Short and sweet. This a link to the FTC files and is the HSRG / AHA presentation from the AD HOC meeting Raymond this past week. As soon as the other information is up I will link it also. I kinda thought WDF&W would be putting it up their website but no such luck so I will try and do catch up.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2tWjgmgVy3ycmVFazBSdVQ3S0E/edit

A R6 D17 staffer sent me a heads up the information is now on the WDF&W website for Willapa. Big thanks.

So here you are: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/willapa_bay_salmon/

Back to Grays Harbor and the perception that the QIN and WDF&W do not get along. In communications obtained in Public Document Request ( PDR's ) it is very clear that staff from both work together rather well at the technical and preseason forecast level. In fact I would say compared to years back they have learned to accommodate each other's views reasonably well. Now as to harvest I cannot say so as harvest negotiations lack similar documentation as preseason documentation. Folks will have to draw their own conclusions.

Below is a e mail thread revolving around the Non Treaty Commercial Net release mortality developed early this year. I will highlight the portion that I find so interesting. The highlighted portion are QIN thoughts about release mortalities and in particular WDF&W's resistance to address the difference in survival of male & female. The QIN thoughts on female fish pretty much reflect what Chehalis brood stockers encountered with Chinook. This is important to Rec's as we do need true mortalities for C&R fisheries and the Commercials are asking that Rec mortality rates be reviewed also.

The thing about mortalities is that it is all about location & timing. You get all over salmon in midst of transition from marine to fresh water and nothing good comes from it. The best guidance I was ever given was for Grays Harbor & Willapa terminal fisheries ( marine / tidal / fresh ) was this. Front of the bay fresh out of the ocean scales not set, low risk. Scales set coloring up in tidal / marine and in transition is high risk in particular females. Slimed up in river is low risk and the risk decreases the closer one gets to the spawning reaches. In fact by the time salmon hit the hatchery ( or spawning grounds ) they are extremely durable and able to take substantial handling.

As I do not edit e mail threads ( other than a private e mail addresses ) the formatting is a bit off but one can follow the thread so here you go:

-----Original Message-----
From: Scharpf, Mike M (DFW)
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 4:35 PM
To: Jorgensen, Jim
Cc: Thiesfeld, Steven L (DFW)
Subject: RE: web link for net mort rate and question about determining Hump
hatchery Coho strays

Good afternoon Jim,

Attached is the most up to date version of the Grays Harbor Planning Model.
We haven't discussed schedules at this time. We've been worked for find and
correct computation and cell reference error. We appreciate any input you
provide.

I will make sure that your comments of the net release mortality issues are
sent forward.

Mike


-----Original Message-----
From: Jorgensen, Jim
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 1:32 PM
To: Scharpf, Mike M (DFW)
Subject: RE: web link for net mort rate and question about determining Hump
hatchery Coho strays

Mike--

Is there a planning model for GH that you could provide me to review and
offer QIN proposed changes.

Also on the commercial net release mortality that the Mobrand group is
working, Steve suggested I should relay our technical information or issues
through you.

I would propose that the wild Coho brood stocking information from 1986 on
for the Hoh River is probably available through Roger Mosely.
The main point of this was that Roger and we found out that female Coho
taken from the lower Hoh and earlier in the season did not survive well at
all.

I think the lower and earlier ones all died, even though a good number
looked alive and well right up to before their eggs were to mature.

When checking them up to that time at a certain point we would find them
dead and their eggs having not separate from the skeins. Males seemed to do
fine.

Therefore I would recommend that any release mortality be assessed from the
female survival perspective. Coastal wild escapement estimates are based on
the number of reeds dug by females.

Any time/area situation in the lower freshwater area that had a similar
impact on female salmon, may render an overall survival rate of 50%, which
would be meaningless as far as achieving escapement objectives.
One of the presenters in Olympia before the Mobrand group also cited their similar experiences brood stocking for what I believe was the Wishkah group.

Jim Jorgensen ________________________________________
From: Scharpf, Mike M (DFW) [Raymond.Scharpf@dfw.wa.gov]
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 1:30 PM
To: Jorgensen, Jim
Cc: Jurasin, Tyler; Hughes, Kirt M (DFW); Thiesfeld, Steven L (DFW)
Subject: RE: web link for net mort rate and question about determining Hump
hatchery Coho strays

Good question Jim,

I'll leave that up to Kirt or Steve to answer.


From: Jorgensen, Jim
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 1:28 PM
To: Scharpf, Mike M (DFW)
Cc: Jurasin, Tyler
Subject: RE: web link for net mort rate and question about determing Hump
hatchery Coho strays

Mike-

Regarding the forum yesterday and the charge to Lars Mobrand and the other
panel members, are there avenues where QIN would be able to provide
technical information or recommendations to the panel?

Jim Jorgensen

From: Scharpf, Mike M (DFW) [mailto:Raymond.Scharpf@dfw.wa.gov]
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 1:04 PM
To: Jorgensen, Jim; Jurasin, Tyler
Cc: Gilbertson, Larry; Thiesfeld, Steven L (DFW)
Subject: web link for net mort rate and question about determing Hump
hatchery coho strays

Hi guys,

Below is the web link to all of the materials that have been presented to
the scientific panel that is evaluated the net release mortality rate.
Please enjoy.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/downloads/Settlement%20Workshop%20Materials/

Jim,

I have a question. Do you know the origin of the estimated Humptulips
hatchery stray estimate? In the GH coho forecast model in the run
reconstruction tab within the column labelled "Humptulips Hatchery Strays"
(column AQ) there is a comment that says "0.8 is applied to total escapement
est. for Humptulips, this calculation assumes that 20% of fish on spawning
grounds are of hatchery origin. Cannot calculate w/o spawner surv. Data" .
First, this column multiplies the Humptulips escapement estimate by 0.8.
This produce is then used in the total HATCHERY escapement. Seems that
multiplying by 0.8 is assuming that 80% of the spawners are hatchery origin.
I recall a discussion with Kirt about some CWT analysis that determined the
stray rate. Do you have any recollection? I'm trying to update all
documentation associated with forecasts.

Thanks for any help you can provide.

There ya go again. Throwing out data that only serves to gum up the model.

How can you fly on autopilot if you keep looking out the window?

Next up for Willapa we have the " Dec. 6 - Public Workshop WDFW fishery managers will host a public workshop from 2-5 p.m.; Raymond High School cafeteria, 1016 Commercial St., Raymond " and I urge all to attend. That said many are questioning the value of participating because one more time it looks like another WDF&W " dog & pony show " with it just being a cover for WDF&W staff to go through the motions until they can get out of Raymond. One could easily draw that conclusion and in many ways be correct or maybe not as it is a matter of perception I think. This link is to WDF&W's website where you can download the documents provided by WDF&W's staff. http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/willapa_bay_salmon/


I will briefly hit the lay of the land as to process below but I urge all to view the issues below as the reasons one SHOULD PARTICIPATE rather than not. If folks do not get in to the fray and fight for change all you will get is more of the same.

So recap time as to process as to where we are.

Public Information: Staff have made a huge effort to make information available and even provided clarification and assistance in sorting through it. That is good and now the bad. It was a virtual paper blizzard ( one gentleman collected every piece and it was a stack nearly 2 inches thick ) was not correlated, labeled as to what part of the process it related to, just mountains of information. For anyone outside the agency or not familiar with WDF&W processes it was and is almost impossible to understand.

My favorite result from the public meeting earlier is the paper poll resulting in the list of "aspirations " that resulted in Commercials wanting seven days a week fisheries and Rec 25% increase in harvest. Now not 25% of the harvestable fish but a 25% Rec increase above the PRESENT harvest which Commercial interest take around 86% of the total harvest. Lord love a duck as that is simply amazing to see paraded out in this day and age.

Draft Of The Revised Willapa Plan: At this time it has yet to be fully vetted for the public, well for anyone be it Rec, Conservationist, or Commercial. It is a modified watered down version of the Grays Harbor Plan ( GHMP ) lacking in the definition of the GHMP. It was just thrown out there for a citizen to read and figure out on their own. Not the best way to bring forward a draft of anything let alone a fisheries management plan. At this point in time I doubt if few outside agency staff have any idea what so ever as to just what the WMP means as to implementation.

Options: WDF&W staff seems to be fixated on this bit. The options they are requesting revolve around HARVEST not conservation objectives. Some jumped on these and tried to rally around a harvest option presented by WDF&W but most did not. The thing is how on earth do you define harvest options when one has not defined conservation objectives or a time line to achieve them? From the public came 10 years but that is totally unrealistic. Four cycles which is 12 years for Coho & Chum an 16 years for Chinook would be the minimum time required when natural spawning stocks have been pounded to such low levels as in Willapa streams. Frankly I think that would be a very difficult goal to achieve. Another issue is the desire by WDF&W to manage Coho for the " aggregate " or total of all Willapa streams as a singular stock. You may be able to do that if you separate Willapa into two management zones North & South with North being 2T Willapa, North River, & Smith Creek. The Willapa is to diverse and spread out to manage for aggregate without driving some streams to very low levels chasing the harvest destined to the higher producing streams. This is why I find the approach of developing harvest options before conservation and production objectives put forth in HSRG ( hatchery reform ) not just puzzling but right at counterproductive.

AHA Model: The Excel spread sheet is utilized to project the probable outcome of scenarios developed, or options if you will. To some it is controversial but it is the tool WDF&W has chosen to utilize so that is what it will be. In the course of the last AD HOC Adviser meeting Mr. Appleby explained the AHA model somewhat. Followed by the normal questions and confusion that this type of issue always has with it. Mr. Appleby then asked WDF&W's Steve Theisfeld if he should show the results of a Option run that was nearly complete and Steve said NO. Opening up his lap top Mr. Appleby then again asked Steve again saying I have it right here and again Steve said NO. Why Mr. Theisfeld chose to withhold that information I do not know but it is not a appropriate response as it resulted in information being withheld. ( again ) This is not how create transparency in any public discussion in my view. So little is known at this time as to what information WDF&W provided for the model, sources, and what data is documented and what is a best guess thing.

AD HOC Advisers: I am not sure what WDF&W staff thought this group could accomplish. Now some of the additional 5 AD HOC members brought into the process for this purpose only seemed to be sincerely trying to understand and participate but the regular crowd not so much. One long time Willapa Adviser even told staff he had not even bothered to read the material staff provided in a three ring binder. The meetings from a spectators point of view were unruly, loud, and pretty much the normal Willapa waltz with the Commercial interest. The other issue of a Commercials' conduct toward other citizens I have previously put out to folks and I see no need to revisit it but it happened, unfortunately.

I received this letter from a gentleman in South Bend that is very familiar with the Willapa and the salmon stocks. Interesting read.

Dear Editor

Willapa Bay Salmon Recovery Plan:

You may have seen public notices and editorial comments about Washington State Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) announcements of yet another “plan” to provide for salmon conservation in Willapa Bay. The first one I was aware of was in 1992 which was to restore Wild Salmon, which was then the key slogan. This plan was successful in destroying a very successful volunteer program mostly started and managed by commercial and sports fishers. These volunteers had started remote site incubators (RSI’s), in Pacific County in the 1980’s. In 1988 there were the largest returns of salmon to the Willapa since the 1920’s.

But, some bright WDFW “scientist” decided these were not “wild salmon”, because they might be the product of the hatcheries. Therefore this volunteer program must stop. In the 1950’s and 1960’s another group of WDFW “scientist” decided to change the nature of Willapa Bay, to make it a sports fishing destination, so they imported over 10 different Coho and Chinook runs into the Willapa to increase the time period that the salmon would bite, oh, and yes and decided to kill-off the Chum salmon which was historically 65% of the total salmon run, so the Coho and Chinook could occupy the habitat the Chum were using. These “scientists” had failed to understand a simple fact…Willapa Bay habitat evolved from the last ice age as a Chum salmon habitat, Chum spawn in low gradient streams close to the estuary, and don’t rear in the stream, but the estuary, and are the food source for the other salmon species; Coho and Chinook which spawn in larger gradient streams, and rear from 6 to 18 months in the stream, then the estuary, but now all the Chum are gone and no food source... wonderful!

But, wait it gets better. In 2005 and 2007 other Willapa Plans were developed by WDFW, in which WDFW “scientists” decided they could actually allow harvest of a mixed stock of hatchery and wild salmon, by commercial and sports fishers using a catch and release method, this wonderful “scientific” WDFW management plan in fact has lead to a continued decrease in all salmon species in the Willapa.

But…not to worry, WDFW also introduced a number of slogans which would by just saying them salmon would magically appear: Scientifically derived, Science based, intergrading the H’s (habitat, hatchery, and harvest), Conservation, Wild Salmon, Wild salmon index, All-H Hatchery Analyzer (AHA)…wonderful papers were written, meeting, and conferences were held, millions were spent…but since salmon can’t read they didn’t know they were being saved by WDFW, so their numbers continued to decrease.

Supporting this con game has been a fraudulent calculation by WDFW to show high salmon populations to impress our legislators so they would force WDFW to have more days of fishing for commercial and sports. WDFW estimates runs sizes by sampling of Redds (holes made by salmon attempting reproduction). Nothing wrong with statistical sampling…but when WDFW is in charge they do it wrong, which results in much higher estimates of salmon returns than actually are available, and they then over harvest, without sufficient escapement of brood stock. This is like estimating the US population based upon the number of attempts at reproduction each year in the US. That would be a big number.

Today we now have a new Willapa Plan in process, but with WDFW in charge of the numbers nothing will change. Nothing will change until new honest management is appointed at several layers in WDFW. Today the Willapa has sufficient habitat to support much larger numbers of salmon, but the harvest is not controlled, and I believe fraudulently manipulated to bring in more dollars to WDFW. Millions of dollars have been spent on: habitat restoration, forest owners, and farmers have gone to great expense to implement mindless requirements, and our salmon populations have decrease in the 746 streams, (about 1400 miles), of streams in Willapa Bay, but WDFW budget grows to support a fat bureaucracy.

Yes…this appears to be inversely proportional: Want to increase salmon populations…then decrease the size of WDFW. This should be the plan.


Ronald Craig

November 24, 2014
South Bend, WA

Maybe a good start would be the F&W commission selecting the new Director of the Department, outside the ranks of WDFW.

I'm not totally disagreeing with you, but remember the previous two directors came outside the ranks of WDFW.

Generally, there are many ingredients that are in a recipe to form a finished product; looking at a few potential candidates from WDFW-- it will only take one rotten egg to produce salmonellosis and give us all the vile side effects associated with it.

Here is the latest from WDF&W on tomorrows meeting in Raymond on the Willapa Management Plan. As always I urge all to participate.

Hi Everyone,

I wanted to give you an update on where we are with regards to the Willapa Bay Salmon Management Policy development and the public meeting on Saturday so you can plan accordingly.

As most of you are aware, our contractor fell behind on development of a Willapa Bay specific AHA model, and this has put a bump in the road for us. Late yesterday, a handful of preliminary Chinook options were put through the model by the contractor. We have not yet seen those option results nor had any time to review them to ensure they are correct. Options have not been run through coho nor chum yet either. As such, we are not prepared to discuss an evaluation of the options on Saturday. We still believe that Saturday can be productive however. Our tentative agenda is:

1. 60 minutes: AHA model presentation by Andy Appleby (this would be similar to what Andy presented to at the Ad-Hoc meeting).

2. 30 minutes: Review of 6 options to be reviewed with AHA. Specifically, what did we choose to run for a “recreational option” and a “commercial option”.

3. 30 minutes: Review of the current draft policy.

4. 60 minutes: Public input.

Cheers


Steve Thiesfeld
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 6 Fish Program Manager
48 Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA 98563
Steven.Thiesfeld@dfw.wa.gov
360-249-1201

I see no new meeting materials listed? http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/willapa_bay_salmon/

So will this be just a dog and pony show?

I will give up a day of fishing tomorrow for future opportunity.

Oh boy that is a good question. Nothing new I think if you have made the other meetings including the AD HOC. To what degree the AHA model is ready I think is questionable but if you have not seen Andy's presentation that would be new. Not sure on the draft plan as that first draft looked like a hunk of Swiss Cheese with all the holes it had in it. So yes / no which is not all that satisfactory but this thing is narrowing down so at some place soon they have just stop putting out info and actually address the issues.

From my perspective I am going to be present & participate as all should. That said be ready for this option crap they keep going to as it is a load of BS. Simplest way to put it is the agency has steered folks straight to harvest options and failed miserably to this point to define just what the Commission instructions mean to Willapa hatchery production & harvest. Go to the last Commission meeting and listen to Conrad Mahnken outline what is SUPPOSED to be the standards utilized in the new management plan. We ain't close!

Jerry Manual was the guy to talk to RSI . Many chum are caught offshore as bycatch as meeting the the processs?

The link is to Mr. Appleby's presentation to the Commission on the AHA model. http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2014/12/agenda_dec1214.html and it is at the 11:15 mark you will find the PDF presentation on the AHA model. If you have not been at all the meetings on the Willapa Management Plan it is likely to be a bit confusing but Andy did a descent job.

I do not have Region 6's Steve Theisfeld presentation to the Commission or the actual model runs on the options developed thus far but I have asked for those documents and as soon as I get them I will forward them.

So the Commission as to Willapa. It was a good hearing to be sure. For those like myself who have been around this type of thing for years it lacked detail to be sure. That said for many it was rather helpful and clearly showed that much needs to be done. Coho and Chum have yet to be modeled and the Chinook modeling produced results that startled many as to the cause and effect as to harvest of changing the primary stream for Naselle to Willapa. Also how the limitations on harvest could, should, would manifest itself.

So a work in progress & more as soon as I get it.

Having a little trouble posting but this is the link to the presentations to the Commission on the Willapa Plan. Hit the meeting materials link for the 12 / 13 Meeting and view meeting materials. Mr. Appleby and R 6 Steve Thiesfeld are up.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/willapa_bay_salmon/

NEWS RELEASE

Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/

December 16, 2014

Contact: Commission Office, (360) 902-2267

Commission approves Game Management Plan,
discusses Willapa Bay salmon fisheries
TUMWATER - A new six-year plan that will be used by the state to develop hunting seasons and guide management of game species was approved by the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission during its meeting Dec. 12-13 in Tumwater.

The commission, a citizen panel appointed by the governor to set policy for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), approved the 2015-2021 Game Management Plan after an extensive public process.

The management plan outlines strategies to address a variety of issues, including:
• Hunter recruitment and retention - Establish a new citizen advisory group to help identify and implement methods to encourage greater participation in hunting.
• Predator/prey interactions - Follow new guidelines to help depressed deer and elk herds that are below population objectives due to predation by black bears, cougars, bobcats or coyotes.
• Access to private timberlands - Work with private timberland owners to develop programs that maintain recreational access to their properties while minimizing direct costs to hunters.
• Wolf recovery - Continue to follow the Wolf Conservation and Management Plan, and work with the wolf advisory group to develop a new plan to manage wolves after they are no longer listed for protection.
• Non-toxic ammunition - Consult with hunters to develop voluntary programs that reduce the use of lead ammunition, which can poison raptors and other birds that may ingest spent ammunition when feeding on the carcasses of animals that were shot.
The final plan will be posted in the next week on the WDFW website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01657/ .

In other business, the commission conducted a public hearing on draft options for a new policy to address conservation and fishery objectives for Willapa Bay salmon fisheries. State fishery managers plan to develop additional draft options in the next few weeks.

Key principles of the draft policy include:
• Promoting the conservation and restoration of salmon and steelhead by working with partners, such as the Regional Fishery Enhancement Groups, to protect and restore habitat productivity, implement hatchery reform, and manage fisheries consistent with conservation objectives.
• Developing fishing opportunities that are fairly distributed across fishing areas and reflect the diverse interests of fishers.
• Structuring recreational and WDFW-managed commercial fisheries to minimize conflicts between the two gear types.
• Seeking to enhance the overall economic well-being and stability of Willapa Bay fisheries.
• Ensuring salmon management is timely, well documented, transparent, well communicated, and accountable.

To review the current draft policy options, visit WDFW's website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/willapa_bay_salmon/ .

The commission is scheduled to hold another public hearing on draft policy options during its January meeting, and is tentatively scheduled to make a final decision in February.

Also during the December meeting, the commission held a public hearing on proposed sportfishing rule changes. The rules are specific to the mainstem Columbia River, its tributaries and lakes within the basin.

The proposals - which cover fishing seasons, daily limits and other rules - are available online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/rule_proposals/ . The commission is scheduled to take action on the proposals during its January meeting.

The commission also discussed the recruitment for a new director of WDFW. Commissioners completed an initial set of interviews for the position last week, and are scheduled to consider hiring a new director during their meeting in January.

The current director, Phil Anderson, announced in August he is resigning from his position at the end of the year. However, at the commission's request, he has agreed to remain on as the head of the agency until a new director is in place.

In other news, Rollie Schmitten, whose term as a commissioner expires at the end of the year, announced he is not seeking reappointment. However, he said will remain on the commission until a new director is hired.
________________________________________
This message has been sent to the WDFW News Releases & Weekender mailing list.
Visit the WDFW News Release Archive at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/
To UNSUBSCRIBE from this mailing list: http://wdfw.wa.gov/lists/unsubscribe.html

Also Steve Thiesfeld has provided the AHA model runs and the model but I have not had the time ( or ability ) to dig into it yet. If anyone wants it PM me and I will get them to you.

At the December 13 Commission meeting several Gillnetters testified in the open public input portion of the meeting on how badly the Grays Harbor Management Plan ( GHMP ) had failed. Their rational was that many fish had been allowed to go up stream unharvested by the Commercial fleet. I mean like those darn pesky inriver Recs actually got fish to catch! Other than the rains just how did this happen?

One of the elements of the Grays Harbor Management Plan is 4/3 which simply means three consecutive days in a calendar week net free in the fall salmon fisheries. This does not apply to the Quinault Nations fisheries if they choose to go five days but to the Non Treaty side. The tribe seldom run fall fisheries that exceed four days.

It was a question as to just how well this would work in getting fish up river for the inriver Rec and a safety net for Natural Origin Spawners. Frankly I think it worked well and addressed the issue in November to the Commission and my rational is outlined in the letter.




Commissioners,

I am writing to update the Commission regarding another success of the recently implemented Grays Harbor Management Plan. ( GHMP ) It resides in the Wishkah River sub basin and some history is required to fully explain the success.

The Wishkah River is a Southern Olympic stream that flows into the Chehalis at Aberdeen near the 101 Bridge or downtown Aberdeen. With a long history usage dating back to the time of pioneers it had declined to such a state of affairs that by the 1990's the local community and then Senator Brad Owen ( our current Lt. Governor ) was able convince the former Northwest Renewable Resource Center to use it for a pilot program to restore Chinook & Coho. The pilot project became Long Live the Kings ( LLTK ) located at what is the Mayr Hatchery. While the LLTK project did have some success it struggled do to a very high exploitation rate by both Tribal and non tribal nets. It was a victim of its location as tribal and non treaty commercial fishers pretty much corked off the river for years.

With the GHMP requiring 3 net free days ( 4/3 ) myself and others wondered just how the Wishkah would perform. Would the window of non net time be enough to overcome the ravages of the past and neglect by WDF&W? My bet was on yes / maybe but the answer appears to be resounding yes, which came as a somewhat of a surprise. Just as its location worked against the river for years it reversed with 4/3. How one can ask and the answer again is location. In the Chehalis tidewater reach all three species of salmon stage going into a holding pattern after transitioning from salt to fresh water waiting for the fall rains. The river staging reach primarily runs from the 101 bridge to what is known as Pump House ( former water intake for the unfinished Satsop Nuclear Plant ) about 15 miles upstream. In this reach the Quinault Nation has its commercial fishers as well as the NT Commercial at the lower end of tidewater. The combination of the two commercial fisheries and WDF&W's steadfast refusal to modify the Non Treaty harvest to allow protection of the Wishkah needed due to its unique location was most devastating to the fish and Recreational fishers.

So what does this have to do with 4/3 and the Wishkah? Well frankly everything. Wishkah fish do not stage in the Chehalis as the fish from most the Chehalis tributary streams do but rather in the tidewater reach of the Wishkah itself. Simply put they are able avoid the harvest levels applied on the other Chehalis tributaries because of the location of the mouth of the Wishkah River on the Chehalis main stem as 4/3 allows fish into the Wishkah tidal staging reaches. The difference this makes can be seen in the 2014 hatchery returns as of October 30, 2014. Bingham and Satsop Springs on the East Fork Satsop have had a combined return of approximately 11,893 Coho as of October 30th while Mayr Hatchery on the Wishkah has had returns of 9,729 Coho. Commissioners the production of Mayr Coho is fraction of that of the two facilities on the Satsop and the difference in returns is simply the exploitation rate applied by the QIN and WDF&W managed NT commercial fisheries on the mainstream Chehalis River. The benefit of restricting NT Commercial harvest to the Wishkah River has been dramatic and undeniable with the hatchery returns. Additionally the number of Wild Coho reaching the spawning reaches will benefit just as much or more. I am sure the NT commercial gillnetters will complain and call this a waste but frankly Commissioners the NT Commercial concept of the only good fish is a dead fish, in a gillnet, in a tote, being sold ended with the new GHMP.

In closing Commissioners the tide water reach of the Wishkah was once the best " Mom & Pop " recreational fishery in the Chehalis Basin. If a boat floated folks put it in the river and trolled the tidewater. Not much skill needed just a rod, spinner and something that floated with a motor! I believe the Wishkah will continue to rebuild with 4/3 and return substantial benefits to the local recreational community. Just as importantly Commissioners 4/3 has emerged as the safety net for the Wishkah Wild Salmon stocks that have been brutalized by the Chehalis Basin combined Maximum Sustained Yield ( MSY ) harvest modeling that resulted in overharvest of the Wishkah and several Chehalis tributary streams for so many years.

I am not sure what one can or should say to the Commission at this point except thank you. Your courage and vision of implementing the GHMP and 4/3 is paying dividends far beyond expectations.

Sincerely

This was forwarded to me so I thought I would post it up for folks. The jest of it is WDF&W faired well in the Governor's Budget. The coast did well particularly Willapa ( no closures ) but some in Puget Sound may feel otherwise. One should always remember the Gov's budget is generally DOA once the legislative session starts but it is a better starting point!




From: Anderson, Philip M (DFW)
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 4:29 PM
To: DFW DL WDFW Staff
Subject: Budget Summary

Hello All:

Earlier today the Governor released both his operating and capital budget proposals for the 2015-2017 biennium. Considering there is a projected state general fund budget shortfall of up to $4.5 billion, WDFW fared quite well. The 105 day legislative session begins on January 12 and the Governor’s budget proposals will be the starting point for legislative budget development. The House and Senate will release their respective proposals in March and then work on a compromise budget will begin. Each chamber must agree on the final compromise budget before they adjourn for the year. We should see a legislative budget in late April which will provide funding state agencies for the next two fiscal years beginning July 1, 2015. There will also be a 2015 supplemental budget which will make final changes to the current biennium which ends on June 30, 2015.
Here is a link to the Governor’s budget page which includes the appropriations bills, and other supporting documentation. http://ofm.wa.gov/budget15/default.asp

First a brief summary of the Governor’s capital budget for WDFW:

Minor Works Projects. The proposal includes $10.5 million for minor works projects…the appropriation amount is equivalent to the current biennium. Minor works project are those projects costing less than $1 million and includes projects such as: corrections to facility safety deficiencies; replace hatchery pumps, alarms and emergency generators; fish cultural improvements; road maintenance; roof repairs and various other facility and infrastructure repairs.

Major Projects. The Governor’s proposal included $36.1 million for major projects, a significant increase from the $13.5 million WDFW received in the current biennium. Funded projects include: Kalama Falls Hatchery ($4M); Soos Creek Hatchery, Phase 2 ($17M); Repairs to Edmonds Pier ($800K); Floodplain Improvement, Wooten Wildlife Area ($4M); Marblemount Hatchery Intake ($2.3M); Lake Whatcom Hatchery Intake ($1.4M); Puyallup Hatchery Renovation ($570K for pre-design); Eells Springs Hatchery Improvements ($4.6M); Fir Island Farms Restoration ($500K); and Lake Rufus Woods Fishing Access ($1M).


Next is a summary of the Governor’s 2015-17 biennium and the 2015 supplemental operating budget proposals for WDFW:

2015-17 Biennium

15% State General Fund Reduction Options:

Part of the Governor’s strategy to meet the challenge of developing a budget with a significant shortfall was to require state agencies to develop state general fund reduction options equal to 15 percent of their state general fund support. Our mandated target was $10.8 million and the Governor’s budget takes approximately $2.0 million of that amount. None of the reductions included in Governor Inslee’s operating budget proposal will reduce current staffing levels.

Fish Program Reductions:
The Governor’s budget proposal includes two reductions that will affect hatcheries. These are production reductions at George Adams Hatchery (56% reduction in fall Chinook production) and Hoodsport Hatchery (affects chum, fall Chinook, and pink salmon production). The Governor chose not to include any of the hatchery closure that were contained in our proposal.

Enforcement Program Reduction:
The proposal also reduces funding for 3 Enforcement Officer positions. This reduction will affect currently vacant officer positions and will not necessitate a reduction of currently filled officer positions.

2015-17 Maintenance Level:

Maintenance level budget requests are intended to maintain current service levels. Almost all of our maintenance level requests were funded at requested levels with the exception of our payments-in-lieu of taxes (PILT) and funding for hatchery utility increases. The PILT payments are basically property tax payments to counties for WDFW owned wildlife lands. We also did not receive funding for utility increases at hatcheries, although we should be able to obtain this funding during the 2016 session. There will be no effect to staffing levels as a result of this proposed funding level.

2015-17 Biennium Selected Major Enhancements:

Fee Legislation ($7.0 million) -WDFW’s number one priority budget request, the fee bill, is funded in the Governor’s proposal and is projected to raise an additional $7.0 million per biennium primarily to support salmon production, hatchery maintenance, enforcement, and fisheries management activities throughout the state.

Tracking Puget Sound Fish Health ($1.5 million)- Funding was provided to track contaminants in Puget Sound fish species. The funding will allow WDFW to fully implement fish contaminant and assessment and monitoring efforts as part of the Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program.

Recover Puget Sound Steelhead ($800K)- Funding was provided to continue WDFW’s efforts to study the extremely high mortality of steelhead smolts once they enter the Puget Sound.

Aquatic invasive species funding ($800K)- WDFW received funding to support our Aquatic Invasive Species Program as bridge funding for one biennium, practically doubling their biennial budget. This funding is intended to bolster our ability to combat the threat of invasive species and to work on getting future funding to increase our work in this area.

Managing Elk Hoof Disease ($250K)- Funding is provided to support continued efforts to limit the spread of this debilitating disease.

Collective Bargaining Agreements:

The Governor’s budget funds the collective bargaining agreement which includes a 3 percent increase in the first fiscal year and 1.8 percent increase in the second fiscal year for state employees as well as a $20 per month increase for employees earning less than $2500 per month. Funding is also included for Washington Federation of State Employees (WFSE) salary adjustments for targeted job classes with increases that range from 2.5 to 10 percent. Affected job classes at WDFW are as follows: Contracts Specialists 1-3 (2.5%); Environmental Planner 2 (2.5%); Fish and Wildlife Biologist 2-4 (10%); Forms and Records Analyst 1-3 (2.5%); Management Analyst 1-5 (2.5%) and Natural Resource Specialist 1-5 (2.5%).

2015 Supplemental

We received the requested amount to pay the Department of Natural Resources for fighting wildfires and for restoration costs on WDFW lands from the serious wildfires this spring and summer.

Other funding adjustments provide enough funding to see WDFW through to the end the current biennium.


Synopsis
Overall WDFW ended up with a favorable budget from the Governor considering the current state budget climate. This is positive first step that puts us in a favorable position at the outset of legislative budget development. Thanks to everyone who worked with the Governor’s Office over the past few months helping them to understand the importance of our work. We will update you in the coming weeks and months as we have new information to share.

Phil and Joe


_______________________________________________ Members mailing list Members@wagrc.org http://wagrc.org/mailman/listinfo/members_wagrc.org

The link is a report done by Tim Hamilton of the Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy and Brian Kraemer, that is a in-depth look at the so called hatchery surplus issue. http://fishingthechehalis.net/ For those of us involved with hatcheries it has long been known but seldom addressed by folks let alone WDF&W. It will be a eye opener for many to be sure. A big thanks to Tim & Brian for being willing to tackle this very complex is issue.

Abstract:

The removal of hatchery-raised salmon from spawning streams is established under the standards and guidelines of “Hatchery and Fishery Reform” adopted by the Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission on November 6, 2009. A “surplus” of returning adults occurs at the hatchery if the “exploitation rate” or level of harvest applied fails to reduce the hatchery return run size down to the low number of adults needed for egg propagation. At the same time, hatchery production must be accomplished carefully to avoid application of a harvest rate that undermines the larger escapement goals needed for natural spawning populations traveling with the returning hatchery fish. Hatchery surplus is therefore an expected event each year for the successful hatchery operation that supplements harvest supply without adversely impacting natural spawning populations.

This paper reviews the benefits to WDFW and the public treasury of the different methods used to remove the returning hatchery adults in Willapa Bay. The authors found the highest “return on investment” from hatchery production to state coffers comes from the recreational fisher who pays an average of 91¢ per pound in license fees while spending significantly within the local economy trying to capture the hatchery fish all the way back to the hatchery. Commonly referred to as the “recreational opportunity”, those fish the Recreational Sector fail to catch are removed by the state’s surplus service contractor paying the state an average of 39.4¢ per pound. The revenue from the surplus contractor and a portion of the recreational license fee is then used as “seed capital” for nonprofit Regional Fisheries Enhancement Groups” generating an additional $9.66 in grants for every dollar directed to the RFEGs.1 The near ten fold increase effectively creates a price of approximately $3.94 per pound and added to recreational license fee contribution, the hatchery surplus fish pursued by the recreational fisher all the way back to the hatchery yields an effective rate of return of $4.85 per pound. The surplus service contract holder also donates approximately 200,000 lbs. of vacuum packed frozen filet to food banks across the state which if valued at only 50¢ per pound would provide an additional $100,000 in value. As a comparison, the commercial gillnet fleet paid approximately 14.5¢ per pound for a total of $74,487 in combined license fees and excises taxes for fish removed from Willapa Bay in 2012. While understandably of significant importance to the individual gillnetter, the limited profit created by the short season is relatively less important to the overall economy of Pacific County. Finally, salmon raised in Washington hatcheries and intercepted primarily by commercial nets in Alaska and Canada provide little to no return on the investment by Washington’s taxpayers.