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