Deadline TODAY! Neah Bay protected areas comments due

[nwscubamom]

Today, December 4th, is the deadline for comments you might have regarding Marine Area 4B - what we typically refer to as the Neah Bay area. This includes Waadah Island, Tatoosh Island and all the areas in between. (plus more). This is the first step in creating some marine reserves in the Neah Bay area.

Members of our dive community, along with many others, have been working with WDFW to come up with three proposals that will affect the future of this area. They are, in a nutshell:
1. Do nothing. Status Quo.
2. Close one or more of 6 possible nearshore areas to BOTTOMFISHING ONLY. (represented by brightly colored areas in this graphic: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheri ... g1_rev.pdf)
3. Close one or more of 7 possible nearshore areas to protect ALL FISH, SHELLFISH and INVERTEBRATES. One of these possible areas extends from Neah Bay to Tatoosh Island. The others are the same as in alternative 2. (represented by brightly colored areas in this graphic: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheri ... g2_rev.pdf)

The full text can be viewed here:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheri ... atives.pdf

Comments can be emailed to:
ami.hollingsworth@dfw.wa.gov

I sent mine in last night - and hope you will write yours today!

- Janna

[H20doctor]

i wrote mine ...

[nwscubamom]

Awesome.

[fmerkel]

Me too.

[nwscubamom]

Excellent! I got an out of office response when I sent mine on Friday. Did you?

[H20doctor]

Yep... Out of office

[fmerkel]

Yep... Out of office

Same

[whatevah]

Just a quick follow-up on this topic. The commission met early in December and the WDFW folks presented the information gathered via the advisory board and public input. The department recommended that further rule-making efforts around options 2 and 3 be suspended and that all further efforts in this regard should be based around some variation of option 1A/1B. You can find the audio transcript of the WDFW presentation and commissioners' questions here:

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/ ... 204_20.mp3

... there was some public comment at the meeting also:

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/ ... 204_21.mp3

The department feels that some further protection of bottomfish in 4B is needed, and that something like the options given in 1A and 1B (basically reducing the overall number of bottomfish that can be harvested each day) is what is presently easy to justify. They feel there are many good reasons to have some kind of protected area(s) in 4B, but they implied that more data, more scientific study and a broader, region-wide strategy need to be sought before any such action is taken.

FWIW - while I agree that a region-wide network of protected areas based on input from a panel of scientists after extensive research would be grand, I'm not seeing the funding and other resources required to put that idea into action. It concerns me that the desire to approach the problem this way has been present within the WDFW for many years but little has come of it. I fear that by the time we actually set anything aside out in 4B, there will be little left to rebuild from. I favor setting aside some small subsection of 4B now, so we'll have something to work with when the bigger plan finally comes together.

The commission will meet again in February, and they postponed any decisions on this subject until that time.

I'm going to be serving on the Oversight Committee for the Pugest Sound Recreational Fishery Enhancement Fund for 2011 and 2012, so would appreciate any thoughts/ideas you might have about how that fund should be allocated.

[CaptnJack]

I'm going to be serving on the Oversight Committee for the Pugest Sound Recreational Fishery Enhancement Fund for 2011 and 2012, so would appreciate any thoughts/ideas you might have about how that fund should be allocated.

How much coin are we talking about here and are there a list of proposals being considered?

While a bit "out of the box" stuff like replacing significant fish barriers (culverts) can open up vast swaths of habitat which is currently inaccessible. Not sure if these kinds of projects are potentially on the table or not. WDOT has a prioritized list of the "worst" culverts already, many of which will not get addressed in 2011-12. Why not join forces to replace more of them with fish friendly passages?

[whatevah]

I'm going to be serving on the Oversight Committee for the Pugest Sound Recreational Fishery Enhancement Fund for 2011 and 2012, so would appreciate any thoughts/ideas you might have about how that fund should be allocated.

How much coin are we talking about here and are there a list of proposals being considered?

While a bit "out of the box" stuff like replacing significant fish barriers (culverts) can open up vast swaths of habitat which is currently inaccessible. Not sure if these kinds of projects are potentially on the table or not. WDOT has a prioritized list of the "worst" culverts already, many of which will not get addressed in 2011-12. Why not join forces to replace more of them with fish friendly passages?

Here is a pretty good summary of the PSRFEF if you would like some background:

http://www.sschapterpsa.com/ramblings/P ... istory.htm

Basically, the fund is made up of a $10 part from everybody's fishing license they buy each year. I read that a few years ago, the sum was $1.4M. So, in the past the fund has pretty much been focused upon raising and releasing "yearling" Chinook in hopes that they would remain as residents for recreational fishers to seek in the winter. For a while that seemed to work pretty well, but lately fewer of those fish are sticking around to be caught. Nobody has given an explanation but I have a couple of ideas. An audit of the winter blackmouth project was made a few years ago and it was found that for each released Chinook which was subsequently caught, $768 of fund monies were used. Obviously this doesn't look good. There are also many other questions and criticisms of the program from those who are concerned about natural populations of salmon, and also from those who are concerned about the impact the resident fish might be having on young rockfish. So... not sure where things will go from this point. The fund is also charged with supporting other organizations whose primary focus is habitat restoration for wild fish, and with looking into possibilities for enhancing/bolstering the bottomfish opportunity. A trial was made recently releasing a small number of hatchery raised Lingcod, but I don't believe there has been any large scale efforts. Some feel that releasing a large number of Lingcod into a fairly small area will end with them stopping right there and eating everything (including young rockfish and salmon, as well as the forage fish they depend on) in sight. I think that's probably a valid concern - one that certainly needs to be considered.

That's my understanding of where things stand. I haven't been to the first meeting yet so I'm sure there are a lot more factors they're dealing with. I'm hoping that those of us who are new to the committee will be able to bring some new ideas to the table. I probably should've started a new topic - but please, I would really appreciate any input on the fund - maybe via PM.