A Cooperatively Developed Plan for Improving the Sustainability of Salmonid Populations in the Willapa Ecosystem, Washington
February, 1996
Developed in Cooperation
by,
THE WILLAPA FISHERIES RECOVERY TEAM
THE WILLAPA ALLIANCE
South Bend, Washington
Project Coordinator and Editor
Allen Lebovitz
Natural Resource Program Director
The Willapa Alliance
This draft represents the efforts of the Willapa Fisheries Recovery Team to craft a thorough and accurate strategy for improving the sustainability of the Willapa Ecosystem's salmonid populations. It also represents an extensive process to build partnerships between natural resource stakeholders and agencies in the Willapa Basin. However, this document is a first draft of the Willapa Fisheries Recovery Strategy and has been published to elicit discussion and comments from the members of the Willapa Fisheries Recovery Team and other interested parties. It is not a final draft and substantive portions of the document may be changed per the review of the Willapa Fisheries Recovery Team. Additionally, participation in the Willapa Fisheries Recovery Team does not imply endorsement of all portions of this document by any member of the Team. Further review, discussion and revisions by the Fisheries Recovery Team must take place before endorsement may be declared by Team members.
This report was made possible through the generous support of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the Forest Foundation, the Weyerhaeuser Company Foundation, the Sequoia Foundation, the Hugh and Jane Ferguson Foundation, Patagonia Inc., Wheelabrator Environmental Systems, Inc., WMX Technologies, Inc., the Compton Foundation, the Meyer Memorial Trust, and The Bullitt Foundation. Support which was instrumental in the completion of this project was also provided by Ecotrust, Pacific GIS, and The Nature Conservancy.
This project would not have been possible without the effort, insight, and dedication of the Willapa Fisheries Recovery Team.
INTRODUCTION
Background
Need for the Willapa Fisheries Recovery Strategy
Basic Principles of the WFRS
The Process and Participants
Problems and Goals Identification
Overarching Problems and Goals and A Mission Statement
The Technical Process
The GIS Database, Sources, & Data Collection
WATERSHED LEVEL ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DATA COLLECTION AND MONITORING NEEDS
APPENDIX ONE - An assessment of fundamental production and harvest issues in the willapa basin
APPENDIX TWO - supplementary data tables
APPENDIX THREE - completed ecological processes and production and harvest matrices
APPENDIX FOUR - Glossary of terms used
The Mission of the Willapa Fisheries Recovery Team is to develop a strategy for increasing and sustaining Willapa fish populations through the following actions; restoring and maintaining key ecosystem functions and processes fundamental to the biological productivity of the system; improving current fish propagation practices to allow the highest level of hatchery production compatible with the maintenance of natural productivity; and by improving methods for utilizing natural resources to secure the health and continued abundance of these resources while developing stability in the economic sectors which depend upon them.
Background
The Willapa Bay Basin currently boasts of some of the healthiest
salmon populations in Washington state. It is one of the few
areas in which fishing for salmon was permitted during the 1993
- 1994 season while the majority of the west coast fishery had
been shut down. However, these populations are almost solely
dependent upon the production of fish through artificial propagation
at the three state operated hatcheries located on the Bay. Naturally
spawning populations, are not nearly as robust. The populations
of these fish are relatively healthy when compared with the Northwest's
other salmon runs, but showing signs of decline.
Additionally, there are significant differences between the conditions of the five species of salmonids which reside in the basin. In particular chum salmon, once the most dominant species in the basin are at only 40 percent of their historic numbers (Suzumoto, 1992). It is also speculated that steelhead and sea run cutthroat trout populations have also shown a serious decline. This is in contrast with overall population sizes of chinook and coho salmon which have actually increased in numbers over historic population sizes. This difference is largely the result of a combination of harvest and habitat related impacts which have affected all of these species, and a disproportional effort to enhance population numbers of chinook and coho salmon with hatcheries without a similar effort to propagate the other species.
The decline in naturally spawning populations of all species of salmonids and the increase in hatchery production has also come with a significant loss in genetic diversity and hence population diversity and resilience. It has also resulted in an increasing dependence upon hatchery production to maintain populations and commercial and recreational fisheries. The decline has also resulted in impacts to ecosystem health. The ecology of Willapa Bay has likely been dramatically influenced by these changes in the fish populations which are manifested in such symptoms as an explosion of burrowing shrimp which inhabit the extensive mudflats of the bay and reduce them to "shrimp barrens" devoid of most other species. It is believed that the once large populations of chum salmon may have been a significant control mechanism for these organisms. Other pieces of the ecosystem have also likely been affected by the loss of energy subsides once provided by thousands of salmon which were delivered across the landscape to the furthest reaches of the system's numerous streams directly providing nutrients to all levels of the trophic system. The decline has also resulted in reductions of harvest levels on all three salmon in an effort to protect the failing chum runs and also remnant naturally spawning populations of chinook and coho.
The history of Willapa salmon also includes a record of changing and sometimes inconsistent management policies and actions. Fisheries management organizations have instituted and abandoned numerous management strategies for Willapa's salmon as new goals were developed, different understandings of the ecology of the bay and salmon have emerged, and political tides have ebbed and flooded. These shifts in management strategies have resulted in losses to the resource and also the relationship between managers and resource users. It has also resulted in a myriad of uncoordinated projects carried out by both public and private groups which have sought to restore salmonid populations. Lastly, it has resulted in a severely polarized and antagonistic relationship between fisheries managers and user groups and local residents.
Need for the Willapa Fisheries Recovery Strategy
Historically there has been no basin-wide, long-term strategy
to coordinate interconnected fisheries management activities throughout
the Willapa Basin over time periods of ecological significance.
The need for a comprehensive strategy for recovering salmonid
populations in the Willapa ecosystem has been demonstrated through
the history of salmonid management in the region. It is based
upon a concern that remaining naturally spawning populations will
be lost and that degraded populations are not currently likely
to recover. It is also indicated by downward trends in harvest
levels of chum salmon and the predicted decreases in harvest levels
of chinook and coho. In short, a fishery which is not sustainable.
It is also suggested because management decisions have often
been made in with poor information and conjecture because of serious
gaps in the information base resulting from the typically limited
nature of resources available for decision making and management.
A comprehensive strategy is also needed because of a pervasive
lack of coordination among fisheries management groups at the
federal, state, and local levels which has resulted in incomplete
and transitory implementation of fisheries management projects.
Lastly, a truly comprehensive process is needed to help bridge
the widening gap between management organizations and user groups
to establish cooperation in implementing truly effective fisheries
management programs.
Another aspect of fisheries management in the Willapa Basin, and many other locations throughout the Northwest, that is currently missing is a mechanism for incorporating local input into management of fisheries resources. There is no avenue for translating a very significant body of information about the Willapa ecosystem and how it functions which is stored in "local knowledge" into management actions. A comprehensive management plan must incorporate this information and perspective. It is similarly important to incorporate local input into the development of management strategies if implementation of a management plan is ever to be achieved. A management plan which relies on forced compliance solely is much less likely to be successful than one which incorporates willing participation..
Basic Principles of the WFRS
Comprehensiveness
There are a series of basic principles on which this fisheries
planning process is founded. The first is that such a plan should
be a truly comprehensive one, defining its management unit as
the Willapa ecosystem (hydrologic boundary of the basin). The
plan must consider both ecological and socio-economic factors
affecting fisheries management. It should be recognized that
economic and social health is intimately tied with environmental
health, particularly in natural resource dependent economies like
that of the Willapa ecosystem's. The strategy must also consider
ecological and socio-economic components of the ecosystem that
go beyond the discrete boundary which defines fisheries resources
considering in particular other fauna and flora and other natural
resource extraction based economic sectors. The Strategy should
consider other ecosystem functions and processes outside of the
ecological interactions between salmonids and their niche.
A truly comprehensive fisheries management strategy must address all of the significant factors affecting the resource. This means that ecological, artificial production, harvest, economic, and social factors need to be considered. An attempt to address such a broad spectrum of issues can lead to an effort which is so diffuse as to make no forward motion. It can also be daunting from a professional perspective, with few people being capable of conceptualizing this range of issues. However daunting it is to consider such a wide range of issues, the reality is that the management "problem" or problems which a strategy for Willapa fisheries must address spans this range of issues and must be considered. Fisheries resources are as influenced by social and economic factors as they are by ecological factors. As much as it stretches the cognitive abilities of managers, a truly transdiciplinary approach is absolutely requisite for developing an effective management strategy.
Coordination
The strategy must foster local involvement and coordination and
cooperation among resource managers and users. Management nearly
completely driven by outside entities has resulted in management
strategies which have become to some extent divorced from local
priorities and the conditions unique to the Willapa Basin. By
maintaining local input in the process, management plans are more
likely to be closely tuned to local conditions and be consistent
with local priorities while still maintaining priorities which
are important to the greater "public" which has a stake
in the resource. It is also crucial that the strategy serve as
a vehicle for instigating and maintaining coordination and cooperation
among groups working to manage fisheries resources in the basin.
Process
It is also recognized that "process" is as important
as "outcome" in the development of the Strategy. It
is recognized that participants in the development of the Strategy
need to be representative of the various stakeholder groups in
the basin and be involved throughout the process. The mutual
exchange of ideas, information, and perspectives among participants
is critical for fostering an improved understanding of management
needs. This improved understanding should form the basis of the
motivation for implementing the Strategy.
Integration of Local Knowledge and Science
Another central concept of the planning process is the integration
of science and "local common sense". Frequently, management
plans which are based in the most cutting edge science fall far
short of their goals. This is often because the most basic elements
of ecosystem management are missed or misunderstood. Even though
a sophisticated understanding of ecosystem dynamics may be developed
through scientific analysis, some crucial ecological process which
can only be assessed through years of observation are overlooked.
Also, basic human behavior and needs can be left out of the scientific
equation, leading to un-implementable plans. To overcome this,
local knowledge and opinions need to be factored into the management
equation. The use of this type of information provides a significant
challenge to science driven management efforts since it is often
un-quantifiable information and frequently difficult to substantiate.
There is however no doubt that innovative science plays a central
role in developing management strategies. It is equally common
to see plans based upon common understandings with a severe absence
of quantifiable information. The bottom line is striking a balance
between information gained through the use of the scientific method
and common sense. Management strategies must be based on information
derived through the scientific method, but then evaluated through
a filter of common sense and local perspectives. The integration
of science and local knowledge in addition to improving the reliability
of management plans also serves as an important strategy for disseminating
information. Building upon common perceptions with scientifically
derived information is an effective method for explaining and
supporting information on complex ecological process to non-scientists.
Adaptive Management
Another central tenant of the WFRS is that it must be an adaptive
strategy. Generally, natural systems respond to management activities
over periods of decades. Therefore management strategies must
also be implemented over comparable periods of time. Initial
management strategies must be based upon best available information
and the implementation process begun with this basis with an intent
to carry management out over an appropriate length of time. It
is crucial that an information gathering program be implemented
with all management activities. Each management program should
be treated as a long-term experiment, an opportunity to learn
more about how the ecosystem functions and responds to management
activities. The information which is gained through these "experiments"
should be added to the available information base and used to
update management practices. This is an iterative process which
continues over the life of the management plan, in which managers
are constantly applying new information to implementation plans,
learning from the results of this implementation and revising
the management strategy to reflect new information. It is crucial
that care is taken that this "adaptive" process is used
to "learn" and improve implementation and not used as
an excuse for implementation without information. "Adaptive"
strategies are easily abused and diligence must be practiced to
ensure that scientific rigor forms the basis of the planning process.
Cooperation
Lastly, it is most central to this effort to achieve implementation
of the strategy through the development of consensus and cooperative
action. With the immense scope of the management problem, the
resources needed to manage the fisheries effectively are largely
beyond the capacity of any one group or even collection of groups
to allocate to the issue. Therefore, to manage such natural resources
effectively, the resources of stakeholders and the general public
must be leveraged for implementation. The enlistment of stakeholders
in implementation is absolutely fundamental to successful management.
It is argued that past reliance on regulation and forced compliance
in natural resource management has been largely ineffective.
Some compulsory management will likely always be necessary, but
to effect management at the spatial and temporal scale that is
needed, the willing participation of those who affect and are
affected by the resource is crucial. It is also asserted that
the development of consensus and cooperation is best achieved
through stakeholder participation in the planning process. Involvement
at this stage fosters "ownership" of or "buy-in"
to management plans. It also provides a mechanism for transferring
local knowledge to the process. Participation in the planning
process provides a significant learning opportunity for all involved.
When stakeholders have a hand in shaping management strategies
and are participants in making difficult management decisions
an improved understanding of why certain actions are necessary
is developed. With an understanding of why these actions are
necessary a marked increase in cooperation during the implementation
of those actions is expected. Some induced compliance will likely
be necessary when individual sacrifices must be great, but overall,
the resources needed to enforce and police management actions
should be greatly reduced.
The Process and Participants
The WFRS process was initiated in 1991 with an initial scoping
of fisheries management issues in the Willapa ecosystem carried
out by the Willapa Alliance with the assistance of Ecotrust and
The Nature Conservancy. The scoping provided basic information
on the condition of Willapa fisheries and identified the need
for a process which would develop a comprehensive fisheries management
strategy (Suzumoto, 1992). The Willapa Alliance took the lead
as chief facilitator for the effort. Relying on fisheries management
professionals and local stakeholders a series of initial meetings
were held to solidify how the process should be carried out and
who the key participants should be. These professional were organized
as the Willapa Fisheries Recovery Team and has taken the shape
of a flexibly organized team of individuals who represent a wide
range of perspectives concerning the management of fisheries resources
in the Willapa Bay Basin.
A consensus process was identified as the preferred method for planning and a multilevel team approach, with one large policy level team and a smaller technical team, selected for implementing the process. The team structure was designed to foster consensus building while creating the conditions needed in order to ensure that the work involved in developing a plan would be carried out. All team participants do so voluntarily and without direct compensation for their efforts from the Willapa Alliance. Some participants are paid by their organizations but a number of members are self employed and donate their own time and expertise to the effort.
The larger policy team's membership comprises all of the key affected parties involved in fisheries management in the Willapa ecosystem. Their role is to select the agenda for the process, identify the key problems that the process should identify, and set the goals which the strategy endeavors to meet. The policy team also serves as a consensus building and educational forum for fisheries managers and stakeholders. It is comprised of representatives from all of the primary federal, state, and local management organizations, local user groups, industry, and conservation organizations.. Participating groups include the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Resource Conservation Service, The Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe, the Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources, and Ecology, the Pacific Conservation District, Willapa Bay Water Resources Coordinating Council, Pacific County, a representative from the local ports, Pacific County Economic Development Council, the Pacific County Farm Forestry Association, the Willapa Bay Gillnetters Association, Weyerhaeuser Company, Hancock Timber Resource Group, a representative from the local oyster growers, and representatives from two environmental organizations, The Nature Conservancy and Ecotrust. (Table 1)
A smaller, more strategic technical team was selected by the larger policy team to develop the specifics of the strategy for meeting the goals established by the policy team. This group is responsible for data collection, analysis and interpretation. A transdisciplinary group comprised of some of the policy team members and others was selected to provide professional expertise in riparian ecology and fish biology, geomorphology, forest management, hatchery operations, fish harvest management, and social and economic studies. Team members do not represent specific organizations but rather specific professions and fields of study. Members come from federal and state agencies, the commercial forestry industry, the fishing industry, universities, and conservation organizations. (Table 2)
Table 1. Willapa Fisheries Recovery Team Participants
| Mark Ashley | Willapa Fisheries Enhancement Group / Willapa Gillnetters Association |
| Pete Bisson | Weyerhaeuser Company |
| Ralph Boomer | US Fish And Wildlife Service |
| Rick Brix | Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife |
| Michelle Brown | The Nature Conservancy |
| Lonnie Crumley | Washington Department of Fish And Wildlife |
| Mike Dickerson | ShoreTrust Trading Group |
| Kent Dimmitt | Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife |
| Larry Dominguez | US Fish and Wildlife Service |
| Brett Dumbauld | Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife |
| Bob Falkner | Pacific County Farm Forestry Association |
| Chuck Gale | Washington Department of Ecology |
| Mike Gross | Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife |
| Jerry Gutzwiler | Weyerhaeuser Company |
| Jennifer Hagen | Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe |
| Pat Hamilton | Pacific County Board of Commissioners |
| Tom Hedt | Natural Resource Conservation Service / Pacific Conservation District |
| Chuck Hoskinson | Weyerhaeuser Company |
| Rex Hutchins | Washington Department of Natural Resources |
| Joe Krupa | Trout Unlimited |
| Bob Lake | Willapa Gillnetters Association |
| Steve Landino | US Fish and Wildlife Service |
| Jack Listfjeld | Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife |
| Matt Longenbaugh | National Marine Fisheries Service |
| Wayne Marion | Hancock Timber Resource Group |
| Jim Neva | Port of Willapa |
| Rachel Nugent | Pacific Lutheran University |
| Marty Peoples | Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife |
| Norris Petit | Willapa Gillnetters Association / The Willapa Alliance |
| Dick Stone | Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife |
| Dennis Tufts | Bendicksons (Oyster Grower) / Willapa Bay Water Resources Coordinating Council |
| Jim Ward | Weyerhaeuser Company |
| Miranda Wecker | Willapa Alliance / Willapa Bay Water Resources Coordinating Council |
| Katharine Wellman | Battelle |
Regular meetings of the policy team were held to establish the agenda and identify the problems and goals for the process. Policy team meetings have also been held to monitor the activities of the technical team and provide direction for their efforts. The technical team has met on a more frequent basis to collect, analyze and interpret data.
The process of consensus building has proven to be a slow and time consuming one. A significant variety of priorities for fisheries management exists among the participating groups as well as an equally diverse number of perspectives on how management goals can be achieved. These differences in perspectives lead to an interesting diversity in assessments of what the primary problems facing fisheries resources in the Willapa Basin are perceived to be.
Problems and Goals Identification
The first task of the WFRT was to identify through a consensus
process a complete list of the most important problems believed
to be facing the health and sustainability of Willapa fish populations.
The next step was to develop from this list a corresponding set
of goals for fisheries management for addressing the identified
problems. The initial perceptions of the "problems"
facing Willapa fish populations were very diverse. The identification
of problems and goals was accomplished through a series of meetings
where opinions and available information were debated by the policy
team. A number of versions of a description of the problems and
goals identified by the team were developed and reviewed and rewritten
by the team employing a winnowing process to consolidate perspectives
and potential problems and to rule out others. A final draft
was accepted by the team after approximately three months of work.
The following is the complete Problems and Goals Statement developed by the WFRT.
Problems and Goals Statement
Assumptions
The following assumptions were made to provide a starting point
for the identification of problems and goals.
Geographic Scope of the Strategy
The focus area of the strategy is Willapa Bay and it's drainage
basin. It is recognized that some of the issues which will be
addressed by the strategy are influenced by elements which go
beyond the boundaries of the basin. Such elements should be given
consideration in the strategy but attention focused on efforts
to be undertaken within the Willapa Basin.
Terminology
The terminology used by the team and applied in the strategy must
be clarified and used consistently. There are differences of
opinion regarding the best terminology and definitions, however,
the team will use the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory (SASSI) definitions
to start since they have been clearly defined and relatively widely
distributed. These definitions may be modified by the WFRT as
needed as the strategy is developed. When drafted, the terminology
used in the strategy should be precisely defined in the document.
(Appendix 4)
Historic Conditions
When known, pre-industrialization watershed conditions and fish
population sizes provide a useful reference point for establishing
current habitat and population size goals. An understanding of
historic conditions also provides a useful tool for designing
habitat restoration. It is however not desirable to use a return
to historic conditions as a management goal because of the following
reasons. First, it is unclear what these conditions were. Second,
because of the current status of local and regional resource conditions
and circumstances, a return to historic conditions may not be
biologically practical or desirable. Finally, current social
and economic needs may not be served by a return to historic conditions.
Prioritization of Resource Management Activities
Availability of resources and opportunities for improving the
status of fisheries in the Willapa Basin are finite. It is therefore
imperative that the actions recommended by the strategy be as
efficient as possible. To accomplish this the strategy should
identify critical opportunities for intervention and prioritize
the implementation of efforts which address these opportunities.
This includes targeting "problems" which offer an opportunity
for being solved, as opposed to "lost causes". Directing
management efforts toward points of critical intervention may
provide for a greater likelihood that implementation will have
the desired effect on the resource, a greater likelihood of successful
implementation, and also for increased efficiency from implementation
efforts. The strategy needs to establish near-term and longer-term
priorities for resource maintenance and restoration activities.
It should target key ecological processes that underlay the productivity
and health of the natural environment. The strategy will focus
on restoring and maintaining ecological functions or processes
as opposed to physical characteristics. The strategy will also
focus on key opportunities to enhance and maintain the Willapa
economy and the effectiveness of organizations working to implement
sound resource management in the Willapa Basin.
An ecologically and economically balanced fisheries recovery strategy should include efforts to both restore fish populations and ecosystem health but also seek to prevent further degradation of the resource. Maintenance of existing healthy, functioning watersheds and fish populations is often a more economically and ecologically efficient course of action than allowing degradation to occur and then implementing restorative activities to recover resource health. To this end, wherever possible (and ecologically and economically feasible) the strategy will seek to develop recommendations for activities which maintain current habitat functions and the health of fish populations in the Willapa Basin.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
There is a significant likelihood that listing of various salmonid species as threatened or endangered under the ESA will occur in the near term. This bears importance for the WFRS in two ways. First, it will be important that developments which occur under ESA are closely tracked so that recommendations developed under the strategy comply with the Act, reducing the need for Federal intervention in resource management in Willapa. Second, it is unlikely that recommendations aimed at restoring salmonid stocks through habitat improvements will conflict with ESA requirements. It will however be necessary to track ESA developments to ensure that the required federal permits are obtained if activities are to take place in an area inhabited by a listed stock.
Adaptive Management
The team will need to base its recommendations for enhancement
and restoration actions on the best available information, both
peer-reviewed and anecdotal. The status of fisheries resources
and habitat in the Willapa Basin has not been adequately studied
and documented to provide the team with a satisfactory base of
information. Therefore, the work of the recovery team must take
place amidst a great deal of uncertainty. It is unlikely that
thorough scientific analysis of the stocks and habitat will be
completed in the near term. The team and the Fisheries Recovery
Strategy will encourage the development of a greater understanding
of all aspects of fishery resources and habitat. In addition
to activities aimed solely at data acquisition and analysis this
will require that management activities also include scientifically
valid data gathering components to monitor the impact of management
and improve the current information base. The team will review
and analyze this information as it is gathered and refine its
resource management recommendations and implementation projects
to reflect new understandings which result from the analysis.
Problems and Goals
Chinook Salmon
Problem Statement
In general, there is a great deal of uncertainty about the status
of naturally-spawning (n-s) chinook salmon stocks in the Willapa
Basin. Data on n-s populations is insufficient to derive accurate
estimations of population sizes. Wild Fall River chinook are
classified by SASSI as being "depressed" and are the
only population identified as being in a depressed or critical
state. N-s populations are currently believed to be below desired
levels. Hatcheries have become the dominant contributor to chinook
production in the Willapa Basin. Our current understanding suggests
that commercial and recreational harvest levels are dependent
upon hatchery production. Genetic features of local chinook stocks
have been altered by the introduction of brood stock from other
watersheds. Little is known about the success of hatchery strays.
It is probable that intra-species diversity is declining. It
is probable that the size of adults is declining. The timing
of adult returns is more compressed than that prior to the operation
of hatcheries.
Goals
Coho Salmon
Problem Statement
The level of abundance of Willapa coho stocks is largely unknown
and uncertain and additional data is not currently being collected.
Data on n-s populations is insufficient to derive accurate estimations
of population sizes. A petition for listing under the ESA all
coho stocks on the west coast has been submitted and current indications
suggest that some form of protective designation is likely. However,
enough indicators suggest that there is a harvestable surplus
of coho in Willapa and therefore a quota for commercial harvest
exists. As with chinook, hatcheries have become the dominant
contributor to coho production in the Willapa Basin. Current
information suggests that harvest levels are dependent upon hatchery
production. Hatcheries have effected the genetic makeup of Willapa
coho through years of introducing fish stocks from outside the
Basin. Little is known about the success of coho hatchery strays.
It is also probable that the size of adults is declining and
the timing of adult returns is more compressed than that common
prior to the operation of hatcheries.
Goals
Chum Salmon
Problem Statement
Based on past harvest records, of all the Willapa salmonid species,
chum appear to have experienced the greatest documented decline
in abundance. There is more data on chum escapement than other
salmonid species but more is needed to produce accurate estimations
of population sizes. Hatchery production has had a much smaller
impact on chum populations than on chinook and coho populations.
Most chum enhancement projects were curtailed by 1989 due to
budgetary constraints. The limited nature of efforts to enhance
chum populations can be attributed to their classification as
a low value species in spite of their vital importance in the
ecology of Willapa Bay. Most current chum stocks are naturally-spawning
runs and therefore average size and timing have not been altered
significantly by hatchery influences. Harvest of coho has been
limited in order to protect these n-s chum salmon runs. Indicators
suggest that there is high quality chum habitat that is currently
underutilized. There is no certainty about why the habitat is
not being used. In some instances, there may be physical barriers
to passage. There also has been a loss of habitat due to road
and dike construction.
Goals
Steelhead
Problem Statement
Local, anecdotal data suggests that steelhead populations have
declined significantly in number and in size. Populations are
currently below desired levels. A petition for listing under
the ESA all west coast steelhead stocks has been submitted and
current indications suggest that some form of protective designation
is likely. Spawning surveys have been conducted and continue
to be conducted in the Willapa Basin but information on population
status and trends is inadequate. Willapa steelhead populations
have been enhanced using non-native stocks, but the impacts of
these introductions are not known. The perceived decline in abundance
is thought to be partly attributable to the extremely low rate
of ocean survival. Offshore harvest may also be playing a part
in the low rate of return.
Goals
Cutthroat Trout
Problem Statement
The population status and trends of sea-run cutthroat trout have
not been documented. Local observations suggest a substantial
decline in trout numbers. Habitat requirements of cutthroat trout
are not well understood.
Goals
White Sturgeon
Problem Statement
Available data suggests that population levels of white sturgeon
are currently sustainable. Information on population status and
trends is inadequate. Scientists believe that there is one continuous
population of sturgeon inhabiting the coastal region from Grays
Harbor to Tillamook Bay and that there is little or no spawning
outside the Columbia River. Sport fishing pressure has dramatically
increased raising concerns about population resilience.
Goals
Fresh Water Habitat - In-stream, Riparian, and Watershed
Problem Statement
There is a lack of information on current and historic watershed/habitat
conditions for most watersheds in the Willapa Basin. Information
on watershed/habitat conditions exist but generally is not compiled
in a way in which it may be utilized for watershed management.
A number of categories of habitat degradation have been identified
which include the following: (1) loss of suitable habitat due
to land development, sediment inputs, altered hydrologic flow
regimes, and lack of currently existing and future inputs of in-stream
large organic debris (2) in-stream blockages which prevent salmon
from gaining access to habitat (3) non-point pollution problems
arising from nutrient loading (4) in-stream temperature problems
related to reduced shade cover and low water flows.
Goals
Saltwater Habitat
Problem Statement
Studies indicate that Willapa Bay receives pollutant inputs from
the Columbia River as well as increased fresh water contributions
as a result of altered hydrologic processes related to the operation
of dams. It is not known whether the effects of these inputs
are significant. Some non-point source pollutant inputs to Willapa
Bay originate from within the Willapa Basin but it is unclear
to what extent these sources result in water quality impairment.
Estuarine/shoreline land functions have been altered through
a variety of land uses. As a result, fish habitat has been lost
and it is likely that the estuary's carrying-capacity for fish
populations has been diminished. As human populations have increased
in the coastal zone, pressure for development near key saltwater
habitat areas has increased. In addition, there has been a substantial
increase in recreational uses of marine waters. Sediment input
rates into the bay have been altered as a result of land uses.
It is uncertain what effect these alterations have had on estuarine
functions. Ocean conditions are believed to have important affects
on salmonid survival but current information on how ocean conditions
affect populations, how these conditions fluctuate over time,
and the mechanisms which control these conditions is very limited.
Also, the exotic weed Spartina poses a threat to the estuarine
rearing and feeding habitat upon which Willapa Bay fish stocks
depend.
Goals
Predation
Problem Statement
The effect of marine mammal predation on salmonid populations
in Willapa is currently unknown. The extent and impacts of hatchery
fish predation on n-s is not known. There is also uncertainty
about whether other fish act as significant predators on juvenile
salmonids.
Goals
Harvest Management Issues
Problem Statement
Salmonid harvest rates are likely to have a significant effect
on the health of Willapa populations. The livelihoods of an important
segment of the Willapa community depends on opportunities to commercially
harvest salmon. Fishermen have been subjected to a complex series
of restrictions that have made their businesses less predictable
and reliable as a source of income. There currently are underutilized
fisheries resources in the Willapa Basin.
Goals
Propagation
Problem Statement
There is no policy defining the long-term role of salmonid hatchery
contributions to fish populations. Improved techniques for developing
a better brood stock still need to be developed and implemented.
Past hatchery practices have led to increased risks to salmonid
population health because they did not consider: the conservation
of genetic diversity and the role of natural selection, the role
of more natural rearing methods in ensuring the fitness of individual
fish, the relationship between hatchery releases and the carrying
capacity of the systems into which fish were released, and the
interaction between hatchery releases and non-hatchery produced
fish. It is likely that the reduction of hatchery contributions
on a wide scale would lead to a dramatic reduction in run size
and a reduction of opportunities for recreational and commercial
harvest. There is currently insufficient monitoring and evaluation
of propagation activities for their effectiveness and impact on
population dynamics and characteristics.
Goals
Institutional and Policy Issues
Problem Statement
There is presently no clear direction for managing salmonid populations
to achieve the utilization of harvestable surpluses while ensuring
that n-s populations are sustained. Inter and intra-agency coordination
appears to be inadequate as harvest allocation decisions seem
unconnected to both enhancement and habitat-related decision making.
Cooperative and trusting relationships between local communities
and agency decision makers have been missing in the past. There
is a need for more implementation approaches that are non-regulatory
and non-adversarial, such as education programs and incentives
for best management practices. Regulatory activities rely too
heavily on disincentives as opposed to incentives to achieve management
objectives.
Goals
Socio-Economic Issues
Problem Statement
Threats to the health and vitality of the fisheries resources
within the Willapa Basin create social and economic stress for
the commercial and sport fishing sectors. They also create general
instability for other resource based economic sectors and ultimately
the entire Willapa community. A large percentage of the fish
that is landed in Willapa is shipped out of the Basin without
processing or adding value resulting in lost economic opportunities.
Pressures on the resource are increasing as other areas' resources
decline. Government agencies at federal, state, and local levels
all currently lack the financial resources to assist small communities
through periods of economic stress. Traditional approaches to
harvest and propagation have led to legal obstacles to potential
solutions. Current restrictions and laws inhibit the development
of solutions to fisheries management problems.
Goals
Overarching Problems and Goals and
A Mission Statement
The overarching goal of the WFRS is to restore the productivity
and sustainability of salmonid populations in the Willapa ecosystem.
Another central goal is to restore the ecological balance of
the system which these populations are an integral part of. Recovery
includes the restoration of self sustaining populations of all
five salmonid species over a distribution and at numbers similar
to historic conditions. It also means the restoration of the
historic characteristics and biological diversity of these populations.
This recovery serves both ecological and socio-economic priorities.
Another important goal of the WFRS is to secure a sustainable harvestable surplus of salmon for both commercial and sport fisheries. Fishing is an important economic and social component of the Willapa community. It is important that the economic benefits derived from resource use is maintained and ultimately improved. The economic and social benefits from commercial and sport fishing also provide an important impetus for maintaining the health of the ecosystem. In this way the productivity and health of Willapa's fish populations and its ecosystem in general is intimately linked with the economic and social health of Willapa's human communities. It is crucial to recognize this linkage in the development of management strategies.
One of the key fisheries management problems identified is the lack of coordination among management efforts. This lack of coordination occurs between managers and resource users, within and between state and federal management agencies, between local management efforts, and between local management efforts and state and federal programs. It is hoped that through the development of a comprehensive strategy which involves all of the players in fisheries management, greater coordination and cooperation will be achieved. Also a lack of consistency among management efforts implemented by different organizations and also the same organizations has been identified as a significant management problem. It has been recognized that management efforts must be carried out over extended periods of time in order to realize significant ecosystem responses. Frequently management is not carried out over the long term or even simply followed through on. A goal of the WFRS is to institute a greater degree of consistency among management efforts over long periods of time. This consistency and longevity must however be carefully balanced with the "adaptive" approach. Subscription to an adaptive management approach should not be used to validate inconsistent and unfinished management efforts but more appropriately used in earnest to foster information gathering and learning and the updating of management practices.
Lastly, as discussed in the previous section, the scope of the management problem requires an allocation of significant amounts of resources to implement effective management. It is beyond the ability of any one organization to make all the resources needed available. It is the goal of the WFRS to promote cooperation among all affected parties to leverage available management resources most efficiently.
From this identification of problems and goals a mission statement was developed by the Team. The following is the final version of the mission statement adopted by the WFRT.. "The Mission of the Willapa Fisheries Recovery Team is to develop a strategy for increasing and sustaining Willapa fish populations through the following actions; restoring and maintaining key ecosystem functions and processes fundamental to the biological productivity of the system; improving current fish propagation practices to allow the highest level of hatchery production compatible with the maintenance of natural productivity; and by improving methods for utilizing natural resources to secure the health and continued abundance of these resources while developing stability in the economic sectors which depend upon them."
The Technical Process
The list of issues and problem and goals statement developed by
the Willapa Fisheries Recovery Team established a starting point
and boundaries for developing an understanding of the factors
which affect the productivity of Willapa's salmonid stocks and
a strategy for maintaining and improving their sustainability.
The Problems and Goals Statement was used to develop work plan
for the Technical Team. The WFRT convened a group of experts,
the Technical Team, to define an approach and collect the necessary
data, complete the appropriate analysis and interpretation and
develop recommendations for a strategy for addressing the problems
and goals which they defined at watershed by watershed level.
The Technical Team is a transdisciplinary group comprised of
some of the policy team members and others selected to provide
professional expertise in riparian ecology and fish biology, geomorphology,
forest management, hatchery operations, fish harvest management,
and social and economic systems. Team members do not represent
specific organizations but rather specific professions and fields
of study.
The WFRT was kept informed and provided guidance to the Technical Team as it proceeded with the analyses, to assure that the resulting strategy was as responsive as possible to the full range of problems and goals identified by the WFRT.
The technical process was initiated soon after the completion of the problem and goals statement and the development of a work plan. The technical team has met on a regular basis to evaluate available data on ecological processes and conditions, artificial production, harvest, and social and economic conditions and trends. The analysis has been organized using hydrologic watershed boundaries as management units. The available data has largely been compiled from state and federal agency databases and organized, stored and analyzed in a Geographic Information System operated by the Willapa Alliance. Additionally, GIS models have been developed for carrying out further predictive analysis with the available data. A severe lack of data on both ecological and socio-economic conditions has been discovered through the process. Modeling work with the GIS has helped to overcome some of the ecological data gaps, but many still remain, particularly for socio-economic conditions. A series of recommendations from this analysis focuses on priority data collection activities.
Throughout the technical phase of the process, reports on the emerging analysis methodologies and results have been made by the technical team to the policy team. The purpose of these reports was to provide opportunities keep the policy team abreast of the technical process and to provide opportunities for policy members to comment on technical procedures to ensure that the technical process remains consistent with the direction set by the policy team. The reports also serve as tools for maintaining consensus and participation in the process.
The Technical Team determined that its work could best be performed by breaking into three subgroups, each assigned to address one element of the mission statement: (1) ecological processes, (2) production and harvest; and (3) social and economic factors.
Ecological Process Section
The Ecological Processes Working Group was directed to propose
recommendations that would address the first element of the mission
statement and problem and goals: "to restore and maintain
key ecosystem functions and processes fundamental to the biological
productivity of the system." More specifically, it was
asked to assess the relative significance of key limiting factors
that are known to inhibit fish production. They were also instructed
to seek information on historic conditions and define opportunities
for improving and protecting the productivity of existing habitat
The Ecological Processes Working Group decided to focus on two areas: (1) key limiting factors and (2) status and trends information. With regard to key limiting factors, it was important to work with measurable indices or reasonable surrogates. The group formulated an initial list of the most useful data layers that are available to inventory the basin and watersheds. Members were asked to look for sources of these data. The following information was thought useful: slope, soils, geology, instability; roads; surficial geology; hydrology; riparian forest conditions; canopy data; and fish distribution. The group also decided to divide the Willapa Basin into eight watersheds: the North, Willapa, Palix, Nemah, Naselle, Bear, Long Island; and Long Beach.
The following analysis system was developed by the group to evaluate and compare limiting factors within and between watersheds. The system is presented as a series of matrices which employ a scoring system to compare and rank the indices evaluated for each watershed. Indices were identified to address current salmonid productivity, potential impacts to salmonid productivity, actual impacts to salmonid productivity, and salmonid habitat quality. All feasible parameters for assessing the various indices which could be identified are included in the matrices, but a number of these can not be currently evaluated due to the absence of data for these parameters. These data gaps form the basis for prioritizing future data acquisition activities. The parameters have not been weighted differently and contribute equally to the final evaluation. The results of the analysis were then used by the EPWG to develop management responses which in turn were adapted as management recommendations upon completion of the analysis of production and harvest and social and economic factors. The following is an explanation of the indices used.
Table 3. Ecological Processes Analysis - Salmonid Population Status
Table 4. Ecological Processes Analysis - Potential Impacts
Table 5. Ecological Processes Analysis - Impacts
Table 6. Ecological Processes Analysis - Quality
Production and Harvest Section
The Production and Harvest Working Group was instructed to address
the second element of the mission statement and problems and goals:
"to allow the highest compatible level of hatchery production."
In order to fulfill this task, the group was asked to define
and address the key concerns raised by artificial enhancement
techniques, and develop a strategy to both strengthen naturally-spawning
runs and provide a harvestable surplus for recreational and commercial
fishing interests.
The PHWG first developed a discussion of relevant harvest and production issues. A series of "opinions" based on the review of available scientific literature, professional experience, and local knowledge were then developed to address these issues. This discussion and opinion (as a white paper) was presented to the WFRT for review and comment and revised. It is presented as Appendix 1 for reference to the Production and Harvest Recommendations. The Production and Harvest White Paper was then used to develop a methodology for evaluating production and harvest conditions watershed by watershed throughout the Willapa Basin. The methodology developed was similar to that used in the Ecological Process analysis and employed a series of matrices for measuring and comparing a variety of parameters. The analysis evaluated genetic resources, production balance, current harvest, and artificial production. The PHWG then reviewed the data already collected by the Willapa Alliance (Suzumoto, 1992) and gathered additional information on escapement; artificial production and harvest. A method similar to the one used in the ecological analysis was developed to evaluate conditions. The results of the analysis were then used by the PHWG to develop management responses which in turn were adapted as management recommendations upon completion of the other analysis. The following indices were used.
Table 7. Ecological Processes Analysis - Salmonid Population Status
Social and Economic Factors Section
The Socio-Economics Group was directed to propose a strategy "to
improve methods for utilizing natural resources to secure the
health and continued abundance of these resources while developing
stability in the economic sectors which depend on them."
That is, this group was asked to evaluate local attitudes and
preferences, explore the impacts of alternative scenarios on the
fishing industry and economy of the Willapa Basin, and seek opportunities
for new enterprises that add value to fisheries products or improve
operations that impact on fish productivity.
This group collected all available data on the following: community preferences; investment opportunities particularly for value-added products; local economic impacts of the fishing industry; and the economic consequences of new policies. It was found that most of the data could not be broken down into the same watershed units used by the other groups. Much of the demographic and commercial information was gathered in connection with the US Census and thus corresponded to political jurisdictions. However, a watershed-based approach was used in devising the Growth Management Act (GMA) plans and would provide current indications of community needs and preferences. The team also gathered information on: the fisheries sector of the Willapa economy; recent professional evaluations of economic development opportunities; available sectoral economic impact modeling techniques.
Currently an effort is underway to address these data needs. It is designed to evaluate what people feel is important about salmon in the Willapa ecosystem, and what they believe is an appropriate process for protecting and maintaining it. This process utilizes a study which is entitles "A Survey of Community Preferences for Salmon," and began by conducting focused small-group interviews of people in the Willapa Bay watershed who could be identified as representing a certain perspective. These groups have been called "stakeholders" and eight different groups were identified and interviewed: commercial fishers, sports fishers, farmers, local government officials, state and federal government officials, timber companies, farm foresters, and other resource users. We recognize that other stakeholder groups exist within the watershed and their input is also important to development of the recovery plan; however, time and budget necessitated an initial effort limited to eight groups.
The study is being conducted by two members of the EPWG and a third researcher with considerable prior experience doing such studies. The project is currently in the middle of its initial phase. The initial phase is intended to provide a broad overview of values held by different stakeholder groups, as well as an in-depth understanding of the values held by commercial fishers for salmon, the trade-offs they consider to be possible and impossible for the industry to make as part of a salmon recovery plan, and the implications of those trade-offs for negotiation and compromise with other stakeholder groups affected by salmon restoration.
It is hoped that in future stages of the Community Preferences Survey the researchers will be able to conduct the same in-depth assessment of the values and trade-offs of the other affected stakeholder groups. The results of that process can be used to create a detailed map of the feasible policy options for salmon recovery and restoration. Absent the knowledge of values and trade-off possibilities, there is no assurance that a scientifically feasible plan will be feasible under the social or economic constraints within the community. Thus, this study is a critical component of plan development, implementation, and success.
Preliminary results show several interesting things about stakeholder values for salmon restoration and recovery in Willapa Bay. Two types of information were considered to be important to the invited stakeholder representatives: that related to the content of the Strategy, and that related to the process of constructing, disseminating, and finalizing a Strategy. It has also Been possible to discern through initial focus group sessions that stakeholders have objectives designed to achieve a certain end, and other objectives about the means of achieving it. The distinction is important to the construction of a salmon recovery plan because it provides an understanding of why stakeholders express certain values. Finally, the preliminary focus groups demonstrated that most of the groups hold many values in common, particularly as respects the end objectives.
A list of combined stakeholder values-without weights or trade-off information-can be presented as illustrative of the issues that will have to be taken into account as the Strategy is developed. Five major types of values were identified among the groups relating to salmon recovery:
No attempt is made at this stage to define clear lines separating these categories of values; the definitions will take shape as trade-offs and explicit monetary valuation are discussed. It will be possible in the next stages of this research to consider specific restoration actions and their implications for each of those categories of value, and the sub-categories that comprise them. Such information might tell us, for example, that certain stakeholders believe maintaining a certain run of Chum salmon in the Naselle River is of relatively higher priority (value) than achieving a full fleet of commercial boats in Ilwaco.
Final results of this analysis process will be incorporated into the creation of the Willapa Fisheries Recovery Strategy. An analysis matrix has been designed to conduct a comparable assessment of these parameters which can be used in conjunction with the analysis' of ecological process and production and harvest conditions. However, given the current absence of data for running the analysis, the matrix has not been employed, but will be used once the required information has been developed. In the mean time, the information gathered through the Pacific County Comprehensive Planning process is used as a surrogate for the desired information. It is recognized that this data source may be somewhat flawed, but does still represent the best available data of its kind for the county. The analysis and recommendations presented below employ this information.
The GIS Database, Sources, &
Data Collection
Among the assumptions clarified during the development of the
Technical Team was the commitment to scientific objectivity as
the basis for the Team's proposed plan. At the same time, it
was acknowledged that there is little data to provide a sound
basis of information on a number of key factors. Some of the
data that is available is probably flawed. In addition, the careful
observations of those who use the Bay and watersheds may be as
accurate and reliable as scientifically-derived information.
Management decisions must be made before data can be collected
on all relevant and important factors. Therefore, the best approach
is to treat each plan and each project as an experiment that forms
a part of a larger evolution towards more understanding and better
management
Willapa Basin Priority Watersheds for Restoration - Map 2
Willapa Basin Priority Watersheds for Conservation - Map 3
Willapa Basin Salmonid Population Status - Map 4
Table 8. Ecological Processes Analysis Watershed Ranking
North Watershed Map 1
North Watershed Map 2
North Watershed Map 3
Ecological Processes
Analysis
The North Watershed ranked near the bottom of the salmonid status
evaluation of the eight watersheds, above only Long Island and
Long Beach. This is primarily because of the low current productivity
of chinook and chum and intermediate relative productivity of
these species compared to other watersheds.
The analysis of limiting factors which identified potential impacts to natural salmonid productive capacity identified the North Watershed as having an intermediate to low level of potential impacts, ranking 6th out of the 8 watersheds. Significant area and mileage of roads in high mass wasting prone areas presents a significant source of potential impacts.
The analysis of ecological impacts completed for the North Watershed identified it as being the most highly degraded watershed of the 8, tied with the Willapa Watershed. Of particular concern to natural salmonid productive capacity is the prevalence of stream temperature excursions, access to available habitat, loss of off channel habitat, and particularly the loss of estuarine wetland habitat.
The results of the analysis of ecological quality are consistent with the outcome of the impacts analysis and indicates that the condition of salmonid supporting ecological factors in the North Watershed are poor. The North Watershed ranked 7th out of the 8 watersheds, providing higher quality ecological conditions than only Long Island. Lower average stream temperature, adequate average dissolved oxygen levels, and the absence of toxins and pathogens are the factors which contribute most significantly to ecological quality.
Production and Harvest
Analysis
The production and harvest analysis completed for the North Watershed
identified it as a watershed with generally low priority salmonid
genetic resources. Populations of North Watershed salmonids ranked
relatively low priority as compared to the other watersheds.
Chinook populations ranked the lowest of all three species in
the watershed and also of all three species in the basin, tied
only with Naselle coho. This is primarily attributable to the
extremely high proportion of fish introductions from outside of
the Willapa Basin and the high level of artificial manipulation
of genetic characteristics through propagation and habitat alterations.
Coho stocks also ranked very low priority, a result of intermediate
proportions of introductions of fish from outside the Willapa
Basin and a high level of artificial manipulation from propagation
and habitat modifications. North chum however were identified
as of intermediate priority, with all genetic sources coming from
within the Willapa Basin and moderate to high levels of manipulation
from propagation and habitat alteration.
The current production balance analysis identified the North Watershed as being intermediately suited for management oriented to both harvest with artificial supplementation and ecosystem benefits maintained by natural production. Reduced natural productive capacity as a result of habitat alterations is the primary factor influencing this evaluation for all three species.
The current harvest analysis prioritized the watershed as being of moderately high priority for producing harvestable surpluses. Chinook and coho populations are ranked as high priority and chum are of intermediate priority. Harvest effects and priority and suitability for selective harvest influence this result the most for all three populations.
The analysis of suitability for supplementing production with artificial propagation identified the North Watershed as of intermediate to high priority for all three populations. This outcome is influenced by most of the parameters evaluated.
Overall, the analysis of harvest and production priorities in the North Watershed indicates that conditions in the watershed make it suitable for carrying out programs to artificially enhance salmonid populations and sport and commercial harvests. The analysis also indicates that these activities should be balanced with the maintenance of the natural productive capacity of salmonid populations in the watershed.
Management Response
Production and Harvest Priority: 4
The production and harvest analysis results for the North Watershed suggest that management strategies should strike a balance between the application of artificial propagation practices and the maintenance of natural production. It also suggests managing for a similar balance between sport and commercial harvest opportunities for all three salmonid species and the conservation of existing populations. Specific recommendations are:
Social and Economic Factors
Analysis
The communities of Grayland and North Cove identify the following
priorities: remain predominantly residential with clusters of
commerce along SR 105, encourage agricultural activities (cranberries)
east of the highway, and encourage recreational and open space
areas and service activities. It is desired that Tokeland also
remain a mixed residential/commercial community with industrial
activities at the port area, recreational and open space facilities
are encouraged.
Land Use
The protection of water quality and quantity, review of drainage,
and flood control are identified as important issues.
Existing uses are identified including: (1) forest land (generally located outside area but provide employment for residents) (2) agricultural lands (cranberry cultivation); (3) rural residential uses (most along highway & in beach plats); (4) commercial land (this area is primarily a bedroom community for Grays Harbor commercial centers but it plans to encourage more convenience retail shops in the area); (5) recreational land (beaches and a state park); and (6) education and public facilities (generally supplied by Grays Harbor communities).
Identified Needs
The following are identified as priority community needs:
Agricultural Lands
The following farming activities are carried out in this planning
unit: cranberry farming, cattle ranching, hay production, and
fishing. The farming and light industrial activities associated
with farming are encouraged by the community as is the protection
of cranberry farming from incompatible uses. The conversion of
farm land into non-farm land is discouraged.
Forest Lands
The protection of existing forest lands is recommended. Conversion
to residential development is particularly discouraged. Also
unwanted by the community are harmful forest or road construction
practices. A minimum forest lot size of 10 acres is suggested
by the community.
Recreational Open Space
The improvement of existing facilities is encouraged. Public
access to the Bay needs to be upgraded by improving the port's
docks. Parking facilities along the beach are inadequate. Signs
need to be improved to provide adequate protection of the privacy
rights of beachfront owners.
Public Facilities
The need to improve the quality of the public water supply is
also identified by the community. Public services may need to
be combined in order to increase efficiency. Public sewer and
water services are not felt to be adequate. Wellheads need additional
protection. Water conservation needs to be pursued more effectively.
Studies need to be done to assess the area's water quality.
Coordination of the area's drainage system needs to be improved
so that well contamination, road flooding, and submersion of septic
tanks and drainfields are avoided.
Transportation
The area has one arterial corridor (SR 105) and several minor
collector lines. Cars are the primary mode of transportation
with no alternative mass transit option on the horizon. The Port
of Willapa airport near Raymond will likely remain for private
aviation purposes only.
Housing
Residential development should be based on the availability of
water. The community encourages density only where public services
are available. Specific priority needs identified through the
process were: (1) the establishment of a sewer district; (2) improvement
of the public water supply; (3) continued blending of appropriate
commercial uses with residential uses; (4) a community sewage
treatment facility; and (5) an assessment of the aquifer capacity
for future growth planning purposes.
Management Response
Summary
The analysis of ecological processes completed for the
North Watershed has identified it as a relatively low priority
watershed for ecological conservation and restoration given its
currently degraded state and potential for restoration success.
Innovative land use practices and restoration work can only improve
the condition of the watershed, but given the limited nature of
resources available for encouraging such activities, priority
should not be placed on implementing them in this watershed before
others rated at higher priority. The production and harvest
analysis evaluated the conditions and priorities for the watershed
as being intermediately prioritized for emphasizing natural production
to support ecosystem benefits and artificial production to provide
economic and recreational benefits. Lastly, the social and
economic factors analysis prioritized the watershed for economic
development activities involving fisheries resources.
There is consistency between the three parts of the analysis and the management responses from each section should be implemented in compatible ways.
Recommended Management Actions
Willapa Watershed Map 1
Willapa Watershed Map 2
Willapa Watershed Map 3
The Willapa Watershed
Description
The Willapa Watershed includes the Willapa River drainage and
its tributaries. It is 167,740 acres in size and is located between
the North and Palix Watersheds.
Ecological Processes
Analysis
The Willapa Watershed also ranked near the bottom of the 8 watersheds
evaluated for salmonid productivity primarily because of data
indicating a significantly declining production of chinook and
intermediate levels of production for the other two species currently
and relatively among the other watersheds.
The analysis of limiting factors which identified potential impacts to natural salmonid productive capacity identified the Willapa Watershed as having the highest potential for ecological impacts of the 8 watersheds. The Willapa ranked as highly at risk for all of the parameters measured. Essentially all parameters of potential impacts measure at high levels with significant amounts of the watershed in mass wasting prone areas, a preponderance of immature forests in riparian zones and throughout the watershed, an extremely high ratio of roads to watershed area, and potentially reduced nutrient levels due to salmonid carcass removal.
Similarly, the analysis of ecological impacts identified the Willapa Watershed as being the most impacted watersheds of the 8, tied with the North Watershed. Of greatest concern is the frequency of elevated stream temperatures, loss of access to available habitat, loss of off channel habitat, and the loss of estuarine wetlands.
The evaluation of ecological quality identified the Willapa Watershed's ecological condition as being in low to intermediate status, ranking 6th out of the 8 watersheds. The lack of pathogens, and toxins, contribute to the ecological quality of the watershed.
Production and Harvest
Analysis
The production and harvest analysis carried out on the Willapa
Watershed identified it as a watershed with intermediate to low
priority salmonid genetic resources. Populations of Willapa Watershed
salmonids ranked as intermediate to low priority as compared to
the other watersheds. Coho populations ranked the lowest of all
populations in the watershed and very low as compared to the rest
of the basin's populations. This is primarily attributable to
the high proportion of introductions of fish from outside of the
Willapa Basin and the high level of artificial manipulation of
genetic characteristics through propagation influences. Chinook
stocks ranked moderately low as well, primarily a result of extremely
high proportion of plantings with fish from outside the Willapa
Basin and a high level of artificial manipulation from propagation
activities. Willapa chum however were identified as of intermediate
priority, with all genetic sources coming from within the Willapa
Basin and only moderate to low levels of manipulation from habitat
and propagation effects.
The current production balance analysis identified the Willapa Watershed as being highly rated for management employing artificial supplementation except for chum populations. The ranking for chinook and coho is influenced by a number of factors including significant limits to natural production, high suitability of conditions needed for artificial production, and higher levels of economic sustainability for artificial production. The rating for chum populations is kept low by factors such as the poor economic sustainability of artificial production of this species, and the effects of the low potential for political support for artificial production of chum.
The current harvest analysis prioritized the watershed as being of high priority for producing harvestable surpluses. Chinook and coho populations are ranked as extremely high priority and chum are of high priority. Harvest effects and priority and suitability for selective harvest influence this result the most for all three populations.
The analysis of suitability for supplementing production with artificial propagation identified the North Watershed as of generally high priority for all three populations, but particularly for coho. This outcome is influenced most substantially by opportunities for improving existing facilities, separating run timing, and utilizing currently unutilized habitat.
The general outcome of the analysis of harvest and production priorities in the Willapa Watershed indicates that conditions in the watershed make it highly suitable for carrying out programs to artificially enhance salmonid populations and sport and commercial harvests. The Willapa Watershed is ranked the highest for artificial production and harvest priority of all of the watersheds evaluated.
Management Response
Production and Harvest Priority: 6
The production and harvest analysis results for the Willapa Watershed suggest that opportunities to maximize production and harvest should be pursued in this watershed. The Willapa Watershed is identified as being of high priority for providing harvestable surpluses. Specific recommendations are:
Social and Economic Factors
Analysis
The communities of the Willapa Watershed have identified general
goals for natural resource management which include: (1) conservation
of forest and agricultural lands; (2) improvement of public services
& housing; (3) improvement of transportation routes; (4) increased
consistency of government regulations; (5) more equitable distribution
of the area's infrastructure; and (6) support for the transition
from family farms to family industries compatible with adjacent
uses.
Residential uses
South Bend and Raymond are classified as urban areas in the watershed
and the smaller communities of Willapa, Old Willapa, Menlo, Frances,
and Lebam are classified as community growth areas because they
do not have (and probably will not in the near future have) all
the public services typically available in urban areas. The accommodation
of residential development where water is available, and the slope
and soils are appropriate is recommended by the community. The
community desires a range of population densities and economic
income levels in their watershed. There is also a call for improvement
of various social services for the old and young in the area.
The community also recommends a balance of development of compatible
uses with protection of the environment. Education is seen as
an important vehicle for achieving such a goal.
Commercial Uses
The communities want to maintain the existing small clusters of
retail centers. They also seek to promote small cottage and home
based enterprises and industries. Heavier industry should be
directed towards existing industrial cores.
Industrial Uses
Community members desire the development of a heavy industrial
park, preferably at the Port of Willapa. They also would like
to encourage light industries to locate in their area, but want
to avoid incompatible uses. Existing uses are to be protected
from new uses that may challenge the rights of existing uses.
To attract new development, the communities recognize the need
to improve transportation corridors.
Agro-forestry Uses
Dairy, stock, hay and forestry are the major forms of agriculture
in this watershed. The community identifies the following goals
and policies as important:
Recreational Uses
Improvement of day use parks and the addition of parking for hunters
and fishermen is desired. Another priority is the protection
of private property from trespass by visitors.
Public Facilities
Residents want to maintain and improve existing public facilities
including the water system and emergency services.
Utilities
A need to upgrade electrical service, water lines, and telecommunications
systems is identified by the community.
Housing Element
Single family residences in the watershed's rural areas is desired.
Manufactured housing is also deemed acceptable. It is recommended
that multi-family buildings are located where urban services are
available. The community asserts that water services and social
services need to be upgraded.
Transportation
There is one arterial (SR6) in this watershed. In addition to
automobiles, bus transportation is available between Raymond and
South Bend. Dial-a-ride mass transit is available in the Willapa
Valley. The airport in Raymond can serve private aviation only.
There is no longer rail service in the watershed.
Management Response
Summary
Similar to the North Watershed, the analysis of ecological
processes completed for the Willapa Watershed has identified
it as a lower priority watershed for ecological conservation or
restoration given its currently degraded state and potential for
restoration success. The Willapa Watershed does offer opportunities
for improving ecological processes which affect salmonid productivity
through innovative land use practices and restoration work, particularly
relating to agricultural uses. However, like the North Watershed,
priority should not be placed on implementing conservation and
restoration activities in this watershed before others rated at
higher priority. The production and harvest analysis evaluated
the conditions and priorities for the basin as being highly prioritized
for emphasizing artificial production to provide economic and
recreational benefits. Lower priority should be placed on artificial
production activities to enhance naturally spawning populations
of fish. Lastly, the social and economic factors analysis
prioritized the watershed for economic development activities
involving fisheries resources and also sustainable agriculture
in areas which effect fisheries resources.
There is consistency between the three parts of the analysis and the management responses from each section should be implemented in compatible ways.
Recommended Management Actions
Palix Watershed Map 1
Palix Watershed Map 2
Palix Watershed Map 3
Ecological Processes
Analysis
The Palix Watershed ranked at the top of the salmonid productivity
analysis because of its significant production of chum salmon.
This productivity is however balanced by the apparently low productivity
of chinook. The analysis of Palix system productivity is biased
by the lack of data on other populations.
The Palix Watershed was evaluated as having a low potential for ecological impacts and comparatively was only more at risk than the North, Long Beach and Long Island Watersheds. This ranking is largely attributable to the lack of mass wasting prone geology, a consistent supply of salmonid carcass derived nutrients, and somewhat more mature forests in riparian zones. Road sediments pose a potentially significant source of potential impacts.
The analysis of ecological impacts identified the Palix Watershed as showing intermediate to more significant levels of impacts to natural salmonid productive capacity. Of particular concern is the loss of estuarine wetland habitat, loss of off channel habitat.
The ecological quality of the Palix Watershed was evaluated as also being of intermediate condition. The availability of parent material for gravel production, limited reductions in access to available habitat, and the absence of marine pathogens and toxins contribute most greatly to watershed quality.
Production and Harvest
Analysis
The production and harvest analysis completed for the Palix Watershed
produced results substantially different than those for the North
and Willapa. The Palix is identified as having salmonid populations
with high to moderate priority salmonid genetic resources. Populations
of Palix Watershed salmonids ranked as relatively high priority
as compared to the other watersheds in the basin. Chum populations
ranked the highest of all populations in the watershed and high
as well compared to the rest of the basin's populations. This
rating is attributable to the low proportion of introductions
of fish from outside of the Willapa Basin and the low level of
artificial manipulation of genetic characteristics as a result
of propagation influences. Coho stocks rated moderately high
priority as well, primarily a result of the low level of artificial
manipulation from propagation activities. Palix chinook were
identified as of intermediate to low priority, with a very high
proportion of fish introductions coming from outside the Willapa
Basin but low levels of manipulation from habitat and propagation
activities.
The production balance analysis identified the Palix Watershed as being rated as low to intermediate for management employing artificial supplementation. The chinook and coho ratings are influenced by most of the parameters evaluated, all being scored as low to intermediate for artificial supplementation. The rating for chum populations is generally low except for limits to natural productivity.
The current harvest analysis prioritized the watershed as being of intermediate to low priority for producing harvestable surpluses. Chinook and coho populations are ranked as moderately high priority but chum populations are rated as extremely low. Low harvest effects and priority and low suitability for selective harvest influence this result for all three populations.
The analysis of suitability for supplementing production with artificial propagation identified the Palix Watershed as of low priority for all three populations and particularly for chum. This outcome is influenced primarily by the high potential for impacts to naturally producing stocks, no opportunities for capitalizing on existing propagation infrastructure and generally full utilization of available habitat.
The outcome of the analysis of harvest and production priorities in the Palix Watershed indicates that the watershed is not suitable for carrying out programs to artificially enhance salmonid populations or to provide harvestable surpluses. The Palix Watershed is ranked as extremely low priority for artificial production and harvest as compared to the other watersheds evaluated.
Management Response
Production and Harvest Priority: 2
The production and harvest analysis results for the Palix Watershed suggest that natural production and protection of genetic resources should be focused on in the watershed. Artificial production activities should not be carried out in the watershed and commercial harvest should be limited. Limited sport harvests may be acceptable. Specific recommendations are:
Social and Economic Factors
Analysis
The communities of the Palix Watershed identify their watershed
as one which has a thriving fishing and oyster industry. They
identify the following general natural resource management goals:
(1) prevent development sprawl; (2) encourage adequate transportation;
(3) provide affordable housing; (4) promote economic development
where appropriate services exist; (5) upgrade and maintain recreational
facilities; (6) protect natural resources; (7) protect the environment;
and (8) preserve historic sites.
Land Use Element
The Palix community expresses a desire to preserve its traditional
mix of residential and commercial uses. Among the primary economic
sectors in Bay Center are cattle ranching, timber production,
tourism, and the fishing and shellfish industries. It is desired
that residential growth be direct
