WDFW -- 1999-01 Biennial Report

1999-01 WDFW Biennial Report

IN MANY WAYS, THE 1999-01 Biennium marked the beginning of a new era for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), tribal managers and everyone involved in fish and wildlife management in Washington.

Salmon recovery became a statewide priority, supported by new funding and a new level of involvement at the local level. Science also played an increasingly important role in guiding policy decisions about resource management of all kinds, while WDFW’s own business systems were retooled for the modern age.

As a key participant in these and other changes, WDFW developed an array of new partnerships, new technologies and new management strategies that helped to set a new course for fish and wildlife stewardship in the 21^st century. It also continued to build on its unique working relationship with Washington’s treaty tribes, who share management responsibilities for hunting, fishing and hatchery operations in many areas of the state.

Throughout this dynamic period, WDFW was guided by its legislative mandates to conserve Washington’s fish and wildlife resources, while also working to maintain fishing and hunting opportunities for the people of the state.

KEY ACCOMPLISHMENTS

From surveying streams to enforcing the state’s fishing and hunting laws, WDFW performs hundreds of activities each year to fulfill its mission of providing "sound stewardship of fish and wildlife." Below are some key actions taken during the 1999-01 Biennium that not only advanced the Department’s immediate goals but also set a new course for the future.

GOAL 1:
Healthy and Diverse Fish and Wildlife
Populations and Habitats

Salmon recovery: No issue received more attention from WDFW or the Commission than the recovery of declining wild salmon, steelhead and bull trout stocks. Key recovery efforts include:

Selective salmon fisheries: Mass-marking of hatchery salmon made it possible to extend selective fishing rules to 52 recreational salmon fisheries, providing protection for weak wild runs as well as fishing opportunities on abundant hatchery stocks. Successful tests conducted with new types of commercial fishing gear paved the way for selective commercial fisheries in the years ahead.
Local salmon recovery: WDFW provided critical technical assistance to a new network of local salmon recovery organizations, which together helped to channel $92 million in funding to 510 restoration projects during the biennium. Besides supporting the new network of Lead Entities created by the 1998 Legislature, the Department continued its partnership with Regional Fisheries Enhancement Groups (RFEGs) and other volunteer organizations to restore vital freshwater salmon and steelhead habitat.
Hatchery reform: Recovery programs for wild salmon at state hatcheries resulted in several record returns in 2001. Meanwhile, WDFW filed reports on 128 hatchery programs to comply with federal requirements under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and worked with treaty tribes, federal agencies and a panel of independent scientists to reform state, tribal and federal hatchery operations.
State/tribal conservation plans: Years before the 1999 listing of seven salmon and steelhead stocks under the ESA, state and tribal fisheries managers began working together on harvest conservation plans for two declining stocks: Puget Sound chinook salmon and Hood Canal/Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon. Those plans were completed and submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service in 2000, providing the foundation for the first comprehensive recovery plans for those species.
Adaptive management in forestry: The landmark Forests and Fish Agreement of 1999, which WDFW helped to design, includes a provision that allows for adjustments in forestry rules as new scientific information becomes available. Under this groundbreaking "adaptive management" provision, WDFW scientists initiated a number of studies that may help to further refine the state’s forestry rules.
Habitat restoration: Besides providing technical assistance to local organizations, WDFW spearheaded several habitat restoration projects of major importance. The Deepwater Slough project – one of the largest of its kind in the nation – opened up more than 300 acres of prime estuarine habitat to juvenile salmon on the south fork of the Skagit River. On Goldsborough Creek in Mason County, WDFW teamed up with Simpson Timber and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to remove an aging wooden dam, opening up 14 miles of ideal spawning habitat upstream. WDFW also helped to negotiate an agreement for the removal of Condit Dam on the White Salmon River in 2006.
Focus on science: By creating the position of "chief scientist" within each of the Department’s three resource-management programs, WDFW Director Jeff Koenings established a clear priority for the role of science in the Department. Major topics of research during the biennium include interactions between hatchery and naturally spawning salmon, marine biotoxins and the effects of various forestry practices on fish and wildlife. The Habitat Program also continued work with treaty tribes on a mapbased database linking salmon runs to stream conditions throughout western Washington.
Marine Enforcement Division: In light of the new ESA listings in 1999, all marine enforcement detachments were consolidated under a new division to step up enforcement of state salmon regulations. Field contacts with anglers showed a 98% compliance rate with new selective fishing rules.
Groundfish/shellfish protection: WDFW and the Commission took a number of actions to protect marine fish and shellfish in state waters. On the coast, bottom trawling was prohibited to protect declining groundfish stocks and pot limits were established for the commercial crab fishery. Changes in Puget Sound included new harvest quotas on Dungeness crab, limited entry for commercial shrimp fisheries and two new marine reserves to provide long-term protection for rockfish species.
Game management: Most big game populations showed substantial recovery from the hard winter of 1996-97, but some needed a helping hand. For the first time, long-term plans were drafted for all 10 state elk herds, identifying management actions needed to bolster those with sagging populations. WDFW increased sampling of deer and elk for chronic wasting disease, even though no cases of this fatal disease have been detected to date in Washington.

GOAL 2:
Sustainable Fish and Wildlife-Related Opportunities

Selective salmon fisheries: Besides providing protection for listed salmon populations, selective fisheries helped to expand recreational fishing opportunities focused on abundant hatchery stocks. In 2000, for example, the selective season for salmon anglers fishing in the ocean area off Westport lasted a full six weeks. If not for the requirement to safely release unmarked coho, fisheries managers estimate that they would have had to close that season after a week to 10 days of fishing to protect weak wild stocks. The situation was much the same in fisheries from northern Puget Sound to the Columbia River.
Triploid trout: Fishing in Washington’s lowland lakes got a lot more interesting in 2000, when WDFW began stocking triploid trout with the support of funding provided by the state Legislature. Voracious feeders, the sterile rainbow trout quickly grow to an average size of 1½ pounds.
Warmwater fisheries: The Meseberg Hatchery, the state’s first large-scale rearing facility for warmwater fish, became fully operational, producing bass, walleye and other species for one of the state’s fastest-growing recreational fisheries.
Commercial sardine fishery: In 2000, the Fish and Wildlife Commission approved the first commercial sardine fishery in nearly 50 years, based on stock assessment surveys showing steady growth in the sardine population.
Youth fishing: Nearly 700 volunteers taught 8,900 young people how to handle a rod and reel through WDFW’s Fishing Kids program, newly expanded with funding provided by the state Legislature.
Hunting opportunities: Increasing waterfowl populations allowed for some of the most liberal duck-hunting seasons on record. The harvest of deer and elk grew significantly during the biennium as the state’s big-game populations rebounded from the hard winter of 1996-97. The wild turkey harvest also increased in proportion to their growing popularity among hunters.
WildWatchCams: Tens of thousands of people logged on to WDFW’s new EagleCam website to watch a pair of eagle tend their eggs – and eventually their chicks – in real time. The same educational technology was used to produce a BatCam and SalmonCam, building on WDFW’s public outreach efforts.

GOAL 3:
Operational Excellence and Professional Service

Automated license sales: WDFW’s new electronic licensing system allows hunters and fishers to purchase recreational licenses over the phone or the Internet – for the first time – or from dealers throughout the state. The new system, the Washington Interactive Licensing Database (WILD), also eliminated the old practice of processing licenses by hand, streamlining the process and adding greater financial accountability.
New business systems: Improvements in agency technology, including new financial accounting and information systems, also contributed to the Department’s efficiency and financial accountability. After running a substantial revenue shortfall in 1998, the Department finished the 1999-01 Biennium well within budget.
Strategic planning: In 2001, after extensive involvement by WDFW employees throughout the state, the Department adopted its first formal strategic plan, clarifying WDFW’s goals and objectives. In June of 2000, the Legislature consolidated all fish and wildlife laws under a single statute, also contributing to the Department’s new sense of unity and stability.
Cougar management: After hound hunting for cougars was banned by voter initiative in 1996, public complaints about cougars grew year by year. At the direction of the Legislature, WDFW designed a system for removing cougars that present a threat to public safety within the parameters of the initiative.
Hydraulic permit turnaround: In 2001, the Department significantly reduced processing time for Hydraulic Permit Approvals (HPAs) needed before doing various types of work in or near state’s waters. By the last quarter of the year, only 1.5% (14 permits) of HPAs took longer than 45 days to process compared to 6.2% (57 permits) in the first quarter.

ORGANIZATION

click here for enlargement

Since passage of Referendum 45 in 1995, the responsibility for setting basic policy direction for WDFW has been vested in the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission. The Commission’s nine members, who each serve six-year terms, are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the state Senate.

The Commission establishes fishing and hunting seasons and makes a wide range of policy decisions, which included imposing a ban on ocean trawling and establishing marine reserves in the 1999-01 Biennium. Minutes of public meetings and workshops held by the Commission are posted on WDFW’s website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/com/minutes/minutes.htm.

In January 1999, the Commission hired Jeffrey Koenings, Ph.D, as WDFW Director, with the responsibility for supervising 1,645 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees, including 60 supported by the capital budget. Koenings also oversaw an operating budget of $274.8 million and a capital budget of $26.7 million as part of his overall management responsibility for the Department.

WDFW operations were organized under six major programs, each with its own divisions and sub-programs. Approximately 47% of the Department’s staff worked out of the WDFW headquarters in Olympia, while the remaining 53% reported to six regional offices throughout the state. Major programs include:

Director’s Office: In addition to the Director, the Deputy Director and their support staff, the Director’s Office includes Personnel, Regional Office administration, Legislative and External Affairs, Public Affairs and the new Intergovernmental Resource Management (IRM) group discussed below. The Director’s Office had a budget of $18.4 million and 102.7 FTEs in the 1999- 01 Biennium.
Business Services: Business Operations includes Licensing, Information Systems, Financial Services, Capital Programs and Engineering, with an operating budget of $56.3 million and 145 FTE staff.
Habitat: The Habitat Program is responsible for protecting, restoring and enhancing the state’s fish and wildlife habitats. The program is organized into five main divisions: Environmental Services, Environmental Restoration, Major Projects, Science and Regional Operations. The program had an operating budget of $22.6 million in the 1999-01 Biennium, supporting 174 FTEs.
Fish: The Fish Program is responsible for protecting and perpetuating all game fish, food fish, shellfish, unclassified marine aquatic species, aquatic pests and all fish culture activities for WDFW. The Program is organized into four divisions: Hatcheries, Fish Management, Science and Administrative Operations. The largest of the programs within WDFW, the Fish Program had an operating budget of $113.1 million in the 1999- 01 Biennium, supporting the work of 787 FTEs.
Wildlife: The Wildlife Program manages a wide variety of wildlife species and their habitats to perpetuate those populations and provide recreational opportunities for the public. Five divisions within the program include Wildlife Diversity, Game, Lands, Science and Administration. In 1999-01, the Wildlife Program had an operating budget of $35.6 million, supporting the work of 213.7 FTEs.
Enforcement: Fish and Wildlife Enforcement officers are charged with a broad array of responsibilities, ranging from regulating fishing and hunting activities to responding to bear and cougar complaints. The Enforcement Program is composed of headquarters administrative staff, field operations and an aviation and vehicle/vessel shop. Liie other WDFW program staff, fish and wildlife officers are deployed throughout the state in communities where they live and work. The Enforcement Program had an operating budget of $28.8 million with 163.3 FTE commissioned and non-commissioned staff.

click here for enlargement

While this basic organizational structure had been in place since 1997, the Director made two changes early in the biennium to improve agency-wide operations in two high-priority areas.

Chief Scientists: Reflecting the critical role that science plays in the agency’s operations, Director Koenings named a chief scientist to each of WDFW’s resource programs: Fish, Wildlife and Habitat. Their role was to elevate scientific research throughout the agency and coordinate its application in the field.
Intergovernmental Resource Management: In July of 1999, Director Koenings created the Intergovernmental Resource Management (IRM) group to take the lead in developing policies that affect the department’s relationships with Indian tribes, federal and state governments and other state agencies. Creation of the new resource management group was designed to improve agency coordination on critical issues ranging from implementing court orders on tribal hunting and fishing rights to developing state policies for salmon recovery under the federal Endangered Species Act. Nearly all the 20 staff members who make up IRM were drawn from agency resource programs, providing the new policy group with a knowledgeable and experienced staff.

DEPARTMENT FINANCES

WDFW entered the 1999-01 Biennium under close scrutiny by the state Office of Financial Management and the state Legislature after reporting an expected shortfall of $17.5 million in the State Wildlife Fund during the previous biennium. Citing problems endemic to WDFW since the merger of the former Department of Fisheries and the Department of Wildlife, a consultant’s report commissioned by the Legislature attributed the shortfall to poor financial controls, incomplete financial reporting and a lack of automation, combined with an unexpected decline in fishing and hunting licenses which support the Wildlife Fund.

The solution to the Department’s 1998 financial crisis required WDFW to cut $7.5 million in planned expenditures, eliminate 106 staff positions and sell off $2.1 million in lands owned by the Department. To help cover the shortfall, the Legislature also extended a $3.5 million line of credit from the State Treasury, which the new Director never used.

Eager to avoid repeating that situation, the Department’s new Director and his management team paid close attention to WDFW’s financial condition throughout the 1999-01 Biennium, following recommendations made by the management consultant, Talbot, Korvola & Warwick (TKW). With $489,000 approved by the state Legislature, the WDFW also initiated a number of improvements to agency information systems identified in the Department’s new strategic plan.

WDFW ended the 1999-01 Biennium in stable financial condition, with a balance of more than $6 million remaining in the State Wildlife Fund. Moreover, the investments made to bolster the Department’s business systems have left WDFW in a much better position to respond to future downturns in revenues.

Revenues

click here for enlargement

State funds comprised 59% of the Department’s financial support in the 1999-01 Biennium, with the remainder coming from federal and local government agencies. Among state funds, the State General Fund accounted for 33% of incoming revenues, while 16% came from the State Wildlife Fund and 10% from other dedicated state funds.

Unlike the previous biennium, revenues accrued in the historically volatile Wildlife Fund remained consistent with Department projections. Supported by increasing sales of recreational fishing and hunting licenses, the Wildlife Fund produced $50.7 million for WDFW during the two-year period, consistent with the ten-year average. Aided by a new automated licensing system, the Department monitored license sales closely throughout the biennium, ending with a positive balance of $6 million. Other dedicated state funds were also stable and were closely managed by WDFW managers.

State General Fund support for the Department increased 8.7% from the previous biennium, although the majority of those funds were earmarked as "passthrough" funding for new activities mandated by the Legislature rather than ongoing WDFW responsibilities. This, together with the rising cost of doing business, required Department managers to make difficult choices regarding the expenditure of scarce General Fund resources.

Federal and local funds made up the remaining 41% of the Department’s biennial revenue, increasing by $7.5 million from the previous budget period. These funds, which support habitat mitigation and other projects carried out by WDFW staff, were also relatively stable, with some exceptions. Reduced support from federal Dingell-Johnson (Sportfish Restoration Act) funds in 1999 forced spending reductions in a number of fish management programs, including groundfish studies, management of rockfish and lingcod, mass-marking and other activities. Other federal sources such as Pittman-Roberts (Wildlife Restoration Act) and Mitchell Act funding (hatcheries) remained relatively stable, while local funding – primarily from public utility districts – increased slightly.

Operating Budget

WDFW’s total operating expenditures for the 1999- 01 Biennium, including supplemental appropriations approved by the state Legislature in 2000 and 2001, were $274.8 million. Of this amount, $165.3 million was supported by state funds while $109.5 million was supported by federal and local funds.

An additional $1.3 million, was also provided in the Office of Financial Management’s budget to help WDFW upgrade its information processing infrastructure and make business systems improvements. This funding allowed WDFW to upgrade its information network, establish a 42-month personal computer replacement schedule and support three additional information systems positions and an economist.

The operating budget for the 1999-01 Biennium contained two significant structural changes in funding for WDFW activities:

Salmon recovery: Funding for statewide salmon recovery activities was transferred from WDFW to a newly created Salmon Recovery Account, administered by the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation. The new Salmon Recovery Funding Board was created by the state Legislature to allocate funds from this new account along with federal funding to regional salmon-recovery efforts. The Department received $10.1 million from the account for various salmonrecovery activities, including $2.5 million to support Lead Entity operations. The Department also received $3.5 million from the State General Fund to hire 12 additional WDFW enforcement officers to guard against the illegal harvest of salmon and steelhead and protect fish habitat.
SSHEAR: During the 1999 Legislative Session, funding for the Salmon Screening, Habitat Enhancement, and Restoration (SSHEAR) Program was moved from the capital budget to the operating budget. However, the operating budget provided SSHEAR with only one year of funding and WDFW was directed to pursue funding for the second fiscal year through the Salmon Recovery Funding Board. The Department was successful in doing so, although this approach was not deemed to be a long-term solution and funding for SSHEAR remained unresolved at the close of the biennium.

click here for enlargement

In other areas, the two-year budget approved in 1999 provided additional funding from the State General Fund to implement a new automated recreational licensing system ($500,000), control green crab infestation ($464,000), rebuild distressed elk herds ($100,000), eradicate noxious weeds ($334,000) and implement new crab catch record cards ($100,000). The Department also received $2.34 million in state funds and $4.67 million in federal support to buy back commercial fishing licenses, followed by an additional $19.8 million in federal buyback funds in 2000.

In all, the 2000 Supplemental Budget provided WDFW with an additional $1.8 million in General Fund-State (GF-S) funding, of which $703,000 was earmarked to restore hatchery production and modify some hatchery facilities to meet requirement of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). In addition, the Legislature provided $800,000 to add eight enforcement officers to address problem bear and cougar situations and $400,000 to support recovery of marine fish populations.

In addition to these GF-S appropriations, the 2000 Supplemental Budget provided WDFW with an additional $840,000 in Wildlife Fund-State funding to maintain hatchery production, rebuild distressed elk herds, meet Chiliwist fire expenditures, remove pheasant pens on Whidbey Island and increase pheasant production. WDFW also received $789,000 from the Salmon Recovery Account to repair and replace salmon screens in the Methow Valley.

The 2001 Supplemental Budget provided WDFW with $645,000 GF-S in fund to cover the cost of combating eastern Washington wild fires that occurred in the summer and fall of 2001. The Legislature also provided increased appropriation authority from the Wildlife Fund-State to improve sanitation at Department access sites and spend revenues generated from pamphlet advertising to offset production costs.

Capital Budget

The 1999-01 capital budget continued the steady decline in state capital funding the Department has received since the 1993-95 Biennium. The result was that renovations at a number of state salmon hatcheries were deferred, improvements at public access sites were put on hold and WDFW was again forced to delay acquisition of several critical wildlife habitat sites.

The 1999-01 Capital Budget approved by the Legislature provided the Department with a total of $26.7 million, of which $14.98 million was supported by state bonds. Of the total amount, WDFW expended $19.85 million along with additional reappropriated funds from the 1997-99 Biennium. A minimal amount of reappropriation of 1999-01 funds were necessary due to permit delays required for projects requiring work within state waters.

As in previous biennia, WDFW used its limited capital funding to make emergency repairs at Department facilities, construct and repair fences to protect crops from wildlife and make renovations at hatcheries and other facilities necessary to continue operations and comply with the ESA. Two major projects funded in the 1999-01 Biennium were renovation of the Issaquah Salmon Hatchery and removal of Goldsborough Dam in Mason County.

click here for enlargement

INTERGOVERNMENTAL and LEGAL ACTIONS

More WDFW activities require federal authorization under ESA
The number of intergovernmental agreements required for the Department to meet its various management responsibilities increased substantially during the 1999-01 Biennium, following the listing of seven additional population groups of salmonids under the federal ESA. While WDFW had been managing for listed stocks on the Snake River since the early 1990s, the new listings required federal authorization for numerous fisheries, hatchery operations and research activities throughout the state.
Under the ESA, any activity that could incidentally "take" members of a listed stock while conducting other activities requires authorization from the National Marine Fisheries Service or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Listed below are various types of incidental "take" authorizations filed by WDFW with those agencies to comply with the ESA. This process is discussed in greater detail in the section of this report titled "ESA Listings and Salmon Recovery."
State-Tribal Resource Management Plans

Comprehensive Chinook Plan for Puget Sound
Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative

Hatchery Genetic Management Plans

Plans filed for 128 state hatchery operations during 1999-01 Biennium.

Fisheries Management Evaluation Plans

Lower Columbia River tributaries
Snake River and its tributaries

4(d) Research Authorization

More than 50 individual research projects ranging from spawner surveys in Puget Sound to dam studies on the Columbia River.
Adaptive management studies conducted by the Cooperative Monitoring, Evaluation and Research (CMER) panel under the Forests and Fish Agreement

Section 6 Cooperative Agreement

Hatchery and research impacts on bull trout

Section 7 Applications

2001 Pacific Fishery Management Council fisheries
2000/2001 fisheries on the mainstem Columbia River
Biological assessment for 2000/2001 fisheries on the Snake River

Section 10 Applications

Hatchery projects on the Upper Columbia River
Steelhead research at Hanford Reach
Steelhead and spring chinook research on the Upper Columbia River
Spawning surveys and other research on the Upper Columbia River.
Hatchery projects on the Upper Columbia River.
Sockeye propagation at Wells Priest Rapids and Lake Wenatchee
Upper Columbia River sport fisheries
Snake River spring chinook research
Tucannon River broodstock projects

Under state law, WDFW is directed to "preserve, protect, perpetuate and manage" the fish and wildlife resources of the state. Meeting those responsibilities requires more than a dedicated staff and a clear sense of public purpose. In a modern world, where fish and wildlife management is a shared responsibility, it also requires strong partnerships with tribal co-managers, other states and state agencies, the federal government, local governments, private businesses, non-profit organizations and, occasionally, other nations. Sometimes, it also requires legal action to clarify these rights and responsibilities.

Below is a listing of the major intergovernmental agreements reached between WDFW and other parties during the 1999-01 Biennium, followed by a summary of the Department’s legal actions. Major intergovernmental agreements fall into two basic categories: Those with treaty tribes involving joint resource management and those with federal agencies resulting from listings under the ESA.

Intergovernmental Agreements

Comprehensive Chinook Plan: In December of 2000, WDFW and Puget Sound treaty tribes completed and submitted to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) a jointly developed Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan. The two-year plan included maximum recovery exploitation rates and harvest management strategies designed to protect and recover Puget Sound chinook salmon listed under the ESA. The plan was approved by NMFS in March of 2001, providing ESA coverage under a 4(d) rule exemption for state and tribal fisheries in 2001 and 2002.
Summer Chum Initiative: In April of 2000, WDFW and Point No Point treaty tribes released the Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative, the first comprehensive regional conservation plan for a federally protected salmon population in western Washington. The plan was also sent to NMFS, which is responsible for adopting recovery plans for salmon species listed under the ESA. In the spring of 2001, NMFS accepted the harvest management portion of the initiative as a recovery plan for the protection of summer chum during fisheries for other salmon species under section 4(d) of the ESA. In the fall of 2001, NMFS accorded the same ESA recovery plan status to the hatchery supplementation portion of the initiative.
Centennial Accord: The Department developed a Centennial Accord Implementation Plan following Governor Locke’s meeting with the tribal and state agency officials in Leavenworth and subsequent modifications to the Centennial Accord on December 2, 1999. The Department’s implementation plan calls for annual meetings with the tribes on specific fish management issues, including shellfish, in addition to the frequent and routine contacts with individual tribal representatives. Wildlife management issues are also an important component of tribal/state cooperative management initiatives, and Director Koenings provided Governor Locke with a March 14, 2000 memorandum which described specific actions the Department has taken in response to concerns raised at the Leavenworth meeting.
Columbia River Accord: The State of Washington along with the State of Oregon, the four Columbia River treaty tribes, and the federal government signed a multi-year abundance-based plan that established conservation goals for depressed wild salmon stocks on the Columbia and Snake rivers in 2001. The multi-year plan focuses on rebuilding Snake River spring and summer chinook, upper Columbia spring chinook and Snake River sockeye. Under the plan, harvest rates were to be adjusted based on the number of wild fish projected to return in a given year. The plan was designed to provide stability in both harvest and hatchery production arenas.
Annual salmon management plans: In April of 1999 and again in April of 2000 and 2001, the Department and the tribes successfully developed comprehensive annual fishery management plans for state and tribal fisheries in Puget Sound and the coast. The annual plans include specific management regimes for chinook, coho, and chum salmon. Plans for pink and sockeye salmon were developed through the Pacific Salmon Commission process. In addition, the Department and Columbia river tribes completed spring/summer and fall fishery management plans in 2001. These plans demonstrated great improvement in cooperatively managing Columbia River stocks between the states and the tribes.
Shellfish harvest plans: In each year of the biennium, state and tribal co-managers completed 25 shellfish management plans, establishing catch allocations, fishing seasons, harvest regulations and other measures designed to protect the resource.
Medicine Creek hunting rights: The Department, affected county prosecutors and the signatory tribes to the Medicine Creek Treaty employed two facilitators to ascertain, for enforcement purposes, the southern extent of tribal hunting rights under the treaty. After a report was submitted by the facilitators, the Department commenced rule making and adopted the enforcement boundary definition in December of 2001. Since then, the tribes have adopted the boundary in their respective hunting regulations and the affected county prosecutors have used that definition in their prosecutorial decisions.

Lawsuits

U.S. v. Washington: In January 2001, twenty treaty tribes and the United States initiated a new sub-proceeding against the state of Washington under the federal court’s jurisdiction, alleging that the state violates the tribes’ treaty "right of taking fish" by owning culverts that block fish passage, to the extent that such culverts impair the tribes’ ability to earn a "moderate living" from fishing. The state takes the position that its ongoing efforts to identify and repair defective culverts satisfy any treaty-imposed obligation to provide fish passage. Trial preparation is under way.
U.S. v. Oregon: Under the continuing jurisdiction of the federal court, three states, five treaty tribes negotiated several interim agreements on the management of Columbia River fisheries below Priest Rapids Dam. The parties’ goal is to reach agreement on a long-term management plan for fisheries and hatcheries.
Midwater Trawlers Cooperative v. U.S. Department of Commerce: In an agreed order approved by the court in March 2000, WDFW agreed to drop its challenge to a federal rule describing usual and accustomed areas for tribal groundfish fishing off the Washington coast in exchange for the federal government’s statement that the rule does not establish tribal usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations for the purposes of the ongoing United States v. Washington treaty fishing litigation, and that the rule has no precedential effect in that litigation.
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society v. WDFW: In March 2001, the Thurston County Superior Court dismissed a claim that WDFW must enforce state laws prohibiting the taking of gray whales by Makah tribal whale hunters. The court said that the Makah Tribe and the federal government were "indispensable parties" in the case who could not be joined in the state court action because of their sovereign immunity.
Wildboy Creek Sediment Spill: During May of 1997, Longview Fibre lowered the water level behind Camp Kwoneesum Dam, resulting in a significant sediment spill into Wildboy Creek and adversely impacting fish and habitat in the creek. WDFW investigated the incident and sent a natural resource damage claim to Longview Fibre. After settlement talks and meetings, the parties signed a settlement agreement in August of 1999. Longview Fibre agreed to complete restoration work on Boulder and Wildboy Creeks, to monitor Boulder Creek, and to pay WDFW about $10,000 for its costs responding to the incident.
Elliot Bay Marina v. WDFW, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: This U.S. District Court case involved Elliot Bay Marina’s request for release of a performance bond held by the defendants to secure the mitigation plan associated with the permits issued for the construction of Elliot Bay Marina. In December of 1999, the parties signed a settlement agreement whereby the defendants agreed to release the bond and Elliot Bay Marina would pay $70,000 to restore habitat in Elliot Bay. It was also agreed that the money would be split between the Muckleshoot and the Suquamish tribes for habitat restoration projects. Based on the settlement agreement, the court entered an order dismissing the case.
WDFW v. Gary and Dione Davis: In 1998, WDFW filed a lawsuit in Grays Harbor Superior Court against Gary Davis and his former wife, Dione. Mr. Davis was employed by WDFW when he embezzled approximately $133,000 from WDFW. Grays Harbor Superior Court issued an order for a pre-judgment writ of attachment on Mr. Davis’ personal property and authorized the recording of a writ of attachment on the real property. The court also required Mr. Davis to deposit the proceeds of his state retirement fund with the court when he cashed out his retirement money. The parties recently signed a Settlement Agreement and the court entered orders giving all the personal property and the retirement money to WDFW, giving WDFW a share in the proceeds from the sale of the real property, dismissing Dione (Davis) Sowers from the case, and entering a judgment against Mr. Davis in the amount of $133,108.65.
Condit Dam Relicensing: In September 1999, PacifiCorp, the owner and operator of Condit Dam on the White Salmon River, entered into a settlement agreement with the major parties to the relicensing, agreeing to pay up to $17.5 million for the dam’s eventual removal. The settlement was submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for approval and PacifiCorp has started the removal permitting process.
Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Management v. State (I): A coalition of trappers and sportsmen brought a lawsuit in Thurston County Superior Court challenging the constitutionality of Initiative 713, which bans the use of body gripping traps and two kinds of poisons. Animal rights groups intervened on the side of the state and the Washington State Farm Bureau participated as an amicus, supporting arguments of the plaintiffs. After hearing cross motions for summary judgment on July 13, 2001, Judge Strophy upheld the constitutionality of I-713 on all grounds challenged. Plaintiffs have indicated they plan to appeal the ruling directly to the state Supreme Court.
Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Management v. State (II): The lead plaintiff in the first challenge to Initiative 713 brought a second lawsuit in Spokane County, this time challenging both Initiatives 713 and 655 on the basis that they contravene the public trust doctrine in Washington. Plaintiffs argue that the public trust doctrine applies to wildlife resources, WDFW is the sole entity charged with implementing trust duties pursuant to the doctrine, and the two initiatives unlawfully interfere with WDFW’s management program.