Yup with forks cr down to 300k ( ? ) the numbers will be much less but so will the commercials also. H / W mix way backwards to net much other than maybe a tangle. Now the way HSRG drove things that is what came out but of mystery to me is how they plan to manage to harvest the returns off the huge releases on the Naselle that Rep Blake got funds for. Failing weir plus few NOR with a huge hatchery return, I mean that will be a interesting thing to watch how that plays out.

Indeed....


The Naselle piece is a bit of a bugaboo. Originally we were managing Naselle as a PRIMARY population but in the final WB Policy it was re-designated a CONTRIBUTING population.

The HSRG criteria for contributing:

For integrated populations, the proportion of natural-origin adults in the broodstock should exceed pHOS by at least a factor of one, corresponding to a PNI value of 0.50 or greater and pHOS should be less than 0.30.

We have a HUGE pHOS problem at Naselle... a product of large hatchery releases and a weir that is NOT fish-tight thru the duration of the chinook spawning migration. In other words TONS of hatch strays on the gravel.

Solving the pHOS problem at Naselle will be mission impossible without a dependable weir structure and a means to SELECTIVELY harvest the hatchery surpluses. Sounds a whole lot like the tule problem on the lower Columbia

Blake's strategy seems to be to perennially overload Willapa Bay with hatchery fish so that more commercial fishing time is necessary to remove the "threat" to native stocks. Seems to me this is the biggest danger hatcheries pose to wild fish conservation (that we view unharvested hatchery fish as a waste of resources and a threat to wild fish).

It's a double edged sword because big plants require big harvests and wild fish cannot sustain the same harvest rates as the hatch product... unless you have a reliable low-impact means of SELECTIVELY harvesting the hatchery fish.

Thus far, the industry has virtually ZERO desire to move in that direction.

Rivrguy,

Maybe you can shed some light on this. I'm not intimately familiar with all the Willapa Bay watersheds, but it seems like the intended management configuration is out of whack. I thought that the Naselle system is probably in the best habitat condition compared to all the other tributaries. And Dept. bios have mentioned that the Naselle hatchery is a piece of crap, as hatchery facilities go. If those two things are true, wouldn't it make more, most sense to designate the Naselle as a wild Chinook sanctuary of sorts, and stop raising hatchery Chinook at Naselle? The Willapa River is generally degraded, and doesn't seem like the best candidate to me for natural Chinook production. If that is true, it seems like Willapa's Forks Creek hatchery is the best candidate for hatchery Chinook production, and we take whatever the Willapa can naturally produce as "contributing" to overall Chinook productivity.

Historically Willapa Bay was primarily a coho and chum salmon factory, with comparatively little natural Chinook production. It seems like the salmon management plan is trying to make the river basins do something that is out of synch with their natural capabilities.

The Nemah River - a creek really - is naturally best suited to coho and chum salmon production. Is it even remotely logical to focus on producing hatchery Chinook there?

If there were a Willapa Bay Salmn Czar, would the present configuration of natural and hatchery salmon production and management even be on the table for consideration? Wouldn't it be a more responsible use of taxpayer funds to shut down Naselle and Nemah hatcheries, raise hatchery Chinook at Forks Creek, and focus on producing as many wild coho and chum salmon as the available habitat can support? I think, but am not certain, that arrangement would support a decent recreational fishery, some, but not a lot of commercial fishing, and do it at far less cost to Washington taxpayers.

Sg

Lot in that question SG so rather than try a part at a time this. The Willapa river & N. River became prime but not Naselle due to the fact that Forks Creek Chinook just plain stray all through the Willapa River system. Coho not so almost no straying out of Forks Cr for Coho. Chinook do not want to come out of the main river into small water so Forks Cr for Chinook was a terrible choice at that location. Again as in Naselle the thing is this. YOU GOTTA HAVE A WEIR THAT WORKS AND WATER TO ATTRACT RETURNING ADULTS INTO THE FACILITY and Forks Cr fails for different reasons just as Naselle does.

To be honest the situation is more about Phil Anderson's determination to maintain the Willapa's gillnet fisheries and ignore HSRG requirements as to siting hatchery production more than anything. This is a mess made by ignoring things until all hell breaks loose.

As to the Nemah it would be the facility of the least risk for Chinook ( genetics ) but has issues also. Gotta run to the dock but Salmo the gillnetters told WDF&W that switching to Chinook would not work and staff at the time felt different. Hell walk up to Ron's office and ask him he had a huge role in this mess.

Salmo to further challenge common sense the genetic testing done the last couple of years have all the Willapa Bay streams Chinook the same. This includes hatchery and wild all streams Willapa the same fish. Now no doubt this was accomplished by overharvest on NOR's pursuing hatchery fish and much straying. The fact is Willapa was managed as a hatchery kill zone in reality. So now the policy is charting a coarse to undo this but nobody wants to understand we ain't got enough NOR's to go around. Get a good down cycle and REC's flowing in it is doubtfull in a few years if the REC does not run out of impacts and as I said just as the boosted Naselle releases show. It will be interesting at the least.

There is, or was, another aspect of WB that may figure in. Koenings wanted to grow as many Chinook as possible in the WB hatcheries, mark them, and have BC fish selectively for them. That way, WDFW would feed the BC fisheries but if they went selective then our wilds would be protected some. I think DFO said no, but swarming BC with hatchery Chinook would provide some buffer.

Thanks Rivrguy. That point about fall Chinook not wanting to enter Forks Creek is significant. The Willapa just seems like the location best suited to raising hatchery Chinook without adversely affecting a wild population, even if what we really mean is restoring a wild population from the extant hatchery stock, given that all WB Chinook are the same genetic stock.

Functional weir or not, it seems like having a restored Naselle wild Chinook population and a significant hatchery population is working at cross purposes. If Chinook return well to Nemah, and the Nemah hatchery is in or could be made to be in good enough shape, maybe it would be the logical location for hatchery Chinook production. It's such a creek though, I figure it may contribute to a lot of Chinook straying.

Figuring out what to do obviously depends on the management objectives and what I like to describe as "the desired future condition." In my desired outcome, WDFW would quit pissing away tax dollars on 3 hatcheries for the primary purpose of enhancing BC ocean fishing, WA coast mixed stock ocean fishing, and the welfare gillnet commercial fishery in WB. Next, I would like to see WB used to maximize its natural salmon production potential, which mainly means coho and chum, with NOR Chinook as relatively incidental, if we let Mother Nature tell her story. My inclinations are not a very good fit with the preferences of WDFW and the welfare gillnetters.

Sg

Yeah on the Satsop same is true unless you get a high water. Harry said for the fish it was like leaving Bev Hills ( main river ) for a slum ( hatchery ) and they do not like that plus small water, all done.

In considering the most appropriate stream to designate PRIMARY, it was argued that WB could be schematically/geographically seen as outer, middle, and inner bay.... being fed respectively by Willapa, Nemah, and Naselle.

With Naselle being at the veritable "end of the line", the minds of the day felt it neither wise nor appropriate to expect those Naselle fish to traverse the full gauntlet of nets at the far end of the bay if conservation of wild Naselle fish was the ultimate goal.

It was thought that we might be more successful at getting wild fish past the fishery if a more proximal stream were selected for wild priority (namely Willapa) as it would be easier for managers to reduce the exploitation of those fish in the bay.

The plan parsed the bay into north and south sectors, prioritized for rec and commercial respectively. With rec dominating in the north bay, the more compatible and selective fishery was placed on the Primary population. By placing the nets in the south of the bay, it would help to minimize encounters with Willapa River origin wilds.

Hope this helps you guys to better understand the rationale for these designations.

As for how the available NOR impacts are to be spent...

The impact rate on Willapa and Naselle river natural-origin fall Chinook in Willapa Bay fisheries shall not exceed 20%. Within this impact rate cap, the priority shall be to maintain a full season of recreational fisheries for Chinook salmon in the Willapa Bay Basin.

Moreover....

4. Fishery Management Objectives. The fishery management objectives for fall Chinook salmon, in priority order, are to:

a) Achieve spawner goals for the North, Naselle, and Willapa stocks of natural-origin Chinook and hatchery reform broodstock objectives through the two phase rebuilding program described above.

b) Provide for an enhanced recreational fishing season. The impact rate of the recreational fishery is anticipated to be ~3.2% during the initial years of the policy, but may increase in subsequent years to provide for an enhanced recreational season as described below:

~ Manage Chinook salmon for an enhanced recreational fishing season to increase participation and/or catch including consideration of increased daily limits, earlier openings, multiple rods, and other measures.

~ Conservation actions, as necessary, shall be shared equally between marine and freshwater fisheries.

c) Provide opportunities for commercial fisheries within the remaining available fishery impacts.

That is why the Section 7 bit that was posted is important. Frankly within the impact rate allowed the Rec is steadily getting its fair share but not exceeding. Not so Commercials so the Commission has to decide give back the over harvest or not. In the end though the REC's can and likely will max out the Chinook NOR impacts leaving little if any for the nets and the returns on the expanded Naselle Chinook production should and will create a perfect storm for NOR limiter.

eyeFISH,

I think I understand the rationale. The rationale appears to be based on desired fishing. That is only logical if all parts of the natural environment are equally suited to the desired outcome. We know that they aren't. That's why I think the management plan is at cross purposes with what the respective WB tributaries can deliver. Case in point: North River NOR Chinook goals. If ever there was a river - a large creek actually - less suited to natural Chinook production, the North would be high on the list. Except that in WB, most streams are high on the list because they are not well suited to any significant amount of Chinook productivity.

As long as NOR Chinook are a WB priority, ultimately the NI gillnet fishery has to go. And if public funds were being expended responsibly, most WB hatchery Chinook production would have to stop.

Sg

Bold Prediction. The "Taking a Dump While Outdoors" thread will surpass this thread within the year! At least in responses....

CALLING FOR THE DOC MAN! It appears the Adviser meeting in Willapa went poorly. The jest was ( from my limited info ) that staff were busy trying to figure out how to redifine a Rec full season along with several other things. Someone that was there needs to shout out.

OK found some info on the license fee increase but I think is evolving as a issue.

OLYMPIA — The Senate budget proposal on March 21 “marks the beginning of a positive turnaround of the troubled Department of Fish and Wildlife, according to a press release from the Washington State Senate Majority Coalition Caucus, the mainly Republican-comprised group that controls that chamber of the Legislature.

The budget provides safeguards for crucial agency functions, such as hatcheries, while initiating the rebuilding of an agency in crisis, the coalition caucus said Tuesday.

Agency management recently revealed to legislative leaders a significant budget shortfall. Because of this, a major hunting and fishing license fee increase plan was proposed by WDFW to increase agency revenue.

“The agency wanted to correct this by initiating a hefty increase in hunting and fishing license fees without the promise for more opportunities,” said Sen. Kirk Pearson, R-Monroe, chairman of the Senate Natural Resources and Parks Committee. Pearson solicited public comments on the license-fee plan, including from Chinook Observer readers. He said he received hundreds of letters in opposition to WDFW’s fee increase proposal from across the state. “The problem is not a money problem, it’s a leadership problem,” Pearson said.

The Senate budget provides $5 million from the general fund to protect hatcheries and core agency functions while bringing in outside performance and management support. “It’s important that we provide stability to the agency while we begin a much-needed overhaul that will help protect and grow the state’s hunting and fishing opportunities,” Pearson said. “This budget keeps the core of the agency in place while we correct the past problems that placed the agency in this situation and help them get on stronger footing.” The budget proposal also provides funding for an outside consultant to identify and fix management and organizational issues while running a zero-based budget exercise to address ongoing budget issues.

“This budget for WDFW reflects the needs of an agency in crisis,” Pearson said. “Dwindling fish populations, diseased and scattered wildlife and animal conflict problems have set back the WDFW’s mission over the past few years. By giving them the tools they need to be successful, we can protect and grow hunting and fishing opportunities both now and in the future.”

And some more for thought.

Senate budget protects hatcheries, begins Fish and Wildlife turnaround
March 21, 2017
The release of the Senate budget proposal today marks the beginning of a positive turnaround of the troubled Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). The budget provides safeguards for crucial agency functions, such as hatcheries, while initiating the rebuilding of an agency in crisis.

Agency management recently revealed to legislative leaders a significant budget shortfall. Because of this, a major hunting and fishing license fee increase plan was proposed by WDFW to increase agency revenue.

“The agency wanted to correct this by initiating a hefty increase in hunting and fishing license fees without the promise for more opportunities,” said Sen. Kirk Pearson, R-Monroe, chairman of the Senate Natural Resources and Parks Committee.

Pearson received hundreds of letter in opposition to WDFW’s fee increase proposal from across the state.

“The problem is not a money problem, it’s a leadership problem,” said Pearson.

The Senate budget provides $5 million from the general fund to protect hatcheries and core agency functions while bringing in outside performance and management support.

“It’s important that we provide stability to the agency while we begin a much-needed overhaul that will help protect and grow the state’s hunting and fishing opportunities,” said Pearson. “This budget keeps the core of the agency in place while we correct the past problems that placed the agency in this situation and help them get on stronger footing.”

The budget proposal also provides funding for an outside consultant to identify and fix management and organizational issues while running a zero-based budget exercise to address ongoing budget issues.

“This budget for WDFW reflects the needs of an agency in crisis,” said Pearson. “Dwindling fish populations, diseased and scattered wildlife and animal conflict problems have set back the WDFW’s mission over the past few years. By giving them the tools they need to be successful, we can protect and grow hunting and fishing opportunities both now and in the future.”

Willapa Bay hatcheries, fisheries potentially on state budget chopping block
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission eying coastal salmon cutbacks as governor and legislature grapple with how to find K-12 eduction funds
By Katie WilsonEO Media Group
Published on October 3, 2014 8:50AM



WILLAPA BAY, Wash. — With a projected $3 billion state general fund shortfall to navigate, the governor’s office asked the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife how it would eliminate close to $10 million from its proposed budget for the 2015-17 biennium.

The result was a report released on the WDFW website detailing a number of cuts — including options to reduce enforcement officer hours, close four hatcheries and eliminate managed fisheries in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor.

For the moment these are “what if” scenarios, said Bruce Botka, a spokesperson for WDFW — what state departments will look like if they have to cut 15 percent of their state general fund budgets.

“It’s really early in the process,” said Kelly Cunningham, deputy assistant director for WDFW’s fish program.

The cuts aren’t necessarily on the table — but, then, they aren’t off it either.

Right now it’s difficult to speculate about what may or may not happen, but, he said, if even some of the cuts do happen, they’re going to have an impact.

“We feel they’re all deep, they’re all significant cuts,” he said.


Situation likely to worsen


The reduction options are seeking to close a general fund shortfall that is, according to a Fish and Wildlife Commission presentation from August, “as bad as we’ve seen since the beginning of the ‘Great Recession.’”

According to this presentation, the primary drivers behind the projected shortfall include a requirement on the state to fully fund education under the Washington Supreme Court’s McCleary decision and the ever-increasing costs in delivering government services because of inflation.

The McClearys are Washington state parents who successfully sued to force the Legislature to comply with the state constitution’s mandate that K-12 schooling be fully funded. Up until now, nearly all districts in the state must also seek supplemental maintenance and operations levies from local taxpayers in order to make ends meet. Paying for all schooling via state appropriations will seriously curtail some other spending that is considered legally discretionary — including the fish and wildlife agency. State legislators are expected to grapple with the issue starting in January when they begin writing the budget for the next two-year cycle, called a biennium.

“The problem is projected to worsen in future biennia,” the wildlife commission presentation stated.

Many departments, not just WDFW, are anticipating a drop in available dollars as well.

The governor’s office won’t release its proposed operating and capital budgets until mid-December and the first legislative budget plans likely won’t appear until late February or early March. The biennium begins July 1.

A lot could happen in the meantime, before WDFW’s budget exercise could become proposed cuts. New taxes and borrowing could generate more revenue, for example.

“We have a long way to go before any decisions are made,” said Randy Aho, Region 6 hatchery reform and operations manager with WDFW.


Hatchery closure option


At the Naselle Hatchery, rain has brought the salmon up the river. A glance straight down from the fish ladder and into the stream below doesn’t reveal much at first. A salmon may flash out of the water suddenly, struggling to get up the ladder. Here and there, a salmon’s gleaming back cuts a sinuous line through the foam below. The water is dark, reflecting only the overhanging trees.

But walk down the stream toward the river: The water is mainly dark because it is packed with salmon. They jostle shoulder to shoulder, belly to back. They wait in a long, weaving line for their turn to throw themselves against the current and up the fish ladder, through the black rushing water and into the holding pens above.

The Naselle Hatchery produces 800,000 juvenile fall chinook and more than 1 million juvenile coho as well as thousands of chum, rainbow trout and winter steelhead. All these fish are released into the Naselle River and go on to feed other wildlife and commercial and recreational fisheries along the Washington Coast and in Willapa Bay.

“Those fish and those fisheries are really important to local economies right now,” Cunningham said.

Closing the hatchery would save the department an estimated $824,000 in fiscal years 2016 and 2017, according to WDFW’s reduction report submitted to the governor’s office.

“It’s come up before,” Aho said.

Several years ago, the department was asked to go through a similar exercise, said Botka, and closing the hatchery in Naselle and relocating or laying off its three employees was an option then too.

What else could be affected

Among the reduction options that affect Pacific County directly is the option to eliminate management and sampling of commercial fisheries in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor.

If that field work were cut away, infrastructure and support costs would also be reduced, according to the WDFW report to the governor’s office. The commercial and recreational fisheries would have to close.

There would be an estimated loss of over $2.3 million per year of personal income and an annual loss of $1 million of income to commercial fishermen.

The report predicts that many of these fishermen, their licenses now useless for Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor, would move to the Columbia River, “further exacerbating recreational-commercial conflicts.”

Another bit to read but it is Willapa.


An option to cut back on enforcement time would save the state $2.3 million but also reduce Fish and Wildlife police coverage in eight counties including Klickitat, Grays Harbor, Whatcom and King counties.

An option to close the Nemah Hatchery in Willapa Bay is also in the report. The hatchery produces 3 million fall chinook every year as well as 300,000 chum. The chinook from Nemah contribute to 43 percent of the fall chinook salmon production in the Willapa Bay area.

‘We have a long way to go before any decisions are made.’

— Randy Aho

Region 6 hatchery reform and operations manager with WDFW.