So much literature; so little time!

1. Found in the Puget Sound Groundfish Management Plan (Revised) December 1998 (Palsson, Northup and Barker):

Marine Mammal Interactions (pg 23); "Marine mammals are key predators on groundfish populations in Puget Sound (Schmitt et al. 1995) and may also compete with groundfish populations and fisheries for limited food and other resources. Because of their special status of protection, marine mammals present a difficult management problem and are likely limiting the population of Pacific shiting in Port Susan and may be affecting lingcod, walleye pollock, and Pacific cod resources throughout Puget Sound."

(Note that Palsson is Wayne Palsson, Research Scientist, Marine Fish Science Unit, Fish Program of WDFW and is a major contributor of scientific research papers and is also one of the seven members of the Core Team which put together the Puget Sound Rockfish Conservation Plan and also is one of two WDFW employees currently presenting this plan to the public. Barker is Dr. Morris Barker who is retired from WDFW but was also one of the seven Core Members).

2. Trends and Status of Harbor Seals in Washington State:1978-99 (Huber and Laake):

This report provided history that "In the first half of the 20th century the number of harbor seals in WA State was severely reduced by a state-financed population control program, which considered harbor seals to be predators in direct competition with commercial and sport fishermen. Seals began to recover after the bounty program ended in 1960 and the Marine Mammal Protection Act was passed in 1972." It further reported that "Since 1978, harbor seal counts have increased threefold, and estimated abundance has increased seven- to tenfold since 1970."

Figure 5 Generalized Logistic Growth Curve for Harbor Seals In WA Expressed as Population Size (1970-2000):

This report combines both coastal and inland populations. The report and graph shows the 1970 combined population at between 2-3,000 and grew fairly steadily until about 1990 at which time the rate of growth began to decrease (total growth continued) and appeared to stop growing about 1999 at about 30,000. Again, this is coastal and inland. The report in more than one place indcated that the population was near or at carrying capacity (note that their final survey in 1999 had the inland population at 8949 animals).

The report concluded with Management Implications where the authors wrote, in part, "if formally determined to be at OSP (optimum sustainable population), NMFS could return management authority for harbor seals to Washington State, if requested." It went on to opine that "It is evident that harbor seal stocks in Washington could decline by 20% and still be above MNPL (maximum net productivity level). In explanation of terms, "NMFS adoped the definition for OSP as a population level between carrying capacity (K) and the population size which provided the maximum net productivity level (MNPL)."

Bottom line was that at the time of this study and report seal populations were perceived as being at carrying capacity (inland at 8949) and suggested that NMFS would "allow" a reduction of 20% or roughly 1,800 animals. The inland population in 2007 was estimated at 14,000 (documented in the PSRCP) and further estimated to have grown to approximately 15,000 at this date. So much for being at carrying capacity in 1999. I will leave it to you all to look at the precipitous drop in rockfish catch rates starting in 1990 and draw your own conclusions. Also, as to who knew (or should have known) what and when relative to increasing seal populations and falling rockfish populations.

...................................................................................

One might speculate that rockfish populations may have been artificially high going into the 70s due to the the seal bounty program. As fishing pressure increased into the 80s and through 1990 the seal population rebounded and added to the stress on rockfish (at issue here). When human fishing pressure was reduced the seal population continued to grow to where it is now.

I opined elsewhere that it would be nice to see a graph showing human take and seal consumption over this same time period.

Despite all of the research available and the involvement of Dr. Barker and Mr. Palsson there is no absolute number for current seal predation upon rockfish in the PSRCP. I crunched the pertinent figures provided in the PSRCP for the San Juans and came up with 1,716,960 pounds for 7,000 seals. Absent any other information I doubled that number for all of the Puget Sound covered under the PSRCP yielding 3,433,920 pounds. If the average rockfish is 2# that makes the total number of rockfish consumed per year 1,716,960. That number does not include Steller and California seal lions. I acknowledge there are some assumptions in this calculation but it does provide some magnitude for comparison purposes.

Under the PSRCP para 1.9 Alternatives Considered, but not Analyzed defines (under SEPA) a reasonable alternative as being "an action that could feasibly attain or approximate a proposal's objectives, but at a lower environmental cost or decreased level of environmental degradation. Reasonable alternatives may be those over which an agency with jurisdiction has authority to control impacts, either directly or indirectly"(WAC 197-11-786). It went on to list six samples of alternatives that were considered but not analyzed because "they did not fully address the stated purpose and need of the PSRCP and were not considered to be "reasonable"." One of those six was Intentionally decreasing abundance of rockfish predators to increase populations of rockfish.

Given the current low levels of some rockfish stocks and their low natural fecundity rate can the PSRCP ever achieve its goal without reducing the impact of predators (and particularly seals)? Even if it is possible (50-60-70 years or more) is that reasonable given the impacts of the PSRCP on the human community?

Or would reduction of seals hasten rockfish recovery and undermine efforts to implement an extensive (intimated but not defined in the PSRCP) system of MPAs? (Dang black helicopter flew over again)

Off to Olympia tonight to ask some questions.