Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Money Can't Buy Time to Save Salmon

More money might result in more projects to replace culverts that block migrating salmon in Washington state but would not cut the time it takes to make each fix, a transportation official testified Monday.

Paul J. Wagner, environmental services biology branch manager in the state Transportation Department, testified Monday in U.S. District Court that the estimated number of state highway-related problem culverts has grown from 350 in 1994, when the first survey was completed, to 1,800 when the latest estimate was completed in 2007.

The difference reflects the addition of rivers, creeks and streams with steeper slopes to the estimates, Wagner told Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. The first survey covered only those with gradients up to 7 degrees while the latest goes up to 20 degrees.

Subtracting about 200 fixes that have been made since the state's culvert program began in 1991 and culverts that would be of little benefit to repair or replace, about 800 remain on the to-do list, he said.

In a trial that began last Tuesday, 19 Native American tribes are asking Martinez to order a drastic speedup in replacing culverts that block salmon from potential spawning grounds and their offspring from the ocean.

The case is a spinoff of 29 years of litigation over tribal fishing rights based on mid-19th century treaties. State lawyers argue that a culvert speedup would give short shrift to other vital efforts, including habitat restoration, hatcheries, harvest controls and changes in hydroelectric dam operations.

Regardless of funding, it takes at least four years from scoping – determining which actions, effects and concerns will be addressed in a project – to improve or replace a culvert to meet fish passage requirements, Wagner said.

More money won't speed up that process, he added, "We'll just be able to do more projects at the same time."

John C. Sledd, a lawyer for nine of the tribes, suggested that fixing culverts would benefit salmon more than other efforts.

"Our goal is to correct priority salmon barriers," Wagner replied. "We hope that would increase salmon production. We don't have a way to determine" how that work compares in effectiveness with other approaches.

 

 

 

Gillnets more harmful than culverts

Fixing culverts to propagate expanded fish runs is a foolish waste of taxpayer dollars when taken to the extreme.

The major problem with expanding fish runs and securing their survivability is the use of gill nets. The major players, commercial fishers and tribes, have committed large amounts of money to elected officials impeding resolution of the problem. The by catch of the gill net fishery means that wild and non-target fish under the Endangered Species Act will not flourish. The act is not observed by commercial fishers.

The solution to the problem has been known for a long time. The tribes on the upper Columbia River recently began using seine nets to selectively harvest tagged fish. This reduces cost per fish and gives a win-win solution to all fishers by allowing wild and non-target stock to escape. Evidence the large pink runs.

In the case of tribal rights, fishing in usual and accustomed manners is the use of fish traps and other methods, not gill nets. Allow tribal fishers and other gill net fishers on the rivers to use this method. The harvest quantities agreed to would not change, but the numbers and types of fish released would. Wild and other protected non-target fish would be released instead of being killed.

This doesn't mean stopping the replacement of culverts. Just use the time and money more judiciously. What is needed here is a true win-win for fish and man.

 

 

 

Monday, November 2, 2009

Ideas for designated commercial harvest fish runs

Years ago, Weyerhauser was in the fish business. According to SG
they dropped it, because of preharvest by sport and commercial boats.

if we had a goal... To maximize commercial harvest in specific rivers, while not competing with tribal or sport harvest. Hopefully the tribes would go along with splitting the harvest with sport only fishing.

Although this might never get to a viable point, I have wondered for a while about using creeks, or small tribs to use as a commercial harvest open farm style operation, similar to the weyerhauser approach or the Tulalup tribe set up, that operates two hatcheries on their reservation. If the creek or river has no viable wild run to damage, and we could make this work on a multi river arrangement, you get the nets out of salt and you make it a non tribal commercial operation and keep the sports on other watersheds.

Instead of clipping, they just put a small tag, to identify strays. Have a spring, fall or continuous run whatever species, kings or silvers. Then run a trap or weir, nets near the mouth and let the commercial harvest take it all, and run the facilities. In some respects, a processor could do the entire operation, cutting out the independent harvest. But make it private with state oversight. Work it into the Canadian Alaska US treaty where commercial harvest at sea would be eliminated for [at least these] salmon, so they arent preharvesting each others fish. (future operations might form in BC and Alaska given similar extinct runs). Other factors would have to look at limiting number of licenses and methods for commercial boat harvest if any were to continue in Alaska waters. But, one goal would be to work around losing 60 plus percent of the columbia river fish to alaska and Canadian commercial harvest. Would have to eliminate harvest of herring and sardine, but not limited to those species to increase food supply. Sport harvest of herring or smelt etc like in the cowlitz etc would be ok, so some bait needs would be met.

Now, instead of saying it wont work or just saying no, lets brainstorm the various factors that would make it work. If its done well, it could compete with farms and relieve wild fish from commercial harvest, reduce state subsidies for multiple hatcheries to support the commercial fishing industry. What if... it could eliminate commercial harvest in the columbia.

Let the ideas fly. If they did a year round egg box program of one species, would they have silvers or chinook come back all at once or throughout the year for that type of commercial harvest?

Keep in mind, the tulalups have two hatcheries on the reservation. I guess they net the bay, but as long as they leave wild fish alone in the rivers, it seems like a win, if they dont interfere in the sport fishery on those tribs.

I think there are enough rivers to go around, that designated rivers could go a long way to eliminating harvest conflicts with the tribes and the sport fishery, thereby maximizing interest in sport fishing(in combination with a workable recovery plan. We might even have the option of switching rivers over from hatchery supplements to wild fish only, on a gradual basis, to transition sport harvest to other rivers, rather than eliminate four or five rivers in a geographical region, putting pressure on other systems, or killing business in a no fish zone.

So, we would need stream candidates and look at the ramifications of a wild run remaining or not, or nearby river, that would generate a lot of strays. Look at hatchery facilities not being used now, or due to close and methods of harvest. Perhaps beginning with the criteria, needed to make a project work.

Im guessing the alternative is more of the same, with more restrictions and allocation fights in the midst of shrinking budgets.

 

 

 

New Rule Proposals for Rockfish in Puget Sound

Better take a look at the proposals and make your comments. The general concept is included in the current fishing regulation proposals in case you might have missed them (see item #10). Included in the proposal is that would put a 120' (20 fathom) limit on all fishing in Puget Sound except for salmon.

WDFW NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/

October 19, 2009

Contact: Greg Bargmann, (360) 902-2825
WDFW seeks public comments on
Puget Sound rockfish conservation plan

OLYMPIA – The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is accepting public comment through Nov. 19 on a new draft conservation plan for rockfish in Puget Sound and has scheduled four meetings to discuss the plan with the public.
The draft conservation plan is the preferred alternative among several presented in a draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), which is required by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
The DEIS and draft conservation plan are available on WDFW's website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/management/rockfish/ . Those who would like a copy of the plan on a compact disc or in print can call (360) 902-2844.
The draft conservation plan provides the framework for new strategies and actions in areas including fisheries, monitoring and education to conserve and protect rockfish populations in Puget Sound. Three species of rockfish in Puget Sound – bocaccio, yelloweye and canary rockfish – currently are being considered for protection under the federal Endangered Species Act.
Comments can be submitted by email to SEPAdesk2@dfw.wa.gov , by FAX to (360) 902-2946, or by U.S. Mail to: WDFW SEPA Desk, 600 Capitol Way N. Olympia, WA 98501-1091.
In addition, people can submit comments, as well as discuss the draft plan with WDFW staff, during public meetings scheduled for:
• Oct. 29 – From 7-9 p.m. in Mill Creek at WDFW's Mill Creek office, 16018 Mill Creek Blvd.
• Nov. 2 – From noon-2 p.m. in Friday Harbor in the Commons Room at the University of Washington's Friday Harbor laboratory, 620 University Road.
• Nov. 4 – From 7-9 p.m. in Olympia in room 172 of the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St. S.E.
• Nov. 6 – From 4-6 p.m. in Port Townsend in the Raven Room at Skookum Inc., 385 Benedict St.