The next Commission review for Willapa is this weekend. Saturday the 6th when Willapa is up and the location is back to Natural Resource Building – 1111 Washington Street SE Olympia, WA 9851 First Floor – Room 172. Some NOF stuff mixed in also Friday morning.

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2015
8:30 AM 1. Call to Order 15 min
a. Commissioners’ Discussion
b. Meeting Minute Approval

8:45 AM 2. Open Public Input
The Commission is a direct link between the citizens of Washington and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Comments on Department programs and topics of concern are welcome during this portion of the meeting.
NOTE: During this portion of the meeting, the public is encouraged to comment on issues that do not already have public input time on the agenda. 30 min

9:15 AM 3. Direc tor’s Report
The Director will brief the Commission on various items. 60 min

10:15 AM Break 15 min

10:30 AM 4. Geoduck Diver License Rulemaking – Briefing and Public Hearing Department staff will brief the Commission on repealing WAC 220-52-01904, adopted at the end of 2014 due to changes to state law. WAC 220-52-01905 becoming effective January 1, 2015, makes WAC 220-52-01904 no longer necessary.

Staff Report: Frank Hawley, Licensing & Budget Policy Manager

Public Input – This Item Only
15 min

10:45 AM 5. Columbia River Commercial Catch Area Amendments – Decision Department staff will request approval from the Commission on inclusion of new commercial catch areas to aid in management of existing and emergent commercial fishing opportunities within the Columbia River.

Staff Report: Ron Roler, Columbia River Policy Coordinator 15 min

11:00 AM 6. 2015 - 16 North of Falcon Policy C-3608 – Decision
Department staff will present to the Commission for consideration of adoption the North of Falcon Policy C-3608 which would be effective through December 2016. The policy provides direction and guidance to the agency as it conducts the annual process for defining salmon fishing seasons throughout the state. 30 min


Staff Report: Ron Warren, Deputy Assistant Director, Intergovernmental Salmon Management

11:30 AM Lunch 90 min

1:00 PM 7. Steller Sea Lion and Tufted Puffin Status Review – Briefing and Public Hearing
Department staff will brief the Commission on the status review of the Steller Sea Lion and Tufted Puffin.

Staff Report: Penny Becker, Ph.D., Acting Diversity Division Manager and Gary Wiles, Biologist, Wildlife Program

Public Input – This Item Only 75 min

2:15 PM 8 Priority Landscapes – Briefing
Department staff will brief the Commission on the Statewide Priority Landscapes Initiative aimed at identifying and mobilizing WDFW cross- programmatic resources to conserve iconic landscapes whose future status depends on collaboration across multiple jurisdictions and interests.

Staff Report: Cynthia Wilkerson, Lands Conservation and Restoration Section Manager and Lauri Vigue, Environmental Planner, Wildlife Program 45 min

3:00 PM Break 15 min

3:15 PM 9. Lands 20/20 – Briefing
Department staff will provide a briefing on the lands 20/20 process and the list of projects approved through the 2014 Lands 20/20 process; the Department will seek funding for projects approved in the Lands 20/20 process.

Staff Report: Cynthia Wilkerson, Lands Conservation and Restoration Section Manager, Wildlife Program 30 min
3:45 PM 10. Enforcement Program Update – Briefing
Department staff will provide a briefing to the Commission on the Enforcement Program.

Staff Report: Chief Crown, Enforcement Program 45 min

4:30 PM Recess

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2015

8:00 AM 11. Open Public Input
The Commission is a direct link between the citizens of Washington and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Comments on Department programs and topics of concern are welcome during this portion of the meeting. NOTE: During this portion of the meeting, the public is encouraged to comment on issues that do not already have public input time on the agenda. 30 min


8:30 AM 12. Willapa Bay Salmon Management Policy – Briefing and Public Hearing
The Department will brief the Commission on Willapa Bay Salmon Management challenges, describe the public process, and seek guidance on draft policy sideboards.

Staff Report: Steve Thiesfeld, Region 6 Fish Program Manager

Public Input – This Item Only 2 hrs
10:30 AM Break 15 min

10:45 AM

13.Miscellaneous and Meeting Debrief
The Commission will discuss items that arise immediately before or during the meeting and after the preliminary agenda is published.
30 min

11:15 AM Adjourn

Well today was interesting for a couple of reasons. First up it will be June at the earliest for the final approval of the new Willapa Policy. The stream & fish designations being moved all over is going to be addressed. A good case was made for getting a clear stock designation for North River Chinook was made. Commissioner Carpenter made a clear case that at some point compromise will be needed by the harvesters. The Doc man pointed out that if conservation is required that as the Commercials get 90% of the harvest then one could reasonably assume that they shoulder 90% of the new conservation burden. From the Commercial side not much new.

Below is my input from the hearing.


Testimony Willapa Management Policy 2/7/15:


Good morning Commissioners my name is Dave Hamilton and I would like to thank you for providing time for citizens to address the issue of the Willapa Management Policy. The two issues I would like to bring to your attention are seldom discussed but always present.

First I would bring to your attention the issue of stream & stock designations. Within HSRG you have stream designations of Primary, Contributing, Stabilizing and stock designations of Integrated and Segregated. All have very definite definitions of the meaning of the designations. Nearly ten years ago after the development of HSRG a WDF&W Science Division staffer put it to my team this way. "Rules are rules, you do not pick and choose and it is not multiple choice". This is what myself and my team was taught by WDF&W staff but it appears that present agency staff feel otherwise. The agency position as presented thus far in the Willapa appears to be that WDF&W staff believe they can assign the most convenient designation of a stream to allow the largest hatchery production. Additionally, as in option C, staff apparently feel they can classify a stock such as Naselle Chinook segregated even if it fails to meet the standards for a segregated stock and then harvest the stock to that designation. Words do or are supposed to have very a definite meaning so do the words in HSRG mean what is written or are open to whatever interpretation is needed to allow the largest hatchery production and harvest? I firmly believe this issue needs to directly addressed by the Commission if HSRG is to succeed.

My second issue is simply the misrepresentation of the conflict over harvest of hatchery production between Recreational and Commercial harvesters. Several times in the process the Commercial representatives have stated that the local legislators would not support the hatchery production if the Commercials did not get the vast majority of the harvest. I guess one can view it that way if they so desire but frankly it matters little to the Recreational fisher. For many years and in particular since 2010, the Recreational fisher has had little access to these hatchery fish as the agency has utilized a massive gillnetting effort removing the vast majority of the hatchery production. Additionally Recreational seasons and bag limits were constructed in such a way as to severely limit the Recreational anglers success to further enable greater Commercial harvest.

So Commissioners these are the facts as I see it. WDF&W can cut hatchery production in the Willapa Estuary 60% or more and the Recreational fisher will not see much difference. Each year WDF&W spends hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Willapa hatchery production that is in reality a massive subsidy for the Commercial gillnet fleet. Twice in the process a Commercial fisher has testified that they do not make enough off the harvest to afford the fuel for a one hour run down the bay outside 2T. It is time to ask the question " why is WDF&W spending these hundreds of thousands of dollars for a Commercial fishery that is not really a viable one but rather a massive subsidy for Commercial gillnetting paid for by Recreational license dollars". In a recent resolution the Commission has stated this will not be the case in the future and Recreational license dollars will not be used to support Commercial hatchery production. So again we have a issue that the Commission needs to address. Does WDF&W continue this massive subsidy of a Commercial fishery in this time ever greater needs and budget reductions or do we chart a new course as HSRG is implemented?

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Willapa Management Policy .

My take away ..... commercial speakers, SOS, just different day. Sports, some of the same but comments on HSRG, cuts in hatchery funds would hurt NT far more than sports.

Big take away from the meeting...new director, Dr. Jim Unsworth , is one of us, during break in meeting, he walked around and shook hands with many of us in the room. I made comment about career as a teacher, now full time fisherman.....he came back with comment he fished the Satsop from the bank, last weekend. Time tells all but left meeting with a good feeling.

Here are the 2015-16 Grays Harbor Salmon Advisors and we have some new names. Do I know them all ? Nope! It should be interesting though. I put the NOF schedule up in the NOF thread. Gezzzzz must be catching on with how you do things.

Joe Durham
Aberdeen, WA 98520

Francis Estalilla
Aberdeen, WA 98520

Dave Hamilton
Aberdeen, WA 98520

Jack Hollingsworth
Aberdeen, WA 98520

Allan Hollingsworth
Aberdeen, WA 98520

David Hollingsworth
Aberdeen, WA 98520

Joe Koski
Elma, WA 98541

Bob Lake
Grayland, WA 98547

Bob Meyer
Montesano, WA 98563

Andy Mitby
Grayland, WA 98547

Norm Reinhardt
Port Orchard, WA 98366

Chad Searls
Elma, WA 98541

Scott Sypher
Sammamish, WA 98075

The letter below is a option for a interim Willapa Harvest Policy. It is a compromise position developed by Tim Hamilton to address the 2015 salmon season. It is truly a compromise as most signing on objected or rather did not care for a issue or solution someplace in it. But that is what a compromise is, something you do not necessarily love but can live with. So read away.




WB Request For Adoption Of An Interim Policy For Willapa Bay Fisheries

February 19, 2015 Via Email

The Honorable Members
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission 600 Capitol Way N.
Olympia, WA 98501-1091 RE: Interim Willapa Policy Requested

Dear Commissioners:

As all are aware, the Commission decided to “slow things down” in the Willapa discussions to allow the Department time to address different questions and issues. Getting things right the first time is a goal with merit and deserves support.

At the last several Commission meetings, a discussion occurred on the potential for the Commission to pass an interim guidance that the Department could follow when proposing and setting the 2015 seasons. We strongly encourage the Commission to move forward with adopting an interim guidance at the next available opportunity. Having a clear and precise guidance from the Commission for the upcoming harvest seasons will assist the Department staff in moving through the NOF process without increasing tensions between the stakeholders. A clear direction from the Commission would also reduce the Department’s risk of legal intervention.

The endorsees shown below who have diligently participated in the process have taken the liberty of providing a list of items for the Commission’s consideration for adoption into an interim policy. The list was created from our impressions of the directions the members of the Commission were providing the Department and the public during its monthly meetings.
Consideration was also given to the ongoing research, options, etc. produced by the Department in the Ad Hoc process and provided for review by the Commission during its meetings. Again, not implying any final decision on permanent language has been determined but rather offering a list of “what we seem to know that could or should be done in the 2015 seasons”.

We offer the following list of issues for consideration and incorporation into an interim guidance. A rationale for each follows.

Issue 1. Conservation is the highest priority The Willapa basin has experienced difficulties in achieving escapement goals for natural origin spawner (NOS) populations. The problem is especially significant with Chinook where NOS run sizes have steadily declined below the escapement goals and the downward trend will likely continue over the next three years due to past harvest seasons. The following items are requested:

1. Reduce the current 20% maximum harvest rate for natural origin Chinook to 14%.

Rationale- Due to actual harvest rates exceeding the maximum rate anticipated when setting seasons, Chinook natural spawner run size has been on a steady decline to the point where the run size is below the escapement goal. The historical harvest rate was dropped from 30% to 20% in 2014. AHA modeling by the Department shows a maximum harvest rate of 14% will be

required to reach recovery within 16-21 years. Another year of overharvest will create even greater problems for the future.

1. No targeted commercial fisheries on Chum with a maximum 5% incidental impact during schedules targeting Coho

Rationale- Chum runs have also declined as escapement goals are often not achieved. Recognizing the problem, the 2010 draft Willapa Plan called for no targeted commercial Chum fisheries and the 2014 season removed 2 weekly cycles of net season during the Coho run to allow Chum a free passage. Restoration of the Chum is a key to removing future limitations on commercial opportunity and allowing increased commercial harvest of the more abundant Coho.

1. Effective inseason monitoring and utilization of inseason adjustments when the harvest underway exceeds the preseason expectation to the point conservation standards are threatened (see Grays Harbor Policy).

Rationale- The historical commercial seasons installed by the Department were set using a maximum harvest rate target of 30% of Naselle Chinook NOS. Then, actual season harvest often rose above 40%. In 2014 the target was dropped to 20%. While the Department has not released the results of the 2014 season, the results will likely show that the reduced target was once again exceeded with actual harvest reaching approximately 45% dropping Chinook escapement to less than half the goal (<2000 of 4350 goal). Inseason monitoring and adjustments when needed are imperative to preventing yet another season that over-harvests dwindling NOS Chinook populations.

1. Retain the NR protection zone established for the 2014 season unless the Department determines prior to season adoption that the North River Chinook spawning population is not distinguishable from the other Chinook populations.

Rationale- In the past, the Department recognized the Chinook in North River as an early run time natural spawning stock with native genetics. An effort is underway to confirm whether or not this determination is correct. Since NR could be the only native origin Chinook population remaining in the Willapa, the protection zone should be maintained for another year unless the Department determines prior to the start of the season that the natural population is not genetically distinct from the greater Willapa population.

Issue 2. Allocation and stakeholder priorities Fisheries in Willapa, especially for Chinook, will be limited in the future by the allowable season impacts on NOS returns. Currently, an abundance of Coho exists that allows maximum harvest at above historical levels provided seasons can be designed to stay within the limitations created by low returns of Chinook early in the season and Chum in the later part. The Commission requested the Department develop “options” that provided “recreational priority for Chinook and commercial priority for Coho and Chum.” Further, the issue of geographical priority for Chinook was addressed in the Department’s options that avoid installation of a commercial season in marine areas relied upon by the recreational sector during the prime Chinook run time cycle. The following items are requested:

Commercial priority for Coho and Chum utilizing 70% of the available NOS impacts for Coho and 90% for Chum.

Rationale- The 70% allocation of Coho NOS impacts recognizes that additional commercial opportunity currently exists for increased harvest of the more abundant Coho that provide the second highest value per pound. The 90% impact percentage provided the commercial sector for Chum is a compromise position from amongst the recreational/conservation sectors intended to provide the ability of the fleet to remain in the water longer in pursuit of the readily available Coho that travel in the same run time.

1. Commercial parity for Chinook with 50% of the available impacts

Rationale- Parity in Chinook NOS harvest impacts is a compromise position taken by recreational/conservation interests to allow the commercial sector Chinook impacts for selective fishing and alternative gears to provide opportunity to harvest hatchery Chinook and the more abundant Coho that are currently under-utilized.

1. Recreational priority for Chinook using the following:

1. An enhanced full season opportunity for marine and freshwater beginning with the ocean opener in the marine areas and August 1st in freshwater streams with hatchery returns.

1. Commercial seasons in marine areas 2T and 2U shall not be established prior to September 16th.

Rationale- An enhanced full season Chinook opportunity in both marine and freshwater will increase the recreational sectors ability to harvest abundant hatchery Chinook while using selective fishing that reduces impacts on the NOS that are in short supply. Not establishing commercial seasons in the northern marine zones during Chinook prime run cycle will dramatically diminish gear conflicts and reduce commercial NOS impacts on North River and other spawning Chinook populations.

The following endorsees respectfully request that the Commission consider our request and adopt an interim guidance for Department’s use in the upcoming NOF season setting process that incorporates the list of items shown above.

Endorsees:

Tim Hamilton Ad Hoc, Brian Kraemer Ad Hoc, Francis Estalilla Ad Hoc,
LeeRoy Wisner Ad Hoc, Steve Boerner Public, Bob Mulhauser Ad Hoc, Art Holman Public, Bill Osborne Public, Ron Schweitzer Public,
Joe Koski Public, Loren Gee Public, Dave Hamilton Public, John Campbell Public, Gary Johnson Public

Coming up is the first NOF for Grays Harbor & Willapa. Here is the link for the full schedule and as always I urge all that can to participate. In looking into the crystal ball I think many are going be shocked at how poorly the management of last years fisheries went. So two days until "game on". http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/northfalcon/

Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay Fisheries Discussion
•6 p.m.- 8 p.m., Montesano City Hall, 112 N Main Street, Montesano
•WDFW presents salmon forecasts for Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay. Fishery management objectives and preliminary fishing opportunities for 2015 are discussed.

A BUMP to remind all of the NOF Grays Harbor & Willapa tonight.

Well I have a couple of things to share today. First up is GH and the preseason forecast which look reasonably decent. The Spring Chinook forecast of 3475 is excellent as are all three fall salmon species forecast. Now the down side is we have not made escapement on Fall Chinook 4 out of five years so we will not have a targeted Fall Chinook fishery. Part of the GHMP is if we fail to make escapement 3 out of 5 years no targeted fishery on that stock just incidental.

Willapa has fairly good Coho numbers, Chum are 4594 above escapement, but NOS (wild) Chinook are 1617 below escapement prior to harvest with 31,401 hatchery adults returning. Region 6 Fish Program Manager Steve Theisfeld has postponed the Willapa NOF until he receives guidance from the Commission on a interim harvest policy as the new Willapa Management Plan (WMP) is not in place at this time. So as we head into North of Falcon (NOF) all signs point to a good GH Rec fishery but Willapa is in limbo. More to come I am sure. So folks GH NOF is off to the races and Willapa NOF is waiting on Commission direction. I am sure more will be posted up on the NOF issues.



Next I would like to share a letter to the new Director on issues revolving around stream / stock designations utilized for development of the WMP. The issues outlined are rather critical for the Willapa hatchery production as the designations will define what, where, and hatchery production levels will be possible.


February 16, 2015

Director Unsworth,

I am writing to address several issues but first I would like to welcome you to our state and your new position as Director of WDF&W. As a seasoned administrator I am sure you will find your position interesting, challenging, infuriating, but never boring so welcome aboard and I wish you well in your endeavor.

To my issues and the reason I feel I need your assistance. In the recent past I have had to utilize the Public Document Request (PDR) process to obtain information on several issues. I say "had to" because staff either would not provide (and sometimes not even respond) to requests for information from myself or other citizens. Often when staff did respond it was in what is commonly called "agency speak" which is pages of verbiage that said everything & nothing but seldom directly in a forthright manner addressed the issue in question.

So my thoughts are that we are starting a new day and now it might be the time to try things the old fashion way in which a citizen can ask a question and the agency responds in a forthright manner. My questions reside in HSRG, the 2010 Willapa Management Plan that is utilized but not adopted by the Commission, and Willapa Management Policy currently being developed. Being fully aware of the process the agency utilizes with staff to draft responses to communications for the Director I feel this effort will help myself, other citizens, and staff understand the issues in which I am seeking asking your assistance.

My questions have a starting point in 2009 when HSRG was formally adopted and became binding in Washington State statute. Additionally one of the guiding principles of HSRG is that decisions be "scientifically defensible".

Issue1. Question - In 2010 WDF&W created the Willapa Management Plan (but it was never adopted by the Commission) and has utilized it since that time. In doing so staff utilized the HSRG stream designations of Primary for Naselle, contributing for North River, Willapa and the remaining streams stabilizing.

I am requesting that your office direct staff to provide the biological and scientific rational utilized in assigning these HSRG compliant designations for the streams in the Willapa Estuary used in creating the 2010 Willapa Management Plan. As Mr. Ron Warren and Mr. Kirt Hughes were the primary architects of the 2010 Willapa Management Plan and are still employed by the agency the information should be readily available.

Issue 2. Question - Currently utilizing instructions from the Commission WDF&W staff is developing a new Willapa Management Policy. In this process staff have consistently utilized different stream designations for the same streams in the Willapa Estuary. Citizens participating in process have watched as the designations were altered resulting in a modified AHA model output. Most assume that the information presented complied with HSRG mandates as misleading the public would certainly not be a option.

I am requesting that your office direct staff to provide the biological and scientific rational utilized in assigning the HSRG compliant designations for the streams in the Willapa Estuary in creating the 2015 Willapa Management Policy and AHA model runs.

Issue 3. Question - WDF&W staff in developing a new Willapa Management Policy have consistently utilized different stock designations (segregated / integrated) for the streams in the Willapa Estuary. Again citizens participating in the process have watched as the stock designations were altered resulting in a modified AHA model output. Again most assume that the information presented complied with HSRG mandates as misleading the public would certainly not be a option.

I am requesting that you direct staff to provide the biological and scientific rational utilized in assigning the HSRG compliant stock designations for the streams in the Willapa Estuary when creating both the draft 2010 Willapa Management Plan and the 2015 Willapa Management Policy options and AHA model runs.

In closing let me say that I feel the answers to my three questions need to be provided to myself and the public if WDF&W staff are to comply with Commission guidance for a "transparent" process for the development of the 2015 Willapa Management Policy.

Sincerely,

XXXX

CC: WDF&W Commission
Mr. Jim Scott
Mr. Steve Theisfeld

Here are the objectives from the NOF GH & Willapa meeting in Montesano. Formatting left as usual but I think one can fumble through and figure it out. If you want them in a clean copy or the Power Point presentation that was utilized PM me and I will get them to you.


2015 GRAYS HARBOR FISHERY MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

GRAYS HARBOR BASIN SALMON MANAGEMENT POLICY KEY ELEMENTS
• Fisheries will be managed with the intent of achieving escapement goals for natural origin salmon.
• WDFW-managed commercial gillnet fisheries in a fishing area or aggregate area (i.e., Area 2A/2B/2D; or Area 2C) shall be scheduled, if possible, so that in any given calendar week there are a minimum of three consecutive days when no treaty or state-managed commercial fisheries occur.
• If it becomes apparent that a scheduled fishery will exceed its preseason catch expectation, and the overage will put at risk the attainment of conservation objectives, the Department shall implement in-season management actions that are projected to enhance the effectiveness of fishery management relative to the attainment of the conservation objectives and impact sharing in the preseason fishery plan.

Spring Chinook Salmon
• Prioritize freshwater recreational fisheries, with an objective of opening freshwater areas no later than May 1.

Fall Chinook Salmon
• The fishery management objectives for fall Chinook salmon, in priority order, are to:
o achieve spawner goals;
o provide meaningful recreational fishing opportunities; and
o limit commercial fishery impacts to the incidental harvest of fall Chinook during fisheries directed at other species
• For Chehalis natural-origin Chinook, the predicted fishery impact in WDFW-managed fisheries will not exceed 5% of the adult return to Grays Harbor because the number of natural-origin spawners was less than the goal in 3 out of the last 5 years.
• WDFW-managed commercial fisheries in the Grays Harbor Basin shall have the following impact limits:
o Areas 2A, 2B, 2D: the impact rate of the state-managed commercial fishery shall be 0.8% or less on natural-origin Chehalis fall Chinook
o Area 2C: the impact rate of the state-managed commercial fishery shall be 5.4% or less on natural-origin Humptulips fall Chinook.
• Grays Harbor control zone off of the mouth of Grays Harbor will be implemented no later than the second Monday in August and continue until the end of September.
• Chehalis Fall Chinook. Recreational fishing sector impacts allocated to Area 2.2 will be between 27 and 48% of the total recreational impacts.
• Humptulips Fall Chinook. Recreational fishing sector impacts allocated to Area 2.2 will be 37% of the total recreational impacts.

Coho Salmon
• Chehalis Coho. Recreational fishing sector impacts allocated to Area 2.2 will be 45% of the total recreational impacts.
• Humptulips Coho.
o For Humptulips natural-origin coho, the predicted fishery impact in WDFW-managed fisheries will not exceed 5% of the adult return to Grays Harbor because the number of natural-origin spawners was less than the goal in 3 out of the last 5 years.
o Recreational fishing sector impacts allocated to Area 2.2 will be between 18 and 34% of the total recreational impacts.

Chum Salmon
• Fisheries will be managed with the intent of achieving escapement goals for natural origin salmon.
• No fisheries directed at chum salmon shall occur unless the adult coho salmon return exceeds spawner objectives, or if coho salmon impacts remain after coho and Chinook salmon fisheries.
• Recreational fishing sector impacts allocated to Area 2.2 will be 2% or less of the total recreational impacts.


PAST PERFORMANCE (Shaded values exceed goal)

Natural Origin Escapement (Preliminary and Subject to Revision)
Year Chehalis Chinook Humptulips Chinook Chehalis Coho Humptulips Coho Grays Harbor Chum
2008 -- -- 31,454 192
2009 6,651 2,071 63,290 1,703 14,585
2010 10,893 6,657 83,445 4,410 33,537
2011 14,923 5,698 58,080 4,460 29,043
2012 9,291 3,726 63,607 1,220 25,452
2013 8,426 2,058 41,512 3,181 21,284
2014 7,670 2,530 14,711

Goal 9,880 3,620 28,506 6,894 21,000
Exceeded 3 of 5 NO YES YES NO YES

HATCHERY SALMON ESCAPEMENT OBJECTIVES:
• Manage fisheries to achieve hatchery broodstock collection goals, as identified in the Future Brood Document.
o Hatchery Chinook;
&#61607; Satsop Springs – an estimated 425 adults to achieve a release goal of 500,000 juveniles
&#61607; Humptulips River – an estimated 425 adults to achieve a release goal of 500,000 juveniles
o Hatchery Coho;
&#61607; Chehalis River – an estimated 1,540 adults to achieve a release goal of 1,400,000 yearlings
&#61607; Humptulips River – an estimated 550 adults to achieve a release goal of 500,000 of yearlings
o Hatchery Chum;
&#61607; Bingham, Satsop Springs, and Mayor Brother (Wishkah) facilities – an estimated 500 adults to achieve a release goal of 500,000 juveniles for on-station release.


STURGEON: Closed due to conservation concerns.
&#8195;

FORECASTS:

Forecast for salmon returning to Grays Harbor during 2015-16 season:

Natural origin Hatchery
Chinook
Chehalis 19,108 3,463
Humptulips 7,403 5,186
Coho
Chehalis
Humptulips 133,695 31,074
6,401 13,315
Chum 27,283 1,569

The information below in a e mail thread was looking to this question. "Did the Quinault Nation Bio's have good enough look at the 2014 harvest to know that they were going to blow escapement on Chinook?" The answer is very doubtful. This is a prime example of just why in the heck harvest management is a bitch. That the QIN were ah not very nice by going through their numbers and into the NT share is a given. That said look to what John says as to Chinook.

Simple fact is Chinook were early and smaller runsize, Coho late, & Chum a no show with 45% or so off preseason estimate. This resulted in a perfect storm that nailed the fish that was nearly undetectable, Chum maybe.

Now just imagine what would have happened if we did not have 4/3 (three net free days a week) and the state put the NT Nets in the three open days a week. From my perspective the objectives that the Commission put into the Grays Harbor Management Plan work.

----- Original Message -----
From: hamilton.dave@comcast.net
To: XXXXX
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: Grays Harbor 2014 run size estimate?




Hey John with the harvest numbers on WDFW's website is it possible to check the math week by week to see if the QIN had a idea they were blowing past escapement?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



From: XXXXX
To: "hamilton dave" <hamilton.dave@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 9:25:53 PM
Subject: Re: Grays Harbor 2014 run size estimate?




Dave,

To try to answer your question I assume you mean for Chinook. I looked at the total harvest compared to the plan total which is mostly natural origin.

The actual run was smaller than the plan but it looks like it came in faster in the early weeks. Harvest was about on plan for the first two weeks, (weeks 39 and 40). Even week 41 was 72% of plan. After that it declined rapidly.

I do not think I could predict a short run until at least week 42 and by then all but the last 150 fish had been harvested. In my view I could not have said the run was small and the normal looking harvest was really going to go into escapement.

John

There is a lot of info in the 2015-16 plan and I want to make sure I got it right. Because of the 3/5 clause no more than 5% of the 19K Chehalis Chinook forecast or about 950 can be harvested by nontreaty, even though the forecast is about 9K above the goal. It looks like the combined forecast of Chehalis and Humptulips nat Chinook is about double the GH total goal of 13500. QIN only recognizes the combo goal correct? Sounds like QIN should find the state management plan for NT harvest limits very appealing. Have I missed something or misinterpreted the NT harvest plan for Chinook in 2015?

Correct... QIN will deploy enough fishing power to gillnet their paper half of the surplus over the 13.5K aggregate goal.

Because of chronic failure to put enough fish on the gravel (staying true to it's historic failure to make Chehalis e-goal 80% of the time) the state will manage its paper fishing power to stay UNDER the maximum 5% impact cap for Chehalis kings. In contrast, the state will deploy enough fishing power to catch its paper half of the Hump kings over the 3.6K Hump goal.

More specifically on Chehalis, the state shall NOT expend more than 0.8% of the wild Chehalis king forecast to prosecute a commercial gillnet fishery targeting abundant coho in 2A/B/D. That works out to 153 kings for the white GN's. At 55% release mortality, they're statistically done when they've encountered 278 paper kings.

Bottom line, that ain't gonna buy much opportunity.

Doc pretty much got it right on. Thing about the GHMP is two things really drive allocation. 4/3 which means three net free days in a calendar week net free. No seven days a week netting with the combined tribal and NT Commercial. Refereed to as the "penalty box" 3/5 is if you fail to make escapement three out of 5 years no targeted fisheries on that species. ( state side ) We have missed Chinook escapement 4 out of the last 5 so no targeted Chinook fishery.

As much as I dislike 3/5 it is sad to say it is necessary. It is the only tool to hold staff accountable and just as importantly make US the Rec fisher pay attention and stay involved. Don't like the penalty box? Then make your feelings known to the Commission on the need for them to pressure staff to actually do their job and manage to make escapement. In recent years both WDF&W & the QIN have just set seasons and put it on auto pilot, no inseason monitoring just plain nothing. Well almost as one year a Rec Adviser pointed out the bay fishery was getting more fishing pressure than anticipated so they shut down the Rec bay. Come to find out in documents obtained in a PDR staff had ZERO data other than the concerns expressed by the Adviser.

Additionally a gentleman who was monitoring the bay fishery on his own as a volunteer just in case this happened confirmed the increased pressure. The other side? He reported while effort was up catch was way down per angler and below modeled impacts.

If the planned intent of the NT harvest plan is to not harvest their share of harvestable GH Chinook, why wouldn't QIN make a statement of foregone opportunity and harvest some/all of the uncaught NT share?

Last year that is what they did and blew escapement on both Chum and Chinook. Foregone opportunity has been utilized by both the state and QIN. Years back it was the threat by the QIN of doing just that if the R6 did not allow inriver Recs to have a South Monte fishery and along with political help we got our fishery.

The pissing match between the QIN and WDF&W staff at the policy level has been going on for years. R6 would put the NT nets in right in front of the QIN week schedule resulting a reduced catch for the tribe so they take more days and inriver Rec & the fish suffered.

Now if your thought is manage to the last paper fish then the consequences are the unholy mess we have in Willapa which does not have tribal fisheries. Things will shake out slowly and somewhere in the future both WDF&W and the QIN will have to manage for escapement.

The relationship with the QIN is multi faceted. Steve Thiesfeld discussed it at the public meeting recently. The state takes more than 50% of Steelhead, has taken (without asking) more of it share of crab, the QIN have provided part of their share of clams to keep the state clam seasons open and the list goes on.

So if ones thought is the state & tribe must split each 50 / 50 for each species covered by court decisions you might be prepared to loose access as we know it to several things. So the dance goes on as this thing shakes out.

In this period where escapement has not been met in three of the last five years, the 5% exploitation cap is in play. The controlling statement in the GH Management Plan actually says"

"Areas 2A, 2B, 2D: the impact rate of the state-managed commercial fishery shall be 0.8% on natural-origin Chehalis fall Chinook when the impact of the recreational fishery is equal to or greater than 4.2%. The impact rate of the WDFW-managed commercial fishery may be less than 0.8% when conservation concerns for natural-origin Chehalis fall Chinook result in a less than 4.2% impact rate in the recreational fishery."

It is clear that the Commission intended that the recreational fisherman would have priority on chinook impacts which in this case amounts to at least 84% of the impact (4.2%/5.0%). Last year the department went to a lot of effort to make sure the NT nets got 0.8% of the harvest in 2A/2B/2D but did not even compute or consider what the recreational harvest impact would be. The 2014 plan actually expected the recreational harvest in 2A/2B/2D would be 2.2%. I would suggest that this allows a net impact of 0.42% rather than the 0.8% that everyone assumes is the target.

The limiting factor in 2A/2B/2D is the ability of the recreational sector to generate enough impacts on natural origin chinook. In order to raise the share for the nets the thing the department should be working for is ways to increase the recreational harvest in 2A/2B/2C! With about 1% of the impacts allocated to the up river fishermen and about 0.4% to area 2C, there is only about 3.6% left to be split between commercial and recreational. I would suggest this should be 3% recreational and .6% commercial if we can get the recreational impact up to that level.

Someone better pay extra close attention to the modeling and math used to get there. They are well known for cooking the books in this situation.

The part we'll be paying close attention to is the 84:16 split reflecting a rec priority for chinook... even when there is a conservation shortfall requiring WDFW to invoke the 5% impact.

In this case, the conservation shortfall is WDFW's historic failure to meet Chehalis chinook escapement 80% of the time... a pattern which continues thru the most recent 5 year window. This failure occurred despite the performance bar having been reduced to the newly lowered 9.9K e-goal put into place during 2 of those 5 years!

The language of the policy affirms the rec priority for chinook thru good times as well as bad. As run sizes increase, a sliding scale allows gillnet impacts to increase linearly from 0.8% at run sizes of 18.8K to a maximum of 5.8% at run sizes of 25K or greater. Even at a MEGA run-size of 25K, the 5.8% works out to 1450 kings or 19% of the NT share.

In other words, in the worst of times, when the there is a conservation concern requiring limiting chinook impacts to 5% total NT exploitation, the split is 84:16. And in the very best of times, the split works out to a maximum of 81:19 of the NT share.

The implication here is that whenever we are in conservation mode (either 3/5 penalty box or run size less than 110% or e-goal) the allocation split between between rec and comm should be 84:16.

The nets should NOT get their full 0.8% share unless the rec sector is allocated its full 4.2% share PER THE POLICY....



While NOT specifically stated, several of us believe the policy implies that the comm allocation should fall in line with the proportional rec priority of 84:16 whenever we are in the "penalty box."

It most certainly should NEVER go higher than 19% (81:19) because that is the maximum commercial allocation split in a gangbuster chinook year.

The first GH Adviser meeting is Thursday the 5th and here is the e mail from Steve with details. Please look to the location change as it will be held in a different location.

Hi Everyone,

My apologies for the tardiness of this notice. Here is an update on the Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay North of Falcon process. First, we have decided to postpone the Willapa Bay meetings. We are hopeful that the Fish and Wildlife Commission will provide some interim guidance for planning the 2015 Season at the April Commission meeting. Therefore it doesn’t make sense to spend significant time working on conservation measures and seasons that may get upturned after that interim guidance is issued.

Second, we have found a better location for the Advisory Group meeting this Thursday, March 5th. The meeting will be at the Montesano High School Commons, 303 N Church St, Montesano, WA 98563. The meeting will be from 6-9 pm and the public will have an opportunity to provide comments at the end.

I note that we have a tentative Advisory group meeting that also needs a location, I’ll be getting that out as soon as possible.
I would appreciate your assistance spreading the word about these 2 updates.

Thank you.

• March 5: Grays Harbor Advisor Meeting with Public Comment –Montesano High School – Commons, 303 North Church Montesano, WA 98563, 6-9 pm.
• March 11: Grays Harbor Public Workshop – Montesano City Hall. 6-9 pm.
• March 17: Set Aside for Potential Grays Harbor Advisor Meeting with Public Comment, Montesano Public Library, 125 Main St. S
Montesano, 6-9 pm.
• March 26: Grays Harbor Public Workshop – Montesano City Hall. 6-9 pm.




From: Thiesfeld, Steven L (DFW)
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 4:23 PM
Subject: 2015 Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay North of Falcon Meeting Schedules

Hi Everyone,

Here is a schedule of 2015 North of Falcon meetings for Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay. I’ve got a couple of tentative meetings in there that may or may not happen, and another that we are trying to find a larger venue. Remember that there is a webpage specifically for North of Falcon meetings and other information here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/northfalcon/. It should soon be updated with this Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay schedule.

Appointments for Grays Harbor Advisors ended at the end of last year and we have made some new appointments and lost some old advisors. I plan to have an orientation and “meet and greet” so the new and returning Grays Harbor Advisors can get to know each other. It will be next Wednesday evening at the Montesano office. We will not be conducting any North of Falcon business at the meeting and I’m requesting that folks that aren’t advisors save their time and efforts for future meetings.

Finally, at the February Fish and Wildlife Commission meeting, the Commission decided to not make a decision on a Willapa Bay Salmon Policy until June at the earliest. This leaves us in a bit of a conundrum as to direction for 2015 pre-season planning. We will be seeking some guidance from the Commission, but at this time I don’t know how or when that might be provided. Stay tuned on that issue.

Cheers.

Steve Thiesfeld
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 6 Fish Program Manager
48 Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA 98563
Steven.Thiesfeld@dfw.wa.gov
360-249-1201

Well this should be interesting!!!


Fishing Rights Between Olympic Peninsula Tribes At Stake in U.S Court
Bellamy Pailthorp | KPLU NW PR – 3/2/15

A federal court will hear oral arguments Monday in Seattle, in a case that pits the United States against the State of Washington. It has to do with who gets to take how much fish.

U.S. District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez has set aside 3 weeks in his calendar to hear issues involved.

Three tribes are mentioned in the current litigation: the Makah, the Quileute and the Quinault Indian Nations. They’re fighting with each other.

The dispute is about their treaty rights with the government and how much fish they get to take from the waters off the west coast.

The history of this case stretches back more than a century. It all relates to the famous Boldt Decision, named after judge Hugo Boldt.

If you're following this case, there's a term you should know about: It's the concept of usual and accustomed areas. Professor Bob Anderson, who teaches law at the University of Washington, says these are specific places, "where they have traditionally fished at treaty time.”

Treaty time was more than a century ago.

“And so these are areas that were at issue in 1974, when Judge Boldt decided the original US vs. Washington case, which was filed by the US against the state, which was not allowing tribal members to fish under their treaties that they had signed in 1855 and 56," Anderson says.

As the law stands now, the US and the tribes each get up to half of the catch, which is complicated.

“It’s a very fact-intensive proceeding that will result in the judge drawing some lines on a map, to delineate the boundaries where the Quileute and Quinault are entitled to fish, in relation to the Makah," Anderson said.

Also at issue is figuring out how much pacific whiting, salmon, halibut and cod passes through these areas. At stake are livelihoods, civil rights to fish and the need to protect everyone’s resources.

Anderson, who himself is a member of the Minnesota Chippewa tribe, says he hopes the parties in this case will quietly reach a settlement.