PRESS RELEASE
WASHINGTON TROUT; NATIVE FISH SOCIETY


Agreement Expands Public Opportunity to Comment on State Hatchery Plans

Seattle – Washington Trout, the Native Fish Society, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife have reached an agreement to settle lawsuits brought by the two environmental groups over WDFW's Puget Sound salmon hatchery operations. The agreement creates a new, expanded public-involvement process that will enhance citizen opportunity to help shape hatchery management practices in Washington.

Under the terms of the agreement, WDFW will make hatchery management plans available for public comment before the department submits those plans to federal fisheries managers for approval under the Endangered Species Act. The documents, known as Hatchery Genetic Management Plans, must be prepared by WDFW to meet federal ESA obligations. The HGMPs have been due since January 2001.

The department submitted HGMPs for its Puget Sound hatcheries in late 2002 and earlier this year, and is in the process of preparing others for submission to NOAA Fisheries, the federal agency charged with enforcing ESA rules for listed salmon and steelhead populations.

Typically, NOAA Fisheries would seek public review and comment on HGMPs during its own review and approval process. Under the terms of the settlement, WDFW will solicit public input on the hatchery plans prior to NOAA Fisheries' review. This agreement will expand the public's opportunity to become meaningfully involved in the state and federal managers' decision-making processes.

In exchange, the Native Fish Society and Washington Trout have agreed to drop lawsuits against WDFW, which alleged that releases of hatchery-bred chinook, coho and steelhead were hampering wild chinook recovery efforts in Puget Sound. The agreement terms also included reimbursement of the plaintiffs' legal expenses.

Washington Trout and Native Fish Society charged that WDFW's Puget Sound hatchery operations were harming and killing wild chinook in a number of ways, through competition for food and habitat, displacement, predation, and harmful genetic interactions. During negotiations with WDFW, WT proposed the comment and response process as a way to make hatchery management more transparent, engage the public, and influence improvements in current hatchery practices.

“We still believe hatchery practices in Puget Sound are causing significant harm to listed species,” said Kurt Beardslee, WT Executive Director. “But we do now hope that the department will be open to improving their management practices, and we believe this agreement and new public process can move that effort forward.”

NOAA Fisheries requires HGMPs for any hatchery operation with the potential to impact a listed salmon or steelhead population. Washington state has 13 salmon and steelhead populations with federal ESA protection. Many HGMPs are still overdue the January 2001 deadline.

Under the agreement, WDFW will publish the text of the Puget Sound HGMPs in the State Register and on its website, solicit public comment for the following 30 days, issue substantive responses to the public comments, and submit the comments and responses to NOAA Fisheries. The responses and comments will be posted on WDFW's website for public review.

The settlement also sets a schedule for the completion and submission of most of the HGMPs that are still outstanding. Of the roughly 85 outstanding salmon and steelhead HGMPs, half will be submitted within 18 months, and the remainder will be submitted to NOAA Fisheries within 30 months.

WDFW will also solicit public comment on these additional HGMPs as they are completed, and forward any comments to NOAA Fisheries with the department's response.

# # #

Ramon Vanden Brulle, Communications Director
Washington Trout
PO Box 402
Duvall, WA 98019
425/788-1167; fax 425/788-1167
ramon@washingtontrout.org
www.washingtontrout.org

So Ramon,

How much taxpayer money did WT collect for their legal fees?

Are WT's legal fees going to be available for viewing?

Lets everyone take your shot at WT. Please remember that when you have the opportunity to actually give comments on hatcheries and HGMP. Do you think WDFW wants public comments?

Let's see the WDFW are 2 years overdue on HGMP. Hum if I was that over due on a REQUIRED report at work I would be fired. But hey I work in the private sector.

Get real they did something that in the long run is helping the average fisherman have input and get some of these discussions and reports to see the light of day. Not the WDFW wants to hear it. Remember that 2\3 of the people polled wanted complete wild steelhead release and they totally ignored that.

Flame away
JJ

I'd call that one hell of a bargain! It equates to about 1/4 of the annual operating cost of just one hatchery! Now we (the fishing public) have a guaranteed voice in developing hatchery reform policy! Plus, NO hatcheries are closing!

Of course none of the positives of all of this will be discussed, only more b!tching and protesting over WT recouping money they spent out of their own pockets to exact this result!

Opening the process will put some teeth into it, not just "repeat" it. I believe you must be referring to the anticipated NMFS public-review process, that this new process will augment. The NMFS public-review process will likely focus on its own approval decision, not the individual HGMPs. It will come after NMFS will have already esentialy made its decision. Actually under the terms of WDFW's Puget Sound HGMPs, NMFS is not even required to offer any comment period at all.

Now WDFW will have to submit not only its hatchery plan to NMFS for review, it will also have to submit your challenges or comments on that plan, and WDFW's response to those comments, as part of its application for ESA approval. The real issues will be part of the record, issues that WDFW might be happier to leave out. That will make it much harder for NMFS to approve a bad plan, and easier to challenge them if they do, or at least call them on it in their own public-comment process.

This will offer supporters of the HSRG process an opportunity to evaluate and comment on how well WDFW is following, or even trying to start to follow, the HSRG recommendations, before WDFW sends its plans to NMFS for approval. This should help jump-start the hatchery-reform process, and give the public an opportunity to monitor its progress.

We think the public can and should be engaged in the whole process, not just get to comment on the finished product. This year, NMFS imposed conditions on the tangle-net fishery in the Lower Columbia that significantly reduced the impacts of that fishery on listed steelhead and salmon. NMFS based its conditions on several sets of comments they recieved from WT, TU and others, over the entire period of time decisions were being made regarding the planned fishery, not just one set they got at the end. Good public comments, based on facts and good science, if they can really engage the decision-making process, can be much more effective at influencing management practices.

Ramon Vanden Brulle,
Washington Trout

We WILL have a voice! Whether or not anyone actually listens... well that remains to be seen!

C'mon Aunty, it's over now. You get to keep fishing! Bag the sour grapes huh!

Sounds like a pretty big benefit for such a nominal cost....good work Ramon and WT!

thank you washington trout! you took a stand and made a difference. increasing public comment will help us all no matter what we feel.

I second that. THe fact that our comments get to be in the record is a great thing.

Good Work WT.

JJ

WDFW did not have to settle, they could of gone to court and fought if they thought they had a good case.

WELL, i will give my comment to hatchery reform, i would like to see instead of holding ponds, they actually make holding streams that have more current flow than the actual ponds, thus it would make the hatchery fish more enable to out run the predators and they would be over all, healthier due to more exercising and using predators in the ponds ( like a squawfish with its yapper sewed shut..lol) maybe they could come up with sumthing like that, to "educate" the smolts to what is harmful, maybe a dumb idea..but my .02

Its over now??? are you serious? What happens the first time that WT doesn't get a change they want, exactly the way they want it??? Gee, back to court maybe? I think IF WT is worth a $hit they will take "their court costs" and dump it right into hatchery reform. Otherwise all they have done is extort monies from an already financially strapped program and padded their pockets with it. WT should put its money where its mouth is.

"Otherwise all they have done is extort monies from an already financially strapped program and padded their pockets with it."

I call BS...

Money covered the cost of what little litigation there was in this case. WT rightfully recoups their legal costs as determined by the court. Period. Public comments go on the record as a result...this is a WIN for fishermen, a WIN for critics of the WDFW and a WIN for wild fish...all for VERY nominal cost.

h20-
call it what you like. a large sum of money left the WDFW and went into the hands of WT.

How can that help hatchery reform in a budget crisis? do you think Gov. Gridlocke is going to give any additional money to make these reforms, or are they just going to have to do with 58K less now???

What DO you think will happen when WT makes a suggested change based on their agenda, and WDFW and whoever else is involved in the process, disagree? Back to court....

Elkrun, Very good points

Jerry, The same could be said for WT if they had any kinda case they would not have settled out of court. They would have went after the stopping of the hatchery releases.

Elkrun,

For a guy with all them degrees, you ain't comprehendin' this very well are you?

The suit HAS BEEN SETTLED!

If you read what Ramon posted, you'd see that with public input now mandated as part of the process, where's the need to sue?

How's about we focus on the GOOD things for a change!

Oh, and if you would be so kind as to let me borrow a quote from you: You are becoming WAY too predictable also!

p.s. The State spends more than $58,000 per year on toilet paper for the restrooms in the government offices! In these times of budget shortfalls, why don't we just make State employees bring their own!

Perhaps they used the hatchery release issue as a means to get WDFW to allow for public imput, maybe stopping hatchery releases was not the main issue.

Will the public get to review the legal expendatures that WT incurred that we paid for??
Great points Elkrun! I hear ya!

Predictable again 4salt-

Anyone disagrees with you, you take it down a notch.... start the namecalling (generally a sign of low self esteem).. How can losing 58K not hurt the hatcheries? It is a decent sum. your toilet paper analogy is cute and all, but really just reflects the level you want to debate on. No thanks, Its ok that you to have a different opinion than me. later.