Carcassman,

Sorry, I was mostly thinking out loud, so to speak. If chinook conservation is actually a goal, then the gillnet fleet is gonna' have to go, and hatchery chinook production reduced to a level that isn't inconsistent with wild conservation.

Sg

When pigs fly and hell freezes over conservation might become a goal in WB. Or WA for that matter.

Here is where I think my & others starting point is on if a stock is segregated or integrated. The definition is pretty much black & white with no gray type thing, or maybe, or what if. It is a interesting thing that needs to be addressed as my understanding is the purpose of the Willapa Plan redo is to actually follow the rules and not say one thing ( comply with HSRG ) then go do something else. Staff may have something in the mix I am not aware of but I tend to doubt it.

From HSRG June 2004 HSRG/WDFW/NWIFC Technical Discussion Paper #1: Integrated Hatchery Programs June 21, 2004.


Formal Definition: A hatchery program is a Segregated Type if the intent is for the hatchery population to represent a distinct population that is reproductively isolated from naturally-spawning populations.

Formal Definition: A hatchery program is an Integrated Type if the intent is for the natural environment to drive the adaptation and fitness of a composite population of fish that spawns both in a hatchery and in the wild.

If the state is concerned about balancing the budget, business 101 says to look at things that have an unacceptable or unsustainable ROI. In a clear and transparent world, that would show that the welfare program for commercial fishing should be immediately cut.

CORRECTION:

Integrated simply means that co-mingling of hatch and wild is encouraged. Anything not managed for segregation is by definition integrated.

That the natural environment would drive the adaptation/fitness of the co-mingled population is a function of PNI... specifically managing for a PNI above 0.5 or greater.

Many integrated programs are run with dismal PNI's.... essentially allowing the hatchery environment to dominate the genetic fitness of the co-mingled population.

This is at the heart of the Willapa reform... broodstock management and limiting pHOS to bring hatchery operations up to HSRG standards.

From the Commission presentation on how you classify a streams salmon population. As many have discussed this is rather important be it views of how it should work in Willapa ( & Grays Harbor ) are very diverse. While the language is rather clear how the agency interprets it is not as this was part of the 2009 adoption of HSRG adoption and you see what still goes on in Willapa.


What the HSRG uses: (LCRSRP);

Primary—biologically significant, core, key, highly viable, important to recovery. Historically were a large segment of the population structure. Need to be at low risk of extinction.

Contributing– of some significance, are viable but lower in abundance than Primary. Contribute to diversity.

Stabilizing—a population, but may not have ever been a large segment of the population structure.

Little Edit: This was part of the AHA presentation and unlike in Grays Harbor where staff put up a slide that was totally misleading and just plain wrong, I doubt this is. So I think it is safe to say this is the agencies view of the classifications.

Rivrguy is correctly quoting the HSRG's definitions of integrated and segregated programs.

And eyeFish is perfectly quoting how WDFW wants to do it.

Let us try and air something out a bit. Below are the definitions from HSRG on stream classifications. Two lines of thought are out and about on the issue so let us use this as a starting point.

When I worked on the Grays Harbor HSRG the stream classifications were supposed to be applied for what the stream currently is and historically was.

What the HSRG uses: (LCRSRP);
Primary—biologically significant, core, key, highly viable, important to recovery. Historically were a large segment of the population structure. Need to be at low risk of extinction.
Contributing– of some significance, are viable but lower in abundance than Primary. Contribute to diversity.
Stabilizing—a population, but may not have ever been a large segment of the population structure.

Now some take a different view. You apply what stream classification you desire for a particular stream and manage to that requirement.

With this interpretation theoretically in Willapa you could assign stabilizing to all streams but the Naselle and harvest away on the rest and pretty much do the natural production under as stabilizing is a very low bar. This is also were segregated comes in as no restrictions apply just harvest away.

This issue of just what the interpretation of HSRG is rather important and I think contentious. Thoughts anyone?

Nemah = segregated...

Naselle = primary....

Willapa/North = contributing...

Stabilizing is just another code word for no performance benchmarks.... status quo will do just fine.

That's the brand of conservation I support and testified before the commission a couple weeks ago.5

and I think Doc nailed the other side of the coin. Now I moved toward flipping to Willapa Prime but honestly it would not make much difference other than to the hatcheries compliance with HSRG and then it is just a question how much effort. So the question around which is prime Naselle or Willapa is really about the hatcheries production & streams interaction and slightly improving Naselles chances of success. Either work I think.

To the question of how Willapa / North Prime helps Naselle. A contributing stream has a slightly lower requirement for straying and PNI than Primary. That is about it and the Naselle weir is prone to failure as posted before. That is about it in a nutshell.

The agency is looking for comment on NOF. Grays Harbor and Willapa have changes as does a couple of other things so take a peek.

Good afternoon,

The 2013-15 Fish and Wildlife Commission (Commission) policy for North of Falcon (NOF) has expired. The Commission is considering changes to the policy for the 2015-17 NOF processes and is soliciting for public comment. The policy with proposed changes is attached and can also be found at http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/. The Department will present the policy including changes and comments received to the Commission during February. If you wish to provide comments regarding the policy and proposed changes, send an email by January 31, 2015 to: ryan.lothrop@dfw.wa.gov (recreational), or kendall.henry@dfw.wa.gov (commercial). If you wish to provide comments directly to the Commission, go to http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings.html to determine when and where the North of Falcon Policy will be discussed.

The public meeting schedule for the 2015 North of Falcon process can be found at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/northfalcon/. As additional meetings are scheduled, the website will be update.

Thank you and have a great day.

Ryan Lothrop
Puget Sound Recreational Salmon Fishery Manager
Fish Management Division
Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
Ryan.Lothrop@dfw.wa.gov
Work: 360.902.2808

Here are the requirements that go with a stream designation. This is why in a model run gets you such different values. It is also why WDFW calls the Willapa stabilizing or the same for Naselle. By identifying Willapa or Naselle to a insignificant stabilizing designation you fool the AHA Model into violating HSRG standards. It commonly called tricking the model. For WDFW it seems old habits die hard.


HSRG Requirements:
Designation Standards
Primary—
&#61550; Integrated hatchery programs--PNI > 0.67; pHOS <30%
&#61550; Segregated hatchery programs—pHOS < 5%

Contributing—
&#61550; Integrated hatchery programs--PNI > 0.50; pHOS <30%
&#61550; Segregated hatchery programs—pHOS < 10%

Stabilizing—
&#61550; Integrated hatchery programs—current condition
&#61550; Segregated hatchery programs—current condition

Loosing the formatting but I will try to get some additional information up later. The bit below is the stream designation that was in one Willapa AHA Option. Now they changed stream designations some to a huge move depending on the hatchery production for harvest that the agency was attempting to get out of a AHA model run.


Basin Chinook Coho
Population Designation Program Type HSRG Requirements Population Designation Program Type HSRG Requirements

North/Smith Contributing
-- --
Willapa Primary Integrated PNI >0.67; pHOS <30% Primary Integrated PNI >0.67; pHOS <30%

Palix Stabilizing -- -- Contributing -- --

Nemah N/A Segregated Current Condition Contributing Integrated PNI >0.50; pHOS <30%

Naselle Stabilizing Segregated Current Condition Stabilizing Integrated Current Condition

Bear Stabilizing -- -- Contributing -- --

Here are some comments from a Willapa rec fisher from out of state. Agree or disagree with his views he took the time to put forth his views and be involved. That is important as a citizen participation is what this process underway for Willapa is all about. The more diverse all our views the better as it allows all to get true reading of what citizens feel.



Ref: Draft Willapa Bay Salmon
Management Policy Document

Dear Mr. Thiesfield:

As an out-of-state salmon sport fishing enthusiast, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the above referenced draft document dated January 12, 2015. I have fished Willapa Bay (specifically area 2T, 2U & the Wash Away Beach area) for the past 14 years. I continue to support the development of the Willapa River section of Willapa Bay into a world class sport Chinook salmon fishery. We now have the opportunity to create such a fishery through the implementation of a revised version of the prior mentioned policy document. My comments are presented with this goal in mind!

Please understand that I support the restoration and maintenance of wild salmon populations. However, as we develop plans to ensure the continuation of wild Chinook runs on the Willapa River we must provide time to implement presently untried and possible currently unthought-of options for the removal, or significant reduction in the number, of Chinook hatchery fish on the spawning beds located within the Willapa River’s watershed. It has taken us decades to finally accept the fact that wild salmon play a significant role in maintaining biodiversity, and that there are too many hatchery Chinook on our natural spawning beds. We will NOT resolve these issues overnight! In addressing these issues we must NOT take knee jerk reactions that will seriously impact the current quality of the Willapa River Chinook fishery. Reducing hatchery production at the Fork Creek Hatchery, is, in my opinion, a knee jerk reaction and should only be taken after all other option have through infield trials proved to be inadequate.

As a result, I do not support the implementation of either Alternative A or B as currently presented in the draft Policy document as both of these alternatives reduce the Chinook output of the Forks Creek Hatchery. Thus, by default, I support the implementation of Alternative C.

There are numerous actions we can take immediately if we are truly interested in increasing the number of wild Chinook returning to the Willapa River watershed while reducing the number of hatchery Chinook found on the Willapa River watershed’s spawning beds. However, in taking such actions we must ensure that sufficient numbers of hatchery fish arrive at the Forks Creek Hatchery to achieve Hatchery production goals. Examples of such actions are:
1. Remove gillnets from Area 2T and 2U. Commercial fishers shall implement selective harvest methods.
2. Allow commercial fishers to harvest hatchery Chinook within the upper section of 2U prior to September 15th.
3. Sport fishers shall neither land nor net wild Chinook.
4. Sport fishers shall use barbless hooks with no more that 2 hooks per rig.
5. Increase sport harvest of hatchery Chinook through the establishment of higher daily and seasonal limits within Area 2T and 2U.
6. Remove the restriction of the number of rods sport fishers may use per fishing license when fishing within Area 2T and 2U.
7. Increase sport fisher harvest of hatchery Chinook within that portion of the Willapa River watershed located upstream of the Forks Creek Hatchery through the establishment of generous daily and seasonal limits.
8. Remove hatchery Chinook from high quality spawning beds which are located within the Willapa River watershed upstream of the Forks Creek Hatchery through the use of seine nets. Use volunteers to perform this task. Let the volunteers keep all hatchery Chinook so harvested.
9. Use fish traps on small streams located within the Willapa River to remove hatchery Chinook. Use volunteers to monitor these traps and allow these volunteers to keep all hatchery Chinook found in such traps. They of course would release all wild Chinook found in said traps.
10. As needed, implement other reasonable ideas as they become available for the selective removal of hatchery Chinook from the portion of the Willapa River watershed located above the Forks Creek Hatchery.

In addition, to increase the sport fishing opportunities within the 2T and 2U areas of Willapa Bay I support keeping these areas essentially commercial net free for the period beginning August 1st through September 15th of each year. Further, the current area defined as 2U should be divided into 2 section, an upstream and downstream section. The upstream would be defined starting at Raymond and proceed downstream to the Raymond airport. The downstream section would begin at the Raymond airport and proceed downstream to the Range Marker. Commercial fishers would be allowed early season harvest of hatchery Chinook in the upper reach of the area 2U during the August 1st through September 15th time period. After September 15th commercial harvest would be allowed harvest throughout the 2T and 2U areas per State established seasons.

This division of the area 2U would allow sport fishers to again fish the area immediately around and upstream of the Range Marker. Historically, this was a very productive sport fishing area and safely accessible by small boats launched at Raymond. Recently, the commercial fleet has essentially dominated this area. My experience has been that once the commercial fleet is fishing in an area, sport fishing will not be productive in said area until at least 3 days following the conclusion of the commercial fishing event.

Thanks for providing me with the opportunity to provide input into your very important policy document. If I may be of any assistance please consider me a volunteer!

I was recently asked to take a look at the Willapa Hatchery Complex and develop a conservation based look at the hatchery production, AHA modeled options, and HSRG. I did and I must say I was surprised by what I thought existed and what does exist let alone do the could / should / would bit with HSRG limiters. So take a read .

Almost forgot. Many ask why is Willapa so important. To end the discrimination the inriver & marine Rec fisher have suffered is the big one. Also in Grays Harbor we have the very same issues with the Humptulips Coho to be resolved. One can think of Willapa as the template of how you fix it when you have massively over harvested and nearly wiped out a salmon run harvesting a hatchery run. Another way to say it is WDF&W "screwed the pooch" so long what are we to do?

Anyhow I if you have questions on the report or anything e mail me and we will see what I can do to help. I can send you the model runs and all the associated information also.




HATCHERY CONDITION & POTENTIAL

It was requested by the Advocacy that I do a preliminary review of the condition and potential of Forks Creek, Nemah, and Naselle hatcheries. I would point out this a simple look at the facilities not an in depth review. I met with WDFW hatchery staff and the following are my findings.

Forks Creek: The facility is in reasonable condition but has the normal issues one would find at a hatchery. Limitations are primarily lack of extended rearing capacity and the lack of a weir to stop Chinook straying.
Current Smolt Production: 3.2 million Chinook, 300K Coho, 300k Chum, 40+25K Steelhead, 4K Rainbow Trout.

Nemah: Although a older facility it is in reasonable condition and has a solid weir. It does have water quality issues that limit extended rearing due to low flows.
Current Production: 3.3 million Chinook, 300K Chum, 19K Rainbow Trout

Naselle: The facility is in reasonable condition but has issues. The issues reside in the fact the water supply pipeline is in poor condition. Maintenance and repair of portions of the pipeline are scheduled for June of 2015 to address this issue. Additionally the weir is prone to failure. Staff identified a lip on the weir causing debris build up and hope to address it with repairs in 2015. Additionally the weir is removed around October 15 dependant on flows permitting.
Current Smolt Production: 500K Chinook, 1.4 Million Coho, 300K Chum, 75K Steelhead,

CONCLUSION: The 3.2 million Chinook production at Forks Creek contained in some of WDFW’s options is problematic. To get the AHA to approve this level of production WDF&W designated the Willapa river as stabilizing which is the lowest priority given to a stream under HSRG. The issue of stream designation needs review as to compliance to the intent of HSRG reform as many see it has a innovative way to portray compliance with HSRG when in reality it a attempt to circumvent the true intention of HSRG hatchery reform. Then one has to recognize the Willapa itself has no weir. This creates problems for growing large numbers of Chinook due to hatchery fish straying and a difficult job in capturing natural spawners for mixing with the hatchery broodstock.

Another issue is the desire of the Commission to expand Chum egg box production and explore the potential for ocean ranching similar to Alaska's PNP programs. To do this a source of eggs is needed other than continually mining prime Chum streams for brood. It would appear that the Nemah would be the best fit but it would require additional incubators. Regardless of which hatchery would be deemed the best to utilize for increased Chum production, thus far in the current process WDF&W has not addressed the issue of broodstock availability. This short coming needs to be addressed if one is go forward with an attempt to met the Commission's directive of increasing Chum production.

AHA OPTIONS

Agency staff currently have provided three options A,B, and C available for consideration. The fundamental difference between the three are in the stream designations as to which stream is Primary and designating the Naselle as stabilizing and the Chinook production as a segregated stock. It is the altering of stream designations that allows the production values for each of the three AHA model runs.

I was asked to work with staff to develop additional AHA model runs for options based not on getting the maximum harvest but rather designed to comply with the intent of Hatchery Reform and HSRG guidelines. (see attachment A) After input from those attending the meeting in Elma, I developed scenarios I have designated as “Maximum Conservation with Dual Prime”, “Willapa Prime”, “Naselle Prime”, and “North River Prime”. Of the four, “North River Prime” made little difference so a complete AHA run was not completed, “Dual Prime” placed the greatest restrictions on production and harvest. “Willapa Prime” or “Naselle Prime” ended up being nearly the same when one or the other is designated Contributing. The notable exception I considered good news is that keeping the current designation of Naselle as prime and moving the Willapa to contributing, the AHA showed Forks Creek can produce 615K Chinook smolt instead of the 350,000 found in some of the WDFW options. By classifying the Willapa Contributing results in the AHA showing Forks Creek greatest Chinook production value available complying with HSRG. Additionally if a broodstock program partnership with volunteers similar to efforts in Grays Harbor was developed for Forks Creek, it could increase production incrementally with the improved PNI with the additional NOS broodstock incorporated in the eggtake. As the number of natural spawners is restored the hatchery production could again be increased incrementally.

CONCLUSION: It appears to me that these latest AHA model runs using the designations of Prime and Contributing show that unless a compelling reason exist that is not known at this time, moving the Primary stream designation from the Naselle to the Willapa gains little. Leaving the Naselle Primary and designating Willapa and North River Contributing with the remaining streams Stabilizing offers the greatest Chinook production value available complying with HSRG guide lines. Naselle and Nemah production can remain the same as it presently is and comply with HSRG guidelines

PROBABLE OUTCOME: In preparing this report on my finding the Advocacy asked that I attempt to assess the impact of the Forks Creek production reduction as it would relate to the recreational fishing opportunities in conjunction with the resolutions passed by all in the meeting in Elma recommending no commercial fisheries in 2T & U prior to September 16 and the 50/50 / 70/30/ 90/10 division of Natural Origin Spawners ( NOS ) between commercial and recreational fishers. (Compromise Resolutions 1 & 3)

While looking into the future is not exactly a scientific endeavor one can draw some reasonable conclusions.

1. While the introduction of true Hatchery Reform means Chinook releases will be significantly reduced from Forks Creek, it does not necessarily mean significant recreational reductions. In past years the pool of hatchery fish in 2T was sizeable but due to the early and considerable commercial harvest the actual number of Chinook available for the recreational fisher to fish on was drastically reduced effectively negating the value of the higher hatchery production. If Compromise Resolution 1 approved in Elma is adopted, the early period of the 2T fishery would be excellent due to the larger pool of fish present with the Columbia dip in combined with commercial harvest being restrained until September 16th. One could expect to see a small reduction in some reaches for recreational harvest in 2T & U in the long term but again it would not be as numerically significant as the hatchery reduction is offset as commercial nets would be removed until September 16th. Additionally Forks Creek could expand the Coho production to the 600K range creating substantial additional recreational Coho opportunity and be in compliance with HSRG.

2. With the Naselle and Nemah hatchery production remaining the same in a Naselle Primary/Willapa Contributing AHA model run just completed, the Southern Bay and in river fisheries should prosper as well if Compromise Resolution 1 approved by the coalition during the Elma meeting is adopted by the Commission.

It is my view that one should regard this similar to a three legged stool. The new Naselle Primary/Willapa & North River Contributing option Chad Herring and I just ran through the AHA model can meet HSRG standards. It can do so with moderate impact to the recreational 2T & U fisheries but only if Compromise Resolution 1 & 3 are adopted. Take one leg off the stool it fails the recreational fisheries is just as bad as the other options provided by the Department.

Finally, it is correct to believe there are risks associated with relying upon this new AHA approved option or any AHA generated option. In the transition period from the current hatchery production to the what is production levels of the future under the new policy one known will exist. The harvest impacts in the future will have to be restrained to allow for escapement of natural spawning stocks. WDF&W has a long and storied record of not being able to restrain commercial fisheries in Willapa. For any AHA option to work it is paramount that WDF&W not compound the problem by continuing to over harvest thus making compliance with Commission directives and HSRG guidelines move from difficult to impossible to achieve. The next three years of large hatchery Chinook returns will test the Department’s resolve to adopt HSRG and begin the restoration of natural spawners. If it continues to “fish to the last available paper fish”, the long term prospects for recreational Chinook fishing could be bleak.

Thought I would post up this e mail thread obtained in a Public Document Request (PDR) as it offers a glimpse at two things. First up the relationship between the QIN & WDF&W staff. Amazingly enough documents obtained in the PDR's show at the technical level it is professional other than every now and then it gets a little off track as in one document obtained where a QIN staffer called a WDFW Bio a SWAG Bio. Swag is "Scientific Wild Ass Guess"

This particular e mail concerns the release mortality for commercial nets and Coho. It is my understanding that Fish Program intentionally left out Coho in the ISP panel mandated by the court settlement in Willapa. The importance? Well the agency continues to try and work around the Humptulips Coho situation with the failure to make natural spawner escapement and the Willapa Chinook. It is a issue in the sense that if WDF&W attempts circumvent HSRG or a management plan on one thing one can rather safely assume they will do it in another.

I highlighted the portion on release mortality below and the QIN's Mr. Jacobson's thoughts are pretty much on the mark from what I have learned broodstocking over the years.


-----Original Message-----
From: Thiesfeld, Steven L (DFW)
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 10:55 AM
To: Jorgensen, Jim
Cc: Scharpf, Mike M (DFW)
Subject: RE: web link for net mort rate and question about determing Hump
hatchery coho strays

Jim,

Your email below has been forwarded to the IFSP.

Thanks for the assist.

Cheers

-----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 determing 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 [mailto:JJORGENSEN@quinault.org]
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 1:32 PM
To: Scharpf, Mike M (DFW)
Subject: RE: web link for net mort rate and question about determing 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 wouuld 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 determing Hump
hatchery coho strays

Good question Jim,

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

[cid:image001.png@01CF33C0.16B6A640]

From: Jorgensen, Jim [mailto:JJORGENSEN@quinault.org]
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.
[/i]

Here is a local Willapa inriver fishers thoughts on the Willapa Plan. Anyone who fishes the rivers in the Willapa Estuary should being paying attention and participating in the process. Inriver has had a history of getting hosed in the season setting process.



The Commission's enhanced involvement in Willapa Bay Salmon Management matters is much appreciated. I am writing to ask you and your fish committee to give strong consideration to subject resolutions. These resolutions are well designed to ensure needed recreational and conservation enhancements in our drainage.

1. A recreational priorty on Coastal Fall Chinook must come to pass, or a lot of people will feel that we have just been running laps for many weeks.

2. The impacts on Natural Origin spawners must be distributed in a manner fair to all citizens and user groups and to conservation goals. In the past years, these impacts have been over-implemented in our marine areas, leaving little or none for fresh water areas and the gravel. Required brood stocking levels within hatcheries have been impossible, and our chinook are tinier than ever accordingly. As a result of the marine harvest bias, goals were routinely missed and large percentages of our rivers such as the Nemah and Naselle were unavailabe to the public for fishing, even to the landowners. We have learned the obvious; fish that are gone cannot be created by not fishing or placing numerous tackle and technique restrictions on sport fishers. The cohort with the best statistics for true selective fishing is just left out of the selective process. They fish jammed into smaller areas.

3. The resolution to allocate NOS impacts is key going forward. Drastic measures are appropriate. While a 50% commercial/25%marine recreational/25% fresh water recreational breaks with tradition, that is truly the only reason this may seem drastic to some. In season management will be essential in 2015 in a realistic manner never utilized before. Last year non-selective gill nets were put on Chinook in our marine areas when no impacts were even available. These nets, and a more selective marine sport fishery in 2T, were put on fish in front of rivers with large sections closed to recreational fishing for "conservation" reasons. For a period of time, fresh water fishers were required to release unmarked fish on the same days that netters were keeping them.

4. Harvest must be allocated to all fresh water where conservation does not preclude it. Landowners should decide how many people fish on their land, not the state, unless there are reasons that cannot be managed away. In both the Nemah and Naselle, there are also state owned areas below hatcheries where HOS can be harvested with a pole. Volunteers can be utilized to not only release unmarked fish, but place them above the weirs, where many never arrive otherwise. When numbers increase, they can be hatchery placed for broodstocking. Many unmarked fish are reluctant to enter hatcheries. A four wheeler with a trailer and recovery box can do the job. It is time to return fair opportunity for these fish to the public and landowners who pay their taxes, and suffer restricted timber harvest, not to provide more marine impact to all others to the landowners exclusion.

5. Last year Region 6 tried to encourage a "test" fishery across the mouth of the Nemah River for commercials. At the same time the public was not allowed to catch fish in much of this river including below the weir on public land. The mortality rate is officially much lower for the pole than for beach seining, purse seining, or tangle netting. This is the culture that will not be overcome without continued big picture leadership and followup by the commission. Thank you for your kind attention.

Anyone real familiar with this bit we found in the Dept's appropriation bill introduced by the Governor? It does shed light on why the commercial driven interest have been opposing every attempt to reform WDF&W's hatchery programs to HSRG standards.

(4) Prior to submitting its 2017-2019 biennial operating and capital budget requests related to state fish hatcheries to the office of financial management, the department shall contract with the hatchery scientific review group (HSRG) to review the proposed requests. This review shall: (a) Determine if the proposed requests are consistent with HSRG recommendations; (b) prioritize the components of the requests based on their contributions to protecting wild salmonid stocks and meeting the recommendations of the HSRG; and (c) evaluate whether the proposed requests are being made in the most cost effective manner. The department shall provide a copy of the HSRG review to the office of financial management with its agency budget proposal.

I'm not sure exactly what your question is, but the HSRG has been reviewing WDFW capital budget requests for several years now. I don't see how this could have anything to do with the current effort in Willapa Bay.