WDFW 1998-1999 Annual Report

• Guiding WDFW
• What Makes Washington State Unique?
• Protecting Our Resources
• Couting the Ways We Serve Washington Citizens and Natural Resources
• Revenues & Expenses
• Litigation 1998-1999

Guiding WDFW

The operation of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is guided by the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission and overseen by a team of professional managers. In addition, the Department solicits input on specific activities from citizen advisory groups. The Commission and WDFW managers hold public meetings around the state to gather citizen views on a variety of topics including setting hunting and fishing seasons.

What Makes Washington State Unique?

Certainly, a large part has to do with its native fish and wildlife resources and the habitat they depend on to survive.

For years, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has been managing those fish and wildlife resources on behalf of citizens and as a legacy for future generations. But as the state continues to grow, so have the challenges facing the Department.

During the past year, the Department has met these challenges by delivering on-the-ground science and expertise to protect and perpetuate healthy fish and wildlife populations and rebuild those that are not. It also has responded to new challenges brought about by federal Endangered Species Act listings of salmon and steelhead by reaching out to other resource managers and citizens to ensure past mistakes are not repeated.

This important resource work occurred at the same time the Department provided a vast array of recreational opportunities for people across the state, activities ranging from clam digging and wildlife viewing to trout fishing and deer hunting. Maintaining these opportunities, and creating new ones, remains one of the Department’s highest priorities.

Whether conducting scientific research on an endangered species or setting a fishing season, the Department in 1998-99 remained committed to building strong partnerships. Working with the tribes, local governments, citizen advisory groups, private businesses, farmers, volunteers and others, the Department proved there is strength in numbers. The challenge of preserving fish and wildlife, after all, is a drama that touches each one of us.

Kelly White
Chairman, Fish and Wildlife Commission

Jeff Koenings, Ph.D.
Director, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

The mission of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
is the sound stewardship of fish and wildlife.

back to top

Fish Program
Protecting and restoring the state’s fish and shellfish species, while continuing to offer fishing opportunities on healthy stocks, is the focus of WDFW’s largest program. Current program initiatives include:

• Salmon recovery
• Marine fish protection
• Harvest and hatchery innovations
• Shellfish and finfish hatchery operation
• Invasive species control

Wildlife Program
Developing guidelines and strategies to promote healthy ecosystems that protect wildlife and habitat, while offering hunting and viewing opportunities for species ranging from elk to waterfowl is the role of the Wildlife Program. Activities extend beyond traditional game management, to address the status and protection of dozens of nongame species. Program activities include:

• Scientific efforts for assessment and protection of threatened, endangered and other species
• Hunting season setting
• Wildlife viewing information

Enforcement Program
Protecting the state’s fish and wildlife resources and improving public safety are the dual responsibilities of the Enforcement Program. More than 150 fully commissioned Fish and Wildlife officers provide a host of services including:

• Public education
• Compliance with natural resource laws
• Response to dangerous wildlife complaints
• Public health and safety
• Assistance to local law enforcement agencies

Habitat Program
Preserving the land and water that fish and animals need for survival is the focus of the Habitat Program. To help protect habitat in a rapidly growing state, program biologists, technicians and resource managers:

• Review waterfront construction for hydraulic project approval permits
• Correct culverts and other barriers to fish passage
• Provide technical assistance to local communities
• Respond to oil spills to protect fish and wildlife

Business Services
Efficiently operating department business is the primary function of the Business Services Program. Program administrators are focused on new efforts to:

• Modernize the recreational licensing system
• Upgrade computer and data management
• Improve accounting and other business practices
• Enhance customer service

back to top
 

Count the Ways We Serve Washington Citizens and Natural Resources

In the past year Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife scientists, technicians and other employees worked in a number of ways to manage and protect the state’s fish and wildlife resources and habitat for the benefit of Washington residents and future generations.

User Fees: $30,318,908 (22.8%)
Fishing and hunting license fees (commercial and recreational), federal excise tax proceeds for certain hunting and fishing gear and motorboat fuel; fines and forfeitures and miscellaneous revenue collected from department activities.

General Fund Revenue: $43,340,470 (32.7%)
The portion of the state’s General Fund appropriated to the Department. Funds are derived from state tax dollars and the sale of general-obligation bonds.

All other sources: $59,033,196 (44.5%)
Includes mitigation money for losses of fish and wildlife; all other federal, state and local revenue received by the Department and personalized license plate revenue. Funds in this category are dedicated to specific Department activities.

Expenses

Expenditures: Fiscal year 1999
(July 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999)

Operating expenditures were $119,092,076, spent in five programs.

The capital expenditures were $13,600,498, for a total of $132,692,574.

Summary

As the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife moves into a new century its activities increasingly will be focused in several key areas including:

• Providing scientific expertise and leadership to further wild salmon recovery and meet other natural resource management challenges
• Maintaining recreational opportunities and offering new ones that serve the changing interests of a growing population
• Building partnerships with volunteers, local governments, tribes and other natural resource managers to preserve fish and wildlife
• Enhancing customer service through advances such as a modernized recreational licensing system
• Improving business practices and seeking stable funding sources for future department operations

Each of these initiatives presents a difficult set of challenges for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. They take on added complexity against a backdrop of growing human population, dwindling fish and animal habitat, new federal species protection listings, court resource management mandates, inadequate funding and other developments.

We know that change is a certainty–changing habitat, changing public interests and changing demands on natural resources. By re-tooling and refocusing to meet changes, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is moving forward to continue to provide sound stewardship of Washington’s fish and wildlife resources in a new century.

back to top

Litigation 1998-1999

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife works closely with the state Attorney General’s Office to protect Washington’s fish and wildlife resources. The following is a summary of legal cases involving the Department during the past year.

State v. Buchanan:
In June 1999, the state Supreme Court reversed a state appellate court decision and ruled that the geographic scope of Indian treaty hunting rights is limited to open and unclaimed lands within tribal ceded areas and traditional hunting grounds. The state Court of Appeals earlier had ruled that tribal hunting rights secured by the Treaty of Point Elliott were not limited to ceded lands or traditional hunting grounds; consequently, signatory tribes could hunt on open and unclaimed lands throughout the entire Washington territory.

State v. Pacific International Terminals:
An August 1999 settlement agreement addressed concerns of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the state Department of Ecology over a shoreline permit issued by Whatcom County for a deepwater pier near Bellingham. The mitigation agreement addressed the agencies’ primary concerns over the pier’s impacts to herring spawning and aquatic vegetation.

Yakima County v. Certain Real Properties:
In January 1999, the Yakima County Superior Court entered an order denying Yakima County’s petition to foreclose against two parcels of property owned by WDFW for failure to pay additional taxes, penalties, and interest the county claimed it was owed under RCW 84.34.108(3). The court denied the motion on the basis that the property was exempt from the additional tax under a different section of the statute.

Atwood v. WDFW:
In July 1998, the state Court of Appeals (Division I) confirmed that state regulation of non-Indian fishers could be substantially different than for treaty right fishers. The state Supreme Court denied review of that decision in December 1998. The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed by approximately 200 fishers against WDFW and the Fish and Wildlife Commission, alleging state and federal law causes of action based on alleged mismanagement of salmon resources within the state and improprieties in allocating and counting catch between treaty and non-treaty fishers.

Banning v. WDFW:
In June 1998, King County Superior Court dismissed a claim that hydraulic project approval laws cause a regulatory taking of real property. The case was appealed to the state Court of Appeals (Division I) and was argued in July 1999. The Department is awaiting the appellate court’s decision.

Cross Cascades Project:
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife was an active participant in hearings regarding the Olympic Pipe Line Company’s request for a permit from the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) to construct and operate a 230-mile refined oil products pipeline from Woodinville to Pasco. WDFW addressed the proposal’s potential construction impacts and the possibility of oil spills on aquatic, wetland, and terrestrial wildlife habitat. Potentially impacted habitats included wetland, shrub-steppe, and several hundred water crossings, including the Snoqualmie, Tolt, Yakima, and Columbia rivers. In June 1999, Olympic withdrew its permit application, shortly after its mainline ruptured and exploded in the Bellingham area.

U.S. v. Oregon:
In this on-going case involving the states of Washington and Oregon and tribal parties, as well as the federal government, efforts were made recently to reach a state-tribal agreement on sharing the incidental impacts under the Endangered Species Act for Columbia River fisheries. Although the states and tribes were able to reach an agreement, that agreement was not acceptable to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Consequently, the state and tribes will pursue separate procedural pathways to obtain incidental take authorization necessary to support their respective fisheries.

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 $17.15 million for the dam’s eventual removal. Under terms of the agreement, the company will be allowed to continue to operate the dam until 2006, when removal will begin.

Cushman Dam Relicensing:
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a license in July 1998, following a 24-year re-licensing proceeding. Most of the parties sought rehearing, which FERC denied. The case is now under appeal in a federal court of appeals in Washington, D.C.

Treaty tribes:
Co-managers of natural resources

Many Washington tribes signed treaties with the United States in the 1850s. The treaties allowed the peaceful settlement of much of western Washington while reserving to the tribes the right to continue to hunt and fish in traditional areas.

A 1974 federal court ruling popularly known as the “Boldt Decision” affirmed the tribes’ fishing rights and established them as fishery co-managers in many parts of the state. Subsequent federal court decisions have affirmed the tribes’ status as co-managers of shellfish and wildlife in many parts of the state.

The state of Washington, in signing the Centennial Accord in 1989, formally recognized the sovereign government-to-government relationship that exists with treaty tribes. The New Millennium Accord, signed in 1999, pledges all the governments to implement the Centennial Accord’s terms on a daily basis.

back to top