The GHMP is the state's conservation-minded blueprint to ensure our stocks are NOT overfished during times of reduced productivity... just like what the ocean is serving up right now. The tenets of the GHMP are biologically sound from a conservation perspective, and WDFW has demonstrated its commitment since implementation to keeping itself accountable to the document.

However, the GHMP only applies to state-managed fisheries, and there's been no buy-in to the plan as far as QIN is concerned. Whereas the constraints imposed by the GHMP to conserve a depleted stock leave state fishers unable to fully access otherwise harvestable surpluses of other more plentiful stocks, the QIN does not hold itself accountable to the same constraints. Nor are they legally bound to do so.

The two co-managers continue to have different ideas about how to forecast run-sizes, and widely disparate fishery objectives. The Region 6 management team made that very clear last night.

It's like a symphony with TWO conductors each reading from a different sheet of music. Half the musicians follow the lead of one conductor, while the other musicians follow the lead of the other. Each night when the curtain comes up, it's anybody's guess how well the concert will be performed. More often than not, it's horribly painful to listen to.

Just like our annual fishing seasons and the chronic inability to meet our escapement objectives.

Just makes you wonder how long folks are gonna keep buying tickets to the show?

One could have more faith in WDFW's ability to manage if WB was a salmonid paradise with all the fish the habitat can produce. They don't have Co-Managers there; just them. Some could say that WB represents the best WDFW can do.

And some most certainly have.

I have a little more faith in the current team given its demonstrated ability to hold itself accountable to the policy in Grays Harbor.

They still need to SHOW US in Willapa Bay.

The harvest models in GH are a much truer sign of reality since Scharpf took over data processing. WB has some catching up to do. The harvest models are chronically understating the true fishing power of the fleet by 25-30%.

When we used to shoot for a 30% harvest rate pre-season, we consistently ended up at 36-38% post-season. Now that we shoot for 20%, we end up at 25-26% post-season. The correlation is so consistent that the fix is stupid easy to figure out.

Set the seasons with impact caps 25% lower than the policy allows and they'll end up right where they need to be!

JG hit on something that was 1000 % correct & 100% wrong at the same time. What happened last year was simple the Coho pulsed through no staging low but rather mid range and the Chum came through on the brown out and better than half the coho with them in SEVEN days. So you could at any given moment half few to fish everywhere dependent on what week your in.

So JG go to the WDF&W website and pull down the escapement report and look at it by week. The hatchery run came in at about WDF&W forecast ( some above QIN forecast ) with LITTLE harvest. The limiter is wild production always not hatchery availability for harvest. Considering the numbers and everything hell you were lucky you were on the water let alone increasing the bag limit which increases pressure which increases wild mortality. I am not so sure we will be so lucky this year.

Formatting is screwed but here are the GH Chinook & Coho forecast.

MEMORANDUM

TO: Wendy Beeghley, Angelika Hagen-Breaux, Aaron Default, Marlene Bellman

FROM: Mike Scharpf and Tyler Jurasin

Date: March 3, 2017

SUBJECT: 2016 Grays Harbor Pre-Season Forecasts

Grays Harbor Spring Chinook: 1,277 terminal runsize
Recruit ages 3, 4, 5, and 6 are predicted using a five-year average recruits per spawners.
All are unmarked.

Brood Year 3 yo – 2014 4 yo – 2013 5 yo – 2012 6 yo – 2011 Total
Chehalis 305 720 248 4 1,277



Grays Harbor Natural Coho: 50,043 Ocean Age three recruits (Chehalis River = 41,305 and Humptulips River =6,862), South Bay Tribs = 1,876
The forecast of Chehalis wild Coho was developed using the model Ocean Recruits ~ PDO and maximum one-day September upwelling index . Final Model: Log Recruits ~ bo + b1* mean (mean(PDO i = 3, j = Mar-Jul) + b2*Upwelling i = 3, Max one day September, 125W 48N. The Humptulips and South Bay tributary forecasts are based on recruit densities scaled from Clearwater and Chehalis basins, respectively.

Grays Harbor Hatchery Coho: 36,355 Ocean Age three recruits (Chehalis River = 25,964 and Humptulips River = 9,179, Grays Harbor Net Pens = 1,212

Forecasts were based on recent 10 year average return/smolt rates (excluding 2 highest return rates) expanded to ocean age 3 recruits.

Total Marked Total Unmarked
Chehalis 19,860 6,104
Humptulips 9,075 104
GH net pen 1,178 34


Grays Harbor Fall Natural Chinook: 16,192 terminal runsize (Chehalis River = 10,351 and Humptulips River = 5,841)

Based on a ten-year average recruits per spawn for age 3 and age class relationships determined from log linear regressions for 4 year olds on 2 and 3 year olds, and 5 year olds on 2, 3, and 4 year olds for all stocks, and 6 year olds on 5 year olds for Chehalis and Humptulips.

Brood Year 3 yo – 2014 4 yo – 2013 5 yo – 2012 6 yo – 2011 Total
Chehalis 1,141 4,130 4,988 92 10,351

Humptulips 439 1,861 3,403 138 5,841



Grays Harbor Fall Hatchery Chinook: 5,631 terminal runsize (Chehalis River = 2,425 and Humptulips River =3,207)
Based on a ten-year average recruits per spawn for age 3 and age class relationships determined from log linear regressions for 4 year olds on 2 and 3 year olds, and 5 year olds on 2, 3, and 4 year olds for all stocks, and 6 year olds on 5 year olds for Chehalis and Humptulips.

Chinook Marked / Unmarked Information

Chehalis River
Brood Year 3 yo – 2014 4 yo – 2013 5 yo – 2012 6 yo – 2011 Total
2016 Forecast 310 815 1,247 53 2,425

Mark Rate 99.01% 99.96% 99.46% 98.66%
Marked 307 815 1,240 52 2,414

Unmarked 3 0 7 1 11



Humptulips River
Brood Year 3 yo – 2014 4 yo – 2013 5 yo – 2012 6 yo – 2011 Total
2016 Forecast 287 816 2,041 63 3,207

Mark Rate 99.12% 99.26% 98.87% 98.19%
Marked 284 810 2,018 62 3,174

Unmarked 3 6 23 1 33


Grays Harbor Chum: 31,300 terminal run size (Naturals 30,100, hatchery origin 1,200)
Based on a five-year average recruits per spawners.

Brood Year 3 yo – 2014 4 yo – 2013 5 yo – 2012
Grays Harbor 3,619 16,382 11,380

Some numbers we can all look forward to crafting some meaningful seasons.

Now, I don't want to poo-poo the appearance that we may have some semblance of opportunity, but I would be interested to see/hear an account of how they arrived at the "final" co-manager forecasts. This is not (supposed to be) a game of give and take at the whims of the managers, so what happens in a meeting like that? One more reason the State and Tribal meetings need transparency that doesn't get mentioned as often as our abundance or lack of opportunity is the welfare of the fish. The fish and I want to know: how did this go down?

Was it the QIN guy realizing he forgot to carry a zero somewhere? Biological negotiation? Completely unfounded, and both sides just wanted to keep license sales/fish production going strong? Were horses traded?

Looking at the forecast that Rivrguy posted I would estimate that we will have about the same rec and commercial seasons as last year with a couple of tweeks. The Humptulips chinook harvest needs to come down 23% and the Chehalis coho harvest could be tripled. That could at least get back to a two fish bag. It also looks like a couple more net days for chum if the tribe allows it to happen.

The simplest way to explain it is that the QIN model is weighted toward the PDO / ocean conditions and the state is weighted toward the fresh water survival. Both consider both but the emphasis on two different portions of the fishes life cycle will and does give you two different results that have to be reconciled.

I suspected as much. Maybe they ought to compare predicted vs. actual over time for each side, make a decision about whose prediction model has been more accurate, and use it. That sounds to me like the sort of co-management we need; not competing plans, but learning-based plans that incorporate the agreed-upon, best available science, as determined by model performance data.
Under the current paradigm, since both estimates are only educated guesses at best, wouldn't reconciliation leave us with a co-crafted, WAG?

The PDO driver for the QIN does explain their initial pessimism, considering the overall trend in PDO in recent years. On that note, it looks like El Nino is dominating the weather pattern predictions for the year so far. Let's hope that changes by the summer (which I'm reading does sometimes happen). Seems like El Nino equals low PDO, generally speaking.

Last year staff said the QIN has a history of being more accurate in the sense it is closer to the actual returns. Does not mean it is better at being not to high or to low but rather closer to the final numbers. That is why with the mess last year WDF&W opted to run with the QIN number which was lower in the preseason BUT the run came in closer to the WDF&W numbers. So pick your poison.

That's what in-season updates are for. When we looked back at the performance of PS updates for about 20 species/stocks the updates were more accurate almost all the time. I can recall only one (South Sound coho) where the update did not get closer than the the forecast.

I know they argue that they "can't" do updates. Well, they manage the fisheries based on harvest rates, right? HR=C/RS. My weakness is that I learned my math in California and according to what I learned, RS=C/HR if the harvest rate calculation is true. Either both are true, in which case you have an update or both are false in which case management is based on a false assumption.

You choose.

Quick update on the GH Advisers meeting. The QIN seasons have not been inputted to the model so it is a guessing game but we can get a view of the 2017 seasons.

1. The Chinook forecast is has us in a 5% impact rate as the QIN but they can move around with the aggregate of both Hump and Chehalis so it is not all they easy to predict exactly what will be. The good Coho & Chum returns forecasted pretty much make them the target species for everyone. That said the low Chinook return will likely move the QIN seasons to middle to latter part of October to avoid large numbers of Chinook. Also Springers tanked so that will mess with them also in the summer.

2.The available Chehalis natural origin Coho ( wild ) after ocean harvest should be around 40k so along with the hatchery returns our seasons look OK. Hump is limited to 5% on Coho impact also by the GHMP Staff is looking at options and input from the public also at the next NOF meeting in Monte but our season timeline should look somewhat like last years with some changes again for Springer protections. It appears the Rec bag limit will be something like two adults a day release wild Chinook. ( six jacks also )

3. The meeting schedule for both Willapa and GH has been jumping around the calendar due to staff guidance being a bit different than in the past, I think. It was my bad that I did not send out a final shout out for last night's meeting but will I try to do better.

4. The NT Commercials are looking at options with staff including B in the bay but later in the season to avoid Chinook which is a change.
So forward the process goes but at the moment things look OK unless something weird happens.

Don't know how many of you realize it, but this is the most viewed thread in the history of this board.... 1.14 million and counting.

Next closest topic is just shy of 58K views.

Echoing my comments on the Kenai thread regarding fish management being all about patience, and taking SMALL incremental bites over LONG periods of time....

FishingThe Chehalis.net was really the catalyst that put decades of local effort into hyperdrive. The passion generated by this 4 yr old thread combined with the efforts of the Twin Harbors Fish and Wildlife Advocacy, Coastal Conservation Association, and the longtime local stewards of Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay have accomplished great things for the conservation of coastal fish stocks.

We now have SOUND science-based conservation plans approved in official Policies by the WA Fish and Wildlife Commission overseeing the management of both coastal estuaries and the rivers feeding them. It's only been a few years, but so far they have proven extremely valuable in keeping WDFW Region 6 actions within the conservation constraints spelled out in the Policy

This was no small task.

Folks really need to acknowledge how far we've come in these 4 years.

My hat's off to all who contributed to the effort. You know who you are.

A review of the QIN opportunity may demonstrate the penalties imposed for using non selective gill nets. The small Chinook and chum runs should limit tribal nets to about two days per week for 4-5 weeks in October (Plus the usual 5-10 days in Nov-Dec to destroy the late native coho run). Their 50% share of the harvestable coho run is 22,076 fish but the limited net time allows a harvest of about 7,400 fish. It will be important for the state to try to prevent the QIN from over harvesting their share of the Chinook and chum to access these fish. Interesting times ahead. Their entitlement to 3,776 Chinook will easily drive the total run size of natural origin Chehalis fish to well below the escapement goal.

Another aspect of GH, so far, ESA has not been involved. ESA has allowed NOAA to give the tribe's a greater share of listed stock impacts as past of their special relationship with the Treaty Tribes.

Without ESA, Boldt rules apply which means the fall-back is 50:50. In those situations, the inability/unwillingness to fish selectively means that the weakest stock limits your access to the more abundant stock. Unless the other manager decides to give you some fish. WDFW can always agree to modify 50:50 but it is at their discretion and choice.

I think I owe Doc a thank you but he is right you know. I simply have the institutional memory and a brother that knew the PDR process. That said those like myself know where to look and what is BS and can point it out. It was the rest who made meeting after meeting that made it possible. Guys like Soft Bite tearing the model apart, DW always on Wynoochee Mitigation, just everyone. Sometimes for some reason all the pieces come together in a manner that allows you to move forward. Lot of folks putting in effort and this time we pulled it off.

Oh a old saying is " never take silence for agreement " and frankly one should not take the Commercials silence as acceptance and go to sleep because those apposed to the GHMP have not given up.

On Willapa some are asking what the hell back to the Commission. Ah yes but it is not to undo, well kinda. You see Section 7 ( if I recall correctly ) addresses commercial over fishing. More or less if the NT's over fish then supposedly back to the Commission on how to pay back. Did not do that last year ( insert reason of choice here ) so this year staff must do so. Sounds OK but it could be a bit weird out. The Recs have been steadily using more of their share of NOR impacts and the NT's modeled at 20% the last two years but got 25% of Nor impacts. Logic would say except the error and simply do 15% to get 20% but that would be a bit of a buzz saw at the least. Even if they do that chances are the numbers are not going be correct which will compound the problem.

This is a issue seeking a solution.

Rivrguy -
Speaking of Willapa Bay something has been causing me some concern. Thought you might be able to shed some light/suggest.

The concern is as the returns from the Willapa river (forks hatchery) dry up; a couple years down the road how do you see the marine recreational fishers accessing the hatchery Chinook heading to the south bay?

I can see how the early fishing could still be good fishing the waters west of Tokeland; though more problematic for the small boat angler. However as the season moves to the later part of August/early September the historic peak I can help to think the numbers of fish in the protected waters east of Tokeland will be a mere shadow of itself. Accessing those fish building up will involve either making very long runs, using limited and poorly placed launches and more exposure to the weather and worst grass.

It appears to be what has been one of the premier small boat marine Chinook opportunity will be coming to an end in a couple years. Can you provide any hope for us small boaters or is it time to look for alternate fisheries? I thinking I have to be looking out of state (either BC or Montana for trout.

Curt