Well this bit is interesting to say the least. I believe it is relevant in the current discussion of the sacrificing of the resource to maintain the antiquated commercial fisheries.




TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (FINAL)


April 28, 2009


Memo to: From:

Andy Appleby, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Tom Wegge , TCW Economics


RE: Economic Analysis of WDFW 's Hatchery 2020 Plans


The Hatchery Scientific Review group (HSRG) retained TCW Economics to conduct an economic assessment of the State's Draft Hatchery Action Implementation Plans (Hatchery 2020 Plans). This memorandum summarizes the final results of the economic assessment , and describes the methods, including data sources , used to conduct the assessment.

Accompanying this memorandum is an excel workbook that includes the data used to analyze WDFW's 120 salmon and steelhead hatchery programs, and the economic impact estimates for each program.

Results

As described in more detail below, the analysis of economic impacts focuses on measuring the expected effects of each program on generating local personal income from affected commercial and sport fisheries in different economic regions of the state. The estimates are considered minimum contributions due to the methods used to estimate freshwater sport catch, including lower than optimum levels of sampling in some marine commercial fisheries.

State-operated hatcheries for salmon and steelhead evaluated in this analysis are located in watersheds in the Puget Sound region, Coastal region, and Lower Columbia River region. The commercial and sport fisheries where hatchery-produced salmon and steelhead are harvested also occur in these three regions, as well as in more distant fisher ies located outside of state waters (e.g., southeast Alaska , British Columbia, and Oregon coast). For this analysis, however, only effects associated with the harvest in Washington State waters were evaluated .

Puget Sound Hatchery Programs

The contribution to local personal income of salmon and steelhead hatchery programs located in the Puget Sound region is shown by watershed in Table 1. Local personal income generated from Puget Sound hatchery production is estimated at $11.4 million annually in commercial fisheries and $18.4 million in sport fisheries.



TCW Economics
Econom ic Consulting for Natural Resou rce Managemen t and Land Use Plan n ing 2756 9111 Avenue Sacramento, CA 9581 8 916/45 1-3372 fax: 916/451-1920 e-mail : twegge@tcweco n .com

For hatchery produced fish that are harvested in commercial fisheries, the Puget Sound marine and freshwater net fisheries account for $10.9 million, or about 96 percent of the total personal income generated . Hatchery production of chum accounts for about 53 percent of the total personal income generated and hatchery production of Chinook accounts for about 38 percent.

For hatchery produced fish caught in sport fisheries, $11.4 million of the total $18.4 million in local personal income is associated with sport fishing activity in freshwater areas of the Puget Sound region. Puget Sound marine sport fisheries account for about $6.5 million and ocean sport fisheries account for about $627,000 in local personal income. Hatchery produced coho caught in both marine and freshwater sport fisheries generate about $7.8 million annually , steelhead sport fisheries generate about $6.7 million, and Chinook sport fisheries generate about $3.9 million in local personal income. Hatchery programs in the Snohomish watershed contribute about $5.1 million annually in local personal income in the Puget Sound region and hatchery programs in the Payullup/White watershed contribute about $3.4 million annually.

It is estimated that commercial and sport fisheries in the Puget Sound region that depend on hatchery production support an estimated 532 full- and part-time jobs throughout the region. This number of jobs does not include hatchery jobs or other jobs indirectly supported by operations at hatchery facilities.

Coastal Hatchery Programs

The contribution to local personal income of salmon and steelhead hatchery programs located in the Coastal region is shown by watershed in Table 2. Local personal income from coastal hatchery production is estimated at $1.5 million annually in commercial fisheries and $7.6 million in sport fisheries. Almost all of the local personal income generated by the harvest from coastal hatchery programs occurs in the State's coastal economic region.

For hatchery produced fish harvested in commercial fisheries, coastal net fisheries account for 97 percent of the total personal income generated . Hatchery coho production accounts for $1.0 million of the $1.5 million in annual personal income. Although not reported in Table 2, it is estimated that more than 80 percent of the local personal income is captured in the Westport area, which is the primary port associated with catch area 2.

For hatchery produced fish caught in sport fisheries, $6.8 million of the total $7.6 million in local personal income is associated with sport fishing activity in coastal freshwaters . Ocean sport fisheries account for about $821,000 and Puget Sound marine sport fisher ies account for about
$25,000 in local personal income. Hatchery fish caught in steelhead sport fisheries generate about $4.2 million annually , Chinook sport fisheries generate about $876,000, and coho sport fisheries generate about $2.6 million in local personal income. Hatchery programs in the Wynoochee watershed contribute the most personal income ($1.9 million), followed by hatchery programs in the Solduc/Quillayute and Humptulips watersheds ($1.3 million each).

It is estimated that commercial and sport fisheries in the Coastal region that depend on hatchery production support an estimated 277 full- and part-time jobs throughout the region. This
number of jobs does not include hatchery jobs or other jobs indirectly supported by operations at hatchery facilities.

Lower Columbia River Hatchery Programs

The contribution to local personal income of salmon and steelhead hatchery programs located in the Lower Columbia River region is shown by watershed in Table 3. Local personal income

from Lower Columbia River hatchery production is estimated at $1.5 million annually in commercial fisheries and $27.9 million in sport fisheries.

For hatchery produced fish harvested in commercial fisheries, the Lower Columbia River net fisheries account for about $974,000, or about 67%, of the total personal income generated . Hatchery production of coho accounts for about 53 percent of the annual $1.4 million in personal income generated and Chinook accounts for about 47 percent.

For hatchery produced fish caught in sport fisheries, $14.5 million of the total $27.9 million in local personal income is associated with sport fishing activity on the Columbia River mainstem and about $10.5 million is associated with sport fishing in terminal areas (tributary fisheries) of the Lower Columbia River . Ocean sport fisheries account for about $2.8 million and Puget Sound marine sport fisheries account for about $74,000 in local personal income. Hatchery fish caught in steelhead sport fisheries generate about $13.7 million annually , Chinook sport fisheries generate about $3.7 million, and coho sport fisheries generate about $10.5 million in local personal income. Hatchery programs in the Cowlitz River watershed contribute the most personal income at $14.8 million annually , distantly followed by hatchery programs in the Lewis River watershed ($5.7 million) and Kalama River hatchery programs ($2.8 million) .

It is estimated that commercial and sport fisheries in the Lower Columbia River region that depend on hatchery production support an estimated 1,108 full- and part-time jobs throughout the region. This number of jobs does not include hatchery jobs or other jobs indirectly supported by operations at hatchery facilities.

As the Grays Harbor Management Plan ( GHMP ) is being worked on I thought I would put up this E mail thread to help folks understand WHY it is important to get involved. This thread is about Chum and how Region - 6 District 17 manages the preseason forecast by lumping Chum in one number rather than manage by stock. ( individual streams ) Now if you were to break escapement down further by defining the Wynoochee and Wishkah at say equal to the Satsop, then very rough numbers ( close guess? ) for the mainstem Chehalis for Chum would be 7140. Keeping in mind the 7140 is just a working guess but likely in the ball park, doubts on why the up river Chum stocks are being exterminated by commercial harvest should be gone. Good lord has anyone seen Chum in numbers that are needed above the Satsop?

So one more time. WDF&W Region 6 District 17 staff get away with this because WE blindly accept information provided, do not stay involved, and FAIL TO RECOGNIZE IT IS THE COMMISSION THAT MUST REQUIRE THE NECESSARY REFORMS. The absolute mess the GHMP has become is because the local communities ( especially the inland communities ) have allowed it to happen. You add the fact that the Commission has blindly accepted the dribble out of R-6 D-17 you get what we see.





From: Hughes, Kirt M (DFW)
To: Warren, Ron R (DFW);
cc: Scharpf, Mike M (DFW); Holt, Curt L (DFW); Herring, Chad J (DFW);
Subject: RE: Chum
Date: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 1:31:00 PM

Although we do not have the forecast model developed in a manner to specifically forecast at a tributary specific level, we could do that but it will require a LOT of work and tie we do not currently have. That said, not that I recommend doing so, one could roughly allocate the Grays Harbor wide goal and forecast by the relative portions of spawner habitat at the level Dave is requesting. While there might
be some argument for this being acceptable for the goal, there is no basis for doing this with the forecast but I guess we will do it anyway. The complexity of escapement, age composition, and productivity should really be brought to account.

Anyhow, available spawner habitat is approximately 22% in the Humptulips, and 78% in the Chehalis (of total GH habitat 22% is in the Satsop).

Following through on this as a way to split the forecast as David is interested in you get the following.

Goal 2013 Forecast
Humptulips 4,620 6,758
Satsop 4,620 6,758
Chehalis (excluding Satsop) 11,760 17,201



From: Warren, Ron R (DFW)
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:30 AM
To: Hughes, Kirt M (DFW)
Subject: FW: Chum





From:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 7:58 AM
To: Warren, Ron R (DFW)
Subject: Fwd: Chum

Ron,

Any idea on when your guys will provide the requested info below on Chum?








From:
To: "Ron Warren" <ron.warren@dfw.wa.gov> Cc: "Jim Scott" <scottjbs@dfw.wa.gov> Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2013 6:24:28 AM Subject: Chum


Mr. Warren,

After reviewing the Grays Harbor advisory meeting last night,
( March 6, 2013 ) I found the information provided to well short of what is needed to address Chum harvest for Grays Harbor as a whole or the Chehalis Basin. As a member of the Grays Harbor Advisory Group I am formally requesting to be provided the following information.

1. A 2013 Preseason Forecast for the number of returning Chum adults to the Humptulips River.

2. A 2013 Preseason Forecast for the number of returning Chum adults to the Chehalis River.

3. A 2013 Preseason Forecast for the number of returning Chum adults to the Satsop River.

Official GH page on the WDFW website...

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/grays_harbor_salmon/

Here is an interesting bit concerning members of the Grays Harbor Advisers or rather a new member. So the question becomes why the concern about the CCA? Another e mail thread addressed that as to not having two CCA members as Advisers and Kirt Hughes was even sending out a sheet that he wanted your views on harvest / conservation / any affiliations prompting one individual to ask if we were going back to the 50's and Tailgunner JOE! Now compare this concern with six or more members are from the Gillnetters Association with two members from the same family. I will find some additional information on the Advisory Group but I thought this is relevant.

So no confusion exist I am on the Advisory Group ( the newbie ) and this Rec / Commercial bit is a load of crap. In my view WDF&W has created a Adviser Group that DOES NOT IN ANYWAY REFLECT THE CITIZENS OF GRAYS HARBOR & THE CHEHALIS BASIN.

From: Warren, Ron R (DFW)
To: Hughes, Kirt M (DFW)
Subject: RE: GH Advisory Committee... new members?
Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 7:03:00 AM



My only hesitation is that since the inception of the AdHoc committee there has been the creation of a different element that will enter the committee if we open positions. This element is CCA.

Ron Warren
Region 6 Fish Program 48 Devonshire Road
Montesano, WA 98563
360-249-1201 Office
360-249-1229 Fax
ron.warren@dfw.wa.gov


From: Hughes, Kirt M (DFW)
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 6:09 AM
To:
Cc: JC ; Warren, Ron R (DFW)
Subject: Re: GH Advisory Committee... new members?



--------
Thanks for the conversation last night. I will speak with Ron about soliciting new members for the GH group; he is at Pacific Salmon Commission meetings this week so it may be a few days before we are able to put something together.
Kirt Hughes


From: ---------
To: Hughes, Kirt M (DFW)
Cc: ----------
Sent: Mon Jan 11 23:53:28 2010
Subject: GH Advisory Committee... new members?
Kirt

With the recent passing of Mike Munsell, the recreational representation on our committee is down one more body. With the loss of Andy Matthews, and the chronic lack of participation from the folks from the I-5 corridor, it seems appropriate to infuse some new blood from the sportfishing community.

Allow me to introduce John --------- , a local GH resident, avid fisherman in local waters, and currently Govt Relations Committee (GRC) liaison between the local chapter of the CCA and the State GRC.
He has a keen interest in the GH fisheries and wants to learn more about the key GH issues. Mild mannered, soft spoken, a good listener, and a critical thinker… he would definitely be an asset to our group.

If we could arrange for a face to face introduction before we convene as a committee next month, that would be great.

Thanks, -------

Sure makes it look like Advisory Groups are created to tell the Department what it wants to hear. And then claim that what they do has the support of the Stakeholders.

Another reason to state the case to the WDFW Commission since there is a lack of available desired species of Chinook and Coho.

Yet WDFW "managers" are still in an 1800's mindset???

Just found out Ron Warren is going to Oly as an Deputy Assistant Director for Intergovernmental Salmon Management. More to come.

Yee Haw the rumor mill is alive and well! Anyone hear the one about Mr. Anderson????

Double post but covering bases so ....

Couple of items. This link is to the FTC library and two documents regarding the Grays Harbor Management plan redo. One is mine which I have made public and the other is a complete break down of the policy guidelines and recommended changes by the East County guys which is titled Commission Policy Edits. I urge you to read through it completely as the policy guidelines approved by the Commission will determine the fisheries in Grays Harbor & the Chehalis Basin in coming years.

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0...aDJvWjFiaUVoNGc

Second item is a reminder of the next Public Input meeting for the Grays Harbor Management Plan Tuesday the 26th, 6:00 PM at Montesano City Hall. I urge all to attend and speak your mind on the status of the Grays Harbor & the Chehalis Basin Salmon Management, or lack of depending on your views!

I was asked to post how the Commission sets out the "sideboards" for NOF so here is 2012. Formatting is gone with the C&P but it is fairly easy to follow. Now go to the bottom and read the delegation of authority SLOWLY and think about what it means in relation to what we see with Salmon harvest tribal & non tribal.

Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
North of Falcon, Policy C-3608
Adopted Feb. 4, 2011
Page 1 of 3
FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION
POLICY DECISION
POLICY TITLE: 2011-2012 North of Falcon POLICY NUMBER: C-3608
Supersedes: C-3608, 2009-2010 Effective Date: February 4, 2011
Termination Date: December 31, 2012
See Also: Policy C-3001 Approved by: ___________________________Chair
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission, 02/04/2011
North of Falcon Policy
This Policy will guide Department staff in considering conservation, allocation, in-season
management, and monitoring issues associated with the annual, salmon fishery planning process
known as “North of Falcon”. When considering management issues, Department staff will ensure
that decisions are made consistent with the Department’s statutory authority, U.S. v. Washington,
U.S. v. Oregon, the Endangered Species Act, the Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management
Plan, the Pacific Salmon Treaty, the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s Framework Salmon
Management Plan, pertinent state/tribal agreements, and the applicable Fish and Wildlife
Commission policies.
The Department will implement this Policy consistent with the purposes and intended outcomes
described in the 21st Century Salmon and Steelhead Planning Project including:
• WDFW shall manage salmon and steelhead to recovery and sustainability in a way that is
science-based, well-documented, transparent, well-communicated, and accountable.
• Fisheries are managed to meet or exceed ESA, recovery, and conservation goals; and harvest
management measures protect and promote the long-term well-being of the commercial and
recreational fisheries.
Fishery Management
General
• On a statewide basis, fishing opportunities will be provided when they can be directed at
healthy wild and hatchery stocks.
• Selective fishing methods and gears that maximize fishing opportunity and minimize
impacts on depressed stocks will be utilized to the fullest extent possible within legal
constraints of implementation and budgetary limits associated with required sampling,
monitoring and enforcement programs.
• When assessed from a statewide perspective, fishing directed at chinook, coho, pink,
sockeye, or chum salmon will not be exclusively reserved for either sport or commercial
users.
• When managing sport fisheries, meaningful recreational fishing opportunities will be
distributed equitably across fishing areas and reflect the diverse interests of fishers,
including retention and catch and release fisheries.
• The Department will seek non-treaty fishing access to unutilized portions of treaty
harvest allocations through the implementation of pre-season agreements, taking into
consideration changes in abundance, fishery conflicts, and factors that may influence
attainment of spawning escapement objectives.
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
North of Falcon, Policy C-3608
Adopted Feb. 4, 2011
Page 2 of 3
Sockeye, Chum, and Pink Salmon
• For fisheries directed at Fraser River origin chum, pink, and sockeye stocks, the majority of
harvest will be provided to the commercial fisheries.
• For fisheries directed at harvestable Puget Sound origin chum stocks, the majority of
harvest will be provided to the commercial fisheries.
• For fisheries directed at Lake Washington sockeye, the first 200,000 non-treaty harvest
will be provided to recreational fishers. If the allowable non-treaty harvest is greater than
200,000, commercial harvest directed at this stock may be considered.
• For fisheries directed at harvestable Puget Sound origin pink salmon, seasons will be
established that provide meaningful opportunities for both recreational and commercial
fisheries while minimizing gear and other fishery conflicts.
Chinook and Coho Salmon
• The Puget Sound harvest management objectives for chinook and coho stocks, in
priority order, are to (1) provide meaningful recreational fishing opportunities, and (2)
identify and provide opportunities for commercial harvest. When managing sport
fisheries in this region, recreational opportunities will be distributed equitably across
fishing areas, considering factors such as the: uniqueness of each area, the availability
of opportunities for various species in each area throughout the season, desire to
provide high levels of total recreational opportunity, and biological impacts.
• Grays Harbor harvest management objectives shall include opportunities for both the
recreational and commercial fisheries.
• Columbia River harvest management regimes shall be developed in cooperation with
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife representatives. Commercial and recreational
fishing opportunity will be scheduled to optimize the non-treaty harvest of chinook and
coho and to provide a balanced opportunity to each fleet. When developing recreational
and commercial fishing options, the Department shall consider fair and reasonable catch
opportunity, stability and duration of fisheries, as well as sharing of the conservation
responsibility.
• Willapa Bay harvest management shall be consistent with Willapa Bay Framework
management objectives. The following general intent shall apply: Willapa Bay harvest
management objectives shall include meaningful opportunities for both recreational and
commercial fisheries.
• Pacific Ocean harvest shall be managed consistent with the Pacific Fishery Management
Council’s Framework Salmon Management Plan and the National Standards that provide
for fair and equitable allocation of fishing privileges among various fishers.
In-Season Management
• When in-season management actions are taken, they will be implemented in a manner
that is consistent with pre-season conservation and harvest management objectives,
and the fishery intent developed through the North of Falcon process.
Monitoring, Sampling and Enforcement
• Monitoring, sampling and enforcement programs will be provided to account for species
and population impacts of all fisheries and to ensure compliance with state regulations.
• Fishery participants will be required to comply with fishery monitoring and evaluation
programs designed to account for species and population impacts.
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
North of Falcon, Policy C-3608
Adopted Feb. 4, 2011
Page 3 of 3
Gear and Fishery Conflicts
• Recreational and commercial fisheries shall be structured to minimize gear and other
fishery conflicts. Unanticipated fishery interaction issues identified in-season, including
conflicts with fisheries directed at other species, shall be resolved by involving the
appropriate sport and commercial representatives in a dispute resolution process
managed by Department staff.
Incidental Mortalities
• The Department will manage fisheries to minimize mortalities on non-target species
(e.g. rockfish, sea birds, etc.). Management regimes will include strategies to limit
seabird mortalities consistent with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Communications
• The Department shall strive to make ongoing improvements for effective public
involvement during the North of Falcon planning process and annual salmon fishery
implementation, incorporating the following intents:
– include North of Falcon participants as observers during appropriate state/tribal
discussions of fishery issues.
– maintain a record of all decisions made during the North of Falcon process.
– use a variety of tools to effectively communicate with the public, receiving input on
pre-season planning or in-season fishery issues, and making available the record of
decisions; such tools will include use of recreational and commercial advisory groups,
public workshops addressing key issues, the WDFW North of Falcon Web site, and inseason
tele-conferencing.
Other Species
• The Fish and Wildlife Commission’s policy on Lower Columbia Sturgeon Management
(POL-C3001) shall guide pre-season and in-season planning of Columbia River and
coastal sturgeon fisheries and related incidental impacts. Management of Willapa Bay
sturgeon fisheries will be further guided by Willapa Bay Framework management
objectives.
Delegation of Authority
The Fish and Wildlife Commission delegates the authority to the Director to make harvest
agreements with Northwest treaty tribes and other governmental agencies, and adopt permanent
and emergency regulations resulting from the agreements made during the annual North of
Falcon process.

Double up post but it is rather important for everyone one to know that the draft for the Policy Guidelines for the GH Management Plan is out at least partway to the Advisers. So if you want it real soon rather than wait for it to get up on FTC website or WDF&W's PM me your E mail address and I will send it to you. Oh almost forgot 4 / 3 commercial days ( three net free days a week ) appears to be in it.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2013/12/agenda_dec0613.html

OK now it is up on WDF&W's website in the commission agenda for the Dec 7 meeting. A summary and the draft Policy Guidelines so take a look.

So how did the December Commission meeting go? It was interesting to say the least with cause for optimism that change may be coming and yet the huge potential for more of the same. The potential exist for the many options could be cobbled together in a manner that is smoke and mirrors. The Power Point presentation utilized is not up on WDF&W's website yet but as soon as it is someone will post a link I am sure.

So now what? Well everyone should direct there comments directly to the Commission and here is the address. commission@dfw.wa.gov Below are my comments to the commissioners on two issues that I feel strongly about. It is your right so if your involved or following this process be involved and get your views to the Commission.



Commissioners,

Attached are the issues I intended to testify on at Saturdays Commission meeting but a printer failure left me with only two copies so I have attached comments to this E mail. I apologize for my failure to submit the issues correctly and I will attempt to make sure that does not happen again. In addition two issues really stood out as being misrepresented at the 12/07/13 Commission meeting.

1. The issue of the Quinault Indian Nation ( QIN ) being responsible for the failure to make escapement really stands out. While I disagree with the manner that the QIN is setting it’s seasons on the fall Salmon harvest, they are within the boundaries of the court mandated fisheries. They are allowed up to 50% of the harvestable Salmon that cross the bar and within in that narrow guideline the QIN is not violating the court mandates. It was WDF&W in recent years that implemented the separation of the Humptulips and Chehalis Basins ( a action that I support ) and to the best of my knowledge the QIN did not sign on to or recognize it as altering their court mandated harvest methods.

In April 2013 Region 6 ( R6 ) District 17 ( D17 ) staff had the QIN proposed seasons and when the State’s fisheries were modeled with the QIN they went well into escapement. D17 refused to provide to the public the seasons fully modeled but when we finally got the QIN seasons modeled with the States season it showed a rather large deficit on the Chehalis side Chinook but a rather large number of Humptulips Chinook available for harvest but not utilized. So did Region 6 District 17 staff have options this past year? Yes they most certainly did. By moving Non Treaty Commercials to the Humptulips in the timing normally utilized the QIN impacts could have been substantially offset. Rather than take that approach R17 instead attempted to stack the Non Treaty nets right on top of the QIN Chehalis effort. Commissioners there was no way no how the combined state and QIN fisheries allowed for Chehalis Chinook in the model to make escapement but rather than alter their approach R6 D17 staff simply went forward and claimed they did not have agreement. Since then D6 R17 have steadfastly refused to make public what / when / why they did not have agreement with the QIN.

Having broodstocked with QIN fishers and as the project manager for the Chehalis Tribal fishers in the Chehalis Chinook Broodstocking effort some years back I came to understand and appreciate how deep the distrust of WDF&W was and frankly in recent years it has become much worse. So who is at fault? Both! The litany of disrespect both parties have shown each other has reached a point that most of us involved in advocacy in the Chehalis Basin find well past being even close to acceptable. Commissioners to be blunt the Commission needs to put an end to this conduct, at least on WDF&W’s side, then hopefully the QIN will follow. In conversations with retired agency staff one individual described current R6 D17efforts to work with the QIN on fisheries issues as similar to a fireman “ trying to put out a house fire with a flame thrower”.

2. The second issue is when Director Anderson discussed directed fisheries vs incidental. Frankly Commissioners this issue is one of the most misrepresented, distorted, abused practice I have ever seen in fisheries management by both the QIN and WDF&W. On the States side 2012 is a great example of complete and total disregard for honesty by D17 staff. Through the entire APA process & North of Falcon no Chum retention was put forth by the D17 staff but when the WAC came out Chum retention for the final day of the NT Nets season. I immediately contacted R17 staff and was told that the retention was allowed as the 5% escapement impact had yet to be reached for Chum and they were incidentally caught in a directed Coho harvest. This resulted in far more incidental Chum being harvested than targeted Coho for that set and harvesting into the Chum escapement. Try as we can myself and others struggle to understand the violation of the APA process front to back coupled with the utilization of the terms directed and incidental to continually violate the intent & goals of the current Grays Harbor Management Plan. Frankly many see this manipulation continuing in the revamped GH Management Plan without Commission intervention establishing solid definitions & guidelines on terminologies and methodologies.

On the QIN’s side a example is in December QIN begins what is commonly known as their early Steelhead fishery. Again the QIN has court mandated rights and in the 70’s & 80’s the former Department of Game utilized plants of December returning Chambers Creek lineage Steelhead to reduce harvest on the Native Wild Steelhead. Right / wrong / whatever the unintended consequences was that the QIN fishers harvested substantial numbers of Late Native Coho stocks as incidental catch. Fast forward to the present and the December returning Steelhead plants are gone, Late Coho stocks are in trouble and declining in number, and QIN fishers still maintain the December / January Steelhead fishery. This fishery is targeting planted a Steelhead stock that is no longer planted and few natural origin Steelhead returning adults exist but continues the practice of harvesting a Late Native Coho run that is in decline as incidental catch in a Steelhead fishery not modeled in the Salmon fisheries model.

Commissioners I truly appreciate your efforts to address the Grays Harbor issues but this abuse of the terms directed and incidental harvest must be addressed. This issue is particularly difficult as the WDF&W Region 6 District 17 staff, past & present, are every bit as guilty of manipulation for expanded commercial catch / sales as the QIN! Again it is my view that the Commission and the Commission alone can require WDF&W staff to reform this practice as I can guarantee that present WDF&W staff or the QIN can or will not address the issue without direct Commission input.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2013/12/agenda_dec0613.html

The link is to the WDF&W website page for the GH Management Plan redo. The Power Point presentation is at the 9:00 AM point Saturday in the meeting to view. You will find the economic statement rather revealing.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2013/12/dec0613_14_policy_proposal.pdf

Draft policy for Grays Harbor salmon management.

Fish on...

Todd

The link is to a review of the policy guidelines by the East County guys. I would C&P it in but maintaining the cross out formatting makes that bit out, so you will have to do the link bit then open up Commission Policy Edits. Lot of conversation on the fuzzing up of the language so it is a interesting read.

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0...aDJvWjFiaUVoNGc

Having my e mail go up in flames with questions concerning the GH Management process that I simply could not give a definitive answer to I asked the question of WDF&W staff:

About the GHMP redo schedule. Several folks have asked me a question I do not have the answer to so………….. The January Commission meeting is to do what? The Commission moved the so called policy sideboards to public comment for 30 days so is the January meeting going to be where you present the completed GHMC draft redo? The Commission meeting February is to adopt the completed redo of GHMP or just the policy guidelines? Just what exactly is the timeline & schedule and just what is the document that the public will to see? The completed GHMP or policy guidelines to review and comment on?


Which resulted in this response:

I can not always predict what will happen at a Commission meeting, but here is my sense of what is likely to happen at the January FWC meeting:

1) Staff will summarize comments on the draft policy that were received at the December Commission meeting and during the 30-day public comment period.
2) The public will have the opportunity to provide comments on the draft policy.
3) Staff will propose enhancements to the draft policy to address the public comments that were received during the December Commission meeting or in the 30-day public comment period.
4) Commissioners will propose enhancements to the draft policy to address public comments received up to that time.
5) The Commission will agree upon any enhancements or options they would like included in the draft Policy.
6) If there are substantive changes or options identified for consideration, the Commission may request that the Policy be put out for a second 30-day public comment period.

The question of how Mr. Anderson got his authority to unilaterally change seasons or add them is in the paragraph below.

Delegation of Authority
The Commission delegates the authority to the Director, through the North of Falcon
stakeholder consultation process, to set seasons for recreational and WDFW-managed
commercial fisheries in Grays Harbor, to adopt permanent and emergency regulations
to implement these fisheries, and to make harvest agreements with treaty tribes and
other government agencies.


Now just how & what Mr. Anderson is expected to do is in the performance agreement below.


WASHING TON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
Fish and Wildlife Commission and
Director Philip Anderson
Performance Agreement - July 1, 2013 - June 30, 2014

The Fish and Wildlife Commission (Commission) and Director Philip M. Anderson (Director), agree to work together and respect their unique roles and responsibilities. The Executive Performance Elements (Attachment A) will be the primary tool used to evaluate the Director's key competencies.

The Priority Actions (Attachment B) represent the key indicators of the Director's performance that reflect the Commission's general expectations. The priorities listed therein are selected from the draft 2013-15 Strategic Plan. These actions are identified as the Commission's highest level performance outcomes and will be reflected, as appropriate down through the Departments accountability system (e.g., program operational plans and individual staff evaluations).

The Commission and the Director agree to review and update the list of Priority Actions as the need arises in response to budget reductions or significant changes in management direction.

Part I: Roles and Responsibilities
It is recognized that together the Commission and the Director comprise the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Commission is responsible for the policy governance of the Department within the parameters established by the State Legislature and serves as the public trustee of the state's fish and wildlife resources.

The Director is supervised by the Commission and is responsibl e for hiring agency staff and managing the Department in a manner that is consistent with statutory requirements established by the State Legislature, state and federal law, and with the policies adopted by the Fish and Wild life Commission.

The Commission will act as a body, speaking with a unified voice and acknowledges that the strength of the body is derived from the diversity of viewpoints brought together through its decision-making process. The Chair of the Commission is responsible for ensuring that the Commission accomplishes its responsibilities.

Commission committees will be used primarily to gather, discuss, and analyze information relative to policy issues or rules that are anticipated to come before the full Commission. Committees are intended to function as a forum that allows for more informal discussions between commissioners and/or with staff. The Director will be copied on E-mail communications between committee chairs and the committee's lead staff support person. Infmmation and data requests made by a committee that requires a significant staff workload will be presented as part of the committee's report to the full Commission and considered through the Commission's "Blue Sheet" process. Committees do not have the authority to make decisions on behalf of the Commission.




Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
Director's Performance Agreement Page I

Commission 's "Blue Sheet" process. Committees do not have the authority to make decisions on behalf of the Commission.
The Commission and the Director agree to be mutually supportive, maintain a positive working relationship, and conduct their relationship based on mutual respect while acting in a manner that is consistent with the following principles:

• The Commission and Director will work together as a team in fulfilling the Department's responsibilities of preserving and •protecting the state's fish and wildlife resources and providing fish and wildlife related activities for the citizens of Washington.
• The Commission and the Director commit to maintaining a strong working relationship founded in open and candid communication.
• The Commission will focus its attention on policy matters and setting clear performance outcomes for the Director, leaving the Director sufficient flexibility to be agile and utilize his creativity in adapting to changing circumstances.
• Individual Commissioners will communicate their concerns relative to policy matters with the Director 's Office . Ifdirect communication by a commissioner with staff a member regarding substantive issues is needed such communication will be coordinated with the Director 's Office.

Part II: Communication Actions and Strategies
• The Director's Office will provide a report at each regular Commission meeting that • includes updates on current events and emerging issues, and budget and administrative matters .
• The Director's Office will provide the Commission with periodic progress reports on the items contained in the Priority Actions listed in Attachment B.
• The Director and the Chair of the Commission will communicate regularly to ensure that the Commission and the Director's Office actions and activities are supportive of each other and aligned with Commission policy direction and the success of the Department.

Part III: Performance Evaluation Process
• The Commission will conduct an evaluation of the Director's performance of his responsibilities during an executive session of the full Commission.
• The Director's evaluation will be based on the Executive Performance Elements contained in Attachment A and the Priority Actions contained in Attachment B.





Date Dat(r 7


Washin gton Fish and Wildlife Commission
Director's Performan ce Agreement Page 2


Executive Conduct

Overall Conduct
The Director must assure that no organizational practices, activities, decisions, or circumstances are allowed that are unlawful, imprudent, or in violation of commonly accepted business and professional ethics and practices.

Work Ethic
The Director must act as a role model for staff. The Director is expected to be personally accountable for the accomplishments and shortcomings of the agency. The Director is expected to assume di rect responsibility for all aspects of agency leadership.

Strategic and Visionary Leadership
The Director must demonstrate strategic and visionary leadership. The Director is expected to assess and decide the best way to achieve substantial cost savings, while preserving critical functions and increasing agency efficiency. He must lay the foundation for a stronger and more effective and respected agency, by directing the strategic elimination oflower priority activities and the consolidation of effort and energy in higher priority programs.

Problem Solving
The Director should make progress in resolving longstanding problems. The Director is expected to be energetic and creative in looking for innovative means to address priority issues and conflicts among constituent groups. He must actively seek out new ideas and methods that may be brought to bear to advance the agency's mission.

Conservation Ethic
The Director must be motivated by a strong conserYation ethic: a determination to place the highest priori ty on the long-term interests of the resources and their habitat. The interests of the public and specific user-groups are important , but they cannot supersede the welfare of the fish and wildlife populations we are charged with managing. The Director must establish a record of makin g decisions that will lead to the recover y of depleted resources.

Performance and Accountability
The Director must keep the workforce motivated to pursue excellence. The Director is expected to set high standards for performance and foster a climate in which all employees strive to meet those standards. He is also expected to see that supervisors provide regular positive reinforcement to recognize excellence. He must demonstrate expertise in management techniques that effectively hold employees accountable.

Resource Management Expertise

Scientific Rigor
The Director must work closely with the scientific community in building a defensible scientific basis for resource management. He is expected to have a working understanding of scientific analyses and quantitative methods used to study fish and wildlife population dynamics as well as the health and productivity of habitats.



Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
Director's Performance Agreement Attachment Page I


Integrated Resource Management
The most effective approach to species management considers the full range of factors affecting ecosystem services including predator-prey dynamics, habitat conditions, and socio-economic values. The Director should pursue this approach to maximize effectiveness of service delivery.

Enhance Recreational Opportunities
Within the capability of the land and other resources , enhancement of wildlife related recreational opportunities is among the highest priorities for the agency. A dedicated effort should be made to explore options for enhancing and expanding recreational opportunities.

Maintain the Stability and Economic Well Being of the Commercial Fishing Industry
A dedicated effort should be made to assess, monitor , and enhance the stability and economic well being of the commercial fishing industry.

Collaboration and Communication Competencies

Strengthen and Modernize Communications
Agency communications are a "mission-critical" function that must keep pace with contemporary times. Implementation of a clearly articulated agency communication strategy is a high priority.

Enhance Tribal Relationships
Washington is home to Indian Tribes that in many cases have overlapping authorities and jurisdictions relative to the management of fish and wildlife resources. The Director is expected to maintain and enhance the Department' s working relationships with the tribes and seek to manage resources consistent with joint management plans where appropriate.

Working with Stakeholders
The Director is expected to have a personal manner that works well with constituents from all backgrounds. He must approach his authorities and responsibilities with humility and open­ mindedness. He is expected to display an attitude that inspires others to join in collaborative processes, because they are confident of being treated fairly. He is expected to maintain a profe ssional demeanor.

Expand Opportunities with Environmental and Non-Traditional Constituents
Recreationists who do not hunt or fish, but appreciate wildlife, are important constituents for the agency. Surveys have shown that these "non-traditional" stakeholders represent a significant portion of the public in Washington State. Ways to establish new relationships with these constituents and enlist their support should be found.


Washington Fish and Wildl ife Commission
Director's Performance Agreement Attachm ent Page 2

Goal 1: Conserve and protect native fish and wildlife
Aqencv Strategy Deliverable for 2013-15 Program Implement Wolf Conservation and 1. Attempt to radio-mark at least one wolf from each confirmed wolf pack. Wildlife Management Plan to recover wolves while 2. Provide technical assistance and pursue cost-share agreements with livestock Wildlife addressing wolf-livestock and wolf - operators to avoid and minimize wolf -livestock conflicts.
ungulate conflicts. 3. Monitor ungulate populations to determine potential wolf impacts. Wildlife Implement actions to reduce risks to 4. Complete planned hatchery repairs and improvements to enhance fish production. CAMP native salmon and steelhead from 5. Implement improved broodstock management for hatchery programs consistent Fish operating hatcheries. with the goal of achieving the HSRG broodstock standards for all hatchery
programs by 2015.
6. Evaluate alternative hatchery production options to provide increased fishing Fish opportunities for recreational and commercial fishers.
Improve effectiveness of HPA Program to 7. Approved culvert water crossing and marine bank protection hydraulic projects Habitat protect fish life. show compliance and effectiveness.
Ensure impacts to native fish from 8. Provide a report on at-risk stocks of wild steelhead , limiting factors, recommended Fish fisheries are consistent with conservation management actions, and implementation of the Statewide Steelhead
goals. Management Plan.
9. Evaluate alternative approaches and develop an improved approach for the Fish management of Puget Sound Chinook under the Endangered Species Act.
10. Complete by December 1, 2013 annual fishery management plans for coastal Fish steelhead that meet conservation and catch-sharing objectives.
11. Enhance the effectivenes s of Zone 6 commerci al fisheries rules by working with the Enforcement tribes and ODFW to implement concurrent regulations for the Zone 6 fishery. and Fish
12. Develop with the Quinault Tribe a consistent fishery management approach for Fish Grays Harbor Chinook and coho salmon.
Increase WDFW leadership and 13. Lead monitoring efforts and secure BPA funding to conduct restoration activities Habitat participation in conducting restoration on DFW lands and to coordinate restoration and monitoring throughout the basin.
activities in the Columbia Basin.
Correct fish passage barriers on county 14.Identify and prioritize county and city owned fish passage barriers for correction. Habitat and city lands and implement provisions Implement monitoring of all road crossings on WDFW lands to ensure continued
from U.S. v. Washington case. compliance with the court injunction.
Establish PHS as the agency's primary tool 15. Update PHS data and management recommendations. Develop cross program Habitat that identifies habitats and species to process to prioritize habitats and species in PHS.
protect.


Goal 1: Conserve and protect native fish and wildlife (continued)
Agency Strateqy Deliverable for 2013-15 Program
Establish desired ecological conditions on WDFW Wildlife Area s and evaluate their status using ecological integrity
assessments . 16.Implement pilot program to use citizen science volunteers to conduct ecological monitoring at four wildlife areas. Wildlife
Prepare for future conditions that will
result from climate change. 17.Adaptation strategies to climate change are developed for the future sustainabili ty
of Washington 's priority habitats and species. Habitat
Enhance laws and regulations to improve the implementation of aquatic invasive species (AIS) prevention sta ndards to
prevent the spread of AIS in Washington. 18. Prepare a legislative package for the 2014 session that will improve enforceability of AIS laws and rules, reduce risks of AIS, and provide for enhanced penalties and fees. Fish and Enforcement

Goal 2: Provide sustainable fishina. huntinQ, and other wildlife-related recreational and commercial experiences
Aqency Strateqy Deliverable for 2013-15 Program
Advance implementation of mark selective fisheries through focusing on alternative commercial fishing gear in the Lower Columbia River. 19. Create an industry advisory board and complete other steps necessary to implement an ex perimental fishery with alternative mark-selective commerci al fishing gear.
20. Test and report on the effectiveness of alternative commercial fishing gear and recommend release mortality rates to use in fishery management. Fish



Fish
Find innovative ways to improve access to public and private lands to enjoy fishing, hunting and other outdoor recreational opportunities. 21. Promote recreational opportunities on WDFW lands based on the Wildlife Program's "recreation identity" initiative.
22. Expand publicity about Puget Sound diving opportunities.
23. Work with Washington Tourism Alliance (WTA) to promote non-consumptive recreation opportunities in WTA's Experience Washington promotions.
24. Complete the Hunt by Reservation System by the fall 2013 hunting seasons .
25. Complete access area projects funded by the Legislature in the capital budget.
26. Provide ADA accessible facilities where appropriate. PA & CR
and Wildlife PA & CR
PA & CR


Wildlife CAMP
Wildlife
Prevent the illegal taking and trafficking of fish and wildlife species. 27. Develop,with other state agencies and the tribes, a strategy to improve the effectiveness of catch accounting in tribal and state managed fisher ies that includes a scoping assessment of the need, feasibility, and cost to implement an electron ic fish ticket system for all commercial fisheries and an electronic, certification tagging system for tracking shellfish. Enforcement and Fish
Improve methodology of estimating status of fish and wildlife populations and harvest modeling. 28. Complete fieldwork and initiate analysis to estimate the abundance of PS rockfish.
29. Develop an improved moose population estimate. Fish


Wildlife


Goal3: Promote a healthy economy, protect community character, maintain an overall high quality of life, and deliver high-quality customer service.
Agency Strategy Deliverable for 2013 -15 Program
Increase recruitment and retention of customers by improving the marketing of fishing, hunting, and wildlife watching
opportunities. 30. Establish a WDFW marketing team to work with the Director to establish agency- wide priorities and adopt strategies and performance measures. PA & CR
Timely and effective measures are
provided in response to wildlife-related conflicts. 31. Transition certain problem wildlife responsibilities from Enforcement to Wildlife Prograrri in FY14. Wildlife
Increase WDFW outreach to key stakeholders and the public to improve citizen engagement and participation in the Department's decision-making processes. 32. Improve the effectiveness and transparency of the North of Falcon process by providing a web page for public comment and the posting of fishery performance information (including treaty-non-treaty sharing of impacts).
33. Engage stakeholders and the public in the development and completion of an enhanced Grays Harbor sal mon and sturgeon management framework.
34. Conduct targeted outreach to recreational organizations rega rding the results of
HPA and fish passage proqram improvements. Fish and PA & CR

Fish



Habitat
Promote the value and economic benefits of WDFW -managed programs by expanding communication with local community and business leaders. 35. Develop new and enhanced partnerships with recreation advocates and business associations to promote the economic, environmental and community benefits of WDFW programs.
36. Meet with local and regional economic development councils,tourism bureaus and chambers of commerce to share information and identify opportunities for collaboration.
37. Publicize the economic and job impacts of WDFW outsou rcing of construction work
to local contractors around the state. PA & CR



PA & CR



PA & CR
Goal 4: BuHd an effective and efficient organization by supporting our workforce,. improving business processes, and investing in technolOQv.
Agency Strategy Deliverable for 2013-15
Increase workforce satisfaction and productivity by investing in a comprehensive agency training program and career development process. 38. Develop a Department training and career development program that improves employee knowledge,skills,and abilities and supports succession within the Department. All Programs
Improve agency processes by creating a Lean culture. 39. Develop a long-range plan to create a culture of continuous improvement (Lean) within the Department and implement priority process improvement projects during the biennium. Lean Office

It is good to see more and more folks pushing for change. Atta boy for Duane & Joe for the effort to get more folks involved.




Anglers protest Grays Harbor gill netting


December 26, 2013

KXRO Newsradio



Anglers are asking the Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission to ban commercial gill netting in Grays Harbor and are trying to get at least 300 people to the January 11 commission meeting in Olympia.

“Failure to meet escapement needs, 7 or 8 out of the 12 past years on different rivers in the basin . . . Not acceptable!” said Duane Inglin, one of the event’s organizers. “It’s also not in line with what the commission recognizes as a successful management strategy.”

Their plan is to “Let the commission know that it is no longer acceptable for WDFW to spend 250,000.00 to 300,000.00 per year on over-seeing a commercial fishery for 20 to 30 commercial fishermen. Spend that money on hatchery production and reform. Boost the numbers in the basin, providing more opportunity for the thousands of sports fishers who spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, in that region. “

According to organizers, the January 11th meeting will be the last time to speak in front of the commission prior to their February 14th vote on the Grays Harbor Management Plan.

It’s probably buried in this thread somewhere, but why does the tribes get 50% and another 8%?

How is that consistent with the Boldt decision?