Kind of like sticking your finger in a light socket over and over

zap, zap, zap, zap

Grays Harbor Management Plan and the Willapa Plan, very clear on the direction both the harbors are going, and the path to be followed.

Stay the course !!!!!!!!

GHMP, has some swells in the waters....

1. major one.....WDFW and QIN, need to be on the same page co-management of all of Grays Harbor. Time to change the we/they to us, would be nice to reduce the conflict between the 2 agencies. The sharing of data could help in a better management of escapement goals and reduced conflict between user groups.

2. Escapement goals must be met, for good of the fish, no excuses.

3. Once a clear understanding of escapement has been met, then section 7 of the GHMP needs to be a priory so that forced closures, like 2015, can be avoided. Section 7, pretty clear......just some individuals have a tough time with it......WDFW Commission, saw this as a important goal.

I prefer not to have my fingers in the light socket.....year, after year, after year.

Well here is a new wrinkle. What is the thought on what this means? One view is gut the Willapa & Grays Harbor management plan.



H-2499.1

HOUSE BILL 2311

State of Washington 64th Legislature 2016 Regular Session
By Representatives Blake, Scott, Hargrove, Hurst, McCaslin, Griffey, Rodne, Manweller, Buys, Holy, Zeiger, Condotta, Vick, and Van Werven

Prefiled 12/17/15. Read first time 01/11/16. Referred to Committee on State Government.

1 AN ACT Relating to the validity of administrative rules; and
2 adding a new section to chapter 34.05 RCW.


3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:


4 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter 34.05
5 RCW to read as follows:
6 No policy of any agency may be enforced by an agency until and
7 unless that policy has been adopted pursuant to this chapter and
8 filed with the office of the code reviser pursuant to RCW 34.05.380.

--- END ---

I think you might be right, Rivrguy. The only thing I like about that bill is that it's pretty easy to understand. Too bad the legislation it proposes is a steaming pile, the likes of which could only come from Blake's office.

What a piece of work....

Seems to me it should be forbidden for any of our elected leeches to work on anything other than an education bill until the McCleary requirements are met. Every day these clowns put off the elephant in favor of an ant is another $100K in Federal fines.

I believe they are state fines for non compliance of McCleary.

I agree.....Last year, lots of time was spent on "Introduction of bills that amounted to nothing more than a "waste of time". Then run out of time and have 2 extra sessions, at tax payer expense, AND STILL NOT TACKLE WHAT THE STATE COURT TOLD THEM TO DO, and still getting fined....more of our money being pissed away.......per diem pay should be ZERO.

Every one of the school districts in my area....is running "special levies", .... no change since 1968 when I started teaching.....need to fully fund basic education, as per State Constitution.

Thanks for correcting my understanding of who's penalizing whom, guys. Of course, learning that it is our own state assessing the fines makes this situation that much more outrageous, so now I'm really upset!

On Thursday February 4th Director Unsworth and staff will be holding a public input meeting in Southbend and here is the link. http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/jan1116a/ I realize most will react with " oh my god another dog and pony show! " In many ways yeuuuupppppp could be correct. That said I attended a TU meeting that the Director was the speaker and folks the man is sincere. He is different than most of the past Directors if not all of them. He really does listen and learn from these things. By learn I think ( that is always dangerous for me that think thing ) he is from Idaho and is learning who we are. Who WE are folks and at 68 I can say with certainty that WE are the most cantankerous, opinionated, stubborn around. WE are also the most dedicated, passionate advocates for the fish around. So attend if you can and learn about Mr. Unsworth so in the process he can learn about you.

North of Falcon is around the corner so it is time to start looking ahead to what a small Coho runsize will mean. Just say the forecast is 30K which is a little above escapement. The GHMP dictates on a small run 5% if the runsize is less than 110% of escapement which allocates 73% / 1095 to fresh water and 27% / 405 to 2-2. ( bay fishery ) The 73% freshwater impacts also include the Chehalis tribal catch. This thing could ( likely will ) get tight.

For Chinook this year is when the ocean PDO loses should show in the 3 year old age group and if it is in the tank I am not sure exactly how you craft the seasons. Last year's fishing genetic testing in Willapa 2T showed substantial GH Chinook impacts so that will be in the mix also.

This down turn is normal, has happened before, and will happen again. The difference between the past and present is the loss of two million hatchery produced adults which in a normal year would be between 20 to 40k adults. This means our H over W mix is way way backward for C&R in a full blown fisheries.

We are all about to see what happens when our harvest is heavily dependent on natural production. We are about to see just why HSRG hatchery reform NOT being fully implemented was & is really a bad idea. You can thank the former director there I think. He did his best to maintain traditional fisheries and did a rather good job at it. The down side is we are about to get the bill for it all at once. Looking back I think maybe we screwed the pooch just a bit much on this one.

One last item. No I do not know the escapement numbers for last fall. I inadvertently ( I think ) got the fall Chinook numbers and sent them out immediately to folks, which I am not sure I was supposed to do. Before my screen melts no I do not know why numbers such as escapement are such a secret. It is absolutely as ass backwards approach as you can get from my seat. It is what it is though so we muddle forward.

Here is a write up on the reduction of the GH Chinook escapement goal. Make up your own mind but my read is it is a MSY montra. You know when I was younger PFMC & PSC protected the fish. Both organizations are now populated by folks who would sell your Mamma down the craper if it let them kill the last fish.

Grays Harbor Fall Chinook

Grays Harbor fall Chinook spawner escapement goal was reevaluated and changed in 2014. The new natural spawning escapement goal is 13,500 naturally spawning Chinook for Grays Harbor with 9,880 for Chehalis River and 3,620 for Humptulips River.

The Grays Harbor fall Chinook spawner escapement goal was 14,600, 12,364 Chehalis River and 2,236 Humptulips River. This goal was adopted in 1979 and was based on available spawning habitat and a spawning density of 36 fish per mile. A level of 24 fish per mile was used for the mainstem Chehalis River and all tributaries upstream of Cedar Creek, reflecting lower productive potential. This goal is defined as a natural spawning escapement goal.

The Chinook Technical Committee (CTC) is to review the biological basis for Chinook salmon management objectives under the Pacific Salmon Treaty (PSC, 2009), Chapter 3, Section 2. (b) (iv), The CTC shall “…evaluate and review existing escapement objectives that fishery management agencies have set for Chinook stocks subject to this Chapter for consistency with MSY or other agreed biologically-based escapement goals and, where needed, recommend goals for naturally spawning Chinook stocks that are consistent with the intent of this Chapter…”. The abundance-based management regime for Chinook salmon established by the 2008 Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) is intended to sustain production at levels associated with maximum sustained yield (MSY, measured in terms of adult equivalents) over the long term. Therefore, the escapement goal for Grays Harbor fall Chinook was reevaluated based on spawner recruitment analysis.

The reevaluation of the Grays Harbor fall Chinook spawner escapement goal occurred in 2014. Three spawner-recruit functions were considered (Shepherd, Beverton-Holt, Ricker), and the Ricker model was identified as being the most appropriate form for both the Chehalis and Humptulips datasets. Brood years 1986 to 2005 were used in the analyses. In all analyses, parent generation escapement (i.e., spawners) includes both natural- and hatchery-origin fish spawning naturally. Spawner recruitment, biological based natural spawning escapement goals were developed for Chehalis and Humptulips rivers. Based on the Ricker analysis model, a Chehalis River fall Chinook natural spawning escapement goal of 9,880 was proposed and 3,620 for the Humptulips River. A harbor-wide natural spawning escapement goal of 13,500 was proposed.

On March 18, 2015 posted in the Federal Register Vol. 80, No. 52, NMFS proposes updates to management reference point values for Grays Harbor fall Chinook as recommended By the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) for use in developing annual management measures beginning in 2015. These management reference point values are conservation objectives to provide necessary guidance for fisheries management within the guidance of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

There are four management reference points established in Federal Register V. 80:
1. 13,326 natural area spawners for Grays Harbor (9,753 Chehalis, 3,573 Humptulips) goals.
2. Smsy 13,326 natural area spawners.
3. Maximum Fishery Mortality Threshold (MFMT, generally equal to FMSY), total exploitation rate of 63%. Management all fishery exploitation to 63% or less.
4. Minimum Stock Size Threshold (MSST, Smsy * 0.5), 6,663 natural area spawners (13,326 * 0.5 = 6,663. If natural area spawners drop below 6,663, stock considered “over fished”.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01599/wdfw01599.pdf

Check out the figures on page 26 and 36 of the attached document on the link. The data presented are clearly inadequate to support an analysis of spawner recruit relationships sufficient to base escapement decisions on.

Rivrguy lamented that PFMC and PSC used to actually protect the fish, yet nowadays, they seem hell-bent on destroying them. Ultimately, the members of the PFMC answer to their superiors. Much like that of the WDFW Director, just who those superiors are is not openly stated, largely because those superiors aren't supposed to influence executive decisions (at least not in ways that are publicly understood). Their superiors receive a lot of political contributions from commercial interests, and that's why they "motivate" the PFMC to protect those interests first.

So why wasn't it apparent in the old days Rivrguy referred to? Simple. The salmon stocks were still healthy enough to support liberal commercial fisheries, sport fisheries, tribal fisheries, and conservation goals, so no commercial influence in the management process was necessary. Now that the resource is less abundant, competition for allocation motivates the commercial industry to donate to the folks who make the real decisions, who, in turn, seed the PFMC with like-minded people, thereby assuring maximum allocation to commercial fisheries. These days, that isn't leaving enough for the gravel. Instead of doing what they should to protect the fish, they use the tools at their disposal to justify reductions in escapement. It's bull$hit science, but because nobody's interested in funding better science (the only people with the money to do that are the ones perpetuating the status quo), it's still the best available.

I firmly believe that, if sport fishermen and the fish are ever to get a day in court, it will be because sport fishermen came together to out-contribute the commercial interests. We do have the money; trouble is, we keep investing it in fishing gear and licenses to participate in increasingly poor fishing opportunities. Include me in that; I just want to go fishing, so I keep sticking my fingers in f4b's proverbial socket, year after year.

Another point is that the Commercials and Tribes stick together. They may not agree with each other, but that is internal. You take on one, you take on all.

Sporties are more "my way or the highway" in that (for example) fly-flingers and hardware tossers will rather fight each other than the tribes of commercials.

I'm particularly interested in bullet point 3...

Exploitation cap of 63%. I know without a doubt that Humptulips fails than benchmark. Gonna pose the question about Chehalis... I suspect managers fail there too since we keep chronically underescaping Chehalis chinook

This is from, Barbara A (DFW) [Barbara.Mcclellan@dfw.wa.gov] looking for folks comments on the Willapa Policy. More later I am sure but late now.



Hi Everyone,

The Department will be presenting a review of the Willapa Bay Basin Salmon Management Policy with regard to the 2015 fall salmon season to the Fish and Wildlife Commission on February 27, 2016 in Olympia.

We are interested in finding out from all of you what you think the Commission should hear. There is time set aside for the public to provide direct comment at the meeting, so you will be able to elaborate if we miss something or don’t cover something in the detail you wish.

If you have substantive comments you think should be included, please reply back to Chad Herring and myself by February 15, 2016.

Thank you!!

So should you send comments in? Is this a thinly veiled attempt to get your comments to ... ah ... sanitize them to the Commission? Is this a end run to try to get the Commercials thought up front? Is this ( insert question of choice )? I do not know and everyone should use there own judgement as this is a citizen participation thing.

That said in my mind any comments to the contact identified should have a CC copy to the Commission & Director. That will pretty much take of sanitation of your thoughts. After that guys this is a personal decision for all to make.

So how did the get to know you meeting in South Bend go? Rather well I think as it had a good turnout. Agency staff did a very good job and frankly it was a straight ahead event. The Region 6 Director and Director Unsworth spoke and then it was comment and meet the agency time. From my spot on the limb he is different from previous Directors. By that I mean he is making a real effort to look forward to the future but to do it with us right with him. Now guys say what you will but that is way way different from the we agency / you public of the past. So if anyone has a chance to speak with Mr. Unsworth do so. I do believe he actually listens which again is a huge departure from the past.

Now on to the 2016 seasons. Nope on the preseason forecast but the preseason ocean abundance forecast ( before harvest ) for the Columbia Coho. It is the early run that you look to for a quick look for comparisons. Last year it was forecast for 550k and in the end came in at around 150k. Now this year it starts at 153k in the ocean before harvest and folks that is so ugly it gives ugly a bad name. I would like to think that our Coho would perform better but my gut says I am dreaming.

Now Chinook are different. Coho only do 1 1/2 years in the salt so any down turn is really fast as is recovery. Chinook age groups in any year have 3, 4, 5, and 6 year olds. ( twos are jacks ) The dominate years are the 4 & 5 year fish with the 4 year fish the largest percentage and 3 years the smallest. ( well 6 year is smaller but we have very few anymore ) So for Coho this is the second year returns are in the dumpster due to poor ocean conditions but for Chinook we are only at the 3 year point so it should not show the same. While that is good it is kinda like standing on the railroad tracks watching a locomotive come at you and not being able to move.

So when we do get the preseason forecast we should be OK for Chinook in GH and Willapa for this year and less so next depending on just how bad the poor ocean conditions are. Now the bad. ( hate that don't ya ) Unlike Coho that can rebound quickly ( the lowest Coho escapement I found was in 1994 at around 8k ) Chinook do not. To get a good solid run you need 3,4,5 year fish and that is the rub it takes FIVE years, if you're lucky. With the massive Alaska and BC intercept fisheries our rule was blow escapement two generations with careful management to get out of the toilet. 10 years guys and unless something is done to reduce ocean intercept 2018 will be the start of that decade it will take to recover. I realize this sounds like crystal ball time but I have seen this before and after I am gone you young guys will see it again. In fact broodstocking we had one year of the five that was a bit short. Why? No idea but it got blasted with harvest was my thought and just never rebounded due to ongoing ocean harvest rates applied across the full run.

So this is where I make my pitch to the Rec fisher that usually if not always gets me in trouble. The numbers of Rec fishers continues to grow, ( Puget Sound is headed our way ) the number of fish available is in the process of shrinking rapidly, and there ain't no way no how that we can all fish the same ways in the same places we always have. We need to look to finding ways to structure our fisheries that meets not just the conservation needs but also recognizes the ever increasing fishers from outside the area.

Easy to say but hard to do. Why? Because Rec fishers are FIRM believers in circular firing squads! Setting in a NOF meeting a couple years back a couple of Recs were arguing a point and a gillnetter setting across from looked up and quietly said " you gotta tell those guys to quit bringing a knife to a gun fight " That is us guys the Rec fisher! The most quarrelsome, argumentative, stubborn bunch you will ever meet. We are also the most passionate defender of the fish, foot the bill to manage harvest and work the hardest to protect and restore habitat. So in rather short order we will again ( at least in the short term ) be faced with adapting or face rapid loss of opportunity. I favor adapting, quickly.

Well here is a gentleman from Willapa comments to the Director who could not make the South Bend meeting. Agree or disagree on his views he gets a A+ for effort and participation.

I appreciate your coming to South Bend to educate and hear from the local public, Director Unsworth. Unfortunately, the last meeting of Pacific County Planning Commission where they will hear comments on our new/draft Shoreline Master Plan is also that night. It is the last chance for public input, so we and some others will be there. Comments we would rather have given to you in person include;

1. Columbia River--We need to start achieving and communicating successes in complying with HSRG at Columbia Hatcheries. The recent staff presentation in Vancouver concentrated on how well harvest allotments were met, not on escapement or HSRG percentages. If improvements are needed we need to make them on a business-like schedule. 70% NOR in gravel and at least 30% NOR in hatcheries, plus meeting escapement goals are the key here. We have heard from the applicable advisory group that Summer Chinook, for example, seldom meet escapement. The days of having a limit of one fish/day put on those (poles) with the lowest mortality rate while netting thousands with non selective gear need to be over. Many steelhead are killed by nets also, and they are supposed to be game fish. The old saw of "netting to get rid of the surplus" did not work on our coastal fish and cannot in the Columbia either.

2. We are apparently faced with the Columbia River Endorsement surcharge being extended below Tongue Point to Buoy 10. We the public could not see any gain from this license increase unless the gillnet phase out continues as announced. Since announcing this phase out, our fishing area below the Astoria Bridge has shrunk. A large area where our family used to fish West of the bridge and south of the green buoy line, down towards Warrenton, has been placed off limits. This was to allow more fish into the commercial terminal net program in Young's Bay. Still, the Region 5 staff is not showing much anticipation for the main stem net phase out. At the same time, a race of Fall Chinook called Tules is in trouble, requiring harvest of unmarked t Tules to be restricted. As a result sport fishing at Buoy 10 is prematurely halted every year now, on or before Sep 1, not just to allow escapement, but to allow for net mortality above Tongue Point. Record runs bypass a truncated sport fishery to allow protected Tule Naturals to be available for non-selective net mortality. Before being cut off each year, the B-10 fishery is crowded more than ever before. The result is that as Region 5 staff data recently showed, sport fishing at B-10 is not growing, even when runs are at record levels. It is not growing because it is truncated by the "necessities" of non-selective gill netting upstream. These "necessities" include higher mortality rates put on fish not meeting escapement and HSRG goals, while sport fishermen with lower mort rates on these and other races are beached! Raising recreational fees while restricting the ability to apply lower mort rates on troubled runs would not make sense. The non-selective harvest must be stopped as we were told it would.

3. There is a move afoot to again kill burrowing shrimp with pesticide in Willapa Bay and Gray's Harbor. An application to reinitiate an NPDES permit process that was cancelled due to public pressure last year has been filed. We have no sturgeon season in Willapa Bay because of the dearth of both white and green sturgeon here, as well as Grays Harbor. Green Sturgeon are ESA listed! The main forage for green sturgeon here are burrowing shrimp. Since about 2002, one of the two species of burrowing shrimp has all but disappeared. With half of these native invertebrates gone, a program to decrease the other half makes no biological sense and is not legal per ESA. This would be the Poster Child for net loss of ecological function! Although WDFW personnel sometimes attend hearings and workshops on such subjects, they do not speak on behalf of habitat or wildlife conservation. This tradition must change. It is as if, sometimes, there is no wildlife division. Last year in a meeting in Pacific County we were told by a senior manager "WDFW does not have much to say about habitat." We would ask that this change. When people see and hear this, they sometimes feel as if their habitat input is of no use. There is no "net loss of ecological function" allowed with respect to our shorelines per the Shoreline Management Act. When the public sees that habitat is not regularly monitored, and not visibly protected by WDFW in permitting processes, it seems it is of no use for the public to speak up either.

4. There are several areas in Pacific and Grays Harbor counties owned by WDFW that have lent themselves to waterfowl management in the past. Some are no longer clearly being managed for waterfowl. What is our State Duck Stamp money for? One is the John's River area. For some reason sedges were mowed down there this year. These are major forage for ducks and geese, or were. There is an area in the Chehalis Valley that was purchased for waterfowl, but has gone downhill since WDFW purchase. It has been good that WDFW keeps numbers on salmon and waterfowl. Still, waterfowl counts are being drastically reduced for Willapa Bay again. Pacific Brant counts have been turned over to USFWS, who refuses to provide information on brant location in Willapa Bay when asked repeatedly. Waterfowl including brant, green and white sturgeon, and Natural Spawner salmon are on a downslide and we would like to see a proactive WDFW in this area.

5. Sport Fishing in Willapa Bay is ripe for enhancement. Chinook have been declared a recreational priority, yet thousands are dying in areas of North Nemah and Naselle Rivers where sport fishing is not allowed. Some such closed areas include public land! The most often reason heard by the public is that WDFW has inadequate resources to monitor such fishing. At the same time non-selective netting is heavily monitored on these same fish. This is not consistent with a recreational prioirity, or with license fee increases which should be used as necessary to allow the lower pole mortality rate to be put into play where needed for both recreational enhancement and for the resource. As currently managed, if we ever met Chinook escapement goals in the Willapa Drainage, neither hatchery nor gravel percentages prescribed by HSRG would be met anyway, with the North Nemah as a possible exception. The puny average size of these once magnificent fish directly reflects genetic domination by hatchery stock. We now have a policy that can turn this around with proper application of lower unmarked fish mortality rates. We ask that harvest be allowed, and volunteer programs be designed, to carry this out.
6. The new Willapa Policy has a flaw I have described as the "lump of coal" for recreational fishers' Christmas. It places sport priority in the North Bay where production is now being drastically lowered for HSRG reasons. It places surplus fish up in rivers in the South where recreational fishing is not optimized, and fish die. It leaves the Naselle River as a target for politically motivated moves to increase production through non HSRG compliant schemes which seem to sprout with each New Year. Keeping recreational fishers off these fish seems consistent with reserving them for future non-selective netting. The death of "surplus" fish is a positive PR item for commercials, and nothing more. Natural Origin Recruits die right alongside hatchery recruits. We have no quarrel with selective harvest of these fish. We have a quarrel with keeping them away from recreational selective harvest, and if budget priorities continue to not reflect functional weirs.

A WDFW serious about conservation and recreational fishing will allow the most selective harvest to take place when and where fitting in order to meet HSRG standards. A WDFW serious about enhancing recreational and commercial fishing of Coastal Fall Chinook in Pacific County will prioritize functional weirs on rivers such as the Naselle and Willapa. Given no sign of this we would be headed for minimal harvest in our two largest rivers, while managing a segregated run in the only place currently practicable, the North Nemah. In the North Bay we would have the recreational "lump of coal" between Tokeland and South Bend in a few years, where the sport fishery of most economic benefit to the county has taken place in the past. A WDFW serious about conservation will speak up about loss of estuarine habitat for ESA sturgeon, waterfowl, shorebirds, and naturally spawned salmon smolts. It will take action. It will do so in public where it can be properly appreciated by a more motivated public going forward.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
South Bend, WA

Ok what we have here is a E mail that Mike sent out from R-6 with a Power Point presentation that will be used in the year end review by Region 6. Those who want it let me know and I will forward it. So right here one must give kudos to Mike & Steve for putting this forward PRIOR to the Commission review. In the past staff did not do this and frankly the blow back was rather strong so kudos to staff for breaking the mold and going for transparency. So I urge everyone to look at the Power Point and provide your thoughts on any or all elements of the presentation to Mike and his e mail address is below.

I have gotten the question already relating to your thoughts be represented. This guys is staff asking for input, which is good, and I urge all to do so. I also urge all to feel free to also comment Directly to the Commission & Director your thoughts on 2015 Salmon seasons and how the GHMP performed. You can work with staff in a positive manner and not sell your soul. Below are comments from a Rec fisher from a CC as an example.

• Page 19 of your power point presentation has the following…”A draft Wynoochee Mitigation plan has been completed, we help for constituents, and submitted to the QIN for review”………… Just doesn’t sound right.

Area of concern, from my point of view

Guiding Principles
Item 7….

“In a manner consistent with conservation objectives, fishing opportunities will be fairly distributed across fishing areas and reflect the diverse interests of WDFW-managed fishers”

This was one of the driving forces in designing the GHMP………Conservation and then to make sure in river fisherpersons had a fair chance. In river includes waters from 101 Bridge, to head waters of the Chehalis and all tributaries.

2015 was another in a long line WDFW structured seasons, where NT, marine sportsmen, had most of their season……..then when Conservation became an issue, shut the whole system down. There are many Chehalis River sportsmen that choose to not fish until the QIN and NT fishers are done with their season,,,,,,,,,,, they did their share for Conservation in 2015, again!!!!!


FROM MIKE & STEVE: Raymond.Scharpf@dfw.wa.gov

Subject: draft 2015 GH salmon management policy review presentation for upcoming WDFW Commission meeting

Hi all,

Attached is a draft presentation reviewing the policy guidance during the 2015 GH salmon season. This will be presented at the WDFW Commission meeting later this month. Please provide constructive feedback. Understand that it was a difficult year, did the Policy provide the guidance it was intended? I appreciate any comments, suggestions, or recommendations.

Here are the 2015 escapement numbers. Forgive the formatting as posting a Power Point presentation is above my pay grade but you can figure it out easy enough. Bottom line Chinook came in stronger than forecast as did Chum and the fish did OK. Now Coho is another matter. The 20K figure is give or take about 71% of escapement. Now Hump Coho at 1097 escapement is only 16% of escapement.

Houston we have a problem.

Metric Objective Pre-Season Actual
Chehalis River Natural-Origin Chinook
Run-Size 19,108 23,090
Spawner 9,880 9,947 14,250
% Impact in WDFW-Managed Fisheries 5% 4.44% 3.88%
% Impact in Commercial in 2A, B, D 0.80% 0.77% 0.44%
170 fish 102 fish
Chehalis River Natural-Origin Coho
Run-Size 121,734 31,800
Spawners 28,506 66,652 20,000
% Impact in WDFW-Managed Fisheries 15.44% 11.11%
% Impact in Commercial in 2A, B, D 3.80% 2.92%

These are in-season estimates.


Humptulips River Natural-Origin Chinook
Run-Size 7,403 7,703
Spawner 3,620 4,024 4,840
% Impact in WDFW-Managed Fisheries 21.39% 20.57%
% Impact in Commercial in 2C 5.40% 0.68% 0.00%
56 fish None
Humptulips River Natural-Origin Coho
Run-Size 5,861 1,112
Spawners 6,894 3,720 1,097
% Impact in WDFW-Managed Fisheries 1.81% 1.32%
% Impact in Commercial in 2C 0.54% 0.00%

These are in-season estimates.




Metric Objective Pre-Season Actual
Grays Harbor Chum
Run-Size 28,852 47,000
Spawner 21,000 21,029 33,705
% Impact in WDFW-Managed Fisheries 12.55% 10.46%
% Impact in Commercial 10.13% 9.63%

Chehalis coho turned out much worse than the state and QIN's in-season projection.

Basically a run failure at only about 1/4 of the preseason forecast.

At 31K the entire run was basically at the 110% e-goal threshold... in other words NO harvestable surplus. In hindsight the entire run could have gone to the gravel.

With Hump coho also in the toilet, there was NOTHING to buffer the basinwide coho goal, either. Basinwide goal is 35.4K... which is what QIN manages to.... actual escapement was only 21.1K. You gotta ask... W T F?

Basinwide runsize was 32.9K. Harvest was about 11.8K (fuzzy number as the Hump harvest is statistically indistinguishable from ZERO [1112 - 1097 = 15 fish] Things that make you go HMMMM? )

So the post-season co-manager report card is a big fat "F-".... basically took an unfishable run and put a targeted 36% exploitation rate on GH wild coho when they should have only put a 10% incidental impact on those fish.

Sorry to be so pessimistic... BUT ... the fish don't stand a fukkin' chance in 2016.