I thought I would post this up for folks involved in the Willapa Policy Review. I would like to point out these comments are not mine but the authors. I will say this though. The Willapa Policy was a convoluted mess from the start but Steve Thiesfeld was a guy with integrity and he did his best to get it done. When he became ill and left Region 6 the Willapa Policy died with him. In the 40 years I was around agency staff many were just part of the system but not all. Larry, Sara, Paul, Hal, Jim, Sally, Rich, and Dave are impressive people as was Steve. In fact to find someone on the harvest side of things who tried to do it right is exceptional and seldom seen in WDFW. So Steve I still think about you, you did it right, and you are missed my friend.

So this is the input on the Willapa Policy Review.

October 9, 2020

Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy
PO Box 179
McCleary, WA 9855 thfwa@comcast.net


The Honorable Members of the Commission Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife 600 Capitol Way N.
Olympia, WA 98501

RE: Willapa Bay Policy Review Draft


The Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy ) is a WA based non-profit corporation with 501 (C)
(3) status issued by the IRS. The organization was formed to: Provide education, science, and other efforts that encourage the public, regulatory agencies and private businesses to manage or utilize fish, wildlife and other natural resources in a fashion that insures the sustainable of those resources on into the future for the benefit of future generations.

The members of the Advocacy have attended review meetings called by the Department. Advocacy President Tim Hamilton also serves on the Willapa Bay Salmon Management Advisors Group. We have dedicated significant time, financial resources, and efforts to improve salmon management in Willapa Bay over the last 8 years. The current draft is critically flawed and as a result, the Advocacy can not support approval of the draft without substantial changes. Borrowing terms used in the building industry, the draft is in need of a complete remodel and a “raze and rebuild” might prove to be the appropriate option.

The staff’s presentation and comments to the Commission are tainted by the Department’s historical rejection of it’s duties to the public and members of the Commission. Instead of approaching issues in a “non-partisan” fashion that allows the public to understand complex issues, the Department uses its control over data, information, meeting agendas, etc. to promote its own agenda which typically remains hidden from public view. Then, it moves from the public level to the Commission level where it uses the same strategy. When “the search for the guilty begins”, the standard response from the Department is the “Advisors” asked us to do it. Or, the “Commission” told us to do it. Neither is factually accurate but it does allow the Department to avoid taking responsibility for its management failures by pointing the finger at the public and the members of the Commission.

The Advocacy recommends the review be reformatted to include an index at the front that identifies “sections” and subsections within the sections using terminology that is familiar to the public. Sections should include commonly understood subjects such as hatcheries, harvest, habitat, selective fishing, alternative gear development etc. Documentation, data, etc. utilized in the sections should be footnoted for title and included in an appendix at the end with live links to the identified documentation. The review sections should not exceed 20 pages total. The front cover, index, and appendix combined should not exceed a total of 30 pages.

Additionally, the time frame for the review should be extended to include the 2019 season results. Data is available that would allow the Commission members to understand the situation in Willapa as it now stands. The Advocacy fully appreciates why the Department might prefer not to include the results from 2019. Simply put, it was a disaster for both the nets and the poles. Same goes for escapement goal failure. Modeling difficulties resulted in runsizes came in less the 50% of the preseason forecasts. Limiting the time frame to end in 2018 will deny the Commission an ability to accurately assess where matters now stand in Willapa Bay.

The “mind set” of the Department creates an obstacle to recovery of salmon in Willapa. Understanding the historical mind set and practices utilized by Department is a major first step needed to be taken by those Commission members seeking to analyze what has actually happened in Willapa prior to and after passage of the Policy. The failure to invest in this step prior to considering changes to the current policy language will likely result in future Commission actions that once again create unintended consequences and further diminishes the public’s faith in the Com- mission itself. In simple terms, the Advocacy believes the Department’s current draft is intended lobby the members of the Commission to amend the current policy language and deliver the public a “full plate of pickles”.

Before and after the passage of the Policy, the Department has resisted recognition that the state- wide policies regarding hatcheries, habitat, and harvest developed using best available science are likewise applicable to Willapa Bay. As a result, Willapa was historically managed “for hatchery fish” that were overwhelming allocated to holders of a Columbia/Willapa commercial gillnet li- cense. Natural spawning populations tanked as a result digging a hole so deep that recovery is a difficult challenge. As a result, the Willapa policy was adopted and the purpose was stated as “The objective of this policy is to achieve the conservation and restoration of wild salmon in Willapa Bay and avoid ESA designation of any salmon species.”

The Department’s historical mind set toward state statutes regarding the public’s right to participation and the role of the Commission in setting policy was similar to the resistance towards manage- ment using best available science. The Department refused to provide public records to interested citizens and met behind closed doors with hand-picked advisers who negotiated allocation of the resource. The participants were led to believe a key to future participation was honoring the theme “what’s said behind these doors stays behind these doors”. Meanwhile, back at the Commission level, the Department resisted numerous requests from Commissioners to open up discussions on a policy for Willapa Bay. It is important to note that it wasn’t 1910, but rather 2010.

Beginning in 2012, several members of the public on the coast chose to “pit their wallets against the state treasury” and a series of legal challenges were launched to seek intervention by the courts. Settlements1 resulted in the Department agreeing to:

• honoring public record requests

• opening its meetings with advisors to the public;

All the settlement agreements are available from the Commission’s legal staff
• engaging the Commission on a policy discussion for Willapa Bay

• seeking an independent scientific review of selective fishing net mortality rates

• recognize the formation of a non-profit organization (Advocacy)

• engaging all the advisors (not just a select few) when considering adoption of emergency rules inseason,

• enlarging the advisor participants to reflect the diverse interest of the public

• engaging the revised group when conducting the upcoming review of the Willapa Policy.

If one recognizes the historical mind set and management practices of the Department related to Willapa, it’s easy to understand why so many on the coast across all political persuasions have come to believe the Department is a poster child for the slogan “drain the swamp”. Unfortunately, that reflection is infecting the public’s attitude toward the Commission members as well.

The Department acts as a proponent with an undisclosed agenda and “handles” the Commission to achieve the outcome it desires
If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein). An alternative view is to recognize when an explainer makes matters complicated it can be a strategy designed to prevent the audience from understanding the facts. Regardless of the competence or intent of the author(s) of the review draft, the final Review document needs to provide the public and the Commission members an ability to “understand” what has occurred in Willapa Bay. If it doesn’t, this exercise will fail it’s purpose.

One of the best examples of the Department “handling” the Commission was witnessed in it’s effort to “seek guidance” from the Commission as a means to negate key provisions of the initial policy language. The first attempt was to claim the Department faced a “pickle” in providing the commercial sector with harvest opportunity on Coho and Chum due to the harvest of Chinook by the recreational sector. The staff presentation left the public and the Commission confused as one commissioner asked the staff what it was the Department was seeking from the Commission. Kelly Cunningham responded with “All we need is a nod” (what happened to the wink?). The outcome was a clumsy oral discussion leaving all uncertain as to what had just happened.

The “pickle strategy” became an annual event. Staff again offered a confusing presentation that implied the recreational sector was using up the majority of impacts on Chinook. As a result, com- missioners adopted another non-vetted proviso that transferred impacts on NOR Chinook from the recreational sector to the Commercial sector under a new formula that gave the commercial sector just under 50% of the NOR impacts available for Chinook. The public was again confused by the action of the commission. Apparently, the commissioners were not aware that the commercial sec- tor was already taking well over half the impacts. The formula change adopted, if followed, would actually reduce harvest opportunity for commercials.

The next pickle effectively eliminated the recreational priority for Chinook while retaining the commercial priority for commercials on Coho and Chum by elimination of the allocation provision on Chinook entirely. While this round was again not vetted out to the public, the modification was at least read into the record by motion of a commissioner. Apparently the notion was to provide the Department additional flexibility in setting seasons. That term has now become known as the “F-word” in Willapa Bay.

Then, the following Tuesday night the Department provided the public language on a blue single page that it claimed was an explanation of what the Commission did the previous Saturday. Staff claimed the blue paper had been approved by the Commission. It was quickly pointed out that there had been no meeting or conference call of the Commission and the Department was asked who on the Commission approved of this interpretation and the response was telling. Incredulous- ly, staff claimed they didn’t know who approved the document. To this day, the public has never gotten the Department to identify the source of this document. It is also important to note we were in the NOF season setting mode. The staff followed by announcing to all present that due to a time restraint that the public could only comment on seasons proposed by commercial advisor Andy Mitby which would now comply with the latest revision to the policy by the Commission. When asked if the Commission had repealed the recreational priority on Chinook the response was “No, but it is no longer defined.” A terminology that has no definition is meaningless. The combined action of the Commission and the Department became known as “The Saturday morning ambush followed by the Tuesday night massacre”.

The draft is plagued by mischaracterizations of the public’s involvement
The Department’s draft and press releases implies that the Advisors and public had some authorship in the draft. “Advisors” are claimed to have “Input” and provided the Department with “Guidance”. We’d ask that the Commission members reject this commentary entirely. The draft review is solely an inhouse work product of the Department.

True to the Department’s historical practices, the draft and media comments use terminology to describe something wherein the true definition of the terminology is contrary to facts. Saying the “Advisors” provided “Input” into the review document is a mischaracterization. The Department staff controlled the agenda, the meeting formats, all presentations, and drafted both review drafts on its own. When the Advisors were finally shown the drafts and began to ask questions about methodology and conclusions, the Department’s response was Advisor(s) are not educated enough to question its drafting and listening to an Advisor was a waste of time.

Requests that the advisors be allowed participation in creation of the agendas were ignored. Re- quests that the drafters remember the audience is composed of the public and members of the Commission who don’t have extensive knowledge of Willapa Bay were likewise ignored. The Advisors never saw the draft review until it was transmitted to the Commission and opened for public comments. It would be a mischaracterization for someone who just finished reading “Gone With The Wind” to imply they had input into the drafting.

Regarding the advisors providing guidance to the Department staff, we have referenced earlier how the Department controlled every avenue of the meeting discussions. The Department has a handbook on the role and process to be utilized during an advisor process. When the Advisors actually tried to assert some kind of influence over what was occurring (all in accordance with the Advisors Handbook), the Department countered by installing a new set of “rules” for participation. Failure to comply would carry “Consequences”. When asked what was meant by the term and under what authority this threat was being issued, staff refused to respond. When the questioning advisor went outside to clear his head, a rule was installed that advisors could not leave their seat.

Matters got worse in subsequent meetings. The tables were removed from the meeting room. Folding chairs were placed in a circle like one would see around a campfire. The Advisors had to sit with their notebooks and the latest pile of meeting handouts on their laps. As mentioned previously, the new rules prevented leaving their chair without permission. Applying the term “Guidance” to this process is a mischaracterization and the validity is comparable to a claim that those in a kindergarten class were somehow guiding their teacher.

The Advisors and public were limited to being “attendees” by the Department. As an example, the staffer who was initially brought in as the lead author asked an Advisor for clarification on his comments. Chad Herring jumped up and literally whacked him in the back of the head with his open hand and announced “we aren’t going there”.

The Advocacy believes the review process was doomed to failure as the Department tried to control the process as a means produce a review document that limited the Commission’s ability to understand the impacts of the Department’s management practices in Willapa Bay. The more reluctant the Advisors became to being used in this fashion, the more intense the reaction from the Department. By the end of the process, a long time commercial advisor remarked that the Department had become “sneaky” and suggested that the Advisory group be dissolved permanently.

While the Department has recognized the process was “contentious”, it attempts to lay the blame on the Advisors bickering with each other over allocation disputes. The problem was not between the Advisors themselves but rather Advisors objecting to the way the Department was trying to use them to produce a draft review that would later be used to handle the Commission members in a similar fashion.

The hatchery problems
While the review provides volumes of data and calculations, it requires extensive knowledge of Willapa in order for one to dig through it all and answer the simple question “What is the potential for future hatchery production in Willapa hatchery complex?” Simply put, the Department recent actions and announced future intentions raises the risk of a “perfect storm” wherein the hatchery production could fall dramatically and even reach the zero threshold.

The recent presentation to the Commission implies that legislative or executive decisions some- how instructed the Department to raise the hatchery release goal in the Naselle from the 800,000 set in the Policy upward to 1.5 million and then, up to 5 million. The Advocacy believes this is another example of mischaracterization.

Page 6, Advocacy Opposition WSR 18-01-095

The first jump came through a legislative budget provision. However the provision itself simply provided funding for addition production costs at the Naselle provided that the increase production could be accomplished while staying in compliance with hatchery protocols. In its typical practice, the Department took the money, raised the fish, and in the Advocacy’s view, did not comply with hatchery protocols. The budget provision is available and should be included in the appendix.

The second jump occurred with funding provided through the effort to increase production of Chinook for the Orcas. Since it is unlikely an Orca would prefer to eat a Chinook from the Naselle versus one from Forks Creek, the Advocacy believes the decision to place the increased pro- duction into the Naselle came from within the Department. Once again, the Advisors were left out of loop entirely. The budget allocation pro- vision and documentation of the lo- cation decision should be provided in the appendix. A tracking of how the money was spent should be attached.


Further, the Orca Task Force recommended an assessment of the habitat productivity should be conducted prior to increasing production. To the Advocacy’s knowledge, this was never done for the Naselle. How- ever, studies were conducted out of the UW2 at the request of commercial shell fish growers who were concerned over the large decrease in growth rates of oysters in the south end of the bay prior to moving the oysters to “fattening beds in the north. The study found a dispersion gap existed and low tidal exchange south of it would create a shortage of forage for shellfish going forward. The common term one would use to describe the problem was the bay was “overgrazed” south of the dispersion gap. Oysters located below the fattening/ recruitment line would need to be moved to fattening beds up north (Figure 1). The study was provided to the Department by the Willapa Bay Ecosytem Review Team (WBERT).

In effect, the best available science was ignored by WDFW when it unilaterally increased the Chi- nook production goal in the Policy from 800,000 to 5 million for Chinook at the Naselle which enters the bay below the dispersion gap. In short, the Department is ignoring science, overriding sport Chinook priority, and threatening wild Chinook juvenile survival in the bay in order to grow hatchery fish for commercial fishers in a location recognized as already overloaded by commercial shellfish operations. This is a prime example of the need for intervention by the Commission that may require removal of the delegation to the Department.

The Department has announced plans to close the Forks Creek Hatchery and the Nemah Hatchery leaving all the hatchery production over at Naselle which would basically eliminate any likelihood for a substantive recreational season in the future. The review recognizes that the Naselle is in dire need of a total rebuild and a schedule for permitting and funding in Phase One is acknowledged. What is not certain is when or if the Department will receive funding for completion. Further, the Naselle has the warmest water of all three locations and the Department currently relies upon moving Coho juveniles over to the Nemah to avoid excess pond mortality. Since refrigeration of the entire river is not practical, closing the Nemah would likely reduce the Naselle Coho production and the mortality of returning Chinook adults will make achievement of egg take even more difficult in the future as climate change continues to increase Naselle water temperature.

We return to the “perfect storm” problem. Closing the Nemah which could continue to pump out over 3 million Chinook with a modest investment in a new bridge and weir replacement is step one. Closing Forks Creek that has recently received over $5 million in rebuilding is step two. The final step would be equipment failure at the aged Naselle facility that could bring it off line. Any further complications occurring from climate change could decrease or even eliminate the ability of the Naselle hatchery to produce salmon and the Willapa could be left totally void of hatchery production. The Department doesn’t seem to understand “putting all your eggs in one basket” is not an acceptable management practice. Especially when the basket is worn out and full of holes.

The economic analysis problem
During its recent presentation to the Commission, the Department’s spokesperson acknowledged the Department doesn’t have an economist on staff and that the review was limited. While such is understandable, the spin that was included was an obvious indicator that this draft review was designed to lobby changes to the Policy that are desired either by the Department or member(s) of the Commission. Similar to the fashion that it led the Commission down the yellow brick road to move the “pickles”, the Department makes an attempt to grossly overstate the economic impact of the commercial sector and or deflate the economic impact of the recreational sector.

The holders of a Columbia/Willapa commercial license often fish with a recreational license as well. The draft review uses the exvessel value (gross sales of the fleet) and assumes that will be be spent entirely to purchase gear, fuel, etc. Then, that amount is assumed to turn over repeatedly (2.24 x exvessel$=economic impact). It cites the authority as a legislative study from times past that specifically avoided a study effort that would compare commercial economics with the recreational economics.

Then, the Departments uses the same source to determine how many dollars a typical angler spends when on the water for the day. Multiplies that amount times the number of angler days to create a recreational economic value. Does it use the same mysterious 2.24 multiplier? No. Does one have to be an economist to figure out it is inappropriate to use a multiplier if one buys a net but not do so if its a pole? No, this is high school level economics 101.

It is also noteworthy that then Commissioner Wecker and Jim Scott traveled to Willapa to provide a presentation on fisheries economics to the Pacific County Commissioners. Yet, the Department now implies it just doesn’t have all the much info on the subject. The presentation to the Pacific County Commissioners should be provided in the appendix.

Further more, how would a reader of this draft review recognize the economic impact to the tax- payers? How would one figure out the costs of growing fish in Willapa and compare that cost per fish with the amount paid in license fees or fish tax by each sector? What is the amount of public subsidy delivered in the form of relatively fish for free that is being provided the commercial sec- tor? How many fish would the state have to provide to keep the current commercial license holders economically viable? Another omission that should be addressed.

The question over the state’s obligation to maintain the economics of the commercial sector in Willapa Bay has been addressed by the court. Following passage of the Policy, the Willapa Bay Gillnetters Association filed several legal actions seeking a ruling requiring the Department to place the economic needs of the commercial sector operating in Willapa on a parity with the needs of conservation.

We could give them (commercials) every fish that crosses the bar and it wouldn’t be enough." They are simply trying to preserve their way of life " WDFW Director Phil Anderson, 2013

Further, it argued that the Commission could not adopt a policy that contained specifics that some- how influenced the seasons set by the Department. Both arguments were rejected by the court.

The assertion that the commercial sector somehow had an entitlement to a certain level of public subsidy was soundly rejected. It’s conservation first and any policy passed by the Commission was non-binding on the Department. The decision by the judge in Thurston County should be provided in the appendix.

The “harvest” problem
The Policy addresses Chinook harvest with a set percentage of impacts on returning natural spawning adults in the Willapa River on the north end and Naselle on the south. The language of the Policy sets the percentage as a maximum with “.....shall not exceed (14 or 20)%. In typical Department fashion, the language in the policy is replaced by a “management objective of (14 or 20%)” and seasons are set to try to anticipate hitting the number on the nose. As a result, the harvest rate set forth in the Policy is regularly exceeded and the runs do not began to recover as intended.

In the latest round of engaging the Commission for modifications, the Department sought to have the harvest rate in the Naselle move up to 20%. The Commission responded with leave it at 14% in both the north and the south. The Department then announced it was going to use an “aggregate” of 14% and proposed seasons for the south that pushed the harvest south upwards toward the 20% it desired which totally contradicted the decision of the Commission.

An important point to remember is the Naselle has an escapement goal of 1546 Chinook NORs.

The harvest rate applied previously of 20% has dropped escapement down to less than a third of the goal making recovery nearly impossible to envision.

So why would the Department do this? Remember that it jumped the Naselle hatchery Chinook production twice. The returning adults from the increase were due to arrive. Using tangle nets, the mortality rate on the NORs would far exceed 14%. So, when the effort to get the Commission to bump up the harvest rate failed the Department used its standard “wordsmithing” practice and claimed the 14% was a bay wide aggregate in order to use NOR increase occurring elsewhere to create an average that allowed the Naselle harvest rate cap to be exceeded. Apparently, it couldn’t get the Commission to fall for that one either. Next move by the Department was to close down recreational fishing in the Naselle under the guise of unruly littering to free up NOR impacts for the nets out front in the bay.

“Lacking development of any additional alternative gears, the use of tangle nets was identified during the pre-season fishery planning process as the only gear type currently available that meets the alternative gear definition in the Policy.” (Page 34 draft review). This is yet another omission that does not allow one to under- stand what happened in the Willapa.

Two separate attempts to find alternative means of com- mercial harvest with a lower mortality rate on Chinook NORs were attempted. In the first instance, a test fishery using a trap in the marine area off the mouth of Nemah was set at the request of a commercial license holder. The permitting process was completed and staff arrived at daylight to observe the test. The commercial fisher had some kind of a change of heart in the middle of the night and failed to show up.

A second attempt was launched under the realm of Annette Hoffman. The Columbia/Willapa license holders were invited to provide a proposal for a trap. When asked if they could propose a trap in fresh water, the Department said no. Further, no DFW financial support would be provided and the proposer had to provide all the investment capital needed to build and equip the trap. Their return would come in the form of selling the trapped fish.

What followed was truly amazing. The Department announced it was moving forward with a single proposal to place a trap (Figure 2) in freshwater well up into the Naselle. The proposer was the same individual involved in the no-show earlier. The commercial advisors immediately pointed out they were told they couldn’t propose a trap in freshwater. The legality of a choosing a single party behind closed doors was raised. The response was that the project had gone through a legal review.

The Department went on to disclose it had issued the trap proponent an HPA for the trap model he was to build and for the location it would be used. Review of the HPA found the trap proposed would not likely be able to function within the conditions set forth in the HPA. In addition, the staff was informed the CR101 filed by the Department did not comply with the state statutes and the response again was that the project had gone through a legal review. Subsequently, the Department withdrew the CR101 and replaced it with one the cited the appropriate state statute.

The Advocacy expressed in interest in assisting in coming up with an alternative gear proposal. The Department responded by changing the eligibility requirement to only those who held a commercial license and personally pulled fish into the boat themselves. That locked out all parties except the commercial license holders and they were all locked out with the exception of one.

Perhaps the most alarming moment came when a projection of the number fish that the proposer and Department developed became public. Apparently intended for an income projection for a lending institute, the number of fish projected to be harvested by the trap would likely dramatically reduce the commercial net season, recreational freshwater season and even threaten hatchery egg take goals.

The exercise was a disaster left most wondering why Department would ever think this project could have the remotest chance of succeeding. The Advocacy directs your attention back to those Chinook hatchery production increases in the Naselle referenced earlier. Those adults were returning and harvesting them with a tangle net would nearly eliminate the remaining NOR population in the Naselle. It desperately needed a trap in the Naselle to pull those hatchery fish out with extremely low mortality on the NORs. We believe staff put a full court press on to get the trap in and the whole mess blew up in their faces. Then, the mess was omitted from the draft review.

To fully cover the problems we see in the Willapa would take nearly as many pages that is contained in the draft review (229). Unless we receive a request for information on a subject of interest from a member of the Commission, this ends our commentary on the draft review. To those who actually take the time to read this document we express our appreciation. We can only hope you will recognize how difficult it was for us to write it.

For whatever its worth,



Tim Hamilton Art Holman Ron Schweitzer
President Vice-President Secretary/Treasurer