Numerous folks made the trip yesterday to Ridgefield in order to testify at the morning public comment session prior to the afternoon Staff briefing on the 10 Year Chinook Harvest Plan (Plan). I don't recall there being even one person who spoke in favor of the Plan or the manner in which it was developed and presented.

Questions were raised as to why the Southern U.S. (SUS) is being more severely restricted that Northern fisheries (which includes current negotiations with Canada of the Salmon Treaty) in ways to reduce perceived risks to the stocks and particularly the Stilly which is the poster child as NOAA/NMFS is dealing with its ESA responsibilities (note: NOAA has taken issue with the Plan's impacts on several other stocks). And does that direction from NOAA open up the opportunity to renegotiate the 8% SUS cap on Stilly impacts? Others testified as to the expected economic impact of a full salmon season shutdown. The Commission was also "encouraged" to step up and assert its role as the Policy setting policy, others recommended that the Commission rescind its broad delegation of authority to the Department, and one individual directly asked that the Director resign.

Some takeaway points (and personal comments):

1. AAG Grossman briefed on the legal aspect of the "secret" nature of the negotiations leading up to the Plan saying confidentiality was dictated by the Federal judge. It was said that the Commission had been informed while Staff also acknowledged that they could and should have done a better job of informing the Commission.

2. I believe it was AAG Grossman who took exception to the contention that only 11 Stilly fish would have been saved had the Plan been applied to the 2017 season. But that person did not say how many fish the after-the-fact modeling (and such modeling only occurred after the Plan was signed) would have saved. Maybe 12?? 13??? Only they know and that seems to be another pertinent fact covered under the confidentiality veil. And they wonder why there is distrust?

3. During the afternoon Staff briefing it was Commissioners McIssac and Carpenter who asked the most pointed questions. Their background in complicated fisheries issues was apparent and a true value to the process. Thank you both!! And Governor Inslee - be sure to re-appoint Commissioner Carpenter!!

4. It was stated that NOAA is not concerned about economic impacts. It was also opined that NOAA/NMFS is willing to accept without discussion impact figures which they perceive as adequately conservative but become far more concerned as impact numbers become close to or below their minimum recovery figures because of a fear of being sued by certain conservation groups.

5. On one hand there was a perception that the SUS impact cap is 8% but then there was discussion that the 8% was when low returns were anticipated and up to 12% for good years (overall 24% in both conditions). I was left wondering who will make that assessment and against what standards? In response to Commissioner McIssac's probing questions the Staff acknowledged that even if northern impacts were ZERO the max SUS would remain at 12%. Why is that? And why is the burden being placed disproportionately on the SUS? There was no discussion as to how in-season adjustments might be accomplished leaving us with the impression that our fisheries would be locked in to the annual NOF agrements which are based entirely upon expectations.

6. There was also one comment to the effect that it would be recreational fishers taking the brunt of SUS restrictions. Does that mean that the tribes will be fishing (mostly non-selectively) even if we don't have a season? Staff would not confirm assertions that the Plan will under certain conditions (such as now) result in a total closure (or at least the State's) of salmon seasons. They simply couldn't say those words - kind of like Fonzie (Happy Days) not being able to use the word "mistake." I recall that when pushed Staff used a term like "potential significant impacts." Paint your own picture.

7. There was a push to have the unofficial Plan utilized for 2018 and probably 2019 because NOAA's process probably won't be completed prior to those seasons.

8. There was no formal action taken by the Commission.

After the public session the Commission and Staff went into Executive Session. Wish I could have been the fly on the wall for that one.

These are my recollections from what was about 3 hours of testimony and briefings. The Commission will be posting an audio recording to their webpage.