improvements once the current environmental review is completed.