About Willapa Rec seasons:

I thought this was important enough to put up. That said I would urge all to think through their responses and not let the baggage of the past management cloud one's thoughts. Verbiage such as Commies, knuckle draggers, barbarians to describe commercial interest should not be viewed as helpful. It is a honest attempt by Steve to reach out and engage the Rec community for input on how maximize Rec opportunity in Willapa. Frankly this is something new for the coast. So read what Steve is asking and participate if you choose. His e mail address is below.


Hi Folks.

I need some help. What would you do to increase the recreational catch (and effort) for coho? Open closed areas? Increase daily limit? Less selective fishing? Would appreciate any thoughts you might have. The analyses I have done so far don’t show an effect of the commercial fisheries, like we see with Chinook.

Thanks.

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

Just visited with Steve

His request for coho season changes is for Willapa Bay only

What does he mean by " no effect of commercial fisheries" ? Honest question, not trying to argue the point.

If I recall when Willapa Coho are modeled the Rec catch does not move any no matter what he does with the Commercial seasons. I took the entire Commercial season out of the model and no change to the Rec catch.

Here are my suggestions. No Commercial in 2T until September 15th at the least but October 1st. would work much much better.

Expand bag limits. The Willapa Bay Marine fisheries should of have had a six fish limit this past year. So numbers being the same 6 fish limit. We are talking adults here. Also you do this every year so folks count on it.

In river numbers permitting you go to 4 adults a day. Not sure about North River but the three streams with hatcheries the W+H streams should not be a problem.

Two rods allowed out of a boat anywhere river or bay.

No limit on Jacks.

Well, again I would be cautious not to accept model results as fact. How can the commercial fishery not affect the sport catch?

Because the harvest models in both GH & Willapa were a bunch of crap. In GH it charged inriver against the full run size rather than what is left after Commercial tribal & bay rec. In Willapa the Commercial harvest & Rec did not interact in similar ways. Steve is trying to sort it out to find something that works and expands Rec opportunity.

Good then. Lots simpler when they just say what they want to do.

Agenda Item 16. Willapa Bay Salmon Management Policy – Briefing and Public Hearing 09:45 am

The Department will brief the Commission on Willapa Bay Salmon Management challenges, describe the public process, and seek guidance on draft policy sideboards.
Staff Report: Steve Thiesfeld, Region 6 Fish Program Manager

PUBLIC INPUT (This item only)

Quick update. The policy below has some Grays Harbor & Willapa changes in red as the strike does not carry in a C&P. The new Director is currently the Idaho F&H Deputy Director and more to come on that I am sure. The draft Willapa policy will be released soon. Now this is for review and the final will be next month for public comment as it goes on the state register.


DRAFT- January 7, 2015
FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION POLICY DECISION


POLICY TITLE: 2015-2017 North of Falcon POLICY NUMBER: C-3608


Supersedes: C-3608, 2011-2012 Effective Date: Termination Date:

February X , 2015 December 31, 2017


See Also: Policy C-3001 Approved by:
Policy C-3620 Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission,



North of Falcon Policy

This Policy will guide Department staff in considering conservation, allocation, in-season management, and monitoring issues associated with the annual salmon fishery planning process known as "North of Falcon." When considering management issues, Department staff will ensure that decisions are made consistent with: the Department's statutory authority; U.S. v. Washington; U.S. v. Oregon; the Endangered Species Act; the Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan; the Pacific Salmon Treaty; the Pacific Fishery Management Council's Framework Salmon Management Plan; pertinent state/tribal agreements; and the applicable Fish and Wildlife Commission policies.

The Department will implement this Policy consistent with the purposes and intended outcomes described in the 21st Century Salmon and Steelhead Planning Project including:

• Salmon and steelhead will be managed to recover and assure sustainability in a way that is science-based, well-documented, transparent, well-communicated, and accountable.

• Fisheries will be managed to meet or exceed ESA, recovery, and conservation goals; and harvest management measures will protect and promote the long-term well-being of the commercial and recreational fisheries.

Fishery Management

General

• On a statewide basis, fishing opportunities will be provided when they can be directed at healthy wild and hatchery stocks.
• Selective fishing methods and gears that maximize fishing opportunity and minimize impacts on depressed stocks will be utilized to the fullest extent possible taking into consideration legal constraints on implementation and budgetary limits associated with required sampling, monitoring and enforcement programs.
• When assessed from a statewide perspective, fishing directed at chinook, coho, pink, sockeye, or chum salmon will not be exclusively reserved for either sport or commercial users.
• When managing sport fisheries, meaningful recreational fishing opportunities will be distributed equitably across fishing areas and reflect the diverse interests of fishers, including retention and catch and release fisheries.
• The Department will seek non-treaty fishing access to unutilized portions of treaty harvest allocations through the implementation of pre-season agreements, taking into consideration changes in abundance, fishery conflicts, and factors that may influence attainment of spawning escapement objectives.

Sockeye, Chum. and Pink Salmon

• For fisheries directed at Fraser River-origin chum, pink, and sockeye stocks, the majority of harvest will be provided to the commercial fisheries.
• For fisheries directed at harvestable Puget Sound-origin chum stocks, the majority of harvest will be provided to the commercial fisheries.
• For fisheries directed at Lake Washington sockeye, the first 200,000 non-treaty harvest will be provided to recreational fishers. If the allowable non-treaty harvest is greater than 200,000, commercial harvest directed at this stock may be considered.
• For fisheries directed at harvestable Puget Sound origin pink salmon, seasons will be established that provide meaningful opportunities for both recreational and commercial fisheries while minimizing gear and other fishery conflicts.

Chinook and Coho Salmon

• The Puget Sound harvest management objectives for chinook and coho stocks, in priority order, are to: (1) provide meaningful recreational fishing opportunities; and (2) identify and provide opportunities for commercial harvest. When managing sport fisheries in this region, recreational opportunities will be distributed equitably across fishing areas, considering factors such as: the uniqueness of each area; the availability of opportunities for various species in each area throughout the season; the desire to provide high levels of total recreational opportunity; and the biological impacts.
• Grays Harbo r will be m anaged co nsistent with the Comm ission’s Grays Harbo r Po licy (POL C -3621).Grays Harbor harvest management objectives shall include opportunities for both the
recreational and commercial fisheries.
• The Fish and Wildlife Commission's policy on Columbia River Salmon Management (POL• C3620) shall guide pre-season and in-season planning of Columbia River salmon fisheries. Columbia River harvest management regimes shall be developed in cooperation with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife representatives.
• Willapa Bay w ill be m anaged co nsistent with the Co mm issio n’s Willapa Bay Po licy (P OL C -XXXX). Willapa Bay harvest management shall be consistent with Willapa Bay Framework management objectives. The following general intent shall apply: Willapa Bay harvest management objectives shall include meaningful opportunities for both recreational and commercial fisheries.
• Pacific Ocean harvest shall be managed consistent with the Pacific Fishery Management Council's Framework Salmon Management Plan and the National Standards that provide for fair and equitable allocation of fishing privileges among various fishers.

In-Season Management

• When in-season management actions are taken, they will be implemented in a manner that is consistent with pre-season conservation and harvest management objectives, and the fishery intent developed through the North of Falcon process.

Monitoring, Sampling and Enforcement

• Monitoring, sampling and enforcement programs will be provided to account for species and population impacts of all fisheries and to ensure compliance with state regulations.
• Fishery participants will be required to comply with fishery monitoring and evaluation programs designed to account for species and population impacts.

Gear and Fishery Conflicts

• Recreational and commercial fisheries shall be structured to minimize gear and other fishery conflicts. Unanticipated fishery interaction issues identified in-season, including conflicts with
fisheries directed at other species, shall be resolved by involving the appropriate sport and commercial representatives in a dispute resolution process managed by Department staff.

Incidental Mortalities

• The Department will manage fisheries to minimize mortalities on non-target species (e.g. rockfish, sea birds, etc.). Management regimes will include strategies to limit seabird mortalities consistent with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Communications

• The Department shall strive to make ongoing improvements for effective public involvement during the North of Falcon planning process and annual salmon fishery implementation, incorporating the following intents:

o North of Falcon participants will be included as observers during appropriate state/tribal discussions of fishery issues.
o all decisions made during the North of Falcon process will be recorded in writing.
o variety of tools will be used to effectively communicate with the public, to receive input on pre-season planning or in-season fishery issues, and to make available the record of decisions. Such tools will include: recreational and commercial advisory groups; public workshops to address key issues; the WDFW North of Falcon Web site; and in-season tele-conferences.
o The Department will make a concerted effort to consult with stakeholders prior to making major decisions with the tribes.

Other Species

• • The Fish and Wildlife Commission's policy on Lower Columbia Sturgeon Management (POL• C3001) shall guide pre-season and in-season planning of Columbia River and coastal sturgeon fisheries and related incidental impacts. Management of Willapa Bay sturgeon fisheries will be further guided by Willapa Bay Framework management objectives.

Delegation of Authority
• The Fish and Wildlife Commission delegates the authority to the Director to make harvest agreements
with Northwest treaty tribes and other governmental agencies, and adopt permanent and emergency regulations resulting from the agreements made during the annual North of Falcon process.

This is a link to the WDFW Commission process on the Willapa Plan redo. Go down to the January 8 / 10 meeting date and the draft Willapa Plan. It is different from the prior drafts so that is the one you want to look over. http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/willapa_bay_salmon/

Ok here you go folks. I am not sure about the comment period being a drop dead mark but it is likely the time for input to the agency.



Hi Everyone,

Attached is the draft Willapa Bay Salmon Management Policy that the commission approved sending out for public comment. We corrected one typo and added some language about weirs under adaptive management. You can either send me your input or submit it here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/willapa_bay_salmon/comment_form.html. Comments are due January 29th.

Thanks.

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

A little additional information. The January 29th date is for final input to the agency on the Willapa Plan redo. After that one can comment directly to the Commission and after the Commission adopts the final Willapa Plan and it is posted on the State Register one can comment also. All that said if your thought is to provide insight or objections to the agency then you want your comments in by the 29th. There is a comment link on the WDFW website link for Willapa that was posted previously but just in case here it is again. http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/willapa_bay_salmon/

Here are my latest comments to staff on the latest Willapa Plan draft. Take a look feel free to agree or disagree but I think it at least allows folks to get an idea of where we are at. Here is a link to the Willapa site and the plan is linked near the bottom of the page.

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

Mr. Scott,

I am submitting my thoughts on the latest Willapa Management Plan ( WMP ) draft. After considerable conversation with others I can say with certainty that the current WMP draft left many if not most confused. Depending on how folks read it one could draw just about any conclusion one wished dependant on the interpretation of the definition of HSRG, conservation objectives, and harvest directives. I am submitting for your consideration the following modifications to the WMP draft.

1. Chinook Primary Stream: After review it is apparent the Willapa is the logical choice. With its close proximity to North River and Smith Creek it will enhance the ability to meet conservation objectives for all three streams. Additionally as Chinook produced at the Forks Creek hatchery stray in large numbers that cannot be removed to meet HSRG requirements due the location of the Forks Creek Hatchery and the lack of a weir that can stop the staying. It is doubtful other than a minimal number Chinook can be produced at that facility. In the choice of Willapa as Primary it will dramatically increase the potential of meeting HSRG guidelines within the time frames identified in the WMP draft for Willapa, North River and Smith Creek.

2. Managing For Escapement: In the WMP I see in the Chinook options you have “ Achieve spawner goals for natural-origin Chinook “. In Coho you have “Achieve the aggregate spawner goal for natural-origin Coho” Now some are reading this as you make the individual stream goals for Willapa Chinook and the aggregate for the Willapa Estuary for Coho. So clarification of that verbiage is needed. What is meant by goals in Chinook? All the tributary streams or Willapa & Naselle or something else?

Additionally the aggregate Coho and Chum objectives lack what is commonly called a "floor " or minimum escapement goal for the Willapa Estuary streams that would trigger harvest protection of these streams. As written the plan would permit Willapa and Naselle to drive and make the aggregate Coho escapement goal and literally wipe out the remaining streams in the Willapa Estuary. Simply put a aggregate Coho and Chum escapement goals minus a "floor" is not acceptable.

3. Recreational Harvest: In the harvest options recreational harvest between marine and freshwater inriver is not clearly defined.. In the Grays Harbor plan these are clearly stated. By not placing similar guidelines in the WMP it is likely creating an unbelievable confrontation between Marine and Freshwater Inriver recreational fishers at North of Falcon. It is my understanding that the Commission desired to remove confrontation between all users rather than increase the conflict which the current WMP draft does between marine and freshwater inriver recreational fishers. I urge the addition of the following verbiage to any and all options.

a. Prioritize recreational fishing opportunities for Chinook salmon and for recreational fishing in areas 2T and 2U during the Chinook salmon management period (through Sept. 15); and
2) Marine and inriver freshwater recreational Chinook harvest impacts shall be divided equally. Either can exceed its share as long as it does not impair a full season for the other. ( see a,b,c)

A. Marine full season is defined as a 2T recreational opening May 31 unless a conservation objective requires a reduction. 6 fish limit, two rods per angler from a boat preseason forecast runsize permitting.
B. Freshwater inriver recreational full season is defined as a August 1 opener for the Willapa estuary streams for all reaches open to recreational anglers unless a conservation objective requires a reduction. 4 adults a day, two rods per angler from a boat, no limit on Jacks preseason forecast runsize permitting.
C. Any and all conservation driven recreational fisher reductions shall be equally shared by marine and fresh water inriver recreational fishers.

4. 2T Commercial Exclusion: The lack of a clearly define 2T Commercial exclusion has many believing that commercial harvest could start as early as July and just about any week to September 15. I urge that the WMP clearly state the recreational harvest priority and suggest the following verbiage be added to the WMP and any and all options.

No commercial fisheries shall take place in area 2T and U prior to September 16.

5. Chum Management: The current WMP verbiage on Chum harvest and management is woefully inadequate. I urge you to consider adding the following verbiage.

1) ( STRIKE OUT Fisheries will be managed with the intent of achieving the aggregate goal for Willapa Bay naturally spawning Chum salmon. Until the spawner goal is achieved, the maximum fishery impact shall not exceed a 10% harvest rate and no commercial fisheries will occur in the period from October 15-31. If the aggregate goal has been achieved, but the pre-season forecast of adult Chum is less than the aggregate goal, or less than 10% higher than the aggregate goal, fisheries in the Willapa Bay Basin will be scheduled to result in an impact of no more than 10% of the adult return.)

No commercial fisheries Oct. 15-31 until spawner goal achieved 2 consecutive years. If the number of natural-origin spawners was less than the goal in 3 out of the last 5 years (beginning in 2010), the Department shall implement the following measures:

a) The predicted fishery impact for Chum in WDFW-managed fisheries in the Willapa Harbor & tributary streams will not exceed 10% of the adult return to Willapa Harbor.

b) When the Chum preseason forecast is 90% or less of the escapement goal the predicted fishery impact for Chum in WDFW-managed fisheries in the Willapa Harbor & tributary streams will not exceed 5% of the adult return to Willapa Harbor.

Rational: The changes are consistent to the directives of the Commission in the recently adopted Grays Harbor Management Plan. Willapa Chum have made escapement 6 out of the last 18 years and only 1 of the last 9 due to the agencies inability or unwillingness to address the failure to make Chum escapement goals.

In closing I would like to thank you and Region 6 staff for your effort thus far and look to work toward the goal Willapa salmon management reform.

Sincerely,

From Region 6 for THIS Saturdays public meeting in Raymond.


Hi Everybody,

It may have slipped folks memories, but we have a public workshop scheduled for Saturday, January 17th at the Raymond Elks Lodge, 326 Third St., Raymond. The meeting is scheduled for 2 to 5 pm.

While we aren’t as far along on policy development as we had hoped, we do have a draft policy out for public comment. Our objective for Saturday is to help folks understand the draft policy and analyses so they can provide constructive comments. Note that we are taking comments until January 29th, so this won’t be your only opportunity. Comments can also be provided here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/willapa_bay_salmon/comment_form.html.

A draft agenda is:
Background material for the options, e.g. schedules, models.
Additional details on the AHA modeling.
Review the draft policy.
Public comment.

I hope to see you all there.

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

So just how did the January 17th Willapa Management Plan (WMP) public meeting go? About the same as past meetings I think. Not much change really but I must admit in some respects staff did much better or worse depending on your view. So some bullets.

It was much better and the information supplied was well organized. Mr. Theisfeld has gotten a much better feel for the issues than when he assumed the Region 6 (R-6) job so a A+ here. In working the AHA and the math with it staff has put a huge effort in and continues to do so, A+ again. Also two of the senior R-6 hatchery employees were present to answer question and this is a real improvement, A+ again. So these things are good.

Now the bad. The meeting had little public notification other than what was posted on the Commission's Willapa webpage. No press release no nothing other than a e mail from Mr. Theisfeld that I and others circulated very late in the game. A big fat F here, not good.

Then this thing they called aspirational goals. Wish list is a better term and none of them are based upon reality. Why aspirational goals? Got me as they come from the very first public forum that was poorly attended that had a survey taken. The survey was not properly explained or even remotely presented in a way that a citizen would have any idea of just how staff intended to use the survey. Additionally staff continues to utilize it as a base for the AHA model output which means simply they are not using the AHA model to define the parameters to comply with HSRG but to show what aspirational goals could / should / would require as to production. As one gentleman told me "show me how many fish I can kill" Big F again.

Now the AHA model runs. This where it gets way past strange! Rather than blather on lets go right to the most glaring item. With hatchery production you can have either a integrated stock or segregated stock. A hatchery integrated stock is one that the hatchery stock is identical to the natural run and you incorporate natural stock into the hatchery spawn at a designated percentage and limit staying. A segregated hatchery stock is one that is completely and totally isolated from the natural production be it by the natural processes ( run timing ect ) and genetics. It can be segregated by other means such as a weir that guarantees no straying. This allows for a rather substantial flexibility for hatchery production. Now Forks Creek hatchery on the Willapa is many miles upstream and while it has a weir on average 20% of the returning adult hatchery Chinook after harvest fail to return to Forks Creek and spawn in the Willapa Basin naturally. This results in a somewhere around 3.5 to 1 hatchery origin spawners (HOS) over the natural spawners (NOS) in the gravel. That is a no go with HSRG.

So how did staff solve the problem? In several AHA option runs you see Willapa River Chinook as a segregated stock! Now the Willapa Chinook is the integrated stock from hell. There absolutely ZERO difference genetically or any other standard between the hatchery production or natural run. Zero! They did the same for another option with the Naselle Chinook calling it segregated and again it is not as it is a fully integrated stock. The Naselle does have a weir but it is pulled at or around October 15th depending on flows. Additionally it fails in high water events, not floods just a normal high water event, so segregated is a no go with HSRG.

So the question is just why is staff doing things? Well as one can imagine opinions are pretty much all over the map! So my opinion and I stress this is MY OPINION. Staff is trying to show folks with the AHA model what it would take to achieve the wish list aspirational goals for harvest. They are not saying they can or will be able to achieve those goals but what it would require. Staff have provided mountains of information in the WMP process as to HSRG and parameters / requirements needed. Again this is my opinion, I think the intent is that folks are supposed to utilize the HSRG information to interpret what is or not possible. Not good, BIG fat F again.

The final item is which stream is to be primary for Chinook Willapa or Naselle? This issue has pluses or minus' depending on your view. The primary has stricter HSRG requirements on staying and the mix of NOS plus HOS so it is important. At this time it not clear as to which is the most advantageous to designate. I am sure a lot of conversation will continue on this issue.

So there are my thoughts of my minutes for the 1/17/15 WMP public meeting.

Thanks for the update.

Assuming Willapa must have a primary wild chinook stock, why not select Naselle? At the southern end of the bay, it is geographically most isolated. Stop producing any hatchery chinook at Naselle, and straying from either Nemah or Willapa/Forks Ck would likely fall below the HSRG standard.

I think it will be impossible to have significant hatchery chinook production from Forks Ck AND maintain a wild population in the Willapa River that is not heavily influenced by hatchery straying. Chinook prefer river spawning over creek spawning, and even those genetically inferior Forks Ck chinook are going to select the mainstem Willapa River as their preferred spawning location over tiny Forks Ck. Why try to do the impossible?

This notion that WDFW can have its cake and eat it too (meaning achieve wild chinook conservation goals and have maximum production and resultant slaughter of returning hatchery chinook in sport and gillnet fisheries is dysfuctional, not to mention it wastes agency and public time and resources.

Watching this AHA process feels like watching a math modeler trying to make 2 + 2 = 5.

Sg

Not gonna disagree there.

If conservation and HSRG benchmarks are truly going to be prioritized, people need to get used to the reality that fishin' there ain't gonna be like it was.

I'd just like to say "Thank you" to Rivrguy and the rest of the folks who are working the Grays Harbor/Willapa Bay issues. I appreciate being kept up to speed on what is happening.

Salmo

If you make Naselle the wild stock you will condition fisheries in the north end of the bay to wild stock needs, which means the hatchery fish will need to be taken close to or in the rivers. That would be unacceptable to harvesters.

2+2=5? In Willapa, Runsize -Catch=Escapement Goal, even when catch is 2 or 3X the modeled number. If it wasn't, fisheries would be closed.

WDFW operates on a math system that certainly wasn't taught in the schools I attended.