Harvest represents a "take" - every activity, from harvest to artificial production activities to forestry and agriculture to land development, generates "take" at varying points in the salmon life history. We need to weigh the potential harm of incidental harvest on wild stocks against the benefit of accessing, through that wild impact, a large number of harvestable (both wild and hatchery) fish. This can be likened to the benefits we receive from other sectors of our economy. At some point, there's no difference between "some take" and "no take" in a stock's ability to rebuild without improvements in habitat productivity. That is why we are working with you in the watersheds to improve the freshwater environment these fish need to spawn and grow.

We should be grateful for the ESA providing us the impetus to get together to solve these difficult problems. The shared strategy will help us figure out how to get there. In the end, the comanagers, and ALL partners, will be going beyond ESA to recover Puget Sound salmon to healthy harvestable levels.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is being held accountable for the effectiveness of our actions to recover salmon ... by other agency directors (in the Joint Natural Resources Cabinet), by the Governor, through the Governor's Salmon Recovery Scorecard (a copy of which is in your packet), by you, our local partners, and by the general public.

What we hope to get out of this afternoon: We need a better idea of what information needs to be communicated. There's a sign up sheet, and we will be distributing a meeting summary as soon as we can after the meeting. We will be taking notes on your questions and ideas, and will collate your comments for further work within the agency, and to help us develop additional informational materials. We also need to learn how better to interact with you - to share information and to formulate solutions.

II. Recovery Science - Jim Scott (WDFW Chief Fish Scientist)

Science is the foundation for resource management. The process consists of:

1. Facts
2. Questions beyond the facts
3. Research and monitoring needs (to answer the questions)
4. Adaptive management (to implement the findings of research and monitoring)

Recovery Planning is asking and answering five key assessment questions (e.g., what do we know? state of the current research, what is the accuracy of escapement, productivity and production measurements and estimates?):

1. What are the chinook stocks (a stock is the basic unit for production, genetics) The 1992 SaSI (Salmonid Stock Inventory) identified five chinook stocks in WRIAS 8 and 9: Issaquah, North Lake Washington, Cedar River, Green River, Newaukum Creek.
2. How many chinook of natural origin spawned in the river? This is being addressed in on-going research. Are the estimates accurate? How many of the spawners are of natural origin? - being addressed through mass marking. What is the extent of spawning in smaller systems?
3. What is the production and productivity of naturally spawning chinook stocks? This is essential for determining harvest and assessing the effects of habitat modifications. On-going research on Soos creek, Green River, Cedar River, Issaquah Creek, Bear Creek, Cottage Creek, and at the Ballard Locks.
4. What is the quantity and quality of habitat? Assessments are being done (Shilshole Bay, Cedar, Stillaguamish tributaries. SSHIAP (Salmon & Steelhead Habitat Inventory & Assessment Project) will provide data storage and access.
5. How do we link habitat conditions to productivity and production? Comanagers are evaluating Ecosystem Diagnosis & Treatment model (EDT) as a tool to make this link. EDT could then also be used to establish recovery goals and to identify monitoring needs. A continuous cycle of data development (SaSI, SSHIAP), analysis (EDT, project evaluation), and monitoring (smolts, escapement, etc.) is needed to ensure adaptive management and successful recovery occur.

Maps displaying smolt monitoring and trap site activities in WRIA 8 & 9 were shown.

Who is involved (scientists at WDFW)? Your local Watershed Stewardship Team Biologist: Kirk Lakey; SaSI: Ann Blakley; SSHIAP: David Johnson; Migrant Trapping: Dave Seiler; Lake Washington Research: Kurt Fresh; anything: Chief Fish Scientist Jim Scott.

III. Hatcheries - Mark Kimbel (WDFW Hatcheries Evaluation Program Manager)

This presentation followed the power point handout. Questions held to end.

Key Points: Hatchery evaluation examines not only the effects of production and releases on the adjacent wild fish (genetic interactions, competition, predation), but also at the physical aspects and operation of the hatchery facilities (fish passage, screened intakes, water supply, pollution abatement). The framework being employed to conduct the evaluation is the NMFS Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan (HGMP) - 32 HGMPs for Puget Sound chinook production programs are due to NMFS by July 31, 2000. Hatchery Reform is being conducted by a federally-appointed Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG) to not only develop a risk assessment framework for hatchery production and operations, but to scientifically and systematically redesign Washington hatchery programs to help recover wild salmon and support sustainable fisheries.

Specific evaluations being conducted in WRIAs 8 & 9 include: Issaquah fall chinook and coho; Soos Creek fall chinook and coho; Icy Creek fall chinook; UW fall chinook and coho; Cedar River sockeye; Palmer Pond steelhead; Des Moines net pens; Keta Creek fall chinook, coho, and chum; Crisp Creek coho; Elliott Bay net pens; various cooperative projects.

IV. Harvest - Pat Pattillo (WDFW Anadromous Fish Policy Coordinator)

This presentation followed the power point handout. Questions held to end.

The presentation followed three main points: Who's catching our wild chinook? How many are caught? and How are harvest management decisions made?

Puget Sound chinook are caught in fisheries ranging as far north as Alaska and Canada. In fact, local catch of Puget Sound chinook is low, with only 12% of Skagit chinook (out of a total exploitation of 29%) and 17% of Lake Washington chinook (out of a total exploitation of 26%) being killed in "local" (Washington) fisheries. The proportion of catch of Puget Sound stocks in the so-called "northern" fisheries is reducing in the wake of a new Pacific Salmon Treaty, signed in 1999.

Graphs showing the numbers of wild spawners in the Lake Washington and Green River systems demonstrates the population trends and spawner management objectives. Even though the trend in the Green River has been above the natural spawner goal, the Lake Washington run continues to be severely depressed.

The salmon harvest management decisionmaking process was displayed on a simple chart: forecasts of population size are made, and, based on those forecasts, fisheries are proposed. Expected outcomes from those fisheries are estimated (spawners, catch sharing, etc.) and managers analyze those outcomes to determine whether goals (such as spawner or harvest protection objectives, allocations, ESA compliance) are being met. If so, seasons are set. Fisheries are monitored inseason to confirm that fish populations are as expected and that goals are being met. This process responds to the needs of each stock, with so-called" weak" stocks driving what fisheries can occur.

Coordination with jurisdictions outside Washington waters has been improving: jurisdictions include tribes; the states of Washington, Alaska, Oregon, Idaho and California; the Pacific Fisheries Management Council; Pacific Salmon Commission; Canada; local governments. In addition, comanager agreements under the jurisdiction of the U.S. v. Washington federal court decision (so-called "Boldt Decision") have resulted in adoption of the Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan in 1985, and development of Comprehensive Chinook and Coho plans. NMFS has issued a 10 year "no jeopardy" biological opinion for the U.S. / Canada 1999 Pacific Salmon Treaty, and an annual Biological Opinion covering the 2000-01 fishing season, as adopted this April under the 2000 comanager Comprehensive Chinook agreement, is in process.

Pat closed with the challenges of using all tools available to fishery managers to shape fisheries, to modify gear, and to monitor catch in order to protect salmon while at the same time providing opportunities for harvest.

V. Tribal Fisheries - Paul Hage (Muckleshoot Tribe)

Paul's presentation covered three main points: wild stock status (all species), harvest restrictions and hatchery supplementation. Paul displayed an extensive list of SaSI stocks (of all species) in WRIA 8 & 9. Paul pointed out a number of "wild" status stocks with current supplementation programs. He then provided a short list of the five stocks from the two basins that are the least influenced by hatchery fish. On that basis, the stocks on the short list are the "wildest" of the naturally spawning populations. Following is information demonstrating stock status and tribal harvest restriction action for five wild stocks:

1. Wild stock status

   Wild Stock	Status
   Lake Washington steelhead	very low / critical
   North tributaries sockeye	low
   Beach spawning sockeye	very low / critical
   Cedar River Chinook	low / declining
   Green River steelhead	low

   Paul indicated that the picture for these stocks is bleak without help. Paul presented returns-per-spawner (R/S) as the basic reproductive measure. When R/S are greater than 1.0, recovery is possible; When R/S equals 1.0, recovery is improbable; When R/S is less than 1.0, the population declines.

2. Harvest Restrictions

   Tribal fishing in Lake Washington, Elliott Bay and the Green River has been severely restricted:

   Wild Stock	Action
   Lake Washington steelhead	closed 12 years
   North tributaries sockeye	no direct harvest
   Beach spawning sockeye	no direct harvest
   Cedar River Chinook	closed 7 years
   Green River steelhead	no direct harvest

3. Hatchery Supplementation

   The overall approach to salmon recovery envisions that investment of millions of dollars in habitat protection and restoration, in combination with reduced hatchery production and greater restriction of harvest, will reverse the decline and result in recovery. The time necessary for habitat improvement to yield better salmon productivity is estimated to range from decades to a century. The point is: There may not be much time for some of the stock in trouble. This is a problem for the stocks on the "short list" that demonstrate productivity less than 1 fish per spawner. If hatchery supplementation is NOT employed, the prognosis for these wild stocks is probable extinction.

   Currently, 14 of the 17 stocks in SaSI are partially supported by supplementation; the 3 that are not are critically low. It follows that until habitat is restored, supplementation should be an option. The tribes perception on wild stocks is to identify stock for recovery, and focus on them. For harvest, the tribe suggest terminal area closures be continued, and impacts in other fisheries should be monitored (for example, 18% of trout caught in Lake Washington are chinook). For hatchery supplementation, the tribes suggests an agressive approach using all of our enhancement tools to accelerate recovery. In conclusion, comanagers have restricted harvest, yet the productivity of wild stocks remain very low. Habitat recovery in WRIAs 8 & 9 will take decades, we should use all tools available to us, including hatcheries, to ensure these stocks remain.

VI. Closing Remarks - Jeff Koenings

Director Koenings gave final comments on entering a new era of weak stock management and wild stock initiatives. He stressed science as the basis of decisions and cooperation as necessary to develop the tools (SSHIAP) and get information out to watershed groups and planners who can make a difference. He reiterated a shared strategy and specific goals as the course.

VII. Open Forum - Audience Questions & Comments:

Science:

1. Question: What are estuary/saltwater survival trends? What are we doing about identifying problems?

Response: Regarding marine survival trends: A phenomenon known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) switched from cold to warm in 1976/77, bringing with it recent-year marine survival for Puget Sound chinook of less than 1%. Ocean temperatures have probably just switched back to cold in the last couple of years. When the PDO switches to cold, the ocean conditions supporting salmon survival improve in areas inhabited by southern stocks (Columbia River, Washington coastal and Puget Sound) and decline in northern (Alaskan) stock areas. Also, when the PDO switches to cold, the winters in the Columbia Basin become cooler and wetter on average, conditions which build the snow pack and then provide better spring/summer flows for moving smolts downstream and increasing their freshwater survival (for example, through the hydro system on the Columbia River). Thus, in "cold phase" years, we get improvement in both sectors, freshwater and marine. For more information about PDO and global climate change, refer to: http://tao.atmos.washington.edu/PNWimpacts/

The correlation between trends in ocean patterns and salmon productivity is most clear for the Columbia River and Oregon coastal stocks. It is less clear for Washington coastal stocks and even less clear for Puget Sound stocks. WDFW and the tribes have been developing ways to incorporate what we know about ocean conditions into forecasts of stock abundance, in order to improve their accuracy.

Regarding estuaries: Estuaries are a transition zone where the intermixing of fresh and salt water creates a distinct environment containing an abundance of land and ocean nutrients, and ample light which promotes vegetation growth. These are the conditions and habitat upon which many fish species depend for spawning or nursery grounds. In addition to fish production, estuaries and their fringing wetlands play important roles in flood and erosion control, pollution filtration, and water quality protection. Ironically, the allure of these areas jeopardizes their health - over 45% of the nation's population lives in estuarine areas, and these areas have become disposal sites for human and industrial waste, are dredged to create navigational routes, supply "cool" waters needed by industry, receive various contaminants as stormwater picks up from streets, lawns, and construction sites, and are destroyed in order to open up areas for shoreline development. In Puget Sound, over 70% of tidal wetlands have been lost, and 65% of Washington's estuaries have poor water quality. Indeed, only about 2% of the historical Green River estuary remains, and the Lake Washington system's estuary has been replaced by the ship canal, lock and dam. For more information:

• http://wdfw.wa.gov/puget_sound/
• http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/shorelan.html
• http://www.pugetsound.org/

WDFW and the tribes are currently working to include nearshore estuary habitat information in our Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Inventory and Assessment database (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/sshiap/), so that estuarine factors limiting salmon recovery can be identified and corrected. The Salmon Recovery Funding Board, in it's late-2000 grant cycle, will be emphasizing projects to improve conditions in nearshore estuary areas.

2. Question: How do WDFW and the tribes plan to coordinate state-level and comanager-level technical work to collaborate with watershed technical groups?

Response: Clearly, the comanagers are just learning how to work with partners outside the comanager relationship: what types of information we need to share in order to help our partners succeed, what kind of information and advice comanagers can receive from those groups. With time, we hope to be getting better at it. WDFW has established the Watershed Stewardship Team specifically to address communication needs between Lead Entity and watershed groups and committees and WDFW. Biologist Kirk Lakey is our conduit for information in WRIAs 8 and 9, information both FROM the agency as well as TO the agency. WDFW will follow up by scheduling meetings between technical groups and biologists working in specific topic areas to share information, better coordinate our activities, and discover how we can help one another. We also expect there will be opportunities to check in with the Hatchery Science Review Group's findings periodically.

There are a number of activities underway to address various aspects of the salmon recovery problem in Puget Sound, yet there is no single group or organization in charge. Consequently, leadership must come from many groups and individuals in a consortium that (1) represents the diversity of interests from both the public and private sectors, (2) is efficient in linking recovery efforts, and (3) consistently communicates with the general public and the large and growing number of people working to save salmon. Following a Shared Strategy will help all players in the Puget Sound region cooperate and communicate as we work toward salmon recovery. For further information: http://www.sharedsalmonstrategy.org/

3. Question: In what year was the escapement goal for the Green River established? Is the model for the Green River escapement goals outdated? Will WDFW be revising spawning escapement goals?

Response: The goal currently being used for Green River chinook natural spawning escapement is 5,800 chinook. It was established in 1977⁽¹⁾, and was derived by averaging the estimated spawners over a 12-year period from 1965 to 1976. It has been assumed that this goal approximates the average escapement that provides the maximum sustainable harvest, but, to date, managers have not been able to directly measure or test this assumption.

The Pacific Salmon Commission's Joint Chinook Technical Committee (CTC) is reviewing the adequacy of spawner goals for chinook stocks throughout the Columbia Basin, Washington, B.C. and Alaska. To-date, this CTC work has not been completed for Lake Washington or Green River chinook stocks, but when it is, comanagers will review the CTC's recommendations, and adopt them if there is agreement among the comanager parties following procedures outlined in the U.S. v. Washington Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan.

In addition, comanagers are currently conducting more extensive spawning ground surveys (funded through the Pacific Salmon Treaty) to improve estimates of the total number of naturally spawning chinook in the Green River, and will also be testing several other potential spawner estimation methodologies for comparison.A multi-year smolt enumeration project has also been initiated on the Green which, when coupled with accurate spawner estimates, could eventually lead to a re-evaluation of the goal.

Comanagers also expect to collect new information as marked chinook begin to return in 2002. The return of marked hatchery-reared chinook will enable managers to discriminate between natural and hatchery-origin fish on spawning grounds, and, in combination with the smolt enumeration work, to independently estimate the productivity of the natural population.

Although comanagers are actively investing in new information which will be used to update goals, several years (perhaps as much as 10-15 years) of new information will be needed before new natural spawning escapement and productivity goals can be established.

4. Question: What introductions of Atlantic salmon to Puget Sound have occurred? There are rumors of plants and escapees.

Response: Over 10 million pounds of Atlantic salmon are produced annually in Washington and about 80 million pounds are produced each year in British Columbia. Attempts were made by the Department in 1951, 1980, and 1981 to introduce and establish Atlantic salmon runs in Washington - None of those releases resulted in returns of adult Atlantic salmon. Since 1996, escapes of Atlantic salmon from net pens were recorded: 107,000 in 1996; 369,000 in 1997; and 115,000 in 1999. Escapes from pens in B.C. in 1994-1995 was estimated to be about 60,000 fish, and total escape there, including chronic unreported "leakage" of smaller fish, is estimated to exceed 100,000 fish annually.

Fish managers are concerned that escaped Atlantic salmon may impact native fish. Potential impacts by escaped Atlantic salmon include competition, predation, disease transfer, hybridization, and colonization. In general, because Atlantic salmon raised in net pens are so unfamiliar with natural conditions, it is not believed they survive well in the "wild." Colonization is the risk factor which receives the most attention, and until recently, no evidence was available to suggest that Atlantic salmon populations were colonizing in the Pacific Northwest (in spite of attempts to encourage it). However, Atlantic salmon escapees have been known to spawn in B.C. along the east shore of Vancouver Island, and King County has assembled a database documenting occurrence (catch) of adult Atlantic salmon on the Green River - and, while there is no evidence to suggest adult Atlantic are spawning in the Green, these circumstances increase our concern. One management technique that could be implemented to reduce or eliminate the risk of colonization is requiring the use of "non-reproducing" populations (such as single-sex or genetically altered fish) for all net pen production fish.

For additional information, see "Atlantic Salmon in Puget Sound" on the WDFW web site: http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/atlantic/toc.htm

5. Question: What is the impact of non-native and exotic species (especially warm water species such as bass) on juvenile salmonids in Lake Washington? What are the tribes and WDFW doing about predation on salmonids by no-native species in WRIAs 8 and 9?

Response: Largemouth bass have inhabited Lake Washington since the United States Fish Commission planted 1,220 bass there in 1890. Smallmouth bass, and many other species of planted "non-native" species (fish from other North American waters that did not naturally occur in Washington State) and "exotic" species (fish not native to this continent), reside there as well. Currently, WDFW has programs that both promote non-native and exotic fish production and exploitation and investigate and mitigate their impacts on wild salmonids. At present, there is no scientific evidence to support or refute the hypothesis that exotic and non-native species presence, such as bass and perch, poses an unacceptable risk to salmonid stocks in Lake Washington.

In the Lake Washington Ship Canal, bass are known to dine on outmigrating salmon smolts, though the impacts of bass predation on salmon are not well known. It is also unclear whether bass predation is a problem in other areas of the WRIA. Even if we determine that the interaction between exotic fish and native salmonids is a serious problem, it is not clear at this time what course of action would be pursued - clearly, eliminating non-native and exotic species in Lake Washington would be difficult at best, and probably impossible without significant and unacceptable impacts to native species.

For more information on warmwater fish in Washington, see:

http://wdfw.wa.gov/outreach/fishing/warmwtr.htm

Hatcheries:

6. Question: What is the conflict between hatchery fish & natural fish? What are the problems with hatchery fish?

Response: Hatcheries can effect wild salmon in several ways, for example:

1. Large releases of hatchery fish can compete with wild fish for food and rearing habitat. To address this problem, hatchery release locations, times, and in some cases numbers, are being changed to reduce the potential for interaction between hatchery releases and wild fish.

2. Fisheries directed at hatchery fish may catch higher-than-appropriate numbers of wild fish. Hatchery reared coho and chinook salmon in Washington are being marked so they may be distinguished from wild fish. Fishers can identify which salmon are wild and which are hatchery fish (and, therefore, able to be kept in restricted fisheries), by examining the fish for the mark.

3. Hatchery fish can interbreed with wild fish, which this can cause degradation of wild fish genetic integrity, and reduced ability to survive under changing conditions. Also, the larger the genetic differences between hatchery fish and their wild counterparts, the larger the potential impact on reproductive performance. To address this problem, hatchery release numbers, locations and times are being changed to reduce the potential for interaction between returning adult hatchery fish and their wild counterparts. Also, scientists are working to establish the quantitative relationship between the level of genetic difference and the amount of reduced productivity, to better determine what levels of hatchery interbreeding (what proportion of the naturally-spawning population is made up of hatchery-origin fish) are harmful to wild stocks. Selective fisheries should decrease the number of hatchery fish returning to the stream.

4. Hatcheries can produce discharge that can degrade water quality in a stream, and hatchery facility water supplies may not be adequately screened such that wild juvenile fish are killed by entering the hatchery water intake structures. WDFW is working hard to identify where these types of facility problems occur, so that repairs can be done.

For more information, refer to the Hatchery Scientific Review Group's draft "Scientific Framework for Artificial Production of Salmon and Steelhead: at http://www.lltk.org/pdf/PublicReviewDraft5.pdf

7. Question: How can hatcheries be used to rebuild wild stocks?

Response: While survival from egg to migrant in wild fish can be as low as 2%, survival of eggs raised in hatcheries can be as high as 90% or more. Clearly, some stocks having trouble as juveniles surviving the natural environment may benefit from artificial rearing. Two major types of wild stock restoration activities occur at hatcheries: rearing a limited number of a stock in a hatchery for a specific period before releasing the fish back into the natural environment, or maintaining the entire stock in a hatchery for an extended period to ensure the stock's survival, with a range of activities in between. Restoration efforts have taken place for stocks including Dungeness, Nooksack and White River chinook, as well as for Hood Canal summer chum.

On the White River, the department and tribes, utilizing the WDFW Minter Creek Hatchery Complex, the Squaxin Island Tribes' Sea Pens, and Muckleshoot Tribe's White River Hatchery, have increased the number of springtime natural chinook spawners - a stock that faced extinction. Fifteen years ago, when White River chinook restoration efforts began, fewer than 50 wild chinook returned annually; now, about 1000 wild fish return each year. Work still needs to be done to determine to what level, if any, the wild fish were changed by their ancestors' experiences living under artificial rearing conditions, and to determine whether our new natural spawners are interbreeding with hatchery fish on the spawning grounds.

In another example, some progeny of Hood Canal summer chum are reared in hatcheries, then released into their natal streams as fry. Using this technique, up to 36 adults may be produced per spawning fish, compared to approximately 2.5 adults per spawning fish for wild spawners. The summer chum supplementation program implemented at Quilcene National Fish Hatchery in 1992, combined with dramatic reductions in harvest impact, has reduced the risk of extinction of the Big Quilcene summer chum salmon, increasing average annual natural spawning escapements from 164 for the five years prior to program returns, to 5,523 for the recent four years.

For more information:

• http://wdfw.wa.gov/factshts/hatcheries.htm
• http://www.lltk.org/hatcheryreform.html
8. Question: Are there barriers to implementing changes in hatchery production programs? For example, do agreements with tribal comanagers, or international agreements under the Pacific Salmon Treaty, inhibit changes to hatchery programs?

Response: No! Our joint state-tribal-federal work on Hatchery & Genetic Management Plans, and work on watershed-level hatchery & harvest plans, complemented by the work of the Hatchery Scientific Review Group, provides us the platform from which to review and evaluate artificial production programs. As modifications are developed and proposed, we do so within the context of already-established processes that lead to implementation of those changes.

For example, a hatchery production planning process was established by comanagers under the Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan through which a "Future Brood Document," (http://www.nwifc.wa.gov/fisheriesdata/fbd.asp) describing eggtake goals and production programs, is developed annually. The current year's agreed production is captured in that Future Brood Document. A number of state / tribal agreements regarding levels of hatchery production in Puget Sound and on the Washington Coast contribute to "Future Brood Document". Production agreements also have been developed with cooperative groups: for example: Long Live the Kings for yearling chinook in Puget Sound, and Elma Game Club for operation of Satsop Springs hatchery. Processes exist that address production changes under each of these agreements.

The Pacific Salmon Treaty (http://www.psc.org/Treaty/TREATY.HTM) does not contain specific requirements to maintain production levels, however, major changes in hatchery chinook and coho programs must be discussed with our management partners. First, many of our hatchery stocks are designated as "indicator" stocks under the Treaty. This means that specific groups of hatchery fish are coded-wire tagged, and those groups provide key harvest and productivity data, representing not only hatchery, but also wild fish. This information is used by all Salmon Treaty agencies, providing the basis for biological assessments (for example, population size) as well as fishery management decisions. Second: the large number of hatchery fish on the fishing grounds can tend to "dilute" fishery impacts on troubled wild stocks. Managers need to know when hatchery production program changes are made so that changes in assessment methods and impacts to wild fish can be adequately considered.

Significant communication and co-management work is involved in the review of programs and development of reforms. This work, and our pre-established processes, ensure that any changes to hatchery salmon production are understood and agreed among the co-managers, discussed with our Pacific Salmon Treaty partners, and implemented.

9. Question: What is proposed for Soos Creek Hatchery as part of the HGMPs? Stock recovery? Issaquah Hatchery?

Response: The program-by-program Hatchery & Genetic Management Plan evaluations are still underway - once evaluations are completed, inconsistencies with ESA standards will be identified and addressed through a series of conditions applied to our plans. Those "conditions" (describing what we proposed to do to mitigate problems) will be submitted to NMFS and, if approved, will be incorporated into the 4(d) rule. At that point, our HGMPs will be modified to reflect the approved conditions. HGMPs will be modified periodically to reflect any subsequent changes to hatchery programs.

As soon as our HGMPs are submitted to NMFS, they will be available to the public. As HGMPs are completed, WDFW and tribal hatchery experts will be available to meet with interested local partners to discuss the findings. For more information on HGMPs: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1hgmp/hgmptmpl.htm

Harvest:

10. Question: The harvest management catch pie graphs total 29%, where's the other 71%? What would the balance of 100% represent? What makes up the balance?

Response: The figure shown represents only the harvest (exploitation) of those fish. Harvest, in this case, added up to 29% of the adult fish population. This means 71% of that population returned to spawn.

11. Question: If harvest management truly is driven by the weakest stocks, how low does the escapement need to get in Lake Washington before a 17% indirect catch rate in Washington waters is unacceptable?"

Response: A preseason forecasted abundance of 200 or fewer spawners would trigger further reductions in pre-terminal and terminal fisheries. Chinook catch in non-treaty fisheries in areas having very small Lake Washington impacts would be further restricted, and selective fisheries would be used to the greatest extent possible. Tribal fisheries would be reduced to a level that is consistent with treaty rights. In any case, the rate is unlikely to be reduced to zero.

12. Question: How has "wild" stock management changed in Puget Sound over the past 25 years?

Response: In 1978, when the Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan was adopted between then Washington Department of Fisheries and each of the Puget Sound Tribes, spawner objectives were established for groups of fish, called "management units." Some of those "management units" were managed to achieve natural spawning numbers, while others were managed to achieve optimum "hatchery" production (for example, Nooksack and Samish River chinook, Green River chinook, Deschutes Complex chinook). "Hatchery" management meant that the foremost objective for fisheries and spawning escapement was to achieve the number of returns to the hatchery to allow perpetuation of that particular hatchery run, or group of runs. In "hatchery" managed units, wild fish were not expected to predominate in the harvest (in other words, were caught "incidentally"), and spawning escapement of wild fish was a byproduct of the management strategy, not a conscious result. While this management strategy was never intended to do harm to wild stocks, losses in natural productivity ensued.

Awareness regarding the impacts occurring to components of "management units," especially natural spawning populations, led WDFW and the tribes to begin to investigate wild stock status for all salmon and steelhead (http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/sassi/intro.htm) in 1992, habitat condition (Salmon & Steelhead Habitat Inventory & Assessment, SSHIAP) (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/sshiap/) in 1995, and to develop the Wild Salmonid Policy - adopted in December, 1997 (http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/wsp/wsp.htm).

Now, fisheries management looks at impacts to individual stocks (or "components" of "management units"), instead of groups of stocks, to ensure that objectives for the various components of populations are achieved. New management objectives for natural and hatchery chinook and coho stocks are being reviewed through the state/tribal Comprehensive Chinook and Comprehensive Coho Management Planning processes. These processes are being used by the comanagers to evaluate and formalize whatever changes from the management intents expressed in the Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan might be warranted.

Fisheries are designed to take as many of the harvestable (hatchery and healthy wild) salmon as possible, while minimizing incidental impacts to unhealthy wild stocks. Drawing on data collected from thousands of stream and harvest surveys and computer modeling techniques, WDFW works each year with tribal co-managers, other governments and the public to craft fishing seasons that protect each weak wild stock while providing harvest opportunities on plentiful wild and hatchery stocks.

Each year, state and tribal representatives participate in two key public fish management processes. One process, conducted by the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC), sets annual fisheries in federal waters from three to 200 miles off the coasts of Washington, Oregon and California. Parallel to the PFMC planning effort is the annual North of Falcon process which sets salmon fishing seasons for Indians and non-Indians in inland waters such as Puget Sound, Willapa Bay, Grays Harbor and state rivers.

State and tribal biologists are working to mark hatchery-produced fish so fishers and scientists can distinguish them from wild fish in fisheries and on spawning grounds. So-called "selective" fisheries, initiated by WDFW in ocean, estuarine (Puget Sound, Col. River "Buoy 10") and in-river fisheries, help to maintain harvest opportunity while minimizing wild stock impacts. In addition, WDFW is pursuing new selective fishing techniques for both sport and commercial gears that take advantage of marked hatchery-produced salmon. For example, WDFW, with funding from the Salmon Recovery Funding Board and other sources, is testing new types of commercial net gear that allow incidental catches of wild fish to be released unharmed.

Today, fisheries management is directed to individual populations, not stock groups, and wild spawners are a conscious result of our management, not a byproduct. Harvest of weak (or worse, listed) wild stocks is limited to incidental impacts instead of directed catch. The goal, of course, is to return currently-depressed stocks to their healthy state such that directed harvests can occur again.

Policy:

13. Question: Who is monitoring Vashon Island mining operations?

Response: The WDFW Habitat Management Program has been reviewing the JARPA application of Glacier Northwest for a gravel mining operation on Maury Island. The project will require a Hydraulics Project Approval from WDFW, and the project application is still being reviewed. By early November, WDFW will be able to make the decision to deny, suspend, or issue an HPA. This project has many impacts and implications that require extensive review, so the process is taking some time to complete. Impacts to eelgrass beds, juvenile marine fishes, and salmonids are among the issues being evaluated.

14. Question: Will WDFW be prescribing appropriate runoff (flow conditions) to DOE? Will these be based on science (versus politics)?

Response: Department of Ecology is responsible to set instream flows (http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/sw/inst.html, http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/981813wr.html and http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/sw/if-pslb.pdf), though progress is slow. WDFW participates in the setting of instream flows by dedicating staff to work with Ecology staff to determine fish needs in specific stream reaches, and to recommend instream and runoff flows based on those needs. WDFW also provides support to Ecology as they present their decisions in public forums. In the context of Ecology's instream flows, WDFW may sometimes also make recommendations concerning runoff (spring) flows if those flows affect fish. WDFW's role depends on whether the system is regulated (dammed) or not. In unregulated streams, WDFW sometimes recommends a percent exceedance flow as a minimum before any future water may be diverted. In a regulated stream, WDFW may recommend a certain release of flow during the runoff period. In some bypass situations (non-storage small hydro) with bedrock channels, no runoff flow is recommended beyond what is needed for specific life-stages and species.

Washington Department of Ecology is also the state "lead" in stormwater issues, however, fish related issues sometimes merit specific WDFW attention. Currently, WDFW authority on stormwater is limited to attaching stormwater-related conditions to Hydraulic Project Approvals (HPAs) on a site specific basis. We are currently working closely with Department of Ecology as they revise their stormwater manual - a formal draft of their manual is due out in September. The long term WDFW plan is to clarify, in rules, WDFW's authorities under RCW 77.55.100 regarding stormwater issues affecting fish, as a complement to Ecology's efforts. As in any flow related issue where we feel fish would be affected, any condition or action taken by WDFW is based on sound science.

Recognizing the potential for local resolution of instream flow, stormwater and other habitat issues, the 1998 legislature passed HB 2514, codified into RCW 90.82, to set a framework for addressing the State's water resource, water quality issues as well as establishing instream flows and addressing salmon habitat needs (http://www.ecy.wa.gov/watershed/index.html). In addition, that Act requires state agencies with regulatory or other interests in a watershed management planning area to assist in the local planning effort. WDFW provides scientific support to that locally-driven process by participating in local meetings, developing the data and conducting analyses to determine necessary flows for fish.

So, WDFW provides the scientific basis for establishing instream flows to the Department of Ecology, considers the effects of stormwater runoff on fish when evaluating HPAs, and also supports the local ("2514") process by providing technical experts to answer science questions. In the future, WDFW will identify in more detail our authority to regulate stormwater for fish and specify HPA requirements.

15. Question: When looking at Green and Duwamish escapement, how do co-managers feel about habitat investments for that area? What types of investments need to be made in the Green to improve watershed health and address limiting factors?

Response: Clearly, the Green River has some healthy spawning territory, and a good number of fish utilize those grounds each year. Problems in the Green River watershed include poor habitat throughout the lower-river migration route, a non-existent estuary area, and questions regarding the effects of hatchery production on the productivity and fitness of the wild population. There are also a number of miles of spawning habitat inaccessible to salmon. The level of habitat investments needed in the Green depend upon the level of impact the hatchery stock has on wild fish (in other words, if wild fish are capable of becoming self-sustaining, then habitat improvements are important and useful), and what role the Green River wild fish (can) play in the health of the ESU as a whole. Once answers to the first question are more certain, the second question can begin to be addressed. Regardless of decisions made affecting wild chinook salmon in the Green watershed, habitat improvements can provide positive benefits to all salmonids residing there.

16. Question: How does WDFW allocate salmon recovery dollars and activities among the state's WRIAs?

Response: WDFW does not have a specific allocation scheme to help make decisions regarding salmon recovery activities and dollars. In fact, allocating resources is extremely difficult, because WDFW must ensure that programs to monitor and protect "healthy" salmonid stocks are maintained, and that we are doing everything we can to prevent degradation in the health of those stocks, in addition to helping to recover stocks in trouble. Regarding listed stocks, WDFW has been following the direction of lead federal agencies (NMFS or USFWS) regarding the sequence, timing, and level of participation for recovery efforts throughout Washington. For example, the NMFS indicated that, among the "new" stocks/regions listed along the Pacific Coast, the Puget Sound and the lower Columbia River groups would receive their attention first. WDFW has followed suit by emphasizing higher level activities in those two regions.

That is not to say that we have dropped activities in other areas. WDFW continues it's programs to help landowners correct culvert and screening problems statewide (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/engineer/habeng.htm#upstrm), and continues to emphasize broad Hydraulic Project Approval (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/hpapage.htm) and Enforcement (http://wdfw.wa.gov/enf/enforce.htm) programs. WDFW also provides maintenance support for salmon recovery "Lead Entities" (http://wdfw.wa.gov/grants/local.htm and http://wdfw.wa.gov/grants/leadlist.htm) to develop habitat restoration projects in watersheds throughout the state, and in early 2000, deployed a Watershed Stewardship Team to provide local technical support to those Lead Entities. Also, work continues to improve wild salmon productivity and fitness while maintaining hatchery salmon production in Southwest Washington, even though no salmon stocks are listed there. Of course, we continue to maintain excellent programs for resident fish, marine fish, shellfish, wildlife and habitat protection activities while improving our agency business practices.

17. Question: What efforts are being made to make a coherent story and presentation on this to the politicians and to the public? For a public road show? When?

Response: The July 25 briefing was the first in what is hoped will become a frequent and open dialog between WRIA groups and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. WDFW and local group representatives met for three hours to review the briefing and develop improvements. Any suggestions for making a more coherent presentation for politicians and the public will be gratefully accepted (Teresa Scott: 360.902.2713 or scotttls@dfw.wa.gov). Other WRIAs and groups await their chance to hear the briefing: we have scheduled a meeting with WRIA 7 (Snohomish) for November 16, and are in the process of scheduling a briefing for the Agriculture, Fish, Water Negotiation participants this fall. There is no plan for a "public road show," as such, however we are hoping to accommodate presentations for whomever requests one.

More important than a "public road show on hatcheries and harvest" is developing an understanding at all levels of government and society about how salmon recovery will occur in the Puget Sound region across all the "H" risk factors - hatcheries, harvest, habitat and hydropower. A region-wide strategy is needed to establish a structure for communication and problem solving, and to develop concrete plans for recovering salmonids at the watershed and regional scales, and commitments to fund and implement those plans.

Such a strategy is being developed by the "Shared Strategy Committee;" an outgrowth of the Puget Sound Salmon Leaders Workshop held at Port Ludlow in October 1999. The purpose of the committee is to propose a shared strategy for recovering salmon and bull trout in Puget Sound and achieving the commitments necessary for success. Initial committee participants include federal, state, local and tribal officials charged with some part of the authority, right or responsibility to save our salmon. Individually, these agencies and their representatives cannot save the salmon, but collectively, with the help of individuals throughout Puget Sound, and a shared strategy that guides our collective effort, we can bring the fish back to levels that are self-sustaining at harvestable levels.

Principals in the development of the Shared Strategy have included Billy Frank, Jr., Chair of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission; Jeff P. Koenings, Director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; Gerry Jackson, Manager of the Western Washington office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Will Stelle, Northwest Regional Administrator for National Marine Fisheries Service (now represented by Donna Darm, Acting Regional Director); Tribal leaders from Puget Sound: Bob Kelly (Nooksack Tribe), Lorraine Loomis (Upper Skagit Tribe), David Trout (Nisqually Tribe), Randy Kinley (Lummi Tribe); Mary Ruckelshaus, Lead for the NMFS Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team; Ron Sims, King County Executive; Chris Endresen, Kitsap County Commissioner; Curt Smitch, Governor Locke's Natural Resource Policy Advisor; and Bill Ruckelshaus, Chair of the Salmon Recovery Funding Board.

The Shared Strategy links two concurrent recovery-goal-setting processes together to result in one set of recovery goals that are supported throughout the region: The Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDF&W) and the Puget Sound tribes, as co-managers of treaty-protected salmon resources, are working to establish goals for Puget Sound salmon, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has initiated a process to set goals for salmon under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This shared strategy integrates federal and co-manager goal setting processes together, consistent with treaty rights and ESA, to develop one set of goals for Puget Sound. The Strategy will also provide the structure within which we will develop and commit to the actions that will meet those goals. Thus, the Shared Strategy pulls together every salmon recovery initiative and activity in the region, and directs them toward achieving our agreed goals. Regional representatives for the federal services (U.S. Fish and Wildlife, National Marine Fisheries) have indicated they intend to pursue ESA Recovery Plan development for listed Puget Sound salmonid species through the Shared Strategy approach.

Three work areas of the Shared Strategy are:

1. Develop a collaborative Recovery Plan in two years that meets our broad interests for salmon in Puget Sound;

2. Establish an organizational structure to link recovery efforts, develop guidelines, complete a recovery plan, and guide its implementation;

3. Identify and support important ongoing near-term efforts to protect Puget Sound salmon.

A draft of the Shared Strategy document, as well as an opportunity to comment on the document, can be found at: http://www.sharedsalmonstrategy.org/

Notes: 1. Ames, Jim and D.E. Phinney, 1977 Puget Sound Summer-Fall Chinook Methodology: Escapement Estimates and Goals, Run Size Forecasts, and In-season Run Size Updates, State of Washington, Department of Fisheries, Technical Report No. 29, May 1977