The real sad part is these are likely biased HIGH...

The really sad part is that we have been operating under ESA and various recovery plans for decades. The result being less fish.

Amazing that for lower river tules, the DFW's are dealing with a depressed ESA-listed run that's at about the 30%-ile in run-size abundance compared to the past 10 years.... and they will intentionally manage for a 38% exploitation rate on that stock and call it conservation.

Here's an interesting quote about the 38% harvest rate from nearly a decade ago...

It appears that NOAA Fisheries has been more concerned about the impact of its recovery actions on the fisheries than upon the ESUs and their component populations. The 2009 guidance letter recommends an exploitation rate of 38% even though NOAA Fisheries admits that this is an extinction fishery for many ESA-listed tule fall chinook populations in the lower Columbia River.

Heck, NOAA approved rates over even MSY for a couple of depressed PS Chinook stocks and called it recovery. Preservation of the fisheries, and their political muscle, is more important than the fish. Same as preservation of the CR hydro system.

Perhaps, NOAA actually realizes that they can't recover these stocks given the political landscape, human population numbers, and so on. They are just conducting a rearguard action to keep the folks occupied with habitat restoration projects and such. Keep 'em busy...

The dearth of genuine intellectual honesty about recovering wild CR tules is astounding.

They've been ESA-listed since 2005. How long do they intend to perpetuate the charade?

So after 125+ years of overfishing, habitat loss, tonnage of hatchery release biomass and an ESA plan that still allows 35-40% exploitation coupled with some token habitat improvements, that since recovery hasn't occurred after 3 generations its time to go back to the good ol days and crank up the hatchery production and just go fishin, eh doc?

Nope. But if we want to recover the wild fish the exploitation rate should be less than about half of the MSY rate. That way, some sort of progress should occur each generation.

The manner in which salmon and steelhead are being recovered leads me to believe that it really isn't a true priority. Sounds good, makes for good press releases, but seems to be getting nowhere.

LCR Chinook have actually been listed since 1999 (reaffirmed in 2005). Remember that tules are only one component of this ESU, which also includes the late Brights (LRW) in the Lewis River and Sandy, and the Spring Chinook in the Cowlitz, Lewis, Kalama, and Sandy. There are also several stocks above Bonneville that are part of this ESU.

Tules make up the bulk of the fall Chinook in most of the tribs below Bonneville. Only since about 2012-13, have all of the hatchery tules been returning marked. So the real status (NOR abundance) is only recently showing itself. Tules were the most abundant and most widely dispersed type of LCR Chinook historically. There's no recovering LCR Chinook without a massive increase and improvement in natural tule numbers.

JustBecause posted: " There's no recovering LCR Chinook without a massive increase and improvement in natural tule numbers."

So true, and a massive improvement in natural production tules won't happen without massive improvement in LCR fall Chinook habitat. And that is decades away, maybe forever as a practical matter, since the key watersheds remain in tree farm management.

I agree with the general sentiment that LC tules are in trouble, due in large part to the loss of habitat.

However, there is one nagging issue that gives me pause……

The late-run Chinook in the North Fork Lewis River is very abundant, it’s at low risk of extinction, and has zero hatchery influence (all wild fish). These fish enter the NFL in November and December. They spawn around Christmas in the same habitat as the tules that enter the river in September. The only real difference between these two stocks is harvest. The late run Chinook are subject to almost zero harvest while the early run tules are hit at every stage of their adult life.

That begs the question: Is it harvest or habitat that is limiting the LC tules? If harvest was a lot less, would they still be in trouble? Perhaps, but unless the exploitation rate is significantly reduced, the downward trend is likely to continue.

Cohoangler,

NF Lewis fall Chinook spawning habitat is of very much higher quality than any of the smaller LCR tule spawning streams. I'd like to see some measurements of egg to emergent fry survival in those sediment laden streams. I'll guess 10% on the upper end with an average of 6% or less.

One advantage the habitat in the NF Lewis has is the dams. They hold back a lot of sediment. Eventually, the gravel may actually get too large but basically the dams hold back a lot of fines. I think one reason why the Hanford Reach shows good salmon production is that the dams have resulted in cleaner gravel. Maybe not cleaner than before logging/development but certainly cleaner than it would be now.

The few graphs I have seen of survival to emergence show a steep decline in survival with only small increases in fines.