The Willapa Policy crashed & burned due to a number of decisions made by staff at the policy level ( Olympia ) which has resulted in the following process. All should pay attention here as this is all WDF&W because no other states or tribes. They own this mess.

Some time back I submitted my thoughts on the approaching mess which has only continued to get worse since that time due to several factors with weather being one.

Commissioners:

The recent review of the Willapa Policy ( WP ) and the many issues surrounding it have been discussed, primarily around harvest issues for 2018. While important I feel all are failing to grasp the true nature of the impact of the Willapa Policy when the policy is fully implemented in 2020.

Prior to the WP the entire Willapa Harbor was managed for what can best be described as a kill zone fishery area with the Commercial fishers being the prime beneficiary. The WP has many elements and verbiage to direct both harvesters and the agency toward conservation driven harvest opportunities. What most miss is not what the words say and mean but rather what they do.

To truly understand the WP and its effect on Willapa Bay it is best to look at Willapa Bay as two areas with the North area comprising the Willapa River, North River, and Smith Creek. The second area is simply the South Channel and the streams that empty into it which include the Naselle and Nemah rivers. If one is not familiar with the Willapa Bay and the harvest sectors WDF&W has a map on its website.

It is critical that one understand the interaction between four terms in the WP to fully understand the probable outcome.
1. NOS: Natural origin spawners in the gravel.
2. HOS: Hatchery origin spawners in the gravel.
3. Ratio: This is the mix of NOS & HOS in any given fishery.
4: Encounter Ratio: When harvesting the NOS & HOS mix determines how many NOS encounters which lead to mortalities from NOS encounters when releasing NOS adults.

I will outline what the WP dictates for Chinook in the Willapa River, which is the location of the Forks Creek Hatchery. The hatchery Chinook production was drastically reduced to 350K to comply with the Prime stream designation as it relates to straying. This action will fully implemented in 2020 when the first returns from the reduced releases return. In 2020 the Chinook ratio could drop to nearly 1 to 1for fishers in areas T, U, and inriver, it just depends on what the run forecast is for any given year. What is certain is with the ratio being what it will be starting 2020 areas T & U going forward will be difficult to maintain even the sport fishery. The NOS population is a small one under escaped resulting in the sport catch and release ( C&R ) hooking mortality possibly being more than can be maintained and reach spawner objectives. There will be zero commercial opportunity as even a tangle net mortality is far greater than the NOS returns can tolerate. This will happen regardless of any action WDF&W takes.

To complicate matters two very real unknown factors will also be at play. First the Willapa NOS population has been supported by substantial influence by the HOS staying for years. In 2020 this ends and the Willapa Chinook NOS will be a standalone population and how well it will perform is not known. It is not about just making a redd but rather how successful the NOS spawners will be in reproducing offspring. This cause and effect is dictated by the simple fact that multi generational hatchery fish do not reproduce as well as wild NOS when returning to the gravel. Genetically the Willapa hatchery Chinook are the same as NOS as the massive staying of hatchery resulted in a NOS that is in reality a HOS adult spawning in the gravel just unmarked with a fin. Again this is a real unknown and likely to very difficult for staff to quantify until 2024 to 2028. One certainty is the beginning returns will not be greater than at present, In fact we will be lucky if the first generation returns from 2020 to 2024 are the same. The most probable outcome is a reduction in numbers from four to eight years, two generations, and then the stock if managed properly slowly begin the 20 plus year recovery period envisioned in AHA modeling.

The second issue all about what the fish do when they return in 2020. Prior to 2020 T & U areas were the destination of returning Willapa River HOS fish so the ratio of HOS & NOS was favorable toward harvest. 2020 this is not so resulting in the vast majority of HOS Chinook will be returning to the South Channel. This leaves one with a real unknown. Will the Chinook track in close to the mouth of the bay and swing through T or track West and more or less track straight down the South Channel? The fact is the more adults that enter in the Tokeland side of T as they go South will greatly help the ratio of HOS & NOS reducing encounter ratio of NOS thus reducing the number of NOS mortalities from release. What is known is that between 0% and 100% of the South bound Chinook will do something in or around T and the North bay but to what degree to favorably effect the HOS / NOS ratio will not be fully known until several years of fishing which would be 2023 or 2024.

To add to the difficulty is the fact that staff will have little data to utilize. What the WP did when the Chinook hatchery production was moved South is create totally new parameters resulting in a much different hatchery complex for Chinook. The fact that Mr. Herring, District 16 staffer, has done a lot of work on the numbers and has a real feel for what the true relationship is between numbers and the fish is a plus as this is going nearly impossible to sort out while maintaining harvest.

In 2020 the South Bay fisheries will also be drastically altered. The added Chinook hatchery production from the Southern hatcheries will be available with a favorable ratio of HOS & NOS. The downside is that the NOS population is rather small and is going to be very vulnerable to over fishing. Commercial fishers will have a substantial number of fish available for harvest but to access them the fleet will need to utilize tangle nets or the most selective gear that can be developed to be utilized. Every NOS mortality that the fleet can avoid allows it to access thousands more Chinook and Coho for harvest. From the start of the WP implementation the Commercial fleet has resisted utilizing selective gear with a few exceptions. If this course of action continues the Commercial fisher will force itself off the water as Chinook NOS population will not rebound but rather resume to decline in NOS spawners. This will result in limiting the Commercial fleets access to Coho also to a far greater degree than at the present time.

The issue surrounding the Willapa Chum population are steeped in history and environmental changes that have been experienced acerbated by over harvest. The Chum issue needs to given a complete review separate from this discussion in my view. I say this because my best guess is WDF&W will seek to lower the escapement goal rather than address past failings. It is easier to ignore a problem rather than take action to repair the damage done in the past.

Additionally the sport fishers that have traditionally fished T & U will be restricted by the loss of the Forks Creek production and small numbers of NOS & HOS impacts available for harvest. It is a fact that all fishers, be it sport or commercial, fish where the fish are. It should be expected that the sport fishers in the South Channel will increase dramatically in the first years after 2020 and this in itself will create ever greater conflict between sport and commercial fishers. Again the South Bay NOS Chinook population is a small one which will now have both Commercial and sport competing for the same limited number of NOS impacts as presently exist. Another way to look at the issue is that the vast majority of Chinook Willapa Bay hatchery production will only have half the NOR adults supporting harvest it enjoyed prior to 2020 with the conservation directives in the Willapa River.

The other reality is that the Commercial fleet is in reality two groups of fishers. The North end fishers from Tokeland, which are who the Commissioners usually see at meetings, and the Southern fishers. All are territorial, do not take intrusion by another fisher lightly, and only have the catching of a fish in common. The dislocation of the Northern Commercial fishers to the South Channel will be a issue as will migration of the majority of the sport fleet to the South Channel.

So here we are in 2018 arguing over the definition of terms and intent of the WP. Commissioners I urge you to do nothing. Intent or not the years prior to 2020 are, for lack of a better description, our training period. It is the time that staff, fishers and yes the Commission must develop the discipline to properly conduct harvest under very unfavorable conditions. Frankly Commissioners we are failing miserably and there will harsh consequences unless this changes. The agency knows this is coming and the lack of candor on this issue is appalling.

So again Commissioners I urge you to do nothing. we have two years to get our act together and any action by the commission will only make things worse. It is time for WDF&W staff to do their job and lead because in 2020 it will be a new world and as a citizen fisher I feel it would be of substantial benefit if we were actually prepared to face the coming challenges.

Sincerely,

As you say, WB Management is WDFW at its best. No Tribes, no listings (yet). It represents how they see an area should be managed.

Rivrguy -


WDFW told us this summer that 2018 was the last summer of 4 year returns from the larger Willapa plants. While there will be some 5 year-olds next year as you know 5 year-olds represent only a small portion of the returns. In other words in the 2019 season fishing in the Willapa channel will be down considerably.

The other issue rarely talked about with the new paradigm having most of the hatchery fishing going south it will be more difficult for the marine recreational fish to reach the fish. Especially if few of those southern bound fish penetrate deeply into T. Fishing in the southern channel will be much tougher. Further runs; especially for the smaller boats, a lot more grass (some days the center of Willapa Bay is essentially unfishable. In short we will likely see the demise of what once was the best small boat marine Chinook fishery in the State.

Curt

I worked for a guy whose go-to comment for ineptitude was "They could screw up a wet dream"...

Willapa Bay is one of many factors that has me feeling that WDFW is working itself toward irrelevancy. How far off are we from the point in time where state taxpayers conclude that it no longer makes sense to provide any general fund monies to the Department?

The license holders are coming that conclusion, too.

Meeting Change

Hi folks,

I apologize for the short notice but I have a personal conflict with the meeting scheduled for October 23. I am rescheduling that meeting to October 24. It will still be held at the Montesano Regional Office at 6pm. Once again, sorry for any issues that this may create. The website will be updated shortly with this change.
Thanks,

Chad Herring
South Coast Fishery Policy Analyst
Montesano Regional Headquarters
48 Devonshire Rd
Montesano WA, 98563
Office#:(360)249-1299
Cell #:(360)470-3410
Chad.herring@dfw.wa.gov

I pretty much outlined the outcome we've got now 5-6 years ago when the Naselle was chosen as primary. I was ignored.

Such an obvious and avoidable mistake.

The primary they chose is incompatible with fishing the bay for chinook in a meaningful way for most of the fleet.

The choice is simple, switch the primary back to Forks or end the fall chinook program. Unless of course your view is the fall chinook program is there just to support the Alaska/BC fisheries (which it clearly accomplishes).

I hesitate to get involved again. My last rodeo on this was such a huge waste of time. Any evidence they might listen this time around?

No idea on waste of time as it will OlY pulling the strings. You got it half right. If Willapa River is prime you have the same outcome due the straying issue. Think it through as your in the right church but wrong pew.

I will step up in the agency's defense for a brief moment.

When one considers that the principle objective of the policy is conservation/recovery of a self-sustaining wild chinook population, choosing Willlapa/Forks as the primary stream is still arguably the better choice in giving the agency the best opportunity for success.

That it comes at the expense of entrenched fisheries is a necessary consequence of reducing hatchery production to allow the wild component to flourish.

That would happen regardless of whether Naselle or Willapa was selected as primary. It's a necessary win-lose for those wishing to continue extracting chinook from the basin.

The "lose" side of that equation is the loss of entrenched rec fisheries launching out of Tokeland, Smith Creek, and South Bend.

If recs want to find the win for chinook, they will have to migrate into the south bay for that reward. Yeah it sucks to have to learn a new fishery, but the opportunity is definitely there. Intrepid anglers willing to do a bit of exploring WILL be rewarded, even if it means using new/different launch sites.

....

And just to be fair, let's suppose Naselle was selected primary. The agency would move the entire commercial fleet north to keep them off the Naselle fish. So while we would get to stay in the comfort zone of our traditional launch sites, rec and comm would be crammed into the same piece of water in the north bay, further exacerbating the existing gear conflicts between the two groups.

....


Nature of the beast. We would end up at the same destination either way..... only difference is we would maintain our comfort zone launching out of Tokeland/Smith/South Bend.

Eyefish,

Once again nice cheerleading for the dept. They definitely need help putting the lipstick on this pig.

Contrary to what you and Dave suggest. There was a choice, but the merits of Naselle vs Willapa were not even seriously debated. The freakin habitat wasn't even evaluated and compared. That decision was made politically behind closed doors, then we got a dog and pony show to justify that decision without any meaningful input from the public or advisors. We could rehash, but to what end? The status quo appears stuck now. Personally I would take the gear conflict over no meaningful fishery. With our current plan only the river anglers are going to have any opportunity going forward. The only place the rec fleet knows how to intercept those southbound fish is now closed to fishing . . . Its a managment mess.


Let's suppose the fleet does learn to cope with unfishable weeds half the time and figures out how to catch some fish in the south bay. Where are you going to launch 200 boats south of bay center? Surely WDFW isn't going to build new launches? Even if what the pipedream is were to come to pass in terms of a magical new fishery forming, there is no infrastructure to support it.

Poorly planned, poorly executed, and now were told it was the only decision that could have been made.

What a crock!

My educated guess is that the heart of the south bay fishery will end up somewhere halfway between Nahcotta and Bay Center and/or somewhere in the Naselle/Stanley Channel.

Marinas at Nahcotta and Bay Center will be the best access points to the Promised Land... with Palix and the Willapa Wildlife Refuge being secondary access points for smaller boats.

Yes... all a bit further to drive for the Pugetropolis folks, but certainly do-able.

Lost in the weeds here is that there is, has been, and probably never will be a goal to look at the ecosystem in WB, evaluate what species it can produce, and then manage for that.

For better or for worse, management is based on what fisheries it supports. Whether or not WB is really a Chinook watershed, the fish produced (at least in the hatcheries) feed "important" fisheries like BC and the coast.

It was, and is, always interesting to hear "manage for the fish", "do what the fish need" but it always carries a fishery component. But, nobody wants to talk about that. I like Riverguy's description of the separate groups of gill netters there. It is easy to see the political power plays.

Eyefish posted: "When one considers that the principle objective of the policy is conservation/recovery of a self-sustaining wild chinook population, choosing Willlapa/Forks as the primary stream is still arguably the better choice in giving the agency the best opportunity for success."

Ignoring for the moment Carcassman's excellent strong point that WB historically never was a Chinook ecosystem (it was far and away coho and chum dominant), let's examine the assertion that Willapa/Forks as primary over Naselle is the better opportunity for success. I don't see how this could be possible. My familiarity with the habitats throughout the WB watersheds is admittedly less than I would like, but I think Geoduck agrees that habitat quality in Naselle for natural Chinook production is better than the Willapa River.

Eyefish, I think you have agreed with me that naturally self-sustaining Tule Chinook recovery in the LCR tributaries is functionally impossible given the current habitat conditions in those streams and the prospective habitat conditions over the next 50 to 100 years. The Willapa River is the same. The lowland habitat areas are managed for intensive agriculture, and the uplands are in sustainable tree farm forestry management. This means that for the foreseeable future, stream channel simplification and heavy fine particle sedimentation that causes low egg to fry survival will preclude fall Chinook recovery to that natural self-sustaining level that includes production of harvestable numbers of adult fish.

Now, the Naselle River is hardly pristine, and ag and forestry are still the main land uses in that watershed as well. However, I think the basin's geomorphic character includes a higher average gradient and somewhat lower degree of sedimentation in the areas where Chinook would spawn. I don't know if the habitat quality is good enough to satisfy the recovery standard, but I think its probability is arguably better than that of the Willapa. If I am wrong about any of this, please do correct and educate me.

There are additonal practical considerations that argue against Willapa/Forks as primary. The Naselle hatchery has been problematic since it opened back in 1978 or 79. The weir is not successful in separating returning hatchery and "wild" Chinook. The Willapa/Forks hatchery has had significant improvements and is the best salmon fish culture station in WB. Closing the Naselle hatchery is in the best interests of WA taxpayers and fishing license buyers and would certainly facilitate designating Naselle as primary for natural Chinook production.

Which begs the question, why should any WB tributary be managed as "primary" for natural Chinook production when the WB is not ecologically oriented for or particularly suited to natural Chinook production?

So now I'm going to take a soapbox moment. Absent hatchery Chinook, there would be no commercial fishery for Chinook in WB because WB doesn't and cannot produce significant numbers of natural Chinook and especially it cannot do so at terminal harvest levels. So why even produce hatchery Chinook in WB? Most of the harvest accrues to BC (and possibly AK, but I think mainly BC). The welfare hatchery subsidy to the terminal commercial gillnetters has to come to an end some day. And with WDFW's ongoing and probably perpetual budget issues, ending or phasing out to end the subsidy is economically and socially justified.

If it pencils out, WDFW should culture hatchery Chinook in WB to support the terminal area recreational fishery. And it should do so at the best facility which is Willapa/Forks.

OK, off the soapbox.

Sg

Other than being spot on Salmo, I think that WDFW will continue Chinook production in WB, maybe even raise it, for two reasons. One would be to feed the BC fisheries and flood/cover/protect any wild fish. The more hatchery fish out there, the fewer wilds will be killed in marine mixed stock fisheries.

Then, too, we ramp up Chinook production for the SRKW. Since nobody that intercepts juvenile Chinook will quit fishing the voluntarily, we gain need to grow the pool.

Now, for my soapbox. Eliminate hatchery salmon production in WB, manage chum and coho at ecosystem escapement levels, and there will be hundreds of thousands to low millions of adult salmon entering the bay annually.

Well SG I will hop up on the box. I need to do a bit more but my thoughts are below.

I am writing on the issue of the Willapa review. Attached is a summary of the probable outcome of the current Willapa Management Policy ( WMP ) that I submitted to the Commission sometime back. Since that time the problems have gone from bad to worse as returning adults encountered ICH and very low flows resulting in a large mortality. This is not a passing thing but the likely outcome year after year which will create a nearly unmanageable outcome. The streams and facilities do not lend themselves to the approach taken in the WMP. To make matters worse the WMP was dependent on Naselle Hatchery Chinook staying but that was solved which while complying with HSRG resulted in a natural production dropping to unsustainable levels. Simply put the WMP is failing dramatically and drastic steps are required as this simple fact exist. Willapa estuary natural Chinook production is NOT large enough to the support almost any harvest and getting worse each generation. The results of the WMP has been to decimate the local communities dependant on the hatchery production. Willapa T&U areas were famous for great small boat fishers, your Mom & Pop fishers, and WDF&W has nearly destroyed it in the quest for the perfect solution.

To keep it brief I urge the consideration of the following actions.

1. Designate the Willapa River, the location of the Forks Creek Hatchery, as a sustaining stream and immediately return the Forks Creek production to 3.5 million smolt or greater if possible. This will return the staying to the previous rate but only the Willapa River has the ability to insure the returning adults survive. When as in all things the Forks Cr. facility closes it will take 3 to 4 generations but the natural genetics will reassert themselves.

Additionally I urge that as much of the Chinook eggtake at Naselle and Nemah hatcheries be transferred as soon as possible to Forks Cr to stave off the absolute collapse of the Willapa bay fisheries.

2. Designate the Naselle River as Chinook prime and reduce Chinook production to 350k to 450k. Develop a real strategy for the recovery of the Chinook population. The best genetically is to take a portion NOR returns ( wild ) rear and release unmarked so the returning adults will be passed upstream of the hatchery. As the NOR population increases it would allow for a larger eggtake and smolt releases until the population reaches the desired level then begin to reduce the supplementation until the population is a standalone wild fish population.

3. Reduce the Nemah Chinook smolt to the 350k to 450k. This is important as the Nemah and Naselle production would become the safety net for Forks Cr. Transferring eggs is not normally a good practice but Willapa is different. The entire Willapa estuary production wild or hatchery is genetically the same Naselle and Nemah rivers are the wrong place to do Chinook for harvest.

As the WMP review proceeds I urge the Director and Commission to seriously get involved. The WMP as currently written was full of good intentions that has fallen victim to unintended consequences and poor choices. In computer terms a hard reboot is needed if anything regarding hatchery production is to succeed.

I agree with Dave,

The Naselle is the obviously the superior habitat for chinook in the bay. That said, none of it resembles typical chinook habitat.

As Eyefish alluded earlier, the primary decision was really a political/management decision based on minimizing gear conflict. If the fish were a consideration, it was a weak plan from the start to let politics trump biology, several argued against it, but unfortunately politcal winds blow hard.

For what its worth the plan has worked in minimizing gear conflict, but that's a pretty low bar when you're eliminating fisheries by your management plan. The 2000-2008 era had minimal gear conflict in the north bay as the competing fisheries were segregated in time (Recs before sept 15, Nets after), for reasons unknown the political will to sustain this paradigm was lost.


Now we should correct course. Its time to stop trying to put a square peg in the round hole. I think Dave's plan above could accomplish what is needed. Alternatively, we need to abandon the idea of managing for a recreational priority in WB. What we're doing now will not sustain a rec fishery of any size and is not managing for any kind of recreational priority. The third option would be to abandon hatchery operations after over 100 years.

Gee whiz, if we here on PP can figure out and solve WB, why can't or won't WDFW?

The short answer is that the people with the power, and money, tell them what to do. Nobody on PP has any of that.

Here is a meeting change for the Willapa Review for folks that are interested. This link will get you the full process schedule. https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/wbsag/

I apologize for the short notice but I have a personal conflict with the meeting scheduled for October 23. I am rescheduling that meeting to October 24. It will still be held at the Montesano Regional Office at 6pm. Once again, sorry for any issues that this may create. The website will be updated shortly with this change.
Thanks,

Chad Herring
South Coast Fishery Policy Analyst
Montesano Regional Headquarters
48 Devonshire Rd
Montesano WA, 98563
Office#:(360)249-1299
Cell #:(360)470-3410
Chad.herring@dfw.wa.gov

Another point is that the Willapa hatchery has been supplementing the Naselle and Nemah hatcheries the past two years. Both rivers have had large die offs possibly because the fish enter the hatchery encampments a bit too early in the season when the temps are still too warm. The Willapa hatchery kings aren't so quick to the Forks hatchery and have had adequate broodstock numbers when it was time to spawn them. What is the logic of getting rid of it as the primary hatchery?

Possibly because the Willapa River is the best Chinook habitat in the watershed.

"Possibly because the Willapa River is the best Chinook habitat in the watershed."

C'man, I thought the general consensus here is that the Naselle is the better habitat for natural Chinook reproduction. I'm interested in knowing one way or the other because, when the current WB policy collapses the fishery, we have good information upon which to build a better management policy.

I should have said that they think it is best. I seriously doubt that any of those streams are really good Chinook streams so WDFW is mashing a square peg into a round hole.

Thanks C'man. I agree about none of the WB streams being well suited to Chinook production, only that the Naselle is the best of the lot. Historical fisheries data suggests that more WB Chinook landings were from dip ins than from indigenous WB Chinook stock. WB ecology is best suited to coho and chum salmon, so any agency efforts to manage for a naturally self-sustaining Chinook run will be a process of trying to pound that square peg into a round hole.

Just look to the original 2010 draft plan:

https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01656/

This plan was pulled for the development of the current plan, pretty much before the production changes had been realized, due to the fishery management changes (read allocation conflict) it entailed. But, the production programs and the population goals mirror some of the discussion on this thread.

This was also developed with the Willapa Advisors, albeit some of the membership was different...

The Willapa policy ended up being about where straying could be limited to meet HSRG requirements. All were told that this could not happen on Naselle so the Willapa prime met this by reducing production at Forks Cr. Well as things turned out staff & funding did solve the problem which just plain upended the ole cart. So now it is the thought that staying on the Naselle will be controlled which leaves the question. How does Willapa being prime benefit the fish or harvesters? The unsolvable problem of Naselle straying is being solved which completely upends the matrix and rationale that drove the thought process for stream designations. All bs aside the future of Willapa fisheries are at stake be it rec or commercials.


I find it ironic that staff struggled to meet exploitation rates, meet escapement objectives, and got slammed by ICH. Then the one thing that all were led to believe could not happen happened, they solved the problem with straying on the Naselle. Over goes the cart!

If WB is marginal for Chinook why are they trying to have wild Chinook at all?

"If WB is marginal for Chinook why are they trying to have wild Chinook at all?"

I think the stated reason is that WDFW was concerned that continuing to manage WB as a Chinook hatchery wipe out fishery could lead to NMFS listing WB "wild" Chinook under the ESA. And this led to some urgency to develop a manufactured population of naturally self-sustaining wild WB Chinook.

I bet a dollar to a doughnut hole that it isn't possible in the Willapa River in the forthcoming half century.

Since ESA listings for Chinook are based on the status of an Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) and Willapa Chinook are only a part of the Washington Coast Chinook ESU, its seems unlikely to me that Willapa problems by itself would result in an ESA listing. It would seem like other populations within the ESU would also need to be determined to be at risk. Doesn't seem like this is the case, for now anyway.

I think if NMFS water to list WB Chinook I would make them prove that wild native Chinook were there in anything more than marginal numbers. We know that Columbia fish dip in so catch data without supporting genetic information could be of no use.

Plus, "real" Chinook were large. A century of management had shrunk them, which makes them more amenable to smaller streams. It is possible that a century of making Chinook smaller has created a fish for WB.

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

November 8, 2018
Contact: Chad Herring, 360-249-1299

Public workshops scheduled on Willapa Bay salmon management

OLYMPIA – The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) will review the Willapa Bay salmon management policy during two upcoming workshops.

The policy is designed to help restore wild salmon runs and reduce conflicts between commercial and recreational fisheries in Willapa Bay, and enhance the economic well-being and stability of the recreational and commercial fishing industry in the state. The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission, which sets policy for WDFW, approved the plan in 2015 after significant public input.

At the workshops, state fishery managers will assess the outcomes of the policy, based on relevant data, said Chad Herring, WDFW fish policy lead for the south coast.

"Willapa Bay salmon fisheries are very popular and contribute significantly to the local economy," Herring said. "We need input from the public on the implementation and performance of the policy."

The workshops include discussion with Willapa Bay fishery advisors and an opportunity for public comment.

Both meetings are open to the public and will be held at the agency's regional office at 48 Devonshire Road in Montesano. The meetings are scheduled from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. on Nov. 17 and Dec. 15

More information about the policy and meetings can be found online at https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/wbsag/.

WDFW will provide updates to the Fish and Wildlife Commission in upcoming meetings. The commission is scheduled to take action on the policy in February. Commission meeting times and agendas can be found online at https://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings.html.

Belated WB fishing report. Don't feel too bad if you had a tough season out there for 2018.

Just in case anyone was wondering how the rest of the fleet did this past summer, Marine Area 2-1 rec CPUE data was presented today at the workshop.

It took on average 5.7 angler days to catch a king... and 13.5 angler days to catch a coho.

Catching up on some things and remembered this bit. At the last Willapa Advisers Willapa Policy Review meeting staff said that the Willapa prime was a pure political decision. Period, put a fork in it. To be honest few in the public have attended the meetings this time around and to be honest it matters little to this point. The review process has been about getting the numbers & presentation things correct so the agency does not have a Ron Warren moment at the Commission. If you recall he got nailed for …. incorrect information? They are planning on doing up options next so folks might want to pay a little attention now.

Dave,

I hope you're right.

Does that mean that Rec priority for Chinook is also back on the table?

Sure seemed like the rec priority for Chinook + the Naselle primary were linked politically in ways I could never figure out.

Maybe time to pay attention again, or is the fix already in on the next plan?

As I recall, there are issues with some local landowners on some rivers down there about rec access. They don't want recs fishing that river because of access, litter, and issues like that. Kinda NIMBY.

You know I do not know the outcome but the thing I do know is it will be Olympia making the decision and that means Ron Warren will pull the strings be it out of site. Doubt that leaves you feeling warm and fuzzy but it is the manner things are done. I doubt you lose the rec priority but you will lose the North end of the bay especially 2T and maybe U will be iffy. Not enough NOS spawners with small hatchery releases so the mix is such it will be a very limited impact number for the NOS.


As to the South end the same problem with the NOS adults and commercial and rec competing for a very limited impact of NOS ( wild ). This thing with the Willapa Policy is complex but bottom line is EVERYONE and especially the local folks are about to be just plain thrown out of the plane without a chute! Yeah it is probably time to get involved. Thing is the agency has never told the folks just what fisheries will look like. They can use the harvest model and simply use past data of similar years to show big, middle, small runs based on the new parameters the Willapa Policy and hatchery productions dictate. So far throughout the Willapa processes they have.... working..... ah declined to do that. One thing for sure it is going to be so far past ugly that is hard to see many viable fisheries surviving, most certainly T & U with the Willapa inriver competing for very limited NOS impacts.

Yup you should get involved. This has been and will continue to be a purely political decision. As I am editing I see CM's post and this. 2023 the Naselle weir is supposed to be redone to stop all straying. The Naselle will be down (salmon) to Coho fishing and just how much the NOS can take as to freshwater fishing will be limited. Several of the land owners who regard the Naselle as their private stream are about do a number to their shorts on down the road.

Any of you that planned on setting in on the Willapa Advisers meeting yesterday and showed up you have my apologies. It seems the meeting yesterday was cancelled without notice, well to the public anyhow as they did tape a notice on the door. I thought it was just a couple of guys besides my self that took the time to show up but my mail says a couple more. So bottom line I have zero idea as to what the reasons were. Sorry about that but we checked and the meeting notice stayed the same on the WDFW website. I suppose it is just more of the same in this Willapa debacle.

Just when you think you have reached the bottom of the barrel you find a door leading lower.

FYI, this e-mail notice did go out to Advisors and staff 5 days prior to the original meeting...

Hello Everyone,

Just wanted to give folks and update on some scheduling changes to upcoming advisory meetings for the Willapa Bay Policy review. We have a meeting scheduled for this upcoming Saturday, December 15. The Fish and Wildlife Commission will also be meeting this weekend and have scheduled the Columbia River Salmon Management Policy review for Saturday. In order to not have advisors have to choose between providing input on Columbia River policy and/or attending the Willapa Bay Advisory meeting, this Saturdays meeting has been cancelled. I will be providing a briefing to the Fish Committee on Wednesday at 3pm in the Director’s conference room. This briefing will focus on the metrics that have been utilized to review the performance of the policy previously and asking for commissioner’s feedback and additional metrics to include in the review. I have attached a link to that information below. Also, the WBSAG meetings scheduled for January 8 and January 22 will be moved back by one day. Those meetings will now occur on January 9 and January 23, the meeting location and times have not changed.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2018/12/agenda_dec1418.html

Thanks,


Chad Herring

...

Rescheduling the meeting gave me and another WB Advisor the opportunity to attend the CR public hearing in Olympia. Unfortunately, the general public interested in WB was NOT given notice of the schedule change.

Yup Francis they did according to my brother. They did not notify everyone on the sign in and IT WAS A MEETING POSTED FOR THE PUBLIC to attend. That the Advisers got notified is fine but then you might say the preferential treatment given was a double standard at gutter level to be sure. The other side is why in the hell did they schedule it on a Commission Meeting date. No more excuses for these folks not being able to perform the simplest task correctly.

Glad I was sick, had planned to show up, but would have been highly steamed to make that long of a drive.

I think this makes it pretty clear about the attitude to public engagement.


I'll reserve my commentary for the commission.

The attached document is for the Willapa Policy. The best I can tell is all the items are valid discussion points to be discussed and should be of concern! Not because of what the conversation is but rather what is not being put forward for discussion. What has not ever been clearly defined by WDF&W is just what all the words do the Willapa Community dependant on the hatchery production and it is effect long term. It is the designation of Willapa Prime and Naselle contributing for Chinook that is at the heart of the matter. The North Bay fisheries in T&U are going be limited by a 90% reduction in Forks Cr hatchery so very little Rec or Commercial opportunity will exist after 2019. This leaves the South end of the bay the primary fishing zone and this is problematic.

Using the Run Reconstruction tab in the preseason forecast model it is possible to get a look at the depth of the issue. One has to look to the Naselle NOS ( wild ) Chinook spawners in 2017 which were 1172 NOS and 403 HOS. Previous 3 years were much worse with a low of 483 NOS and high of 1048 HOS, hatchery strays to the gravel. At this point I would like to point out that the through some outstanding work WDF&W will eliminate the vast majority of staying with a new weir by 2023.

So let us assume the success rate for natural spawners pairs is the same and use the number of 1172 NOS for starting point. With the allowable exploitation rate of 14% the policy requires the number of impacts allowed would be 164 total for all users. In a year which the low 403 is your number that dictates 56.5 allowable impacts. Now both numbers are after harvest and can go up or down depending on how harvest is managed and other problems such as the ICH outbreak which will kill both HOS & NOS spawners as a disease cares little as to origin.

It is my contention that unless WDFW just ignores the policy there is not a path for inriver Rec, bay fisheries, and commercials to all fish and some years anyone to fish terminal Willapa Bay. There will be plenty of hatchery clipped fish in the mix but so few NOS adults that one could look at many thousands of adults returning with almost no NOS impacts to allow any substantial Willapa Bay terminal impacts to fish with.

To be sure those of us who travel around fishing it will be a another fishery gone and go somewhere else but the Willapa community will be stuck and take the biggest hit.

I guess for myself all I can say is this is not right. You folks in the Willapa Community need to get involved again and be a REC or Commercial your about to take a hit of epic proportions. You folks need to bury the hatchet and come together for your community while there is something left of your fisheries.

Here is the info in the link Doc posted up. Hey Doc sorry about snapping at you. This crap is making me one grouchy SOB anymore.

Willapa Bay Salmon Management Policy (C-3622) Comprehensive Review Fish and Wildlife Commission – Fish Committee Meeting
Director’s Conference Room, December 13, 2018

The Willapa Bay Salmon Management Policy (C-3622) was adopted by the Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC) in June 2015. The adaptive management section of Policy C-3622 directed staff to provide a comprehensive review on the implementation and performance of the policy upon the completion of phase one (e.g. 2019). The review will focus on whether the provisions of the Policy were implemented and whether the stated purpose and objectives of the Policy were successfully achieved.

The intent of this review was to assist the Commission in their evaluation of a) whether the Policy was successful in achieving the stated objectives, principles, and provisions; b) areas where the Policy failed or has not been working well, and c) to provide information that might help explain reasons why these potential outcomes may have occurred. The intent can be abbreviated as follows: Has the Policy been implemented as written, and what has occurred as a result of Policy changes?

Below is a synopsis of guidance provided in the policy that staff will be reporting on in the final policy review presentation. This guidance 5 categories: General Fisheries Management, Chinook Management, Coho Management, Chum Management, and Adaptive Management.

General Fisheries Management
• Prioritize restoration and conservation of wild salmon
• Work with partners to protect and restore habitat productivity
• Implement improved broodstock management
• Investigate and promote the development and implementation of alternative selective gear
• Work through the Pacific Salmon Commission to promote conservation objectives
• Monitoring, sampling and enforcement programs to account for species impacts
• In-season management actions to meet conservation and management objectives
• Transparency of salmon management and catch accounting
• Improved fishery management and technical tools
• Promote mark-selective fisheries

Chinook Management
• Population designations - Willapa River; primary, Naselle River; contributing
• 20% impact rate on Willapa and Naselle River natural origin Chinook
• Prioritize recreation fishing opportunities
• Alternative gear set aside
• Timing of commercial fisheries
• Hatchery production

Coho Management
• Population designations
• Achieve aggregate spawner goal
• Prioritize commercial fishing opportunities

Chum Management
• Population designations
• Achieve aggregate spawner goal
• Prioritize commercial fishing opportunities
• 10% impact rate cap

Adaptive Management
• Conduct annual fishery management review
• Improve in-season management
• Review spawner goals
• Comprehensive hatchery assessment
• Ocean ranching report

If the hatchery production of fall chinook salmon is not moved back to the Willipa the Willipa bay will be closed every year going forward to fishing for fall chinook. There is not one river in the state that has recovered to fishable populations with native chinook salmon by reducing hatchery chinook salmon. We have Chad Herring to thank for this and if this prediction is correct he should loose his job. Or better yet, willingly resign for effectively ruining a great run of fish that has been in place and functioning effectively for over 90 years.

Duh, tell us more......where is this "great run of fish", where has it been in place????


Do enlighten the readers of this post !!!!! Make it a Merry Christmas for all who have followed this thread...…

You might not know since sleds cannot access the area. It involves a lot of hiking. Just look at the escapement numbers. The rivers should have never been shut down this past fall. Mr. Herring was responsible for that horrible decision and there should be consequences otherwise he will continue to make these poor choices in the future. Moving the fish to the other two rivers is one of the biggest mistakes I have ever seen.

One more time it is the NOS ( wild ) spawners that are the limiting factor. You can have 20K hatchery and the NOS be down and you do not fish. Chad had little choice but to follow the policy which is what he is supposed to do.

". . . little choice but to follow the policy . . ."

Which begs the question, what if the policy is ill suited to the natural and human-modified ecology of the Willapa basin? Is it the intent of WDFW to insist that a square peg be pounded into a round hole when there is no magic "MAKE IT FIT" button?

That is the purpose of this thread which is for everyone to know why and what is being done. Staff should follow any policy to the letter. It is the policy level in Olympia that make final decisions, Chad did not fail on this issue, now commercial harvest impacts being greater than required maybe not so much. Regardless it is Ron Warren that owns this mess in Willapa not the local staff.

I am just glad that the naturally-spawning fish there don't know that its poor habitat. I have seen 40lb plus "natives" spawning in smaller streams in the basin where there are no hatcheries. And go way up on the one river with poor habitat when its crowded with Kings.

Apparently one of the hatcheries is being turned over to the raising of "Dog" Salmon, when most of the smaller streams there are prime habitat and I've personally seen thousands of them naturally spawning. I also heard that WDFW were going to throw sportsmen a bone with a new run of fish from one of the hatcheries.

We can (and should) complain about policies with which we disagree and/or are not achieving the intended goals and work toward changing those policies. It is not only wrong to criticize staff for properly implementing policy but is counter-productive and undermines our credibility when we complain that staff is not properly implementing policy. Can’t have it both ways!

Can you remind me which policy Chad was following when he shut down the river only to have nearly 3000 surplus fish return to the Hatchery? He is very out of touch with what is going on in the river. He has very limited experience here to make those kinds of decisions. His experience is more on the east side and it does not apply here.

The way the numbers work is you have an estimate of run size (forecast or ISU), escapement goal, and estimates of harvest/encounters. In the pre-season, a mortality level for the NOR Chinook was set. When reached, based on either dead fish in the boat or x% of encounters, the fishery closes.

Management is based on the best numbers available at the time the decision is made. You have to have a reason to open a fishery. There could 15,000 "extra" hatchery fish in the river but of you are managing for wild fish then if you can't prove there aret any left to kill then you are done. That is the problem with having commingled hatchery and wild fish and bring to "protect the wilds".

Back in the 70s WDF was faced with the twin problems of bing unable to meet wild Chinook escapement goals and having excessive hatchery surpluses. Their solution? Lower the goal. They patted themselves on the back for eliminating the twin problems of surplus and under escapement.

Good explanation carcassman but I don't think that you are familiar with what has happened to this system based on what you wrote as it does not address what happened this past fall. Are you in California?

Nope, I am not in California. Now. While I will admit that I don't know exactly what happened in WB this year I have been to enough goat rodeos to know how the lower-level folks manage salmon.

During my career I have been involved in the front-line, day to day management decision-making process (and pre-season) for somewhere between 75 and 100 million adult salmon. I think I know how the game was played.

CM, Elijah seems to have a difficult time understanding that NOS impacts dictate how seasons are set. I thought you and Riverguy did a good job of explaining it. It doesn't matter how many hatchery fish are in a system. If the NOS impacts are met, then no fishing. That is how the game is played.

That's it. Ideally, when the harvest of the weakest stock is taken, it is then shut down. Which is why the decision to manage for wild stocks or blow them away is so important. Also, why the escapement goal is important. The lower you take the goal, more you can fish. For a while.

CM, thanks again.

Lifter, you also have no idea what happened on this system this year. You sound like a department employee just spouting the same reply over and over and not addressing the issue at hand. Do your research before you reply at this thread instead of just trying to personally attack. I get the feeling that you do not even know what happened on this system this year.

Elijah...

L99 and CM have it correct. Impacts to WILD chinook were capped at 20% during pre-season planning.... and in-season restrictions occurred to help insure that objective.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2018/02/feb_1618_b_wb_guidance.pdf

We currently lack a sufficiently selective fishery capable of fully exploiting hatchery surpluses WITHOUT exceeding the impact cap mandated by Policy.

BOTTOM LINE... the entrenched fisheries can't possibly access all of the available hatchery production without wiping out the wilds. Not because I said so, but because it IS so.

Thanks Doc,
I wish he would understand. It is not difficult. You, CM and Riverguy have all tried to explain it to him. He is just frustrated I guess.

No Francis, all the of you have it wrong. I know you have your big fancy sled and you do not fish the rivers so you are out of touch. Please go back and read the reason for action under the closure and tell me what it says. I know that you are also against Hatchery fish and you drank the Kool-Aid a long time ago. Hopefully can still recover from it.

I'll bite. It says returns have been lower and they risk not making egg take. Then it reopens to coho only once they go out a "broodstock" enough fish to make egg take. That seems to be an additional reason for additional closures. The fishery remained constrained by wild fish even after egg take was acheived, otherwise they would've open kings again.

And, on a typical year, WB has far more hatchery fish available harvest than there are wild impacts available to prosecute the fisheries. Where is my analysis off?

It's interesting how you reject how Policy dictates how this fishery is prosecuted. As Rivrguy likes to say, it is what it is. Like it or not, that's the baseline schematic for operating the fishery.

But 2018 also presented unique challenges. North migrating chinook stocks were depressed everywhere... and WB was no exception. Marine area catches were dismal, and the real-time returns to the hatchery racks in-season were lagging significantly.... even after the first 2 rain events of September.

Even though staff knew some undetermined number of fish had already escaped the marine area and were staging in the lower tidewater sections of the WB tribs, they were NOT confident in just how many.... so the precautionary approach ruled the day to help ensure there would be sufficient escapement for hatchery brood.

The third rain (which happened immediately after announcing the closure) would eventually move the fish to the hatchery racks. Once brood was assured, fishing re-opened in sequential fashion, albeit WITHOUT chinook retention.

That there would ultimately be a large surplus of hatchery chinook turned out to be a HUGE blessing. Nemah experienced a massive adult kill... pre-spawn mortalities... due to Ichthyophthirius or "ICH" for short. Virtually the entire adult broodstock was lost.

Surplus eggs from the other facilities had to be brought in to backfill the deficit at Nemah. In the end, Advisors were told chinook egg-take objectives at each facility were ultimately fulfilled.

With chinook spawning now complete, a reasonable run size estimate can be made, and we will probably know at the next Advisor meeting whether the 20% impact cap was satisfied.

Way back when WDF would restrict fisheries in the ocean in order meet escapement needs. Then, if anywhere on the coast escapement was exceeded there was hell to pay because those surplus fish were wasted and could have been caught.

In the long run, mixed stock fisheries of any kind are hard to manage. Mixed as in hatchery/wild or (say) chum/steelhead in Nisqually. Whatever you do, one run gets under fished and one gets overfished.

Well eyefish, I am glad that you actually took the time to figure out why the closure was in effect. It was not for the NOS as you had mentioned earlier. I do not reject that and I have no problems with that. But I have problems with is the Fisheries biologist being out of touch with what is going on in the river. There were plenty of kings in the river if they would have actually surveyed how many fish were in the river and done an accurate job at that. They have adequate technology to figure that out these days but were too lazy or inexperienced to do so.
But more importantly let me ask you where did those extra supplemental fish come from for the Nema? Did they come from the same river and which they have reduced the plants tenfold? How do you think that will play out in the coming years with the continued die off on the Nemah due to high temperatures and low water conditions in August since you are so educated? They will not have any eggs to draw from and as a result they will shut down the Fisheries indefinitely. Nice of you to defend them and their actions. I hope we can hold you as accountable as we would hold them when this happens

I seriously doubt anybody is actually defending WDFW's management scheme. They are explaining what happens when they put it in place.

What is being proposed for WB is defended here, at least what I have seen. But, once they make a decision then folks understand the outcome.

Elijah:

Gota ask.…..who are you????? Where do you live? What is your educational background? Do you have an idea of a effective way, to catch hatchery fish and not impact the native fish? Do impart your "words of wit" or pull the plug on that computer....

You act like you have lots of answers.....I see you have made 21 posts on this forum. There are people making these posts, that have years of posting here, thousands of hours of attending "fishery meetings", many have advanced college degrees......some have worked their entire careers in fisheries.


It will be nice to have you come to the NOF meetings.....they need to have people from the general public, that have all the answers.

Drifter it is people like you who are the problem and are not open to change. You assume that just because someone has a degree that they know how to best manage a fishery. That is obviously not the case with the wdfw. Furthermore if you think more posts on this website site makes you someone then I feel sorry for you. Can you point out where I said that I have all the answers? I disagree with the way that things are being run on at least three items that I feel are significant and being overlooked.
Nearly 100 Years of operation on this Hatchery would likely result in no true native fish left. We can argue about that and what is in fact a native fish but you cannot argue with the results that this Hatchery has produced for nearly 100 years. One answer would be to have a wier in place. But definitely not to do what they are doing right now with the reallocation of plants to the southern Rivers. What have you brought to the table?

I think it it is height of arrogance and stupidity to question what folks who have spent hundreds of hours of non-paid time trying to help the situation "bring to the table". If you are so determined to call out volunteers then you NEED to go to management meetings and find out what is going on and see the limiting factors that we have to deal with. Otherwise you are just running your mouth on a social forum, lots of lazy folks do just that. Go to a meeting and put a face on the folks that you criticize. It ain't about how many posts someone makes, it's what they "bring to the table", which is a LOT more then you do. Bob

You know that is the first thing you posted that looks to be somewhat based on something that is fact based, maybe. The thing is WDF&W has never and I mean never told the Willapa community exactly what the Willapa Policy does to their fisheries. So folks roam around with views driven by what WDF&W did and told them was OK and correct for years.

My views are known but let me say this. You do not like last year? Then just wait because last year will look like fluff and stuff compared to the new normal for Willapa which is headed for hatchery production for the marine fisheries and limited to no terminal Chinook harvest.

Oh as to the lots of fish in the river, next year you will have the 5 year old returns of the Forks Cr releases and the new 300K ( 90% reduction)and then only in 2020 the returns on 300K. So let your heart not worry the lots of fish problem will soon be solved in the North end as you will have very few NOS or harvestable Chinook. Problem solved WDFW style!

As to the lotsa fish discussion, we used to walk 100% of the anadromous zones of the two watersheds we were studying weekly, September-June, doing spawner surveys. Even though we had traps on the streams and knew to the fish how many were up there, we walked to get spawn timing and distribution.

One November ('79, I believe), it got damn cold. Creek temps were below 32 degrees and flows dropped as water converted to ice and stopped flowing. Every week from late November to late January we counted 200 coho in a single pool under a large alder tree. If that was the only place we looked, "the creek was plugged with fish". When it finally thawed and flows bumped up, 200 coho came out from under the roots, went upstream, spawned and died. Point being that unless you look at the whole stream, unless you have previous year's data, what you have is bunch of fish in hole .

Not saying that WDFW has enough staff out there looking; in WB they have a lot of streams to look at on any one day. But they should have an Institutional Memory backed by data to at least suggest what was going on.

Barb sent this update on the Willapa review out so I thought I would post it up. Several folks have asked me on just what they are supposed to comment on and I have no idea. The process has been a Adviser meetings with time to comment at the end for public comment but NOT participate. No solid proposals or options fully developed but rather fact checking and personal views.


To the question of whether or not the agency or Commission will take public input on anything within the Willapa Policy before any action is or is not taken, no idea at this point.


As to the question is this just a dog and pony show. Yes and no. Yes it has in the sense that it has been structured around the Advisers processes which by design limit active public participation. No in that a real effort has been made to insure the information is correct and not biased with a decent effort to provide access to the information via the WDF&W website. I say that with this one critical exception, at no time during the development or in this review has WDF&W told the Willapa community just what this policy does to their communities. Rec, commercial, inriver, are all going to be severely impacted and depending on location have a strong possibility of being eliminated.


From my perspective I suggest folks start asking the hard questions about the future of the Willapa fisheries while you still have time to do so whatever your views are.







Hi All, just wanted to forward this out to everyone so you have a chance to review and comment on the attached document if you would like.

As a reminder, we have two meetings scheduled on January 9th and 23rd. Here is a link to the advisory group page on our website https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/wbsag/.

Thank you.
Barbara

The next Willapa meeting is here and staff sent out a substantial notification with attachments. You can e mail Barbara.mcclellan@dfw.wa.gov if you did not get the notice and feel the need.


Additionally some have questions on the Spring Chinook thing that is said to be happening. As I recall Forks Cr Hatchery has about 500K of Kalama Springers on station. As I understand it all processes were followed and approvals necessary. This is ( may be a bit fuzzy here ) to be a ongoing thing based upon surplus eggs being available. Will this work? No idea but it will only produce a small return, based upon stream of origin performance, of around 1/3 of a percent. 1200 to 1400 adults terminal Willapa with the usual conflicts around harvest impacts on other species.

Also the question around why this was not fully explained to the Willapa Community. No idea as to motives by WDFW but I would say they probably feel that the Adviser Process meets all obligations to all users and the Willapa Community. Remember folks WDFW hides in plain sight and does believe that not providing information that would lead one to a different conclusion than they desire is a acceptable way to conduct business. They are a government agency and it is what it is.



From Staff:
In case you are planning to attend tomorrow night’s (01/09/18) Willapa Bay salmon advisory meeting here in Montesano at 6 p.m. or if you are just interested in the documents.


Subject: WBSAG meeting 1-9-2019 materials

Hello everyone,

Just a reminder about our upcoming WBSAG meeting on Wednesday, January 9 at 6pm at the Montesano Regional Office. I have also attached a couple of files that will be used in our discussion. The first file “Report Card for WB policy review” is a preliminary look at the implementation of the goals and objectives in the Willapa Bay Salmon Management Policy utilizing the “stop-light” paradigm from the Columbia River Policy review. The second file is a pdf of a presentation to discuss the performance of the policy since implementation. I am not planning on producing an agenda for this meeting as most of our time will be spent reviewing and taking feedback on these two documents. If there are some additional topics folks would like to discuss, we can set some time aside at the end of the meeting.

Thanks,
Chad Herring
South Coast Fishery Policy Lead
Montesano Regional Headquarters
48 Devonshire Rd
Montesano WA, 98563
Office#:(360)249-1299
Cell #:(360)470-3410
Chad.herring@dfw.wa.gov


barbara.mcclellan@dfw.wa.gov

Perhaps the intent of the Springers is to increase SRKW food. The earlier return might add more for whales, with anything added being "more". Perhaps no real intent to have a fishery but rather a place to rear the surplus eggs.

I don't believe the intent is to do so much for the Orcas. Rather to ensure continued commercial harvest in Northern waters.

I do know that in the past WB hatcheries were proposed to be used to feed Canadian fisheries. There is an actual rhyme and reason for it. If the Northern Interceptions are numerically capped, and the Northern managers don't accidentally exceed caps (management imprecision) then the more hatchery fish we can send up there the more wilds we will get back by swamping the fishery. Lots of ifs in all that.

Here are my comments on the Willapa Policy and honestly I think I am looking though the rosy red glass as it will probably be worse than I think in the future unless the Commission acts and soon!

My name is XXX and we have spoken in the past. I am writing this in regard to the Willapa Policy. Shortly the Willapa review for 2018 will be completed and frankly I am deeply concerned that nothing will change. The best I can tell is that the main focus for the agency is the 20% or 14% harvest impact which to be honest is smoke and mirrors because it simply does not matter.

I have attached a preseason run forecast for Willapa for 2018 with the RR tab by system and I urge you to look to the RR by system tab. You will see the following for the Naselle River.
2014 975W 4150 H .81% straying
2015 483W 1048H .685 % straying
2016 597W 1786 H .749% straying
2017 1172W 403 H .256% straying
2018 499W passed upstream and 244W into the hatchery brood. The RR ( run reconstruction ) is not available yet but the 499 is the escapement minus the staying but I assume it will be similar to 2017 at about .256 straying rate.

Mr. XXXX the returning adults off of 483( assuming they reproduce themselves and some for harvest which is debatable ) is so low that at 14% it is a 67 allowable impact and 20% is 97 allowable impacts. This the total allowable Naselle W impacts for all the Willapa terminal fisheries. Sir I doubt you can even fish for Chinook in the Willapa estuary in the future and to further complicate the issue look to the 244 into the hatchery brood ( if similar to last year ) which will take away any gains to the natural spawners are able to produce and I doubt there will many gains but rather simply hold the Naselle River at, give or take, right where we are now.

When the Commission adopted the Willapa Policy I advocated splitting it into two regions, North and South, and manage them separately but the policy as adopted opted for the current policy. I did not support the concept but accepted it for this one and only reason which revolved around this simple statement by staff. " We cannot stop the straying of hatchery Chinook on the Naselle." For myself I simply accepted it and basically shut my mouth because if that was the case the straying would support the NOS . That was a serious case of bad judgment. I say this because now we are told the straying has been stopped ( see RR by system tab ) which means a hybrid hatchery stock, that is the poster child for what a hatchery stock, is now a standalone population. the simplest way to grasp the gravity of the situation is to do a simple exercise. If stream XX has a escapement of 8000 of which 6000 are hatchery strays and 2000 wild ( this is similar to the Naselle ) and you now reduce the straying from 80% to 25% you end up with 2500 W & H spawning naturally. I cannot see any way that 2500 adults will produce what 8000 previously did when all H & W are a hatchery hybrid regardless if it has fin or is clipped, they are the genetically the same fish.

The actions taken in the Willapa Policy and the agencies implementation and actions since resulted the total destruction of both commercial and recreational harvest. Simply put sir this is a scorched earth attempt to save a wild salmon that is not a wild salmon, that has little or no chance to remotely succeed with current marine harvest by Canada & BC, and if by some wild chance that the Naselle achieved escapement it will take three generations ( 15 years ) to stabilize as a naturally spawning hatchery fish, and over a hundred years or more to develop genetics that tuned to the environmental conditions that are the Naselle River.

The numbers presented by the RR dictate a very grim picture for the next five years regardless of any action the agency or Commission take. Each year the Commission fails to act simply adds another year to the pain. So when does the Commission address the issue? Now or five years, maybe ten, maybe never. Just when is the Commission or staff going to tell the Willapa Community just what WDF&W under the auspice of the Commission has done to their cherished fisheries in the name of preserving the natural spawning Chinook which do not truly exist.

It is time to fix this thing and it needs to be done now. Options are available but the current policy has failed miserably. WDF&W has went out of their way to insure that the local community did not and does not understand the true dimensions of this fiasco. The dishonesty has been and still is one most unbelievable I have seen in my 70 years and it needs to stop. Whatever the outcome honesty and true transparency needs to be restored by WDF&W to the Willapa Policy conversation.

The Commission needs to find a way to address the failure of the policy to accomplish the simplest task in a meaningful manner. The Commission needs to address this issue in a serious manner and in simple terms fix the bloody thing. The Willapa Policy as executed has not and will not help the natural Chinook but it succeeded in destroying the Willapa fisheries. If that is the Commission's description of success then I doubt much of a future exist for any fisheries in Washington State be it commercial, tribal or recreational.

Time for "Occupy Willapa?"

WB should be the poster child for how to properly manage WA anadromous salmonids, hatchery and wild. No ESA listings. Yet. No Co-Managers so outside approval not needed. There should be no reason why WB can't be a showcase, or even a study area, for how to recover depressed stocks, recover habitat, run hatcheries, have wild stocks, have fisheries.

It seems as if WDFW does not want to rock the boat for the rest of the state's management.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2019/02/feb0819_14_presentation.pdf

The link is to the Willapa presentation for the Commission this coming Saturday. Now compare this to the reality of the numbers that I have posted that are not mine but WDF&W's. Any recognize a dog & pony show?

Maybe we need that subduction zone quake, centered real close to WB, to go off and generate a huge tsunami, among other things. Maybe the rapid reconstruction of the bay and estuary, plus the decades long rebuilding of infrastructure, might leave the fish alone for a while and they could sort it out. People sure can't. Or won't.

These comments to the Commission were forwarded to me. This gentleman and myself differ on issues at times but he is one I have the greatest respect for as he always tried to do right by fish & users. A quality seldom seen anymore.


Dear Commissioners
My name is XXXX and I have sat on the WDFW Chehalis and Willapa Basin Advisor Committees representing the recreational fisher since their inception, stepping down in 2017 due to my wife’s health issues. I have testified at numerous of your meetings in the past. Here I sit at 3AM this morning writing my comments to you, where I could not sleep because of the dire decline of fisheries in this state, and I had to get my thoughts put out, otherwise I would be guilty of being the quiet minority.

My concern now is the Willapa Management Policy, which is directed by the Hatchery and Fishery Reform Policy that was implemented in 2009. In my years of sitting on this advisory committee, I and others have voiced our opinion to WDFW staff’s direction of management in that it was not working. To their credit, they were working within the direction guidelines of HSRG. But, that direction has ruined one of the greatest recreational salmon fishing areas on the Pacific coast. It has killed businesses in Tokeland and devastated the recreational and commercial fisheries in that area.

Taken from this policy, -- “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. Where consistent with this conservation objective, the policy also seeks to maintain or enhance the economic well-being and stability of the commercial and recreational fishing industry in the state, provide the public with outdoor recreational experiences, and an appropriate distribution of fishing opportunities throughout the Willapa Bay Basin.”
This above policy has not worked, and as I understand, both HSRG and WMP are now under review. I urge you to carefully investigate beyond WDFW’s recommendations for the review/revision of the above policies.

If this was a private business and things were sliding downhill at the rate this fishery has, management/ownership would have re-evaluated it a long time ago. I have seen a remiss in WDFW upper level management, for not recognizing this issue and bringing it forward to you, our Commission long before now. At the last advisory meeting in Montesano 1-23-2019, every advisor spoke up about it not working. WDFW staff admitted they were using flawed data in the computer model that is GOD in this instance. I, as a non-member now, also spoke out during the public comment period. My thoughts were basically, “HSRG management has killed the Willapa fishery. It is past time to review it, and if at all possible rescind it on appropriate watersheds in this state, namely the Willapa and Cowlitz basins where there are no genetic WILD salmon stock left anymore, and under it’s management the production of hatchery fish has been lowered to meet the HSRG requirements. A way better and cheaper idea would be to turn these basins into hatchery management only.” Just the word CONSERVATION scares me as it will always take something away from us all.

Don’t get me wrong in thinking that I am anti-commercial in this area. We need the commercial fleet if hatchery production is increased to bring back our fishery. It has been my observation that LESS than 10% of any fish are a willing biter for the recreational fisher. We recreationals CAN NOT catch anywhere close to 50% of the allocated fish even if the season was lengthened and given a VERY GENEROUS bag limit. The commercial fleet is needed HERE as a mop-up to keep down the hatchery surplus returns.

One example of HSRG malfunction is when WDFW changed the river designations and made the Willapa River as PRIMARY. This river has no weir, nor hatchery on it, therefore CAN NOT control any fish passage. Natural and Hatchery fish can spawn together in this whole river (which the biologists consider a NO-NO). Forks Creek hatchery is approximately 26 miles upriver from the mouth of the Willapa and only attracts it’s output of fish, along with some strays. In designating the Willapa primary to qualify under HSRG, WDFW cut Forks Creek hatchery Chinook production from near 3.5 million to 345,000, which brought the desired WILD numbers into line. They then also changed the basin to Aggregate designation, which allowed some rivers to fall way below required returns. And they called it MANAGEMENT ?

I could go on and on as to examples but do not want to burden you with an old man rambling on. If you have a problem, you can’t just try to throw money in that area and hope it will improve. With the state of affairs now, our legislature is getting tired of everyone repeatedly asking for a handout. In my mind, the problem is pretty clear, let’s solve the problem. The issue is that I will not live long enough to see any results.

Meeting canceled folks:

Important Message – The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission meeting scheduled for Saturday, February 9, 2019 has been cancelled due to the expected inclement weather. The Commission meeting on Friday, February 8th is still scheduled as planned. Please see the attached agenda for further information.

Tami Lininger, Executive Assistant
Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission
1111 Washington Street SE, Olympia WA 98501 (office)
Post Office Box 43200 Olympia, WA 98504-3200 (mailing)
Email: commission@dfw.wa.gov or tami.lininger@dfw.wa.gov
WEB: http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/commission
Phone: (360) 902-2267

Barb sent this out for Willapa & the NOF bit. As to the Willapa Policy I have not seen anything of earth shattering importance. Wait until after the Commission conference call I guess.


Hi Everyone, We just wanted to send out a list of the upcoming meetings that will be associated with this year’s 2019 North of Falcon (NOF) salmon season setting process for Willapa Bay.

2019 NOF Forecast Meeting Feb. 26, 2019 Montesano City Hall 6 p.m. – 8 p.m.
(Willapa Bay & Grays Harbor combined) 112 N. Main St., Montesano, WA
· 6 p.m. Willapa Bay
· 7 p.m. Grays Harbor

Willapa Bay NOF Advisory Mtg Mar. 4, 2019 Raymond Elks Club 6 p.m. – 8 p.m.
(open to the public) 326 3rd St., Raymond, WA

Willapa Bay NOF Public Mtg Mar. 27, 2019 Raymond Elks Club 6 p.m. – 8 p.m.

Willapa Bay NOF Advisory Mtg Apr. 9, 2019 Raymond Elks Club 6 p.m. – 8 p.m.
(open to the public)


The Willapa Bay Forecast Meeting and the Willapa Bay NOF Public Meeting listed above as well as the full 2019 North of Falcon Public meeting schedule (all other statewide public meetings for Coastal, Puget Sound and Columbia River) can be found at https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/northfalcon/.

The Willapa Bay advisory meetings can be found at https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/wbsag/.

If you would like to provide any comments regarding the 2019 North of Falcon relating to Willapa Bay fisheries, please send your email to: WillapaBay@dfw.wa.gov.

Thank you.
Barbara

It was put to me in blunt terms that no one is keeping folks up on Willapa. I did not travel to Raymond so I am a poor resource here but Barb sent this info out in a timely manner.

Hi Everyone,
I just want to make everyone aware that the documents (handouts, notes, and audio) from our forecast meeting the other night (Feb. 26) have been posted to our website at https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/northfalcon/.
All other statewide meetings are also posted at this same link.
This will be the location for the documents from our other public meeting that will be coming on March 27 as well.

Our next meeting associated with this year’s North of Falcon is scheduled for this Monday, March 4 at the Raymond Elks Lodge from 6 p.m. – 8 p.m. This will be an Willapa Bay Advisory Group meeting but these meetings are open to the public to listen and provide any comments on the record at the end of the meeting. Documents from advisory group meetings are posted at https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/wbsag/

If you would like to provide any comments or suggestions for this year’s North of Falcon process regarding Willapa Bay fisheries, please send those comments or suggestions to WillapaBay@dfw.wa.gov

WDFW is piloting new technology to enhance the public’s access to information. Additional Commission meetings, plus several North of Falcon presentations taking place March 19 and April 3 as noted at https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/northfalcon/, will be broadcast live via the WDFW website, www.wdfw.wa.gov. The improvement will allow members of the public to view meetings or presentations in real time, or video after-the-fact, in order to learn more about topics they’re interested in.

Thank you.
Barbara


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Barbara McClellan
Fisheries Biologist
Willapa Bay Fisheries Management
WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife| Region 6 Montesano Office
Office #360.249.1213 | Cell #360.470.3459| Fax #360.249.1229
Email: Barbara.Mcclellan@dfw.wa.gov
><((((º>....><((((º>

This is at hand for Willapa and some may have missed the notice as in GH.

March 27

Public discussion of pre-season forecasts and possible salmon fisheries.
Willapa Bay Fisheries Discussion
6 p.m. to 8 p.m.; Raymond Elks Club, 326 3rd St., Raymond
Public meeting for discussion of pre-season forecasts and possible salmon fisheries in Willapa Bay and associated watersheds.

As with Grays Harbor this is the last NOF meeting of the year. AS I have been nailed by that bug running around I could not attend the Commission meeting but bottom line, Ron Warren gut shot the Willapa Policy and the Commission went along with it. So folks in the Willapa just might want to get involved and listen to the audio once it goes up. As I was not present someone that was needs to lay out this sorry episode for folks.

Apr. 9, 2019
6 p.m. - 8 p.m. Raymond Elks Club, Raymond, WA

I think Rivrguy hit the nail on the head but it was worse than that. My take was that staff presented what was really two models, B and C. Model B was to stick with the plan to go to 14% exploitation on chinook. Plan C was to continue the current 20% exploitation rate (and delay recovery). Mr. Warren recommended going with plan C and the commission accepted it. However, Commissioner Kehoe proposed an amendment to suspend paragraph 6 for 2019 and it passed. This paragraph limits exploitation to 14% and limits commercial fishing in 2T and 2U until after Sept 16. Public input from recs was mostly reasons to stick with 14% exploitation plus pay back for prior over harvest.

Last Saturday's meeting is online on TVW.

https://www.tvw.org/watch/?clientID=9375922947&eventID=2019041023

As soon as the audio of the Adviser meeting for Willapa is up I will put up the link. To summarize things at the Commission meeting during the Willapa review Ron warren endorsed a option which R-6 staff said was not going to happen followed by the Commissioners standing down parts of the policy. That the concrete place would do something like that does not surprise me as duplicity is normal for those folks. At the Adviser meeting last night considerable conflict emerged as staff apparently utilized Commission actions at the Willapa review to alter the Willapa Policy.

What I find to be of the greatest concern is that the Commission would take such actions during a year end review with out notifying the public of their intent to do so. This violation of trust is just so far past acceptable that it is hard to get ones arms around it. For myself let me be clear that the actions of the Commissioners may or may not be justified. That said the manner in which they allowed some Commissioners manipulate the process to limit public knowledge of their true intent is a breach of public trust that is as great as I have seen in many years.

Violation of the public's trust seem's to be a new item in the Commission's Charter Riverguy! Imagine all the stuff that we don't even know about. This is just another example of how things are done in the new era of greater transparency. LOL!!

The intent here, as presented and discussed at the commission meeting was to basically freeze the policy at the 2018 stage, and suspend the provisions in the final stage of transition to full implementation in 2019.

But they made it even worse. Instead of just "freezing" the policy, Kehoe's amendment has now been interpreted to mean STRIKING all the dates that constrain gillnets..... not just leaving them at 2018 status. They no longer have to wait until Sept 16 in 2T/U, or Sept 7 in 2M/N. They don't have to wait at all! Gillnets in August would be totally fine. J F C..... GDITMMM!

This Kehoe? Fox watching the hen house.....

Robert “Bob” Kehoe, Seattle
(At-Large position, King County)
Occupation: Executive Director, Purse Seine Vessel Owners’ Assoc.
Current Term: 01/01/2015 - 12/31/2020

Robert “Bob” Kehoe was appointed to the Commission by Governor Inslee in July 2013. Bob is the Executive Director of the Purse Seine Vessel Owners Association (PSVOA), a commercial fishing trade organization based in Seattle. Prior to becoming PSVOA’s Executive Director in 2009, Bob served as PSVOA’s General Counsel beginning in 1997. He is a member of the Washington and Alaska Bar, and has practiced maritime law for more than 20 years.

Since 2001, Bob has been involved in the Pacific Salmon Commission process as the U.S. Industry Representative on the Fraser Panel. Bob also served as a Washington Advisor to the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission from 2004 to 2008.

Bob received his JD from the University of Denver School Law, and an MS in Public Health (Epidemiology and Biostatistics) from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Before attending law school, Bob worked as a research scientist at the SUNY Stony Brook School of Medicine.

Bob lives in the Seattle Ballard neighborhood with his wife Deb and has two daughters

From what I’ve heard, the normal legislators are forcing wdfw to roll back the clock if they want their funding increase. Inslee is basically MIA and his staff are on board.

Does ANYONE have anymore information on the WHY of this?

A credible source states the WB portion of the PFMC negotiations was completed today. I suspect a news release sometime tomorrow as part of a larger post PFMC media-release.

I'll credit staff for hearing our recommendations, in particular the objections of rec advisors to all the new commercial leeway approved by the commission last weekend. Pleased to report that our worst fears did NOT come to pass, so we can all breathe a sigh of relief.

Although the date restrictions were lifted as noted in my previous post, in order to stay within the 20% impact cap THERE ARE NO NETTING DAYS IN AUGUST scheduled for the 2019 season. The entrenched North Bay fishery is spared from nets until Sept 16 to avoid gear conflict between the sectors... just as we've done in the past. And the South Bay has only 2 net days during Labor Day week. Moreover, the highly controversial "control zone" closure will not be in effect for 2019.

We can finally all look forward to getting our lines wet!

If dip in fish are CR Tulees. We should be able to selective harvest them.

dip in fish have Columbia fish but substantial Grays Harbor & Willapa plus others. The old concept that the old dip in was mostly Columbia was not true. I can't remember the % on the mix but maybe someone else does.