Washington tribes receive nearly $2 million to protect Puget Sound

SEATTLE – On March 29, 19 tribes received grants totaling nearly $2 million for on-the-ground projects to protect and preserve water quality and salmon habitat in the Puget Sound region. The grants support the Puget Sound Partnership’s 2020 Action Agenda.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in partnership with the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission made the grant announcement on the banks of Hansen Creek where the Upper Skagit Tribe showcased just one of the 19 habitat restoration projects. The Upper Skagit Tribe will receive $105,000 to help restore 140 acres of habitat around the creek, a tributary to the Skagit River near the tribe’s reservation.

“Salmon habitat has suffered centuries of abuse,” said Billy Frank Jr., NIFC chairman. “With the help of these EPA grants, the tribes are undoing that damage one step at a time. We all have to work together to get Puget Sound healthy again.”

Puget Sound chinook and steelhead are listed as “threatened” under the federal Endangered Species Act, and Skagit coho are listed by the state Department of Fish and Wildlife as a species of concern.
http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/national/47225337.html

thats not enough to even pay for lunch at the casino.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in partnership with the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

2 milliion dollars isn't that how much a bolt nut and washer cost during the Grenada war.

Puget Sound chinook and steelhead are listed as “threatened” under the federal Endangered Species Act, and Skagit coho are listed by the state Department of Fish and Wildlife as a species of concern.


species of concern yah we are the ones concerned!

Why not pay the $2mil to stop netting wild fish? Use it to purchase fish wheels or some other method to collect hatchery fish.

Yes habitat needs restoration, but if the fish never get there is the goal accomplished?

1) Which watersheds are not getting enough natural escapement to promote population growth if and when habitat improves? In other words, which ones are currently escapement limited?

2) It seems to me that it is the policy of the state to promote reliance on hatchery fish to maintain fisheries as opposed to restoring and protecting that habitat necessary to have robust natural populations that can support fisheries. I'm not sure this is the preferred policy of most of the tribes.

3) I don't know where you get your information about what the long-term unstated goal of the tribes is. My sense is that the tribes could be pushing much harder right now for a payoff, if that's what they want. The facts and the court precedents are already on their side, in my non-legally-trained opinion. So, I conclude that they really do want the fish back. This could change, though, as continually declining fishing opportunities cause more and more tribal members to seek other means of making a living. If this trend would cause the tribes to quit advocating for habitat, all of us will lose, and I think even many people participating here would regret that situation.

You didn't answer my questions other than to refer to the recent Columbia River settlement.

I agree that for the state it's about money, not recovery. Otherwise they would have figured out how to modify dam operations to help fish rather than paying the tribes off.

There are many ways to target hatchery fish that don't require mass marking. But I'm concerned that the long-term vision is for fisheries supported only by hatchery fish. That's not a sustainable future. Not for the resource and not for the fishery either. You only have to look at the current situation with Sacramento River fall chinook to see what a future dependent on hatchery fish will look like.

Aunty....I think you're getting into an argurement here with a tribal biologist from the Everett (Tulalip) area [Two Dogs]....see the post I put up about the recent OSU study and the reduction of fitness in hatchery fish.......seems like the easiest thing to do is start producing sterile hatchery fish. Or just stop producing them.

good point....and wait a second...IT"S NOT FLAT!!!

Yeah I am aware of comanagement. I strongly disagree that the tribes have the "final word", though. Lots of people on here know I am a tribal bio. If i got more specific, I wouldn't be able to participate in what I hope is a constructive manner.

I thought my question about escapement limitation was quite relevant, actually. Time and area management have been effective ways to target hatchery fish. Winter steelhead is a good example of the former. hatchery terminal areas are an example of both working together. Of course some wild fish are caught if these are not selective fisheries, but the nice thing about that is that you can get a good estimate of wild fish mortality, through CWT, visual inspection if the fish are visually mass-marked, or other techniques if the fish are non-visibly mass-marked. We use all of these.

Selective fisheries is a good strategy too, but there are some limitations. One is the uncertainty is the mortality of non-retained fish. As you know, the estimated of hook-and-release mortality are highly variable, and some studies show very high levels. There is a good recent Pacific Fishery Management Council report on this, for example. Catch-and-release rates are lower for some net gears, beach seines and reef nets for example, as well as fish wheels and similar traps, which are currently outlawed in Washington. There are already mark- and species-selective fisheries for the reef netters, and I would expect more proposed for other gears if the current situation continues.

Here's a prediction that you can file away if you want. I predict that if and when a tribe proposes a mark-selective fishery, be it with beach seine, hook-and-line, or whatever gear, that we will start to see here and in other forums all the problems with selective fisheries listed: uncertain release mortality rates, problems with enforcement, compromising of data, and so forth. So far most of these issues have been ignored here, but if it becomes an issue about tribal fisheries, the tune will change. Just my prediction for now.

Again, my major concern is that reliance on hatchery fish, as with selective fisheries, is at best a short-term solution that does not help us address the underlying problem.

I enjoy these discussions, by the way.

Well, there are 20 tribes in the Case Area, so 3 makes 15%. I'm not sure what your criteria are for inclusion in this group, and I don't know if you've actually evaluated all the tribes in this manner, but 3/20 does = 15%.

Now, there is one (1) state in the Case Area. Does or does not that state 1) want to see wild fish recover and 2)vlaue money or fish more? In other words, is the equivalent figure for the state in the Case Area 0% or 100%? Just wondering what you think about that.

2dogs,

Is your organization (tribe) in favor of wild fish recovery? What are their thoughts on selective fisheries?

OK, pissing matches aside, can anyone argue that more money for habitat can only be construed as something good?

C'mon... this is something to celebrate.... SHEESH!

The only issue that should squelch our enthusiasm for these sorts of habitat restoration/reclamation projects is the "Franzen reality" (thanks Salmo g!) that for every pro-habitat project that gets funded, at least 10 more habitat-destructive projects are coming down the permitting pipeline.

I was thinking the same thing fishNphysician.
This is a good thing, wether a drop in the bucket or not. Saying that each side is against wild fish recovery doesn't do a bit of good, and I don't think its true either.

Very well said, FNP. Thanks.

Regarding Aunty M's last comment, yes, if we could somehow stop the destruction wrought by those 10 habitat destroying projects, we could probably save some of the restoration money, although if we really want recovery we need to do both the protection and the restoration better.

Aunty---I think waste is a foregone conclusion when it comes to any gov't agency. I don't like it but I'd rather see it go in the right direction.

[Is your organization (tribe) in favor of wild fish recovery?]
Yes. Working hard on it.


[What are their thoughts on selective fisheries?]
All fishery-related impacts need to be accounted for in whatever fishery. They agreed early on to some selective hook-and-line fisheries for chinook despite huge uncertainties. They are disappointed that the move towards selective hook-and-line fisheries is proceeding so fast without adequate attention to all the impacts. They are concerned that the coast-wide stock assessment databases are being compromised with so many mixed-stock selective fisheries. They are concerned that not enough attention is being paid to the harvest of hatchery fish in selective fisheries because we need hatchery fish for escapement to maintain hatchery ruins as well as for terminal area fisheries. They are concerned that WDFW has ceased monitoring of in-river selective fisheries this year. Nonetheless, hook-and-line selective fisheries are increasing, and we are learning more about their impacts and making adjustments in assessment tools as appropriate. They ask the same respect for their own fisheries: recognition that all impacts are being assessed, some allowance for not being perfect, and a fair discussion of the implication of the facts when they do come in. That's about it. Sometime I'll give you my personal opinion.

If people take the time to look at the actual benefit to fish in terms of smolts per dollar spent for many restoration projects (which very few people ever do the work to determine) it is clear that throwing money carelessly at habitat is often a crap shoot with a lot of investment going down the toilet and a similar number of projects showing a positive response by fish. The fact that more adults don't immediately produce more adults returning is often used as evidence that habitat is the primary problem. Sometimes that is spot on. Sometimes there are other equally valid explanations but no data to determine exactly what is going on, so the "experts" start talking from personal opinion rather than fact.

It is clear that habitat restoration is not the universal solution many think. It is not always a good use of money. More money wasted on crappy habitat projects means less money spent on other efforts. Long-term monitoring across a variety of potential corrections is the only way we will ever learn what really works in any given situation. Fixing passage problems is a no-brainer. Restoring floodplains obviously impacted like the Nisqually/Skagit also makes sense. Beyond that, dumping wood in every creek is probably not going to do any harm, but may not provide sufficient benefit to justify the cost. Might be better to address harvest/hatchery impacts in some cases. Keep blaming habitat for everything and the other H's get a free pass. We need to spread the joy around and keep measuring what actually works. $2 million thrown at one problem may be money down a rat hole.

My $.02

Hardly the rat hole of which you speak so eloquently.

2 million is like a drop in the bucket compared to the sums spent addressing those "other" issues.

The hatchery side of things has undeniably consumed the overwhelming majority of available salmon dollars.

Habitat has always gotten the neglected step-child treatment.... garnering the measliest of funding perhaps 2-3 orders of magnitude less than the other H's combined.

habitat is not that important if most of the fish are caught offshore by comercial and tribal boats before they even have a chance to make it to the sound...even if the habitat became better, the problem would still lie with the taking of MORE fish before they even made it to the intended habitat...sorry, but sporties dont even come close to a chunk in the pie...habitat would be great if that is what its intended for...c

For many salmon populations harvest is not even in the picture. Yes, they are picked off as incidental harvest to open fisheries but we have plenty of populations that need to get UP to harvestable levels before we can even talk about slicing that pie.

Freshwater capacity and productivity are the factors to keep an eye on. We are discovering that these measures are often showing low levels. This is habitat my friends, pure and simple. The habitat before these fish become fry, habitat before these fish become fingerlings and habitat before these fish become smolts... is where its at. If we don't have that, we ain't got nuthin'.

Here's a suggestion for those that think freshwater habitat is not that great a concern... if freshwater habitat is NOT the key then why are the shortest freshwater rearing species (pink and chum) in Puget Sound doing relatively well and the longest freshwater rearing species (steelhead) doing relatively poorly???