Years ago a retired WDFW employee taught me not to hit send when pissed off! So I have been thinking about the 2022 rec season and what happened. Below is my response to Mr. Cunningham's response to my objections. I cannot do the attachments but if anyone wants them just PM me.

November 10, 2022
Director Susewind
WDFW Commission
Kelly Cunningham
James Losee
Mike Scharpf

I am writing to voice my and others’ objections to the manner staff and the Director conducted the 2022 fishing season setting processes for the Chehalis Basin and subsequent actions for conservation.

The agency utilized what has become known as ZOOM and by intent or accident had the outcome of drastically reducing the public’s ability to ask questions. Some citizens were able to work around the refusal of the moderator to recognize them by utilizing group cell text with others to be able for one of them to be recognized. The process resulted in limiting questions without an in-depth look at the proposed 2022 harvest. Some examples are:

1. The public was not made aware that staff was standing down the 3/5 clause limiting harvest if a salmon stock had not made escapement three out of the five previous years. As Region 6 staff have yet to release the 2021 escapement numbers due to what I am told is a data issue one cannot say with certainty but I believe Coho were in what is known as the “3/5 penalty box” Grays Harbor Management Policy (GHMP) is attached. When the GHMP was adopted it was discussed by many participating that Coho could be an issue as the run size can have dramatic ups and downs. This would result in a year such as 2022 with a large run size forecast while previous years had failed to make escapement which is exactly what happened in 2022.

In discussions during the adoption of the GHMP this issue was identified as one of the issues that the adaptive management clause of the GHMP would allow to be addressed. While the use of adaptive management was proper for Coho in 2022 allowing for expanded harvest vs being restrained to the 5% of the natural Coho run size that GHMP 3/5 clause required the failure of staff to clearly outline what actions were being taken in 2022 and why such actions were required was not discussed. To say this failure by WDFW staff was and is completely inappropriate by any measure is true.

2. The public was not made aware that WDFW staff was standing down the 4/3 clause that requires that there be three net free days in a calendar week. This provision is not binding on the Quinault tribal fishers. Grays Harbor Management Policy is attached.

When I objected to the standing down of the GHMP 4/3 clause I received a letter from Mr. Cunningham (attached) with this paragraph.

During North of Falcon, District 17 Fish Biologist Mike Scharpf and Director Susewind compromised on a season structure with the co-managers that follows the intent of the Grays Harbor Salmon Management Policy by enhancing the overall economic well-being and stability of Grays Harbor fisheries, providing fair distribution of opportunity across all sectors, and minimize gear and other fishery conflicts. The resulting schedule provides at least three consecutive days without nets in the water each week there are non-treaty commercial days scheduled. During statistical week 43, those consecutive days occur Friday through Sunday. Each of the other weeks in which non-treaty commercial fisheries are scheduled, those days without nets occur Thursday through Saturday.

The Grays Harbor Basin Salmon Management Policy provides guidance for commercial fisheries and under Guiding Principle 8 states that we shall schedule a minimum of 3 consecutive days in a given calendar week if possible: “Recreational and WFDW-managed commercial fisheries shall be structured (e.g., schedule, location, gear) to minimize gear and other fishery conflicts. 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 the treaty fishery occurs 4 or more days in a calendar week, no WDFW-managed commercial fishery shall occur in the remaining days of the week.” Negotiations this year did not make 3 days within a given calendar week possible, and the policy was not violated.

With all respect, Mr. Cunningham this description of the intent of the GHMP is nearly a complete fabrication and at the absolute least a complete warping and misread of the purpose and intent of 4/3. For most of my nearly 75 years salmon harvest was managed primarily as a kill fishery at the Aberdeen 101 bridge. Any inland recreational fisheries were restricted to a small part of the Chehalis Basin and starting in the 1990’s working with the then Deputy Director local volunteers were slowly able to get opportunities inland. The GHMP 4/3 clause was the final peace and 4/3 is not about Rec vs commercial at Aberdeen but rather that the three net free days allowed the “inland Chehalis Basin communities” a reasonable access to harvest and ended WDFW’s discrimination and bias against the inland communities and freshwater fishers. For these communities the Chehalis River has three commercial gillnet fisheries NT Commercial, QIN commercial, and Confederated Chehalis Tribal nontreaty commercial fisheries. For the inland communities a commercial fisher is a commercial fisher and they have long since gotten past the color of one’s skin or ethnicity defining anyone. The words in the GHMP “if possible” are about the Quinault Nation (QIN) as they sometimes fish more than four days thus the river would not achieve three net free days. The words ‘calendar week” were suggested by a retired WDFW staffer to ensure staff did not bookend days to get around 4/3 which Director Susewind is exactly what you and Mr. Scharpf did in 2022. Director this is a return to the old discriminatory practices of the WDF past and have no place in this time and place. Discrimination for any reason or cause is not acceptable and WDFW’s action clearly show it has a way to go to end the discriminatory practices of the past toward the inland Chehalis Basin communities and fishers.

3.The public was not informed that by WDFW calculations natural spawning Chinook would only total 8,801 with an escapement goal of 9,753. Final 2022 Harvest Model is attached.

The failure of staff to explain the rational and how the 8,801 number was created and why in the 2022 model QIN appear to be fishing well into escapement is appalling! When I contacted staff I was told that QIN were allowed to count all Chinook spawning in the gravel as part of the natural spawn be they hatchery or wild origin. (Chinook Escapement change attached) The paragraph below clearly defines the why and how this action is applied.

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

When one looks at the WDFW 2022 harvest model it shows a predicted 8,801 natural Chinook escapement which is well below the escapement goal of 9,880. If one then adds hatchery broodstock production of 2,147 the 2022 adult natural Chinook spawners the number is 10,207. Simply put it appears the QIN and WDFW are counting Chehalis Basin natural spawning Chinook in two different ways. For a number of us this is problematic as first and foremost the co-managers should not count spawners two different ways. Secondly in administering harvest in this manner it places nearly all conservation requirements on the terminal non-treaty fishers.

4. Item 3 leads directly to item 4 and the closure above Fuller Hill and the tributaries for conservation due to low flows. First off the Chehalis above Fuller Hill was appropriate but not for low flows as that is not an issue with the Chehalis River. It was appropriate due to high water temperatures and this is a known issue known to WDFW dating back to the 1990’s. At that time the Chehalis Tribal & East Grays Harbor volunteers encountered a severe mortality with captured Chinook females. WDFW staff and retired WDFW staff working as volunteers concluded that the stress of warm water and being captured did not allow the female Chinook to recover from being handled. The solution was to suspend Broodstocking until the water temperatures dropped below 60 degrees with 55 degrees being the target temperature. While the closure above Fuller Hill was correct as a catch and release of hook and line ends with the same results as Broodstocking with a tangle net but to mislead citizens with a false narrative as to why a closure was required was not correct in fact was somewhat dishonest to say the least.

When looking at the tributary closures below Fuller Hill the low flows were the rational provided in the press release. When I inquired what and why and provided a video to all of the salmon movement on 23rd (video is attached) it clearly showed a major movement of ocean bright Coho just downstream from Schafer Park. Now to be clear between the 15th to 23rd of September the Chehalis tidewater experienced the largest buildup of Coho and Chinook I have ever witnessed. On the 23rd and 24th of September the massive buildup of salmon moved upstream rapidly to the point that when the QIN started fishing September 25th the vast majority of the early part of the Coho run was upstream above the QIN tribal fishers and into the tribs and the Chehalis Fuller Hill flats. This premise is borne out by Bingham Hatchery having a return of over 30,000 by Nov 3rd and both QIN and NT commercials failing to come close to projected harvest impacts.

The video I provided, which was taken by a third party, clearly shows the movement so in my mind Coho returns most certainly could not be the issue as the video clearly showed the mass movement. Chinook on the other hand were of concern but freshwater rec fishers were limited to catch and release of Chinook with a mortality of bay and inriver recreational impacts of 567 fish. The mortality associated with the number of Chinook encountered (catch and release) is covered by the modeled harvest so what could be the problem is the question? That the preseason forecast was wrong is always possible but how would staff know that before the spawning window closes and redd counts are completed? With 2021 spawner numbers not complete how can 2022 numbers indicate low returns? One cannot use the commercial catch numbers be they Non-Treaty or QIN as they modeled Coho and Chinook were well upstream as previously pointed out.

I suppose one could argue that the combined anecdotal information indicated a possible problem but I am reminded by others of the simple facts outlined below.

2022 Modeled Chehalis Basin Chinook Harvest
Alaska harvest 11,617
British Columbia harvest 4,637
WA Coast Treaty and Non-Treaty marine harvest 291

Terminal returns 14,957
QIN harvest 3,566
Rec impacts bay / inriver 567
Chehalis tribal 257 (charged to state share)

Alaska and British Columbia were modeled for 2022 to take more Grays Harbor Chinook (only WDFW separates the Humptulips and Chehalis rivers) than cross the bar at the mouth of Grays Harbor. The QIN will take a good number with the Chehalis tribal fisheries (which again is charged to the state share) taking a modest number.

It is not that difficult to be concerned about the health of Grays Harbor Chinook but this always comes to mind. I have never been aware of a WDFW Director including Director Susewind or WDFW representatives to the ocean harvest managers objecting to massive over harvest off Chehalis and Humptulips Chinook by Alaska and British Columbia marine fisheries. I am not aware of the WDFW Commission objecting to the destruction of Grays Harbor Chinook. I am not aware of any past or present Governors, state or federal Representatives, state or federal Senators or local elected officials object to utter depravity of the destruction of our Grays Harbor Chinook stocks. With this information how can any citizen be expected to take any part of WDFW management of Grays Harbor Chinook seriously?

If Chinook concerns in 2022 existed in the tributary’s options were available. On the Satsop staff could have made the closure above the old highway bridge as Chinook mostly move above the bridge and below the bridge to the Chehalis is the prime bank fishing area for Coho on the Satsop. The same applies for the Wynoochee as the railroad bridge just down the road from Region 6 offices would have worked for a shut off line and downstream from the railroad bridge the Port of Grays Harbor owns a substantial public access reach of the river utilized by bank fishers.

5. One final item I wish to address to Director Susewind and Mr. Cunningham. In your letter of October 19, 2022 (attached) you stated the following.

Negotiations for the commercial fishery openings in Grays Harbor occurred during the 2022 North of Falcon process and have remained unchanged since they were submitted with the CR-102 filing on May 17, 2022 and finalized by the signing and filing of the CR-103 on June 29, 2022. Planning Model D, which includes the same planned commercial fisheries, was sent both to the distribution list of advisers and the general Grays Harbor distribution list on Friday April 15, 2022, in preparation for the final GH/WB Post North of Falcon salmon fishery discussion held on April 19, 2022.

I cannot find fault with your statement as written as I do believe I and the other former Advisers did receive this information as did the general public but gentlemen you left out an itty bitty detail, you fired us two years ago! You did so without communication, justification, or just plain anything but silence. I found out from a former Willapa Adviser second hand! Whatever your reason was Advisers serve at your pleasure Director Susewind and if you wanted me or any other Grays Harbor Adviser removed it is your privilege sir. That said it is not appropriate for you to fail to acknowledge your actions toward both the Grays Harbor and Willapa Advisers for whatever your reasons were. To misrepresent the issue such as was done in Mr. Cunningham’s letter to imply that the Grays Harbor Advisers were fully functional and well informed is a serious misrepresentation of the facts.

Sincerely