Steelhead management plan DEIS

Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by Smalma, Aug 3, 2007.

  1. Smalma

    Smalma Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,254
    Likes Received:
    1,383
    Location:
    Marysville, Washington
    Another chance to comment on how steelhead are managed in this state!

    The draft EIS was posted online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/sepa/sepa.htm on Wednesday. Click on the site and scroll down the list of documents to the steelhead plan released August 1st.

    The department will accept public comments on the draft received in writing through Aug. 30, as well as those received at the public meetings.


    All the meetings are scheduled to run from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m., except for at Mill Creek.


    Aug. 13: Guy Cole Convention Center, Carrie Blake Park, Sequim - 6:30 to 8:30 PM


    Aug. 14: Department of Natural Resources Building, Room 172, 1111 Washington St. E., Olympia - 6:30 to 8:30 PM


    Aug. 15: WDFW Region 5 Office, 2108 Grand Blvd., Vancouver, Wash. - 6:30 to 8:30 PM


    Aug. 16: WDFW Region 4 Office, 16018 Mill Creek Blvd., Mill Creek. - 7 to 9 PM


    Aug. 20: Wenatchee Public Library, 310 Douglas St., Wenatchee. - 6:30 to 8:30 PM


    Aug. 21: Grant County Fire District No. 5 Training Center, 12801 Road 2 N., Moses Lake. - 6:30 to 8:30 PM


    Aug. 22: Richland Public Library, 955 North Gate Drive, Richland. - 6:30 to 8:30 PM

    Tight lines
    Curt
     
  2. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    thanks for the link. i just finished reading the 143p document.

    in a nut shell, this is just another bunch of smoke from a spinless organization. the 'preferred option' is going to do little to insure the survivabilty of wild steelhead, IMHO. the more agressive approach, which they do call out much to their credit, would seem to have elements which just might start a reversal in the declining trend of these fish. but, in true form, that is not the option that will come out of all of this.

    and, you will note that sport fishing is mentioned as being closed entirely should x and y come to pass. no where did i find mention of closing the indian net fishery under a similar scenario. you all do remember the wild hoh river steelhead at the seattle restaurant don't you???

    so, i will attend the closest meeting, already on the calendar, but i would expect that this agency is far from motivated to actually take the appropriate action to save wild steelhead.
     
  3. James Mello

    James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,811
    Likes Received:
    87
    Location:
    Tacoma

    WDFW doesn't manage the tribal gillnet fishery. Trying to hold them accountable for that is kinda barking up the wrong tree... I'm gonna try to digest this thing over the weekend. Hopefully something good is in there!
     
  4. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    so the indians can do anything they want to regarding their gill net fishery????
     
  5. James Mello

    James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,811
    Likes Received:
    87
    Location:
    Tacoma
    Co-managers, 50% share. They do what they will with their share... There is some influence from WDFW for a lot of the tribes, but for their 50% share they can choose to do what they want. I'm not sure of how the political process works for things like that, but suffice it to say, WDFW can't just "tell 'em how it is".

    For the Yakima and Quinaults it's a bit different as they are "self regulating tribes" and have different rules associated with how their fisheries get managed. Perhaps Kurt or Salmo has some more insight onto that.....
     
  6. Will Atlas

    Will Atlas Guest

    Curt,

    Thanks for this.

    Will
     
  7. Smalma

    Smalma Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,254
    Likes Received:
    1,383
    Location:
    Marysville, Washington
    GT -
    I have to agree that there is some smoke and mirrors to the DEIS.

    While there is not much the State can do about the tribal fisheries (court mandated etc.) it is important that those fisheries are acknowledged and management reflect the portential impacts that fishery may have. Just one example - there is increasing talk of moving to intregrated hatchery programs which on the surface sounds OK. However when a Tribal gill net is directed at those hatchery fish how do they not catch the co-mingle wild fish that in theory would have exactly the same run timing. The result is that depending on the size of the hatchery program quite a few wild fish will be taken. Of course the response will that any short fall in naturally produced escapement can be balanced with hatchery spawners. I for one have some serious concerns about that approach; I remain very much a skeptic that even a intregrated hatchery produced steelhead will be nearly as productivity as a naturally produced fish and do not consider such fish a replacement for wild produced fish.

    I habitat section would have been laughable if it were not so sad. The alternatives call for increasing lobbying efforts by WDFW for better habitat protection. However if I recall correctly currently the majority of steelhead populations in this State are ESA listed and vast majority of the anadromous stream in the state have one or more listed salmonid (steelhead, Chinook, chum, coho, bull trout). The question of the day why isn't the agency charged with protecting those resources doing that all ready? Shouldn't that lobbying effort be the status quo if WDFW leadership is serious about the blight of those fish.

    Of course it may well be that WDFW doesn't have any real power or influence to change how the habitat is managed. In which case why include such empty actions in the alternatives of the DEIS.

    I encourage anyone interested in how the steelhead resource is managed in the future to take the time to read the document and supply comments; either written (email will do) and/or orally at one of the meetings. This process will likely shape steelhead management in the State for decades.

    Tight lines
    Curt
     
  8. BDD

    BDD Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2005
    Messages:
    2,490
    Likes Received:
    453
    Location:
    Ellensburg, WA
    Home Page:
    I finished reading the document last night, minus the appendices. I think the preferred alternative is much better than the current status quo. It gets us away from MSH management but we'll have to wait and see about the new VSP management. The habitat section is pretty poor as WDFW essentially passes the buck of habitat protection onto the other regulatory agencies (DOE, DNR etc.). About the only power WDFW has on habitat is enforcing passage issues like culverts and irrigation screens, although I hear that these issues cause a lot of problems. There is also language reducing the amount of released hatchery fish in Alternative 2 (preferred) in order to reduce competition and predation by hatchery released fish on wild fish. I question whether Alternatives 3 and 4 should even be considered because the status quo (3) has been used for how long and stocks have only gotten worse. 4 is even less protective; I don't see how these two could even meet the goal of the DEIS. I will attend a meeting but the only one I can go to is in Sequim. Any good fishing there this time of year since I will have the day to fish before the 6:30 meeting?

    PS- anyone who plans to fish for steelhead in the next several decades should be involved in this process. Many won't and down the road they will complain about how bad the fishing is in Washington.
     
  9. Smalma

    Smalma Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,254
    Likes Received:
    1,383
    Location:
    Marysville, Washington
    I see that the dead line for comments on the DEIS has been extended to 9/10/07.

    http://wdfw.wa.gov/do/newreal/release.php?id=aug1707a

    Suspect there will not be many comments. Attendance to date at the meetings has been light. Was at the Mill Creek meeting Thursday and Jim Buck reported that the total attendance for the 4 west side meetings combined has been 28 non-agency folks. For something that might shape steelhead management for decades the lack of interest is distrubing but can't say I'm surprised.

    Tight lines
    Curt
     
  10. BDD

    BDD Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2005
    Messages:
    2,490
    Likes Received:
    453
    Location:
    Ellensburg, WA
    Home Page:
    I enjoyed the meeting I attended.

    Curt,

    as a retired professional and one who knows this process much more than a majority of the folks here, would it be inappropriate to ask you to post a summary and potential impacts of each of the four alternatives? I think something like this might be helpful to many who frequent this board.
     
  11. Big Tuna

    Big Tuna Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Messages:
    2,060
    Likes Received:
    110
    Location:
    Wenatchee, Washington
    I plan to attend the Wenatchee meeting, but the 143 page document is daunting both in size and potential yawn factor. Will they provide and overview of the alternatives at the meeting, so I can avoid reading the whole durn thing?
     
  12. FT

    FT Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,292
    Likes Received:
    150
    Location:
    Burlington, WA
    Curt,

    Unfortunately, as much as I wanted to attend the Mill Creek meeting, I was required to work until 9 pm that evening. I suspect there are others who are interested in this that also had this same problem. Not all of us are on an 8 to 5 work schedule.
     
  13. Will Atlas

    Will Atlas Guest

    Part of the problem is that 1.)the state isnt exactly doing a great job of getting this in the hands of steelhead concerned citizens. That being said, as people with opinions on the management of our steelhead, we have the obligation to seek information as actively as possible. I'm about a third of the way through the document and plan on finishing it and submitting comments today. I agree that the idea of a lack of temporal segregation between wild and hatchery fish is disturbing. Why not though model the broodstock programs after the one on Snyder Creek on the Duc. Just select brood stock from early entering fish, that way you keep the temporal segregation between the hatchery bred fish and the vanguard of the wild run. The assertion that hatchery brood stock provide a sound replacement for true wild stock is preposterous, but if the state insists on hatchery supplementation I would say such a program is preferable. Also its nice to see them shifting away from the MSH principles which in my opinion have largely failed. The guiding principles of abundance, productivity, diversity, and spatial structure could be promising but we'll see if any tangible changes in management decisions come down.

    Will
     
  14. Smalma

    Smalma Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,254
    Likes Received:
    1,383
    Location:
    Marysville, Washington
    Big Tuna -
    Yes there will be a power point presentation that will summarize the DEIS and ann opportunity to ask questions for clarification. One of the real benefits of attending the meeting.

    FT -
    I understand completely that folks will have competing demands for their time and really don't expect most people to attend the meetings. However given the popularity of bashing steelhead mangement the number of "armchair" opinions on how said management could be improved that one sees on the "net" or hears on the river seeing less than what will likely be a 100 people out of the more than 85,000 steelhead anglers actually attend the meetings is a little distressing -

    an indictation that maybe the issues is not as important to folks that their rhetoric indicates?

    Will -
    Not sure that I would opt for the Synder Creek program for my model for a hatchery program. Remember that early run timing does not necessarily equate to early spawning time. In fact because those Snyder Creek fish are wild fish they will have a spawn timing that will fall within that seen with the wild fish. Further because of the selectivity in the collection of the brood stock those fish would not be representive of the wild populations and likely would have an adverse on the productivity of the natural spawning populations in the Quillayute. In addition from the data that I have seen the Snyder Creek fish have returned at much lower rates than the Chamber Creek fish released in the same basin.

    Interestly the folks in BC have backed away from wild broodstocks as method of supplementing their population with the major exception of the Vedder where the program seems to be working well. According to their bios they can not explain why it works on the Vedder and not elsewhere in the Province. They also are using some wild brood stock for gene bank/rescue programs but that is a different issues with different limitations and standards for measuring success.

    BBD -
    I would be happy to provide my thoughts on the options as currently written if there is an interest. However I think you'll find than those thoughts will not sit well with either the State folks or many here.

    Tight lines
    Curt
     
  15. Will Atlas

    Will Atlas Guest

    Curt,

    I agree with you on the risks of introgression being high with a brood stock program such as the one at snyder creek. If I had my way, there would be hatcheries on a very limited number of rivers. I was just suggesting that as a way of avoiding increased harvest pressure on wild fish. Also, what about wild summer fish on the Sky and Stilly. How many of these fish are caught as bycatch in gill nets targeting salmon? Is there data available?

    I wrote some comments up and I'm wondering where to send them. Anyone know?

    Will