Formal notification that went out.

Good afternoon,

As you are aware, commercial fishing in Willapa Bay began at 12:01am November 1st after being closed for the last half of October
for Chum conservation. The predicted season total Chum impact was 4,424 fish based on a predicted run size of ~47,000, which equates
to a 9.9% impact rate. The fishery was predicted to have 1,074 Chum impacts in statistical week 45 (Oct. 30th - Nov. 5th), however
the Chum catch thru Wednesday, November 2nd was 4,192 fish. With the 505 Chum impacts that were accrued in statistical weeks 37
through 42, our season total impact on Chum salmon has been 4,719 fish and this figure is expected to increase with impacts accrued
on Thursday. This situation developed quickly and given that information, the Department enacted an emergency closure of the
commercial fishery on 11:59pm Thursday, November 3rd until further notice.

Regards,
Annette Hoffmann

That's how it's done. The blowback will be if a really strong chum run materializes and there was no ISU. But, it was nice to see WDFW actually play the hand it was dealt.

I received and responded to this e mail as a GH Adviser and was going to wait a while before saying anything but as I received it from another asking what this was about I figured the jig is up.

That all said I for one appreciate Mike reaching out for input as he did not have to reach out. THX Mike.


From Region 6:

Subject: though to adjust Chehalis Basin hatchery Coho bag limit

Hi all,

I’m writing to you to know that WDFW is discussing the possibility of increasing the hatchery Coho bag limit in recreational fisheries on the Chehalis, Satsop, and Skookumchuck rivers to two fish. We are considering this change in response to the number of hatchery Coho returning to our facilities this fall. As you are aware, the forecast for wild Coho didn’t leave much room for harvest opportunity and agreed to fisheries during NOF took this information into account. We would like to hear what you, the advisors, think.

Thanks for your time.


Subject: RE: though to adjust Chehalis Basin hatchery Coho bag limit

Morning,

After a little thought my response is no for the following reasons. First it is my understanding that this would require to legally redo the preseason forecast which the QIN would have to agree to. Although WDF&W does not circulate the QIN / WDF&W agreement for the year ( and has not this year ) past agreements contained a clause to not alter the preseason forecast. As the QIN & state have both muddled through this far with all sharing the pain it is rather illegitimate for the Rec fisher to now not have the same standards applied. Before Steve's illness he passed on that the QIN were not that pleased with altering the forecast last year by shutting down fisheries rather than utilize the preseason forecast for the entire season. I cannot imagine expanding a state fishery ( basically a preseason forecast redo ) would be all that well received.

Second item is after looking at the numbers provided by WDF&W we do not have harvest numbers be it QIN or state posted on the agency website after week 39 so for anyone to get a feel for the runsize is not possible. On the hatchery side Bingham has the bulk 5000 number up which was off one posting and the Springs is just shy of 6000. With the QIN preseason forecast of 12,319 hatchery returning adults that was used adding in Mayr and Aberdeen Lake we are likely at that benchmark. This thing where up to date harvest and hatchery rack counts not being made available is a very poor practice that only adds to folks perceptions which may or may not be valid.

That said the vast majority of the normal timed Coho are already in the hatchery and spawning reaches or soon will be. From this point in time on we will fish on the back end of the native Coho run of what is known as the T day fish and Late Coho. This portion of our Coho run traditionally under performs the normal timed portion and takes a real hit in the QIN Steelhead fishery starting December 1. While we have both the Bingham and Skookumchuck Mitigation hatchery origin Late Coho coming but the production and adult returns are rather small. Increased bag limits will result in increased harvest pressure and increased mortalities on the NOR Coho. As it is the NOR Coho that is the limiting factor not the abundance of hatchery origin adults it would be rather reckless to throw conservation standards into the dumpster to appease a few Rec fishers. Add to the mix this thought many may feel that if there are enough impacts for expanded Rec catch why not additional time for QIN & NT Nets? Many may feel that the level playing field concept for all just got trampled.

In years such as last year when the run fails restrictions usually get applied to the fisheries remaining which is the inriver Rec and rather unfair. It would be reasonable tool that in years that the runsize exceeds expectation and solid data is available to expand the inriver Rec catch. I have no problem with this concept but it needs to be discussed with all parties that wish to participate and a complete vetting of the concept based upon the historical catch patterns and run reconstruction. Parameters of just when & how this tool could be utilized established and known to all fishers be it Rec / NT / or QIN.

So again my response is no as it would be a rather reckless move to expand Rec Coho bag limits for the reasons outlined previously.

Dave

Two weeks plus since those gillnet openers... still NOTHING reported on the webpage.

You were expecting different?

Thanks, Rivrguy. I completely agree with your thoughts. There are few hatchery fish left by this point of the season, so trying to get 2 would probably result in a lot of unnecessary NOR encounters. Let's all just be glad the numbers ended up better than the forecast, because that likely means a brighter future, with bigger bag limits, sooner than we might have thought.

Just got the new numbers (still NOT web-posted)

State nets took only 204 coho in stat week 44
QIN took only 701 coho in stat week 45

Chum predominate the catch by a factor of 4 to 5 : 1

Whew.......way to long to get this information.

Now if the following is available, I'd like to see it......hatchery vs. wild. Makes NO SENSE to me, to have sportsmen mark H or W on their "punch cards", and to not get a accounting from the commercial sector. The information from the commercial netting, would be FAR MORE useable than punch cards data 2+ years old. TIME TO REQUIRE A CHANGE !!!!!!

CM did you get wk 40? That is the killer as it will tell everything about the Chinook run collapse.

Modeled the QIN were to get 2684 Coho & 2470 Chum. The NT's were modeled at 590 Coho & 2470 Chum. Chinook look just as bad but without the WK 40 QIN numbers it is impossible to know as the first three weeks were a disaster but went to over 700 in wk 39 and without 40 you can not know if the trend continued up. Bottom line is why and the hell Region 6 struggles with something as simple as just forwarding numbers to Olympia is beyond me.

Sorry to report no steam behind the stat week 39 chinook number

QIN only caught 71 kings stat wk 40

Btw sorry I accidentally posted from your acct earlier, CanyonMan . Didn't notice you were still logged on until AFTER I hit submit

From 700 plus in wk 39 plus to 71 wk 40 now that number verifies what was seen on the river.

Soft bite worked the numbers backward thru the harvest model for me and came up with some sobering results.

With actual gillnet CPUE coming in at only 1/2 of expected for Chehalis coho, it does not bode well for meeting the escapement goal.

It looks even worse for Chehalis chinook as the actual gillnet CPUE was less than 1/6 of expected.

This is looking at the aggregate catches for BOTH the state and QIN catches.

...

While they're a ways off from completion, it will be interesting to see how the GH spawning surveys turn out this year.

Hopefully a new dam can solve all of this.

Fish on...

Todd

Thought I would put this up for folks. This is mostly about NOF and how WDF&W dodges public scrutiny.

Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy
PO Box 179
McCleary, WA 9855 THFWA@comcast.net

November 14, 2016 via email

Director Jim Unsworth Chairman Lorraine Loomis
WDFW Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
1111 Washington St SE 6730 Martin Way East
Olympia, WA 98501 Olympia, WA 9850

Dear Chairman Loomis and Director Unsworth:

The Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy is a nonprofit corporation duly filed in the state of Washington. The stated purpose of the Advocacy is to “Provide education, science, and other efforts that encourage the public, regulatory agencies and private businesses to manage or utilize fish, wildlife and other natural resources in a fashion that insures the sustainable of those resources on into the future for the benefit of future generations.”1

Over the last five years, the members of the Advocacy have extensively researched the issues surrounding fisheries management in Washington state. Advocacy members played a significant role in adoption by the Commission of the management policies in Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay. At the same time, we have researched management practices in Puget Sound and the Columbia that closely resemble those used on the Coast. In doing so, we have adhered to the practice of providing commentary that is respectful and at the same time, lays out our position in as clear and precise fashion as possible.

We have come to the conclusion the controversies that plague the Department and the tribal co-mangers during the North of Falcon season setting process are rooted in two areas of harvest management. First, the “prior intercept” from Alaska south of salmon destined for Washington streams often results in over 85% of the harvest related mortalities occurring north of the Canadian border. As a result, the small percentage of fish remaining available for harvest is making it nearly impossible for the co-managers to adopt tribal and non-tribal seasons that satisfy in-state fishers without undermining the escapement needed for natural spawning populations. The efforts of co-managers to provide reasonable instate fishing opportunities are further complicated by declining habitat and poor ocean productivity. Then comes the significant restraints occurring when runs decline to the point we cross over the ESA thresholds as found in Puget Sound and the Columbia.

Earlier this year, the members of the Advocacy traveled out of state to address the Pacific Salmon Commission which effectively controls the prior intercept under the international treaty between Canada and the United States. We expressed our concern that the prior intercept was unfair to WA tribal and non-tribal fishers. More importantly, we raised the issue repeatedly that the prior intercept was interfering with our ability to manage fish runs to meet conservation standards. The tribal co- managers have raised the northern intercept issue for decades.2 We are now looking forward to the Department’s upcoming presentation to the Fish & Wildlife Commission regarding the northern intercept. We believe Washington taxpayers who have invested heavily into salmon production and natural spawning restoration are entitled to understand where and by whom the salmon produced in WA hatcheries and streams are being harvested and marketed.

1 Article 2 Purpose, Bylaws of the Twin Harbors Fish & Wildlife Advocacy 2 See U.S. v- Washington

Page 2, THFWA November 14. 2016
The second major challenge faced by the co-managers is the allocation of the fish available for harvest that actually make it back to WA waters. Recent disagreement between the co- managers has resulted in a threat to seasons, especially for the non-tribal fishers in Puget Sound. For many citizens, tribal and non-tribal, the NOF process seems mired down wherein co-management on harvest seasons appears to have evolved to “dual-management” wherein each side tries to manage in its own way. At this point, the Advocacy with those who have come to the conclusion the NOF season setting process is failing all the citizens, including those who don’t fish. The co-management cooperation envisioned by the courts in the rulings in U.S. v- Washington has deteriorated to the point NOF is deserving of the label “threatened” if not “endangered”.

While the Advocacy members are often approached by tribal fishers who are also trying to figure out why the fishing opportunities continue to decline, the frustration has reached the “boiling point” for many of those fishers utilizing licenses issued by WDFW. The relationship between the Department and its stakeholders can aptly be described as “in the toilet”. The Advocacy is not attempting to blame either co-managers or any of the staff involved in the process. Rather, we believe both co-managers need to recognize that the NOF process as currently utilized will no longer will pass scrutiny with most non-tribal and many tribal fishers.

The blanket of secrecy surrounding harvest discussions between the two co-managers has resulted in a mirage of public perceptions. We recognize perceptions are often off-base or completely inaccurate. However, perceptions become facts in many minds when accountability and verification is missing from the equation.

Examples of perceptions that the members of Advocacy hear regularly include:

• The tribal fishers want to exceed the 50/50 formula set forth in the Boldt decision;
• The Department is unwilling or unable to negotiate in a manner that its stakeholders can be assured their rights to half the fish will be honored
• The federal government (NOAA/BIA) is pressuring the Department to agree to the tribal seasons proposed by threatening to deny permits for state sponsored fisheries
• The Office of Governor and/or Legislators are likewise pressuring the Department to agree to tribal season proposals that disadvantage the non-tribal fishers

It is appropriate to recognize that tribal members are less likely to be disappointed in NOF than state stakeholders. As sovereign governments holding treaty rights to fishing, the tribal fishers can interact with its tribal leadership in ways non-tribal citizens can not. As a result, tribal members may feel comfortable with their representation in the process.

The non-tribal stakeholders are another matter. State stakeholders can only turn to the Department when seeking assurance their interests are being adequately represented. In the state culture, the citizens rely upon government transparency laws to participate and educate themselves. Unfortunately, the co-management harvest meetings between the co-managers are closed to the public. The speculation by many is the secrecy is supported either by the tribal co-managers, WDFW staff, or both. Regardless, the blanket of secrecy is a major impediment to the Department’s ability to maintain the confidence of its stakeholders. The closed process

Page 3, THFWA November 14. 2016
also results in the non-tribal sector becoming frustrated with tribal fishing due to the growing perception of unfairness.

The Advocacy fully recognizes tribal sovereignty and corresponding treaty rights. Since none of the members of the Advocacy are members of a tribe, we can only respectfully submit a request for consideration. In that spirit, we ask that the tribal co-managers consider allowing the tribal and non- tribal citizens an opportunity to observe (without participation) during co-management meetings wherein the discussion includes proposals for an upcoming harvest season(s). As clarification, the request does not extend to technical staff meetings wherein a harvest season is not on the agenda.

The Advocacy does not believe acceptance of our request would create an undue burden on tribal governments or infringe upon tribal sovereignty. Representatives of the tribes regularly participate in public meetings at the federal, state, and local government levels including fisheries co-management processes of the Pacific Fisheries Management Council and the Pacific Salmon Commission. To our knowledge, the only time the door closes is when representatives of the tribes meet with the staff of WDFW to discuss upcoming seasons within WA waters.

The Advocacy also extends the request for open meetings onto the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. Simply put, the Advocacy members are asking all the co-managers to recognize and respect the sovereign rights of the tribal and non-tribal citizens of the state of Washington under state law.

RCW 42.30.010
Legislative declaration.
The legislature finds and declares that all public commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of this chapter that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.

The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

Clearly, NOF violates at least the intent of the Open Meeting Act (OMA)3 quoted above. The Advocacy also believes NOF is contrary to the expressed sections of the act requiring decision makers with delegated authority to conduct its affairs in open meetings in a transparent fashion. Unlike times prior to the establishment of the Commission, the delegation of the rule authority from the Legislature to the Fish & Wildlife Commission brings the OMA downward to the Commission. Likewise, the delegation by the Commission to a group within the Department brings the OMA down to staff determining state sponsored seasons.4

Further, NOF results in agreed upon fishing season (s) negotiated behind closed doors. Said season is subsequently adopted into a WAC rule carrying the effect of law. The meetings held with the public are of little consequence to the decision earning NOF the common title of a “Dog and Pony Show”. The Advocacy believes NOF currently results in the Department operating contrary to the intention and expressed conditions of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)5.
3 Chapter 42.30 RCW: OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT
4 http://www.atg.wa.gov/Open-Government-Resource-Manual/Chapter-3 5 Chapter 34.05 RCW: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT

Page 4, THFWA November 14. 2016
While legal advisors to both co-managers may disagree, we believe the two state statutes referenced are applicable to WDFW staff during NOF. Further, compliance with these statutes can be fulfilled by the Department under its own will. While the tribes can choose to not allow the public to attend a meeting of tribal representatives, the Advocacy finds no statement within court rulings such as U.S. v- WA that grants the tribe the power to take the position “my way or the highway” while exercising its treaty rights of co-management. To the contrary, the state Supreme Court ruled state transparency law was applicable to the state entity when interacting with tribal governments.6

The application of the OMA is not stood down by the location where the meeting is held. The Department can not hold its meeting in Oregon and avoid application of the OMA. The same holds true for a NOF meeting held in a tribal office building located on a reservation.

Again, recognizing the sovereignty of the tribal governments, the Advocacy can only assert its rights with WDFW. We do point out that members of a tribe are also citizens of the state. As such, tribal members residing in Washington are likewise entitled to insist that WDFW honor their state citizen rights under state law.

We would prefer to avoid seeking a court ruling. Such a litigation would once again “pit the Advocacy member’s wallets against the state treasury”. Also, court proceedings can be lengthy and often leave uncertainty on how to proceed into the future.

As stated at the beginning of this letter, we are fully committed to assisting the public in management of natural resources for the benefit of future generations. The option that is unacceptable to the members of the Advocacy is to simply turn our heads and walk away. We also subscribe to the time tested philosophy of “more of the same will get you more of the same”. A simple and effective solution is to simply open the door and turn on the light so all can see. Transparency has proven time and again to be an effective tool for finding solutions to difficult challenges that are negatively impacting the relationship between governmental entities and their respective stakeholders.

We await your decision. NOF for 2017 is approaching rapidly and the Department will shortly file a CR101 onto the state register to notify the public. We respectfully suggest that time is of essence.

Sincerely,



Tim Hamilton Art Holman Ron Schweitzer
President Vice-President Secretary-Treasurer

cc: The Honorable Members of the Fish and Wildlife Commission Governor Jay Inslee (via J.T. Austin)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (via Bob Turner & Kathryn Sullivan) The United States Department of Commerce (via Steve Haro)
The US Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (via Amy Dutschke) Individual staff within the NWIFC and WDFW
Representative Brian Blake, Chair, House Agriculture and Natural Resource Committee Senator Kirk Pearson, Chair, Senate Natural Resources and Parks Committee


6 135 Wn.2d 734, CONFEDERATED TRIBES v. JOHNSON

Had to go look but Chehalis side hatchery Coho were forecast at 12319 and at the minute we have a Coho rack count for the combined facilities of 14010 and we go to Dec 1 so the number will bounce up some more. Normally the natural population mirrors the hatchery % on returns as we are wild stock driven. All that said the low harvest both Rec / QIN / NT Nets and that number for a rack count minus the predicted harvest does say we are not out of the woods as we still have the late Coho to come through.

I suggest the season, as set, continue.

2017 NOF is just around the corner, QIN and WDFW models need to work with the same set of data.

Whatever problems exist between the co-managers NEED to be worked out. WDFW Commission is well aware of these problems, upper WDFW fish personnel is also aware of the problems. 2017 is the time to have the co-managers work together, for the resource.

I like "open meetings", public should be allow to attend any/all fish talks.

Coho part of Wynoochee mitigation needs to be addressed, 25 years to way to long....not just addressed but get it done!!!!

So we have the WK 45 numbers modeled and actual it was this:
Chinook 85 actual 27
Coho 484 actual was 781
Chum 2334 actual was 4110

So the pattern changed some and then not all at the same time. Chinook appear to have tanked but remember the nearly four weeks of no commercial in Oct to protect Coho so and it rained so it will redd count time as Doc said. Now the hatchery returns are saying the same with it looking like some over escapement. The Qin forecast was lower than the states but all went with the QIN's numbers but it looks like the higher number the state produced was closer and maybe under estimated. Chum with darn near double the harvest for the week it is still in mysteryville but we did not have double the 37,5000 forecast which is why doing harvest only to track runs sucks. Nothing for week 44 is posted up.

Looks like the predictions were as good as can fairly be expected (which is to say wrong enough to be dangerous, as usual, but sort of okay). Sometimes, the QIN get closer, and sometimes it's the State. As long as we can't get away from forecasts, seems using the average of the two forecasts should get us closer most years, and averages seem to be a good, fair way to exercise true co-management, as well as placing the accountability on the process as a whole, as opposed to on one party or the other.

This is a heads up to all concerning the Willapa commercial fisheries. As I do not have all the information needed ( some do that hang out on PP ) that is about all I am willing to put forth now other than it looks like the nets are going back into Willapa Bay. I apologize to all for not putting more information out but I waited ( manners require it ) for Mr. Herring to follow through on his promise to not to withhold information from the public. Well that did not do that well so I have again asked and if the information is not provided to myself and the public in general I will drop a PDR on them and make it public. Best I can do folks.

Following up here and Chad forwarded the e mail on to me.

Hello Advisors:

Back on November 3rd, the Department closed the commercial fishery in Willapa Bay to preserve impacts on chum. This was based on pre-season forecast information. To date we have collected spawning ground data that points toward a larger than forecasted escapement and along with harvest estimates yields a larger runsize. Based on this newer information, the Department is considering re-opening the commercial fishery directed at coho. The impact rate on chum would remain below 10%.

Estimated Index Escapement (56% of Total Basin) 33,325
Estimated Total Basin Escapement 59,509
Hatchery Escapement to Date 2,250
Fishery Mortalities to Date 5,858

2016 Estimated Runsize 67,617
10% of Runsize 6,762

Remaining Allowable Harvest 904
Projected Harvest in Remaining Commercial Fishery 110
Projected Harvest in Remaining Recreational Fishery 120

Projected Final Impact Rate on Chum 9%

We would like to offer a conference call this afternoon at 4PM for those who can make it and are interested in talking through the details. We are sorry for the short notice.